‭ refer high-probability, low magnitude scenarios over big-scale impacts – debaters‬

P
‭overestimate high magnitude scenarios‬
‭Cohn 13‬‭Nate Cohn 13, covers elections, polling and‬‭demographics for The Upshot, a Times politics and policy site. Previously, he was a staff‬
‭ riter for The New Republic. Before entering journalism, he was a research assistant and Scoville Fellow at the Stimson Center “Improving the‬
w
‭Norms and Practices of Policy Debate,” Nov 24 // Recut‬

‭So let me offer another possibility: the problem isn’t the topic, but modern policy debate. The‬ ‭unrealistic‬‭scenarios‬ ‭inability to engage systemic‬
‭, exclusive focus on policy scholarship,‬

‭impacts‬ ‭and philosophical questions. And so long as‬‭these problems characterize modern policy debate, teams will feel compelled to avoid it.¶ It might be tempting to assign the blame to “USFG should.” But these are bugs, not features of plan-focused, USFG-based, active‬
v‭ oice topics. These bugs result from practices and norms that were initially and independently reasonable, but ultimately and collectively problematic. I also believe that these norms can and should be contested. I believe it would be possible for me to have a realistic, accessible, and‬
‭inclusive discussion about the merits of a federal policy with, say, Amber Kelsie. Or put differently, I’m not sure I agree with Jonah that changing the topic is the only way to avoid being “a bunch of white folks talking about nuke war.”¶ The fact that policy debate is wildly out of touch—the‬
‭fact that we are “a bunch of white folks talking about nuclear war”—is a damning indictment of nearly every coach in this activity. It’s a serious indictment of the successful policy debate coaches, who have been content to continue a pedagogically unsound game, so long as they keep‬
‭winning. It’s a serious indictment of policy debate’s discontents who chose to disengage. ¶ That’s not to say there hasn’t been any effort to challenge modern policy debate on its own terms—just that they’ve mainly come from the middle of the bracket and weren’t very successful,‬
‭focusing on morality arguments and various “predictions bad” claims to outweigh. ¶ Judges were receptive to the sentiment that disads were unrealistic, but negative claims to specificity always triumphed over generic epistemological questions or arguments about why “predictions fail.”‬
‭The affirmative rarely introduced substantive responses to the disadvantage, rarely read impact defense. All considered, the negative generally won a significant risk that the plan resulted in nuclear war. Once that was true, it was basically impossible to win that some moral obligation‬
‭outweighed the (dare I say?) obligation to avoid a meaningful risk of extinction.¶ There were other problems. Many of the small affirmatives were unstrategic—teams rarely had solvency deficits to generic counterplans. It was already basically impossible to win that some morality‬
‭argument outweighed extinction; it was totally untenable to win that a moral obligation outweighed a meaningful risk of extinction; it made even less sense if the counterplan solved most of the morality argument. The combined effect was devastating: As these debates are currently‬
‭argued and judged, I suspect that the negative would win my ballot more than 95 percent of the time in a debate between two teams of equal ability.¶ But even if a “soft left” team did better—especially by making solvency deficits and responding to the specifics of the disadvantage—I‬
‭still think they would struggle. They could compete at the highest levels, but, in most debates, judges would still assess a small, but meaningful risk of a large scale conflict, including nuclear war and extinction. The risk would be small, but the “magnitude” of the impact would often be‬

‭wouldn’t‬‭be replicating‬ ‭real world policy assessment,‬

‭enough to outweigh a higher probability, smaller impact. Or put differently: policy debate still‬ ‭a‬ ‭teams‬‭reading small affirmatives would still‬

‭If I introduce an‬

‭be at a real disadvantage with respect to reality. . ¶ Why? Oddly, this is the unreasonable result of a reasonable part of debate: the burden of refutation or rejoinder, the responsibility of debaters to “beat” arguments.‬

‭argument, it starts out at 100 percent‬ ‭—you then have‬‭to disprove it. That sounds like a pretty good idea in principle, right? Well, I think so too. But it’s really tough to refute something down to “zero” percent—a team‬
‭ ould need to completely and totally refute an argument. That’s obviously tough to do, especially since the other team is usually going to have some decent arguments and pretty good cards defending each component of their disadvantage—even the ridiculous parts. So one of the most‬
w
‭fundamental assumptions about debate all but ensures a meaningful risk of nearly any argument—even extremely low-probability, high magnitude impacts, sufficient to outweigh systemic impacts. ¶ There’s another even more subtle element of debate practice at play. Traditionally, the‬

‭ isad‬ ‭s are‬‭underpinned by‬

d ‭hundreds of‬
‭2AC might introduce 8 or 9 cards against a disadvantage, like “non-unique, no-link, no-impact,” and then go for one and two. Yet in reality,‬ ‭vantage‬ ‭dozens or perhaps‬

‭discrete assumptions‬ ‭only a handful are under scrutiny‬ ‭and‬‭it’s‬

‭, each of which could be contested.‬‭By the end of the 2AR,‬ ‭;‬‭the majority of the disadvantage is conceded,‬

‭tough to bring‬ ‭components‬‭down to “zero‬ ‭there’s a bad understanding‬‭of probability‬

‭the one or two scrutinized‬ ‭.”¶ And then‬ ‭. If the‬
a‭ ffirmative questions four or five elements of the disadvantage, but the negative was still “clearly ahead” on all five elements, most judges would assess that the negative was “clearly ahead” on the disadvantage. In reality, the risk of the disadvantage has been reduced considerably. If‬
‭there was, say, an 80 percent chance that immigration reform would pass, an 80 percent chance that political capital was key, an 80 percent chance that the plan drained a sufficient amount of capital, an 80 percent chance that immigration reform was necessary to prevent another‬
‭recession, and an 80 percent chance that another recession would cause a nuclear war (lol), then there’s a 32 percent chance that the disadvantage caused nuclear war. ¶ I think these issues can be overcome. First, I think teams can deal with the “burden of refutation” by focusing on the‬
‭“burden of proof,” which allows a team to mitigate an argument before directly contradicting its content. ¶ Here’s how I’d look at it: modern policy debate has assumed that arguments start out at “100 percent” until directly refuted. But few, if any, arguments are supported by evidence‬
‭consistent with “100 percent.” Most cards don’t make definitive claims. Even when they do, they’re not supported by definitive evidence—and any reasonable person should assume there’s at least some uncertainty on matters other than few true facts, like 2+2=4.¶ Take Georgetown’s‬
‭immigration uniqueness evidence from Harvard. It says there “may be a window” for immigration. So, based on the negative’s evidence, what are the odds that immigration reform will pass? Far less than 50 percent, if you ask me. That’s not always true for every card in the 1NC, but‬

‭sometimes it’s even worse—like the impact card, which is usually a long string of “coulds.” If you apply this very basic level of analysis to each element of a disadvantage, and correctly explain math (.4*.4*.4*.4*.4=.01024),‬ ‭the risk of the disad‬ ‭vantage‬

