LAY #1AC

Ozone park AL AFFIRMS,Resolved: The United

States federal government should substantially
increase its investment in domestic nuclear
energy.
We define nuclear energy as standardized nuclear fission occuring in
nuclear powerplants.

Contention 1 is Energy poverty.

Americans are mired in an energy crisis.
Eastwood 24 reports [Brian Eastwood, MA in history + journalist + writer @ MIT,
11-18-2024, ‘Energy poverty’ hits US residents more in the South and Southwest, study finds,
[Link]
nd-southwest-study-finds] BZ

One in three American households today experiences “energy poverty,” or the

inability to access sufficient amounts of electricity and other energy sources due
to financial constraints. Though federal financial assistance is available, it’s allocated largely based on rules written in the 1980s
and disproportionately provides aid to Northern states, which historically have had high heating bills. In the decades since, populations have shifted,

temperatures have risen, and energy needs have evolved. A recent paper co-authored by MIT Sloan professor Christopher
Knittel, director of MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the MIT Climate Policy Center, calls for an update. Knittel and his
co-authors propose a more data-intensive formula for calculating how funds should be distributed. The formula would predict a household’s energy
use, incorporate existing state-level population and income data, and be modified annually to better distribute aid where it’s needed most — primarily
areas of the South that experience hot, humid summers. “This misallocation is going to continue to grow,” Knittel said. “As the climate warms, it will
reduce how much energy is needed to heat homes in the North but increase, by a large amount, cooling costs in the South. Southern U.S.
households are going to suffer.” Knittel and his co-authors hope that their findings will help guide U.S. policymakers toward a more equitable
distribution of energy aid to homeowners. The information also could be useful to businesses when deciding how to appropriately compensate their

employees, Knittel said. Energy aid isn’t going where it’s needed In response to rising energy prices in the late
1970s, Congress established the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 1981

to give qualifying households help in paying their energy bills. LIHEAP gave a set amount of funding to each

state to distribute to residents who applied for assistance.

Thus, investment is crucial.
Gilbert 20 finds [Alexander Q. Gilbert, Professor @ Johns Hopkins University, Can
Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty? Joule,
[Link] Willie T. + BZ]

