SMRs Aff

Notes

Argument MatrixAdvantage One – Global Shipping000: Shipping emissions are high now010: Nuke tech solves – makes less emissions011: Nuke tech solves – more cost effective020: Energy costs leads to shipping decline (?)021: Emissions make shipping unsustainable022: Energy mkt volatility makes shipping with conventional fuels unsustainable 023: Arctic Shipping inevitable, but emissons cause environmental harm030: Shipping is key to global trade031: Specifically, Arctic shipping is key to increased global trade032: Independently, nuclear shipping is key to sustain the environment040: Global Trade solves war041: Prefer this impact – it’s an impact filter – preconditions all their intervening actors claims042: arctic melting causes positive feedback cycles that make warming and environmental destruction inevitable

Advantage Two - Heg100: US Naval Power threatened now110: SMRs k/ naval readiness and mobility120: That’s key to power projection121: k/ sustain naval power writ large130: k/ heg overall131: Independently, collapse of naval power war140: Heg solves war

Advantage Three – Tsunamis 200: Tsunamis/other nat disasters coming now – warming201: they’ll hit nuclear plants worst210: that causes spills and explosions220: terminal ! to explosions230: the plam’s key to solve – offshore SMRs are best

Advantage Four – Nuclear Energy Leadership300: US Nuclear Energy leadership low now310: Plan reinvigorates leadership320: that’s key to effective global renewables321: that spills over to effective soft power322: that leads to effective environmental leadership

Case NegNorthwestern and Cal read this aff on the college topic a few years ago –

Coal DARussian SMR DANuclear Expertise KStiegler K

ResearchSMRs – Solvency – John Licata, 4/27/2014, Founder & Chief Energy Strategist of Blue Phoenix Inc. and the author of “Lessons from Frankenstorm: Investing for Future Power Disruptions”, BS Economics @ St. Peter’s University, MBA @ NYU Stern, “Can Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Find Their Sea Legs?” The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/can-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-find-their-sea.aspx

Nuclear power plants do bring jobs to rural areas, and in some cases they actually boost local housing prices since these plants create jobs. However, whether or not you believe nuclear power does or does not emit harmful radiation, many people would likely opt to not live right next door to a nuclear power plant facility if they had the choice. Today, they may not even need to consider such a move thanks to a floating plant concept coming out of MIT, which largely builds on the success of the U.S. Army of Corp Engineers' MH-1A floating nuclear reactor, installed on the Sturgis, a vessel that provided power to military and civilians around the Panama Canal. The Sturgis was decommissioned, but only because there was ample power generation on land. So the viability of a floating nuclear plant does make a lot of sense. ¶

Presently the only floating nuclear plant is being constructed in Russia (expected to be in service in two years). However, that plant is slated to be moored on a barge in a harbor. That differs from MIT's idea to put a 200 MWe reactor on a floating platform roughly six miles out to sea. ¶ The problem with the floating reactor idea or land-based SMR version is most investors are hard-pressed to fork over money needed for a nuclear build-out that could cost billions of dollars and take over a decade to complete. That very problem is today plaguing the land-based mPower SMR program of The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (NYSE: BWC ) . Also, although the reactors would have a constant cooling source in the ocean water, I'd like to see studies that show that sea life is not disrupted. Then there is always the issue with security and power lines to the mainland which needs to be addressed. ¶ At a time when reducing global warming is becoming a hotly debated topic by the IPCC, these SMRs (land or sea based) can help reduce our carbon footprint if legislation would allow them to proceed. Instead, the government is taking perfectly good cathedral-sized nuclear power plants offline, something they will likely come to regret in coming years from an economic and environmental perspective. Just ask the Germans. ¶ SMRs can produce dependable baseload power that is more affordable for isolated communities, and they can be used in remote areas by energy and metals production companies while traditional reactors cannot. So the notion of plopping SMRs several miles offshore so they can withstand tsunami swells is really interesting. If the concept can actually gain momentum that would help Babcock, Westinghouse, and NuScale Power. I would also speculate that technology currently being used in the oil and gas drilling sector, possibly even from the robotics industry, could be integrated into offshore light water nuclear designs for mooring, maintenance, and routine operational purposes. ¶ In today's modern world, we have a much greater dependence on consumer electronics, we are swapping our dependence of foreign oil with a growing reliance for domestic natural gas, and we face increasing pressures to combat climate change here at home as well as meet our own 2020 carbon goals. With that said, we need to think longer term and create domestic clean energy industries that can foster new jobs, help keep the power on even when blackouts occur and produce much less carbon at both the private and public sector levels. Therefore to me, advancing the SMR industry on land or by sea is a nice way to fight our archaic energy paradigm and move our energy supply into a modern era. Yet without the government's complete commitment to support nuclear power

via legislation and a much needed expedited certification process, the idea of a floating SMR plant will be another example of wasted energy innovation that could simply get buried at sea.

SMRs – Tsunami Solvency – sea based SMRs key to solve major issues

David L. Chandler 4/16/2014, freelance writer, author of 2 books, He was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship, and has since served as a judge for the fellowship's application process “Floating nuclear plants could ride out tsunamis,” MIT News, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/floating-nuclear-plants-could-ride-out-tsunamis-0416

When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in 2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was the aftereffects — specifically, the lack of cooling for the reactor cores, due to a shutdown of all power at the station — that caused most of the harm.¶ A new design for nuclear plants built on floating platforms, modeled after those used for offshore oil drilling, could help avoid such consequences in the future. Such floating plants would be designed to be automatically cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst-case scenario, which would indefinitely prevent any melting of fuel rods, or escape of radioactive material.¶ The concept is being presented this week at the Small Modular Reactors Symposium, hosted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, by MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and Neil Todreas, along with others from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and Chicago Bridge and Iron, a major nuclear plant and offshore platform construction company.¶ Such plants, Buongiorno explains, could be built in a shipyard, then towed to their destinations five to seven miles offshore, where they would be moored to the seafloor and connected to land by an underwater electric transmission line. The concept takes advantage of two mature technologies: light-water nuclear reactors and offshore oil and gas drilling platforms. Using established designs minimizes technological risks, says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering (NSE) at MIT.¶ Although the concept of a floating nuclear plant is not unique — Russia is in the process of building one now, on a barge moored at the shore — none have been located far enough offshore to be able to ride out a tsunami, Buongiorno says. For this new design, he says, “the biggest selling point is the enhanced safety.”¶ A floating platform several miles offshore, moored in about 100 meters of water, would be unaffected by the motions of a tsunami; earthquakes would have no direct effect at all. Meanwhile, the biggest issue that faces most nuclear plants under emergency conditions — overheating and potential meltdown , as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island — would be virtually impossible at sea , Buongiorno says: “It’s very close to the ocean, which is essentially an infinite heat sink, so it’s possible to do cooling passively, with no intervention. The reactor containment itself is essentially underwater.”¶ Buongiorno lists several other advantages. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find suitable sites for new nuclear plants: They usually need to be next to an ocean, lake, or river to provide cooling water, but shorefront properties are highly desirable. By contrast, sites offshore, but out of sight of land, could be located adjacent to the population centers they would serve. “ The ocean is inexpensive real estate,” Buongiorno says.¶ In addition, at the end of a plant’s lifetime, “decommissioning” could be accomplished by simply towing it away to a central facility, as is done now for the Navy’s carrier and submarine reactors. That would rapidly restore the site to pristine conditions.¶ This design could also help to address practical

construction issues that have tended to make new nuclear plants uneconomical: Shipyard construction allows for better standardization, and the all-steel design eliminates the use of concrete, which Buongiorno says is often responsible for construction delays and cost overruns.¶ There are no particular limits to the size of such plants, he says: They could be anywhere from small, 50-megawatt plants to 1,000-megawatt plants matching today’s largest facilities. “It’s a flexible concept,” Buongiorno says.¶ Floating nuclear plants could withstand earthquakes and tsunamis¶ Video: Christopher Sherrill, courtesy of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering¶ Most operations would be similar to those of onshore plants, and the plant would be designed to meet all regulatory security requirements for terrestrial plants. “ Project work has confirmed the feasibility of achieving this goal , including satisfaction of the extra concern of protection against underwater attack,” says Todreas, the KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.¶

Buongiorno sees a market for such plants in Asia, which has a combination of high tsunami risks and a rapidly growing need for new power sources. “It would make a lot of sense for Japan,” he says, as well as places such as Indonesia, Chile, and Africa.¶ This is a “very attractive and promising proposal,” says Toru Obara, a professor at the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research. “I think this is technically very feasible. ... Of course, further study is needed to realize the concept, but the authors have the answers to each question and the answers are realistic.”

SMRs – Shipping Solvency – Nuclear PowerHirdaris et.al., March 2014 Lead Specialist, Lloyd's Register, CEng MRINA, S.E. Hirdarisa, , , Y.F. Chenga, P. Shallcrossb, J. Bonafouxb, D. Carlsonc, B. Princec, G.A. Sarrisd, ¶

“Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion,” Ocean Engineering, ScienceDirect

2. The potential of nuclear marine propulsionTo realise the importance of considering modern nuclear marine propulsion technology options it is important to appreciate the global impact of anthropogenic emissions induced by the international shipping sector. In recent years, different approaches for estimating the overall global shipping emissions have been presented (e.g. IMO, 2009 and Paxian et al., 2010). Walsh and Bows (2012) explain that the availability and range emission factors for shipping are still susceptible to some uncertainty related with the so called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Product Chain Assessment (PCA) concepts. The IMO estimates that today shipping contributes between 2.7% and 3.3% of the global CO2 emissions annually (IMO, 2009). This number, on its own, would place this industry, in absolute terms, as the sixth in line between countries that are the largest producers of anthropogenic emissions. If no action is taken these emissions could grow significantly and by 2050 they could amount between 12% and 18% of the total allowable CO2 induced GHG under the International Energy Agency 450 ppm stabilisation scenario (OECD/IEA, 2008). This implies that, in comparison to 2007, anthropogenic emissions from shipping may be expected to range between 6% and 22% (925–1058 Mt of CO2 emissions) higher in 2020 and between 119% and 204% (1903–2648 Mt of CO2 emissions) by 2050. Looking into the medium to long term options (see Table 1) it appears that, except for hydrogen which is not ready for shipboard installation (Aspelund et al., 2006), there is currently no solution that eliminates all emissions and none can offer a significant CO2 reduction. For example, natural gas is a promising medium term solution provided that sufficient port infrastructure is developed (Lloyd's Register, 2012a). On the

other hand, renewable energy sources (solar and wind) can offer only limited capacity to the overall power requirements for ocean going ships and hence they would be mostly appropriate for auxiliary propulsion solutions (Hirdaris and Cheng, 2012). Fuel cells are an extremely efficient way of producing energy if hydrogen is used (San and Bradshaw, 2012). However, the lack of availability of hydrogen resources and its low volumetric energy density implies that the solution may take some time to be implemented (Andrews and Shabani, 2012; Hirose, 2012). With the world's merchant shipping reported to have a total power capacity of about 410 GWt (approximately 1/3 of world nuclear power plants) understanding the potential of implementing nuclear technology options seems conceivable. Apart from the need to mitigate the climate change agenda, the resurgence of interest in nuclear propelled ships that could potentially operate in the merchant marine sector is also supported by: ¶ •¶ Energy security, i.e. the global desire to diversify fuel sources, reduce dependence on fossil fuel import/export market and develop immunity to onboard power disruptions;¶ •¶ The desire to mitigate volatile fuel costs, given the low dependence of the price nuclear power on the price of uranium;¶ •¶ The need to prepare the transition towards the hydrogen economy.¶ In contrast to hydrocarbon driven combustion, nuclear fission entails no chemical reactions and hence may provide energy free of greenhouse gas emissions. As reported by Sathaye et al. (2011) lifecycle GHG emissions from fossil fuels are by far higher than nuclear lifecycle indirect emissions. The same holds for most obvious renewable energy technologies (e.g. solar panels) with the exception of hydro-power and wind assisted solutions (e.g. wind turbines technology). The later is due to the fact that the overall nuclear fuel cycle has some emissions associated with the released energy of uranium fission arising from the kinetic energy of the charged fission fragments, the beta and gamma decay of gamma rays as well as the energy of neutrons. Additional emissions may occur through plant construction, uranium mining and milling, plant decommissioning and last but not least fuel depleting (Lamarsh and Baratta, 2001).

SMRs – How it worksHirdaris et.al., March 2014 Lead Specialist, Lloyd's Register, CEng MRINA, S.E. Hirdarisa, , , Y.F. Chenga, P. Shallcrossb, J. Bonafouxb, D. Carlsonc, B. Princec, G.A. Sarrisd, ¶

“Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion,” Ocean Engineering, ScienceDirect

4.2. Generation II technologyTypical marine nuclear reactors operate on the basis of nuclear fission and contain Uranium (U) atoms sealed within metal cladding. U is one of the few materials capable of producing heat in a self-sustained chain reaction. Nuclear fission is induced when a neutron is absorbed in a large atom such as 235U, 239Pu or 233U. Absorption of this type can set up vibrations within the nucleus which cause it to become distended to the point where it splits apart under mutual electrostatic repulsion of the parts. If this happens the atom splits into fragments (known as fission products – e.g. caesium, strontium). By the same time energy is released together with two or three neutrons (see Fig. 5). While the neutrons split new U atoms, causing a rapid (exponential) growth in the number of fissions, the released energy may be controlled for use in the nuclear reactor. Most of the heat produced in the splitting process comes from radioactivity created during fission. This is because some of the fission products are highly radioactive when formed. Hence, both safety and security are important for design and operations. Generation II marine nuclear reactors use mostly thermal neutron moderator materials and they are therefore thermal reactors. Thermal neutrons have a higher probability of fissioning the fissile 235U, 239Pu

or 241Pu and less probability of neutron capture by 238U as compared to neutrons that originally result from fission. They allow for the use of low enriched uranium with water as moderator material. In use marine reactors are designated as Light Water Reactors (LWR). PWR propulsion plant designs primarily include two closed systems (isolated loops) namely primary and secondary (see Fig. 6). The primary loop, in order to avoid boiling, circulates ordinary pressurised water and consists of the reactor, piping loops, pumps and steam generators. In the secondary system the steam flows from the steam generators to drive the turbine generators and to the main propulsion turbines which drive the propeller.¶ In LWR reactors the primary coolant (water) is pumped under high pressure to the reactor core where it is heated by the energy generated by the fission of atoms. The heated water then flows to a steam generator where it transfers its thermal energy to a secondary system. There, steam is generated and flows to turbines which, in turn, spin an electric generator producing the required thrust for propulsive power. Neutron absorbing control rods are used to adjust the power output of the reactor. These are typically made of strong neutron absorbers (e.g. boron and/or cadmium) and are inserted amongst the fuel assemblies. When the rods are withdrawn slightly from their positions more neutrons are available for splitting U atoms and hence the power output increases. Control rods may then be re-inserted to allow for the stabilisation of the power level and may be automatically shut down in case of emergency. To protect the operator from radiation effects shields are installed around the reactor. For example, a typical PWR would contain over 100 t of lead shielding and would be heavier than a typical diesel engine. Whereas the specification of engineering systems is similar to steam turbine plant the ship’s strength is adjusted to accommodate for the properties of the reactor and the safety requirements in case of collision and grounding. The potential for back up or emergency propulsion and automatic shut down are two additional design features that are taken under consideration.

SMRs – Shipping SolvencyHirdaris et.al., March 2014 Lead Specialist, Lloyd's Register, CEng MRINA, S.E. Hirdarisa, , , Y.F. Chenga, P. Shallcrossb, J. Bonafouxb, D. Carlsonc, B. Princec, G.A. Sarrisd, ¶

“Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion,” Ocean Engineering, ScienceDirect

The feasibility study presented in this paper is based on a top level risk assessment process driven by qualitative objectives. Even though the nuclear environment has changed since the writing of the IMO (1981) Resolution A.491 XII most of the safety principles are applicable today. However, there are a number of areas where ship safety assessment requirements have changed due to advances in technology and detailed methods underpinning regulatory requirements. For example, at detailed design stage it might be pertinent to use a probabilistic rather than deterministic approach for damage stability. It also might be more appropriate to ensure engineering capability is achieved while the risks to life and the environment, as far as practicable, are mitigated in an appropriately transparent manner. This approach is consistent with the regulation of most land-based nuclear industries. Within this context, the marine industry could base its approach on instruments similar to the INF Code (INF, 1974). The Lloyd’s Register guidance notes for marine nuclear propulsion (Lloyd’s Register, 2011) introduce the concept of the so called “design authority”. Following this approach may help to ensure that the overall design, construction and operation, of a nuclear ship as an integrated system are assured.¶ Without any intention to constraint the direction of any future innovation initiatives the following research and development directions could help to develop the required knowledge for future classification and approval:¶ •¶ The risk based design development process presented has not considered in detail the IMO FSA guidelines. Future development and modernisation of the nuclear specific maritime regulations (e.g. INF, 1974 and IMO, 1981) may require the development of a database and methodology of marine accident investigation encompassing such goal based risk based design principles (e.g. Cai et al., 2012);¶ •¶ Optimisation of the introduced design using holistic multi criteria objectives applicable to alternative arrangements and operational scenarios has not been considered. Further work on this direction could assist with realisation of practical design constraints, options and their applicability (e.g. Papanikolaou, 2010);¶ •¶ This study did not address explicitly detailed design verification aspects related

with the mitigation of the effects of wave or accidental loads (e.g. grounding, collision, fire and explosion) or extreme events (e.g. rogue waves, piracy and terrorist attacks) magnifying risk. Naturally such work would be essential at detailed. Considering the practical complexities associated with undertaking such type of work research and development activities would be expected to play an important role in capturing the effects of risk peculiar to nuclear ships (e.g. see Dietrich, 1976, Hirdaris et al., 2011b, Subin et al., 2012, Temarel and Hirdaris, 2009 and Paik et al., 1998);¶ •¶ The EHFA identified a number of potential human hazards that could cause failures or contribute to the occurrence of failures as identified by the HAZID. Absence of key maritime regulations constraint this part of the analysis. Further development will be necessary to integrate human factors requirements possibly from the nuclear into the marine industry framework.¶ Whereas there seems to be good potential in furthering research efforts, it is imperative to realise that commercial realisation of nuclear shipping will have to carve out space or niche for itself amongst other propulsion technology options by bridging technical or technological challenges with economic, social and political factors. Convincing stakeholders about the technical and operational, safety and security issues of the asset over its lifecycle may not be solely rooted upon technical but commercial, legislative risks as well as perceptions. To this end the following key issues should be considered:¶ •¶ Classification and regulation framework: It is possible that application of SMR technology onboard ocean going vessels would imply that the existing maritime regulatory framework would have to be reviewed. In this new era Classification Societies would be responsible for facilitating the assurance for the successful integration of reactor modules on the ship within the context of risk based design and will have to ensure that hazards from/to the ship reactor are managed. On the other hand, land based nuclear regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an open dialogue with the builder and designers. Since the regulatory and policy framework for SMR implementation is still unknown facilitation of the concept presented may not be imminently possible. Variation of national regulations for ship construction, the need for adoption of special flag authority procedures add on additional potential showstoppers. Considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, addressing the needs of the technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context harmonised performance based standards that account for the demands of both nuclear and shipping industries at worldwide level seems rather challenging.¶ •¶ Public perception: Convincing stakeholders about the technical and operational safety of the ship is a key challenge and stakeholder perceptions may or may not be rooted in actual risks. To many, nuclear reactors, whether of SMR or older technology, will be inescapably linked with accidents such as Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This reaction in the aftermath of nuclear accidents increases the challenges faced by the nuclear industry. Nuclear ships will be subject to particular attention, during design, construction, operation and decommissioning. Any nuclear accident, on land or at sea, could impact on nuclear merchant shipping and the acceptability might change over time in response to public and societal reactions that may be extreme.¶ •¶ Maritime operations and infrastructure: The necessity to provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is anticipated to put additional requirements on competence development for all stakeholders. Ship specific competence development and assurance for shore and ship personnel will be almost certainly required for the reliable operation of nuclear-powered vessels. This may require a new model for resourcing that is significantly different to that traditionally employed in the maritime industry in order to deliver continuity of expertise.¶ •¶ Broad technical and institutional challenges involve the deployment, testing and validation of technological innovations in components, systems and engineering (especially testing and fabrication of fuel), fear of first-of-kind reactor designs, economy-of-scale, perceived risk factors for nuclear power plants, and regulatory and licensing issues. Other issues to be addressed are the cost of reactor decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel and supply chain management.¶ 9. Conclusions¶ This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW SMR. Assessment of the risks associated with different SMR locations and power train systems suggested that an SMR located aft the cargo tanks, below the foreword end of the accommodation would be preferable.¶ A direct shaft line with a CRP Azipod mechanical installation would be the preferred main propulsion option on the basis that it would lead to a modest 11% increase to the overall ship length compared to the reference design, once the necessary adjustments are made for the changes in hydrostatic trim. Such arrangement combined with a conventional diesel engine would be adequate for propulsive redundancy assuming operations and faults under harbour and ocean going conditions.¶ The risk assessment process and engineering solutions developed demonstrate that the concept that has been described would be feasible. However, considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, readdressing the needs of the technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context of harmonised performance based standards will be necessary for the pragmatic implementation of the concept presented over the long term.¶ International shipping has a well established reputation as the most energy efficient

mode of freight transport. However, treating shipping within the context of global environmental concerns has gained significant momentum over the last 10 years, particularly in relation to the generation of Green House Gases (GHG) and other contributions to air and water pollution. Shipping relies on fuel oil and this implies that understanding the potential of alternative non-carbon marine propulsion technologies is necessary as the industry moves forward with its longer term decarbonisation efforts. Without any intend to underestimate the potential environmental and economic benefits of renewable, natural gas or non-fossil (e.g. biofuels) energy resources, it would be only sensible to add on the nuclear engineering option as a possible alternative. As successful as traditional nuclear propulsion has been in the naval and ice breaker ship segments, one aspect of the industry that escaped attention in the commercial sector is the use of modern small and medium size reactor technology on-board ocean going vessels. This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR). It is shown that understanding the technical risks and implications of implementing modern nuclear technology is an essential first step in the long term process of developing knowledge and experience.