‭starts at a very low level, even before the aff‬ ‭offers a direct response‬
‭irmative‬ ‭. ¶ Debaters should also‬‭argue that the negative hasn’t introduced any evidence at all to‬
‭ efend a long list of unmentioned elements in the “internal link chain.” The absence of evidence to defend the argument that, say, “recession causes depression,” may not eliminate the disadvantage, but it does raise uncertainty—and it doesn’t take too many additional sources of‬
d
‭uncertainty to reduce the probability of the disadvantage to effectively zero—sort of the static, background noise of prediction.¶ Now, I do think it would be nice if a good debate team would actually do the work—talk about what the cards say, talk about the unmentioned steps—but I‬

‭think debaters can make these observations at a meta-level (your evidence isn’t certain, lots of undefended elements)‬ ‭and‬ ‭reduce the risk of‬
‭successfully‬ ‭extinction to‬
‭a nuclear‬‭war or‬ ‭something indistinguishable‬‭from‬

‭zero‬ ‭. It would not be a factor in my decision.¶ Based‬‭on my conversations with other policy judges, it may be possible to pull it off with even less work. They might be willing to summarily disregard “absurd” arguments, like politics disadvantages, on the grounds that it’s patently‬
‭ nrealistic, that we know the typical burden of rejoinder yields unrealistic scenarios, and that judges should assess debates in ways that produce realistic assessments. I don’t think this is too different from elements of Jonah Feldman’s old philosophy, where he basically said “when I‬
u
‭assessed 40 percent last year, it’s 10 percent now.”¶ Honestly, I was surprised that the few judges I talked to were so amenable to this argument. For me, just saying “it’s absurd, and you know it” wouldn’t be enough against an argument in which the other team invested considerable time.‬
‭The more developed argument about accurate risk assessment would be more convincing, but I still think it would be vulnerable to a typical defense of the burden of rejoinder. ¶ To be blunt: I want debaters to learn why a disadvantage is absurd, not just make assertions that conform to‬
‭their preexisting notions of what’s realistic and what’s not. And perhaps more importantly for this discussion, I could not coach a team to rely exclusively on this argument—I’m not convinced that enough judges are willing to discount a disadvantage on “it’s absurd.” Nonetheless, I think‬
‭this is a useful “frame” that should preface a following, more robust explanation of why the risk of the disadvantage is basically zero—even before a substantive response is offered.¶ There are other, broad genres of argument that can contest the substance of the negative’s argument.‬
‭There are serious methodological indictments of the various forms of knowledge production, from journalistic reporting to think tanks to quantitative social science. Many of our most strongly worded cards come from people giving opinions, for which they offer very little data or evidence.‬

‭And even when “qualified” people are giving predictions, there’s a great case to be extremely skeptical without real evidence backing it up.‬ ‭The world is‬ ‭complicated‬ ‭predictions are hard, and‬
‭a‬ ‭place,‬

‭most people are wrong.‬ ‭And again, this is before contesting‬‭the substance of the negative’s argument(!)—if deemed necessary.¶ So, in my view, the low probability scenario is waiting to be eliminated from debate, basically as soon as a capable‬
t‭ eam tries to do it.¶ That would open to the door to all of the arguments, previously excluded, de facto, by the prevalence of nuclear war impacts. It’s been tough to talk about racism or gender violence, since modest measures to mitigate these impacts have a difficult time outweighing a‬
‭nuclear war. It’s been tough to discuss ethical policy making, since it’s hard to argue that any commitment to philosophical or ethical purity should apply in the face of an existential risk. It’s been tough to introduce unconventional forms of evidence, since they can’t really address the‬
‭probability of nuclear war.‬

‭ ig stake impacts are constructed by policy-makers to avoid talking about structural‬

B
‭violence.‬
‭Jackson 12‬‭writes: Jackson, Richard Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the University of Otago “The‬
‭Great Con of National Security.” Richard Jackson Terrorism Blog, 8/5/‬‭12‬‭.‬

F‭ or the most‬
‭It may have once been the case that being attacked by another country was a major threat to the lives of ordinary people. It may also be true that there are still some pretty serious dangers out there associated with the spread of nuclear weapons.‬

‭part, however, most of what you’ve been told about national security and all the big threats which can‬
‭supposedly kill you is one big con designed to distract you from the things that can really hurt you,‬
‭such as the poverty, inequality and structural violence of capitalism, global warming, and the‬
‭manufacture and proliferation of weapons‬ ‭¶‬ ‭– among others.‬ ‭The facts are simple and irrefutable: you’re far more likely to die from lack of health care provision than you are from terrorism; from stress and‬
‭ verwork than Iranian or North Korean nuclear missiles; from lack of road safety than from illegal immigrants; from mental illness and suicide than from computer hackers; from domestic violence than from asylum seekers; from the misuse of legal medicines and alcohol abuse than from‬
o
‭international drug lords.‬
‭A/2 Desalination–‬
‭ n the top shelf, there is no reason why we need nuclear energy specifically to run desalination‬
O
‭plants. We simply need a greater volume of sustainable power.‬

‭1.‬ ‭Nuclear resources are likely to be used for other things like military - the public won’t approve‬

‭ aló 24 —‬‭(Dorottya Kaló, Dorottya is a food system‬‭enthusiast with experience in conducting research‬
K
‭related to nutrition, agriculture and food governance. Before starting at REVOLVE, she completed a‬
‭traineeship at the DG for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission and an internship at‬
‭CONCITO, a Danish climate think tank. She holds a Master’s in Integrated Food Studies from the‬
‭University of Copenhagen and a BA (Hons) in Culinary Arts Management. Her primary interest revolves‬
‭around advocating for a holistic, system-level perspective on commodities in the agri-food sector, and‬
‭she believes that all actors from farm-to-fork have a role in driving the sustainable transition of our food‬
‭systems. As a former pastry chef, an avid runner and hiker, Dorottya enjoys researching and translating‬
‭scientific knowledge into materials that are easily understandable for a greater audience. 6-18-2024,‬
‭"Nuclear Desalination to Combat Water Scarcity", No Publication,‬
‭[Link] accessed 4-26-2025) //ms‬

