1AC
Plan Text
Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase
market-fixed production cost incentives for domestic deployment of small
modular nuclear reactors.
Leadership
Lack of reactor development is eroding US nuke leadership now- SMR
deployment key
Rosner and Goldberg 2011
(Robert (William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Astronomy
and Astrophysics and Physics) and Stephen (Special Assistant to the Director at the Argonne
National Laboratory) , Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, “Small Modular Reactors – Key to
Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.”, Technical Paper, Revision 1, November 2011,
https://epic.sites.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/EPICSMRWhitePaperFinal
copy.pdf, accessed 7-31-12, RSR)
As stated earlier, SMRs have the potential to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission
reductions. They could provide alternative baseload power generation to facilitate the
retirement of older, smaller, and less efficient coal generation plants that would, otherwise, not
be good candidates for retrofitting carbon capture and storage technology. They could be
deployed in regions of the U.S. and the world that have less potential for other forms of
carbon-free electricity, such as solar or wind energy. There may be technical or market
constraints, such as projected electricity demand growth and transmission capacity, which
would support SMR deployment but not GW-scale LWRs. From the on-shore manufacturing
perspective, a key point is that the manufacturing base needed for SMRs can be developed
domestically. Thus, while the large commercial LWR industry is seeking to transplant portions
of its supply chain from current foreign sources to the U.S., the SMR industry offers the
potential to establish a large domestic manufacturing base building upon already existing
U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and capability, including the Naval shipbuilding and
underutilized domestic nuclear component and equipment plants. The study team learned that
a number of sustainable domestic jobs could be created – that is, the full panoply of design,
manufacturing, supplier, and construction activities – if the U.S. can establish itself as a
credible and substantial designer and manufacturer of SMRs. While many SMR technologies
are being studied around the world, a strong U.S. commercialization program can enable U.S.
industry to be first to market SMRs, thereby serving as a fulcrum for export growth as well as
a lever in influencing international decisions on deploying both nuclear reactor and nuclear
fuel cycle technology. A viable U.S.-centric SMR industry would enable the U.S. to recapture
technological leadership in commercial nuclear technology, which has been lost to suppliers
in France, Japan, Korea, Russia, and, now rapidly emerging, China.
Ensures safe nuclear technology - allows the US to promote non-proliferation
objectives, otherwise wildfire prolif is inevitable
Loudermilk 2011
(Micah, research associate with the Energy & Environmental Security Policy program at National
Defense University, “Small Nuclear Reactors and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and
Costs”, Journal of Energy Security, 5-31-11,
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?view=article&catid=116%3Acontent0411&id=314%3Asmallnuclear-reactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-andcosts&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=375, accessed 8-1-12,
RSR)
Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many argue that the scattering of small reactors around
the world would invariably lead to increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and
know-how disseminates around the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance
assumes that US decisions on advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In
reality, regardless of the US commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology,
many countries (notably China) are blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55
plants currently under construction around the world—though Fukushima may cause a
temporary lull. Since Three Mile Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has
declined precipitously as talent and technology begin to concentrate in countries more
committed to nuclear power. On the small reactor front, more than 20 countries are
examining the technology and the IAEA estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in
operation by 2030. Without US leadership, new nations seek to acquire nuclear technology
turn to countries other than the US who may not share a deep commitment to reactor
safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US leadership globally on nonproliferation
requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This will enable the US to set and enforce
standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel reprocessing, and developing reactor
technologies.
A robust domestic industry is critical to signal U.S. leadership on nonproliferation norms.
Domenici 2012 (Energy and Infrastructure Program, Energy Project, Maintaining U.S.
Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets, A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear
Inititative. Pete Domenici and Warren Miller, July 2012,
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Leadership%20in%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Mark
ets.pdf) JD
In addition, policy makers and the public must understand the clear linkages that exist between a
strong domestic industry and competitive U.S. nuclear suppliers on the one hand and U.S.
leadership in international nuclear markets and nonproliferation issues on the other hand.
America’s history of global leadership in this technology area was built on many different
factors, including the domestic industry’s extensive operating experience, the influence of the
highly-respected NRC, technology advances achieved through domestic research and development
programs, and a sustained commitment to nonproliferation principles. Maintaining excellence in each of these
areas is the only way to assure continued U.S. leadership—both technologically and diplomatically—on
nuclear issues of vital interest to our long-term energy and national security.
Development of commercial technology is directly linked to the procurement of
weapons
BPC 2012
(Bipartisan Policy Center, “Bipartisan Policy Center Nuclear Initiative Releases Report on
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets and International NonProliferation Issues”, 7-19-12,
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2012/07/bipartisan-policy-center-nuclearinitiative-releases-report-maintaining-, accessed 8-1-12, RSR)
The new report underscores the relationship between civilian programs and non-proliferation
leadership. “Nuclear power technologies are distinct from other potential exports in energy or in other sectors
where America’s competitive advantage may also be declining. Because of the potential link
between commercial technology and weapons development, nuclear power is directly linked
to national security concerns, including the threat of proliferation. Although reactors themselves do not
pose significant proliferation risks, both uranium-enrichment and spent fuel–processing technologies
can be misused for military purposes. If U.S. nuclear energy leadership continues to diminish,
our nation will be facing a situation in which decisions about the technological capabilities and
location of fuel-cycle facilities throughout the world will be made without significant U.S.
participation. Leadership is important in both commercial and diplomatic arenas, and it
requires a vibrant domestic industry; an effective, independent regulator; access to competitive and
innovative technologies and services; and the ability to offer practical solutions to safety,
security, and nonproliferation challenges.”
