MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC Negative
Politics links – Plan is controversial....................................................................................................... 2
Midterms link (Dems good) – Plan is unpopular................................................................................... 5
Midterms link (Republicans Good) – Plan is popular ............................................................................ 6
OTEC fails – tech obstacles................................................................................................................... 7
OTEC fails - storms .............................................................................................................................. 10
OTEC fails-US not key .......................................................................................................................... 11
OTEC harms environment ................................................................................................................... 12
A2 Warming Advantage ...................................................................................................................... 16
Water shortage exaggerated .............................................................................................................. 17
Water Wars defense ........................................................................................................................... 18
Ocean collapse defense ...................................................................................................................... 20
A2 Hydrogen Economy........................................................................................................................ 22
A2 Oil dependence .............................................................................................................................. 26
A2 Oil Price Shocks .............................................................................................................................. 27
A2 Oil dependence causes war ........................................................................................................... 31
Oil dependence good - hegemony ...................................................................................................... 32
Terrorism defense ............................................................................................................................... 34
OTEC is expensive ............................................................................................................................... 37
*Keep in mind that this file builds on previous camp files - evidence is not repeated on issues like
warming, overfishing, or the economy, etc. You will need to reference other camp files on multiple
issues.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Politics links – Plan is controversial
Plan controversial - OTEC unpopular in Congress
BECCA FRIEDMAN (Ocean Energy Council) “
ining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”
March 2014 http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC
is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC
technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC
and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the
Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the
Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.” OTEC is not completely off the government’s radar, however.
This past year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in
the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a
state level. Hawaii ’s National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the
islands. For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval
Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of
Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
OTEC unpopular – Congress is only willing to work it into existing incentive programs
Sean O’Neill “Why Is U.S. Development of Ocean Energy So Slow?” January 09, 2007
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/u/sean-oneill-34995
Why are ocean renewables so far behind others such as wind, solar and biofuels in the United States?
In the 1970s, rising oil prices lead the U.S. federal government to invest approximately $245 million in a
technology called ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). OTEC relies on the differential in
temperature between cold, deep ocean waters and warmer surface water temperature. Areas like
Hawaii, Guam, and equatorial islands with deep ocean proximity and ocean temperature differential
were best suited for OTEC. In 1980, Congress enacted the OTEC Act to stimulate private development of
OTEC plants. But because of the high cost of development, no company ever sought to construct an
OTEC plant. Also, in 1980, the newly elected Republican administration cut back on funding for
government programs, including OTEC. By the early 1990s, the Department of Energy eliminated ocean
energy funding from its budget and to date, does not retain a designated staff person with responsibility
for ocean energy. Also, in the 1990s, deregulation and declining natural gas prices reduced the cost of
electricity so that newly emerging wave and tidal ocean technologies were no longer economic within
the United States. Overseas, through the late 1990s, government funded research and development on
ocean energy projects continued. In the United States, advancements took place through the efforts of
private companies such as AquaEnergy, Verdant Power and Ocean Power Technologies, which by 2001
proposed projects within the United States in Washington State, New York and Hawaii. By 2005,
Congress recognized that ocean and hydrokinetic technologies could contribute to our nation's
renewable energy supply, and included these technologies in certain programs that were open to other
renewables. Today, ocean and hydrokinetic technologies have reached a point where they are ready for
initial commercial deployment. Advancements in Europe, recent developments in composite metals and
lessons learned from wind and offshore technologies have addressed many of the challenges faced by
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
marine renewables. However, in contrast to wind and solar projects, which could be sited on private
lands, ocean and hydrokinetic technologies must be deployed in waterways, which are considered public
resources. Questions about jurisdiction over these permitting issues have slowed deployment of
commercial ocean and hydrokinetic projects. Today, the challenge is getting projects into the water,
assessing their environmental contributions and effects, and getting on with the promise of creating
energy supplies in a manner that provides an overall price for performance win.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Midterms link (Dems good) – Plan is unpopular
Ocean wave power projects are unpopular with the public
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, The Energy Report – compiled by the Texas government, May
2008, “Ocean Power,” Chaper 20.
Wave power projects can face public resistance to installing large equipment along coastlines.
Equipment on the ocean floor can also interfere with sediment flow. Thus far, even wave energy is not
yet economically competitive. 20 That situation is likely to change over time, however, as research and
testing moves the technology forward.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Midterms link (Republicans Good) – Plan is popular
Plan popular with the public
Blue Rise (technology provider and project developer of Ocean Thermal Energy solutions) “Ocean
Thermal Energy” 2010 http://www.oceanpotential.com/ocean-thermal-energy/
The enormous global potential of OTEC is increasingly visible, not least because leading publications
such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and IIASA Global Energy Assessment
reports acknowledge the huge technical and economic potential. According to the latest IPCC report,
Ocean Thermal Energy has the largest recoverable potential from all renewable ocean energy
technologies. The global potential that can harnessed from the ocean without harming the natural
ocean cycles and at competitive costs is estimated to be between 5 and 10 TW, more than two times
our current global electricity demand. Additonionally, OTEC has a capacity factor between 80% and
100%, meaning that OTEC electricity production is very reliable and predictable. The cost of fossil fuels
continues to increase in a time where ‘cheap oil’ seems to be over. At the same time, the associated
effect of large scale consumption of fossil fuels on climate change comes with large (environmental)
costs. Today, global public opinion is increasingly supporting renewable energy technologies like
OTEC , and the need to transition to a clean and renewable energy use has never been more apparent.
Ocean thermal energy conversion is considered a key technology to make this energy transition happen.
Popular Support for OTEC development
Robert Cohen “Ocean Thermal Energy. The unseen sea opportunity” October 2010
http://www.boulderblueline.org/2010/10/13/ocean-thermal-energy-the-unseen-seaopportunity/#sthash.CgyQF4Jh.dpuf
This article is to suggest that there be some strong grassroots support in Boulder and across America
clamoring for prompt federal action—by Congress and the Obama Administration—to make ocean
thermal energy a reality. Although ocean thermal energy is not a panacea, it is the only remaining vast,
untapped source of renewable energy. And, besides fueling hurricanes, it can do a lot toward replacing
oil and coal, and toward mitigating global warming, which results can benefit everyone on the planet,
landlocked or not. There is a vast ocean thermal energy resource in the major oceans, resulting from
global effects caused by solar radiation. One key part of it consists of a thick slab of warm water in the
surface layers of the tropical and subtropical oceans. The other key part consists of a large supply of
cold water, near freezing, at kilometer depths, conveyed to lower latitudes by the circulation of arctic
and antarctic seawater. The temperature difference between those two bodies of water can be
converted to electricity by circulating large amounts of warm and cold seawater through a floating
power plant which resembles a heat pump or refrigerator being run backwards.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC fails – tech obstacles
Several problems with OTEC – difficult to implement, site issues, temperature, and
electricity generation.
Energy Skeptic, Wave, Tide, Ocean Current, In-stream, OTEC power: National Academy of Sciences
2013
Posted on July 7, 2014 by energyskeptic http://energyskeptic.com/2014/wave-tide-current-otecpower/
NAS thought the study should have been limited to just the areas this could possibly work: the Hawaiian
Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
Hawaii could generate 143 TWh/yr, the Mariana Islands (including Guam) 137 TWh/yr, and Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands 39 TWh/yr. The majority of this resource is found far from the United States
near Micronesia (1,134 TWh/yr) and Samoa (1,331 TWh/yr).¶ The total OTEC resource for the continental
United States was 394 TWh/yr, less than 9% of the total U.S. resource estimated. The Florida Straits and
the East Coast account for 87%. The Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for the other 13%, is not a viable
source in winter. The continental U.S. resource is very seasonal and limited, and it is unlikely that plant
owners would want to operate only part of the year.¶ OTEC plants are vulnerable to corrosion, keeping it
anchored in deep oceans, strong currents, tides, large waves, hurricanes, and storms.¶ OTEC could
cause environmental damage.¶ OTEC plants must be near tropical islands with steep topography to
make it easier to reach deep cold water and transmit power to shore.¶ The committee estimated the
global OTEC resource could be 5 TW (a 100-MW plant every 30 miles in the tropical ocean). In reality,
this would never happen because you need to connect them to land-based electric grids.¶ OTEC needs
very large equipment and very high seawater flow rates that exceed any existing industrial process¶
OTEC systems are similar to most other heat engines. There are significant practical aspects that make it
difficult to implement, mainly from the small available temperature difference of only ~20ºC between
the warm and cold seawater streams. Because of the low efficiencies, OTEC plants require very large
equipment (e.g., heat exchangers, pipes) and seawater flow rates (~200-300 cubic meters per second for
a typical 100-MW design) that exceeds any existing industrial process to generate a significant amount
of electricity.
Multiple obstacles—Too expensive and not enough suitable sites for global use
DOE 2010—US Department of Energy, October 20, 2010, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,“
http://www.energysavers.gov/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50010
In general, careful site selection is the key to keeping the environmental impacts of OTEC to a minimum.
OTEC experts believe that appropriate spacing of plants throughout the tropical oceans can nearly
eliminate any potential negative impacts of OTEC processes on ocean temperatures and on marine life.
