Negative
Advice
I’m going to discuss the strongest negative arguments to the Floating SMR affirmative
First, it is worth establishing that certain 1AC cards are about floating SMRs and certain are about land SMRs. While not included in this case neg, for further research a counterplan that only focused on land SMRs with a Floating SMR bad disad would require the affirmative to have a “floating” key warrant.
Second is the free market counterplan/disadvantage combination. This is a large strategy and show not be extended with a lot of other arguments in the block. The literature about government interference failing in the free market is amazing. Cross-X questions like “if SMR’s are capable of being mass produced and are truly economically self-sufficient, why do they need government funding to succeed?” get to the heart of the success of the free market counterplan. If you win that SMR’s are truly amazing and that industrialization is inevitable, then you can leverage your disad/net benefit of government interference causing SMR’s to fail as a unique case turn against affirmative solvency.
Next is the DOD counterplan. This is a great counterplan to read politics as a net benefit to, as non-military in the topic means the affirmative cannot perm do the counterplan and the evidence that says the military is shielded from political backlash is A+. Furthermore, the counterplan only has the DOD do a single demonstration to prove feasibility, meaning certain arguments of the free market disad above apply as a net benefit.
Finally, a very strong argument is that the NRC will not license floating SMRs. The evidence is great that the NRC may never license another reactor, let alone an SMR in the next 10 years. It’s a devastating timeframe take out if not a 100% take out. Thus, its worth it to invest heavily in that argument on solvency. It definitely is bad for solving warming.
Just as a last piece of advice, do not double turn yourself with a disad that says SMRs are bad and then the free market turns on case. Double check that the strategy is either A) SMRs are bad or B) SMRs good but the affirmative doesn’t solve for SMRs/ the CP does.
Off Case
***Topicality***
1NC- “Non-Military”
Interpretation and violations
SMR’s that are used by the military qualify as “military”
OxfordDictionaries No Date (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/non-military)
non-military
Line breaks: non-military
Pronunciation: /nɒnˈmɪlɪt(ə)ri /
ADJECTIVE
Not belonging to, characteristic of, or involving the armed forces; civilian:
the widespread destruction of non-military targets
Kills negative ground- DOD counterplans are crucial negative ground- also blows the lids off limits by allowing any military aff- vote negative- competition interpretations are the only objective standard
1NC- Development
Interpretation and violation
Development means of the ocean itself
Merriam-Webster No Date (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/development)
de·vel·op·ment noun \di-ˈve-ləp-mənt, dē-\
: the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced
Development of the ocean is distinct from industrializing the ocean- development changes the composition ocean itself- industrializing the ocean opens the floodgates to thousands of affirmatives that just do things and put them on water- topical development affs are affirmatives that create agencies like the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
Gies ’11 (Erica Gies, Independent environment reporter, founder of ThisWeekInEarth.com, “Ocean Sprawl: What Is It And What It Means for Business”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2011/10/26/ocean-sprawl-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-business/, October 26, 2011)
Industrial development is on the rise in ocean waters. So-called ocean spatial planning seeks to balance development and ocean protection by using science to identify the most delicate ocean areas and directing industry elsewhere. To many people, the oceans remain an enigma, a blank sheet of sparkling water beneath which we can imagine all is well. But in many places, all is not well: temperatures are rising, corals are bleaching, the oceans are turning more acid from absorbing excess CO2 pollution, land-based pollution is fouling salt water, overfishing has left fish stocks diminished and habitat damaged from trawlers. Already, it’s a death by a thousand cuts. But industrial activities in oceans can also harm ecosystems: oil and gas extraction, sand and gravel mining, installation of underwater pipelines and utility cables, commercial shipping, aquaculture. New activities are also popping up: offshore wind, wave and tidal energy. When too many of these projects cluster in close proximity, it results in industrial sprawl, putting further pressure on already distressed natural habitats. Because the oceans are governed by many different agencies and laws, balancing ecosystem protection and economic development can be difficult. To facilitate these projects while protecting the ocean’s natural resources — which provide us with many useful ecosystem services — Massachusetts thought it needed a plan. Leading on this issue in the United States, Massachusetts developed the Mass Ocean Plan as part of the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008. The management plan was formed with input from state legislators and agencies, fishing groups, the energy and utility industries, and environmental groups. Rhode Island followed suit in 2010. But state waters only extend three miles offshore. Federal waters have much greater reach, from three to 200 miles offshore. In 2009, President Obama created an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to study and recommend strategies for better stewardship of U.S. ocean waters, coasts, and the Great Lakes.