SMR production also key to US nuclear tech leadership– it would support the
development of the most advanced technologies
King, et al. 2011
(Marcus (Associate Director of Research at The George Washington University's Elliott School of
International Affairs), LaVar Huntzinger (Center for Naval Analyses) and Thoi Nguyen (Professor
at the University of Santa Clara), “Feasibility of Nuclear Power on U.S. Military Installations”,
CNA, March 2011, RSR)
Finally, a significant appeal of SMRs is their ability to be manufactured substantially within a
factory environment using state-of-the-art6 fabrication and manufacturing. While other
industries already use advanced modular construction techniques, including for the balance-of-plant
systems in nuclear plants, they have not been applied to the modularization of the nuclear steam
supply system. Development and demonstration efforts will be needed in order to adapt the
most advanced technologies and processes to domestic nuclear plant fabrication and manufacture. This should
yield significant improvements in product performance, quality, and economics. Such an
effort can help support the revitalization of U.S. manufacturing, spurring domestic job
creation and international leadership in key nuclear supply areas.
Key to overall tech competitiveness- Maintains US workforce and tech edge
Fleischmann 2011
(Chuck, Representative from the 3rd District in Tennessee, “Small Modular Reactors Could Help
With U.S. Energy Needs”, American Physical Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, October 2011,
http://www.aps.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/201110/backpage.cfm, accessed 8-1-12,
RSR)
The timely implementation of small reactors could position the United States on the cutting edge
of nuclear technology. As the world moves forward in developing new forms of nuclear power, the United States
should set a high standard in safety and regulatory process. Other nations have not been as rigorous in
their nuclear oversight with far reaching implications. As we consider the disastrous events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
facility,
it is imperative that power companies and regulatory agencies around the world
adequately ensure reactor and plant safety to protect the public. Despite terrible tragedies like
the natural disaster in Japan, nuclear power is still one of the safest and cleanest energy resources
available. The plan to administer these small reactors would create technologically advanced
U.S. jobs and improve our global competitiveness . Our country needs quality, high paying jobs. Increasing
our competitive edge in rapidly advancing industries will put the United States in a strategic position on
the forefront of expanding global technologies in the nuclear arena.
Nuclear Renaissance
Successful US SMRs allow us to shape international renaissance- SMRs already
being studied but US leadership key to effective deployment
Rosner and Goldberg 2011 (Robert Rosner, astrophysicist and founding director of the Energy
Policy Institute at Chicago, and Stephen Goldberg, Special Assistant to the Director at the
Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, “Small Modular Reactors – Key
to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.”, Technical Paper, Revision 1, November 2011)
There are many opportunities and challenges for United States industry and government to
be leaders in SMR technology.¶ Opportunities¶ As stated earlier, SMRs have the potential to
achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. They could provide alternative
baseload power generation to facilitate the retirement of older, smaller, and less efficient coal
generation plants that would, otherwise, not be good candidates for retrofitting carbon capture
and storage technology. They could be deployed in regions of the U.S. and the world that have
less potential for other forms of carbon-free electricity, such as solar or wind energy. There
may be technical or market constraints, such as projected electricity demand growth and
transmission capacity, which would support SMR deployment but not GW-scale LWRs. From
the on-shore manufacturing perspective, a key point is that the manufacturing base needed for
SMRs can be developed domestically. Thus, while the large commercial LWR industry is seeking
to transplant portions of its supply chain from current foreign sources to the U.S., the SMR
industry offers the potential to establish a large domestic manufacturing base building upon
already existing U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and capability, including the Naval
shipbuilding and underutilized domestic nuclear component and equipment plants. The study
team learned that a number of sustainable domestic jobs could be created – that is, the full
panoply of design, manufacturing, supplier, and construction activities – if the U.S. can establish
itself as a credible and substantial designer and manufacturer of SMRs. While many SMR
technologies are being studied around the world, a strong U.S. commercialization program
can enable U.S. industry to be first to market SMRs, thereby serving as a fulcrum for export
growth as well as a lever in influencing international decisions on deploying both nuclear
reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technology. A viable U.S.-centric SMR industry would enable
the U.S. to recapture technological leadership in commercial nuclear technology, which has
been lost to suppliers in France, Japan, Korea, Russia, and, now rapidly emerging, China.
Old reactor types make meltdowns inevitable – reactors have shut down in the
past and the NRC has failed at regulation
Gronlund 2007 (Nuclear power in a Warming world: Assessing the Risks, Addressing the
Challenges, Lisbeth Gronlund; David Lochbaum; Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists,
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warmingworld.pdf) JD
Safety problems remain despite a lack of serious accidents. A serious nuclear power accident has not
occurred in the United States since 1979, when the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania experienced a partial core
meltdown. However, the absence of serious accidents does not necessarily indicate that safety measures and oversight are
adequate. Since 1979, there
have been 35 instances in which individual reactors have shut down to
restore safety standards, and the owner has taken a year or more to address dozens or even
hundreds of equipment impairments that had accumulated over a period of years. The most recent such
shutdown occurred in 2002. These year-plus closures indicate that the NRC has been doing a poor
job of regulating the safety of power reactors. An effective regulator
would be neither unaware nor passively
tolerant of safety problems so extensive that a year or more is needed to fix them.
SMRs solve
Wheeler 10 (November 22, 2010, “Small Modular Reactors May Offer Significant Safety &
Security Enhancements”, John Wheeler, Clear Trend, http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1193) JD
Even better, most SMRs are small enough that they cannot over heat and melt down . They get all
the cooling they need from air circulating around the reactor. This is a big deal because if SMRs can’t
melt down, then they can’t release radioactive gas that would pose a risk to the public. Again,
this means the need for external emergency actions is virtually eliminated. Also, some SMRs are not water
cooled; they use gas, liquid salt, or liquid metal coolants that operate at low pressures. This lower operating pressure means that if
radioactive gases build up inside the containment building there is less pressure to push the gas out and into the air. If there is no
pressure to push radioactive gas into the environment and all of it stays inside the plant, then it poses no risk to the public. SMRs are
small enough to be built underground. This means they
will have a smaller physical footprint that will be
easier to defend against physical attacks. This provides additional benefits of lower construction costs because
earth, concrete and steel are less costly than elaborate security systems in use today, and lower operating costs (a smaller footprint
means a smaller security force).