OTEC power plants require substantial capital investment upfront. OTEC researchers believe private
sector firms probably will be unwilling to make the enormous initial investment required to build largescale plants until the price of fossil fuels increases dramatically or until national governments provide
financial incentives. Another factor hindering the commercialization of OTEC is that there are only a few
hundred land-based sites in the tropics where deep-ocean water is close enough to shore to make OTEC
plants feasible.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Even the downward acceleration caused by an ocean wave creates a pressure surges
that damage the pumps and upward acceleration reduces pressure causing the water
to boil
LaRosa, 2006 (Richard LaRosa, October 2006. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
secretary for The Consultant. “HURRICANE SUPPRESSION BY SEA SURFACE COOLING,” Systems,
Applications and Technology Conference, 2006. LISAT 2006. IEEE Long Island)
The performance of this design is scaled from a proposal by Vega [9] for a slightly smaller OTEC plant that uses 26 °C top water and 4.5 °C bottom water to produce a net
electrical output of 5.26 MW. In the case of the present pumping station, the net output is not electrical power. It is the work done by the main pump and some extra power used by the
evaporator and condenser pumps to overcome the back pressure of their respective perforated discharge hoses, which were not used in the Vega design. The OTEC plant supplies the
power for its pumps (except as noted above) and this is not included in the net output. The difference between warm and cold temperatures in the present design is almost the same as in
configuration described here is intended to be used in a welldefined surface current. The warm water intake must face upstream and the perforated discharge hoses
must trail downstream so that the warmest water is used in the evaporator. Operation of such a plant in the area where the loop and rings are developing and
separating presents the problem that the pumping station will be operating in a current that might be
changing direction. It might be necessary to design a mooring that allows the station to swing around to follow the current direction. The vertical cold-water pipe should
the Vega design, so the efficiencies should be the same. The pumping station
be at the center of rotation with a circular track on a fixed mooring platform. The pumping station could be rotated around the track by a motor controlled from satellite observations of
the current direction. This varies slowly over a period of months. The mooring must be anchored to the bottom by cables that are kept taut because the pumping station has excess
submerged operation insures that there is positive pressure at all pump inlets to
prevent cavitation, but the primary reason is to maintain the tautness of the mooring cables so that the pumping station does not
accelerate up and down in large waves. Downward acceleration of the station and its cold-water pipe would cause
large pressure surges that would damage the pumps and other components. Upward acceleration would reduce
the pressure in the top of the pipe below the vapor pressure of water. This would result in boiling and separation of the water column with
resultant starvation of the pumps and probably interruption of the OTEC operation. The tautcable submerged mooring just
buoyancy and is pulled into a submerged position. The
described is similar to the tension-leg platforms used in the deepwater offshore oil and gas industry. OTEC has had a long development history, adequately described in [10] and other
OTEC plant ships on the high seas have been suggested
literature.
as a means to produce ammonia and other products that could be
periodically transported to shore. Adequate attention has been given to the use of a universal joint between the cold-water pipe and the platform to accommodate rocking and pitching
motion.
However, there seems to be no mention of possible up-and-down motion.
Won’t solve - temperature have to be like those in the tropics and energy efficiency is
extremely low
Christopher D. Barry, P.E., naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy, 7/1/08, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and
CO2 Sequestration,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=52762
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) extracts solar energy through a heat engine operating across
the temperature difference between warm surface water and cold deep water. In the tropics, surface
waters are above 80°F, but at ocean depths of about 1,000 meters, water temperatures are just above
freezing everywhere in the ocean. This provides a 45 to 50°F temperature differential that can be used
to extract energy from the surface waters.
Of course, with such a low differential, the Carnot efficiencies of such a scheme are very low; for a
system operating between 85°F and 35°F the maximum theoretical efficiency is only 9.2% and real
efficiencies will be less. Regardless, OTEC has been demonstrated as a technically feasible method of
generating energy.
Multiple solvency issues – fouling prevents efficiency, distance means the energy can’t
be used
Barry 8 Christopher D. Barry, naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 7-1-08, __http://www. renewableenergyworld.com/rea/ news/ate/story?id=52762__
There are many practical issues as well. Again, with ammonia as the example, ammonia attacks copper
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
bearing alloys, but only copper alloys resist marine fouling, and only a small amount of fouling is enough
to drastically cut efficiency. Systems using ammonia have to have sophisticated waterside cleaning systems. There are also issues with
the design of efficient low head turbines, very high performance heat exchangers, the long cold water pipe, and the platform, if it is floating
(most OTEC designs are floating platforms, "grazing" in the open ocean). Finally, there
is the problem of using the energy.
Most OTEC plants will be far at sea, because deep water in the tropics is generally far from energy
markets, so the energy is "stranded."
A Commercially Acceptable OTEC Prototype Has Never Been Fully Constructed
Becca Friedman, Harvard Political Review Online, 2-26-06, “An Alternative Source Heats Up,”
__http://hprsite.squarespace. com/an-alternative-source- heats-up
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the
effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation
that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five
years.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC fails - storms
OTEC is vulnerable to storms and corrosion – making it a bad choice for a complete
energy source.
BECCA FRIEDMAN Source: Harvard Political Review 2008
EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION rick03.2014OTEC News
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a
hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a
country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition,
there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or
corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory
spokesman.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC fails-US not key
Commercialization could just happen in other countries – solves the aff
Friedman 8
(Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/OTEC-News/Examining-the-future-of-Ocean-ThermalEnergy-Conversion.html, Becca)
In fact, as the U.S. government is dragging its feet, other
countries are moving forward with their own designs and may well beat
American industry to a fully-functioning plant. In India , there has been significant academic interest in OTEC, although the National
Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to a lack of funding. Japan , too, has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University ’s
Institute of Ocean Energy has recently won prizes for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and various European
nations have also explored OTEC as part of their long-term energy strategy. Perhaps the most interest is in the
Philippines , where the Philippine Department of Energy has worked with Japanese experts to select 16 potential OTEC sites.
OTEC doesn’t even work well in the US – temperature differences are not optimal.
Other power sources are preferable.
Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Affairs “The Energy Report” May 2008,
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20-OceanPower.pdf
Finally, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is the least accessible form of ocean power, and
perhaps the least useful for the U.S. To work, OTEC needs an optimal temperature difference between
warm water on the surface and colder water below of about 36°F—a range found only in tropical
coastal areas near the equator. In the U.S., OTEC research and testing is taking place in Hawaii. The cold
water is brought to the surface by a deeply submerged intake pipe.
esearchers have developed two different types of OTEC and a third that is a hybrid of the other two;
all use the thermal energy stored in seawater to power a steam turbine. Closed-cycle OTEC uses warm
seawater to vaporize a low-boiling point liquid that then drives a turbine to generate electricity. (This
approach is similar to the binary cycle method of geothermal generation.) The vaporized liquid then is
cooled and condensed back to liquid with cold seawater, and the cycle repeats. Open-cycle OTEC gets
warm seawater to boil through lowered pressure and uses the resulting steam to drive the turbine.
Once again, cold water from the deep converts the steam back to (now desalinated) water.
The hybrid method uses the steam from boiled seawater to vaporize a low-boiling point liquid, which
then drives the turbine.11 In concept, these systems are quite simple, but in practice the depths and
scale that are required to effectively harness OTEC have been prohibitive.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC harms environment
OTEC discharge on a world-wide scale would eliminate all life in the OCEAN
Vega 2003 (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer L. A. Vega, Ph.D. PICHTR Honolulu, HI,
http://www.uprm.edu/aceer/pdfs/MTSOTECPublished.pdf, Published in Marine Technology Society
Journal V. 6, No. 4 Winter 2002/2003 pp. 25-35)
The amount of total world power that could be provided by OTEC must be balanced with the impact to the marine environment that might be
caused by the relatively massive amounts of seawater required to operate OTEC plants. The discharge water from a 100 MW plant would be
equivalent to the nominal flow of the Colorado River into the Pacific Ocean. The
discharge flow from 60,000 MW (0.6 percent of
present world consumption) of OTEC plants would be equivalent to the combined discharge from all
rivers flowing into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (361,000 m3 s -1 ). Although river runoff composition is considerably
different from the OTEC discharge, providing a significant amount of power to the world with OTEC might have an
impact on the environment below the oceanic mixed layer and, therefore, could have long-term significance in the marine
environment.
OTEC creates dead zones
Rod Fujita / Published June 6, 2013 in EnergyOceans Energy from the sea: Closer than you think
http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/06/06/energy-sea-closer-you-think
OTEC is definitely not a panacea. Using large amounts of cold, nutrient rich water from the deep ocean
in order to produce energy could have some very negative impacts, like killing sea life by sucking it into
the intake pipe or creating algal blooms by discharging nutrient rich sea water into warm, nutrient-poor
surface water. But these and other impacts can be prevented or mitigated. This new industry should be
carefully regulated to ensure that the costs of safe operation are internalized by beneficiaries and not
borne by all of us, on behalf of the ocean.
Dead zones created by OTEC kill off all marine life.
PAM 08 Panorama Acuicola Magazine. (run-of-the-mill news station). June 5, 2008. “Hawaii Ocenic Technology
pushes concept of sustainable aquaculture.”
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/noticias/2008/06/05/hawaii_ocenic_technology_pushes_concept_of_sustain
able_aquaculture.html //SH7/8/14
The Aquasphere is different from conventional fish farming, which has earned a bad rep because of its negative environmental impact. The
huge amount
of effluent it produces often chokes entire bays and estuaries, killing off all marine life and leading to
the formation of low oxygen “dead zones.” HOT’s Aquaspheres avoid that problem by relying on deep ocean currents to provide a
continuous, oxygenated flow of water. The spheres are suspended in place thanks to HOT’s proprietary hybrid ocean thermal energy
conversion (OTEC) system. This system derives energy from pulling colder water from below up into a heat exchanger, which converts the temperature
difference into useable energy. That powers the engines, telemetry and robotics that maintain the spheres’ geostatic position and provide constant remote
monitoring. The OTEC system is also used to bring the spheres up to the surface, which allows for the easy harvesting of fish. This energy conversion system is one
of 21 technologies the company submitted in a recent patent application.
OTEC causes bad impacts to the environment—water discharge, impingement and
entrainment, biocide treatments, electromagnetic field
NOAA: Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management, No Date, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) Environmental Impacts,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/otec/docs/environmentalfactsheet.pdf
A 100 MW facility would use 10-20 billion gallons per day of warm surface water and cold water from a
depth of approximately 3300 feet (1000 meters). The impacts of discharging this large volume of water
in the ocean needs to be better studied. The water discharged from OTEC facilities will be cooler, denser
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
and more nutrient rich due to the composition of the deep cold water being different from the receiving
waters. Nutrient rich water (with nitrogen and phosphorus) would likely be discharged at a depth where
the ambient water is warmer and oligotrophic (nutrient poor). The resulting indirect and cumulative
impacts to marine biota and the dynamics of the marine ecosystem from these displacements are not
fully understood. Screens are needed for both the warm and cold water intake systems to prevent
debris and larger species from entering an OTEC facility. Impingement may occur where organisms
become trapped against the intake screen. Smaller organisms which pass through the intake screen may
be entrained through the system. Both could be lethal to the organisms. The warm water that is used in
the OTEC facility would need to be treated with a biocide (e.g., chlorine) to maintain the efficiency of the
heat exchangers in the OTEC facility. The amount of biocide needed will likely be less than the maximum
discharge allowed under the Clean Water Act. The electromagnetic field of the cable bringing the
electricity to the shore may impact navigation and other behaviors of marine organisms. The platform
presence may cause organism attraction or avoidance, and its mooring lines may cause entanglements.