Voting issue for limits- smaller topics increase clash and research- collapse of limits kills negative preparation and ground- litmus test is whether affirmatives alter the oceans or just put things on top of it
***Free Market Counterplan***
1NC
Text: the United States federal government should [ ] through investment in basic research of X
Financial incentives for SMRs kill innovation – smothers the free market
Spencer ’11 (Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy, Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Congress’s Recent Attempts to Promote Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Fall Short”, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/wm3283.pdf, June 8, 2011)
The House and Senate are considering bills that are meant to help development of small and modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). These new reactors could provide all of the attractive qualities of large reactors—such as being safe, emissions-free sources of electricity—but at lower upfront costs with greater flexibility. Unfortunately, the two bills—the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 1067) and the Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 512 and H.R. 1808)—would have the opposite impact. These bills would smother the private-sector initiative that has driven SMR development in recent years. Instead of embracing this new and innovative approach to nuclear energy development, these bills would subject the SMR business to the same government-depressed trajectory that plagues traditional reactors. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act (S. 1067). S. 1067 would authorize $250 million over five years to conduct research regarding SMR technology, power plant issues beyond nuclear technology, cost-efficient manufacturing and construction, licensing issues, and enhanced proliferation controls. While the spirit of the act is laudable, its approach is mostly counterproductive. The essence of the act is to mandate that the Department of Energy (DOE) develop a five-year plan to “lower effectively the costs of nuclear reactors.” There are several problems with the act: • More government support is not needed. Private investors have been driving the SMR business in recent years. They recognized early on that small and modular rectors could potentially fulfill a market demand that large reactors could not fill, and they have done it without government support. • The government is neither capable of reducing nor qualified to reduce the cost of nuclear reactors. Private industry has the interests, expertise, and background to develop cost-effective manufacturing and construction techniques. History demonstrates that government intervention would only slow the phenomenal progress made on the SMR front. • Government intervention has not produced a single new large reactor, and there is no reason to think it would work for SMRs. The federal government’s attempts to subsidize the commercialization of large reactors have failed to create a viable nuclear industry. In contrast, the SMR business has by and large built privately funded commercial enterprises out of federal research and development projects. Instead of controlling this innovation through DOE meddling, the federal government should embrace it as a model for other energy sectors. • The bill plays into the hands of the anti-nuclear lobby. The bill directs the DOE to conduct “public workshops” to generate “public comment” to inform its five-year plan. This opens the door to over-politicization and legal sandbagging—two of the anti-nuclear lobby’s favorite progress-killing tactics. • Creating an arbitrary timeline makes no sense. Government program timelines to produce commercial projects do not work. Once the government creates a development program, the market begins to revolve around it. Then, as the timeline slips—as timelines always do—so does the eventual introduction of the products. Timelines should be market- and investor-driven, not dictated by Congress or the DOE. The Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 512 and H.R. 1808). The Nuclear Power 2021 Act creates a DOE program to develop two standard SMR designs and demonstrate the licensing process for those designs. In essence, it authorizes the DOE to dictate who will make up America’s SMR business for the foreseeable future.
