SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
***1AC*** ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Advantage 1 is U.S. Leadership .............................................................................................................................. 8 Scenario 1 is International Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 10 Scenario 2 is Competitiveness .............................................................................................................................. 13 Scenario 3 is Space Supremacy ............................................................................................................................ 16 Scenario 4 is Readiness and Power Projection ..................................................................................................... 20 Scenario 2 is India ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Advantage 3 is Resource Wars ............................................................................................................................. 25 Scenario 1 is Oil .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Scenario 2 is Water ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Advantage 4 is the Environment ........................................................................................................................... 31 Scenario 1 is Warming .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Scenario 2 is Natural Disasters ............................................................................................................................. 33 Scenario 3 is Ice Age ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Advantage 5 is Tech Spillover .............................................................................................................................. 37 Advantage 6 is the Economy ................................................................................................................................ 38 Advantage 7 is Asteroids ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Solvency................................................................................................................................................................ 41 *****LEADERSHIP***** .................................................................................................................................. 45 SPS Inevitable k2 Heg ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Impact Ferguson................................................................................................................................................. 47 ***SPACE SUPREMACY***............................................................................................................................. 48 Inherency China Rise (1/2) ................................................................................................................................ 49 Inherency China Rise (2/2) ................................................................................................................................ 50 Inherency US Decline ........................................................................................................................................ 51 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (1/2) .......................................................................................................... 52 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (2/2) .......................................................................................................... 53 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (3/3) .......................................................................................................... 54 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 Heg ............................................................................................................................... 55 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 Conventional Wars....................................................................................................... 56 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 International Co-op ...................................................................................................... 57 A2 Space Wars ...................................................................................................................................................... 59 A2 Air Force/Army Tradeoff ................................................................................................................................ 60 A2 Hostile Hegemony........................................................................................................................................... 61 A2 Heg Bad........................................................................................................................................................ 62 ***COMPETITIVENESS*** .............................................................................................................................. 63 Solvency XTN Tech Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 64 Solvency XTN Tech Leadership/Civil Programs .............................................................................................. 66 I/L XTN Competitiveness k2 Heg ..................................................................................................................... 67 Impact Module Economy................................................................................................................................... 68 ***INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION *** .................................................................................................... 69 Inherency China ................................................................................................................................................. 70 Solvency XTN U.S. Soft Power Leadership (1/2) ............................................................................................. 71 Solvency XTN U.S. Soft Power Leadership (2/2) ............................................................................................. 72 Solvency XTN International (1/3) ..................................................................................................................... 73 Solvency XTN International (2/3) ..................................................................................................................... 74

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Solvency XTN International (3/3) ..................................................................................................................... 75 Solvency XTN Developing Countries ................................................................................................................ 76 Solvency XTN European Union ........................................................................................................................ 77 Impact Space Wars ............................................................................................................................................ 78 Impact US China Space War ............................................................................................................................. 79 ***INDIA*** ....................................................................................................................................................... 80 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (1/4) ................................................................................................................. 81 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (2/4) ................................................................................................................. 82 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (3/4) ................................................................................................................. 83 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (4/4) ................................................................................................................. 84 A2 China Conflict (1/2) ..................................................................................................................................... 85 A2 China Conflict (2/2) ..................................................................................................................................... 86 Impact Module Indo-Pak War ........................................................................................................................... 87 ***READINESS***............................................................................................................................................. 89 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (1/3) ........................................................................................................ 90 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (2/3) ........................................................................................................ 91 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (3/3) ........................................................................................................ 92 Solvency XTN Easy Integration ........................................................................................................................ 93 I/L XTN Flexibility k2 Heg ............................................................................................................................... 94 *****ENVIRONMENT***** ............................................................................................................................. 95 Solvency - Generic ................................................................................................................................................ 96 Impact Biodiversity............................................................................................................................................ 97 Impact Module Acid Rain .................................................................................................................................. 98 Impact Nuclear Escalation ................................................................................................................................. 99 ***WARMING***............................................................................................................................................. 100 Solvency XTN CO2 Buildup (1/2) ................................................................................................................... 101 Solvency XTN CO2 Buildup (2/2) ................................................................................................................... 102 Impact XTN Extinction (1/2) ........................................................................................................................... 103 Impact XTN Extinction (2/2) ........................................................................................................................... 104 Impact Magnifier Feedback Cycle ................................................................................................................... 105 A2 No Warming/Threat................................................................................................................................... 106 A2 Not Anthro ................................................................................................................................................. 107 A2 Models Wrong ........................................................................................................................................... 108 ***NATURAL DISASTERS*** ....................................................................................................................... 109 Solvency XTN Disaster Relief......................................................................................................................... 110 Solvency XTN Weather Control ...................................................................................................................... 111 ***RESOURCE WARS*** ............................................................................................................................... 112 Inherency Energy Demands ............................................................................................................................. 113 Solvency XTN Resource Wars ........................................................................................................................ 114 ***OIL SCENARIO*** ..................................................................................................................................... 115 Inherency Peak Oil ........................................................................................................................................... 116 Solvency XTN Energy Independence (Non-Oil Specific)............................................................................... 117 Solvency XTN Oil Dependence....................................................................................................................... 118 Impact Module Hegemony .............................................................................................................................. 119 Solvency XTN Heg .......................................................................................................................................... 120 ***TECHNOLOGY SPILLOVER*** ............................................................................................................... 121

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Solvency XTN Key to NASA/NASA Cred (1/2) ............................................................................................ 122 Solvency XTN Key to NASA/NASA Cred (1/2) ............................................................................................ 123 Solvency XTN Tech Innovation (1/2) ............................................................................................................. 124 Solvency XTN Tech Innovation (2/2) ............................................................................................................. 125 Solvency XTN Fed k2 Tech Innovation .......................................................................................................... 126 Solvency XTN k2 Other Space Exploration (1/2) ........................................................................................... 127 Solvency XTN k2 Other Space Exploration (2/2) ........................................................................................... 128 Solvency XTN k2 Other Satellites (Efficiency) .............................................................................................. 129 Solvency XTN Fed k2 Tech Innovation .......................................................................................................... 130 Impact Module Asteroids ................................................................................................................................. 131 Solvency XTN Asteroids ................................................................................................................................. 132 Impact XTN Hegemony ................................................................................................................................... 133 Impact XTN Solves Disasters (Generic).......................................................................................................... 134 Impact Module Asteroid Mining ..................................................................................................................... 135 Impact Module Missile Defense ...................................................................................................................... 136 Solvency XTN Bistatic Radar .......................................................................................................................... 137 Solvency XTN Kickass Radar ......................................................................................................................... 138 Impact Module Colonization ........................................................................................................................... 139 Solvency XTN Colonization ............................................................................................................................ 140 Tech Production Semiconductors .................................................................................................................... 141 Tech Production UAVs .................................................................................................................................... 142 Tech Production Moon Development/Space Debris........................................................................................ 143 Impact Module Space Based Missile Defense ................................................................................................. 144 *****ECONOMY***** .................................................................................................................................... 145 Solvency XTN Industry Development............................................................................................................. 146 Solvency XTN Economic Transition ............................................................................................................... 147 ***ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE*** ............................................................................................................. 148 Disaster Advantage ............................................................................................................................................. 149 Poverty Advantage .............................................................................................................................................. 150 *****Affirmative Extensions***** ................................................................................................................... 159 ***SOLVENCY*** ........................................................................................................................................... 160 Impact Calculus .................................................................................................................................................. 161 Solvency Shield Generic .................................................................................................................................. 162 NSSO Prodict ...................................................................................................................................................... 163 Dwayne Day Indict ............................................................................................................................................. 164 Federal Action Key Resources (1/2) ................................................................................................................ 166 Federal Action Key Resources (1/2) ................................................................................................................ 167 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (1/4) ......................................................................................... 168 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (2/4) ......................................................................................... 169 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (3/4) ......................................................................................... 170 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (4/4) ......................................................................................... 171 A2 Terrorism .................................................................................................................................................... 172 A2 No Launch .................................................................................................................................................. 173 A2 Radiation (1/2) ........................................................................................................................................... 174 A2 Death Rays ................................................................................................................................................. 175 A2 Ozone Holes (1/2) ...................................................................................................................................... 176

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
A2 Ozone Holes - HAARP .............................................................................................................................. 178 A2 Long Timeframe (1/3) ................................................................................................................................ 179 A2 Long Timeframe (2/3) ................................................................................................................................ 180 A2 Long Timeframe (3/3) ................................................................................................................................ 181 A2 Too Expensive (1/2) ................................................................................................................................... 182 A2 Too Expensive (2/2) ................................................................................................................................... 183 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (1/3) ................................................................................................. 184 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (2/3) ................................................................................................. 185 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (3/3) ................................................................................................. 186 A2 Not Cost Competitive (1/3) ........................................................................................................................ 187 A2 Not Cost Competitive (2/3) ........................................................................................................................ 188 A2 Not Cost Competitive (3/3) ........................................................................................................................ 189 A2 Unstable Energy Supply............................................................................................................................. 190 A2 Other Alt Energies Better (1/2) .................................................................................................................. 191 A2 Other Alt Energies Better (2/2) .................................................................................................................. 192 A2 Nuclear Power Better (1/2) ........................................................................................................................ 193 A2 Nuclear Power Better (2/2) ........................................................................................................................ 194 A2 Solar Power Better (1/2) ............................................................................................................................ 195 A2 Solar Power Better (2/2) ............................................................................................................................ 196 A2 No Tech (1/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 198 A2 No Tech (2/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 199 A2 No Tech (3/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 200 A2 No Tech (4/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 201 A2 No Tech (5/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 202 A2 No Tech (6/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 203 A2 No Tech (7/7) ............................................................................................................................................. 204 A2 No Tech: Thin Film (1/2) ........................................................................................................................... 205 A2 No Tech: Thin Film (2/2) ........................................................................................................................... 206 A2 Space Debris .............................................................................................................................................. 207 A2 Inefficient (1/2) .......................................................................................................................................... 208 A2 Inefficient (1/2) .......................................................................................................................................... 209 A2 International Perception (1/2) .................................................................................................................... 210 A2 International Perception (2/2) .................................................................................................................... 211 A2 PPWT Violation ......................................................................................................................................... 212 A2 Export Controls/Institutional Barriers ........................................................................................................ 213 A2 Agent CPs .................................................................................................................................................. 214 A2 International Actor CPs.............................................................................................................................. 215 A2 Private/Free Market CPs (1/2) ................................................................................................................... 216 A2 Private/Free Market CPs (2/2) ................................................................................................................... 217 A2 Tenant Anchor CP (1/2) ............................................................................................................................. 218 A2 Tenant Anchor CP (2/2) ............................................................................................................................. 219 A2 Nuclear Powered Satellites CP .................................................................................................................. 220 A2 Laser Powered Transmission CP ............................................................................................................... 221 A2 Kritiks (Generic) ........................................................................................................................................ 222 *****POLITICS***** ....................................................................................................................................... 223 ***PLAN POPULAR*** ................................................................................................................................... 224

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Plan Popular General ....................................................................................................................................... 225 Plan Popular Senate ......................................................................................................................................... 227 Plan Popular Bipartisan.................................................................................................................................... 228 Plan Popular Castor.......................................................................................................................................... 231 Plan Popular Lieberman ................................................................................................................................... 232 Plan Popular Nelson ......................................................................................................................................... 233 Plan Popular Pelosi .......................................................................................................................................... 234 Plan Popular Reid ............................................................................................................................................ 235 Plan Popular Schumer ...................................................................................................................................... 236 Plan Popular Tea Party..................................................................................................................................... 237 Plan Popular Solar Lobby ................................................................................................................................ 238 Plan Popular Pickens Lobby ............................................................................................................................ 239 Plan Popular A2 Fuel Lobbies ......................................................................................................................... 240 A2 Flip Flop ..................................................................................................................................................... 241 ***PLAN UNPOPULAR*** ............................................................................................................................. 243 Plan Unpopular General ................................................................................................................................... 244 Plan Unpopular Congress ................................................................................................................................ 245 Plan Unpopular Republicans............................................................................................................................ 246 Plan Unpopular Partisan .................................................................................................................................. 250 Plan Unpopular Oil/Fossil Fuel Lobby ............................................................................................................ 251 Plan Unpopular Coal Lobby ............................................................................................................................ 252 Plan Unpopular Boehner .................................................................................................................................. 253 Plan Unpopular McClintock ............................................................................................................................ 257 Plan Unpopular Pawlenty ................................................................................................................................ 258 Plan Unpopular Shelby .................................................................................................................................... 259

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***Things to Know***
Relevant Terms/Acronyms: SPS - Solar Powered Satellite SSP - Space Solar Power SBSP - Space Based Solar Power CSP - Concentrated Solar Power (usually not space based) SPG - Solar Power Grid FOB - Forward Operating Base NASA - National Aeronautics Security Administration NSSO - National Space Security Office NSS - National Space Society GEO Geosynchronous Earth Orbit LEO Low Earth Orbit MEO Middle Earth Orbit The idea of a Solar Powered Satellite was first invented by Peter Glaser in the 1960s. NASA carried out a study in the 1980s to determine its feasibility, but technology at the time was too far behind to actually manufacture the satellites. The tech now exists, but the government has yet to begin development or deployment of the satellites. The basic premise is that a satellite equipped with huge solar panels is sent into space, where it remains in orbit. Sunlight is gathered at a much higher efficiency than it would be on Earth. Excess solar energy is then converted into microwaves and beamed back to earth to a waiting rectenna, which converts the microwaves back into energy. The microwaves pass much more efficiently through the atmosphere with almost no loss of energy, but is safer/less concentrated than the same energy in sunlight. Someone walking right through the beam would get about as much radiation as someone standing next to a microwave oven.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***1AC***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 1 is U.S. Leadership

Tech barriers to SPS have been resolved all that remains is government inaction Edmonton Journal, Austin Mardon received an honourary doctorate of laws from the University of Alberta on Friday. He is a
member of the Order of Canada and is a full member of the International Academy of Astronautics . Pauline Balogun is a U of A student who is interested in green technologies for the future, 6/12/ 11, Solar satellites key to green energy, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Solar+satellites+green+energy/4933251/story.html//jchen With gas prices on the rise, the race is on for cheap alternative fuel sources, including solar power, but amid a wash of criticism, the solar industry may not even be in the running. The major criticisms against solarpower facilities, such as wind farms, are unreliability and inefficiency. Solar power depends on environmental factors beyond human control and that makes investors anxious. These facilities also require areas with high amounts of sunlight, usually hundreds if not thousands of acres of valuable farmland and all for relatively little power production. This is why, in the 1960s, scientists proposed solar-powered satellites (SPSs). SPSs have about the most favourable conditions imaginable for solar energy production, short of a platform on the sun. Earth's orbit sees 144 per cent of the maximum solar energy found on the planet's surface and takes up next to no space in comparison to land-based facilities. Satellites would be able to gather energy 24 hours a day, rather than the tenuous 12-hour maximum that land-based plants have, and direct the transmitted energy to different locations, depending on where power was needed most. So, with so many points in its favour, why hasn't anyone built one yet? Obviously, putting anything into outer space takes a lot of money. Many governments claim there simply isn't any money in the budget for launching satellites into space, but in 2010, amid an economic crisis, the United States managed to find $426 million for nuclear fusion research and $18.7 billion for NASA, a five-per-cent increase from 2009. The most recent projections, made in the 1980s, put the cost of launching an SPS at $5 billion, or around 8-10 cents/ kWh. Nuclear power plants cost a minimum of $3 billion to $6 billion, not including cost overruns, which can make a plant cost as much as $15 billion. In the U.S., nuclear power costs about 4.9 cents/kWh, making SPS power supply only slightly more expensive. But these estimates are over two decades old and the numbers likely need to be re-examined. The idea for space-based solar energy has been around since the '60s; given the technological advancements since then, surely governments would have invested in making an SPS power supply more budget-friendly. That is not the case. Governments and investors are rarely willing to devote funding to something that doesn't have quick cash returns. The projected cost of launching these satellites once ranged from $11 billion to $320 billion. These figures have been adjusted for inflation, but the original estimates were made back in the 1970s, when solar technology was in its infancy, and may have since become grossly inaccurate. How long an SPS would survive in orbit is anybody's guess, given the maintenance due to possible damage to solar panels from solar winds and radiation. As for adding to the ever-expanding satellite graveyard in Earth's orbit, most solutions to satellite pollution remain theoretical. Still, these satellites should not be so largely dismissed. There is a significant design flaw keeping these satellites from production. One of the major shortfalls in the design of SPSs is simply in getting the power from point A to point B. This remains the most controversial aspect of SPSs: the use of microwaves to transmit power from high orbit to the ground. Critics often cite the dangers of microwave radiation to humans and wildlife, however, the strength of the radiation from these beams would be equal to the leakage from a standard microwave oven, which is only slightly more than a cellphone. A NASA report from 1980 reveals that the major concern with solarpowered satellites was problems with the amplifier on the satellite itself. Several workable solutions were proposed in that same report. The report also recommended that NASA develop and invest in SPS technology, so that by the 2000s, these satellites would be a viable alternative fuel source. This recommendation was ignored. We should already have the technology and the infrastructure in place for green energy, but we don't. Instead, we are engaged in a mad dash for the quickest, cheapest alternative to oil and that may be the source of our downfall. For the sake of the future, expediency must take a back seat to longevity and longevity may just be found in outer space.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Now is key SPS is inevitable, its only a question of who gets there first Karen Cramer Shea, Master of Arts in Science Technology and Public Policy with Specialty in Space Policy from the George Washington University, Winter 2010, Why Has SPS R&D Received So Little Funding? Online Journal of Space Communication,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html / KX The timing would seem ideal for securing SPS development funding in today's world situation. Energy prices are rising at the same time that the demand for energy is increasing. Public and scientific concerns about climate change are growing based on current levels of carbon dioxide, accelerating in the burning of fossil fuels to meet energy requirements. Cap and Trade legislation and renewable energy mandates are being proposed. Also to be mentioned is the Japanese plan to spend $21 Billion on space solar power development and the Solaren contract in California with the utility Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200 megawatts of electrical energy from space starting in 2016. The questions now about SPS are mainly not if but specifically who, what, when, where and how best? For example, is solar voltaic or solar thermal the most efficient approach? Which are the best types of solar collectors to use? Which types of solar cells best balance cost, mass and durability issues? Which is the best wireless transmission method: lasers or microwaves? Where and how do we best build the receiving stations? What manufacturing techniques are most scalable? Which frequency is best for power beaming considering size, electronics, atmospheric and International Telecommunications Union issues? What safety precautions need to be taken with SPS? How can we transmit the power from place to place safely, efficiently and economically? When in this century will the cost of energy rise high enough and Moore's law reduce the cost of the technology sufficiently for space solar power to be profitable? Who will control the SPS market? In 2050, will the U.S. be buying power from space from the Japanese or selling it to Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. agency, if any, will take charge of this issue and invest in space solar power?

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 1 is International Cooperation

SPS has immense international support US development is a key route to soft power NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no outright policy or legal showstoppers exist to prevent the development of SBSP. Full scale SBSP, however, will require a permissive international regime, and construction of this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the construction of the satellite itself. The interim review did not uncover any hard show stoppers in the international legal or regulatory regime. Many nations are actively studying Space Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and China, as well as several equatorial nations have all expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International conferences such as the United Nations connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject and there is even a UN affiliated non governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to promoting the study and development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at least one document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. There seems to be significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of space, sustainable development, and carbon neutral energy sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue exists for the United States to exercise soft power via the development of SBSP. That there are no show stoppers should in no way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational Awareness, data sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organizations (ICAO) role for facilitating safe international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the satellite technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the construction of such a framework immediately.

SPS is key to international collaboration in space Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 If a non-integrated, decentralized SSP system were to be a truly international effort, perhaps costs for such an effort could be reduced. It is conceivable that a sense of global mobilization (being part of a common human endeavor) might take hold in an international effort to build thousands of SSP space and ground segments. The peoples of poor nations might be able to find employment in digging the foundations for and in the maintenance of SSP assembly and launch facilities and ground rectennae. Borrowing from FDRs New Deal philosophy, these facilities could purposely be built around the globe so that vocational training in aerospace technology could also be offered, adding to the human capital in developing countries. This new environment of international cooperation could and should be constantly verified by UN inspectors to ensure that these new facilities remain true to peaceful purposes. There are of course risks in any new relationship, but in light of the track record of other attempts to maintain international security, these acceptable risks are perhaps worth the effort to make them work. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is conscious of making every member of the U.S. Military feel needed in the war on terror. This is the same approach that could be taken when building a system of SSP for the peoples of Earth. Making poor people of the world actually feel needed should be a focal point of U.S. foreign policy. This would reduce the general sense of marginalization in many parts of the world, perhaps making terrorism at least flourish less. This approach could start by abandoning diplomatic terms such as periphery and international development. These terms only reinforce the idea that other countries and other cultures have nothing of inherent value to offer the West. When Rumsfeld was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, he said that the role of serendipity in developing new products increased with the number of separate areas of research and development that were funded. This idea should be even more true as human capital is developed around the world. Some see involvement in space as a luxury that much of the world cannot afford. This same logic would also deny golf lessons for inner city youth. Perhaps this worldview fails to see the value in teeing up unknown lessons to be learned, both by playing golf and by exploring space.14A global mobilization for a common human endeavor via the common language of science and technology, as it relates to outer space need not be seen as nave or some call for one world government. Ronald Reagan for instance, characteristically and perhaps instinctively invoked the rhetorically inclusive phrase, the people of this planet when he attempted to marshal international condemnation

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

10

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
against terrorism during his administration.26

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

11

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
SPS prompts international cooperation and scientific dialogue on development Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/ 2009, The Space Power Grid:
Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen CONCLUSIONS In this paper, the purpose, obstacles and issues in bringing space solar power to earth are discussed. The present congruence of international interest in renewable energy sources and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provide a window of opportunity to bring about Space Solar Power in synergy with the development of clean renewable power on earth. The policy initiatives advanced in Europe for comparable solar power grid project are discussed. The special features of the space power grid are presented, and shown to provide an excellent vehicle for global collaboration. While substantial technical challenges remain, it is shown that there are viable paths for these challenges, as well as for the economics and public/ international collaboration needed to make Space Solar Power available to humanity. The public policy initiatives needed for renewable energy, are seen to be acceptable in many nations. Security concerns that appear to pose formidable obstacles are cited as also posing unprecedented opportunities for wel-controlled collaboration between nations, through the participation of personnel who are cleared at the individual level, and through sequestering of technologies particular to the project as done in the European Space Agencys projects. The European TRANS-CP project is cited as a relevant current initiative to develop suitable policy.

Independently, international space cooperation cements US leadership CSIS National Security and the Commercial Space Sector, 2010 CSIS Draft for Comment, April 30th,
http://csis.org/files/publication/100430_berteau_commercial_space.pdf New opportunities for partnership and collaboration with both international and commercial space actors have the potential to support future national security space activities and enhance U.S. leadership. Forming alliances and encouraging cooperation with foreign entities could provide several benefits to the United States, including ensuring continued U.S. access to space after a technical failure or a launch facility calamity, strengthening the competitive position of the U.S. commercial satellite sector, enhancing the U.S. position in partnerships, and reinforcing collaboration among other space-faring nations. As the Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2000 Defense Industry Viewpoint notes, strategic commercial alliances: (1) provide capabilities to expand quickly service offerings and markets in ways not possible under time and resource constraints; (2) earn a rate of return 50 percent higher than base businessesreturns more than double as firms gain experience in alliances; and (3) are a powerful alternative to acquiring other companies because they avoid costly accumulation of debt and buildup of balance sheet goodwill. In those respects, international commercial alliances could help U.S. firms access foreign funding, business systems, space expertise, technology, and intellectual capital and increase U.S. industrys market share overseas, thus providing economic benefits to the United States. Moreover, U.S. experiences with foreign entities in foreign markets could help those entities obtain the requisite approvals to operate U.S. government satellite systems in other countries, resolve satellite spectrum and coordination issues, and mitigate risks associated with catastrophic domestic launch failures by providing for contingency launch capabilities from foreign nations. Multinational alliances would also signal U.S. policymakers intent to ensure U.S. commercial and military access to space within a cooperative, international domain, help promote international cooperation, and build support for U.S. positions within various governmental and business forums. First, partnerships could allow the United States to demonstrate greater leadership in mitigating those shared risks related to vulnerability of space assets through launch facility and data sharing, offering improved space situational awareness, establishing collective security agreements for space assets, exploring space deterrence and satellite security doctrines, and formulating and agreeing to rules of the road on the expected peaceful behavior in the space domain. Second, partnerships could also help the United States build consensus on important spacerelated issues in bilateral or multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union, and the World Trade Organization; working with emerging space-faring nations is particularly important because of their growing presence in the marketplace and participation in international organizations. Third, alliances could serve as a bridge to future collaborative efforts between U.S. national security forces and U.S. allies. For example, civil multinational alliances such as the International Space Station and the international search and rescue satellite consortium, Cospas-Sarsat, involve multiple countries partnering to use space for common public global purposes. Finally, developing government, business, and professional relationships with people in other countries provides opportunities for the United States to further the principles upon which U.S. national security reliescompetition, economic stability, and democracy.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

12

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Soft power prevents disease, terrorism and WMD Joseph Nye, Harvard, US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT - SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OF PERSUASION, April 29, 2004, p, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm
Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or shape the preferences of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national interests. When America discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When US policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce its leverage. The manner with which the US went into Iraq undercut American soft power. That did not prevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in the reconstruction of Iraq and made the American occupation more costly in the hard-power resources of blood and treasure. Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the US probably will remain the world's single most powerful country well into the 21st century. But not all the important types of power come from the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but transnational issues such as climate change, infectious diseases, international crime, and terrorism cannot be resolved by military force alone. Soft power is particularly important in dealing with these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce success, and can even be counterproductive. America's success in coping with the new transnational threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will depend on a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a better balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.

Scenario 2 is Competitiveness
The U.S. is ceding technological leadershipour space program is dying. The timeframe is now. Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter, 6/12/11, Boeing's Albaugh worries about 'intellectual disarmament' of U.S.,
The Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015304417_albaughside13.html Jim Albaugh is worried about the future of American technological supremacy in the world. "The biggest fear I have is what I call the intellectual disarmament of this country," said the Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief, who is also this year's chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association, the trade group for U.S. defense, space and aviation companies. "We still are the leader in aerospace," he added. "Are we going to be the leader in aerospace in another 20 years?" Albaugh is troubled that the nation's lead in aerospace, the fruit of Cold War military and space-race projects, will be allowed to wither through lack of government funding of new challenges. In a wide-ranging interview in advance of the global aviation gathering at the Paris Air Show, he ticked off a list of broad national problems that transcend Boeing: Brain drain of talented immigrants: "The best and brightest used to come to the United States and stay," Albaugh said. "Now, the best and brightest come to the United States, get trained, and leave, and go back and compete against us." Defense cuts: "There is no industrial base policy in the Department of Defense other than market forces," he said. "Right now, the Boeing Company is the only company in the United States that has a design team working on a new airplane. There are no [allnew] airplanes being developed for the Department of Defense probably for the first time in 100 years." Competition from China: "The law of large numbers would dictate that they are going to have more smart people than we are going to have. And their government has identified aerospace as an industry that they've targeted," Albaugh said. "The question is, can they be innovative and can they handle the complex systems integration?" When Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited China in January, the Chinese military made a very public test flight of its previously secret J-20 Stealth fighter. "A lot of people saw that as a military threat," Albaugh said. "I didn't. I saw it more as an economic threat. They will sell that airplane around the world and will take away a lot of the market that's been enjoyed by U.S. defense contractors." NASA cuts and private space ventures: "They are trying to commercialize space. ... Getting the reliability requires a lot of redundancy, which requires a lot of cost," Albaugh said. "I think it's going to be a money pit for a lot of them." He lamented the U.S. government's withdrawal from space exploration as the space-shuttle program winds down: "My prediction is that the Chinese will walk on the moon before we launch an American into orbit again in a U.S. spacecraft."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

13

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
SPS development ensures continued American tech and scientific competitiveness NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true Manhattan or Apollo project for energy. In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of highpaying jobs. It would require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness Initiative.

Technological competitiveness is key to American hegemony Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Is America Losing Its Edge?, November/December 2004, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losingits-edge.html?mode=print Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

14

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
US hegemony is key to global stability and growth Bradley A. Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006, The National Interest,
November/December, p. Lexis THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States CONTINUES Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

15

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 3 is Space Supremacy

The space dominance gap is closing- China is rapidly rising to challenge the United States and create international conflict Bruce W. MacDonald, is a consultant in technology and national security management and is currently senior director to the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. From 1995 to 1999, he was assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and technology on the National Security Council staff. Earlier, MacDonald was a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee and was national security adviser to Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR). He also worked for the State Department as a nuclear weapons expert in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he led the Interagency START Policy Working Group and served on the U.S. START delegation in Geneva. MacDonald holds a BSE from Princeton in aerospace engineering and two master's degrees from Princeton one in aerospace engineering and a second in public and international affairs. May 11, 2011, Testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review commission on The Implications of Chinas Military and Civil Space Programs, United States Institute of space //ZY The Chinese Challenge This hearing is timely, and one of rising urgency. In the more than four years since China destroyed an aging weather satellite, demonstrating not only an anti-satellite (ASAT) capability but the potential for strategic ballistic missile defense capability as well, it has proceeded to deploy more, and more advanced, military space capabilities as well. We should not be surprised by this, nor should we be stricken with fear. We would, however, be unwise to ignore both these developments, which are public knowledge, and other developments that are of a classified nature. The Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) appears to recognize what most thoughtful observers of national security also recognize, that U.S. space assets, coupled with our advances in brilliant weaponry, have provided the United States with unprecedented and unequaled global conventional military capabilities. Both China and the United States are fortunate that neither country is the enemy of the other. However, China's growing economic and military power, coupled with friction points in the relationship, most notably over Taiwan, suggest that a future U.S.-China conflict, though unlikely, cannot be ruled out. The PLA and U.S. armed forces both would be derelict in their duties if they did not have contingency plans for such a conflict. As the current inferior military power, the PLA has every incentive to develop options for offensive operations against weak points in U.S. military posture, just as our military establishment should develop options against weak points in Chinese defenses. PLA officers have noted the great U.S. dependence upon space assets and capabilities and the way they multiply U.S. force effectiveness. Just recently, they saw how U.S. special forces, and the military and civilian leadership that commanded them, heavily depended upon satellite photographs, space-derived weather and electronic intelligence, GPS, other space-enabled information, and satellite communications in executing the strike against Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. This brilliantly successful operation was built on a firm foundation of information in which space played a vital role in creating.. Is it any wonder that the PLA would want the capability to interrupt these rivers of information and services that our space assets provide? This information allows our military decision-making, our weapons, and especially our warfighters to be far more effective than in the past, vital advantages across the spectrum of potential conflict. These "space-enabled information services" lie at the heart of U.S. military superiority. The PLA certainly wants to be able to greatly weaken U.S. military power in wartime, and I believe the PLA could do so within a decade using its kinetic kill and other AS AT weapons if it chose to deploy them in large numbers, and thus pose a serious threat to U.S. space assets. China is also pursuing other programs that have important ASAT implications, and other nations are interested in ASAT as well, such as India and Russia. This strategic space situation is troubling. Though absolute U.S. advantages in space should increase over time, the margin of U.S. advantage seems likely to diminish as China increases its space capabilities and space exploitation, and the PLA will reap both the military advantages and vulnerabilities of greater space capabilities. These PLA efforts are funded by a vigorous, quickly growing economy and supported by a government with full appreciation for the roles that space-enabled information and information warfare play in modern conflict. U.S. and Chinese strategic interests in East Asia are not foreordained to lead to conflict; each has much to lose if this happens, and each appreciates the other's military capabilities. In the face of this growing Chinese military space challenge, it is easy to assume the worst about Chinese intentions. China seeks to be able to prevail militarily at some point in the future should conflict come, but they see the United States as militarily superior to them and thus would be unlikely to consciously provoke any military conflict. While we should guard against a worst case, we should not treat it as a given. I do not believe China or the PLA is spoiling for a fight with the United States - China has come too far to want to place their substantial economic achievements at risk unless they faced an extraordinary threat to their national security. In addition, China faces serious demographic realities over the next couple of decades, where their ratio of workers to retirees will shrink substantially (the result of their one-child policy), which further underscores China's need for stability and continued economic growth for years to come. China also has additional needs, and vulnerabilities.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

16

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Infrastructure and tech advances of SPS provide a framework to ensure the US remains the aerospace leader. NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our national jewel which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in longterm research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold WarGovernment policies and investments in longterm research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in longterm enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a spacefaring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st centurythat our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its longterm research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Privatepublic partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space. An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

17

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Aerospace dominance is key to American primacy and prevents great power war Mike Snead, president and founder of the Spacefaring Institute LLC and an aerospace engineering consultant, senior member at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 6-3-2007, Why the next president should start America on the path to becoming
a true spacefaring nation, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-tobecoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx Why is being a great power important to the United States? The reason is quite fundamental and clearly evident from the events of the 20th century. A nation whose citizens wish to remain free either establishes strong political and military alliances with a great power willing to protect their freedom or, absent such a protector, becomes a great power. In the Revolutionary War, Americans broke free of Great Britain by forming an alliance with Franceanother great power of the day that was willing to expend its treasure to help Americans gain freedom (and without requiring a formal, permanent alliance with France!). The U.S. repaid this moral debt to France in World War I and II and accepted the great power protector role with many other countries. Because there is no great power protector nation waiting in the wings to assure America's freedom, America must act to sustain its great power status. What role does becoming a true spacefaring nation play in great power status? Recall, from SA Blog 4, the Aerospace Commission's conclusion: "The Commission concludes that the nation will have to be a space-faring nation to be the global leader in the 21st centuryour freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it." (Note: this was the Aerospace Commission's conclusion and not from the national security-focused Space Commission.) A "global leader" is a great nation. This conclusion is an extension of the fact that many great nations have depended on their seafaring and, most recently, air-faring capabilities to sustain their great power status. In looking at Waltz's five great power criteria, seafaring/air-fairing extended territory, increased population, provided access to new and different resources, increased economic strength through trade, provided the logistics mobility to forge new political alliances, and, obviously, added military power. While seafaring and air-fairing extend, in two dimensions, a great nation's power projection capabilities beyond its contiguous land borders to enable it to access the entire planet, spacefaring will enable great nations to extend their power in three dimensions into space. Several of Waltz's great power criteria will be influenced by a great power becoming spacefaring: Territory: A spacefaring nation will in the mid-term have access to the entire Earth-Moon system followed by the entire central solar system. In the longer term, this access will grow to the entire solar system. A spacefaring great power will reach across the solar system just as today's great power's have economic, political, and security reach across the planet. Resource endowment: A spacefaring nation will have access to traditional, but extraterrestrial material resources from, in the mid-term, the Moon, asteroids, and comets. (Note: We don't think of these as traditional raw material resources today, but neither was the ocean bottom viewed as a significant source of energy resources only a century ago.) A spacefaring nation will also have access to new, nontraditional resources in spacevacuum; zero-gravity; unlimited, 24/365 solar energy; and, potentially, entirely new physics-based energy sources. Economic capability: Economic capability arises from human enterprise applied to extracting wealth (either material or intellectual) from accessing resources. A spacefaring nation will have the spacefaring logistics infrastructure to enable its citizens and private enterprises to access and make use of the resources of space. Military strength: A spacefaring nation will have the technologies and spacefaring logistics infrastructure necessary to enable its military to: (1) exploit space to better provide for national security; (2) protect and defend the spacefaring nation's space enterprises and its citizens living and working in space; (3) protect the Earth and the Moon from impact by significant asteroids and comets; (4) use its military space capabilities to support human and robotic scientific discovery and exploration; and, (5) use the development of advanced military capabilities to "prime the technology pump" for further commercial technology and capability advancementsparticularly with respect to spacefaring logistics. Why is it important for the U.S., as a great power today, to become spacefaring to preserve its great power status in the 21st century? Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection. As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930'syou may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air powerplaced U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

18

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed air superiority to prevail. With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powersChina, India, and Russiaare already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.

Space primacy deters multiple nuclear conflicts in Asia Ashley J. Tellis et al, Chung Min Lee, James Mulvenon, Courtney Purrington, and Michael D. Swaine, sources of conflict in the 21st century, availible via the rand website @ rand.org. chapter 3, 1998
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several sub-regions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuously on the Korean peninsula and to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and therefore has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, US airpower would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service, (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS and tankers are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, IndiaPakistan and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. Such responses would be necessitated by three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, or Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that have a potential for rapid escalation, as may occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may have either spillover or contagion effects, as in China, Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

19

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 4 is Readiness and Power Projection

SPS is key provides the only sustainable power source to the military Taylor Dinerman, senior editor at the Hudson Institutes New York branch and co-author of the forthcoming Towards a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National Defense University Press, 11/24/ 2008, Space solar power and the Khyber Pass, The
Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1 Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (SSP). One of the primary justifications for the project was the potential of the system to provide power from space for remote military bases. Electrical power is only part of the story. If the military really wants to be able to operate for long periods of time without using vulnerable supply lines it will have to find a new way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces. This may seem impossible at first glance, but by combining space solar power with some of the innovative alternative fuels and fuel manufacturing systems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort, the problem could be solved. The trick is, of course, to have enough raw energy available so that it is possible to transform whatever is available into liquid fuel. This may mean something as easy as making methanol from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from waste products. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned into liquid fuels with the right technology. What is needed is a portable system that can be transported in standard containers and set up anywhere there are the resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space solar power is available, but with SSP it becomes much easier. In the longer run Pakistans closure of the Khyber Pass supply route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations can use to avoid the pressures and threats that they now have to live with. Without access to the sea, nations such as Afghanistan are all too vulnerable to machinations from their neighbors. Imagine how different history would be if the Afghans had had a Polish Corridor and their own port. Their access to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bangladesh and Indonesia are both Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.

Strong forward deployment prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict prefer it to all other alternatives Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007, End of Dreams, Return of History
Policy Review (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)] Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as No. 1 and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

20

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europes stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But thats not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the worlds great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of Chinas neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene even if it remained the worlds most powerful nation could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe if it adopted what some call a strategy of offshore balancing this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, offshore role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more even-handed policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesnt change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasnt changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to normal or to a new kind of stability in the region. It

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

21

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

Scenario 2 is India
SBSP development boosts bilateral space cooperation with India World Politics Review, SAURAV JHA, studied economics at Presidency College, Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 25 OCT 2010 U.S.-India Space Cooperation Could Power Ties, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-sindia-space-cooperation-could-power-ties//jchen Space-based solar power (SBSP) may soon emerge as one of the leading sectors of strategic cooperation between India and the U.S., with a recently released report (.pdf) authored by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter A. Garretson making the case for it being the next focus of the growing partnership. There are a number of reasons why SBSP may emerge as the hub for strategic industrial coordination between the two countries. First, neither country can meet its energy needs through existing clean-energy technologies, including nuclear power, and various technological advances over the past few decades have made space-based solar power a more realistic possibility. Second, the Obama administration wants to build on the foundations of bilateral relations laid by the Bush administration, and space cooperation presents an increasingly attractive option for doing so.

That forms the foundation for broader US-India relations World Politics Review, SAURAV JHA, studied economics at Presidency College, Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 25 OCT 2010 U.S.-India Space Cooperation Could Power Ties, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-sindia-space-cooperation-could-power-ties//jchen SBSP has already been explicitly identified at the highest levels of the Indian government as a strategic priority. With commentators in both countries identifying the dovetailing of space and energy cooperation as the "next big thing" in IndoU.S. relations, there are now signs that the push on both sides is lining up with all of these circumstantial "pull" factors. There is an expectation that Obama's visit will see movement on removing controls on the sale of high-tech items as a prelude to an agreement on space cooperation, with an SBSP component as a prominent focus. SBSP allows India to keep its space program focused on developmental priorities, such as energy access, while pushing the technological envelope further than ever before. Studies show that SBSP is feasible, but its ultimate deployment will require an unprecedented bilateral effort. That effort could drive an Indo-U.S. partnership that, in Obama's words, would define the 21st century.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

22

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Cooperation over SBSP is normal means NASA would outsource launching to cheaper Indian markets World Politics Review, SAURAV JHA, studied economics at Presidency College, Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 25 OCT 2010 U.S.-India Space Cooperation Could Power Ties, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-sindia-space-cooperation-could-power-ties//jchen Over the same period, the Indian space program also moved beyond its traditional focus (.pdf) on remote-sensing satellites for developmental needs to more-ambitious programs, such as the Chandrayaan moon mission. India's 2008 moonshot eventually led to the independent discovery of the presence of water on the moon by American and Indian instruments carried on board. This success had a role in convincing U.S. space policymakers about Indian capabilities in integrating systems from varied sources, thereby boosting the prospects of synchronization of U.S. and Indian space architecture for a potential SBSP collaborative effort. The Chandrayaan mission was an early illustration of the space component of the overarching Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue, "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership," announced in January 2004. Unlike the other two pillars -- security and nuclear cooperation, which already have specific agreements in place -- space continues to be characterized by ad hoc arrangements. Indo-U.S. collaboration is currently characterized by a slew of agreements -some substantial, others rudimentary -- running on parallel tracks. SBSP could be a point of convergence, as it is an area where significant complementarities between the two countries exist. The two most important are India's edge as a low-cost manufacturer for future SBSP components and its cheap satellite-launch capability. Indeed, NASA may soon begin to outsource a significant chunk of low-Earth-orbit launches to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). India's attractiveness to U.S. policymakers lies in its promise for reducing costs and increasing returns. Even as NASA has shifted its focus to large, expendable launchers, ISRO continues to back re-usable launch-vehicle technology, which it believes can significantly reduce the cost of satellite launches -- a crucial condition for the sustainability of commercially deployable SBSP. The Chandrayaan mission also demonstrated India's orbit-transfer capability -- a central technical component for geo-stationary and mid-Earth-orbit SBSP concepts.

US India relations key to regional stability The Hindu 6/4 (Indian newspaper, June 4, 2011, India-U.S. partnership to help stability in South Asia: Robert
Gates, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2076380.ece)

The India U.S. partnership, which is based on shared democratic values and vital economic and security interests, will be an indispensable pillar of stability in South Asia and beyond, American Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said. The United States and India are working more closely together than ever before. During the Cold War there was an uneasy co-existence between the worlds largest democracy and the worlds oldest, Mr. Gates said in his speech to the ShangriLa Dialogue in Singapore. Now, there is a partnership based on shared democratic values and vital economic and security interests, he noted. A partnership that will be an indispensable pillar of stability in South Asia and beyond whether countering piracy, increasing participation in multilateral venues, or aiding the development of Afghanistan, our partnership is playing a vital role, Mr. Gates said in his speech in which he emphasised on the need to have engagement with top Asian countries. He said the U.S. is a Pacific nation, and that requires it to sustain its allies while maintaining a robust military engagement and deterrent posture across the Pacific Rim. Indeed, one of the most striking and surprising changes Ive observed during my travels to Asia is the widespread desire across the region for stronger military-to-military relationships with the United States much more so than during my last time in government 20 years ago, he said. The U.S. engagement in Asia has been guided by a set of enduring principles that have fostered the economic growth and stability of the region, Mr. Gates said. These principles, supported by both major political parties in the U.S., include free and open commerce; a just international order that highlights rights and responsibilities of nations and fidelity to the rule of law; and open access by all to the global commons of sea, air, space, and now, cyberspace. I believe our work in Asia is laying the groundwork for continued prosperity and security for the United States and for the region, he said. The U.S. will do more and expand into other areas in non-traditional ways, he added. Weve taken a number of steps towards establishing a defence posture across the Asia-Pacific that is more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable, Mr. Gates said. The military posture proposed will maintain American presence in northeast Asia while enhancing U.S. presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean area, he noted.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

23

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Middle East instability escalates and goes nuclear John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE, March 2002,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

24

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 3 is Resource Wars

SPS averts global conflict and resource wars by removing energy sources from territorial claims Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, editor and publisher of Spaceequity.com, 6/8/ 2009, War, peace,
and space solar power, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1389/1 In the future other pipelines, such as the one that may run from the coast of Pakistan to western China, may be just as important and as vulnerable as the one that runs through Georgia. Removing this kind of infrastructure from its central role in the worlds energy economy would eliminate one of the most dangerous motivations for war that we may face in the 21st century. If the world really is entering into a new age of resource shortagesor even if these shortages are simply widelyheld illusionsnations will naturally try their best to ensure that they will have free and reasonably priced access to the stuff they need to survive and to prosper. Some of the proposed regulations aimed at the climate change issue will inevitably make matters worse by making it harder for nations with large coal deposits to use them in effective and timely ways. The coming huge increase in demand for energy as more and more nations achieve developed status has been discussed elsewhere. It is hard to imagine that large powerful states such as China or India will allow themselves to be pushed back into relative poverty by a lack of resources or by environmental restrictions. The need for a wholly new kind of world energy infrastructure is not just an issue involving economics or conservation, but of war and peace. Moving a substantial percentage of the Earths energy supply off the planet will not, in and of itself, eliminate these kinds of dangers, but it will reduce them. Nations that get a large percentage of their electricity from space will not have to fear that their neighbors will cut them off from gas or coal supplies. The need for vulnerable pipelines and shipping routes will diminish. This will not happen overnight. Gasoline, kerosene, and diesel are, weight for weight and volume for volume, by far the most effective transportation fuels, but they are going to be phased out over time in favor of such things as plug-in hybrids. The world is evolving away from oil-based transportation systems. It will probably take decades, but the process is now in motion. John Mankins successful experiment, beaming power from Maui to the Big Island of Hawaii, is the first real data point we have (see A step forward for space solar power, The Space Review, this issue). Transmitting any amount of power over nearly 150 kilometers shows what can be done. Even more important is the fact that Mankins and his team were able to navigate the governments regulatory maze in order to achieve their goal. Getting permission from the FCC, the FAA, as well as from the state and local governments is quite an accomplishment and shows that this technology can be shown to be safe. If SSP were perceived as a war avoidance mechanism or technology, the investment logic changes. While most space solar power advocates believe that the basic technology already exists, the engineering challenges are huge, as are the capital requirements. Seen as a simple business proposition space solar power (SSP) is a long way from becoming a viable economic source of energy. It could be subsidized the way that wind power or terrestrial solar has been. Even with subsidies, it is hard to see that the private sector would pay for the development work due to the unknown technological risks and to the long time scale. However, if SSP were perceived as a war avoidance mechanism or technology, the investment logic changes. The profit-seeking side of the private sector does not see its role as inflicting peace on an unstable and violent world. Traditionally that has been the role of governments, and in recent decades the socalled NGOs or non-profit sector. Innovative financing propositions such as the idea that a government could promise to buy a certain amount of space-generated power at a set price may become attractive in the future. For the moment, however, governments, especially the US government, should concentrate on reducing the technological unknowns and setting the stage for future developments in the middle or end of the next decade.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

25

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 1 is Oil
Solar technology leads to global energy independenceremoves the need for foreign oil NSS, National Space Society, October 2007, Space Solar Power Limitless clean energy from space,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmitsit wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in theright direction, but solve . Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, makingspace solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. Thistechnology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearlyall the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers fewvehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuelcells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation but only if we can generate the enormousquantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again togenerate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportationsystem. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other energy sources. Advantages of Space Solar Power (also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP) Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants,space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend uponincreasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farmland or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants,space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar andwind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight,or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, spacesolar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations. Space solar power willprovide true energy independence for the nations that develop it, eliminating a major source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power will not require dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs , enabling us to expend resources in other ways. Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world , and its energy can be converted for local needs such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there areno electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change. Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment. This , in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar system within economic reach.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

26

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Continued oil dependence leads to global instability, terrorism, and economic collapse Ron Bengston, compilation of articles from: U.S. News & World Report, The Saudi Connection, Friedman (Pulitzer Prize winning
columnist), New York Times, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Detroit Economic Club, and Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security, 2008, http://www.americanenergyindependence.com A powerful idea is spreading through America. It is a call to this generation to take action and decide the course of history by declaring and fighting for American Energy Independence. Following the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the idea of energy independence captured the imagination of the American people. Then during the 1980's, increased automobile fuel efficiency and new oil discoveries created a surplus of oil on the world market, and Americas enthusiasm for energy independence faded into memory. Now, more than thirty years after the oil embargo, re-awakened by the terrorist attack on 9/11 and war in the Middle East, the idea of American energy independence has returned with a vengeance, becoming a powerful force shaping the political views of a new generation of Americans. Oil is no longer viewed as just another commodity. In the minds and hearts of the American people, oil has become associated with terrorism, political corruption, corporate greed, and global warming. The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow of oil causing severe gasoline shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America's growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first warning of the price they would pay for continued dependence on imported oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again this was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American Energy Independence. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was a military intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil this was the third and most severe warning. Failure to make energy independence the nations highest priority after the Gulf War demonstrated that the United States did not have the political will to free itself from dependence on foreign oil. September 11, 2001 was a preview of America's future one possible future. America stands at a crossroad, a choice between two very different futures. One choice leads to increased dependence on foreign oil and a future dominated by terrorism and war. The other choice leads to American energy independence and a world economy that is no longer desperate for oil. Today, the world consumes over 80 million barrels of oil every day (over 30 billion barrels per year); the USA alone consumes over 20 million barrels per day (over 7 billion barrels per year). At $100 per barrel, the global petroleum industry is a three trillion dollar a year business. Development of alternative energy to free the world from oil dependence will create a seismic shift within the economic foundation of the world. Oil is a natural source of energy, but it is not the only source of energy. With the help of new technology, Americas energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum. American technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from oil dependence. It is time for America to lead the development of new energy technology that will free the USA and the entire world from dependence on oil. Freedom from oil dependence will cut-off the flow of oil money to the Middle East and put an end to the financial support of militant Islam. The global expansion of militant Islam is financed by Middle East oil wealth. In the U.S. oil means gasoline. Every time you fill your gas tank, some of the money will find its way into the hands of Islamic extremists who are planning the next terrorist attack. Future wars could be prevented if everyone who has taken a stand against the war in Iraq would turn their passion toward the goal of American Energy Independence. Standing against war is not enough Standing together for Energy Independence will create a positive political force and a shared national dream. Is there anyone who still cannot see the connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the flow of terrorism out of the Middle East? The meteoric rise of oil revenues in the 20th century meant a new era for Islam; oil revenues were the catalyst that converted passive resentment into Islamic Terrorism... NexusOIL and AL Qaeda By Frank H. Denton, Ph.D, U.S. Foreign Service (Retired). The rise of terrorism by militant Islam against the United States and the West coincided with the rise in oil prices of 1979-80 and the subsequent transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the West to Muslim countries. Max Singer, senior fellow, The Hudson Institute. How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network: Starting in the late 1980safter the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in AfghanistanSaudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members. The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement... The Saudi Connection By David E. Kaplan U.S.News & World Report Exactly how much the Saudis have spent to spread Wahhabism is unclear. David D. Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee that estimates went north of $75 billion. The total spent annually is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, he said. Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that has its roots in the extreme Islamic Takfiri ideology, which is a religious belief that encourages its followers to use violence as a means to achieve their goals. The war against Islamic terrorism cannot be won without cutting off

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

27

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
the flow of oil money to the Middle East Thomas Friedman The New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist No matter what happens in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent Islamism in the Middle East without also drying up our consumption of oilthereby bringing down the price of crude oil. A democratization policy in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most important, the lives of our young people. We need a president At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil. For the very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred years now threatens to destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly. We know what the dangers are here. We know that our oil addiction is jeopardizing our national securitythat we fuel our energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world. We know that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq. U.S. Senator Barack Obama Speech on Energy Policy: Watch the Video or Read the Text May 07, 2007 The Detroit Economic Club Al Qaeda must revel in the irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the war.... As we sacrifice blood and treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots, and carry out attacks on our soldiers and citizens.... The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the conditions on which terrorists prey. U.S. Senator John McCain Speech on Energy Policy: Watch the Video or Read the Text April 23, 2007 Center for Strategic and International Studies Energy: The Most Important Issue of 2008 Speech given by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on December 18, 2007 at the Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election. Today, I would state unequivocally, that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely associated with it should be the most important topics of the 2008 Presidential election. I say this deliberately, notwithstanding the existence of extremely important immediate concerns such as the war in Iraq and the performance of the American economy, as well as persistent public policy struggles that have confronted us for decades, such as deficit reduction, health care, and social security. I say this even in the context of my own long standing evangelism related to non-proliferation and arms reduction, issues which I believe have not diminished in importance. Three factors lead me to the conclusion that energy is the most vital topic of this Presidential election: First, energy is the issue with the widest gulf between what is required to make our nation secure and what is likely to be achieved through the inertia of existing programs and Congressional proposals. As such, it is the issue on which meaningful progress most depends on the great intangible in American public policymaking the application of dramatic, visionary, and sustained Presidential leadership. Congress and private enterprise can make evolutionary energy advancements, but revolutionary national progress in the energy field probably is dependent on presidential action. Our energy dependence is perpetuated by a lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to elevate a cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the buying power, regulatory authority, and legislative leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political procrastination and partisanship. Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a requirement for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era when exploding global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of scarcity, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to underperform. Our ability to address social security, health care, education, and overall budget problems will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do not mitigate our energy import dependence. Almost any scenario for recession will be deepened by high energy costs. Moreover, many of the most severe recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism, war, embargo, or natural disaster. Third, energy is the underlying condition that exacerbates almost every major foreign policy issue. We pressure Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur, but we find that the Sudanese government is insulated by oil revenue and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities, yet key nations are hesitant to endanger their access to Irans oil and natural gas. We try to foster global respect for civil society and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments are often diverted to corrupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism, yet some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year on oil imports are diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people out of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are further impoverished by expensive energy import bills. We seek options that would allow for military disengagement in Iraq and the wider Middle East, yet our way of life depends on a steady stream of oil from that region. American national security will be at risk as long as we are heavily dependent on imported energy The final 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have voiced their support for energy independence. For this reason, American voters will choose a pro-energy independence candidate for President in 2008. However, voters should understand that Republicans and Democrats define energy independence differently. While some Republicans reject the idea of energy independence, most Republicans acknowledge and accept the need for energy security; indeed, many Republicans are passionate about it. Republican candidates who advocate energy independence are talking about economic and global energy security. When Republican candidates speak of energy independence they are campaigning for expanding oil production in Alaska and opening the oil fields off the coast of California (an oil resource potentially larger than Iraq). Republicans want all of America's natural resources available for energy production, including all federal lands that hold oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale deposits. The estimated 800

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

28

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale located in the United States is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Republicans also support the development of technology to produce coal-to-liquid transportation fuelsan American resource that is greater than all of the oil in the Middle East. On the other hand, when Democrats speak of energy independence they are usually talking about independence from any and all fossil fuels as well as independence from nuclear energy. Democrats tend to play down or deny the threat of oil financed Islamic militancy, preferring instead to focus on the threat of Global Warming. It is important to acknowledge that energy independence and global warming are separate issues. American voters need to understand the relative priority. Global Warming is a sustainability issue that must be solved as the world progresses toward complete global modernization. In contrast, global oil dependence is an immediate threat, a clear and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat of greenhouse gas emissions is like the threat of cancer from prolonged cigarette smoking; In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like a coiled rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming hiker. OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) produces about 40% of the worlds oil today, which translates to OPEC getting 40 cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. Current OPEC members are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. All are Islamic countries except Venezuela which has partnered with Iran. In 2007, over 700 billion dollars flowed into OPEC from oil hungry countries around the world. How much of that money was given to support the worldwide advance of Islamic terrorism? With rising oil prices, OPEC revenue is expected to exceed one trillion dollars in 2008. It doesnt matter where oil comes from. If the oil comes from a well in Wyoming, California, Texas, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or the North Sea it doesnt make any difference because oil is a global commodity. The price is the same for everyone in the world. Demand anywhere increases demand everywhere. So it is always true that OPEC gets 40 cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. It averages out to that fact. Islamic terrorism, as a global threat to civilization, cannot sustain itself without the massive oil revenue that finances it. (That does not mean their feelings and beliefs will not sustain, it just means they will have limited influence without the oil wealth.) Islamic militancy is emboldened by the perception of power and dominance that Islam derives from the worlds dependence on oil oil that the world must get from Arab countries. Eliminate world oil dependence and the Islamic extremists will be deflated psychologically. Ronald Reagan is credited for defeating Communism without firing a shot; by economically isolating and suffocating the Soviet Union, while at the same time enticing their leaders and people toward freedom. In a similar way, initiating action toward achieving global independence from petroleum (as a source of energy) will lead to the defeat of Islamic terrorism.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

29

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 2 is Water
SPS solves water shortages powers desalination plants Reid Smith and Lisa Cohn, Writers for Sun and Wind Magazine, October 2009, Only a matter of time?,
http://www.energysmith.net/articles/spacepower.pdf) In addition to connecting remote locations with energy, SBSP may also play an integral part in solving the global water crisis, says Sage. Desalination the production of fresh water from salt water is a viable technology, but takes an enormous amount of energy and is not feasible with todays energy sources and prices. SBSP is the only clean energy source that has the potential to deliver the energy needed to have desalination become a cheap and practical reality, claims Sage

Water wars go nuclear Jonathan Weiner, Professor at Princeton University, 1990, The Next One Hundred Years, page 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some at the 60.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.

Water Shortages are a form of structural violence driven by colonialism and present day corporations Plan breaks down oppression Joia S Mukherjee. Medical Director of Partners in Health. 2007. Structural Violence, Poverty and the AIDS Pandemic
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v50/n2/full/1100376a.html Current global inequalities are often the legacies of oppression, colonialism and slavery, and are to- day perpetuated by radical, market-driven inter- national financial policies that foment poor health. Neo-liberal economic reforms imposed on poor countries by international financial insti- tutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank force poor governments, as the recipients of qualified loans, to decrease their public sector budgets, privatize health services and, when they would rather invest their minus- cule capital to protect their vulnerable citizens and educate their children, these recipient coun- tries are instead forced to march in lock step to- ward the free market, enforcing policies such as user fees for health and primary education. In poor countries, revitalizing the public health infrastructure and improving the delivery of es- sentials such as vaccination, sanitation and clean water are critical aspects to remediating the struc- tural violence that underlies disease. It is only with ongoing, large-scale international assistance that poor governments will be able to address the right to health in a sustained way. Advocacy to re- dress the violations of the basic right to health must recognize that more money is needed for health now, and for decades to come. Further- more, the coercion by international financial in- stitutions of poor governments to restrict health spending only serves to deepen inequalities in health care and perpetuate social injustice.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

30

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 4 is the Environment Scenario 1 is Warming

SPS is the ideal clean energy to solve warming minimal pollution and resource use Garretson, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, previously the Chief of Future Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, 09 (Peter A., Skys No Limit:
Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic Partnership?, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf) While no energy source is entirely benign, the SBSP concept has significant things to recommend it for the environmentally conscious and those wanting to develop green energy sources. An ideal energy source will not add to global warming, produce no greenhouse gasses, have short energy payback time, require little in the way of land, require no water for cooling and have no adverse effects on living things. Space solar power comes very close to this ideal. Almost all of the inefficiency in the system is in the space segment and waste heat is rejected to deep space instead of the biosphere.14 SBSP is, therefore, not expected to impact the atmosphere. The amount of heat contributed by transmission loss through the atmosphere and reconversion at the 19 receiver-end is significantly less than an equivalent thermal (fossil fuel), nuclear power plant, or terrestrial solar plant, which rejects significantly more heat to the biosphere on a per unit (per megawatt) basis.15 The efficiency of a Rectenna is above 80 per cent (rejects less than 20 per cent to the biosphere), whereas for the same power into a grid, a concentrating solar plant (thermal) is perhaps 15 per cent efficient (rejecting 85 (per cent) while a fossil fuel plan is likely to be less than 40 per cent efficient (rejecting 60 per cent to the biosphere). The high efficiency of the receivers also means that unlike thermal and nuclear power plants, there is no need for active cooling and so no need to tie the location of the receiver to large amounts of cooling water, with the accompanying environmental problems of dumping large amounts of waste heat into rivers or coastal areas.

ONLY SPS supplies the power needed for a sustainable energy transition James M. Snead, P.E., is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) a past chair of the AIAAs Space Logistics Technical Committee, and the founder and president of the Spacefaring Institute LLC, 5/4/ 2009, The vital
need for America to develop space solar power, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1 A key element of a well-reasoned US energy policy is to maintain an adequate surplus of dispatchable electrical power generation capacity. Intelligent control of consumer electrical power use to moderate peak demand and improved transmission and distribution systems to more broadly share sustainable generation capacity will certainly help, but 250 million additional Americans and 5 billion additional electrical power consumers worldwide by 2100 will need substantially more assured generation capacity. Three possible energy sources that could achieve sufficient generation capacity to close the 2100 shortfall are methane hydrates, advanced nuclear energy, and SSP. The key planning consideration is: Which of these are now able to enter engineering development and be integrated into an actionable sustainable energy transition plan? Methane hydrate is a combination of methane and water ice where a methane molecule is trapped within water ice crystals. The unique conditions necessary for forming these hydrates exist at the low temperatures and elevated pressures under water, under permafrost, and under cold rock formations. Some experts estimate that the undersea methane hydrate resources are immense and may be able to meet world energy needs for a century or more. Why not plan to use methane hydrates? The issues are the technical feasibility of recovering methane at industrialscale levels (tens to hundreds of billions BOE per year) and doing so with acceptable environmental impact. While research into practical industrial-scale levels of recovery with acceptable environmental impact is underway, acceptable production solutions have not yet emerged. As a result, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include methane hydrates as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. Most people would agree that an advanced nuclear generator scalable from tens of megawatts to a few gigawatts, with acceptable environmental impact and adequate security, is a desirable long-term sustainable energy solution. Whether this will be an improved form of enriched uranium nuclear fission; a different fission fuel cycle, such as thorium; or, the more advanced fusion energy is not yet known. Research into all of these options is proceeding with significant research advancements being achieved. However, until commercialized reactor designs are demonstrated and any environmental and security issues associated with their fueling, operation, and waste disposal are technically and politically resolved, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include advanced nuclear energy as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. We are left with SSP. Unless the US federal government is willing to forego addressing the very real possibility of energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation, SSP is the one renewable energy solution capable of beginning engineering development and, as such, being incorporated into such a rational sustainable energy transition plan. Hence, beginning the engineering development of SSP now becomes a necessity. Planning and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the development of SSP will

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

31

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
jump-start America on the path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space operations we need to become a true spacefaring nation. Of course, rapid advancements in advanced nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial-scale sustainable energy source may change the current circumstances favoring the start of the development of SSP. But not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will remain available and not knowing to what extent terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production can be practically and politically expanded, reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.

Feedback cycles exacerbate warming leading to extinction Oliver Tickell, environmental researcher, 2008, 8/11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

32

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 2 is Natural Disasters

SPS provides direct and instant relief to natural disasters NSSO, National Space Security Office, 2007 (Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security, pages 41-42)
For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible energy on demand for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable overland fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra longendurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nationbuilding activities. SBSP could also facilitate base islanding such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable groundbased energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and Allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically security energy supply.

