Russia Adv – 1ac

Global Warming Impact

Nuclear Power solves global warming- advantages outweigh the risks

Christian Science Monitor 10

(CSM, “Global warming heats up a nuclear energy renaissance,” 8/9/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0809/Global-warming-heats-up-a-nuclear-energy-renaissance, CJC)

"This point" is the nuclear renaissance that Dominion, and the industry as a whole, seems to be enjoying. Global warming has energized the quest for clean, carbon-free energy that won't add to the greenhouse effect; and the BP oil spill has added to the distaste for fossil-fuel dependence. Public and political acceptance of nuclear power as a logical large-scale alternative to fossil fuel is higher than it has been in a generation. Once mainly associated with mishaps like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – not to mention bumbling nuclear plant worker Homer Simpson – the energy source now has support from 62 percent of Americans, a Gallup Poll found in March. That's the highest since Gallup began asking about the topic in 1994. Even former foes like Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and an alternative-energy crusader, and Mark Udall, a member of the Udall family Democratic political dynasty that has stewarded natural resources, are rethinking the nuclear energy option. They're influenced more by the immediately tangible environmental consequences of greenhouse gases than by possible radiation disasters. Likewise, President Obama has taken steps to push the new thinking into action. In February, he announced federal government loan guarantees to build the first new power plants in three decades. And construction of these plants is encouraged by a comprehensive energy and climate change bill introduced in Congress in May. To Grecheck and other supporters, the reason for such a renaissance is clear: The country has at last realized that nuclear power's advantages far outweigh its risks. It already generates about one-fifth of the nation's electricity, and advocates say it could provide much more as it reduces the reliance on carbon-producing fuels such as coal and oil.
Nuclear power solves global warming, the economy, and terrorism- we indict your authors

Watts 11- Former Meteorologist for 25 years, climate specialist

(Anthony (Guest post Michael Dickey), “Anti-Nuclear power hysteria and its significant contribution to global warming,” 3/30/11, anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it, CJC)

All of these facts lead to one conclusion: if manmade global warming is a real problem, then it was in fact caused by environmental alarmism. That is not to say that some environmentalism has not been good, but this atrocious abandonment of reason hangs as an ominous cloud over everything environmentalists advocate. Rational environmentalists, such as James Lovelock, who want a high standard of living for humans and a clean planet are quick to change their minds about nuclear power. Irrational environmentalists who actually do not desire wealthy, comfortable lives for all people on the planet–as well as a clean planet–actively oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is a litmus test for integrity within the environmentalist community. If you want to spur the economy, stop global warming, and undermine the oil-fueled, terrorist-breeding, murderous theocracies of the world, the solution is simple: build nuclear power plants.

Oil Impact

Nuclear energy solves oil – ends war

Mian 11- Retired senior World Bank official, Director of the general office of utility regulation

(Zia, “Energy sustainability and supply security,”7/17/11, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110717/focus/focus9.html, CJC)

Professor Charles Forsberg, executive director of the MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project, while discussing the energy challenges that the United States faces, postulated that the global energy future would be determined by two sustainability goals: a) non-reliance on imported crude oil; and b) ensuring that there is no climate change. He argued that oil and gas reserves are mostly concentrated in politically volatile regions (such as the Persian Gulf) and their availability and prices are driven by political decisions. He challenged the participants to research the history and discover for themselves that all major global conflicts, including the World Wars, originated from the political desire to control the global oil resources.
Solves oil dependency and is feasible

Zawatsky, 08 – chief executive officer of havePower, LLC.  (Jay, “Inside Track: Going Nuclear on Energy”, The National Interest, 4/9, http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=17332]

The mainstream media and petty politicians would have Americans believe that we are faced with a set of mutually exclusive, insoluble problems: energy security, environmental security, giant budget deficits and ever-expanding trade deficits. But these challenges can't be separated-they are all related symptoms of the same basic problem, energy. And thankfully, we don't need an Alexander, great or otherwise, to meet the challenges posed by it. In fact, something of a silver bullet exists: nuclear energy. How is nuclear power the cure to all that ails us? Here's how: We import ten million barrels of oil every day. That costs us one billion dollars every day, adding $365 billion each year to our trade deficit. Nearly all of that imported petroleum goes into transportation fuels. Replacing all of the imported-oil horsepower with an equivalent amount of nuclear-generated power eliminates nearly 30 percent of the trade deficit. But how do you run cars on nuclear power? The answer can be found in two words: "hydrogen" and "hybrids." If America constructed 104 new nuclear plants, we would add enough base electrical capacity to power every car and truck on the road today, because electricity can convert water into hydrogen (H2O plus electricity equals H2 plus O2) to fuel both modified internal-combustion engines and fuel-cell electric engines. And by adding plugs to existing gas-electric hybrids, owners could refuel their cars at home. Why 104 new nuclear plants? Because we already have that many in operation. We simply build two thousand additional megawatts of capacity at each current location. Then we avoid the not-in-my-backyard problem. And there's no need to worry about safety: the days of Chernobyl-type facilities are long gone. That was an Edsel. A nuclear plant designed today is a Lexus. Why hydrogen? Because it is made from water. Not a carbon atom in sight, so no greenhouse gases. When hydrogen is combusted in a modified internal-combustion engine (yes, the technology is off the shelf) or used to power a fuel cell (without combustion), it produces no harmful by-products. Plug-in hybrids? That's a no-brainer. Adding plugs to basic gas-electric hybrids would allow commuters to "refuel" at home, overnight (when, conveniently, electric rates are lower). As most round-trip commutes are less than fifty miles, not a drop of gasoline would be burned the whole workweek, and not a wisp of greenhouse gasses would be emitted, assuaging European concerns about America's energy use. So that solves the trade deficit, the energy deficit and the environmental issue. But what about the budget deficit? Easy: We need to increase the capacity of the nuclear plants and secure them against terrorist attack. We need to build the electrolyzers and compressors to be placed at every service station in America, to convert water into compressed hydrogen to fuel cars and trucks. We need to increase the capacity of the power-transmission lines to deliver the larger supply of electricity to the service stations. We need to build the plug-in hybrids and the appliances for rapid recharging. All of this building and manufacturing adds wages and profits to the economy. The nuclear facilities are built here, with American labor and American equipment. The electric transmission lines are built here, with American labor and equipment. The electrolyzers and compressors and plug-in hybrids should be built here, with American labor and equipment. And these are high-wage positions in engineering, construction and manufacturing. The added wages and profits mean substantially higher income tax collections (without raising tax rates). On the expense side of the ledger, military spending, to maintain the forward posture of our forces to keep the oil flowing to our country, could be reduced substantially. Increased revenue and reduced spending. That's the sweet sound of deficit reduction that you're hearing. How much does this all cost? Less than you would think. Far from breaking the bank, it will actually enrich the treasury.