The noise generated from an OTEC facility may also impact marine mammals.
OTEC risks death of marine organisms and collapsing biodiversity
L. A. Vega, Ph.D., Hawaii, USA. 1999. “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).”
< http://www.otecnews.org/ articles/vega/03_otec_env.html >
Organisms impinged by an OTEC plant are caught on the screens protecting the intakes. Impingement is
fatal to the organism. An entrained organism is drawn into and passes through the plant. Entrained
organisms may be exposed to biocides, and temperature and pressure shock. Entrained organisms may
also be exposed to working fluid and trace constituents (trace metals and oil or grease). Intakes should
be designed to limit the inlet flow velocity to minimize entrainment and impingement. The inlets need
to be tailored hydrodynamically so that withdrawal does not result in turbulence or recirculation zones
in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Many, if not all, organisms impinged or entrained by the intake
waters may be damaged or killed. Although experiments suggest that mortality rates for phytoplankton
and zooplankton entrained by the warm-water intake may be less than 100 percent, in fact only a
fraction of the phytoplankton crops from the surface may be killed by entrainment. Prudence suggests
that for the purpose of assessment, 100 percent capture and 100 percent mortality upon capture should
be assumed unless further evidence exists to the contrary. Metallic structural elements (e.g., heat
exchangers, pump impellers, metallic piping) corroded or eroded by seawater will add trace elements to
the effluent. It is difficult to predict whether metals released from a plant will affect local biota. Trace
elements differ in their toxicity and resistance to corrosion. Few studies have been conducted of tropical
and subtropical species. Furthermore, trace metals released by OTEC plants will be quickly diluted with
great volumes of water passing through the plant. However, the sheer size of an OTEC plant circulation
system suggests that the aggregate of trace constituents released from the plant or redistributed from
natural sources could have long-term significance for some organisms. OTEC plant construction and
operation may affect commercial and recreational fishing. Fish will be attracted to the plant, potentially
increasing fishing in the area. Enhanced productivity due to redistribution of nutrients may improve
fishing. However, the losses of inshore fish eggs and larvae, as well as juvenile fish, due to impingement
and entrainment and to the discharge of biocides may reduce fish populations. The net effect of OTEC
operation on aquatic life will depend on the balance achieved between these two effects. Through
adequate planning and coordination with the local community, recreational assets near an OTEC site
may be enhanced.
Impingement of organisms Involving OTEC plants will decimate fish populations/
preventing solvency of overfishing and devastating the marine environment.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Robin Pelc and Rod M.Fujita - 2002 “Renewable energy from the ocean.” Environmental Defense.
Marine Policy.
Impingement of large organisms and entrainment of small organisms has been responsible for the
greatest mortality of marine organisms at coastal power plants thus far [14].The magnitude of this
problem depends on the location and size of the plant; however, if marine life is attracted to OTEC
plants by the higher nutrient concentrations in the up-welled cold water, large numbers of organisms,
including larvae or juveniles, could be killed by impingement or entrainment. For floating plants, victims
of impingement would be mainly small fish, jellyfish, and pelagic invertebrates, while for land-based
plants crustaceans would be the most affected [6].
Dead zones make it impossible for the ocean to support life.
Silverman 07
Jacob Silverman. (How Stuff Works, Emory University). 07-25-07. “Should we be worried about the dead zone in
the Gulf of Mexico?” http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/dead-zone.htm
//SH7-10-14
The "dead zone," also called a hypoxic
zone, is caused by the growth of massive quantities of algae known as algal blooms. As algae die,
bacteria feed on them and, in the process, suck up the water's available oxygen. Oxygen levels
become depleted to the point that the area cannot support marine life, and sea creatures must swim
to other waters or die. Beside being inhospitable to most sea life, algal blooms also cause dead zone
waters to turn brown. What causes the algal blooms? In part, it's a natural phenomenon, but they've been significantly boosted by
fertilizer, sewage and other pollutants entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, both of which are fed by bodies of water from
Every spring, a vast area of the northern Gulf of Mexico loses most of its oxygen and becomes deadly to marine life.
around the country. These pollutants contain phosphorus and nitrogen, which are excellent food for algae. When springtime comes and the snows melt, increased water levels bring more
nutrients for the algae, which also thrive in warm water. The dead zone peaks around early August and then recedes in the fall, when nitrogen levels in water diminish.
Dead zones are extremely harmful for marine ecosystems.
Diaz 08
Robert Diaz. (Science – AAAS - The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an American
international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, and
defending scientific freedom). August 15, 2008. “Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine
Ecosystems.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/926.short //SH7/8/14
Dead zones in the coastal oceans have spread exponentially since the 1960s and have serious consequences for ecosystem
functioning. The formation of dead zones has been exacerbated by the increase in primary production and consequent
worldwide coastal eutrophication fueled by riverine runoff of fertilizers and the burning of fossil fuels.
Enhanced primary production results in an accumulation of particulate organic matter, which
encourages microbial activity and the consumption of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters. Dead zones
have now been reported from more than 400 systems, affecting a total area of more than 245,000 square kilometers, and are probably a key
stressor on marine ecosystems.
Dead zones will cause marine extinction.
Jackson 08
Jeremy Jackson. (National Academy of Sciences in the United States). “Ecological extinction and evolution in the
brave new ocean.” 2008. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11458.short //SH7/8/14
The great mass extinctions of the fossil record were a major creative force that provided entirely new kinds of opportunities for the subsequent explosive evolution
and diversification of surviving clades. Today, the
synergistic effects of human impacts are laying the groundwork for a
comparably great Anthropocene mass extinction in the oceans with unknown ecological and
evolutionary consequences. Synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, introduced species, warming, acidification, toxins, and
massive runoff of nutrients are transforming once complex ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp
forests into monotonous level bottoms, transforming clear and productive coastal seas into anoxic
dead zones, and transforming complex food webs topped by big animals into simplified, microbially
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
dominated ecosystems with boom and bust cycles of toxic dinoflagellate blooms, jellyfish, and
disease. Rates of change are increasingly fast and nonlinear with sudden phase shifts to novel alternative community states. We can only guess at the kinds of
organisms that will benefit from this mayhem that is radically altering the selective seascape far beyond the consequences of fishing or warming alone. The
prospects are especially bleak for animals and plants compared with metabolically flexible microbes and algae. Halting and
ultimately reversing these trends will require rapid and fundamental changes in fisheries, agricultural practice, and the emissions of greenhouse gases on a global
scale.
Dead zones empirically lead to extinction – the Jurassic period proves – the next few
decades are key to prevent marine extinction round two – this time is key because
humans rely on them for food
UOL 13
University of Liverpool. (Published in their scientific journal, Geology). “Oceanic 'dead zones' and Jurassic
extinction.” November 25, 2014. http://phys.org/news/2013-11-oceanic-dead-zones-jurassic-extinction.html
//SH7-10-14
Over 7% of the world's oceans are classed as low oxygen zones or 'ocean dead zones'. This figure has
grown dramatically over the last 50 years, caused by increasing levels of pollution and accelerating
climate change. Other recently published studies have shown that low oxygen reduces organism size
and have predicted that under our current emissions scenario this will to lead to a decrease in the
body size of individual marine animals of around 25% by 2050. The fossil study, which took place in Whitby, Yorkshire,
found a reduction in the size of the 183-million-year-old-clams as oxygen in the water diminished.
These changes affected ocean chemistry, which in turn affected the clams' algal food supply and the
rest of the food chain – leading to a decrease in biodiversity and the average body size of clams. This
process has important ramifications for today's marine life, and for the humans which feed on it. Around
14% of the animal protein consumed today comes from the oceans, and with projections from this study foreseeing a decline of mean shellfish size of up to 50%, it
could mean a significant food source for a growing population is now in decline. During
the early Jurassic period studied by the
researchers, many species became extinct. However, some flourished, such as the clam Pseudomytiloides dubius which was small,
reached sexual maturity quickly, and reproduced in large numbers. Similar patterns can be observed today, with dramatic growth in the populations of the modernday coot clam in areas which have low oxygen levels. Declining oxygen levels Dr Caswell, said: "By
examining changes in the oceans that
happened millions of years ago we are able to piece together more of the picture of what is likely to
happen in our own time as a result of declining oxygen levels." "Unfortunately, our research has
shown that if ocean oxygen levels continue to decline, within the next few decades to centuries, it is
likely that marine molluscs and possibly other seafloor animals will be smaller and there will be fewer
species. This reduction in body-size and biodiversity has profound implications for the animals in our
seas and the people who rely on them for food."
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A2 Warming Advantage
OTEC can’t solve warming – no studies prove sequestering carbon is real (*also
implicates overfishing)
Christopher D. Barry, naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 7-1-08, __http://www. renewableenergyworld.com/rea/ news/ate/story?id=52762__,
KAPUSTINA
The actual effectiveness of OTEC in raising ocean fertility and thereby sequestering carbon still has to be
verified, and there has to be a careful examination of other possible harmful environmental impacts —
an old saying among engineers is "it seemed like a good idea at the time." The most important issue is
that the deep water already has substantial dissolved carbon dioxide, and so an OTEC plant may actually
release more carbon than it sequesters, or it might just speed up the existing cycle, sending down as
much as it brings up with no net effect. This question has to be answered before OTEC is implemented.
It may also be possible to optimize sequestration by being selective about the depths that water is
drawn from, or possibly by adding other trace nutrients, especially those that enhance species that
sequester carbon in shells. An OTEC plant optimized for ocean fertility will also probably be different
than one optimized to generate power, so any OTEC-based carbon scheme has to include transfer
payments of some sort — it won't come for free. Finally, who owns the ocean thermal resource? Most
plants will be in international waters, though these waters tend to be off the coasts of the developing
world.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Water shortage exaggerated
No water shortage – claims are exaggerated.