SPS can control weather prevents natural disasters and controls rainfall Dr. Bernard J. Eastlund, B. S. in physics from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University, and Lyle M. Jenkins, Project
Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises , Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power, October 2008, http://electricalandelectronics.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/01235075.pdf//jchen= The application of the Solar Power Satellite for the prevention of tornadoes was proposed by Eastlund [Ref. 13. Although the constituency for storm modification resides mainly in the tornado belt states, the potential benefits of saving lives and reducing property damage have broad appeal. The refinement of SSP technologies and operations can be achieved without an immediate competition with fossil fuel energy. The fundamental concept is disruption of the convective forces in a thunderstorm [Ref. 131. By selective heating of the cold rain, the process that concentrates energy in tornadoes is disrupted. By interfering with the tornadogenesis process, it appears that some tornadoes might be eliminated. Subsequently, loss of life and storm destruction are reduced. Such benefits are attractive to politicians and are not as sensitive to the system economics as is the commercial solar power satellite. Once the fundamental technology and operations have been demonstrated, the cost and risk of energy production from space can be realistically assessed. Looking beyond the taming of tornadoes, hurricanes are formed from ensembles of mesocyclones. As the total available power increases, TSPS could be considered for modifying the features of the mesocylones that allow hurricanes to reinforce their motion. Potentially, the steering winds could be disrupted to steer the storms away from metropolitan regions. The ultimate application of a full system might be to steer the jet stream to manipulate the rainfall patterns on the earths surface. Even with the expensive TSPS, it is likely that the intervention cost for a particular storm will not approach the cost for preventing acts of terrorism with similar casualties [Ref. 131

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

33

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Unchecked natural disasters culminate in extinction Sid-Ahmed, writer for Al-Ahram Weekly, 1/12/2005, Al-Ahram Weekly (Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, The post-earthquake world,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm) The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life. Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between [Humanity] Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December. This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

34

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Scenario 3 is Ice Age

SPS solves ice age application of heat energy averts famine and disease Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
One of the common features of past natural global catastrophes is a cooling of the Earth's climate, which is the key vector triggering famine, disease and other causes of death. In cases of NEO impact and caldaria volcanoes this is caused by material in the atmosphere and lasts for over a year. The cause of the cooling during the little ice age is less certain but it lasted for a considerable period of time. A system to counter this cooling would have widespread applicability and great efficacy in these cases, and could in itself prevent the majority of deaths. The system would not have to heat the whole Earth but rather selectively target regions where cooling induced effects create a hazard. Examples might be heating plague reservoirs regularly to above 25 to prevent breakout of the disease, ensuring snow melt in early spring in high latitude countries (so ice reflectivity does not reduce solar heating) reducing occurrence of frost in high-yield agricultural areas, and the heating of ocean regions to ensure viable rainfall. If a significant SPS capability existed that used microwave power transmission, then heating could be achieved by defocusing the transmission antenna and pointing the power beam at the area that requires heating. That is to use the SPS as a microwave oven. This is clearly a zero cost option as no new systems are required and one 5 GW unit could provide 10 mW/cm2500 km2 (a circle 25 km diameter at the equator). In practice, the target areas are more likely to be in the order several 100 km in diameter so tens of SPS would need to be used together.

Ice age causes extinctionfeedbacks are key to prevent it Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw
and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo (hes qualed), The Ice Age is Coming, Winter 03-04, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf) It is difficult to predict the advent of the new Ice Agethe time when continental glaciers will start to cover Scandinavia, Central and Northern Europe, Asia, Canada, the United States, Chile, and Argentina with an ice layer hundreds and thousands of meters thick; when mountain glaciers in the Himalayas, Andes, and Alps, in Africa and Indonesia, once again will descend into the valleys. Some climatologists claim that this will happen in 50 to 150 years.53, 54 What fate awaits the Baltic Sea, the lakes, the forests, animals, cities, nations, and the whole infrastructure of modern civilization? They will be swept away by the advancing ice and then covered by moraine hills. This disaster will be incomparably more calamitous than all the doomsday prophecies of the proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis. The current sunspot cycle is weaker than the preceding cycles, and the next two cycles will be even weaker. Bashkirtsev and Mishnich expect that the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will occur between 2021 and 2026, which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air. The shift from warm to cool climate might have already started. The average annual air temperature in Irkutsk, which correlates well with the average annual global temper- ature of the surface air, reached its maximum of +2.3C in 1997, and then began to drop to +1.2C in 1998, to +0.7C in 1999, and to +0.4C in 2000. This prediction is in agreement with major changes observed currently in biota of Pacific Ocean, associated with an oscillating climate cycle of about 50 years periodicity. The approaching new Ice Age poses a real challenge for mankind, much greater than all the other challenges in history. Before it comes-let's enjoy the warming, this benign gift from nature, and let's vigorously investigate the physics of clouds. F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe stated recently that "without some artificial means of giving positive feedback to the climate ... an eventual drift into Ice Age conditions appears inevitable." These conditions "would render a large fraction ofthe world's major food growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population." According to Hoyle and Wickramsinghe, "those who have engaged in uncritical scaremongering over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth's temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both misguided and dangerous," for the problem of the present "is of a drift back into an Ice Age, not away from an Ice Age." Will mankind be able to protect the biosphere against the next returning Ice Age? It depends on how much time we still have. I do not think that in the next 50 years we would acquire the knowledge and resources sufficient for governing climate on a global scale. Surely we shall not stop climate cooling by increasing industrial CO2 emissions. Even with the doubling of CO2 atmospheric levels, the increase in global surface air tem- perature would be trifling. However, it is unlikely that perma- nent doubling of the atmospheric CO2 , even using all our car- bon resources, is

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

35

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
attainable by human activities. Also, it does not seem possible that we will ever gain influ- ence over the Suns activity. However, I think that in the next centuries we shall learn to control sea currents and clouds, and this could be sufficient to govern the climate of our planet. The following "thought experiment" illustrates how valuable our civilization, and the very existence of man's intellect, for the terrestrial biosphere. Mikhail Budyko, the leading Russian climatologist (now deceased) predicted in 1982 a future drastic C02 deficit in the atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire surface of the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said, would survive on the active volcano edges. Budyko's hypothesis is still controversial, but 10 years later it was discovered that 700 million years ago, the Earth already underwent such a disaster, changing into "snowball Earth," covered in white from Pole to Pole, with an average temperature of minus 40C.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

36

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 5 is Tech Spillover

SPS development prompts industrial spin-off tech and attracts private capital Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen Summary Space-Based Solar Power is a huge project. It might be considered comparable in scale to the national railroads, highway system, or electrification project rather than the Manhattan or Apollo endeavors. However, unlike such purely national projects, this project also has components that are analogous to the development of the high volume international civil aviation system. Such a large endeavor includes significant international and environmental implications. As such it would require a corresponding amount of political will to realize its benefits. Most of Americas spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP will create new markets and produce new products. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to themselves, but to sell to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is trillions of dollars and will generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to develop SBSP have significant economic spin-offs. They open up or enable the other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off-world resources. After the fundamental technological risks have been defined, shifting SBSP from a research and development project to a financial and production program is needed. Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. The opportunity to export energy as the first marketable commodity from space will motivate commercial sector solutions to the challenges. The delivered commodity can be used for base load terrestrial electrical power, wide area broadcast power, carbon-neutral synthetic fuels production, military tactical support or as an inspace satellite energy utility

<<Pick and choose Impact Modules>>

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

37

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 6 is the Economy

SBSP creates jobs and increases tax revenues, stimulating the economy Garretson, Air Force officer on sabbatical as an Air Force Fellow, previously the Chief of Future Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, 8/2010, Skys No Limit (Peter A., Skys No
Limit: Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic Partnership?, pages 17-18) The significance of SBSP systems lies in its many potential advantages. These advantages address multiple contemporary problems and constituencies. Like other renewable energy sources, SBSP systems provide a non-depletable source of carbon-neutral energy for long-term sustainable development. Unlike other renewable energy sources, it is in the nature of SBSP concepts to provide energy in a highly usable form with an exceptional capacity factor. The ability to provide 24hour, predictable, dispatchable electric power in quantities appropriate for base-load cities (by 2039, as much as 50 to 60 per cent of Indias 1.6 billion population will reside in cities8), and industrial processes means that it can fill the same roles as nuclear power, hydroelectric power, natural gas and coal.9 Therefore, the concept can address both immediate concerns regarding the need to displace carbon producing plants with cleaner power and longer term needs to replace the very substantial investment and dependence on coal and other fossil fuels as they are depleted. The importance of a base-load and urban capable renewable power source cannot be understated. The nature of the satellites and their receiver also means that much intermediate and costly transmission infrastructure can be dispensed with and a single satellite can service multiple receiving stations, augmenting peaking loads as necessary. A second key advantage of SBSP is its scalability. Experts calculate that the exploitable energy in orbit exceeds not just the electrical demand of the planet today, but the total energy needs of a fully developed planet with over 10 billion people.10 Because of the strong coupling between electrification, human development and gross national product (GNP) / gross world product (GWP), the addition of new, non-polluting highly-usable energy has a highly beneficial effect on poverty alleviation and creation of economic opportunity and wealth.11 The very large size of the market12 also means that a successful space solar power industry will create many jobs, much wealth and significant tax revenues for the state, and have a highly stimulatory effect on space and high tech industry and national tech base.13

SPS provides economic stability continuous energy supply safeguards against supply shocks Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen The rate of change and its direction leave civilization vulnerable to severe economic change in a period of significant population growth. Sustainable development has become the mantra for dealing with the potential global crises that are facing civilization. Clean, renewable energy is a resource that meets the criteria of sustainability. Collecting solar energy is prime candidate. Collecting the energy in space provides significant advantages in continuity of supply, although its development represents many challenges. A primary challenge is the issue of large initial cost prior to generating a return on that investment. The NASA Fresh Look at Space Solar Power study shows that concepts needing less initial investment are feasible. Even so, early SSP systems are not likely to be price competitive unless fossil fuel pricing incorporates the long range economic impact.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

38

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Continued economic decline will result in global war. Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. The New Republic, Only Makes You Stronger, February 4 2009. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-854292e83915f5f8&p=2 AD 6/30/09) Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads-but it has other, less reassuring messages as well.If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

39

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Advantage 7 is Asteroids
SPS detects and averts asteroid collisions Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Economic considerations play a large role in justifying launch costs, whether by government or by industry. Since it is possible, according to Glaser to achieve a dual purpose by placing SSP collectors on existing communications satellites, there should be a way to add a third and fourth component/justification to proposed space platforms. The needed add-ons might be telescopes and lasers for the primary use of defending Earth from the many small Earth crossing orbits of asteroids and comets collectively referred to as Near Earth Objects (NEOs). The telescope/laser fixtures could be used to detect and deflect NEOs that are about 50 meters across (city killers) and to detect the larger kilometer wide Earth killers that would require more persuasive measures. This approach would be in keeping with the philosophy established by Dr, David Morrison of the NASA Ames Research Center. Morrison says, Although the annual probability of Earth being struck by a large NEO is extremely small, the consequences of such a collision are so catastrophic that it is prudent to assess the nature of the threat and prepare to deal with it.

<<same impacts as the Asteroids Scenario>>

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

40

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency
The USfg is key to aerospace competition - export controls and mergers have weakened the private sector ICAF, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, a senior service school providing graduate level educationto sernior members of the US armed forces, Spring 2007, The Final Report: The Space Industry Industrial College of the Armed Forces,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475093&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf The U.S. government has long understood that access to space and space capabilities are essential to U.S. economic prosperity and national security. U.S. space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure national leadership in space and governance of space activities, including science, exploration, and international cooperation. The current Administration has issued five space-specific policies to provide goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy, these policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing; Space Transportation; and Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy, reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to exploit space for national security and economic prosperity. 9 Americas success in space is dependent on government involvement, motivation, and inspiration. It is significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and effort to update all of the U.S. space policies. The consolidation of the major space industry players and a general down-turn in the commercial space market demand, coupled with export restrictions, has left the U.S. space industry reliant on the government for revenue and technology development.

Initial government funding is key to private industry investment lowers financial risk Daily Tech, Jason Mick, 10/15/07, The Pentagon Wants Space Solar Power for U.S., Allies,
http://www.dailytech.com/The+Pentagon+Wants+Space+Solar+Power+for+US+Allies/article9275.htm//jchen The plan also states that by developing SSP, the U.S. Armed Forces can reduce the risk for large scale commercial development of the technology. What this means, if the plans succeeds, is that industries may eventually see the technology at an affordable price, while the military will pay a premium to become the early adopter. "The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO states in the report. Charles Miller, CEO of Constellation Services International, a space technology start-up, and director of the Space Frontier Foundation, hopes that the government chooses to follow the report and adopt the technology. By installing a power plant in geostationary orbit, the government can effectively "buy down" the risk for industry start-ups such as his company, he says. Such a move could allow the U.S. and its allies to commercially eliminate oil dependence, and meet the energy needs of the developing world, ushering in an era of clean energy.

No risk of space debris SPS DE-orbits them NASA, 2007 (NASA, Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,
October 10, 2007) The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth- and space-based power beaming applications. A truly developed Space-Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de-orbit of space debris, space-to-space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far-term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forwards StarWisp Concept.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

41

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Funding isnt enough - government R&D is key to successful SPS George Friedman, is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer, financial overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor, 2011 The Next Decade: Where Weve Been and Where Were
Going,http://books.google.com/books?id=y5plTzPTw8YC&pg=PA235&dq=Space+based+solar+power&hl=en&ei=99cDTq3bHIfE gAfTypSODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Space%20based%20solar%20 power&f=false, Date accessed June 23, 2011 At the same time we must prepare for long-term increases in energy generation from nonhydrocarbon sources-sources that are cheaper and located in areas that the United States will not need to control by send-ing in armies. In my view, this is space-based solar power. Therefore, what should be under way and what is under way is private-sector development of inexpensive booster rockets. Mitsubishi has invested inspace-based solar power to the tune of about $21 billion. Eutope's EAB is also investing, and California`s Pacific Gas and Electric has signed a con-tract to purchase solar energy from space by 2016, although I think ful-fillment of that contract on that schedule is unlikely. However, whether the source is spacebased solar power or some other technology, the president must make certain that development along several axes is under way and that the potential for building them is realistic. Enormous amounts of increased energy are needed, and the likely source of the technology, based on history, is the U.S. Department of Defense. Thus the government will absorb the cost of early develop-ment and private investment will reap the rewards. The We are in a period in which the state is more powerful than the mar-ket, and in which the state has more resources. Markets are superb at exploiting existing science and early technology, but they are not nearly as good in basic research. From aircraft to nuclear power to moon Hightsto the Internet to global positioning satellites, the state is much better at investing in long-term innovation. Government is inefficient, but that inefficiency and the ability to absorb the cost of inefficiency are at the heart of basic research. When we look at the projects we need to undertake in the coming decade, the organization most likely to execute them successfully is the Department of Defense. There is nothing particularly new in this intertwining of technology, geopolitics, and economic well-being. The Philistines dominated the Levantine coast because they were great at making armor. To connect and control their empire, the Roman army built roads and bridges that are still in use. During a war aimed at global domination, the German military created the foundation of modern rocketry; in countering, the British came up with radar. Lending powers and those contending for power constantly find themselves under military and economic pressure. They respond to it by inventing extraordinary new technologies. The United States is obviously that sort of power. It is currently under economic pressure but declining military pressure. Such a time is not usually when the United States undertakes dramatic new ventures. The government is heavily Funding one area we have discussed, finding cures for degenerative diseases. The Department of Defense is funding a great deal of research into robotics. But the fundamental problem, energy, has not had its due. For this decade, the choices are pedestrian. The danger is that the president will fritter away his authority on projects such as conservation, wind power, and terrestrial solar power, which cant yield the magnitude of results required. The problem with natural gas in particular is that it is pedestrian. But like so much of what will take place in this decade, accepting the ordinary and obvious is called for Hrs t-followed by great dreams quietly expressed.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

42

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
No perception of military threat existence of ICBMs make SPS an undesirable weapon NSSO, Report to the National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm//ZY
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a space- based solar power (SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, wouldnt that make a powerful weapon? Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the NSSO is not interested in space- based solar power as a weapon. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation for study- ing SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable cost any- where in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become increas- ingly costly. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less- expensive options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy targets. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sun- light; a worker could safely walk in the center of the beam. The physics of microwave trans- mission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum inten- sity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. SBSP would not be a precision weapon. Todays militaries are looking for more precise and lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot indi- vidual targetseven if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to inter- vene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change. Solving the long-term energy scar- city problem is too vital to the worlds future to have it derailed by a miscon- ception that space solar power might somehow be used as a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people about this technol- ogy and to continue to conduct the research in an open environment.

Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, and technologically feasible Lior, Noam Lior, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Philadelphia, PA, April 2011 Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931,
Date accessed June 24, 2011 We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches from the Earth, there are several technological possibilities to reduce this price. For a large scale application of orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can be significantly reduced. The first option is to build and employ reusable space vehicles for launching the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old NASA estimate shows that this would be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total power [17]. The costs could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its produced energy to lift itself into a higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:- The environmental impact of the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg per W of useful power, and this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The production cost of the orbital solar power plants could also become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. It is estimated as about US $1 per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The social impact of cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, because space power satellites seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and we estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful power. One could therefore expect a net positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal power satellites are used, which are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit. The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy, however even in the best case scenario it cant become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power concept can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two decades. It is also important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale. In addition to expected increase in employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

43

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Fears of radiation are misgrounded beams are less harmful than sunlight NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key expressed concerns are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability of the satellite, all of which must be addressed with education. Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small, comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire.

No chance terrorists steal SPSonce the power is decentralized, it makes it impossible Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 If this strategy were expanded, the potential security vulnerability to SSP ground installations would eventually be near that of the current grid system. NASA has gone to great efforts to make SSP fit into the existing grid or energy markets. One of the purposes of this paper is to demonstrate why it might be advisable to decentralize the grid so that it would better fit SSP and other forms of renewable energy such as terrestrial solar, wind power, biomass, hydropower and geothermal power. If SSP transmissions were directed to thousands of small, decentralized community grids, sabotage of any few receiving stations would not achieve the goal of the terrorist.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

44

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 *****LEADERSHIP*****

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

45

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 SPS Inevitable k2 Heg

SBSP is key to hegemony for hundreds of years, but were not the only ones in the race, Japan is an upcoming rival
Farrar, writer for CNN, 6/1/2008, CNN (Lara, How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html) The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations. "The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said. Russia, China, the European Union and India, according to the Pentagon report, are interested in the concept. And Japan, which has been pouring millions of dollars into space power studies for decades, is working toward testing a small-scale demonstration in the near future.

SPS is inevitable US development is key to dominance Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist from New York, 7-16-2007, Solar power satellites and space radar,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/910/1 Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earths economy is going to need so much extra power over the next few decades that every new system that can be shown to be viable will be developed. If the US were to develop space solar power for military applications it would give the US civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military requirements are legitimate, there is no reason why this cannot be made into a win-win outcome.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

46

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Ferguson
Hegemony prevents economic collapse, regional nuclear wars, and a power vacuum that would cause global conflictextinction Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at NYU, 7/1/2004 A World Without Power, Foreign Policy,
http://fnf.org.ph/downloadables/A_World_Without_Power_as_published_in_Foreign_Policy.pdf So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai-would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a notso-new world disorder.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

47

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***SPACE SUPREMACY***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

48

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency China Rise (1/2)

Wolforths wrong Chinas growing hard and soft power makes them a competitor Andrew E. Erickson and Lyle J. Goldstein, assistant professor of strategic studies in the Naval War Colleges Strategic
Research Department and founding member of the colleges new China Maritime Studies Institute, * associate professor in the Strategic Research Department of the Naval War College, December 2006, Hoping for the Best, preparing for the worst: Chinas response to US hegemony, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 26 Issue 6, pg. 981-982, iw No doubt Chinas leadership currently faces a set of enormous challenges, not least of which concerns to what extent resources should be allocated to military development versus social and economic priorities. With regular riots in the Chinese countryside (even in Chinas relatively wealthy eastern coastal provinces), this dilemma is likely extremely acute. One can imagine a variety of other scenarios that might describe different choices concerning this classic dilemma between guns and butter. Beijing could have opted for Soviet-style geostrategic competition with the United States. But Chinese strategists have drawn historical lessons from Soviet militarist exhaustion during the Cold War and have little appetite for attempting to directly match US military might. 89 A simple comparison of Beijings emerging nuclear posture with Moscows nuclear arsenal at its apex (tens of thousands of warheads) illustrates the point, but there are many such examples. Nevertheless, China is hardly adhering to the path that most developing states have pursued in so far as it is actively pursuing a full spectrum of advanced, indigenous weapons platforms. Brazil, for example, is no doubt an aspiring world power, but it has neither its own fourth- generation ghter aircraft, nor a ballistic missile program to speak of, not to mention a second-generation ballistic missile submarine in development. Chinese strategists have a keen sense for the imperative of balance, not only with respect to civilian-military resource tradeoffs, but also within the military itself. In pursuing rapid, yet balanced military development, China can still pose a considerable challenge to American hegemony. In one of the more optimistic assessments of American preponderance, William Wohlforth argues that a global rival will not emerge to end Americas unipolar hegemony for the foreseeable future. No other major power is . . . likely to take any step that might invite the focused enmity of the United States, he asserts. For many decades, no state is likely to be in a position to take on the United States in any of the underlying elements of power. Based on this assessment of Chinas increasing hard and soft power, however, a Chinese challenge to US hegemony cannot be ruled out. The Asian giants challenge to various aspects of US hegemony might even increase as the US continues to be burdened and extended by the Long War against global terror. Furthermore, as a senior Chinese ofcial emphasized to one of the authors, irrational nationalism will grow with PRC power.

Chinas growing aerospace industry is a challenge to US hegemony. Erickson, Andrew and Goldstein, Lyle(2006) 'Hoping for the Best, preparing for the worst: China's response to US hegemony',
Journal of Strategic Studies, 29: 6, 955 986 Chinas rise has quite clearly prompted signicant concern among its neighbors. But except for the Sino-Japanese relationship, Beijings soft power diplomacy has skillfully neutralized and contained many of these geopolitical concerns. It will be a challenge amid the Long Waragainst terror for Washington to compete effectively for the hearts and minds of elites and populations in various regions of the world, especially given Chinas new commercial power and its noninterventionist ethos. Of course, the impressive growth trajectory of such global economic and political inuence need not necessarily threaten US national security. In a view that mirrors ofcial Peoples Republic of China (PRC) pronouncements, two Chinese analysts claim that their countrys rise is different from that of previous powers because it is merely a peaceful restoration of former capabilities and is also part of Asias larger rise. The analysts further emphasize that Chinas rise confronts many challenges, primarily internal problems. 40 Moreover, it is possible to overstate PRC soft power. Beijings policy of ignoring human rights may attract Third World elites, but its aggressive commercial policies may also precipitate anti-Chinese sentiment, as has already occurred in both Nigeria 41 and Pakistan.42 However, when coupled with the accelerating pace of Chinese military modernization, the potential for a genuine challenge to American global hegemony becomes conceivable. Indeed, the need to prepare for strategic competition with Japan, the US, or possibly a combination of the two motivates China to develop robust military capabilities in the maritime and aerospace realms.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

49

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency China Rise (2/2)

Chinas growing aerospace industry is a sign of its willingness to challenge US hegemony Erickson, Andrew and Goldstein, Lyle(2006) 'Hoping for the Best, preparing for the worst: China's response to US hegemony',
Journal of Strategic Studies, 29: 6, 955 986 Chinas aerospace development has profound implications for the US military. Chinese strategists envision aerospace assets playing a vital role in any future Taiwan scenario. For instance, ballistic and cruise missiles guided by Beidou satellites might be used to target US aircraft carriers. The most fundamental question is whether the PLA will be able to master the developments in air- and space-based platforms and C4ISR needed to support a PLA strategy beyond the East Asian littoral. Such a strategic requirement would necessitate the continued transformation of the PLA, as Chinas current submarinefocused navy and still limited air force can only support the more modest strategy of access denial at present. But just as China was not dissuaded from submarine development in the recent past by American dominance in that area, Beijing also seems unwilling to cede aerospace dominance. As Chinas overall national power continues to rise, its aerospace capacities are likely to rise with it, with signicant implications for Beijings ability to inuence its maritime periphery and challenge US hegemony.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

50

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency US Decline
US aerospace dominance is in decline increasing competition means now is the key time Christopher E. Kinne, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, has previously commanded two different Air Force
Materiel Command squadrons, oversaw development of new space surveillance systems and technologies at the Air Force Space Commands Alternate Space Control Center, current commander of the Cryptologic Systems Group, February 20 09, Is the United States Air Force Responsible for Preserving the US Aerospace Industrial Base?, Air War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539894&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf In highlighting its concern about the future preeminence of the US aerospace industry, the commission observed, The US aerospace industry has consolidated to a handful of playersfrom what was once over 70 suppliers in 1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one US commercial prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are in strong business health. 14 The commission also noted, New entrants to the industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows . . . . [and] the industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering and manufacturing . . . . [and] the US K-12 education system [is failing] to properly equip US students with the math, science, and technological skills needed to advance the US aerospace industry. 15 Addressing part of the national security issue, the commission noted Other countries [specifically in Europe and Asia] that aspire for a great global role are directing intense attention and resources to foster an indigenous aerospace industry. This is in contrast to the attitude present here in the United States. We stand dangerously close to squandering the advantage bequeathed to us by prior generations of aerospace leaders. . . . A healthy aerospace industry is a national imperative. The administration and the Congress must heed our warning call and act promptly to implement the recommendations in this report. 16 (emphasis added)

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

51

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (1/2)

Space based solar power fills all gaps in U.S. aerospace primacy NSSO, National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed Defense Space Council, 10/10/2007, SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility
Study, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our national jewel which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in longterm research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold WarGovernment policies and investments in longterm research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in longterm enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a spacefaring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st centurythat our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its longterm research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Privatepublic partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space. An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

52

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (2/2)

SSP development is key to expand the aerospace market and lower transportation costs NSS, National Space Society, October 2007, Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from space,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp///jchen Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its energy can be converted for local needs such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there are no electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change. Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment. This, in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar system within economic reach.

US commitment to SBSP solves cost efficiency thats key to US space leadership Solar High Study Program, Solar High: Energy for the 21st Century, March 2011,
http://solarhigh.org/Overview.html//jchen Conclusion The expected cost of deploying SBSP is ~$7,400/kW, including the rectenna as well as construction and launch of Block II satellites. Amortized over an expected life of 30 years at a discount rate of 5%, the contribution of this capital cost to the delivered cost of electric energy would be 5.6 cents/kWh. SBSP is thus much more promising than terrestrial solar as a replacement for fossil fuels or nuclear power. A strong US commitment to SBSP could Solve the energy problem permanently, in the USA and around the world. Offer clean, inexhaustible solar power almost anywhere on Earth. Restore the status of the United States as an energy-exporting nation. Create large international markets for export of our technology as well as energy. Offer greatly reduced launch costs to all users of space, including the DoD, NASA and commercial interests. Restore US preeminence in launch services. Permit explosive growth in extraterrestrial enterprises. Open the solar system as the domain of our species, eliminating most concerns about resource exhaustion. Serious studies of SBSP are under way in several countries, including Japan, China, India and the European Union. Continued US neglect of this vital technology means that we will not only suffer all the economic, political and strategic consequences of abdicating our leadership in space but also abandon control of our energy future. What we do about these issues in the next few years will determine whether we will restore American initiative or become a debt-ridden, second-rate nation that must import electricity as well as petroleum.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

53

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Aerospace Primacy (3/3)

US SPS development now ensures energy and space dominance George Friedman, widely recognized international affairs expert and author of numerous books, 2009, The Next 100 Years: A
Forecast for the 21st Century http://books.google.com/books?id=rg97KwH2GkC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=%22United+states+space+hegemony%22&source=bl&ots=db3rKvOBi4&sig=7jR08Y uVDUROYo8EcbqRYbnsdzg&hl=en&ei=TDYFTrnrBoHogQeH3si0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCE Q6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=United%20States%20space%20hegemony&f=false//ZY NASA has been involved in research on space-based energy since the 1970s, in the form space solar power (SSP). In the war of the 2050s the United Slates will really start using this new system. And in the space-based energy project of die 2060s, ii will become a feature of everyday life, Vase numbers of photovoltaic cells, designed to convert solar energy into electricity, will be placed in geostationary orbit or on the surface ot the moon. The electricity will be converted into microwaves, transmitted to the earth, reconverted to electricity, and distributed through the existing and expanded electric grid. The number of cells needed could be reduced by concentrating sunlight using mirrors, thus reducing the cost of launching the photovoltaic arrays. Obviously, the receivers would have to be installed in isolated areas on earth, since the localized microwave radiation would be intense, but the risks would be far less than that from nuclear reactors or from the environmental effects of hydrocarbons. One thing that space has available is space. What would be unbearably intrusive on earth (say, covering an area the size of New Mexico with solar panels) is swallowed up by the limirlcssness of space. Plus there are no clouds, and collectors can be positioned to receive continual sunlight. These advances will lead lo reduced energy costs on earth, and thus many more energy-intensive activities will become feasible. I he entrepreneurial possibilities that emerge will be astounding. Who could have drawn a line between ARPANET and the iPod All that can be said is that this second wave of innovations will transform things at least as much as the interstate highway and the Internet didand bring as much prosperity in the 2060s as the interstate brought in the 1960s, and the Internet in the 2000s. The United States will also have created another foundation for its geopolitical powerit will become the largest energy producer in the world, with its energy fields protected from attack. Japan and China and most other countries are going to be energy importers. As the economics of energy shifts, other sources of energy, including hydrocarbons, will become less, attractive. Other countries will not be able to launch their own space-based systems. For one thing, they will not have a military making the down payment on the system. Nor will any country have the appetite to challenge the United States at that moment. An attack on American facilities will be unthinkable given the now vast imbalance of power. The ability of the United States to provide much cheaper solar energy will create At\ additional lever for the superpower to increase its international dominance.

SPS is good for military use. US Congress 81 Solar power satellites Washington, D.C. : Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment"August 1981
The development of fleets of launch and transfer vehicles (ior SPS), as well as facilities for living arnd working in space, would enhance this Nation's military space capabilities. Such equipment would give the possessor a large breakout p9tential for rapid deployment of personnel and hardware in time of crisis, though for nonemerg eenyy situations the military would prefer to use vehicles des sinned specifically for military purposes. SPS itself could be used for military purposes, such as electronic warfare or providing energy to military units, but is technically unsuited to constitute an efficient weapon. weapons-use of SPS would be prohibited by current bilateral and multilateral treaties. The satellite portion of SPS is vulnerable to various methods of attack and interference but the likelihood of its being attacked is only slightly greater than for major terrestrial energy systems. The military effects of SPS will depend largely on the institutional framework within which it is developed; international involvement would tend to reduce the potential for use of SPS by the military sector.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

54

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 Heg

Space primacy assures U.S. assets in space and cements overall hegemony Robert S. Walker, Chairman, Wexler & Walker Public, Public Policy Associates, November 2002, "Final Report of the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, NSS Aerospace Commission, http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacepolicy/2002AerospaceCommission.html Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal government. 2 This translates into two broad missions-- Defend America and Project Power--when and where needed. In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy. The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contributions to homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communications for emergency responders, imagery for recovery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and the security and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport. As recent events in Afghanistan and Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation's aerospace capabilities is an--and perhaps the-essential ingredient in force projection and expeditionary operations. In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, command, control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facilities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical locations. And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts. Today's military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial base--measured in both human capital and physical facilities--that are aging and increasingly inadequate. Consider just a few of the issues: * Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reliable access to space is a critical enabler of this capability. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today, however, worldwide demand for commercial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing--and is not expected to rise for a decade or more--while the number of available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a commerciallydriven market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured access to space must be found.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

55

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 Conventional Wars

Current spacepower is used for support functions to land-based military M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen The purpose of security spacepower is to provide capabilities to assist in achieving political and military objectives. It is an independent form of power that can be used alone or in concert with other forms of power to achieve desired ends. Space is a place where humans live and place uninhabited systems that help resolve problems. It begins above the Earth's surface at the lowest altitude where a satellite can sustain a circular orbit, albeit briefly, at approximately 93 miles and extends outward to infinityexcluding heavenly bodies.36 Eventually, humanity will extend its interests fully across cislunar space and beyond, especially for economic development. Security spacepower will protect those interests, just as navies protect passage and commerce on the seas. Someday in the future, populations and their political entities will likely migrate into space as well. For now, however, humans live on the surface of the Earth, and contemporary spacepower in this context refers to the struggles occurring there, but this will evolve over time to include the cislunar region and the Moon.

Space power key to surveillance and information gathering M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen The reason for going to near-Earth space for security purposes is to gain access to regions of the Earth where terrestrial forces either cannot go or cannot loiter as economically as some satellites. A relatively small number of similar satellites spread out in orbital space can survey the entire Earth's surface, which gives space-based constellations the ability to perform missions on a global scale. States perform many missions in space. In the opening years of the 21st century, these missions are primarily informationalthat is, providing command, control, communications, and computer (C4) support; positioning, navigation, and timing; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); and weather support to terrestrial forces, among others. Air, land, and sea forces also perform missions like these, but only space systems (and some terrestrial cyber networks) perform them continuously on a global scale. These space networks create a global infrastructure that links together expeditionary forces deployed anywhere in the world and connects these forces with each other in all media, and with their leadership.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

56

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 I/L XTN Aerospace k2 International Co-op

Space supremacy fosters international cooperation through transparency and deters conflicts M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen Conclusion The primary value of spacepower is war prevention, not support to warfighters. It does this by providing transparency into observable human activities around the globe and into space that removes uncertainties and security concerns or allows them to be addressed with a better approximation of the facts. Space also provides opportunities for cooperative ventures on spacefaring activities across all sectors. These ventures can become the framework of better international relationships and confidence-building maneuvers between potential adversaries. Powerful spacefaring states may be able to use martial space strength in traditional ways, such as providing assurances and using dissuasive and deterrent strategies, to prevent wars.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

57

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Impact Space Wars/Escalation Space militarization is inevitable but evolution of defensive systems can deter escalation M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen If history serves as a template for the future in space, then space will become a warfighting medium. It is already heavily militarized, with powerful spacefaring states using the medium to enable their surveillance and reconnaissance strike complexes in ways that accelerate the scale, timing, and tempo of combat operations exponentially beyond non-spacefaring actors' ability to cope. Weak actors are likely to employ space weapons in an attempt to counter the advantage space confers on powerful states. The most dangerous situation, however, occurs if two powerful spacefaring states go to war with each other. If the motives are intense, it is likely that they will be forced to counter each other's space systems in the very early stages. At present, there are inadequate defenses for space systems, but defense is possible. Space denial strategies of warfare are likely to evolve, wherein a belligerent merely attacks an adversary's space systems to inflict costs or to induce strategic paralysis on the enemy before offering terms. Finally, space is very much part of the military mix of all actors, state and nonstate, and it must be recognized that spacepower is not a replacement for terrestrial forces, but an additional set of tools that delivers unique capabilities.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

58

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Space Wars
Space wars are inevitable strategic value of space guarantees conflict over it M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen In anticipating the future of spacepower for theoretical discussion, we can do little more than extract a roadmap from the history of human activity and extrapolate forward. The preponderance of evidence suggests that space will be no different than air, land, and sea regarding warfare. In the words of Colin Gray: It is a rule in strategy, one derived empirically from the evidence of two and a half millennia, that anything of great strategic importance to one belligerent, for that reason has to be worth attacking by others. And the greater the importance, the greater has to be the incentive to damage, disable, capture, or destroy it. In the bluntest of statements: space warfare is a certainty in the future because the use of space in war has become vital. . . . Regardless of public sentimental or environmentally shaped attitudes towards space as the pristine final frontier, space warfare is coming.20 The strategic value of space to states is not in question. Advanced spacefaring states are already reliantand moving toward dependenceon space-derived services for activities across every sector of their societies. Spacepower is becoming critical to their styles of warfighting. Likewise, the injury that can be caused to such states by menacing their space systems can be considerable. Given these incentives, the beast of war will either break its chains all at once or stretch them slowly over time.21 Like war itself, space warfare, the decision to build space weapons, and whether or not to weaponize space are all matters of policy, not theory.22 It is the job of theory to anticipate such developments given the template that history suggests. Land, air-, and seapower lend imperfect analogies to spacepower, but they are applicable enough to see that spacepower may have its own grammar, but not its own logic.23 The logic of statecraft and warfare laid out in Sun Tzu's The Art of War and in Carl von Clausewitz' On War applies to spacepower as well as any other element of military power. A student of spacepower must become thoroughly familiar with both of these works.24 War is a political activity and therefore a human activity with a long history that serves as a guide path. Spacepower is already part of the warfighting mix in the political and strategic unity of war, and this trend will continue.25 Some predict that spacepower will make the greatest contributions to combat effectiveness in wars of the 21st century.26

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

59

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Air Force/Army Tradeoff

Spacepower wont trade off with other forces must work in coordination M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen Space forces do not compete with terrestrial forces for roles and missions. Airpower, land power, seapower, spacepower, and now cyberpower bring different capabilities to modern warfare. The armed forces of many nations train their warfighters in highly specialized ways with the objective of being able to dominate operations within their respective media. Operations in each media require centralized control by practitioners of that form of power, in close coordination with the other warfighters, to ensure the optimum management of resources and integration of efforts to achieve the objectives of strategy.

Wont trade off with other forces economics and strength in redundancy M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen When space forces eventually obtain systems that can create physical effects at any location on the surface of the Earth (for example, conventional bombing), this will not replace the standing requirement for aircraft and missiles to be able to do the same thing, just as the bomber did not replace artillery. Space operations are expensive, and economic considerations may require air delivery of munitions. Exceptions include times when cost is not a consideration, such as combat in areas where aircraft are denied access, when aircraft cannot respond to a time-critical situation as quickly as spacecraft, when only a specialized weapon delivered from space will have the desired probability of killing a target, and when surprise is of the utmost importance. There is unquestionably some overlap between the capabilities of spacepower and other forms of power, but this is a source of strength, not waste. Just as the triad of bombers, submarines, and missiles during the Cold War prevented either adversary from gaining a significant advantage should their opponent successfully counter one set of capabilities, today's redundancy prevents an adversary from gaining a significant advantage should they successfully counter space-based systems or other terrestrial forces. There will be some adjustments in force structures as space capabilities become more robust, but no mission in any service should ever move entirely to space. Under no circumstances should all of the eggs ever be placed in the space basket. Instead, there should be an integrated combined arms approach.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

60

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Hostile Hegemony
US space hegemony would be largely a peaceful effort Bruce W. MacDonald, is a consultant in technology and national security management and is currently senior director to the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. From 1995 to 1999, he was assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and technology on the National Security Council staff. Earlier, MacDonald was a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee and was national security adviser to Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR). He also worked for the State Department as a nuclear weapons expert in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he led the Interagency START Policy Working Group and served on the U.S. START delegation in Geneva. MacDonald holds a BSE from Princeton in aerospace engineering and two master's degrees from Princeton one in aerospace engineering and a second in public and international affairs. May 11, 20 11, Testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review commission on The Implications of Chinas Military and Civil Space Programs, United States Institute of space //ZY The overall U.S. goal in space should be to shape the space domain to the advantage of the United States and its allies, and to do so in ways that are stabilizing and enhance U.S. and allied security. The United States has an overriding interest in maintaining the safety, survival, and function of its space assets so that the profound military, civilian, and commercial benefits they enable can continue to be available to the United States and its allies. This need not mean that China and others must perforce be disadvantaged by such an arrangement - there should be ample opportunity for many countries to benefit and prosper from a properly crafted system of space management. There is an inherent risk of strategic instability when relatively modest defense efforts create disproportionate danger to an adversary, as with space offense. And there is a serious risk of crisis instability in space when "going first" pays off- destroying an adversary's satellites before he destroys yours. We don't know what would happen in a crisis, but the potential for space instability seems high and likely to grow.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

61

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Heg Bad
Heg bad turns dont apply the plan creates positive leadership NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10-10-2007, Space Based Solar Power:As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for positive international leadership and partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for energy, development, climate, and space. If the United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international community is even hungrier for solutions to these issues. While the US may be able to afford increased energy prices, the very availability and stability of energy is a threat to other countries internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to bypass much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy from a reliable source at receiver stations that can be built by available domestic labor pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Your turns doesnt apply dominance is inevitable, its only a question of who John. J. Miller, national political reporter for National Review, 7-15-2002, Our 'Next Manifest Destiny': America should move to
control space -- now, and decisively National Review, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/714383/posts Space power is now in its infancy, just as air power was when the First World War erupted in 1914. Back then, military planes initially were used to observe enemy positions. There was an informal camaraderie among pilots; Germans and French would even wave when they flew by each other. Yet it wasn't long before the reality of war took hold and they began shooting. The skies were not to be a safe haven. The lesson for space is that some country inevitably will move to seize control of it, no matter how much money the United States sinks into feel-good projects like the International Space Station. Americans have been caught napping before, as when the Soviet Union shocked the world with Sputnik in 1957. In truth, the United States could have beaten the Soviets to space but for a deliberate slow-down strategy that was meant to foster sunny relations with the world's other superpower.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

62

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***COMPETITIVENESS***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

63

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Tech Leadership

Space development is key to strategic leadership National Research Council, the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies providing scientific and technical services, 2009, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs, pg. 42 Surely, a vigorous civil space program will be a strong signal that our future as a nation is promising, that life can be better, that our prospects are boundless. Civil space assets, with their global perspective on the changing Earth, can provide knowledge to enable wise stewardship of our planet's bounty. We can become a true space-faring society with new opportunities for our economy. Civil space activities will add to knowledge of our place in the cosmos and thereby expand the cultural richness of our nation. The United States, leading by example and in cooperation with others in the exploration and utilization of space, can be a strategic leader in the world, not to be feared or despised, but rather to be valued for its concerted attention to basic challenges facing people worldwide.

A highly competent workforce is key to solve aerospace competitiveness National Research Council, the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies providing scientific and technical services, 2009, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs, pg. 53-54 The United States has been a space-faring nation for more than 50 years, and the experienced aerospace workforce that pioneered the exploration of space and engineered notable past accomplishments is quickly retiring. As of February 2009, more than 60 percent of NASA's full-time permanent employees were at least 45 years old, and nearly one quarter of employees were above 55. Assessments of the U.S. aerospace industry workforce give similar results for private sector employees.8 The urgent need to replenish the aerospace science and engineering talent pool spans both civil and military space and is particularly critical in the aerospace industry. Civilian and military agencies and private industry are all codependent on the same highly skilled aerospace workforce. A recent NRC report,9 as well as others, also emphasized that certain skill areas, especially systems engineering and project management, are particularly understaffed and vulnerable to further shortages. To address those specific needs, a follow-on NRC report calls for more opportunities to provide hands-on training and experience with spaceflight development programs. 10 A strong aerospace engineering workforce is only one component of the overall demand in our country for a strong science and engineering workforce. Aerospace engineering requirements compete nationally for much of the same technically trained talent needed across the broad research and engineering sectors of our country. Unfortunately, the United States is not meeting the consolidated needs for science and engineering expertise. Rising Above the Gathering Storm addressed this issue holistically and concluded that [T]he scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. We strongly believe that a world-wide strengthening will benefit the world's economy particularly in the creation of jobs in countries that are far less well-off than the United Statesbut we are worried about the future prosperity of the United States. Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lostif indeed it can be regained at all (p. 3). The committee faJly concurs with the findings and recommendations of that report, especially with respect to recruiting and training a skilled technical workforce and supporting long-term, potentially high-payoff basic research. Without a strong, diverse workforce, the civil space program will be unable to meet the opportunities and challenges it faces.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

64

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
SBSP solves competitiveness creates an educated workforce and tech opportunities NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true Manhattan or Apollo project for energy. In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high paying jobs. It would require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness Initiative.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

65

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Tech Leadership/Civil Programs

Reusable launch vehicle tech is key to civil space programs and competitiveness National Research Council, the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies providing scientific and technical services, 2009, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs, pg. 56-58 Future U.S. leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances that can enable the development of more capable, reliable, and lower-cost spacecraft and launch vehicles to achieve space program goals. A strong advanced technology development foundation is needed also to enhance technology readiness of new missions, mitigate their technological risks, improve the quality of cost estimates, and thereby contribute to better overall mission cost management. Space research and development efforts can take advantage of advances from other fieldsand can contribute back to those fields. For example, civil space programs can benefit from and contribute to the state of the art in advanced materials, computational design and modeling, batteries and other energy-storage devices, fuel-cell and compact nuclear power systems, fault-tolerant electronics, optics, and robotics. This scientific synergy extends the ability to accomplish more capable and dramatic missions in space, as well as to contribute to broader national interests driving innovation in other areas of terrestrial application. The unique challenges of the space environment make demands on technology in ways that often accelerate the development pace and advance the understanding of the foundations of technologies. The responsibility to provide for this advanced technology base for civil space activities rests with NASA, in partnership with universities, other government agencies, and industry. The "customers" for the products of technology are NASA, NOAA, industry, and military space programs in which multiple-use technology is applicable. Because of budget pressures and institutional priorities, however, NASA has largely abandoned its role in supporting the broad portfolio of civil space applications, and the space technology base has thus been allowed to erode and is now deficient. The former NASA advanced technology development program no longer exists. Most of what remained was moved to the Constellation Program and has become oriented specifically to risk reduction supporting the ongoing internal development program.11 To fulfill NASA's broader mandate, an independent advanced technology development effort is required, much like that accomplished by DARPA in the DOD, focused not so much on technology that today's program managers require but on what future program managers would wish they could have if they knew they needed it, or would want if they knew they could have it. This effort should engage the best science and engineering talent in the country wherever it residesin universities, industry, NASA centers, or other government laboratoriesindependent of pressures to sustain competency at the NASA centers. A DARPA-like organization established within NASA should report to NASA's Administrator, be independent of ongoing NASA development programs, and focus on supporting the broad civil space portfolio through the competitive funding of world-class technology and innovation projects at universities, federally funded research and development centers, government research laboratories, and NASA centers. A solid technology base is essential to the U.S. civil space program. Yet financial support for this technology base has eroded over the years. The United States is now living on the innovation funded in the past and has an obligation to replenish this foundational element. Furthermore, the synergy between research and education will yield even greater benefits if funding supports an extramural program at U.S. universities. University research ensures a diverse approach, connection to a broad research community, and encouragement of a pipeline of technically talented men and women for the U.S. workforce. SUMMARY COMMENTS Four foundational elementsan integrated strategy, a highly capable technical workforce, an effectively sized infrastructure, and a priority investment in technology and innovationare necessary for a robust and productive U.S. civil space program. In the annual discussions of individual programs and agency budgets, these elements are not often mentioned, and if they are it is usually in some small aside. However, the U.S. civil space program would have more effect, a broader reach, and a greater connection to the American people if senior officials paid more attention to these elements. The U.S. civil space program has become integral to achieving goals significant to the nation. Civil space activities offer the promise of helping to address challenging national imperatives, such as ensuring national security, protecting the environment, providing clean and affordable energy, meeting 21st-century needs for education, sustaining global economic competitiveness, and promoting beneficial international relations. Because civil space activities benefit citizens' lives and the national interest in so many tangible and intangible ways, the U.S. civil space program should be structured and provided with resources commensurate with its multiple responsibilities. The committee concluded that given their demonstrated utility and future promise, elements of the civil program should be aligned to fully serve the larger national interest, and decisions about civil space priorities, strategies, and programs, and the resources to achieve them, should always be made with a conscious view toward their linkages to broad national interests.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

66

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 I/L XTN Competitiveness k2 Heg

Establishing technological dominance is a prerequisite to any attempt at space supremacy Richard S. Stapp, In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements of ACSC by Major, March 19 97
A Research Paper Presented To The Research Department Air Command and Staff College, SPACE DOMINANCE CAN THE AIR FORCE CONTROL SPACE?//ZY Since the early days of the space race, the US has realized the advantage that comes with controlling the heavens. General Thomas D. White, then Air Force Chief of Staff, was quoted in 1957 as saying in the future, whoever has the capability to control space, will likewise possess the capability to exert control of the surface of the earth.10 This prophetic statement was fully realized nearly 35 years later in the desert of the Middle East. The Gulf War made perfectly clear the advantage space gives the controlling party. Touted by some as the first Space War, the use of space based communications, reconnaissance, and navigation greatly enhanced the coalition forces ability to prosecute the war. While the US use of space was never contested, it is unlikely that future conflicts will be waged against enemies with such limited space capability. Each year, the technological margin the US has over the rest of the world is eroded. Future conflicts will likely involve nations with significant space capability. The importance space will play in future conflicts can not be overemphasized. Just as the US has become increasingly dependent, both militarily and economically, on the use ofspace,theremainderoftheworldhasbeguntoexperiencethesamephenomenon. The US and USSR no longer hold a monopoly on space exploration and development. A number of nations now have from limited to advanced space capabilities. Future space 5control will depend on our adversarys capabilities in space. Just as air superiority can be achieved against an inferior enemy air force, space superiority can likewise be achieved against an inferior enemy space force. In the past, the US has counted on this inferiority to maintain dominance in space. With the technological margin rapidly fading, the US can no longer accept as default its superiority in space capability. Sophisticated enemies with the capability to use space to their advantage will continue to emerge. To counter such threats, the US must continue to lead the advance in space technology, for only by controlling the high ground of space, can the US ensure its own security and freedom of action around the world. Technology is a binary function; it either exists or it doesnt. Without it, nothing is possible. With it, anything is possible. Technology is the linchpin which allows space operations to be achievable and effective. Without the technology to develop and employ the systems required for space dominance, no effective space control policy can ever be instituted. Just as air superiority requires advanced aircraft and weapons systems, space control requires advanced spacecraft and space systems. So, does the technology to support a policy of space control exist? If it doesnt, space control is impossible. If it does, the question is no longer whether its possible, but rather, is it feasible?

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

67

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Economy

Decline in competitiveness crushes the economy and ends hegemony Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China, November/December 20 04, Is America Losing its Edge? Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60260/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

Economic collapse causes global war Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. The New Republic, Only Makes You Stronger, February 4 2009. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-854292e83915f5f8&p=2 AD 6/30/09) Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads-but it has other, less reassuring messages as well.If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

68

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

69

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency China
China is threatening United States space based softpower MARA IMRAN, QUALS,SEPTEMBER 2010, CHINAS SPACE PROGRAM: A NEW TOOL FOR PRC SOFT POWER IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? Space has become another area where China is exerting its soft power. It is positioning itself as a space benefactor to the developing world-the same countries in some cases, whose natural resources China covets. China not only designed, built and launched a satellite oil rich Nigeria but also combined it with a major loan to help pay the costs . It has signed a similar contract with Venezuela and is developing an earth observation satellite system with Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru and Thailand. 50 In addition to serving national security and domestic civilian use of space, Chinas space activities are also being used as a tool for diplomacy. The nations space related international cooperation efforts, which began with a bilateral arrangement for satellite development, have blossomed to include the establishment of satellite tracking stations and a leading role in multilateral frameworks. Chinas pursuit of such

international cooperation is expected to expand in the future, and will likely help the nation to secure its necessary supply of resources and energy. In light of this posture and Chinas growing efforts to provide African nations with official development assistance and debt relief, projects like the China-Nigeria partnership in communication satellite development and launches can be seen as examples of Chinas exploitation of space activities as a diplomatic tool. It is highly probable that competition between China and other advanced space- faring nations will intensify with regard to space development and use in general. The use of space is certain to become an increasingly vital element of Chinas security and civil needs. However, as a nation that operates in the globalized world, China is starting to realize that growth in science and technology cannot be achieved outside of that environment.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

70

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN U.S. Soft Power Leadership (1/2)

SBSP is uniquely key to soft power Bruce Dorminey, U.S.-based science journalist and former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week and Space Technology and former Paris-based technology correspondent for the Financial Times newspaper, 10-25-09, Snagging Free-Range Solar Power in
Space Is an Option, Miller-McCune, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/snagging-free-range-solar-power-in-spaceis-an-option-3382/ A U.S. Department of Defense space solar power project, with an estimated top-end budget in the hundreds of millions, could also help the U.S. project what Damphousse terms soft power. Its no real stretch to equate energy security with national security, Damphousse said. Overpopulation and scarcity of resources translates into conflicts. So, we are not only in the business of war fighting; we are in the business of war prevention. To that end, he said, a 2,500-kilogram space solar power satellite could see launch within the next five years. In addition, space solar technology may provide a solution for developing nations that have both a need for energy and telecommunications but lack infrastructure. Once deployed, I doubt you would ever build a conventional communications satellite again, said James Mankins, a former NASA technologist and co-founder of the Virginia-based Managed Energy Technologies. You would piggyback communications of all kinds around the edges of the power beamer. You could provide gigabits-per-second bandwidth at a bargain-basement price.

Space development is key to multilateral alliances and global leadership National Research Council, the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies providing scientific and technical services, 2009, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs, pg. 42-43 Strategic leadership for the United States means thinking about the future in a way that sees beyond immediate and particularly American needs and policiessuch as ensuring access to resources or a temporary military advantageand positioning the nation to help set an agenda for worldwide action. In considering both its own national interests and benefits to humankind, the United States should aim for more than immediate solutions to transitory problems and should find approaches that seek to shape the future. Space is viewed by many countries of the world as a global commons, a resource not owned by any one nation but crucial to the future of all humankind. Indeed, human beings around the world view space not just as a place, but rather as symbolic of the future itself. For U.S. exertion of strategic leadership there is thus no venue more special than space. Through its efforts and achievements, the nation has earned its position of leadership in space. True strategic leadership will be achieved not by dominance, which in many cases is no longer possible, but by example and in cooperation with other nations. In addition to protecting those activities in space that are judged to be essential to U.S. national interest, and for which the United States must continue as an undisputed leader, there should also always be concern for the larger world and for how the United States is viewed as a benevolent nation with foresight and determination to make a better world for all humankind. A goal of the U.S. civil space program is to enhance U.S. global strategic leadership through leadership in civil space activities. Strategic Leadership The goals just enumeratedEarth stewardship, scientific discovery, expanding human frontiers, technological, economic, and societal benefits, and inspirationprovide the foundation for a preeminent U.S. civil space program. If America chooses to achieve these goals, in support of national interests and in the interests of the world at large, we can also achieve a goal of particular importanceto enhance U.S. strategic leadership

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

71

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN U.S. Soft Power Leadership (2/2)

SSP solves US space diplomacy Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 In recent months, the National Research Council (NRC) has stated that NASAs SSP has important commercial, civil and military applications for the nation. The NRC went on the recommend that industry experts, academia and officials from other government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and the National Reconnaissance Office should be engaged in charting SSP activities, along with NASA. The NRC also says that significant breakthroughs are still required to achieve the final goal of producing cost-effective terrestrial power. Specifically, the NRC concluded, as has this paper that the ultimate success of SSP for terrestrial power critically depends on dramatic reductions in the cost of transportation from Earth to orbit. The SSP reviewers at the NRC conclude by calling for ground demonstrations of point-to-point wireless transmission of power. NASA, the panel also says, should study the desirability of ground to space and space-to-space demonstrations by using the International Space Station as a test platform for SSP related hardware.51 This paper has examined current research into SSP from the perspective of national and international security in the face of potential terrorist sabotage of U.S. and global energy grids. The promise of and institutional commitment to inflatable space structures for SSP and a variety of human activity in space is perhaps the most exiting revelation of this research. This paper also considered the potential diplomatic advantages to including the developing world, as much as possible in developing SSP as a common human endeavor. The final conclusion of this paper is that mobilization around SSP would indeed be a worthy expression of the economic, social, political and military power of the United States.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

72

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN International (1/3)

SPG has international consensus desire for clean energy and stopping climate change overrides concerns Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen The SPG involves placing a substantial number of satellites into low/mid earth orbit, and several large ultralight collectors into high orbits. There will be powerful beams of energy crisscrossing between these. Cooperative regulation could be modeled after the various UN agreements that allot orbit sectors and frequency bandwidth to nations to enable the communication satellites, the GPS, Galileo and Glonass global positioning systems. A global solar power grid in Space should meet with support from all the spacefaring nations, and from most non-spacefaring nations. Already, apart from the US and Europe, Japan, which has few fossil power resources, has a very strong program[24,25] for space solar power. China has been tapped by the European Union for participation in a power grid. Russia, China, Africa and Australia have vast undeveloped areas that are suitable for renewable power generation but lack terrestrial power grids, while the many island nations of the world would benefit from beamed power as a replacement for fossil power. India, with a growing space program, has already invested heavily in microwave infrastructure for communications, and should be amenable to converting some of that to power beaming purposes. With the next round of the Climate Control global agreement due in 2013, consensus appears to have emerged on the issues confronting nations, as well as the possibility of concerted global action. This generates a climate ripe for undertaking the massive collaborative effort that can lead to true energy independence.

International desire for renewables boosts SPS success adds market incentive Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen II. THE NEW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY: RENEWABLE POWER AND CLIMATE CONTROL IMPERATIVES Briefly, our Space Power Grid (SPG) approach is a 3-stage process to bring about full SSP, through synergy with the terrestrial Renewable Energy and Climate Control initiatives. Today rising energy demand is driving construction of renewable power plants around the world. The global imperative to control emissions of heat and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) into the atmosphere provides additional opportunities. Issues that arise from these areas are summarized below. a. Baseload Qualification for Wind and Solar Power The market value of electric power is much higher if the supplier can guarantee a certain level of power generation, and meet sudden peaks in demand. Such power qualifies for the status of baseload power[14]. Solar, wind and tidal plants are fundamentally inhibited by 3 problems: !" The best places to extract renewable power are highaltitude and remote deserts, plateau edges, mountain slopes, glacier bases and coastlines. Much of the planet has either no power grid or low-capacity, outdated power grids, and hence transmission costs are high. On the other hand, large temporal fluctuations in demand, and price occur mainly in the big cities and industrial areas. #" All solar and wind plants are handicapped by large fluctuations or day-night / seasonal cycles and weather. Many use fossil-burning, GHG-emitting auxiliary generators to qualify for baseload status, but this means having to install twice the capacity that the plant can sell. $" The installed cost per unit power is high for solar and wind plants, even without having to install inefficient auxiliary generators and associated infrastructure. b. Climate Change and the Carbon Market The confluence of the energy crunch and climate change concerns, bring an unusual opportunity. For the first time, there is a source of significant revenue and international mandate associated with replacing fossil-generated power.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

73

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN International (2/3)

International acceptance of renewable energy sets the perfect conditions for SPS promotes collaboration and security Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen CONCLUSIONS In this paper, the purpose, obstacles and issues in bringing space solar power to earth are discussed. The present congruence of international interest in renewable energy sources and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provide a window of opportunity to bring about Space Solar Power in synergy with the development of clean renewable power on earth. The policy initiatives advanced in Europe for comparable solar power grid project are discussed. The special features of the space power grid are presented, and shown to provide an excellent vehicle for global collaboration. While substantial technical challenges remain, it is shown that there are viable paths for these challenges, as well as for the economics and public/ international collaboration needed to make Space Solar Power available to humanity. The public policy initiatives needed for renewable energy, are seen to be acceptable in many nations. Security concerns that appear to pose formidable obstacles are cited as also posing unprecedented opportunities for wel-controlled collaboration between nations, through the participation of personnel who are cleared at the individual level, and through sequestering of technologies particular to the project as done in the European Space Agencys projects. The European TRANS-CP project is cited as a relevant current initiative to develop suitable policy.

