Squirrel

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE
March 2020
John F. Schunk, Editor
“Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for
commercial energy production.”
PRO
P01. CLIMATE CHANGE IS UNDENIABLE REALITY
P02. CLIMATE CHANGE IS WREAKING HAVOC
P03. TIMELINE IS SHORT FOR AVOIDING DISASTER
P04. TIMELINE REQUIRES INCREASE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY
P05. NUCLEAR PLANT SHUTDOWNS MUST BE AVOIDED
P06. NUCLEAR POWER IS CARBON-FREE
P07. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP
P08. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SAFE
P09. NEW GENERATION OF REACTORS IS COST-EFFECTIVE
P10. OTHER COUNTRIES ARE MODELS OF SUCCESS
CON
C01. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT A CRISIS
C02. FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAN BE CONTROLLED
C03. RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN MEET FUTURE NEEDS
C04. STORAGE CAN PROVIDE CONTINUOUS ENERGY
C05. NUCLEAR ENERGY CANNOT MEET TIMELINE
C06. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSAFE
C07. NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS UNACCEPTABLE RISK
C08. URANIUM MINING DEGRADES THE ENVIRONMENT
C09. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
C10. OTHER COUNTRIES SHOW NUCLEAR NOT NEEDED
C11. RISKS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTWEIGH BENEFITS
S-K PUBLICATIONS
PO Box 8173
Wichita KS 67208-0173
PH 316-685-3201
FAX 316-260-4976
debate@squirrelkillers.com
http://www.squirrelkillers.com
SK/P01. CLIMATE CHANGE IS UNDENIABLE REALITY
1. THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SK/P01.01) Ronald Bailey, REASON, January 2020, p. 41+, Gale Academic

OneFile. The earth is indeed warming. Climate researchers uncontroversially agree that
the average global surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius since the
19th century. About half of that increase has occurred during the last 30 years. As the
planet has warmed, mountain glaciers around the world have been shrinking, Arctic sea
ice has been declining, rainstorms have become somewhat fiercer, the area affected by
extreme droughts has been expanding, the amount of heat being absorbed by the world's
oceans has been increasing, and the global sea level has been rising.
SK/P01.02) Carnegie Mellon University, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 7,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. The big picture of global climate change has been close to
unanimously agreed upon by the scientific community, and, increasingly, by a majority
of Americans: Earth is heating up, sea-levels are rising, and weather events are becoming
more frequent and extreme.
2. 2019 WAS SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD
SK/P01.03) Elana Sulakshana [Rainforest Action Network], STATES NEWS

SERVICE, February 3, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. 2019 was the second hottest year on
record and marked the end of the hottest decade ever. It was 365 days of devastating
climate impacts: wildfires ravaged California, Indonesia, and Australia, a heat wave
blanketed icy Greenland, and torrential rains flooded South Asia.
SK/P01.04) United Nations, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020, pNA,

NexisUni. This inability to kick the coal habit comes as the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) analysis shows that 2019 was the second hottest year on record,
and that ocean heating is at a record level.
3. LAST TWO DECADES HAVE SEEN RECORD TEMPERATURES
SK/P01.05) Meg Green [A.M. BestTV], BEST’S REVIEW, December 2019, p.

68+, Gale Academic OneFile. 2018 was the fourth-warmest year of all time, continuing a
series of record years. All 18 years since 2001 rank among the 20 warmest since
measurements began, according to Munich Re.
4. CARBON EMISSIONS MUST BE SLASHED TO RETARD WARMING
SK/P01.06) Ronald Bailey, REASON, January 2020, p. 41+, Gale Academic

OneFile. In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued
Global Warming of 1.5[degrees]C, a document that has come to be known as the
Doomsday Report. It found that the world would have to cut its carbon dioxide emissions
by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and entirely eliminate such emissions by 2050 in order to
keep the global average temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.
SK/P02. CLIMATE CHANGE IS WREAKING HAVOC
1. CLIMATE CHANGE PRECIPITATES EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS
SK/P02.01) Eugene Linden, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 8, 2019, pNA,
NexisUni. For all of the missed predictions, changes in the weather are confirming earlier
expectations that a warming globe would be accompanied by an increase in the frequency
and severity of extreme weather. And there are new findings unforeseen by early studies,
such as the extremely rapid intensification of storms, as on Sept. 1, when Hurricane
Dorian’s sustained winds intensified from 150 to 185 miles per hour in just nine hours,
and last year when Hurricane Michael grew from tropical depression to major hurricane
in just two days.
2. EXTREME WEATHER HAS CATASTROPHIC RESULTS
SK/P02.02) Meg Green [A.M. BestTV], BEST’S REVIEW, December 2019, p.

68+, Gale Academic OneFile. Global temperatures. Water levels. Insurance claims. All
are rising, due to climate change, an issue that has the potential to touch every aspect of
the insurance business. As the Earth's climate continues to change, the size and frequency
of natural catastrophe claims are increasing. Property/casualty insurers and reinsurers are
bracing for more frequent flooding, wildfires and stronger hurricanes. Life/health insurers
face increased risks of infections and diseases, pollution and the struggle to have
adequate clean water, according to Swiss Re.
SK/P02.03) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, STATES NEWS

SERVICE, January 31, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Over the last several years costly disasters
have been particularly destructive. The historic 2019 U.S. inland flooding across many
Central states follows the historic 2018 and 2017 Atlantic hurricane and Western wildfire
seasons, which set new damage cost records. These disasters have impacted dozens of
Eastern, Central, and Western states, in addition to Caribbean territories (i.e., Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time
due to a combination of increased exposure (i.e., values at risk of possible loss),
vulnerability (i.e., how much damage does the intensity (wind speed, flood depth) at a
location cause) and that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of
extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters (NCA 2018, Chapter 2).
SK/P02.04) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, STATES NEWS

SERVICE, January 31, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. During 2019, the U.S. experienced a very
active year of weather and climate disasters. In total, the U.S. was impacted by 14
separate billion-dollar disasters including: 3 major inland floods, 8 severe storms, 2
tropical cyclones (Dorian and Imelda), and 1 wildfire event. 2019 also marks the fifth
consecutive year (2015-19) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events
have impacted the U.S.
SK/P02.05) Ron Kuykendall [National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts], STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 7, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Concern about
business risks associated with climate change is growing in the insurance, banking, credit
rating and other financial services industries, according to an article by Deloitte risk
management staff members published in the Wall Street Journal. Many of these financial
organizations now are undertaking comprehensive reviews of their risks associated with
their customers' exposure to climate change-influenced disruptions of their businesses
and making changes in service offerings and pricing based on their findings.
3. EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ARE DEVASTATING
SK/P02.06) Natural Resources Defense Council, STATES NEWS SERVICE,

February 5, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. In her testimony, McCarthy [President, Natural
Resources Defense Council] will note that the public health costs from climate change
already total billions of dollars in the United States. Those costs fall disproportionately
upon children, the elderly, the poor and the powerless.
SK/P02.07) Lauren Cullum [U. of Edinburgh], UCLA JOURNAL OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY, 2019, NexisUni, p. 195. Climate change will
inevitably affect almost all aspects of human health. Anthropogenic activities which have
contributed to the rise of GHGs in the atmosphere and climate impacts, have led to
problems such as air pollution, soil and water contamination, and ecosystem collapse.
These problems, in turn, then cause adverse impacts on health worldwide, including
threats to food security, infectious diseases, sea level rise and extreme weather events.
4. THOUSANDS HAVE DIED
SK/P02.08) Lauren Cullum [U. of Edinburgh], UCLA JOURNAL OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY, 2019, NexisUni, pp. 195-196. Climate change
has also been associated with an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events. Sea level rise, increases in storm surges, and severe storms cause direct
injuries to many people, especially those from Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
Heat waves in Europe and North America have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands
of people.
5. LONG-TERM WARMING SPELLS ECOLOGICAL DISASTER
SK/P02.09) Eugene Linden, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 8, 2019, pNA,
NexisUni. More likely, a separate United Nations report concluded, we are headed for
warming of at least 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. That will come with almost unimaginable
damage to economies and ecosystems.
SK/P03. TIMELINE IS SHORT FOR AVOIDING DISASTER
1. WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS RAPIDLY CLOSING
SK/P03.01) David Gelles & Somini Sengupta, THE NEW YORK TIMES,
January 23, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. The window of time to avert the worst impacts of
climate change is rapidly closing, according to numerous scientific reports. And while
critics blame big business for decades of inaction, as well as the active suppression of
climate science, many major companies now acknowledge the immediate need for
change.
SK/P03.02) Amanda Sorrell, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, December 2019, p. 8,

Gale Academic OneFile. In 2018, climate scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change released a report stating that humans have until 2030 to make the
changes needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius--any higher, and the
negative impacts on humans, animals, sea level rise, weather patterns, arctic sea ice, and
coral reefs will be significantly greater.
SK/P03.03) United Nations, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020, pNA,

NexisUni. Climate action will be both a priority and a driver of world affairs through the
coming decade, United Nations Secretary-General chief Antnio Guterres announced on
Monday, during a speech at UN Headquarters in New York on Monday, in which he
declared that the next ten years will be "crucial for achieving a fair globalization,
boosting economic growth and building peaceful societies".
2. FOSSIL FUEL USE MUST BE DRASTICALLY CUT
SK/P03.04) John Feffer [Institute for Policy Studies], NEWSWEEK, January 17,
2020, pNA, Gale Academic OneFile. According to the most recent UN report, the world
has utterly failed to restrain carbon emissions despite dire warnings from the scientific
community. The two biggest offenders, the United States and China, actually increased
their carbon emissions last year. The scientific consensus is that the world must execute a
much faster pivot away from fossil fuels.
SK/P03.05) Bernie Sanders [U.S. Senator]. STATES NEWS SERVICE, February

1, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. The United States is on track to extract enough new oil and gas
by 2050 to make it virtually impossible to avoid a rise in temperature of more than 1.5
degrees Celsius, the threshold at which scientists believe the planet could face
irreversible and catastrophic changes to public health, livelihoods, quality of life, food
security, water supplies, human security, and economic growth.
SK/P03.06) Ted Nordhaus [The Breakthrough Institute], ISSUES IN SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 69, Gale Academic OneFile. Physics and chemistry, as the
environmentalist and author Bill McKibben has famously observed, cannot be negotiated
with. The explicit claim of McKibben, many major environmental nongovernmental
organizations, and, increasingly, progressive Democrats and Democratic Socialists such
as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, is that radical action is the only way to
avoid climate catastrophe.
SK/P04. TIMELINE REQUIRES INCREASE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY
1. U.S. CANNOT MEET TIMETABLE WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY
SK/P04.01) Jacey Fortin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 9, 2019, p. A1,
NexisUni. According to the World Nuclear Association, a London-based group that
promotes nuclear power, there are 98 operating nuclear reactors in the United States. Last
year, they accounted for 20 percent of the country's total electricity output.
SK/P04.02) Ledyard King, USA TODAY, September 23, 2019, p. 1A, NexisUni.
Nuclear is the largest single supplier of carbon-free energy in the nation, providing about
20% of U.S. energy. With environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers calling for
ambitious deadlines to wean the country off fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases,
advocates say nuclear power is emerging as a necessary ingredient of any response plan.
SK/P04.03) Editorial, THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 15, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. Nuclear power is hugely important. Nearly every major authority on climate
change, including the International Energy Agency, has said that carbon-free nuclear
energy must be part of the solution if, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
has warned, the world is to be on a clean energy diet by midcentury and escape the worst
consequences of global warming.
SK/P04.04) William C. Evans, THE WASHINGTON POST, June 21, 2019, p.

A24, NexisUni. A wise person once said you fight the war with the army you have, not
the army you wish you had. Nuclear energy is, indeed, very expensive and, like any
human invention, has its risks, but it must for now be a major component of our army in
the war against carbon. It is the only existing, proven way to reliably produce immense,
civilization-supporting amounts of non-carbon-based electrical energy.
2. NUCLEAR ENERGY USE MUST BE INCREASED
SK/P04.05) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

A20, NexisUni. Experts at home and abroad note the necessity of nuclear power in
staving off dangerous warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change says more nuclear power plants are needed in most scenarios to keep warming
under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

A20, NexisUni. Barack Obama's energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, issued a report last
week urging the United States to spend more on developing the next generation of
nuclear reactors. "Nuclear has been the backbone of [the United States'] carbon-free
energy and will play a crucial role in meeting future climate goals," said Lindsey Walter,
an energy policy adviser at the center-left think tank Third Way, which supports federal
research in and tax breaks for advanced nuclear reactors.
SK/P04.07) Matt Bennett [Sr. VP, Third Way] & Ray Rothrock [CEO, RedSeal, a
cybersecurity company], USA TODAY, June 20, 2019, p. 7A, NexisUni. Moreover, by
far the biggest threat to human safety in power production comes from climate change.
We simply must cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 if we are to stave off
the worst effects of global warming. To get there, we will need not only the nuclear
power we have now but much more. Because nuclear -- like wind, solar, hydro (dams)
and geothermal -- produces no emissions.
SK/P04.08) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 30,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. Today Energy Northwest unveiled a new study that lays out a path
to reliably achieve 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2045 through clean resources like
wind, solar and nuclear energy. The study from Energy + Environmental Economics
identifies pathways to reduce carbon emissions that includes preserving current nuclear
plants through second license renewals and the deployment of innovative small modular
reactors. These findings build on a consensus that nuclear energy, and even more of it,
will be needed to meet climate goals because it provides reliable carbon-free electricity,
24/7.
SK/P04.09) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, STATES

NEWS SERVICE, March 8, 2017, pNA, NexisUni. Nuclear energy is a proven low-
carbon energy technology that makes a profound contribution to preventing greenhouses
gases today and will be vital to meeting any agreement reached in Paris, said Eugene
Grecheck, president of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). Multiple studies have
shown that a significant expansion of nuclear energy is needed to achieve an 80 percent
reduction in emissions by 2050.
SK/P05. NUCLEAR PLANT SHUTDOWNS MUST BE AVOIDED
1. NO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE ON THE DRAWING BOARD
SK/P05.01) Amy Worden, THE WASHINGTON POST, September 29, 2019, p.

A3, NexisUni. No nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the Three
Mile Island accident, and a number of those operating then have been or are being
decommissioned, among them FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station near
Pittsburgh, which is scheduled to close in 2021
SK/P05.02) Leo Lessard, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 10, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. The United States' nuclear power plant supply chain has been deteriorating for
years because of the lack of new reactor orders. What is needed is a national energy
policy that designates nuclear power as a strategic energy source. It deserves the same
commitment that the Apollo program did, from conception to fulfillment. We just need
the will to make it work.
2. MANY U.S. PLANTS ARE SCHEDULED FOR SHUTDOWN
SK/P05.03) Ledyard King, USA TODAY, May 1, 2019, p. 1A, NexisUni. Only
one new nuclear power plant has come online in the United States since 2010: The Watts
Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Two
more reactors are under construction in Georgia, according to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. But six reactors at five plants have been mothballed since 2013, seven
others at five more plants are slated to retire over the next seven years, and another five
reactors at four more plants are expected to close in the next few years if they do not
receive new financial support, according to a report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
SK/P05.04) Editorial, THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 15, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. But nuclear plants are in grave danger in this country, and it's up to the states
to save them. Owners are threatening to close nearly a dozen of the nation's nearly 100
reactors. That's equal to more than all the solar generation in the country. To meet their
own emissions reduction goals, three states -- Illinois, New York and New Jersey -- have
wisely agreed to provide financial support to keep their reactors going. In March,
Connecticut found a way to save two reactors in Waterford.
3. NUCLEAR SHUTDOWNS INCREASE CARBON EMISSIONS
SK/P05.05) Lisa Friedman, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 15, 2019, p.
A13, NexisUni. Yet nuclear power currently accounts for 20 percent of the nation's
energy mix and more than half of its carbon-free power. Allowing aging plants to close
would likely mean that natural gas, a fossil fuel, would fill the void and emissions would
rise.
SK/P05.06) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, May 22, 2019, p. A16,
NexisUni. "We need to keep existing nuclear online," said Josh Freed, head of the clean-
energy program at the center-left think tank Third Way. "When nuclear is retired, it is far
too often replaced by emitting sources of energy. That's a step backwards."
SK/P05.07) Richard Rhodes [author of “Energy: A Human History”], THE NEW

YORK TIMES, February 10, 2019, p. BR-15, NexisUni. Then it [nuclear power] was
unnecessary because it was argued that renewables could do the job. ''But in every case
where nuclear power was shut down, renewables have not filled the gap and CO2
emissions have gone up, whereas in places such as Ontario that expanded nuclear power,
emissions went down.''
SK/P05.08) Gregory Jaczko [former Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission],

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. But Fukushima provided a
good test of just how important nuclear power was to slowing climate change: In the
months after the accident, all nuclear reactors in Japan were shuttered indefinitely,
eliminating production of almost all of the country's carbon-free electricity and about 30
percent of its total electricity production. Naturally, carbon emissions rose, and future
emissions-reduction targets were slashed.
4. SHUTDOWN PATTERN MUST BE REVERSED

A20, NexisUni. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a longtime critic of the
nuclear industry, recently came out in support of keeping existing nuclear plants open in
many circumstances. The "sobering realities" of climate change "dictate that we keep an
open mind about all of the tools in the emissions reduction toolbox - even ones that are
not our personal favorites," Ken Kimmell, the organization's president, wrote in a blog
post last year.
SK/P06. NUCLEAR POWER IS CARBON-FREE
1. NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCES NO CARBON EMISSIONS
SK/P06.01) Lisa Friedman & Maggie Astor, THE NEW YORK TIMES,
September 6, 2019, p. A15, NexisUni. Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the
ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called for beefing up
nuclear power ''which is safe, reliable and emissions free, and which experts agree must
be part of our strategy to reduce emissions.”

YORK TIMES, February 10, 2019, p. BR-15, NexisUni. Natural gas releases fully half as
much CO2 as coal. But except for the manufacture of its construction materials and fuel,
nuclear releases none.
SK/P06.03) Paulina Firozi, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 22, 2019, p.

A18, NexisUni. Nuclear plants do not emit carbon while operating - and Aument
[Pennsylvania state senator] says the environmental benefit of keeping them open will
help slow global warming. A huge part of the state's [Pennsylvania] carbon-free
electricity - 93 percent - comes from nuclear power. And 42 percent of the state's
electricity overall is generated by nuclear power. So, plant closures could have a huge
impact on emissions in the state if they were to be replaced by fossil-fuel-fired power
plants.
2. NUCLEAR IS LARGEST EMISSIONS-FREE SOURCE OF U.S. ENERGY

A20, NexisUni. In the United States, 1 in 5 megawatts powering homes and businesses
comes from nuclear reactors. That is the single largest U.S. source of electricity that
comes from power plants that do not release significant amounts of climate-warming
carbon dioxide into the air.
3. EMISSONS-FREE ENERGY HAS SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES
SK/P06.05) Gregory Jaczko [former Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission],

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. Nuclear plants generate
power through fission, the separation of one large atom into two or more smaller ones.
This atomic engine yields none of the air pollutants produced by the combustion of
carbon-based fuels. Over the decades since its inception in the 1950s, nuclear power has
prevented hundreds of fossil-fuel plants from being built, meaning fewer people have
suffered or died from diseases caused by their emissions.
SK/P07. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP
1. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE NUCLEAR ENERGY
SK/P07.01) Stephen Rodgers, THE WASHINGTON POST, January 17, 2019, p.