‭Challenges and Considerations‬ ‭ espite the promising‬‭potential of nuclear desalination, several challenges and‬
D
‭considerations must be addressed to ensure its widespread adoption and success.‬‭Safety concerns are‬
‭paramount‬‭,‬‭given‬‭the potential‬‭risks associated with‬‭nuclear energy;‬‭for example, the possibility of‬
‭nuclear accidents, though rare, necessitates stringent safety protocols and effective risk management‬
‭strategies‬‭. The integration of renewable energy‬‭sources with nuclear desalination could further enhance its economic and environmental‬
‭benefits.‬ ‭Public perception and acceptance‬‭of nuclear‬‭energy‬‭are‬‭significant‬‭obstacles‬‭.‬‭Past‬‭nuclear‬
‭incidents‬‭,‬‭such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima,‬‭have‬‭left a lasting impact on public opinion,‬‭often‬
‭leading to resistance against new‬‭nuclear‬‭projects‬‭.‬‭Effective communication, transparency, and education‬‭are essential to‬
‭address these concerns and highlight the benefits and safety measures associated with nuclear desalination.‬ ‭Regulatory and political‬
‭hurdles‬‭also‬‭pose challenges‬‭to the development and‬‭implementation of nuclear desalination projects.‬
‭The nuclear‬‭regulatory framework varies‬‭significantly‬‭across countries‬‭, and‬‭international‬‭cooperation‬
‭and‬‭harmonization of regulations‬‭are‬‭necessary to‬‭facilitate‬‭the‬‭global expansion of‬‭nuclear‬
‭desalination‬‭.‬ ‭While the IAEA has extensively supported‬‭member states in testing and implementing innovations related to nuclear‬
‭ esalination, political will and support are crucial for the successful deployment of these projects, as they require substantial investment and‬
d
‭long-term commitment. The Doel Nuclear power plant in Belgium. Photo: Frédéric Paulussen / Unsplash Economic viability is another critical‬
‭consideration. While nuclear desalination can be cost-effective in the long run,‬‭the‬‭initial capital investment is‬‭high.‬‭The‬
i‭ntegration of renewable energy sources with nuclear desalination could enhance the economic and environmental benefits of the process.‬
‭However, assessing the specific needs of target regions, including both electricity and water requirements, is essential to justify the investment.‬
‭Intervening actors in the status will quo will already solve‬

‭Madhuri 25:‬
‭ adhuri, RVS, 3-10-2025, (Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering Department, University of Sharjah), ScienceDirect,‬
M
‭“Solar energy-driven desalination: A renewable solution for climate change mitigation and advancing sustainable development‬
‭goals”‬‭[Link]
S‭ olar-powered‬‭water‬‭desalination offers a‬‭sustainable‬‭solution to‬‭two of today's critical challenges:‬
‭climate‬‭change‬‭and water scarcity.‬‭This review article critically examines various solar desalination technologies,‬
f‭ ocusing on technical complexities, environmental impacts, and practical challenges. The analysis highlights solar desalination's‬
‭role in achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): No Poverty (SDG 1), Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Clean Water and‬
‭Sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7), and Climate Action (SDG 13). Additionally, the review examines‬
‭economic and social benefits, highlighting how solar-powered desalination can contribute to resilient, sustainable communities‬
‭worldwide. By exploring strategies to overcome environmental and technical barriers, this study provides a comprehensive‬
‭perspective on integrating solar desalination technologies across diverse geographical and socio-economic contexts‬‭.‬ ‭This‬
c‭ urrent work is focused on in-depth analysis, underlining the desalination powered by solar energy in the‬
‭frame of possible solutions for developing resistant and durable communities and ecosystems.‬

‭ enewables are ready to replace fossil now, reducing green house gas‬
R
‭emmissions‬
‭Ai 23‬‭[Chao Ai 2023, Lu, "Identifying greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials through large-scale‬
‭ hotovoltaic-driven seawater desalination", Jan. 20, 2023, PubMed,‬
p
‭[Link] Accessed 04/27/2025] //Ben Jacobs‬

T‭ o widely promote freshwater production through seawater desalination,‬‭renewable energy is expected‬

‭to replace traditional fossil energy to drive seawater desalination.‬‭Based on the input list of‬
‭components and materials, this study attempts to quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of‬
‭photovoltaic-driven seawater desalination projects through replacing traditional thermal power plants‬
‭and evaluate GHG emission reduction potentials by comparing the thermal- and photovoltaic-driven‬
‭seawater desalination projects.‬‭The GHG emission of‬‭photovoltaic-driven seawater desalination‬‭project‬
‭could be‬‭reduce‬‭d by‬‭94.97 % compared with the thermal-driven‬‭seawater desalination project, and the‬
‭GHG emission‬‭per unit water production is reduced‬‭by 9.8 kg CO2-eq/ton, which could greatly reduce‬
‭GHG emissions in the whole life cycle. In addition, it is estimated that the large-scale implementation of‬
‭photovoltaic power stations in LT-MED seawater desalination project can reduce GHG emissions from‬
‭1.61E+05 to 3.86E+06 t CO2-eq per year. Through the payback period assessment, the combination of‬
‭photovoltaic power stations and thermal power plants to drive the seawater desalination project can‬
‭offset the GHG emission of 7.94E+03 t CO2-eq, and the payback period of photovoltaic-driven seawater‬
‭desalination project is estimated to be 0.33 years. Using renewable energy instead of traditional thermal‬
‭energy can reduce the fossil fuel combustion and GHG emissions during the water desalination process,‬
‭which provides essential references for the low-carbon transition and energy saving in seawater‬
‭desalination projects in China's coastal areas.‬

‭New innovations make them viable.‬

‭Chu 24:‬
‭ hu, Jennifer, (Jennifer Chu covers mechanical engineering, mathematics, physics, aeronautics, astronautics, and earth,‬
C
‭atmospheric, and planetary sciences as a writer for the MIT News Office), MIT News, “Solar powered desalination system‬
‭requires no extra batteries” 10-8-2024,‬
‭[Link]
‭rnessed%20on%20average%20over%2094,large%20swings%20in%20weather%20and%20available%20sunlight.‬
‭MIT engineers have built a new desalination system that runs with the rhythms of the sun.‬
‭The solar-powered system removes salt from water at a pace that closely follows changes in solar energy. As sunlight increases‬
‭through the day, the system ramps up its desalting process and automatically adjusts to any sudden variation in sunlight, for‬
‭example by dialing down in response to a passing cloud or revving up as the skies clear.‬
‭Because the system can quickly react to subtle changes in sunlight, it maximizes the utility of solar energy, producing large‬
‭quantities of clean water despite variations in sunlight throughout the day. In contrast to other solar-driven desalination‬
‭designs,‬‭the‬‭MIT‬‭system‬‭requires no extra batteries‬‭for energy storage, nor a supplemental power supply,‬
s‭ uch as from the grid.‬
‭The engineers tested‬‭a community-scale prototype‬‭on groundwater wells in New Mexico over six‬
‭months, working in variable weather conditions and water types. The system‬‭harnessed‬‭on average over‬
‭94 percent of‬‭the‬‭electrical energy‬‭generated from the system’s solar panels to produce up to 5,000‬
‭liters of water per day‬‭despite large swings in‬‭weather and‬‭available sunlight.‬
‭“‭C‬ onventional desalination technologies require steady power and need battery storage to smooth out a variable power source like solar. By‬
c‭ ontinually varying power consumption in sync with the sun, our technology directly and efficiently uses solar power to make water,” says Amos‬
‭Winter, the Germeshausen Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of the K. Lisa Yang Global Engineering and Research (GEAR) Center‬
‭at MIT. “Being able to make drinking water with renewables, without requiring battery storage, is a massive grand challenge. And we’ve done it.”‬
‭The system is geared toward desalinating brackish groundwater — a salty source of water that is found in underground reservoirs and is more‬
‭prevalent than fresh groundwater resources. The researchers see brackish groundwater as a huge untapped source of potential drinking water,‬
‭particularly as reserves of fresh water are stressed in parts of the world. They envision that the new renewable, battery-free system could‬
‭provide much-needed drinking water at low costs, especially for inland communities where access to seawater and grid power are limited.‬
‭“ The majority of the population actually lives far enough from the coast, that seawater desalination could never reach them. They consequently‬
‭rely heavily on groundwater, especially in remote, low-income regions. And unfortunately, this groundwater is becoming more and more saline‬
‭due to climate change,” says Jonathan Bessette, MIT PhD student in mechanical engineering. “This technology could bring sustainable,‬
‭affordable clean water to underreached places around the world.”‬
‭The researchers report details the new system in a paper appearing today in Nature Water. The study’s co-authors are Bessette, Winter, and staff‬
‭engineer Shane Pratt.‬