Civilian nature of SBSP enhances global transparency and understanding US and Soviet Union prove M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen Partnering. Another opportunity that spacepower provides for managing security concerns is capitalizing on collaborative international security space arrangements to provide global transparency, space situational awareness, and space traffic management, to name just a few. Such partnerships need not be limited to security-related functions, but must cross into civil and commercial endeavors as well, such as space-based solar power, human missions to the Moon and Mars, space stations, space-based astronomy, and so forth. The goal is not only to accomplish something meaningful in space, but also to build mutual understanding and rapport among the participating states. The American and Soviet joint venture on the Apollo-Soyuz mission in the mid-1970s is one such example. Although the tangible scientific benefits of the exercise are debatable, it demonstrated to both parties and to the international community that cooperation on a very challenging task is possible, even between the two Cold War antagonists with their widely divergent strategic cultures. This civil spacepower effort became a point of departure for other confidence-building gestures between the two and certainly eased tensions in the homelands and among the rest of the world as well, thereby reducing security concerns. Partnering on spacefaring projects brings together more brilliant minds and resources to solve problems and to advance the art. It not only heightens the likelihood of success of those programs, but over time it also reduces the friction during peacetime between states, decreases the potential for cultural misunderstandings, increases the opportunities for alliance, integrates aspects of each state's economic and industrial base, and fosters working relationships between governments.8

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

74

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN International (3/3)

SSP provides us with space partnerships with Russia, Europe, Canada, and Japan Dr. Donald M. Goldstein, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, The University of Pittsburgh, April 15, 2002, The
New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor, Special Topics in International Security, http://www.die.unipd.it/~benato/download/nationalgrid/Documenti/Space%2520Solar%2520Power1.pdf The NASA fresh look study set out to determine whether an SSP system could achieve the following: Deliver energy to power grids at prices equal to or below Earth based alternatives. Deliver energy into a variety of markets without major environmental damage. Be developed at a fraction of the costs for the 1979 SPS Reference System. There are significant factors in the new SPS development that did not exist twenty years ago. They include: Increasing concern regarding the probable link between carbon combustion, Co2 emissions and global climate change. The International Program on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provide strong evidence that Earths temperature has increased by at least 0.5 to1.0 degrees Fahrenheit during the past century. More than 2400 scientists believe that the probable cause of this increase is the result of the unprecedented use of oil, coal and gas (fossil fuels) during the 20 th century for both transportation and energy production. New opportunities for partnerships in space with Russia, Europe, Canada and Japan. New relationship between government and industries in space. NASA has focused more on the function of research and development while industry has begun to develop more of 19 Mankins, A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power. 10 the operational systems. 20 The United Space Alliance between Boeing and Lockheed Martin with respect to maintaining shuttle operations to the International Space Station is the primary example of this new relationship.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

75

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Developing Countries

SBPS boosts international cooperation developing countries want a reliable energy infrastructure NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for positive international leadership and partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for energy, development, climate, and space. If the United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international community is even hungrier for solutions to these - 16 - issues. While the US may be able to afford increased energy prices, the very availability and stability of energy is a threat to other countries internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to bypass much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy from a reliable source at receiver stations that can be built by available domestic labor pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Spacepower cooperation boosts international soft power even among developing countries M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen Partnering is not always easy, as the members of the International Space Station or the mostly European states belonging to the Galileo Consortium will attest. In fact, it can be frustrating and even maddening. Disparate economic strengths, distribution of resources, and talent give each state a different value as a potential partner. States that are rich in some areas will be highly sought after as partners. Poorer states will not. However, from a partnership perspective, all are valuable as prospective partners as part of a collaborative international security arrangement. The opportunities that spacepower offers spacefaring and non-spacefaring states alike in the forms of global transparency and international partnering in order to prevent wars are entirely different from opportunities provided by operations in any other media. The strategic cultures of most statesespecially weaker or developing ones that are not yet spacefaringwill find the indirect methods highly attractive and engender soft power to the leaders of such efforts.9 These approaches may be sufficient for most states' space-related security needs while reducing their security concerns inside the terrestrial confines.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

76

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN European Union

The E.U. wants to work in space Doug Messier, a communications expert hold a masters degree in Science, Technology and Public Policy from The George
Washington University, where he studied at the Space Policy Institute. graduate of the International Space University and holds a B.A. in Journalism from Rider University., 4/7, EU Extends Sphere of Operations Into Space, parabolicarc.com The European Union is increasingly involving itself in space policy and programs, areas that it has largely left to the European Space Agency and various national space agencies. The unions space initiatives include: building the Galileo satellite navigation system; developing an integrated space policy; pursuing a space industrial policy in cooperation with ESA and member states; increasing Europes independence in space; and deepening cooperation with nations outside of Europe, in particular China. The EUs increasing role in space is a result of the Lisbon Treaty, which went into effect for the 27-member union in 2009. The EU says the treaty gave it an explicit role in designing a policy for the exploration and exploitation of space in order to promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies. The Commission will pursue the dialogue with its key partners United States and Russia and will initiate discussion with other space faring nations such as China in order to develop more synergies. Space should become an integral part of the EUs external policy in particular to the benefit of Africa.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

77

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Space Wars

Space multilateralism prevents a space weapons conflict Roger Harrison, Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, summer 2010, SPACE and DEFENSE,
EISENHOWER CENTER FOR SPACE AND DEFENSE STUDIES, http://www.unidir.ch/unidir-views/pdf/pdf-uv-30-33.pdf The Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 provides the basic foundation for international space law, and could be seen as the central pillar of the current multilateral institutional framework. 4 OST was primarily negotiated in a bilateral back and forth between the United States and the Soviet Union, both of which submitted drafts to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1966, as a means of mitigating what both sides saw as a risky elevation of the nuclear arms race to space, and to quell growing fears of just such a 4 For a brief history of the treaty negotiations, see Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/ outerspace (accessed April 2010). nuclear space race among the international community. 5 Most critically, the OST establishes space as a global commons not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. 6 It further prohibits the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space or on celestial bodies; limits uses of the Moon and other celestial bodies to exclusively peaceful purposes; and forbids the establishment of military bases, the testing of weapons, and military maneuvers on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

78

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact US China Space War

A U.S. China space arms race would mean extinctionWMD and CBW strikes
Dr. Gordon Mitchell, associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense, 7/2001 Missile Defense: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads, No. 6., http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html) A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

79

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***INDIA***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

80

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (1/4)

Mutual energy interests ensure cooperation over SPS Taylor Dinerman, Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City, 9, Should India and the US cooperate on
space solar power? spacereview.com If the US has a serious medium-term need for a very large new source of clean energy, India needs it even more. While there is a lot of talk about terrestrial solar, wind, and geothermal power as alternatives to coalwhich seems to be currently politically unacceptableor nuclearwhich has its own set of political problems but whose greatest drawback may simply be the length of time it takes to build new power plantsspace solar power (SSP) may be the only alternative that could be made to work before the major global electricity demand crisis hits, around the year 2050. In Washington lots of people have complained that the Obama Administration has so far not given the India-US relationship the attention it deserves. Others are waiting to see if this relatively new team is going to follow up on the progress made by both the Clinton and the George W. Bush Administrations in building a real friendship between the two democratic giants. The one area in which there seems to be movement on, though, is a renewable energy partnership. From Indias standpoint the government does take the energy problem very seriously. While they connect it with the question of climate change, they have made it clear that they are not willing to inflict economic pain on their people in order to appease those in the West who are demanding that they cease their current drive to climb out of mass poverty in the name of the environment. Former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee made this clear when he spoke at the Asia Society in New York last year and said, It is therefore completely one sided to target countries like India, whose emissions though modest are rising, but fail to bring to account those who have been responsible for more than 70% of the accumulated emissions in the atmosphere. Recognizing the potential weakness of a case based strictly on the question of climate change, Mukherjee was wise enough to add that even if there were no climate change arguments, considerations of energy security alone would require a medium to long term strategy of implementing a strategic shift from fossil fuels to non fossil fuels. He called for a major R&D effort to develop applications that that can provide convenient, cost effective large scale applications of solar energy. Any analysis of the potential of terrestrial solar energy in India or elsewhere runs up against the awesome size of the future demand for power. Photovoltaic panels on rooftops and solar water heaters all make excellent small-scale contributions to the solution, but they cannot by any stretch of the imagination fulfill the requirements of a huge growing economy like Indias. Only SSP, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year after year, can hope to meet this need. Fortunately both India and the US have space programs and technologies that could, if developed together and possibly with other interested nations such as Japan, bring SSP systems into service sometime late next decade or the early 2020s. With its commitment to develop a new low cost reusable spaceplane, the India Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is already working on one of the key technologies needed for an SSP system. Indian participation in both private and public SSP programs should be welcomed by the US. Ehe US government should make an effort to facilitate this by helping with visas and work permits for qualified Indian scientists and engineers. Recent moves towards reforming the notorious International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) should include ensuring that SSP systems are covered by the Department of Commerce regulators rather than by the State Department, which has gained such a sorry reputation in this area. In the near term the new Indo-US renewable energy partnership would seem to be the right place to start this collaboration. Together the partners can identify what will be needed in the way of technological and scientific investments over the next decade in order to make SSP a reality. India has lots of talent that can be committed to this effort and so does the US. In fact, the kind of ambitious idealism that we saw at NASA during the Apollo years could be engendered by this goal. Safe, clean, abundant energy from the Sun is not an impossible dream. The technology has not been perfected and the need for new, low-cost Earth-to-orbit transportation systems is as urgent as ever, but there are no requirements for any scientific breakthroughs.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

81

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (2/4)

Cooperation with India over space spills over to broader relations Mridul Chadha, environmental engineer from New Delhi, Master's in Renewable Energy Engineering and Management at The Energy and Resources Institute (University) at New Delhi, 9/13/2010, Multilateral Space-based Solar Energy Program Led by
India, US Proposed, http://cleantechnica.com/2010/09/18/multilateral-space-based-solar-energy-program-led-by-india-us-proposed/ Space-based solar power (SBSP) may soon emerge as one of the leading sectors of strategic cooperation between India and the U.S., with a recently released report (.pdf) authored by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter A. Garretson making the case for it being the next focus of the growing partnership. There are a number of reasons why SBSP may emerge as the hub for strategic industrial coordination between the two countries. First, neither country can meet its energy needs through existing clean-energy technologies, including nuclear power, and various technological advances over the past few decades have made space-based solar power a more realistic possibility. Second, the Obama administration wants to build on the foundations of bilateral relations laid by the Bush administration, and space cooperation presents an increasingly attractive option for doing so. Neither SBSP nor the idea of an international partnership as an enabler for it is new. However, the U.S. only began to view India as a major potential partner in such an endeavor in the second half of the last decade. Not surprisingly, given the nature of U.S.-India relations, it was the U.S. private sector that first highlighted India as an important market for future SBSP development, given that a huge chunk of households in India are not yet connected to a conventional electrical grid. In 2007, an interim U.S. assessment of SBSP (.pdf) identified India as a key prospective partner for collaboration. Over the same period, the Indian space program also moved beyond its traditional focus (.pdf) on remote-sensing satellites for developmental needs to more-ambitious programs, such as the Chandrayaan moon mission. India's 2008 moonshot eventually led to the independent discovery of the presence of water on the moon by American and Indian instruments carried on board. This success had a role in convincing U.S. space policymakers about Indian capabilities in integrating systems from varied sources, thereby boosting the prospects of synchronization of U.S. and Indian space architecture for a potential SBSP collaborative effort. The Chandrayaan mission was an early illustration of the space component of the overarching Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue, "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership," announced in January 2004. Unlike the other two pillars -- security and nuclear cooperation, which already have specific agreements in place -- space continues to be characterized by ad hoc arrangements. Indo-U.S. collaboration is currently characterized by a slew of agreements -- some substantial, others rudimentary -- running on parallel tracks. The idea of a multilateral spacebased solar energy program was initiated by an Indian Defense Ministry think tank, Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses. A report prepared by Peter Garretson, a US Air Force lieutenant colonel called up on the governments of India and the United States to initiate this pathbreaking project and make the space-based solar energy a commercially viable business venture by 2025. SBSP could be a point of convergence, as it is an area where significant complementarities between the two countries exist. The two most important are India's edge as a low-cost manufacturer for future SBSP components and its cheap
satellite-launch capability. Indeed, NASA may soon begin to outsource a significant chunk of low-Earth-orbit launches to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). India's attractiveness to U.S. policymakers lies in its promise for reducing costs and increasing returns. Even as NASA has shifted its focus to large, expendable launchers, ISRO continues to back re-usable launch-vehicle technology, which it believes can significantly reduce the cost of satellite launches -- a crucial condition for the sustainability of commercially deployable SBSP. The Chandrayaan mission also demonstrated India's orbittransfer capability -- a central technical component for geo-stationary and mid-Earth-orbit SBSP concepts. Among the remaining pitfalls to further cooperation, restrictive U.S. controls on high-tech exports -- which target India more than any other major nation besides Pakistan and China -- represent the most significant. Specifically, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) represent the greatest areas for concern. Garretson's report touches on these issues with regard to SBSP, asserting that an exception could be made in the case of ITAR along the lines of similar arrangements in the past. According to Garretson, India would still have to sign the MTCR, in order to

assuage U.S. concerns over nonproliferation and intellectual-property rights, given that any SBSP partnership will involve the transfer of cutting-edge technologies. However, India already complies with these regulations to a greater extent than some existing MCTR members do, so an India-specific agreement could be possible. Interestingly, a new report from the Center for New American Security argued that meaningful cooperation on SBSP requires the immediate removal of ISRO from the U.S. Entity List, which designates targets of proliferation concerns (.pdf). Policy heavyweights Karl Indefurth and Raja Mohan also recently advocated for making space the focus not only of the impending Obama visit, but of U.S.-India relations. And U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu stated (.pdf) that the U.S. will prioritize "the partnership between the two countries to advance clean energy, drawing on India's world class science resources," during Obama's visit. SBSP has already been explicitly identified at the highest levels of the Indian government as a strategic priority. With commentators in
both countries identifying the dovetailing of space and energy cooperation as the "next big thing" in Indo-U.S. relations, there are now signs that the push on both sides is lining up with all of these circumstantial "pull" factors. There is an expectation that Obama's visit will see movement on removing controls on the sale of high-tech items as a prelude to an agreement on space cooperation, with an SBSP component as a prominent focus. SBSP allows India to keep its space program focused on developmental priorities, such as energy access, while pushing the technological envelope further than ever before. Studies show that SBSP is feasible, but its ultimate

deployment will require an unprecedented bilateral effort. That effort could drive an Indo-U.S. partnership that, in Obama's words, would define the 21st century.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

82

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (3/4)

SPS development would boost relations, as India is already in pursuit of SPS Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), Observer Research Foundation, New
Delhi. Her areas of research include US foreign and security policy, military strategies of major Asian powers including China, US, Japan and Russia, space and nuclear security., 4/2, orfonline.com With the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, isnt it time for India and the US to make serious commitments to Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP)? Japanese crisis has triggered worldwide re-thinking on the feasibility of pursuing nuclear energy to meet growing global energy demands. This has kick-started a debate also in India not only on the safety of nuclear plants but also on other energy options. It is time that India and the United States and the countries around the world looked at an often-overlooked option: SBSP. The idea of harnessing SBSP as an option originated in the United States some 40 years ago. But it has not been pursued with vigour for a variety of reasons, including possibly the influence of nuclear lobbyists. In simple terms, SBSP is described thus by Lt. Col. Peter Garretson of the US Air Force: "In this concept, very large satellites, the largest ever constructed, made up of kilometers of solar cells, would collect the Suns energy where there is no night, and convert it to radio-waves to be beamed to special receiving antenna farms on
the ground (called rectennas) about the size of a small airport. The energy is sent in the form of a low energy beam at about 1/6th the intensity of normal sunlight that falls on earth. But because it is a low-energy, non-ionizing wavelength, it is not as dangerous as sunlight with its high energy ultraviolet rays. At the rectenna, the energy is reconverted and sent via the existing electrical grid. Such satellites would necessitate a fleet of re-useable space planes, and as a consequence of economies of scale, reduce the cost of space access a hundred fold, enabling many other applications.2 It is estimated that one kilometre-wide band of geo-synchronous earth bit can produce solar flux to match as much as the total amount of energy produced from all the different recoverable oil reserves on Earth. The idea was promoted by none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam first at the Aeronautical Society of India (AeSI) and later again at a press conference in Washington DC last year. The initiative is now titled as the Kalam-NSS (National Space Society) Energy Initiative. The Kalam-NSS initiative is an India-US partnership taken up by individuals with long-term expertise in the space realm. Some of the key people involved are, in addition to Dr. Kalam, Mark Hopkins, CEO of the US-based National Space Society and John Mankins, President of the Space Power Association and a veteran of NASA. On the Indian side, there seems to be some official involvement due to the involvement of Dr. T.K. Alex, who is the Director of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore and leader of the Chandrayan-I project. Speaking in New Delhi in November last year, Dr. Kalam said that "by 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have, clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need by 66%. There is an answer. An answer for both the developed and developing countries. This is a solar energy source that is close to infinite, an energy source that produces no carbon emissions, an energy source that can reach the most distant villages of the world, and an energy source that can turn countries into net energy exporter."3 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the worldwide demand for primary energy increases by 55 per cent between 2005 and 2030 - 1.8 per cent hike per year on average; and for India, the demand is expected to more than double by 2030, growing at 3.6 per cent rate per year.4 With energy demand growing rapidly, the SBSP option offers huge opportunities. Such an option will also be reportedly a cleaner energy option. This option would also significantly augment Indias capabilities in the space domain, which will have far-reaching positive spin-offs in the ever-changing security environment in Asia. This will bring the much-desired focus on the question of technology transfer between India and the US, Japan and Israel. India has looked at this option for quite sometime. In 1987, the first bit of work was undertaken looking at advanced space transportation system design concepts for cost-effective space solar power. Recently, ISRO is reported to have done some exercise looking at the feasibility of this option and examined three specific configurations. Thereafter, ISRO is believed to have welcomed an International Preliminary Feasibility Study.Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, SBSP is available throughout the year, in huge quantities. It can also reportedly work irrespective of conditions that are a problem for other alternative energy sources such as cloud cover, availability of sunlight, or wind speed. What has prevented the SBSP from becoming a real option? Is it the enormous cost involved in developing the option or is it an option that never got the popular attention due to the multiplicity of departments involved? Proponents argue that the cost of SBSP should not be compared to the direct costs involved. The cost-benefit analysis needs to be done on a different scale, including the direct and indirect cost of global warming and climate change. Otherwise, the costs of developing this technology may seem exorbitant. What are the options to meet this cost? Are the

Indian and American governments and private sectors willing to make significant investments on the R&D of this technology? The US-India Agreement to establish an S&T Board and an Endowment to carry out research (July 20, 2009) appears to be an ideal basis for new research and development on SBSP. SBSP seems like an ideal candidate because this fund seeks to finance projects on a broad spectrum of issues of mutual benefit such as biotechnology, health and infectious diseases, advanced materials and nanotechnology science, clean energy technologies, climate science, basic space and atmospheric and earth science among others. The US side of funding for the Endowment is reported to come from the US S&T "Rupee Funds" established in the 1980s to encourage and fund bilateral S&T projects.5 However, for the SBSP per se, there appears to be interest among the private sector companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman and on the Indian side, Tatas have shown interest in exploring this option. While this can potentially be an excellent case for public-private partnership, the initiative has to come from the government. Indias foray into space and its space policies have had strong civilian and developmental roots and accordingly the government needs to place the SBSP within its overall national space policy. Indias decision to pursue SBSP will have multiple impact -clean energy, clean environment, advancement in the space arena with technology transfer as a given between India, US and Japan.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

83

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Bilateral Co-op (4/4)

India US coop works for both sides: Both sides get jobs, and the US can use Indian rockets Clara Moskowitz, senior writer for space.com and Livescience,com, 2010, Under New Plan, Satellites to Beam Solar Power Down
From Space, space.com NASA does not currently have an official space solar power program, though it has funded research into the field in the past. Work to send a solar energy-beaming experiment to the International Space Station was canceled in 2008. The U.S. military has also experimented with solar energy beaming, as it may present a way to deliver power to remote areas of the globe. Ultimately, such a partnership between the U.S. and India could have ramifications not just for the energy crisis, but for international politics, the initiative's leaders said. "India is rapidly rising and this is in the interest of both nations," Hopkins said. "Neither of our nations wishes to contain China ? however, a prosperous India increases the chances the rise of China will be peaceful." Under the Kalam-NSS plan, the United States would contribute technology, while India could take care of much of the low-cost manufacturing. "The potential of combining those two could generate a large amount of jobs in both countries," Hopkins said. India could also potentially launch the power-gathering satellite aboard one of the nation's rockets.

The plan increases US-Indo Relations Garretson, was a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for
Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) New Delhi. He is an active duty Air Force officer on sabbatical as an Air Force Fellow. He was previously the Chief of Future Science and Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, August 2010 (Peter A. Garretson, Skys No Limit: Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic Partnership?, page 67) Firstly, India is the only major state where a Head of State has not only suggested space solar power as a goal for its space agency, but also expressed an interest in international cooperation. Second, as already noted above, there is considerable momentum in the Indo-US strategic partnership, with key componentsspace, energy, climate change, high tech, aviation, and dual-use strategic technologies and defence cooperationalready in place with vibrant dialogue. Third, Indias need for power and development is acute, likely considerably more acute than other potential partners which makes it potentially a more motivated partner, and a linked effort also promises a tremendous ultimate market potential . Fourthly, the success of space solar power will depend partly on low-cost manufacture. In the time frame when space solar power will come of age , perhaps 15 years in the future, even as other manufacturing and labour markets age and face decline, India is projected to be in the midst of its demographic dividend, with the largest working age population of any country on earth .4 Finally, and significantly, in a breakthrough project like space solar power where an international regulatory framework is required, the influence of a historically normative power representing the developing world and its equities is a powerful enabler, and without such a partnership a go-it-alone attitude might find the environment and the markets considerably less permissive. Further, the case for technical cooperation with India is quite strong. As already remarked, over the course of nearly a decade, there has been significant momentum to the technical cooperation aspect of the Indo-US strategic partnership and we have finally put in place all the necessary precursor elements for institutional research and development. Cooperation today is principally at a low level because bureaucracies still are not familiar with each other,5 and trust is earned incrementally over time. In the course of this research, there was no indication that there was reason to doubt that such trust and familiarity will be the natural course.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

84

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 China Conflict (1/2)

Relations are low oil prices prevent cooperation CNBC, 5/10/2011, (Falling Oil Prices Bad for US/China Relations: Economist, http://mobile.cnbc.com/us_news/42968112)
President Barack Obama called for more balanced trade relations with China as a delegation from Beijing met with US officials in Washington yesterday. The talks have been surprisingly low key, due in part to the US attention being focused on the death of Osama bin Laden and the markets' attention being focused on falling commodity prices and the euro zone crisis. One analyst though predicts the recent fall in oil and commodity prices could turn the heat up on US/Chinese relations in the coming months. On the economic side, the atmosphere in the run-up to this years meeting has been the most positive since the financial crisis, said Mark Williams, the senior China economist at Capital Economics, in a research note. His point is that higher commodity prices have led Chinas trade surplus to, on the surface at least, come down to less than four percent of gross domestic product, compared with 10 percent on the eve of the financial crisis. We doubt this will last. The speed at which the surplus has fallen over the last year can be entirely explained by the rise in commodity prices rather than any surge in real import demand, Williams wrote. Overnight Chinese data showed the trade surplus for April coming in at $11.4 billion, nearly four times higher than the many in the market had been expecting, in a clear sign Williams is right. For everything apart from commodities including the bilateral surplus with the US Chinas surplus remains close to a record high, he wrote. For this reason, the surplus is likely to rebound rapidly if commodity prices continue to decline, potentially reawakening strains with the US. Nonetheless, for now, China can argue that its economy is rebalancing, Williams added. The second reason tensions have eased according to Williams is the five percent rise in the yuan since the peg was dropped last year. While still not rising as fast as many in the US would want, there has been talk in recent weeks of letting the yuan rise further as a way of combating Chinese inflation. The US Treasury has been suggesting that the yuan is rising at a real rate of around 10 percent against the dollar. "This estimate is based on the difference between consumer price inflation in China and the US and is we believe misleading, said Williams.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

85

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 China Conflict (2/2)

The plan solves their war and economy scenarios overabundance of energy means well share Dinerman, Senior Editor at the Hudson Institutes New York office, author of the textbook Space Science for Students, 10/22/2007, Space Review (Taylor, China, the US, and space solar power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status. Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger to Chinas future prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an International Energy Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from 2003 and 2025. China is already experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of Chinas GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants, Chinas economic growth is outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going. While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be able to contribute much to meeting Chinas demand and certainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide. At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive recession. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global repercussions would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean energy to satisfy Chinas mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain. For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project. Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows and crops can coexist with them. However, there are persistent doubts and it would be wise to plan for a world in which rectenna placement on land will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or even a nuclear power plant. China, like its neighbors Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when one looks at a map, but the highly productive industrial regions of China are confined to a limited coastal area. These areas also overlap with some of the nations most fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hard choices between land use for factories and housing and for food production are now common. Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these disputes. China and its neighbors could compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based rectennas. They would also be able to export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the South China Sea can also handle the monsoons of the Bay of Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean. In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility up there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated. If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO study. Americas space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including China. Our worlds civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in everyones interest.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

86

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Indo-Pak War

US/India bilateral relations key to prevent Pakistani state failure Mohan, Professor of South Asian studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, 2004
(C. Raja, What If Pakistan Fails? Washington Quarterly, Winter) Will such cooperation be forthcoming from two of Pakistans most important allies? Suggestions for such cooperation among India, the United States, and China on regional security would have been dismissed as outlandish until recently. Political consultations among the three powers on Pakistan might have become a feasible option today given Indias rapidly expanding relations with both the United States and China. State failure in Pakistan and its consequences would give Washington and Beijing much to worry about regarding their own long-term interests in the region. Accordingly, New Delhi should engage both nations in bilateral discussions on the future stability of Pakistan. Until now, the United States and China, given the high stakes in their relationships with Islamabad, have been reluctant to be perceived as engaging New Delhi on the question of Pakistans stability. Yet, a serious dialogue among the three countries on the future of Pakistan has become an urgent necessity. On their own, none of them can prevent state failure in nuclear-armed Pakistan or manage its consequences. State failure in Pakistan might not be likely, but the potential that an irresponsible regime might emerge in Islamabad cannot be completely ruled out. Given the presence of nuclear weapons, the consequences of such an outcomeremote as it may seem in New Delhicould indeed be disastrous. Therefore, India will have to develop some contingency planning to address such a situation. Over the long term, political cooperation among India, the United States, and China holds the key to preventing state failure in Pakistan and has the potential to facilitate Pakistans evolution toward political moderation and economic modernization and lay the foundation for regional stability and economic integration in the subcontinent.

Pakistan collapse triggers Indo-Pak nuclear conflict and civil wars throughout Asia Stephen J. Morgan, former member of the British Labour Party Exectutive Committee. He is a political psychologist, researcher into Chaos/Complexity Theory, 9/23/07 Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?,
http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639 Although the Pashtuns are more closely linked to tribal and clan loyalty, there exists a strong latent embryo of a Pashtun national consciousness and the idea of an independent Pashtunistan state has been raised regularly in the past with regard to the disputed territories common to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The area was cut in two by the "Durand Line", a totally artificial border between created by British Imperialism in the 19th century. It has been a question bedevilling relations between the Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout their history, and with India before Partition. It has been an untreated, festering wound which has lead to sporadic wars and border clashes between the two countries and occasional upsurges in movements for Pashtun independence. In fact, is this what lies behind the current policy of appeasement President Musharraf of Pakistan towards the Pashtun tribes in along the Frontiers and his armistice with North Waziristan last year? Is he attempting to avoid further alienating Pashtun tribes there and head-off a potential separatist movement in Pakistan, which could develop from the Taliban's offensive across the border in Afghanistan? Trying to subdue the frontier lands has proven costly and unpopular for Musharraf. In effect, he faces exactly the same problems as the US and Allies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, fighting Pashtun tribes has cost him double the number of troops as the US has lost in Iraq. Evidently, he could not win and has settled instead for an attempted political solution. When he agreed the policy of appeasement and virtual self-rule for North Waziristan last year, President Musharraf stated clearly that he is acting first and foremost to protect the interests of Pakistan. While there was outrageous in Kabul, his deal with the Pashtuns is essentially an effort to firewall his country against civil war and disintegration. In his own words, what he fears most is, the Talibanistation of the whole Pashtun people, which he warns could inflame the already fierce fundamentalist and other separatist movement across his entire country. He does not want to open the door for any backdraft from the Afghan war to engulf Pakistan. Musharraf faces the nationalist struggle in Kashmir, an insurgency in Balochistan, unrest in the Sindh, and growing terrorist bombings in the main cities. There is also a large Shiite population and clashes between Sunnis and Shias are regular. Moreover, fundamentalist support in his own Armed Forces and Intelligence Services is extremely strong. So much so that analyst consider it likely that the Army and Secret Service is protecting, not only top Taliban leaders, but Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda central leadership thought to be entrenched in the same Pakistani borderlands. For the same reasons, he has not captured or killed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. Returning from the frontier provinces with Bin Laden's severed head would be a trophy that would cost him his own head in Pakistan. At best he takes the occasional risk of giving a nod and a wink to a US incursion, but even then at the peril of the chagrin of the people and his own military and secret service. The Break-Up of Pakistan? Musharraf probably hopes that by giving de facto autonomy to the Taliban and Pashtun leaders now with a virtual free hand for cross border operations into Afghanistan, he will undercut any future upsurge in support for a break-away independent Pashtunistan state or a "Peoples' War" of the Pashtun populace as a

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

87

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
whole, as he himself described it. However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, the likely break up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation, the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d'tat. Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was "Osama" (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d'tat by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Talibanstyle government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a "Pandora's box" for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

88

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***READINESS***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

89

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (1/3)

Energy flexibility key to Army mobility and operations Dennis K. Bohannon, ASA(IE&E), US Army, 4/27/11, Army operational energy aiming high,
http://www.army.mil/article/55593/army-operational-energy-aiming-high///jchen Holistic policies are accelerating energy, environmental and efficiency solutions and technology for Forward Operating Contingency Bases. Charged with developing and implementing those policies, Hammack said, "Improving efficiency at base camps represents one of the best opportunities to decrease Army operational energy usage." The Army realizes that energy use in peacetime and on installations differs from the energy use during contingency operations. Nonetheless, Hammack says, solutions at home will help Soldiers in combat. "We are moving forward by developing new doctrine and focusing investment on technologies applicable in the context of contingency operations. These efforts can increase Soldier effectiveness, extend the endurance and resilience of the force, reduce the need for fuel convoys, and reduce operational costs." The Army recently announced selection of installations that have committed to achieving Net Zero in Energy, Water or Waste. Five installations were identified in each of these areas and will communicate their journey to Net Zero on a regular basis. This work is providing the critical data necessary to support initiatives which will address the operational energy challenges and maintain an efficient, flexible energy posture that will enable highly effective, widely dispersed, and increasingly mobile forces in combat. Hammack said that through innovation, adaptation, exploration and evaluation. "We are creating a culture that recognizes the value of sustainability, measured not just in terms of financial benefits, but benefits to maintaining mission capability, quality of life, relationships with local communities and the preservation of options for the Army's future," she said. "It is operationally necessary and financially prudent."

Accessible electric supply key to forward operating bases Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.1 Forward Operating Base Power A Forward Operating Base (FOB) exists to support a small number of reconnaissance and surveillance teams as well as for military power projection ahead of primary forces. As such, the FOB can be anywhere from 50 to 5000 personnel because it is task-organized and scales to meet the size of the assigned task(s). Provision of electrical energy to the FOB must be viewed as a necessary commodity. The FOBs tend to be in remote, relatively inaccessible areas, due to both terrain and location of opposing forces (OPFOR). Resupply missions are tradeoffs between the risk of sending in an armed convoy and the risk, and substantial additional costs, of air resupply.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

90

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (2/3)

SPS allows for military power projection and readiness through force mobility Jeff Foust, Editor and publisher of the Space Review online journal, 8/13/ 2007, A renaissance for space solar power?, The Space
Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1 Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Coyote Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century. If the United States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, that will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal. The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas, Smith said. At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the militarys voracious appetite for energy, and the high expensein dollars as well as livesin getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas, Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power. There was one problem with those plans, Smith said: because this project was started outside of the budget cycle, there was no money available for him to carry out a conventional study. Ive got no money, he said, but Ive got the ability to go out there and make friends, and friends are cheap. So Smith and his cadre of friends have carried out the research for the study in the open, leveraging tools like Google Groups and a blog that hosts discussions on the subject. Smith made it clear, though, that hes not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in the near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time, he said. The horizon were looking at is 2050 before were able to do something significant. The first major milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O. The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and self-described cynic who also participated on the NewSpace panel. The first step in this case needs to be a cheap, simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down, he said. A satellite that generated just 10 kilowatts of powerless than some commercial GEO communications satellitescould be developed for on the order of $100 million, he said. If space solar power is to become a reality, Smith said, it will have to be because of a massive collaborative effort in which the DOD will play a small, but not leading, role. Ali said there needs to be a coalition of the willing that includes the DOD and other government agencies like NASA and DOE, as well as the usual suspects in the commercial space sector, to help advance space solar power if it appears it can be feasible. That group, he said, should also include oil companies. We like to think of Big Oil as a big, ugly, evil set of companies that are just taking our money at the gas tank, he explained, but the reality is that they are not idiots and they do take the long view. Smith agreed, and noted that his team had already met with some representatives off major oil companies, in part because we realized we didnt want to get Tuckered out of the business, a reference to Preston Tucker, who clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the 1940s. If space solar power is to become a reality, he said, it will have to be because of a massive collaborative effort in which the DOD will play a small, but not leading, role. This is not the Department of Defenses job. We do not want to be in the energy business, we dont want to be a producer of energy, he said. We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource thats out there.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

91

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Flexible Deployment (3/3)

Failure to achieve energy access at forward operating bases hurts combat readiness NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen When all indirect and support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraqtotal daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women. The DoD is a potential anchor tenant customer of space based solar power that can be reliably delivered to U.S. troops located in forward bases in hostile territory in amounts of 5 50 megawatts continuous at an estimated price of $1 per kilowatt hour, but this price may increase over time as world energy resources become more scarce or environmental concerns about increased carbon emissions from combusting fossil fuels increases

SBSP allows direct recharge of troop energy supplies cuts need for supply lines Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.2 Power to Individual End Users The prospect of reducing the need for soldiers and other users to carry numerous and heavy batteries is very attractive. Batteries are logistically challenging for their mass and for the need to protect them from moisture, extreme temperatures, and other hazards. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of a soldiers 30 to 40 kg pack consists of batteries [1]. Obtaining replacement batteries adds to the fuel consumed by resupply lines, and the task of recharging batteries adds to the load on generators at forward bases. Because of this, SBSP has been posed as a means to recharge such batteries or to displace the need for them by providing power directly to the soldier.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

92

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Easy Integration

Efforts toward ground based solar power at FOBs already exist just needs SPS energy source Dennis K. Bohannon, ASA(IE&E), US Army, 4/27/11, Army operational energy aiming high,
http://www.army.mil/article/55593/army-operational-energy-aiming-high///jchen "At our existing forward operating bases, we continue to look for new and efficient ways to expand the use of solar power, turning waste to energy, reuse of grey water such as reusing shower water for toilets, using waste heat for steam to electricity generation, solar hot water, micro power grids and other technologies to reduce the demand for resources," she said. She said she found people taking initiative and making a difference. "One example is a contractor filtering used generator oil and used canola oil from dining facilities to blend with JP8 fuel to run their generators. This reduced the amount of fuel transported and saved 65,000 gallons of JP8 last year. I also saw solar panels being used to provide power to perimeter force protection sensors, alert devices (big voice) and for perimeter lighting at Bagram (Airfield), Afghanistan."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

93

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 I/L XTN Flexibility k2 Heg

SBSP ensures military energy flexibility key to combat readiness and operations NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible energy on demand for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base islanding such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21 st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

94

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 *****ENVIRONMENT*****

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

95

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency - Generic
SBSP solves for environmental degradation Strickland, chairman for the Austin Space Frontier Society, Winter 2010, Online Journal of Space Communication (John K.,
Space Solar vs Base Load Ground Solar and Wind Power, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland2.html) If nuclear reactor parts could be mass-produced and the reactor construction standardized as France does to keep the capital cost at $2 billion/Gigawatt, the global annual cost would be 2.4 Trillion and the US share would be about 500 Billion/yr. Building re-usable rockets and a system for constructing and implementing SSP operations in space would probably cost much less than what the U.S. would spend on nuclear or ground solar during a single year. In addition, SSP represents the only source of power that we can keep adding to at this rate without causing any environmental degradation or massive use and depletion of physical resources to build the many millions of tons of ground solar and wind equipment required.

SPS solves environment Bellows, Charlie T. Bellows, Captain of the USAF, 2010, Minimizing Losses In A Space Laser Power Beaming System,
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA518829, Date accessed June 24, 2011 The most popular vision of space-based power is a constellation of on-orbit collectors used to gather solar energy directly from the sun and then beam that energy down to large receivers on the ground in order to provide power.7Earthgenerated solar energy is not currently enough to sustain future clean energy power needs, or aid in satellite power requirements, as energy output of a conventional ground-based solar array is reduced by as much as 80% by the atmosphere, masking angles due to local terrain, nighttime and weather (Mankins, 2008:20). Space- based solar power can address all of these needs simultaneously, but there are several challenges that need to be tackled before it will be a reality. Thankfully these obstacles can be overcome by engineering and economics, and the basic technology has been around since the late 1960s (Mankins, 2008:25).

Risk of environmental catastrophe justifies investment in SPS Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen 3. Environmental benefits Advocates of space solar power have been presenting the concepts as a means to help meet world energy needs. This argument has not been effective in garnering support for even basic research and technology development. Fossil fuel alternatives have been two cheap and near term effect on the economy inhibits action by policy makers. Concern for the environment is greater than the policy makers realize. The key to getting support for space solar power may be the growing awareness of the threat of rapid global environmental change. Scientists are extending their traditional role of theory and observation to emphasize the risks of global change. The risks provide the context for action by policy makers to move toward sustainable systems. The transition to power from space is responsive to the environmental concerns and the need to stabilize the Global environment and consequently the Earths economic and social stability.

Manufacture outside the biosphere means zero environmental impact NSS, National Space Society, October 2007, Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from space,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp///jchen In the longer term, with sufficient investments in space infrastructure, space solar power can be built from materials from space. The full environmental benefits of space solar power derive from doing most of the work outside of Earth's biosphere. With materials extraction from the Moon or near-Earth asteroids, and space-based manufacture of components, space solar power would have essentially zero terrestrial environmental impact. Only the energy receivers need be built on Earth. Space solar power can completely solve our energy problems long term. The sooner we start and the harder we work, the shorter "long term" will be.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

96

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Biodiversity
Environmental stability is key to biodiversity
Cantoria, Member at the National Academy of Science and Technology Department of Science and Technology, 3/18/2007, National Academy of Science and Technology Department of Science and Technology (Magdalena, Biodiversity loss and public health;, http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/12926098-1.html) Environmental degradation leads to biodiversity loss and has serious implications for public health. Global climate change, stratosphere ozone depletion, toxic substances in the environment, and habitat destruction all have the capacity to lead to species extinction and biodiversity loss. Global climate change is an aspect of environmental degradation with a major impact on species and biodiversity leading to the shifting of migration ranges of plants and animals to adapt to climatealtered habitats. There are evidences of species migrations and potential losses paralleling increases in recorded temperatures. Species that could not adapt have been lost either because their rates of migration were too slow or because geographical barriers like oceans, mountains, or unsuitable habitat conditions prevented their advance. Barriers to species migration exist where people live - cities, roads, agricultural lands, and other constructions would further complicate species migration. Furthermore, animals would be limited by the distribution of the plants they eat or otherwise depend on. Other aspects of global climate change that may have a major impact on species and biodiversity include: Algal blooms fertilized by the discharge of sewage and by agricultural runoff; rising seas that may threaten species in coastal wetlands, mangrove swamps, and coral reefs; major alterations of ocean currents from sea warming and changes in salinity, with potentially enormous changes in climate and in marine ecosystems; and finally the increase in carbon dioxide itself, which may threaten ecosystems by altering carbon and nitrogen cycles fundamental to interactions between plants, the atmosphere, and the soil. Global warming may increase turnover in tropical forests, favoring rapidly growing, light demanding plants that take up less carbon dioxide, over denser, slower-growing, shade-tolerant plants, thereby accelerating global warming.

Biodiversity loss leads to extinction

Diner, Major of US Army, April 1993 , United States Army (David, THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO' S ENDANGERING WHOM?, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA456541&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) By causing widespread extinctions humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity rises, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects could cause total ecosystem collapse, and human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

97

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Acid Rain

Acid rain, caused by fossil fuel consumption for electricity, causes crop shortages, health problems, loss of biodiversity, etc. Mark Prado, former advanced planner for Pentagon space program, 2002, 5.12.3 Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth
Currently, the most economical large scale electricity source is coal fired power plants. However, we must deal with the effects of mining coal (e.g., drainage into our water), combustion gases (acid rain, greenhouse effect, smog particles), and disposal of burned coal and smokestack sludge. Toxins and carcinogens are often found in the environment in dangerous levels as a result, including benzene, arsenic, mercury, lead, beryllium and cadmium. Discharges of acids, dissolved solids and suspended solids can degrade drinking water supplies, contaminate waterways, lower crop productivity from pumped ground water or irrigation as well as smog fallout from the air, affect recreational lakes and streams, and make the fish we eat poisonous. In the Adirondack Mountains, about 200 lakes are fishless as a result of acid rain due to fossil fuel combustion many hundreds of miles/kilometers away. (Schemer, ref. 49) Even in strict Sweden, about 20,000 of 100,000 once-thriving lakes have become fishless due to winds from other countries bringing smog which falls with the rain. (Nat'l Geographic, ref. 51) Germany's great Black Forest is sick and dying due to acid rain, which prompted German legislation to attempt to reduce acid rain production within their country by stricter environmental standards, though it is not feasible to make major reductions (Pearce, ref. 59). John Roberts, as Canada's Minister of the Environment, in noting the dying forests and lakes, asserted "Your country, the United States, is dumping its garbage at the expense of our country." (ref. 51) His coordinator for acid rain research, Dr. Hans Martin: "We calculate that half of the acid deposition striking Canada is imported from the U.S." These are just a few examples. People in many cities have been affected by overdoses of copper and lead poisoning as acid rain corrodes copper pipes and lead solder joints. Babies and the elderly are most affected. Crops are affected by acid rain. A major concern is the effect on the rice paddy fields of China and Southeast Asia which feed so many people. Also affected are stone buildings. The list of those hard hit is long, but include the Acropolis in Athens, Roman ruins, European Gothic architecture, and the Taj Mahal south of New Delhi. Over the decades, the acidity level (pH, or potential of hydrogen) has been measured and correlates with the death of species. The increasing acidification of U.S. rain since the first large scale databases were implemented in the mid-1950s is dramatic, typically increasing in acidity by a factor of 100 or more. Acid rain is caused by sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, both of which are invisible. The figure below shows the contributions of each in the USA. Note that fossil fuel power plants put out 79% of sulfur oxide emissions and 50.7% of nitrogen oxide emissions. Transportation (internal combustion engines) produce 43% of nitrogen oxides but little sulfur

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

98

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Nuclear Escalation

Environmental conflict destroys the taboo and goes nuclear Dyer, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London, 12/30/2004, (Gwynne, The End of War,
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1230-05.htm) War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the greatpower system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next halfcentury without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major dieback of human population.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

99

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***WARMING***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

100

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN CO2 Buildup (1/2)

SPS key to reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 buildup Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen The risks identified through the rigor of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) must provide the motivation for action toward sustainable systems. The USGCRP is an integrated program documenting the Earth system, understanding Earth system processes and developing computer models to predict the course of changes induced by humans or as the result of natural variations. The program is beginning to analyze the environmental, socioeconomic and health consequences of global change. The obvious next step is to assess means for mitigation of the effects of global change. The prosperity of future generations is dependent on a stable global environment. To ensure environmental stability, continued effort to understand the effect of human activities must be a priority. Just understanding may not be sufficient because of the complex relationships of greenhouse gases, wind circulation, ocean currents and atmospheric water vapor. It is undisputed that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by over twenty percent since the beginning of the industrial age. Fossil fuels are certainly a major contributor to that increase. By replacing fossil fuel use, SSP could reduce the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere and the consequent climate changes from an enhanced greenhouse effect. There are economic returns from a space-based power source that will lead to commercial management and operation of the system. There will continue to be an element of the political community that is committed to the short-term view because of the immediate economic impact. This reality is a factor that will have to be dealt with through facts and risk assessment for the long term view. The anticipated benefit to the Earths environment is the overarching objective that may provide support for technology development and demonstration toward space solar power for use on Earth.

SBSP is awesome- sweet efficiency and solves greenhouse gases Rhodes, Christopher J. Rhodes, Professor Chris Rhodes has a visiting position at the University of Reading and is Director of Freshlands Environmental Actions, He has published more than 200 peer reviewed articles and five books, and is also a published novelist, journalist and poet, March 2010 Solar energy: principles and possibilities, http://dartmouthcolnh.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/sciprg/2010/00000093/00000001/art00003 A critical part of the SBSP concept is the Earth-based antenna (rectenna) receiver system, which would in all likelihood consist of many short dipole antennas, connected via diodes. It is thought that microwaves broadcast from the SPS will be received in the dipoles with about 85% efficiency which is less than that expected for conventional microwave antenna, but the latter are more complex and more expensive68. The rectennas would be many kilometres across, but crops and animals may be farmed underneath one, as only thin wires will be used to support the structure and to make the dipoles, which will marginally reduce sunlight. Otherwise non- arable land can be used. Thus the technology is less demanding in terms of its land requirement than is often claimed. Other concerns concern the effect on the atmosphere. When rockets launch through the atmosphere, the hot rocket exhaust reacts with the atmospheric nitrogen and can form NOx which can destroy the ozone layer. This is, indeed, a criticism that can be levelled at all kinds of high-altitude aircraft. Since the whole reason for placing a solar power satellite is to increase the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, the additional energy will be terrestrially dispersed as heat, and this may be significant if the scale of operations is large enough. Rather the prevailing view seems to be that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane, are causing the Suns energy to be trapped rather than being radiated into space, which hence is causing the Earth to warm-up4,5. As an alternative to fossil fuels as a source of energy, SBSP would contribute greatly to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

101

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN CO2 Buildup (2/2)

SPS causes a significant reduction in pollution of multiple sources, especially carbon emissions. Mark Prado, former advanced planner for Pentagon space program, 2002, 5.12.3 Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth
http://permanent.com/p-sps-bi.htm Yet, coal fired power plants continue to be the power source of choice by both the most advanced and the poorest countries in the world, because they're the most economical. In the less developed countries, long-term environmental preservation is seen as a luxury that can't be afforded now. What must be offered is less expensive clean electricity. The sooner we embark on a SPS program, the better for Earth economies and the environment. The SPS produces: no waste matter, no acid rain, no carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases. Let's make Earth into a museum of the Universe's unique life, not destroy it for extra near-term dollars. Some people have expressed concern that the SPS beam and rectenna will heat up Earth since we are "importing" energy. The truth is the opposite. The beam and rectenna won't heat up Earth and in fact lead to a cooler Earth, for two reasons. First, when we burn oil or coal, we are "importing" heat to the environment by releasing heat stored in a chemical form. The SPS would produce less waste heat on Earth than other electricity generation techniques because the rectenna would be more than 80% efficient (20% waste heat and reflection), versus 30% for thermal power plants (70% waste heat) like coal and nuclear. Basically, when you burn fossil and nuclear fuels, you create heat. Conversion of this heat to electricity is typically 30% efficient from coal and nuclear sources, and getting more than that isn't feasible by the laws of thermodynamics. (The satellite is only about 20% efficient in converting sunlight to electricity, but the waste heat is in space, not on Earth's surface.) Earth power plants usually cause thermal pollution only locally, e.g., warming up lakes which they use for cooling. Notably, the SPS beam for the reference concept has a maximum intensity only 20% that of sunlight at its center. Secondly, and far more significantly, since the SPS replaces fossil fuel consumption, it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are responsible for global warming. The single greatest forms of environmental destruction to nature are the population explosion in equatorial regions and efforts to raise standards of living without much regard to the environment. History has shown that countries' economic development has resulted in lower population growth rates. Often, the reason is the reduced need to rely on one's children for labor, and for support in old age. The more children, the higher standard of living. That's Third World `social security'. (Other times it's religion, and communications and modernization often relieve a culture of its ancient roots in the need for many children.) Even in the least developed countries, the environment would benefit greatly if we bring in electricity from SPS for cooking. This relieves families of the need for labor in collecting firewood miles away -- a major reason for deforestation and nomad migration. It also reduces the practice of burning the dung of laboring animals instead of using it to refertilize the soil, which in turn will reduce soil depletion and migrations. Electric powered water pumps for wells and irrigation will reduce labor needs for carrying water for miles and will also help prevent newly deforested areas from soon becoming dustbowls (with a resultant migration again). Sustainable agriculture can greatly reduce nomadic destruction. Electric threshing of stalks (versus manual labor), and communications and education can help lay the foundations for slower population growth. Electric powered consumer products certainly relieve one of the need for offspring labor. 20th century communications creates many opportunities. Alternative lifestyles to those that destroy nature can become available, as can awareness of the world and their role in it. Once a society modernizes in key ways, offspring switch from becoming a source of economic production to a burden for economic mobility. The reduction in need of imported oil will reduce drainage of foreign exchange (i.e., dollars) and allow this money to go to local modernisation, and will also help the oil-poor less developed countries to finance their debts. SPS electricity promises to be cheaper than oil (as well as more reliable in the long run from price shocks, supplies and economic repercussions), and infrastructure spending is less for electricity -- simple electric power lines, not pipelines, train tracks, tankers, and deep sea ports.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

102

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact XTN Extinction (1/2)

Warming is real, anthropogenic and causes extinction
Deibel, Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007 (Terry L., Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft pages 397-8) Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

103

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact XTN Extinction (2/2)

Warming makes the Earth inhospitable and causes extinction Robert Hunter, cofounder of Greenpeace and a Canadian environmentalist, journalist, author and politician, 20 03, Thermageddon:
Countdown to 2030, pg. 254 Eden has been contaminated, and is now withering before our eyes. Its not the Fall of Man we are talking about any longer: its the Fall of Eden. What a waste if we continue the plunge into the chaos and suffering of a world aflame or flooded or crushed under ice! What a waste of an excellent planet and a species with greatness in it! Scientists calculate that life on Earth is about 4 billion years old. At the rate the Sun is heating up, it will be impossible to reduce the greenhouse effect sufficiently to maintain life beyond another 1 billion years. In other words, we nd ourselves four-fifths of the way through life on Earth. Everything from here on in will be shaped by what we do now. Nonsense, you say. A million years from now, who will know that we existed? The trouble is that a million years from now the planet could be emerging from a millennial climate shift triggered in a brief spurt of carbonization just before the end of the Holocene. In the worst-case scenario, nothing will remain but the contours of naked mountains and the basins of dried-up seabeds, which is all we have found on either Mars or Venus. With a dead planet orbiting on both sides of us, you would think we would be wary about what we did to our own precious, downright weirdly stable atmosphere

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

104

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Magnifier Feedback Cycle

Warming kills billions, and triggers feedbacks causing even more catastrophic warming Robert Hunter, cofounder of Greenpeace and a Canadian environmentalist, journalist, author and politician, 20 03, Thermageddon:
Countdown to 2030, pg. 145-147 We are in for a pounding. And while hundreds of millions flee the rising seas, a vastly greater number face the threat of slowly dying of thirst. There are currently 1.7 billion people, a third of the worlds population, living in countries that are already water-stressed, which is to say they use more than 20 percent of their renewable water supply. Population growth and increased water withdrawals are projected to increase this number to around ve billion by 2025, depending on the rate of population growth. Five billion people without enough Water! Surely a vision of a living hell on Earth. The full horror of this situation is not that ve billion people are going to be suffering horribly years from now, not only from thirst but from hunger brought on by the failure of crops and the collapse of sh stocks and herds. No, awful as that picture is, it is just a snapshot of a moment in the near future. What about after that? How long will the suffering go on? Are we talking decades? Or are we possibly talking centuries? Could we in fact be talking about millennia or a state of affairs that goes on forever? Is such a scenario possible? According to the IPCC, absolutely! Projected climate changes during the 21st century have the potential to lead to future large-scale and possibly irreversible changes in Earth systems [my italics], resulting in impacts on continental scales. The examples include significant slowing of the ocean circulation that transports warm water to the North Atlantic, large reductions in the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, accelerated global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in the terrestrial biosphere, and release of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and methane from hydrates in the coastal sediments. If these changes in Earth systems were to occur, their impacts would be widespread and sustained. For example, the signicant slowing of the oceanic thermohaline circulation would impact deepwater oxygen levels, carbon uptake by oceans and rnarine organisms, and would reduce warming over parts of Europe. Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet could raise global sea level up to 3 meters each over the next 1,000 years, submerge many islands, submerge many islands, and inundate extensive coastal areas. Depending on the rate of ice loss, the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise could greatly exceed the capacity of human and natural systems to adapt without substantial impacts. Releases of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and methane from hydrates in the coastal sediments, induced by warming, would further increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and amplify climate change [my italics]. When activist/author Jeremy Leggett polled four hundred climate scientists who had been involved in the IPCC process, asking them if a runaway greenhouse effect was a serious possibility, 15 said that it was probably, 36 said that it was possible, and 53 probably not, which meant that 51 out of 113 believed it was at least a possibility. Those are odds you dont want to face in an operation, let alone when it comes to your entire planetary biosphere. Consider the implications of the ecological declines, degradations, collapses, shrinkages, and die-offs that are taking place already, before anything more than the rst few ripples of climate-change effects have been felt. On virtually every front, scarcities of renewable resources are expected to exacerbate or trigger civil strife. At a glance, the graphs assembled by Thomas Homer-Dixon of the Peace and Conict Studies Program at University of Toronto reveal the retreat of croplands around world as a result of population growth and the degradation of fertile land. The amount of cropland per person can plainly be seen to be plunging everywhere. In Africa, by 2025, only a third as much land is expected to be useable. In Oceania, barely half as much will be by that date. Asian losses are expected to amount to onethird of existing available land, while the Americas will lose at least a quarter.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

105

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Warming/Threat
Everyone disagrees with your authors the threat is unequivocal
McClure and Stiffler, writers for Seattle Pi, 2/1/2007, Seattle Metro Daily (Robert and Lisa, Scientists agree: Humans causing global warming, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Scientists-agree-Humans-causing-global-warming-1227187.php) Using their strongest language to date, the world's leading climate scientists are reporting today that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries. Their conclusions: Evidence of climate warming is unequivocal. As report co-author Philip Mote, the Washington state climatologist, said in translating his fellow scientists' language about responsibility: "We did it." "Scientists are pretty well done arguing about whether the warming in the last 50 years is related to burning fossil fuels," Mote said. Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem. Worldwide, the report says, the warming is likely to mean intensified droughts and heat waves, along with unusually strong storms -- such as the ones that left millions of Northwesterners shivering in December, while killing 13. The scientists also highlighted an increasingly worrisome global trend: acidification of the oceans, which could unravel the marine web of life. It is caused by the carbon dioxide spewed out by power plants, cars and countless other sources, as well as methane and other gases. In the Pacific Northwest, residents appear headed into a period of more drought, less snow for skiing -- and less water for drinking and watering lawns in the summer. That could mean perilous times for forests, glaciers, salmon and, ultimately, orcas, which eat the salmon.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

106

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Not Anthro
Warming is anthropogenic models prove and critics are paid off by oil companies Robert Hunter, cofounder of Greenpeace and a Canadian environmentalist, journalist, author and politician, 20 03, Thermageddon:
Countdown to 2030, pg. 139 In its initial report, the IPCC concluded, famously, that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. It also noted that the anthropogenic signal evidence of human activity at the root of changes was still emerging from the background of natural variability. Now, however, the authors state that new estimates of climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcing are available, and new detection techniques have been applied. These studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 [to] 50 years. Model estimates of the rate of anthropogenic warming are consistent with observations in the majority of cases. Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone, including the response to solar variability and volcanic eruptions, indicate that natural pressures may play a role in the observed warming in the rst half of the twentieth century, but fail to explain the warming in the latter half of the century. The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases over the last 50 years can be identified despite uncertainties in other forcings [my italics] The scientists conclude that the twentieth centurys climate was unusual. The observed warming in the latter half of the century is inconsistent with models of natural internal climate variability. Thus, anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation for the twentieth-century temperature change. There is still a handful of people getting their funding or salaries from the oil, coal, and chemical industries who continue to try to argue that it is purely a coincidence that greenhouse=gas concentrations, particularly CO2, are at their highest levels in millions of years, just as global temperatures begin to soar. It is to be expected that such people would deliberately distort or ignore the IPCCs findings. Their behavior, under the circumstances, is merely repugnant.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

107

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Models Wrong
Models are accurate theyre backed up by tests Robert Hunter, cofounder of Greenpeace and a Canadian environmentalist, journalist, author and politician, 20 03, Thermageddon:
Countdown to 2030, pg. 76-77 At any point in history prior to the development of super-computers, the UN might as well have turned to witch doctors dancing around a fire, rattling bones. The art of predicting the future, however, has taken a quantum leap since the Second World War, and for the first time in history it is possible for scientists to deliver, if not absolute certainties, probabilities that are in the range of 95 percent or better. The most sophisticated tools of all are the three-dimensional General Circulation Models (GCMs), which use thousands of mathematical equations to represent the physical laws of nature that govern the interactions between the various components of the climate systems, such as oceans, atmosphere, ice, snow, albedo, carbon sinks, seasonal temperature cycles, humidity, precipitation, cloud cover, wind speeds, geographical variations, etc. These models allow scientists to create a virtual Earth, complete with all the major features of the current climate, which can then be run forward to see how climate evolves in a theoretically endless number of scenarios. And they are not untested, as critics like to claim. GCMs have proven their reliability by correctly predicting the cooling caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, for instance. Models also anticipated the delayed response of plant life to warming and cooling episodes caused by El Nino. By way of testing their veracity, scientists have run the best of these models backwards and correctly replicated the climatic changes caused in the past by natural greenhouse-gas concentrations. In other words, the things have been test-driven. They work although of course they remain limited by the amount of information we can put into them. Here again, humanity lucked out. What the IPCC had going for it was a combination of calculating power and accumulated data that was unprecedented. And these were just the tools and the raw material. Some two thousand scientists were brought together for the rst of dozens of conferences. Every word they wrote, every datapoint they entered, every algorithm, every data-point they entered, every algorithm they used was peer-reviewed, meaning that each paper submitted for inclusion in the IPCCs work was picked at mercilessly by other scientists and experts before it saw print.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

108

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***NATURAL DISASTERS***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

109

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Disaster Relief

SBPS provides a key avenue of disaster relief and international cooperation NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space based solar power would be to broadcast power directly to energy deprived areas and to persons performing disaster relief, nation building, and other humanitarian missions often associated with the United Nations and related non governmental organizations. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of the SBSP feasibility study opportunities for broad international partnerships with non state and trans state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United Nations and related organizations to employ SBSP in support of various humanitarian relief efforts support consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed with the help of affiliated professionals

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

110

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Weather Control

SPS solves for weather control Viorel Badescu, and Richard Brook Cathcart, and Roelof D. Schulling., Badescu graduated the Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Bucarest and obtained the Ph.D at the Energetics Faculty in the same University. He is reviewer or Associate Editor of four international journals and member of 9 scientific societies., Cathcart is a member of The American Society for Macro Engineering, expert on macroengineering, 6, Macro-engineering: a challenge for the future, google books, cites other studies Further, we introduce instantaneous perturbations to the model atmosphere while practical perturbations would necessarily be introduced over a finite time interval. For example, we cannot change the temperature throughout a hurricane all at once. Instead one might heat or cool the atmosphere, thereby changing the temperature over a period of time. In the future we hope to conduct experiments in which we hold the initial state fixed but calculate the precise pattern and strength of heating needed to control the hurricane. The energy required would be huge, but solar power stations in space in large enough numbers could do the job. Sometime this century, space solar power might provide a small but significant fraction of our energy needs. One way to transmit the energy down to earth is to beam it down as microwaves. Depending on the microwave frequency used, the atmosphere is transparent or absorbing, and so a secondary use of space solar power might be to heat the atmosphere to control the weather. Microwave frequencies of interest, however, do not penetrate rain. Therefore, in one experiment we allowed only changes to temperature outside of the center of the hurricane. The final results are similar, but not surprisingly the initial temperature perturbations outside of the central area arc larger in amplitude. In the future, combined with more realistic simulations, the vector of control parameters that is optimized might be a description of the temporal and spatial patterns of feasible forcing. For example, these parameters might describe additional heating supplied to the atmosphere by a space solar power downlink in the 183 GH/, water vapor spectral region. In this chapter we hope to convince the reader that there is a scientific basis to believe that controlling the weather, even the most powerful storms, may be possible in the future. In spite of various simplifications, our experiments demonstrate the control of simulated hurricanes. To explain our technique we will list describe 4d-VAR. the process used at some of the main weather forecast centers to estimate current atmospheric conditions for the purpose of initiating a computer model weather forecast. We modified this technique to calculate the most efficient perturbation to control our simulated hurricanes. We will see that the structure of these most efficient perturbations is very complex. and it will require enormous investments in infrastructure to be able to calculate and generate them quickly enough.

SPS can modify weather and prevent tornados justifies economic cost Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen The Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite (TSPS) is a concept for interacting with thunderstorms to prevent formation of tornadoes. TSPS benefits are saving lives and reducing property. These benefits are not as sensitive to the system economics as the commercial solar power satellite and justify government investment in space solar power. The TSPS can develop and demonstrate the technology and operations critical to understanding the cost of space solar power. Consequently, there is no direct competition with fossil fuel based power supplies until SSP technology and operations have been demonstrated. Before weather modification can be safely attempted, the fine structure of thunderstorms must be simulated and related to tornadogenesis.

SBSP solves weather disasters Jenkins, L.M Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, March 2011, Concepts for demonstration of wireless power transfer for Space-Based
Solar Power http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5747305&tag=1, Date accessed June 26, 2011 The flight TSPS is expected to result in a greater capability to monitor storms and to react if necessary. Investment in the TSPS would be considerably greater than a groundbased system for interacting with storms. Definition of an integrated approach involving computer simulation, technology development and demonstration will provide a basis for action. These initial research activities will provide a link to the eventual development of Space-Based Solar Power[11]. The potential of SBSP is the provision of clean renewable energy to the world. There are many development routes to this capability. The Department of Defense is currently studying the application of Space-Based Solar Power to battlefield power requirements[1]. Other applications include controlled modification of severe storm systems. energy in tornadoes and to diffuse it over a larger area. The anticipated result is minimum impact on overall weather without the death and destruction from tornadoes. The wireless power transmission demonstration is one of the initial elements of an evolutionary development of SBSP. Advancing and maturing the key technologies and systems concepts for SBSP, a pilot plant is a critical step.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

111

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***RESOURCE WARS***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

112

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency Energy Demands

Resource demands will increase by a factor of 11 by 2100 Garretson, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, previously the Chief of Future Science and
Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, 09 (Peter A., Skys No Limit: Space-Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo-US Strategic Partnership?, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf) However, the US also faces similarly compelling challenges in the long run. Analysts like Mike Snead point out that by 2100, the US population will have almost doubled (from 307 million to 560 million), and it will require approximately 1.6 times the energy (28 billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent vs 17) required today. Today 85 per cent of US energy comes from non-sustainable sources (oil, coal, and natural gas). To meet the 2100 need, sustainable energy production must expand by a factor of about 11, effectively meaning that todays total energy production capacity of nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, ground solar electric, and land biomass would have to be added every decade through the end of the century. Sneads analysis suggests that even with very optimistic assumptions about expansion (nuclear from 101 GW today to 175 GW by 2100, hydro expanding from 78 GW to the estimated practical maximum of 108 GW, geothermal from 3 GW to 150 GW, adding 390 square km for land and off-shore wind power191 and 153,000 square km for ground solar photovoltaics192 in the southwest desert states, and 1.3 billion tonnes of land biomass), these expanded sustainable energy sources will provide only about 30 per cent of the US needed 1,750 GW of 2100 dispatchable electrical power generation capacity and about 39 per cent of the needed 17 billion BOE of 2100 annual fuels production. Snead argues that the shortfall of some 1.200GW of dispatchable power generation and 11 billion BOE annual fuel requirement can be met using space based solar power.193

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

113

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Resource Wars

SBSP solves for energy conflicts, which sparks great power conflict
NSSO 7 National Security Space Office, 10/10/2007, NSSO Report to the DoD (SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, page 14) The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energys own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an alternative in the third dimension to lessen the chance of such conflicts.

Solves resource wars provides secure source of energy NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energys own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an alternative in the third dimension to lessen the chance of such conflicts

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

114

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***OIL SCENARIO***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

115

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Inherency Peak Oil

Peak Oil coming within 10 years Mark Williamson, 2010, May the power be with you, POWERSPACE
So, do space power propo- nents think a point will arise when terrestrial power supplies become so inadequate that SSP is a necessity? According to Nansen, we areseeingtheevidencealready. It is pretty clear, from several regional markets, that the world is at or very near peak oil production, he says. This means that the price will continue to climb in spurts and starts, invariably ever higher. With electricity demand and atmosphericpollution growing in a sort of unholy alliance, he expects a serious realisation of the problems to sink in within the next 10 to 20 years. John Mankins is more forthright: If we wait to develop revolutionary new energy sources such as SSP until the existing terrestrial power supply reaches a tipping point, it may already be too late. The time to light the next candle is before the first one goes out not after youre sitting in the dark!

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

116

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Energy Independence (Non-Oil Specific)

One set of SSP satellites solve Earths energy needs through 2100 Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 10 years ago, in 1992, the Internet as we know it today did not exist. 30 years ago, in 1972, communications satellites existed but were a novelty. In contrast, the physics of photovoltaic cells and microwave generation are well understood. SSP will ultimately depend on the willingness of telecommunications and electric utility companies to enter the SSP business together. So far neither industry has shown much interest, mostly because they are yet unaware that SSP is indeed a commercially viable option. Hopefully, published articles such as this will increase awareness among executives in the telecommunications and electric utility industries. The next stage with regard to SSP requires a demonstration by NASA to put all the pieces together by placing a prototype SSP satellite into the exosphere, testing the solar collectors, the phased array microwave or laser transmitters, the receiving stations that separate communications data signals from power beams and the computers that tell the satellites where on the ground to aim the beams. A decentralized, non-integrated network of SSP satellites could supply Earth with 10 to 30 trillion watts of electrical power. This is enough to satisfy the needs and desires of the entire human race on Earth through 2100.35

SBSP energy potential is unlimited provides clean energy based off sun NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoir of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy security and assurance. The reservoir of Space Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growth far past the foreseeable needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and beyond. In the vicinity of Earth, each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square kilometer of space. If one were to stretch that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1 km wide ring receives over 210 terawatt years of power annually. The amount of energy coursing through that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output of the fusion powered Sun is billions of times beyond that, and it will last for billions of yearsorders of magnitude beyond all other known sources combined. Space Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar system. This is not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energyclean, renewable energyavailable to the human civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it.

