MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Space Based Solar Power Case Negative Index Space Based Solar Power Case Negative.......................................................................................1***Case Debate***.......................................................................................................................... 3Frontline versus Solvency (defense)..............................................................................................5Frontline versus Solvency (defense)..............................................................................................6Solvency (defense) Extensions—no tech........................................................................................7Frontline versus Solvency (offense)...............................................................................................8Solvency (offense) extension—hurt environment...........................................................................9Frontline versus Energy Advantage.............................................................................................10Frontline versus Energy Advantage.............................................................................................11Frontline versus Energy Advantage.............................................................................................12Frontline versus Leadership Advantage.......................................................................................13Frontline versus Leadership Advantage.......................................................................................14Frontline versus Leadership Advantage.......................................................................................15Frontline versus Leadership Advantage.......................................................................................16Leadership Advantage Answers Extensions—no impact..............................................................17Leadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy.......................................18Leadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy.......................................19Leadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy.......................................20Frontline versus Warming Advantage..........................................................................................21Frontline versus Warming Advantage..........................................................................................22Frontline versus Warming Advantage..........................................................................................24Warming defense ext.................................................................................................................... 25Warming defense ext.................................................................................................................... 26Warming Advantage--Nuke war outweighs warming extension...................................................27SQ solves increase in SPS............................................................................................................28**counterplans**........................................................................................................................... 29***Someone Else Do It***.............................................................................................................31Japan CP 1NC............................................................................................................................... 32Japan CP Solvency extension........................................................................................................33Japan CP Solvency Extension.......................................................................................................34Japan CP Solvency........................................................................................................................35Japan CP AT: “Japan has no SPS interest/research”....................................................................36France CP Solvency...................................................................................................................... 37Private companies CP infrastructure...........................................................................................39Private companies CP- aerospace industry..................................................................................40Private Companies CP – Solvency investment..............................................................................41Private CP – Solvency...................................................................................................................42Private Sector CP - ComSat..........................................................................................................43Private Sector CP - PowerSat.......................................................................................................44Private Sector CP—tech development..........................................................................................45Xprize CP solves competitiveness................................................................................................46CP Solvency – International consortium for SPS..........................................................................47Someone Else CP AT “U.S. Key”.................................................................................................49***Microwave PIC***.................................................................................................................... 50Microwave PIC 1NC.....................................................................................................................51Microwave PIC – AT: Perm Do CP................................................................................................53Microwave PIC – Solvency – Lasers Good....................................................................................54Microwave PIC – Microwaves Bad – Kills bees and birds............................................................55Microwave PIC – Honeybees – Impact – Extinction......................................................................56Microwave PIC – Honeybees – Impact – Economy.......................................................................57Microwave PIC – Birds – Impact – Keystone Species...................................................................58

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativeMicrowave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 1/3...................................................................59Microwave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 2/3...................................................................60

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Space Based Solar Power Case Negative IndexMicrowave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 3/3...................................................................61Microwave PIC – Bad – Military Readiness..................................................................................62**Advantage Counterplans**........................................................................................................63CP Wind Power Solves Energy Advantage...................................................................................64CP Wind Power solves oil shocks.................................................................................................65CP Wind Power Solves—spurs development................................................................................66CP Wind Power Solves—spurs development................................................................................68**DA Links**................................................................................................................................. 70Spending link--SPS hardware.......................................................................................................72Spending Link—launch costs........................................................................................................74Spending link—maintenance........................................................................................................75Spending Link-AT “we increase competitiveness”.......................................................................76Spending DA links........................................................................................................................ 77Politics—see also pre-camp Politics Links—plan bipart...............................................................78Politics Links—plan bipart............................................................................................................79SPS Popular-military.................................................................................................................... 80SPS Popular—space advocacy......................................................................................................81SPS Popular.................................................................................................................................. 82Space Mil DA link—dual use........................................................................................................83

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

***Case Debate***

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Solvency (defense) 1. Non-unique and no need for the plan---private actors developing SPS now Christian Science Monitor 10(Christian science Monitor, November 9 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1109/Satellite-to-beam-solar-power-to-Earth-a-la-Bond-movie, JP)< In a step toward solving the global energy crisis, a new plan aims to harvest the sun's energy from space with satellites then beam it down to Earth. The initiative, announced Nov. 4, is spearheaded by former president of India A.P.J. Kalam and the National Space Society , a nonprofit dedicated to making humanity a spacefaring civilization.Space-based solar power has the potential to turn Earth into a "clean planet, a prosperous planet, and a happy planet," Kalam said during a Thursday press conference announcing the Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative.The initiative's plan is to launch a satellite containing a large array of solar panels that would collect energy from the sun, then convert this energy into a microwave beam that could be directed back down to Earth. A special receiving antenna on the ground — called a rectenna — would then turn the microwave energy back into electricity, which would be fed into the power grid.>

2. SBSP deployment requires modification prior to production

SolarHigh.org, research group for solar power, ‘11(Solar high research group, NGO that studies SPS, http://solarhigh.org/resources/16KwordBrief.pdf, 2011, AJ)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. 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. 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. Somemodifications 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