SpecificalyThe Suezmax Tanker design application presented in this paper is based on the Gen4Energy Generation IV, Pb–Bi (lead bismuth – LBE) cooled SMR developed in association with the US Los Alamos National Laboratory. This reactor belongs to the ‘Type II: Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR group)’ outlined in Table 5. The basic commercial characteristics of the reactor system (see Table 6) have been derived with the aim to develop a technology that is modern, easy to develop and operate, transportable, requires no onsite refuelling, provides reasonably high power output and associated maximum thermal efficiency in comparison to the reactor size. The technology has been initially designed for remote land based power generation. However, it is believed that the top level technology selections outlined in this paper may be adaptable to ocean going vessels. The SMR comprises of the following two systems (see Fig. 10):

•The primary system which is a single loop, liquid metal cooled fast reactor using Lithium Boron Eutectic (LBE) as coolant. The reactor module has been sized to be transportable and is shielded in a containment that can provide protection from external threats. When the module is connected to the primary loop, the liquid metal coolant is pumped through the reactor module to heat exchangers that heat the secondary liquid metal circuit. Additional primary system components include the cover gas system and the oxygen control system;•The secondary system which is a steam generation system and operates as a steam Rankine cycle. The steam generator contains a feed pump, an evaporator and a super-heater. High and low pressure turbines are connected to a common shaft. The condensate system includes a condenser and a condensate pump.Table 6.Gen4Energy SMR basic commercial characteristics.Reactor power 70 MWthermalElectrical output 25 MWelectricalLifetime 10 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY)Size 1.5 m diameter×4 m tall (marinised concept version)Weight Less than 50 t including pressure vessel, fuel and primary coolant LBEStructural material Stainless steelCoolantPbBi

Fuel Stainless clad, uranium nitride (UN)Enrichment 235U<20%Refuel on site NoSealed core YesLicenceDesign certificationPassive shutdown YesActive shutdown YesTransportable Yes, intact coreFactory fuelled YesSafety and control elements 2 redundant shutdown systems & reactivity control rodsTable optionsFull-size image (150 K)Fig. 10. Gen4Energy SMR power generation core module.Figure optionsThe rational of the key Gen4Energy SMR technology selections are outlined below:

•Fast reactor technology: A fast spectrum system has been preferred to achieve a long core lifetime without refuelling because the absorption cross section of fission products for fast neutrons is small. Thus the impact of fission products on reactivity is small and there is relatively little isotropic transmutation that could reduce reactivity. As a result, the loss of reactivity during burn-up is almost entirely attributable to the change in actinide inventory (primarily fission of 235U).•While the reactor is first of a kind system the fast reactor technology employed has been used for over 10 years by the Russians in the Alfa Class submarines. The risk for this system has been reduced by using a fast spectrum core that is simpler than a moderated core with respect to reactivity feedback/burnup mechanisms, nuclear data uncertainties, dynamic performance, system modelling and predictability as well as changes in system characteristics with lifetime.•Reactor core coolant: Liquid metal is selected for the reactor core coolant because it allows for a compact core design, one that can produce a high coolant temperature (500 °C approximately) for process heat applications and provides for good system efficiency.From the different metal coolants initially considered namely sodium (Na), lead (Pb) and LBE the later has been preferred. In specific LBE was selected over Pb because of its much lower melting temperature and minimal expansion at melting. Both issues are important for transport simplicity and system reliability. The major reason why LBE was selected over Na is based on the desire to avoid the risk of potential Na leak and subsequent chemical reaction with water or air.•Nuclear fuel: Uranium Nitride (UN) was preferred over Uranium metal (U) or Uranium Oxide (UO2). This is because UN provides superior thermal conductivity, high core life, low fission gas release and low fuel swelling as well as greater resistance to irradiation damage over extended periods of time. The system uses 19.75% enriched UN pellets contained in tubes made of HT-9 stainless steel ( NSMH, 1988; Serrano De Caro and Rodriguez, 2012). The pin assembly is filled with LBE liquid to provide a high conductivity thermal bond between the fuel and the cladding.•Reactor core design: The system uses a UN open lattice fast reactor core (see Fig. 11). This is because this engineering solution provides for light design facilitating transportation and a straightforward nuclear design that is well suited to a long life without refuelling. The outer

diameter of the entire reactor, including the outer reactor and coolant down corner, is limited to 1.5 m to be able to seal the reactor at the fabrication facility and transport it to and from the site.Full-size image (52 K)Fig. 11. Plan view of reactor core.Figure options•The system operates two independent reactivity shut down systems in the core namely: (a) a control rod system composed of 6 inner and 12 outer B4C shutdown rods and (b) a reserve shutdown system consisting of a cavity into which a single B4C rod may be inserted (see Fig. 12).Full-size image (48 K)Fig. 12. Elevation view of the core and vessel.Figure options•The reactor has redundant, independent and diverse means to remove decay heat under all plant shutdown conditions. During operational shutdowns heat is removed by a system that transfers heat from the core by circulation of coolants via a secondary liquid metal loop in the steam generator system. The second system removes heat by natural circulation of coolant in the primary loop and by passive vaporisation of water from the surface of the reactor vessel. The water evaporation cooling system would be activated only if the primary heat removal system was unable to function.

Risk analysis

The brief review of accident statistics presented in this section considered merchant Tankers, naval submarines as well as accidents from the PWR drive technology demonstrator vessels that operated in the past. Despite the limited availability of the nuclear fleet related accidents this review assisted with drawing a preliminary picture of the technical and operational matters considered during Stage 2 of the analysis. Tanker accidents given by the IMO (IMO MEPC, 2008), post 1990 OPA cases (Eliopoulou et al., 2012) and the Centre for Tankship eXcellence database statistics (C4TX, 2013) have also been reviewed (see Fig. 15). Notably, 40% of those accidents are related with structural failures. Based on past work from Reistad (2008), WNA (2012) and Ølgaard (2001) from the total of 58 accidents involving various operational PWR powered submarine vessels that have been reported 39 were taken under consideration (see Fig. 16). The remaining 19 were considered dubious and have been neglected. To the list of meaningful submarine accidents the concept design team added: (a) the tragic experience from radiation leakage suspected deaths of personnel serving on the Soviet submarine K-27 that operated a VT-1 experimental reactor and (b) the tragic loss of 118 seagoing personnel on the Russian submarine Kursk following explosion in 2000.

Full-size image (49 K)Fig. 15. Oil Tanker Accident Statistics source data from C4TX (2013).Figure optionsFull-size image (45 K)Fig. 16. Key naval nuclear submarine accidents (NB: ‘Propulsion failure’ may involve the reactor system although in most cases this seems not to be the case; ‘Other reasons’ involve collisions and suspected operator error): (a) Indicative % of submarine accidents, (b) Indicative submarine fatalities and (c) Indicative % of submarines sunk.

Figure optionsThe following hand picked lessons emerging from PWR merchant marine technology demonstrators were also considered:

•In 1970 at the first official run of NS Mutsu very high levels of gamma and neutron radiation were measured. It was discovered that neutrons had leaked out through the gap between the reactor and the primary shield hitting the secondary shield structure and producing gamma rays;•In 1965, when NS Lenin was undergoing repairs and refuelling severe mechanical damage to the fuel assemblies was detected during the removal of the used fuel from reactor number two. It was established that the reactor core had been left without cooling water due to human error;•In 1967 NS Lenin’s piping of the tertiary circuit sprung a leak following the loading of fresh nuclear fuel. Further reactor damage was sustained, when the biological shield of the reactor compartment was opened to locate the leak.The key conclusions from this process may be summarised as follows:

•Accidents on naval or merchant or naval vessels should be considered in the safety case that would be conducted by the relevant national authority even if they refer to older versions of nuclear technology (e.g. PWR).•Apart from the VT1 experimental reactor that operated on the Soviet submarine K-27 there is no information on accidents of the nuclear naval fleet using SMR technology. However, because the nuclear technology used on submarines is “battery like” it provides some useful information.•In the naval submarine sector fires and explosions are the most dangerous accidents for the crews. Those do not involve the reactor units in contrast to ‘loss-of coolant’ and ‘criticality’ accidents.•Tanker safety has improved. However, structural failures are still significant and cannot be ignored. Safety risks due to accidental loads are still present and cannot be eliminated entirely. The later is also supported by the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig accident, where hydrocarbon fires exceeding 1300 °C led to melting of the steel structures (USA NC, 2011).•The promised features of the SMR technology under consideration versus PWR used in the land sector (see Table 7) implies that risks may be lower. However, this is to be proved in practise.

SMRs – Shipping Solvency - Efficient and cheap energy is key to sustain the shipping industry – SMRs are key.Sylvia Pfeifer, 2/14/2013, Energy Editor at The Financial Times, BA in German and English @ Oxford, MA in English @ Georgetown, “Nuclear energy: Flexible fission,” FT, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71d62476-706e-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz386y16Uvc

Akademik Lomonosov’s small plant represents a radical new trend in the nuclear industry. After more than 50 years in which the pursuit of economies of scale and more power has made nuclear plants bigger and bigger, they are now shrinking. The atomic industry is thinking

small.¶ Cost is driving the change. At a time when utility companies are struggling financially and delays on large reactors lengthen, small reactors offer hope. They typically generate up to 300 megawatts of electricity per reactor – about a fifth of the output of a normal full-size plant – and are about a third of the physical size of traditional ones. Their size means their capital cost should be much lower, making them attractive to lenders who would also see a quicker return on their investment. Centrica, the British utility, pulled out of a project this month to build big reactors in the UK, blaming spiralling costs and delays.¶ Small nuclear plants also offer flexibility. They could power remote or standalone industrial sites or desalination plants. If they were put together in batches, they would give nuclear power the kind of grid-friendly flexibility now offered by gas or coal-fired stations. Developing nations that do not have established electricity distribution networks are another potential market.¶ A final attraction is that these smaller reactors could be built in factories in relatively large numbers. Big nuclear plants, which require heavy civil engineering works as well as a difficult fusion of mechanical, electrical and computer systems, have a tendency to be delivered late and over budget.¶ “The market has started to appreciate there could be commercial applications for smaller reactors,” says Richard Clegg, global nuclear director at Lloyd’s Register. “They are already being used for military applications. It is a real prospect, not a fantasy.” ¶ Executives believe such innovation is necessary if the industry is to secure a long-term place in the world’s changing energy mix, one that looks for affordable power and reduced carbon emissions. The world’s demand for electricity will grow almost twice as fast as its total energy consumption by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear offers a low-carbon source of power but concerns about its safety, as well as costs and delays, persist.From waste to fuel

SMRs – Inherency – No current surface ships are powered by nuclear energyRonald O'Rourke 9-29-2010, Specialist in Naval Affairs, “Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

All of the Navy’s aircraft carriers, but none of its other surface ships , are nuclear-powered.

Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, starting with the CG(X), a planned new cruiser that the Navy had wanted to start procuring around FY2017. Section 1012 of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008) makes it U.S. policy to construct the major combatant ships of the Navy, including ships like the CG(X), with integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest.¶ The Navy studied nuclear power as a design option for the CG(X), but did not announce whether it would prefer to build the CG(X) as a nuclear-powered ship. The Navy’s FY2011 budget proposes canceling the CG(X) program and instead building an improved version of the conventionally powered Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer. The cancellation of the CG(X) program would appear to leave no near-term shipbuilding program opportunities for expanding the application of nuclear power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers.

SMRs – Navy Solvency - Nuclear ships good for the NavyJack Spencer and Baker Spring 11/5/2007, Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International

Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-advantages-of-expanding-the-nuclear-navy

Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House version of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 calls for all future major combatant vessels to be powered by an integrated nuclear power and propulsion system; the Senate version does not. While Congress must be careful in dictating how America's armed forces are resourced, it also has a constitutional mandate "to provide and maintain a Navy." Although nuclear-powered ships have higher upfront costs, their many advantages make a larger nuclear navy critical for protecting national security interests in the 21st century. ¶ Nuclear Propulsion's Unique Benefits¶ As the defense authorization bill is debated, Members of the House and Senate should consider the following features of nuclear propulsion:¶ Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear surface ship brings optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of surge ability, moving from one theater to another, and staying on station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony, "Without the encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of interest quicker, ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their fossil-fueled counterparts." ¶ High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbine-powered carriers). This means that ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which will be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also necessary for new, power-intensive weapons systems like rail-guns and directed-energy weapons as well as for the powerful radar that the Navy envisions. ¶ Real-Time Response . Only a nuclear ship can change its mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11, 2001, the USS Enterprise--then on its way home from deployment--responded to news of the terrorist attacks by rerouting and entering the Afghan theater.¶ Energy Independence. The armed forces have acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent congressional testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent.¶

Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable as other nations become more technologically and tactically sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust stack, decreasing its visibility to enemy detection; it requires no fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver over long distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing it to power massive radars and new hi-tech weaponry.¶ Force Enhancement. Though effective, modern aircraft carriers still depend on less capable fossil-fueled counterparts in the battle group. Increasing the number of nuclear surface ships would increase the capability of U.S. naval forces to operate both independently and as part of a battle-group. ¶ Superiority on the Seas. Policymakers have taken for granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many years. This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force structure and opened the door for foreign navies to potentially control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the nuclear navy will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority well into the 21st

century.¶ Environmentally Clean Source of Energy. Congress is considering placing CO2 restrictions on all federal government activities, including the Pentagon's. This mandate would be highly detrimental to the armed forces. More people are starting to realize the often-overlooked environmental benefits of a nuclear navy. Expanding nuclear power would help to achieve many of the objectives of a CO2 mandate in addition to increasing America's military capability. Unlike a conventionally powered ship, which emits carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, a nuclear ship is largely emissions-free.¶ America's Nuclear Shipbuilding Industrial Base¶ Some have erroneously argued that America's industrial base is inadequate to support a nuclear cruiser. Additional nuclear shipbuilding can not only be absorbed by the current industrial base but also will allow it to work more efficiently. That said, Congress could consider the option of expanding the infrastructure at a later date by licensing additional nuclear production facilities and shipyards should further expansion be necessary.¶ America's shipyards are not operating at full capacity. Depending on the vendor, product, and service, the industrial base is currently operating at an average capacity of approximately 65 percent. Additionally, Navy leaders have testified that without further investments, their training infrastructure is adequate to handle the influx of additional personnel necessary to support an expansion of nuclear power.¶ Construction of additional ships would not be limited to the nuclear shipbuilding yards. Modules could be produced throughout the country and assembled at nuclear-certified yards. Another alternative might be to build the ship in a non-nuclear yard and then transport it to a nuclear yard where the reactor can be installed. The work would be spread throughout the aircraft carrier and submarine industrial bases. Today, the aircraft carrier industrial base consists of more than 2,000 companies in 47 states. Likewise, the submarine industrial base consists of more than 4,000 companies in 47 states.

SMRs – 2AC AT: Prolif/AccidentsJack Spencer and Baker Spring 11/5/2007, Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-advantages-of-expanding-the-nuclear-navy

Correcting Misperceptions About Nuclear PropulsionDespite multiple official studies and numerous hours of congressional testimony, specific misunderstandings continue to persist about nuclear propulsion. The following facts address these misperceptions:¶ Nuclear propulsion is not an indication of nuclear weapons. According to Ron O'Rourke, an analyst for the Congressional Research Service, "A military ship's use of nuclear power is not an indication of whether it carries nuclear weapons--a nuclear-powered military ship can lack nuclear weapons, and a conventionally powered military ship can be armed with nuclear weapons."¶ A shipyard does not have to be nuclear-certified to contribute to nuclear ship construction. According to Vice Admiral Sullivan, "[You could] build modules of this ship in different yards and put it together in a nuclear-certified yard..., and we do that today with the Virginia Class." Today, approximately 6,000 companies in 47 states contribute to nuclear shipbuilding.¶ The United States has ample experience in nuclear shipbuilding. The United States has built and operated nine nuclear-powered cruisers, 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and nearly 200 nuclear-powered submarines. The Navy's Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has trained more than 100,000 officers and

technicians.¶ Nuclear power is safe. The Navy operates 103 reactor plants in 81 nuclear-powered ships, the NR-1 submarine, and four training and test reactors. Over more than half a century, the Navy has operated for over 5,800 reactor years and steamed over 136 million miles without accident or radioactive release. ¶ Foreign countries welcome America's nuclear ships into their ports. U.S. nuclear-powered ships are welcomed into more than 150 ports in more than 50 countries. ¶ Other countries have nuclear navies. Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France all maintain nuclear ships. Other countries, such as India, are seeking the capability.

SMRs – Desalination SolvencyMark Campagna and Otis Peterson, November 2010, Mark, Assistant Technical Program Chair @ the American Nuclear Society, Otis, Ph.D. @ University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Chief Technical Officer at IX Power, “NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS FOR SMALL MODULAR REACTORS,” American Nuclear Society, http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library%5CAlternative%20Uses/2010%20-%20Non-Electric%20Applications%20for%20SMRs.pdf

1. LOW QUALITY POWER (ABOUT 100°C) APPLICATIONSAt the low end of the energy quality spectrum are applications that only need temperatures slightly above 100°C. There are too many applications in this class to discuss in depth. The most obvious such application is building heat for domestic, commercial and industrial uses. One of the most important applications within this class is desalination of sea or other brackish water for human or agricultural uses. Such desalination processes would be based on distillation or related methods. Essentially all reactors can generate such temperatures. The temptation here is to use the heat produced by the reactor to generate electricity first and design the turbine generator system so the exiting steam is above 100°C. Such designs reduce the efficiency of the electrical power conversion process but, obviously, permitmultiple usesfor the reactor power. ¶ As pointed out above, one of the major non-electrical applications of small reactors is the desalination of ocean water for human or agricultural consumption. There are two commonplace techniques for producing fresh water from salt water. One of those is reverse-osmosis, a process that uses electricity to drive the high-pressure water pumps to force seawater or brine through very fine filters. This process is popular for supplying drinking water for limited volume human consumption. Because electrical generation is inherently less efficient, larger process volume installations are often based on distillation principles. Multi-Stage Flash evaporation (MSF) thermal and Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane processes produce about 85% of the fresh water generated by all desalination methods. However, the MSF represents more than 84% of thermal process production, while RO represents more than 88% of membrane process production. Distillation only needs low quality heat, which may be available as a primary output of reactors or available as a component of co-generation of electricity and the fresh water. Counter-flow geometries where the incoming cool ocean water condenses the fresh-water steam and also cools all exiting water are quite efficient as the only heat losses are imperfect insulation, auxiliary uses of some of the steam and inefficiencies in the heat exchangers. The steam requirements for the MSF distillation process include low-pressure steam for the brine heating and high-pressure steam for the steam-jet air ejector system to pull the vacuum needed for deaeration. The low-pressure steam to the brine heater can be as low as 35 psig saturated, while the high-pressure steam to the steam-jet, air ejector can be as low as 150 psig. All distillation processes make use of the physical fact that when water is heated in a vessel where the pressure is equal to its vapor pressure, the water will boil and vapor will be produced. Boiling can occur at any seawater temperature depending on whether the vessel is pressurized or under vacuum.¶ MSF process makes use of the fact that water boils at lower and lower

temperatures as the pressure is reduced. A MSF desalination facility has a total of 24 to 30 stages arranged monotonically in order of the temperature and pressure. In each stage the water and steam are in saturated equilibrium. The raw seawater enters the cold end of the cascade to cool the steam condensers and the exiting water.A portion of the raw seawater is withdrawn and deaerated before being heated to 230°F (110°C) for injection into the hot end of the cascade. The amount of fresh water produced is only a small fraction of the seawater that passes through the cascade. Most of the raw seawater that feeds the evaporator reject stages for cooling is returned to the sea at elevated temperature. Also, a fraction of the brine in¶ NOVEMBER 2010 4¶ DRAFT¶

Non-Electric Applications for Small Modular Reactors¶ the last stage is returned to the sea with elevated salt content as waste to control the concentration ratio. The increase in salt concentration from the evaporation is not allowed to go over 1.5 to limit corrosion.¶ A practical and optimized MSF installation is much more complicated than this description. The cascade is divided into two sections: heat recovery and heat rejection systems. There are separate components for heating the brine and deaerating it. The seawater is chemically treated to limit corrosion and scale formation, in addition to tube fouling.¶ In order to minimize corrosion, the physical components are constructed of combinations of titanium and copper-nickel alloys for the condenser tubing and copper-nickel or stainless steel clad or lining for the evaporator shell. ¶ Operating commercial facilities designed on these principles exhibit a performance ratio, defined as a pound of product per 1,000 BTUs, between 8 and 9 (3.9 liters/MJ). The amount of energy used to produce a quantity of fresh-water is about one tenth of what is required to boil that same amount of water. This order of magnitude reduction in energy usage is a tribute to creative and careful engineering.

SMRs – Competitiveness SolvencyBenjamin S. Haas March 2014, SUNY Maritime, “Strategies for the Success of Nuclear Powered Commercial Shipping,” Presentation to the Connecticut Maritime Association, http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/CMA-Nuclear-Paper_Benjamin-Haas-3.pdf

Nuclear powered vessels have inherently lower operating costs compared to conventional vessels. The United States cannot build a conventionally powered ship that is cheaper than one built in a foreign shipyard because there is no operating cost advantage for the U.S.-built ship. There is, however , a significant operating cost advantage to nuclear power, which may be enough to make American shipyards competitive. There are several areas where the U.S. could gain the upper hand in the development of nuclear powered commercial vessels, which no other countries at present seem to be pursuing at all. They are:¶ Construction of marine reactors, ¶ Refueling and maintenance of nuclear powered ships, Manning and training of nuclear merchant ship crews, and Construction of nuclear powered commercial ships.¶ The first two areas will always require detail and expertise and are activities that cannot be offshored for cheaper labor. The United States’ current experience with the refueling of nuclear reactors in shipyards will allow U.S. shipyards to gain the productivity they need to reduce their costs and achieve competitiveness in that area. The latter potential, that of building nuclear powered commercial ships in U.S. shipyards, requires further elaboration.¶ The reason for America’s uncompetitive, surprisingly overpriced shipbuilding costs compared to foreign shipyards is not just higher labor and materials costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). It is a combination of lack of productivity and inefficiencies in the corporate and labor structures (Hansen M., 2012). In some cases, the maintaining of high overheads to acquire complex naval contracts may also negatively affect certain shipyards abilities to perform commercial work.¶ 11¶ Nuclear powered ships could potentially be built in U.S. shipyards and

carry the U.S. flag because their operating costs are inherently lower compared to fossil fueled vessels. Along with this, there is an environmental advantage associated with nuclear power in the arctic for which a premium could be paid. By making the most of these cost advantages, a series of nuclear powered ships could be designed and built in order to give American shipyards enough orders to increase their productivity and reduce their costs, allowing subsequent nuclear powered vessels, ranging from bulk carriers to container ships, to be even more competitive against their foreign counterparts.

SMRs – Shipping Solvency – Arctic shipping is inevitable, but absent the plan, ships cause polar icecap melting and positive feedback cycles. Benjamin S. Haas March 2014, SUNY Maritime, “Strategies for the Success of Nuclear Powered Commercial Shipping,” Presentation to the Connecticut Maritime Association, http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/CMA-Nuclear-Paper_Benjamin-Haas-3.pdf

¶ What Nuclear Power Offers the Shipping Industry¶ The cost of nuclear fuel is low and stable, which means speed is not an economic limitation for nuclear powered ships. While slow-steaming for fossil-fueled ships can reduce costs for the ship owners through lower fuel consumption, the benefits are not necessarily felt by cargo owners unless those lower fuel costs translate into lower freight rates. While time sensitive cargo does not go on ships, there is a certain benefit to getting cargo to the buyers as quickly as possible. Nuclear power can achieve these higher speeds for much lower costs than fossil-fueled powered vessels. Based on the low cost of fuel, the economics of nuclear powered ships will tend towards higher speeds such as 20 knots for bulk carriers, or 30 knots for container ships. Slow steaming is a strategy that evolved relatively recently to lower fuel costs and absorb excess capacity by reducing the number of vessels available at any given time as they are locked up in longer transit times (Jorgensen, 2013). It is not necessarily ideal for the containerized cargo market (Kloch, 2013).¶ 4¶ Future environmental regulations concerning fossil fuel emissions place constraints on the types of fuels vessels can burn, raising costs through limited availability (Lloyd's, 2012). Nuclear reactors do not produce these emissions and do not have the same limitations on fuel supply. While radioactive wastes are produced, these are contained within the reactors and are not released into the environment. Nuclear power’s most significant environmental advantages is that it will allow for total compliance to atmospheric emissions regulations, and will allow for environmentally responsible transarctic shipping.¶ Trans-Arctic Shipping¶ The steady decline of polar sea ice over the last few decades has led to predictions that the North Polar regions will be open to regular marine traffic by at least the middle of the century (sooner if specially constructed ice-breaking vessels are built). This has generated a lot of excitement in maritime industry circles as it provides shorter distances compared to current trade routes, alternatives to the Panama and Suez canals, and represents a new frontier for exploration and development. However, there are challenges and environmental aspects that must be considered.¶ The production of soot from oil and gas burning engines will be caught in the circumpolar winds of the Arctic atmosphere and eventually be deposited on the snow and ice (Femenia, 2008). Research has shown that seemingly miniscule amounts of soot can increase the heat retention of snow and ice, leading to increased melting (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). This is an issue independent from CO2 emissions. Ice loss in the arctic is prone to being a positive feedback loop where as more ice is loss, the region warms up due to the increase in absorbed sunlight, which results in more ice loss and the situation is worsened (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). The presence of hundreds, if not thousands of hydrocarbon burning vessels in the Arctic region would lead to substantial ice loss

independent from concerns regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, 2009)¶ 5¶ The use of natural gas is not a silver bullet for this issue because the lubricating oil in the cylinders of diesel engines will be burned and also produce soot (Femenia, 2008). It does not take a lot of soot to increase the heat retention of ice. Nuclear power is the only way to avoid this potential environmental damage while still remaining economical.¶ Another aspect of utilizing nuclear power for transarctic vessels is the disproportionately lower fuel cost of nuclear fuel compared to liquefied natural gas and fuel oil, allowing for higher powers and operating speeds. There is a considerable amount of extra power needed to break through several feet of ice. Because the transarctic ships will be susceptible to bad weather that can delay their voyages, higher open-ocean speeds will be needed to make up the lost time. Nuclear power can achieve these speeds much more cheaply due to its lower fuel costs.