Benjamin Radford | June 23, 2008 03:01am ET The Water Shortage Myth
http://www.livescience.com/2639-water-shortage-myth.html
The barrage of news reports warn of a dire water shortage, and provide sobering statistics: The global
demand for water has tripled over the last 50 years, while water tables are falling in many of the world's
most populated countries, including the United States, China, and India. Many of the world's great rivers
are a fraction of the size they once were, and some have dried up completely. Earth's lakes are vanishing
at an alarming rate; the Aral Sea, for example, is less than a quarter its original size. Nevada's Lake Mead
is half its original capacity; a recent study concluded that there is a 50/50 chance that the lake will be
gone in less than fifteen years. It's true that there is cause for alarm, but to understand the problem
people need to read behind the headlines to understand one little fact: There is no water shortage. Our
planet is not running out of water, nor is it losing water. There's about 360 quintillion gallons of water
on the planet, and it's not going anywhere except in a circle. Earth's hydrologic cycle is a closed system,
and the process is as old as time: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, and so on. In
fact, there is probably more liquid water on Earth than there was just a few decades ago, due in part to
global warming and melting polar ice caps.
Plenty of water exists – no shortage. Exaggerated claims otherwise actually risk
making the problem worse.
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 8:51 am Mon, Nov 16, 2009 Is There Really A Water Crisis?
http://boingboing.net/2009/11/16/is-there-really-a-wa.html
"When I say there is no water crisis, you must be wondering, 'Is this guy talking to his hat?'" That's how
Asit Biswas led off his speech last month at the 2009 Nobel Conference. And--oddly worded idiom aside-he was right. That's exactly what everyone was thinking. The Conference--really a lecture series timed
to coincide with the distribution of Nobel Prizes--brings Nobel winners and eminent researchers from
around the world to Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota. All the lectures orbit a central
theme. This year, it was water. Or, rather, the lack of water. Most of the speakers talked about the risk
of losing this important resource--how we humans threaten our own water supply, how that puts us at
risk for a whole mess of trouble, and how we might be able to tackle the global water crisis. But that
crisis is a myth, according to Biswas. He's the president of the Third World Centre for Water
Management and winner of the 2006 Stockholm Water Prize, and he says that there's plenty of water to
go around. Freaking out about water supply is pointless, he says. Worse, it wastes time and resources
that could be used to fix the world's real problem--actually getting the water to the people.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Water Wars defense
No risk of water wars—Invisible water—Imported food offsets water imbalances
Barnaby 2009—Wendy Barnaby, editor of People & Science, the magazine published by the British Science Association, “Do
nations go to war over water?,” Nature, March 19, 2009, pg. 282-283
Allan’s earlier thinking about water wars began to change after meeting the late Gideon Fishelson, an
agricultural economist at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Fishelson argued that it is foolish for Israel, a watershort country, to grow and then export products such as oranges and avocados, which require a lot of
water to cultivate. Fishelson’s work prompted Allan to realize that water ‘embedded’ in traded
products could be important in explaining the absence of conflict over water in the region. As a global
average, people typically drink one cubic metre of water each per year, and use 100 cubic metres per
year for washing and cleaning. Each of us also accounts for 1,000 cubic metres per year to grow the
food we eat. In temperate climates, the water needed to produce this food is generally taken for
granted. In arid regions, Allan described how people depend on irrigation and imported food to fulfill
these needs. Imported food, in particluar, saves on the water required to cultivate crops.
Invisible water in imported food empirically controls conflict
Barnaby 2009—Wendy Barnaby, editor of People & Science, the magazine published by the British Science Association, “Do nations go
to war over water?,” Nature, March 19, 2009, pg. 282-283
As a global average, people typically drink one cubic metre of water each per year, and use 100 cubic
metres per year for washing and cleaning. Each of us also accounts for 1,000 cubic metres per year to
grow the food we eat. In temperate climates, the water needed to produce this food is generally taken
for granted. In arid regions, Allan described how people depend on irrigation and imported food to
fulfill these needs. Imported food, in particluar, saves on the water required to cultivate crops. The
relationship of food trade to water sustainability is often not obvious, and often remains invisible: no
political leader will gain any popularity by acknowledging that their country makes up the water
budget only by importing food. Allan saw through this to document how the water budgets of the
Middle East were accounted for without conflict. Allan wrote about embedded water for a few years
without it exciting any comment. Then, on a dark Monday afternoon in November 1992, during a
routine SOAS seminar, somebody used the term ‘virtual’ water to describe the same concept. Allan
realized this attention grabbing word, in vogue with the computerliterate younger generation, would
catch on better than his own term. And he was right: “From there on it flew,” he says. Allan’s work
explained how, as poor countries diversify their economies, they turn away from agriculture and create
wealth from industries that use less water. As a country becomes richer, it may require more water
overall to sustain its booming population, but it can afford to import food to make up the shortfall 5 .
Areas seemingly desperate for water arrive at sustainable solutions thanks to the import of food,
reducing the demand for water and giving an invisible boost to domestic supplies. Political leaders can
threaten hostile action if their visible water supplies are threatened (a potentially useful political
bluff), while not needing to wage war thanks to the benefits of trade
Many middle east countries are able to survive without adequate water supplies—
empirical examples of conflict are not necessarily accurate
Barnaby 2009—Wendy Barnaby, editor of People & Science, the magazine published by the British Science Association, “Do nations go
to war over water?,” Nature, March 19, 2009, pg. 282-283
Israel ran out of water in the 1950s: it has not since then produced enough water to meet all of its
needs, including food production. Jordan has been in the same situation since the 1960s; Egypt since
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
the 1970s. Although it is true that these countries have fought wars with each other, they have not
fought over water. Instead they all import grain. As Allan points out, more ‘virtual’ water flows into
the Middle East each year embedded in grain than flows down the Nile to Egyptian farmers. Perhaps
the most often quoted example of a water war is the situation in the West Bank between Palestinians
and Israel. But as Mark Zeitoun, senior lecturer in development studies at the University of East Anglia
in Norwich, UK, has explained, contrary to what both the mass media and some academic literature
say on the subject, while there is conflict and tension — as well as cooperation — there is no ‘water
war’ here either 6
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Ocean collapse defense
Oceans will adapt – no loss of biodiversity will happen.
Idso and Idso 2003—Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, 2003,
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2004Q4/211/extinction.pdf
The authors studied changes in assemblages of nearshore reef fishes in the Southern California Bight
over the period 1974-93. Near the beginning of this period, during 1976-77, the mean surface
temperature of the region rose by nearly 1°C above the mean of the previous 15 years, coincident with a
change in the basic state of the atmosphere-ocean climate system of the North Pacific Ocean.
Thereafter “dominance shifted from cold-affinity species to those with affinity for warmer water” as
“abundances of Northern species declined and those of Southern species increased.” This finding is
much like the findings of many of the studies we have already considered. Species tend to “go with the
flow” of changing climatic conditions (especially marine species), shifting their ranges and often creating
new biotic associations with other species. In all instances, however, there are no indications of anything
that would support the CO2 -induced global warming extinction hypothesis, in that the range shifts do
not lead to the demise of any of the species involved nor, in most cases, even to decreases in the sizes of
their populations.
Fossil record proves resilience
Dulvy and Reynolds 2003—Nicholas K. Dulvy, Canadian Research Chair in Marine Biodiversity and
Conservation @ Simon Frasier U, Yvonne Sadovy, Prof. of Ecology and Biodiversity @ U of Hong Kong,
and John D. Reynolds, Prof. and BC Leadership Chair @ Simon Frasier U, 2003 “Extinction Vulnerability in
Marine Populations” Fish and Fisheries Vol. 4 Iss. 1 Pg. 25-64 Wiley InterScience
It has been suggested that marine taxa might be less vulnerable to extinction than terrestrial taxa based
on their higher average duration in the fossil record (McKinney 1998). In support of this hypothesis, taxa
with the longest fossil record durations also appear to have a lower proportion of threatened species
(McKinney 1998). The best test of this hypothesis would be to compare extinction rates between related
pairs of well-studied marine and terrestrial taxa, to overcome major phylogenetic differences and
sampling biases. This has not yet been done. Anecdotally, we note that some relict taxa or 'living fossils'
are in trouble, such as the coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), sturgeons (Acipenseriformes) and many
marine turtles (Cheloniidae). Therefore, while such elderly taxa, which are analogous to those with a
long fossil record, may be specialized survivors, on a contemporary scale they may still be at risk.
They can’t overwhelm resilience—Human action has little effect on oceans
Easterbrook 1995—Gregg Easterbrook, Distinguished Fellow, Fullbright Foundation, A Moment on
Earth pg 25
In the aftermath of events such as the Love Canal or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the
environment is prefaced with the adjective "fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase
of the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But the notion of a fragile environment
is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile. The environment
that contains them is close to indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages;
bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than
the worst-case projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing
global air pollution far worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles;
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into mountain ranges and of seas into plains;
fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and
lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids and comets
bearing far more force than man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these
impacts. Yet hearts beat on, and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have
expired many eons before the advent of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on
the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is
accustomed to resisting.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A2 Hydrogen Economy
Several reasons why a hydrogen economy is logistically impossible – besides
production
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, originally published by The Mountain Sentinel | JAN 3, 2006
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-01-03/myth-hydrogen-economy The Myth of the Hydrogen
Economy
Compressed and liquefied hydrogen present problems of their own. Both techniques require energy and
so further reduce the net energy ratio of the hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air,
leading to problems with pressure build-ups due to clogged valves. Both forms of hydrogen storage are
prone to leaks. In fact, all forms of pure hydrogen are difficult to store.
Hydrogen is the smallest element and, as such, it can leak from any container, no matter how well
sealed it is. Hydrogen in storage will evaporate at a rate of at least 1.7% per day. We will not be able to
store hydrogen vehicles in buildings. Nor can we allow them to sit in the sun. And as hydrogen passes
through metal, it causes a chemical reaction that makes the metal brittle. Leaking hydrogen could also
have an adverse effect on both global warming and the ozone layer.