Distributed energy addresses some of the primary public policy challenges of the
electric industry. As carbon-free sources of energy, they contribute to climate
mitigation (although distributed storage sometimes worsens carbon emissions). 4 Their small scale means they
could be deployed offgrid in areas without transmission grids, enabling them to
address or even eradicate energy poverty. 5 Further, distributed energy may
increase the reliability and resilience of electric systems by diversifying supply
and reducing dependence on specific transmission lines. <<TEXT CONDENSED NONE OMITTED>>
At the same time, distributed energy poses new challenges for electric grid operators. The primary distributed renewable, solar, is variable and
constrained at higher latitudes and during certain seasons. Further, DERs have higher capital costs than utility-scale counterparts. Still, for areas
without grid connections, distributed renewables are being combined with more traditional distributed systems—diesel generators—effectively.
Utility Scale versus Distributed Nuclear Conventional utility-scale nuclear plants are the exact opposite of distributed renewable systems. Originally
derived from technologies developed for naval propulsion, most are light-water reactors (LWRs) that use water to cool the reactor. To maximize
reactor efficiency, they are sized as large as possible, with individual units usually greater than 1 GW-electric. Multi-unit nuclear power plants are
some of the largest power plants in the world. Accordingly, large LWRs serve as a reliability and carbon-free backbone to global energy grids,
providing approximately 10% of global electricity. However, conventional reactors face significant constraints. LWRs must always pump water to
cool the reactor, making them vulnerable to damage resulting from loss of offsite power, as occurred at Fukushima. Due to reactor physics, they have
limited flexibility in power output, making them ill-suited to balance renewable energy grids of the future. They are also too large to serve isolated
communities or even municipal utilities, with most operated by the largest utilities. The most challenging factor for conventional reactors is
economics, particularly initial capital costs. Although large LWRs have fuel efficiencies of scale, their large sizes have led to diseconomies of scale for
individual construction projects. Alongside hydro facilities, conventional nuclear projects face the greatest risk of construction time and cost overruns
for electric infrastructure. 6 Due to rising costs during construction, they also face a risk of project cancellation. The recent issues with the AP1000 in
the United States underscore these concerns; the Vogtle reactors are overbudget and the Summer reactors were cancelled. These economic
challenges raise questions about the ability of nuclear power to scale to meet climate mitigation needs globally. Microreactors, or micro-modular
reactors (mMRs), are a radical departure from conventional nuclear designs. Derived from reactor designs originally investigated in the 1950s and
1960s, microreactor designs feature innovations inspired by the drawbacks of conventional designs. While a conventional reactor is 1 GW-electric or
larger and a small modular reactor (SMR) is 50–300 MW-electric, mMRs are usually 10 MWelectric or less. This is equivalent in power output to 1–5
wind turbines or a small solar farm. At the extreme end, the Department of Energy and NASA are developing Kilopower for space exploration, with a
size as low as 1 kWelectric. New fuel types, fission cycles, passive safety features, and other operational changes could enable these ultra-small
reactors to improve safety. Their small sizes decrease the heat to surface area of the reactor, allowing for passive cooling instead of the complex
active cooling required for LWRs. By using new fuel forms and requiring vastly smaller amounts of uranium, off-site risks from a microreactor accident
are limited. The designs used by small reactors are often termed as featuring inherent or passive safety. Microreactor proposals may also feature
improvements in fuel cycles, reduced water consumption, or less frequent refueling outages. In terms of energy supply, microreactors are likely to be
especially resilient. Conventional nuclear reactors are already among the most resilient sources of energy supply.7 However, they face water supply
limitations, a concern due to climate change. As microreactors use different processes, they generally do not require significant amounts of water.
Further, microreactor designs often incorporate high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) or other features that could reduce refueling frequency and
costs. Many vendors are now pursuing these designs. A report by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) identifies at least 13 vendors in the United
States, including traditional vendors like Westinghouse and BWXT.8 Notably, the existence of so many vendors is unusual for the nuclear industry,
offering the promise of design and business model diversity necessary for financial innovation. An emerging industry participant, Oklo, just submitted
a Combined License to the NRC, the first non-LWR design to do so. Initial commercial deployment of microreactors is possible by the mid-2020s.¶
Beyond revolutionizing commercial distributed energy, distributed nuclear might be a game changer for military applications. The US Army is currently
investigating the use of mobile reactors to support ground operations, to reduce the risk of casualties from fuel convoys. 9 DOD recently signed
engineering contracts with 3 vendors. Mobile reactors could also serve as disaster response, with distributed nuclear replacing damaged power
plants or bypassing damaged transmission lines. Nevertheless, there are potential operational drawbacks to downsizing nuclear power. The greater
ratio of surface area to reactivity means that activated materials may pose a greater issue, as well as a reduced number of neutrons decreasing fuel
efficiency. Materials innovation and the use of HALEU could mitigate such challenges. More worryingly, the largest constraint for distributed nuclear
remains one of the factors motivating their innovation: economics. Microreactor Economics Lower fuel efficiency and smaller capacity sizes mean
microreactors are likely to be more expensive than utility-scale reactors, just like other DERs. Besides physical efficiencies, regulatory efficiencies
related to siting, licensing, and operation also decrease as reactor size falls. To offset these losses, microreactor vendors aim to reduce construction
risks and to target areas with the highest energy prices. Economically, advanced reactor vendors, including SMR vendors, are attempting two
methods to reduce the financial risk of constructing a nuclear unit. 10 First, they intend to use modular construction, a technique pioneered by the

Second, by reducing the

shipbuilding industry, to harness factory-level economies of scale. <<LINE BREAKS CONTINUE>>

size of the reactor, vendors plan to reduce the absolute capital cost to build a
demonstration project for a new design and follow-on commercial projects. A
smaller project could reduce construction timelines and lower the risk of time
overruns to cause cost overruns. Simplicity beats complexity. In the long run,
smaller unit sizes for energy technologies have been shown to increase the rate
of learning-by-doing. 11 If construction risks decrease, the cost of capital generally
declines. Smaller units may also reduce stress on supply chains, which was a
cost headwind for past large-scale buildouts of nuclear.

Nuclear is the cheapest option.