Us k/

According to a recent study done by MARAD in 2013 on the impact of America’s shipbuilding and repair industry on the U.S. economy (the author will simply use the term “shipbuilding industry”), each direct job creates 2.7 other jobs indirectly in other parts of the U.S. economy (MARAD, 2013). While the Gross Domestic Product of America’s shipbuilding industry is small compared to the national overall, it does employ a considerable amount of people for its size. U.S. shipbuilding and repair employs over 400,000 workers directly and indirectly, and the average income of a shipbuilding industry worker was $73,630 in 2011, which is 45 percent higher than the national average (MARAD 2013).Nuclear power is a potential way for the United States to expand its shipbuilding industry beyond reliance on Jones Act and Naval contracts. The foreign revenue generated from providing services for nuclear powered ships could be considerable once their place in the world market becomes widespread.Not all segments of the U.S. shipbuilding industry are suitable for nuclear propulsion, but there would be a clear benefit to the various shipbuilding States’ economies for U.S. involvement in nuclear powered shipping, whether it is in building and repairing the nuclear powered ships, providing training services for operators, or building the marine reactors.Building the ReactorsIn order to reduce quality control costs and ensure efficient factory production, only countries with an experienced nuclear regulatory agency and nuclear manufacturing base should construct and install marine reactors. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considered to be the gold standard for nuclear regulations and so it follows that the manufacture and installation of marine reactors should take place in the41United States (Harding, 2012). Such an arrangement is possible if the reactor is designed and tested in the United States.

SMRs – Shipping SolvencyG. Sawyer et. al., 2008, G. Sawyer, J. Shirley, J. Stroud & E. Bartlett, General Management Partners, LLC, USA, G. A. Sawyer is a founding partner of J.F. Lehman & Company and since January 2004 serves as Executive Advisor to J.F. Lehman & Company, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University and Completed graduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, “ANALYSIS OF HIGH-SPEED TRANS-PACIFIC NUCLEAR CONTAINERSHIP SERVICE,”

As mentioned above, the economic comparison between diesel and nuclear fleets is strongly dependent upon diesel fuel price. If we assume that over time the cost of fossil fuels will continue to increase, the fuel surcharges already widely applied by ship owners worldwide will continue to increase top line revenue for both fleets of ships. However , since the nuclear ship will incur very little additional fuel related expense its bottom line will improve significantly and narrow the predicted NPV gap. Based upon the cost criteria developed above and modeled econometrically by Manalytics and GMP, it is estimated that on the basis of oil pricing alone the nuclear service could be economically equivalent to the conventional service with future bunker fuel prices of $455 per metric ton (or $89 per bbl) and MDO prices of $890 per metric ton, along with the requirement to burn MDO within 40 miles of shore. This results in a net blended fuel price of $585.50 as compared to the $455/tonne used initially. See Figure 10 below.¶ As was noted several times in previous sections, there are other forces at work beyond market supply and demand contributing to the price of marine fuels. California is already regulating large ships and the burning of residual fuels due to gas emission (NOx and SOx) and has enacted legislation to require ships to burn cleaner Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) low in sulphur content within 20 nautical miles of its coastline and by 2008 this requirement will be extended to 40 nautical miles. Should bunker fuels be prohibited entirely in the future, the result would have a dramatic effect on fuel costs. In this case of a complete ban on bunker fuels, fuel costs would double overnight making the nuclear containership service economically superior immediately with a NPV of $780 million compared to $259 million for the conventional service.¶ Further, current cost analyses do not make any provision for the cost of climate change . This is a new subject and is not uniformly implemented. The authors have seen discussions that suggest that the dollarized cost of carbon ¶ emissions lies in the neighborhood of US$100 / tonne- CO2. (We have seen figures ranging from US$50 to US$250/t.) Based on $100/t, this means that the cost of burning one barrel of petroleum should be increased by about US$40, to account for the cost of the carbon impact. Some jurisdictions are talking about handling this explicitly, in the form of a carbon tax. In other jurisdictions it is being ignored.¶ If this cost were indeed applied to the cost of petroleum, then it would mean that oil is today trading at about US$100+40 = $140/bbl – well above the break even point for the nuclear alternative.¶ We believe that the above analysis is realistic and conservative . This analysis shows that the commercial nuclear containership is both technically and economically feasible.¶ As oil becomes more expensive, it seems inevitable that nuclear power will become competitive for commercial marine propulsion – initially for very large, fast ships as described here and subsequently for medium-size ships of moderate speed.¶ This conclusion does hinge upon the assumption that the major non-recurring costs and economic risks involved in re-starting a commercial nuclear ship program would be absorbed by the U.S. Government and that such an express service is deemed to have commercial merit by the industry. ¶ Further, we believe that this application has potential national security benefits as well since any one of the vessels in this fleet could provide emergency electrical power to a significant fraction of a city’s demand grid— and certainly to the industrial complex surrounding one of our major ports. ¶ Further study of alternatives may well improve on the economic results depicted—for example:¶ • Extending core lifetimes and refueling intervals to 7 years vs. the 5 years of the reference design, as deemed appropriate by several nuclear experts who have read the full report from which this paper has been excerpted,¶ • Investigating the economic feasibility in enlarging the reference design ship to ≥12,000 TEU capacity vs. 9,200; (There is no inherent technical issue associated in such an enlargement).¶ • Examining the economic potential and comparative fleet sizing of a possible extended express service to the East Coast of the United States;¶ • Studying the potential

economics involved should one of the carbon tax or trade concepts now being explored for CO2 abatement become a matter of law or regulation.¶ In summary, a large, fast commercial nuclear ship is technically feasible today using proven PWR technology that is both currently available and in wide service. The principal issue that now confronts the authors and sponsors of this study is not to engage in further paper studies per se, but to find an appropriate sponsor in industry and a capable, motivated agency within Government who together are willing to provide leadership and funding to get on with the hard work of preliminary design of such a vessel and develop the engineering details necessary to permit serious investigation by cognizant regulatory agencies within Government and Class. We estimate that such an effort would entail about two years of effort and cost approximately US$5 Million. It’s scope would include the ship and propulsion systems design itself, appropriate review and analysis by Class, evaluation of the alternatives affecting principal characteristics of the vessel and service as described above, a budgetary estimate of both non-recurring and recurring costs, and submission of an engineered product in sufficient detail to permit a preliminary review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

SMRs – Leadership Solvency - Federal investment is key to promote US clean energy leadership and cresate a viable alternative to coal-based production. Merv Fertel, 4/08/2014, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, vice president of technical programs at the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, “Why DOE Should Back SMR Development,” http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-doe-should-back-smr-development.html

Nuclear energy is an essential source of base-load electricity and 64 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas-free electricity production. Without it, the United States cannot meet either its energy requirements or the goals established in the President’s Climate Action Plan.¶

In the decades to come, we predict that the country’s nuclear fleet will evolve to include not only large, advanced light water reactors like those operating today and under construction in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, but also a complementary set of smaller, modular reactors. ¶ Those reactors are under development today by companies like Babcock &Wilcox (B&W), NuScale and others that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop next-generation reactor concepts. Those companies have innovative designs and are prepared to absorb the lion’s share of design and development costs, but the federal government should also play a significant role given the enormous promise of small modular reactor technology for commercial and other purposes. Most important, partnerships between government and the private sector will enable the full promise of this technology to be available in time to ensure U.S. leadership in energy, the environment, and the global nuclear market.¶ The Department of Energy’s Small Modular Reactor (SMR) program is built on the successful Nuclear Power 2010 program that supported design certification of the Westinghouse AP-1000 and General Electric ESBWR designs. Today, Southern Co. and South Carolina Electric & Gas are building four AP-1000s for which they submitted license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1998. Ten years earlier, in the early years of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, it was clear that there would be a market for the AP-1000 and ESBWR in the United States and overseas, but it would have been impossible to predict which companies would build the first ones, or where they would be built, and it was even more difficult to predict the robust international market for that technology. ¶ The SMR program is off to a promising start. To date, B&W’s Generation mPower joint venture has invested $400 million in developing its mPower design; NuScale approximately $200 million in its design. Those

companies have made those investments knowing they will not see revenue for approximately 10 years. That is laudable for a private company, but, in order to prepare SMRs for early deployment in the United States and to ensure U.S. leadership worldwide , investment by the federal government as a cost-sharing partner is both necessary and prudent. ¶ Some have expressed concern about the potential market and customers for SMR technology given Babcock & Wilcox’s recent announcement that it will reduce its level of investment in the mPower technology, and thus the pace of development. This decision reflects B&W’s revised market assessment, particularly the slower-than-expected growth in electricity demand in the United States following the recession. But that demand will eventually occur, and the American people are best-served – in terms of cost and reliability of service – when the electric power industry maintains a diverse portfolio of electricity generating technologies. ¶ The industry will need new, low-carbon electricity options like SMRs because America’s electric generating technology options are becoming more challenging. For example:¶ While coal-fired generation is a significant part of our base-load generation, coal-fired generation faces increasing environmental restrictions, including the likelihood of controls on carbon and uncertainty over the commercial feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration. The U.S. has about 300,000 MW of coal-fired capacity, and the consensus is that about one-fifth of that will shut down by 2020 because of environmental requirements. In addition, development of coal-fired projects has stalled: Less than 1,000 megawatts of new coal-fired capacity is under construction.¶ Natural gas-fired generation is a growing and important component of our generation portfolio and will continue to do so given our abundant natural gas resources. However, prudence requires that we do not become overly dependent on any given energy source particularly in order to maintain long-term stable pricing as natural gas demand grows in the industrial sector and for LNG exports.¶ Renewables will play an increasingly large role but, as intermittent sources, cannot displace the need for large-scale, 24/7 power options.¶ Given this challenging environment, the electric industry needs as many electric generating options as possible, particularly zero-carbon options. Even at less-than-one-percent annual growth in electricity demand, the Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for 28 percent more power by 2040. That’s the equivalent of 300 one-thousand-megawatt power plants.¶ America’s 100 nuclear plants will begin to reach 60 years of operation toward the end of the next decade. In the five years between 2029 and 2034, over 29,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity will reach 60 years. Unless those licenses are extended for a second 20-year period, that capacity must be replaced. If the United States hopes to contain carbon emissions from the electric sector, it must be replaced with new nuclear capacity. ¶ The runway to replace that capacity is approximately 10 years long, so decisions to replace that capacity with either large, advanced light-water reactors or SMRs must be taken starting in 2019 and 2020 – approximately the time that the first SMR designs should be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.¶

The electricity markets are in a period of profound change. New energy sources are becoming available, new fossil, renewable, demand-side and nuclear technologies are preparing to enter the market. The very structure of the markets themselves is changing. Nuclear energy, because it runs 24/7 without producing greenhouse gas, will play an important part in that market. SMR technology, in particular, needs to be developed sooner rather than later. That way, in about 10 years, we can answer the questions about which companies will build those plants and where.

SMRs – Energy Leadership Solvency - And, they’re key to the nuclear industry and US leadership post-Fukishima, but federal investment is a critical first stepKent Harrington, 1/5/2012, Producer at American Institute for Chemical Engineers, citing study from University of Chicago, “Study Finds Small Modular Reactors Could Revive US Nuclear Industry,” American Institute for Chemical Engineers, http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/study-finds-small-modular-reactors-could-revive-us-nuclear-industry/

The sudden Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has had an enormous impact on the global nuclear industry. Japan’s continuing human, environmental, and economic disaster appeared to cause the touted 2011 US nuclear renaissance, backed by loan guarantees from the Obama Administration, to grind to a halt. And then watching Germany, followed by Switzerland, vow to switch to renewables, the future for US nuclear energy looked pretty dark—turn the lights off on the way out, so to speak.¶ A contrarian nuclear future¶ Now, a newly released study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago finds that small modular reactors (SMR) may hold the key to an actual renaissance of U.S. nuclear power (read whole study):¶

“Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the United States,” concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.¶ Through his work as the former director of Argonne National Laboratory, Rosner became involved in nuclear and renewable energy technology development.¶ “It would be a huge stimulus for high-value job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste.”¶ This represents a huge shift from last century’s large-reactor build-out, which eventually petered out and stagnated. Before construction stopped, new reactors had grown larger and larger as utilities tried to reduce costs through economies of scale. But now the trend may be toward what SMR proponents call economies of “small scale.” Creating value through standardized, mass produced, small modular reactors. Energy Secretary Steven Chu agrees:¶ Voting with their balance sheets¶ This trend had already begun before the Fukushima disaster. A couple of salient examples from 2010: rising reactor costs had already created friction between partners CPS Energy and NRG Energy Inc., who had sued each other when CPS, a city-owned utility in San Antonio balked about investing in a new nuclear plant that would raise customer’s rates. Then, as if the industry’s “nuclear renaissance” wasn’t already gasping for air, it swooned into a coma after the collapse of Constellation Energy’s plan to build a third reactor on Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay with French utility EDF.¶ mPower SMR¶ But while those large reactor projects were falling apart, the small modular reactor trend was beginning to take shape. The Texas-sized Fluor Corporation, which had built large reactors in the 70s and 80s, spent $3.5 million for the majority stake in small module reactor builder NuScale. Then Bechtel, another engineering giant, formed an alliance with Babcock & Wilcox, buying into its innovative modular nuclear technology called mPower. Both investments were big votes of confidence.¶

Comparing large and small reactors¶ The SMR report, funded by the DOE and authored by Rosner and Stephen Goldberg, was rolled out on Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.¶ CSIS president and CEO John Hamre started off the press conference by reconfirming that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale reactors in the United States. You can watch the long version of the press conference video below:¶ The chief competitor¶ The report assessed the economic feasibility of classical, gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly. ¶ According to

the study, few companies can afford the long wait to see a return on a $10 billion investment on a large-scale nuclear plant. This is a real problem, but the epoch of the small modular reactor offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies with a much shorter timeline. ¶

The report also finds that natural gas will be the chief competitor of nuclear power generated by small modular reactors, but predicting the future of the energy market a decade from now is a risky proposition, (implying that prices could easily go higher) Rosner said. “We’re talking about natural-gas prices not today but 10, 15 years from now when these kinds of reactors could actually hit the market.”¶ Markets that can’t use gigawatt-scale plants¶ The economic viability of small modular reactors will depend partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build them. “The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point where you actually start making money faster,” Rosner noted. Of course, this assumes that SMRs are all factory built and delivered to the reactor site by rail or truck. Then on-site construction would never be able to compete.¶ Graphic: Hauling NuScale 45 MWe Small Modular Reactor¶

Small modular reactors would appeal to any market that couldn’t accommodate gigawatt-scale plants (particularly developing countries with smaller or older grids), or those in the US currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased out during the next decade, Rosner said. An unknown factor that will affect the future of these plants would be the terms of any new clean-air regulations that might be enacted in the next year.¶

An important safety aspect of small modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate the need for human intervention during an emergency. In some of the designs, Rosner explained, “the entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection. There’s no need for pumps.” ¶ Getting the first modular reactors built will probably require the federal government to step in as the first customer. That is a policy issue, though, that awaits further consideration. “It’s a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about,” Rosner said. “There’s a long distance between what we’re doing right now and actually implementing national policy.”

SMRs – Leadership Inherency - US nuclear leadership is diminishing quickly – expanding fossil fuels, market forces and international perception are key. Wallace et. al., 2013, Michael Wallace holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Marquette University and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which advises the president on matters related to homeland security, John Kotek, Sarah Williams, Paul Nadeau, Thomas Hundertmark, George David Banks, “Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy,” CSIS, http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf

America’s nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles, failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S. reactors become uneconomic, while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two generations after the United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from laboratory experiment to successful commercialization, our nation is in danger of losing an industry of unique strategic importance and unique promise for addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the future.¶ The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. With 102 operating reactors and the world’s largest base of installed nuclear capacity, it has been widely assumed that the United States—even without building many new plants—would continue to have a large presence in this industry for decades to come. Instead, current market conditions are such that growing numbers of units face unprecedented financial pressures and could be retired early. Early retirements, coupled with scheduled license expirations and dim prospects for new construction, point to diminishing domestic opportunities for U.S.

nuclear energy firms.¶ The outlook is much different in China, India, Russia, and other countries, where governments are looking to significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments. Dozens of new entrants plan¶ ix¶ on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix, furthering the spread of nuclear materials and know-how around the globe. It is in our nation’s best interest that U.S. companies meet a significant share of this demand for nuclear technology—not simply because of trade and employment benefits, but because exports of U.S.-origin technology and materials are accompanied by conditions that protect our nonproliferation interests. Yet U.S. firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export policies. U.S. efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a global nuclear energy infrastructure—but that infrastructure could soon be dominated by countries with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in new nuclear markets, America’s ability to influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound to diminish.¶ In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry’s impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford to become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why.

SMRs – Leadership IL - That’s key to solve prolifWallace et. al., 2013, Michael Wallace holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Marquette University and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which advises the president on matters related to homeland security, John Kotek, Sarah Williams, Paul Nadeau, Thomas Hundertmark, George David Banks, “Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy,” CSIS, http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf

From the start of the nuclear era until the 1980s, the United States was the dominant global supplier of commercial nuclear energy technology. American leadership was instrumental in shaping the global nuclear nonproliferation regime and nuclear safety norms. A strong domestic ¶ nuclear program and supportive government policies helped sustain this dominant position. Today, the United States continues to exercise influence by virtue of its economic power and recognized expertise in facility operations, safety, and security. But our nation’s ability to promote nonproliferation and other national security objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation has diminished. ¶ An important source of U.S. leverage in the past was the ability to provide reliable nuclear technologies, fuel, and services to countries under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions. These controls and conditions go beyond provisions in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and include nine criteria that the United States applies to any agreement with a nonnuclear weapon state: for example, a guarantee that the recipient state will not enrich or reprocess transferred nuclear material without U.S. approval. ¶ x¶

Today, much of the world’s nuclear manufacturing and supply capability still relies on designs and technologies developed in the United States. But the firms involved are largely foreign- owned. Even in the market for conventional light- water reactors, where the United States led the world for decades, all but one of the U.S.-based¶ designers and manufacturers have been acquired by non-U.S.-based competitors.¶ The countries that are currently strengthening their nuclear capabilities and global market position (i.e., France, Japan, South Korea, and Russia, with China close behind) have different reasons for pursuing nuclear technology—some are primarily concerned about energy security or about preserving domestic fossil fuel resources, while others may be motivated by a mix of nationalistic and geopolitical considerations. But in all cases they see nuclear technology as offering long-term benefits that justify a significant near-term sovereign investment, even faced with the prospect that world natural gas prices may fall if the unconventional gas production technologies in use in the United States are successfully applied in other parts of the world.¶ The most aggressive of these new national nuclear programs is underway in China. By 2020, China could have 50 commercial reactors in operation, compared with only 3 in 2000. India could add 7 new plants—and Russia, 10—in the next five years. These trends are expected to accelerate out to 2030, by which time China, India, and Russia could account for nearly 40 percent of global nuclear generating capacity.¶ Meanwhile, many smaller nations—mostly in Asia and the Middle East—are planning to get into the nuclear

energy business for the first time. In all, as many as 15 new nations could have nuclear generating capacity within the next two decades, added to the more than 30 countries that have it today or have had it in the past.¶ The national security concern is that much of this new interest in nuclear power is coming from countries and regions that may not share America’s interests and priorities in the areas of nonproliferation and global security. And our leverage to influence their nuclear programs will be weak at best if U.S. companies cannot offer the technologies, services, and expertise these countries need to operate a successful nuclear program (including not only reactors, but other fuel-cycle facilities).¶ Expanded nuclear electricity generation outside the United States will drive a commensurate increase in the demand for enriched uranium. The facilities needed to supply this demand— ¶ xi¶ because they can be used to produce both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons-usable material—are of particular national security concern. ¶ During the 1960s, the U.S. operated the only uranium enrichment facility wholly dedicated to producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial purposes. Today, the single U.S.-based enrichment company, USEC, accounts for less than 20 percent of global LEU production capacity. USEC recently announced the shutdown of uranium enrichment at its only operating plant in Paducah, Kentucky, which was viewed as being outdated and too inefficient to be competitive with foreign suppliers.¶ In fact, much of the fuel used in U.S. reactors today is fabricated from imported enriched uranium obtained by USEC under a very successful agreement with the Russian government to supply down-blended highly enriched uranium, a contract that expires in 2013. Although USEC plans to replace the aging Paducah plant with a more¶ advanced facility, prospects for following through on this plan are far from certain. Meanwhile, the European uranium enrichment company (Urenco) is expanding its market share worldwide with several new facilities planned or under construction in Europe and the United States. In addition, Russia is taking steps to modernize its enrichment services capability. All told, the U.S. share of global exports for enriched uranium and other sensitive nuclear materials declined from approximately 29 percent in 1994 to 10 percent in 2008.

SMRs – Leadership IL - An SMR lead revival of the industry restores US nuclear leadership which controls proliferation risksLoudermilk, Senior Energy Associate @ NDU, ’11Micah J. Loudermilk, Senior Associate for the Energy %26 Environmental Security Policy program with The Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, "Small Nuclear Reactors and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs," Journal of Energy Security, May 2011, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content%26view=article%26id=314:small-nuclear-reactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs%26catid=116:content0411%26Itemid=375-

Combating proliferation with US leadership¶ Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and know-how disseminates around the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality, regardless of the US commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under construction around the world—though Fukushima may cause a temporary lull.¶ Since Three Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more committed to nuclear power. On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US leadership, new nations seek to acquire nuclear technology turn to countries other than the US who may not share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This will enable the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel

reprocessing, and developing reactor technologies.¶ As to the small reactors themselves, the designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance unmatched by large reactors. Small enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the concrete surrounding the reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional domes that protect conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of superior physical protection is the traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are factory-sealed with a supply of fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are returned to the factory, intact, for removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel cycle, proliferation risks associated with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and concerns over the widespread distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.

SMRs – Leadership IL - SMR’s are key to negotiation pressure for nonproliferation - they are more desirable than other nuclear systemsSanders, Associate Director Savannah National Lab, ’12 Tom Sanders, Associate Laboratory Director for Clean Energy Initiatives at the Savannah River National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Former President of the American Nuclear Society, "Tom Sanders: Great expectations for small modular reactors," Nuclear News, July 2012, pg. 48-49

That’s a good question. One of the things that concerned me most in the nonprolifer- ation area was the fact that the United States had lost a lot of its ability to export nuclear goods and services under U.S. export li- censes. That’s important to nonproliferation, because it’s through negotiations with other countries’ export controls of nuclear tech- nology that a lot of our goals regarding pro- liferation risk management are met. By that I mean that if you’re not exporting anything, you’re not negotiating anything, and you’re not really establishing a standard for safety, ecurity, and proliferation risk management around the world. Then we evaluated how to regain some of that capability, and small modular reactors became obvious for two reasons. One is that you could probably speed up the construction and licensing pro- cess by factory manufacturing and turn them out much more quickly than large reactors. And the other is that for emerging nations, most developing countries could not absorb large nuclear systems, and smaller systems would be more acceptable to them and more affordable. They may cost a little more per megawatt, but the capital costs—the upfront costs—would be significantly less. In addi- tion, the economy of scale you possibly get with a large plant doesn’t make any sense if you can’t afford it.

SMRs – PPP Solvency – Private Sector will say yes – it’s only a question of government commitment. Sanders, Associate Director Savannah National Lab, ’12 Tom Sanders, Associate Laboratory Director for Clean Energy Initiatives at the Savannah River National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Former President of the American Nuclear Society, "Tom Sanders: Great expectations for small modular reactors," Nuclear News, July 2012, pg. 48-49

Regarding US nuclear manufacturing capability, have companies stepped up to say they want to be part of SMR parts and components development?¶ Absolutely. We’ve seen a real interest by a number of companies that want to be part of these projects. We recently participated in a very large SMR conference in Colum- bia, S.C., and we had a topical meeting at the last ANS conference that drew quite a crowd, including a lot of the parts and components industry that currently exists in the United States and now performs quality nuclear work for the Navy.

Most of those components are still manufactured in this country. So yes, there is a lot of inter- est. We are regaining our N Stamp–quali- fied capabilities because the MOX plant re- quires all of those standards to be met. The MOX plant is going to be licensed by the NRC, and as part of that, a lot of supplier capability has been developed in the Unit- ed States that will also be applied to these small reactors.

Checks war – check our math.