Free hydrogen is extremely reactive. It is ten times more flammable than gasoline, and twenty times
more explosive. And the flame of a hydrogen fire is invisible. This makes it very dangerous to work with,
particularly in fueling stations and transportation vehicles. Traffic accidents would have a tendency to be
catastrophic. And there is the possibility that aging vehicles could explode even without a collision.
On top of this, we must consider the terrific expense of converting from gasoline to hydrogen. The
infrastructure would have to be built virtually from scratch, at a cost of billions. Our oil and natural gas
based infrastructure evolved over the course of the past century, but this transition must be pulled off in
twenty years or less.
No viable method of transporting the hydrogen for use from the OTEC plant
L. A. Vega, Ph.D., Hawaii, USA. 1999. “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).”
< http://www.otecnews.org/ articles/vega/03_otec_env.html >
Several means of energy transport and delivery from plants deployed throughout the tropical oceans
have been considered. OTEC energy could be transported via electrical, chemical, thermal and
electrochemical carriers. The technical evaluation of non-electrical carriers leads to the consideration of
hydrogen produced using electricity and desalinated water generated with OTEC technology. The
product would be transported, from the OTEC plantship located at distances of 1,600 km (selected to
represent the nominal distance from the tropical oceans to major industrialized centers throughout the
world) to the port facility in liquid form to be primarily used as a transportation fuel. A 100 MW-net
plantship can be configured to yield (by electrolysis) 1300 kg per hour of liquid hydrogen. Unfortunately,
the production cost of liquid hydrogen delivered to the harbor would be equivalent to a $250 barrel-ofcrude-oil (approximately 10 times present cost). The situation is similar for the other energy carriers
considered in the literature. Presently, the only energy carrier that is cost-effective for OTEC energy is
the submarine power cable. This situation might be different if the external costs of energy production
and consumption are accounted for.
Many technical challenges to the implementation of a hydrogen economy.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), April 22 2014
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/enabling_hydrogen.cfm
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
The development of a robust “hydrogen economy,” however, presents many technical challenges.
Hydrogen can embrittle metals and other container materials, is highly combustible, and may require
storage containers larger than those for other fuels with equivalent energy. Moreover, the technical
infrastructure must be developed to ensure safe production, storage, distribution, and delivery, as well
as equitable sale, of hydrogen in the marketplace.
Hydrogen cannot function with the requirements of an energy market.
David Morris A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea Feb 23 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story/15239/a_hydrogen_economy_is_a_bad_idea
There is another energy-related problem with hydrogen. It is the lightest element, about eight times
lighter than methane. Compacting it for storage or transport is expensive and energy intensive. A recent
study by two Swiss engineers concludes, "We have to accept that [hydrogen's] ... physical properties are
incompatible with the requirements of the energy market. Production, packaging, storage, transfer and
delivery of the gas ... are so energy consuming that alternatives should be considered." The most
compelling rationale for making hydrogen is that it is a way to store energy. That could benefit
renewable energy sources like wind and sunlight that can't generate energy on demand. But batteries
and flywheels can store electricity directly. The all-electric vehicle has not yet found a commercial
market, but we should acknowledge the rapid advances made in electric storage technologies in the last
few years.
The laws of physics prove hydrogen could never replace fossil fuels – trying to do so
only depletes oil faster
Alice Friedemann, 3/1/2005, Energy Bulletin, "hydrogen economy: energy and economic black hole,"
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541
At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, you’ve used more
energy than you get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles
(17). The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties
require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy
cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how
much money is spent. You
will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get
out of it. The price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in
extracting countries. Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure
(i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it
will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. As depletion continues, factories will be driven out of business by high fuel costs (20, 21,
22) and the parts necessary to build the extremely complex storage tanks and fuel cells might become unavailable. In a society that’s looking
more and more like Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, hydrogen will be too leaky and explosive to handle. Any
diversion of declining fossil
fuels to a hydrogen economy subtracts that energy from other possible uses, such as planting, harvesting,
delivering, and cooking food, heating homes, and other essential activities. According to Joseph Romm “The energy and
environmental problems facing the nation and the world, especially global warming, are far too serious to risk
making major policy mistakes that misallocate scarce resources (3).
A “hydrogen economy” would worsen warming – leaks would increase hydrogen in
the atmosphere by 800%
Popular Science, January 2005, "Warning: the hydrogen economy may be more distant than it
appears," http://www.michaelbehar.com/popsci/warninghydrogen.html,
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Hydrogen gas is odorless and colorless, and it burns almost invisibly. A tiny fire may go undetected at a leaky fuel pump until your pant leg goes
up in flames. And it doesn’t take much to set compressed hydrogen gas alight. “A cellphone or a lightning storm puts out enough static
discharge to ignite hydrogen,” claims Joseph Romm, author of The Hype about Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate and
founder of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions in Arlington, Virginia. A fender bender is unlikely to spark an explosion, because carbonfiber-reinforced hydrogen tanks are virtually indestructible. But that doesn’t eliminate the danger of leaks elsewhere in what will eventually be
a huge network of refineries, pipelines and fueling stations. “The obvious pitfall is that hydrogen is a gas, and most of our existing
petrochemical sources are liquids,” says Robert Uhrig, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee and former vice
president of Florida Power & Light. “The infrastructure required to support high-pressure gas or cryogenic liquid hydrogen is much more
complicated. Hydrogen
finest of holes.” To
is one of those things that people have great difficulty confining. It tends to go through the
calculate the effects a leaky infrastructure might have on our atmosphere, a team of
researchers from the California Institute of Technology and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, looked at statistics for
accidental industrial hydrogen and natural gas leakage—estimated at 10 to 20 percent of total volume—and then predicted
how much leakage might occur in an economy in which everything runs on hydrogen. Result: The
amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere would be four to eight times as high as it is today. The Caltech study
“grossly overstated” hydrogen leakage, says Assistant Secretary David Garman of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. But whatever its volume, hydrogen added to the atmosphere will combine with oxygen to form water vapor, creating
noctilucent clouds—those high, wispy tendrils you see at dawn and dusk.
The increased cloud cover could accelerate
global warming .
Multiple barriers prevent the implementation of large enough hydrogen fuel
infrastructure to solve the harms of the 1ac.
Ken Silverstein, Editor, Energy Central. “Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles Could Emerge From Traffic”,
Forbes. 06/06/2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/06/06/hydrogen-poweredvehicles-could-emerge-from-traffic/
The “hydrogen economy” is taking a back seat to the “green economy,” which essentially means that today’s prevailing automotive
technologies are pushing the purest energy forms further down the road. In other words, the latest hybrid vehicles and all-electric cars are
already here. So the use of hydrogen in fuel cells to run cars, buses and trucks are still stuck in traffic. But
maybe not for too much longer. A lot of smart people are working to commercialize the effort and to produce ultra-clean vehicles that could
run 300 miles before they would need to re-juice. In fact, both the national energy labs as well as the auto companies are laboring, with Toyota
saying it wants to have a hydrogen-powered sedan ready next decade. “The
hydrogen economy has a high degree of
environmental friendliness,” says Bryan Pivovar, acting director for hydrogen projects at the NationalEnergy Renewable Laboratory, in
a phone conversation with this reporter. “But it comes down to questions of economics: Hybrids are here now while fuel cell-powered vehicles
will initially emerge in small numbers and then gradually expand.” The
paradox is, however, that no one wants to construct
hydrogen fueling stations if hydrogen vehicles are not mass produced, he adds. But they won’t be built
until the infrastructure exists. That dilemma is being addressed. Notably, Toyota, Daimler and Hyundai all have projects in the mix.
The vehicles will trickle out at first but may eventually start to flow. “We are preparing to be able to produce tens of thousands per year in the
2020s,” says Didier Leroy, head of Toyota’s European operations, in a formal statement at a car show. Obstacles,
though, are
standing in the way. Hydrogen does not sit alone in nature and must therefore be separated from
oxygen. To break it out, however, requires energy produced by other fuels. If fossil fuels are used, the
process then consumes more energy than is produced, and the result is likely more pollution. If renewable or
nuclear sources are used, the procedure is more benign. But questions arise as to whether it is more efficient to make hydrogen or just directly
burn the associated fuels. Abundant
shale gas resources could be used. Such unconventional natural gas
releases about half the emissions as coal. But the problem is that it takes a lot of natural gas to isolate
the hydrogen, leaving many to say that it would be more productive to just combust the natural gas in a
conventional engine. “Initially, hydrogen will likely come from the steam reforming of natural gas, as this is the most economic route,”
says the renewable lab’s Pivovar. It is also difficult to store hydrogen — something the U.S. Department of Energy has said is the
top priority when it comes to commercializing fuel cell vehicles. There is a further need to develop a pipeline
infrastructure that can deliver the product. Pipelines that move hydrogen are said to be 30 percent
more expensive than those that carry natural gas. While the production of hydrogen results in lost energy, Pivovar says that
the use of hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle provides much more oomph than gasoline. That would help compensate for those efficiency losses
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
during the generation process. Fuel cells are now being adopted in the area of materials handling equipment that includes fork lifts as well as in
the field of telecommunications, says Pivovar. As for the automotive sector, he says that the first fuel cells will also include a battery. With that,
he goes on to say that today’s hybrid vehicles will evolve and serve as a bridge to the ultimate hydrogen economy. The know-how
exists
but the cost of creating a new hydrogen-powered auto sector is now prohibitive. That’s why the immediate focus
will remain on improving those hybrid technologies that are firmly planted. All-electrics are next in line while hydrogen-fueled vehicles are a
few car lengths behind.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A2 Oil dependence
The US is already decreasing oil dependence without the use of hydrogen
Angel Gonzalez, Wall Street Journal. “Expanded Oil Drilling Helps U.S.Wean Itself From Mideast”
The Wall Street Journal. 06/27/2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304441404577480952719124264.html
YA
America will halve its reliance on Middle East oil by the end of this decade and could end it completely
by 2035 due to declining demand and the rapid growth of new petroleum sources in the Western Hemisphere, energy analysts
now anticipate. The shift, a result of technological advances that are unlocking new sources of oil in shale-rock formations, oil sands and deep
beneath the ocean floor, carries profound consequences for the U.S. economy and energy security. A good portion of this surprising bounty
comes from the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique perfected during the last decade in U.S. fields previously
deemed not worth tampering with. By
2020, nearly half of the crude oil America consumes will be produced at
home, while 82% will come from this side of the Atlantic, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By
2035, oil shipments from the Middle East to North America "could almost be nonexistent," the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries recently predicted, partly because more efficient car engines and a growing supply of renewable fuel will help
curb demand. The
change achieves a long-sought goal of U.S. policy-making: to draw more oil from nearby,
stable sources and less from a volatile region half a world away. "Whereas at one point there were real and
serious concerns about the ability to maintain sustainable access of supplies to the United States if there
were disruptions in the Middle East, that has changed," Carlos Pascual, the top energy official at the State Department, said
in an interview.