SBSP offers a clean, renewable alternative to current energy consumption

Hadhazy, writer for Scientific American, 4/16/09, The Scientific American (Adam, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the Light of Day?, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day) The challenges of building this satellite (due to be completed in 2016) and introducing so-called space-based solar power (SBSP) remain formidable. But driven by the urgency of climate change and the lowering costs of solar technology, a growing number of countries and companies believe an energy revolution could be in the offing. Why bother harvesting solar energy directly from space? It is abundant, and "you can get [this] power 24/7," says Marty Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University. Sunlight is some five to 10 times stronger in space, and its shine would reach energy-gathering satellites placed into geostationary (fixed) orbitsthe realm of many currently deployed communications spacecraftmore than 99 percent of the time. SBSP could, according to energy experts, provide constant, pollution-free powerunlike intermittent wind and cloud coversensitive ground-based solar, and without the emissions of fossil fuels or radioactive waste from nuclear power. "[SBSP] is a disruptive technology [in that] it could change the whole energy equation," says Frederick Best, director of the Center for Space Power (CSP) at Texas A&M University in College Station, Tex.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

117

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Oil Dependence

SBPS solves coal and oil dependence fosters international cooperation and reduces resource conflict Tuyet N. Le, Masters Thesis, San Jose State University, 2009, Conceptual design of a solar power beaming space system,
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4736&context=etd_theses&seiredir=1#search=""space+based"+"solar+power"+satellite"//jchen Every day the world population increases in number and puts a greater strain on the Earth's finite supply of resources. As fossil fuels are depleted by today's demanding economies and industries, the need for alternative sources of energy increases exponentially. For example, according to the India Planning Commission, India must generate 700,000 additional megawatts of power to keep pace with its frantically growing economy and population (Farrar, 2008). Many villages exist with limited power or no power at all. In order to keep pace with population expansion, India must develop new sources of energy to provide power to these villages and bring them in line with the more developed regions of the country. One solution to this looming energy crisis is to look to the stars. Solar power is one source of clean, virtually unlimited energy. An ideal solution would be to develop a method to harvest this cheap solar energy twenty four hours a day. One such solution is the concept of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP). SBSP requires the assembly of an expansive network of solar panels in geosynchronous orbit about the Earth. Placed in a high orbit where solar energy is intense, these solar cells would gather the sun's energy almost twenty four hours a day and 365 days a year. Once collected by the solar panels, this endless supply of energy could be beamed down to ground stations all over the world, including rural, undeveloped areas in third world countries. The advantages of Space Based Solar Power are many. This method of harvesting clean, limitless energy reduces the need for the destruction of the environment for the purpose of meeting increasing energy demands. The need for development of polluting coal power plants and drilling for oil would be greatly reduced or eliminated. An SBSP network would allow the world to detach itself from the dependence on a finite supply of fossil fuels. The reduction of competition for limited resources would reduce tension between world powers and relieve worries over energy shortages. SBSP would allow for global expansion and development without inciting fears over an energy supply that cannot keep up with increasing demand. A future powered by the sun would allow economies and innovation to thrive around the globe. Small villages in third world countries such as India would be transformed into thriving communities with higher living standards and significant contributions to the global economy. The United States, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and the members of the European Union, are all intrigued by the idea of SBSP for domestic and commercial purposes. The early pioneers of SBSP technology will be able to assert themselves as global energy leaders for decades to come

SBSP energy potential could completely replace oil NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen A single kilometer wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of mankinds ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of todays technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

118

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Hegemony

Countries with sustainable energy can sustain heg Taylor Dinerman, Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City., 7, Space solar power: opposition and
obstacles, spacereview.com The late French historian Francois Furet once made the point that Of all the passions of modern democracy the oldest, the most constant, and the most powerful is the hatred of the bourgeoisie. Middle-class capitalist democracy is the most successful form of government so far invented by human beings. Reliable, relatively low-cost energy is critical to a democratic capitalist economy. It is no accident, as our old Soviet friends used to say, that the US consumes roughly 25% or the worlds energy and produces about 25% of the worlds GDP. Energy is naturally at the heart of any nations grand strategy. Foes of middle-class capitalist democracy see energy as being the systems Achilles heal.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

119

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Heg

SBSP provides energy independence thats key to military dominance Naval Research Laboratory, NRL is the corporate research laboratory for the Navy and Marine Corps and conducts a broad program of scientific research, technology and advanced development, October 23, 2009, Space-based Solar Power: Possible
Defense Applications and Opportunities for NRL Contributions, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA513123, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Space-based solar power (SBSP) is generally considered to be the collection in space of energy from the Sun and its wireless transmission from space for use on Earth. It has been observed that the implementation of such a system could offer energy security, environmental, and technological advantages to those who would undertake its development. The principal objective of this Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) SBSP study was to determine if the NRL can offer a unique, cost-effective, and efficient approach to supplying significant power on demand for Navy, Marine Corps, or other Department of Defense (DoD) applications by employing a space-based solar power system. This study was initiated by and prepared for top NRL management in part as a result of the publication of the National Security Space Offices (NSSO) report Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security. The NSSO reports recommendations included statements calling for the U.S. Government to conduct analyses, retire technical risk, and become an early demonstrator for SBSP. As the corporate research laboratory for the Navy and Marine Corps with a proven record of technology transition, NRL is ideally suited to assist in this effort. NRLs in-house capabilities include an integrated spacecraft design, fabrication, and qualification facility, and a ground station network. This report reviews some of the critical technology issues for SBSP and highlights relevant research areas, particularly those that NRL is technically qualified to address. It must be noted that the principal objective of this study differs significantly from that of the multitude of previous studies performed in reference to SBSP in that it focuses on defense rather than utility grid applications. A secondary objective was to determine possible funding agencies that would entertain a broad NRL proposal to perform research and development for elements of such a system. The NRL SBSP Study Group concurs with the conclusions of the numerous previous studies of preceding decades that the SBSP concept is technically feasible but that there remain significant system risks in many areas. The Group concurs that SBSP offers one of several possible solutions to the energy independence and dominance of our country and our military; and that those alternative solutions (including terrestrial solar, nuclear, and wind) must be an integral part of the solution.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

120

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***TECHNOLOGY SPILLOVER***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

121

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Key to NASA/NASA Cred (1/2)

SPS development key to NASA credibility Costa, Rebecca Costa is a socio biologist who offers a genetic explanation for current events, emerging trends and individual behavior, 2010, The Watchmans Rattle: Thinking Our Way Out of Extinction,
http://books.google.com/books?id=uHfdaFN22TsC&pg=PA142&dq=Space+Based+Solar+Power&hl=en&ei=_s0DTuaRLITGgAeUu2QDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power &f=false, Date accessed June 24, 2011
Sometimes, as in the case of health care, disaster relief, and business,the effect silos have on impeding progress is obvious. However, there are many more examples in which powerful solutions to our biggest challenges never come to light. For example, when it comes to free solar energy for every house-hold on the planet, we may have already solved the problem. Surprisingly, the solution didnt come from a venture-backed start up in Silicon Valley, a university laboratory, or the Department of En-ergy. Instead, it comes from the most unlikely of places: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA was signed into existence in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a result of the Sputnik crisis in confidence. Its initial goal was to achieve human space flight, which led to the Mercury andGemini projects, and eventually culminated in the Apollo space pro-gram and putting the first man on the moon. NASA then went on to develop Sk)/lab and the Space Shuttle-two highly successful exam- ples of complex collaboration. Over time, however, America's love affair with outer space began to cool and NASA began to worry that its work was becoming irrele-vant. ln an effort to prove its commercial viability, the space agency entered a period of commercial partnerships wherein much of its focus was on communication satellite technologies, GPS navigation, and Lands at and Earth Observing. But as the competition for funding in Washington, D.C., heated up, NASA grew increasingly insecure about its role in the twenty-tirst century. How many take-offs

and land-ings of the space shuttle would Americans watch? So, NASA turned their attention to a new market, one the country was growing increasingly concerned about: renewable energy. In an effort to restore NASAs once-prestigious leadership role in the world, a handful of scientists began a secret program: space-based solar power. They would solve the problem of unlimited clean energy for the entire world once and for all. When we stop to think about it, the most efficient place to collect solar energy isn't on the surface of the planet. The atmosphere acts as a shield that protects us, but this same shield also greatly reduces the strength of solar energy that can be captured. ln outer space, however, there is no atmospheric interference, so the efficiencies are magnitudes greater than what we achieve by laying solar panels on our roofs. For decades NASA has been experimenting with solar cells in outer space in order to power satellites and spacecraft, and during this time a small group at NASA has also been perfecting a method for capturing energy and delivering it safely back to Earths surface. Electricity from satellites in outer space? Sounds like science fiction. Imagine the impact if every household
had something as small as a satellite dish (akin to satellite television) by which we could receive all the power we need-for free. Thats right: Free solar power could be reformatted and beamed safely into every home. Not only would it help our pocketbooks,

but it would also mean no more utility plants or giant towers with cables strung across the desert. No underground trenches, nuclear waste cemeteries, or huge carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. The nation would be more secure because then there would be no centralized utilities, no major power lines to target that could cut off power to critical functions. Spacebased solar would change everything. So Whats Stopping us? Its shocking to discover that the scientists who have been working on
space-based solar energy at NASA have been banging on the doorof the U.S. Department of Energy for over a decade. But no one would answer. NASA? Aren't those the guys who invented Tang? Like the CIA, which tried to make data available to academia for environmental research, green energy was far outside of NASAs stated mission. NASA was accused by the DOE of mission creep and ordered to stick to space exploration. No matter how many times the scientists at NASA tried, they were unable to break through the silo walls that separated energy from space research. Meanwhile, billions of dollars were being invested by the DOE and Clean tech venture capitalists in technology that NASA knew was inferior to what they had already proven would work in their laboratories. But the scientists at NASA were government employees bound by strict confidentiality. What could they do? Frustrated and defeated at every turn, a handful of researchers went to work on tearing down the silos that were preventing progress. It was a risky endeavor and one that jeopardized thirty-year careers atthe space agency: The scientists asked for permission to open discus-sions with Canada on a joint research project that would allow them to begin testing their discovery and prove its viability. The Canadian government was all ears. In their eyes it was achance to perfect space-based solar, put it into commercial use, and then sell the power back to the United States! Suddenly the saying You can't be a prophet in your own land takes on new significance . After pouring millions of taxpayer dollars

into inventing space-based solar energy-the permanent solution to unlimited, clean, and safe energy for the entire planet-the United States stands on the verge of allowing other nations to eclipse it, all because one U.S. agency cant get another one to listen. All because humans are still hardwired to defend their territory even when it is to the detriment of the greater good. All because of silos. When this story breaks, some people may direct their outrage at the NASA scientists. Others will accuse the
Department of Energy of being inept. Still other extremists will aim their sights at President Obama. There may even be individuals who will accuse me of being unpatriotic for going public with the fact that we have the technology to deliver unlimited energy from outer space. But it would all be mis-placed blame and therefore unhelpful. Fortified government silos that are unable to cooperate, share information, and solve complex sys-temic problems together are the problem-not individual players. When you think about it, spacebased solar may be an alarming ex-ample of how silos prevent progress, but is this example substantially different from continuing to readmit almost 40 percent of the ER pa-tients within 90 days? Or the resistance to sharing information among the CIA, NSA, FBI, and Homeland Security? The historical battle be-tween genetics and evolution in biology?

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

122

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Key to NASA/NASA Cred (1/2)

SSP key to jumpstart NASA NASA Research Center, May 16, 2008, Advanced Solar Cell And Array Technology For NASA Deep Space Missions
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4922856&tag=1, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Despite the many issues associated with the use of photovoltaics to power deep space missions, it appears that solar arrays may indeed be a viable option for a number of NASA missions. The NASA GRC study has identified some low power missions (200-300 watts) where near-term solar array designs and SOA multi-junction solar cell technology can provide the capability to perform these missions. The feasibility of PV use critically depends on the specifics of the mission and the spacecraft concept. Even though a PV system may not optimize well in terms of mass, size or payload capability when compared to a nuclear-powered system, it still provides an additional design option for many NASA missions when other issues may be the determining factor. This study concluded that significant improvements in solar cell and array technology have definitely advanced the viability of photovoltaic use much farther into the solar system than previously thought possible. Further investigation into LILT effects on solar cells is required, as well as work on large, high-power solar arrays. Clear technology development paths exist to enhance PV applications in support of these missions. Figure 7 summarizes the benefits of technology development in both the solar cell and array areas, quantifying those benefits for a mission to Saturn. It illustrates that substantial benefits of a balanced development approach.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

123

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Tech Innovation (1/2)

Space innovation is key to technological development and further space exploration National Research Council, the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies providing scientific and technical services, 2009, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs, pg. 35-36 Another key role that the space economy plays within the general economy is that of being a leading-edge consumer and driver of technology. Given the harsh and unforgiving environment of space and the difficulty of getting out of Earth's gravity well, the space industry often requires cutting-edge technology. The efforts involved in space exploration over the past half century have benefited society by pushing the limits of current technology and expanding the scientific and technological frontiers. Beginning in the 1960s, innovations such as chemical milling and high-energy metal forming, along with myriad other innovative manufacturing techniques, benefited from work on Project Mercury and subsequent programs. Recent economic trends favor workers with higher skills, and space science and aerospace research can be applied to a wide array of areas outside the space arena. Ultimately, if humans are to travel far from Earth they will have to solve many key problems: how to generate water over extended periods of time, provide and store energy in a compact space, and grow food in a harsh environment. It is noteworthy that generating fresh water, creating efficient energy sources, and developing food sources are also among the top priorities of an ever more resource-constrained Earth. The civil space program will need to develop a deeper understanding of and countermeasures for bone loss, space radiation, and other health effects. Innovative equipment and procedures for providing medical care to astronauts could contribute to improved approaches to high-quality medical care in the United States and around the world. While the human space exploration program should not be justified based on the prospect of advances in these areas, a vigorous U.S. civil space program whose priorities are determined by assessing where it can lead to transformative scientific or technical outcomes will become a leading-edge driver and consumer of these technologies. As stated previously, a goal of the U.S. civil space program is to provide technological, economic, and societal benefits. By achieving this goal, the U.S. civil space program will support and expand the capability of the private sector to help meet national needs and facilitate the development of economic opportunities that may be created in space or through the use of space systems, create and maintain a continuous space technology pipeline and use the challenges presented by space exploration to create new technologies, contributing to the technological, scientific, and overall advancement of the nation

Space generated energy is key to energy supply and spin-off tech Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
Previous work has drawn attention both to the complexity of global catastrophe events and to the commonality of the agents involved regardless of the cause [2], enabling some blanket preparations to cover a wide range of possible events. A correctly targeted capability can be a comprehensive insurance cover for many potential threats. Given that global catastrophes, by definition, encompass the whole of the Earth, such provisions need to be of a global scale and be as immune as possible to the chain of events. Elsewhere, it has been argued that these requirements are best met by space industrialisation which can be the most effective response to the risks involved and should be the key focus of space infrastructure development [5]. This paper looks specifically at the role space generated power can play in this regard. The potential role of a space power capability falls into two broad classes. The first class is the direct use of energy produced by the systems to directly deal with the undesirable consequences of a developing catastrophe event. The second class of impact is consequential; the technology and infrastructure required to implement a significant space power capacity will, by serendipity, significantly affect the general capability to address global catastrophe events.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

124

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Tech Innovation (2/2)

Branch-off technology from SPS solves electricity generation and long term energy independence Space Studies Institute, Eric & Marty Hoffert, Versatility Energy, South Orange, last cited December 2006, Sun-Powered
Laser Beaming from Space for Electricity on Earth, http://ssi.org/reading/papers/sun-powered-laser-beaming-from-space-forelectricity-on-earth///jchen APPLICATIONS: The research proposed here is targeted to produce a successful system for power generation and transmission systems using high powered lasers. Once such a milestone can be achieved in the development of the core enabling technologies for WPT and SSP, there are a large number of unique and important applications which can be supported, such as flexible power distribution delivered to: (a) isolated or advanced positions; (b) airplanes, or high altitude airships; (c) large-scale ships at sea; (d) satellites requiring new power sources (i.e., to address battery depletion or eclipse constraints); or (e) offshore bodies such as islands and man-made platforms. Additional capabilities may include support for on-demand high-scale power generation in remote areas; movement of objects from LEO to GEO; high-energy electrolysis to produce hydrogen from water for use in fuel cells in vehicles, aircraft, etc.; and support of broader goals for energy security and energy independence. Certain applications such as power delivery to high-altitude airships or ships at sea requires complementary tracking to ensure power is delivered accurately to these moving objects.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

125

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Fed k2 Tech Innovation

Military investment in SSP is essentialspurs general tech innovation Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to communicate climate
science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior writer at Time magazine, where he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years. He has also written four books on astronomical topics and has taught science journalism at Princeton University, Such futuristic schemes have understandably generated a great deal of skepticism. Space experts have been debating the issue online, with some arguing that Solarens project will be far more expensive than the company estimates, in part because it could take more than a dozen launches not just four, as the company stated to get the solar station into space. But the militarys interest in SBSP could give a major boost to the technology. According to Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse, Chief of Advanced Concepts for the National Security Space Office, the military is interested in SBSP for two main reasons. The first, he said, is that were obviously interested in energy security, and By being an early customer, the government can rapidly accelerate development of the technology. were also interested in weaning ourselves off fossil fuels because climate change could pose national security risks. But there would also be a tactical advantage to space-based solar, Damphousse noted. When the military is operating in remote regions of countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, it uses diesel generators to supply forward bases with power. We have a significant footprint getting energy in, says Damphousse, noting the need for frequent convoys of oil tankers, the soldiers to protect them, and air support all of which is expensive and dangerous. Being able to tap into power beamed directly down from space would clearly have a lot of appeal, says Damphousse, even if it were relatively costly. And its not just useful for the battlefield, he says, but also for areas affected by natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. For those reasons, Damphousse supports the idea of coordinated studies by the Pentagon and other agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy that would have a stake in space-based power. We might, for example, do some experiments on the International Space Station, which is already up there and generating 110 kilowatts of power from its own solar cells, he says, rather than having to send up a dedicated test satellite. Such cooperation might appeal to NASA. I suspect that NASA will start working on energy and on more advanced technology and less on, Lets get to the moon by 2018, says Mankins. By undertaking some of the research and being an early customer for SBSP, the government could rapidly accelerate development of the technology. Historians of aviation agree that the governments decision to back air mail played a major role in developing the aircraft industry, leading to technological innovations and economies of scale. The same phenomenon could take an emerging but outlandish-sounding technology and push it into the energy mainstream.

Government investment in aeronautics has empirically enhanced private industry Gregory Hooks, Washington State University, 90 The Rise of the Pentagon and U.S. State Building: The Defense Program as
Industrial Policy, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Sep., 1990), pp. 358-404 The University of Chicago Press As the World War II "arsenal of democracy" and the postwar hege- monic power, the U.S. state has shaped industrial production in strategically important sectors. Society-centered theories of the military-industrial complex view the difference between the pre- and postwar state as essentially a quantitative one. The postwar state purchased a large quantity of weapons, but it remained a consumer, not a planner. But this research into aeronautics and electronics provides evidence that the hegemonic U.S. state established a qualitatively new relationship with capitalist firms. In Block's terms (1980), the demands of World War II and postwar hegemony pushed the U.S. state beyond a "tipping point" in its relations with private firms. The state planned the development of sectors that were essential to strategic policy and crucial to U.S. scientific and technological choices, employment, and balance of trade4

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

126

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN k2 Other Space Exploration (1/2)

SSP technology key to all future NASA missions NASA Research Center, May 16, 2008, Advanced Solar Cell And Array Technology For NASA Deep Space Missions
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4922856&tag=1, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Despite the many issues associated with the use of photovoltaics to power deep space missions, it appears that solar arrays may indeed be a viable option for a number of NASA missions. The NASA GRC study has identified some low power missions (200-300 watts) where near-term solar array designs and SOA multi-junction solar cell technology can provide the capability to perform these missions. The feasibility of PV use critically depends on the specifics of the mission and the spacecraft concept. Even though a PV system may not optimize well in terms of mass, size or payload capability when compared to a nuclear-powered system, it still provides an additional design option for many NASA missions when other issues may be the determining factor. This study concluded that significant improvements in solar cell and array technology have definitely advanced the viability of photovoltaic use much farther into the solar system than previously thought possible. Further investigation into LILT effects on solar cells is required, as well as work on large, high-power solar arrays. Clear technology development paths exist to enhance PV applications in support of these missions. Figure 7 summarizes the benefits of technology development in both the solar cell and array areas, quantifying those benefits for a mission to Saturn. It illustrates that substantial benefits of a balanced development approach.

SSP lays the technological foundation for development of other satellites Fatemi, Navid S. Fatemi, Emcore Photovoltaics, May 16, 2008, Satellite market trends and the enabling role of multi-junction
space solar cells, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4922696&tag=1, Date accessed June 25, 2011 The space satellite industry has enjoyed a period of relative stability and prosperity since 2003. For exam- ple, an average of more than 20 telecommunication satellites have been ordered annually in the 2003 - 2007 time period. The first 4 months of 2008 have already seen 9 orders. Many science, earth observation and interplanetary exploration missions have also been planned and executed in the same time frame. This rather healthy trend is projected to continue for at least the next several years. The very high-efficiency multi- junction solar cells have been the enabling technology behind most of these satellites. Even higher efficiency (Le., 33%) and lower mass solar cell technologies are in the development phase at Emcore Photovoltaics to enable the next class of high-power satellites and spacecrafts.

SPS opens access to future clean energy operations and space development Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen Space-based geoengineering concepts for environmental countermeasures are a potential supplement to earth-based actions. By defining options and benefits, SBSP may alert decision-makers to the potential of space operations as more than a tool to monitor the course of global change. Within the envelope of environmental protection is the preventing tornadoes concept. It promises early benefits by saving lives and reduce property damage. The principal payoff is projected to be the demonstration of space solar power technology and operations. This can lead to investment by the commercial energy organizations when their technical and operational risk is reduced. Once the potential for clean renewable energy from space is demonstrated, the way will be opened for further exploration and development of space

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

127

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN k2 Other Space Exploration (2/2)

Breakthroughs in SBSP tech are key to all other future space exploration ventures NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that retirement of the SBSP technical challenges begets other significant strategic benefits for exploration, commerce and defense, that in and of themselves may justify a national program. At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in space maneuver and operational capability, and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in space manufacturing and construction or in situ space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion. SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies. The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely new technologies for applications such as image and real time surface and airborne object tracking services, as well as high bandwidth telecommunications, high definition television and radio, and mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new architectures, such as power platforms that provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self constructing structures, or wireless cooperative formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar Power Satellites out of low earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our ability to move large payloads within the Earth Moon system. The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth and space based power beaming applications. A truly developed Space Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de orbit of space debris, space to space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forwards StarWisp Concept.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

128

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN k2 Other Satellites (Efficiency)

SBSP transmission to satellites maximizes energy efficiency and increases payload Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.7 Space Solar Power to Non-Terrestrial Targets SBSP, transmitted as RF energy from a solar power satellite in GEO, can be used to supplement or even supplant the more traditional sources of electric power on other satellites or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Restrictions on the downlink power density driven by bio-exposure constraints at the Earths surface would not necessarily apply to power beamed to other spacecraft, allowing smaller rectenna arrays to substitute for much larger and more massive solar array assemblies on the receiving vehicles. Power could be nearly continuous from a constellation of GEO SBSP satellites, which could minimize the disruption in operations of LEO vehicles or UAVs from lack of insolation during local night. Alternatively, power from SBSP could instead be converted to light and beamed directly onto solar array assemblies on existing spacecraft, augmenting the amount of energy that they harvest from Sun exposure alone, providing potentially significant augmentation of the capabilities of those existing systems.

Solar power transmission between satellites is feasible increases power collection and payload amount Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.7.1 Satellite-to-Satellite Power Transmission It has been suggested that there may be an advantage to developing space systems that are a group of individual free-flying modules broken down by function. This work has been promoted by DARPA through the System F6 program for fractionated spacecraft [3]. Possible benefits of satellite-to-satellite power transmission include that the solar power collection resource could be launched once, and it could support multiple payloads during the course of its lifetime. Greater flexibility is afforded, as clusters of satellites could be reconfigured while sharing power. Analysis by Sievenpiper [4] suggests that microwave satellite to satellite power transmission is not appropriate when distances are greater than 20 km or when used as a means to save weight with a single-use system. A system implementer would be better off simply using more solar cells on one satellite, due to RF inefficiencies and increased complexity. Lasers have been proposed for power transmission as well, but many of the same limitations still apply. One particular concern is how subsatellites would deal with safe-hold mode, the fallback position a satellite defaults to if a problem is detected, in which the satellite typically points to the Sun to charge its batteries with its solar arrays. This becomes problematic if the subsatellite has neither batteries nor solar arrays, and no easy way to find its power transmission satellite.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

129

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Fed k2 Tech Innovation

Federal support of space tech development like SPS forges the path for future breakthroughs and aerospace dominance NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our national jewel which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold WarGovernment policies and investments in long term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

130

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Asteroids

SPS solves asteroid collisions develops infrastructure and supplies energy needed for deflection Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
Large near-Earth object impacts, while they are comparatively rare compared to calderia volcanoes as a natural initiator of global catastrophes, are of special interest as sufficient space capability would enable deflection of destruction of the incoming objectthus fully preventing the catastrophe. This has been the subject of considerable recent literature and while many different approaches have been proposed all of them require a considerably greater space infrastructure than currently available. The size of asteroid required to create a global catastrophe is a matter of some debate. Harrison et al. [21] suggest that 1 km size object is just below a threshold where global effects could cause a catastrophe level event. Whereas Rigby et al. [22] argue a 1 km object could have caused the Dark Ages in the 6th Century AD. So a system capable of handling a 1 km object would be the minimum required to deal with potential global catastrophe level events. The size of system that could deflect a NEO sufficiently to avoid collision with the Earth is also uncertain and is strongly dependent upon the assumptions made on size, orbit and timescale. A small asteroid with centuries until the potential impact may be deflected sufficiently by a single nuclear device (e.g. [23]), which is probably just about possible with the current space infrastructure. However, a large comet with only a year or two warning would require systems well beyond current capability. There have been proposals for large orbital systems to deflect asteroids for example that outlined by Campbell et al. [24]. To deflect an iron asteroid using a pulsed laser was estimated to need peak powers of 200 GW, which would correspond to a continuous power supply requirement in the order of 20 GW. This is the output of two reference SPS satellites giving a good indication of the size of system required for this technique. One suggested location was a Sun Earth Lagrange point.

Asteroid collision causes extinction volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis Bill Bryson, Journalist for The Times, written several science books, 2003, BROADWAY BOOKS, A short history of nearly
everything An asteroid or comet traveling at cosmic velocities would enter the Earths atmosphere at such a speed that the air beneath it couldnt get out of the way and would be compressed, as in a bicycle pump. As anyone who has used such a pump knows, compressed air grows swiftly hot, and the temperature below it would rise to some 60,000 Kelvin, or ten times the surface temperature of the Sun, In this instant of its arrival in our atmosphere everything in the meteors-people, houses, factories, cars-would crinkle and vanish like cellophane in a flame. One second after entering the atmosphere, the meteorite would slam into the Earths surface, where the people of Manson had a moment before been going about their business. The meteorite itself would vaporize instantly, but the blast would blow out a thousand cubic kilometers of rock, earth, and superheated gases. Every living thing within 150 miles that hadnt been killed by the heat of entry would now be killed by the blast. Radiating outward at almost the speed of light would be the initial shock wave, sweeping everything before it. For those outside the zone of immediate devastation, the first inkling of catastrophe would be a flash of blinding light-the brightest ever seen by human yes-followed an instant to a minute or two later by an apocalyptic sight of unimaginable grandeur: a roiling wall of darkness reaching high into the heavens, filling an entire field of view and traveling at thousands of miles an hour. Its approach would be eerily silent since it would be moving far beyond the speed of sound. Anyone in a tall building in Omaha or Des Moines, say, who chanced to look in the right direction would see a bewildering veil of turmoil followed by instantaneous oblivion. Within minutes, over an area stretching from Denver to Detroit and encompassing what had once been Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, the Twin Cities-the whole city of the Midwest, in short-nearly every standing thing would be flattened or on fire, and nearly every living thing would be dead. People up to a thousand miles away would be knocked off their feet and sliced or clobbered by a blizzard of flying projectiles. Beyond a thousand miles the devastation from the blast would gradually diminish. But thats just the initial shockwave. No one can do more than guess what the associated damage would be, other than that it would be brisk and global. The impact would almost certainly set off a chain of devastating earthquakes. Volcanoes across the globe would begin to rumble and spew. Tsunamis would rise up and head devastatingly for distant shores. Within an hour, a cloud of blackness would cover the planet, and burning rock and other debris would be pelting down everywhere, setting much of the planet ablaze. It has been estimated that at least a billion and half people would be dead by the end of the first day. The massive disturbances to the ionosphere, would knock out communication systems everywhere, so survivors would have no idea what was happening else where or where to turn. It would hardly matter. As one commentator has put it, fleeing would very little affected by any plausible relocation effort, since Earths ability to support life would be universally diminished.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

131

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Asteroids

SSP dual use flexibility solves asteroids Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Economic considerations play a large role in justifying launch costs, whether by government or by industry. Since it is possible, according to Glaser to achieve a dual purpose by placing SSP collectors on existing communications satellites, there should be a way to add a third and fourth component/justification to proposed space platforms. The needed add-ons might be telescopes and lasers for the primary use of defending Earth from the many small Earth crossing orbits of asteroids and comets collectively referred to as Near Earth Objects (NEOs). The telescope/laser fixtures could be used to detect and deflect NEOs that are about 50 meters across (city killers) and to detect the larger kilometer wide Earth killers that would require more persuasive measures. This approach would be in keeping with the philosophy established by Dr, David Morrison of the NASA Ames Research Center. Morrison says, Although the annual probability of Earth being struck by a large NEO is extremely small, the consequences of such a collision are so catastrophic that it is prudent to assess the nature of the threat and prepare to deal with it.41In 1992, Congress requested Morrison to study ways to discover Earth crossing orbits of NEOs before they hit Earth. He developed the idea of an international Spaceguard Survey of ground-based telescopes to detect and catalogue all asteroids larger than 1 kilometer within the next 25 years. In the U.S., the Spaceguard survey is being funded at $1 million a year under the auspices of NASA, JPL, the U.S. Air Force, MIT, The University of Arizona and Livermore National Laboratories.42

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

132

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact XTN Hegemony

Asteroids destroy hegemony Stephen Brooks, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, and he is recently the author of the book World out of
Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, and he is an expert on international security and globalization, Stephen Brooks on Hegemony, lecture @ DDI 7/21/ 2010, transcribed by Vinay Pai, http://www.planetdebate.com/blogs/view/1043//jc So, when we ask: is the U.S. the sole superpower? To me, the answer is obvious. If you have one state which is bigger than the next several states combined economically, and is about the same size in military capacity terms as the rest of the world, that one state is the only state which qualifies as a superpower, and there is no other state which is a superpower and when the gap is that big, then there is not going to be another state which is emerging as a peer rival, or a peer of the United States, another superpower, for a very long time. And the simple reason why is that within international relations, relative power shifts slowly. The only way, in my view, that you could have a situation where we go from the U.S. being from the sole superpower, and there being other important countries out there which are China, Japan, and so forth and we have another country emerging where it is roughly comparable to the United States in terms of its military and economic capacity, and in terms of the kinds of political and military commitments that it has throughout the world the only way I see this happening would be if the United States, somehow, was split in half. If we had a civil war, or if there was some kind of asteroid that wiped out half the country, then you would have the end of the United States as the sole superpower, provided that that event did not also drag down China or Japan, or whoever else.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

133

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact XTN Solves Disasters (Generic)

SPS spin-off technology solves multiple other global catastrophes Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
4. Conclusions The assessment of the various options is preliminary and not comprehensive. It does, however, give an indication of the possibilities that would become available if an SPS capability on the scale of the NASA reference system were to be implemented. The conclusion can be drawn that, by serendipity, if mankind can generate power from space on an economic basis then other capabilities and options to address global catastrophe events would be viable. Table 2 summarises the discussion in the paper and shows that all the systems considered can be constructed from elements that match the reference SPS element size. It follows that the individual elements of the supporting infrastructure would also be adequate for their construction. The overall system size (and by inference the supporting infrastructure capability) are also generally comparable with the reference SPS system of 60 SPS with the exception of systems designed to address global warming which need to be on a considerably larger scale

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

134

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Asteroid Mining

Solves resource depletion makes asteroid mining viable by providing energy and technology Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
In current times there is a greater concentration on pollution induced problems such as global warming, however, earlier warnings of anthropogenic collapse tended to highlight rates of resource depletion. The original global dynamic modelling work of Forrester [34] demonstrated that with only very small changes in the modelling parameters collapse due to pollution effects could be interchanged with collapse due to resource depletion. In the later high profile work by Meadows et al. [35], the standard run was a resource depletion collapse. Bond and Varvill [36] have explored a concept for mining metal on the Moon on a scale that would meet the world's demand for most common metals aluminium, silicon titanium, iron and possibly nickel. The argument made was not that there was a shortage of these metals but that the energy used in refining metals from their ores is one of the highest contributors to humanity's energy consumption. Therefore an extraterrestrial metal supply would have a considerable impact on the Earth's total energy requirements. To produce hundreds of Mega-tonnes of iron and tens of Mega-tonnes of aluminium an operation would require 100 GW on a continuous basis. Bond and Varvill assumed this would be provided by SPSs in L4 or L5 Lagrange points20 reference SPSs would be required to supply thisallowing continuous mining and refining operations. The material would be sent to Earth using a electromagnetic accelerator the energy required to do this is between 6% for steel and 1% for aluminium of the energy required to mine and refine the metal. Thus the transport element is not a significant extra burden. The overall concept is shown in Fig. 2. Bond and Varvill's solution to the final return to Earth was to shape the ingots into an aerodynamic disk shown in Fig. 2. Each disk is 80 m diameter and 8 m deep with a mass of 3000 tonnes. The ballistic coefficient ensures heat loads at atmosphere entry do not melt the ingot and that the final impact speed with the ground is 100 m/s slow enough to ensure the ingot stays in one piece for salvage. Of course one of the first major users of lunar materials would be the SPS systems itself as highlighted by ONeil [37], so it is likely that the technology for lunar metal extraction would be part of the SPS legacy and not require separate development.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

135

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Missile Defense

SBSP powered bistatic radar is 100 times more effective than traditional radar systems Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.4 Bistatic Radar Illuminator Bistatic radar systems are generally well-suited to several specific applications where they outperform conventional monostatic radars, especially in real-world tactical scenarios. Notably, bistatic radars are of particular value in countering anti-radiation missile (ARM) threats, retro-directive radar jammers, and stealth radar technologies. They are inherently capable of implementing some processes, notably clutter- tuning, that are impossible for monostatic radars [2]. Any SBSP satellite delivering RF energy to the surface can be used in a hitchhiker configuration, where the same RF downlink used to provide power to ground users can also be used as a coherent source of that RF energy for bistatic radar implementations. SBSP satellites used as RF sources for bistatic radar applications possess advantages over and above those afforded by more traditional satellites (e.g., GEO communication satellites, and GPS). Initially, SBSP bistatic systems will be able to operate at much higher effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) than other spaceborne sources, providing orders of magnitude higher illumination of the surface, resulting in much higher signal to noise ratio (SNR), which allows detection of targets with much lower radar cross sections and minimizes an already lower threat from surface jammers. Instead of relying on coincidental illumination from more traditional spaceborne sources, SBSP RF illumination can be directed to specific tactical areas of interest, providing an on-demand capability as an adjunct to the SBSPs primary power transmission mission.

Current missile defense is useless addition of bistatic radar eliminates vulnerabilities Mark Barnes, attorney and advocate. Barnes is an expert on public healthcare law. He was Director of Policy for the New York State Department, 12/16/02, High Power Microwave Bistatic Radar Concept for Ballistic Missile Defense,
http://www.dodsbir.net/selections/abs2002-2/mdaabs022.htm//jchen Abstract: The project proposes to evaluate the feasibility of enhancing the technology level of the Multiple Miniature Kill Vehicles (MMKV's) that uses High Power Microwave (HPM) devices with a receiver system to collect bistatic radar data for object discrimination. The primary criticism of most missile defense systems has been their vulnerability to potential countermeasures. Many articles have been written highlighting this concern, some postulating that the National Missile Defense system could be defeated by several unclassified countermeasures. The proposed concept expands the potential functions of MMKV deployed HPM devices to include the innovative use of bistatic radar signature collection for object discrimination. The basic MMKV concept is to use multiple, small interceptors which might be packaged on a booster. The primary function of these interceptors would be to actively destroy countermeasures and re-entry vehicles (RV's). One of these concepts uses MMKV's to deploy HPM emitters to damage the electronics of jammers. The proposed concept uses the energy emitted by the HPM devices as transmitters and a receiver to form a bistatic radar. Preliminary review demonstrates that bistatic angles greater than 120 provide substantially larger radar cross-section for RV's than backscattering and yields features that distinguish an RV from a decoy. Although there is a potential to apply a similar approach to geophysical exploration, it is envisioned that the commercialization aspect of this program will predominantly be limited to future "commercialized" sales of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems. There are a number of potential systems that would benefit from this capability including the National Missile Defense (NMD) System, THAAD, PATRIOT and Navy Theater Wide (NTW). It is also possible that other programs within BMDO may wish to pick this program up as a future funded effort. These potential future customers include BMDO's Project Hercules, BMDO's Advanced Technology, SMDC's Joint Center for Technology Integration and SMDC's Sensors Directorate.

<<missile defense good>>

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

136

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Bistatic Radar

Multiple input radar system key to boost missile defense IAI, Intelligent Automaton, Inc., High-Frequency MIMO Radar Transceiver for Ballistic Missile Defense, 2008, http://www.i-ai.com/view.asp?aid=365//jchen I AI has developed a high-frequency (HF) multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radar system based on digital radar transceivers for ballistic missile defense. The technology of statistical MIMO radar was proven using both simulations and field tests. A novel algorithm was developed that constructs real space target location probability density map from 'Range - Doppler shift' power spectra obtained by multiple transceivers working in MIMO operational mode. This technology can construct maps separately for slow-moving and fast-moving targets. The capabilities of the digital radar transceiver card was further enhanced by adding means to generate different signal waveforms of arbitrary pulse length that conform to FCC bandwidth allowance. We also experimentally confirmed the capability of independent transceivers to synchronize to 100-ns accuracy using the rubidium clocks and 1-s tic from GPS. A vast amount of experimental data was collected during the field test of MIMO radar in both monostatic and bistatic radar operation modes

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

137

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Kickass Radar

SPS solves for Kickass Radar for the military Taylor Dinerman, Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City., 7, Solar Power satellites and space radar,
thespacereview.com One of the great showstoppers for the Space Radar (SR) program, formerly known as Space Based Radar, is power. It takes a lot of energy to transmit radar beams powerful enough to track a moving target on Earth from space. What is called the Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) is what makes SR so much better than other space radar systems, such as the recently-launched German SAR-Lupe or the NROs Lacrosse system. While many of the details are classified, the power problem seems to be the main reason that the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has been extremely reluctant to fund this program. In order to achieve the power levels needed for an effective GMTI system using current technology, very large solar arrays would be needed. Even if these were to use the new Boeing solar cells that, according to the company, are more than 30% efficient, the arrays would still be much bigger than anything on any operational satellite. Such large arrays would make the SR spacecraft easy targets for enemy antisatellite weapons and would also produce so much drag while in low Earth orbit (LEO) that their lifespan would be shorterperhaps much shorterthan current-generation reconnaissance satellites. Why, then, does such a system need to rely 100% on its own power? If solar power satellites (SPS) were available in geosynchronous orbit and could beam electricity to the SR satellites in LEO, this might allow the radar satellites to have as much power as their power control systems and heat radiators could handle. Power could be transmitted by a tightly focused laser or microwave beam to one or two receptors, integrated into the spacecrafts bus. If the radar antenna were integrated into the skin of the satellite the way it is on a B-2 bomber, such satellite would be difficult to detect and track. Using power from an SPS, such a satellite would be able to liberally use its ion engines to change its orbit. These engines would never be powerful enough to make the kind of quick responsive maneuvers that some space operations commanders would like to see in future LEO-based spacecraft, but they would be a step in the right direction. The demise of the E-10 program that had been intended to replace the Air Forces JSTARS and AWACS surveillance aircraft has left a hole in future US situational awareness capabilities that neither unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator and Global Hawk, nor existing satellite programs can possibly fill. Space Radar could do so, but only if the program is restructured to make it at once more ambitious in terms of future capability and less ambitious in terms of near-term operations. The first steps in such a program would be to begin work on an experiment to prove that power transmission in space via laser is possible. Already lasers are being used for communications in civil and military applications; taking this one step beyond to encompass power should be within the state of the art. At the same time the US Defense Department and NASA could begin joint work on a new generation of high-capacity power systems for future spacecraft. The power management and thermal control needs of a spacecraft that will carry a human crew to Mars may not be all that different from those of an SPS or an SR satellite. The bulk of the development work on the radars themselves can be left until later in the program. Meanwhile, the US could profitably study less ambitious space radar programs such as Canadas Radarsat. Launching one or two modest technology development satellites over the next five or ten years would be a helpful way to set the stage for a new SR program. In the long term, say, by around 2010, the GMTI radar could be replaced and supplemented by an Air Moving Target Indicator (AMTI), which would need even more power.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

138

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Colonization

Only SPS can meet the energy demands of space colonization NSS, National Space Society, Space solar power technologically ready, AD Astra, Spring 2008,
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for the climate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.

SPS is a prerequisite to colonization

David Schrunk, Aerospace Engineer, works at the Kepler Space Institute, 8, The Moon: resources, future development, and settlement, google books Solar power satellites are space-based power supply system arrays of solar panels that convert sunlight (or photons from other sources such as lasers) into power and then beam that power by microwave (or laser beam) to a distant site, such as a receiving station on Earth or Mars. Considerable literature has been written about solar power satellites; they promise to deliver large amounts of electric power to distant sites at low cost. The lunar industrial base will be used to build the solar panels and other structural components of solar pwer satellites. The separate components of the solar power satellites will then be launched by mass driver from the Moon to their destination in space. They will be maneuvered into their final orbit (by tethers, rockets, etc.) and assembled by means of autonomous or tele-operated robotic devices. Large orbiting solar power satellites can then provide continous power in the 100-200 (or more) megawatt range- for example for the global exploration and development of planets such as Mars.

Every second we delay space colonization one hundred trillion people die Nick Bostrom, professor of philosophy at Yale University, 04, Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed
Technological Development, http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate of the human brains processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second. While this estimate is conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at least outlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that does not assume a nonbiological instantiation of the potential persons. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about 10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

139

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Colonization

SBSP key to colonization Werbos, Paul J Werbos, Directorate for Engineering, National Science Foundation, October 2009, Towards a rational strategy for
the human settlement of space, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328709000718 No matter what policy we adopt, we cannot guarantee that humans will ever be able to settle space in a sustainable, costeffective way which makes a net contribution to earth. However, the possibility may be there; a rational global space policy would maximize the probability that we achieve that hope, sooner or later. Our probability of success will be greater if we try to reach sustainability as soon as possible, by focusing heavily on developing larger exports from space to earth, and developing the technologies and infrastructure which can reduce costs. No matter what kind of exports we seek, we will need cheaper access to space to make it possible. We have a very good chance of getting to $200/pound-LEO in 510 years, if we act soon. But we also face a very real risk of losing that option forever if we do not give it greater priority, and learn to overcome the conflicts and rivalries which have prevented progress in the past. Earth-launched energy from space (ES) is the leading hope for now for providing the necessary level of benefits from space to earth. I would like to see a major international commitment (starting from a few core partners) to try to have gigawatts of electricity beamed down to earth, in 10 years, at a marginal cost of 10 cents/kwh or less. This would be approximately as risky as trying to go to the moon in 10 years, starting form John F. Kennedy's speech. It calls out for a commitment, like Kennedy's, to take the efficient road holding down costs by developing new technology and infrastructure, even though it may add a risk of a 5-year delay. Risky as it would be, it would reduce the risks that really matter to the humans speciesrisks related to nuclear proliferation as enrichment technology starts to spread, and risks related to pollution and the less-than-infinite world supply of coal. In the past, great visionaries like Gerard ONeill and David Criswell claimed that ES would be much cheaper (and human settlement of space more assured) if we could somehow use materials from the moon to build the kind of systems I have discussed here. I still agree with that claim. NASA's goal of developing the moon [1] is a very important part of the human space program. However, the success of that longer term effort will depend on developing a more direct market for lunar products and materials, and on developing crucial infrastructures and technology. Human development of ES and other activities in earth orbit, in the mid-term future, will be an essential part of making that longer term vision successful.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

140

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Tech Production Semiconductors

SPS is key to semiconductor innovation Mark Prado, former DoD space engineer who worked on projects like SDI, 20 02, The Solar Power Satellite (SPS) Concept,
http://www.permanent.com/p-sps.htm The solar power satellite fits into an asteroidal and lunar materials utilization scenario very well -- it is composed of materials most abundant in asteroids near Earth and/or from the Moon, and it is made up of a small variety of simple parts mass produced in large quantity. The industry required in space to produce SPS components is relatively modest. Some design studies claim that more than 99% of an SPS can be made from asteroidal and/or lunar material. The silicon solar cells can be made from lunar or asteroidal silicon, as silicon is the second most abundant element on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids. Purification of silicon is easier in the vacuum of space, and better crystals grow in zero gravity (due to no convection currents). The glass cover over the solar cells could be silica glass (silicon dioxide) -- composed of the two most abundant elements on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids. The SPS structure could be made from asteroidal nickel-iron steel or steel-reinforced lunarcrete or astercrete using cheap glass-ceramics or fiberglass composites. The waveguides could be made of glass ceramics. The vacuum tubes to generate the beam could be largely steel in terms of weight, with the small electrodes perhaps imported from Earth depending on the level of effort we put into processing the different kinds of asteroidal materials. Given the advantages of manufacturing semiconductors in orbit, Silicon Valley could lose big business to competition from Silicon Orbit in the future. Computer chips are small and lightweight enough to bring back to Earth. A future generation of space-made chips may start to bring a close to many kinds of chip manufacturing on Earth, to the benefit of consumers and Earth's environment. The first to go into business making silicon solar cells in space may well become the first to dominate that business. That may be judged by the first to experiment in orbit and get patents.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

141

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Tech Production UAVs

SBSP powered UAVs can operate continually with maximized power and payload Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.7.2 Space to UAV for Dwell Extension Current long-duration solar-powered UAV systems, while demonstrated to be feasible, are payload limited because a significant fraction of total vehicle mass must be dedicated to energy storage, usually in the form of batteries. Those batteries are essential to provide power during nighttime flight as well as to augment available solar power when the aircraft flies in attitudes or circumstances not favorable to solar energy collection. While significant advances in lightweight battery technology have been made in recent years, energy storage still comprises anywhere from 20% to 50% of total vehicle mass in flight-proven UAVs. Significant augmentation of overall UAV system capabilities is possible if a large fraction of that battery mass can be made available to the payload. SBSP, provided in concert with local insolation at the UAV, can result in far less battery mass being required on the aircraft. In addition to providing additional power during daylight operations, a network of SBSP satellites can provide nearly continuous power to the UAV during local night. In fact, at typical UAV cruise power requirements of 75 to 100 W and typical wing areas of 1.2 to 2 m2, all the flight power for the bird could conceivably be provided by RF or light transmission from SBSP without exceeding the 100 W/m2 controlled area limit of exposure currently accepted as human-safe. Significant challenges include wireless power beam control to a comparatively small, moving target. This application is more plausible when taken in conjunction with a forward base SBSP scenario, where the UAV could fly through the wireless power beam already being sent to the base, rather than the UAV being a sole consumer.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

142

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Tech Production Moon Development/Space Debris

SBSP is key to spurring Moon development, asteroid protection and space debris protection NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/2007 (SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, page 22)
At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in space maneuver and operational capability, and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in space manufacturing and construction or in site space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion. SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies. The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely new technologies for applications such as image and real time surface and airborne object tracking services, as well as high bandwidth telecommunications, high definition television and radio, and mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new architectures, such as power platforms that provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self constructing structures, or wireless cooperative formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar Power Satellites out of low earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our ability to move large payloads within the Earth Moon system. The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth and space based power beaming applications. A truly developed SpaceBased Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de orbit of space debris, space to space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including farterm concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forwards StarWisp Concept.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

143

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Module Space Based Missile Defense

SPS development enables infrastructure required for success of SDI and missile defense Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
3.1. Strategic defence The use of space-based systems to intercept and nullify strategic missiles and thus prevent the destruction caused by a nuclear war is the only seriously funded attempt to prevent global catastrophe using space systems after President Regan established strategic defence initiative (SDI) in 1983 [14]. The history of this programme highlights the key problem with all potential space solutions to global catastrophes. The SDI programme explored numerous different technologies and approaches. A simplistic history would be the early period was characterised by an emphasis on directed energy weapons such as lasers and neutral particle beams, and the later stages were characterised by an emphasis on kinetic weapons, in particular Brilliant Pebbles [15]. The directed energy weapons typically would each have mass around 100 tonnes with tens required in lower Earth orbit, both the mass and the launch rate required are well beyond the capabilities of the current launch capability. This was addressed with a programme to produce a heavy launcher called the advanced launch vehicle (ALV) [16]. Although a USAF programme with some NASA interest [17], it was initiated by SDI [18] and the schedule seemed to driven by SDI requirements [19]. The change of SDI's emphasis to Brilliant Pebbles also raised launch capability issues. While the kinetic systems are far smaller they are required to be deployed in thousands [15]. So while the requirement for a heavy lift capability was lost, the required launch rate is much higher, and that leads to a need for a reusable launcher with aircraft type operations. This requirement led to the single stage rocket technology programme [20] that culminated in the DC-X experimental vehicle flight programme. The lesson that can be drawn is that existing launch infrastructure systems cannot support any form of orbital ballistic missile defence, however, in comparison with the launch requirements required for an SPS system it would be two orders of magnitude lower. While the infrastructure requirements would be met, the SPS would provide little of the technology development required for a viable system

<<missile defense impact>>

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

144

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 *****ECONOMY*****

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

145

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Industry Development

Tech breakthroughs spur new industry development Komerath et al ,N. Komerath, N. Boechler, S. Wanis School of Aerospace Engineering and Center for International Strategy, Technology & Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006, Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&q=development+%22space+based+solar+power%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 26, 2011 Coupled with current environmental policy issues, this approach enables rapid growth of the green energy generation industry, paving an intermediate solution path towards a viable solar power industry that integrates extraterrestrial resources. Once this infrastructure is created, transition to space-based or lunar-based sources is simpler in other words, this provides the evolutionary approach that has been lacking to-date. The first iteration of the system is described in Boechler et al.4 In the long term this will open up a technological solution with far-reaching consequences for energy independence, increase of green energy sources, and enabling benign economic development in areas where such development is not now viable. It also sets the context for technological breakthroughs in efficiently converting solar power directly to beamed energy. This is a prospect with a multitude of applications.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

146

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency XTN Economic Transition

SPS use prompts a global economic transition to clean tech and job creation Trevor Brown, BA from Indiana University and an MSc from Nanyang Technological University, author focused on political, economic, and military strategy for the medium of space, 6/1/09, The Space Review, SSP: a spherical architecture,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1383///jchen If solar power satellites such as these did come into being, they would very likely necessitate the overhaul of the entire global economy to achieve broad compatibility with the new energy technology. The resultant economic transformation would be incredible, creating many new high technology jobs in industries across the world, but especially in the nation that was at the epicenter of the SSP breakthrough. In fact, of greatest economic impact may not be the new energy technology itself, but rather the wave of innovation arising in complement to the new energy technology

Economic transition is inevitable after fossil fuels run out SPS key to avert energy crunch Rhodes, Christopher J. Rhodes, Professor Chris Rhodes has a visiting position at the University of Reading and is Director of Freshlands Environmental Actions, He has published more than 200 peer reviewed articles and five books, and is also a published novelist, journalist and poet, March 2010 Solar energy: principles and possibilities, http://dartmouthcolnh.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/sciprg/2010/00000093/00000001/art00003 As the world faces an impending dearth of fossil fuels, most immediately oil, alternative sources of energy must be found. 174 PW worth of energy falls onto the top of the Earths atmosphere in the form of sunlight which is almost 10,000 times the total amount of energy used by humans on Earth, as taken from all sources, oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power combined. If even a fraction of this could be harvested efficiently, the energy crunch could in principle be averted. Various means for garnering energy from the Sun are presented, including photovoltaics (PV), thin film solar cells, quantum dot cells, concentrating PV and thermal solar power stations, which are more efficient in practical terms. Finally the prospects of space based (satellite) solar power are considered. The caveat is that even if the entire world electricity budget could be met using solar energy, the remaining 80% of energy which is not used as electricity but thermal power (heat) still needs to be found in the absence of fossil fuels. Most pressingly, the decline of cheap plentiful crude oil (peak oil) will not find a substitution via solar unless a mainly electrified transportation system is devised and it is debatable that there is sufficient time and conven- tional energy remaining to accomplish this. The inevitable contraction of transportation will default a deconstruction of the globalised world economy into that of a system of localised communities.

SSP has a large pay off in the long term- solves economy Macauley ,Molly K. Macauley, is a writer for Resources for the Future, 2007 Satellite solar power: Renewed interest in an age of
climate change? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964607000264#secx16 This study models and analyzes the relationship among SSP, the environment, and electricity reliability. It seeks to promote understanding of costs and opportunities, and how to address them in a systematic and quantitative framework, for characterizing the possible contribution of SSP to electricity markets. The detailed computer-based model developed here estimates the potential economic value of SSP as a source of commercial power by the year 2030. The model explicitly incorporates environmental effects and reliability concerns associated with conventional (terrestrial) power technologies. These effects are defined and measured within a larger modeling framework in which the potential value of SSP is placed in economic context with electricity supplies in distinct geographic markets, including two regions within the USA (California and the Midwest), Germany, and India. Previous SSP research has largely (although not exclusively) evaluated SSP by comparing it with fossil-fuel technologies based on highly aggregated US national average data. This research has thus not accounted explicitly for the role of terrestrial renewable energy, technical innovation in other technology between now and the coming decades, and marked geographic differences in terrestrial renewable energy potential (for example, some regions lack geothermal and solar thermal capacity, but the availability of SSP is independent of terrestrial resource endowments). Importantly, prior research has also not included environmental effects in an integrated model. By using cost
indices, the model has conceptual rigor but is parsimonious in some of its data requirements. We also incorporate formal statistical measures of uncertainty with respect to the cost performance of power technologies in the future as well as public policy likely to govern or influence future electricity markets. The output of the model is the discounted present value of the possible economic benefits of SSP compared with conventional electricity generation as the year 2030 approaches and additions to power generation capacity are required to meet growing demand. We find that conditions under which SSP is more likely to be competitive in serving growth in

demand include electricity markets in which carbon emissions and thermal effluent associated with some conventional power generation technologies are financially assessed (through fees or taxes). Another discriminating factor is the extent to which reliability of conventional generation technologies is less than that which may be expected from SSP. We find that the
benefits of SSP vary markedly among geographic regions as a result of differences in resource endowments, power generation costs (including fuelstock costs), and public policy. This detailed energy market and geographic modeling are intended to complement and significantly facilitate further SSP engineering development and related investment decisions by providing understanding of conditions under which SSP could be successful.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

147

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

148

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Disaster Advantage
Minority communities are disproportionately affected by environmental catastrophe. Failure to address climate change means leaving communities of color increasingly vulnerable to Katrina-like disasters. This constitutes environmental racism.
Maya Wiley, Director of the Center for Social Inclusion, Summer 2006, Overcoming Structural Racism, Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Vol. 13, No. 1, online: http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/504 Last winter, the ground never froze in Brooklyn, New York. In January, I was digging up dandelions that had taken over my yard and preparing new flowerbeds. Climate change is hitting close to home. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has predicted eight to 10 hurricanes in the North Atlantic Ocean this seasonabout half-a-dozen of them expected to be at least a category three. Katrina was a category three hurricane. So, New York could be the next New Orleans. One thing climate change makes clear: what happens to one community can happen to allacross neighborhoods, across cities, across countries. But we can stop the tragedy of New Orleans from repeating itself. We can even turn New Orleans tragedy into an opportunity to understand better the human landscape that for so long has been sowed with the poisonous seeds of racism. By understanding and addressing the inequities brought on by structural racism, we can and will improve our environment in every possible way, including socially and economically. Often, when we talk about global warming, issues of racial inequity are left out. We focus on dirty energy, our governments failure to regulate corporate polluting and reluctance to create incentives for clean and renewable energy alternatives. We criticize our consumer culture with its insatiable appetite for SUVs, and our preference for suburban living with its long commutes. All of these are, of course, important factors in creating and perpetuating a climate crisis that is finally being acknowledged in the U.S., thanks to the hard work of environmental activists. While no one can say for sure that global warming caused hurricane Katrina, the science strongly suggests that storms are getting fiercer and more destructive because of carbon emissions.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

149

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Poverty Advantage
Low income communities are toast because of climate change- they are both most effected and seen as the solution to a problem perpetuated by the developed world. The telegraph, Minorities 'hardest hit' by climate change, 2:30PM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3335691/Minorities-hardest-hit-by-climate-change.html
GMT 11 Mar 2008

Environmental disasters across the world had shown that help and relief reaches them last. The study by the Minority Rights Group International (MRG) says in some cases fragile and disadvantaged communities may not survive unless their plight receives urgent attention. MRG's flagship annual State of the World's Minorities report gives examples of how minorities and indigenous groups were most affected in climate-related disasters because they live in the poorest, most marginalised neighbourhoods. When Dalits or 'untouchables' in Bihar, India, were disproportionately affected during the 2007 floods, relief took a long time to reach them and when it did they were subject to blatant discrimination in the aid distribution process, the report claims. Many indigenous peoples and some minorities relied on their environment for survival which made them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Ishbel Matheson, MRG's Head of Policy and Communications, said: "Climate change has finally made it to the top of the international agenda but at every level, be it inter-governmental, national or local level, recognition of the acute difficulties that minorities face, is often missing, "From the immediate aftermath of a disaster to the point of designing policy on climate change - the unique situation of minority and indigenous groups are rarely considered." Local people had also been hit by the rush towards the planting of crops such as corn or palm oil to produce biofuels. In South American countries such as Colombia, Brazil and Argentina communities had been forcefully evicted from their land so crops could be planted. "Not only are minorities and indigenous groups disproportionately suffering as a result of climate change but they are affected by what the world sees as solutions to climate change. There is now a greater urgency to make these voices heard in the climate change debate," Ishbel Matheson said. Some of the examples highlighted by MRG, a non governmental organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, include:

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

150

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Rapid industrialization will entrench energy poverty- Space based solar power prevents this and improves the living conditions for those most effected by global warming. Peter E. Glaser, member of National Space Society Board of Governors, former Vice President for Advanced Technology
at Arthur D. Little, Inc., fellow of the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame, , 2000 The World Needs Energy from Space, Humanity faces a new energy crisis. Industrialization and urbanization will sharply increase energy use. Reliance on fossil fuels could produce unprecedented environmental damage. The solution to this problem of finite sources is to utilize terrestrial renewable energy resources to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time developing Space solar power a global, 24-hour-a-day energy supply. The volume of solar energy hitting the earth is more than twice that generated by all the forms of energy sources both conventional and non-conventional put together. The energy received from the Sun in just one hour is sufficient enough to meet the entire global energy demand for around one year. Electricity generation using photo-voltaic cells is receiving increasing attention as a means of electricity generation that produces neither CO2, NOx nor SOx pollution as do systems using fossil fuel burning, nor radiation like nuclear power systems. However, because solar energy generation is impossible at night and of poor efficiency during cloudy weather, stable electricity generation is difficult. However, if solar panels are launched into space they can produce power continuously, independent of the weather and of the day-and-night cycle. The Solar Power Satellite (SPS) concept involves a satellite carrying photo- voltaic panels in geo-stationary orbit (GEO) to generate electricity, and transmitting this power to the Earth's surface. Solar power generation, especially space solar power, is one of the most promising alternative technologies for reducing CO2 emissions and thus reducing Green House Effect. Space solar power is a challenging, long-term opportunity to tap space's unlimited resources rather than relying only on Earth's limited ones. It will help sustain human life on Earth and, at a future time, in space. Space has a number of advantages for solar power. For one, a satellite in a high geosynchronous orbit (35,887 km altitude) is rarely shaded by the Earth. As a result, it is in sunlight about 98 % of the time. Also, there is no atmosphere or clouds to attenuate and diffuse the incoming solar radiation. The Solar Power Satellite or "Space Solar Power" (SPS) is a concept to collect solar power in space, and then transport it to the surface of the Earth by microwave (or possibly laser) beam, where it is converted into electrical power for terrestrial use. The recent prominence of possible climate change due to the greenhouse effect from burning of fossil fuels has again brought alternative energy sources to public attention. It is important to design the system to service the real-world electrical power market, not to an unreal average-price model. The following criteria will have to be used for a credible analysis of solar power satellite economic benefits and rate of return: - - - Satellite power generation should fit electrical demand profile Satellite power generation should generate power at the maximum selling price Use actual data on electrical demand & price The SPS is a gigantic satellite designed as an electric power plant orbiting in the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). It consists of mainly three segments; solar energy collector to convert the solar energy into DC (direct current) electricity, DC-tomicrowave converter, and large antenna array to beam down the microwave power to the ground. The first solar collector can be either photovoltaic cells or solar thermal turbine. The second DC-to-microwave converter of the SPS can be either microwave tube system and/or semiconductor system. It may be their combination. The third segment is a gigantic antenna array known as rectenna.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

151

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
The innovation of SPS can be globally competitive and benefit low income communities N. KAYA, Kobe University, J. MANKINS, NASA, B. ERB, D. VASSAUX csa and G. PIGNOLET CNES, D. KASSING, ESA/ESTEC-FSA, P. COLLINS, NASDA 2001, REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON CLEAN AND
INEXHAUSTIBLE SPACE SOLAR POWER AT UNISPACE III CONFERENCE, Acta Astronautica Vol.49, No.11, pp.627630 Energy demand in the world, especially in developing countries, is growing rapidly. Fossil fuels, presently the dominant source of primary energy, present significant problems. The most critical concern is over the risk of significant environmental damage stemming from the use of these fuels. Environmental impacts include local and regional pollution, and the threat of global climate change due to the emission of various greenhouse gases, particularly in electric power generation. Oil and natural gas will, toward the middle of the next century, become increasingly expensive and, eventually, sufficiently scarce to create noticeable shortages. Coal supplies are sufficient for many years, but, of all fossil fuels, coal releases the most carbon as a ratio to energy provided. Some mitigation in the impact of fossil fuel use can be achieved by an increase in efficiency of use. Further more, there is some prospect of using fossil fuels without venting combustion products into the atmosphere. However, the technology for this is daunting and needs to be come more economically feasible before it can be seriously considered. Hence, neither of these avenues should be relied upon as a solution within the next several decades. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new, clean energy sources. SSP is a promising candidate for future base load electricity supply that could contribute to the grow- ing worldwide demand for high-quality energy. The environmental impacts associated with SSP and wireless power transmission that will convey it to the markets on Earth, are believed to the minimal, especially in comparison with most of the present sources of base load electric power. Recent studies in the United States have indicated the feasibility for SSP to provide electric power at prices that in the not-distant future will be competitive with alternative sources. Further studies and a substantial amount of research and development will be needed to validate this approach to meet the worlds energy needs. The following finndings were recognized through our discussions. (1) Solar power facilities in space can provide abundant and clean new electric power for Earth. (2) Solar electric power from space can accelerate ongoing global electrification,, lead to decreasing electric energy costs through ongoing technological advancements in electronics, and progressively reduce pollution and the uncertainties associated with present large scale commercial power systems. (oil, coal. natural gas, nuclear, terrestrial renewables). (3) Some two billion people now live without the services that commercial energy provides. Without a new supply of abundant, clean and low-cost power, this number will increase with resultant poverty and worldwide inequity. (4) The concerted eorts of many individuals and organizations internationally are required to enable new renewable global energy including SSP.