For interdependence to promote peace, economic processes must either remove incentives for states to engage in conflict or reduce the uncertainty states face when bargaining in the shadow of costly contests. Since removing incentives to act aggressively only increase incentives for opponents, the former explanation must typically occur in special “boundary” conditions (discussed below). We argue that interdependence makes it easier to substitute non-violent contests for militarized disputes in signaling resolve. States that possess a range of methods of conflict resolution have less need to resort to the most destructive (and costly) techniques. Liberal dyads can damage mutually valuable linkages to communicate credibly. States without linkages must choose between a very limited set of options including—more often—war. The conflict model with uncertainty shows why this is so.¶ Recall that A’s best response is an offer that an opponent weakly prefers to fighting. If the opponent (B) has private information about its war costs (c), then A’s optimal offer derives from a rational guess (the distribution of reservation prices for different types of player B). A calculates its offer as the best demand it can make to each opponent weighted by the odds that a given ‘type’ is the actual adversary. Players B whose war costs are high accept while those with low costs fight.¶ Conventional descriptions of interdependence see war as less likely because states face additional opportunity costs for fighting. The problem with such an account is that it ignores incentives to capitalize on an opponent’s reticence to fight. If an opponent (B) is reluctant, then state A can make larger demands without risking war. Assume that interdependent dyads are those that derive some benefit from economic linkages (h, say h = $10). If A and B avoid a fight, then each receives the settlement plus the benefit ($100 – d + $10 and d + $10, respectively). B’s war costs are again between $0 and $40. Conventional explanations for interdependence identify the fact that B receives (d + $10) instead of (d) for accepting A’s demand as leading to peace. If demands are the same, then not fighting is more beneficial in interdependent dyads and B should more often prefer A’s demand to fighting. Yet, unless we assume that A is ignorant of its own interdependence with B, (not very plausible), A’s demand must be different. A’s best offer is one that B just prefers to a fight. Since benefits increase under interdependence, A simply demands commensurately more. In the previous example, A offers $30 (A receives $100 – d = $70). If interdependent, A proposes that B accept $20 plus the benefit ($10). The same range of states B that accepted $30 previously (since $30 ≥ $50 – c if c ≥ $20) now accepts $20 (since $20 + $10 [the benefit] ≥ $50 – c if c ≥ $20). State A again makes an offer that a given opponent just prefers to fighting, weighted by the odds that B is the given opponent. Interdependence is simply subsumed in bargaining. Since they fail to reduce uncertainty, opportunity costs generally do not alter the prospects of engaging in costly contests. ¶ Economic interdependence can motivate peace in two ways. First, conflict may occasionally be so expensive relative to the expected value of fighting that states prefer any offer rather than enduring a contest. Suppose B’s war costs range from $50 to $90. B’s expected value for war thus ranges from $0 to (- $40). Because B stands to lose more from fighting than its value for the stakes, it prefers to concede. We refer to this as a boundary solution because it is possible only by assuming that stakes in the contest are bounded. Bounded stakes is reasonable, especially when issues are of tertiary importance or when costs are extreme (as in nuclear war). Interdependent dyads may avoid costly contests if economic linkages decrease the expected value of competition to the point where one party prefers conceding to competing. Yet, economic

benefits seldom equate in consequence to nuclear war. Issues over which states may consider major contests are unlikely to meet boundary conditions for interdependence. Instead, boundary solutions are relevant when liberal states experience relatively minor conflict. Finally, competition can continue even given boundary conditions. Liberal dyads deterred from war can still compete by manipulating the risk of contests. ¶ Second, instead of deterring conflict, interdependence can convey credible signals, obviating the need for costly military contests. Actors’ behaviors potentially inform observers about the value of strategic variables, dissipating private information. Interdependent states that endure opportunity costs in pursuit of political objectives differentiate themselves from other, less resolved, competitors. To the degree that non-violent conflict allows observers to identify opponents, costly signaling also allows efficient ex ante bargaining. States seek to obtain settlements while competing for preferable terms. War is less often necessary when states possess non-violent methods that credibly inform.

SMR – 1AC

1AC – Global Shipping

Advantage one – Global Shipping – shipping faces decline now – high prices, demand – best reports

Joseph Wilkes 8/12/13, “Global shipping industry in danger of decline,”http://www.supplychaindigital.com/logistics/3306/Global-shipping-industry-in-danger-of-decline

A report into the global shipping industry has been released today, warning of decline.¶ Online market research store Research and Markets has released the Global Shipping Industry 2013 – Forecast, Trends and Opportunities, report from Taiyou Research company, which provides analysis and overview of the entire industry as well as individual elements such as ownership and prices.¶ The report states that in the coming years, the global shipping industry is expected to decline by five to 10 percent.¶ Oversupply and high bunker oil prices will eventually lead to a constraining of performance.¶ The report said: “A sustained oversupply of vessels combined with high bunker oil prices will pressure margins in most shipping segments. The dry-bulk and crude oil tanker segments are likely to have the largest supply-demand gap in 2013, complicating these sectors' ability to meaningfully improve their earnings.¶ “The tanker market has also been affected by the oversupply of vessels in the near term aided by lower OPEC production levels; though the outlook for the product tanker segment is more favorable since demand growth is likely to outpace supply during 2013, leading freight rates to rise by the end of this year. Box freight rates for the container segment have rebounded since March this year.¶ “However, strong improvement in earnings should not be expected for the full year in this segment. This reflects sustained high bunker oil costs and pressure on container rates stemming from recent increases in deployed tonnage of box ships.”¶ But Japanese conglomerates could be affected to a lesser extent by the negative market trends that will damage other global shipping trends. This is due to the scale of the Japanese conglomerates, their diversification, (including their liquefied natural gas, or LNG, fleets) and strong relationships with customers, said the report.¶ The report includes analysis of 35 major shipping companies such as AP Moller Maersk, China COSCO, China Shipping Development, D/S Norden, Golar LNG, Kawasaki Kisen, Hyundai Merchant Marine.¶ AP Moller Maersk, Nippon Yusen, Kawasaki Kisen, Mitsui OSK Lines, China COSCO and Evergreen Marine are some of the top players in the industry, the report suggested

Higher shipping costs mean companies will shift to regionalization – prefer long term trendsLarry Rohter, 8/3/2008, awarded the Maria Moors Cabot Prize[1] at Columbia University, BA @ Columbia, MA @ Georgetown SFS, “Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?ex=1375588800&en=07156979d7fafd12&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&_r=0

Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization¶ When Tesla Motors, a pioneer in electric-powered cars, set out to make a luxury roadster for the American market, it had the global supply chain in mind. Tesla planned to manufacture 1,000-pound battery packs in Thailand, ship them to Britain for installation, then bring the mostly assembled cars back to the United States.¶ ¶ Elaine Thompson/Associated Press¶ A MORE REGIONALIZED TRADING WORLD Appliances, like those for sale in a Seattle store, above, are being affected by sharp increases in transportation costs.¶ ¶ Staton R. Winter/Bloomberg News¶ Bread in a New Zealand supermarket. Soaring transportation costs also have an impact on food, from bananas to salmon.¶ But when it began production this spring, the company decided to make the batteries and assemble the cars near its home base in California, cutting more than 5,000 miles from the shipping bill for each vehicle.¶ “It was kind of a no-brain decision for us,” said Darryl Siry, the company’s senior vice president of global sales,

marketing and service. “A major reason was to avoid the transportation costs, which are terrible.” ¶ The world economy has become so integrated that shoppers find relatively few T-shirts and sneakers in Wal-Mart and Target carrying a “Made in the U.S.A.” label. But globalization may be losing some of the inexorable economic power it had for much of the past quarter-century, even as it faces fresh challenges as a political ideology.¶ Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex. ¶ “If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars,” said Naomi Klein, the author of “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.”¶ “That is necessarily leading to a rethinking of this emissions-intensive model, whether the increased interest in growing foods locally, producing locally or shopping locally, and I think that’s great.” ¶ Many economists argue that globalization will not shift into reverse even if oil prices continue their rising trend. But many see evidence that companies looking to keep prices low will have to move some production closer to consumers. Globe-spanning supply chains — Brazilian iron ore turned into Chinese steel used to make washing machines shipped to Long Beach, Calif., and then trucked to appliance stores in Chicago — make less sense today than they did a few years ago.¶ To avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers.¶ Neighborhood Effect¶ Decisions like those suggest that what some economists call a neighborhood effect — putting factories closer to components suppliers and to consumers, to reduce transportation costs — could grow in importance if oil remains expensive. A barrel sold for $125 on Friday, compared with lows of $10 a decade ago.¶ “If prices stay at these levels, that could lead to some significant rearrangement of production, among sectors and countries,” said C. Fred Bergsten, author of “The United States and the World Economy” and director of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, in Washington. “You could have a very significant shock to traditional consumption patterns and also some important growth effects.”¶ The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to $8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing shipping times.¶ The study, published in May by the Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets, calculates that the recent surge in shipping costs is on average the equivalent of a 9 percent tariff on trade. “The cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today,” the report concluded, and as a result “has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades.”¶ The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India.¶ Page 2 of 3¶ (Page 2 of 3)¶ But if the international community fulfills its pledge to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change, even China and India would have to reduce the growth of their emissions, and the relative costs of production in countries that use energy inefficiently could grow.¶ ¶ Justin Sullivan/Getty Images¶ A Tesla electric-powered roadster in California. The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing.¶ The political landscape may also be changing. Dissatisfaction with globalization has led to the election of governments in Latin America hostile to the process. A somewhat similar reaction can be seen in the United States, where both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton promised during the Democratic primary season to “re-evaluate” the nation’s existing free trade agreements. ¶ Last week, efforts to complete what is known as the Doha round of trade talks collapsed in acrimony, dealing a serious blow to tariff reduction. The negotiations, begun in 2001, failed after China and India battled the United States over agricultural tariffs, with the two developing countries insisting on broad rights to protect themselves against surges of food imports that could hurt their farmers.¶ Some critics of globalization are encouraged by those developments, which they see as a welcome check on the process. On environmentalist blogs, some are even gleefully promoting a “globalization death watch.”¶ Many leading economists say such predictions are probably overblown. “It would be a mistake, a misinterpretation, to think that a huge rollback or reversal of fundamental trends is under way,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “Distance and trade costs do matter, but we are still in a globalized era.”¶ As economists and business executives well know, shipping costs are only one factor in determining the flow of international trade. When companies decide where to invest in a new factory or from whom to buy a product, they also take into

account exchange rates, consumer confidence, labor costs, government regulations and the availability of skilled managers.¶ ‘People Were Profligate’¶ What may be coming to an end are price-driven oddities like chicken and fish crossing the ocean from the Western Hemisphere to be filleted and packaged in Asia not to be consumed there, but to be shipped back across the Pacific again. “Because of low costs, people were profligate,” said Nayan Chanda, author of “Bound Together,” a history of globalization.¶ The industries most likely to be affected by the sharp rise in transportation costs are those producing heavy or bulky goods that are particularly expensive to ship relative to their sale price. Steel is an example. China’s steel exports to the United States are now tumbling by more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, their worst performance in a decade, while American steel production has been rising after years of decline. Motors and machinery of all types, car parts, industrial presses, refrigerators, television sets and other home appliances could also be affected.¶ Plants in industries that require relatively less investment in infrastructure, like furniture, footwear and toys, are already showing signs of mobility as shipping costs rise.¶ Until recently, standard practice in the furniture industry was to ship American timber from ports like Norfolk, Baltimore and Charleston to China, where oak and cherry would be milled into sofas, beds, tables, cabinets and chairs, which were then shipped back to the United States.¶ But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States.¶ Among them is Craftmaster Furniture, a company founded in North Carolina but now Chinese-owned. And at an industry fair in April, La-Z-Boy announced a new line that will begin production in North Carolina this month.¶ “There’s just a handful of us left, but it has become easier for us domestic folks to compete,” said Steven Kincaid of Kincaid Furniture in Hudson, N.C., a division of La-Z-Boy.¶ Avocado Salad in January¶ Soaring transportation costs also have an impact on food, from bananas to salmon. Higher shipping rates could eventually transform some items now found in the typical middle-class pantry into luxuries and further promote the so-called local food movement popular in many American and European cities.¶ Page 3 of 3¶ (Page 3 of 3)¶ “This is not just about steel, but also maple syrup and avocados and blueberries at the grocery store,” shipped from places like Chile and South Africa, said Jeff Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets and co-author of its recent study on transport costs and globalization. “Avocado salad in Minneapolis in January is just not going to work in this new world, because flying it in is going to make it cost as much as a rib eye.”¶

Global companies like General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa and Procter & Gamble are beginning to respond to the simultaneous increases in shipping and environmental costs with green policies meant to reduce both fuel consumption and carbon emissions. That pressure is likely to increase as both manufacturers and retailers seek ways to tighten the global supply chain.¶ “Being green is in their best interests not so much in making money as saving money,” said Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University. “Green companies are likely to be a permanent trend, as these vulnerabilities continue, but it’s going to take a long time for all this to settle down.”¶ In addition, the sharp increase in transportation costs has implications for the “just-in-time” system pioneered in Japan and later adopted the world over. It is a highly profitable business strategy aimed at reducing warehousing and inventory costs by arranging for raw materials and other supplies to arrive only when needed, and not before.¶ Jeffrey E. Garten, the author of “World View: Global Strategies for the New Economy” and a former dean of the Yale School of Management, said that companies “cannot take a risk that the just-in-time system won’t function, because the whole global trading system is based on that notion.” As a result, he said, “they are going to have to have redundancies in the supply chain, like more warehousing and multiple sources of supply and even production.”¶ One likely outcome if transportation rates stay high, economists said, would be a strengthening of the neighborhood effect. Instead of seeking supplies wherever they can be bought most cheaply, regardless of location, and outsourcing the assembly of products all over the world, manufacturers would instead concentrate on performing those activities as close to home as possible. ¶ In a more regionalized trading world, economists say, China would probably end up buying more of the iron ore it needs from Australia and less from Brazil, and farming out an even greater proportion of its manufacturing work to places like Vietnam and Thailand. Similarly, Mexico’s maquiladora sector, the assembly plants concentrated near its border with the United States, would become more attractive to manufacturers with an eye on the American market.¶ But a trend toward regionalization would not necessarily benefit the United States, economists caution. Not only has it lost some of its manufacturing base and skills over the past quarter-century, and experienced a decline in consumer confidence as part of the current slowdown, but it is also far from the economies that have become the most dynamic in the world, those of Asia. ¶ “Despite everything, the American economy is still the biggest Rottweiler on the block,” said Jagdish N. Bhagwati, the author of “In Defense of Globalization” and a professor of economics at Columbia. “But if it’s expensive to get products from there to here, it’s also expensive to get them from here to there.”

The plan develops small scale nuclear reactors to power ships – this is best and most viable. Hirdaris et.al., March 2014 Lead Specialist, Lloyd's Register, CEng MRINA, S.E. Hirdarisa, , , Y.F. Chenga, P. Shallcrossb, J. Bonafouxb, D. Carlsonc, B. Princec, G.A. Sarrisd, ¶

“Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion,” Ocean Engineering, ScienceDirect

The feasibility study presented in this paper is based on a top level risk assessment process driven by qualitative objectives. Even though the nuclear environment has changed since the writing of the IMO (1981) Resolution A.491 XII most of the safety principles are applicable today. However, there are a number of areas where ship safety assessment requirements have changed due to advances in technology and detailed methods underpinning regulatory requirements. For example, at detailed design stage it might be pertinent to use a probabilistic rather than deterministic approach for damage stability. It also might be more appropriate to ensure engineering capability is achieved while the risks to life and the environment, as far as practicable, are mitigated in an appropriately transparent manner. This approach is consistent with the regulation of most land-based nuclear industries. Within this context, the marine industry could base its approach on instruments similar to the INF Code (INF, 1974). The Lloyd’s Register guidance notes for marine nuclear propulsion (Lloyd’s Register, 2011) introduce the concept of the so called “design authority”. Following this approach may help to ensure that the overall design, construction and operation, of a nuclear ship as an integrated system are assured.¶ Without any intention to constraint the direction of any future innovation initiatives the following research and development directions could help to develop the required knowledge for future classification and approval:¶ •¶ The risk based design development process presented has not considered in detail the IMO FSA guidelines. Future development and modernisation of the nuclear specific maritime regulations (e.g. INF, 1974 and IMO, 1981) may require the development of a database and methodology of marine accident investigation encompassing such goal based risk based design principles (e.g. Cai et al., 2012);¶ •¶ Optimisation of the introduced design using holistic multi criteria objectives applicable to alternative arrangements and operational scenarios has not been considered. Further work on this direction could assist with realisation of practical design constraints, options and their applicability (e.g. Papanikolaou, 2010);¶ •¶ This study did not address explicitly detailed design verification aspects related with the mitigation of the effects of wave or accidental loads (e.g. grounding, collision, fire and explosion) or extreme events (e.g. rogue waves, piracy and terrorist attacks) magnifying risk. Naturally such work would be essential at detailed. Considering the practical complexities associated with undertaking such type of work research and development activities would be expected to play an important role in capturing the effects of risk peculiar to nuclear ships (e.g. see Dietrich, 1976, Hirdaris et al., 2011b, Subin et al., 2012, Temarel and Hirdaris, 2009 and Paik et al., 1998);¶ •¶ The EHFA identified a number of potential human hazards that could cause failures or contribute to the occurrence of failures as identified by the HAZID. Absence of key maritime regulations constraint this part of the analysis. Further development will be necessary to integrate human factors requirements possibly from the nuclear into the marine industry framework.¶ Whereas there seems to be good potential in furthering research efforts, it is imperative to realise that commercial realisation of nuclear shipping will have to carve out space or niche for itself amongst other propulsion technology options by bridging technical or technological challenges with economic, social and political factors. Convincing stakeholders about the technical and operational, safety and security issues of the asset over its lifecycle may not be solely rooted upon technical but commercial, legislative risks as well as perceptions. To this end the following key issues should be considered:¶ •¶ Classification and regulation framework: It is possible that application of SMR technology onboard ocean going vessels would imply that the existing maritime regulatory framework would have to be reviewed. In this new era Classification Societies would be responsible for facilitating the assurance for the successful integration of reactor modules on the ship within the context of risk based design and will have to ensure that hazards from/to the ship reactor are managed. On the other hand, land based nuclear regulators would have to be involved in classifying/assuring the reactor and facilitating an open dialogue with the builder and designers. Since the regulatory and policy framework for SMR implementation is still unknown facilitation of the concept presented may not be imminently possible. Variation of national regulations for ship construction, the need for adoption of special flag authority procedures add on additional potential showstoppers. Considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, addressing the needs of the technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context harmonised performance based standards that account for the demands of both nuclear and shipping industries at worldwide level seems rather challenging.¶ •¶ Public perception: Convincing stakeholders about the technical and operational safety of the ship is a key challenge and stakeholder perceptions may or may not be rooted in actual risks. To many, nuclear reactors, whether of SMR or older technology, will be inescapably linked with accidents such as Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This reaction in the aftermath of nuclear accidents increases the challenges faced by the nuclear industry. Nuclear ships will be subject to particular attention, during design, construction, operation and decommissioning. Any nuclear accident, on land or at sea, could impact on nuclear merchant shipping and the acceptability might change over time in response to public and societal reactions that may be extreme.¶ •¶ Maritime operations and infrastructure: The necessity to

provide an effective emergency response capability supported by external agencies is anticipated to put additional requirements on competence development for all stakeholders. Ship specific competence development and assurance for shore and ship personnel will be almost certainly required for the reliable operation of nuclear-powered vessels. This may require a new model for resourcing that is significantly different to that traditionally employed in the maritime industry in order to deliver continuity of expertise.¶ •¶ Broad technical and institutional challenges involve the deployment, testing and validation of technological innovations in components, systems and engineering (especially testing and fabrication of fuel), fear of first-of-kind reactor designs, economy-of-scale, perceived risk factors for nuclear power plants, and regulatory and licensing issues. Other issues to be addressed are the cost of reactor decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel and supply chain management.¶ 9. Conclusions¶ This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW SMR. Assessment of the risks associated with different SMR locations and power train systems suggested that an SMR located aft the cargo tanks, below the foreword end of the accommodation would be preferable.¶ A direct shaft line with a CRP Azipod mechanical installation would be the preferred main propulsion option on the basis that it would lead to a modest 11% increase to the overall ship length compared to the reference design, once the necessary adjustments are made for the changes in hydrostatic trim. Such arrangement combined with a conventional diesel engine would be adequate for propulsive redundancy assuming operations and faults under harbour and ocean going conditions.¶ The risk assessment process and engineering solutions developed demonstrate that the concept that has been described would be feasible. However, considering that the current style of regulation within the maritime industry is prescriptive and the operational framework of national nuclear administrations is highly segmented, readdressing the needs of the technology, regulators and organisations involved within the context of harmonised performance based standards will be necessary for the pragmatic implementation of the concept presented over the long term.¶ International shipping has a well established reputation as the most energy efficient mode of freight transport. However, treating shipping within the context of global environmental concerns has gained significant momentum over the last 10 years, particularly in relation to the generation of Green House Gases (GHG) and other contributions to air and water pollution. Shipping relies on fuel oil and this implies that understanding the potential of alternative non-carbon marine propulsion technologies is necessary as the industry moves forward with its longer term decarbonisation efforts. Without any intend to underestimate the potential environmental and economic benefits of renewable, natural gas or non-fossil (e.g. biofuels) energy resources, it would be only sensible to add on the nuclear engineering option as a possible alternative. As successful as traditional nuclear propulsion has been in the naval and ice breaker ship segments, one aspect of the industry that escaped attention in the commercial sector is the use of modern small and medium size reactor technology on-board ocean going vessels. This paper reviews past and recent work in the area of marine nuclear propulsion and for the purpose of demonstration outlines the technical considerations on the concept design of a Suezmax Tanker powered by the Gen4Energy 70MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR). It is shown that understanding the technical risks and implications of implementing modern nuclear technology is an essential first step in the long term process of developing knowledge and experience.

And, Fuel efficient shipping is key – oil prices will rise in the long term – high prices prevent shipping.Cosimo Beverelli et. al., 4/1/2010, Professor of Economics @ University of Geneva, Ph.D. in International Economics, Graduate Institute, Geneva and University of Geneva, Prof. Hercules Haralambides (Erasmus University, Rotterdam), Prof. Anthony Venables (Oxford University) and Gordon Wilmsmeier (Edinburgh Napier University), “Oil Prices and Maritime Freight Rates:

An Empirical Investigation,” UN Conference on Trade and Development, http://unctad.org/en/docs/dtltlb20092_en.pdf

75. Maritime transport, enabled by, inter alia, technological advances and competitive transport costs, is estimated to handle over 80 per cent world trade by volume and over 70 per cent by value.98 Understanding the determinants of shipping costs and their implications for transport and trade is, therefore, of the essence for traders, transport operators as well as policymakers and regulators. For many developing countries, international transport costs are already high and can often surpass customs duties as a barrier to international trade. While much of the existing literature has focused on determinants of transport costs such as distance, economies of scale, technology, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks, little empirical research has been carried out on the effect of oil prices. The potential effect of oil prices on maritime freight rates is, however, of particular interest, given (a) the heavy reliance of the maritime transport sector on fuel oil for propulsion and (b) the fact that fossil fuel reserves are increasingly depleting and high levels of oil prices may therefore be expected in the longer run.¶ 76. Against this background, the objective of the present study was to improve the understanding of the relationship between rising and volatile oil prices and maritime freight rates. Towards this objective, regression analysis was used to estimate the degree of sensitivity of maritime freight rates to changes in Brent Crude oil prices (used as proxy for bunker fuel costs), focusing, in particular, on container transport. The study also attempted to extend the analysis to cover some dry and wet bulk trades (i.e. iron ore and oil).¶ 77. The results of the investigation confirm that oil prices do have an effect on maritime freight rates in the container trade as well as in the bulk trade with estimated elasticities varying, depending on the market segment and the specification. Moreover, the results for container trade suggest the presence of a structural break, whereby the effect of oil prices on container freight rates is larger in periods of sharply rising and more volatile oil prices, compared to periods of low and stable oil prices. This entails some potential implications for maritime transport and trade, if oil prices resume their spiraling trend observed in 2007 and 2008 and reach sustained high (and possibly, unprecedented) levels. Future high levels of oil prices and any consequent increase in freight rates may be of particular relevance for lower value goods and, more generally, for the trade of developing countries whose transport costs are already higher.¶ 78. It might be argued that the economic downturn that unfolded in late 2008 has alleviated the problem by driving down both oil prices and transport costs. However, as the downturn reflects a bust in the global economic cycle and is likely to be temporary,99 it should not detract attention from the long-term implications of rising oil prices on transport and trade, nor should it downplay the urgent need to scale up investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency. Indeed, all things considered, it is evident that further increases of oil prices are to be expected and probably to levels which have not yet been reached. This is not only because of supply and demand pressures, but also due to a range of uncertainties that are associated with the energy sector. Some of these include, for example, (a) concerns over the expected future levels of proven oil reserves; (b) production levels and the prospects of a peak; (c) the prohibitive cost of¶ 98 Calculations are based on the international seaborne trade data published in UNCTAD (2009(b)), and the global trade data as obtained from Global Insight in 2007.¶ 99 See, for example, the liner shipping industry response to the recent rise in bunker fuel costs as reported in Clarkson Shipping, Container Monthly Intelligence Monthly, Vol. 11, No.12, 18 December 2009.¶ 32¶ extracting non-conventional fossil fuels such as tar sand; (d) significant investment requirements; (e) time lags between the discovery of an oil field and its actual functioning; (f) forecast growth in the world population; and (g) energy consumption and additional energy requirements associated with climate change adaptation. While the need for investment in energy-efficient technologies is increasingly being recognized in view of climate change considerations and global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the results of the present study underscore the need to aim for fuel efficiency in investment decisions as well as in operational practices.