‭That’s why the world is progressing toward renewable desalination plants‬

‭Latif‬ ‭Jameel 20‬‭[Abdul Latif Jameel, "Renewable energy",‬‭11/16/2020, [Link]
‭ ttps://[Link]/en/perspective/fresh-water-fresh-ideas-can-renewable-energy-be-the-future-of-desalination/, Accessed 04/27/2025] //Ben‬
h
‭Jacobs‬

‭The Global Clean Water Desalination Alliance has set a goal for 20% of‬‭new desalination plants to be powered by‬
‭renewables‬‭between 2020-2025.[13] Founded by the‬‭International Desalination Association, the alliance includes energy and‬
‭ esalination industries, water utilities, governments, financing institutions, academia, and R&D “with the goal to reduce CO2 emissions from‬
d
‭existing water desalination plants and to scale up the use of clean desalination technologies through coordinated actions.”[14] Globally, the‬
‭current share of renewable energy used‬‭in‬‭desalination‬‭is around 1%.[15] Pioneering governments are embracing this untapped potential.‬
‭Saudi Arabia‬‭has brought forward its Vision 2030 target‬‭of generating 9.5GW of renewable energy to 2023. In Western Australia, all‬
‭new desalination plants must use renewable energy. From‬ ‭Europe‬‭to‬‭India,‬‭to‬‭China,‬‭many others are‬‭following‬
‭their lead.‬ ‭These nations may be obliged to reduce‬‭emissions under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. They are certainly‬
‭ riven by the humanitarian and economic crisis of water scarcity. What kind of energy will they harness? The renewable options for‬
d
‭desalination In theory, desalination can be powered by wind, wave, geothermal or solar energy. Each has its advantages and drawbacks, as‬
‭outlined below. Wind Wind is a popular, established renewable energy source that can generate electricity for reverse osmosis desalination.‬
‭ ost large-scale renewable energy powered desalination projects are wind-powered.[16] Wind-powered desalination is particularly‬
M
‭well-suited to coastal and island communities due to the proximity to the energy source, water source, and user population. According to the‬
‭International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),‬‭notable wind-based desalination plants include Gran‬
‭Canaria‬‭(Wind-RO, seawater, 5–50 m3/d), Fuerteventura (Wind-diesel hybrid system, seawater, 56 m3/d), both‬ ‭in the Spanish‬
‭Canary Islands and the‬‭Centre for Renewable Energy‬‭Systems Technology in the‬‭UK‬‭(Wind-RO, seawater,‬‭12 m3/d).[17]‬ ‭In‬
‭Australia, the Perth Seawater Desalination Plant‬‭, the first of its kind in the country,‬‭is powered by‬
‭electricity generated by the 80-megawatt Emu Downs‬‭Wind‬‭Farm. The wind farm contributes 270 gigawatt-hours‬‭per year to the grid,‬
‭ ore than offsetting the 180 gigawatt-hour per year requirement from the desalination plant.[18] Similarly, the Sydney Desalination Plant is‬
m
‭powered entirely by a wind farm, which has also increased the supply of wind energy in New South Wales by over 700%. Wave The seas‬
‭contain immense kinetic energy. An average 4-foot, 10-second wave striking a coast puts out more than 35,000 horsepower per mile of‬
‭coast.[19] Wave energy is difficult to harness,[20] but there has been a promising pilot in Western Australia. In 2014, Garden Island became‬
‭the first “commercial-scale wave-powered project in the world to demonstrate both power and freshwater production from the ocean waves,”‬
‭according to Water Technology.[21] A wave-powered desalination system is also planned for Cape Verde, off the west coast of Africa. The‬
‭developer, Resolute Marine Energy, claims the so-called Wave20 plant will produce drinking water at a third of the price of conventional‬
‭systems. The system harnesses wave energy to pressurize water and pump it to a treatment plant onshore, while a series of paddles move‬
‭back and forth by the waves to create electricity which is used to filter the seawater.[22] Geothermal Geothermal energy can generate‬
‭electricity and heat, making it suitable for both thermal desalination and reverse osmosis. A project in Milos Island, Greece, proved the‬
‭viability of geothermal energy for desalination, producing 1,920 m3/d of fresh water for the local community at very low costs.[23] However,‬
‭the process is significantly limited by location. Solar Solar power is widely regarded as having the most potential as a long-term, renewable‬
‭energy source for sustainable desalination. There are two main solar-powered desalination types: Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and‬
‭Photo-Voltaic (PV). CSP generates direct heat and is typically used to evaporate water in thermal desalination. PV uses solar panels to‬
‭generate electricity, which powers the pumps for reverse osmosis. According to the World Bank, “PV-based reverse osmosis solar‬
‭desalination is the leading solar energy choice and is the main focus of further research.”[24] Solar power is abundant in the sunny, arid‬
‭regions that need desalination the most. These regions also tend to have large desert or wilderness areas which provide the space required‬
‭to build new plants. According to Applied Water Science, “about 75% of thermal desalination sites are installed in Arab countries, and half of‬
‭them are active in Saudi Arabia.”[25] Thermal desalination, powered by CSP, is not typically as efficient as reverse osmosis, but is better at‬
‭treating the saltier water found in such regions, which can be as high as 45 or even 50 grams per liter (g/L). High salt concentrations can‬
‭damage the membrane used in reverse osmosis.[26] Most solar desalination projects are small to medium scale but getting bigger. The‬
‭largest PV plant is in Saudi Arabia. Al Khafji was commissioned in 2017, and produces 60,000 cubic meters of potable water a day through‬
‭reverse osmosis.[27]‬ ‭More are on the way.‬ ‭The Metito‬‭plant under construction in King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) will‬
l‭aunch with the capacity to produce 30,000 cubic meters of drinking water per day, expandable to 60,000 cubic meters per day.[28] Abdul‬
‭Latif Jameel is playing an increasingly significant role in addressing the desalination challenge through Almar Water Solutions. Part of Abdul‬
‭Latif Jameel Energy, Almar Water Solutions is a specialist provider of technical capabilities for water infrastructure development, including‬
‭design, financing and operation. It is a sister company to Fotowatio Renewable Ventures, (FRV), a specialist renewable energy business. In‬
‭January 2019, Almar Water Solutions was awarded the contract in Saudi Arabia to develop Al Shuqaiq 3 IWP, one of the world’s largest‬
‭reverse osmosis desalination plants, located near the Red Sea city of Al Shuqaiq. When it is completed in 2021, it will deliver 450,000m3 of‬
‭clean water each day.‬