Old reactor types are vulnerable to terrorism
Early, et al., 2009
(Bryan (Former Research Fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs),
Matthew Fuhrmann (Professor in Political Science at Texas A&M) and Quan Li (Professor in
Political Science at Texas A&M), “Atoms for Terror: The Determinants of Nuclear/Radiological
Terrorism”, Social Science Research Network, RSR)
The presence and size of a civilian nuclear infrastructure affect terrorist groups’ cost-benefit
calculus in several respects. First, as many pundits agree, gaining access to the NR materials represents the
most important hurdle for terrorist groups seeking to engage in NR terrorism. The presence and
size of a civilian nuclear infrastructure increase the availability of fissile materials (e.g., plutonium or
highly-enriched uranium, HEU) and radioactive materials (e.g., Cesium-137 and Strontium-90), all of which could be used in NR
terror attacks.18 According to various studies, these materials are widely available in countries with nuclear programs and
sometimes poorly guarded.19 Being both rational and cost sensitive, terrorists
will be tempted to either steal NR
materials or purchase them illicitly when they are cheap and/or readily available. Since terrorists have
significantly greater access to nuclear and radiological materials in countries with civil nuclear infrastructures, the
probability that they will employ NR terrorism in these states increases.20 Although terrorists
could acquire NR materials in one country and use them in another, it is easier to use the
materials in the same country where they are acquired. Transporting NR across borders
involves additional costs and raises the likelihood that the materials will be interdicted. Groups are cognizant of this
consideration and often look for NR materials in the country that they wish to attack.
SMRs solve - they’re buried underground, heavily layered and no on-site
refueling
Loudermilk 2011
(Micah, research associate with the Energy & Environmental Security Policy program at National
Defense University, “Small Nuclear Reactors and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and
Costs”, Journal of Energy Security, 5-31-11,
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?view=article&catid=116%3Acontent0411&id=314%3Asmallnuclear-reactors-and-us-energy-security-concepts-capabilities-andcosts&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=375, accessed 8-1-12,
RSR)
As to the small
reactors themselves, the designs achieve a degree of proliferation-resistance
unmatched by large reactors. Small enough to be fully buried underground in independent silos, the
concrete surrounding the reactor vessels can be layered much thicker than the traditional
domes that protect conventional reactors without collapsing. Coupled with these two levels of superior physical protection is the
traditional security associated with reactors today. Most small reactors also are factory-sealed with a supply of
fuel inside. Instead of refueling reactors onsite, SMRs are returned to the factory, intact, for
removal of spent fuel and refueling. By closing off the fuel cycle, proliferation risks associated
with the nuclear fuel running the reactors are mitigated and concerns over the widespread
distribution of nuclear fuel allayed.
Solvency
Production cost incentives for SMRs key – Creates a sustainable domestic
industry.
Rosner and Goldberg, ‘11
(Robert (William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Astronomy
and Astrophysics and Physics) and Stephen (Special Assistant to the Director at the Argonne
National Laboratory) , Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, “Small Modular Reactors – Key to
Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.”, Technical Paper, Revision 1, November 2011)
RCM
Production Cost Incentive: A production cost incentive is a performance-based incentive. With a production cost
incentive, the government incentive would be triggered only when the project successfully operates .
The project
sponsors would assume full responsibility for the upfront capital cost and would
assume the full risk
for project construction. The production cost incentive would
establish a target price,
a so-called “market-based benchmark.” Any savings in energy generation costs over the target price would
accrue to the generator. Thus, a production cost incentive would provide a strong motivation
for cost control and learning improvements , since any gains greater than target levels would
enhance project net cash flow. Initial SMR deployments, without the benefits of learning, will have
significantly higher costs than fully commercialized SMR plants and thus would benefit from production
cost incentives. Because any production cost differential would decline rapidly due to the combined
effect of module manufacturing rates and learning experience, the financial incentive could be
set at a declining rate, and the level would be determined on a plant-by-plant basis, based on the
achievement of cost reduction targets.43 The key design parameters for the incentive include the following:¶ 1. The
magnitude of the deployment incentive should decline with the number of SMR modules and
should phase out after the fleet of LEAD and FOAK plants has been deployed. 2. The incentive should be marketbased rather than cost-based; the incentive should take into account not only the cost of SMRs but also
the cost of competing technologies and be set accordingly.¶ 3. The deployment incentive could
take several forms, including a direct payment to offset a portion of production costs or a
production tax credit. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized a production tax credit of $18/MWh (1.8¢/kWh) for up to
6,000 MW of new nuclear power plant capacity. To qualify, a project must commence operations by 2021 .
Treasury Department guidelines further required that a qualifying project initiate construction, defined as the pouring of safetyrelated concrete, by 2014. Currently, two GW-scale projects totaling 4,600 MW are
in early construction;
consequently, as much as 1,400 MW in credits is available for other nuclear projects, including SMRs.¶ The budgetary cost
of
providing the production cost incentive depends on the learning rate and the market price of
electricity generated from the SMR project. Higher learning rates and higher market prices would decrease
the magnitude of the incentive; lower rates and lower market prices would increase the need for production incentives.