Efficient and cheap energy is key to sustain the shipping industry – SMRs are key.Sylvia Pfeifer, 2/14/2013, Energy Editor at The Financial Times, BA in German and English @ Oxford, MA in English @ Georgetown, “Nuclear energy: Flexible fission,” FT, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/71d62476-706e-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz386y16Uvc

Akademik Lomonosov’s small plant represents a radical new trend in the nuclear industry. After more than 50 years in which the pursuit of economies of scale and more power has made nuclear plants bigger and bigger, they are now shrinking. The atomic industry is thinking small.¶ Cost is driving the change. At a time when utility companies are struggling financially and delays on large reactors lengthen, small reactors offer hope. They typically generate up to 300 megawatts of electricity per reactor – about a fifth of the output of a normal full-size plant – and are about a third of the physical size of traditional ones. Their size means their capital cost should be much lower, making them attractive to lenders who would also see a quicker return on their investment. Centrica, the British utility, pulled out of a project this month to build big reactors in the UK, blaming spiralling costs and delays.¶ Small nuclear plants also offer flexibility. They could power remote or standalone industrial sites or desalination plants. If they were put together in batches, they would give nuclear power the kind of grid-friendly flexibility now offered by gas or coal-fired stations. Developing nations that do not have established electricity distribution networks are another potential market.¶ A final attraction is that these smaller reactors could be built in factories in relatively large numbers. Big nuclear plants, which require heavy civil engineering works as well as a difficult fusion of mechanical, electrical and computer systems, have a tendency to be delivered late and over budget.¶ “The market has started to appreciate there could be commercial applications for smaller reactors,” says Richard Clegg, global nuclear director at Lloyd’s Register. “They are already being used for military applications. It is a real prospect, not a fantasy.” ¶ Executives believe such innovation is necessary if the industry is to secure a long-term place in the world’s changing energy mix, one that looks for affordable power and reduced carbon emissions. The world’s demand for electricity will grow almost twice as fast as its total energy consumption by 2035, according to the International Energy Agency. Nuclear offers a low-carbon source of power but concerns about its safety, as well as costs and delays, persist.From waste to fuel

Independently, Arctic shipping is inevitable, but absent the plan, ships cause polar icecap melting and positive feedback cycles. Benjamin S. Haas March 2014, SUNY Maritime, “Strategies for the Success of Nuclear Powered Commercial Shipping,” Presentation to the Connecticut Maritime Association, http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/CMA-Nuclear-Paper_Benjamin-Haas-3.pdf

¶ What Nuclear Power Offers the Shipping Industry¶ The cost of nuclear fuel is low and stable, which means speed is not an economic limitation for nuclear powered ships. While slow-steaming for fossil-fueled ships can reduce costs for the ship owners through lower fuel consumption, the benefits are not necessarily felt by cargo owners unless those lower fuel costs translate into lower freight rates. While time sensitive cargo does not go on ships, there is a certain benefit to getting cargo to the buyers as quickly as possible. Nuclear power can achieve these higher speeds for much lower costs than fossil-fueled powered vessels. Based on the low cost of fuel, the economics of nuclear powered ships will tend towards higher

speeds such as 20 knots for bulk carriers, or 30 knots for container ships. Slow steaming is a strategy that evolved relatively recently to lower fuel costs and absorb excess capacity by reducing the number of vessels available at any given time as they are locked up in longer transit times (Jorgensen, 2013). It is not necessarily ideal for the containerized cargo market (Kloch, 2013).¶ 4¶ Future environmental regulations concerning fossil fuel emissions place constraints on the types of fuels vessels can burn, raising costs through limited availability (Lloyd's, 2012). Nuclear reactors do not produce these emissions and do not have the same limitations on fuel supply. While radioactive wastes are produced, these are contained within the reactors and are not released into the environment. Nuclear power’s most significant environmental advantages is that it will allow for total compliance to atmospheric emissions regulations, and will allow for environmentally responsible transarctic shipping.¶ Trans-Arctic Shipping¶ The steady decline of polar sea ice over the last few decades has led to predictions that the North Polar regions will be open to regular marine traffic by at least the middle of the century (sooner if specially constructed ice-breaking vessels are built). This has generated a lot of excitement in maritime industry circles as it provides shorter distances compared to current trade routes, alternatives to the Panama and Suez canals, and represents a new frontier for exploration and development. However, there are challenges and environmental aspects that must be considered.¶ The production of soot from oil and gas burning engines will be caught in the circumpolar winds of the Arctic atmosphere and eventually be deposited on the snow and ice (Femenia, 2008). Research has shown that seemingly miniscule amounts of soot can increase the heat retention of snow and ice, leading to increased melting (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). This is an issue independent from CO2 emissions. Ice loss in the arctic is prone to being a positive feedback loop where as more ice is loss, the region warms up due to the increase in absorbed sunlight, which results in more ice loss and the situation is worsened (Hansen & Nazarenko, 2003). The presence of hundreds, if not thousands of hydrocarbon burning vessels in the Arctic region would lead to substantial ice loss independent from concerns regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, 2009)¶ 5¶ The use of natural gas is not a silver bullet for this issue because the lubricating oil in the cylinders of diesel engines will be burned and also produce soot (Femenia, 2008). It does not take a lot of soot to increase the heat retention of ice. Nuclear power is the only way to avoid this potential environmental damage while still remaining economical.¶ Another aspect of utilizing nuclear power for transarctic vessels is the disproportionately lower fuel cost of nuclear fuel compared to liquefied natural gas and fuel oil, allowing for higher powers and operating speeds. There is a considerable amount of extra power needed to break through several feet of ice. Because the transarctic ships will be susceptible to bad weather that can delay their voyages, higher open-ocean speeds will be needed to make up the lost time. Nuclear power can achieve these speeds much more cheaply due to its lower fuel costs.

SMRs are most viable for shipping and can fill in the gap caused by prices – assumes all your warrants. G. Sawyer et. al., 2008, G. Sawyer, J. Shirley, J. Stroud & E. Bartlett, General Management Partners, LLC, USA, G. A. Sawyer is a founding partner of J.F. Lehman & Company and since January 2004 serves as Executive Advisor to J.F. Lehman & Company, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Yale University and Completed graduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, “ANALYSIS OF HIGH-SPEED TRANS-PACIFIC NUCLEAR CONTAINERSHIP SERVICE,”

As mentioned above, the economic comparison between diesel and nuclear fleets is strongly dependent upon diesel fuel price. If we assume that over time the cost of fossil fuels will continue to increase, the fuel surcharges already widely applied by ship owners worldwide will continue to increase top line revenue for both fleets of ships. However , since the nuclear ship will incur very little additional fuel related expense its bottom line will improve significantly and narrow the predicted NPV gap. Based upon the cost criteria developed above and modeled econometrically by Manalytics and GMP, it is estimated that on the basis of oil pricing alone the nuclear service could be economically equivalent to the conventional service with future bunker fuel prices of $455 per metric ton (or $89 per bbl) and MDO prices of $890 per metric ton, along with the requirement to burn MDO within 40 miles of shore. This results in a net blended fuel price of $585.50 as compared to the $455/tonne used initially. See Figure 10 below.¶ As was noted several times in previous sections, there are other forces at work beyond market supply and demand contributing to the price of marine fuels. California is already regulating large ships and the burning of residual fuels due to gas emission (NOx and SOx) and has enacted legislation to require ships to burn cleaner Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) low in sulphur content within 20 nautical miles of its coastline and by 2008 this requirement will be extended to 40 nautical miles. Should bunker fuels be prohibited entirely in the future, the result would have a dramatic effect on fuel costs. In this case of a complete ban on bunker fuels, fuel costs would double overnight making the nuclear containership service economically superior immediately with a NPV of $780 million compared to $259 million for the conventional service.¶ Further, current cost analyses do not make any provision for the cost of climate change . This is a new subject and is not uniformly implemented. The authors have seen discussions that suggest that the dollarized cost of carbon ¶ emissions lies in the neighborhood of US$100 / tonne- CO2. (We have seen figures ranging from US$50 to US$250/t.) Based on $100/t, this means that the cost of burning one barrel of petroleum should be increased by about US$40, to account for the cost of the carbon impact. Some jurisdictions are talking about handling this explicitly, in the form of a carbon tax. In other jurisdictions it is being ignored.¶ If this cost were indeed applied to the cost of petroleum, then it would mean that oil is today trading at about US$100+40 = $140/bbl – well above the break even point for the nuclear alternative.¶ We believe that the above analysis is realistic and conservative . This analysis shows that the commercial nuclear containership is both technically and economically feasible.¶ As oil becomes more expensive, it seems inevitable that nuclear power will become competitive for commercial marine propulsion – initially for very large, fast ships as described here and subsequently for medium-size ships of moderate speed.¶ This conclusion does hinge upon the assumption that the major non-recurring costs and economic risks involved in re-starting a commercial nuclear ship program would be absorbed by the U.S. Government and that such an express service is deemed to have commercial merit by the industry. ¶ Further, we believe that this application has potential national security benefits as well since any one of the vessels in this fleet could provide emergency electrical power to a significant fraction of a city’s demand grid— and certainly to the industrial complex surrounding one of our major ports. ¶ Further study of alternatives may well improve on the economic results depicted—for example:¶ • Extending core lifetimes and refueling intervals to 7 years vs. the 5 years of the reference design, as deemed appropriate by several nuclear experts who have read the full report from which this paper has been excerpted,¶ • Investigating the economic feasibility in enlarging the reference design ship to ≥12,000 TEU capacity vs. 9,200; (There is no inherent technical issue associated in such an enlargement).¶ • Examining the economic potential and comparative fleet sizing of a possible extended express service to the East Coast of the United States;¶ • Studying the potential

economics involved should one of the carbon tax or trade concepts now being explored for CO2 abatement become a matter of law or regulation.¶ In summary, a large, fast commercial nuclear ship is technically feasible today using proven PWR technology that is both currently available and in wide service. The principal issue that now confronts the authors and sponsors of this study is not to engage in further paper studies per se, but to find an appropriate sponsor in industry and a capable, motivated agency within Government who together are willing to provide leadership and funding to get on with the hard work of preliminary design of such a vessel and develop the engineering details necessary to permit serious investigation by cognizant regulatory agencies within Government and Class. We estimate that such an effort would entail about two years of effort and cost approximately US$5 Million. It’s scope would include the ship and propulsion systems design itself, appropriate review and analysis by Class, evaluation of the alternatives affecting principal characteristics of the vessel and service as described above, a budgetary estimate of both non-recurring and recurring costs, and submission of an engineered product in sufficient detail to permit a preliminary review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Maritime Shipping is key to global trade. Sofia Persson and Anna Dubaric-Norling November 2009, Trade Policy Analyst at the Swedish National Board of Trade, analyst at National Board of Trade, “Trade Facilitation and Maritime Transport: The Development Agenda,” National Board of Trade, http://www.kommers.se/upload/Analysarkiv/Arbetsomr%E5den/Handelsprocedurer/Trade%20facilitation%20and%20maritime%20transport%20-%20The%20development%20agenda.pdf

Globalisation increases the opportunities for international trade. Trade facilitation can be aprerequisite to make use of these trad- ing opportunities. It is a concept direct- ed towards reducing the complexity and cost of the trade transaction proc- ess and making the procedures more efficient, transparent and predictable. Trade facilitation is hence becoming an increasingly important tool for develop- ment, allowing countries to trade goods on time with low transaction costs.¶ The aim of this study is to discuss how trade facilitation can reduce transac- tion costs for maritime transport and contribute to increased integration of developing countries in international trade.

It will address the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular.¶ Maritime transport is essential to the world trade . Over 80 per cent of the volume of world merchandise trade is carried by sea, and an even higher per centage of developing-country trade is carried in ships (UNCTAD, 2008a).¶ Before the current financial crisis, world trade had undergone a period of strong expansion. During the period from 1995 to 2007, trade grew more rap-¶ idly than the world GDP (Gross Domes- tic Production).¶ w Since 1995, world trade in goods has¶ increased by 170 per cent in nominal¶ terms (108 per cent in real terms).¶ w In 1995, trade comprised almost 22 per¶ cent of the world economy. Twelve years later, in 2007, this figure has increased to 32 per cent (National Board of Trade, 2009c).¶ This development has gone hand in hand with an increase in the volumes¶ of traded goods transported by sea (see figure 1). In 2007, international seaborne trade was estimated at 8 billion ton of goods loaded. During the past three decades the annual average growth rate of world seaborne trade is estimated as 3.1 per cent. Dry cargo (bulk, break-bulk and containerized cargo) accounted for 66.6 per cent of the good loaded. The rest is oil and petroleum transports. (UNCTAD, 2008a)¶ The major loading points for goods transported by sea are located in devel- oping countries and the goods are pre- dominantly transported to developed countries (see figure 2).¶ A breakdown of the group of devel- oping countries shows that goods are¶ 8¶ ¶ predominantly loaded in Asia which represents close to 40 per cent of the total goods loaded followed be Americas (14.7 per cent), Africa (10.5 per cent) and Oceania (0.1 per cent). The transport flows thus go from developing countries to developed countries. 53 per cent of the volume of world seaborne trade is unloaded in developed countries.¶ Figure 1¶ Indices for total world trade, maritime trade and GDP (gross domestic production).¶ The environmental impact of trans- port for trade is an important issue. Transports, commercial as well as pri- vate, contributes to 14 per cent of the total global discharge of greenhouse gases. Although over 80 per cent of the global trade in goods are transported by sea, maritime transports contribute to less than 2 per cent. (National Board of Trade, 2008a)¶ The development in international trade and transport has been promoted by several factors.

Tariffs and other bar- riers to trade have decreased through multilateral negotiations in the WTO and through regional and bilateral agreements. Many developing coun- tries, such as China and India among others, have also undertaken unilateral liberalisation of their trade policies. Larger trade volumes also results from increased in trade complexity. Compa- nies are increasingly sourcing parts from other countries and also using different geographical locations for their produc- tion.¶ Transport systems have also evolved to today’s container ships taking advan- tage economies of scale. The costs of maritime transport have declined over time. The WTO World Trade Report 2008 cites three main technological and institutional changes as reasons for the lowering of shipping cost. First the development of open registry shipping, scale effects from increased trade and containerization. (World Trade Report, 2008)

That solves war – best models flow aff. Erik Gartzke*, Quan Li**, and Charles Boehmer***, 2001, *Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego, **Professor of Political Science @ Texas A&M, ***Professor of Political Science @ University of Texas – El Paso, “Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,” http://pages.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzkeetal_io_01.pdf

We have reviewed arguments for the effect of economic interdependence on peace. We show that existing accounts are insufficient to explain why liberal economies are less likely to fight, but that a signaling argument is consistent with the observation. We also expand interdependence to include financial and monetary integration, offering a set of variables that measure these processes. Our results corroborate our hypotheses . This paper is limited by data and by a theoretical framework that is necessarily simplified. Still, despite weaknesses, the combination of theory and analysis offer a compelling and not-inconsiderable refinement of the relationship between economics and peace.¶ Trade and direct investment increase cross- border economic contact and raise a state’s stake in maintaining linkages. Monetary coordination and interdependence demand that states strike deals. Through such interactions, states create a broad set of mutually beneficial economic linkages. While these linkages may deter very modest clashes, their main impact is as a substitute method for resolving conflict. Political shocks that threaten to damage or destroy economic linkages generate information, reducing uncertainty when leaders bargain. Threats from interdependent states carry more weight than threats from autarchic states precisely because markets inform observers as to the veracity of political “cheap talk.” Multiple channels of economic interactions help states to credibly communicate, increasing the “vocabulary” available to states in attempting to assess relative resolve.¶ A signaling interpretation of interdependence offers some promise both analytically and in terms of international events. If costly signaling through economic interdependence reduces states’ recourse to military violence, then increasing economic interdependence (globalization) implies the prospect of a more pacific global system. It is difficult to anticipate the magnitude of the pacific effect of interdependence, however, as other factors, such as increasing polarization, may add to the motives for conflict. At the same time, the signaling argument implies that much of the variance in conflict propensity is unknowable. Before we can have greater confidence in our results, we need to examine a larger data sample, including all dyads and longer time spans. Precise measures may be obtained by limiting the sample to United States dyads. Finally, the effects of democracy on conflict appear to require additional assessment. However, our findings provide evidence (and a rationale) suggesting that liberal economics may be at least as salient to peace as liberal politics.

And, interdependence is an impact filter for conflict – incentivizes cooperation.Erik Gartzke*, Quan Li**, and Charles Boehmer***, 2001, *Associate Professor of Political Science @ UC San Diego, **Professor of Political Science @ Texas A&M, ***Professor of Political Science @ University of Texas – El Paso, “Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,” http://pages.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzkeetal_io_01.pdf

Explanations for war are legion. However, work by James Fearon and others shows that most purposive theories of war are internally inconsistent in that they do not account for the behavior of interest. Fearon points out that theories of war commonly conflate the motives for conflict with the choice of method for conflict resolution. Costly contests involve at least two elements. First, there is zero-sum competition for an excludable good. States differ over issues or territory that each cannot possess simultaneously. Second, states choose a settlement method. The choice of method is non zero-sum. Transaction costs deprive “winners” of benefits and increase the burden for “losers” so that all are better off selecting methods that minimize costs. Since war is expensive, fighting makes sense only if equivalent settlements cannot be obtained using cheaper methods. A theory of war, then, explains why efficient settlements are at times unobtainable ex ante.¶ Fearon follows Blainey in arguing that wars result from uncertainty about conditions likely to influence eventual settlements as well as incentives states have to misrepresent these conditions. States possess private information about strategic variables (capabilities, resolve, etc.). If states could credibly share private information, efficient ex ante bargains could be identified. Instead, uncertainty provides weak or unresolved states an opportunity to conceal weakness even as competition creates incentives to bluff. States ‘pool,’ claiming to be resolved and capable regardless of their true nature. Such “cheap talk” claims do not allow observers to differentiate resolved or capable opponents from the weak or unresolved. Only by imposing costly contests—by fighting or similar acts—can states distinguish resolute opponents from those seeking to bluff. States fight largely because they cannot agree on bargains that each prefers to what each expects to obtain from fighting. If states can agree about the nature of eventual settlements, then there is always some mutually preferable bargain. Uncertainty about the allocation of spoils from the contest then, accounts for the contest itself.

<<this causes runaway warming -- > ext>> or some form of environment !

1AC – Natural Disasters

Tsunamis coming now and will destroy the west coastGlader 11(Paul Glader, a journalist currently based in Berlin, Germany, is managing editor of www.WiredAcademic.com, an independent news source, “WITH TSUNAMI IMAGES STILL FRESH AND TERRIFYING, RESEARCH RAMPS UP IN U.S. LABS”, fast company, May 5, 2011, http://www.fastcompany.com/1751627/tsunami-images-still-fresh-and-terrifying-research-ramps-us-labs)With images of the Japan earthquake and tsunami fresh in the minds of coastal dwellers everywhere, tsunami science is getting a fresh infusion of interest, and cash, in the U.S. From giant wave basins in Oregon to current-speed detectors in California, the U.S. is expanding its tsunami research, especially in the Pacific Northwest states that researchers say face grave risk of big-wave destruction. Oregon State University scientist Solomon Yim, director of the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, says that each time a major tsunami hits, his $20 million lab sees an uptick in research projects from his average of $2 million in annual grants. "Before 2004, tsunamis were not on the radar screen of Americans," says Yim. That all changed with the Indonesian tsunami, and in 2005, the departments of transportation for the three western coastal states commissioned more research. The Japanese tsunami may be the most influential of all when it comes to spurring research and increasing public awareness. Historically, tsunamis often occurred at night or in places where people didn't have video cameras. But the dramatic images from Japan may have--literally--shed new light on big-wave disasters. "There is no question the video footage of the Japan tsunami is incredible," says Lori Dengler, chairwoman of the geology and oceanography departments at Humboldt State University in Arcata, Calif., who heads the Humboldt Earthquake Education Center. "Prior to that, we had relatively no good footage of the tsunami.” Yim's lab has expanded to six people, up from three, in the past five years. He is studying, for example, the debris kicked up by a tsunami, and the impact on structures. "The coastal engineers and harbor people need to take tsunamis into account for design," he says. "They do have bridges sticking right out into the ocean." (Note to engineers: Don't do this anymore.) A structural engineer with a background in computational fluid dynamics, Yim researches how fluids impact structures. His tsunami center, which opened in 2000, now has two large basins, one of them 342 feet long. Imagine a much bigger, scarier water-park pool that simulates giant, destructive waves. Now, he is busy calculating the physics of damage a tsunami could cause on bridges, roads, and other infrastructure on the West Coast. His findings suggest cylinders resist tsunamis better than other shapes of pillars that hold up bridges. Any corners or abrupt changes stick out and catch water, while the cylinder "is the optimum shape." On buildings that must use I-beams and other corners, he said engineers should focus on creating a strong frame with tearaway panels to withstand damage. As for Dengler, who is heavily involved with the efforts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, she's helping to develop and test an instrument that tracks the speed of tsunami currents. Their prototype in Humboldt Bay measures current velocity, and caught early signals of the March 11 Japanese earthquake and tsunami. They want to add more such instruments in California to improve earthquake and tsunami detection. "It's the speed at which the water flows that may cause the damage, particularly if it carries debris," she said. In the past, tide gauges recorded the height of tsunami waves, but not the current speed. "We are really at the very beginning to describe those current philosophies.” It's not just public entities that are getting in on the research and educational initiatives. The U.S.-based giant FM Global insured nearly 3,000 properties in Japan that sustained less than $150 million in damage. "Whenever there’s a significant issue like in Japan, there are always questions of where else it could happen," said Lou Gritzo, a vice president and manager of research at FM

Global. "The Pacific Northwest is on the short list.” Gritzo said the insurer is working with clients to prevent damage with methods such as turning off natural gas to buildings to avoid fire damage during an earthquake, and keeping sprinkler lines in working order. It also does computer modeling of tsunamis. All this is not to say that the U.S.--which racked up $60 million in damages on March 11 as waves from Japan's tsunami reached the West Coast--is where it needs to be with tsunami research or preparedness. Despite the near-meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in the wake of the tsunami, and the flurry of new research going on in the U.S., Japan still is "by far, the most prepared country in the world for tsunamis," said Yim. Meanwhile, the risks of a West Coast tsunami are far from hypothetical. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, which spans 600 miles from British Columbia to Northern California, has potential for generating a large tsunami that could ravage parts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. "The Cascadia Earthquake is our biggest concern," says Dengler. "We are talking about exactly what happened in Japan." She predicts Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, and San Francisco would have earthquake damage, followed by huge waves arriving 10 to 15 minutes later. "We're talking about a very, very big tsunami that happens very, very quickly.” Yim and other scientists say the historical record shows a massive tsunami struck the coast just over 300 years ago, on Jan. 26, 1700, after a 9.0 earthquake rattled the ocean floor less than 100 miles off the coast of Oregon. Paleontologists have found tsunami deposits up the Columbia River. Tree-ring indicators and written records in Japan indicate the tremor also sent water across the ocean. With a major tsunami like that typically recurring every 250 years, the Cascadius is 50 years overdue. Yim puts chances of another major West Coast tsunami in the next 50 years as high as 85%.