U.S. Oil dependence not bad
Ivan Eland, 7/12/08, , Independent.org “U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil: Why We Shouldn’t Be
Alarmed " http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2306
ML
But one thing is sure: it’s a myth that being dependent on imported oil is bad. As a way to stump politicians who
perpetuate this nonsense, perhaps we should ask them this question: If oil is so critical and will become even more valuable when world
supplies allegedly dwindle in the future, shouldn’t we use other countries’ oil now and have the U.S. government require that our limited
production be saved to use or sell as the shortages worsen and future prices go even higher? Diametrically opposed to the present time, with
the prevalent fears of dependency on foreign oil, this “conservation theory” was all the rage in the late
1930s and 1940s when a slowdown in finding new oil deposits seemed to threaten chronic future
shortages (similar to the dire predictions after World War I and in the early 1920s before big oil
discoveries were made late in the 1920s).
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A2 Oil Price Shocks
No economic collapse from shocks – most comprehensive data.
Khadduri, 8/23/2011 (Walid – former Middle East Economic Survey Editor-in-Chief, The impact of rising
oil prices on the economies of importing nations, Al Arabiya News, p.
http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2011/08/23/163590.html)
What is the impact of oil price shocks on the economies of importing nations? At first glance, there appears to be largescale and extremely adverse repercussions for rising oil prices. However, a study published this month by researchers in the
IMF Working Paper group suggests a different picture altogether (it is worth mentioning that the IMF has not endorsed its
findings.) The study (Tobias N. Rasmussen & Agustin Roitman, "Oil Shocks in a Global Perspective: Are They Really That Bad?", IMF Working
Paper, August 2011) mentions that “Using
a comprehensive global dataset
[…] we
find that the impact of higher
oil prices on oil-importing economies is generally small : a 25 percent increase in oil prices typically causes GDP
to fall by about half of one percent
or less.” The study elaborates on this by stating that this impact differs from one country to
another, depending on the size of oil-imports, as “oil price shocks are not always costly for oil-importing countries: although
higher oil
prices increase the import bill, there are partly offsetting increases in external receipts [represented in new
and additional expenditures borne by both oil-exporting and oil-importing countries]”. In other words, the more oil prices increase,
benefiting exporting countries, the more these new revenues are recycled, for example through the growth in
demand for new services, labor, and commodity imports. The researchers argue that the series of oil price rallies (in 1983,
1996, 2005, and 2009) have played an important role in recessions in the United States. However, Rasmussen and Roitman state at
the same time that significant changes in the U.S. economy in the previous period (the appearance of combined elements,
such as improvements in monetary policy, the institution of a labor market more flexible than before and a
relatively smaller usage of oil in the U.S. economy) has greatly mitigated the negative effects of oil prices on
the U.S. economy. A 10 percent rise in oil prices before 1984, for instance, used to lower the U.S. GDP by about
0.7 percent over two to three years, while this figure started shrinking to no more than 0.25 percent after 1984,
owing to these accumulated economic changes. This means that while oil price shocks continue to adversely impact the U.S. economy, the
latter has managed, as a result of the changes that transpired following the first shock in the seventies, to overcome these
shocks , and subsequently, the impact of oil price shocks has become extremely limited
compared to previous
periods.
---Economy’s resilient – can survive shocks
Bloomberg 12 (“Fed’s Plosser Says U.S. Economy Proving Resilient to Shocks,” 5-9,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/fed-s-plosser-says-u-s-economy-proving-resilient-toshocks.html)
Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Plosser said the U.S. economy has proven
“remarkably resilient” to shocks that can damage growth, including surging oil prices and natural
disasters. “The economy has now grown for 11 consecutive quarters ,” Plosser said today according to remarks
prepared for a speech at the Philadelphia Fed. “Growth is not robust. But growth in the past year has continued
despite significant risks and external and internal headwinds.” Plosser, who did not discuss his economic outlook or
the future for monetary policy, cited shocks to the economy last year, including the tsunami in Japan that disrupted
global supply chains, Europe’s credit crisis that has damaged the continent’s banking system and political
unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. “The U.S. economy has a history of being remarkably
resilient ,” said Plosser, who doesn’t have a vote on policy this year. “These shocks held GDP growth to less than 1 percent in the first half
of 2011, and many analysts were concerned that the economy was heading toward a double dip. Yet, the economy proved resilient and growth
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
picked up in the second half of the year.” Plosser spoke at a conference at the Philadelphia Fed titled, “Reinventing Older Communities:
Building Resilient Cities.” Urban Resilience His regional bank’s research department is working on a project to measure the resilience of
different cities, to learn more about the reasons that some urban areas suffer more than others in downturns, Plosser said. He mentioned one
early finding of the study: Industrial diversity increases a city’s resilience. “I do want to caution you that resilient and vibrant communities are
not just about government programs or directed industrial planning by community leaders,” Plosser said. “The
economic strength of
our country is deeply rooted in our market- based economy and the dynamism and resilience of its
citizenry.”
No impact to oil shocks – Multiple checks
-Cartel Cheating
-Private Reserves
-Government reserves
-Pipeline re-routing
-Ship re-routing
Eugene Gholz (assistant professor of public affairs at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas) and Daryl G. Press (associate professor of government at Dartmouth College) August 2010
“Protecting “The Prize”: Oil and the U.S. National Interest” Security Studies, Vol 19, Issue 3
Each day, twenty-four million barrels of crude are pumped from the Persian Gulf region, most of which
are loaded onto supertankers to feed refineries around the world. 8 The immediate effect of a major
supply disruption in the Gulf would leave one or more consumers wondering where their next expected
oil delivery will come from. But the oil market, like most others, adjusts to shocks via a variety of
mechanisms. These adaptations do not require careful coordination, unusually wise stewardship, or
benign motives. Individuals’ drive for profit triggers most of them. The details of each oil shock are
unique, so each crisis triggers a different mix of adaptations. Some adjustments would begin within
hours of a disruption; others would take weeks or longer to implement. Similarly, some could only
supply the market for short periods of time, and others could be sustained indefinitely. But the net
result of the adaptations softens the disruptions’ effects on consumers. Increased Production Any event
that reduces oil supply—for example, a fire at a pumping station in Kuwait or a labor strike in
Venezuela—will spur other producers around the world to increase output. Disruptions draw new oil
into the market through two distinct mechanisms. First, producers not part of the OPEC cartel (including
major players such as Russia, the United States, and Canada) increase output to respond to short-term
price spikes. Firms in these countries typically produce as much oil as they can, as long as the expected
price exceeds their costs. 9 They will see an opportunity to profit from the higher price during a spike,
and so after a disruption, they pump more than they did before. In most cases, these non-OPEC
countries have only modest amounts of ready-to-pump “spare capacity,” but their additional output can
help eliminate temporary shortages. 10 The second mechanism is based on politics rather than
economics: oil market shocks tend to disrupt delicate cartel agreements, leading to increased global
production. 11 The purpose of cartels like OPEC is to limit the total amount of product on the market.