SPS changes the logic of the energy industry- it will be perceived as a peaceful technology to assist the developing world. Taylor Dinerman, well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space activities, 2008 the space review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1209/1 It was a little more than a month ago when the crisis in the Caucasus erupted. It will be years before historians sort out exactly how it started, but no one can deny that it ended with a classic case of Russia using massive military force to impose its will on a tiny but bothersome neighbor. In any case this little war has shocked the international space industry in more ways than one. While politicians in the US and Europe debate the best way to ensure access to the International Space Station (ISS), a more profound lesson from the crisis is evident. The world can no longer afford to depend upon easily disrupted pipelines for critical energy supplies. The one that ran from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey was, no doubt, an important factor in setting off the events of August 2008. In the future other pipelines, such as the one that may run from the coast of Pakistan to western China, may be just as important and as vulnerable as the one that runs through Georgia. Removing this kind of infrastructure from its central role in the worlds energy economy would eliminate one of the most dangerous motivations for war that we may face in the 21st century. If the world really is entering into a new age of resource shortagesor even if these shortages are simply widely-held illusionsnations will naturally try their best to ensure that they will have free and reasonably priced access to the stuff they need to survive and to prosper. Some of the proposed regulations aimed at the climate change issue will inevitably make matters worse by making it harder for nations with large coal deposits to use them in effective and timely ways. The coming huge increase in demand for energy as more and more nations achieve developed status has been discussed elsewhere. It is hard to imagine that large powerful states such as China or India will allow themselves to be pushed back into relative poverty by a lack of resources or by environmental restrictions. The need for a wholly new kind of world energy infrastructure is not just an issue involving economics or conservation, but of war and peace. Moving a substantial percentage of the Earths energy supply off the planet will not, in and of itself, eliminate these kinds of dangers, but it will reduce them. Nations that get a large percentage of their electricity from space will not have to fear that their neighbors will cut them off from gas or coal supplies. The need for vulnerable pipelines and shipping routes will diminish. This will not happen overnight. Gasoline, kerosene, and diesel are, weight for weight and volume for volume, by far the most effective transportation fuels,

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

152

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
but they are going to be phased out over time in favor of such things as plug-in hybrids. The world is evolving away from oil-based transportation systems. It will probably take decades, but the process is now in motion. John Mankins successful experiment, beaming power from Maui to the Big Island of Hawaii, is the first real data point we have (see A step forward for space solar power, The Space Review, this issue). Transmitting any amount of power over nearly 150 kilometers shows what can be done. Even more important is the fact that Mankins and his team were able to navigate the governments regulatory maze in order to achieve their goal. Getting permission from the FCC, the FAA, as well as from the state and local governments is quite an accomplishment and shows that this technology can be shown to be safe. While most space solar power advocates believe that the basic technology already exists, the engineering challenges are huge, as are the capital requirements. Seen as a simple business proposition space solar power (SSP) is a long way from becoming a viable economic source of energy. It could be subsidized the way that wind power or terrestrial solar has been. Even with subsidies, it is hard to see that the private sector would pay for the development work due to the unknown technological risks and to the long time scale. However, if SSP were perceived as a war avoidance mechanism or technology, the investment logic changes. The profit-seeking side of the private sector does not see its role as inflicting peace on an unstable and violent world. Traditionally that has been the role of governments, and in recent decades the so-called NGOs or non-profit sector. Innovative financing propositions such as the idea that a government could promise to buy a certain amount of space-generated power at a set price may become attractive in the future. For the moment, however, governments, especially the US government, should concentrate on reducing the technological unknowns and setting the stage for future developments in the middle or end of the next decade. The old Strategic Air Commands motto was Peace is our Profession. This might be a good one for the emerging SSP industry.

The continuation of global poverty is a thermonuclear war against the poor- empirically kills more than flash point conflict James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School, VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC, 2000, p 195-196.
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 19541973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a sixyear period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

No energy means developing countries will continue to have education and economic problems- SPS access would pull many out of poverty Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, The Energy Journal, 2007 Volume 28, Number 3 Energy
economics: a place for energy poverty in the agenda?//Trilling I believe that over the next quarter of a century our global energy system faces three major strategic challenges: the growing risk of disruptions to energy supply; the threat of environmental damage caused by energy production and use; and persistent energy poverty. I am also of the view that the only way that the goals of energy security, environmental protection and expanding access to energy to the worlds poor can be reconciled is through strong and coordinated government action and public support. Soaring energy prices and the geopolitical turmoil of recent years have reminded us of the essential role affordable energy plays in economic growth and human development as well as of the vulnerability of the global energy system to supply disruptions. Safeguarding energy supplies is once again at the top of the international policy agenda. The threat to the worlds energy security is real and growing. Analysis we have carried out at the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that, in the absence of new government action, the consumption of oil and gas will continue to rise inexorably through to 2030, pushing up the need for imports and accentuating the consuming countries vulnerability to severe supply disruptions and resulting price shocks. Much of the additional imports will have to come from the Middle East, along vulnerable maritime routes. In addition, the concentration of oil and gas production in a small group of countries with large reserves notably Middle East producers and Russia will increase their market dominance and their ability to control the level of prices in the longer term. The growing insensitivity of oil demand to price will also accentuate the potential impact on international oil prices and, therefore, gas and electricity prices of a

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

153

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
disruption to oil supplies. The share of transport demand, which is price-inelastic relative to other energy services, in global oil consumption is set to rise, making overall oil demand less and less responsive to movements in inter- national crude oil prices. The corollary of this is that prices would fluctuate more than in the past in response to future short-term shifts in demand and supply. The cushioning effect on demand of subsidies to oil consumers, which remain big in many countries, contributes to the insensitivity of global oil demand to changes in international prices. Current trends in energy supply also carry the threat of severe and ir- reversible environmental damage including changes in global climate. If un- checked, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise broadly in line with fossil-fuel use through to 2030, i.e. by more than half. The bulk of the increase will come from developing countries, overtaking the OECD as the biggest emitters soon after 2010. The use of low- or zero-carbon renewable energy sources is set to expand rapidly, but emissions will be driven higher by the inexorable growth in consumption of fossil energy, especially coal. The latest work by scientists on the potential consequences of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmo- sphere and by economists on the costs of inaction should leave us in no doubt that the energy path we are currently on is far from being sustainable (IPCC, 2007). Up to now, the energy-economics community has devoted considerable time and effort to analysing the challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability that are emerging from the way in which we produce and use energy. We have provided the public, policy makers and industry with timely and high- quality advice on how to address these concerns. I am proud of the contribution the IEA has made in these areas. The most recent World Energy Outlook presented the results of an indepth assessment of how far the policies that governments around the world are currently considering could take us in curbing the growth in demand for fossil fuels, imports and carbon-dioxide emissions, as well as of the associated economic costs (IEA, 2006). Those policies aimed principally at diversifying energy use towards less carbon-intensive fuels and at improving the efficiency of energy use would, if fully implemented, significantly reduce the rate of increase in demand and emissions. Importantly, the economic cost of these policies would be more than outweighed by the economic benefits that would come from using and producing energy more efficiently. Unfortunately, the energy-economics community has given far less at- tention to the challenge of energy poverty amongst the worlds poorest people. Over the past five years, less than 20% of the articles that have appeared in the major international energy journals have focused on developing countries, and only a tiny fraction of these have addressed energy-poverty issues. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to all energy economists around the world to give more attention to this pressing issue. The stark facts should give us all pause for thought. Today, 1.6 billion people in developing countries do not have access to electricity in their homes. Most of the electricity-deprived are in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. For these people, the day finishes much earlier than in richer countries for lack of proper lighting. They struggle to read by candle light. They lack refrigeration for keeping food and medicines fresh. Those appliances that they do have are pow- ered by batteries, which eat up a large share of their incomes. Another hallmark of energy poverty is the use of traditional biomass in unsustainable, unsafe and inefficient ways. Currently, 2.5 billion people 40% of the worlds population rely on traditional biomass such as wood, agricultural residues and dung to meet virtually all their cooking energy needs. In many coun- tries, these resources account for over 90% of all household energy consumption. These people live mainly in rural areas of Asia and Africa. The use of biomass is not in itself a cause for concern. But, in practice, it has a number of harmful consequences for health, the environment and economic and social development. People, most often women and children, can spend many hours gathering such fuels. This reduces the time they can devote to more productive activities, such as farming and education. Wood gathering can also lead to deforestation, resulting in local scarcity of fuelwood and severe damage to the ecosystem. In addition, reliance on traditional biomass has a direct impact on human health. The World Health Organization estimates that each year, 1.3 million people again, mostly women and children in developing countries die as a result of fumes from indoor biomass stoves (WHO, 2006).1 Only malnutrition, HIV/AIDS and lack of clean water and sanitation are greater health threats. Despite the prospect of continuing economic expansion and technologi- cal progress in the developing world, on current trends, 1.4 billion people will still lack electricity in 2030. That is barely 200 million less than today. Although 2 bil- lion people will gain access to electricity during this period, this will be offset by rising world population. Most of the net fall in the number of electricity-deprived will occur in Asia; in Africa, their number will increase significantly. Further- more, the number of people relying on traditional biomass for cooking and heat- ing is also set to expand. In the absence of new policies, it will rise to 2.7 billion in 2030 equal to one-third of the worlds population. These trends imply that the first of the United Nations Millennium De- velopment Goals to eradicate extreme poverty is very unlikely to be met. One of the targets used to measure progress in achieving that goal is halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 per day (UNMP, 2005). Given the strong links between income on the one hand and access to electricity and modern forms of energy on the other, meeting this target would imply a sharper increase in electrification rates and use of modern fuels than we at the IEA are currently projecting. Put another way, past experience shows that a rapid transition to mod- ern energy would normally be expected to accompany the substantial growth in prosperity that achievement of the poverty-reduction goal calls for. These prospects are unacceptable morally, economically and politi- cally. That is why decisive policy action is needed urgently to accelerate energy development in poor countries as part of the broader process of human develop- ment. We can not simply sit back and wait for the worlds poorest regions to be- come sufficiently rich to afford

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

154

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
modern energy services. Concrete improvements in human welfare can be realised quickly at modest short-term cost. The trends I have just described are not inevitable. They can and must be altered. In my view, meeting basic human needs, such as food and shelter, must be at the heart of any strategy to alleviate poverty. Energy services help enable those needs to be met. Indeed, access to energy is a prerequisite to human de- velopment. It contributes to social development by improving health and educa- tion and to economic development by enhancing the productivity of labour and capital. Like improved health, use of energy is both a contributor to, as well as a consequence of, higher incomes (Bloom and Canning, 2000). By the same token, the extensive use of traditional biomass and the limited availability of electricity and modern fuels for cooking and heating are causes, as well as manifestations, of poverty. During the early stages of economic development, the absolute amount of energy used by each person and the share of modern forms of energy es- pecially electricity in the overall energy mix are key contributors to human development. In practice, making available relatively small quantities of modern energy services can bring about significant improvements in human welfare and at relatively modest cost. For example, providing LPG cylinders and stoves to all the people who currently still use traditional biomass for cooking by 2030 would boost world oil demand by a mere 1% and cost at most $18 billion a year. That is less than the profits several major energy companies made in 2006. The value of the improvements to social welfare, including saving 1.3 million lives each year, is surely much higher. Identifying the size of the challenge is one thing. Overcoming it is another. Strong political will and commitment on the part of the governments of the worlds poorest countries will obviously be crucial to breaking the vicious circle of energy poverty and human under-development. This will need to involve important investment in energy infrastructure, much of it funded by the private sector in view of the constraints on public finances. In many cases, mobilising that investment will hinge on progress in applying and respecting the basic principles of good governance in the energy sector and in the wider economy. Laws and reg- ulations that impede energy trade and investment have to be reformed. And public policies aimed at improving both the quantity and quality of energy services will need to be backed by broader policies to promote investment, economic growth and productive employment, including rural development programmes, training and education and support for micro-credit. Often, this will call for far-reaching legal, institutional and regulatory reforms. Policy reforms and development priorities will always need to be tailored to each countrys situation. In the poorest countries, relying solely on private capi- tal to build energy infrastructure from scratch, in the early stages of development, is unlikely to succeed, because of the risks involved. Public-private partnerships may be one way forward for these countries. Rich industrialised countries have an important role to play in this pro- cess. In addition to moral issues involved, we have obvious long-term economic, political and energy-security interests in helping developing countries along the path to energy development. For as long as poverty, hunger and disease persist, the poorest regions will remain vulnerable to humanitarian disasters, to social injustice and to political instability. Lack of resources is not an excuse. The cost of providing assistance to poor countries may turn out to be far less than that of dealing with the instability and insecurity that poverty creates. Energy economists have to play their part in this endeavour. We must deepen our understanding of the causes of energy poverty and study the policies and instruments that can best facilitate the transition of hundreds of millions of poor citizens of the world to modern energy services. We must identify which policies work and why, and at what cost. And we must communicate our findings and mes- sages effectively to policymakers and other stakeholders to make change happen. We economists have a tremendous amount of theoretical and practical knowledge and understanding of the energy sector. However, this is not enough. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius said he who merely knows right principles is not equal to him who loves them. At the moment, when it comes to the economics of energy poverty, there is a poverty of energy economics. To tackle the challenge successfully we need to feel the pain of the poor and harness the power of energy to help make poverty history.

Climate refugees will be subjected to exclusionary laws that will privilege exceptional cases over people that live in emergency. These climate laws will create bare life and the biopolitical control Yates McKee, Ph.D. candidate in Art History at Columbia University, and coeditor of The Visual Cultures of Nongovernmental Politics, Spring/Summer 2011, On Climate Refugees, Qui Parle Vol. 19, No. 2 pg. 319-321 Project Muse
Legal theorist Angela Oels, for example, has recently sounded just such a note of caution about the category of the climate refugee in light of broader critiques of policy regimes concerning refugees, asylum, and transnational migration.7 Informed by Giorgio Agamben, Oels notes that the determination of refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention depends on a sovereign exception to be made between legitimate migrants on the one handthat is, those who fi t under the parameters of political persecution (thus imposing upon UN signatory nations an obligation to allow them to enter their territory)and, implicitly, a disposable population of irregular migrants who do not deserve to be saved or assisted. In other words, despite its appeal to a universal law pertaining to humanity in general, the Geneva Convention not only inscribes a division between two orders of protected and unprotected humanityprivileging those exposed to exceptional persecution while abandoning those who subsist in permanent states of emergencybut also lacks any binding force in its own right, leaving the interpretation of that division in the hands of the sovereign nation-states. Furthermore, pointing to the

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

155

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
legal limbo in which hundreds of thousands of people are caught across Europes network of migrant camps, Oels notes that the granting of refugee status does not necessarily translate into the rights of asylum, let alone full citizenship. Indeed, the manner in which refugee populations are governed by the nation-states in which they find themselves is often on the order of bare life, treating them as objects of humanitarian administration whose right to protection can be revoked at any time, rather than as civic subjects invested with the capacity to make rights claims about the ways in which they are governed. An Agambenian framework is certainly pertinent to a critique of Climate Refugees, which defines its concern with expanding the purview of the refugee in terms of a kind of biopolitical planning and managementas when it evokes the specter of violent disturbances and humanitarian disasters that might be set in motion by climate change. All the conundrums of the refugee concerning sovereignty, biopower, humanitarianism, and citizenship are intensified by climate change, given the added difficulty of determining what constitutes a climate-based displacement, as well as determining who or what is responsible for such a displacement. Whereas the causal chain resulting in the flight of a minority group from a discriminatory if not genocidal ethnonationalist regime can, in principle, be pinpointed with regard to a specific piece of legislation, a campaign of military or paramilitary violence, or even the formal or informal fostering of a cultural milieu conducive to discrimination or violence, the agency and responsibility involved in climate-related displacement is much less finite insofar as no particular entity can be assigned responsibility to the anthropogenic impact on the climate system.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

156

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Sustainable alternative energy is key to environmental justice Philip Cafaro, professor of philosophy at Colorado State University focusing on environmental ethics, environmental policy, virtue ethics, and ethical theory, Spring 2011, Taming Growth and Articulating a Sustainable Future: The Way Forward for Environmental
Ethics, Ethics & the Environment Vol. 16 No. 1 Project Muse The future of environmental ethics will be what environmental ethicists make of it. Since the field encompasses widely divergent philosophical orientations, talents, particular interests, and intuitions about the way forward, that future will be pluralistic. I believe this to be a good thing. But it is also helpful to step back from time to time, reflect on where we want to go, and ask whether we are leaving any essential tasks unaddressed. I take the overarching goal of environmentalism as a political movement to be the creation of ecologically sustainable societies, which both preserve the biospheres regenerative capacities and share resources fairly among people, among people and other species, and between current and future generations. Whatever else we do, environmental philosophers core tasks include articulating and defending such ideals of generous and just sustainability, and working out their implications for particular areas of our environmental decisionmaking. Because the main impediments to creating sustainable societies are excessive and growing human populations and consumption levels, we must grapple with these issues. Arguably, environmental philosophers commitment to sustainability necessitates that we advocate an end to the endless growth economy and work to specify economic alternatives that will reduce human demands on the Earth (and not merely slow the growth of those demands, or mitigate some of their worst effects). Anything less does not appear up to our environmental challenges or the demands of morality. I believe environmental philosophers have important contributions to make to environmentalism as a political movement; indeed, that we are particularly well-placed to specify some key aspects of sustainability and press for their adoption. I explore these themes below. First, though, and perhaps more parochially, I consider some possible contributions our field might make to general ethical philosophy.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

157

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Perm do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative the alt doesnt solve, policy action is key Carol Booth, PhD in environmental philosophy on motivations for nature conservation, conservation activist, works for the Invasive Species Council, Spring 2009, A Motivational Turn for Environmental Ethics Ethics & the Environment Vol. 14 No. 1 pg. 53-78,
Project Muse Most people in modern industrial societies agree there is a moral need to conserve nature. Many see it as a social priority. A 1996 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that one-fifth of Australians thought environmental protection more important than economic growth, while 71 percent rated it equally (DEH 1998). In a more in-depth study, involving interviews of members of environment groups, sawmill workers, dry cleaners, or others, anthropologists Willett Kempton and colleagues (1995) concluded that most US citizens share a common set of environmental values. For example, more than 80 percent of each group, except sawmill workers (at 63 percent), agreed Justice is not just for human beings. We need to be as fair to plants and animals as we are to people (113). Some 70 percent or more of each group, except dry cleaners (57 percent), agreed that Humans should recognize they are part of nature and shouldnt try to control or manipulate it (107). Yet burgeoning lists of threatened species and ongoing habitat destruction show that these so-called values are failing to motivate sufficient political and social pressure for conservation reform. U.S. society, with its excesses of consumption, global exploitation of nature, and massive greenhouse gas emissions, is probably the most naturedestructive in human history. Australians are similarly destructive and apathetic despite pro-conservation sentiments.1 The chasm between values rhetoric and lifestyle and political focus reeks of hypocrisy. Do people lie, or merely parrot what they consider socially acceptable beliefs? Are they self-deceived about their real values? Or do competing values undermine a conservation focus? Do people lack the capacity to conform with moral beliefs, having few resources or time to commit to conservation? Do they feel powerless, or lack knowledge about what they can do? These are probably all contributing factors. However, in modern industrial societies, where many are affluent, well educated, sympathetic to conservation and have many ways to contribute, a primary diagnosis must be that people are insufficiently motivated by their beliefs and sympathies to act. Environmental ethicists have expressed frustration about the limited impact of their work on conservation. It is difficult to see what practical effect the field of environmental ethics has had on the formation of environmental policy, lament Andrew Light and Eric Katz (1996, 1). Philosophers are rarely invited as experts to participate in public policy proceedings, and many of the issues that dominate environmental ethics attract little interest outside the discipline. If environmental philosophy is to effectively contribute to conservation, it needs to deal with the most pressing problems and provide relevant analysis and guidance. For this reason, Ron Sandler (2002) has recommended that environmental ethics adopt an adequacy condition of practical efficacy, and Robert Frodeman (2006) has called for a policy turn.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

158

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 *****Affirmative Extensions*****

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

159

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***SOLVENCY***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

160

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Impact Calculus
Prefer our impacts advantages of SSP far outweigh risk of failure (we have already wasted 20 billion on cold fusion) Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen When considering these arguments remember that the case for SSP need not be perfect. To rebut Fetter's claim that economic SSP is all but impossible, an R&D program to develop SSP need only have a decent chance of success. It seems reasonable to suggest that an SSP R&D effort on the order of the thus far unsuccessful fusion energy effort is warranted. We have spent over $20 billion on fusion energy research in the last 50 years, including $300-900 million per year for the last 30 years. Depending on one's opinion, this may or may not have been a good investment. However, it indicates how much effort developing a major new energy source is worth -- what the customer is willing to pay -- even with substantial risk of failure. SSP, if successful, is a major, positive game changer for energy, global warming, space development and the global balance of power and, unlike fusion, requires no breakthroughs in physics and the space development benefits would be incalculable. For comparison, NASA's budget is roughly $17 billion annually. Great benefits warrant great effort, so a 50 year $1-2 billion/year SSP R&D program seems appropriate. About $30 billion is for launcher development and the rest for energy transmission research, system design, component development, in-space transportation and assembly and maintenance research. There is no claim that this program is optimal in any sense, only that it may be sufficient to meet Fetter's conditions. In particular, it may be longer and larger than really necessary.

Probability of natural or human catastrophes is extremely high more likely than a traffic accident Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen
Global catastrophes (events that cause the death of more than a quarter of world population [1]) can credibly be caused through either natural events or through human activity. Indeed global catastrophes due to natural events have occurred several times in human history with devastating consequences both in terms of human life and social organisation [2]. The probability of naturally caused global catastrophe events is high, with an average separation of around a thousand years and have a typical mortality at least a third of the population. This makes the probability of death caused by a natural global catastrophe 0.024, that is five times larger than the probability of death in a road accident in the UK [3]. To the risk of natural events must now be added the risk of anthropogenic catastrophes. The ability of mankind to produce effects on a global scale is recently acquired and is growing rapidly. It follows that the probability of an anthropogenic global catastrophe cannot be determined from history or reliably from analysis and is a matter of opinion. However, many works considering current threats place the probability much higher than the historical natural figuresfor example, Rees [4] suggests a 0.5 probability. Given the high probability of a global catastrophe, and that in addition to the large mortality, these events also put the fabric of society at risk; it has been argued that this should be among the highest priority of governments [5].

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

161

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Solvency Shield Generic

Their solvency deficits assume the baseline proposal - its silly to ditch the project because of one factor within it Landis, National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Glenn Research Center, 2004, Glenn Research Center, Ohio
(Geoffrey, February 2004, Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite, http://www.isdc2007.org/settlement/ssp/library/2004-NASAReinventingTheSolarPowerSatellite.pdf) Space solar power is potentially an enormous business. Current world electrical consumption represents a value at the consumer level of nearly a trillion dollars per year; clearly even if only a small fraction of this market can be tapped by space solar power systems, the amount of revenue that could be produced is staggering. To tap this potential market, it is necessary that a solar power satellite concept has the potential to be technically and economically practical. Technical feasibility requires that the concept not violate fundamental laws of physics, that it does not require technology not likely to be developed in the time frame of interest, and that it has no technological show-stoppers. Economic feasibility requires that the system can be produced at a cost which is lower than the market value for the product, with an initial investment low enough to attract investors, and that it serve a market niche that is able to pay. The baseline "power tower" developed by the "Fresh Look" study in 1996 and 1997 [1,2.7] only partially satisfies these criteria. One difficulty is the power distribution system. The distribution system required to transfer power from the solar arrays to the microwave transmitters, consisting of a long highvoltage tether system, cannot operate in the environment of near-Earth space at the voltages required without short-circuiting to the space plasma. Lowering the voltage to avoid plasma discharge would result in unacceptable resistive losses. Power distribution is a general problem with all conventional solar power system designs: as a design scales up to high power levels, the mass of wire required to link the power generation system to the microwave transmitter becomes a showstopper. A design is required in which the solar power can be used directly at the solar array, rather than being sent over wires to a separate transmitter. (The "solar sandwich" design of the late 70's solved this problem, but only with the addition of an unwieldy steering mirror, which complicates the design to an impractical extent). In addition to technical difficulties, the baseline concept does not meet economic goals. As shown in table 6-4 of the "Fresh Look" final report [1], even with extremely optimistic assumptions of system cost, solar cell efficiency, and launch cost, each design analyzed results in a cost which is either immediately too expensive, or else yields a cost marginally competitive (but not significantly better) than terrestrial power technologies, with an internal rate of return (IRR) too low for investment to make money. Only if an "externality surcharge" is added to non-space power sources to account for the economic impact of fossil-fuels did space solar power options make economic sense. While "externality" factors are quite real, and represent a true cost impact of fossil-fuel generation, it is unlikely that the world community will artificially impose such charges merely to make space solar power economically feasible. The value of the solar power concept, howeverboth the dollar value and the potential value of the ecological benefitsis so great that the concept should not be abandoned simply because one candidate system is flawed. It is important to analyze alternative concepts in order to find one that presents a workable system for investment to make money.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

162

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 NSSO Prodict
Over 170 scientific, energy, business and legal experts contributed to the study NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen For the National Security Space Office (NSSO), whose expertise lies principally in existing space missions, addressing energy delivery from space was a relatively foreign subject until this year. Making informed decisions about SBSP required immediate access to a broad spectrum of expertsfrom specialized astronautical engineers, to energy policy experts, to business and legal professionals. Traditional architecture studies are typically conducted by a contractor under government supervision and compensation, and take 6 12 months for contract award and then an additional 12 24 months to complete. Collecting and organizing such a group of knowledge owners within the timeframe and budget demanded by NSSO required a unique and novel approach for DoD to conduct an architecture study. Enter the collaborative on line study. On April 21, 2007, the SBSP Study Group established an unclassified and access controlled on line collaboration website and began inviting known SBSP experts to participatemany of whom had been involved in either the 1970s initial assessment or the 1990s Fresh Look Study. As news of the discussion spread (both by word of mouth and through public media coverage), other national and international experts (both proponents and opponents) were added as study members such that the number of active participants stood at over 170 at the time of this publication (see list at Appendix E). In support of the study groups efforts, the Space Frontier Foundation also established a parallel, open access website at http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/ to solicit inputs from the public at large, many of which possessed significant credentials toward answering the question of whether the U.S. and partners can enable the development of SBSP by mid century. In addition to a central plenary discussion area to present and debate general ideas, the on line study was accomplished by segregating into four specific breakout areas: 1) science & technology capabilities, 2) logistics and infrastructure requirements, 3) policy issues, and 4) the business case. Study leaders posted questions for the group to debate and answer. Discussion was lively in most cases, leading to the many findings detailed in the interim report that follows. Additional experts were drawn into each debate as required. In many cases, majority consensus was obtained and in certain cases it was not; those results are also included within this report. The 5 month on line discussion culminated in a 2 day conference hosted by the US Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at Breckenridge, Colorado, on 6 7 September, 2007. The workshop included representatives from DoD, NASA, DOE, academia, and various industries to include aerospace, energy, and others who had participated in the collaborative study. Plenary and breakout results were presented via panel led discussions.

NSSO is a government organization its study included numerous science and energy experts Kiantar Betancourt, 8/28/10, Space Based Solar Power: Worth the effort?,
http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=56407//jchen The most recent study of SBSP occurred in 2007 when the National Security Space Office (NSSO), a division of the Department of Defense (DoD), conducted its own study on the feasibility of SBSP.[55] The NSSO study requested input from numerous experts in the science and solar power community and with their help made a number of key findings.[56] The NSSO study concluded SBSP presented a strategic opportunity that could significantly advance U.S. and partner security, capability, and freedom of action.[57] Most studies till that point only focused on SBSP as a solution of the power needs of the global community at large. The NSSO study added an additional layer emphasizing the advantages SBSP could offer the U.S. military. In particular the study stated: SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible energy on demand for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveriesSBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activitiesperhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.[58]

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

163

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Dwayne Day Indict

Day doesnt even indict the NSSO he just says it has no political influence. He admits the report is evenhanded and accurate Dwayne A. Day, has an email, June 9, 2008, Knights in shining armor, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1//jchen
The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP and that it is not a viable solution for even the militarys limited requirements. It states that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger. But in this case, the activists touting the NSSO study do not understand where the NSSO fits into the larger military space bureaucracy. The National Security Space Office was created in 2004 and facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities. But any office that facilitates the activities of other organizations has limited influence, especially when those other organizations are much bigger and have their own interests and connections to the senior leadership. The NSSO has a minimal staff and budget and does not command any assetsit does not fly any satellites, launch any rockets, or procure any hardware, all of which are measures of power within the military space realm. Simply put, the NSSO exists essentially as a policy shop that is readily ignored by the major military space actors such as Strategic Command, Air Force Space Command, and the National Reconnaissance Office whenever it suits them. As one former NSSO staffer explained, the office consists of many smart, hardworking people who have no discernible influence on military space at all. In fact, for several years there have been persistent rumors that the NSSO was about to be abolished as unnecessary, irrelevant, and toothless.

Dwayne Day is an idiot he cant even comprehend the report he indicts Stephen Ashworth, long-standing Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and has a particular interest in how progress in space
can support sustainable growth. He works in academic publishing in the Voltaire Foundation, part of Oxford University, June 23, 2008, In defense of the knights, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1//jchen SSP is not merely expedient, rather it is strategic, in the sense that it has the potential to permanently raise the whole of human civilization to a higher level of prosperity, security and spatial range. According to Days reading of the NSSO study, this is not for us, but only apparently for future generations, many decades in the future: The NSSO study [] states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP [] that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. This came as news to me. Since SSP has been regularly used on a small scale to power satellites for forty years already (in marked contrast to the development effort that has gone into nuclear fusion), how could the NSSO have concluded that the technology does not exist? What actually does the NSSO report say? It reports: FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space-Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. (p.20) FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to be positive and in many cases accelerating. (p.20) This sounds promising. Does it mean well be able to start work in forty years time? FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently mature to fly a basic proofof-concept demonstration within 46 years and a substantial power demonstration as early as 20172020, though these are likely to cost between $5B$10B in total. This is a serious challenge for a capable agency with a transformational agenda. A proposed spiral demonstration project can be found in Appendix B. (p.2223) Turning to Appendix B, we find that its introductory paragraphs point out that significant technological progress has been achieved in the past decade, which would allow an accelerated pace of progress compared with that proposed by NASA in the late 1990s. But Day is not impressed, for his article reads: from a technological standpoint, we are not much closer to space solar power today than we were when NASA conducted a big study of it in the 1970s. He seems to have been reading a completely different report.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

164

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Days fundamental assumption about space access is faulty Stephen Ashworth, long-standing Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, and has a particular interest in how progress in space
can support sustainable growth. He works in academic publishing in the Voltaire Foundation, part of Oxford University, June 23, 2008, In defense of the knights, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1//jchen Is there any specific technology that could have caused Day to be so dismissive of the concept? Indeed there is, for he writes: the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). Cheap access to space no longer as achievable as it seemed in 1978? This is a clear reference to the Space Shuttle. But a government shuttle is no longer where cheap space access is at. In 2004 we saw the first space access by a privately-developed reusable spaceplane, and its successor is due to begin test flights later this year in the run-up to commercial service. Sure, its only suborbital. But people are queueing up to ride on the thing. Heres the key fact: SpaceShipTwo represents a completely different economic paradigm from the Space Shuttle because, for the first time ever, manned spaceflight is about to become a profitable enterprise. All hopes that humanity will create a spacefaring civilization rest on this paradigm change. In ten or twenty years time a successful suborbital industry will surely develop a reusable spaceplane for large-scale economic orbital access. The demand for orbital tourist flights exists, and the suborbital service will demonstrate that a spaceline can be run in the same way as an airline. Virgin Galactic may fail. It has plenty of competitors. One day, somebody will succeed. Its only a matter of time. One of the leading spaceplane companies in the UK is Reaction Engines, based in Culham in Oxfordshire. Here, there has been major progress in developing a revolutionary new combined jet-rocket engine, thanks to 5 million (US$10 million) of private investment. Alan Bond, its founder and managing director, recently told me that the British government is now more supportive of their work than it has been for decades. The Skylon orbital spaceplane that the company is promoting is a direct successor to the British Aerospace Hotol project of the 1980s. It should be capable of carrying at least 10 tonnes of payload in a standardized container to the orbital altitude of the ISS. The economics of the design depend upon the production of dozens of vehicles, each with a lifetime of around 200 return flights to orbit. As well as new engines, the design incorporates a breakthrough in overall layout, with the engines mounted on stubby wings midway along the fuselage, aircraft-style, rather than the more usual spaceplane design in which they are attached at the rear, creating huge problems of balancing the vehicle in atmospheric flight. That fact that a vehicle such as this might not be available until the 2020s is irrelevant. The prototype SSP system proposed in the NSSO studys Appendix B would be launched using a large-lot purchase of expendable launch vehicles (p. B-4). SSP will therefore not really be in the market to buy cheap spaceplane flights to orbit until the 2020s in any case. A substantial demonstrator can be launched before the economics have been solved. Appendix C of the NSSO study analyses the business case for SSP. It notes that launch cost is the single most important factor in the economics of SSP, and that increased demand for launch to orbit could lead to a virtuous cycle of cost improvement. Obviously, as Day says, the present-day economic case for SSP is abysmal. But factor in a growing space tourism industry moving along its own cost-volume development curve, a government-funded SSP demonstrator to provide confidence that there will be large-scale launch activity in the 2020s, and increasing pressure on oil, coal, and gas, and the economics could soon look very different.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

165

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Resources (1/2)

SSP is cost effective on a mass scale ONLY the USfg can provide R&D and economies of scale Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen We see that there is evidence to suggest that three of Fetter's six conditions (3,5,6) may be met by a reasonably sized R&D program and one condition (1) makes no sense. Weaker arguments suggest that the other two conditions (2,4) could be met. The core reality behind Fetter's assertions is that space systems and operations are far more expensive than those on Earth; but current space system prices are based on one-off hand-crafted and therefore necessarily expensive systems. Electrical energy demand is so large that to satisfy even a fraction would require hundreds of PowerSats and allows economies of scale. This unquestionable fact gives hope, although nothing resembling certainty, that a vigorous R&D program can develop SSP technology to the point that profitable SSP businesses can be established. SSP's greatest weakness is that profitability depends on supplying very large quantities of power unless a small, niche market willing to pay high prices can be found. One such market might be space-to-space power, i.e., PowerSats supplying power not to the ground but to other spacecraft or perhaps the lunar surface. A research effort in this direction may be worthwhile regardless of the fate of space-to-ground power. The bottom line: in contradiction to Fetter, there is reason to believe that the U.S. federal government should institute a vigorous space solar power research program without delay. While there is a definite risk of failure, potential benefits are major: vast quantities of energy, substantial reductions in green-house gas emissions, and great wealth and power for those who succeed.

NASA cut SBSP due to budget constraints federal funding solves David Shiga, physical sciences reporter, 12/22/08, Will Obama pursue space-based solar power?,
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/will-obama-pursue-space-based.html//jchen Advocates for SBSP are hoping to secure some support for developing the technology from the Obama administration, given the incoming president's pledge to make developing alternative energy sources a top priority. They have posted a white paper on the topic on the transition website, change.gov. One thing that surely helps their cause is that one of Obama's transition team members for NASA is George Whitesides, who has been a vocal advocate for SBSP. Whitesides is currently on leave from his post as executive director of the National Space Society, where he helped push for SBSP research. On the downside, earlier this month NASA cancelled early work on a proposed SBSP demonstration project, which apparently could have involved putting a demonstration device on the International Space Station. But it sounds like the decision owes more to a tight budget at NASA than anything else, and I see no reason why the project couldn't be revived if the next administration takes an interest in SBSP. So I wouldn't count out SBSP just yet.

SBSP is feasible but costly only a large governmental investment will spur development Industry and Technology Assessment, William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok, Space Based Solar Power, 7/16/11, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf//jchen
Unlike traditional sources of energy such as oil, gas and coal (the fossil fuels), SBSP doesnt involve the burning of fossil fuels, which have been shown to cause severe environmental problems and global warming. SBSP is also more efficient than traditional solar power, as sunlight is almost five and a half times as strong in space than it is on the surface of the earth [1], as it does not have to interact with the atmosphere, weather, and day/night cycles. Space based solar power would be able to run almost continuously, with only short periods of time (of at most 75 minutes during the equinoxes [2]) when a satellite would be in the Earths shadow. Some important aspects have changed that could lead to SBSP evolving from a futuristic fantasy into a current, plausible reality. First is the advent of private space launch companies. The most famous one is SpaceX, which aims to launch objects into space at a fraction of the current costs. The other is the wireless revolution. Such widespread use has allowed wireless power transmission to take dramatic leaps forward,and as a consequence, provided a plausible solution to the issue of transmitting power from space onto the surface of the Earth. In this report, we introduce some of the technological aspects of SBSP. However, we will be focusing on laying down the economic groundwork for SBSP. We obtain linearized trend data for various factors that affect the marginal cost of SBSP (primarily solar panel efficiency, orbital transport costs, and energy demand and cost). We determined that it is actually infeasible to begin work on SBSP, as the marginal costs do not provide an adequate annual return for us to recommend SBSP. Unfortunately, we determined that large capital and R&D costs are required for SBSP to occur, further decreasing the likelihood of SBSP from being large scale feasible. Without dramatic disruptive technology or large, governmental investments, SBSP will not be feasible as a mainstream source of energy until at least 2040.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

166

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Resources (1/2)

Government oversight is key to SBSP- private sector cant independently solve Friedman, George Friedman, is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer, financial overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor, 2011 The Next Decade: Where Weve Been and Where Were
Going,http://books.google.com/books?id=y5plTzPTw8YC&pg=PA235&dq=Space+based+solar+power&hl=en&ei=99cDTq3bHIfE gAfTypSODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Space%20based%20solar%20 power&f=false, Date accessed June 23, 2011 At the same time we must prepare for long-term increases in energy generation from nonhydrocarbon sources-sources that are cheaper and located in areas that the United States will not need to control by send-ing in armies. In my view, this is space-based solar power. Therefore, what should be under way and what is under way is private-sector development of inexpensive booster rockets. Mitsubishi has invested inspace-based solar power to the tune of about $21 billion. Eutope's EAB is also investing, and California`s Pacific Gas and Electric has signed a con-tract to purchase solar energy from space by 2016, although I think ful-fillment of that contract on that schedule is unlikely. However, whether the source is spacebased solar power or some other technology, the president must make certain that development along several axes is under way and that the potential for building them is realistic. Enormous amounts of increased energy are needed, and the likely source of the technology, based on history, is the U.S. Department of Defense. Thus the government will absorb the cost of early develop-ment and private investment will reap the rewards. The We are in a period in which the state is more powerful than the mar-ket, and in which the state has more resources. Markets are superb at exploiting existing science and early technology, but they are not nearly as good in basic research. From aircraft to nuclear power to moon Hightsto the Internet to global positioning satellites, the state is much better at investing in long-term innovation. Government is inefficient, but that inefficiency and the ability to absorb the cost of inefficiency are at the heart of basic research. When we look at the projects we need to undertake in the coming decade, the organization most likely to execute them successfully is the Department of Defense. There is nothing particularly new in this intertwining of technology, geopolitics, and economic well-being. The Philistines dominated the Levantine coast because they were great at making armor. To connect and control their empire, the Roman army built roads and bridges that are still in use. During a war aimed at global domination, the German military created the foundation of modern rocketry; in countering, the British came up with radar. Lending powers and those contending for power constantly find themselves under military and economic pressure. They respond to it by inventing extraordinary new technologies. The United States is obviously that sort of power. It is currently under economic pressure but declining military pressure. Such a time is not usually when the United States undertakes dramatic new ventures. The government is heavily Funding one area we have discussed, finding cures for degenerative diseases. The Department of Defense is funding a great deal of research into robotics. But the fundamental problem, energy, has not had its due. For this decade, the choices are pedestrian. The danger is that the president will fritter away his authority on projects such as conservation, wind power, and terrestrial solar power, which cant yield the magnitude of results required. The problem with natural gas in particular is that it is pedestrian. But like so much of what will take place in this decade, accepting the ordinary and obvious is called for Hrs t-followed by great dreams quietly expressed.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

167

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (1/4)

Just one satellite is key USFG jumpstarts commercial production Kyle Sherer, reporter for GizMag, focusing on science and technology, 10-29-2008, Solar Power Satellites could broadcast energy
to Earth, http://www.gizmag.com/the-solar-power-satellite-broadcasts-energy-to-earth/10290/ In 1968, the Space Race caused the wireless energy concept to be re-imagined as a means to turn solar energy into electricity and beam it down to Earth. In 1973, Peter Glaser was granted a patent for his power broadcasting system, which involved using a one-square kilometer antenna on a satellite to broadcast power via microwaves to a larger receiver on the ground. The solar power satellite proposal was then kicked around by NASA and the Department of Energy for a few decades, with various feasibility reports usually stating that the technological principles were sound, but the cost was too steep. In his recent Washington Post article, Ben Bova argues that the cost/benefit equation of satellite-beamed power has finally tipped enough to make the SPS actionable. The benefits of the solar power satellite are that once its up there, it delivers a constant stream of power to Earth, garnered from an unlimited source. Unlike solar panels here on the ground, its performance is not affected by the weather and unlike nuclear power and fossil fuels, it produces no waste, and uses a renewable resource. Bovas proposal involves the construction of a demonstration-model solar power satellite that produces 10 to 100 megawatts. It wont power much, but it will be the important first step, the proof-of-concept prototype that engages the private sector and encourages government investment. A full, mile-long model, according to Bova, would produce five to ten gigawatts of energy more than enough for Californias 4.4-gigawatt appetite. Just the act of building the first one, says Bova, would be enough to jump-start the world into wide-scale development. It may sound overly optimistic, but governments are already investing tens of billions of dollars in nuclear power. If SPS demonstrates a costeffective yield, then countries already considering it, like Japan, might hasten their development. It seems strange that an idea that has existed for 40 years, which uses century-old scientific theory and existing technology, which alleviates an environmental problem we have known about for decades, and eases the increasing political and financial burden of the fossil fuel economy, has been repeatedly put on ice because of a cost that is still a fraction of what governments spend on military aims. When the idea was first shot down, and Tesla came to grips with losing Wardenclyffe Tower, he stated (in a long rant, but one worth reading):

Federal establishment of SPS drives production and development Opengov Space Solar Power (SSP) A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change, 11/23/08,
http://otrans.3cdn.net/38b615154ce6479749_p9m6bn37b.pdf//jchen RECOMMENDATIONS Establish Development of SSP in National Policy: Establish in national policy the explicit goal to develop SpaceBased Solar Power as an energy resource, consistent with our existing national policies to invest in other energy sources like wind, ground solar, geothermal, clean coal, advanced nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, and biofuels. Assign a Lead Federal Agency: Assign lead responsibility for developing SSP to a federal agency. This agency should be tasked to work with other federal agencies, private industry, and our international friends and allies. Focus First on High-Value Niche Power Applications: The federal government should focus first on very high-value energy requirements such as in-space power, emergency power services to devastated regions for humanitarian purposes, and delivering power to forward military bases. Incremental Step-by-Step SSP Research Program: The Administration should develop a program that is focused on developing and proving key technologies and a series of incrementally more challenging technology demonstrators that can be scaled to much larger systems by mass production techniques. SSP Should be Funded at the Level of Fusion Energy Research: The U.S. federal government has invested over $21 Billion in fusion research in the last 50 years, and the DOE is currently spending $300 million per year on fusion energy research. When choosing a lead agency for SSP, the Administration should establish an SSP research budget within that agency that grows to at least the level of the DOEs fusion energy research program

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

168

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (2/4)

FG funding spurs private sector- spin off tech The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc, 2009, Missile Defense, the Space Relationship,
& the Twenty-First Century//ZY Governments in turn will rely increasingly on the private sector for a broader range of space products, services, and technologies. While government-sponsored innovation pro- vided the initial catalyst, especially during the Cold War, the private sector will play a growing role in the development of space technologies that have potential military applica- tions in the years ahead. Dual-use space technologies will spin off from the commercial to the military sector in un- precedented ways. This includes areas such as communica- tions and imaging satellites and new launch vehicles as well as telecommunications, the broader availability of imagery, and GPS technologies, products, and services. The private sector will develop new products such as satellites and at the same time offer services such as we see today with telecommunications and imagery. In some cases government programs will produce infrastructure such as satellites and GPS, with the private sector then benefiting from such ca- pabilities. Likewise, the government, including the U.S. mili- tary, will contract with the private sector to lease communi- cations and other capabilities. For example, the U.S. military recently contracted with Paradigm Secure Communications, based in the United Kingdom, in an effort to augment the ca- pabilities of the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS). The deal, worth up to $48 million over three years, will provide the military with X-band communications us- ing Paradigms fleet of Skynet satellites. Currently, the U.S. military receives about 80 percent of its satellite communi- cations capacity from commercial providers. 37

Initial government funding spurs private industry investment lowers financial risk Daily Tech, Jason Mick, 10/15/07, The Pentagon Wants Space Solar Power for U.S., Allies,
http://www.dailytech.com/The+Pentagon+Wants+Space+Solar+Power+for+US+Allies/article9275.htm//jchen The plan also states that by developing SSP, the U.S. Armed Forces can reduce the risk for large scale commercial development of the technology. What this means, if the plans succeeds, is that industries may eventually see the technology at an affordable price, while the military will pay a premium to become the early adopter. "The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO states in the report. Charles Miller, CEO of Constellation Services International, a space technology start-up, and director of the Space Frontier Foundation, hopes that the government chooses to follow the report and adopt the technology. By installing a power plant in geostationary orbit, the government can effectively "buy down" the risk for industry start-ups such as his company, he says. Such a move could allow the U.S. and its allies to commercially eliminate oil dependence, and meet the energy needs of the developing world, ushering in an era of clean energy.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

169

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (3/4)

US Military investment in solar jumpstarts private industry REVE 6/14/11, Renewable Energy for Military Applications http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=11978//jchen
Increased access to clean and reliable energy has become a leading priority for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the military arena in general, both as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil as well as for purposes of increasing the efficiency and performance of all aspects of operations across multiple domains including base and facility operations, transport, and portable soldier power. The various composite branches of the DOD, as an organization, combine to form the single largest consumer of energy in the world more than any other public or private entity and greater than more than 100 other nations. Energy consumption is the lifeblood of the U.S. military and the supporting governmental infrastructure that facilitates and controls it. Military investment in renewable energy and related technologies, in many cases, holds the potential to bridge the valley of death that lies between research & development and full commercialization of these technologies. As such, the myriad of DOD initiatives focused on fostering cleantech is anticipated to have a substantial impact on the development and growth of the industry as a whole. With projects ranging from the utilization of solar power and wind power for electricity generation, to the adoption of fuel cells for portable power, to the deployment of microgrids for forward base operations and the use of alternative fuels for land, air, and sea transport, all branches of the U.S. military and many other military and defense entities around the world are major players in the global cleantech industry.

Government investment in SPS catalyzes private capital New Scientist, 10/18/07, Dan Cho, Washington, DC, PENTAGON BACKS PLAN TO BEAM SOLAR POWER FROM
SPACE, http://www.rachel.org/?q=en/newsletters/rachels_news/929//jchen A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report 3.6 Mbyte PDF released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power- generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions. "We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US.

Private Sector needs Govt for SBSP Hsu and Cox, Feng Hsu, Ph.D. NASA GSFC Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group And Ken Cox, Ph.D. Founder & Director Aerospace Technology Working Group, March 29, 2009, Sustainable Space Exploration
and Space Development: A Unified Strategic Vision, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=development+%22space+based+solar+power%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 26, 2011 And we must invest in projects with multiple benefits such as space-based solar power (SBSP) research and development, which would be developed by first funding a series of space-to-space or space-to-Earth SBSP demonstration projects. Technology demonstrations, such as wireless power transmission (WPT), high- efficiency microwave beam generation and control, system safety and reliability, on- orbit robotic assembly technology, and deployment of large-scale orbital solar structures would also be advisable to help reduce risks, thus triggering large-scale investments by private industries. The upside potential, if successful, would ultimately lead to the capacity to harness solar energy from space to alleviate Earths dependence on fossil fuels, thereby addressing global climate-change concerns.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

170

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Federal Action Key Catalyzes Private Sector (4/4)

Government backing of emerging tech like SPS empirically causes expansion airmail proves Michael D. Lemonick is the senior writer at Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to communicate climate
science to the public. Prior to joining Climate Central, he was a senior writer at Time magazine, where he covered science and the environment for more than 20 years, 8/31/09, Solar Power from Space: Moving Beyond Science Fiction, http://e360.yale.edu/mobile/feature.msp?id=2184//jchen For those reasons, Damphousse supports the idea of coordinated studies by the Pentagon and other agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy that would have a stake in space-based power. We might, for example, do some experiments on the International Space Station, which is already up there and generating 110 kilowatts of power from its own solar cells, he says, rather than having to send up a dedicated test satellite. Such cooperation might appeal to NASA. I suspect that NASA will start working on energy and on more advanced technology and less on, Lets get to the moon by 2018, says Mankins. By undertaking some of the research and being an early customer for SBSP, the government could rapidly accelerate development of the technology. Historians of aviation agree that the governments decision to back air mail played a major role in developing the aircraft industry, leading to technological innovations and economies of scale. The same phenomenon could take an emerging but outlandish-sounding technology and push it into the energy mainstream.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

171

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Terrorism
SSP dual use creates multilateral institutions that solve terror Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15 , 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 In 1908, a small, rocky asteroid or chunk of a comet exploded five miles above the Tenguska region in Siberia. The blast was estimated at tens of megatons and felled trees, started fires and killed wildlife over an area of more than 1,00 square kilometers. In 1996, an asteroid about the third of a mile wide passed within 280,000 miles from Earth. It was only discovered four days before it passed by. Had it hit, the explosion would have been in the 5,000 to 12,000 megaton range. In 1997 a joint Air Force/MIT program using a two telescopes designed for satellite tracking, with generous Pentagon funding was established at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, New Mexico. An automated, computerized operation soon began discovering more asteroids and comets, large and small. The Air Force has begun musing unofficially about launching a fleet of micro satellites for even better asteroid detection.43 One solution to this problem might be to create a multi-lateral planetary defense network as a sort of global fire and rescue department. The network could be comprised of thousands of reconnaissance satellites in elliptical high Earth orbits that would again, serve four purposes: Communications, SSP, and detection of NEOs and deflection of small NEOs. A secondary use of the telescopes and the lasers might also be for international coalitions (following the Gulf War model) to track and destroy agreed upon terrorist organizations and regimes on Earth.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

172

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Launch
We can launch 25 satellites in a single vehicle- decreasing the effect on the environment and providing cost efficiency McLinko et al , Ryan M McLinko, Ryan McLinko is currently a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the field of Aerospace Engineering after having received a bachelors degree in the same field at MIT, 2009, Space-based solar
power generation using a distributed network of satellites and methods for efficient space power transmission, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/57581 Launching the SSP constellation into orbit is one of the most difficult aspects of the program. Launch vehicles are expensive, operationally difficult to use, and provide a harsh environment for the health of transported satellites during launch. Some aspects of this architecture, however, help to mitigate these problems: A large number of small satellites can fit into a single launch vehicle. Modularity of the system means scope can be expanded or reduced to fit available launch vehicle payload capabilities. The lack of a monolithic structure eliminates the need for Saturn V or higher-class heavy-lift launch vehicles. This architecture calls for designing spacecraft to fit the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter standard. The ESPA Program is sponsored by the DoD Space Test Program and provides secondary rides to orbit for 180 kg vehicles at a cost of about $1M each. It must be noted that use of ESPA is not viable in the long term due to the limited number of ESPA rides available on a regular basis, but this approach serves as an optimal way to prove out the initial steps of the system. ESPA type adapters can be developed to launch as many as 25 satellites at a time on a Falcon 9 or similar rocket. Due to the larger size of the beaming satellites, they will be launched on Falcon 9 or similar launch vehicles; it is expected that two beaming satellites (and collecting satellites if space and mass allows) will fit on each Falcon 9 launch. SpaceX vehicles are baselined due to the significantly lower cost over other providers and the likely further reductions available once reusability is incorporated into the design.

SPS systems can perform with as little as 6 satellites Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen V. ESTABLISHING SYSTEM SIZE AND POWER LEVEL In Ref. [17] we explored the minimum size of the Phase 1 system, required to make it self-sustaining regardless of the implementation of Phases 2 and 3. Such a system would require the motivations that drive Space agencies worldwide, and hence must have SSP as an ultimate goal. The exercise established the cost of power, the required end-to-end efficiency, the relations to satellite number, and the minimum level of power transacted per satellite to make the system viable. Development and production costs were estimated using the NASA-Air force NAFCOM cost models[18] with an 85 percent Wright Learning assumed. Launch costs were estimated using an interpolated form of the lower-bound estimates from the FUTRON launch cost survey [19] of 2004, based on data up to 2000. The minimum power level was shown to be around 60 MW per satellite. At this level, the system would start functioning with as few as six satellites and 12 power stations, but was then expanded to a size of over 100 satellites and stations. The number of stations can be considerably larger than the number of satellites, when intermittency of transmission and weather issues are taken into account, and the cost of installing beaming and receiving facilities on a ground station are small in this architecture.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

173

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Radiation (1/2)
Transmission rays are safe equal to radiation from a microwave oven Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen Microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high. They can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight. This delivers more energy per area than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam can be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage of a microwave oven. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely to be low. The safety of wild life wandering into the beam is not expected to be an issue. The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising. The size of the antenna makes microwave beaming unsuitable as a secret weapon. The distance from the geostationary belt is so great that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration needed for a weapon. The beam is likely to be designed to require a pilot beam transmitted from the rectenna site. Absent the pilot signal, the system can be programmed to go into an incoherent mode. Concerns may also be addressed through an inspection regime. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low. Even if it occurred, it would not be a hazard.

SBSP radiation doesnt hurt humans David R. Criswell, Director, Inst. for Space Systems Operations, 2002, Industrial Physicist magazine
The space-based technology poses little risk to human health. A person standing in the microwave beam would absorb about 2% of the incident power and feel slightly warmer. Nonetheless, the general population would be restricted from the industrially zoned beam area, and workers could be easily shielded. Such a beam does not pose a hazard to insects or birds flying through it . Microwave intensity under and horizontally beyond the rectenna will be far less than is permitted for continuous exposure of the general population. Beams f rom a power base on the moon could be turned off in a few seconds or decreased in intensity to accommodate unusual conditions. However, the beams frequency is the band used for industrial radio, which includes some portable phones, wireless connections to remote devices, and emergency-response radio systems. Interference generated at harmonics and subharmonics of the beam frequency would likely require reallocation of these systems to other segments of the radio spectrum.

No scientific basis for this- the army tested it on animals Mark Williamson, UK-based space-technology consultant to the space industry. He is the author of six books, including The Cambridge Dictionary of Space, 2010, May the power be with you, POWERSPACE//ZY
Finally, regarding power transmission, Nansen refers to Glasers original proposal: The transmitter was based on the work of Bill Brown of Raytheon, who demonstrated the first successful wireless power trans- mission in 1964 when he powered a model helicopter, he says. Moreover, states Nansen, there is no real safety problem. The most comprehensive testing has been done by the US military because they operate high- power radars and they found no permanent damage to cells as long as the energy level was less than about 1,000W/m2. Nansen adds that tests on insects, birds and other lifeforms produced no damage with power densities below this heating threshold, and that standards for SSP systems would be the same as for microwave oven leakage. It is very clear that any safety issues are assumed and not real, he insists.

Radiation from SBSP is safe and warnings check Donald M. Goldstein, retired Air Force officer who served for 22 years, Professor of Public and International Affairs at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, April 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar
Power: Global Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor , http://www.die.unipd.it/~benato/download/nationalgrid/Documenti/Space%2520Solar%2520Power1.pdf Some fear that a large network of solar power satellites using microwaves would cook the Earths atmosphere like in a microwave oven. In reality, proposed microwave intensities would be below the threshold at which objects would begin to heat up. While it is true that higher levels of microwave radiation would locate around the rectennae, even these levels are expected to be within the range that is now deemed safe by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA). However, if community concern were expressed, fences and warningsigns near rectennae would be one method of alleviating this concern.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

174

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Death Rays
No death rays beams are too dispersed and incoherent to be used as a weapon Lyle M. Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprises, Project Engineer, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, December 2009, Development
of Space-Based Solar Power, Intech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/development-of-space-based-solar-power//jchen Microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high. They can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight. This delivers more energy per area than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam can be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage of a microwave oven. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely to be low. The safety of wild life wandering into the beam is not expected to be an issue. The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising. The size of the antenna makes microwave beaming unsuitable as a secret weapon. The distance from the geostationary belt is so great that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration needed for a weapon. The beam is likely to be designed to require a pilot beam transmitted from the rectenna site. Absent the pilot signal, the system can be programmed to go into an incoherent mode. Concerns may also be addressed through an inspection regime. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low. Even if it occurred, it would not be a hazard.

SBSP is safe- incapable of focusing beam anywhere but the transmitter Rhodes, Christopher J. Rhodes, Professor Chris Rhodes has a visiting position at the University of Reading and is Director of Freshlands Environmental Actions, He has published more than 200 peer reviewed articles and five books, and is also a published novelist, journalist and poet, March 2010 Solar energy: principles and possibilities, http://dartmouthcolnh.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/sciprg/2010/00000093/00000001/art00003 At first glance, the idea of sending a beam of microwaves from space to Earth is alarming to say the least. The term death raycomes to mind, and one wonders what would happen if the beam accidentally drifted off-course and hit some unsuspecting bystander, incinerating them to dust! In reality, microwave relay beams have been used without incident for many years for telecommunications purposes. The following sums are illustrative in putting ones mind at rest. A proposed microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its centre, amounting to 23 mWycm2 (which is less than a quarter of the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1mWycm2 outside of the rectenna fenceline67. Even within its most intense region the beam energy is far below what is regarded as dangerous even for an indefinitely prolonged exposure69. Exposure to the centre of the beam can in any case be avoided at ground level (e.g., via fencing), and most aircraft are fitted with a protective metal shell (i.e., a Faraday Cage), which will intercept the microwaves, should they fly into the beam-path. 495% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna while any remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world70.The microwave beam intensity at ground level in the centre of the beam would be a built-in feature the system for the simple reason that transmitter (in space) would be too far away and too small to be able to increase the intensity to unsafe death ray levels, even theoretically. An important design constraint is to ensure that the beam is of sufficiently low power that wildlife, mainly birds, will not be injured by it. It is interesting that wind-turbines are thought to be much more dangerous to birds who inadvertently fly into their sweep. It has been proposed that the rectennas should be placed offshore71,72, but this would cause problems, of corrosion, mechan- ical stresses, and biological contamination. One well established means by which to ensure fail-safe beam targeting is to use what are called retrodirective phased array antennayrectenna. Here the prin- ciple is that a pilot microwave beam emitted from the centre of the rectenna on the ground establishes a phase front at the transmitting antenna. Circuits in each of the antennas subarrays measure the pilot beams phase front against an internal clock phase. Thereby, the transmitted beam is centred precisely on the rectenna and has a high degree of phase uniformity. If the transmitting antenna is turned away from the rectenna, for example and the pilot beam is lost, the phase control fails and the microwave power beam is automatically defocused73. Simply put, a system of this kind is a fail-safe and incapable of focusing its power beam anywhere that did not have a pilot beam transmitter.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

175

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Ozone Holes (1/2)

Plan net helps solves warming that destroys the ozone layer Union of Concerned Scientists (MIT), leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world, 7.13.09
Is there a connection between the ozone hole and global warming? http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html Ozone (O3) high in the atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation from the sun, thereby protecting living organisms below from this dangerous radiation. The term ozone hole refers to recent depletion of this protective layer over Earth's polar regions. People, plants, and animals living under the ozone hole are harmed by the solar radiation now reaching the Earth's surfacewhere it causes health problems from eye damage to skin cancer. The ozone hole, however, is not the mechanism of global warming. Ultraviolet radiation represents less than one percent of the energy from the sunnot enough to be the cause of the excess heat from human activities. Global warming is caused primarily from putting too much carbon into the atmosphere when coal, gas, and oil are burned to generate electricity or to run our cars. These gases spread around the planet like a blanket, capturing the solar heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space. (For more detail on the basic mechanism of global warming, see carbon dioxide FAQ.) Both of these environmental problems do, however, have a common causehuman activities that release gases into and alter the atmosphere. Ozone depletion occurs when chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)formerly found in aerosol spray cans and refrigerantsare released into the atmosphere. These gases, through several chemical reactions, cause the ozone molecules to break down, reducing ozone's ultraviolet (UV) radiation-absorbing capacity. Because our atmosphere is one connected system, it is not surprising that ozone depletion and global warming are related in other ways. For example, evidence suggests that climate change may contribute to thinning of the protective ozone layer.

SPS wont have a significant effect on the ozone layer. Mark Prado, former advanced planner for Pentagon space program, 20 02, 5.12.3 Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth
http://permanent.com/p-sps-bi.htm Many people ask about the effects on the ozone layer of SPSs. Answer: none. The SPS in no way affects the ozone layer. Rocket launches do cause various forms of pollution comparable overall to a power plant on the ground, but ozone depletion would be negligible. (Valentino/DoE, ref. 88) Using materials already in space, i.e., asteroidal and lunar materials, will greatly reduce launch needs. Others asked about whether a SPS could crash to Earth. No. Unlike low Earth orbit space stations and spy satellites, the SPSs are located in a very high Earth orbit, and it would take many thousands of years before the SPS's orbit could possibly decay to cause atmospheric entry. Notably, large scale space development using asteroid-derived fuel propellants will insure that dead satellites in low orbit do not crash to Earth, even old satellites

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

176

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
SPS does not cause significant harm to the ozone layer. Peter E. Glaser 92 American scientist and aerospace engineer. VP of Advanced Technology An Overview of the Solar Power
Satellite Option IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 40. NO. 6, JUNE 1992 Effects on the Atmosphere: Weather and climatic effects of waste heat released at a receiving antenna site would be generally small, comparable to the heat released over suburban areas. The absorption of microwave power in the troposphere is expected to increase during heavy rainstorms, but even then would have only a negligible effect on the weather. The air quality effect of the launch of advanced space transportation vehicles, which would increase sulphur dioxide concentration, would not be critical. Nearly all of the carbon monoxide would be oxidized to carbon dioxide, and the amount of nitric oxides formed would be negligible. The change in the globally averaged ozone layer due to SPS launches would be undetectable as would the effects of nitrogen oxides. Transient clouds at stratosphere and mesosphere altitudes could be induced in the vicinity of the launch site, but they would not be expected to have a detectable impact. Some acid rain might occur near the launch site if there are significant quantities of sulphur in the fuel. Inadvertent weather modification by rocket effluents in the troposphere, because of cumulative effects, would be possible and would require continuing monitoring of rocket exhaust clouds and the various meteorological conditions to mitigate such effects. The effect of rocket launches on the ionosphere could be mitigated by a depressed launch trajectory, for example, a booster returning below an altitude of 75 km would keep the rocket effluents in the turbulent mixing regions of the atmosphere, reduce the possibility of hydrogen diffusion into the ionosphere and prevent the formation of noctilucent clouds. Optimization of the first stages launch trajectory would reduce the injection of water vapor into the lower atmosphere if hydrogen-oxygen propellants are used; however, water vapor deposited in the upper atmosphere will have a long residence time, and may result in undesirable effects if large quantities of water are deposited over an extended time frame.