Status quo nuclear plants are susceptible – not protected on land. Alisha Mims, 03-11-2014, writer and researcher with Ring of Fire, “US Nuclear Agency Hid Safety Concerns After Fukushima”, Ring of Fire, http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/03/us-nuclear-agency-hid-safety-concerns-fukushima/After the 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) made a conscious effort to downplay the risk of natural disasters to America’s aging nuclear facilities. According to a report from NBC, the commission actively worked to reassure the public about the safety of the US nuclear industry even as the agency’s own experts were questioning safety standards. Emails obtained by NBC through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that officials intentionally hid nuclear industry safety concerns from the public. “While we know more than these say, we’re sticking to this story for now,” Scott Burnell, a manager in NRC’s media and public relations wing, wrote in an email to his colleagues, thanking them for sticking to prearranged talking points. According to NBC, the emails contain “numerous examples” of “apparent misdirection or concealment” during the initial weeks after the devastating Fukushima disaster. The US agency attempted to distance the NRC from the crisis in Japan and cover up the potential risk for a similar disaster at a US nuclear plant: Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC’s operations center in Maryland. If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, “We’re not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that,” said one email. When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC’s own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants,

including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City. And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario – a nuclear meltdown – the agency declined to address the questions. NRC split responses to questions it expected to be asked after Fukushima into two parts: the “public answer” and “additional technical, non-public information.” The response to the question, “What happens when/if a plant ‘melts down?’” included telling the public that US nuclear plants are “designed to be safe” and that there are “multiple barriers between the radioactive material and the environment.” However, the non-public, additional information for the same question stated the following: The melted core may melt through the bottom of the vessel and flow onto the concrete containment floor. The core may melt through the containment liner and release radioactive material to the environment. When former US Energy Secretary Steven Chu appeared on CNN on March 20, 2011, he was questioned as to whether US nuclear power plants could withstand an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale. Chu hesitated, but NRC spokesman David McIntyre felt he should have said “yes” unequivocally and worry about the lie later. In an email to his bosses McIntyre wrote: The NBC report also notes that “The public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for nuclear watchdog groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and also the Nuclear Control Institute.” NRC also attempted to discredit an MSNBC news report that publicized an NRC study estimating the risk of earthquakes to US nuclear plants. NRC’s contrived response to the public release of its study was to say that the study represents “a very incomplete look at the overall research and we [NRC] continue to believe US reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their sites could experience.” NRC immediately realized that the Fukushima disaster would create strong interest in the safety of nuclear energy in the United States. The agency’s Office of Public Affairs had written and distributed the first talking points for its employees less than 10 hours after the earthquake hit Fukushima, and NRC’s technical experts were told not to make any public statements, NBC reports. A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense states that NRC is failing to protect the public and suggests that the agency reevaluate its safety responses. The report asserts that, “NRC is failing to meet the statutory standard of ‘adequate protection’ of the public against the hazard of hydrogen explosions in a severe reactor accident.” America’s nuclear facilities are susceptible to hydrogen explosions and leakage in the event of a natural disaster or other severe accident. The median age of an operating US nuclear reactor is 34 years and more than 30 of the nation’s 100 reactors have the same brand of General Electric containment system or reactors used at the Fukushima plant, according to NBC.

Sea based SMRs key to resistance – recent studies prove.

David L. Chandler 4/16/2014, freelance writer, author of 2 books, He was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999-2000, on a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship, and has since served as a judge for the fellowship's application process “Floating nuclear plants could ride out tsunamis,” MIT News, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/floating-nuclear-plants-could-ride-out-tsunamis-0416

When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in 2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was the aftereffects — specifically, the lack of cooling for the reactor cores, due to a shutdown of all power at the station — that caused most of the harm.¶ A new design for nuclear plants built on floating platforms, modeled after those used for offshore oil drilling, could help avoid such consequences in the future. Such floating plants would be designed to be automatically cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst-case scenario, which would

indefinitely prevent any melting of fuel rods, or escape of radioactive material.¶ The concept is being presented this week at the Small Modular Reactors Symposium, hosted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, by MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and Neil Todreas, along with others from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and Chicago Bridge and Iron, a major nuclear plant and offshore platform construction company.¶ Such plants, Buongiorno explains, could be built in a shipyard, then towed to their destinations five to seven miles offshore, where they would be moored to the seafloor and connected to land by an underwater electric transmission line. The concept takes advantage of two mature technologies: light-water nuclear reactors and offshore oil and gas drilling platforms. Using established designs minimizes technological risks, says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering (NSE) at MIT.¶ Although the concept of a floating nuclear plant is not unique — Russia is in the process of building one now, on a barge moored at the shore — none have been located far enough offshore to be able to ride out a tsunami, Buongiorno says. For this new design, he says, “the biggest selling point is the enhanced safety.”¶ A floating platform several miles offshore, moored in about 100 meters of water, would be unaffected by the motions of a tsunami; earthquakes would have no direct effect at all. Meanwhile, the biggest issue that faces most nuclear plants under emergency conditions — overheating and potential meltdown , as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island — would be virtually impossible at sea , Buongiorno says: “It’s very close to the ocean, which is essentially an infinite heat sink, so it’s possible to do cooling passively, with no intervention. The reactor containment itself is essentially underwater.”¶ Buongiorno lists several other advantages. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find suitable sites for new nuclear plants: They usually need to be next to an ocean, lake, or river to provide cooling water, but shorefront properties are highly desirable. By contrast, sites offshore, but out of sight of land, could be located adjacent to the population centers they would serve. “ The ocean is inexpensive real estate,” Buongiorno says.¶ In addition, at the end of a plant’s lifetime, “decommissioning” could be accomplished by simply towing it away to a central facility, as is done now for the Navy’s carrier and submarine reactors. That would rapidly restore the site to pristine conditions.¶ This design could also help to address practical construction issues that have tended to make new nuclear plants uneconomical: Shipyard construction allows for better standardization, and the all-steel design eliminates the use of concrete, which Buongiorno says is often responsible for construction delays and cost overruns.¶ There are no particular limits to the size of such plants, he says: They could be anywhere from small, 50-megawatt plants to 1,000-megawatt plants matching today’s largest facilities. “It’s a flexible concept,” Buongiorno says.¶ Floating nuclear plants could withstand earthquakes and tsunamis¶ Video: Christopher Sherrill, courtesy of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering¶ Most operations would be similar to those of onshore plants, and the plant would be designed to meet all regulatory security requirements for terrestrial plants. “ Project work has confirmed the feasibility of achieving this goal , including satisfaction of the extra concern of protection against underwater attack,” says Todreas, the KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.¶

Buongiorno sees a market for such plants in Asia, which has a combination of high tsunami risks and a rapidly growing need for new power sources. “It would make a lot of sense for Japan,” he says, as well as places such as Indonesia, Chile, and Africa.¶ This is a “very attractive and promising proposal,” says Toru Obara, a professor at the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research. “I think this is technically very feasible. ... Of course, further study is needed to realize the concept, but the authors have the answers to each question and the answers are realistic.”

Tsunamis on the west coast lead to a meltdown that will affect 2 continents, much bigger than fukushima Lendman 11(Stephen Lendman, a writer, syndicated columnist Harvard BA and a Wharton MBA, “Nuclear Meltdown In Japan”, rense, March 13, 2011, http://rense.com/general93/nucmelt.htm)On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." " No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere ." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred. As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia, China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die, potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far outside East Asia. Moreover, at least five reactors are at risk. Already, a 20-mile wide radius was evacuated. What happened in Japan can occur anywhere. Yet Obama's proposed budget includes $36 billion for new reactors, a shocking disregard for global safety. Calling Fukushima an "apocalyptic event," Wasserman said "(t)hese nuclear plants have to be shut," let alone

budget billions for new ones. It's unthinkable, he said. If a similar disaster struck California, nuclear fallout would affect all America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America.

1AC – Desalination

<<inherency>>

Offshore nuclear power plants key to desalination, conventional methods failMichael Kanellos 07, Staff Writer at CNET specializing in technology, “A new source of water: Floating nuclear power plants,” 11-21-07, http://www.cnet.com/news/a-new-source-of-water-floating-nuclear-power-plants/.Channel the heat from power plants to give water to a thristy world. That's the idea of a physicist from the Sont Longowal Institute in Punjab, India. Nuclear power plants have a lot of excess heat, so why not use that heat to make fresh water? That's the idea of S.S. Verma, with the Department of Physics at the Sont Longowal Institute in Punjab, India. If located offshore near large population centers, the plants could provide cheap electricity as well as fresh water to megacities like Mumbai.¶ Some companies are already looking at developing desalination platforms that can be attached to nuclear plants, he said, according to the Indo-Asian News Service (via Earthtimes). (Verma's complete paper can be found here.)¶ The general and very serious concerns about nuclear power--what do you do about transportation of nuclear materials? Disposal and storage? Safety?--of course apply. But it's also an interesting idea. Nuclear plants do produce a lot of waste heat. Many believe that hydrogen could become economical if the waste heat from these plants could be used to crack water molecules to produce the gas.¶ Some companies in Canada are contemplating installing nuclear power plants near the tar sands deposits in Alberta to produce hydrogen, a necessary ingredient for turning the goopy tar into usable liquid fuel.¶ The world is mired in a water crisis. In many large cities in India, people wait in line to get water from roving trucks. Droughts and crop failures are expected to increase as global temperatures rise. And it's not just in the emerging world. Australia is suffering through a prolonged shortage of water.¶ Desalination provides an avenue out of it, but conventional methods are expensive and somewhat time consuming

Offshore SMRs are key for desalinationNolan Hertel 07, Nuclear and Radiological Engineer Professor at Georgia Tech, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Member of U. S. Department of Energy Joint Senior Review Group, Chair at Department of Energy U. S. Scientific Review Group, Co-Chair of International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, American Society for Engineering Education-2004 Nuclear Engineering Division Glenn Murphy Award, 12/26/07, “Why sweat? Tap nuclear power [for desalination],” Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945018/posts.State governments looking for ways to cope with severe drought in the Southeast should consider using nuclear power to desalinate seawater. This is a safe and proven technology that the U.S. Navy has been using for more than a half-century to provide drinking water for the crews of its nuclear-powered submarines.¶ Until a few years ago, the water debate here in Georgia was conducted in an almost surreal atmosphere. We appeared to have sufficient supplies of water to meet our needs, and most of us seemed to feel that this state of affairs would continue indefinitely. By definition, miracles do not often happen, and it is not likely that the water problem will be solved by a miracle. The solution, if there is one, will be found in the development of comprehensive water use plans, strict conservation and technology. No one of these alone will solve our water problems, but all of them together have a good chance of succeeding.¶ The discrepancy between the need for water and its availability is seen not only in

the difficulty of allocating scarce resources for households, industries, farms, electricity production, wildlife and recreation but also sharing common supplies with neighboring states. As our water resources diminish, it is becoming clear that unless we can come up with substitute sources of water, we will simply have less water and a lower standard of living.¶

Experience shows that nuclear reactors can be used to heat seawater in a process known as "reverse osmosis" to produce large amounts of potable water. The process is already in use in a number of places around the world, from India to Japan and Russia. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination plants are operating in Japan alone.¶ Seawater desalination raises absolutely no technical problems. The technologies have been used for many years. But most of the world's 12,500 desalination plants use fossil fuels to provide the large amounts of energy needed to desalinate seawater, and that poses economic problems due to the rising cost of oil and natural gas and environmental problems from greenhouse-gas emissions. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is now economically competitive with fossil fuels and produces no greenhouse gases. It is a viable alternative for desalination.¶ Nuclear reactors could serve a dual purpose, providing both power and fresh water, as they do in nuclear submarines. If anchored a few miles offshore, nuclear desalination plants could be a source of large amounts of potable water transported by pipelines hundreds of miles inland to serve the needs of communities and industries.¶ A study completed by Argonne National Laboratory determined that dual-purpose reactors — called cogeneration plants — "could offer a major portion" of the additional water and electricity that municipalities and industry will need for maintaining sustainable development and growth in the years ahead. The study determined that nuclear power would be less costly as a heat source for water desalination than fossil-fuel plants using oil or natural gas. But it said that costs could vary according to the type of reactor used and its specific location, among other factors, requiring further economic analysis.¶ The next big step needs to be taken by the Department of Energy. It should propose construction of a demonstration reactor for desalination.¶ Production of large amounts of fresh water would alleviate water shortages in the decades ahead with attendant benefits to homeowners and businesses as well as the environment. Now is the time for the Department of Energy, in concert with Georgia and other states, to determine how best to proceed with nuclear desalination.

And, fossil fuels and other renewables do not solveKen Silverstein 07, award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of EnergyBiz Insider, published in more than 100 periodicals, over 20 years experience in energy sector, masters from American University, “Climate Change and Clean Water,” 12-17-07, http://www.energybiz.com/article/07/12/climate-change-and-clean-water?quicktabs_4=2&quicktabs_11=1."Desalination is an energy-intensive process," says Meenakshi Jain of CDM & Environmental Services and Positive Climate Care in India. In a story that ran in the Inderscience publication International Journal of Nuclear Desalination, he highlights the energy problem facing regions with little fresh water. "Over the long term, desalination with fossil energy sources would not be compatible with sustainable development; fossil fuel reserves are finite and must be conserved for other essential uses, whereas demands for desalted water would continue to increase. Nuclear energy seawater desalination has a tremendous potential for the production of freshwater."¶ Jain emphasizes that renewable energy sources could help ease water shortages. Wind, solar, and wave power may be used to generate electricity while also carrying out desalination. That, in turn, could have a significant impact on reducing potential increased greenhouse gas emissions.¶ Nearly 40 million cubic meters of desalted water are produced worldwide each day, says the International Atomic Energy Agency. Most of the facilities to do so are located in the Middle East and North Africa and they use fossil fuels to

draw the steam or electricity they need to facilitate the process.¶ But as environmental concerns grow over greenhouse gas emissions and water needs rise, cleaner options that have large-scale applications are necessary. The need is paramount. The demand for drinking water grew six-fold in the 20th century and is expected to increase another 40 percent by 2025, according to the United Nations.¶ Nuclear energy is the most feasible method, the atomic agency adds. It points out that the technology of coupling nuclear energy and desalination plants already has taken hold in Japan and Kazakhstan, where commercial facilities have been operating since the 1970s. India is among countries seeking to expand the base of national and international experience through a demonstration plant it is building. Altogether, the agency is working with 20 nations to advance nuclear science and desalination.¶

Universal Issue¶ Access to fresh water supplies is a universal issue. The United States is grappling with the dilemma and so is Australia and France. But developing nations are having the toughest time. The problems are exacerbated because of the fears of global warming. In an interview with OnPoint, Paul Faeth, executive director the United Nations Foundation's Global Water Challenge said that about 1.1 billion people don't have access to water and another 2.6 billion don't have access to safe sanitation.¶ He adds that about a third of all countries now have water scarcity issues and that this level could rise to two-thirds in 20 years because of global warming. Climate change not only affects temperatures but it also impacts water and the hydrologic cycle, adds Faeth. "In those areas that are dry, it's going to be getting drier and wet areas getting wetter. So you have people who are vulnerable are the first ones who are going to be affected. And for those who don't have water now, they're facing the biggest challenge."¶ The Inderscience publication International Journal of Nuclear Desalination quotes scientists who say that solar, wind and wave power are not cost effective fuel sources in the effort to create potable water. At least one scientist there is quoted as saying that floating nuclear plants could help solve the problem. Such plants could be permitted to operate offshore and where there is a dense coastal population. They could be used to provide electricity and run a desalination plant with the excess heat.¶ It is estimated that a 300-megawatt nuclear plant would be required to drive a desalination facility with a capacity of 1 million cubic meters of potable water a day. That's enough water to support a population of between 3 or 4 million people. That same population would require between 4,000 and 6,000 megawatts of installed capacity to meet its electricity needs.

SMRs are specifically key to desalination – allows for efficient heat recovery from the ocean. Mark Campagna and Otis Peterson, November 2010, Mark, Assistant Technical Program Chair @ the American Nuclear Society, Otis, Ph.D. @ University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Chief Technical Officer at IX Power, “NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS FOR SMALL MODULAR REACTORS,” American Nuclear Society, http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library%5CAlternative%20Uses/2010%20-%20Non-Electric%20Applications%20for%20SMRs.pdf

1. LOW QUALITY POWER (ABOUT 100°C) APPLICATIONSAt the low end of the energy quality spectrum are applications that only need temperatures slightly above 100°C. There are too many applications in this class to discuss in depth. The most obvious such application is building heat for domestic, commercial and industrial uses. One of the most important applications within this class is desalination of sea or other brackish water for human or agricultural uses. Such desalination processes would be based on distillation or related methods. Essentially all reactors can generate such temperatures. The temptation here is to use the heat produced by the reactor to generate electricity first and design the turbine generator system so the exiting steam is above 100°C. Such designs reduce the

efficiency of the electrical power conversion process but, obviously, permitmultiple usesfor the reactor power. ¶ As pointed out above, one of the major non-electrical applications of small reactors is the desalination of ocean water for human or agricultural consumption. There are two commonplace techniques for producing fresh water from salt water. One of those is reverse-osmosis, a process that uses electricity to drive the high-pressure water pumps to force seawater or brine through very fine filters. This process is popular for supplying drinking water for limited volume human consumption. Because electrical generation is inherently less efficient, larger process volume installations are often based on distillation principles. Multi-Stage Flash evaporation (MSF) thermal and Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane processes produce about 85% of the fresh water generated by all desalination methods. However, the MSF represents more than 84% of thermal process production, while RO represents more than 88% of membrane process production. Distillation only needs low quality heat, which may be available as a primary output of reactors or available as a component of co-generation of electricity and the fresh water. Counter-flow geometries where the incoming cool ocean water condenses the fresh-water steam and also cools all exiting water are quite efficient as the only heat losses are imperfect insulation, auxiliary uses of some of the steam and inefficiencies in the heat exchangers. The steam requirements for the MSF distillation process include low-pressure steam for the brine heating and high-pressure steam for the steam-jet air ejector system to pull the vacuum needed for deaeration. The low-pressure steam to the brine heater can be as low as 35 psig saturated, while the high-pressure steam to the steam-jet, air ejector can be as low as 150 psig. All distillation processes make use of the physical fact that when water is heated in a vessel where the pressure is equal to its vapor pressure, the water will boil and vapor will be produced. Boiling can occur at any seawater temperature depending on whether the vessel is pressurized or under vacuum.¶ MSF process makes use of the fact that water boils at lower and lower temperatures as the pressure is reduced. A MSF desalination facility has a total of 24 to 30 stages arranged monotonically in order of the temperature and pressure. In each stage the water and steam are in saturated equilibrium. The raw seawater enters the cold end of the cascade to cool the steam condensers and the exiting water.A portion of the raw seawater is withdrawn and deaerated before being heated to 230°F (110°C) for injection into the hot end of the cascade. The amount of fresh water produced is only a small fraction of the seawater that passes through the cascade. Most of the raw seawater that feeds the evaporator reject stages for cooling is returned to the sea at elevated temperature. Also, a fraction of the brine in¶ NOVEMBER 2010 4¶ DRAFT¶

Non-Electric Applications for Small Modular Reactors¶ the last stage is returned to the sea with elevated salt content as waste to control the concentration ratio. The increase in salt concentration from the evaporation is not allowed to go over 1.5 to limit corrosion.¶ A practical and optimized MSF installation is much more complicated than this description. The cascade is divided into two sections: heat recovery and heat rejection systems. There are separate components for heating the brine and deaerating it. The seawater is chemically treated to limit corrosion and scale formation, in addition to tube fouling.¶ In order to minimize corrosion, the physical components are constructed of combinations of titanium and copper-nickel alloys for the condenser tubing and copper-nickel or stainless steel clad or lining for the evaporator shell. ¶ Operating commercial facilities designed on these principles exhibit a performance ratio, defined as a pound of product per 1,000 BTUs, between 8 and 9 (3.9 liters/MJ). The amount of energy used to produce a quantity of fresh-water is about one tenth of what is required to boil that same amount of water. This order of magnitude reduction in energy usage is a tribute to creative and careful engineering.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11003975/Mass-immigration-could-see-water-shortages-failing-hospitals-and-we-wont-feel-richer-says-Civitas.html

first, Nuclear desalination is critical to solve water crisisGarry White 09, commodities editor at The Telegraph, “Can nuclear solve the global water crisis?,” 12-20-09, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6851983/Can-nuclear-solve-the-global-water-crisis.html.As the global population expands, demand for water for agriculture and personal use will increase dramatically, but there could be a solution that will produce clean drinking water and help reduce carbon emissions as well. That process is nuclear desalination.¶ Many areas of the world are suffering from a water crisis – and it's not just arid, developing countries that are suffering. The Western US is particularly vulnerable and its water crisis is getting more severe by the day.¶ Las Vegas could be one of the first US cities to be hit by a serious water shortage, some are even questioning whether it can survive at all. The city gets 90pc of its water from Lake Mead, the body of water created by the Hoover Dam.¶ The water in Lake Mead, and the Colorado River which feeds it, has been falling for some time. It is slowly running dry due to overuse. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography believes there is a 50pc chance that the lake will be completely dry by 2021 if climate change continues as expected and future water usage is not curtailed.¶ Water is so important that, as a population grows and demand increases, there is a strong chance of conflict in the future.¶ According to the World Water Council, 260 river basins are shared by two or more countries.¶ "In the absence of strong institutions and agreements, changes within a basin can lead to transboundary tensions," the Council said. "When major projects proceed without regional collaboration, they can become a point of conflicts, heightening regional instability."¶ The World Water Council cites the Parana La Plata in South America, the Aral Sea, the Jordan and the Danube as examples.¶ It's not just tensions between countries that are a potential problem. Civil unrest caused by scarcity has already started.¶ In India on December 3, one man was killed and dozens injured during a protest over water rationing in Mumbai following the country's poor Monsoon. The prospect of further water riots is very real.¶ However, nuclear energy could help provide the solution for this thorny issue.¶ Oil-rich Middle Eastern nations are rushing to build new nuclear plants.¶

Anwar Gargash, a foreign affairs minister in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), said last month that nuclear power was "best able" to meet future power demand in his country. Demand for electricity is expected to double by 2020.¶ This followed comments from Saudi Arabia, which said it planned to generate up to a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power within the next 15 years.¶ Everyone thinks the trend for oil-rich nations to move towards nuclear power generation is about limiting domestic consumption so they can boost oil exports. However, that's just part of the story.¶ Saudi Arabia, for example, has very little water – and global warming is likely to make this situation much worse. This is a major problem because Saudi Arabia is about to see its population explode.¶ The overwhelming majority of the Saudi people are young. Almost 40pc of its population is under the age of 14, with just 2.5pc being in the over 65 bracket. This means its population is growing at about 2pc per year – and as the young start to have families of their own, the rate of population growth will increase.¶ In fact, many of the nations that are predicted to have the strongest growth in population over the next years are the areas where the water crisis is most acute.¶ For example, the UAE has the largest growth rate of any nation in the world – at 3.69pc, according to data compiled by the US government.¶ Nuclear reactors can be used to generate electricity – but they can also be used to desalinate water.¶ Nuclear desalination is not a new idea – it's a proven technology, thanks to Kazakhstan.¶ A single nuclear reactor at Aktau on the shore of the Caspian Sea successfully produced up to 135 megawatts of electricity and 80,000 cubic metres of potable water a day between 1972 and 1999, when it was closed at the end of the reactor's life.¶ Water has also been desalinated using nuclear reactors in India and Japan.¶ The problem with desalination is that it is very energy intensive. Most desalination today uses fossil fuels, contributing to carbon emissions.¶ However, because nuclear power

generation does not emit carbon, it is a clean and efficient way of producing the most important commodity around. For countries experiencing rapid population growth, it could be a lifesaver.

Second, developing an enhanced desalination policy is key to US water leadership worldwide. Marcus DuBois King, 10/15/2013, Professor @ Elliot School of International Affairs, GWU, “Water, U.S. Foreign Policy and American Leadership,” http://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/faculty/king-water-policy-leadership.pdfWater has been a vital component of U.S. international development strategy for decades. However, the USG is not currently postured to deliver water-related assistance as efficiently as possible or to expand considerations of water into other dimensions of foreign policy. Efforts to address this problem are underway, but more could be done.¶ For example, the 2010 Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review (QDDR) called for the inclusion of water development projects as a critical element of a larger climate adaptation strategy. It provided a roadmap for how the Department of State and USAID could work to integrate their general development efforts.¶ USAID has made outstanding progress in elevating global water issues. In May 2013, the agency released its first ever Water and Development Strategy, a five year plan to enhance global health and food security through a focus on water resources. The strategy prioritizes local capacity building, strengthening partnerships, leveraging new technologies and supporting innovative financing – precisely the types of pioneering approaches called for by the participants in our workshops.¶ What remains to be seen is how effectively the agency will implement the proposed cutting- edge approaches to achieving its water and development priorities. Increased use of monitoring and evaluation techniques to assess project impact and sustainability will be a good start. Appropriate measures of project success provide essential guidance for other USG agencies to prioritize, plan for and implement water security initiatives. USAID’s focus on water is a leading indicator that the time is ripe for other organizations to prioritize global water- related needs.¶ While the QDDR and USAID water strategy recognize the importance of water as part of a suite of development issues, they do not call for the type of “vertical” and “horizontal” integration of water into all three dimensions of foreign policy, development, diplomacy and defense that workshop participants discussed and that this report advocates for.16

And, the US is key to export models of water innovation worldwide. Marcus DuBois King, 10/15/2013, Professor @ Elliot School of International Affairs, GWU, “Water, U.S. Foreign Policy and American Leadership,” http://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/faculty/king-water-policy-leadership.pdf

The United States is in a unique position to address the urgent challenge of global water security. The animating principle of our workshops was to bring together constituencies – often for the first time – to discuss how to avoid the stark prospects of near-term instability driven by water scarcity and low water quality. Factors such as climate change and rapid population growth increase the urgency of the issue. What became clear in the discussions is that all participating organizations have specific capabilities that they can bring to the table, and that politics favors action. ¶ While the specific findings and recommendations varied according to the organizations at the table in each session, two strong common themes emerged.