Using two scenarios (with market prices based on the cost of natural gas combined-cycle generation) yields the following range of
estimates of the size of production incentives required for the FOAK plants described earlier. For a 10% learning rate,¶ � Based
on a market price of $60/MWh44 (6¢/kWh), the LEAD plant and the subsequent eight FOAK plants would need, on
average, a production credit of $13.60/MWh (1.4¢/kWh), 24% less than the $18 credit currently
available to renewable and GW-scale nuclear technologies. (The actual credit would be on a
sliding scale, with the credit for the LEAD plant at approximately $31/MWh, or 3.1¢/kWh, declining to a credit of about
$6/MWh, or 0.6¢/kWh, by the time of deployment of FOAK-8). The
million per year
total cost of the credit would be about $600
(once all plants were built and operating).¶ If the market price were about $70/MWh (7¢/kWh), the LEAD
and only four subsequent FOAK plants would require a production incentive. In this case, the average incentive would be
$8.40/MWh (0.8¢/kWh), with a total cost of about $200 million per year.¶ Higher learning rates would drive down the size of the
production incentive. For example, at a 12% learning rate,¶ � At a market price of $60/MWh (6¢/kWh), the LEAD and the subsequent
five FOAK plants would require a production incentive, with an average incentive level of about $15/MWh (1.5¢/kWh). Total annual
cost (after all plants are in full operation) would be about $450 million per year.¶ � At a market price of $70/MWh (7¢/kWh), the
LEAD and three FOAK plants would require a production incentive averaging $9.00/MWh (0.9¢/kWh, half of the current statutory
incentive), with a total annual cost of about $170 million per year.¶ The
range of costs for the production
incentive illustrates the sensitivity of the incentive level to the learning rate and the market price of
electricity. Thus, efforts to achieve higher learning rates, including fully optimized engineering designs for the SMRs
and the manufacturing plant, as well as specially targeted market introduction opportunities that enable SMRs to sell electricity for
higher priced and higher value applications, can
have a critical impact on the requirements for production
incentives. The potential size of the incentive should be subject to further analysis as higher quality cost estimates become
available.
Designs are good to go
Gallagher 2011
(Nancy, Associate Director for Research at the Center for International and Security Studies at
Maryland (CISSM) and a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Maryland’s School of Public
Policy, “INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ON THE ROAD TO NUCLEAR ZERO”, The Nonproliferation
Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 442, RSR)
Current efforts to develop small modular reactors could be redirected to prioritize the most
proliferation-resistant designs, even if they are not the designs that are closest to becoming commercially available.
Technically sound designs exist for small reactors with sealed cores that would not require
refueling for multiple decades. Regional fuel cycle centers could produce these lightweight,
passively safe reactors; transport them by rail, road, or barge to the desired location; then return
them to the regional center for spent fuel management. Implementing this hub-and-spoke arrangement on a
large enough scale to help avert catastrophic climate change would require both nuclear disarmament and subordination of
national and commercial advanced fuel cycle operations to international control. That is hard to envision under current conditions,
but it
is even harder to figure out how to simultaneously avert global warming and prevent
proliferation in a less radical way.
Government funding specifically key – it’s necessary to overcome upfront costs,
long timeframes, and uncertain returns.
Rosner and Goldberg 2011
(Robert (William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Astronomy
and Astrophysics and Physics) and Stephen (Special Assistant to the Director at the Argonne
National Laboratory) , Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, “Small Modular Reactors – Key to
Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.”, Technical Paper, Revision 1, November 2011)
RCM
Assuming that early SMR deployments will carry cost premiums (until the benefits of learning are achieved),
the issue is whether federal government incentives are needed to help overcome this barrier. Some
may argue that commercial deployment will occur, albeit at a slower pace , as the cost of alternatives
increases to a level that makes initial SMR deployments competitive. Others may argue that SMR vendors should
market initial modules at market prices and absorb any losses until a sufficient number of modules are sold
that will begin to generate a profit. However, the combination of the large upfront capital investment ,
the long period before a return on capital may be achieved, and the large uncertainty in the
potential level of return on investment make it unlikely that SMRs will be commercialized
without some form of government incentive .¶ The present analysis assumes that government incentives will
be essential to bridging this gap and accelerating private sector investment (see Appendix D). It is the study team’s understanding
that DOE has proposed to share the cost of certain SMR design and licensing study activities. This section analyzes possible options
for government incentives for early deployments (LEAD and FOAK plants) in addition to federal cost sharing for the design and
licensing effort. The present analysis considers several alternative approaches to providing such incentives, either in the form of
direct or indirect government financial incentives, or through market transformation actions that will spur demand for FOAK plants
in competitive applications. The study team’s approach is to identify targeted, least-cost incentives that could form the basis for
further dialogue between stakeholders and policy makers.¶ Possible financial
incentives need to be designed and
evaluated relative to a particular management model for deployment of LEAD and FOAK plants. The study team’s
management model assumes that these initial SMR plants will be managed and financed by the private sector, consisting of a
possible consortium of the SMR vendor, the reactor module manufacturer, other major vendors, a host-site utility company, and
one or more other electricity generation or vertically integrated utilities. The types of incentives that could be structured for this
type of management model are discussed in the subsections that follow.¶ Other management models were considered by the
team. These alternative models would have a greater direct government role in the ownership, financing, and marketing of the
SMR plant. Under a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) model, for example, the federal government would license, build, finance,
and operate an SMR plant, and upon successful operation, seek to transfer ownership to the private sector. Another model would
provide for the federal government to lease a privately developed SMR plant and take full responsibility for operation of the plant
and marketing of the power generation. The various possible management models are described and contrasted further in
Appendix E.
Key to reduce risky investment and encourage learning necessary for job
creations and proliferation leadership.