Members of a cartel agree to produce less than they otherwise would, thereby raising the price. Not
surprisingly, cartels rarely function smoothly: billions of dollars are at stake as members squabble over
total cartel output and the size of each country's assigned quota. 12 Furthermore, whatever the cartel
decides, every member has a short-term incentive to cheat (and an even stronger incentive to suspect
everyone else of cheating). 13 Although successful cartels can reduce output and enrich their members,
the process is often acrimonious, and disputes among members are common. The international
negotiations among cartel members facilitate adaptation to oil supply shocks for three reasons. The first
is simply the raison d’etre of any cartel: when members produce less than they could, they create spare
capacity. Cartel members can turn on that slack relatively quickly in response to a supply disruption
elsewhere. Second, because cartel members always have an incentive to cheat by exceeding their
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
output quota, cartel leaders like Saudi Arabia in OPEC usually maintain significant slack capacity to
discipline wayward members: too much cheating may arouse the leader to flood the market, driving
down prices for everyone. 14 The cartel leader's spare capacity is available to replace barrels of supply
lost in a disruption. Finally, oil shocks impede smooth cartel management. 15 Global production has
dropped, so someone ought to replace it, but who? Each member will want a share. When supply
conditions change substantially, the cartel must reopen its delicate, zero-sum negotiations, dividing
shares among its members. Every reallocation is an opportunity for disputes, and while the negotiations
proceed (often slowly), many members will act on their incentive to exceed their pre-shock production
quota. Furthermore, if the disruption is caused by infighting among cartel members—as it was during
the Iran-Iraq War and after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait—the odds of a smooth, coordinated cartel
response are slim. 16 Because OPEC cartel members tend to possess most of the world's spare capacity,
the breakdown of cartel discipline in the wake of a shock can trigger major increases in global oil
production. 17 Of course, increased production alone is no panacea for consumers. Spare capacity
cannot be tapped instantly, and in rare circumstances, the world's producers max out their pumping
capacity, leaving little slack for crises. 18 But market incentives and the political challenges of cartel
management mitigate the consequences of most disruptions. 19 Private Inventories Commercial firms
hold large private inventories of oil, which help shield global markets from supply shocks. 20 The
amount of oil in commercial stockpiles varies with market conditions, but commercial stocks in the
United States alone often hold between one and two billion barrels—that is, they are roughly twice as
large as U.S. government stockpiles (described below). 21 In normal times, companies use their private
stocks to smooth out the day-to-day fluctuation in oil deliveries and to account for routine delays caused
by weather, small-scale accidents, labor unrest, or political disruptions. 22 But the private inventories,
held by companies as part of their prudent normal operations, also provide a valuable buffer for the
global economy. Much like oil exporters, inventory holders are potential suppliers in the market. They
are just suppliers who pump oil out of storage tanks rather than out of geologically determined
underground reservoirs. For example, a flare-up of violence in Nigeria could remove up to two million
barrels a day from global markets. In such a contingency, prices would rise, and firms would have an
incentive to tap their inventories. The inventory holders might consume oil directly from their own
stocks, or they might sell oil from their stocks to other consumers. Either way, they would in essence put
oil back on the market, compensating for the disruption. The existence of privately owned storage space
does not always mitigate short-term disruptions. If buyers expect conditions to worsen after an initial
shock, they may react by increasing their holdings or hoarding, rather than by selling from inventory. 23
Consequently, global demand for oil may sometimes increase in the middle of a crisis, sharply driving up
prices. Some of this hoarding behavior may be irrational, based on unfounded fears, but when buyers
calculate that a shock presages a higher rate of disruptions in the future, some of that behavior is
rational. Hoarding can even benefit consumers: if the hoarders are right and the supply shocks recur,
that hoarded oil will be available, allowing those with large stocks to use them or sell them, putting oil
back on the market. Overall, shortages and increased prices tend to draw stockpiled inventories into the
market. As a result, the massive private inventories act as shock absorbers for the companies holding
them, and they also smooth the ride for the global economy. Government-Controlled Inventories Many
countries maintain strategic petroleum stockpiles under the direct control of the government to ensure
access to oil during supply shocks. 24 For example, the United States holds approximately seven
hundred million barrels of crude in strategic reserves; the European members of the International
Energy Agency hold approximately four hundred million barrels, half as crude oil and half as refined
product stocks. In East Asia, Japan, China, and South Korea hold large reserves. In other words, the
United States and its closest allies control more than 1.4 billion barrels of ready-to-deploy oil. Consumer
governments make the decision on whether to release this oil, and the first barrels could be auctioned
and pumped into the market in a matter of days. Analysts often criticize these stockpiles—too harshly.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
25 At first glance, these stocks appear woefully inadequate. For example, the United States consumes
roughly nineteen million barrels of oil per day (mb/d), so a seven hundred million barrel reserve would
last less than six weeks. Furthermore, the maximum flow rate of oil out of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum
Reserve is far lower than 19 mb/d. This criticism, however, misses the mark because there is no
plausible scenario in which the U.S. petroleum reserve would have to replace all nineteen million barrels
of oil the United States consumes. A better benchmark for these reserves would compare the size of the
stockpile to the size of plausible disruptions. If, for example, the largest plausible disruption (after
factoring in the other adaptations listed in this section) would leave the world 3 mb/d short, then the
United States alone could replace every lost barrel for many months. The combined stockpiles of U.S.
and allied governments could replace lost oil from most plausible disruptions, barrel-for-barrel, for well
over a year. Governments that hold large strategic petroleum stockpiles try to avoid tapping them as a
response to fluctuations in oil prices; their reserves can respond to temporary supply shocks but cannot
change the long-term trends in global oil supply and demand. 26 Government stockpiles were not an
antidote to the high oil prices of 2007–08, nor will they insulate the global economy if commodity prices
rise sharply when the global economy recovers from the current recession. But if a fire, labor unrest, or
a series of attacks on oil tankers reduces access to oil, governments can sell stocks to quickly add
millions of barrels of oil to global markets. Re-routing Transportation Seaborne transportation is the
most rapidly adaptable part of the energy industry. Oil tankers can change routes to avoid troubled
waters (for example, war zones and pirates), and in some cases, oil exporters can offset reduced tanker
traffic by increasing the flow through pipelines or offset pipeline disruptions through increased tanker
traffic. Maps of peacetime shipping routes create the illusion of energy vulnerability: the global
economy appears to hinge on keeping the shipping arteries clear of disruptions. But this vulnerability is
an illusion. Shipping patterns are chosen because they are the most efficient routes in normal
circumstances; when threats arise, shippers compare their normal patterns to their next best alternative
and pick the best option. The global energy transport industry is not like a body's circulatory system. It is
more like the World Wide Web where packets are re-routed around blockages to get to their final
addresses. This simple point is often overlooked when analysts talk about threats to shipping. For
example, many analysts worry about threats to tanker traffic through the Strait of Malacca, a popular
route for ships traveling between the Middle East and East Asia. But if tanker traffic were harassed
there, captains could simply sail through the Straits of Lombok and Makassar instead—a minor
diversion. 27 The implication is not that oil transport is immune to disruption; in fact, a few key
waterways are particularly important because alternative routes add significant time and expense. If the
Suez Canal were blocked, the best shipping route from the Middle East to Europe would pass all the way
around the southern tip of Africa. Similarly, the Strait of Hormuz—arguably the world's only true
chokepoint—is the only sea passage out of the Persian Gulf. The key point is that disruptions to the
transportation network trigger rapid adjustments: tankers re-route and pipelines max-out, getting oil
back on the market
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A2 Oil dependence causes war
The motivation to intervene is based on desire to sustain hegemony – not oil/energy.
We would still intervene even if we had full energy self sufficiency; even now we get
only 20% of our oil from there
Paul Street (author & democracy analyst) 2006 http://www.zcommunications.org/addicted-toempire-not-middle-eastern-oil-by-paul-street
We’re over there, he wants us to believe, because, we are just too dependent on all that damn oil beneath the
Arabs’ “unstable” lands. He gets it, the president wishes us to know, and he’s working on it. His solution, by the
way, for what it’s worth, is all-too simply and typically American: “technology,” including nuclear. But contrary
to conventional wisdom in dominant media, Bush’s supposedly candid “addicted to [Arab] oil” statement was
more about deception than frankness. This is for two reasons. The first one is simple: the U.S. imports just 20
percent of its petroleum from the Middle East, the obvious geographic meaning (though he may also have had
Venezuela in mind) of Bush’s phrase “unstable parts of the world.” The second reason is a bit more complex.
When it comes to America, Iraq, oil, war, and world geography, the really honest and relevant point regarding U.S.
policy is that Uncle Sam is addicted to global dominance and empire. That addiction and not direct-use reliance
on Persian Gulf petroleum is the real reason "we" are in Iraq (against the wishes of “our” own populace not to
mention those of the Iraqis) and not likely to leave anytime soon. U.S. policymakers have long known that Middle
Eastern oil is critical to their dominance in the world. They’ve long exhibited an obsessive but logical concern
with controlling world petroleum supplies, which are disproportionately concentrated in the Middle East. That
concern is all about the “critical leverage” (to use President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski's telling phrase) such control gives the United States over its major competitor states in Europe and
Asia. And as Noam Chomsky observes, U.S. policymakers’ determination to guarantee and expand American
hegemony in the world system through manipulation of this “critical leverage” goes back to World War II. It
would be no less relevant today if the U.S. enjoyed full energy self-sufficiency.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Oil dependence good - hegemony
Oil Dependence is key to heg- reserve currency and engagement
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a
senior editor at The National Interest “Oil Dependence as Virtue” National Interest Nov/Dec 2008,
Issue 98 Ebsco
But would this really be the case? It may be that the assumptions we hold are grounded in a
misunderstanding of the global order. Perhaps instead, without oil dominating their economies, the
Middle East oil states would be far less dependent on the United States for trade, for security and for
dollars. Perhaps the dollar would no longer be the world's reserve currency, which would severely
hinder America's ability to fund its current-account deficit--and its military superiority. And then,
perhaps, the security guarantee the United States provides to the Middle East--and by extension the
entire oil-dependent world--would be null and void. In short, a world that doesn't need oil may also be a
world that doesn't need the United States. But when prices of oil are skyrocketing, people aren't
thinking about the possible long-term implications of energy independence, only the short-term gains.
Controls escalation of all conflicts – collapse causes global wars
Yuhan Zhang (a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.) and
Lin Shi (Columbia University, independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the
World Bank in Washington, D.C.) January 2011 “America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry”
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/
However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind
the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American
interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As
history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late
19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest
towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of
British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such
a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s
security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and
rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property
rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal
opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal
trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought
opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will
happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although
sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the
Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect
global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a
post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and
strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO
might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to
fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political
and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major
powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the
Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as
American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A
world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international
system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, antiglobalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be
devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
Eliminates Middle East presence- that’s key to projection of power
Hulbert 11/07/2012 [Matthew Hulbert Lead Analyst at European Energy Review and consultant to a
number of governments & institutional investors, most recently as Senior Research Fellow, Netherlands
Institute for International Relations 11/07/2012 Forbes “Obama Ground Zero: Why Cheap American
Energy Is The Death Of American Power”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/11/07/obama-ground-zero-why-cheap-americanenergy-is-the-death-of-american-power/2/]
The second – related - fact is that it makes a total mockery of American military posture in the Middle
East. It doesn’t make sense for America to spend billions of dollars providing external security
guarantees across the Gulf, only to watch them internally implode under the weight of lower oil prices,
directly driven by U.S. energy output. That’s not great news for the State Department, that knows full
well that its presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with securing energy supplies for American
consumers, and everything to do with projecting pivotal U.S. power across Eurasia, the Middle East and
into Asia. Stay planted in the Gulf, and Washington can exact ‘easy’ concessions elsewhere. But
unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the ‘Carter Doctrine’ simply isn’t going to wash with the U.S. masses
when it comes to maintaining Washington’s strategic role in the world. Why ‘waste’ American treasure
and blood on OPEC states when the U.S. is swimming in oil? Trying to explain the complexities of global
energy markets to American voters when things turn bad – and collateral costs spiral out of control –
forget it.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
Terrorism defense
Terrorism Threat Exaggerated
Mueller 14 (January 8, 2014) “Has the Threat from Terrorism Been Exaggerated?” Cato Institute;
Commentary.
John Mueller is a political scientist at Ohio State, close associate and leading participant in North America’s Top Annual Security
Conference.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/has-threat-terrorism-been-exaggerated
Two years after the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideaway, terrorism
alarmists remain in peak form explaining that
although al-Qaeda has been weakened it still manages to present a grave threat. Various well-honed
techniques are applied to support this contention. One is to espy and assess various “linkages” or
“connections” of “ties” or “threads” between and among a range of disparate terrorists or terrorist
groups, most of which appear rather gossamer and of only limited consequence on closer examination.