Unending subsidies cause market distortion and turn case- the counterplan has the government generate demand through investing in basic research- generates self-sustainability
Nahi ’13 (Paul Nahi is CEO of Enphase Energy, a provider of micro-inverter systems for the solar industry, “Government Subsidies: Silent Killer Of Renewable Energy”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/02/14/government-subsidies-silent-killer-of-renewable-energy/?ss=business%3Aenergy, February 14, 2013)
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear or engage in a conversation about energy. Too often, those conversations are about failed companies that lived only for government largesse. Whether the discussion is about the cost of energy, the damage being done to the environment, or national security issues, there is one constant: everyone agrees that the world needs safe, clean, and affordable energy.
As the chief executive of a solar technology company, no one wants an abundant supply of clean energy and a healthy solar energy industry more than I do. And the best pathway to a stable renewable energy industry is to create self-sufficiency and independence from government financial assistance.
One might question the rationality of this position, given the fact that between 1994 and 2009 the U.S. oil and gas industries received a cumulative $446.96 billion in subsidies, compared to just $5.93 billion given to renewables in those years. (The nuclear industry, by the way. received $185 billion in federal subsidies between 1947 and 1999.) Certainly, subsidies are a useful tool to help establish an emerging industry. But where there is no projected end to funding, subsidies stop being a catalyst, and start becoming a crutch. This is especially true when companies supported by subsidies become powerful enough to influence governments to perpetuate their support.
Healthy companies depend upon sound business models in a competitive environment. Lousy companies that are limping along on subsidies will slow the growth of the industry. If a product is well designed and meets the needs of the consumer, it will find success in a market economy. In that same market, the real costs of the product are accounted for in a company’s profit margin. That is not true of traditional energy companies. Complex and arcane tax laws are used to subsidize these corporations and obscure the true cost of energy. Government subsidies effectively transfer a portion of the costs to taxpayers, enabling artificially low prices and inflated profits.
Equally dangerous is the government’s direct investment in private companies. Much has been made of the current administration’s investments in certain renewable energy companies, some of which failed. The politically motivated headlines concerning these investments may serve as a rallying cry for critics, but they fail to identify the fundamental mistake. If the administration is trying to cultivate a new industry by leveling a playing field, it needs to focus on demand creation and not try to manage supply. In doing so, it will unleash talented entrepreneurs – as well as the investors willing to back them. Some companies will survive, others will not. But those that do will have the essential ingredients for sustained success.
There is absolutely a role for government in technology development. Most companies, especially young ones, cannot afford to invest in basic research. The time frames are long, and only a small portion of the research results in commercially viable products. Yet, this research is the foundation of future industries. Investment in basic research, through our universities and research institutions, that yields licensable technologies, is a more prudent path for the allocation of public resources.
The confusion behind energy subsidies coupled with slanted media coverage has resulted in a myth that solar power is not cost competitive and is dependent on government subsidies. This is simply false.
In many parts of the country today, solar energy is less expensive than conventional forms of energy, creating consumer demand for solar to reduce monthly energy bills. And the solar industry is both an affordable and sustainable source of clean energy, and a significant job creator. The U.S. solar workforce today is around 120,000 strong and growing.
The facts are clear. The costs of development and production of fossil fuel energy have been underwritten with our tax dollars to the benefit of a few traditional energy companies. If we build the true costs into the price of all energy, solar power is not only competitive, it’s cheaper. However we will only see that truth if we remove direct and indirect energy subsidies.
We have a strong market for solar power today. We have a willing market, the necessary technology, and an undisputable imperative to create a cleaner, safer planet. I’m committed to leading a company that delivers the best technology and service. We will continue to revolutionize power generation on a global scale, one kilowatt hour at a time. But a robust, renewable energy market will remain hampered if the energy industry continues to chase the next subsidy. For the good of our energy future, subsidies for all energy must eventually end.
If the plan succeeds- it just creates a bubble in the green economy by propping up the industry- turns case
Tracinski ’12 (Robert Tracinski, Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com, “The Global Warming Bubble”, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/03/06/the_global_warming_bubble_99552.html, March 6, 2012)