Westenhaus 2011 (Brian | Thu, 15 December 23:44 “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors to be
Mass Produced in US?” http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Small-ModularNuclear-Reactors-To-Be-Mass-Produced-In-US.html ) RCM
New studies from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) conclude that
small modular reactors may hold the key to the future of U.S. nuclear power generation. The
reports assess the economic feasibility of classical, gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new
generation of modular reactors. The smaller modular reactors as considered would have
generating capacities of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as modular components,
and then shipped to their desired location for assembly.¶ As a beginning point on other news
this week, the reports followed up a 2004 University of Chicago study on the economic future
of nuclear energy. The 2004 study concluded that the nuclear energy industry would need
financial incentives from the federal government in order to build new plants that could
compete with coal and gas fired plants.¶ The other news this week is the realization by many
that the Obama appointment of Gregory Jaczko, to Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission should be removed. A petition drive is underway at Change.org, following an
inspector general’s report released last June that said Jaczko intimidated staff members who
disagreed with him and withheld information from members of the commission to gain their
support. The report also said several high-ranking employees at the independent agency
complained that Chairman Jaczko delayed and hindered their work on important projects.¶ The
inspector general report times well with the four experienced and well-educated nuclear
energy professional commissioners, who among them can count close to 100 years of working
with nuclear reactors, nuclear safety analysis, nuclear propulsion plants, advanced nuclear
energy research and development, and nuclear project management, that have signed a letter
addressed to the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States detailing their frustration
with the leadership style and decision making processes used by the 41-year-old, politicallyappointed Chairman.¶ Its far past time for Jaczko to return to Congress where his skill set can be
hidden more effectively.¶ Back out in Chicago the newest University of Chicago report is clear,
“It would be a huge stimulus for high-valued job growth , restore U.S. leadership in nuclear
reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima
world, on matters of nuclear safety , nuclear security , nonproliferation , and nuclear waste
management .Ӧ Robert Rosner, the EPIC director and the William Wrather Distinguished
Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics, sums the obvious and now well proven with,
“Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the
United States.”¶ The earlier report, “Analysis of GW-scale Overnight Costs,” updates the
overnight cost estimates of the 2004 report. Overnight costs are the estimated costs if you
were to build a new large reactor ‘overnight,’ that is, using current input prices and excluding
the cost of financing. It would now cost $4,210 per kilowatt to build a new gigawatt-scale
reactor, according to the new report. This cost is approximately $2,210 per kilowatt higher than
the 2004 estimate because of commodity price changes and other factors. A near doubling in
just 7 years.¶ The problem is explained in part by Center for Strategic and International Studies
CEO John Hamre who said that economic issues have hindered the construction of new largescale reactors in the United States. The key challenge facing the industry is the seven-to-nineyear gap between making a commitment to build a nuclear plant and revenue generation.
“This is a real problem.” Hamre said. Few companies can afford to wait that long to see a
return on the $10 billion investment. Nor can the ratepayers. But the advent of the small
modular reactor “offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies and a much shorter
timeline.Ӧ That could be so if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be at work executing
on its mandate.¶ This could be a huge economic development opportunity. Small modular
reactors could be especially appealing for markets that could not easily accommodate
gigawatt-scale plants, such as those currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal
plants, which are likely to be phased out during the next decade.¶ The other hand holds some
problems. The new modular designs in mass production affecting price reductions depends
partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build them efficiently. “The faster you learn,
the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point where you actually start
making money faster,” Rosner noted.¶ It’s the risk that matters. Nuclear is vastly more capital
demanding than natural gas. Should efficiency continue its trend, or a new technology
breakout, or the economy drift lower and slower, having a huge capital investment waiting
years to build, more years to recover the investment, with rates indeterminate sets an
investor up for a generation’s worth of worry.¶ Yet the new reactors could be the low capital
investment leaders if the stage were to be set for the good of the nation over the fears of the
fools.
Extra Advantages
Economy
Slowing growth, increased taxes and the debt crises will result in a recession
now.
Crutsinger 8/2 (Martin Crutsinger, Fed: US growth slows, but no action needed _ yet, AP
Economics Writer / August 2, 2012, http://www.boston.com/business/news/2012/08/01/fedsays-economy-has-slowed-takes-new-steps/rZBAjeR07EmouRnoIDtzJN/story.html) JD
U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of just 1.5 percent from April through June. That’s
down from a 2 percent rate in the first quarter and a 4.1 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2011. Fed officials
have signaled in speeches their concern about job growth and consumer spending. Bernanke told
Congress two weeks ago that the Fed is prepared to take further action if unemployment stays high. Worries have also
intensified the U.S. economy will fall off a ‘‘fiscal cliff’’ at the end of the year. That’s when tax
increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession
could follow, Bernanke has warned. Economists also are concerned that the debt crisis in Europe could
intensify. Borrowing costs are too high for many governments, including Spain and Italy, and growth is slowing across the region
as the effects of budget-cutting take hold. Unemployment hit a record 11.2 percent in June for the 17 countries that use the euro
currency.
However, the development of an SMR industry will result in significant
economic benefits.
SRS 10 (SRS Community Reuse Organization, September 29, 2010 at a Center for Strategic &
International Studies forum, http://www.srscro.org/energy-park/small-modular-reactors/) JD
A new assessment of potential American jobs created by “development, manufacture, and deployment” of small modular reactors in
the U.S. was unveiled on September 29, 2010 at a Center for Strategic & International Studies forum. The study was underwritten by
the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. The study concludes that “ development
domestic SMR industry will result in significant economic benefits.”
of a robust
The analysis was a collaborative
effort by the Boise State University in conjunction with the University of New Mexico. According to the report:“A
prototypical
SMR costing $500 million to manufacture and install on-site is estimated to create nearly
7,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in sales, $627 million in value-added, $404 million in earnings (payroll) and $35
million in indirect business taxes. In addition, the annual operation of each 100 MW SMR unit is estimated to
create about 375 jobs and generate $107 million in sales, $68 million in value-added, $27 million in earnings
payroll) , and $9 million in indirect business taxes…. total economic impacts were determined to range from
$200B – $400B.”
These growths will be linear.
Goff 10 (Emily Goff, October 1, 2010, Small Reactors, Large Potential Impact, The Heritage
Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/01/small-reactors-large-potential-impact/) JD
The study investigates potential impacts of SMR manufacturing, construction, and operation on the U.S. economy. Researchers
relied on organizational model data contributions from industry members, demonstrating their integral role in new nuclear
technology advancement. As the study’s input–output analysis reveals, both the direct and indirect economic impacts are potentially
quite robust. Findings taken directly from the study project that: - A prototypical 100 megawatt (MW) SMR costing $500 million to
manufacture and install onsite is estimated to create nearly 7,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in sales, $627 million in value-added
impacts (a measure of GDP), $404 million in earnings (payroll), and $35 million in indirect business taxes; -The annual operation of
each 100 MW SMR unit is estimated to create about 375 jobs and generate $107 million in sales, $68 million in value-added impacts,
$27 million in earnings (payroll), and $9 million in indirect business taxes. Four
scenarios assuming certain levels of energy
demand and SMR adoption—high, moderate, low, and disruptive—lay out the economic growth projections for the
U.S., using the year 2030 as a benchmark. Nuclear power capacity expansion, SMR market share of that
expansion, and U.S. presence in the SMR market are also taken into account. Under a high
adoption case in which the U.S. manufactures 40 SMRs annually, the U.S. could see 255,000
jobs created annually, $48.3 billion generated annually in sales, and $23.2 billion generated annually in
value-added impacts. Additionally, domestic operation of the reactors through 2030 would mean
81,000 jobs, $23 billion in sales, and $15 billion in value-added impacts. Under a moderate adoption
case of 30 reactors manufactured annually, the annual growth estimates are 215,000 jobs, $40.5 billion in sales, and $19.4 billion in
value-added impacts. Domestic operation of the reactors through 2030 creates 50,000 jobs, $15 billion in sales, and $9.6 billion in
value-added impacts.