A20, NexisUni. Ms. Cravens's work [“Power to Save the World: The Truth About
Nuclear Energy”] debunks the political fearmongering and ignorance that have prevented
the necessary expansion of safe and reliable commercial nuclear energy that could
dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions more than all renewable sources combined.
While expansion of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are important, they
cannot produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels on a necessary scale.
SK/P07.02) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, September 4,

2018, pNA, NexisUni. MITs Energy Initiative this week released The Future of Nuclear
Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, a follow up to important studies on the future of
nuclear energy in the United States first produced by the academy in 2003 and again in
2009. This latest assessment underscores the critical role nuclear energy plays in ensuring
affordable electricity, as well as providing a large share of low-carbon generation. Fast
Facts: The study debunks the myth that meeting clean energy goals with 100 percent
renewables will be straightforward, easy or affordable. It urges lawmakers to institute
polices that create a level playing field for clean technologies in energy markets and
value the non-emitting attributes of nuclear with Zero-Emission Credit (ZEC) programs.
2. SOLAR ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP
SK/P07.03) Ronald Bailey, REASON, May 2019, p. 10, Gale Academic OneFile.
Solar photovoltaic farms currently installed in the U.S. meanwhile have a total capacity
of 60 gigawatts. According to the Stanford plan's calculations, the country would need to
build another 2,324 gigawatts--at a rate of 234 gigawatts per year. In a December 2018
report, the Solar Energy Industries Association said it actually expects installations to rise
to 14 gigawatts per year by 2023.
One would be hard pressed to find a utility-scale solar project that has not been stopped
or significantly slowed by local opposition and environmentalist lawsuits. A quick review
of some major projects shows that it generally takes six to eight years from when a solar
farm is proposed until it starts generating electricity.
3. WIND ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP
Consider the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. First proposed in 2001, it would have
spent $2.6 billion to build 130 wind turbines that could have generated 468 megawatts of
electricity, or enough to power 200,000 homes. After 16 years and $100 million in
private money spent, it was abandoned largely due to delays caused by more than a dozen
lawsuits filed by local Native American tribes, fishers, residents, and tourism-related
interests.
The only presently operating offshore wind farm is Deepwater Wind near the coast of
Rhode Island. It consists of five turbines rated at 30 megawatts total. Proposed in 2008,
that project began operating eight years later. A 2016 plan for powering the United States
with 100 percent renewable energy, devised by a team of Stanford and Berkeley
researchers, would require building 156,200 5-megawatt offshore turbines. (This plan, by
the way, is the closest thing we have to a roadmap for 100 percent renewable energy--and
even it suggests a timeframe of 30 years, rather than 10, at a cost of $14 trillion.)
4. SOLAR & WIND SUFFER FROM INTERMITTENT ENERGY PRODUCTION
SK/P07.07) Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, May 24,

2018, 7pNA, NexisUni. Solar and wind energy, while popular and increasingly cheap to
produce, varies based on whether the wind is blowing or the sun shining. Any ideal of
"100 percent renewable" energy will need to grapple with how to meet power needs day
and night, all seasons of the year.
SK/P07.08) Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, May 24,

2018, pNA, NexisUni. "There's more research saying it's going to be extremely
inefficient and costly to run a grid solely on variable energy like the sun and the wind -
even if you allow for heroic progress on energy storage," says Danny Cullenward, an
energy economist who serves on an independent advisory commission on California's
climate policies.
Since the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, power would have
to be shifted via high-voltage transmission lines quickly from place to place across the
whole country to prevent local blackouts. The proposed solution to that problem is the
North American Supergrid, consisting of about 50,000 miles of high-voltage power lines.
Yet these also tend to provoke considerable landowner and environmental activist
opposition. For example, it took the American Electric Power Company 14 years to
obtain approval for a 90-mile high-voltage transmission project in West Virginia and
Virginia.
5. NUCLEAR POWER FILLS THE INTERMITTENCY GAP
SK/P07.10) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 30,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. Small modular reactors will provide always-on, reliable energy
that can seamlessly complement wind and solar. The cost feasibility study shows that
they can be a critical component of any plan to reach net-zero carbon emissions in a cost-
effective way.

2019, pNA, NexisUni. An all of the above approach that combines intermittent low-
carbon sources, such as wind and solar, with around-the-clock sources, such as nuclear
energy, is the most effective approach to reduce carbon emissions.
SK/P08. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS SAFE
1. NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD

2019, pNA, NexisUni. Bill Gates, an advocate of nuclear energy, has said that the safety
record of the nuclear industry is unmatched by any other energy source. And he’s right.
Safety is engrained in the culture of every nuclear plant. Americas nuclear power plants
have an excellent track record and are among the safest and most secure industrial
facilities in the country. And the nuclear industry has a tough, independent regulator that
ensures they stay that way.
SK/P08.02) John Barrasso [U.S. Senator], STATES NEWS SERVICE, November

14, 2019, pNA, NexisUni. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff reports that safety
has improved over the last twenty years. Today, nuclear power plants are performing at
historically high levels of safety and efficiency.”

2019, pNA, NexisUni. In the cases of TMI [Three Mile Island] or Fukushima, those
events moved the industry toward new requirements that are integrated in today’s
operations. In an era when nuclear energy plays a necessary role in lowering carbon
emissions, the industry’s commitment to safe operations remains ironclad.
SK/P08.04) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, November 22,

2019, pNA, NexisUni. If you ever visit a nuclear plant, you will immediately see the
industry’s commitment to safety. Layer upon layer of redundant and diverse safety
systems are part of an approach to safety called defense-in-depth. This means there are
multiple, overlapping levels of safety designed to prevent accidental radiation release.
Some of these barriers include the rods that encase the reactors uranium fuel, massive
steel vessels and piping that contain the fuel rods and cooling system and a highly robust
building that houses the reactor, which is made with steel-reinforced concrete that is
several feet thick.
2. THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT CAUSED NO DEATHS
SK/P08.05) Jacey Fortin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 9, 2019, p. A1,
NexisUni. No immediate deaths or injuries were reported, and studies suggest that long-
term physical health effects from the accident have been negligible, though this has been
contested. What is clear is that the accident spurred sweeping safety regulations. The
damaged reactor on Three Mile Island was never restarted.
3. CHERNOBYL MELTDOWN COULD NOT HAPPEN IN THE U.S.

2019, pNA, NexisUni. Some opponents point to Chernobyl or other events like Three
Mile Island (TMI) or Fukushima as reasons to phase out nuclear. But what happened at
Chernobyl simply could not happen here. That event was the product of a faulty reactor
design not used in the U.S. and the failing political system of the former Soviet Union.
Even the showrunner of HBOs Chernobyl has said this.
cybersecurity company], USA TODAY, June 20, 2019, p. 7A, NexisUni. The Chernobyl
reactor type was never built again and never existed outside the Soviet Union. Only 10
remain in use, and all have been modified to prevent a Chernobyl-style event. The Soviet
design lacked safety features, included on every other commercial power reactor in the
world, that would have prevented an accident of this magnitude. And the chain of
operator mistakes would be comical if it had not caused tragedy. So no, we're not going
to experience another Chernobyl.
4. FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENT WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THE U.S.
SK/P08.08) Daniel A. Vogel [clinical psychologist], SKEPTICAL INQUIRER,

November-December 2016, p. 56+, Gale Academic OneFile. We must remember that it
was a post-earthquake thirteen-meter-high tsunami that overcame the ten-meter-high
power plant wall that contributed the most to this accident, a very serious--but clearly
relatively avoidable--issue of construction location and one not likely to affect the vast
majority of today's plants. (Japan's prime minister later condemned building the nuclear
power plant so close to the coast.)
5. NEW ADVANCED REACTORS CANNOT MELT DOWN
SK/P08.09) Lisa Friedman & Maggie Astor, THE NEW YORK TIMES,
September 6, 2019, p. A15, NexisUni. Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 20
percent of the country's power, and people who think it's possible to get to net-zero
carbon without nuclear energy ''just aren't looking at the facts,'' Mr. Booker [U.S.
Senator] said. He and Mr. Yang both noted that new technology could make it possible to
build nuclear reactors that are not vulnerable to the meltdowns like those at Chernobyl
and Fukushima.
cybersecurity company], USA TODAY, June 20, 2019, p. 7A, NexisUni. Fortunately,
more than 70 advanced nuclear reactor projects are underway in the United States. These
designs use new types of fuel or coolant that cannot melt down. They are smaller and can
provide electricity in hard-to-reach places, like remote Alaskan villages, which now rely
on generators fueled by oil trucked in over dangerous ice roads. And they are flexible --
because the wind doesn't always blow nor the sun always shine, these advanced reactors
can fill in the gaps.
6. NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL CAN BE SAFELY HANDLED

2019, pNA, NexisUni. What’s frustrating is this issue has already been solved. Scientific
research says the most viable solution is to store used fuel at a geological repository like
Yucca Mountain. But to move forward with Yucca Mountain, Congress must grant
funding to complete the process. In the meantime, the nuclear industry knows exactly
where its waste is, and its safely contained (which can’t be said for all energy sources).
Nuclear plant owners store their used fuel on-site based on stringent requirements set by
the government. Plus, there isn’t really much used fuel out there. Nearly seven decades of
waste from using nuclear power would only cover a football field to a depth of less than
10 yards.
SK/P08.12) Jie Liu [Beijing Union University, China] & Fangxin Wei [Nuclear &
Radiation Safety Center, China], JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH, 2019, p. 73+,
Gale Academic OneFile. The present analysis indicates that radwaste management under
present practices for coastal nuclear power plants (NPPs) has very low local and global
impacts on health and environment.
SK/P08.13) Jie Liu [Beijing Union University, China] & Fangxin Wei [Nuclear &
Radiation Safety Center, China], JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH, 2019, p. 73+,
Gale Academic OneFile. The local radiological impacts on living species, including
humans, are usually low to very low, when compared to those due to the radioactivity of
natural environments or to that associated with the use of fossil fuels like coal or shale
gas; as a matter of fact, they are so low that they cannot be identified. It is the same
situation for chemical pollutants released from nuclear facilities compared to other
possible transfers from man-made activities. These assessments are based on the results
of numerous monitoring devices implemented by operators, authorities and stakeholders,
and of epidemiologic studies.
7. FOSSIL FUEL HARMS OUTWEIGH NUCLEAR RISKS
cybersecurity company], USA TODAY, June 20, 2019, p. 7A, NexisUni. And there has
never been another nuclear reactor accident, before or since [Chernobyl], that resulted in
human death from acute radiation exposure. By contrast, the burning of coal results in
about 3,000 deaths in the United States alone every year, according to the Clean Air Task
Force. hose are the results of accidents, black lung and other ailments that fell coal
miners, as well as lung diseases in the general population caused by particulate emissions
from coal. The overall total is down from 30,000 per year in 2000, thanks to a sharp shift
away from coal.
SK/P08.15) Stephen Rodgers, THE WASHINGTON POST, January 17, 2019, p.