Orr 24 writes [Isaac Orr; Former scholar on energy policies & research fellow @ the
Heartland Institute; Mitch Rolling; Former policy fellow @the Center of the American
Experiment; 07-06-2024; "Why Nuclear is Cheaper than Wind and Solar"; Substack;
[Link] accessed
04-17-2025] leon + BZ

Because
Dispatchability is King Our definition of a reliable generator is dispatchability, meaning the unit can be turned on or off as needed.

nuclear plants are dispatchable, they don’t require backup generators or batteries
like wind and solar facilities, and there is no need to overbuild and curtail the plants to
ensure there is enough electricity available when the wind isn’t blowing very hard,
or the sun isn’t shining. In our 2022 report on the cost of Minnesota’s 100 percent carbon-free electricity mandate by 2040, we
found meeting Minnesota’s electricity demand would require 100,455 megawatts (MW)

of installed capacity under the renewable scenario. In contrast, this same job
could be done by just 16,379 MW of new and existing nuclear plants, some
battery storage, and retrofitting a North Dakota coal plant with carbon capture and storage technology. Building excess wind, solar, and
battery storage capacity in the Renewable Scenario was necessary to keep the lights on during periods of low wind and solar output, but it was also
very expensive. As part of our modeling, we analyzed the “all-in” system cost of each energy source, which is a much better representation of the
cost of serving load than traditional Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) values, which leave out the cost of keeping the lights on with intermittent

sources. Our modeling found the additional costs of battery storage, referred to as
“load balancing” in our report, and overbuilding and curtailment resulted in wind
costing $272 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and solar costing $471 per MWh. Meeting
electricity demand with new nuclear power plants was much cheaper. We
modeled the cost of the APR-1400, a South Koreaan reactor, and found the cost
of serving load was $69 per MWh. Small modular reactors (SMRs), based on EIA
cost estimates, were modeled to generate electricity for $213 per MWh if used as
peaking resources and $120 per MWh if used in a baseload capacity.1 Additionally, it’s
important to note that the costs for new nuclear plants above are only for the duration of the model, which was through 2040. As will be

shown below, these costs would decrease over time, unlike wind and solar
facilities. Nuclear is Very Cheap…In the Long Run The other main benefit of nuclear power plants is their
longevity, making them a long-term value play. Nuclear plants are initially licensed for 40 years and can

apply for 20-year extensions thereafter. For example, in its Integrated Resource Plan, Arizona Public Service assumes
a 40-year book life for nuclear power plants. However, nuclear plants can last twice as long as this estimate, and a growing number
of nuclear plants have applied to operate for 80 years, allowing them to generate very cheap electricity for
decades. The main cost for a nuclear plant is paying down the upfront capital cost of

the plant. In a way, building a nuclear plant is a lot like taking out a big mortgage on a
house. As you pay it off, it becomes cheaper to live there. When the mortgage is fully paid, the house is a
very low-cost place to live. It’s the same with a power plant. The graph below shows the annual cost of electricity from a nuclear
power plant. The costs in the initial years are high, but once the capital costs are paid

off, the only costs are fuel and operating expenses. Nuclear is Lower Cost than Wind and Solar The
benefits of nuclear power - mainly, its dispatchability and longevity - result in far lower system costs
than wind and solar. We see this all the time in the real world. FERC Form 1 data consistently show
existing nuclear plants generating electricity for $20.15 per MWh in Virginia,
$21.71 per MWh in North Carolina, $37 per MWh in Minnesota, and $26.19 per
MWh nationwide. Even without accounting for the system cost of incorporating
wind and solar onto the system, the existing nuclear fleet in America is less
expensive than existing wind and solar facilities, which cost $52 per MWh and $73
per MWh, respectively, according to FERC Form 1 data.

Even in other countries,

Energy Central 23 writes [No Author, energy central provides a wide variety of power
industry news from experts, 5-16-2023, Electricity prices in Finland fall 75 percent since new
nuclear reactor became operational, Energy Central,
[Link]
became-operational, Willie T. + BZ]

Electricity prices in Finland fall 75 percent since new nuclear reactor became operational
Source: BusinessAM Copyright BusinessAMB Since Europe's in Finland was connected to the grid, electricity prices there have

dropped 75 percent. In the news: Electricity in Finland has become a lot more affordable since Europe's newest nuclear reactor became
operational. Olkiluoto 3 was in April and has a capacity of 1,600 megawatts (MW), making it the largest reactor in Europe. The reactor now

produces about 15 percent of Finland's electricity. Together with the other two reactors
at the site, the nuclear power plant produces about 30 percent of the country's
electricity. Since the reactor was connected, energy prices have fallen sharply. One
megawatt hour (MWh) cost 245.98 euros as recently as last December. In April this year,
the price was only 60.55 euros. This reports energy exchange Nord Pool and is reported by several media
outlets.