The first was the importance of developing new approaches or vectors for change, such as market-driven mechanisms and PPPs that are as inclusive as possible and especially relevant at a time when USG financial resources are constrained. The second is the importance of engaging the technical capacities resident in a raft of USG agencies and some private sector organizations to provide data to water project implementers and host governments. Both sessions identified specific potential contributions from groups that have been less recognized in the broader water community, including faith- based organizations, philanthropic institutions and military organizations such as the U.S. National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve.¶ Most of all, these sessions highlighted the upside of water challenges. The findings and recommendations illuminate paths toward comprehensive national leadership in global water security that bring to bear all of the nation’s capabilities. This encompasses an array of diverse actors across the political spectrum, from each individual to the largest multinational corporations and multilateral agencies, all of whom are capable of facilitating rapid and positive change. All of the organizations represented at the workshop have the opportunity to actualize the upside of water and pursue the common good, while strengthening America’s unique global brand as an international leader and innovator. Above all, politics stops at water. Systematically addressing global water challenges is an important and politically feasible foundation for a renewed American foreign policy that foregrounds the needs of future generations and human dignity. The United States is the world’s leader in providing water security and will be expected to continue and increase that role. This can be best achieved by a “whole of U.S.” approach that incorporates new stakeholders into all three dimensions of foreign policy: development, diplomacy and defense.

That solves multiple scenarios for conflict – most likely starting point for war. Geoffrey Lean 09, environment editor at The Independent, “Water scarcity 'now bigger threat than financial crisis',” 3-15-09, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/water-scarcity-now-bigger-threat-than-financial-crisis-1645358.html.Humanity is facing "water bankruptcy" as a result of a crisis even greater than the financial meltdown now destabilising the global economy, two authoritative new reports show. They add that it is already beginning to take effect, and there will be no way of bailing the earth out of water scarcity.¶ The two reports – one by the world's foremost international economic forum and the other by 24 United Nations agencies – presage the opening tomorrow of the most important conference on the looming crisis for three years. The World Water Forum, which will be attended by 20,000 people in Istanbul, will hear stark warnings of how half the world's population will be affected by water shortages in just 20 years' time, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources.¶ A report by the World Economic Forum, which runs the annual Davos meetings of the international business and financial elite, says that lack of water, will "soon tear into various parts of the global economic system" and "start to emerge as a headline geopolitical issue".¶ It adds: "The financial crisis gives us a stark warning of what can happen if known economic risks are left to fester. We are living in a water 'bubble' as unsustainable and fragile as that which precipitated the collapse in world financial markets. We are now on the verge of bankruptcy in many places with no way of paying the debt back."¶ The Earth – a blue-green oasis in the limitless black desert of space – has a finite stock of water. There is precisely the same amount of it on the planet as there was in the age of the dinosaurs, and the world's population of more than 6.7 billion people has to share the same quantity as the 300 million global inhabitants of Roman times.¶ Water use has been growing far faster than the number of people. During the 20th century the world population increased fourfold, but the amount of freshwater that it used increased nine times over. Already 2.8 billion people live in areas of high water stress, the report calculates, and this will rise to 3.9 billion – more than half the expected population of the world – by 2030. By that

time, water scarcity could cut world harvests by 30 per cent – equivalent to all the grain grown in the US and India – even as human numbers and appetites increase.¶ Some 60 per cent of China's 669 cities are already short of water. The huge Yellow River is now left with only 10 per cent of its natural flow, sometimes failing to reach the sea altogether. And the glaciers of the Himalayas, which act as gigantic water banks supplying two billion people in Asia, are melting ever faster as global warming accelerates. Meanwhile devastating droughts are crippling Australia and Texas.¶ The World Water Development Report, compiled by 24 UN agencies under the auspices of Unesco, adds that shortages are already beginning to constrain economic growth in areas as diverse and California, China, Australia, India and Indonesia. The report, which will be published tomorrow, also expects water conflicts to break out in the Middle East, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Colombia and other countries.¶ "Conflicts about water can occur at all scales," it warns. "Hydrological shocks" brought about by climate change are likely to "increase the risk of major national and international security threats".

1AC – Nuclear Leadership

US nuclear leadership is diminishing quickly – expanding fossil fuels, market forces and international perception are key. Wallace et. al., 2013, Michael Wallace holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Marquette University and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which advises the president on matters related to homeland security, John Kotek, Sarah Williams, Paul Nadeau, Thomas Hundertmark, George David Banks, “Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy,” CSIS, http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf

America’s nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles, failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S. reactors become uneconomic, while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two generations after the United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from laboratory experiment to successful commercialization, our nation is in danger of losing an industry of unique strategic importance and unique promise for addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the future.¶ The decline of the U.S. nuclear energy industry could be much more rapid than policymakers and stakeholders anticipate. With 102 operating reactors and the world’s largest base of installed nuclear capacity, it has been widely assumed that the United States—even without building many new plants—would continue to have a large presence in this industry for decades to come. Instead, current market conditions are such that growing numbers of units face unprecedented financial pressures and could be retired early. Early retirements, coupled with scheduled license expirations and dim prospects for new construction, point to diminishing domestic opportunities for U.S. nuclear energy firms.¶ The outlook is much different in China, India, Russia, and other countries, where governments are looking to significantly expand their nuclear energy commitments. Dozens of new entrants plan¶ ix¶ on adding nuclear technology to their generating mix, furthering the spread of nuclear materials and know-how around the globe. It is in our nation’s best interest that U.S. companies meet a significant share of this demand for nuclear technology—not simply because of trade and employment benefits, but because exports of U.S.-origin technology and materials are accompanied by conditions that protect our nonproliferation interests. Yet U.S. firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage in global markets due to restrictive and otherwise unsupportive export policies. U.S. efforts to facilitate peaceful uses of nuclear technology helped build a global nuclear energy infrastructure—but that infrastructure could soon be dominated by countries with less proven nonproliferation records. Without a strong commercial presence in new nuclear markets, America’s ability to influence nonproliferation policies and nuclear safety behaviors worldwide is bound to diminish.¶ In this context, federal action to reverse the U.S. nuclear industry’s impending decline is a national security imperative. The United States cannot afford to become irrelevant in a new nuclear age. This brief outlines why.

SMRs they’re key to the nuclear industry and US leadership post-Fukishima, but federal investment is a critical first stepKent Harrington, 1/5/2012, Producer at American Institute for Chemical Engineers, citing study from University of Chicago, “Study Finds Small Modular Reactors Could Revive US Nuclear Industry,” American Institute for Chemical Engineers, http://chenected.aiche.org/energy/study-finds-small-modular-reactors-could-revive-us-nuclear-industry/

The sudden Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has had an enormous impact on the global nuclear industry. Japan’s continuing human, environmental, and economic disaster appeared to cause the touted 2011 US nuclear renaissance, backed by loan guarantees from the Obama Administration, to grind to a halt. And then watching Germany, followed by Switzerland, vow to switch to renewables, the future for US nuclear energy looked pretty dark—turn the lights off on the way out, so to speak.¶ A contrarian nuclear future¶ Now, a newly released study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago finds that small modular reactors (SMR) may hold the key to an actual renaissance of U.S. nuclear power (read whole study):¶

“Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the United States,” concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.¶ Through his work as the former director of Argonne National Laboratory, Rosner became involved in nuclear and renewable energy technology development.¶ “It would be a huge stimulus for high-value job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste.”¶ This represents a huge shift from last century’s large-reactor build-out, which eventually petered out and stagnated. Before construction stopped, new reactors had grown larger and larger as utilities tried to reduce costs through economies of scale. But now the trend may be toward what SMR proponents call economies of “small scale.” Creating value through standardized, mass produced, small modular reactors. Energy Secretary Steven Chu agrees:¶ Voting with their balance sheets¶ This trend had already begun before the Fukushima disaster. A couple of salient examples from 2010: rising reactor costs had already created friction between partners CPS Energy and NRG Energy Inc., who had sued each other when CPS, a city-owned utility in San Antonio balked about investing in a new nuclear plant that would raise customer’s rates. Then, as if the industry’s “nuclear renaissance” wasn’t already gasping for air, it swooned into a coma after the collapse of Constellation Energy’s plan to build a third reactor on Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay with French utility EDF.¶ mPower SMR¶ But while those large reactor projects were falling apart, the small modular reactor trend was beginning to take shape. The Texas-sized Fluor Corporation, which had built large reactors in the 70s and 80s, spent $3.5 million for the majority stake in small module reactor builder NuScale. Then Bechtel, another engineering giant, formed an alliance with Babcock & Wilcox, buying into its innovative modular nuclear technology called mPower. Both investments were big votes of confidence.¶

Comparing large and small reactors¶ The SMR report, funded by the DOE and authored by Rosner and Stephen Goldberg, was rolled out on Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.¶ CSIS president and CEO John Hamre started off the press conference by reconfirming that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale reactors in the United States. You can watch the long version of the press conference video below:¶ The chief competitor¶ The report assessed the economic feasibility of classical, gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly. ¶ According to the study, few companies can afford the long wait to see a return on a $10 billion investment on a large-scale nuclear plant. This is a real problem, but the epoch of the small modular reactor offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies with a much shorter timeline. ¶

The report also finds that natural gas will be the chief competitor of nuclear power generated by small modular reactors, but predicting the future of the energy market a decade from now is a risky proposition, (implying that prices could easily go higher) Rosner said. “We’re talking about natural-gas prices not today but 10, 15 years from now when these kinds of reactors could actually hit the market.”¶ Markets that can’t use gigawatt-scale plants¶ The economic viability of small modular reactors will depend partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build them. “The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point

where you actually start making money faster,” Rosner noted. Of course, this assumes that SMRs are all factory built and delivered to the reactor site by rail or truck. Then on-site construction would never be able to compete.¶ Graphic: Hauling NuScale 45 MWe Small Modular Reactor¶

Small modular reactors would appeal to any market that couldn’t accommodate gigawatt-scale plants (particularly developing countries with smaller or older grids), or those in the US currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased out during the next decade, Rosner said. An unknown factor that will affect the future of these plants would be the terms of any new clean-air regulations that might be enacted in the next year.¶

An important safety aspect of small modular reactors is that they are designed to eliminate the need for human intervention during an emergency. In some of the designs, Rosner explained, “the entire heat load at full power can be carried passively by thermal convection. There’s no need for pumps.” ¶ Getting the first modular reactors built will probably require the federal government to step in as the first customer. That is a policy issue, though, that awaits further consideration. “It’s a case that has to be argued out and thought carefully about,” Rosner said. “There’s a long distance between what we’re doing right now and actually implementing national policy.”

<<need another impact>>

Specifically, An SMR lead revival of the industry restores US nuclear leadership which controls proliferation risksLoudermilk, Senior Energy Associate @ NDU, ’11Micah J. Loudermilk, Senior Associate for the Energy %26 Environmental Security Policy program with The Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, "Small Nuclear Reactors and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs," Journal of Energy Security, May 2011, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content%26view=article%26id=314:small-nuclear-reactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs%26catid=116:content0411%26Itemid=375-

Combating proliferation with US leadership¶ Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and know-how disseminates around the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality, regardless of the US commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under construction around the world—though Fukushima may cause a temporary lull.¶ Since Three Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more committed to nuclear power. On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US leadership, new nations seek to acquire nuclear technology turn to countries other than the US who may not share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This will enable the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel reprocessing, and developing reactor technologies.¶ As to the small reactors themselves, the designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance unmatched by large reactors. Small enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the concrete surrounding the reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional domes that protect conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of superior physical

protection is the traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are factory-sealed with a supply of fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are returned to the factory, intact, for removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel cycle, proliferation risks associated with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and concerns over the widespread distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.

SMR’s are key to negotiation pressure for nonproliferation - they are more desirable than other nuclear systemsSanders, Associate Director Savannah National Lab, ’12 Tom Sanders, Associate Laboratory Director for Clean Energy Initiatives at the Savannah River National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Former President of the American Nuclear Society, "Tom Sanders: Great expectations for small modular reactors," Nuclear News, July 2012, pg. 48-49

That’s a good question. One of the things that concerned me most in the nonprolifer- ation area was the fact that the United States had lost a lot of its ability to export nuclear goods and services under U.S. export li- censes. That’s important to nonproliferation, because it’s through negotiations with other countries’ export controls of nuclear tech- nology that a lot of our goals regarding pro- liferation risk management are met. By that I mean that if you’re not exporting anything, you’re not negotiating anything, and you’re not really establishing a standard for safety, ecurity, and proliferation risk management around the world. Then we evaluated how to regain some of that capability, and small modular reactors became obvious for two reasons. One is that you could probably speed up the construction and licensing pro- cess by factory manufacturing and turn them out much more quickly than large reactors. And the other is that for emerging nations, most developing countries could not absorb large nuclear systems, and smaller systems would be more acceptable to them and more affordable. They may cost a little more per megawatt, but the capital costs—the upfront costs—would be significantly less. In addi- tion, the economy of scale you possibly get with a large plant doesn’t make any sense if you can’t afford it.

And – Nuclear prolif guarantees global catastrophe Glennon 13 – Michel J Glennon is the author of numerous articles on constitutional and international law as well as several books and the professor of international Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, in Medford, Massachusetts. “Pre-empting Proliferation: International Law, Morality, and Nuclear Weapons,” The European Journal of International Law, 2013.

In truth, because the track record, happily, is bare, no one knows whether conventional war between nuclear powers would risk nuclear escalation.5 Nonetheless, I share the belief of Scott Sagan,6 Bruce Blair,7 and others that

the danger of nuclear escalation in such circumstances is not negligible. The claim that peace among the nuclear powers ‘has been the product of’8 their nuclear arsenals assumes without evidence that other factors have not contributed to these decades of peace. Deterrence no doubt has played a role, but surely the story is a bit more complex. Whatever stability the possession of nuclear weapons might provide at the margins is, in any event, likely to be offset by the risks entailed by proliferation. The more states that acquire nuclear weapons the more states will want them; the more states that want them the more available will be the technology and fissile materials needed to make them, and the greater will be the chance that those weapons will be used, rationally or irrationally. Use by one state against another would break the taboo against further use and risk a world of ‘nuclear armed anarchy’.9 Use by terrorists could generate a witch hunt to ferret out and punish the perpetrators that would crack the legal and political foundations of liberal democracy. Any use would almost surely cause massive, horrific suffering. Nuclear proliferation therefore poses a threat to both the United States and the international community.

1AC – Solvency

SMRs – Leadership Solvency - Federal investment is key to promote US clean energy leadership and cresate a viable alternative to coal-based production. Merv Fertel, 4/08/2014, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, vice president of technical programs at the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, “Why DOE Should Back SMR Development,” http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-doe-should-back-smr-development.html

Nuclear energy is an essential source of base-load electricity and 64 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas-free electricity production. Without it, the United States cannot meet either its energy requirements or the goals established in the President’s Climate Action Plan.¶

In the decades to come, we predict that the country’s nuclear fleet will evolve to include not only large, advanced light water reactors like those operating today and under construction in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, but also a complementary set of smaller, modular reactors. ¶ Those reactors are under development today by companies like Babcock &Wilcox (B&W), NuScale and others that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop next-generation reactor concepts. Those companies have innovative designs and are prepared to absorb the lion’s share of design and development costs, but the federal government should also play a significant role given the enormous promise of small modular reactor technology for commercial and other purposes. Most important, partnerships between government and the private sector will enable the full promise of this technology to be available in time to ensure U.S. leadership in energy, the environment, and the global nuclear market.¶ The Department of Energy’s Small Modular Reactor (SMR) program is built on the successful Nuclear Power 2010 program that supported design certification of the Westinghouse AP-1000 and General Electric ESBWR designs. Today, Southern Co. and South Carolina Electric & Gas are building four AP-1000s for which they submitted license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1998. Ten years earlier, in the early years of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, it was clear that there would be a market for the AP-1000 and ESBWR in the United States and overseas, but it would have been impossible to predict which companies would build the first ones, or where they would be built, and it was even more difficult to predict the robust international market for that technology. ¶ The SMR program is off to a promising start. To date, B&W’s Generation mPower joint venture has invested $400 million in developing its mPower design; NuScale approximately $200 million in its design. Those companies have made those investments knowing they will not see revenue for approximately 10 years. That is laudable for a private company, but, in order to prepare SMRs for early deployment in the United States and to ensure U.S. leadership worldwide , investment by the federal government as a cost-sharing partner is both necessary and prudent. ¶ Some have expressed concern about the potential market and customers for SMR technology given Babcock & Wilcox’s recent announcement that it will reduce its level of investment in the mPower technology, and thus the pace of development. This decision reflects B&W’s revised market assessment, particularly the slower-than-expected growth in electricity demand in the United States following the recession. But that demand will eventually occur, and the American people are best-served – in terms of cost and reliability of service – when the electric power industry maintains a diverse portfolio of electricity generating technologies. ¶ The industry will need new, low-carbon electricity options like SMRs because America’s electric

generating technology options are becoming more challenging. For example:¶ While coal-fired generation is a significant part of our base-load generation, coal-fired generation faces increasing environmental restrictions, including the likelihood of controls on carbon and uncertainty over the commercial feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration. The U.S. has about 300,000 MW of coal-fired capacity, and the consensus is that about one-fifth of that will shut down by 2020 because of environmental requirements. In addition, development of coal-fired projects has stalled: Less than 1,000 megawatts of new coal-fired capacity is under construction.¶ Natural gas-fired generation is a growing and important component of our generation portfolio and will continue to do so given our abundant natural gas resources. However, prudence requires that we do not become overly dependent on any given energy source particularly in order to maintain long-term stable pricing as natural gas demand grows in the industrial sector and for LNG exports.¶ Renewables will play an increasingly large role but, as intermittent sources, cannot displace the need for large-scale, 24/7 power options.¶ Given this challenging environment, the electric industry needs as many electric generating options as possible, particularly zero-carbon options. Even at less-than-one-percent annual growth in electricity demand, the Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for 28 percent more power by 2040. That’s the equivalent of 300 one-thousand-megawatt power plants.¶ America’s 100 nuclear plants will begin to reach 60 years of operation toward the end of the next decade. In the five years between 2029 and 2034, over 29,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity will reach 60 years. Unless those licenses are extended for a second 20-year period, that capacity must be replaced. If the United States hopes to contain carbon emissions from the electric sector, it must be replaced with new nuclear capacity. ¶ The runway to replace that capacity is approximately 10 years long, so decisions to replace that capacity with either large, advanced light-water reactors or SMRs must be taken starting in 2019 and 2020 – approximately the time that the first SMR designs should be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.¶

The electricity markets are in a period of profound change. New energy sources are becoming available, new fossil, renewable, demand-side and nuclear technologies are preparing to enter the market. The very structure of the markets themselves is changing. Nuclear energy, because it runs 24/7 without producing greenhouse gas, will play an important part in that market. SMR technology, in particular, needs to be developed sooner rather than later. That way, in about 10 years, we can answer the questions about which companies will build those plants and where.

SMRs – PPP Solvency – Private Sector will say yes – it’s only a question of government commitment. Sanders, Associate Director Savannah National Lab, ’12 Tom Sanders, Associate Laboratory Director for Clean Energy Initiatives at the Savannah River National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Former President of the American Nuclear Society, "Tom Sanders: Great expectations for small modular reactors," Nuclear News, July 2012, pg. 48-49

Regarding US nuclear manufacturing capability, have companies stepped up to say they want to be part of SMR parts and components development?¶ Absolutely. We’ve seen a real interest by a number of companies that want to be part of these projects. We recently participated in a very large SMR conference in Colum- bia, S.C., and we had a topical meeting at the last ANS conference that drew quite a crowd, including a lot of the parts and components industry that currently exists in the United States and now performs quality nuclear work for the Navy. Most of those components are still manufactured in this country. So yes, there is a lot of inter- est. We are regaining our N Stamp–quali- fied capabilities because the MOX plant re- quires all of those standards to be met. The MOX plant is going to be licensed by the NRC,

and as part of that, a lot of supplier capability has been developed in the Unit- ed States that will also be applied to these small reactors.\

Government investment in OSMRs are key to private sector involvementJohn Licata 4-27-14, Founder & Chief Energy Strategist of Blue Phoenix Inc, author of “Lessons from Frankenstorm: Investing for Future Power Disruptions”, over fifteen years of commodity research experience, “Can Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Find Their Sea Legs?,” The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/27/can-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-find-their-sea.aspx.Nuclear power plants do bring jobs to rural areas, and in some cases they actually boost local housing prices since these plants create jobs. However, whether or not you believe nuclear power does or does not emit harmful radiation, many people would likely opt to not live right next door to a nuclear power plant facility if they had the choice. Today, they may not even need to consider such a move thanks to a floating plant concept coming out of MIT, which largely builds on the success of the U.S. Army of Corp Engineers' MH-1A floating nuclear reactor, installed on the Sturgis, a vessel that provided power to military and civilians around the Panama Canal. The Sturgis was decommissioned, but only because there was ample power generation on land. So the viability of a floating nuclear plant does make a lot of sense. ¶ Presently the only floating nuclear plant is being constructed in Russia (expected to be in service in two years). However, that plant is slated to be moored on a barge in a harbor. That differs from MIT's idea to put a 200 MWe reactor on a floating platform roughly six miles out to sea. ¶ The problem with the floating reactor idea or land-based SMR version is most investors are hard-pressed to fork over money needed for a nuclear build-out that could cost billions of dollars and take over a decade to complete. That very problem is today plaguing the land-based mPower SMR program of The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (NYSE: BWC ) . Also, although the reactors would have a constant cooling source in the ocean water, I'd like to see studies that show that sea life is not disrupted. Then there is always the issue with security and power lines to the mainland which needs to be addressed.¶ At a time when reducing global warming is becoming a hotly debated topic by the IPCC, these SMRs (land or sea based) can help reduce our carbon footprint if legislation would allow them to proceed. Instead, the government is taking perfectly good cathedral-sized nuclear power plants offline, something they will likely come to regret in coming years from an economic and environmental perspective. Just ask the Germans. ¶ SMRs can produce dependable baseload power that is more affordable for isolated communities, and they can be used in remote areas by energy and metals production companies while traditional reactors cannot. So the notion of plopping SMRs several miles offshore so they can withstand tsunami swells is really interesting. If the concept can actually gain momentum that would help Babcock, Westinghouse, and NuScale Power. I would also speculate that technology currently being used in the oil and gas drilling sector, possibly even from the robotics industry, could be integrated into offshore light water nuclear designs for mooring, maintenance, and routine operational purposes. ¶ In today's modern world, we have a much greater dependence on consumer electronics, we are swapping our dependence of foreign oil with a growing reliance for domestic natural gas, and we face increasing pressures to combat climate change here at home as well as meet our own 2020 carbon goals. With that said, we need to think longer term and create domestic clean energy industries that can foster new jobs, help keep the power on even when blackouts occur and produce much less carbon at both the private and public sector levels. Therefore to me, advancing the SMR industry on land or by sea is a nice way to fight our archaic energy paradigm and move our energy supply into a modern era. Yet without the government's complete commitment to support nuclear power via

legislation and a much needed expedited certification process, the idea of a floating SMR plant will be another example of wasted energy innovation that could simply get buried at sea.