A double dip recession triggers an economic depression.
Isidore, ‘11
(Chris, Senior Writer, “Recession 2.0 would hurt worse” CNN Money, 8-10-11,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm
, accessed 8-2-11, RSR)
Another recession could be even worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the
economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began. In fact, the economy
would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the
end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the
start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped
looking for work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28year low. Various parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and
would be at serious risk of lasting damage i n a new downturn. Home values continue to lose
ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years,
industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the
FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk
as the Great Recession took hold. But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used
to try to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time
around. "The reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by
Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that
this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or
temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling
battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has
shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have
virtually no policy effort to counteract it .
Economic collapse results in nuclear war.
Burrows and Harris ‘09
(Mathew J. Burrows, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, PhD in European History
from Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis
Unit, April 2009 “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of
intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future
opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more
instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be
repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies
and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability
of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the
ways in which the
potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a
constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks,
the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly
emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence
of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would
almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a
nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with
external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear
ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the
Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking
place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict i f clear red lines
between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined
with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent
difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in
neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions
may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36
Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed
energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could
result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources,
for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of
war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups
and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be
military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and
counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes.
With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing
water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more
dog-eat-dog world.
Warming
Global warming is happening; 5 reasons
NWF 12 (July 2012, National Wildlife Federation, http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-isGlobal-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx) JD
No longer is global warming something only facing future generations. Changes to our climate are being
documented all across the planet today. People, animals, and plants are already feeling the heat. Temperatures are
increasing The most striking evidence of a global warming trend is closely scrutinized data that show a relatively
rapid and widespread increase in temperature during the past century. The 10 warmest years on record
occurred during 1997-2008, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The rising temperatures observed since 1978
are particularly noteworthy because the rate of increase is so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the
Earth from the Sun had been measured precisely enough to conclude that Earth's warming was not due to changes in the Sun. Sea
Declining sea ice is one of the most visible signs of global warming on our planet.
Since 1979, Arctic sea ice extent in September (when the annual minimum is reached) has declined by over 30
percent, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent has been declining in other seasons, too. Despite
ice is melting
slightly larger ice extents in 2009, recent observations indicated that the ice is thinner and much younger (less multiyear ice) than it
used to be. Covering an average of 9.6 million square miles, these areas of ice floating on ocean waters play an important role in
regulating our climate, by reflecting some sunlight back to space, and in the life cycles of many polar species, such as polar bears,
seals, and walruses. Precipitation patterns are changing
Some places are getting more rainfall and others
are getting less. Nearly everywhere is experiencing more heavy rainfall events, as warmer air is able to hold more water vapor.
Right here in the United States, we are already seeing some important trends in precipitation. The Southwest appears to be shifting
to a more arid climate, in which Dust Bowl conditions will become the new norm. Annual
precipitation totals in the
increased by 5 to 20 percent during the last 50 years. The southeastern United
States is having both more drought and more floods. Oceans are acidifying The ocean has absorbed a large fraction
of the carbon dioxide fossil fuel burning has pumped into the atmosphere, slowing the rate of global
warming. But, all this extra carbon dioxide is impacting the ocean, too. The pH of surface seawater has
decreased by 0.1 units since 1750, and is projected to drop another 0.5 units by 2100 if no action is
taken to curb fossil fuel emissions. These changes would take tens of thousands of years to reverse. Sea levels are rising Global
sea level has increased by roughly 8 inches over the past century, and the rate of increase is accelerating.
Northeast, Midwest, and Plains have
Global warming causes sea-level rise in two ways: (1) Ocean water is expanding as it warms. (2) Land-based ice in glaciers and ice
sheets is melting. Sea-level rise has been happening even faster than scientists anticipated a few years ago. If recent projections are
accurate, 2-3°F warming could bring about 3 feet of global sea-level rise by 2100, displacing approximately 56 million people in 84
developing countries around the world. Coastal habitats also face major changes as low-lying areas are inundated with saltwater.
It’s anthropogenic and scientific consensus goes aff.
Lewandowsky and Ashley 2011 (Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Studies at the
University of Western Australia, and Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics at the University
of New South Wales, June 24, 2011, “The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the
media gets it wrong on climate change,” http://goo.gl/u3nOC)
But despite these complexities, some aspects of climate science are thoroughly settled. We know that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO2, while being just a small fraction
of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature. We can calculate the effect, and
predict what is going to happen to the earth’s climate during our lifetimes, all based on fundamental physics that is as certain
as gravity. The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists is that climate change is occurring due
to human CO₂ emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation
may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small. Scepticism and denialism Some people will be
understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered by
climate scientists, they come around. These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy. Other people
will
disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and opinion
pieces in the media, but
no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never
change their opinions. These people are deniers. The recent articles in The Conversation have put the deniers
under the microscope. Some readers have asked us in the comments to address the scientific questions that the deniers bring up.