The most holistic studies agree.

Sadiq 22 confirms [Muhammad Sadiq, PhD in business & economics and energy scholar
@ Central South University, 11-15-2022, Does nuclear energy consumption contribute to
human development? Modeling the effects of public debt and trade globalization in an OECD
heterogeneous panel, Journal of Cleaner Production,
[Link] Willie T. + BZ]
Global energy systems must be restructured to accommodate low-carbon energy sources and technologies to improve the socio-economic welfare of
the state and reduce energy impacts on the environment. While nuclear energy has long been controversial, especially among environmentalists,

numerous advocates now argue that it should be considered a clean energy

source to boost human welfare, achieve energy security, and combat climate change. This research intends to study the
properties of nuclear energy, public debt, trade globalization, and their impacts on human development in a heterogeneous

panel of sixteen OECD nations for the dataset from 1990 to 2019 using the novel
cross-sectional augmented autoregressive distributed lag model and Dumitrescu
and Hurlin panel causality test. The empirical results suggest that nuclear energy and trade
globalization boost human development, while higher public debt lowers human development in the long and short run. The findings

recommend that the development and expansion of nuclear energy consumption and trade liberalization are
crucial for enhancing the social welfare of OECD nations, which must also lower their public debt levels to achieve

inclusive and sustainable growth.

Resolving energy poverty is imperative.

Wolfe 23 writes [Mark Wolfe, MS in public policy and BA in economics + executive director
of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association and the Energy Programs Consortium
+ Opinion Contributor @ the Hill, 3-25-2023, Energy poverty in America: a never-ending
emergency, Hill,
[Link]
nding-emergency/] BZ

When bills are tight, families live in fear because they have to decide between
paying rent on time, buying food, or paying their home energy bill. Low-income
families across the country struggle to make these decisions every day. But this
year, high home energy costs are making it even harder for struggling families to
stay on top of their bills. Home energy prices are now at their highest level in
more than 10 years and in some cases are increasing at more than twice the rate
of inflation. Low-income families can get help from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which is the primary
federal program to help families pay their heating and cooling bills. In 2023, Congress provided about $6.1 billion to help about 6 million families pay

However, LIHEAP funding is only sufficient to reach less than one

to heat and cool their homes.

out of five eligible households. With higher energy prices this winter, it comes as
no surprise that applications for energy assistance have risen to their highest
level since 2009. These numbers don’t even account for possible increases in
applications this summer to help families pay for air-conditioning as they deal
with rising temperatures due to climate change. The way we pay for residential energy in this country is failing our most
vulnerable families. We all need energy for our homes, but price fluctuations can make energy unaffordable for many. As energy prices increase,
families fall further behind on their utility bills. The national total amount of money families are behind on their electric and gas bills is about $16.6
billion almost double the level prior to the beginning of the pandemic. Nearly 20.8 million households owe on average $791, up slightly from June

2022 when the total amount owed stood at about $16.3 billion and the average amount owed was about $783. When families
cannot afford the cost of home energy, they take drastic measures to stay
connected to the energy grid. The U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent Household Pulse Survey reported that nearly 47
percent of families earning less than $50,000 reduced their spending on food or
medicine at least once in the last year to pay their home energy bills, up from 46.6
percent the previous year.

Absent action, millions will die.

Ross 24 concludes [Steven Ross, 1-29-2024, Food Insecurity Tied to Shorter Life, Early
Death, US News & World Report,
[Link]
-shorter-life-early-death, Willie T.]

People who experience food insecurity are at greater risk of dying prematurely
and living a shorter life after age 50, researchers say, underscoring how a fairly prevalent problem can impact individual [Link]
federal government says food insecurity refers to “limited or uncertain access to adequate food” – an economic and social condition that can lead to
hunger. In an analysis published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers found 78.4% of more than 57,400 U.S. adults included in the study
were fully food secure, compared with 8.5% who had marginal food security, 7.4% who had low levels of food security and 5.6% who experienced

Researchers also found estimated life expectancy at age 50 was 32.5

very low food security.

years among individuals with full food security, compared with 29.9 years among
adults with marginal food security, 30 years among those with low food security
and 28 years among individuals with very low food [Link] means adults with very low food
security lived 4.5 years less once they turned 50 than those with full food security, and researchers said about half of the lost life expectancy could be

found an
attributed to deaths from cardiovascular disease and [Link] analysis, based on survey data from 1999 to 2018, additionally

association between even marginal food security and a 50% higher risk of
premature mortality, defined as a death occurring before a person turns 80.