Even if SPS were to have an impact on the ozone layer, its overall benefits for the environment make it a preferable solution for alternative energy. Aleksander Zidanek et al, 11.30.2010 Joef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, Slovenia b Joef Stefan International
Postgraduate School, Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis Elsevier Ltd, Volume 36, Issue 4, 5th Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water & Environment Systems Currently we get about 85% of the world energy from fossil fuels. They generate about 10 MJ of energy per 1 kg of CO2 emissions. We compare this to the solar power satellite emission results shown in Table 1, assuming 25 years of operation for the solar power satellite. In its lifetime 1 W of space solar electric power will thus produce about 760 MJ of energy, if we assume that it operates 95% of the time, and we would get more than 500 MJ of energy to Earth, if we assume 70% efficiency of the energy transmission system [16]. In this paper we define efficiency as the ratio between the electricity delivered by the rectenna into the terrestrial transmission line and the electricity generated in space as the input to the space microwave transmission system. All the data in the tables are calculated for the power received at the rectenna on Earth. If we produce the same amount of energy on Earth from oil (energy density about 40 MJ/kg), we get about 50 kg of CO2 emissions at 100% thermal efficiency and 1oad factor. For a more realistic efficiency of about 30% these emissions are about 150 kg, i.e. two orders of magnitude more than for a typical space power station. This means that all the described Earth launched solar power satellites produce about one order of magnitude less CO2 emissions than fossil fuels for the same amount of generated electricity. If the satellites are built and launched from the Moon, the emissions are even lower. With this result it is important to keep in mind that CO2 emissions are not the only cost to environment. Among other environmental impacts it is for example important to take into account that the rocket fuel emissions may also destroy ozone, and it is important to explore the possible effects of microwaves and laser beams on the ionosphere. However, such a clear advantage of orbital solar power satellites demonstrates that this is indeed a very sound energy technology from a global warming reduction point of view.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

177

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Ozone Holes - HAARP

Non-unique HAARP system already does this and is being used by the US military. Amy Worthington, journalist at IDAHO Observer, 09, Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons In The Age Of Nuclear War
Spirit of Maat February 2009 According to University of Ottawa Professor Michael Chossudovsky, the military's High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), operating in Alaska as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, is a powerful tool for weather and climate modification. [61] Operated jointly by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, HAARP antennas bombard and heat the ionosphere, causing electromagnetic frequencies to bounce back to earth, penetrating everything living and dead. [62] HAARP transmissions make holes in the ozone, [63] creating yet another hobgoblin. HAARP inventor Bernard Eastlund described in his original patent how antenna energy can interact with plumes of atmospheric particles, used as a lens or focusing device, to modify weather. [64] HAARP is capable of triggering floods, droughts and hurricanes, much to the chagrin of both the European Parliament and the Russian Duma. [65]

HAARP depletes the ozone layer. Richard Alan Miller and Iona Miller 03 Schumann's Resonances and Human Psychobiology (extended version): Organization
for the Advancement of Knowledge (O.A.K.), Grants Pass, Or., 2003 Ionospheric heaters deliberately create instabilities in the plasma layer of the ionosphere to rev up the the energy level of charged particles. This results also in electronic rain from the sky -- electron precipitation from the magnetosphere. It is caused by man-made very low frequency EM waves. The precipitated particles can produce secondary ionization, emit Xrays, and cause significant perturbation in the lower atmosphere, potentially affecting human brainwaves, and even our evolution, if Hainsworth is correct. Thus, we see that HAARP can be employed for nefarious weather modification, which can also damage the ozone layer and cause earthquakes. An electronic beam can ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area, including military targets. Thus, the key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities where adding a small amount of energy can release vastly greater amounts of energy. Hopefully, this system won't soon be tested in any possible confrontation in the Middle East.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

178

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Long Timeframe (1/3)

Microwaves can penetrate the atmosphere, and the latest we'll have SPS is 2025 The Economist, magazine, 8, "Let the Sun Shine In", economist.com
The optimistic NSSO report was followed in May 2008 by a milestone for SSP, with the transmission of a microwave beam, of the kind that would be used to transmit energy to Earth, between two Hawaiian islands 148 kilometres apart. The distance was chosen because it is equivalent to the thickness of the atmosphere that a microwave beam from space must penetrate. The experiment was carried out by American and Japanese researchers in only four months, and for less than $1m, under the direction of John Mankins of Managed Energy Technologies, a firm he founded after a long career developing space systems at NASA. The experiment was sponsored by Discovery Communications, a TV company, for a documentary. Announcing his results, Mr Mankins said that what was needed next was a two-year engineering study of a full SSP system, covering everything from the launch vehicles to the ground receivers. Such a study has not been carried out since the 1980s, and technology has since changed radically. With that done, at a cost of about $100m, the next step would be to develop the necessary architecture to make SSP economically viable, and to test it in low-Earth orbit. Mr Mankins thinks this could be done by 2015, at a cost of less than $1 billion. After that, a full pilot system could be deployed in geostationary orbit, at a cost of $10 billion, and commercial operation could begin by 2025.

Sufficient SPS can be developed within 17 years to power the US Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen The dream of abundant solar-powered electricity from Space can be realized through global synergy between renewable energy, climate control and space development initiatives. A 3-phase plan is linked to the policy approaches needed to implement it. The 17-year initial phase will use a constellation of low/mid earth orbit satellites exchanging beamed power between 100 plants. Larger satellites with high-intensity converters, will replace the aging first set, receiving focused light from ultralight collectors in a scalable path to space solar power. European initiatives for a DC grid to integrate space and terrestrial solar power provide policy guidance. While technical challenges remain, the SPG integrates terrestrial systems at all size scales from utilities to household micro renewable energy systems

SPS pays for itself within 17 years and can supply global energy soon after Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen The SPG can generate useful revenue at a minimum size of 20 satellites and 12 plants. In Ref. [5] we showed that with 200GHz transmission, and with a 30% end-to-end transmission of the power, SPG Phase 1 with no power generated in space can be competitive with terrestrial power options, in places where the power fetches high prices due to peak demand, or lack of generation and transmission (e.g., islands, and prime time in big cities). This assumes that power generation has the same efficiency as any other power, so the 30% should be compared to the 94% transmission that the US grid claims. If this can be achieved, then system costs can be recovered in about 17 years. By that time the next phase can start, where large ultralight reflectors in GEO (Phase 3) focus sunlight down to 300-Sun solar-electric converters placed on the Phase 2 satellites that will replace the original waveguide satellites. The cost of delivered power will then decrease substantially. The road to keep increasing terrestrial primary electric supply (or replacing todays GHG-emitting fossilbased plants) will be open. Phase 3 then allows for expansion until the constellation in L/MEO reaches saturation. To double terrestrial primary energy availability, some 300 square kilometers of ultralight reflectors will be needed in high orbits. In summary, our Space Power Grid concept addresses the issues of Table 1, as shown in Table 2 below

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

179

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Long Timeframe (2/3)

SPS breaks even in 17 years of launch only requires 6 billion dollar initial investment Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen IV. ECONOMICS OF THE SPACE POWER GRID The business case is based on 4 features: 1) SPG allows solar and wind power plants to achieve baseload provider status, and compete for premium prices by exchanging power with plants anywhere. Fossil power use is reduced by enabling renewable plants in remote locations including islands, and by reducing the need for backup power generation. Carbon credits provide a small continuing revenue stream, but also qualifies the system for a much larger initial public investment. 2) As the constellation grows, antenna size is reduced, eliminating the need for major assembly in orbit, and thus minimizing development and launch costs. Constellation growth is matched to the commissioning of renewable power plants, which can be located in ideal locations without need for market proximity. 3) Use of a constellation as a power grid minimizes the impact of weather by providing transmission alternatives. 4) Revenue growth occurs early with a few satellites and participating plants, eliminating the huge cost-to-firstpower drawback of GEO-based concepts. Detailed calculations of Net Present Value and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needed for breakeven in a set number of years, have shown (Ref. 15) that a power cost of 30 cents per KWh can be achieved, breaking even with reasonable IRR of 8% within 23 years from project start, given the first satellite launch in year 6. This is with zero government funding. With about $6B invested during the development phase, this can be achieved even if system efficiency does not improve much from what is possible today. The economics of Carbon Credits and control of global Climate Change improve the viability of the SPG, while the SPG eliminates the need for megameters of concrete and metal transmission grids that take an enormous amount of energy to develop

SBSPs first launch could be even be in 5 years McLinko and Sagar, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Department of Mathematics, 6/24/2011 (Ryan and Basant,
Space-based Solar Power Generation Using a Distributed Network of Satellites and Methods for Efficient Space Power Transmission, http://web.mit.edu/basant/www/SSP_McLinko_Sagar.pdf) Finally, the development, fabrication, and testing of this design must also be considered in the formation of a business plan. The current design assumes outsourcing of solar array design and assembly; however this work must eventually be brought in-house to significantly reduce cost. In short, this plan assumes a baseline workforce of 300 employees and associated facilities over a time period of 5 years.

SSP can meet full market demand within 25 years of development Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen I. INTRODUCTION The dream of Space Solar Power (SSP)[1] is that abundant, clean, steady electric power can be generated 24/365 in Space, and conveyed down to Earth. Many concepts have been proposed [2,3,4,5] to harvest SSP on a massive scale. Most are to beam the power down from large (>100 sq.km) converters at geo stationary earth orbit (GEO), 36,000km above the equator. Large beam divergence, mass needed at GEO, immense ground infrastructure and limited coverage beyond 30 degree latitude, make this a non-starter. The cost to first revenue is beyond hope. The Space Power Grid (SPG) approach [6,7,8] seeks to break through this problem with an evolutionary, scalable approach to SSP within 25 to 30 years from project start, with a viable business plan and minimal costs to taxpayers. This paper deals with the interplay of technology, economics, global relations and national public policy involved in making this concept come to fruition.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

180

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Long Timeframe (3/3)

We can launch the satellites in a matter of yearsnot only would space solar power streamline the American economy, but it would save us billions on energy importspaying for itself almost instantly. Jeff Foust, the editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and Personal Spaceflight weblogs, 8/15/2008, A step forward for space solar power, The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1210/1 Rancatore is now spending time meeting with members of Congress and their staffs, primarily with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, on the issue of SSP. Energy is probably the biggest issue facing the country as well as the world, he said, requiring both short- and long-term solutions. SSP, he said, solves three major issues in the US today: employment, particularly in high-technology areas; energy independence; and foreign policy. The United States is by far the worlds greatest space power, said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the NSS, and yet were not spending any money in this country on space solar power. Right now, Rancatore said hes working to educate members about what space-based solar power can do for our country, create that dialogue, and possible create a space-based solar caucus within Congress for them to fully understand the ramifications for our country and the world and start get members involved. In an interview after the press conference, he said hes met with Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the global warming committee, about this issue. Rancatore said hes yet to identify a member willing to champion this issue in Congress, but expects to make progress on that front, including establishing the caucus, when a new Congress convenes in January. He added that hes reached out to the campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama on this subject as well. Some of that rhetoric being used to win over members of Congress was trotted out at the press conference as well. The potential of space solar power is so large that, if it works out, it would transform the American economy to a much greater extent than the auto industry did in the early part of the 20th century, said Hopkins, who added that SSP could allow the US to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to import energy, some of it from countries unfriendly to the US. Thats the long-term goal, but for now the focus is on near-term incremental progress. What we think weve done is to demonstrate that progress is possible, Mankins said. Its possible in a short time and its possible at a reasonable budget.

A recent study proves that SBSP will be deployed in 10 years

Smith, Co-Founder of the Alternative Energy Network, 10/10/2007, Alternative Energy Action Network (Arthur, New Space Solar Power Report from DoD NSSO, http://www.altenergyaction.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129) Miller stated that the SFF believes the US government should initiate a major national project on this, at least on the level of support for fusion research. The NSSO study shows the possibility of closing the energy business case for some markets within just 10-15 years, not the 50 years people sometimes talked of. The energy market is a trillion dollar/year market (just in the US). If this takes off, the Apollo, space shuttle, and ISS will look like college science projects next to the real space age it will bring about. The reason the business case can close so soon is the existence of near-term customers who have no other option potentially willing to pay $1-2/kWh for beamed-in power. In particular, DoD field operations that currently rely on long and deadly supply chains to bring in fuel oil. They are paying more than that for electricity at some bases in Iraq now, not even including the cost in lives lost. This military need changes the economic equation. So there's DoD interest at a tactical level just for this reason. There's also DoD interest at the strategic level - doing this may be key to preventing future wars and disasters. The recommendations are for reasonable and appropriate steps taken by the federal government: become an "anchor tenant", reduce the technical risks. Take other reasonable steps to reduce risks and incentivize development. Loan guarantees for instance, the same incentive that's been given to nuclear operators for years. Extend pollution offsets and renewables subsidies to this. Investment tax credits for this and for development of reusable launch vehicles. With these reasonable steps, within 10-15 years the case will close. And some people think it will be even sooner.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

181

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Too Expensive (1/2)

American Renewable Launch Vehicles are relatively cheap
Tuyet N. Le, Masters Degree from San Jose State University , 9, Conceptual design of a solar power beaming space system, scholarworks.sjsu.edu There are about twenty countries with advanced-launch capabilities. Only a few out of those twenty countries have developed reusable launch vehicles. My launch vehicles tradeoff study in Appendices I and II shows that reusable launch vehicles cost less than expendable launch vehicles. For example, I compared the Russian Proton, the Chinese Long March, and the United States, SpaceX Falcon 9 Normal/Heavy launch vehicles below (Wertz, Eonomic Model of Reusable vs. Expendable Launch Vehicles, 2000). Table 4.1 compares existing launch vehicles cost for both expendable and reusable. Launch cost for the Russia Proton expendable vehicles is highest at $85 million. Launch cost for Falcon 9 Normal reusable vehicles is lowest at $35 Million. A payload capacity to orbit for Proton is lowest at 4,600 kg to GTO whereas Falcon 9 Heavy payload to orbit is 12,200 kg to GTO. The costs per kg are higher for expendable than reusable launch vehicles: Proton at $18,350 per kg, Long March at $11,500 per kg. Falcon 9 Normal at $10,500 per kg, and Falcon 9 Heavy at $8,200 per kg. Therefore, for low cost access to space, reusable launch vehicles are the way to go.

The tech for SSP comes cheap NSS, National Space Society, October 2007, Space Based Solar Power, AdAstra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP2008.pdf Space solar power need not be impossibly cheap to compete. However, two high-level goals must be achieved. First, the mass of the system in space cannot be greater than about 3-6 kilograms (7-19 lbs.) for each kilowatt of energy delivered to the ground. Second, the cost for mass in space cannot be greater than about $3,000/kg ($1360/lb). I.e., the total installed cost of a space solar power system cannot be more than about $10,000 per kilowatt of power delivered on the ground. Remarkably, these cost goals now appear achievable using the technical approaches described previously

Aff would only cost $500 million Rubenchik, Alexander M Rubenchik, is a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, April 2009, Solar Power
Beaming: From Space to Earth, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%9CThe+cost+to+deploy+the+first+spacebased+solar+energy+system+is+estimated+at+approximately+%24500+million.+A+significant+percentage+of+this+cost+is+attribute d+to+the+laser%2C+the+solar+reflector%2Fcollector+systems%E2%80%9D+&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C30&as_sdtp=on, Date accessed June 24, 2011 The cost to deploy the first space-based solar energy system is estimated at approximately $500 million. A significant percentage of this cost is attributed to the laser, the solar reflector/collector systems and the ground receiver/power generation station on Earth. This cost includes a single space- based power beaming system and a single receiver station on Earth. Multiple industries would be engaged supporting their areas of expertise to comprise the total required system. A

rough order of magnitude cost for a first system is shown in the following table:Subsequent systems would cost significantly less. The cost to launch future additional vehicles into LEO is estimated to be several times less than the
initial launch, and the cost of the laser system is also estimated to be several times less than the first deployed unit. Since a first article is yet to be designed and built, it is difficult to estimate with strong confidence the actual cost of our proposed system. However, the attributes of the system as explained in previous sections, strongly support villages worldwide. However, even in this initial, rather low throughput case, the start-up costs look prohibitively high. We believe that our proposed system can be deployed and begin power-beaming operations at a cost of a few hundred of millions of dollars. Although this initial system may be far from economical, it certainly can stimulate the technological development (as an example, the solar power beaming lift vehicle) to reduce costs, such that space-based solar power can be an economic realization in the not too distant future.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

182

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Too Expensive (2/2)

No link to Spending Rubenchik, Alexander M Rubenchik, is a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, April 2009, Solar Power
Beaming: From Space to Earth, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%9CThe+cost+to+deploy+the+first+spacebased+solar+energy+system+is+estimated+at+approximately+%24500+million.+A+significant+percentage+of+this+cost+is+attribute d+to+the+laser%2C+the+solar+reflector%2Fcollector+systems%E2%80%9D+&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C30&as_sdtp=on, Date accessed June 24, 2011 We have described a fully self-contained space- based solar power system capable of efficiently beaming collected solar energy from space to receiver stations located at the Earths surface. The key technological advancement that supports this concept is the development of a simple, lightweight laser system that can effectively transmit a coherent laser beam from space to Earth with high efficiency and reliable operation. The lasers near infrared wavelength (795 nanometers) supports efficient transport through the Earths atmosphere, with the related attribute of requiring a correspondingly very small receiver on Earth, of merely a few meters in diameter. A Low Earth Orbit (LEO) has been chosen to facilitate the use of current launch system capabilities, as well as reducing the laser beam and optical system pointing and alignment requirements. A rough order of magnitude cost of $500M for the first space-based solar power beaming system is estimated. Significant cost reduction factors include: that the entire space-based solar power system can be deployed into space via a single launch vehicle, and that the system requires no human intervention to set-up and activate. Subsequent systems are estimated to cost several times less. A deployment timeframe of six to seven years for this initial system is proposed. Although many engineering details need to be resolved to make this system a reality, we believe that all of the major subsystems and components are mature enough to warrant serious support of this concept. Our philosophy is to take a reasonable first step, make a simple system initially, learn from our experience, and build on our successes over time to gain increased performance and capability in subsequent systems.

No link initial investments would rapidly recover Kluck, Instructor at the El Dorado High School, 1996, El Dorado High School (Rebecca, 1996, Solar Power
Satelliteshttp://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=ASCECP000207041774000176000001&idtype=cvip s&doi=10.1061/40177(207)176&prog=normal&bypassSSO=1) The cost of the construction of a solar power satellite would be anywhere from nine hundred million to (fifteen billion dollars (Bova, 1993). But the necessity of relatively harmless. yet plentiful energy is obvious. A solar power satellite will provide a more than adequate amount of energy, which could be used for communications and even government uses (Bova, 1994). This price may seem immense but the truth is this method of collecting and delivering energy from space to earth will become cheaper in the long run. Cheap? Thats right, the solar power satellite, once constructed, will run on solar solar energy so no fuel will be necessary which will make the operation of the satellite expensive. Financing the building of such a large satellite might be a slight problem. Either taxpayers money could be used or long-term, low-interest federal loans could be taken out just as loans were taken out for the large power dams (Bova,1993). If the loans were used, the money borrowed would be rapidly recovered due to the vast amount of energy beamed back to earth. The idea of launching a solar power satellite would also increase the amount of exploration done within the next century. For instance receptions could also be placed on the moon and on various planets where the environment is possible suitable for life. The excess energy could be used to launch an aircraft which would decrease the cost of the launching, therefore additional and more frequent missions could take place. There are several motives for the manufacturing of a solar power satellite. First, it is clearly beneficial for the general public, and it will galvanize development for existing technological bases. It would also promote international cooperation (Bova, 1993). All of these positive outcomes would help the United States and the rest of the world prosper economically.

Itll only cost a couple billion dollarsthats nothing in NASAs terms G B Leatherwood, Staff writer for space future, 5/22/2011, Space-based Solar Power by 2016?, Spacefuture,
http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2011.05.22.solaren_plans_SSP_by_2016 Solaren has always been careful to always just say it will take a few billion dollars to build our first 200 Megawatt (MW) SSP pilot plant for PG&E. We have been able to find wealthy investors who want to do something important by supporting new innovative developments like SSPthat has the potential for changing the future of our world/planet.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

183

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (1/3)

SPS is 5 times more efficient than ground based solar but development requires economies of scale Philip K. Chapman , physicist and astronautical engineer, Mission Scientist for Apollo 14, December 2008, An Isoinertial Solar
Dynamic Sunsat, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/PhilChapmanSSP.pdf//jchen A sunsat consists of a large solar array in geostationary orbit (GSO, 35,800 km above the equator), transmitting power in the form of microwaves to a rectenna (rectifying antenna) on Earth. The array tracks the sun, while the axis of the microwave antenna remains along the local vertical, rotating once per orbit about the orbit normal. Electronic steering deflects the beam from the nadir to the target rectenna; the maximum deflection to anywhere on the visible disk, in the north or south hemisphere, is 8.7. The rectenna, located near the intended load, converts the energy received to standard AC. Sunsats could provide clean, carbon-neutral, inexhaustible electric power anywhere on Earth, up to at least 60 latitude. There is room in GSO for thousands of them. While development and deployment of sunsats on a scale commensurate with energy needs would be a major enterprise, no technological breakthroughs are required. Because there is no night or weather in GSO, the area of the array needed for a given energy output is less than 20% of that for a terrestrial system using the same solar conversion technology and no energy storage is required. These factors, together with the benign operating environment in free fall and vacuum and the delivery of power near the intended load mean that the capital cost of the overall system can be considerably less than for a comparable solar power plant on Earth. The price paid for these benefits is the need to deploy structures in space that are very large by current spaceflight standards. Whether or not sunsats can be competitive with terrestrial sources thus depends almost entirely on the feasibility of (1) a very light structure, and (2) a major reduction in space launch costs. This paper addresses the first of these issues. A companion paper 3 shows that economies of scale in even a modest sunsat deployment program will permit launch costs of order $300/kg, using quite conventional technology.

Mass manufacturing required for economies of scale is empirically proven to lower costs
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Y. Akahoshia, T. Nakamuraa, , , S. Fukushigea, N. Furusawaa, S. Kusunokia, Y. Machidaa, T. Kouraa, K. Watanabeb, S. Hosodab, T. Fujitac and M. Choa Kyushu Institute of Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), JapanVolume 35, Issue 12, December 2008, Kevin Reed, SESCRC/Welsom Space Solar, Seestetten, Vilshofen, Germany, and Harvey J. Willenberg, American Aerospace Advisors, Inc., Owens Cross Roads, AL, USA, 12/5/07, Early commercial demonstration of space solar power using ultralightweight arrays, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509001969//jchen 2. Manufacturing capability is critical. Ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber reinforced polymer, thin-film solar cell (CFRP TFSC) arrays provide, low payload volume and low payload mass space solar arrays that are the key enabling technology for SPS. The ability to make such solar arrays has been demonstrated at laboratory scale in the form of record power density 4300 W/kg, 9.5% stabilized efficiency AM0 (1357 standard) thin-film solar cells on 6 m thickness CP1 polyimide superstrates (polymer film towards the light). In-space conditions offer temperatures which have been shown to self-repair a-Si cells by heat annealing. These same 6 m thickness a-Si:H TFSC, which are 9.5% efficient under room temperature conditions, are 12.4% efficient and will provide 5950 W/kg and under space heat annealing self-repair conditions. Depositing these TFSC on 2 m thickness CP1 or CORIN polyimide will reduce the superstrate weight by and increase the area per kilogram of the array to approximately /kg. The of TFSC that produces predicts bare solar arrays with power density 17,000 W/kg.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

184

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (2/3)

Economies of scale reduce cost of SBSP with expansion of energy use Solar High Study Program, Solar High: Energy for the 21st Century, March 2011,
http://solarhigh.org/Overview.html//jchen Space hardware is expensive. Satellite equipment is expensive because it is constructed in small quantities, by hand, in clean rooms. The mass production needed for power satellites will reduce these prices to terrestrial levels. In fact, the fabrication cost for a power satellite will be much less than for a comparable terrestrial solar power plant, because the solar array is much smaller. The current study by the Solar High Study Group indicates that technology available now permits a Block I power satellite to be built at a hardware cost of ~$8,500 per kilowatt. Foreseeable near-term advances are expected to reduce the cost of a Block II satellite to ~$4,000/kW. Building the rectenna would add ~$1000/kW to these figures. 2. SBSP requires a major expansion of space operations. While small compared to terrestrial solar arrays of similar output, power satellites are large compared to anything yet deployed in space. Note however that the massive effort needed to build generating capacity during the next 25 years will cost trillions of dollars, regardless of the energy technologies that are used. Developing SBSP will be a relatively modest but important part of that undertaking. 3. Spaceflight is too expensive for SBSP. If the energy needed to launch a payload to low Earth orbit (LEO) could be obtained at the current retail price of electricity, the cost would be less than $1/kg. Launch is expensive only because it is infrequent, and it is infrequent because it is expensive. Air travel would be equally expensive if Boeing built only four 777s each year, and if airlines scrapped the aircraft after each flight. SBSP provides the launch market needed to escape this Catch 22

Once initially implemented, space based solar power technology will become linearly cheaper, increasingly reliable, and massively more effectivenone of their evidence assumes this. DEEPAK VERMA, COO and head, Carbon Finance and Technology Solutions, Emergent Ventures, 5/29/2011, Solar energy gets
set to power India, Financial Express, http://www.financialexpress.com/news/solar-energy-gets-set-to-power-india/796601/0 Fourth, solar power technologies lend themselves to the scale effect. With increasing scale comes in yields, efficiencies, quality, reliability, and costs of production. All of these work in concert to drive the levelised-cost-of-electricity (LCOE) down. Combine that with increasing costs of conventional energy, driven by increasing costs of inputs, and the utopian spectre of grid parity becomes achievable in the next few years (Figure 1) Fifth, Indian policymakers are committed to supporting the scale-up while also reducing solar costs. The National Solar Mission employed tariff bidding to allocate 650MW to developers last year. The Gujarat Government has signed PPAs for 950+MW. In future rounds, the tariffs offered by these programmes will reduce, which will drive down the costs of solar generation. Already, capital costs for solar projects have dropped from INR 15-16 crore/MW to INR 12-13 crore/MW. Another government initiative that will drive significant capacity addition is the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) that is being implemented across the country. Distribution companies and captive consumers will have to source a percentage of their energy from renewable sources. This is set at 5% currently and will grow to 15% over the next ten years. Within this, there is a solar-specific RPO of 0.25%, slated to grow to 3% over the same time frame. The RPOs will be implemented through Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which will trade within a pricing band established by the CERC. This pricing band will be reviewed periodically and is designed to provide acceptable financial returns to developers (Figure 2). Lastly, in spite of challenges, several hundred MW are likely to be commissioned within the next year. As stated earlier, over 1,600 MW of PPAs have already been signed. While many developers are facing significant hurdles, related largely to acquiring land and achieving financial closure, several projects aggregating 200-300MW are likely to be commissioned over the next year. Not a bad outcome from a standing start! These circumstances are leading to a perfect storm in solar, which should result in over 50 GW installed (Figure 3) and over $30 billion invested in solar power (Figure 4) in India by 2022.

Expanding market solves Mark Williamson, UK-based space-technology consultant to the space industry. He is the author of six books, including The Cambridge Dictionary of Space, 2010, May the power be with you, POWERSPACE//ZY
With launches of five-tonne satellites currently costing upwards of $50m, the cost of launch is certainly a hurdle, confirms Mankins. However, launch costs are driven by markets more than anything else, he says, and launches are so expensive because there are so few of them per year. In fact, in Mankinss opinion, the emergence of a large new commercial market for launches,suchasSSP,will bring down the cost dramati- cally of getting to space.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

185

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Too Expensive: Economies of Scale (3/3)

Economies of scale solve back launch costs- each satellite would produce $154 billion in excess throughout its lifespan Rhodes, Christopher J. Rhodes, Professor Chris Rhodes has a visiting position at the University of Reading and is Director of Freshlands Environmental Actions, He has published more than 200 peer reviewed articles and five books, and is also a published novelist, journalist and poet, March 2010 Solar energy: principles and possibilities, http://dartmouthcolnh.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/stl/sciprg/2010/00000093/00000001/art00003 One problem facing the SBPS programme is that space launches are very expensive especially at GEO altitude. Current rates on the Space Shuttle run between $6,600ykg and $11,000ykg to low Earth orbit, depending on whose numbers are used. Alternative vehicles, such as the Falcon 9 Heavy, are predicted to launch to LEO for approximately $2,900ykg. However, it is not necessary to put all of the satellite material directly into the GEO, and so it may prove possible to employ high efficiency (but slower) engines to move SBPS material from a LEO to GEO much more cheaply, e.g. using ion thrusters or nuclear propulsion engines. The scale of the problem may be indicated by assuming an arbitrary solar panel mass of 20kg per kilowatt (without considering the mass of the supporting structure, antenna, or any significant mass reduction of any focusing mirrors), on the basis of which a 4 GW power station would weigh about 80,000 tonnes, which would have to be launched from the Earth in its entirety, given current technology. It is possible that very lightweight designs could achieve 1 kgykW64, meaning that the solar panels for the same 4 GW capacity station would be reduced in mass to a mere 4,000 tonnes, or the equivalent of between 40 and 80 heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) launches to send the material to LEO, where it would likely be converted into subassembly solar arrays, which could be carried on highefficiency ion-engine style rockets to (slowly) reach GEO.A consideration of costs has been made63: With an estimated serial launch cost for shuttle-based HLLVs of $500 million to $800 million, and total launch costs for alternative HLLVs at $78 million, total launch costs would range between $11.3 billion (low cost HLLV, low weight panels) and $320 billion (expensive HLLV, heavier panels). Economies of scale on such a large launch program could be as high as 90% (if a learning factor of 30% could be achieved for each doubling of production) over the cost of a single launch today. In addition, there would be the cost of an assembly area in LEO (which could be spread over several power satellites), and probably one or more smaller one(s) in GEO. The costs of these supporting efforts would also contribute to total costs. So how much money could an SPS be expected to make? For every one gigawatt rating, current SPS designs will generate 8.75 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, or 175TWh over a 20-year lifetime. With current market prices of $0.22 per kWh (UK, January 2006) and an SPSs ability to send its energy to places of greatest demand (depending on rectenna siting issues), this would equate to $1.93 billion per year or $38.6 billion over its lifetime. The example 4 GW economy SBPS above could therefore generate in excess of $154 billion over its lifetime. Assuming facilities are available, it may turn out to be substantially cheaper to recast on-site steel in GEO, than to launch it from Earth. If true, then the initial launch cost could be spread over multiple SPS lifespans.

In the long run, SPS becomes less environmentally taxing and cheaper. Aleksander Zidanek et al, 11.30.2010 Joef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, Slovenia b Joef Stefan
International Postgraduate School, Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis Elsevier Ltd, Volume 36, Issue 4, 5th Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water & Environment Systems One could therefore expect a net positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal power satellites are used, which are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit. The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy, however even in the best case scenario it cant become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power concept can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two decades. It is also important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale. In addition to expected increase in employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

186

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Not Cost Competitive (1/3)

Cost competition is irrelevant military advantages of SBSP outweigh Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen The idea of collecting energy from solar flux in space and transmitting it wirelessly to the ground dates back to the 1960s and is consistent with the laws of physics. In this regard, the concept is feasible. From a standpoint of providing power to the utility grid, the economics of deploying such a system have played a prominent role. It has been suggested that military applications may not be as tightly bound by economics, where a critical need may justify the likely added expense of power provided from an initial SBSP system.

No need for cost competition military needs override economic M.V. Smith, PhD student of strategic studies at the University of Reading, and an associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the US Air Force Academy, NDU Press, May 20, 2003, Security and Spacepower, Toward a
Theory of Spacepower, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch17.html//jchen A great fallacy resulting from the prevalent budget-driven integration mindset is the oft-cited statement that "missions will migrate to space when it becomes reasonable to do so." This presumes that commanders in forward areas are willing to trade highly flexible organic terrestrial assets for less flexible (and often less capable) space systems that another commander will likely manage as global assets. Economic considerations may force such a compromise, but a more prudent approach is to develop robust space capabilities in addition to airpower, land power, seapower, and cyberpower assets. Remember, the difference between space systems and terrestrial systems is that space systems provide global access and global presence during both war and peace.

Substantial R&D can overcome operation costs of SSP Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen Operation and maintenance no worse than earth-based systems. This condition may well be the most difficult to meet and is by far the most difficult to demonstrate without actually building and operating SSP. Current ground-based costs can be ascertained but ground-based costs can be driven down by R&D and experience gained. Space systems are at a much earlier point in the learning curve and thus have more potential for improvement. In the end it will be a contest between teleoperated robots working in the mostly predictable space environment vs. dealing with wind, dust, corrosion, rain, vandalism and theft on the ground. Space operations costs are very high today, but, again, this is mostly operating one-off custom spacecraft not doing the same things over and over and over as would be the case for SSP. Telerobotics is in its infancy, so R&D effort should provide significant improvements. There is some reason to believe that this condition might be within reach of the proposed R&D program.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

187

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Not Cost Competitive (2/3)

Consumers will buy SPS William Fan, distinction MBA holder having strong background in telecommunication,, Harold Martin, freelance software developer and author, James Wu, Communications Associate at Acumen Fund, Brian Mok, author, 6/2/2011, SPACE BASED
SOLAR POWER, Industry and Technology Assessment//zy There is a significant amount of research suggesting that consumers are willing to pay a premium for energy from renewable or 'green' sources. Such willingness is usually correlated to the extent of education the participants have received regarding environmental issues, as well as typical socioeconomic factors. Experiments and even reliable survey data are much less forthcoming in suggesting a specific amount that a consumer might pay as a premium. While some of our interviewees proposed a premium of up 15%, this seems optimistic based on our survey scholarly sources. It seems significantly more realistic to propose a 5% price premium for green energy. The typical US household currently pays 0.10 dollars per kilowatt-hours (kWh), therefore even an optimistic 10% premium would result in an electricity price of only 0.11 dollars per kWh. Given that SBSP can, at least initially, only produce a relatively small amount of energy, this premium would have little impact (in absolute dollar terms) on our overall estimates. To wit, the price of SBSP electricity is so large that the impact of such a premium on our economic models is negligible.

SSP would be cost effective Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 According to space scientists Martin Hoffert and Seth Potter of New York University, there are three main considerations to SSP that need to be highlighted when considering the economic viability of SSP. First, launch costs would drop as the demand increases for large volumes of material to be put into space on a frequent basis. For example, the target launch cost that Lockheed Martins X-33 and Venture Star projects were shooting for was $2,200 per kilogram (one tenth that of current shuttle launches). While the X-33 and Venture Star were cancelled, the launch costs from other efforts should be achievable in the near future, given sound budgetary commitment. Second, communications satellites could double for space solar power thus making SSP more cost-effective. Third, a return to the 1960s era idea of inflatable structures as the platform for solar collection would reduce weight and therefore launch cost. Deflated solar collectors could be folded into a compact space on board a spacecraft and once in orbit, inflated with gas from a pressurized container. This method was used in 1960 with the Echo 1 satellite used to bounce radio waves back to Earth. It was also used in 1996 in the Spartan Inflatable Antenna Experiment where a 14-meter antenna was inflated by a nitrogen gas canister while in orbit (see appendix). Admittedly, the larger SSP satellites would be more ambitious, but if NASA were instructed to make inflatable space structures a high priority, in addition to SSP in general, the knowledge base to make low mass SPS would evolve rapidly.30

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

188

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Not Cost Competitive (3/3)

SSP is competitive with nuclear and coal given a federal R&D program Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen This number is provided without references. A casual google search indicates that nuclear power plants cost up to several thousand dollars per kw ($6,267/kw for a 2008 Florida plant [Barnhard, personal communication]) and coal plants are only a few hundred per kw. On the other hand, both of these, unlike solar, require fuel, coal has a large environmental cost, and nuclear increases risk of mass casualty terrorist attacks. While the nuclear costs suggest that reaching $1000/kw may not be necessary, it would certainly be worthwhile. Current space solar costs are reputed to be $750,000/kw, a factor of 750 too high. Is there reason to believe that economies of scale can cost reductions on this order? Consider the computer keyboards used by air traffic controllers. These are custom, not used anywhere else, and are produced in low volume. They cost approximately $2,500. In 2009 one could buy a standard, mass-produced computer keyboard at Office Depot for as little as $13. The price difference is roughly a factor of 192, not too far off of 750. If there are major optimizations in approach, perhaps we could get the factor of 750. There may be. On solar energy systems for existing satellites the entire collecting area is expensive semi-conductor cells (and market size is very small). One could use large, inexpensive mirrors and relatively small higher cost silicon solar cell areas. This is, in fact, how the lowest-cost terrestrial solar systems work, they use inexpensive mirrors and smaller, relatively expensive sunlight-to-electricity conversion systems. Also, current demand for new space power is perhaps a few hundred kw a year. As we have seen, potential demand for SSP power is multiple orders of magnitude greater enabling economies of scale. The cheapest mirrors might be built in space. Such mirrors need be little more than a thin reflecting film, perhaps only a few atoms thick. Mirrors built in space wouldn't have to be strong enough to survive launch and would not need to be folded or rolled to fit in a launch vehicle fairing. One only need launch the feedstock for a thin-film mirror production machine that takes advantage of solar heating, orbital vacuum and zero-g. While expensive, developing such a machine may be worthwhile since an enormous mirror area is needed. This is an example of economies of scale. To deliver current space solar power to existing satellites is far too small a market to justify the cost of developing a space mirror production machine. However, SSP will require acres and acres of mirrors, so the development costs can be spread out over a large number of systems. An in-space mirror production facility may be a key portion of the proposed R&D program and a potentially valuable task for the International Space Station (ISS). At the moment, there is no way to know the ultimate cost of such mirrors. As there is some reason to believe that large optimizations are possible, this condition may be within reach of the proposed R&D program.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

189

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Unstable Energy Supply

Combination of space and ground based solar power ensures global energy transmission Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen 2.8 Terrestrial Wireless Power Beaming Applications Apart from SBSP In principle, any device or receiver system designed to accept SBSP might also function using RF or light energy beamed from terrestrial sources. This suggests that a network of SBSP and ground-based power transmission can be used to provide significant, near-continuous energy to remote locations anywhere on Earth. Wireless power transfer also has utility in circumstances where it is impractical to set up conventional transmission lines or power mains for very short-term duty or across inhospitable territory. While not 10 Johnson et al. technically SBSP, these applications have military utility, employ related technologies, and were deemed worthy of at least a cursory treatment in this report.

Military would provide back-up energy sources normal means guarantees safety net Naval Research Laboratory, W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space Environment Branch, Space-Based Solar
Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, James Armstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, Michael Osborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And Robert Walters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen MILITARY OPERATIONS SCENARIOS These scenarios take as a basic premise that energy from solar flux will be collected in space and beamed wirelessly for use in a defense context. Many of the scenarios addressed have been posited in previous SBSP discussions and literature. Some were discussed during the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) sponsored Military Power Requirements Symposium that was held on the July 1 and 2, 2008. Table 1 is a summary of the results of the SBSP investigation. In nearly all military scenarios (Table 1), space-based solar power must not become a source of single point failure. It has been observed that in the event that satellite communications become unavailable from some reason, there typically exists a backup means, such as HF communications.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

190

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Other Alt Energies Better (1/2)

SSP is the best energy source safer than nuclear and larger scale than coal or alt energies Opengov Space Solar Power (SSP) A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change, 11/23/08,
http://otrans.3cdn.net/38b615154ce6479749_p9m6bn37b.pdf//jchen A National Security Space Office (NSSO) study 1 concluded in October of 2007 that The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include ... space-based solar power. This NSSO report also concluded that SSP has enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a (SSP) capability. We urge the next President of the United States to include SSP as a new start in a balanced federal strategy for energy independence and environmental stewardship, and to assign lead responsibility to a U.S. federal agency. SSP Falls through the Cracks as Nobody is Responsible: No U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate or clear responsibility to pursue SSP. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says SSP is a space project, and thus NASAs job. NASA says SSP is an energy project, and thus DOEs job. The NSSO-report found that SSP falls through the cracks of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government. SSP has Significant Long-Term Advantages: SSP is unusual among renewable energy options as it satisfies all of the following criteria: o Immensely Scalable SSP can scale to provide the energy needs of the entire human civilization at Americas standard of living. Most other near-term renewable options are strictly limited in scalability. As the NSSO report states A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. o Safe Global Availability Nuclear power technology cannot be safely shared with most of the countries on this planet because of proliferation concerns. o Steady & Assured SSP is a continuous, rather than intermittent, power source. It is not subject to the weather, the seasons, or the day-night cycle. o No Fundamental Breakthroughs SSP does not require a fundamental breakthrough in either physics or engineering, such as those required by fusion. o Highly Flexible and Optimal for Export SSP could enable America to become a net energy exporter. We could be the worlds largest exporter of energy for the 21st and 22nd Centuries, and beyond. Economics is the Key Barrier. The extremely high-cost of space transportation and building spacecraft is the principal barrier. Some believe the cost of SSP is so high that it will never be economical for baseload power. Never is a long time and we disagree. More importantly, the NSSO disagrees. The solution to the cost challenge is straightforward: 1) Achieve cheap & reliable access to space, 2) Apply high-volume mass-production assembly-line techniques to spacecraft construction, 3) Reduce the technical risk with basic research and technology demonstrations, and 4) Adopt proven government approaches to incentivize private industry investment, development and operation.

SSP promises reliability, endurance, cost efficiency, safety, and is net better than all other alternative energy solutions Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Solar thermal power systems offers a potential alternative to costly and dangerous nuclear power, especially for deep space missions where typical planar PV arrays are not effective for space probes traveling beyond Mars due to the distance of the sun. However, continued progress in advanced lightweight solar concentrator technology is a necessary first step. SRS Technologies, LGarde, ILC Dover, United Applied Technologies and the Harris Corporation are all developing concepts for large, lightweight solar concentrators. Stirling Technology Company (STC) in Kennewick, Washington has successfully designed, built and operated free-piston converters at 10 watts and 350 watts for terrestrial applications. The Stirling converters have the potential to provide very high thermal to electric conversion efficiency. STC is conducting endurance testing to over 50,000 hours to demonstrate long life and reliability.50

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

191

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Other Alt Energies Better (2/2)

All alternatives failspace solar power is the only energy source that will sustain our long-term energy requirements James M. Snead, P.E., is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) a past chair of the AIAAs Space Logistics Technical Committee, and the founder and president of the Spacefaring Institute LLC, 5/4/2009, The vital
need for America to develop space solar power, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1 A key element of a well-reasoned US energy policy is to maintain an adequate surplus of dispatchable electrical power generation capacity. Intelligent control of consumer electrical power use to moderate peak demand and improved transmission and distribution systems to more broadly share sustainable generation capacity will certainly help, but 250 million additional Americans and 5 billion additional electrical power consumers worldwide by 2100 will need substantially more assured generation capacity. Three possible energy sources that could achieve sufficient generation capacity to close the 2100 shortfall are methane hydrates, advanced nuclear energy, and SSP. The key planning consideration is: Which of these are now able to enter engineering development and be integrated into an actionable sustainable energy transition plan? Methane hydrate is a combination of methane and water ice where a methane molecule is trapped within water ice crystals. The unique conditions necessary for forming these hydrates exist at the low temperatures and elevated pressures under water, under permafrost, and under cold rock formations. Some experts estimate that the undersea methane hydrate resources are immense and may be able to meet world energy needs for a century or more. Why not plan to use methane hydrates? The issues are the technical feasibility of recovering methane at industrialscale levels (tens to hundreds of billions BOE per year) and doing so with acceptable environmental impact. While research into practical industrial-scale levels of recovery with acceptable environmental impact is underway, acceptable production solutions have not yet emerged. As a result, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include methane hydrates as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. Most people would agree that an advanced nuclear generator scalable from tens of megawatts to a few gigawatts, with acceptable environmental impact and adequate security, is a desirable long-term sustainable energy solution. Whether this will be an improved form of enriched uranium nuclear fission; a different fission fuel cycle, such as thorium; or, the more advanced fusion energy is not yet known. Research into all of these options is proceeding with significant research advancements being achieved. However, until commercialized reactor designs are demonstrated and any environmental and security issues associated with their fueling, operation, and waste disposal are technically and politically resolved, a rational US energy plan cannot yet include advanced nuclear energy as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. We are left with SSP. Unless the US federal government is willing to forego addressing the very real possibility of energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation, SSP is the one renewable energy solution capable of beginning engineering development and, as such, being incorporated into such a rational sustainable energy transition plan. Hence, beginning the engineering development of SSP now becomes a necessity. Planning and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the development of SSP will jump-start America on the path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space operations we need to become a true spacefaring nation. Of course, rapid advancements in advanced nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial-scale sustainable energy source may change the current circumstances favoring the start of the development of SSP. But not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will remain available and not knowing to what extent terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production can be practically and politically expanded, reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

192

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Nuclear Power Better (1/2)

SBSP is safer than nuclear no risk of weapon proliferation NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of enrichment based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence.

SSP outweighs nuclear unlimited resources and immune to terrorism Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen This number is provided without references. A casual google search indicates that nuclear power plants cost up to several thousand dollars per kw ($6,267/kw for a 2008 Florida plant [Barnhard, personal communication]) and coal plants are only a few hundred per kw. On the other hand, both of these, unlike solar, require fuel, coal has a large environmental cost, and nuclear increases risk of mass casualty terrorist attacks. While the nuclear costs suggest that reaching $1000/kw may not be necessary, it would certainly be worthwhile.

SBSP holds lower carbon emissions than nuclear NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that to the extent the United States decides it wishes to limit its carbon emissions, SBSP offers a potential path for long term carbon mitigation. This study does not take a position on anthropogenic climate change, which at this time still provoked significant debate among participants, but there is undeniable interest in options that limit carbon emission. Studies by Asakura et al in 2000 suggest that SBSP lifetime carbon emissions (chiefly in construction) are even more attractive than nuclear power, and that for the same amount of carbon emission, one could install 60 times the generating capacity, or alternately, one could replace existing generating capacity with 1/60th the lifetime carbon emission of a coal fired plant without CO2 sequestration.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

193

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Nuclear Power Better (2/2)

SPS is cost competitive with nuclear Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, October 2010, Towards an Early
Profitable PowerSat, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/SSI2010SSPpaper.pdf//jchen A Falcon 9 can deliver 4:8tons to GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit) for $56 million. This assumes that the satellite can fly the rest of the way to its final orbit. Assuming around 5MW can be delivered to the grid (see below), this works out to around $11=w capacity for the launch vehicle, which is comparable to nuclear life-cycle costs (near $14=w). A few years ago, SpaceX was willing to reduce their launch prices by a factor of 3.6 if one ordered 1,000 launches (100 would probably be sufficient to receive the discount). At 5MW per system, 1,000 launches would generate 5GW. This is a very small fraction of global electrical demand. If the launch discount is still available and the PowerSat, ground system, and operations cost within a factor of four of launch costs, then such PowerSats would be cost-competitive with nuclear power. Looking from another angle, consider a PowerSat launched by a Falcon 9 assuming a mass of 100g=m2 , which at 45g=m2 for the collection area leaves 2:6tons for all other systems. This leads to a square PowerSat 210m on a side. Assuming 8% sunlight-to-grid-power efficiency (20% solar cell and 40% transmission efficiency) this system would deliver roughly 5:28MW to the grid. A recent DOD report 6 suggests that the U.S. military is willing to pay $1=kwh for power beamed to forward bases in Asia. Trucks transporting diesel can be ambushed, IR power beams cannot, and football-field sized receivers could fit on the larger bases. A 5MW system at this price would provide up to $46 million per year revenue, enough to pay for the launch in a little over a year. For commercial customers, the highest price this author could find world wide was $0:29=kwh for industrial users in Italy in 2008. This could deliver up to $13.4 million per year { requiring a little over three years to pay for the launch. Of course, there is considerable uncertainty and more than a little optimism in these numbers. However, it is clear that an SSP system based on advanced but reasonably near-term IR power transmission and a thin-film solar cell heliogyro is no more than a factor of a few more expensive than nuclear power, not multiple orders of magnitude from profitability as asserted by Fetter 5 based on traditional designs. Indeed, given the right market one might be able to build a profitable PowerSat in the relatively near future. It is interesting to note that one commercial company, Solaren, has a contract with Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200MW of space solar power to California beginning in 2016 and their design is based on thin-films

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

194

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Solar Power Better (1/2)

SSP is more efficient than intercontinental solar transmission Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen SSP transmission is as good as ground storage and intercontinental transmission. SSP transmission would be electromagnetic at some yet-to-be-determined frequency. Most designs call for PowerSats in geosynchronous orbit (GEO), although some have proposed sun-synchronous orbits (SSO) with relay satellites in low earth orbit (LEO). Ground solar can transmit using wires, but not between continents, so ground solar requires beamed power to meet this condition as well. The simplest architecture for ground solar is to beam power between continents using GEO repeaters, but this is twice as difficult as GEO SSP since power must be beamed up and then down for ground solar, but only down for SSP. In the relay satellite case, to first order both systems require roughly the same repeater satellite constellation (or network of highaltitude long-duration aircraft). Thus, unless an inexpensive means to transmit electrical power between continents by wire is developed, meeting this condition does not appear to be a major problem.

SSP is competitive with solar collects energy during night and mass scale offsets cost Al Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society, January 2009, In Defense of Space
Solar Power, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/FetterResponse.html//jchen For the purpose of this paper we will grant ground solar market dominance when and where the sun is shining brightly, thus we compete only at night and when little sunlight reaches the ground. For this part of the market, ground solar must pay the storage and transmission costs. In practice, of course, SSP will produce power when the sun is shining and it will make more sense to sell the power at a loss than throw it away. In any case, SSP economics depend on economies of scale so the market must be large to justify SSP development. However, total world energy use is about 15tw per year of which about 2tw is electricity, a substantial fraction of which is needed when the sun isn't shining brightly. Furthermore, demand is rising as billions of people currently have little electricity and wealthier societies are expected to move to plug-in hybrid cars which will tend to charge at night. The size of the potential market does not seem to be a problem. If the market is large, can SSP meet the demand? As the total solar energy available in space is vast, SSP can be scaled to deliver whatever level desired simply by building more, larger PowerSats and receiving antennas. To take a somewhat over-the-top example, at 10% end to end efficiency SSP could supply the entire 15tw global demand with 115 billion square meters of collecting area, or roughly 370 PowerSats each with a radius of 10 km. Obviously a big job, but if one can be built there's plenty of room for more and economies of scale are relevant.

Ground based solar necessarily fails expansion requires panel location at increasingly inefficient places Geoffrey A. Landis, physicist @ NASA Glenn Research Center, 10/8/09, SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE: SEPARATING
SPECULATION FROM REALITY The discussion so far has compared space location of a solar array with the best locations on the ground. This is appropriate for the initial phases of solar power, since the first implementations of large-scale power production by photovoltaics will, of course, be at the best locations, and not at the words. However, looking into the longer term, not all sites on the ground are best sites. Long-distance transmission lines can transmit power on the ground for some distance, but there will be large losses for transcontinental transmission-- it is not feasible to power produce in the Mojave Desert and use it in New York. Ground solar is worse by a factor of two for areas of the US outside of southwest, and as much as a factor of 2.5 worse for New England, a significant electrical market.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

195

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Solar Power Better (2/2)

Solar fails cant capture more than 15% of market without 24 hour supply ability Geoffrey A. Landis, physicist @ NASA Glenn Research Center, 10/8/09, SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE: SEPARATING
SPECULATION FROM REALITY//jchen In addition to the potentially higher total amount of power produced, space solar power may have other virtues. Most notable of these is that the power is continuous, 24 hour power, rather than power peaked at noon and dropping to zero at sunrise and sunset. At the moment, however, 24-hour power is not an asset, since during the night-time hours, the power demand is very low, and power available at night sells at very low price. Ground solar produces power that is moderately well matched to the (early afternoon) peak demand. Nevertheless, as solar capacity grows, this production curve will be increasingly mismatched to the demand and eventually solar will need to provide power outside peak solar hours. The transition of solar power from peak to a requirement for power outside of the mid-day peak is typically expected to occur when ground solar reaches ~ 10-15% of the energy market. (In the US, this represents about 300 Billion dollars per year total, although the price-break occurs earlier in the areas where solar is most effectively used). At this point, the continuous availability of power from space becomes an asset

SSP can meet full market demand within 25 years of development Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen I. INTRODUCTION The dream of Space Solar Power (SSP)[1] is that abundant, clean, steady electric power can be generated 24/365 in Space, and conveyed down to Earth. Many concepts have been proposed [2,3,4,5] to harvest SSP on a massive scale. Most are to beam the power down from large (>100 sq.km) converters at geo stationary earth orbit (GEO), 36,000km above the equator. Large beam divergence, mass needed at GEO, immense ground infrastructure and limited coverage beyond 30 degree latitude, make this a non-starter. The cost to first revenue is beyond hope. The Space Power Grid (SPG) approach [6,7,8] seeks to break through this problem with an evolutionary, scalable approach to SSP within 25 to 30 years from project start, with a viable business plan and minimal costs to taxpayers. This paper deals with the interplay of technology, economics, global relations and national public policy involved in making this concept come to fruition.

Advances in launch vehicles make SBSP competitive with ground based solar in the SQO Solar High Study Program, Solar High: Energy for the 21st Century, March 2011,
http://solarhigh.org/Overview.html//jchen The SpaceX Falcon 9 can launch more than 10 metric tons (MT) to LEO, at a quoted price of $5,000/kg. The recently announced Falcon Heavy, scheduled for first flight in 2012, will deliver >50 MT to LEO at an expected price of $2,200/kg. This is twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy (the heaviest launch vehicle now available) at 20% of the cost per kilogram. At these prices, power satellites would be very competitive with terrestrial solar power, but not with fossil fueled plants. A reasonable SBSP program would grow to a deployment rate of 10 to 20 GW per year by 2020. In that time frame, a Block II satellite supplying 2 GW to the grid is expected to have a mass in LEO of ~12,000 MT, including the propellant needed for self-powered low-thrust transfer to GSO. The required throughput from Earth to LEO is thus more than 60,000 MT per year. If the payload of the vehicle is near 50 MT, the launch campaign would involve 3 to 7 launches per day, which is large compared to present launch rates but much less than the daily flights from almost any commercial airport. This traffic requires an equatorial launch site, because it is the only location that offers frequent windows for launch to an assembly facility in (equatorial) LEO. It also permits direct recovery of a reusable upper stage to the launch site after a single orbit. Falcon launch vehicle stages are designed for reuse after landing in the ocean. Some modifications but no radical advances in technology would be needed to permit land recovery and reuse with minimal refurbishment. Examination of the cost factors in space launch shows that the economies of scale offered by launching reusable vehicles at the rate required for SBSP will lead to a further reduction in cost to less than $400/kg. Space launch would thus contribute ~$2,400/kW to the cost of the system.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

196

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
SBSP is more efficient than ground solar power- only a change in priorities is needed to solve for climate change Pelton , Joseph N. Pelton, Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute, George Washington University, May, 2010, A new space vision for NASAAnd for space entrepreneurs too?, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964610000251
With a change in priorities we can deploy far more spacecraft needed to address the problems of climate change via better Earth observation systems. We can fund competitions and challenges to spur space entrepreneurs to find cheaper and better ways to send people into space. We can also spur the development of solar power satellites to get clean energy from the sun with greater efficiency. We can deal more effectively with finding and coping with killer asteroids and near earth objects. We may even find truly new and visionary ways to get people into space with a minimum of pollution and promote the development of cleaner and faster hypersonic transport to cope with future transportation needs. The real key is to unlock the potential of commercial space initiatives while giving a very middle-aged NASA a new lease on life. Here are just some of the possibilities that are on the horizon of a revitalized commercial space industry.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

197

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (1/7)
SBSP requires no tech breakthroughs only a matter of affordability NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial challenges and a complex trade space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work. While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordabilitythis requires even more stringent technical requirements.

Required tech advances are empirically proven possible through past tech innovations NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to be positive and in many cases accelerating. Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of computational science, material science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power management, robotics, and many others These advances have included (a) improvements in PV efficiency from about 10% (1970s) to more than 40% (2007); (b) increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom (1970s) to fully autonomous robotics with insect class intelligence and 30 100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases in the efficiency of solid state devices from around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70% 90% (2007); (d) improvements in materials for structures from simple aluminum (1970s) to advanced composites including nanotechnology composites (2007); and many other areas.

New wireless tech enables efficient energy transmission William Fan, distinction MBA holder having strong background in telecommunication,, Harold Martin, freelance software developer and author, James Wu, Communications Associate at Acumen Fund, Brian Mok, author, 6/2/2011, SPACE BASED
SOLAR POWER, Industry and Technology Assessment Some important aspects have changed that could lead to SBSP evolving from a futuristic fantasy into a current, plausible reality. First is the advent of private space launch companies. The most famous one is SpaceX, which aims to launch objects into space at a fraction of the current costs. The other is the wireless revolution. Such widespread use has allowed wireless power transmission to take dramatic leaps forward, and as a consequence, provided a plausible solution to the issue of transmitting power from space onto the surface of the Earth.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

198

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (2/7)
SPS is technologically feasible a system of 45 could supply total US energy demands Space Law Journal, Paul G. Dembling and Delbert D. Smith, Solar Power Satellites and Security Considerations: The Case for Multilateral Agreements, 11 J. Space L. 82 (1983) HeinOnline//jchen
It is now feasible to begin planning to tap the sun's energy in outer space via solar power satellites (SPS), and to transmit that energy to ground stations on Earth for use as an economically competitive source of electric power.' Such a power source is projected to be operating on an experimental basis in the United States sometime during the 1990's. The idea of SPS was proposed by Dr. Peter E. Glaser of the Arthur D. Little Company in 1968.2 He envisioned a gridlike structure in outer space, some 15 miles long and 3.2 miles wide, an area of approximately 50 sq. miles) This giant structure would be located in the Earth's geostationary orbit, some 22,300 miles above the equator. The massive size of the SPS would allow for maximum concentration of sunlight for the purpose of generating electricity. The energy thus generated would be transmitted from the SPS in the form of microwaves to ground stations on the Earth, where it would be transformed back into electricity for use in the national grid. An operational SPS of the dimensions described herein would produce twice the useable power generated by Grand Coulee, the largest hydro-electric dam in America. Calculations are that it would take 45 of these fully operational structures to match the current electrical generating power of the United States.

We have the tech breakthrough- The USFG should now increase funding for SBSP Alferov, ZI Alferov, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and President of its Saint Petersburg Scientific Center, 2009, Solar Cells and Concentrator Arrays, http://www.springerlink.com/content/dx88108509w72032/, Date accessed June 25,
2011 Ideally, sponsors would step forward to fund a detailed system design study, focused component technology development, or a technology demonstration mission. NASA, JAXA, and the NSSO report each propose roadmaps and pathways to operational systems that are largely relevant to both utility grid and defense application SBSP systems. Lacking a large goal-driven initiative, much work can continue as it has on a smaller scale, with component technology development with broad applications being funded by a variety of sponsors. A summary of technologies and research in which NRL is wellpositioned to contribute is shown in Table 12. It is possible now to build a low-power LEO system experiment or series of experiments that would not require breakthrough technologies and that could be launched on a single launch vehicle. This would likely speed closure of some of the outstanding technical questions for SBSP and enable iteration toward optimum designs for defense and civilian SBSP systems. Though more challenging, it is possible even without the knowledge gleaned from flight experiments to create today a detailed design of a MW-sized system that would require us to identify technologies that require development. This would help focus hardware development work in advanced technologies required by large SBSP systems, technologies which are likely to have other useful applications as well. In summary, our recommendations are: Members of the NRL SBSP Study Group, in collaboration with all NRL interested scientists, should: Proceed to maintain meaningful and continuing engagement with the wider SBSP community and its efforts, both nationally and internationally. Pursue sponsors to mount compelling demonstrations related to space-based solar power, with continued attention to military-specific opportunities. NRL leadership should consider continuing and expanding funding for energy technologies (generation, transmission, storage, etc) including, as appropriate, funding for SBSP component technologies and experimentation

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

199

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (3/7)
The technology is feasible and with fg assistants- economically viable
Dan Cho. Rachel's Democracy & Health News. Annapolis: Oct 18, 2007. , PENTAGON BACKS PLAN TO BEAM SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE Iss. 929;1 pgs//ZY A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report 3.6 Mbyte PDF released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power- generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions. "We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US. The NSSO report 3.6 Mbyte PDF recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth. Abundant energy source At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a new alliance to promote space solar power - the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supporters of space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil fuels, wind and nuclear power combined. The NSSO report says that solar-power-generating satellites could also solve supply problems in distant places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in dangerous convoys and the cost of electricity for some bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour - about 10 times what it costs in the US. The report also touts the technology's potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition for oil. Space-based solar power was first proposed in 1968 by Peter Glaser, an engineer at the consulting firm Arthur D. Little. Early designs involved solar panel arrays of 50 square kilometres, required hundreds of astronauts in space to build and were estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion, says John Mankins, a former NASA research manager and active promoter of space solar power. Economically unfeasible After conducting preliminary research, the US abandoned the idea as economically unfeasible in the 1970s. Since that time, says Mankins, advances in photovoltaics, electronics and robotics will bring the size and cost down to a fraction of the original schemes, and eliminate the need for humans to assemble the equipment in space. Several technical challenges remain to be overcome, including the development of lower-cost space launches. A satellite capable of supplying the same amount of electric power as a modern fossil-fuel plant would have a mass of about 3000 tonnes - more than 10 times that of the International Space Station. Sending that material into orbit would require more than a hundred rocket launches. The US currently launches fewer than 15 rockets each year. In spite of these challenges, the NSSO and its supporters say that no fundamental scientific breakthroughs are necessary to proceed with the idea and that space-based solar power will be practical in the next few decades. "There are no technology hurdles that are show stoppers right now," said Damphousse

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

200

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (4/7)
SPS tech is ready- but no dual use, only civilian purposes Alferov, ZI Alferov, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and President of its Saint Petersburg Scientific Center, 2009, Solar Cells and Concentrator Arrays, http://www.springerlink.com/content/dx88108509w72032/, Date accessed June 25,
2011 At present, IIIV heterostructure solar cells are already widely used for space appli- cations. Progress in terrestrial applications of IIIV solar cells is associated with the development of cells with efficiencies exceeding 45% at the concentrated sunlight. These devices can form a technical basis for large-scale solar power engineering in the future. In this case, a considerable amount of electrical energy supplying our homes will be generated by heterostructure solar cells illuminated by the sun through the concentrators. There are legends to the effect that, in the antique times, priests used concen- trated sunlight during ritual ceremonies for setting the Holy Fire in temples. From that arose the traditional way to set the Olympic Fire. Historically, the first utili- tarian use of concentrated sunlight took place for military purposes: Grecians, on Archimedes initiative, set fire to the ships of Romans who besieged Syracuse in 212 B.C. The Grecian soldiers directed the sunbeams toward the targets using a great number of polished metallic shields. Only in recent history have people again turned to the idea of the practical application of concentrated sunlight, creating so- lar furnaces for highly refractory materials, as well as solar power plants with steam cycles. It might be well to point out that the direct conversion of concentrated sun- light into electric power by means of highly efficient cascade solar cells is, as we have seen from the above, one of the main ways for satisfying the power demands of the mankind. It is significant that at present there is no particular application of this technology for creating weapons now, and also in the foreseeable future. Hence, development, harnessing and fostering widespread use of the technology are not burdened by additional risks for humanity. Quite the contrary, this will aid in reducing the presently discussed greenhouse effects. There are other alternatives, yet also promising technologies for future power generation. For example, one could use atomic energy. At the very beginning, this technology was intended to create a new type of weapon. This was soon realized with the creation of bombs with unprecedented destructive power. The military as- pect of this technology remains quite actual and, for many, attractive. And this pre- carious situation persists today, although atomic power plants were also built during a very short period of time. Thus, hopes have arisen of creating an inexhaustible power source using thermonuclear reactions. If the risks associated with plausible catastrophes on atomic plants, and the problems of the radioactive waste burial, are added to the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation, the public anxieties connected with atomic technology development become understandable. On the other hand, a generalized situation with energy could be outlined in the following way. Why build many dangerous nuclear reactors on our planet Earth if there already exists a huge, safe and inexhaustible reactor the sun which sends an abundance of power to the Earth in the form of sunlight? Our task rests only on the reasonable and effective use of this power.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

201

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (5/7)
Prefer our qualified ev it quotes a boeing satellite programmer, their evidence is old hype Mark Williamson, UK-based space-technology consultant to the space industry. He is the author of six books, including The Cambridge Dictionary of Space, 2010, May the power be with you, POWERSPACE//ZY
Almost as soon as the ink was dry on Glasers patent for a space-based solar power system, the potential technology showstoppers began to take centre stage. They included, among others, the large area of expensive and not-very-efficient solar cells required, the high cost of launching the hardware to geostationary orbit, the unproven technology of wireless power transmission and the safety issues (real or assumed) surrounding the collection of power on the ground. Ralph Nansen, former solar- power satellite programme manager for Boeing and author of the 2009 book Energy Crisis: Solution from Space, has been involved with the concept since the late 1970s when Boeing began its study of a solar- power satellite. While recog- nising that technology has advanced significantly since then, Nansen told E&T that the technology available at the time was advanced enough to proceed with development despite what naysayers believed. For example, proclaims Nansen, the solar cells we selected for the Boeing satellite were single crystal silicon (only 2mm thick), 16.5 per cent efficient, and had a very long potential life in orbit because they were so thin. Of course, this also made them light. Nansen also asserts that the projected costs for mass- produced cells were low enough to make the satellite energy costcompetitive with other sources. As for launch costs, he cites a proposal to use a two-stage, fully-reusable flyback system based on Apollo-Saturn rocket stages that could have brought costs down, were it not for a misguided decision to develop the Space Shuttle instead. The Shuttle was an unfortunate configuration that has actually inhibited the development of fully reusable launch systems, while creating an image that low-cost space transportation is impossible, says Nansen. Whatever the reason, industrys wish for low-cost access to space remains unfulfilled. Finally, regarding power transmission, Nansen refers to Glasers original proposal: The transmitter was based on the work of Bill Brown of Raytheon, who demonstrated the first successful wireless power trans- mission in 1964 when he powered a model helicopter, he says. Moreover, states Nansen, there is no real safety problem. The most comprehensive testing has been done by the US military because they operate high- power radars and they found no permanent damage to cells as long as the energy level was less than about 1,000W/m2. Nansen adds that tests on insects, birds and other lifeforms produced no damage with power densities below this heating threshold, and that standards for SSP systems would be the same as for microwave oven leakage. It is very clear that any safety issues are assumed and not real, he insists.