This has been done. Not once. Not twice. Not ten times. Probably more like 100 or a 1000 times. Denier
arguments have
been dealt with by scientists, again and again and again. But like zombies, the deniers keep coming back with the
same long-falsified and nonsensical arguments. The deniers have seemingly endless enthusiasm to post on blogs, write letters to
editors, write opinion pieces for newspapers, and even publish books. What they rarely do is write coherent scientific papers on
their theories and submit them to scientific journals. The few published papers that have been sceptical about climate change have
not withstood the test of time. The phony debate on climate change So if the evidence is this strong, why is there resistance to
action on climate change in Australia? At least two reasons can be cited. First, as The Conversation has revealed, there
are a
handful of individuals and organisations who, by avoiding peer review, have engineered a
phony public debate about the science, when in fact that debate is absent from the one arena
where our scientific knowledge is formed. These individuals and organisations have so far largely escaped
accountability. But their free ride has come to an end, as the next few weeks on The Conversation will continue to show. The second
reason, alas, involves systemic failures by the media. Systemic media failures arise from several presumptions about the way science
works, which range from being utterly false to dangerously ill-informed to overtly malicious and mendacious. The false Let’s begin
with what is merely false. A
tacit presumption of many in the media and the public is that climate science is a
brittle house of cards that can be brought down by a single new finding or the discovery of a
single error. Nothing could be further from the truth. Climate science is a cumulative enterprise built
upon hundreds of years of research. The heat-trapping properties of CO₂ were discovered in the middle of the 19th
century, pre-dating even Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria.
SMRs key to spurring the development of nuclear technology – increases the
competitive edge.
Fleischmann, ‘11
(Chuck, Representative from the 3rd District in Tennessee, “Small Modular Reactors Could Help
With U.S. Energy Needs”, American Physical Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, October 2011,
http://www.aps.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/201110/backpage.cfm, accessed 8-1-12,
RSR)
The timely implementation of small reactors could position the United States on the cutting edge
of nuclear technology. As the world moves forward in developing new forms of nuclear power, the United States
should set a high standard in safety and regulatory process. Other nations have not been as rigorous in their
nuclear oversight with far reaching implications. As we consider the disastrous events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, it is
imperative that power companies and regulatory agencies around the world adequately
ensure reactor and plant safety to protect the public. Despite terrible tragedies like the natural
disaster in Japan, nuclear power is still one of the safest and cleanest energy resources available. The
plan to administer these small reactors would create technologically advanced U.S. jobs and
improve our global competitiveness . Our country needs quality, high paying jobs. Increasing our
competitive edge in rapidly advancing industries will put the United States in a strategic position on the
forefront of expanding global technologies in the nuclear arena.
Nuclear tech solves warming – decreases reliance on carbon based sources.
WNA 7 (World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Energy: Meeting the Climate Change Challenge¶ ,
IPCC, 4th Assessment Report, Mitigation of Climate Change (2007), http://www.worldnuclear.org/climatechange/nuclear_meetingthe_climatechange_challenge.html)
Over the next twenty five years global electricity demand is expected to double. By the middle of the 21st century that demand
could be three or four times larger than that of today. Growth is inevitable and necessary, as the world economy evolves and
countries seek to improve the quality of life of their citizens. Meeting the increasing
demand for electricity will
require a mix of energy resources, with low or non-emitting sources, including nuclear power, taking an
increasingly predominant role. Nuclear energy already makes a substantial environmental contribution to generating
electricity. Today nuclear
power plants operating in over thirty countries produce 15% of the
world’s electricity, avoiding the emission of over two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each
year. This saving equals more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from power generation. Extensive
studies have shown that the full lifecycle emissions from nuclear power are similar to most forms of renewable generation, and
many times lower than electricity generation from fossil fuels. Nuclear technologies can be used in areas other than the generation
of clean low carbon electricity. A number of nuclear reactors have already been used to power desalination plant, a role that will
become increasingly important as the world’s water resources become scarcer.
Nuclear technologies can also be able
to reduce emissions in the transport sector by providing electricity to recharge batterypowered vehicles or by producing hydrogen for fuel cells. Nuclear power plant designed to generate high
temperature heat will be able supply process heat, enabling industry to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
Warming causes extinction
Tickell, ‘8
(Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is
extinction”, 8-11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/2008/aug/11/ climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the
idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd
and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the
immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for
humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would
become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains
would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of
the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the
last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land.
Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts,
floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a
four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase ". This is a
remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer
melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And
as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times
stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already
under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global
temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as
methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than
today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event
may be analogous to the present: the
similar hothouse
Earth.
warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a
Peak Oil
Peak oil will occur before 2015
Smith 7 (Michael, DOE and EPA official, “Resource Depletion: Modeling and
Forecasting Oil Production,” Modeling the Oil Transition: A Summary of the Proceedings of the
DOE/EPA Workshop on the Economic and Environmental Implications of Global Energy
Transitions)
aking all of the above into consideration, global oil production can be analyzed and my analysis shows that it is truly due to peak between 2010 and
2020 (Figure 19.6). Onshore
production (shown in green) has been on a plateau for the past 25 years, largely due
to OPEC’s restrictions on production. Offshore production will peak around 2015, at which time global oil
production will as well. Although Figure 19.6 does not include the production of synthetic crude oil from unconventional sources, this will
not come on-stream fast enough to delay peak by more than a year. Depending on how rapidly petroleum demand grows, an enormous gap
will rapidly open between petroleum demand and supply after 2015 (Figure 19.7). Even if demand
is flat, the gap will reach nearly 4 million barrels per day by 2020 . But if demand is growing, as
it has been, at roughly 2% per year, the gap will exceed 30 million barrels per day as soon as 2020. I am not
saying these figures are exactly right, but they are realistic and the message is clear and compelling. Governments and industry must take many more
energy risks in the form of capital intensive projects, alternative forms of energy, alternative means of transport, and increased taxes on petroleum,
even rationing systems and even at the expense of votes. Concerns about the environment, in particular global warming, can only help provide the
impetus for them to do this. The need is urgent and the time is short.
SMRs are key to delaying peak oil – could be used by smaller utility companies,
allow for the recovery of more oil and have numerous energy
conversion/heating applications.