Contention 2 is mitigating climate change

Emissions are set to spiral.

Copely 25 [Michael Copely, MS in journalism from Columbia & Award nominated climate
correspondent @ NPR, 1-16-2025, U.S. electricity demand is set to explode. That will make it
harder to cut climate pollution,
[Link]
ge-natural-gas-fossil-fuel, Willie T. + BZ] **brackets in original**

The United States is poised to burn a lot more natural gas in the coming years to
meet soaring electricity demand, potentially locking in decades of emissions that
are raising global temperatures. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions barely budged in 2024, despite huge investments the
country has made in clean energy under the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate law President Joe Biden signed. Market

analysts say America's goal to cut heat-trapping pollution in half from 2005 levels
by the end of the decade is now all but out of reach. For power companies
charged with keeping the lights on, natural gas looks like a reliable way to boost
energy supplies for new data centers and factories, as well as consumer goods
like electric vehicles and heat pumps. Utilities have to "meet demand no matter what," says Ben King, an associate
director at the Rhodium Group, an energy research firm. "And the way that they feel most comfortable and confident doing that is by [using] the same
stuff that they've always put on the grid." Failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have its own consequences. The UN says the world needs
to eliminate or offset all greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury to avoid more catastrophic impacts from climate change. Natural gas creates fewer
emissions than coal when it's burned, but producing and transporting gas can release huge amounts of methane, a potent climate pollutant. "The
projections for business as usual are pretty dire in terms of changes in [the] climate," says Daniel Jacob, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and
environmental engineering at Harvard University. "I don't view this as apocalyptic," Jacob says. "But it makes a mess of our society."
Companies say they want clean energy, but they take what they can get Over the next five
years, U.S. electricity demand is expected to grow by almost 16%, according to Grid

Strategies, a consulting firm. That's massive for an industry that saw power
consumption increase less than 1% annually over the past 20 years. There are already signs
that a construction boom is coming in the natural gas industry. GE Vernova, a manufacturer of gas turbines, expected to finish last year with 20
gigawatts of orders globally, almost double what it booked in 2023, Scott Strazik, the company's chief executive, said at a meeting with Wall Street
analysts in December. " I can't think of a time that the gas business has had more fun than
they're having right now," Strazik said. The industry is also celebrating the election of Donald Trump, who promised to boost the
country's fossil-fuel industry during his second term. Companies that produce and make electricity from natural gas already

have a dominant position in U.S. power markets. The fuel was used to generate about 43% of the country's

electricity in 2023. "That number is going to grow in the near term," says Cy McGeady, a fellow in the
Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "For how long and to what extent, that's harder to
Demand is growing in large part because companies
predict." Data centers are driving electricity demand

are building data centers to power artificial intelligence, which uses a lot more
electricity than traditional Internet. Grid Strategies says demand is also going up because of growth in U.S.
manufacturing, and because businesses and homeowners are swapping out products that run on fossil fuels for others powered by electricity like
electric vehicles. Underscoring the challenge that increased demand poses, regulators warn large parts of the country might not be able to generate
enough electricity over the next several years as old coal plants retire, increasing the risk of blackouts. Fossil fuels aren't the only answer to rising
demand. Businesses can cut back how much power they use, or draw from batteries when grids are short of electricity. And there's a big push to add
renewable energy plants to supply more power. But industry analysts say regulations need to be streamlined so companies can build clean-energy
projects and connect them to power grids faster. Industry analysts say it can still be challenging to deliver electricity around the clock without creating
climate pollution. New nuclear plants, for example, could play a key role, but "they're going to take a while to build," says Tyler Norris, a fellow at the
So, some utilities are delaying plans to retire aging
Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

coal plants, and many are looking to burn more natural gas. "It's an enormous challenge to meet
the demand growth, period," says Chris Seiple, vice chairman of power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consulting firm. "It's an even
more enormous challenge to meet the demand growth in a decarbonized way." What happened last year in the U.S. electric industry
shows
how hard it is to increase power supplies without raising emissions. Climate pollution from the power sector inched up as a combination of
natural gas and renewable energy was used to meet a 3% increase in electricity demand, according to a preliminary assessment by the
Big electricity consumers say they want clean energy, Seiple says. But
Rhodium Group.