‭ rioritize indigenous communities - they are the ones most‬

P
‭affected by a lack of drinking water‬
‭ ater affects native communities the most‬
W
‭Kelleher 25‬‭[Shannon Kelleher, "Study reveals US hotspots‬‭for poor water quality and "water‬
‭injustice"", 4/15/25, The New Lede,‬
‭[Link]
‭stice-in-us/] //RR‬

‭This paper is the first to combine data from the EPA with hand-coded data from Native American reservations, said the authors. It found that‬
‭the‬‭average‬‭Native American water system had 1.6 violations‬‭per year,‬‭compared to‬‭1.3 for the‬
‭average private water system, and‬‭0.6 for the average‬‭system owned by local governments‬‭. Water injustice‬
‭ cores by US county. Source: EPA SDWIS (2019), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease‬
s
‭Registry (2022). Tribal systems only account for 1.3% of the water infrastructure in the US, according to the researchers, but they account for‬
‭3% of water violations.‬‭Indigenous people in the U‬‭nited‬‭S‬‭tates‬‭are 19 times more likely to lack access‬
‭to indoor plumbing and sanitation in their homes than less marginalized populations‬‭, the‬
‭ tudy reported. The paper does not support that argument, advanced by some, that privatizing water systems necessarily leads to better‬
s
‭quality or fewer violations, according to the authors. Nor does it claim that governmental ownership is better; Hotspots of water injustice were‬
‭frequently found in areas with lower private system ownership.‬

‭A2 Climate‬
‭1.‬ ‭They trade off–broad studies prove‬

‭Sovacool 20:‬
S‭ ovacool, Benjamin (director of the Institute for Global Sustainability at Boston University as well as Professor of Earth and‬
‭Environment at Boston University), 10-5-2020, University of Sussex, “Two's a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don't mix. Only‬
‭the latter can deliver truly low carbon energy says new study”‬‭[Link]
I‭ f countries want to lower emissions‬‭as substantially,‬‭rapidly and cost-effectively as possible,‬‭they‬
‭should prioritize‬‭support for‬‭renewables, rather than‬‭nuclear power.‬‭That’s the finding of new analysis‬‭of 123‬
‭countries over 25 years by the University of Sussex Business School and the ISM International School of Management which‬
‭reveals that‬‭nuclear energy programmes around the‬‭world tend not to deliver sufficient carbon emission reductions and so‬
‭should not be considered an effective low carbon energy source.‬ ‭Researchers found‬‭that unlike renewables,‬
c‭ ountries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show‬
‭significantly lower carbon emissions - and in poorer countries nuclear programmes actually tend to‬
a‭ ssociate with relatively higher emissions.‬‭Published‬‭today in Nature Energy, the study reveals that‬
‭nuclear and renewable energy programmes do not‬‭tend‬‭to‬‭co-exist well‬‭together in national‬
‭low-carbon energy systems but‬‭instead crowd each other‬‭out‬‭and limit effectiveness.‬‭Benjmin K Sovacool,‬
‭ rofessor of Energy Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex Business School, said: “The‬
P
‭evidence clearly points to nuclear being the least effective of the two broad carbon emissions abatement strategies, and‬
‭coupled with its tendency not to co-exist well with its renewable alternative, this raises serious doubts about the wisdom of‬
‭prioritising investment in nuclear over renewable energy. Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are‬
‭risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments.”‬ ‭The researchers,‬‭using‬
‭ orld Bank and International Energy Agency data covering 1990-2014, found that nuclear and‬
W
‭renewables tend to exhibit lock-ins and path dependencies that crowd each other out, identifying a‬
‭number of ways in which a combined nuclear and renewable energy mix is incompatible. These include‬
‭the configuration of electricity transmission and distribution systems where‬‭a grid‬‭structure‬‭optimized‬
‭for‬‭larger scale centralized power production such‬‭as conventional‬‭nuclear, will make it‬‭more‬
‭challenging‬‭, time-consuming and costly‬‭to introduce‬‭small-scale distributed‬‭renewable power.‬‭Similarly,‬
‭finance markets‬‭, regulatory institutions and employment‬‭practices structured‬‭around large-scale,‬
‭base-load, long-lead time construction‬‭projects‬‭for‬‭centralized thermal generating plant‬‭is not well‬
‭designed‬‭to‬‭also‬‭facilitate‬‭a multiplicity of much‬‭smaller‬‭short-term distributed‬‭initiatives‬‭.‬‭Andy‬‭Stirling,‬
‭ rofessor of Science and Technology Policy at the University of Sussex Business School, said: “This paper exposes the‬
P
‭irrationality of arguing for nuclear investment based on a ‘do everything’ argument. Our findings show not only that nuclear‬
‭investments around the world tend on balance to be less effective than renewable investments at carbon emissions mitigation,‬
‭but that tensions between these two strategies can further erode the effectiveness of averting climate disruption.” The study‬
‭found that in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2‬
‭emissions. But in comparative terms, this drop is smaller than that associated with investments in renewable energy. And in‬
‭countries with a low GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production clearly associates with CO2 emissions that tend to be higher.‬
‭ atrick Schmid, from the ISM International School of Management München, said: “While it is important to acknowledge the‬
P
‭correlative nature of our data analysis, it is astonishing how clear and consistent the results are across different time frames and‬
‭country sets. In certain large country samples the relationship between renewable electricity and CO2-emissions is up to seven‬
‭times stronger than the corresponding relationship for nuclear.”‬