The plan uses established technology and does not harm the environmentMichael Abrams 14, Independent Writer with Masters in Engineering and Applied Sciences at Yale, Analyst at Fortress Investment Group, July 2014, “Offshoring Nuclear Plants,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nuclear/offshoring-nuclear-plants.The plan also eliminates worry about the reactor destroying habitat by warming waters. The reactor would draw water from the bottom, and after cooling, would be discharged at the same ambient temperatures as water at the surface. According to Buongiorno, marine life would be no more disturbed by the rig than they would be by a cruise ship.¶ For spent fuel, the gap can also be flooded with fresh water from the condensate storage tank during refueling operations. Refueling would be performed every four to five years, and spent fuel assemblies transferred to the onboard spent fuel pool, which has storage capacity up to the plant's lifetime, with a passive decay heat removal system that uses the ocean as its ultimate heat sink.¶ It's humans who would most likely to be disturbed by the idea of a floating reactor. But Buongiorno is quick to point out that the elements of his plant are not that novel. "One of the selling points is that it is a combination of established technologies," he says, "We don't need a new reactor, we don't need any new material, we don't need anything that is high risk for development.”

SMR – 2AC

2AC – Navy

Nuclear ships good for the Navy – key to readiness and mobility. Jack Spencer and Baker Spring 11/5/2007, Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-advantages-of-expanding-the-nuclear-navy

Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House version of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 calls for all future major combatant vessels to be powered by an integrated nuclear power and propulsion system; the Senate version does not. While Congress must be careful in dictating how America's armed forces are resourced, it also has a constitutional mandate "to provide and maintain a Navy." Although nuclear-powered ships have higher upfront costs, their many advantages make a larger nuclear navy critical for protecting national security interests in the 21st century. ¶ Nuclear Propulsion's Unique Benefits¶ As the defense authorization bill is debated, Members of the House and Senate should consider the following features of nuclear propulsion:¶ Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear surface ship brings optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of surge ability, moving from one theater to another, and staying on station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony, "Without the encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of interest quicker, ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their fossil-fueled counterparts." ¶ High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbine-powered carriers). This means that ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which will be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also necessary for new, power-intensive weapons systems like rail-guns and directed-energy weapons as well as for the powerful radar that the Navy envisions. ¶ Real-Time Response . Only a nuclear ship can change its mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11, 2001, the USS Enterprise--then on its way home from deployment--responded to news of the terrorist attacks by rerouting and entering the Afghan theater.¶ Energy Independence. The armed forces have acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent congressional testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent.¶

Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable as other nations become more technologically and tactically sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust stack, decreasing its visibility to enemy detection; it requires no fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver over long distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing it to power massive

radars and new hi-tech weaponry.¶ Force Enhancement. Though effective, modern aircraft carriers still depend on less capable fossil-fueled counterparts in the battle group. Increasing the number of nuclear surface ships would increase the capability of U.S. naval forces to operate both independently and as part of a battle-group. ¶ Superiority on the Seas. Policymakers have taken for granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many years. This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force structure and opened the door for foreign navies to potentially control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the nuclear navy will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority well into the 21st century.¶ Environmentally Clean Source of Energy. Congress is considering placing CO2 restrictions on all federal government activities, including the Pentagon's. This mandate would be highly detrimental to the armed forces. More people are starting to realize the often-overlooked environmental benefits of a nuclear navy. Expanding nuclear power would help to achieve many of the objectives of a CO2 mandate in addition to increasing America's military capability. Unlike a conventionally powered ship, which emits carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, a nuclear ship is largely emissions-free.¶ America's Nuclear Shipbuilding Industrial Base¶ Some have erroneously argued that America's industrial base is inadequate to support a nuclear cruiser. Additional nuclear shipbuilding can not only be absorbed by the current industrial base but also will allow it to work more efficiently. That said, Congress could consider the option of expanding the infrastructure at a later date by licensing additional nuclear production facilities and shipyards should further expansion be necessary.¶ America's shipyards are not operating at full capacity. Depending on the vendor, product, and service, the industrial base is currently operating at an average capacity of approximately 65 percent. Additionally, Navy leaders have testified that without further investments, their training infrastructure is adequate to handle the influx of additional personnel necessary to support an expansion of nuclear power.¶ Construction of additional ships would not be limited to the nuclear shipbuilding yards. Modules could be produced throughout the country and assembled at nuclear-certified yards. Another alternative might be to build the ship in a non-nuclear yard and then transport it to a nuclear yard where the reactor can be installed. The work would be spread throughout the aircraft carrier and submarine industrial bases. Today, the aircraft carrier industrial base consists of more than 2,000 companies in 47 states. Likewise, the submarine industrial base consists of more than 4,000 companies in 47 states.

This military power is key to hegemonyConway, Roughead, and Allen, 07- *General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of the Marine Corps, **Admiral of U.S. Navy and Chief of Naval Operations, ***Admiral of U.S. Coast Guard and Commandant of the Coast Guard (*James Conway, **Gary Roughead, ***Thad Allen, "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower", Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf)This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The expeditionary character and versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas where access is denied or limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended economic,

social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the presence of maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility and scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined force commanders a range of options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more

informal arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to would-be aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and prosperity. United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to

accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be characterized by regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict, deter major power war , and should deterrence fail, win our Nation’s wars as part of a joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere.

These forces will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of

conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nation’s primary

forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while work ing to sustain the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships, aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities—capable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly

forces and civilian populations from attack.Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes

a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.

US primacy prevents global conflict – diminishing power creates a vacuum that causes transition wars in multiple placesBrooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.G. John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 7-51,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107 ] A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far

more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action . Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU

defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in

which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the U nited S tates ha s a substantial military presence ?

Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—

might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas . And

concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced . Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that J apan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could

stoke a destabilizing reaction from China . It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on itsparticular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks

on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly

distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences , however,undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for

security but also for prestige, status , and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various

objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences

to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at

least some of the world’s key regions . We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.

Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity , a rms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation , and the like , or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive

behavior, possibly including regional great power war ).

2AC – Competitiveness

SMRs are key to competitiveness – revitalizes shipyards. Benjamin S. Haas March 2014, SUNY Maritime, “Strategies for the Success of Nuclear Powered Commercial Shipping,” Presentation to the Connecticut Maritime Association, http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/CMA-Nuclear-Paper_Benjamin-Haas-3.pdf

Nuclear powered vessels have inherently lower operating costs compared to conventional vessels. The United States cannot build a conventionally powered ship that is cheaper than one built in a foreign shipyard because there is no operating cost advantage for the U.S.-built ship. There is, however , a significant operating cost advantage to nuclear power, which may be enough to make American shipyards competitive. There are several areas where the U.S. could gain the upper hand in the development of nuclear powered commercial vessels, which no other countries at present seem to be pursuing at all. They are:¶ Construction of marine reactors, ¶ Refueling and maintenance of nuclear powered ships, Manning and training of nuclear merchant ship crews, and Construction of nuclear powered commercial ships.¶ The first two areas will always require detail and expertise and are activities that cannot be offshored for cheaper labor. The United States’ current experience with the refueling of nuclear reactors in shipyards will allow U.S. shipyards to gain the productivity they need to reduce their costs and achieve competitiveness in that area. The latter potential, that of building nuclear powered commercial ships in U.S. shipyards, requires further elaboration.¶ The reason for America’s uncompetitive, surprisingly overpriced shipbuilding costs compared to foreign shipyards is not just higher labor and materials costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). It is a combination of lack of productivity and inefficiencies in the corporate and labor structures (Hansen M., 2012). In some cases, the maintaining of high overheads to acquire complex naval contracts may also negatively affect certain shipyards abilities to perform commercial work.¶ 11¶ Nuclear powered ships could potentially be built in U.S. shipyards and carry the U.S. flag because their operating costs are inherently lower compared to fossil fueled vessels. Along with this, there is an environmental advantage associated with nuclear power in the arctic for which a premium could be paid. By making the most of these cost advantages, a series of nuclear powered ships could be designed and built in order to give American shipyards enough orders to increase their productivity and reduce their costs, allowing subsequent nuclear powered vessels, ranging from bulk carriers to container ships, to be even more competitive against their foreign counterparts.

U.S. economic supremacy prevents several scenarios for nuclear warFriedberg and Schoenfeld, 2008 [Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html]Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly

down the road to chaos. Russia 's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The

stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for

Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 19 30s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt , the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys , just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the

Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign

markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countrie s seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.

2AC AT: Politics

2AC AT: T—Development

2AC AT: CPs

2AC AT: Terrorism DA

Turn-SMRs reduce terrorist attacksTodd Woody, April 17, 2014, Todd Woody is an environmental and technology journalist based in California. He has written for The New York Times and Quartz, and was previously an editor and writer at Fortune, Forbes, and Business 2.0, “Could a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Prevent Another Fukushima?,” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-floating-nuclear-power-plant-for-japan/360747/A group of MIT scientists want to revive the nuclear industry in the post-Fukushima era by moving it offshore. Literally. In a paper to be presented at a conference this week, the MIT researchers argue that the way to make nuclear power plants impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis is to build them in shipyards and then tow the structures five to nine miles out to sea to the deep ocean. These Offshore Small Modular Reactors (OSMR) would just generate 300 megawatts of electricity or less but would eliminate “the possibility of land contamination and public exposure from severe accidents, and reducing the risk from terrorist threats,” wrote the paper’s lead author Jacopo Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. The Great Energy Shift Part Two An Atlantic Special Report Read More (The impact of an uncontained core meltdown on dolphins, whales and other marine life is another matter.) When the seaborne nuke plants reach the end of their lives they can be simply towed ashore and decommissioned, note the authors, who include a University of Wisconsin, Madison, researcher and representatives from Chicago Bridge & Iron, which despite it’s 19th century-sounding name is a nuclear power plant and offshore platform builder. Defending these “nuclear islands” from possible terrorist assault – by attack ships and submarines – though would require some James Bond-like like machinations: In addressing these scenarios, the guiding principles are as follows: first, use of automatic remote early detection systems and wide-area surveillance technologies to see and identify threats from a distance; second, increase the time for response to threats by introduction of delays to access to vital areas through the use of physical barriers and designing plant layout to minimize intrusion pathways (e.g., the deck is designed so that access to board from a small boat is extremely difficult); third, minimize security threats by reducing structures and systems needing essential protection, i.e., simplify safety systems and operational systems to concentrate points that must be defended; and fourth, improve threat response capabilities by providing physical deterrents (including use of automatic weaponry to the extent possible). Floating nuclear power plants are not a new idea – one is under construction in Russia, for instance. But none have been built outside tsunami zones or have deployed two technologies that make the OSMR possible – small nuclear reactors and offshore platforms like those developed for deep-ocean oil drilling. What could go wrong? The OSMR would look more or less like a nuclear power plant plopped on top of an oil-drilling platform, except the reactor would be submerged. Southeast Asia is an ideal region for nukes-on-the-sea, note the authors, not just due to its propensity for earthquakes and tsunamis but because it has limited energy resources and populations concentrated on coasts and thus relatively close to transmission lines that would be run from offshore. Floating nuclear power plants, conclude the authors, “would broaden the number of suitable sites for nuclear plants, thus potentially opening vast new markets in East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America, Africa, small island countries, large mining operations, and [military] bases.”

The idea of SMRs is being developed-DA links are non u/q-also turn-offshore SMRs decrease the impact of meltdownSarah Lozanova, May 5th, 2014, Sarah Lozanova is a journalist and communications professional that specializes in print articles, CSR reports, blog posts, press releases, web content, media outreach, e-newsletters, and hosting webinars, “Offshore Floating Nuclear Power Plant Concept Under Development,” http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/offshore-floating-nuclear-power-plant-concept-development/MIT scientists are exploring what they say could revolutionize the nuclear power plant, both in terms of safety and cost. The floating offshore nuclear power plant could be constructed in a centralized shipyard, towed five to nine miles offshore, and then anchored in place. This power plant would utilize existing oil and gas rig technology and contain living corridors, a helipad, and an underwater transmission line to carry the power to population centers. Contributing to its success, the offshore floating nuclear power plant would utilize both lightwater nuclear reactor technology and offshore platforms used for oil and gas exploration and extraction — which helps reduce risk by using mature technology. Allegedly, tsunami waves and earthquakes wouldn’t be concerning in deeper water, unlike the vulnerability of the Fukushima power plant. In addition, the ocean can be used as a nearly infinite heat sink, making it virtually impossible for a meltdown to occur, unlike onshore plants where there is no ensured long-term heat sink. If an accident did occur offshore, it would ensure greater safety and radioactive gases could be vented underwater, thus population center onshore would remain safe. The reactor would be located deep underwater, allowing for passive cooling by seawater, even during a potential accident. It is getting increasingly difficult to site nuclear power plants, because of both safety concerns and the required proximity to a water source for cooling. Waterfront property is typically more expensive, augmenting the project development costs of a nuclear power plant. Proximity to population centers is ideal. floating nuclear power plant “The ocean is inexpensive real estate,” says professor Jacopo Buongiorno, from MIT. His team believes this fact will help boost the economic performance of the plant. It is likely that coastal communities, however, will be opposed to a nuclear power plant floating a few miles offshore; public concern for nuclear power plants has increased since an earthquake and tsunami in 2011 caused an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex. The concept of an offshore nuclear power plant is not new. The idea was first raised by power utility companies in the early 1970s. The Russians are constructing a 70 MW nuclear reactor aboard a ship, the Akademik Lomonosov, which could aid in Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration. This project however has been plagued by financing problems and delays. In the end, it is important to question if nuclear is the answer to our low-carbon energy needs. If it is, then exploring ways to potentially make it safer are essential, and perhaps looking offshore is a smart next step. It does seem like unintended consequences are likely however. Even if this offshore floating nuclear power plant utilizes two mature technologies, the exact impact on the oceans are yet to be determined. If nothing else, the heat from the plant would have an impact on wildlife. Although professor Jacopo Buongiorno states that the plant would be economical , it seems the operating costs of an offshore platform would be greater and the threat of a terrorist attack concerning. Although the “not in my backyard” sentiment is strong with nuclear power plants, thus it is doubtful that coastal communities will view a floating plant much differently. Even if this concept is a good idea, it seems unlikely to manifest anytime soon.

Floating SMRs have a wide range of benefits-link turn-SMRs are gaining supportThe Economist, April 25, 2014, The Economist is the authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion, “Here Are The Advantages Of Floating Nuclear Power Stations,” http://www.businessinsider.com/advantages-nuclear-power-stations-at-sea-2014-4

There are many things people do not want to be built in their backyard, and nuclear power stations are high on the list. But what if floating reactors could be moored offshore, out of sight? There is plenty of water to keep them cool and the electricity they produce can easily be carried onshore by undersea cables. Moreover, once the nuclear plant has reached the end of its life it can be towed away to be decommissioned. Unusual as it might seem, such an idea is gaining supporters in America and Russia. The potential benefits of building nuclear power stations on floating platforms, much like those used in the offshore oil-and-gas industry, were recently presented to a symposium hosted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers by Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, Neil Todreas and their colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with others from the University of Wisconsin and Chicago Bridge & Iron, a company involved in both the nuclear and offshore industries. Floating nuclear power stations (like the one in the illustration above) would have both economic and safety benefits, according to the researchers. For one thing, they could take advantage of two mature and well-understood technologies: light-water nuclear reactors and the construction of offshore platforms, says Dr Buongiorno. The structures would be built in shipyards using tried-and-tested techniques and then towed several miles out to sea and moored to the sea floor. Keeping cool Offshore reactors would help overcome the increasing difficulty of finding sites for new nuclear power stations. They need lots of water, so ideally should be sited beside an ocean, lake or river. Unfortunately, those are just the places where people want to live, so any such plans are likely to be fiercely opposed by locals. Another benefit of being offshore is that the reactor could use the sea as an "infinite heat sink", says Dr Buongiorno. The core of the reactor, lying below the surface, could be cooled passively without relying on pumps driven by electricity, which could fail. fukushima Reuters In the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 a powerful earthquake off the coast created a tsunami that inundated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, wrecking the backup power generators used to keep the cooling pumps going. This set off a meltdown in three of the plant's reactors. A floating nuclear power station would be protected against earthquakes and tsunamis. The expanse of the ocean would shield the structure from seismic waves in the seabed, says Dr Buongiorno, and, provided the power station was moored in about 100 metres of water, the swell from a tsunami should not be large enough to cause any serious damage. At the end of its service life, a floating nuclear power station could be towed to a specially equipped yard where it could be more easily dismantled and decommissioned. This is what happens to nuclear-powered ships. Rosatom, a Russian state-controlled energy company, is already building a floating nuclear power station. This is the Akademik Lomonosov, a large barge carrying a pair of nuclear reactors capable of together generating up to 70 megawatts (MW)--enough to power a small town. The vessel is due to be completed in 2016 and is said to be the first of many. Some people believe the project's primary mission is to provide power for the expansion of Russia's oil-and-gas industry in remote areas, including the Arctic. The American researchers think there is no particular limit to the size of a floating nuclear power station and that even a 1,000MW one--the size of some of today's largest terrestrial nuclear plants--could be built. They believe the floating versions could be designed to meet all regulatory and security requirements, which would include protecting the structure from underwater attack, says Dr Todreas. The idea is not new. In the late 1960s Sturgis, a converted Liberty ship containing a 10MW nuclear reactor, was used to provide electricity to the Panama Canal Zone, which faced a power shortage. In the 1970s there was a plan to build 1,200MW nuclear power stations off America's east coast. These would float on giant concrete barges surrounded by a breakwater. The scheme got as far as constructing a huge manufacturing yard near Jacksonville, Florida. But the idea faced opposition and was scrapped, in part because of technical and regulatory uncertainties. A newer generation of floating nuclear reactors would be safer and cheaper, but they are still unlikely to set sail without a fight.

25 reasons why the private sector and government action is differentJan Mares, May 1, 2013, Jan Mares is a senior policy advisor at the Washington economic and environmental think tank Resources for the Future. A veteran of Union Carbide Corp., he was the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the Department of Energy during the Reagan Administration and a key manager in the Department of Homeland Security in the administration of George W. Bush, “25 Differences Between Private Sector and Government Managers,” http://www.powermag.com/25-differences-between-private-sector-and-government-managers/It’s become a cliché that government would be better if it were only run by private-sector managers using standard business practices. But Jan Mares, who has been in both environments, says it is not the same. Mares, who worked in the private sector in the chemical and manufacturing industries, and was the fossil energy chief in the Reagan administration’s Department of Energy, offers 25 reasons why government management and business management are not the same. The size, dollar value, and complexity of many government programs exceed that in the private sector. The government has fewer measures of progress or success than the private sector, although that is changing as a result of the Government Performance Reform Act requirements. Spending on a program is not equivalent to progress. The private sector has profit as a clear-cut measure. Most individuals join private sector organizations with the expectation and hope that they will have an opportunity either to earn significant amounts of money or to be trained such that the opportunity to earn significant amounts of money could occur in a later job. The individuals who join governments do so knowing that high compensation rates are not possible; they join for other reasons such as providing for others and/or having more power/responsibility than in the private sector. Managing these two dramatically differently motivated groups is significantly different for each group. The civil service and compensation rules of the government make it more difficult to encourage outstanding performance and discourage poor performance. There is very little personal gain in the government for taking risks on policy or programs and being successful in achieving the goals more effectively. However there is potential for substantial criticism and other personal loss if the innovative attempt fails. The key reality to the private sector is market-driven competition, whereas the same in the government is almost always a legislated monopoly. Private sector managers worry about creating added value, i.e. a product or service that can be sold competitively to the public. This requires the ability and skill to change, evolve, adapt and improve constantly. Government is frequently quite different. Managers in the government often know what needs to be done and desire to do it but are facing restrictions of laws, regulations, policies, often made years earlier for other circumstances, that prevent prompt action. Authority and responsibility in the government tends to be asymmetric while authority and responsibility in the private sector are more clearly balanced. Responsibility in the government can be enormous while authority is frequently quite limited. Authority in government may be ambiguous and unclear in some circumstances. In other cases it is very clear and tightly restricted through laws, regulations, policies and directives that leave little, if any room for individual initiative. In most outstanding private sector organizations there are clear, well-understood, job-by-job, top-to-bottom goals and objectives. In government, goals and objectives have been ill-formed, fuzzy and soft. The Government Performance Reform Act and individual departments are striving to change this. Goals in the government are often divergent which may lead to confusion. The senior/political leadership in Departments and Agencies turns over more frequently and to a larger extent than occurs in the private sector. Cabinet Secretaries do not stay longer than three years on average; Assistant Secretary tenure is less than 24 months. New Cabinet Secretaries frequently replace significant numbers of senior leadership in their first year. This causes starts and stops in direction of Departments or Agencies. The only similar private sector

situation is a hostile takeover. The average years of experience either on the substantive matters for which they are responsible or in management generally for political leadership is much, much less than their counterparts in the private sector. This is particularly true for individuals below level of Cabinet Secretary. The main goal of most political appointees is to promote the policies of the Administration and/or change the policies of the previous Administration. Few political appointees focus on organizational management issues because they have no experience; will not be in government long; and desire to focus on policy issues, not management issues. Political appointees receive little encouragement to focus on management issues. The various forms of control on a government agency versus the few on the private sector are staggering. A government agency has at least three different leadership groups to which it is responsible. One has 100 CEOs (the Senate); one has 435 CEOs (the House) and one has one CEO (the President) and at least 435 assistants (the White House staff including OMB, CEA, OSTP, NSC, HSC [Homeland Security Council] and others). The result is that there is confusion and potential delay on most significant issues or decisions. Furthermore many of these “CEO’s” and/or their staffs require reports about actions and/or their approval or clearance for actions sought to be taken by the agency in accordance with existing laws and policies. The staff of the Appropriations, Authorizing and Government Oversight committees are very powerful and can directly or through their members direct government agency actions. The Executive Branch disregards such staff at its peril. No similar institution affects the private sector. The norm in the Executive Branch is for Secretaries to have multiple Special Assistants with even Assistant Secretaries having from one to three. Unless these assistants are experienced and/or wise, which is not normal, they can cause confusion to the subordinate officials about what is desired by their principal. In the private sector special assistant positions are rare. The oversight of an Executive Branch agency is much greater than of an organization in the private sector. That oversight is by both governmental and non-governmental entities. Governmental Oversight. (a) Each Department has an Inspector General who is charged with evaluating the Department for waste, fraud and abuse, and poor management. The IG has access to any aspect of the agency business and reports its findings simultaneously to the Congress and the Secretary. (b) The Appropriations, Authorizing and Government Reform committees in each chamber have periodic hearings or other forms of oversight over the agency. (c) Congress itself has the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service, which investigate, to varying extents, and write reports on the Executive Branch agencies. Non-governmental oversight. This is also more extensive than that of the private sector. The national press, general media, and trade press cover the Executive Branch extensively. There are multiple “think tanks” concerning almost every aspect of the Executive Branch, which write reports criticizing Executive Branch actions. The affected private or public sector stakeholders will provide information and leads to the press and the Congress. These stakeholders are frequently organized through trade associations or non-governmental organizations, which know how to influence government action. “Whistle blowers” receive more encouragement and protection in the government than the private sector and are thus more active. They provide insights and information to the Congress, the media, and/or the affected stakeholders because of policy differences with the Administration, anger with their employer, or for other reasons. The government is much slower in action than the private sector; there is little sense of urgency or time; the analogy of the time and distance involved with turning an oil tanker is apt. Career, and on occasion political, staff in the Executive Branch have the ability to slow down and/or derail actions of the Secretary or President by very slow compliance or “apparent” compliance with decisions and/or orders. Those who wish to slow or delay action may provide information to individuals in other parts of the Executive Branch or more often to those outside the Executive Branch in the private sector or the Legislative Branch with the expectation that they will challenge or question the action being directed by the Secretary or the President. Such lack of support of the organization’s leader and/or loyalty to the organization would rarely

occur in the private sector. Since political appointees know that their job tenure is very finite, they frequently spend a disproportionate amount of time considering or working towards their next private sector activity. This distraction, with its implications for the performance of the individual and those organizationally above or below the individual, does not occur in the private sector. In government, issues are rarely “permanently” decided with little chance of modification or reversal. Changes in control of the White House or one or both Houses of Congress can frequently lead to reconsideration of previous firm decisions, whether or not the external fact situation has significantly changed. Because the tenure of political employees is limited compared to career employees and the relevant experience of the political employees is likely to be less than that of the career employees, there are significant opportunities for conflicts between the “B Company”, i.e. the career employees who “B there before and B there after” the political employees. The career employees recognize that the Congress or the private sector may react negatively to changes being proposed or implemented by political employees who will be departed by the time the negative reaction affects the government organization.