"they'll take gas-fired generation if that's the only thing that they can get," he says.
"They'll even take coal-fired generation if that's the only thing that they can get."
Power grids that already burn a lot of gas are set to use even more Even if the U.S. burns more gas for electricity, the amount of climate pollution from
the country's power industry probably won't increase much, says King of the Rhodium Group, since companies will continue to cut out coal. But
any delay in reducing emissions poses risks, because scientists say the world
needs to move faster than it is now to rein in the worsening effects of global
warming. "Power sector emissions staying flat or creeping up slightly is not a step in the right direction," King says. Last year was
the hottest on record after global emissions reached a new high in 2023. In a
hotter world, risks go up for more extreme heat waves, storms, floods and
wildfires. Late last year, Hurricane Helene tore through the southeastern U.S. before decimating mountain towns in North Carolina. That storm
along with Hurricane Milton, which hit Florida about a week later, were expected to cost insurance companies up to $55 billion. Now, wildfires
torching neighborhoods around Los Angeles are projected to cause damages and economic losses of up to $275 billion, according to a preliminary
estimate. It's also a troubling sign for other countries' climate efforts, says Norris of Duke University. "If not even the United States or the richest
countries in the world can make meaningful progress on our emissions reductions, then we're in very deep trouble from a global standpoint," Norris
says.

Thus, nuclear energy is our best hope.

Grossi 24 [Rafael Mariano Grossi, PhD in History, International Relations and International
Politics from the Graduate Institute of International Studies, 1-17-2024, 5 reasons we must
embrace nuclear energy in the fight against climate change, World Economic Forum,
[Link] Willie T.
+ BZ]

Globally,nuclear energy is also playing a key role in the transition to net zero . Fears about
nuclear are slowly giving way to fact-based understanding. This year, for the first time, the document agreed at COP backed nuclear energy
A thimble-sized pellet of
investment among low-emissions technologies. One of nuclear’s key attributes is its energy intensity.

uranium produces as much energy as almost 3 barrels of oil, more than 350 cubic metres of natural
gas and about half a tonne of coal. 5 reasons we cannot ignore nuclear energy Nuclear power, which has 20,000 reactor years of experience across
From cradle to grave, nuclear energy has the lowest
the world, has five distinct advantages. 1.

carbon footprint and needs fewer materials and less land than other electricity
source. For example, to produce one unit of energy, solar needs more than 17
times as much material and 46 times as much land. 2. Uranium in the earth's crust
and oceans is more abundant than gold, platinum and other rare metals. It is going to take
us about 100 to 150 years to get through the uranium resources we deem economically recoverable today. 3. Nuclear power

doesn’t rely on the weather. Well-run nuclear power plants, including for example
those in the US, operate at least two to three times as reliably for two to three
times as many years as intermittent low-carbon sources. As a flexible baseload
for wind and solar that provides more energy when it is needed and less when it
is not, nuclear power plants displace coal and enable renewables. 4. Each year, nuclear power
plants produce a quarter of the world’s low-carbon electricity, saving many lives that would otherwise be cut short by the lethal pollution fossil fuels
pump into the air. Nuclear energy is about as safe as solar. It is far safer than coal, gas and oil, and safer than almost every other alternative energy
source. 5. It is true that spent fuel is highly radioactive and emits heat. But it is also relatively compact, and extremely carefully managed and
regulated. Nuclear energy generation is so efficient that the amount of all spent fuel ever produced would — in theory — fit into 42 Olympic-sized
swimming pools. Today, it is carefully stored in pools and dry storage systems or recycled. Countries like Finland and Sweden are close to putting into
place deep geological repositories to dispose of spent fuel. France is also progressing in the implementation of a deep geological repository for
high-level waste from spent fuel recycling. Nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest, least
environmentally burdensome and — ultimately, over the lifetime of a nuclear
power plant — one of the cheapest sources of energy available. But for all of nuclear energy’s
positive attributes, there are hurdles to overcome. The accidents at Chernobyl and at the Fukushima