[‭ 1] Nuclear Energy cannot stop CC—alt limitations‬

‭Muellner 21‬‭--- (Nikolaus Muellner, [‬‭Institute of Safety-‬‭and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna,‬
‭ ustria‬‭], 08-xx-2021, "Nuclear energy - The solution‬‭to climate change?",‬
A
‭[Link] //doa3-3-2025 + master chen 💆‬
‭ nthropogenic climate change requires a rapid shift towards a CO2 neutral economy, if the global average temperature increase is to be kept‬
A
‭below 2∘C, or, preferably, below 1.5∘C compared to pre-industrial levels. By 2050 the economy should be CO2 neutral, therefore climate change‬
‭mitigation measures are needed in the near term to medium term future. Such a shift would strongly influence the energy (and electricity)‬
‭supply system, which is currently based to a larger part on fossil fuels.‬ ‭The
most important result of‬‭the present work is that‬
‭the‬‭contribution of nuclear power to mitigate climate‬‭change is‬‭,‬‭and will be, very‬‭limited‬‭.‬‭According to‬
‭current planning nuclear power‬‭would‬‭avoid‬‭at‬‭most‬‭4‬‭annually‬‭2–‬‭3% of total global GHG emissions‬‭in the‬‭years‬
‭2020–2040‬‭. Moreover,‬ ‭nuclear‬‭power‬‭cannot‬‭be‬‭expand‬‭ed‬‭to be the main source of future electricity‬
‭generation.‬‭Expansion scenario‬‭s require an increase‬‭in uranium mining,‬‭which is met by‬‭two‬‭limitation‬‭s‬‭:‬‭uranium‬
‭production‬‭could hardly keep up during the expansion‬‭phase‬‭, and the‬‭overall amount of available uranium‬
‭is‬‭limited‬‭.‬‭Such‬‭scenarios would‬‭leave‬‭new nuclear‬‭power‬‭plants‬‭without fuel‬‭during their planned life‬
‭time.‬‭Fast breeder reactors promise a solution to‬‭the problem of limited uranium-235 resources,‬
‭but will not be available for commercial deployment before 2040–2050.‬‭And given the considerable‬
r‭ esearch effort and research times up to now, it is even doubtful if a commercially deployable fast breeder reactor will be available then. But‬
‭even assuming such a scenario were feasile, even substituting all fossil fired power plants by nuclear power plants would still leave % of‬
‭projected global GHG emissions from other sectors in 2040 and would still require drastic actions to reduce all emissions to zero. The officially‬
‭announced plans do not hint at expansion scenarios. They aim at replacing capacity from decommissioned plants with new builds, possibly‬
‭combined with extension of life time of current operating reactors. Comparing past projections with actual build rates and given the‬
‭characteristics of nuclear power (long development times, long planning and construction periods, uranium-235 resource limitations of the‬
‭current reactor technology), keeping the current nuclear capacity for the next years might constitute the upper limit for the use of nuclear‬
‭power. However, current nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they may be, always carry a residual risk for severe, catastrophic accidents‬
‭(Sehgal, 2012) and large releases of radioactive materials (Seibert et al., 2012).‬

‭[2] DL.‬‭Nuclear fails‬‭---cost, delay, and carbon-equivalent‬‭emissions.‬

‭Jacobson 24‬‭, PhD, professor of civil and environmental‬‭engineering at Stanford University and director‬
‭ f its Atmosphere/Energy Program (Mark Z., 1-17-2024, “Seven Reasons Why New Nuclear Energy is an‬
o
‭Opportunity Cost That Damages Efforts to Address Climate Change and Air Pollution,” Submitted to the‬
‭U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International‬
‭Financial Institutions, p. 5-6,‬
‭[Link] recut jwilly‬
‭Summary‬
‭To recap, new‬‭nuclear‬‭electricity‬‭costs‬‭about
3-‬‭14‬‭times‬‭that of‬‭onshore‬‭wind‬‭per unit electricity generated.‬
‭Nuclear also‬‭takes‬‭7 to‬‭21 years longer between planning‬‭and operation‬‭than wind‬‭,‬‭and produces‬‭,‬‭9 to‬
‭37 times the emissions‬‭per unit electricity generated‬‭as wind‬‭. In addition,‬‭nuclear‬‭creates risk‬‭and cost‬
‭associated‬‭with‬‭weapons proliferation, core meltdown, underground uranium mining lung cancer,‬
r‭ adioactive‬‭waste‬‭,‬‭and carbon-equivalent emissions‬‭. Thus, nuclear has seven major problems.‬‭Clean,‬‭renewables‬
‭avoid‬‭all‬‭such problems‬‭.‬
‭Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because wind and solar are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However,‬‭nuclear‬
‭itself‬‭never matches power demand so it needs backup‬‭.‬‭Even in France‬‭,‬‭which has the world’s‬
‭highest-penetrating‬‭nuclear energy‬‭programs‬‭, the maximum‬‭ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which‬
‭means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet‬
‭peaks in demand‬‭. Today, in fact, batteries are beating‬‭natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout much of the world. Dozens‬
‭of independent scientific groups have further found that‬‭it is possible to match intermittent power demand‬‭with clean,‬
‭renewable supply and storage, without nuclear or fossil fuels, at low cost‬‭(5, 13).‬
‭Finally,‬‭many existing‬‭nuclear reactors are so costly‬‭that their owners are demanding subsidies to stay‬
‭open‬‭. For example, in 2016, three existing upstate‬‭New York nuclear reactors requested and received subsidies to stay open using the‬
‭argument that the reactors were needed to keep emissions low. However,‬‭subsidizing‬‭such reactors may‬‭increase‬‭carbon‬
‭emissions‬‭and costs relative to replacing the reactors‬‭with wind or solar as soon as possible (14). Thus,‬
‭subsidizing nuclear would result in‬‭higher emissions‬‭and costs over the long term‬‭than replacing nuclear‬
‭with renewables.‬

‭On smrs‬

[‭ 1] SMRs are‬‭overhyped‬‭—‬‭laundry‬‭list‬‭of reasons‬‭less economical, safe, reliable,‬