Another is to exaggerate the importance and effectiveness of the “affiliated groups” linked to al-Qaeda
central. In particular, alarmists point to the al-Qaeda affiliate in chaotic Yemen, ominously hailing it as
the “deadliest” and the “most aggressive” of these and a “major threat.” Yet its chief efforts at international
terrorism have failed abysmally: an underwear bomb and laser printer bombs on cargo planes. With that track record, the group may pose a
problem or concern, but
it scarcely presents a “major threat” outside of war zones . More generally, “al-Qaeda is its
own worst enemy,” as Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official, notes. “Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly
discredit themselves.” Any
terrorist threat within the developed world seems even less impressive. The Boston
terrorists of 2013 were the first in the United States since 9/11 in which Islamist terrorists actually were
able to assemble and detonate bombs — albeit very primitive ones. But except for that, they do not
seem to have been more competent than most of their predecessors. Amazingly, they apparently
thought they could somehow get away with their deed even though they chose to set their bombs off at
the most-photographed spot on the planet at the time. Moreover, they had no coherent plan of escape
and, as commonly found, no ability to explain how killing a few random people would advance their
cause. While the scope of the tragedy in Boston should not be minimized, it should also be noted that if the terrorists’ aim was to kill a large
number of people, their bombs failed miserably. As recent cases in Colorado and Connecticut sadly
demonstrate, far more fatalities have been inflicted by gunmen. Before Boston, some 16 people had been killed by
Islamist terrorists in the United States in the years since 2001, and all of these were murdered by people who were essentially acting alone. By
contrast, in the 1970s, organized terrorists inflicted hundreds of attacks, mostly bombings, in the United States, killing 72. As concern about
organized attacks has diminished, fear of “lone wolf” attacks has grown in recent years, and one official assessment contends that “lone
offenders currently present the greatest threat.” This is a reasonable observation, but those concerned should keep in mind that, as analyst
Max Abrahms has noted, while
lone wolves may be difficult to police, they have carried out only two of the
1,900 most deadly terrorist attacks over the last four decades. The key question, at least outside of war zones, is not,
“are we safer?” but “how safe are we?” At current rates, an American’s chance of becoming a victim of terrorism in
the U.S., even with 9/11 in the calculation, is about 1 in 3.5 million per year. In comparison, that same American
stands a 1 in 22,000 yearly chance of becoming a homicide victim, a 1 in 8,000 chance of perishing in an auto accident, and a 1 in 500 chance of
dying from cancer. These calculations are based, of course, on historical data. However, alarmists who would reject such history need to explain
why they think terrorists will suddenly become vastly more competent in the future. But no one seems to be making that argument. Indeed,
U.S. officials now say that al-Qaeda has become less capable of a large attack like 9/11 .
But she also says that they made this disclosure only on condition of anonymity out of fear that “publicly
identifying themselves could make them a target” of terrorists. In contrast, one terrorism specialist, Peter Bergen, has
observed in heroic full attribution mode that, “The last terror attack (in the West) was seven years ago in London,”
that there “haven’t been any major attacks in the U.S.,” and that “they are recruiting no-hopers and
dead-enders.” Terrorists do, of course, exist — as they have throughout history. They may even get lucky again sometime. Thus, concern
and watchfulness about terrorism is justified. But counterterrorism expenditures that are wildly disproportionate to
the limited hazard terrorism presents are neither wise nor responsible.
notes one reporter,
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
90% failure rate of terrorist nuclear attack
Michael A. Levi (Fellow for Science and Technology) 4/17/2007 “How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist
Attack on the United States?”, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/
We should not, however, underestimate the odds of terrorist failure. There isn’t enough space
here to make that point comprehensively, but I’ll try to convince you that simple arguments for why
failure is highly unlikely may be weaker than they seem. The case for the ease of building a gun-type
weapon provides a good example of how we often overestimate how easy a terrorist task may be. I
certainly won’t debate the fact that Manhattan Project scientists “were so confident about this design
that they persuaded military authorities to drop the bomb, untested, on Hiroshima.” But we should
parse the word “untested” carefully. During the Manhattan Project, scientists and engineers spent years
testing the gun itself; testing their casting and machining of the uranium metal to avoid fires and
criticality accidents during production, and impurities in the product; testing the initiator that would
trigger the chain reaction; and testing how different configurations of materials would behave, a project
that led to the death of one physicist. No one conducted a full-scale test explosion, but that hardly
means that building the weapon was trivial. A terrorist group would have to do many of the same things
(though technological progress would make some steps easier) all while attempting to hide from law
enforcement and intelligence. This doesn’t mean that terrorists couldn’t build a gun-type bomb, but it
suggests that their chances of failure aren’t negligible. This takes on special importance in the context of
a broader defense. Imagine a terrorist group faces only a twenty percent chance of failure
while building a bomb. But imagine it also faces a similarly small chance of failure while
attempting to purchase nuclear materials, while attempting to recruit scientists and
engineers, while raising money for its plot, while smuggling materials into the United
States, while purchasing non-nuclear components for its weapon, while assembling the
bomb in a safehouse, and in other elements of its plot. If we combine, for example, ten
such hurdles, we get a ninety percent chance of failure. We can debate the numbers, but
this suggests that we shouldn’t be too quick to ignore small chances of terrorist failure.
Not an existential threat – no overreaction
John Mueller (Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, Mershon Center, and is professor of
Political Science, at Ohio State University) 2010 “Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima
to Al Qaeda” p. 232
From this perspective, then, rhetorical declamations insisting that terrorism poses an existential
threat are profoundly misguided. And so self-destructive overreactions (like the war in Iraq) which are
also encouraging to the terrorists. As Osama bin Laden crowed in 2004: It is easy for us to provoke and
bait .... All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin ... to raise a piece of cloth on which is wtitten alQaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and
political losses. Our policy is one -...... of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. The terrorist
attacks cost al-Qaeda $500,000 while the attack and its aftermath .. inflicted a cost of more than $500
billion on the United States. .... Or perhaps, it is even worse. To the extent that we "portray the terrorist
nuclear threat as the thing we fear most," notes Susan Martin, "we ow--. ture the idea that this is what
terrorists must do if they want to be taka. ; seriously:'48 Existential bombast can be useful for scoring
political points, selling. newspapers, or securing funding for pet projects or bureaucratic
expansion. However, it does so by essentially suggesting that, if the terrorists really want to destroy
us, all they have to do is hit us with a terrific punch, particularly a nuclear one. Although the attack
may not in itself be remotely" enough to cause the nation to cease to exist, purveyors of bombast
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
assure the terrorists that the target country will respond by obligingly destroying itself in
anguished overreaction. The suggestion, then, is that it is not ' only the most feared terrorists who are
suicidal. As Sageman points out, the United States hardly faces a threat to its existence,
because even a nuclear strike by terrorists "will not destroy the nation:' As things stand now, he..
adds, "only the United States could obliterate the United States:'49 Atomic terrorism may indeed be the
single most serious threat to the national security of the United States. Assessed in an appropriate
context, however, the likelihood that such a calamity will come about seems breathtakingly small.
Sensible, cost-effective policies designed to make that probability even lower may be justified, given the
damage that can be inflicted by an atomic explosion. But unjustified, obsessive alarmism about the
likelihood and imminence of atomic terrorism has had policy consequences that have been costly
and unnecessary. Among them are the war in Iraq and the focus on WMD that seduced federal agencies
away from due preparation 5o for disasters that have actually happened, such as Hurricane Katrina.
Arch-demon Zawahiri once noted that the group only became aware of biological weapons "when the
enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concerns that they can be produced simply
with easily available materials;'5! By constantly suggesting that the United States will destroy
itself in response to an atomic explosion, the existential bombast about a terrorist bomb
that follows so naturally from decades of atomic obsession encourages the most diabolical
and murderous terrorists to investigate the possibility of obtaining one. Fortunately,
however, would-be atomic terrorists are exceedingly unlikely to be successful in such a quest,
however intense the inspiration and encouragement they receive from the unintentional
cheerleaders among their distant enemies.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
OTEC is expensive
OTEC is too expensive for the risk – alternate forms of energy could provide power
cheaper with the same certainty.
BECCA FRIEDMAN Source: Harvard Political Review 2008
EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION rick03.2014OTEC News
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the
technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the form of
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes,
however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in
its research and development phase.¶ Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph
Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a
Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If we can use one percent of the energy
[generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000
times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any
other renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.Ӧ Despite the sound science, a fully functioning
OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier.
Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a largescale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology
Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant
could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology
Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main
liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge
capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky
that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.
OTEC is expensive – in excess of $1 billion per plant.
Daniel Cusick, E&E reporter ClimateWire: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 U.S.-designed no-emission power
plant will debut off China's coast http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059980380
Hartman said Makai is supportive of Lockheed Martin's work in China and hopes to be able to
participate in the project in some way. "The biggest obstacle to OTEC is economies of scale," he said.
"You get a lot more bang for your buck if you go bigger."¶ He estimated that a 100 MW OTEC plant
would cost in excess of $1 billion to build using current technologies, and that the cost would not be
significantly lower for a scaled-down plant.
OTEC is extremely expensive
Energy Place – Energy Resource Center, 2010, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)
http://energyplace.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=11
The Earth's oceans are continually heated by the sun, and cover nearly 70% of the earth’s surface. The
secret to harvesting the ocean’s stored solar energy lies in exploiting the difference in temperature
between the warmer water at the surface, and the colder water at greater depth. If the extraction could
be made cost-effective, it could provide two to three times more energy than other ocean-energy
options, such as wave power. But the small magnitude of the temperature difference makes energy
extraction, so far, relatively difficult and expensive.
MSDI 2014
#debatelikeabear
OTEC Neg
A full OTEC prototype has never been developed- estimated cost is 100 million dollars
over 5 years
Ocean Energy Council, March 2014, Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the
effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation
that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five
years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and
other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and
there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same
certainty,” Penney told the HPR.