A20, NexisUni. The risks of nuclear energy are a matter of straightforward engineering
compared with the uncontrollable planetwide consequences that are unavoidable with
unabated dependence on fossil fuels. And there are national security risks associated with
continued dependence on oil.
SK/P09. NEW GENERATION OF REACTORS IS COST-EFFECTIVE
1. NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS IS ON THE HORIZON
SK/P09.01) U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, STATES

NEWS SERVICE, March 27, 2019, pNA, NexisUni. Advanced reactors are the next
generation of breakthrough nuclear technologies that will offer significant advantages for
power generation. Some are smaller than today's commercial reactors and can provide
increased reliability and resilience to the grid, as well as off-grid power. Others will
utilize exotic fuels, materials, and coolants to decrease the cost of delivered power or
provide high-temperature process heat for industrial manufacturing.
SK/P09.02) Jeffrey Binder [Agonne National Laboratory], STATES NEWS

SERVICE, February 8, 2018, pNA, NexisUni. The long-term solution to making nuclear
energy more competitive is the development and demonstration of a new generation of
nuclear reactors. These advanced, what we call Generation IV, reactors will enable
expanded use of nuclear energy while meeting the environmental, economic and social
requirements of the 21st century, in addition to providing enhanced safety and generating
more manageable waste products that contain greatly reduced levels of long-lived
radioactive isotopes.
SK/P09.03) Tom Carper [U.S. Senator], STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 15,
2020, pNA, NexisUni. "At the same time, we know that when the United States leads on
nuclear energy, it opens up good paying manufacturing, construction and operating jobs
opportunities for Americans nationwide. Nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of our
nation's energy. However, our existing reactors cannot run forever. If we are smart about
it, we will replace our aging nuclear reactors with new, advanced technology developed
here at home--domestic technology that is safer, produces less spent fuel and is cheaper
to build and operate.”
SK/P09.04) Alex Pavlak [Chairman, Future of Energy Initiative], THE

WASHINGTON POST, May 25, 2019, p. A16, NexisUni. Today, we have two
promising lines of development: small modular reactor (SMR) packaging and alternative
fuel cycles. With SMRs, the high-quality fabrication and test are done in factory
controlled environments rather than at field sites. Smaller means simpler, safer, less
sensitive to residual heat and lower-cost mass production. The first commercial-scale
power plant assembled from modules is scheduled to start up in 2026. Novel fuel cycles
are designed for specialized applications (high- temperature gas reactors), and fast
neutron cycles consume a large portion of fertile isotopes with little waste. Because the
planet has enough fertile isotopes to indefinitely power all of civilization's energy needs,
nuclear fission is inevitable.
SK/P09.05) Steven E. Aumeier [Idaho National Laboratory] & Todd Allen
[Professor of Nuclear Engineering, U. of Wisconsin], ISSUES IN SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY, 2018, pNA, Gale Academic OneFile. The advanced reactors
envisioned by today’s US-based private-sector innovators are targeted to overcome many
of the operational challenges of existing systems through the use of such features as
passively safe designs, simpler system architectures, advanced monitoring and controls,
and more robust nuclear fuels.
2. ADVANCED REACTORS WILL REDUCE COSTS
SK/P09.06) Ellen Powell, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, March 30,

2017, pNA, NexisUni. Smaller reactors may also provide an alternative to traditional
large-scale projects. And while the upfront costs of nuclear installations may still concern
energy companies, Dr. Biegalski [director of the Nuclear Engineering Lab at the
University of Texas at Austin] notes, nuclear may look more appealing down the road.
"In the short-term, the low cost of natural gas in the United States and subsidized solar
and wind create an energy market where nuclear does not shine as well as it should," he
writes. "However, it is expected that the low cost of natural gas and the solar and wind
subsidies are not long-term features of our market."

2018, pNA, NexisUni. The study finds that nuclear power will keep electricity prices
low, particularly where there are constraints on carbon emissions. This supports previous
studies that show that closing nuclear plants increases wholesale electricity prices. It
points to opportunities for improvement in new plant construction and operation costs,
which the industry is addressing by using proven construction management practices and
shifting from onsite construction to manufacturing and assembly at factories.
3. NUCLEAR EXPANSION WILL GENERATE NEW JOBS
SK/P09.08) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, STATES

NEWS SERVICE, March 8, 2017, pNA, NexisUni. If our country decides to retake its
leadership in nuclear energy and is successful in that endeavor - history has shown there
will be economic benefits in the form of manufacturing and construction jobs. As it turns
out, there are two test case examples in Georgia and South Carolina, where the
construction of two new reactors in each of those states has provided thousands of good
paying jobs and spurred economic development in the surrounding communities.
SK/P10. OTHER COUNTRIES ARE MODELS OF SUCCESS
1. OTHER COUNTRIES USED NUCLEAR TO REDUCE FOSSIL FUELS
SK/P10.01) Ellen Powell, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, March 30,

2017, pNA, NexisUni. Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and
engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concurs, noting the limited
timeframe for transitioning away from fossil fuels. "If you look at countries that have
brought low-carbon electricity generation online fast, they've all done it with nuclear," he
tells the Monitor.
2. SWEDEN IS A MODEL OF SUCCESS

YORK TIMES, February 10, 2019, p. BR-15, NexisUni. One of the countries that have
''solved climate change,'' as the book's subtitle has it, is Sweden, Qvist's homeland. Much
as France did before it, Sweden achieved this by expanding its electrical supply with
nuclear power rather than fossil fuels. Its concern at the time, in the 1970s, wasn't global
warming but reliability: Further hydropower development was environmentally
undesirable, and the oil crises of that decade made petroleum an unpredictable source.

YORK TIMES, February 10, 2019, p. BR-15, NexisUni. Between 1970 and 1990,
Sweden built a dozen nuclear power plants on four sites, eight of which continue to
operate today. They supply 40 percent of Sweden's electricity, equal to its hydropower.
Wind and biofuels supply the rest. As a result, electricity in Sweden is cheap, clean and
reliable. Serendipitously, the authors point out, ''Sweden became the most successful
country in history at expanding low-carbon electricity generation and leading the way in
addressing climate change.''
3. FRANCE IS A MODEL OF SUCCESS
SK/P10.04) Ted Nordhaus [The Breakthrough Institute], ISSUES IN SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 69, Gale Academic OneFile. France decarbonized 80% of its
electrical system through the state-led deployment of nuclear energy. Sweden did the
same through a combination of nuclear and hydroelectric dams.
SK/C01. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT A CRISIS
1. CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED
SK/C01.01) Timothy Ball [former climatology professor, U. of Winnipeg,

Canada], STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 6, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Politics has
corrupted climate science, with scientists in the field ignoring evidence a climate crisis is
not occurring.

Canada], STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 6, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. The original
claim made was that global warming was inevitable due to increasing levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities, especially from industry. This
hypothesis was based on the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that
such an increase would result in a temperature increase. The hypothesis ignored key
facts. There are three main greenhouse gases: water vapor is 95 percent, carbon dioxide 4
percent, and methane 0.4 percent. The official position is humans produce water vapor
but the amount is so small relative to the atmospheric total it is reasonable to ignore it. In
every historic record, temperatures have increased prior to increases in carbon dioxide.
Human production of carbon dioxide is within the error factor of estimates of carbon
dioxide emissions from two natural sources: the oceans and rotting vegetation. These
facts, among others explored in my book, undermine the claim human carbon dioxide
emissions are driving present climate change.

Canada], STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 6, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Starting in
1998, the global temperature stopped increasing and began to decline slightly, despite the
fact carbon dioxide levels continued increasing. By 2004, the trends continued to
contradict the assumptions. For example, the level of severe weather failed to increase. In
other words, the empirical evidence completely contradicted the hypothesis.

Canada], STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 6, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Most people
think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) examined all climate
change. In fact, they were restricted by the definition given to them by the world
Meteorological Organization (WMO) to only examining human causes. Water in all its
forms is a critical part of the Earth and atmosphere systems, yet it is ignored. There is
insufficient data at the surface [of the Earth] to build an accurate computer model of
global climate. The situation is even worse above the surface. All computer model
predictions of the UN IPCC since 1990 have been wrong.
2. SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ON FOSSIL FUEL CAUSALITY
SK/C01.05) Ronald Bailey, REASON, January 2020, p. 41+, Gale Academic

OneFile. Researchers disagree about how much of the warming can be attributed to
increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They clash over
which temperature records are more accurate with respect to how fast the earth is
warming. They debate whether or not the sea level is rising at an accelerated rate that
threatens to inundate many of the world's biggest cities. And they argue about whether
the predictions generated by complicated climate computer models can be trusted enough
to guide policy.
3. EVEN CLIMATE ACTIVISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A CRISIS
SK/C01.06) Ted Nordhaus [The Breakthrough Institute], ISSUES IN SCIENCE

& TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 69, Gale Academic OneFile. If one believed that the climate
crisis was already under way and that the world had only a decade or so not only to stop
the growth of emissions but to slash them deeply, an emergency mobilization to rapidly
cut carbon dioxide emissions would seemingly be the only sane response. But the
apocalyptic rhetoric, endless demands for binding global temperature targets, and radical-
sounding condemnations of neoliberalism, consumption, and corporations only conceal
how feeble the environmental climate agenda actually is. The vagueness and modesty of
the Green New Deal is not proof that progressives and environmentalists are closet
socialists. It is, rather, evidence that most climate advocates, though no doubt alarmed,
don't actually see climate change as the immediate and existential threat they suggest it is.

& TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 69, Gale Academic OneFile. Nationalize the power sector
or the automobile industry? Not so much as a word about it from progressives or
democratic socialists advocating a Green New Deal. The environmental literature, both
scholarly and advocacy, is similarly rife with calls to drastically cut air travel and meat
consumption. But the mere suggestion from critics on the Right that the Green New Deal
would require restrictions on eating hamburgers (not without cause) and flying provoked
howls from environmentalists, who insisted that such claims were just standard
conservative smear tactics.
SK/C02. FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAN BE CONTROLLED
1. CARBON CAPTURE HAS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL
SK/C02.01) Colin Cunliff [Information Technology & Innovation Foundation],

ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, pp. 74+, Gale Academic OneFile.
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage. By capturing the carbon emissions from fossil
fuel combustion for subsequent use or sequestration, CCUS technologies have the ability
to turn fossil fuels into low-carbon energy sources, enabling coal and natural gas power
plants to provide low-carbon firm, dispatchable electricity.

Current CCUS [carbon capture, utilization, and storage] programs focus primarily on
coalfired power plants. Policy-makers should now turn their attention to other sources,
and should prioritize carbon capture demonstrations at natural gas power plants and
cement and steel production facilities, to address the technical challenges unique to each
type of operation. Research to turn captured carbon into fuels, building materials,
plastics, and other products would expand the market for carbon dioxide, essentially
turning carbon dioxide emissions into a valuable product. And DOE should continue to
support geologic storage of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas
fields.

Support for CCUS [carbon capture, utilization, and storage] technologies is growing.
Members of Congress from states with large fossil fuel deposits are increasingly coming
to view carbon capture as a means of enabling the continued use of fossil fuels in a low-
carbon energy system. On the political left, skepticism about CCUS is thawing, as
prominent scientific bodies (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and
respected nongovernmental organizations (such as the World Resources Institute, Clean
Air Task Force, and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions) view CCUS as an essential
part of a balanced mitigation strategy.
2. CARBON-NEUTRAL FUEL HAS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL

Carbon-neutral fuels. Fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and synthetic hydrocarbons that
are made using energy from renewables or other low-carbon energy sources could play a
role in multiple hard-to-decarbonize sectors. Hydrogen made from splitting water with
excess renewable electricity can be stored and converted back to electricity when needed,
providing a form of long-duration electricity storage. It can also be combusted to provide
high-temperature heat for industrial processes. Synthetic hydrocarbons made from carbon
dioxide captured from the air can be used as transportation fuels in conventional engines.
And ammonia--already synthesized in large quantities for fertilizer use--can be used as a
fuel in combustion turbines or fuel cells.
ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, pp. 74+, Gale Academic OneFile. Until
now, DOE's clean fuels program has focused primarily on fuel cell electric vehicles that
use hydrogen. But plummeting battery costs have made battery electric vehicles the most
promising technology for decarbonizing light-duty cars and trucks. Policy-makers should
shift their focus to applications of carbon-neutral fuels for which batteries are ill-suited.
In the transportation sector, this includes aviation, shipping, and long-distance road
transport. In the industrial sector, this includes using carbon-neutral fuels as a source of
high-temperature heat for industrial processes. On the production side, policymakers
should expand existing programs beyond hydrogen to develop low-carbon processes for
manufacturing ammonia and synthetic hydrocarbons.
3. CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL HAS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL

Carbon dioxide removal refers to a suite of technologies and processes that remove
carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere for subsequent use or storage. Carbon
removal is distinct from CCUS and other conventional mitigation approaches because it
removes carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere, rather than preventing the gas
from being emitted in the first place. Approaches range from technologies that capture
carbon dioxide directly from the air to natural solutions such as no-till agriculture that
increase the carbon dioxide absorbed in soils.
SK/C03. RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN MEET FUTURE NEEDS
1. RENEWABLES ARE BECOMING MORE COST-COMPETITIVE
SK/C03.01) Amanda Sorrell, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, December 2019, p. 8,

Gale Academic OneFile. As polluting fossil fuels become more scarce and renewables
become more cost competitive, a number of U.S. states, districts, and territories have
taken a localized approach toward a sustainable energy future by decarbonizing their
energy supplies ahead of federal mandates.
SK/C03.02) THE ECONOMIST, September 21, 2019, p. 31(US), Gale Academic

OneFile. Climate policies have had greater success on the state level--more than half of
states have targets for clean energy. These policies, coupled with tax credits for wind and
solar power, have helped spur a rush of investment in renewables. America's shale
bonanza has created a glut of inexpensive gas that has been the main force putting coal
plants out of business. Wind and solar farms have become cheap enough, in many
instances, to outcompete even gas.
SK/C03.03) Energy Information Administration, STATES NEWS SERVICE,

February 7, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Recent trends for electricity generated from coal and
nuclear are the result of historically low natural gas prices, limited growth in electricity
demand, state-level clean energy initiatives, and increasing competition from renewable
energy. Several coal-fired power plants, totaling 33 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, have
already announced their intention to retire, according to EIA's survey of power plant
operators and the companies' retirement announcements.
SK/C03.04) Energy Information Administration. STATES NEWS SERVICE,

January 30, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. In the latest long-term projections, the U.S Energy
Information Administration (EIA) projects electricity generation from renewable sources
such as wind and solar to surpass nuclear and coal by 2021 and to surpass natural gas in
2045. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (AEO2020) Reference case, the share of
renewables in the U.S. electricity generation mix increases from 19% in 2019 to 38% in
2050.
2. SOLAR ENERGY COSTS HAVE PLUMMETED

ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 74+, Gale Academic OneFile.
Greater deployment has enabled the solar industry to take advantage of economies of
scale and learning-by-doing, driving further cost reductions. The combination of
technological innovation, market-expanding policies in the United States and globally,
and China's subsidies for solar manufacturing have driven a 99% decline in the cost of
solar PV over the past four decades.
ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, pp. 74+, Gale Academic OneFile. The
dramatic cost decline in solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies offers a classic example of
smart public policy in accelerating innovation, and the synergistic interactions between
public and private investment.
3. STATES ARE TAKING ACTION TO BOOST RENEWABLE ENERGY

Gale Academic OneFile. According to online solar marketplace EnergySage
(www.EnergySage.com), some states are reaching for "100 percent renewable energy," or
energy only from renewable sources, and others are pursuing "100 percent clean energy,"
indicating their acceptance of nonrenewable but carbon-free sources of power, such as
nuclear. The deadlines for these policies vary from state to state, with most states aiming
for the 2040 to 2050 range.

Gale Academic OneFile. Hawaii was the first state to make headway on state-specific
renewable energy goals, passing a bill in 2015 that mandates 100 percent renewable
energy by 2045. In 2018, New Jersey's governor issued an executive order for 100
percent clean energy by 2050. And in January 2019, Washington, D.C., did the same,
committing to 100 percent renewable energy by 2032, the most ambitious target to date.
4. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING RENEWABLE ENERGY
SK/C03.09) U.S. Department of Energy, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 5,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to
$125.5 million in new funding to advance solar technology research. Through the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Solar Energy Technologies Office,
DOE continues to advance research and development of solar technologies that reduce
the cost of solar, increase the competitiveness of American manufacturing and
businesses, and improve the reliability of the grid. Solar energy has grown tremendously
in the last decade, said U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette. The research and
development supported by this investment will build on the technological foundations
necessary to continue the solar industrys growth and preserve American energy choice,
independence, and security.
SK/C03.10) U.S. Department of Energy, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 5,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. In addition to today’s solar funding announcement, yesterday
EERE announced up to $43.8 million to advance geothermal research and development.
These funding opportunity announcements (FOAs), along with a $300 million investment
in sustainable transportation made in January 2020, total more than $463 million making
this the largest EERE investment made this early in the fiscal year over the past six years.
5. MASSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION CAN SUCCEED

& TECHNOLOGY, 2019, p. 69, Gale Academic OneFile. Most renewable energy today
comes not from homes clad in solar panels but from enormous, industrial-scale wind,
solar, and biomass facilities. Moreover, scaling renewable energy such that it might
contribute much to the fight against climate change will require exactly the sort of large,
centralized, and technocratic institutions that Lovins railed against in the 1970s: to permit
huge new renewable generation facilities over the objections of local communities; to
build an enormous new transcontinental transmission network to bring electricity from
places that are ideal to generate it with wind and solar technology to the urban and
industrial centers where it will be utilized; to co-locate renewable generation capacity
with infrastructure and industry that can use the large surpluses of energy that massive
renewable energy generation will produce during times of low grid demand; and to
coordinate the deployment and operations of intermittent sources of energy with demand
management and energy storage needs across vast geographic regions.
6. RENEWABLE ENERGY WILL GENERATE THOUSANDS OF JOBS
SK/C03.12) John Feffer [Institute for Policy Studies], NEWSWEEK, January 17,
2020, pNA, Gale Academic OneFile. A massive transition away from fossil fuels and
toward renewable energy is not only sensible from an environmental point of view. It
also addresses the insecurity so many people feel about their economic future in an era of
automation and downsizing. The Green New Deal--like its earlier World War II-era
cousin, Franklin Roosevelt's New Dea --promises to be a major job creation program.
SK/C03.13) Christopher Flavelle, THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 25,

2019, pNA, NexisUni. Critics of cutting carbon emissions often cite concerns about the
effect on people who earn their living from fossil fuels. But as John Schwartz wrote,
there are now more jobs in renewable energy than in mining or burning coal. And in
many cases, those jobs are going to people whose parents or grandparents worked in
mines or oil fields.
SK/C03.14) Andy Levin [U.S. Congressman], STATES NEWS SERVICE,

February 6, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. If we are to avoid the doomsday scenario of climate
change, we have to transform our transportation system and end our reliance on fossil
fuels. By doing so, we have the tremendous opportunity to supercharge our economy and
create the jobs of the future, further unify our country in a sustainable way and lead the
world in green energy infrastructure.
SK/C03.15) International Renewable Energy Agency, STATES NEWS