Daiichi Nuclear Power Station left long shadows of mistrust and underinvestment.
The upfront cost of building a nuclear power plant is considerable and budget overruns and
long delays have made it more difficult to gain support for new construction. Three levers to
catalyze investment in nuclear energy Three main levers will need to be pulled if we are to triple today’s investment levels and build the nuclear
capacity that will help get us to net zero. Lever 1: Nuclear must be acknowledged for what it is: a reliable, scalable, safe and highly affordable
low-carbon source of energy. It must be treated that way when it comes to investment incentives. Today’s energy markets are not the same as those
of the 1970s and 1980s. Nuclear needs private investment, even in markets where governments still take on much of the financing.
Governments need to shoulder the risk of the high capital costs at the start. But that
alone is not enough. They need to attract private financing through assured revenues and an enabling

investment environment over the longer term. That means levelling the playing field nationally and internationally, including by
changing the policies preventing investment in nuclear energy by many key international financial institutions and development banks.
Indeed,
Rogner 24 [H-Holger Rogner, Adnan Shihab-Eldin, and Noura Y. Mansouri; H-Holger Rogner,
International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Austria. Adnan Shihab-Eldin, Senior
Visiting Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES), and former Director
General (retired), the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS), Kuwait.
Noura Y. Mansouri, Fellow, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC),
Saudi Arabia.; “WILL SMALL MODULAR REACTORS DRIVE THE ENVISIONED EXPANSION OF
NUCLEAR ENERGY WITHIN THE ENERGY TRANSITION? ” in NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE
GLOBAL ENERGY LANDSCAPE: ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY AND ENSURING ENERGY
SECURITY?; February 2024: ISSUE 139; OXFORD ENERGY FORUM;
[Link] Bittner]

The worldwide adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement in 2015
underscored the need for a profound transformation in the global energy system.
The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, above

pre-industrial levels by 2050, a goal interlinked with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda.
Affordable, accessible, and clean energy (SDG 7) is crucial for sustainability, climate
protection, and operationalizing the Agenda. A transition based on electrifying
energy end-uses to the extent possible while decarbonizing electricity generation
would go a long way towards meeting the Paris Agreement and SDG objectives,
resulting in a steep increase in global electricity demand. Such a transition involves
transforming the entire energy system, economy, and society, not just individual
technologies or fuel sources. The transition is more than decarbonization. It can be disruptive
and be a continuous challenge balancing the tradeoffs while simultaneously implementing all SDGs. And it requires utilizing all

available zero greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options, including technologies

like nuclear [Link] energy, a mature, safe, and almost zero-GHG-emitting
energy chain, generates steady baseload electricity while maintaining grid
stability. It contributes directly and indirectly to all SDGs; without it, net zero
emissions cannot be achieved by 2050 under any credible scenario. On balance, from a
system perspective, nuclear energy compares favourably with other lowcarbon

alternatives.

Even then, nuclear can work alongside renewables.

Ni ‘22 writes [Nuclear Institute is the professional body and learned society for the nuclear
industry. Representing over 3,000 professionals at all levels across the industry, from new build
and operations to decommissioning. “Decarbonisation of the Energy Supply by 2035
Consultation Response.” 6-30-22.
[Link]
carbonisation_of_the_energy_supply_FINAL.pdf. GMU NR]
Whilst the NI supports a balanced energy mix, lessons need to be drawn from Germany’s Energiewende and the performance of our own energy
The NI believe that the costs and lifecycle carbon emissions of
system over the last few years.

generation required to backup intermittent sources of energy such as wind

should be factored into the cost and environmental impacts of energy produced in this [Link] this way, generating
 Given the war in Ukraine and the increasing
technologies can be compared on a more level playing field.

shortage of gas, the use of gas to backup intermittent generating sources leads
to higher prices for the consumer as can be evidenced by rising prices in the UK and more dramatically so by events in the German
power grid; heavily dominated by renewable energy. This energy is backed with a large amount of gas fired plant, fuelled with gas predominantly
The inclusion of large amounts of renewables in the energy
sourced from the Russian Federation.

mix is complemented with large amounts of nuclear power. This can be seen in
France where the symbiosis between intermittent renewables and high-capacity
factor nuclear provide a low cost and low carbon energy grid which can
adequately cope with providing reliable baseload and load following capability.
Electricity can only be stored in limited quantities and the efficacy and environmental lifecycle of battery installations is poorly understood today.
Claims that battery storage could supplement renewables now or in the future, are, in the opinion of the NI, overstated.