SBSP is technologically feasible The Economist, magazine, 8, "Let the Sun Shine In", economist.com
The concept of beaming gigawatts of solar power down from space was first put on a sound scientific footing by Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, a consultancy, in 1968. He built on the research of William Brown of Raytheon, an American defence firm, who pioneered the transmission of electric power by microwave beams. Since the oil shocks of the early 1970s, the idea has been dusted off and re-evaluated every ten years or so by Americas Department of Energy, its space agency, NASA, and big aerospace companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing. These studies usually conclude that there is no technical barrier to implementing SSP. For example, a study published in 1981 by the Department of Energy, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce found no show-stoppers or insurmountable obstacles to the idea. But further development work has always fallen between the cracks of different agencies. The trouble is that the Department of Energy doesnt do space, and NASA does space, not energy, says Colonel M.V. (Coyote) Smith of the National Security Space Office (NSSO), a Pentagon think-tank, who recently conducted another study of SSP.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

202

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (6/7)
Microwave transmission is a viable means for which SSP energy can be transferredever present advancement takes out any solvency deficit William Fan Harold Martin James Wu Brian Mok, senior fellows at the Caltech Institute of Space Technology, 6/2/2011,
SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER, Caltech, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf What allows Space Based Solar Power to be viable is increased, rapid advancement in wireless power transmission technology. There are two primary options for transferring power from the spacecraft to a receiver: microwave and laser. One key factor that must be considered to select the optimum technology is conversion efficiency (solar to microwave or laser, and microwave or laser to prime electrical power at the receiver). Another factor is the transmission losses due to attenuation, diffraction, scattering, etc. Space Based Solar Power Page 21 Laser based technology is generally considered to be less viable for space based solar power because of the inefficient conversion from DC to laser to DC again. Also the absorption from the atmosphere makes laser based technology a poor choice. The microwave technology consists of three parts: the transmitter, beam control, and receiving rectifying antenna (rectenna). The transmitter takes the DC produced by the solar panels and beams it in the form of microwaves. The beam control accurately points the transmitter towards the receiver and adjusts the beam amplitude/ phase so that the system can transmit energy with high efficiency. Finally, the rectifying antenna receives the microwaves and converts it back to DC. Some draw backs of microwave technology is that the transmitter and receiver are much larger than that of laser based technology. However, microwave based technology can be converted much more efficiently and will experience less loss during transmission. Using some laboratory results, and a mixture of experimental technology and current technology, currently we can hope for 45% transmission efficiency to convert energy from DC to DC when transmitting from space to Earth [5]. It is also suggested that longer wavelength be used to decrease transmission loses. However, this could have undesired interference with existing communication systems.

We have the technological capability to build Solar Power Satellites Solar High, Solar High is a team of senior managers and technologists with directly relevant experience who believe that spacebased solar power can solve the problem of bringing clean, affordable energy to people anywhere on Earth or in space, 2011, Solar
High: Energy for the 21st Century, solarhigh.org/resources/16KwordBrief.pdf, Date accessed June 24, 2011 The technical feasibility of space-based solar power (SBSP) is beyond dispute. PV cells have been used in space for decades, and wireless power transmission has been demonstrated repeatedly, on Earth and in space. NASA and the DOE sponsored an extensive study of the subject in the late 1970s that found no show-stoppers, and this result has been confirmed by several major studies since then. We have been waiting for advances in space technology to reduce costs to a competitive level. That time is now. significant cost reductions for future deployments and the total initial system costs as described.

Recent tech advancements make SBSP possible Adam Hadhazy, Editor-in-Chief at Portal to the Universe and freelance science writer, former intern at European Southern Observatory, 4-16-09, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the Light of Day? Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day&page=2 Last year, U.S. and Japanese researchers crossed an important SBSP threshold when they wirelessly transmitted microwave energy between two Hawaiian islands about 90 miles (145 kilometers) apart, representing the distance through Earth's atmosphere that a transmission from orbit would have to penetrate, says Frank Little, associate director of the CSP. Many other technologies relevant to SBSP have made "enormous progress" in recent years, says John Mankins, who led the Hawaiian island test as chief operating officer and co-founder of Ashburn, Va.based Managed Energy Technologies, LLC. A little over a decade ago, the best photovoltaic efficiency, or sunlight conversion into electricity, was 10 percent, Mankins says; now it can reach 40 percent. And satellite technology has also improved: Autonomous computer systems as well as advanced, lightweight building materials have also made leaps and bounds, he says. Despite such progress, and spending some $80 million, SBSP has not gotten past the U.S. government's drawing board so far. A key reason, Little says: NASA does not do energy, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) does not do space.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

203

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech (7/7)
Tech has come a lot way and is nearly ready Reed, Kevin Reed, works at SESCRC/Welsom Space Solar, 2009 Early commercial demonstration of space solar power using
ultra-lightweight arrays, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509001969#sec5 Specific power density is a critical parameter for increasing the electrical power available to spacecraft systems with launch mass constraints. Progress over the last 20 years has generally been made by increasing solar cell photovoltaic efficiency from 810% to 2024%, with promising progress being made to exceed 40%. While efficiency gains improve the array area for a given power output, it does not always improve the array mass, thereby limiting the power available to commercial communications satellites with current launch vehicles to a value below 20 kWe. Recent technology advances in the design, manufacturing, and deployment of thin film photovoltaic arrays offer a solution to the mass limitations of high power arrays. Large thin-film structures, with thickness of 6am and area of 400 m2, have been built with an areal density of .03kg/m2. These films can be made from CP1TM for high radiation resistance at geosynchronous orbits, or from SRS CORIN for high atomic oxygen resistance. a-Si:H solar cells have been successfully deposited by Institut de Microtechnique on CP1 substrates manufactured for solar sails by SRS technologies, with a specific power of 4300 W/kg. These thin-film arrays can be stowed in a rolled configuration and deployed in space using carbon-fiber reinforced polymers, for a total specific power (including deployment system) of 1200 W/kg or more. Even with the relatively low photovoltaic efficiency of these ultra-thin film arrays ( 912%), a 50 kW array could easily be deployed for a total mass of 40 kg, with a stowed volume below .5 m3. This would enable commercial communications satellites to have 50 kWe of power, or to roll out an extra 20 kWe whenever the original surfaces degrade to their end-of-life efficiency. Laboratory experiments with a-Si:H cells deposited on 2am substrates have already demonstrated that these cells can be deposited on the ultra-thin polymer films with an efficiency high enough to achieve specific powers in excess of 1 kWe/kg. Plans are now in place for raising the technology readiness level, leading to in-space testing of kilowatt arrays within a year, followed by demonstration of 50100 kWe arrays. This process appears to be very attractive for eventual scale-up to MWe, and then GWe solar power satellites.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

204

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech: Thin Film (1/2)

Thin film PV breakthroughs solve cost efficiency
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Y. Akahoshia, T. Nakamuraa, , , S. Fukushigea, N. Furusawaa, S. Kusunokia, Y. Machidaa, T. Kouraa, K. Watanabeb, S. Hosodab, T. Fujitac and M. Choa Kyushu Institute of Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), JapanVolume 35, Issue 12, December 2008, Kevin Reed, SESCRC/Welsom Space Solar, Seestetten, Vilshofen, Germany, and Harvey J. Willenberg, American Aerospace Advisors, Inc., Owens Cross Roads, AL, USA, 12/5/07, Early commercial demonstration of space solar power using ultra-lightweight arrays, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509001969//jchen Future systems will be even more sensitive to specific power. A number of conceptual design architecture studies have been performed that offer promise for terrestrial electrical power generation by space solar power (SSP), i.e. a constellation of large Earth-orbiting spacecraft that collect solar power, convert it to laser or microwave beams, and beam that power to terrestrial collectors that, in turn, convert that power to electricity [1], [2] and [3]. To make this concept economically attractive, they must compete with current large power plants by economically generating Gigawatts (GW) of power. At 100 W/kg, such a power station must weigh 2 or morea tall order for launch vehicles that currently place no more than 2 into geosynchronous orbit. Recent technology advances in the area of thin film photovoltaic arrays offer a solution to the mass limitations of high power arrays. Thin-film arrays, while the efficiency is only around 912%, are so lightweight that they offer specific powers in excess of 1000 W/kga factor of 10 or more above the current state-of-the-art. Since these arrays are deployable, they can be packaged with minimum mass and volume, and readily deployed in space with near-term demonstrable technologies.

This cut costs by 75%

International Journal of Impact Engineering, Y. Akahoshia, T. Nakamuraa, , , S. Fukushigea, N. Furusawaa, S. Kusunokia, Y. Machidaa, T. Kouraa, K. Watanabeb, S. Hosodab, T. Fujitac and M. Choa Kyushu Institute of Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), JapanVolume 35, Issue 12, December 2008, Kevin Reed, SESCRC/Welsom Space Solar, Seestetten, Vilshofen, Germany, and Harvey J. Willenberg, American Aerospace Advisors, Inc., Owens Cross Roads, AL, USA, 12/5/07, Early commercial demonstration of space solar power using ultra-lightweight arrays, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509001969//jchen Recent advances in the ability to place photovoltaic materials on very thin-film substrates have produced a new generation of solar arrays. These advances allow arrays to be stowed in the launch vehicle in very compact configurations, and easily deployed to much larger arrays than have heretofore been achievable. These new, thin-film arrays are much lighter around 1200 W/kg, including the deployment systems. Laboratory test cells have been produced by Institut de Microtechnique at the University of Neuchatel, Switzerland using LaRCTM-CP1 thin-film substrates produced by SRS Technologies in Huntsville, AL that have the highest power/mass ratio on record4300 W/kg [6]! These thin-film arrays can be stowed in a rolled or folded configuration in the launch vehicle and deployed in space by simple boom extension or roller mechanisms. A well-designed 50 kW space solar array and deployment system using rolled mechanisms with this specific power would weigh 32 kg with a payload volume the size of a suitcase. This low mass and payload volume, combined with high power density, can provide space solar arrays at 25% of the cost of current rigid solar arrays.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

205

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 No Tech: Thin Film (2/2)

New breakthroughs in solar cells use thin film tech Larry D. Partain, PhD, is Director of Marketing and Advanced Technology, initiating and managing high-risk/high-payoff R&D programs for Varian Medical, Lewis M. Fraas, Dr. Fraas has been active in the development of Solar Cells and Solar. Electric Power Systems since 1975 2010, Solar Cells and Their Applications
http://books.google.com/books?id=ds7vnCgmSnMC&pg=PA397&dq=Space+Solar+Power+System&hl=en&ei=cMwDTpqpO8SdgQ ek9r2VDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=Space%20Solar%20Power%20Sy stem&f=false//zy High specific power and flexible (liin-f i l m TJ a-Si:H-based solar cells are attractive for space applications. ( I S O lias championed and pioneered in thin-film a-Si alloy ( a - S i : l l > - based solar cells for many years and has developed a-Si:llbased solar cells on polymer substrate made on a high-throughput basis using roll-to-roll deposition technology for space and stratospheric missions. In this conference, they will report on two new developments: ( I ) the monolithieally laserintegrated thin-film module on flexible polymer substrate to attain an initial specific power as high as 2343W/kg at the module level using TJ a-Si alloy solar cells and (2) a new monolithic hybrid module design that marries the advantages of our wire-bonded baseline cell with those of (he advanced laser-integrated module. It uses standard size 5-MW cells as the starting material, and therefore it is roll-to-roll compatible. All layers were deposited using roll-to-roll production machines on a -1-mil-thick polymer substrate. With t h i s design, we have fabricated modules having an initial AMO aperture area efficiency of-9.5% and an estimated specific power of-1600W/kg. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer for projecting the future of thin-film cells in space. The complete system, including stowed volume as well as the more traditional mass and power requirements, must he looked at for each mission. History has shown that it is not the cells thai generally fail in an array failure but often, interconnects, deployment mechanisms, and so on are at fault. Our reluctance to utilize new array designs has slowed the progress of using thin-film cells in space.

Facilitated innovation is empirically proven thin film branched into space hotels and cell phones International Journal of Impact Engineering, Y. Akahoshia, T. Nakamuraa, , , S. Fukushigea, N. Furusawaa, S.
Kusunokia, Y. Machidaa, T. Kouraa, K. Watanabeb, S. Hosodab, T. Fujitac and M. Choa Kyushu Institute of Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), JapanVolume 35, Issue 12, December 2008, Kevin Reed, SESCRC/Welsom Space Solar, Seestetten, Vilshofen, Germany, and Harvey J. Willenberg, American Aerospace Advisors, Inc., Owens Cross Roads, AL, USA, 12/5/07, Early commercial demonstration of space solar power using ultralightweight arrays, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576509001969//jchen Deployable thin-film arrays would have immediate applications with communications satellites and with high altitude aircraft. A 60 kWe array which can be rolled out in 20 kWe segments would greatly extend the useful lifetime of communications satellitesessentially tripling the array lifetime by rolling out 20 kWe of BOL arrays at the end of the array's useful lifetime. An alternative application would be for much higher-power communications satellites, from 50 to 200 kWe, for higher data rates or power. A unique application may also be realized for recharging mobile batteries. Such an orbiting power platform may provide a source of electrical power for very distributed demands, such as for cellular phones and laptop computers. A 200 kWe solar array would have a mass of less than 200 kg. This would make a thin-film array attractive for still higher-power commercial applications, such as orbiting hotelswith expected demands in the 250 kWe to 1 MWeand manufacturing sites. The latter would be either for sites for in-space construction of larger platforms, or for processing of materials in the microgravity environment of space. As the technology matures to the megawatt range, additional applications appear promising. For example, electric thrusters in the megawatt range would be attractive for human transportation to Mars and its moons. This technology can be developed in stages, perhaps using high altitude airships (HAAs) as platforms to demonstrate megawatt arrays. As the technology for high power thin-film arrays matures, the logical next step would be solar power satellites. With a launch vehicle capable of placing 50,000 kg to geosynchronous orbit, 50 MWe platforms can be considered as building blocks for the GWe stations that would be required to provide a primary source of power for the electrical power grid.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

206

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Space Debris
SPS infrastructure de-orbits space debris NASA, 2007 (NASA, Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, October 10, 2007)
The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth- and space-based power beaming applications. A truly developed Space-Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de-orbit of space debris, space-to-space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far-term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forwards StarWisp Concept.

SPS key to provide energy in the event of a space debris collision McLinko, Ryan M., and Basant V. Sagar. Space-based solar power generation using a distributed network of satellites and
methods for efficient space power transmission. International Conference on Space Information Technology 2009. Ed. Xingrui Ma, Baohua Yang, & Ming Li. Beijing, China: SPIE, 20 09. 76513P-7.2010 SPIE--The International Society for Optical Engineering. Our paper suggests how SSP satellites can be designed small enough to fit within ESPA standards and therefore use rideshare to achieve orbit. Alternatively, larger versions could be launched on Falcon 9s or on Falcon 1s with booster stages. The only satellites that are constrained to a significant mass are the beam-down satellites, which still require significant transmission arrays to sufficiently focus the beams targeting corresponding ground stations. With robust design and inherent redundancy built-in, power generation and transmission will not be interrupted in the event of mishaps like space debris collision. Furthermore, the plug and play nature of this system significantly reduces the cost, complexity, and risk of upgrading the system. The distributed nature of smallsat clusters maximizes the use of economies of scale.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

207

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Inefficient (1/2)
Microwave efficiency can be 100%
Naoki Shinohara, works at the Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere, no date, georgiatech, Typical WPT is a point-to-point power transmission. For the WPT, we had better concentrate power to receiver. It was proved that the power transmission efficiency can approach close to 100%. We can more concentrate the transmitted microwave power to the receiver aperture areas with taper method of the transmitting antenna power distribution. Famous power tapers of the transmitting antenna are Gaussian taper, Taylor distribution, and Chebychev distribution. These taper of the transmitting antenna is commonly used for suppression of sidelobes. It corresponds to increase the power transmission efficiency. Concerning the power transmission efficiency of the WPT, there are some good optical approaches in Russia[5][6].

Tech is efficient- diode pumped technology decreases the radiative losses Rubenchik, Alexander M. Rubenchik, Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, November 4, 2010 Systems For Solar Power
Beaming From Space, http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPATAPP12773036&id=o57YAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=efficiency+%22Space+ Based+Solar+Power%22+&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=efficiency&f=false Thermal management is a consideration for die present space-based solar power station, since the only available cooling mechanism will be losses via radiation to outer space. The high efficiency of the solar panels and the efficient laser system greatly helps to resolve the problem. For embodiments of the present system, about 4 MW of energy must he removed. A practical way to do this is by thermal radiation from the surfaces of the subsystem components and structure. The advantage of the diode pumped laser is not only its high efficiency, but also its robust operation at high temperatures, which is about the temperature for the entire system, assuming good thermal contact of the components. The blackbody radiation flux at this temperature is: Considering only the concentrator area of 3600x2 m2 (taking into account the radiation from the rear surface), the total radiated energy will be -14 MW. Hence, if all elements of the system are connected using aluminumcoated inflatable columns, the radiative losses will be sufficient to support steady-state system operation

Spectral method solves efficiency Feldman et al, W Feldman, Department of Mathematics at the Boeing Company, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California, 2009, Optimization Techniques for the Power Beaming Analysis of Microwave Transmissions from a Space-Based Solar Power
Satellite, http://www.maths-in-industry.org/miis/280/ Having posed the spectral method to solve the power beaming problem above, we can now implement a numerical code to find the set of coefficients ap for our basis functions hp which produce the optimal distribution H(y). Once these coefficients have been found for the optimal receiver distribution, we will simultaneously have found the compactly supported transmitter distribution needed to produce the corresponding receiver distribution. The spectral method was implemented numerically using MATLABs FMINCON routine, which finds a constrained minimum of a function of several variables. The objective function constructed here aims to balance the competing requirements that the intensity of the received field distribution be as uniformly distributed across the surface of the receiving antenna as possible, while simultaneously maximizing the energy transmission efficiency between the two antennas. The objective function has the following form: where the weights W1 and W2 may be chosen by the user to emphasize one of the two requirements. Note that the energy integrals, as well as H(y), can be evaluated analytically for the chosen basis functions, which makes the spectral method attractive both from an implementation and analytic perspective.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

208

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Inefficient (1/2)
The tech is ready breakthroughs have maximized efficiency Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen Technology Challenges The SPG is not without major technical hurdles. The foremost is the efficiency of generating and converting to and from the 200 GHz regime. Breakthroughs in millimeter wave electronics have enabled as much as 70% efficiency using microcircuit chips that can be mass manufactured to produce arrays of the required power level. The technology of phased array transmitters is fairly advanced, and enables precise beaming to moving satellites. Switching technology in the 200-300GHz regime has advanced, driven by defense applications. Thermal management systems capable of handling megawatt power levels are a challenge, but turbinebased approaches have been developed. The status of the technology is such that it is time to line up the public policy

SSP transmission is very efficient Schwab, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities, Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011 Another way in which SSP could support the concept of power decentralization is by the nature of microwave efficiency. Using the microwave transmitter infrastructure in place on communications satellites, SSP via a microwave system that is 80 percent efficient at sending 1 kilowatt will still be 80 percent efficient at sending 1 megawatt. This is a marked advantage to electric utility transmission lines, where thicker and costlier cabling insulation is needed to carry increases in power flow.31

Satellites are efficient now its only a question of developing them - massive return investment McLinko et al , Ryan M McLinko, Ryan McLinko is currently a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the field of Aerospace Engineering after having received a bachelors degree in the same field at MIT, 2009, Space-based solar
power generation using a distributed network of satellites and methods for efficient space power transmission, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/57581 The overall efficiency of this distributed satellite array of collectors, beamers and sub-beamers is 49%, but the overall return on investment is much higher as modularity allows one to put in a large swarm of low-cost satellites in orbit to generate a higher power output. Given recent advances in microwave beaming and DC to microwave conversion and vice versa at high efficiency rates, falling launch cost for satellites, and the operational robustness of the distributed architecture of solar power satellites proposed here, the time has come to phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and incorporate SSP power into Earths electrical grids.

They are efficient-can be used 24 hours a day Rogers et al, James E. Rogers, James Rogers is chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer of Duke Energy. August 25, 2006 Spaced Based Power System,
http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT7612284&id=c6bJAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=launches+%22Space+Based+S olar+Power%22+&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=efficiency&f=false Space-based power systems use the Sims radium power or solar flux to generate energy. The Sun's solar constant or flux is approximately MkW/m* in earth orbit. For example, in geosynchronous orbit or t iKO (22.41)0 miles or GEO (22,400 miles or 36,000 km from Earth), a space solar power system is almost continuously immersed in sunlight-Solar cells, solar conversion devices* and nuclear power devices on a space power system generate Direct Current (DC) electricity, which is converted to a transmission frequency, such as radio, microwave and laser frequencies. For example, with Radio Frequency (RF) and microwaves, the generated electricity is converted to power through conversion devices, e.g.magnetrons, and focused by an antenna. The DC electricity is converted into Alternating Current (AC) electricity, which is transmitted to a power grid for distribution to users. As a result, some percentage of the solar constant is converted into usable electricity. For example, a 1 m2 solar array with a conversion efficiency of 40% can produce about 560 watts of electrical power. One million square meters or a one square kilometer 40% efficient solar array can generate about 560 megawatts (MW) of power.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

209

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 International Perception (1/2)

Perceived military threats posed by SPS can be alleviated through multilateral cooperation Space Law Journal, Paul G. Dembling and Delbert D. Smith, Solar Power Satellites and Security Considerations: The Case for Multilateral Agreements, 11 J. Space L. 82 (1983) HeinOnline//jchen
From an "Owner State" point of view, the massive SPS, of which there may eventually be many and on which a State may some day depend for a large percentage of its energy needs, would be a target for any space-capable nation with intentions hostile to the interests of that state. Conversely, a non-"Owner State" fears that the SPS could be used for military purposes and that in such case the SPS would pose a threat to its national security. Specifically, the concern is that the huge amount of energy absorbed by the SPS could, with proper equipment, be harnessed for use as a tremendously powerful weapon. Such a weapon could be used offensively against objects in space or on Earth. Defensively, it could be used to protect the owner's. SPS, its other space objects and the State's land mass from attack. The premise of this paper is that international multilateral agreements could serve to minimize potential vulnerabilities of the SPS and could also help minimize potential threats attributed to the SPS by foreign States. With the understanding that no agreements are ever absolute assurances against military threats and vulnerabilities, an analysis can be made of the alternative types of multilateral agreements which are available, and the mechanics used in formulating such agreements. new international organization with regard to the ownership of the SPS. However, given a tendency among developing States to claim portions of the benefits derived from utilization and exploitation of international resources, and given the view that monitoring of SPS facilities should be conducted by an independent authority, there may be pressure to create an international organization which, although not part of the management or control of SPS facilities, would manage the distribution of benefits from or otherwise monitor such facilities. 14

No duel use- only civilian purposes Nellis, Mike Nellis, Mike Nellis is an experienced online political operative currently serving as a senior strategy consultant with BuzzMaker, 2010, Electronic monitoring satellite tracking and public protection
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NnLQs6D7nLoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA341&dq=civilian+%22solar+powered+satellites%2 2&ots=H5CVE5EyK2&sig=u5kUhgMJS7j0gsVYp_5JAPphL6c#v=onepage&q=%22solar%20powered%20satellites%22&f=false Sociologically, the global positioning system (GPS) must he understood as an aspect of Castells* {20O4:3) 'network society' - a society to whose organization 'micro-electronic based information and communication technologies' are structurally constitutive. GPS is a satellite-based navigation system created by the US military in 1974, using 24 solar-powered satellites orbiting 12,000 miles above the earth, four of which are notionally 'visible' at any one time from any terrestrial location. The system was made available for civilian use in the 1980s, since when an abundance of commercial applications hive developed. It works as follows: Essentially, the GPS receiver compares the time a signal was transmitted at the speed of light with the time it was received by the receiver. By triangulating with at least three GPS signals from satellites, longitude and latitude (2-D) can be determined; with four or more satellites sending data to a GPS receiver, longitude, latitude and altitude (3*D) can be determined. This information can then be displayed graphically on a map. (Buck 2009a: 2)In terms of its ability to pinpoint objects and individuals on the earth's surface, in real time, to within a matter of meters, GPS technology has undeniably been transformative, but various factors can still affect the quality and accuracy of the GPS signal Atmospheric conditions can affect its speed.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

210

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 International Perception (2/2)

Space exploration is still perceived as civilian; not military. SIMON P. WORDEN Brigadier General, and USAF JOHN E. SHAW Major, USAF 2002 Whither Space Power? Forging
a Strategy for the New Century Fairchild Paper, Air University Library Although the space race of the 1960s was part of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, with undeniably military overtones, it was deliberately a civilian operation. So much so that US President Richard M. Nixon shuffled the Apollo 11 lunar excursion so that a civilian, Neil A. Armstrong, would be the first man to step on the Moon rather than the military offi- cer, Air Force colonel Buzz Aldrin. Precisely because there was nothing of direct value perceived in space particularly deep space such as the Moonthe perception value of the US program being peaceful and civilian took precedence. Military involvement was not only submerged, it was deliberately downplayed. The Cold War is over, but its perceptions live on. Military per- sonnel make up a large percentage of NASAs astronaut corps, but military uniforms and titles are seldom shown. NASAs leadership bears a striking legacy of military background in tha a very high number of former and retired military personnel are on the team. Nevertheless, the pretense remains that our space exploration effort is overwhelmingly civilian

The unilateral space leadership of the US creates multilateralism and cooperation Stone, Space policy analyst and strategist, 5/16/11, Space Review (Christopher, Collective assurance vs. independence in national
space policies, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1843/1) As the US current space policy notes, every nation has the right to access and use space. Each nation has the right to develop its own nationally-focused unilateral space policies that serve to advance their vital interests in security, prestige, and wealth as the baseline for any international cooperation they choose to support. Failure to invest in bold, ambitious space efforts with a national tone (in all sectors) in space will not only hurt the US space industry, but will harm our nations ability to advance its global interests in space, impact our traditional vital interests of independence and achievement, and threaten the very preeminence that we have labored so hard to achieve over the past fifty years. If our goal is the advancement of a global exploration program in space, then fine, but the US needs to observe that other nations and partnerships such as the EU and Russia appear to be taking an alternate path toward increased domestic space capabilities and expanded infrastructure for national interests. They are pressing ahead with their goals to step into the vacuum of leadership that the US is allowing through the shutdown of US programs, abandoning capabilities, and allowing the loss of large numbers of skilled space workers. Our next space policy and strategy, while including international efforts of mutual benefit, should focus on advancing American capability and enable a long range strategy for exploration and enhanced military capabilities in space, just as our friends the Europeans are pursuing.

US leadership creates international partnerships Stone, Space policy analyst and strategist, 3/14/11, Space Review (Christopher, American leadership in space: leadership through
capability, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1) When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedmans assertion that space is often overlooked in foreign relations and geopolitical strategies. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to shape the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as The World We Seek. Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of shaping is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

211

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 PPWT Violation
PPWT is bad- China will use it to militarize space- breaking it prevents dangerous militarization race Bruce W. MacDonald, is a consultant in technology and national security management and is currently senior director to the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. From 1995 to 1999, he was assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and technology on the National Security Council staff. Earlier, MacDonald was a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee and was national security adviser to Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR). He also worked for the State Department as a nuclear weapons expert in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he led the Interagency START Policy Working Group and served on the U.S. START delegation in Geneva. MacDonald holds a BSE from Princeton in aerospace engineering and two master's degrees from Princeton one in aerospace engineering and a second in public and international affairs. May 11, 20 11, Testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review commission on The Implications of Chinas Military and Civil Space Programs, United States Institute of space //ZY The PPWT likely serves primarily as a way for China to buy time to enable them to attain a stronger military position, perhaps even catch up to the U.S., in a field where they were far behind us. With the previous U.S. opposition to international agreements on space, it also left a diplomatic vacuum that China and Russia skillfully filled with the PPWT, portraying an image of peaceful intentions in space. It is intriguing to note that with the EU and U.S. in recent months speaking favorably of a draft code of conduct that is a vastly more realistic step than the PPWT, the PLA is now attacking it as an attempt to impose Western regulations on China. This code of conduct provides an excellent vehicle to challenge China to support realistic and useful "rules of the road" for space, and other steps which I hope the U.S. will pursue. In my conversations with Russian and Chinese counterparts, I find serious Russian interest in this approach but sadly only intransigence from China.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

212

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Export Controls/Institutional Barriers

US would seek multilateral agreements solves institutional barriers Space Law Journal, Paul G. Dembling and Delbert D. Smith, Solar Power Satellites and Security Considerations: The Case for Multilateral Agreements, 11 J. Space L. 82 (1983) HeinOnline//jchen
It is anticipated that, from the perspective of the United States, the value of a multilateral agreement will be significant in reducing certain types of vulnerabilities. Although an international agreement may not be entirely effective in the elimination of military vulnerabilities, just as it may not be entirely effective in the elimination of military threats attributed to solar power satellites, an international agreement would be very useful in eliminating institutional and international legal vulnerabilities. These institutional and international legal vulnerabilities may range from claims of right to a portion of the power supplied by the SPS system on the basis of the "Common Heritage of Mankind" theory, to claims that SPS development be banned in order to avoid interference with the established utilization of the radio frequency spectrum for telecommunications purposes. Since institutional and international legal vulnerabilities will be most critical during the formative stages of the SPS development, the beneficial impact for the United States of an international agreement would necessarily take effect early in the developmental process. Thus, the promise of early elimination of institutional and international legal barriers would be a tangible benefit that foreign nations could offer in return for assurances that the threats attributed to SPS systems will not materialize and, in return for mechanical and systematic methods to verify, monitor and enforce such assurances. Consequently, the United States would achieve the elimination of such vulnerabilities prior to the development of its SPS system. The United States could personally continue minimization of such vulnerabilities as long as it demonstrates adherence to policies and procedures which reduce or eliminate perceived or real threats. The bargaining position between the United States and those States which possess the capabilities of militarily affecting the SPS space segment is quite different from that between the U.S. and the majority of States. In such cases, bilateral treaties may be adopted between the space powers on the basis of their unique bargaining positions.

Multilateral treaties solve zoning and proximity rules Space Law Journal, Paul G. Dembling and Delbert D. Smith, Solar Power Satellites and Security Considerations: The Case for Multilateral Agreements, 11 J. Space L. 82 (1983) HeinOnline//jchen
B. SelectedProvisions A recent study on military implications of a SPS system identified two salient subjects for an international SPS agreement. The first involves the concept of proximity rules and the second involves the concept of inspection. Proximity rules have been defined by the study as "specified 'keep out' zones in the vicinity of space facilities which are to be protected,"16 and, it is stated that "precedent for such rules exists in the form of offshore territorial limits claimed by various nations.' -7 However, proximity rules would have to be reconciled with Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty's which states: "[O]uter space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The specified zones established by such proximity rules, which would be defined relative to the SPS space facility, would constitute a claim over an ascertainable portion of outer space. One commentator has asserted that the concept of appropriation in Article II suggests the existence of two subsidiary elements: temporary nonexclusive use and permanent exclusive use. 19 To the extent that a SPS satellite would not be considered a permanent use of a particular portion of space even though the facility would have a relatively long lifetime, it would follow that such specified zones would also not be considered a permanent use. However, by definition, such zones would be reserved for exclusive use and therefore may constitute an appropriation of a portion of outer space. Thus, an SPS multilateral agreement would be useful to either exempt such zones from the restrictions posed by Article II or to define the word "appropriation" such that the zones would not be within said definition.

SPS development prompt multilateral agreements for regulation Space Law Journal, Paul G. Dembling and Delbert D. Smith, Solar Power Satellites and Security Considerations: The Case for Multilateral Agreements, 11 J. Space L. 82 (1983) HeinOnline//jchen
Conclusion It is probable that, similar to the case of direct broadcasting satellites, SPS will become the subject of both ITU and COPUOS multilateral agreements. As the foregoing discussion indicates, the development of SPS systems might benefit from the adoption of a unitary multilateral agreement affecting their military role and security. It is of importance that the role of a multilateral agreement for these purposes be addressed now, before any single nation is committed to the development of an SPS system.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

213

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Agent CPs
No agency has authority over SBSP joint cooperation under the federal government is key NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no existing U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate to invest in the development of Space Based Solar Power. Lacking a specific mandate and clear responsibility, no U.S. federal agency has an existing or planned program of research, technology investment, or development related to Space Based Solar Power. Instead, the responsibilities for various aspects of SBSP are distributed among various federal agencies. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government should form a SBSP Partnership Council that consists of all federal agencies with responsibilities relevant to successfully developing SBSP. The SBSP Partnership Council must be chaired and led by an existing or newly created single purpose civilian federal agency. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government should task one or more federal agencies for investing in key technologies needed for SBSP

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

214

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 International Actor CPs

Perm solves best federal action on SBSP is a catalyst for international development NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen DoD and other ongoing U.S. Government and international R&D efforts are independently reducing SBSP technical barriers via S & T development for other goals. However, there is no single entity for identifying and tracking these independent developments for the sole purpose of SBSP applicability. Numerous technological advances are emerging for each of the technical challenges (example: entrepreneurial private space access ventures, highly efficient concentrator photovoltaics, very low weight thin film photovoltaic systems, etc.). o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the U.S. Government establish a formal activity for cataloguing, monitoring, and engaging on major S & T developments which enable SBSP. Effort should begin with DoD and U.S. Government activities, and eventually expand as appropriate to include all Allied and other potential partner nations.

ESA and Japan are not a threat to SPS development; the US is ahead. US Congress 78 Applications of solar technology Washington : Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment :
for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. The requisite technical and financial base is available: strong aerospace industries exist; nat tional and multilateral space programs, such as the European Space Agency (ESA), are in place. However, both ESA and lapan lack the depth of U.S. industry's aerospace expertise, its worldwide tracking and relay networks, and above all experience in and development of manned space-vehicles. The most sophistic cated non-American launch vehicle is ESAs Ariane, which is stili being testflown and is scheduled to begin commercial operations in 1982 I he Ariane is a high-quality three-stage expendable booster, but it is far smaller than the large U.S. Saturn rockets used for the Apollo program. And it is far behind the U.S. Space shuttle in capabilities, payloads, and cost effectiveness (at least to LEO). Since the shuttle itself is too small and expensive for full-scale SPS construction, ESA is at least two generations of vehicles away from being able to develop an SPs unilaterally. Producing the requisite lift capabilities in an independent program would be extremely costly and timeconsuming. It is clear that any unilateral SPS program depends on a dramatic and unpredictable inc crease in the sense of urgency about medium and long-term energy supplies. Even if such an increase were to occur, such efforts would be very expensive for any one country or region to undertake, especially since crash programs are necessarily more expensive than ordinary ones: money is traded for time.

Doing the aff multilaterally would be pointless logistical difficulties proven by European efforts US Congress 81 Solar power satellites Washington, D.C. : Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment"August 1981 Multilateral Interests
ihere are three reasons why interested part iees may wish to abandon their preference for autonomy in favor'of an international effort. These are: 1) to share the high costs and risks; 2) to expand the global market: 3) to forestall foreign opposition and/or promote internat tional cooperation. However, it should be realized that an international consortium, whether involving private firms or government agencies, will tend ger erally to increase the overall costs. Under the best of circumstances there are costs associa ated with doing extensive business across borders, with coordinating efforts in different languages and geographic areas, and with bal ancing the divergent national interests of foreign partners. without careful managemeit;s.: and a high degree of cooperation from the states involved, these extra inefficiencies can eliminate any advantage gained from intema- tionali7ing the project. The experience of Europ pean collaborative efforts has been that costs rise as the large number of participants: in- creases the managerial superstructure and project comnplexity.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

215

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Private/Free Market CPs (1/2)

Perm solves best only combination of federal and private efforts ensures aerospace dominance NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st centurythat our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space. An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

Private sector fails government key to R&D and policy regulation NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space borne proof of concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial commercial, government commercial, and government government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on line today.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

216

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Private/Free Market CPs (2/2)

SBSP field provides broad areas of cooperation between government private and public NSSO, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP is an idea that appears to generate significant interest and support across a broad variety of sectors. Compared to other ideas either for space exploration or alternative energy, Space Based Solar Power is presently not a publicly well known idea, in part because it has no organizational advocate within government, and has not received any substantial funding or public attention for a significant period of time. Nevertheless, DoD review team leaders were virtually overwhelmed by the interest in Space Based Solar Power that they discovered. What began as a small e mail group became unmanageable as the social network & map of expertise expanded and word spread. To cope, study leaders were forced to move to an on line collaborative group with nearly daily requests for new account access, ultimately growing to over 170 aerospace and policy experts all contributing pro bono. This group became so large, and the need to more closely examine certain questions so acute, that the group had to be split into four additional groups. As word spread and enthusiasm grew in the space advocacy community, study leaders were invited to further expand to an open web log in collaboration with the Space Frontier Foundation. The amount of media interest was substantial. Activity was so intense that total e mail traffic for the study leads could be as high as 200 SBSP related e mails a day, and the sources of interest were very diverse. There was clear interest from potential military ground customersthe Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional big aerospace, and the entrepreneurial space community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and contributed. The subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry group. Study leaders were made aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace companies and several major energy and construction companies both in and outside of United States. As the study progressed the study team was invited to brief in various policy circles and think tanks, including the Marshall Institute, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Energy Consensus Group, the National Defense Industry Association, the Defense Science Board, the Department of Commerces Office of Commercial Space, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period.

Plan prerequisite to private actors key source of funding Fan,William, Martin, Harold, Wu, James, and Mok, Brian, William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok, 6/2, Space
Based Solar Power, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nTmpylEtdUJ:www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%2520Exams/Space%2520Based%2520Solar%2520Power.pdf+solar+powered+satellites+ filetype:pdf&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh4O6RHmrCqT55D8F8D4r74Z7bRNxAMMasl6sgFwKmXrSB2qc71Xt814onC WBnrr_8ccskJFPqPIm2Lw0WAVNBV1A27hDoA7FnZuNI4Oq8o2pvqaAraGqigdBQSjX3q9LFB7Bju&sig=AHIEtbRrKpGRM3LO8uz _jbHRhCEf0uAr0w, Date accessed June 24, 2011 The development of infrastructure and the deployment costs will require a large amount of funding. Space based solar power is high risk and there is no guarantee that there will be acceptable returns. Because of the long development cycle, investors will not receive any returns until several decades later. Therefore, investment groups/ venture capitalists are unlikely to fund space based solar power. The company will need to be assisted by the government investment. Currently organizations such as NASA, the Japan Space Agency, and the Chinese government all appear to have interest in developing space based solar power. The business will have to continue to run on government grants until it can launch a satellite for niche markets. After this point, the business will start receiving income and there will be greater confidence to invest into space based solar power technology.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

217

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Tenant Anchor CP (1/2)

Only government funding solves initial capital return is too small for private investment Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen 1. Global Collaboration Model Such a system involving global power exchange obviously requires global collaboration. It spans many of the issues in building Space infrastructure, and international collaboration for ground infrastructure and energy trading. ROI large enough to attract private capital is not realistic because of the large risk. Public financing is also needed to ensure serious intent on the part of governments to complete the project.

Fundamental shift in government key to synergize space and energy market Narayanan Komerath, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 10/3/2009, The Space Power
Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5367831&tag=1//jchen In Ref [26] we proposed a global public-private Consortium, partially based on the model for the European Space Agency, where member nations and private corporations collaborate to reduce risk, make low-interest long-term funding available, and organize the construction of major Space infrastructure. This set up is also shown to open a path towards resolving some of the most vexing obstacles in space resource utilization, arising from current Space Law. On a national level, moving towards the Space Power Grid approach requires some fundamental realignments that synergize the Space and Energy enterprises with the environmental / Climate Change control movement. In the United States, this requires and alignment of NASA and the Department of Energy, probably through an agency such as ARPA-E.

The private sector fails at R&D overreliance on feds means govt development is key ICAF, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, a senior service school providing graduate level educationto sernior members of the US armed forces, Spring 2007, The Final Report: The Space Industry Industrial College of the Armed Forces,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475093&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf The U.S. government has long understood that access to space and space capabilities are essential to U.S. economic prosperity and national security. U.S. space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure national leadership in space and governance of space activities, including science, exploration, and international cooperation. The current Administration has issued five space-specific policies to provide goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy, these policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing; Space Transportation; and Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy, reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to exploit space for national security and economic prosperity. 9 Americas success in space is dependent on government involvement, motivation, and inspiration. It is significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and effort to update all of the U.S. space policies. The consolidation of the major space industry players and a general down-turn in the commercial space market demand, coupled with export restrictions, has left the U.S. space industry reliant on the government for revenue and technology development.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

218

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Tenant Anchor CP (2/2)

The private sector cant solve national security they arent accountable Christopher E. Kinne, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, has previously commanded two different Air Force
Materiel Command squadrons, oversaw development of new space surveillance systems and technologies at the Air Force Space Commands Alternate Space Control Center, current commander of the Cryptologic Systems Group, February 20 09, Is the United States Air Force Responsible for Preserving the US Aerospace Industrial Base?, Air War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539894&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Senator Clintons expression of concern was not new or unique. As early as 1993, national security risks related to the US aerospace industry were being identified by the GAO in reports to congressional requestors concerned with the trend of defense industry mergers and acquisitions. In a report titled Defense Industrial Base: An Overview of an Emerging Issue, the GAO reported DoD has taken the position that free market forces generally will guide the restructuring of the defense industrial base. We believe that this is not a realistic strategy for ensuring that government decisions and industry adjustments will result in the industrial and technological capabilities needed to meet future national security requirements. A key reason for this is that defense company officials are understandably concerned with maximizing the returns for investors and are not specifically accountable for how 20 Ibid. 21 Knight and Bolkcom. Air Force Air Refueling, 25.10 the long-term changes in the defense industrial base affect national security. 22 (emphasis added) The same GAO report also states DoD has not taken a strong proactive role in assessing US reliance on foreign sources and foreign investment relating to the defense industrial base. . . . [and] consequently, DoD generally does not know whether and to what extent it relies on foreign technology and products to meet its critical needs. Such information is necessary to assess national security risks. 23 (emphasis added)

Private sector wont act first needs federal demonstration of success first The Economist, magazine, 8, "Let the Sun Shine In", economist.com//jchen
The armed forces are Americas single greatest consumer of oil. The Department of Defence delivers 1.6m gallons (7.3m litres) of fuel a dayaccounting for 70% by weight of all supplies deliveredto its forces in Iraq alone, at a delivered cost per gallon of $5-20. It also spends over $1 per kWh on electric power (ten times the domestic civilian price) in battle zones, because electricity must often be provided using generators that run on fossil fuels. If some of this fuel could be replaced by power beamed down from space, it could cut costs and reduce the need for complex and vulnerable supply lines, the NSSO report argues. It could be used to power electric vehicles, along with radar stations and other pieces of equipment that currently rely on electrical power from generators. (The study dismisses the notion that the Pentagon might be interested in SSP as a means of beaming death rays down on enemies: it points out that the beam is nowhere near powerful enough to present a plausible alternative to conventional missiles and other weapons.) Getting SSP off the ground will require the involvement of the private sector, the study observes, but private firms are unlikely to act without a demonstration project to confirm the viability of the scheme. The NSSO estimates that this would cost $8 billion-10 billion, and suggests that it could be funded by a consortium involving America and its alliessuch as Canada, Japan, the European Union or Australia, all of which have shown interest in SSP in the past. In the meantime, NASA is evaluating the possibility of an experiment involving the International Space Station.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

219

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Nuclear Powered Satellites CP

Nuclear satellites fail solar cell advances have gained priority FAS, 3/2/01, DOD'S 'FLIRTATION' WITH NUCLEAR-POWERED SATELLITES ENDS, ANALYST SAYS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/iaf030201.html//jchen Budget constraints and recent advances in solar cell technologies have ended what one industry analyst calls the Defense Department's longstanding flirtation with developing nuclear power sources for spacecraft, according to industry and Pentagon sources. The military had an ongoing flirtation with nuclear power for nearly 50 years, and now they are saying it is over, said Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the non-profit Federation of American Scientists, a think tank based in Washington, DC. Nuclear power offers at least a 100-fold increase in power generation over traditional technologies -- such as solar power or heat-based power -- which explains DOD's affinity for the technology as it relies more and more on space-based assets for its operations, according to Aftergood. However, he notes that the Pentagon's recently released Space Technology Guide does not mention nuclear power, an omission he describes as a real shift in DOD policy, or at least a significant departure.

Nuclear powered satellites are obsolete politically contentious, dangerous and redundant FAS, 3/2/01, DOD'S 'FLIRTATION' WITH NUCLEAR-POWERED SATELLITES ENDS, ANALYST SAYS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/03/iaf030201.html//jchen The National Space Policy and the Defense Department's space policy remain the same, said Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Hansen. Both policies preclude the use of nuclear power in Earth orbit without the specific approval of the president. Any requests for approval must take into account public safety, economic considerations, treaty obligations and U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, Hansen wrote in a statement for Inside the Air Force. Those policies have been in place for quite some time and have not changed. DOD created the Space Technology Guide in response to Congress' request for an overarching guide of investments in key technologies needed for national security space purposes. Congress requested the guide in the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization act, and the Defense Department released it earlier this month (ITAF, Feb. 9, p16). The guide includes a list of key enabling technologies for national security space that identifies a need for investment in advances for solid rocket motors, electric and plasma thrusters and solar and chemical power generation. Nuclear power does not appear on the list. In a query submitted to Charles Williams, who works on such issues in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for command, control, communications and intelligence, Aftergood suggested that the official omission of nuclear power in the guide could be the result of political pressures or technical considerations. In his response to Aftergood, Williams said that while politics and technical challenges were factors, the key reasons for the subject's removal from the guide were funding and public safety. In the STG, the Congress asked for an investment strategy for space technology. Given the severely constrained funding available for space technology development, funds for nuclear power devices would not make the priority cut, Williams wrote. Even if we could produce them economically, the mission costs would be unaffordable because of the measures necessary for safety. These scarce resources are needed to fund technologies that provide real, accountable leverage to meet future mission requirements, he continued. These economic and technical reasons obviate any need to pursue nuclear power options. Additionally, Hansen noted there is no DOD requirement for nuclear power sources for spacecraft. All of our space-based power needs are being met with alternative methods, such as vastly improved and more efficient solar cells, new battery technologies, and future power technologies such as flywheels. Advances in solar cells are also more than sufficient to maintain ample power supplies, Williams added.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

220

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Laser Powered Transmission CP

Lasers cannot do what microwaves do, they arent as effective and actually damage human health Geoffrey A. Landis, an American scientist, working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on planetary exploration, interstellar propulsion, solar power and photovoltaics, 2009, MIT Energy Club
Laser transmission removes problem of inherently large sizes, but lasers have their own problems. First, laser efficiencies are considerably lower than microwave efficiencies, for lasers with good coherence. High power semiconductor diode lasers arrays are highly efficient (50% conversion efficiency or higher), but are not mutually coherent-- the net result of a high-power laser diode array is that it will have the diffraction pattern characteristic of a flashlight, not the narrow diffraction-limited spot size of a laser. Existing technology lasers might have efficiency approaching ~ 40% (for example, for a diode-pumped alkali) A second problem is that PV converter efficiencies are also low. The conversion efficiency is better than solar conversion efficiency, because the beam can be made monochromatic at a wavelength tuned to the optimum conversion wavelength of the cell, but is still lower than rectenna conversion efficiencies. 50% conversion efficiency is a reasonable efficiency.6 For laser transmission, clouds are now a problem. In addition, eye safety is now a problem. Overall, use of a PV array for power receiving eliminates the signal advantage of space solar power, of putting the PV array in space, for cloud-free power. Laser-transmitted space power has less power per solar array area than ground solar

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

221

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Kritiks (Generic)
Scenario planning is ONLY effective with decision focus (ie the plan) - only the permutation solves Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA,, Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, Notre Dame, IN, USA, Miranda Weingartner,Weingartner Consulting, Ontario, Canada, 200 9, Planning the
unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, science direct//ZY With respect to their utility in guiding policy development, three features distinguish good scenarios from simple speculations, linear predictions or fanciful musings of the future: Scenarios are decision focused. Successful scenarios begin and end by clarifying the decisions and actions the participants must make if they are to deal successfully with an uncertain future. One common misconception of scenarios is that they are prescient, path dependent predic- tions of the future. On the contrary, scenarios are used to order our thoughts amid uncertainty, build common ground among differing perspectives, and think rationally about our options. The value of a set of scenarios accrues not from their accuracy or likelihood, but from their plausibility and the insights they generate. Scenarios are imaginative. In examining a decision within the context of a number of different futures, scenarios require us to look behind fixed assumptions. They encourage partici- pants to challenge conventional wisdom, create new contexts for existing decisions, and think creatively about options for surmounting obstacles. At their core, then, scenarios are about learning. 29 Scenarios are logical. The scenario process is formal and disciplined in its use of information and analysis. The creativity and imagination inspired by scenarios can only be as effective as it is based in realistic assessments. In requiring participants to challenge each others thoughts, perceptions, and mind-sets, the process helps clarify that reality. Scenarios first emerged following World War II as a method of military planning. This approach was reflected in Herman Kahns assertion of the need to think the unthinkable concerning the possibilities and implications of war in the atomic age. In our times, Kahn wrote in 1966, thermonuclear war may seem unthinkable, immoral, insane, hideous, or highly unlikely, but it is not impos- sible.30 Kahns motivation was, in part, recognition of the counter-intuitive notion that planning could be a necessary means of avoidance. It is this last type of scenario-building and analysis that is most appropriate for initiating and continuing dialogue around the future use of space. Generative scenarios are particularly well suited to addressing three core challenges: anticipating the technological changes relevant to the full range of the growing human utilization of space that will inevitably unfold over the coming decades; guiding and planning integration across the full range of human space activities in conjunction with evolving terrestrial political conditions; identifying and responding to the critical uncertainties over the directions and implications of long-term devel- opments in both the previous dimensions. Scenario building can address these challenges by providing rigorous, detailed visions of future worlds accounting for a wide range of variables, inevitable change and uncertainty. The collaboration entailed in scenario building can also inspire the creativity and imagination of an expert community representing diverse viewpoints on immediate issues. The resulting plausible, integrated visions, responsive to current realities and robust against future uncertainties, can yield feasible policyrelevant ideas for promoting peaceful development of the future human presence in space despite the wide range of possible future developments both in space and on Earth. As noted earlier, vision development is only one aspect of long-term planning. A comprehensive knowledge base and strategies for policy-making are also required. By integrating expertise in these other areas into vision development, scenario-building exercises can contribute valuable long-term insights to policy debates. The following section reports the results of one such exercise.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

222

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 *****POLITICS*****

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

223

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***PLAN POPULAR***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

224

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular General

Plan overwhelmingly popular- policymakers understand its key to the economy McGowan , Elizabeth McGowan is a Washington DC and elections correspondent, June 21, 2011, House Bill Would Cut Clean
Energy and Efficiency Programs by 40 Percent, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/idUS282235896420110621, Date accessed June 27, 2011 "At a time when our economy is already fragile, abandoning scientific research would cause the United States to lose even more high-tech jobs to our foreign competitors." Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona was the sole Republican who joined 19 Democrats in opposing the bill that passed on a 26-20 vote. The full House will be considering the measure, one of a dozen sweeping federal spending bills, after Independence Day. On the energy front, this version of the bill snips $1.9 billion from the White House request for investments in energy efficiency research, renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal, fuel-conserving vehicles, weatherization, biomass and other programs. That's more than 40 percent below current funding levels. Energy insiders, however, doubt the Senate will approve such draconian paring of clean energy enterprise. Overall, the sprawling bill slices a total of $5.9 billion from President Obama's request for the budget year beginning in October. Those cuts put funding about $1 billion below current levels, roughly equaling dollars doled out in 2005. "The ... funding bill is another glaring example of the widening gap between Republican rhetoric and reality," said Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, one of 48 members of the coalition. "We need a new American energy policy that will lower prices for families, reduce our reliance on dirty, foreign energy and increase our energy independence."Nitty-Gritty of House Bill Overall, this appropriations legislation is designed to provide annual funding for the various agencies and programs under the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and various regional water and power authorities. Coalition members are most alarmed that the GOP engineered a bill that slashes close to $500 million from DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). That leaves the office with just 40 percent of the amount Obama asked for when he presented his budget back in February. Briefly, the White House 2012 budget request for EERE programs is the largest ever. It rings in at a total of $3.2 billion, which is bordering on 11 percent of the total DOE budget. That's significant because it's a jump of $983 million or 44 percent above 2010 appropriations. In addition, the legislation increases funding for DOE's Fossil Energy Office by $32 million while decreasing designated dollars for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by $80 million. Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu modeled ARPA-E after a similar program at the Department of Defense to support breakthroughs by clean energy entrepreneurs. Obama had asked that the chronically underfunded ARPA-E receive about $650 million next year. The GOP House bill would jeopardize the relatively new initiative designed to fund early-stage innovation projects that are deemed riskiest and most transformative. As well, the president had called for lopping the fossil office by $417 million, 44 percent below 2010 appropriations. Savings for the president's budget figure of $520 million would have come from peeling away money for fossil energy research and development, as well as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Slashing ARPA-E Illogical Lew Milford, founder and president of the Montpelier, Vt.-based nonprofit Clean Energy Group complimented Chu for recognizing ARPA-E as an avenue for expanding a nascent industry."We're cutting off our nose to spite our face," Milford told SolveClimate News in an interview about ARPA-E's rocky funding record. "ARPA-E is one of the few public programs that focuses on energy innovation. Without it, we won't get the big bang of technology benefits to produce jobs and economic benefits in the long run." The last actual appropriation for ARPA-E was $389 million for fiscal year 2009. DARPA, the military program Chu is mimicking, is unusual because it serves a customer that will buy at any cost, Milford said. But that freedom within the Department of Defense supports a unique model that allows an idea to morph into a prototype that is deployed throughout branches of the military before spilling over into the civilian marketplace. "That's what you need for energy technologies to be working and seamlessly connected," Milford said, adding that DOE has wisely signed a memorandum of understanding agreement with the Defense Department to give ARPA-E room to grow. "To deal with issues such as market demand, DOE has to expand its portfolio of options and essentially create customers." He emphasized that eventually DOE should form ARPA-E partnerships with states because development agencies at that level are looking for niche strategies to boost the clean energy policies they have in place."It's not ARPA-E's fault or anybody else's that we're not there yet," Milford said. "The clean energy industry is young at 10 to 20 years old when compared to a fossil fuels industry that's more than 100 years old."GAO: National Strategy Necessary In the midst of this season's budget travails, the Government Accountability Office has issued a new report recommending what likely seems obvious to even casual observers of congressional politics the need to replace a piecemeal approach to climate and energy with a national plan. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released the 90-page report by the investigative arm of Congress on Monday. The somewhat clunky title is "Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions." To get there, the GAO spells out a two-step solution that is probably easier written on paper than actually accomplished. First, federal authorities need to set clear strategic climate change priorities that identify specific roles and responsibilities of key federal entities involved in the enterprise.Second, those same authorities have to

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

225

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
assess how effective they are now at not only defining and reporting federal climate change funding but also lining up that funding with agreed-upon priorities. Those practices will have to be polished so Congress and the public can fully grasp how the government spends money designated for climate change. The trick is that before embarking on step one, entities that fall under the executive branch such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, the Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy have to consult with Congress and collaborate with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies. And that looks to be a daunting challenge if those tasked with GAO's recommendations refer to the baffling maze of a chart on page 13 of the report. Authors of the GAO report refer to federal climate change program as complex and crosscutting." This report shows the significant work the United States government is already taking to understand and address climate change while creating new jobs and industries in America," said Markey, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. "So far this has been accomplished with little national leadership. In these challenging budgetary times, we need to make sure funding matches national priorities. This GAO report shows us we still have work to do." Assessment Follows Party LineRepublican leaders had nothing but high praise for the way they reshaped President Obama's original budget request. Such "smart and significant" spending reductions were necessary to programs with "massive and unnecessary increases," Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky said.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

226

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Senate

Solar power popular in the senate- Reid committed ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 2011 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-

Solar programs also remain popular in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fought off efforts early this year by the House to end the loan-guarantee program that helps solar companies secure financing for their projects. Reid announced last month that the Energy Department will provide conditional guarantees for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Tonopah, Nev., creating nearly 5,000 jobs in his state, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Solar lobbyists said they believe at least one of the two sections of the loan-guarantee program will survive, although it is not yet clear how much money it will receive. McClintock, the California congressman, and other conservatives, including Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., wrote letters this month asking the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to end the loan guarantees. The subcommittee approved $160 million for loan guarantees, far less than the $1 billion sought by the administration but enough to keep the program alive. The fate is less certain for the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program, which gives solar companies a grant equal to 30 percent of the cost of a solar system as an incentive to develop solar projects. It was intended to help companies that were struggling in the sluggish economy. The program has been crucial to companies such as SolarCity, which has an operations center in Phoenix that installs solar electricity systems in homes and businesses.

Energy bills have a majority in the senate

Reuters 6/8 (Elizabeth McGowan, 6/8/11, " GOP Ally for Senator Sanders's 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill ", http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idUS41670750020110608)//ZY However, now that the Senate's Democratic caucus carries a slim 53-47 majority, energy bills are iffy, at best. And Bingaman has to tread much more gently because his 22-member committee has only a 12-10 Democratic advantage. Sanders serves on that panel but Boozman does not. Last year's bill called for $250 million for fiscal year 2012 and an additional $500 million annually through 2021. That money was targeted for a competitive grant program so state and local governments could receive incentives to boost the use of rooftop solar panels and water heaters in homes, schools and businesses. This time around, Sanders tweaked the bill so it zeroes in on slicing through the red tape of overpriced permits and inspections that are a barrier to smooth growth of solar. For instance, DOE would give preference to grant applicants that have partnered with states, public utility commissions or other stakeholders to adopt standards that encourage utility interconnection and net metering. "The approach here is really a carrot and not a stick," Darren Springer, senior legislative assistant for Sanders, told SolveClimate News. "DOE is tasked with seeking out best practices on permitting and inspections. This bill puts federal funds on the table for communities to scale up those best practices."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

227

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Bipartisan

Renewable energy is bi-partisan Ledyard King and Larry Bivins, reporters for USA today, 2010, Rapid City Journal, from USAtoday originally
The demise of "cap-and-trade," as the climate-change bill was called, disappointed President Obama and other Democrats who supported the measure. But the prospects are brighter for a more moderate step -- still meaningful, but with bipartisan support -- requiring that a greater portion of America's electricity come from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. "There are not many Republicans or Democrats out there that don't want to see America move toward a more sustainable homegrown source of energy," said Matt McLarty of the South Dakota chapter of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, which promotes clean energy and sustainable business. He called a federal renewable electricity standard "something that most people can get behind." That would be good news for South Dakota, one of the top five states in terms of wind energy potential, McLarty and other environmental advocates said. Even though they would welcome tighter restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources, they said the divisive atmosphere surrounding climate-change legislation stymied progress on other fronts, including the adoption of a renewable energy standard. Under cap-and-trade, energy producers faced limits on what they emit. If they exceeded those limits, they would have to pay extra under a market-driven system that determines prices. Critics said many consumers would have faced higher energy prices -- at least in the short term -- largely because about half of the nation's electricity is generated by coal, one of the main greenhouse gas producers. The demise of cap-and-trade "actually helps. Now we can talk about the issues," said Steve Wegman, executive director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association. "We can go back and talk about why you should have energy diversity, and that's the discussion we've never had. Climate change gets too many emotions involved."

Plan is bipartisan- Dems, Republicans, and Gillbrand all are pushing for clean tech Smialek , Jeanna Smialek, Major in Journalism and Mass Communication and International and Area Studies, June 21, 2011,
Gillibrand announces manufacturing agenda, http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/71908/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-announcesmanufacturing-agenda/ Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., today announced her new manufacturing agenda, which aims to bolster high-tech and clean-energy manufacturing through grant and tax-cut programs. Gillibrand introduced the Make It In America Block Grant Program Act, which would create a competitive grant program for small- to medium-sized manufacturers in communities with high unemployment. The grants would provide funds for companies to retool their operations and retrain their workforces. She said the legislations purpose - and the goal of her other manufacturing-related initiatives - is to promote the growth of well-paying and employment-generating advanced industries in the United States and specifically in New York. These businesses and these jobs belong to us. Its time to see Made in America again, starting right here in New York, she said. According to the New York State Department of Labor, 123,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the state from 2005 to 2010 - but computer and electronic manufacturing industries increased employment by 9 percent from 2004 to 2008, according to the New York Office of the State Comptroller. In order to continue growth in these sectors, Gillibrand said she also aims to help pass the Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act. The legislation would replace a program that provides a 30 percent tax credit to domestic companies that invest in clean technology with an initiative that would provide both tax credits and grants extending the current legislations benefits to start-up companies that do not yet have tax liabilities. Gillibrand also supports the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act, which would extend the New Markets Tax Credit program. The program provides a 39 percent tax credit for domestic corporations or partnerships that help to supply loans, investments or financial counseling to low-income communities. The current program was created by bipartisan legislation with both Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Gillibrand said that collaboration shows that legislators from both parties will turn to fostering economic growth once issues surrounding the debt ceiling are resolved. These ideas are basically good ideas that are not Democratic or Republican, she said. She added that the Make it in America Acts House sponsor, Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, is a Democrat. She said the measures supporters are seeking Republican co-sponsors to foster the bipartisan support it would need to pass the House.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

228

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Plan is bipartisan- Dems, Republicans, and Gillbrand all are pushing for clean tech Smialek , Jeanna Smialek, Major in Journalism and Mass Communication and International and Area Studies, June 21, 2011,
Gillibrand announces manufacturing agenda, http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/71908/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-announcesmanufacturing-agenda/ Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., today announced her new manufacturing agenda, which aims to bolster high-tech and clean-energy manufacturing through grant and tax-cut programs. Gillibrand introduced the Make It In America Block Grant Program Act, which would create a competitive grant program for small- to medium-sized manufacturers in communities with high unemployment. The grants would provide funds for companies to retool their operations and retrain their workforces. She said the legislations purpose - and the goal of her other manufacturing-related initiatives - is to promote the growth of well-paying and employment-generating advanced industries in the United States and specifically in New York. These businesses and these jobs belong to us. Its time to see Made in America again, starting right here in New York, she said. According to the New York State Department of Labor, 123,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the state from 2005 to 2010 - but computer and electronic manufacturing industries increased employment by 9 percent from 2004 to 2008, according to the New York Office of the State Comptroller. In order to continue growth in these sectors, Gillibrand said she also aims to help pass the Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act. The legislation would replace a program that provides a 30 percent tax credit to domestic companies that invest in clean technology with an initiative that would provide both tax credits and grants extending the current legislations benefits to start-up companies that do not yet have tax liabilities. Gillibrand also supports the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act, which would extend the New Markets Tax Credit program. The program provides a 39 percent tax credit for domestic corporations or partnerships that help to supply loans, investments or financial counseling to low-income communities. The current program was created by bipartisan legislation with both Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Gillibrand said that collaboration shows that legislators from both parties will turn to fostering economic growth once issues surrounding the debt ceiling are resolved. These ideas are basically good ideas that are not Democratic or Republican, she said. She added that the Make it in America Acts House sponsor, Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, is a Democrat. She said the measures supporters are seeking Republican co-sponsors to foster the bipartisan support it would need to pass the House.