SERVICE, January 10, 2020, pNA, NexisUni. Renewable energy could employ more
than 40 million people by 2050 under the International Renewable Energy Agencys
(IRENA) climate safe energy path, according to a report published by the Agency during
its 10th Assembly. The report finds that total energy sector employment can reach 100
million by 2050, up from around 58 million today should the international community
utilise its full renewable energy potential.
SK/C03.16) ENERGY MONITOR WORLDWIDE, March 7, 2019, pNA,
NexisUni. Feldman [Maryland State Senator] said jobs in clean energy, such as solar
installation and wind turbines, are the fastest growing sector in the state [Maryland]. If
the bill passes, nearly 20,000 new solar energy jobs and more than 5,500 offshore wind
energy-reliant jobs would be created by 2030, Feldman said. According to the Federal
Bureau of Labor Statistics, solar installers and wind turbine servicers are some of the
fastest growing jobs in the country.
7. RENEWABLES CAN COMPLETELY REPLACE NUCLEAR ENERGY
SK/C03.17) Gregory Jaczko [former Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission],

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. What about the United
States? Nuclear accounts for about 19 percent of U.S. electricity production and most of
our carbon-free electricity. Could reactors be phased out here without increasing carbon
emissions? If it were completely up to the free market, the answer would be yes, because
nuclear is more expensive than almost any other source of electricity today. Renewables
such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power generate electricity for less than the nuclear
plants under construction in Georgia, and in most places, they produce cheaper electricity
than existing nuclear plants that have paid off all their construction costs.
SK/C04. STORAGE CAN PROVIDE CONTINUOUS ENERGY
1. INTERMITTENT PRODUCTION DOESN’T NECESSITATE NUCLEAR
SK/C04.01) Ellen Powell, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, March 30,

2017, pNA, NexisUni. But Professor Ramana [U. of British Columbia] says nuclear may
not need to be part of the mix. Since each renewable source is productive at different
times, it should be possible to produce a blend of renewable energy sources that
"compensate for [each other's] intermittencies," he suggests.
2. STORAGE WILL ADDRESS INTERMITTENT RENEWABLE PRODUCTION
SK/C04.02) Office of Electricity, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020,

pNA, NexisUni. Advanced energy storage is crucial to the next evolution of the nation’s
electrical grid, and the Office of Electricity (OE) is committed to the Department of
Energy’s (DOE) effort to create and sustain Americas global leadership in energy storage
development. Grid storage enables energy stakeholders to store excess energy in times of
surplus and then provide electricity to the grid when needed later. Batteries and other
energy storage technologies that have the capability to both supply and absorb electrical
power (bidirectional electrical energy storage) can provide flexibility by balancing
electrical supply and demand.
SK/C04.03) Office of Electricity, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020,

pNA, NexisUni. Advances in energy storage technologies can help power plants operate
more efficiently and at a constant level, store excess electricity produced from
intermittent renewable sources, stabilize the cost of electricity, and bolster grid resilience
and emergency preparedness. This year DOE and OE, building off the technology
advances and other achievements to date, are taking significant steps to improve energy
storage with the introduction of the Energy Storage Grand Challenge and the publication
of a report titled "Potential Benefits of High-Power High Capacity Batteries." Launching
the Energy Storage Grand Challenge in January, DOE announced a cross-cutting effort to
create and sustain Americas global leadership in energy storage use, production, and
exports, while using a secure, domestic manufacturing supply chain that does not depend
on foreign sources of critical materials.
3. SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY CAN BE STORED
SK/C04.04) Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, May 24,

2018, pNA, NexisUni. Consider that challenge of solar- and wind-power variability. The
issue is real, but potential solutions are in view. "I think it's a problem we can solve," says
Ethan Elkind, an energy-law expert at the University of California, Berkeley. "I think
we're heading toward a solar-plus-storage future." "Storage" means improved ways of
saving variable power for when it's needed, from batteries at residences to molten salt at
larger utility-run solar installations.
4. PROGRESS IS BEING MADE ON BATTERY STORAGE
SK/C04.05) THE ECONOMIST, November 30, 2019, p. 16(US), Gale Academic

OneFile. Today pumped hydropower is the most common way to store energy. When it is
sunny or windy any excess electricity from solar and wind farms can be used to pump
water uphill into reservoirs, to be released later to generate hydropower. But lots of
places lack mountains, rain and room. Batteries are an alternative. They can smooth
jumps and drops in supply and store renewable energy when it is abundant, as in
California on a sunny afternoon, and then release it in the evening, when demand rises.
SK/C04.06) THE ECONOMIST, November 30, 2019, p. 16(US), Gale Academic

OneFile. If batteries are to realise their potential, they need to become cheaper and better.
Progress is being made. Lithium-ion batteries have become 85% less expensive since
2010, as firms have poured capital into factories to mass-produce batteries for electric
vehicles. Investment in storage capacity will hit about $9 billion next year, predicts
BloombergNEF, a data firm, four times the level in 2017.
SK/C05. NUCLEAR ENERGY CANNOT MEET TIMELINE
1. NUCLEAR ENERGY CANNOT MEET 10-YEAR TARGET
SK/C05.01) Justin Gillis & Sonia Aggarwal [Vice-President, Energy Innovation],

THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 17, 2019, p. A27, NexisUni. More recently, wind
and solar plants have grown to supply nearly 10 percent of our electricity. Altogether, 38
percent of American electricity already comes from low-emission sources. Getting the
rest of the way in a decade, our modeling suggests, would require a national project of
immense scale. New nuclear plants take too long to plan and build, and have incurred
disastrous cost overruns, so they are largely off the table for a 2030 target.
2. NUCLEAR SUFFERS FROM CHRONIC DELAYS AND COST OVERRUNS
SK/C05.02) Emily Hammond, VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF

TRANSNATIONAL LAW, October 2015, p. 1059+, Gale Academic OneFile. During the
1970s and 1980s, nuclear power construction was famously plagued by delays and cost
overruns. Some of these problems were caused by the need to make safety upgrades
throughout the three-part licensing process; others were caused by litigation; still others
related to the overall economy.

However, the development of nuclear technologies has stagnated, and nuclear power
capacity has not grown in decades. High construction costs, site-specific designs, and
inflexible grid operations make the current large-scale baseload model a poor fit for the
electric grid of the future.
3. NUCLEAR ACCIDENT WOULD SPELL DOOM
SK/C05.04) Ledyard King, USA TODAY, September 23, 2019, p. 1A, NexisUni.
A number of plants that were already in the pipeline prior to TMI's [Three Mile Island]
accident received licenses to operate after 1979. But plans for 39 others were canceled in
the wake of the catastrophe, according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents,
though factors such as high interest rates also contributed to the slowdown in new plants.
"Public confidence in nuclear energy, particularly in (the) USA, declined sharply
following the Three Mile Island accident," according to the World Nuclear Association, a
pro-industry group. "It was a major cause of the decline in nuclear construction through
the 1980s and 1990s."

TRANSNATIONAL LAW, October 2015, p. 1059+, Gale Academic OneFile. The
Fukushima disaster revived memories of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters
and provided a reminder of the global interconnectedness of nuclear power. In response,
some nations curtailed nuclear power generation, and decades-old opposition to nuclear
power found a renaissance. In the United States, Fukushima coincided with increasing
concerns about spent-fuel policy that threatened to dampen recent initiatives aimed at a
nuclear resurgence.
4. U.S. LACKS SKILLED WORKFORCE TO PRODUCE NEW PLANTS

2017, pNA, NexisUni. Before Westinghouse signed on to the four nuclear projects in
2008, no new nuclear plants had been built in the US since the Three Mile Island accident
in 1979, and Westinghouse's contractors' lack of expertise seems to be largely responsible
for costly delays. "It was clear early on that the US had lost much of its skilled workforce
needed to build the power plants," explains Paul Dickman, who is on the board of
directors of the American Nuclear Society and is a retired senior official at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, in an email to the Monitor. "Lack of experience on all sides was
certainly a factor and there were many issues that had to work themselves out."
SK/C06. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSAFE
1. AGING POWER PLANTS ARE UNSAFE
SK/C06.01) Coral Davenport, THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 17, 2019, pNA,
NexisUni. The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were
designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-
year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the
operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that
aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety.
2. INSURANCE COMPANIES WON’T TOUCH NUCLEAR ENERGY
SK/C06.02) Len Charlap, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 10, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. I will support nuclear power the day after the Price-Anderson Nuclear
Industries Indemnity Act is repealed. If insurance company actuaries consider nuclear
power to be so dangerous that they cannot compute premiums that the industry can
afford, then that industry is not economically viable.
3. NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF ACCIDENTS

2017, pNA, NexisUni. Nor is Westinghouse the only struggling nuclear player. General
Electric has also scaled back its nuclear development, while France's Areva is
restructuring, The New York Times reported. Critics have long been concerned about the
risks associated with nuclear power, chiefly the potential for accidents and production of
radioactive waste.
SK/C06.04) Sebnem Udum [Asst. Professor of International Relations,

Hacetteppe U., Turkey], PERCEPTIONS 2017, p. 57+, Gale Academic OneFile. Public
concerns and debates have usually revolved around the issue of nuclear safety. There
have been three major reactor accidents that sustained high public perception of risk from
nuclear energy and "anti-nuclearism" as a social movement: Three Mile Island (1979),
Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011).
SK/C06.05) Roger Johnson, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 10, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. Will it take another Chernobyl or Fukushima, possibly in an American city, to
quiet the disinformation coming from nuclear activists? What the world needs is energy
that is both carbon-free and radiation-free. Those of us who live near a failed nuclear
power plant know the truth: Nuclear power is by far the most expensive, the most
dangerous, the most unreliable and the most environmentally unfriendly form of energy
production.
a. THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT NEARLY KILLED THOUSANDS
SK/C06.06) Paulina Firozi, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 22, 2019, p.