Ingersoll, ‘9
(Daniel, Senior Program Manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Deliberately small reactors
and the second nuclear era”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51, 2009, RSR)
It is likely that large nuclear plants will continue to be the option of choice for well-developed, large-grid markets for the foreseeable
future. However, the
rapidly increasing cost of fabrication and construction of large plants in recent years
($4–6 billion in 2008) may cause smaller utilities and owner/operators to consider smaller plant sizes even in
large-grid regions. In developed countries like the U.S., where electricity demand growth has been a modest 1.5–1.8% per year, the
reduced cash outlay feature of smaller plants will become increasingly attractive to customers
and investors alike. The real attractiveness of small reactors is their flexibility to enter traditionally non-nuclear energy
markets. Additional applications have emerged that could significantly benefit from replacing
their current fossil fuel consumption with the use of nuclear power, if the appropriate reactor designs are
available. These applications include: Water desalination and purification Advance oil recovery
process from oil shale and tar sands Hydrogen production for the enrichment of liquid fuels and eventually
fuel cell applications Advanced energy conversion processes such as coal-to-liquids and liquid biofuel production
General process heat for chemical or manufacturing processes Districting heating In all cases,
smaller sized, more robust reactors are more likely to enable these applications than will large
plants because of the many advantages discussed earlier.
Oil peak collapses econ
Lundberg 4 (Jan, environmentalist activist and son of oil analyst, “Here comes the nutcracker:
Peak oil in a nutshell,” http://www.energybulletin.net/node/842) KGH
The end of abundant, affordable oil is in sight, and the implications are colossal. About now in our hydrocarbon
phase of human history, we have pulled out of the Earth approximately half of the available
petroleum (crude oil and natural gas). The other half still in the ground is harder to extract and
may not - as assumed - fuel the global economy or even provide a transition to another phase. To
hope for an increase in
discoveries is to turn a blind eye to the world trend in declining oil extraction which has been
relentless for the past four decades. The approximate bell curve of petroleum extraction cannot be changed by any
one big new discovery. Yet, the idea of "the Caspian" or any other mega-field du jour is an example of the constant hope for
perpetual energy for high living in contradiction with nature.
The same can be said of the dominant
assumption that petroleum will be replaced by other "technologies ." This ignores the
overwhelming petroleum-based infrastructure we have, and neglects to account for the lesser
return on energy from non-petroleum sources of energy. But, "they" (scientists, leaders,
corporations) will "think of something." Another common assumption popular among
"radicals" is that "the ruling elite will refuse" to allow the global economy or the lucrative
capitalist system to collapse. If peak oil means we are at a half-way point, does this mean we
now have years to either plan energy use or get used to recession, as claimed by many a writer on peak
oil? Before the reader makes assumptions on how society may utilize the remaining store of petroleum, let me repeat what I told
The Institute of Petroleum in London two years ago (on February 17, 2003): "What the world went through in 1979’s oil crisis, which
my former company warned of in the U.S., based on our projection of a 9% shortfall in gasoline deliveries, can happen again. The
difference will be that global production of oil will be falling instead of increasing." This
means that the next tough oil
shortage, even if it is not acknowledged as a post-peak oil extraction phenomenon of
diminishing supply, will cripple the globalized economy. Understanding of both the economics and social
dynamics of collapse is rare, and even when it is present there is an absence of taking into account the "market factor" in ushering in
collapse. Despite
the need to be prepared for imminent, final energy shortage - which could
happen now or in several years at the latest - people persist in focusing too much on the likely date of the passing
of the peak. It is already clear that the oil industry and OPEC numbers on oil reserves are suspect. So we can simply offer a range of
oft-quoted peak-oil arrival times: 2005-2012. Some more distant figures such as 2020 are based on infinite technological
improvements on extraction and removing the problematic sulfur, for example. Factoring in the "irregular" petroleum sources, the
peak year of world oil extraction is to be 2007, according to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. A flurry of peak oil
stories hit last fall. But in general, the price of oil is deliberately about where the main players want it, as it is so profitable. So let us
not look at the $50 price neighborhood as proof of peak oil being here now - although it may be a factor. Taking peak oil doctrine
further The bell curve of oil "production" was devised by Marion King Hubbert, a Shell Oil and U.S. government geologist. Although
Hubbert has on the whole been borne out except in the minds of fundamentalist-classical economists, what he did not factor in was
collapse. Therefore, the curve will be truncated to a cliff just as the gap between supply and demand is felt and hits. The scenario I
foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world
demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even
daily living in "advanced" societies. There
may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash,
but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet. The trucks will no longer
pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged technotoys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding
and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the police
and military be able to maintain order, if at all. The damage that several days' oil shortage and
outage will do will soon wreak permanent damage that starts with companies and consumers not paying their
bills and not going to work. After an almost instant depression seizes the modern industrialized world, and
nation-states break down, the frantic attempts of people to feed themselves, stay warm and
obtain fresh water (pumped presently via petroleum to a great extent), there will be no rescue. Die-off
begins. The least petroleum-dependent communities will survive best . These "backward" nations will
be emulated by the scrounging survivors of the U.S. and the rest of the "developed" world, as far as local food production will be
tried - in a paved-over, toxic landscape by people who have lost touch with the land. What
about renewable energy
and other alternatives? They are not ready, and will never be as long as oil is king. This is
something not acknowledged by the boosters of the technofix. When oil abdicates, no one can fill the shoes.
Economic collapse results in nuclear war.
Burrows and Harris ‘09
(Mathew J. Burrows, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, PhD in European History
from Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis
Unit, April 2009 “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of
intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future
opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more
instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be
repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies
and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability
of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the
ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a
constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks,
the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly
emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence
of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would
almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a
nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with
external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear
ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the
Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking
place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict i f clear red lines
between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined
with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent
difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in
neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions
may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36
Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed
energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could
result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources,
for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of
war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups
and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be
military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and
counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes.
With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing
water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more
dog-eat-dog world.