‭experience, which prevents adoption and results in net more carbon emissions‬
‭Lyman 24‬‭(Ed Lyman, Edwin Lyman is an internationally‬‭recognized expert on nuclear proliferation and‬
‭ uclear terrorism as well as nuclear power safety and security. He is a member of the Institute of Nuclear‬
n
‭Materials Management, and has testified numerous times before Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory‬
‭Commission. He has conducted year worth of research on Small Modular Reactors. April 30, 2024. Five‬
‭Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors,‬
‭[Link]
‭dular-reactors/‬‭, baludabear)‬
‭Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of‬
‭small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).‬‭This is due‬‭in no small part to the “”: an active and seemingly‬
‭tireless group of nuclear power‬‭advocates‬‭who‬‭dominate‬‭social media‬‭discussions‬‭on energy by‬
‭promoting SMRs and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate‬
‭crisis. But as I showed in my‬‭and‬‭reports, the‬‭hype‬‭surrounding SMRs is‬‭way‬‭overblown‬‭,‬‭and my conclusions‬
r‭ emain valid today. Unfortunately, much of this‬‭SMR‬‭happy talk is rooted in misinformation‬‭, which always‬‭brings me back to the same question:‬
‭If the nuclear bros have such a great SMR story to tell, why do they have to exaggerate so much? What are SMRs? SMRs are nuclear reactors‬
‭that are “small” (defined as 300 megawatts of electrical power or less), can be largely assembled in a centralized facility, and would be installed‬
‭in a modular fashion at power generation sites. Some proposed SMRs are so tiny (20 megawatts or less) that they are called “micro” reactors.‬
‭SMRs are distinct from today’s conventional nuclear plants, which are typically around 1,000 megawatts and were largely custom-built. Some‬
‭SMR designs, such as NuScale, are modified versions of operating water-cooled reactors, while others are radically different designs that use‬
‭coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium, helium gas, or even molten salts. To date, however, theoretical interest in SMRs has not‬
‭translated into many actual reactor orders. The only SMR currently under construction is in China. And in the United States, only one‬
‭company—TerraPower, founded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates—has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a‬
‭ ower reactor (but at 345 megawatts, it technically isn’t even an SMR). The nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on SMRs primarily because‬
p
‭some recent large reactor projects, including in the state of Georgia, have taken far longer to build and cost far more than originally projected.‬
‭The failure of these projects to come in on time and under budget undermines arguments that modern nuclear power plants can overcome the‬
‭problems that have plagued the nuclear industry in the past. Developers in the industry and the US Department of Energy say that SMRs can be‬
‭less costly and quicker to build than large reactors and that their modular nature makes it easier to balance power supply and demand. They‬
‭also argue that reactors in a variety of sizes would be useful for a range of applications beyond grid-scale electrical power, including providing‬
‭process heat to industrial plants and power to data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, petrochemical production, and even electrical‬
‭vehicle charging stations. Here are five facts about SMRs that the nuclear industry and the “nuclear bros” who push its message don’t want you,‬
‭the public, to know. 1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors. In theory, small reactors should have lower capital costs and‬
c‭ onstruction times than large reactors of similar design so that utilities (or other users) can get financing‬
‭more cheaply and deploy them more flexibly. But that doesn’t mean small reactors will be more‬
‭economical than large ones. In fact, the opposite usually will be true.‬‭What matters more when‬
‭comparing the economics of different power sources is the‬‭cost to produce a kilowatt-hour‬‭of electricity,‬
‭and that‬‭depends on‬‭the capital cost per kilowatt‬‭of generating capacity, as well as the‬‭costs of‬
‭operations‬‭,‬‭maintenance‬‭,‬‭fuel‬‭,‬‭and other factors‬‭.‬‭According to the economies of scale principle,‬‭smaller‬
‭reactors‬‭will in general‬‭produce more expensive electricity‬‭than larger‬‭ones‬‭.‬‭For example, the‬‭by‬
‭NuScale to build a 460-megawatt,‬‭6-unit‬‭SMR‬‭in‬‭Idaho‬‭was‬‭estimated‬‭to cost‬‭over‬‭$20,000‬‭per‬‭kilowatt‬‭,‬
‭which is‬‭greater than‬‭the actual cost of the Vogtle‬‭large reactor project‬‭of over $15,000 per kilowatt‬‭.‬
‭This cost penalty can be offset only by radical changes in the way reactors are designed, built, and‬
‭operated.‬‭For example, SMR developers claim they can‬‭slash capital cost per kilowatt by achieving‬
‭efficiency through the mass production of identical units in factories. However,‬‭find that such‬‭cost‬
‭reductions‬‭typically‬‭would not exceed‬‭about‬‭30%.‬‭In‬‭addition, dozens of units would have to be‬
‭produced before manufacturers could learn how to make their processes more efficient and achieve‬
‭those capital cost reductions, meaning that the‬‭first‬‭reactors‬‭of a given design‬‭will be unavoidably‬
‭expensive‬‭and will require large government or ratepayer‬‭subsidies to get built. Getting past this‬
‭obstacle has proven to be one of the main impediments to SMR deployment‬‭. Another way that SMR‬
‭developers try to reduce capital cost is by many of the safety features required for operating reactors‬
‭that provide multiple layers of protection, such as a robust, reinforced concrete containment structure,‬
‭motor-driven emergency pumps, and rigorous quality assurance standards for backup safety equipment‬
‭such as power supplies. But these‬‭changes so far haven’t‬‭had much of an impact on the overall‬
‭cost‬‭—just look at NuScale. In addition to capital‬‭cost,‬‭operation and maintenance‬‭(O&M)‬‭costs‬‭will also‬
‭have to be significantly reduced to improve the competitiveness of SMRs‬‭. However, some operating‬
‭expenses, such as the security needed to protect against terrorist attacks, would not normally be‬
‭sensitive to reactor size. The relative contribution of O&M and fuel costs to the price per megawatt-hour‬
‭varies a lot among designs and project details, but could be , depending on factors such as interest rates‬
‭that influence the total capital cost. Economies of scale considerations have already led some SMR‬
‭vendors, such as NuScale and Holtec, to roughly double module sizes from their original designs. The‬
‭Oklo, Inc. Aurora microreactor has increased from 1.5 MW to 15 MW and may even go to 50 MW. And‬
‭the General Electric-Hitachi BWRX-300 and Westinghouse AP300 are both starting out at the upper limit‬
‭of what is considered an SMR. Overall, these‬‭changes‬‭might be sufficient to make some SMRs‬
‭cost-competitive with large reactors, but they would still have a‬‭long way to go to compete‬‭with‬
‭renewable‬‭tech‬‭nologies‬‭. The levelized cost of electricity‬‭for the now-cancelled NuScale project was at around $119 per megawatt-hour‬
(‭ without federal subsidies), whereas and now cost below $40/MWh. Microreactors, however, are likely to remain expensive under any realistic‬
‭scenario, with projected two to three times that of larger SMRs. 2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.‬
‭Because of their size, you might think that small nuclear reactors pose lower risks to public health and the environment than large reactors.‬
‭ fter all, the amount of radioactive material in the core and available to be released in an accident is smaller. And smaller reactors produce heat‬
A
‭at lower rates than large reactors, which could make them easier to cool during an accident, perhaps even by passive means—that is, without‬
‭the need for electrically powered coolant pumps or operator actions. However, the so-‬‭called‬ ‭passive‬‭safety
features‬‭that SMR‬
‭proponents like to cite‬‭may not always work‬‭,‬‭especially during extreme events‬‭such as large‬
‭earthquakes, major flooding, or wildfires‬‭that can‬‭degrade the environmental conditions under which‬
‭they are designed to operate. And in some cases, passive features can actually make accidents worse: for‬