A18, NexisUni. In 1979, Pennsylvania was the site of one of the worst nuclear accidents
in U.S. history. The partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island launched a wave
of antinuclear sentiment that eventually led the United States to largely abandon building
new nuclear power plants.
SK/C06.07) Len Charlap, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 10, 2019, p. A22,
NexisUni. We were lucky at Three Mile Island. We were minutes away from a complete
meltdown that given the plant's location would have killed thousands and done billions in
damage.
b. CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT KILLED THOUSANDS
SK/C06.08) Daniel A. Vogel [clinical psychologist], SKEPTICAL INQUIRER,

November-December 2016, p. 56+, Gale Academic OneFile. The Chernobyl accident,
seven years later in 1986, was vastly more destructive and is indeed considered the most
severe nuclear power disaster of all, Fukushima included. Statistics provided by scientists
of the United Nations (World Health Organization 2005; 2006) who evaluated the
damage to human and nonhuman fife show that twenty-eight workers in the plant died
within a few months, and more than a hundred others developed radiation injuries.
Initially 115,000 people in the immediate area were evacuated in 1986 with a subsequent
evacuation of 220,000 from Belams, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. Up until 2005,
there were around 6,000 reported cases of thyroid cancer of children or adolescents from
those latter three locations who had been exposed at the time of the accident.
c. FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENT DISPLACED THOUSANDS

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. But the Fukushima
Daiichi crisis reversed that momentum. A massive release of radiation from that plant, as
its four reactors failed, lasted for months. The world watched as hydrogen explosions sent
huge chunks of concrete into the air - a reminder that radiation was streaming, unseen,
from the reactor core. More than 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes and
their communities. Most have not returned, because only select areas have been
remediated, making the surrounding region seem like a giant chessboard with hazardous
areas next to safer ones. The crisis hobbled the Japanese economy for years. The
government estimated that the accident would cost at least $180 billion. Independent
estimates suggest that the cost could be three times more.
4. NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL IS INHERENTLY UNSAFE
SK/C06.10) Carol Werner [Executive Director, Environmental and Energy Study

Institute], THE WASHINGTON POST, May 25, 2019, p. A16, NexisUni. Another
fundamental concern is that we still have not found a way to safely dispose of nuclear
waste. According to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. nuclear power
industry has generated more than 88,000 tons of radioactive waste. That waste is
accumulating in nuclear plants across America - 80 sites in 35 states. Experts say it is
being stored in untested, unmonitored, thin-wall canisters, often vulnerable to natural
disasters and terrorist attacks. And now, there are plans to move the waste to interim
storage sites, with all the transportation risks that entails. It does not seem responsible to
continue investing in nuclear energy without first figuring out how to dispose of
radioactive waste.
SK/C06.11) Charles Davis, The Today File, NEWSTEX BLOGS, May 10, 2019.
Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol Browner's letter
supporting nuclear power incorrectly equates carbon-free energy with clean energy.
Nuclear power plants produce nuclear waste, for which there is no known safe means of
disposal. Nuclear waste is stored at nuclear power plants all over the country. The
Hanford Nuclear Reservation waste is left over from making plutonium bombs during
World War II, there is more of it, and it is much more deadly than the waste from nuclear
power plants. But the problem is still the same. There is no safe way to store the waste or
lessen its danger.
SK/C06.12) Sheena McKenzie, CNN WIRE, November 30, 2019, pNA, Gale
Academic OneFile. As the name suggests, high-level radioactive waste is the most lethal
of its kind. It includes the spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. "If you opened up a
canister with those fuel rods in it, you would more or less instantly die," said [Professor
Miranda] Schreurs. These rods are "so incredibly hot, it's very hard to transport them
safely," said Schreurs. So for now they're being stored in containers where they can first
cool down over several decades, she added.
Three Mile Island is closing but it will be decades before it's dismantled. The first step to
decommissioning the site involves transferring fuel to dry cask storage, made of stainless
steel and concrete, for secure containment. That should happen around 2022, according to
Exelon. The disassembling of the plant's largest components, such as the cooling towers,
is not expected to happen until 2074. Four years after that, all radioactive material will be
safely stored or removed from station. Epstein [Chair, Three Mile Island Alert] calls the
on-site storage of waste "a toxic problem without a forwarding address." It's an issue
bedeviling the nuclear power industry.

ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2019, pp. 74+, Gale Academic OneFile. And
of course, lawmakers will have to find a political and technical solution for safe geologic
storage of used nuclear fuel in order to ensure that nuclear energy remains a viable option
in a low-carbon future.
In 1987, Congress selected Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a remote section of the Mojave
Desert that sits about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to become the nation's permanent
repository for nuclear waste generated by utility power plants and the military. The
Energy Department began pursuing a license for the facility in 2008. But the Obama
administration abandoned the project three years later amid intense opposition from
residents and political leaders in Nevada, including Harry Reid, who at the time was the
Senate's top Democrat. With Reid gone, Congress keeps trying to revive the Yucca
proposal. The House last year voted overwhelmingly to direct the Department of Energy
to resume the licensing process for a nuclear waste facility at Yucca, but the plan has
stalled.
SK/C07. NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS UNACCEPTABLE RISK
1. NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE TARGETS FOR TERRORISTS

Hacetteppe U., Turkey], PERCEPTIONS 2017, p. 57+, Gale Academic OneFile.
Concerns about a terrorist attack using nuclear and radiological material occupy the
international security agenda more than state-level proliferation of nuclear weapons.
International terrorist groups and their intentions pose a direct threat via nuclear and
radiological material both in use and in transport. With more nuclear power plants, and
nuclear material trade in place, the material and facilities are becoming vulnerable and
constitute new targets for terrorist groups.
SK/C07.02) Ledyard King, USA TODAY, May 1, 2019, p. 1A, NexisUni. Safety
remains a major concern as well, 40 years after Three Mile Island's Unit 2 suffered a
partial meltdown in what remains the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident. The
threat of a terrorist attack and the potential damage from a major hurricane (nuclear
plants sit on or near bodies of water) have added to the angst. And there's the question of
finding a permanent repository for nuclear waste, a question that has bedeviled for years.
SK/C07.03) THE ECONOMIST, August 12, 2017, p. 63(US), Gale Academic

OneFile. Not everyone is delighted with the idea of marine nuclear power. Rashid
Alimov, head of energy projects at Greenpeace Russia, an environmental charity, argues
that offshore plants could be boarded by pirates or terrorists, be struck by an iceberg or
might evade safety rules that are hard to enforce at sea.
2. NUCLEAR TERRORISM WOULD INFLICT ENORMOUS DAMAGE

Hacetteppe U., Turkey], PERCEPTIONS 2017, p. 57+, Gale Academic OneFile. Nuclear
terrorism refers to terrorist activity to inflict damage with the use of nuclear or
radiological material. It includes theft, sabotage or unauthorized access to these materials
when they are in use in a facility or while they are transported. Terrorists may try to
either steal them to make an improvised nuclear or radiological device (dirty bomb), or
may treat the facility or the transportation vehicle as a potential weapon to cause
radioactive dispersal. In either case, the consequences would be lethal and enormous.
SK/C08. URANIUM MINING POLLUTES THE ENVIRONMENT
1. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN ROLLED BACK
SK/C08.01) The Texas Observer, STATE CAPITAL NEWSFEED, January 10,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. But today, some market watchers are bullish on uranium; after a
10-year slump, prices are looking to rebound due to low domestic supplies and tensions
with Russia and China, who provide almost all of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power
plants. So it doesn't hurt that the Trump administration has shoved aside pesky
environmental regulations that irk energy producers. If mining in Texas picks up, it could
spell trouble for those who live in close proximity to uranium deposits:
2. URANIUM MINING IS ECOLOGICALLY DESTRUCTIVE
SK/C08.02) The Texas Observer, STATE CAPITAL NEWSFEED, January 10,

2020, pNA, NexisUni. So-called 'hardrock' mining activities uranium, gold, copper pose
severe pollution risks, environmental advocates say. The hardrock mining industry is the
biggest source of toxic water pollution in the country, according to the National Wildlife
Federation. Forty percent of watersheds in the western United States have been
contaminated by waste from those mines.
3. URANIUM MINING IS TOXIC TO HUMAN HEALTH
SK/C08.03) Raul Grijalva [Chair, U.S. House Natural Resources Committee],

STATES NEWS SERVICE, July 17, 2019, pNA, NexisUni. Uranium mining throughout
northern Arizona has impacted the health and wellbeing of families across the region, and
communities are still grappling with the legacy of this activity decades later, said Rep.
Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.) after today’s passage of H.R. 1373, of which he’s an original
cosponsor.
SK/C08.04) Raul Grijalva [Chair, U.S. House Natural Resources Committee],

STATES NEWS SERVICE, July 17, 2019, pNA, NexisUni. After the extractive
industries mine away our natural resources, they should clean up their mess. But uranium
mining has had a toxic impact across the southwest, leaving behind thousands of
abandoned mine sites on the Navajo Nation leaving taxpayers on the hook for cleanup,
said Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), Vice Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee
and a cosponsor of H.R. 1373. Just yesterday I met with several Navajo members who
lost family members to the toxic effects of uranium mining and who themselves are
suffering with resulting health problems.
SK/C09. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
1. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT COST-COMPETITIVE
SK/C09.01) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

A20, NexisUni. Existing nuclear power is having trouble competing with cheaper forms
of generation such as natural-gas-fired power plants. And the few new nuclear reactors
being built in the United States are plagued by huge cost overruns.
SK/C09.02) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

A20, NexisUni. Markey [U.S. Senator] pointed out the tough economic head winds faced
by nuclear reactors, but said he doesn't want to see the U.S. government spend billions of
dollars subsidizing them. "Nuclear power has met its maker in the marketplace," Markey
said. "We're adding no new nuclear not because of any granola-chomping protesters
outside the construction site but because they're not economically viable."
But economic factors, mainly from the production of cheap natural gas and increasingly
affordable renewable sources, are slowly driving nuclear power out of business. TMI's
shuttering means there will be 97 commercial reactors at 59 plants scattered across 30
states. Six reactors at five plants have been mothballed since 2013, and several others are
slated to close in the next few years if they do not receive new financial support,
according to a 2018 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
2. BANKRUPTCIES HAVE STOPPED ANY NEW INSTALLATIONS

2017, pNA, NexisUni. On Wednesday, Westinghouse Electric, Toshiba's nuclear unit in
the US, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As part of its bankruptcy restructuring, the
Pennsylvania-based company plans to stop installing reactors in order to focus on
maintenance and design, a decision that throws into doubt the future of four reactors that
are under construction. For some, the challenges are a sign of systemic problems that
mean nuclear power generation should be phased out. The Westinghouse bankruptcy "is a
powerful signal of the end of the fantasy of a nuclear revival," writes Daniel Hirsch,
director of the Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy at the University of
California, Santa Cruz, in an email to The Christian Science Monitor.