Historically, nuclear energy is a proven solution

Adler 19 [David B. Adler, PhD in Public Policy & Management from Carnegie Mellon
University, 11-22-2019, Considering the nuclear option: Hidden benefits and social costs of
nuclear power in the U.S. since 1970, Resource and Energy Economics,
[Link] Willie T.]

To investigate whether fossil-fuel fired generation substitutes for nuclear generation in the United States , we use monthly, plant-level
data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for 1970-2014. We first analyze the impact of nuclear power plant openings in the 1970s and
1980s on monthly, state-level fossil fuel fired electricity generation. In particular, we run a series of event study regressions where the opening of each
nuclear power plant is the event and net fossil fuel fired generation – coal, natural gas, and fuel oil, separately – are the dependent variables. Results
installation of a nuclear plant led to an average
from the event study analysis indicate that the

reduction in monthly coal-fired generation of approximately 200 GWh within the

first year of coming online. We can statistically reject a one-to-one substitution between coal and nuclear generation in the first
few months after a nuclear plant comes online;2 1 GWh of nuclear generation results in a roughly 0.8 GWh decrease in coal-fired generation.
Solely by displacing coal-fired electricity generation, the average nuclear plant
opening results in nearly 2 million metric tons less CO2 emissions, 5,200 metric tons less
SO2, and 2,200 metric tons less NOx within the first year.3 We also examine substitutions between nuclear

and fossil fuel generation using forced outages at nuclear plants from 1999 to
2014. Specifically, we perform a similar event study analysis to the one described above where the event is now the timing of the nuclear plant
outage. Forced outages are identified from daily Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reactor status reports. Despite differences

in the period of analysis and source of variation, the average forced outage led to
an increase in monthly coal-fired generation of approximately 200 GWh, a strikingly similar
effect to the one we estimated using nuclear plant openings.

While no singular study sufices,

Addo 23 [Emmanuel Kusi Addo, Professor @ The Ghana University of Energy and Natural
Resources, 12-4-2023, The Role of Nuclear Energy in Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions and Energy Security: A Systematic Review, International Journal of Energy Studies,
[Link] Willie T.]
The energy sector accounts for about two-thirds of all human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the reliance on fossil-based fuels. This
is a significant concern as it can have dire consequences on the survival of humankind and disrupt other natural processes. The research indicated
that some mitigation measures to curb GHG emissions are to increase energy from low-carbon sources such as nuclear. However, due to the
a comprehensive systematic review of research in this
continuous adverse climate change impact,

area must be conducted to inform policy practice and future studies. This study
attempts to address this gap by mapping the global reflections on the potential of
nuclear technology to mitigate GHG through a bibliometric review process. A total
of 741 studies were retrieved from the Scopus database and a few from Google
Scholar, spanning from 1962 to 2022, and analyzed using a science mapping tool—VOSviewer. The study
confirmed that fossil fuels are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and contributor to greenhouse emissions. Those authors

concluded that promoting clean and alternative energy sources to fossil fuels
would help reduce carbon emissions. Although renewable energy has proven to
be very efficient among pollution and climate change mitigation sources, nuclear
energy is the most dependable option for meeting national and regional CO2
emission targets while meeting energy supply needs. The bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer suggested
that only five African countries, including Ghana, have contributed to the research area with limited collaboration. As a result, it calls for stakeholders
to make informed decisions to invest resources in research to address the challenge on the continent. The MESSAGE planning model is
recommended for the study.

The stakes have never been higher.

Ebbs 18 | Stephanie Ebbs, freelance science journalist and columnist at ABC News,
8-10-2018, “Scientists: Time running short before climate change effects are
'irreversible'”, ABC News, [Link]
details-looming-climate-crisis/story?id=58354235

Global temperatures could reach an irreversible tipping point in just 12 years if

the world doesn’t act dramatically c scientists warned in a new report. The dire assessment puts the spotlight on
President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. Trump and many of his most ardent supporters in Congress have questioned

The United
man-made climate change and the president could remain in office for nearly half the time the scientists say is crucial for action.

Nations panel on climate change says the impact of climate change can still be
slowed down if countries around the world take unprecedented action to reduce
their use of fossil fuels and release less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases into the air. President Trump decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement – an accord where countries
pledged to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The current administration has moved to roll back most of the climate-oriented policies
proposed by the Obama administration, proposing replacements in some cases which experts said won't go as far toward reducing emissions.