‭example, the NRC’s review of the NuScale design that‬‭passive emergency systems‬‭could‬‭deplete‬‭cooling‬
‭water of boron‬‭,‬‭which is needed to keep‬‭the‬‭reactor‬‭safely‬‭shut down‬‭after an accident‬‭. In any event,‬
‭regulators are loosening‬‭safety and security‬‭requirements‬‭for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any‬
‭safety benefits from passive features‬‭. For example,‬‭the NRC has approved rules and procedures in recent‬
‭years that provide regulatory pathways for exempting new reactors, including SMRs, from many of the‬
‭protective measures that it requires for operating plants, such as a physical containment structure, an‬
‭offsite emergency evacuation plan, and an exclusion zone that separates the plant from densely‬
‭populated areas. It is also considering further changes that could allow SMRs to reduce the numbers of‬
‭armed security personnel to protect them from terrorist attacks and highly trained operators to run‬
‭them. Reducing security at SMRs is particularly worrisome, because even the safest reactors could‬
‭effectively become dangerous radiological weapons if they are sabotaged by skilled attackers. Even‬
‭passive safety mechanisms could be deliberately disabled. Considering the cumulative impact of all these‬
‭changes,‬‭SMRs could be‬‭as—or even‬‭more‬‭—‬‭dangerous‬‭than large reactors‬‭. For example, if a‬
‭containment structure at a large reactor reliably prevented 90% of the radioactive material from being‬
‭released from the core of the reactor during a meltdown,‬‭then a‬‭reactor‬‭5 times smaller‬‭without‬‭such‬‭a‬
‭containment structure could‬‭conceivably‬‭release more‬‭radioactive material‬‭into the environment‬‭, even though‬
t‭ he total amount of material in the core would be smaller. And if the SMR were located closer to populated areas with no offsite emergency‬
‭planning, more people could be exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. But even if one could show that the overall safety risk of a small‬
‭reactor was lower than that of a large reactor, that still wouldn’t automatically imply the overall risk per unit of electricity that it generates is‬
‭lower, since smaller plants generate less electricity. If an accident caused a 250-megawatt SMR to release only 25% of the radioactive material‬
‭that a 1,000-megawatt plant would release, the ratio of risk to benefit would be the same. And a site with four such reactors could have four‬
‭times the annual risk of a single unit, or an even greater risk if an accident at one reactor were to damage the others, as happened during the‬
‭2011 in Japan. 3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste. The industry makes highly misleading claims that‬
‭certain SMRs will reduce the intractable problem of long-lived radioactive waste management by generating less waste, or even by “recycling”‬
‭their own wastes or those generated by other reactors. First, it’s necessary to define what “less” waste really means. In terms of the quantity of‬
‭highly radioactive isotopes that result when atomic nuclei are fissioned and release energy,‬‭small reactors‬‭will produce just as much as large‬
‭reactors per unit of heat generated‬‭. (Non-light-water‬‭reactors that more efficiently convert heat to electricity than light-water reactors will‬
‭produce somewhat smaller quantities of fission products per unit of electricity generated—perhaps 10 to 30%—but this is a relatively small‬
‭effect in the scheme of things.) And for reactors with denser fuels, the volume and mass of the spent fuel generated may be smaller,‬‭but the‬
c‭ oncentration‬‭of fission‬‭products in the spent fuel‬‭,‬‭and the heat generated by the decay‬
‭products—factors that really matter to safety—will be‬‭proportionately‬‭greater‬‭.‬‭Therefore,‬‭entities that‬
‭hope to acquire SMRs‬‭, like data centers that lack‬‭the necessary waste infrastructure,‬‭will have to‬‭safely‬
‭manage‬‭the‬‭storage of‬‭significant quantities‬‭of spent‬‭nuclear fuel on site for the long term, just like any‬
‭other nuclear power plant does‬‭. by vendors such as‬‭Westinghouse that they will take away the reactors‬
‭after the fuel is no longer usable are simply not credible, as there are no realistic prospects for licensing‬
‭centralized sites where the used reactors could be taken for the foreseeable future.‬‭Any community‬
‭with an SMR will have to‬‭plan to‬‭be a‬‭de facto long-term‬‭nuclear waste disposal site‬‭.‬‭4. SMRs cannot be‬
‭counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin‬
‭mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production. Despite the claims of developers, it is very unlikely that‬
‭any reasonably foreseeable SMR design would be able to safely operate without reliable access to‬
e‭ lectricity from the grid to power coolant pumps and other vital safety systems. Just like today’s nuclear‬
‭plants,‬‭SMRs‬‭will be‬‭vulnerable to extreme weather‬‭events or other disasters that could cause a loss‬‭of‬
‭offsite power and force them to shut down‬‭. In‬‭such situations a user such as a data center operator‬
‭would have to provide backup power, likely from diesel generators, for both the data center AND the‬
‭reactor. And since there is‬‭virtually no‬‭experience‬‭with‬‭operating SMRs‬‭worldwide, it is‬‭highly doubtful‬
‭that the novel‬‭designs‬‭being pitched now‬‭would be‬‭highly reliable‬‭right out of the box and require little‬
‭monitoring and maintenance.‬‭It very‬‭likely‬‭will take‬‭decades of‬‭operating‬‭experience‬‭for‬‭any‬‭new‬
‭reactor‬‭design‬‭to‬‭achieve‬‭the level of‬‭reliability‬‭characteristic‬‭of the operating‬‭light-water‬‭reactor‬‭fleet‬‭.‬
‭Premature deployment based on unrealistic performance expectations could prove extremely costly for‬
‭any company that wants to experiment with SMRs.‬‭5.‬‭SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large‬
‭reactors. Some advocates misleadingly claim that SMRs are more efficient than large ones because they‬
‭use less fuel.‬‭In terms of the amount of heat generated,‬‭the‬‭amount of uranium‬‭fuel that must undergo‬
‭nuclear fission‬‭is‬‭the‬‭same‬‭whether‬‭a‬‭reactor is large‬‭or small‬‭. And although reactors that use coolants‬
‭other than water typically operate at higher temperatures, which can increase the efficiency of‬
‭conversion of heat to electri‬‭city, this is not a big‬‭enough effect to outweigh other factors that decrease efficiency of fuel use. Some‬
S‭ MRs‬‭designs‬‭require‬‭a type of uranium fuel called‬‭“‭h ‬ igh-assay low enriched uranium‬‭(HALEU),” which‬‭contains higher concentrations of the‬
‭isotope uranium-235 than conventional light-water reactor fuel. Although this‬‭reduces the total mass‬‭of fuel the reactor needs, that‬‭doesn’t‬
‭mean it uses less uranium‬‭nor results in less waste‬‭from “front-end” mining and milling activities: in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true.‬
‭One reason for this is that‬‭HALEU production requires‬‭a relatively‬‭large amount of natural uranium‬‭to be‬‭fed into the enrichment process that‬
‭increases the uranium-235 concentration‬‭. For example,‬‭the TerraPower Natrium reactor which would use HALEU enriched to around 19%‬
‭uranium-235, will‬‭require 2.5 to 3 times‬‭as much‬‭natural‬‭uranium‬‭to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity‬‭than a light-water reactor‬‭. Smaller‬
‭reactors, such as the 15-megawatt Oklo Aurora, are even more inefficient. Improving the effi‬‭ciency
of‬‭these reactors can occur‬
‭only with significant advances in fuel performance, which could take decades of development to achieve.‬
‭Reactors that use uranium inefficiently have‬‭disproportionate‬‭impacts on the environment‬‭from‬
‭polluting uranium mining and processing activities‬‭.‬‭They‬‭also‬‭are less effective in mitigating carbon‬
‭emissions‬‭, because‬‭uranium mining‬‭and milling are‬‭relatively‬‭carbon-intensive activities‬‭compared to‬
‭other parts of the uranium fuel cycle‬‭. SMRs may have‬‭a role to play in our energy future, but only if they‬
‭are sufficiently safe and secure. For that to happen, it is essential to have a realistic understanding of‬
‭their costs and risks. By painting an overly rosy picture of these technologies with often misleading‬
‭information, the nuclear bros are distracting attention from the need to confront the many challenges‬
‭that must be resolved to make SMRs a reality—and ultimately doing a disservice to their cause.‬