2017, pNA, NexisUni. The Westinghouse bankruptcy reinforces that cost is also a
concern, says M.V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada.
"This is the fundamental challenge that nuclear power has faced for the past several
decades," he tells the Monitor in a phone interview, arguing that nuclear power is "unable
to compete economically in the electricity marketplace."
THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. And here in the United
States, those four new reactors - the vanguard of the "nuclear renaissance" - still haven't
opened. The South Carolina companies building two of the reactors canceled the project
in 2017, after spending $9 billion of their customers' money without producing a single
electron of power. The construction company behind the utilities, Westinghouse, went
bankrupt, almost destroying its parent company, the global conglomerate Toshiba. The
other two reactors licensed while I chaired the NRC are still under construction in
Georgia and years behind schedule. Their cost has ballooned from $14 billion to $28
billion and continues to grow.
3. NEW DESIGNS ARE NOT READY TO BE COMMERCIALIZED
SK/C09.07) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, STATES

NEWS SERVICE, March 8, 2017, pNA, NexisUni. Today, we will hear directly from
General Atomics, a company that is investing in a design that is much smaller than
current reactors, doesn’t need water for cooling, is able to use spent fuel as fuel, and is a
passive design so that it will shut down easily if a significant concern arises. As we will
hear today, if this design works this type of reactor may well be competitive in today’s
energy markets. This technology like the dozens of other types of nuclear energy
technology that are being actively researched, developed and invested in today still faces
real material and design challenges before it is ready to be commercialized.
4. NUCLEAR ENERGY WILL NEVER BE COST-COMPETITIVE

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. History shows that the
expense involved in nuclear power will never change. Past construction in the United
States exhibited similar cost increases throughout the design, engineering and
construction process. The technology and the safety needs are just too complex and
demanding to translate into a facility that is simple to design and build. No matter your
views on nuclear power in principle, no one can afford to pay this much for two
electricity plants. New nuclear is simply off the table in the United States.
SK/C10. OTHER COUNTRIES SHOW NUCLEAR NOT NEEDED
1. OTHER COUNTRIES ARE PHASING OUT NUCLEAR POWER

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. After Fukushima, people
all over the world demanded a different approach to nuclear safety. Germany closed
several older plants and required the rest to shut down by 2022. Japan closed most of its
plants. Last year, even France, which gets about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power, proposed reducing that figure to 50 percent by 2035, because safety could not be
guaranteed. Trying to make accidents unlikely wasn't enough.
2. GERMANY WILL COMPLETELY ELIMINATE NUCLEAR PLANTS
SK/C10.02) Sheena McKenzie, CNN WIRE, November 30, 2019, pNA, Gale
Academic OneFile. Germany decided to phase out all its nuclear power plants in the
wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, amid increasing safety concerns. The seven
power stations still in operation today are due to close by 2022.
3. JAPAN HAS CUT EMISSIONS WITHOUT RESTORING NUCLEAR PLANTS

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. Would shutting down
plants all over the world lead to similar results? Eight years after Fukushima, that
question has been answered. Fewer than 10 of Japan's 50 reactors have resumed
operations, yet the country's carbon emissions have dropped below their levels before the
accident. How? Japan has made significant gains in energy efficiency and solar power. It
turns out that relying on nuclear energy is actually a bad strategy for combating climate
change: One accident wiped out Japan's carbon gains. Only a turn to renewables and
conservation brought the country back on target.
SK/C11. RISKS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY OUTWEIGH BENEFITS
1. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS DOESN’T WORK FOR CATASTROPHIC RISK

TRANSNATIONAL LAW, October 2015, p. 1059+, Gale Academic OneFile. Professor
Sunstein and others have argued that cost-benefit analysis should be at least part of the
guard against overregulation. But as many other scholars have shown, cost-benefit
analysis is subject to numerous deficiencies of its own. Moreover, as the Slovic quote
above indicates, it is extremely difficult to attach analytical numbers to catastrophic
events that by definition almost never happen. And there is another important
consideration flowing from this very brief overview of risk perception and nuclear power:
given the deep objections many have against nuclear power, it seems problematic--even
illegitimate--to say that such objections should be dismissed out of hand.

TRANSNATIONAL LAW, October 2015, p. 1059+, Gale Academic OneFile. This core
issue for legitimacy lies at the intersection of procedure and substance, and is at the heart
of the U.S. response to Fukushima. If it is paternalistic to snub deeply felt concerns about
nuclear safety by attempting to erase them with cost-benefit analysis, and it is counter to
the efficiency imperative of regulation to regulate far beyond what is necessary, one is
left wondering how to respond to a disaster in a way that is both fair and efficient. In
some sense, this question reflects a longstanding conundrum of administrative law
generally: how best to reconcile the need for efficient government with the need for
participation, deliberation, and transparency. Indeed, the issue is even more salient for
nuclear disasters, where protection of public health and safety is paramount.
2. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT WORTH THE RISK OF CATASTROPHE

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. Two years into my term,
an earthquake and tsunami destroyed four nuclear reactors in Japan. I spent months
reassuring the American public that nuclear energy, and the U.S. nuclear industry in
particular, was safe. But by then, I was starting to doubt those claims myself.

THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. Despite working in the
industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power's benefits are no longer
enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants. I became so convinced that,
years after departing office, I've now made alternative energy development my new
career, leaving nuclear power behind. The current and potential costs - in lives and
dollars - are just too high.
THE WASHINGTON POST, May 19, 2019, p. B4, NexisUni. I think a reasonable
standard for any source of electricity should be that it doesn't contaminate your
community for decades. Coal and natural gas do not create this kind of acute accident
hazard, though they do present a different kind of danger. Large dams for hydroelectric
power could require evacuation of nearby communities if they failed - but without the
lasting contamination effect of radiation. And solar, wind and geothermal energy pose no
safety threat at all.

Squirrel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Squirrel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

1. THERE IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

SK/P01.01) Ronald Bailey, REASON, January 2020, p. 41+, Gale Academic

SK/P01.02) Carnegie Mellon University, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 7,

2. 2019 WAS SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD

SK/P01.03) Elana Sulakshana [Rainforest Action Network], STATES NEWS

SK/P01.04) United Nations, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020, pNA,

3. LAST TWO DECADES HAVE SEEN RECORD TEMPERATURES

SK/P01.05) Meg Green [A.M. BestTV], BEST’S REVIEW, December 2019, p.

4. CARBON EMISSIONS MUST BE SLASHED TO RETARD WARMING

SK/P01.06) Ronald Bailey, REASON, January 2020, p. 41+, Gale Academic

1. CLIMATE CHANGE PRECIPITATES EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS

2. EXTREME WEATHER HAS CATASTROPHIC RESULTS

SK/P02.02) Meg Green [A.M. BestTV], BEST’S REVIEW, December 2019, p.

SK/P02.03) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, STATES NEWS

SK/P02.04) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, STATES NEWS

3. EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ARE DEVASTATING

SK/P02.06) Natural Resources Defense Council, STATES NEWS SERVICE,

SK/P02.07) Lauren Cullum [U. of Edinburgh], UCLA JOURNAL OF

4. THOUSANDS HAVE DIED

SK/P02.08) Lauren Cullum [U. of Edinburgh], UCLA JOURNAL OF

5. LONG-TERM WARMING SPELLS ECOLOGICAL DISASTER

1. WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS RAPIDLY CLOSING

SK/P03.02) Amanda Sorrell, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, December 2019, p. 8,

SK/P03.03) United Nations, STATES NEWS SERVICE, February 3, 2020, pNA,

2. FOSSIL FUEL USE MUST BE DRASTICALLY CUT

SK/P03.05) Bernie Sanders [U.S. Senator]. STATES NEWS SERVICE, February

SK/P03.06) Ted Nordhaus [The Breakthrough Institute], ISSUES IN SCIENCE &

1. U.S. CANNOT MEET TIMETABLE WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY

SK/P04.04) William C. Evans, THE WASHINGTON POST, June 21, 2019, p.

2. NUCLEAR ENERGY USE MUST BE INCREASED

SK/P04.05) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

SK/P04.06) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

SK/P04.08) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 30,

SK/P04.09) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, STATES

1. NO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE ON THE DRAWING BOARD

SK/P05.01) Amy Worden, THE WASHINGTON POST, September 29, 2019, p.

2. MANY U.S. PLANTS ARE SCHEDULED FOR SHUTDOWN

3. NUCLEAR SHUTDOWNS INCREASE CARBON EMISSIONS

SK/P05.07) Richard Rhodes [author of “Energy: A Human History”], THE NEW

SK/P05.08) Gregory Jaczko [former Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission],

4. SHUTDOWN PATTERN MUST BE REVERSED

SK/P05.09) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

1. NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCES NO CARBON EMISSIONS

SK/P06.02) Richard Rhodes [author of “Energy: A Human History”], THE NEW

SK/P06.03) Paulina Firozi, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 22, 2019, p.

2. NUCLEAR IS LARGEST EMISSIONS-FREE SOURCE OF U.S. ENERGY

SK/P06.04) Dino Grandoni, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 13, 2019, p.

3. EMISSONS-FREE ENERGY HAS SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

SK/P06.05) Gregory Jaczko [former Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission],

1. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE NUCLEAR ENERGY

SK/P07.01) Stephen Rodgers, THE WASHINGTON POST, January 17, 2019, p.

SK/P07.02) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, September 4,

2. SOLAR ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP

3. WIND ENERGY CANNOT FILL THE GAP

4. SOLAR & WIND SUFFER FROM INTERMITTENT ENERGY PRODUCTION

SK/P07.07) Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, May 24,

SK/P07.08) Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, May 24,

5. NUCLEAR POWER FILLS THE INTERMITTENCY GAP

SK/P07.10) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 30,

SK/P07.11) Nuclear Energy Institute, STATES NEWS SERVICE, September 18,

1. NUCLEAR ENERGY HAS EXCELLENT SAFETY RECORD