Patrick, Dems, and Republicans all are pushing for green tech Chandler, David L. Chandler is a freelance writer and author who has been writing about science since 1975. He worked for the
Boston Globe from 1980 to 2001, and was the Globe's principal science writer from the 1983 inception of the paper's weekly science section (initially Sci-Tech, later Health/Science) until he left to pursue book and magazine projects in 2001. He covers the space program, astronomy, physics, earth sciences, computers, and other areas of science and technology, June 15, 2011, A National Push For Energy Innovation, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/clean-energy-event-0615.html In a spirited talk at MIT, former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm presented a plan for a bipartisan initiative that she said could help the United States regain a world leadership role in the creation of new clean-energy technologies and the thousands of new jobs that those technologies could provide. Introduced by her old pal, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and MIT President Susan Hockfield, Granholm spoke at Tuesdays reception on clean-energy innovation. The event was hosted by the MIT Energy Initiative and the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, a program that its co-director, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science Ronald Prinn, described as a unique collaboration between the natural and social sciences. At MIT, were bullish on clean energy, Hockfield said in her introduction. In fact, she said, bullish is an understatement. Were maniacs about it! She added that she sees the clean-energy domain as a major area in which to rebuild the nations economy. Patrick said his attendance was intended to celebrate the leadership of MIT in clean-energy technology. He said the Institute has gone so far beyond the basic science to commercialize so many great ideas in clean energy, and that in todays climate of volatile oil prices, all the elements align for moving ourselves rapidly to a clean-energy future. He added that in Massachusetts, there has been a 60 percent increase in energyrelated employment during the worst economy in living memory. Granholm, who now represents the Pew Charitable Trusts Clean Energy Program, said other countries have been much more aggressive than the United States in pushing for clean energy, while this country has a patchwork of state policies and no strong national program to promote such technologies. In searching for what Granholm called pragmatic energy policies that can get bipartisan support even in the current highly polarized political debate, her organization has identified four specific policy priorities, she said. First, a national renewable energy standard would call for at least 20 percent of the nations energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, she said. Such a policy sends a market signal that would help businesses focus on developing needed technologies. A second priority, she said, is encouraging more energy efficiency in industrial facilities. She pointed to the example of a French company called Veolia Energy, which develops combined heat and power systems that can be up to 90 percent efficient in using natural gas, the cleanest of all fossil fuels, compared to typical fossil-fuel powerplant efficiencies of around 50 percent. Granholm pointed out that so much energy is wasted in U.S. powerplants in the form of heat that if

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

229

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
you could just capture that waste heat, you could power the entire nation of Japan. Third, she said, is to push for more electrification of the transportation system including a 25 percent market share for new electric cars by 2020 and improved efficiency for non-electric vehicles. That would help spur the growth of companies such as the MIT-spinoff A123 Systems, which is already hiring hundreds of people for its new battery factories. And fourth, she said, is to increase the amount of money we, as a nation, invest in energy development. ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energys agency for investment in innovative energy technology, currently has a budget of $3.8 billion per year. If we boost that to $16 billion, we could really be on the map as a major producer of energy systems, she said. Granholm pointed out that since 2004, there has been a 630 percent increase in private-sector investment in clean energy worldwide. In 2008, the United States was number one in production of clean-energy technology, but by 2009 China had surged ahead, and in 2010 both China and Germany were ahead of the United States. Every day, businesses make decisions about where to locate, and without a strong clean-energy policy, the countrys competitive position will continue to ratchet down, she said. While some people worry that implementing any national policy on clean energy may be difficult right now given the polarized atmosphere in Washington, Granholm said, a recent national survey gives reason for hope. Eighty-four percent of Americans want to see a national energy policy that encourages renewable energy and efficiency, a number that includes 74 percent of Republicans, and even a majority of Tea Party members, she said. Patrick said fostering clean-energy technologies is good for us, its good for the environment, its good for the economy, its good for jobs. So lets get on with it!

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

230

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Castor

Castor will maintain Weiners strong commitment to clean energy
Hill (blog) 6/22 (Andrew Restuccia, 6/22/11, " Rep. Castor gets Weiner's Energy and Commerce seat ", http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/677-e2-wire/167865-rep-castor-get-weiners-energy-and-commerce-seat)//ZY House Democrats officially tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to take former Rep. Anthony Weiners (D-N.Y.) seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. [C]astor will add a strong, committed voice to advancing our core goals, as a party and as a nation: promoting commerce, preserving public health, pursuing a clean energy future, and investing in technologies that will drive our economic growth, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Castor served on the panel in the last Congress, but lost her seat when Republicans took over the House. She is the most senior of the seven Democrats who lost their seats after the 2010 midterm elections. Weiner resigned from Congress last week.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

231

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Lieberman

Lieberman pushed through energy efficient jobs in Connecticut- supports green energy
Patch.com 6/23 (Dirk Langeveld, 6/23/11, " New London Unemployed To Benefit From Green Jobs Grant ", http://newlondon.patch.com/articles/new-london-unemployed-to-benefit-from-green-jobs-grant)//ZY Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal announce $5.8 million Green Jobs Innovation grant assisting 975 unemployed from seven communities Unemployed workers from New London will be among 975 people receiving benefits from a $5.8 million green jobs grant, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Joe Lieberman announced. The senators said the funding from the Green Jobs Innovation Fund, part of the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, will be given to the Connecticut Department of Labor. The purpose of the grant is to train employees in careers in green industry, such as solar panel installation, sustainable agriculture, energy efficiency, and Brownfield remediation. The grant will be used to train residents from Bridgeport, Bristol, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, and Waterbury. Thanks to the Green Jobs Innovation Fund, this grant will prove to be a major investment in Connecticuts workforce and its environment, Lieberman said in a joint statement issued by the senators. At a time where jobs are hard to come by, this program will provide many underemployed and unemployed workers throughout Connecticut with the skills necessary to participate in the growing green energy industry. This grant is crucial to the growth of green jobs in Connecticut and to ensuring that our workers have tools they need to compete in this developing sector. These smart investments in job training are vital to the continual development of good-paying green jobs that are the economic future of our state and our country, said Blumenthal. I look forward to continuing to provide support to these types of strong grant applications that will foster our economic recovery and put Connecticut back to work.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

232

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Nelson

Nelson supports space heg hes negotiated on behalf of NASA before Florida Today.6/24/2011, NASA faces subpoena on heavy-lift rocket work.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110624/NEWS02/106240330/NASA-faces-subpoena-heavy-lift-rocket-work//ZY The compromise, negotiated by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, was enacted by Congress as a law guiding NASA policy. Congress ordered that NASA leverage its previous investment in the shuttle and Constellation program and build a vehicle that could be operational by end of 2016.The congressional compromise has been contentious because of competition for scarce federal funding, and because NASA warned that it probably couldn't make that deadline with the funding being provided. NASA has not fully responded to a May 18 request from the Senate science committee for documents relating to development of that rocket, which was intended to help NASA astronauts eventually reach asteroids and Mars. "We regret that NASA appears to be unwilling to cooperate in our efforts to conduct legitimate congressional oversight," Rockefeller and Hutchison wrote Wednesday. "In spite of repeated requests by committee staff, NASA has not offered any valid basis for why it is withholding these and other documents that are clearly responsive to our May 18 letter." Nelson's spokesman, Dan McLaughlin, said lawmakers and NASA "have the exact same goal, which is to make sure America maintains its leadership in science and technology driven by a robust space program." Wednesday's letter says science committee staffers spoke with NASA officials on June 7 about why the staffers hadn't received any of 19 drafts of a report about development of the heavy-lift rocket and its crew capsule.

Nelson is a former astronaut and supports space spending- even during budget cuts USA Today, 6/23/11 Standing tall, Atlantis awaits on launch pad 39A at Cape Canaveral for the final liftoff by a NASA space
shuttle., Before Atlantis' last flight, shuttle era's legacy debated, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-06-27-shuttleatlantis-last_n.htm//ZY That has led to clashes with legislators from states loaded with space shuttle jobs, such as Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a former astronaut who has called for more spending on a heavy rocket, one capable of reaching the moon. Amid budget cutting in Congress, the replacement for the shuttle looks like a potential casualty, former NASA chief Griffin warns. "The regret in retiring the shuttle is not that we're retiring a 30-year-old system. That's to be expected," Griffin says. "The regret is that we're not moving on to something that can do more for us. We're not moving on to anything. I was in favor of retiring the shuttle if that was the price of building a system that could take us back to the moon and beyond. I'm not in favor of retiring the shuttle and replacing it with nothing. That is what is going to happen."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

233

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Pelosi

Pelosi supports alternative energy Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer at the renewable energy world, 200 7, Pelosi Supports Important U.S. Solar and Fuel Cell Bill,
renewablenergyworld.com In a meeting last Wednesday with solar and environmental lobbyists, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for H.R. 550, an important bill that would extend the residential and commercial investment tax credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell equipment for eight years -- and revise other key tax credits for those industries. Pelosi and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom met with members of the Vote Solar Initiative, PV Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council at the Mascone Convention Center to discuss legislative priorities for the environment and renewable energy. "Speaker Pelosi stressed the need to work across party lines for long-term support of solar and other renewables. She was especially supportive of H.R. 550, which will do great things for the solar industry," said David Hochschild, Executive Director of PV Now. Hochschild was one of the solar advocates who met with Pelosi and Newsom. H.R. 550, also known as the "Securing America's Energy Independence Act," would extend the residential and commercial ITC for eight years, modify the residential and commercial tax credit for photovoltaic systems to $1,500 per half kilowatt, remove the 30% cap for commercial installations and the $2,000 cap on residential installations and provide three-year accelerated depreciation for commercial solar and fuel cell projects.

Pelosi pledged to address climate change

National Journal 6/23 (Coral Davenport, 6/23/11, " Pawlenty: Running from His Past Moves on Environmental Policy ", http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pawlenty-running-from-his-past-moves-on-environmental-policy-20110623)//ZY This year, many of the GOP contenders are grappling with past deviations from party doctrine. Newt Gingrich once made an ad with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader whom Republicans like to demonize as a liberal Cruella De Vil, pledging to address climate change. Jon Huntsman, as governor of Utah, was the chief promoter of the Western Climate Initiative, a plan under which Utah would have joined California and other states in a regional cap-and-trade system. Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, worked on a similar plan for Northeastern states, though he ultimately refused to sign on.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

234

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Reid

Reid supports solar energy ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 20 11 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-

Solar programs also remain popular in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fought off efforts early this year by the House to end the loan-guarantee program that helps solar companies secure financing for their projects. Reid announced last month that the Energy Department will provide conditional guarantees for the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Tonopah, Nev., creating nearly 5,000 jobs in his state, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. Solar lobbyists said they believe at least one of the two sections of the loan-guarantee program will survive, although it is not yet clear how much money it will receive. McClintock, the California congressman, and other conservatives, including Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., wrote letters this month asking the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to end the loan guarantees. The subcommittee approved $160 million for loan guarantees, far less than the $1 billion sought by the administration but enough to keep the program alive. The fate is less certain for the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program, which gives solar companies a grant equal to 30 percent of the cost of a solar system as an incentive to develop solar projects. It was intended to help companies that were struggling in the sluggish economy. The program has been crucial to companies such as SolarCity, which has an operations center in Phoenix that installs solar electricity systems in homes and businesses.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

235

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Schumer

Schumer supports clean energy
Hill (blog) 6/22 (Erik Wasson, 6/22/11, " Dems call for stimulus in debt deal as CBO offers warnings ", http://thehill.com/blogs/onthe-money/budget/167965-dems-call-for-stimulus-in-debt-deal-as-cbo-offers-warnings)//ZY Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats said the slowing economy demands a deficit-reduction package that includes provisions to create jobs. We can have job creation embedded as part of the deficit-reduction package, Schumer said after a press conference touting the message. He and other Democrats mentioned an expanded and extended payroll tax reduction as one measure that would boost an economy the Federal Reserve says is slowing, but offered no specifics on the proposal. They noted the CBO report warned near-term spending cuts could hurt the economy, and they said they would pay for their stimulus plan with other offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. The Fed lowered its outlook on the economy on Wednesday, predicting it would grow between 2.7 and 2.9 percent in 2011, down from an earlier 3.1 to 3.3 percent estimate in April. Schumer argued Republicans are focusing on the deficit at the peril of the economy, and that infrastructure spending and support for clean energy are other stimulus measures that should be considered by Congress. It is hard to figure out why Republicans would say no for three reasons: Its pro-business, its a tax cut, and many of them have supported it in the past, he said. Schumer suggested that opposition to the stimulus proposal could come because the GOP deliberately wants to scuttle the economy in order to prevent Obama from being reelected.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

236

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Tea Party

The Tea Party supports free market alternative energy Mike Antheil, Bachelors degree from Jacksonville University, 6/13, The Tea Party and renewable energy: An odd couple with a lot
in common, examiner.com An 11% unemployment rate and an increasingly uncertain energy supply has led to an inevitable meeting between two different political forces - members of the Tea Party movement are lending their ears, and their cheers, to another movement - renewable energy. Peter Holzworth is a self described fiscal conservative, social libertarian, and avid supporter of free market Tea Party values. Peter runs Pennington Asset Management, a South Florida based financial services firm which offers financing to, among other things, the renewable energy industry. Although the hedge fund that he runs is booming, the renewable energy finance side of his business is on life support. Without a substantial change in the way Floridas government gives monopolistic control to the states investor owned utility companies, Holzworth will likely close up shop in Florida and seek to finance renewable energy projects in one of the other 40 or so states that are light-years ahead of Florida on renewable energy policies. Their website, which proclaims: Attention Big Government get out of the way of individuals wishing to pursue their own purchase or production of renewable energy! supports a goal of advancing renewable energy production through competition and free market principals.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

237

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Solar Lobby

Solar lobby has influence ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 20 11 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, congress-funding-cuts.html//ZY http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-

Solar advocates say they believe they can change some minds about solar in the House when they point out that there are solar companies in every state in the nation and in many congressional districts. That doesn't always work, though, as Schweikert's opposition to the loan-guarantee program shows. First Solar is based in his district. "I think solar is sometimes mistakenly thought of as a small, niche industry when it actually creates jobs all across the country," Caperton said. "It's not just California and Arizona - there are manufacturing companies in Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, all over the place."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

238

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular Pickens Lobby

Pickens has immense sway over republicans- convinced republicans to support clean tech before
Washington Times 6/14 (Ned Ryun, 6/14/11, " RYUN: Republican energy crisis http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/republican-energy-crisis/)//ZY Further, the bill is a perfect example of crony capitalism, and the GOP takes a great risk with tea party members if they go through with it. T. Boone Pickens has spent millions courting lawmakers for this legislation. He also just happens to be the largest shareholder in Clean Energy Fuels, which owns 200 natural gas stations across the country. Clean Energy Fuels owns BAF Technologies, which is one of the largest companies that converts vehicles to run on natural gas, and Mr. Pickens also owns the mineral rights to almost 200,000 acres believed to have significant natural gas reserves. He's lined it all up for personal profit, and now just needs the bill to pass and be signed into law. In supporting the Pickens bill, Republicans are playing the same Washington game they ran against in 2010. This bill, if enacted, would make Mr. Pickens a fortune, give the president a victory, insert government further into the marketplace and hand the taxpayers a huge bill. ",

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

239

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Popular A2 Fuel Lobbies

Clean renewable energy thrives despite fuel lobbies best efforts Clean Technica, U.S. Military Vaults into Clean Energy Future Despite Fossil Fuel Lobby, July 17, 2010, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-vaults-into-clean-energ-2010-07//ZY
There they go again: right when the U.S. military completes yet another project to reduce CO2 emissions, the fossil fuel industry plays Debbie Downer. This weeks matchup involved our own U.S. Air Force, which has just announced its latest solar power installation with cheery pride, versus an industry group called CO2 is Green, which has just launched a new campaign proclaiming that more C02 is good because it supports all plant life. Hey, whose corner should we be in? Throughout the last century, the U.S. achieved global military advantage primarily due to fossil fuels, but energy technology changes over time and sooner or later fossil fuels are destined to give way to new energy sources and energy storage solutions that serve modern military purposes far more effectively, and far less expensively. The fossil fuel industry may be entitled to fight for its life but meanwhile the U.S. military is going full steam ahead into a cleaner, safer renewable energy future. Renewable Energy and National Security The military isnt pushing clean energy just to needle the fossil fuel industry. Based partly on its considerable collection of hard data on climate change, the military has been right up front in stating that climate change is a national security risk, that continued reliance on fossil fuels puts our troops needlessly at risk in military operations, and that clean renewable energy is vital to a strong national defense strategy. Baby Talk from the Fossil Fuel Industry In contrast to the hard data, research, and policy offered by the U.S. military, the fossil fuel industry is serving up pablum. The CO2 is Green website is one example. In its effort to weaken public support for federal climate legislation that would support CO2 reduction, the website descends to a reading level more appropriate to elementary school than serious adult conversation. Observations like more CO2 results in a greener earth and man-made CO2 contributes to plant growth are just a couple of examples. Another example of this condescending attitude is the Faces of Coal campaign, in which, mountaintop coal mining (literally, blowing up mountains right here in the U.S.) is touted as something that improves mountains that used to be straight up and down and makes the landscape more visually pleasing. Grown-Up Action from the U.S. Military While the fossil fuel industry is busy talking down to the public, the military is taking action on every clean energy front, from high tech energy efficient office buildings to the largest solar power installation in North America. Thats where our tax dollars should be going to support a strong, modern national defense policy, and not to continue providing billions in tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels that have outlived their time

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

240

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 A2 Flip Flop
Obama wants clean-energy but the 2 parties are split Suzanne M. Logan, JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 2007 magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review, Executive Editor, 2/25, Democrats, Republicans illustrate contrasting stances on federal support for clean energy, cleanenergylawreport.com Clean energy development and deployment was one of the central themes of President Barack Obamas State of the Union address. The President urged Americans to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world and stressed that, with respect to clean energy, this is our generations Sputnik moment. President Obama emphasized two clean energy-related goals for the United States in his address: (a) to become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and (b) to have 80 percent of the countrys electricity be generated from clean energy sources. Following the State of the Union address, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted to Congress (PDF) the Presidents Fiscal Year 2012 budget request of $29.5 billion, a $3.1 billion (11.8 percent) increase from the DOEs FY 2010 budget. Included in the proposed budget are (a) an additional $200 million to pay the credit subsidy costs for loan guarantees for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects under Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PDF), which the DOE estimates should support an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in loan guarantees, (b) up to $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects, and (c) $650 million (including $100 million from the Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative) for the Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy (ARPA-E), to support early-stage clean energy research projects. In stark contrast, Republicans in the House recently introduced, and the House passed on February 19, 2011, a Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1) (PDF), which, among other things, proposes over $100 billion in cuts from the Presidents FY 2011 budget request. Among other budget cuts, the Continuing Resolution (a) reduces by $25 billion the total principal amount for DOE loan guarantee commitments available for projects, other than nuclear projects, under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (PDF) (which made a total principal amount of up to $47 billion available) (Section 1425), (b) rescinds all unobligated balances (as of February 11, 2011) of discretionary appropriations under Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PDF), including funds to pay credit subsidy costs for loan guarantees under Section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for renewable energy and electric transmission projects (for more information on Section 1705 loan guarantees, see Lathams Client Alerts on this topic) (Section 3001), and (c) reduces from $250 million to $50 million the budget for ARPA-E (Section 1417).

Obama already came out and supported solar power- your link is not unique ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 20 11 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-powercongress-funding-cuts.html//ZY Ally found in Obama The solar industry has an ally in Obama, who has called for a national clean-energy standard with a goal of generating 80 percent of the nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035. Although there is little chance that Congress will approve that ambitious goal, the administration could take steps on its own to help the solar industry by allowing federal agencies to enter into long-term agreements to purchase solar power, Resch said.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

241

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Obama backing Guevarra, Leslie Guevarra, is an editor at GreenBizz.com, She has been a reporter and editor online and in print, an associate producer and public affairs program host on television, and a podcaster, June 14, 2011, Obama Pushes for More Cleantech, Green
Jobs and Training, http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/06/14/obama-pushes-more-clean-tech-green-jobs-and-training?page=0%2C1 Facing heavy criticism for a sluggish economic recovery, U.S. President Barack Obama brought his talk about the importance of growing more green jobs to a thriving LED factory in North Carolina Monday."Today, the single most serious economic problem we face is getting people back to work," Obama acknowledged in his address to employees, business leaders and others gathered yesterday afternoon at Cree Inc. in Durham.But the president also took the opportunity to resound key tenets of his administration -- that clean energy, energy efficiency and the industries and innovations supporting them are key to the country's economic recovery. And he recapped progress that has occurred since he came to office."We stabilized the economy," he said. "We prevented a financial meltdown. An economy that was shrinking is now growing. Weve added more than 2 million private sector jobs over the last 15 months alone ... But Im still not satisfied. I will not be satisfied until everyone who wants a good job that offers some security has a good job that offers security."Job growth and the economy are vulnerable points for Obama and his administration. The U.S. unemployment rate edged up to 9.1 percent in May from 9 percent in April, having been 8.8 percent in March. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the slight shift in May means that the unemployment picture was "essentially unchanged" compared to the prior month, the figures fueled further partisan acrimony. In fact, jobs were the subject of the first question in the televised debate last night among seven Republicans who are vying for the party's nomination in the 2012 presidential race. As expected, the presidential hopefuls slammed the incumbent on the issues of jobs and the economy.While visiting Cree and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, Obama talked of what his administration has done to back education opportunities, training and other efforts to create jobs. He also convened his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness at Cree and pointed out the growth that the host firm has experienced in the past three years."This company has made amazing progress," said Obama, who first visited Cree during his primary campaign in May 2008. "The technology at this company is growing in leaps and bounds." In the past two years, the manufacturer of energy efficient lighting has filled almost 750 full-time positions, added a new lighting production line and broken ground for a new facility on its campus. The production line expansion project, which boosted capacity and capabilities, was bolstered by $39 million in cleantech manufacturingrelated tax credits.Cree and other businesses in the innovation hub of Research Triangle Park have a rich academic base to draw from for recruits with the University of North Carolina, Duke and North Carolina State University -- the alma mater of Cree's founders -- so nearby, Obama said. As a whole, however, the country is not producing enough talent to fill the high-tech and highly skilled jobs that are available today. "Right now, there are more than four job-seekers for every job opening in America," Obama said. "But when it comes to science and high-tech fields, the opposite is true. The businesses represented here tell me theyre having a hard time finding high-skilled workers to fill their job openings."To that end, Obama said, commitments last week by the private sector, colleges and the National Association of Manufacturers will "make it possible for 500,000 community college students to earn industry-accepted credentials for manufacturing jobs that companies across America are looking to fill."Also, the president and the jobs council unveiled an "all-hands-on-deck strategy" yesterday that he said will enable 10,000 new American engineers to be trained every year.

Obama wants TECH AP, Associated Press, June 26, 2011, Obama pushes high-tech agenda,
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-26/news/29706451_1_iowa-poll-michele-bachmann-caucus-goers WASHINGTON Technological innovations can help create jobs and spur growth in clean energy and advanced manufacturing, President Obama said during his weekly radio and Internet address yesterday. Obama promoted a plan he outlined Friday in which the government would join with universities and corporations to reignite the manufacturing sector with an emphasis on cutting-edge research and technologies. Their mission is to come up with a way to get ideas from the drawing board to the manufacturing floor to the marketplace as swiftly as possible, which will help create quality jobs and make our businesses more competitive, Obama said in the address.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

242

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 ***PLAN UNPOPULAR***

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

243

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular General

Subsidizing solar would create a firestorm of controversy- powerful lobbies, industry leaders, environmentalists and conservative economists NYT, By JOHN M. BRODER, Published: January 31, 2011, Obamas Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html//ZY Previous efforts have run up against bipartisan opposition in Congress and heavy lobbying from producers of oil, natural gas and coal. The head of the oil and gas lobby in Washington contends that the president has it backward that the industry subsidizes the government, through billions of dollars in taxes and royalties, not the other way around. But even as the president says he wants to do away with incentives for fossil fuels, his policies continue to provide for substantial aid to oil and gas companies as well as billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, nuclear and other energy sources with large and long-lasting environmental impacts. Mr. Obamas proposal rekindles a long-running debate over federal subsidies for energy of all kinds, including petroleum, coal, hydropower, wind, solar and biofuels. Opposition to such subsidies often euphemistically referred to as incentives, tax credits, preferences or loan guarantees spans the ideological spectrum, from conservative economists who believe such breaks distort the marketplace to environmentalists who believe that renewable energy sources will always lose out in subsidy fights because of the power of the entrenched fossil fuel industries. David W. Kreutzer, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the federal government should take its thumb off the scale by eliminating subsidies for all forms of energy, even it if means slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources. We would like to get rid of all subsidies, Dr. Kreutzer said. We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I dont know if thats true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down. H. Jeffrey Leonard, president of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity firm that invests in clean-technology ventures, said that the current subsidy structure was the legacy of 60 years of lobbying and political jockeying in Washington that largely benefits oil, coal, nuclear power and corn-based ethanol. He calls for scrapping all subsidies and letting fuel sources compete on equal ground. Mr. Obama is not willing to go that far. He has supported favored tax treatment for wind and solar power as well as a 50 percent increase in federal research spending on other alternative energy sources. He also has proposed as much as $50 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, money he believes is needed because the private market is unwilling to assume the potential costs of a catastrophic accident. Energy economists say that the presidents call in the State of the Union address for doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035 is designed to manipulate energy markets, forcing utilities to shift to the governments preferred sources of energy on the governments timetable, although
leaving to them the choice of fuels. A White House spokesman put it a bit more benignly. The plan the president outlined would establish a clear goal for clean energy and let utilities achieve that in the most cost-effective way possible, the official said. Mr. Obamas policies encourage utilities to switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas to generate electricity, which simply substitutes one fossil fuel for another and helps subsidize natural gas exploration and distribution. The president is also proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants and oil refineries, another hidden subsidy for fossil fuels. And, many environmentalists argue, every day that goes by without a policy to put a price on carbon emissions from all sources is a day in which the federal government subsidizes energy producers by socializing the long-term health and environmental costs of their products. My view is

the country is better off on having a neutral playing field for all forms of energy, said Douglas Koplow, founder of Earth Track, a group in Cambridge, Mass., that studies global energy subsidies. President Obama defines clean fuels as natural gas, coal with carbon capture, nuclear, Mr. Koplow said. From my perspective, if you subsidize carbon capture and storage, thats a big subsidy for coal. Nuclear is massively subsidized through a risk transfer from shareholders to ratepayers. Its hard to justify these technologies that cant make it on their own. If were really concerned about greenhouse gases, we should deal with the problem and cap them, he added. Instead, politicians and lobbyists want to carve out policies for their own industries. Mr. Obama specifically proposes to eliminate roughly $4 billion a year in more than a half-dozen tax exemptions for oil and gas companies and an additional $200 million a year in preferences for coal. The tax breaks for oil have a long history the socalled percentage depletion allowance for oil and natural gas wells dates to the 1920s and have withstood repeated efforts to kill them. The president proposed a global end to such subsidies at the Group of 20 meeting in 2009, and while most nations endorsed the idea in theory, little has been done. And Mr. Obama will have a tough fight trying to get even these relatively modest proposals enacted over the objections of the oil and coal industries, who argue that such tax treatment is necessary to keep drillers drilling and miners mining. This is a tired old argument weve been hearing for two years now, said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industrys main lobby in Washington. If the president were serious about
job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers. Mr. Gerard noted that there was bipartisan opposition to lifting the tax breaks, adding: The federal government by no stretch of the imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day. Michael Levi, an energy and climate change analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said calls for an end to energy subsidies missed a broader point: that embryonic energy technologies will need some government help to gain a foothold against the fossil fuel lobbies. Id love to find a quick fix for Americas energy problems just as much as the next guy, Mr. Levi wrote last week on his blog. Id also be delighted to have a reason to cut subsidies, many of which are hugely wasteful, he added. But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of traditional fossil fuels against their competitors.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

244

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Congress

DOD space projects are extremely unpopular Dwayne A. Day, American space historian and policy analyst and served as an investigator for the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 6-9-2008, Knights in shining armor The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1
But theres also another factor at work: navet. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoDs less-public record is far worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be started

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

245

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Republicans

Republicans are ideologically opposed- taxes ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 20 11 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-powercongress-funding-cuts.html//ZY WASHINGTON - Congress is threatening to turn off power to the solar-energy industry, sending companies scrambling to save federal programs that have helped finance the creation of a massive solar plant in Gila Bend and other projects throughout the nation. A conservative House bent on slashing federal spending and philosophically opposed to subsidizing solar power and clean energy is trying to reduce or eliminate federal programs that offer grants and loans to the solar industry. And the potential for a national clean-energy standard, advocated by President Barack Obama, that could boost the use of solar power also is fading in a Congress that takes a dim view of government mandates about what kind of energy Americans should use. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-fundingcuts.html#ixzz1QX9IuHUo On the endangered list is a U.S. Treasury grant program, set to expire in December, that solar companies say has kept them alive through the economic downturn. Also threatened: an Energy Department loan-guarantee program that provided a $1.45billion guarantee for the Solana project in Gila Bend, which will be one of the world's largest solar plants, and a conditional guarantee of nearly $1 billion to build the Agua Caliente power plant in Yuma County, which has solar panels made from Tempe-based First Solar Inc. Part of that loan program is slated to end Oct. 1. If Congress does not renew the programs, all of the recent progress made by the solar industry could be derailed. The industry grew 67 percent last year - faster than any other U.S. industry - and employs about 100,000 people nationwide, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a national trade group with about 1,000 solar companies as members. "Is the solar industry going to die if we lose these programs? No, but we're going to stall," said Roger Efird, managing director of Suntech America Inc., which added 30 jobs in May at its manufacturing plant in Goodyear. "We'll certainly lose a lot of jobs, there's no doubt about that." Solana would not have been possible without the loan-guarantee program, said Fred Morse, senior adviser for U.S. operations for Abengoa Solar of Spain, which is building the plant and will operate it for APS. Since Solana is under way, it will not be affected if Congress ends or cuts the two sections of the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, but future Abengoa projects could be. "The commercial banks today cannot lend money long-term at acceptable rates," Morse said. "The loan has to be at a rate that will leave us with enough revenue to pay off the debt. The federal loan-guarantee program is essential. Without it, Solana would not be built." But critics say it's time for the solar industry to stand on its own and to compete in the free market without any help from struggling American taxpayers. "If you take a gun and force taxpayers to hand over their earnings to a solar company, that solar company is going to do very well, but the taxpayers end up getting screwed with nothing to show for it at the end of the day," said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who has led efforts by House conservatives to end loan guarantees and grants for the solar industry and other renewable-energy industries. "We've spent billions on technology and research and subsidies, and it's still the most expensive way of generating electricity." Solar costs dropping Solar power and offshore wind power are the most expensive ways to generate electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the cost of solar energy is dropping as the technology becomes more efficient and the industry expands, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The average price of an installed solar system in a home, business or power plant fell more than 20 percent nationwide from the beginning of 2010 to the end of the year, the association said. And analysts say it's unfair to talk about solar standing on its own when the federal government has been subsidizing the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries for decades. The history of subsidies includes tax incentives to drill for oil, federally financed dams to generate hydroelectric power and research funding for nuclear power and clean-coal technologies. "The government has been involved in energy from day one," said Richard Caperton, an energy analyst with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "The government has always played a role in the energy mix through providing incentives to certain technologies or making it easier to use certain technologies. Transmission lines to coal-fired power plants were built with taxpayer subsidies. If we stop spending money on some very cost-effective programs for clean energy, all it's going to do is put clean energy at an even bigger competitive disadvantage." A better solution may be to get rid of all federal subsidies for energy, said Nicolas Loris, an energy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Given the financial situation of our government, energy subsidies is not an area where we need to be spending money," he said. But solar advocates argue that the government's investment is paying off. "We need to be fiscally disciplined as a country, but we shouldn't be foolhardy by eliminating programs that create jobs," said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "Ultimately, it's job creation that will reduce our national debt."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

246

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Clean Energy legislation is massively unpopular- recent controversy, self praising administration and unfair company advantages upset republicans
Jeff Foust, a senior analyst and project manager with the Futron Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, where he has worked since late 200 edit and publisher of the space review, Monday, June 27, 2011. The national space policy, one year later, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1873/1//ZY CHARLESTON, W.Va.-- With trips that began two months after he took office, President Obama has devoted more than half of his out-of-town private-business visits to promoting a single industry: clean technology, which the president says will lead the nation back to economic prosperity. His praise for renewable-energy projects has been effusive. A day after this year's State of the Union address, he stood among workers at a small Wisconsin lighting company and dubbed it a "model for the future," helped by government incentives offering a "leg up to renewable-energy companies." He praised workers for "helping to point the way" to a cleaner future while visiting a Charlotte company that makes an electric-car battery component. In Reno, Nev., in April, he lauded a start-up for "growing by leaps and bounds" as it markets a machine that converts waste heat into electricity. He used similar words a few weeks ago at a Durham, N.C., company that makes energy-efficient lighting, saying it is "helping to lead a clean-energy revolution." In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects on 19 separate trips, all emphasizing economic recovery and a $90 billion stimulus program to promote energy independence. The president has underscored his support by singling out specific companies in speeches and White House radio addresses. Obama's unwavering focus has helped him fulfill a campaign pledge to push clean tech, from solar energy and wind power to electric vehicles. But it also has come with political exposure: By emphasizing a sector in which the risks are high, the president has prompted questions on Capitol Hill and from industry about the wisdom of his singular strategy and his political ties to some of the companies chosen for federal attention. The oil and gas industry, for example, has invested billions in energy innovation and job creation and could benefit from similar presidential attention, said Martin J. Durbin, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute. "He's missing an incredible opportunity he has to join with us to make a difference in economic growth, job creation, national security and clean technology," Durbin said. "If you went and added up the number of jobs at these clean-tech companies he visited, in all honesty, I think you're going to find a very modest number of jobs." This month, a congressional energy subcommittee chairman accused the administration of picking clean-tech "winners and losers" by pouring government money into a sector best determined by free-market forces. Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment. Last week, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pressed the Office of Management and Budget to account for its role in the selection. Obama visited Solyndra's factory in May 2010, only weeks after it became public that independent auditors had questioned whether it could remain a "going concern." Along with Capitol Hill fallout, the administration's attention to certain cleantech companies has led to some industry concerns. Executives of some struggling start-ups ask whether the administration rigorously examines companies and their products before endorsing a favored few. "Generally, we're concerned with what kind of due diligence the administration did before throwing out that kind of money and attention," said Bryan Godber, vice president of Trojan Battery, which faced the prospect of higher prices for Polypore products. "They are giving some companies massive advantages over others."

House republicans hate clean tech ERIN KELLY,reporter at Gannett's Washington Bureau Jun. 26, 20 11 12:00 AM, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
Federal grants, loans in jeopardy, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-powercongress-funding-cuts.html//ZY Extending the program will be tough in the House because the grant was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill passed by the Democrat-led House in 2009. Many Republicans hate the act, saying it spent billions of dollars of taxpayer money while creating few jobs. "I think we've got a 50-50 chance of getting the grant program renewed," said Efird of Suntech.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

247

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
GOP will backlash against the plan Denison, Caleb Denison, June 18, 2011, GOP Goons Slash Clean Energys Tires, http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/06/gopofficially-slashes-clean-energys-tires/ Earlier this month we took a look at what the GOP controlled House of Representatives Appropriation Committee has in store for the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) budget by way of the proposed 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This legislation, which provides the annual funding for the various agencies and programs under the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, takes a pretty big swing at some of the DOE programs that support renewable energy such as loan guarantee programs and scientific research and development. It now appears that the bill, with some fresh new amendments added, appears to have been approved by the committee. A statement recently released by the Appropriations Committee chairman, Hal Rogers, goes into some details about the amendments that were implemented and also spends some time taking shots at the Obama Administrations use of funds from the previous budget cycle, criticizing some of the economic programs the administration has supported while defending budget changes under the auspices of public safety and energy security measures. The bill rightly prioritized programs with tangible effects on urgent public safety needs and our economic competitiveness, states Rogers, who later added, Weve made smart and significant spending reductions in areas that have seen massive and unnecessary increases. Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen proposed two of the bills amendments, one of which provides $1 billion in emergency funding to the Army Corps of Engineers for relief efforts to flood victims and future disaster preparedness efforts. In a description of the amendment, the committee explains the source of the considerable funding allowance saying it was offset by a rescission of the remaining emergency High Speed Rail funding that was originally approved in the failed stimulus bill. It is apparent that there are some hard feelings between the Appropriations Committee and the Obama administration evidenced by some of the language that has been used during the announcement and defense of this new budget legislation. However, the massive and unnecessary increases in funding that Mr. Rogers refers to is, in part, responsible for the largest growth in the solar and wind power industries ever recorded, according to recent reports from the Solar Energy Industries Association and the American Wind Energy Association-factors which many would argue contribute to economic growth and security.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

248

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
Plan unpopular- GOP wants spending cuts Sands, Derek Sands, writer for Platts, US House spending panel proposes deep cuts in DOE budget, Mr. Derek Sands received his
Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical Engineering with First Class Honours from the University of Technology, Sydney, June 1, 2011, http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6148275 The US House of Representatives Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday proposed slashing the Department of Energy's fiscal 2012 budget request of $29.5 billion by $5.9 billion. The appropriators targeted some of the energy efficiency and research spending that has been a priority for the Obama administration.House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, released details on the 2012 Appropriations energy and water subcommittee draft bill in advance of a Thursday committee meeting."The committee has taken a hard look at each and every line in this bill to make sure that we are prioritizing taxpayer dollars in programs that have the most benefit to the American people, while cutting back funding for programs that we simply cannot afford or that are not performing up to snuff," Rogers said. "In this time of budget crisis, we have to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions to rein in budgets in order to get our economy back on track." In addition to failing to fund the full administration request for 2012, the proposal would cut DOE's budget $900 million below current spending levels. DOE requested a 12% increase for fiscal 2012 to $29.5 billion, up from $26.4 billion in 2010, which was the reference point the Obama administration used when it proposed the fiscal 2012 budget earlier this year. At that time, Congress had not yet agreed on government funding for fiscal 2011. Some of the major program cuts include a $1.9 billion cut for the agency's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, down 60% from the $3.2 billion requested. Those cuts would target a wide range of initiatives that have been a priority for the White House, including a $290 million cut to solar power, a $200 million cut to an electric-vehicle deployment program, a $321 million to building energy efficiency funding, and a $287 million cut to the Weatherization Assistance Program, which funds energy-efficiency improvements to the homes of low-income families. The panel also proposed cutting funding for DOE's Office of Science by $616 million below the requested $5.4 billion. The subcommittee did not detail what science programs would be cut. The Republican-led House has been critical of DOE's loan guarantee program, and the appropriations bill released Wednesday would almost eliminate the administration's entire funding request, providing only $160 million of the $1.06 billion sought.House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, released details on the 2012 Appropriations energy and water subcommittee draft bill in advance of a Thursday committee meeting.

Plan massively unpopular- GOP hate solar power Kelly , Erin Kelly, writer for Arizona Central, June 26, 2011, Solar power funding threatened by Congress,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/26/20110626solar-power-congress-funding-cuts.html WASHINGTON - Congress is threatening to turn off power to the solar-energy industry, sending companies scrambling to save federal programs that have helped finance the creation of a massive solar plant in Gila Bend and other projects throughout the nation. A conservative House bent on slashing federal spending and philosophically opposed to subsidizing solar power and clean energy is trying to reduce or eliminate federal programs that offer grants and loans to the solar industry. And the potential for a national clean-energy standard, advocated by President Barack Obama, that could boost the use of solar power also is fading in a Congress that takes a dim view of government mandates about what kind of energy Americans should use. On the endangered list is a U.S. Treasury grant program, set to expire in December, that solar companies say has kept them alive through the economic downturn.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

249

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Partisan

Solar power creates infighting amongst dems and reps over technicalities
Washington Examiner (blog) 6/8 (Rand Simberg, 6/8/11, " Space politics makes strange bedfellows http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/06/space-politics-makes-strange-bedfellows)//ZY These words were music to the ears of both the Competitive Space Task Force (full disclosure: of which I am chairman) and Tea Party in Space, a Florida-based group that promotes a vigorous but fiscally responsible space program (something exactly the opposite of what those who make space policy on the Hill seem to want). Hence, Monday's press release lauding the two senators' action. Interestingly and ironically, it sets up a potential battle in the upper chamber over space policy, in which the Democratic senators from California are fighting for a competitive approach (in the interest, of course, of their own home state contractor), against a "conservative" Republican senator from Utah who insists on a wasteful, solesource pork-based one in the interest of his state. Which all goes to show (as we've seen for the last year and a half) that space policy is truly non-partisan, and non-ideological, and it is driven primarily by rent seeking, not a desire to open up space to humanity. As long as space policy remains unimportant, it will continue to be subject to the petty politics of those whose states and districts benefit from the jobs created, even as wealth is destroyed. But the good news is that this may delay things sufficiently long that an expensive, unnecessary rocket never gets built at all. ",

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

250

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Oil/Fossil Fuel Lobby

Oil and fossil fuel lobbies hate the plan that saps capital Darel Preble, former member of the Board of Directors of the National Space Society and systems analyst, physicist and chair of the Space Solar Power Workshop since 1997, 12-15-2006, Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors
Space Solar Power Institute, http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf Changing our nation and our worlds baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a massive battle. The current oil, coal, and gas energy providers, nuclear as well, are not eager to see their baseload investments face competition from SSP, which has zero fuel costs and zero and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been unfunded since it was invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the SSP reference study in 1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced to plan to use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts outside the protection of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is inside the Van Allen Belts) People are also too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real way to assemble SSP, did not exist in 1979. Now it is used in heart surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other uses. (The fossil fuel industry has battled environmentalists every inch during our struggle to understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But half are right.) Most crucially, space transportation costs have stayed too high because there is no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive market. Robert Zubrin mentions this battle and perspective in Entering Space, page 51. He quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no possibility of commercialization this century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW website also. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Fossil fuel lobby hates solar power- empirically block legislation American Recycler Newspaper 6/1 (Mary M. Cox, 6/1/11, " Solar Energy Systems ",
http://www.americanrecycler.com/0611/1017spotlight.shtml)//ZY Although the industry has experienced notable expansion recently, industry growth would have expanded faster under better economic conditions. A lack of energy legislation passage has also been a challenge for the solar industry. After the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), there was significant progress in Congress toward clean energy legislation, but the fossil fuel lobby proved formidable; and, once again, diminished the potential of the passage of a Clean Energy Act. If a Federal Clean Energy mandate were to occur, then the solar industry might become instantly bankable, and we would see spectacular growth in the industrys revenues and job creation, said Mount. He added, The PV industry has been focused on reducing the price of energy production to a cost at or below that of conventional generation technologies, i.e., grid parity. In recent years, cost reductions have been driven by reduction in the price of PV panels, which have dropped to less than half of what they were five years ago. Equipment manufacturers also continue to provide small increases to the solar equipment efficiencies, but PV trackers can provide a superior method to greatly improve the energy production of PV systems in moving solar power costs closer to grid parity. Solar trackers have been successfully used for many years in the European solar industry but solar trackers have only recently become the standard for large utility scale projects in the United States. Large commercial projects in the States and Canada are now adding solar trackers to improve their project economics.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

251

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Coal Lobby

Coal lobbies are forceful- massive budget increases and public outreach
The Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2008; D0, Coal Mounts New Campaign To Head Off Climate Legislation, Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign//ZY A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change. The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. One of its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls "an American resource that will help us with vital energy security" and "the fuel that powers our way of life." The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants. The group has also deployed teams on the campaign trail; about 50 people, many of them paid, walked around as human billboards and handed out leaflets outside Tuesday's Democratic debate in Nevada with questions for voters to ask the candidates. "In Iowa, there is a saying that you don't get to be president unless you go through Iowa. We'd like to say that you don't get to be president unless you understand how complicated this issue is," Joe Lucas, the group's executive director, said Wednesday night during a stopover en route from Nevada to South Carolina. The group's message -- that coal-fired power plants can be clean, and that more of them are needed to meet the growing demand for electricity -- comes when opposition to new coal plants is mounting because they generate greenhouse gases. In Kansas , where a state agency rejected a permit for two proposed coal plants, opinion polls show that roughly two out of three people opposed the plants. That sentiment, plus soaring construction costs and uncertainty about federal climate change legislation, last year prompted U.S. companies to abandon or postpone plans to build dozens of new coal plants. The coal mining industry is fighting back. It increased the budget of the National Mining Association, the industry's main lobbying group, by 20 percent this year, to $19.7 million. Last September, the industry also boosted the budget of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices more than fourfold. The
roster of backers includes 28 companies and trade associations such as Peabody Energy, Arch Coal,Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The controversy over coal has been especially heated in Nevada, where environmental groups and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, who represents the state, have opposed construction of three new coal-fired power plants. "They're all dirty," Reid said last fall. He urged utilities to rely on energy efficiency and solar and wind power. (Last year, according to a report issued yesterday by the American Wind Energy Association, wind made up 30 percent of all new electricity generating capacity.) On Tuesday night, the issue came up during the debate among the three leading Democratic presidential candidates. Former Sen. John Edwards said, "I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said, "I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon." Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) did not commit himself on coal plants but said Americans had to make their buildings, lighting and appliances "more efficient." "Yes, we do need to be more energy efficient," Lucas said. "But even as we become more efficient, we're plugging more things into the wall." The ads being run by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices talk about "clean coal." New power plants are cleaner than they used to be because they must meet more stringent federal regulations limiting such pollutants as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. But climate change is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, which are not yet regulated; those emissions have dropped more modestly as plants have become more efficient. The group's newspaper ads avoid that distinction. They say that today's carbon-fired plants are "70 percent cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced." That does not refer to carbon dioxide. New coal-plant technologies that might capture carbon dioxide and store, or sequester, it underground are expensive, experimental and not in commercial use. But Lucas says carbon capture and storage "is no longer a pipe dream. It's nearing a point where it's real." Many environmentalists argue that until that time, the United States should focus on renewable energy such as solar and wind. Coal advocates say those energy sources cannot be relied on 24 hours a day and, so far, the energy they produce cannot be easily stored. ABEC's ads, produced by the same firm that made "what happens here stays here" ads to promote Las Vegas to tourists, also talk about "affordable" energy. The group says in a TV ad that the price of coal is one-third that of other fuels. But coal prices have risen, albeit not as much as oil. And environmentalists and economists argue that the price of coal does not include substantial environmental costs. "We welcome a vigorous debate about our energy future and solving global warming. Unfortunately ABEC is spending millions of dollars on misinformation about our energy choices . . . instead of engaging in a real debate about the true costs of coal and clean energy alternatives," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's national coal campaign. Environmentalists are also worried that the ads aired by ABEC so far are just the beginning of what could be a

much bigger offensive once Congress gets down to work on a climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.). An ad targeting that bill is currently being shown on video monitors at the baggage carousels at Dulles International Airport. In 1993, an ad campaign by the health-care industry featuring a fictional couple named Harry and Louise helped torpedo the Clinton administration's health-care proposal. Now, some supporters of the Lieberman-Warner bill fear that the coal industry may use a similar strategy to kill legislation aimed at slowing climate change by stressing potential consumer costs and not the societal benefits. "Big coal may launch a 'Harry and Louise'-style disinformation campaign to sink global warming solutions in Congress," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress. One of the coal industry group's radio ads hints at those themes. A woman asks: "How can we become less dependent on foreign resources? What fuels will keep power bills reasonable and be environmentally responsible?" A man responds, "We have many questions for our candidates, and coal has to be part of the discussion." Lucas is working on that. Last year, he wrote letters that appeared in a dozen newspapers. On Tuesday, he appeared on Nevada public radio. On Wednesday, the group's views were quoted approvingly in an editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal . "We're getting the message out," Lucas said.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

252

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Boehner

Boehner doesnt like alternative Energy- hes voted against it every time, On the Issues, Database of Political leaders and their stances,2010, Ontheissues.com
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. Congressional Summary:Requires utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from a combination of energy efficiency savings and renewable energy (6% in 2012, 9.5% in 2014, 13% in 2016, 16.5% in 2018, and 20% in 2021). Provides for: issuing, trading, and verifying renewable electricity credits; and prescribing standards to define and measure electricity savings from energy efficiency and energy conservation measures. Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set forth a national strategy to address barriers to the commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): For the first time in the history of our country, we will put enforceable limits on global warming pollution. At its core, however, this is a jobs bill. It will create millions of new, clean-energy jobs in whole new industries with incentives to drive competition in the energy marketplace. It sets ambitious and achievable standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass so that by 2020, 20% of America's energy will be clean. Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BOB GOODLATTE (R, VA-6): I agree that this bill has very important consequences, but those consequences are devastating for the future of the economy of this country. It's a fantasy that this legislation will turn down the thermostat of the world by reducing CO2 gas emissions when China & India & other nations are pumping more CO2 gas into the atmosphere all the time. We would be far better served with legislation that devotes itself to developing new technologies before we slam the door on our traditional sources of energy like coal and oil and and nuclear power. We support the effort for energy efficiency. We do not support this kind of suicide for the American economy. Unfortunately, cap and trade legislation would only further cripple our economy. Reference: American Clean Energy and Security Act; Bill H.R.2454 ; vote number 2009-H477 on Jun 26, 2009 Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. Congressional Summary:Extends the tax credit for producing electricity from renewable resources: (1) through 2009 for wind facilities; and (2) through FY2011 for closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irrigation power, landfill gas, trash combustion, and hydropower facilities. Includes marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy as a renewable resource for purposes of such tax credit. Includes cellulosic biofuel within the definition of "biomass ethanol plant property" for purposes of bonus depreciation. Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. RICHARD NEAL (D, MA-2): This bill contains extensions of popular tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. This needs to get under way. The R&D tax credit is important. This bill includes a number of popular and forward-thinking incentives for energy efficiency. This is a very balanced bill which does no harm to the Federal Treasury. It asks that hedge fund managers pay a bit more, and it delays an international tax break that hasn't gone into effect yet. It is responsible legislation. Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DAVE CAMP (R, MI-4): We are conducting another purely political exercise on a tax bill that is doomed in the other body because of our House majority's insistence on adhering to the misguided PAYGO rules. The Senate acted on a bipartisan basis to find common ground on this issue. They approved a comprehensive tax relief package containing extenders provisions that are not fully offset, as many Democrats would prefer, but contain more offsets than Republicans would like. Why is this our only option? Because the Senate, which has labored long and hard to develop that compromise, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is not going to reconsider these issues again this year. [The bill was killed in the Senate]. Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act; Bill H.R.7060 ; vote number 2008-H649 on Sep 26, 2008 Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. OnTheIssues.org Explanation:This bill passed the House but was killed in the Senate on a rejected Cloture Motion, Senate rollcall #150Congressional Summary:A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incen Credits for biodiesel and renewable diesel. Sec. 124. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. Sec. 127. Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters. Sec. 146. Qualified green building and sustainable design project Reference: Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act; Bill HR6049 ; vote number 2008-344 on May 21, 2008 Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008: Production Incentives: Extends through 2011 the tax credit for the production of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower). Extends through 2016 the energy tax credit for investment in solar energy and fuel cell property. Allows a new tax credit for the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Extends through 2010 the tax credits for biodiesel (including agri-biodiesel) Allows an alcohol fuels tax credit for the production of qualified cellulosic alcohol fuel. Denies the tax deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, gas, or any related products. SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. MATSUI: Today's debate is about investing in renewable energy, which will chart a new direction for our country's energy policy. This bill restores balance to our energy policy after years of a tax structure that favors huge oil companies. Today's legislation will transfer some of the massive profits enjoyed by these oil companies and invest them in renewable resources that will power our economy in the future. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. SMITH of Texas: I oppose H.R. 5351. While it is well and good to encourage alternative energy development, Congress

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

253

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
should not do so by damaging our domestic oil and gas industry. In 2006 all renewable energy sources provided only 6% of the US domestic energy supply. In contrast, oil and natural gas provided 58% of our domestic energy supply. The numbers don't lie. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy and sustain our way of life. Furthermore, almost 2 million Americans are directly employed in the oil and natural gas industry. Punishing one of our Nation's most important industries does not constitute a national energy policy. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 236-182 Reference: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act; Bill H.R.5351 ; vote number 08-HR5351 on Feb 12, 2008 Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. H.R.3221: New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act: Moving toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, modernizing our energy infrastructure, and providing tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. Proponents support voting YES because: Rep. PELOSI: This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East. Rep. TIERNEY: This bill incorporates the Green Jobs Act, which will make $120 million a year available to begin training workers in the clean energy sector. 35,000 people per year can benefit from vocational education for "green-collar jobs" that can provide living wages & upward mobility. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Rep. SHIMKUS: I'm upset about the bill because it has no coal provisions. What about coal-to-liquid jobs? Those are real jobs with great wages. Energy security? We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East because it's an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal-to-liquid technologies. What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No ethanol. No coal. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill. Rep. RAHALL: [This bill omits a] framework to sequester carbon dioxide to ensure the future use of coal in an environmentally responsible fashion. We can talk about biofuels all we want, but the fact is that coal produces half of our electricity for the foreseeable future. We must aggressively pursue technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide. Reference: New Direction for Energy Independence; Bill HR3221 ; vote number 2007-0832 on Aug 4, 2007 Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. Amends the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to declare it to be illegal for any foreign states to act collectively to limit the US price or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product. Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts Proponents support voting YES because: Gas prices have now reached an alltime record high, $3.27 a gallon, topping even the 1981 spike. This won't be the end of these skyrocketing price hikes either. OPEC oil exports represent 70% of all the oil traded internationally. For years now, OPEC's price-fixing conspiracy has unfairly driven up the price and cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but have done little or nothing to stop this. The time has come. This bill makes fixing oil prices or illegal under US law, just as it would be for any company engaging in the same conduct. It attempts to break up this cartel and subject these colluders and their anticompetitive practices to the antitrust scrutiny that they so richly deserve. Opponents support voting NO because: We can only affect OPEC subsidiaries in the US. So the result of this bill would be to hurt US companies while not affecting OPEC itself. OPEC is a cartel, but we have to deal with it diplomatically. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed for US monopolies, not international state-run cartels. We should focus on domestic policies to affect gas prices. We cannot respond to a short-term crisis with a long-term response. Reference: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC); Bill H R 2264 ; vote number 2007-398 on May 22, 2007 Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products. Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels. Proponents support voting YES because: This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005. It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in the management of our public energy resources. Opponents support voting NO because: I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court. This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels. Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-040 on Jan 18, 2007 Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. Vote to amend a bill providing for

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

254

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
exploration & production of mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf. The underlying bill revises the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's guidelines for natural gas lease administration. Voting YES on the amendment would maintain the 25-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas offshore. Voting NO on the amendment would lift the 25-year moratorium, and establish incentives to renegotiate existing leases that fail to include market-based price caps. Proponents support voting YES because: This amendment would preserve the longstanding moratorium so important to coastal States. The amendment would also preserve the underlying bill's one redeeming feature, the renegotiating of the cash-cow leases now pouring billions of dollars into already stuffed oil industry coffers. We have only 5% of the world's population, but 30% of the world's automobiles, and we produce 45% of the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions. This addiction harms our environment, our economy and our national security. This underlying bill attempts to bribe coastal States into drilling off their shores by promising them a lot more money. Opponents support voting NO because: For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment. This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future. Reference: Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; Bill H R 4761 ; vote number 2006-354 on Jun 29, 2006 Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. Voting YES would allow floor debate on H.R.5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which provides for the following: The EPA, upon the request of a state governor, shall provide scheduling and financial assistance relevant to consideration of federal refinery authorizations. The President shall designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery. Requires that at least one such site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel. Proponents of the resolution say: Over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day. We must make build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack Opponents of the resolution say: $3 a gallon gas is a problem, but so is global warming, and so is our dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy. There have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976, but there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented construction of a refinery. We should reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation, and work to develop renewable sources of fuel. Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits. Reference: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act; Bill HR 5254 resolution H RES 842 ; vote number 2006-228 on Jun 7, 2006 Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes including: Authorizing the President to designate sites on Federal land for construction of new oil refineries, including at least three on closed military bases Allowing the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with non-Federal entities to construct or restore new refineries that use crude oil or coal to produce gasoline or other fuel Establishing a program to encourage carpools by giving grants to states and to evaluate the use of the Internet to link riders with carpools, assist employers establish carpool programs, and market existing programs Authorizing any facility to use biomass debris as fuel if it meets certain standards, such as resulting from a major disaster $2.5 million to create an education campaign about gasoline conservation Reference: Gasoline for Americas Security Act; Bill HR 3893 ; vote number 2005-519 on Oct 7, 2005 Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. Vote to pass a bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize o $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. It would add to the requirement that gasoline sold in the United States contain a specified volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2004; Bill HR 4503 ; vote number 2004-241 on Jun 15, 2004 Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. Energy Omnibus bill: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would put into practice a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. The bill would authorize a $25.7 billion tax break over a 10-year period. The tax breaks would include $11.9 billion to promote oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska would be authorized an $18 billion loan guarantee. The

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

255

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1
bill would call for producers of Ethanol to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability. They would be required though to cease production of the additive by 2015. Reliability standards would be imposed for electricity transmissions networks, through this bill. The bill would also ease the restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. Reference: Bill sponsored by Tauzin, R-LA; Bill HR.6 ; vote number 2003-630 on Nov 18, 2003 Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. Require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency [CAFE] standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 mpg in 2005 and of 27.5 mpg in 2007. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-311 on Aug 1, 2001 Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. Amendment to maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development. Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2001-317 on Aug 1, 2001 Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. Vote on an amendment that would allow the implementation of the portions of the Kyoto climate change treaty that are already allowed under law. The Kyoto protocol of 1997, which aims to reduce emissions of certain greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, has not been ratified by the United States. The amendment would allow federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to implement procedures already allowed under law that are also part of the Kyoto accord before the treaty is ratified by Congress. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Olver, D-MA; Bill HR 4690 ; vote number 2000-323 on Jun 26, 2000 Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. Boehner scores 0% by CAF on energy issues

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

256

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular McClintock

McClintock avidly opposes government subsidies of energy
Climate Spectator 6/7 (Andrew Leonard, 6/7/11, " Who's anti-energy? ", http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/whosanti-energy)//ZY On June 2, reports the Denver Post, nine House GOP representatives signed a letter sent to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, requesting the elimination of federal funding for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado: "The lawmakers ask that funding in the 2012 budget be eliminated for the Department of Energy's Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs because they 'have failed to live up to their supposed potential.' '...The letter, written by California US Rep. Tom McClintock, says: 'We should not follow the president's poor planning in increasing the funding for these anti-energy boondoggles'." "Anti-energy boondoggles" seems like a strange way to talk about research into wind turbines, solar power, geothermal and biofuel technologies. The most recent numbers tell us that In 2010, China poured a record $US54.4 billion of private and public money in clean energy sector investment, ranking it number one, by a large margin, in the world. Is China anti-energy? Then again, McClintock, who represents one of California's most conservative congressional districts, is a fairly standard exemplar of contemporary Tea Party Republicanism. In that universe, it's really not a shock to see research that might improve solar panel or wind turbine efficiency described as a boondoggle.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

257

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Pawlenty

Pawlenty will never support climate change legislation- immense republican backlash and pressure from recent flip flop and
National Journal 6/23 (Coral Davenport, 6/23/11, " Pawlenty: Running from His Past Moves on Environmental Policy ", http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pawlenty-running-from-his-past-moves-on-environmental-policy-20110623)//ZY Tim Pawlenty has been apologizing to anyone who will listen for his so-called flirtation with cap-and-trade climate policy, recently dismissing his efforts to look at it as misguided and slamming carbon limits as burdensome on the economy. The former Minnesota governor has even renounced his previous conviction about the validity of climate science and now asserts that the research is faulty and cant be trusted. I looked at [cap-and-trade], like most of the other leading candidates did, some years agoflirted with it, for sure, he said in an interview last month on CNBC. But Ive just admitted my mistake and said I was wrong. It would be harmful to the economy. Its based on flawed science, and we should throw it out the window. Pawlentys public squirming over climate changean issue on which he was once viewed as an emerging national leaderhighlights the deeply uncomfortable dance that top GOP contenders will have to execute as they seek to reconcile their past records, their current positions, and their partys increasingly rigid dogma. Supporters of action against climate change have always been a small minority among Republicans. But they werent always considered heretics. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, was an unabashed believer in the reality of climate change and a coauthor in 2003, with Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, of the first Senate cap-and-trade bill. This year, many of the GOP contenders are grappling with past deviations from party doctrine. Newt Gingrich once made an ad with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader whom Republicans like to demonize as a liberal Cruella De Vil, pledging to address climate change. Jon Huntsman, as governor of Utah, was the chief promoter of the Western Climate Initiative, a plan under which Utah would have joined California and other states in a regional capand-trade system. Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, worked on a similar plan for Northeastern states, though he ultimately refused to sign on. Today, all of the GOP candidates vow to fight anything that even hints of restrictions on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Gingrich, who explicitly supported cap-and-trade policies in 2007, now ridicules similar Democratic proposals as cap-and-tax. Huntsman and Romney say they still believe in global warming but insist that this is not the time for new emissions rules. By 2009, it was clear that a rising conservative tide, which would ultimately turn into the tea party juggernaut, was now driving the Republican Party. Pawlenty became almost silent on clean-energy and climate issuesnot to be heard from again until this year, when he went on the airwaves slamming the climate work he had once championed. In January, Pawlenty denied on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace that he had even signed a bill to promote cap-and-trade policies. We never did sign a bill relating to cap-and-trade or putting that into Minnesota, he told Wallace. That was false. The Next Generation Energy Act that Pawlenty signed in 2007 specifically required state agencies to recommend a regulatory system that imposes a cap on the aggregate air-pollutant emissions and allows for marketbased trading of emission allowances. In the Republican presidential candidates first debate earlier this year, on Fox, Pawlenty abjectly apologized for his old positions. I was wrong; it was a mistake, and Im sorry, he said. Nobodys perfect. We all, and everybody here and everybody else whos going to be running for president if youve been in an executive position, youre going to have some battle scars. Youre going to have a few clunkers in your record. We all do. Some GOP strategists say that Pawlenty risks losing more by abandoning causes he appeared to believe in deeply than he would by sticking to his positions and alienating ultra-conservatives. Hes been involved enough in the issue to truly understand the realities of it, said David Jenkins, vice president for government and political affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection. Being that deeply involved, you cant come away without a deep understanding of the science. He disowned his accomplishments to pander to one segment of the Republican Party. Republican strategist Mike McKenna, who advises GOP leaders on energy policy and strategy, put it more bluntly. Guys like Pawlenty now look like what they areopportunists without authentic beliefs, he wrote in an e-mail to National Journal. That is why the issue is so damaging. It is totemic.

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

258

SPS Affirmative

DDW 2011

1 Plan Unpopular Shelby

Shelby opposes government subsidizing space exploration- competition and tax money
al.com 6/16 (Budd McLaughlin, 6/16/11, " Shelby voices concerns to NASA over bidding for booster system ", http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/06/shelby_voices_concerns_to_nasa.html)//ZY HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby has sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden "strongly" encouraging competitive bidding for the Space Launch System booster. Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, said he was concerned that the current plan for the booster system may go "without a meaningful competitive process." Sen. Richard Shelby urges NASA to open bidding process for Space Launch System booster rockets. (The Huntsville Times/Glenn Baeske) This year, NASA named Marshall to lead the development of the heavy-lift Space Launch System, the nation's next manned rocket. Recently, Teledyne Brown announced it had formed a partnership with Aerojet to bid on building liquid fuel engines for the heavy lift rocket. But Shelby noted that the plans for the SLS include a space shuttle booster system. In his letter to Bolden, Shelby wrote that he was also concerned that the space shuttle booster system "ties NASA, once again, to the high fixed costs associated with segmented solids." There have been other concerns, too, that opening the boosters to competitive bidding would lead the space agency to delay the program past its congressionally mandated target date of 2016. The senator wrote that the 2010 NASA Authorization Act calls for using existing contracts, work force and hardware but only "to the extent practicable." Shelby's office has no problem with using the solid boosters for test flights while the liquid engines are being developed. But, the senator wrote he has not seen any evidence "that foregoing competition for the booster system will speed development of SLS or, conversely, that introducing competition will slow the program down." "I strongly encourage you to initiate a competition for the Space Launch System booster. I believe it will ultimately result in a more efficient SLS development effort at lower cost to the taxpayer."

Last printed 7/17/2012 4:44:00 PM

259