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negativevehicles 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.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Solvency (defense) 3. SPS not cost competitive with other energiesRogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07(Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study, JP)<NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995‐1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. >

4. No solvency--low tech, launch vehicles, and high riskRogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07(Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study, JP)<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. >

5. their solvency depends on long term investment SPS is too expensive and the tech is too far off – no one will invest—their own evidence says techs been around since 1968 and no investmentJohnson, Wall street journal staff writer, 9(Keith Johnson, Wall Street Journal, 6/16/9, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/16/spaced-out-is-solar-power-from-satellites-achievable/, 6/23, KJ)<The other trick is overcoming prohibitively expensive costs of launching spacecraft. That’s what eventually turned the Pentagon against the idea. PowerSat says its new system will ditch traditional launch technology altogether. Instead, it will put its satellites 22,000 miles high using “electronic thrusters that are powered by the same solar array that is eventually used for wireless power transmission.” (UPDATE: PowerSat CEO William Maness clarifies that the solar array will be used for part of the launch–the ride from low-earth orbit to high-altitude geosynchronous orbit. That’s what saves the $1 billion.) The company says the new systems could shave $1 billion off the cost of putting 2,500 megawatts in space, but it doesn’t say how much it will cost to do so. The Pentagon figured it would take $10 billion and 10 years to put 10 megawatts in space, so somebody’s numbers seem out of whack. The company says the new systems could shave $1 billion off the cost of putting 2,500 megawatts in space, but it doesn’t say how much it will cost to do so. The Pentagon figured it would take $10 billion and 10 years to put 10 megawatts in space, so somebody’s numbers seem out of whack.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Solvency (defense) Extensions—no tech Tech not ready – launch vehicles, construction, and lunar material extractionNational Space Society, 2007 (“Space Solar Power: An Investment for Today – An Energy Solution for Tomorrow”, October 2007. Accessed on June 22, 2011)SSP development costs will be large, although significantly smaller than that of the American military presence in the Persian Gulf or those associated with the impacts of substantial global warming. Technologies and infrastructure expected to enhance the feasibility of SSP include: • Lower-cost, environment-friendly launch vehicles. Even if lunar materials are used to construct the space segment of the SSP infrastructure, a great deal of hardware will need to be launched from Earth. For example, the first demonstration plants will almost certainly be ground launched. Current launch vehicles are too expensive, and at high launch rates may pose atmospheric pollution problems. Cheaper, cleaner launch vehicles are needed. • Large scale in-orbit construction and operations. To gather massive quantities of energy, solar power satellites must be large, far larger than the International Space Station (ISS), the largest spacecraft built to date. Fortunately, solar power satellites will be simpler than the ISS, as they will consist of many identical parts, and need not support human crews. • Asteroidal/lunar materials extraction and space-based manufacture of components (either in Earth orbit or on the lunar surface). The optimum environmental benefits of SSP could derive from doing most of the work outside of Earth's biosphere. This could be accomplished using asteroid-based or lunar materials that we cannot access today. • Power transmission. A relatively small effort is also necessary to assess how to best transmit power from satellites to the Earth’s surface with minimal environmental impact.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Solvency (offense) 1. SBSP unsafe—laser and launches Wallach, General Counsel of the NewSpace Alliance, 2010(Mark I. Wallach, Online Journal of space communication http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/wallach.html, winter 2010, as)As mentioned, an alternative method for transferring power from SBSP collector satellites to ground stations is with high-intensity laser beams, especially for smaller systems (because microwave power transfer systems do not scale down well). In that case, more serious safety issues could arise, including liability for property damage or even personal injury by diverted laser beams. Since low intensity microwave beams pose no health threats, personal injury liability is not a consideration; but the same cannot be said about high-intensity laser beams.Other legal issues are more common to space launches, such as liability for a botched launch. Article VII of the Space Treaty holds each State Party to the Treaty, or each State Party from whose territory an object is launched, internationally liable for damages in air space or outer space. This treaty was later supplemented by the Space Liability Convention, which provides that "a launching State is absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight," where fault is established.Thus, even if a launch is purely private, the respective government will be held liable for damages. The U.S. government took this into account by creating liability insurance requirements. In the case of SBSP satellites, however, many dozens of launches may be required to put all of the components of an SBSP system into orbit, so the failure to successfully launch one or more modules may have the unusual consequence of putting the entire project off schedule. Thus, the damage questions may be more complicated than typical launch failures.

2. SPS Waves cause small scale climate change

Globus, NASA Ames Research Center Scientist, 10/10 (Al Globus, Towards an Early Profitable PowerSat, October 2010, http://space.alglobus.net/papers/SSI2010SSPpaper.pdf, June 21, 2011, AJ)[There are a number of environmental and safety factors that require attention. Careful choice of wavelength may reduce danger to the eye, which could be particularly important for a demonstration satellite. It is also possible that a sufficiently strong beam can punch its way through a light cloud cover, making the system applicable to more than just desert areas. Finally, as the beam is much denser than microwave designs, it may heat a column of air producing localized weather effects which must be understood. Again, a preliminary study may be quite inexpensive and appropriate for an organization such as SSI.]

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Solvency (offense) extension—hurt environment SPS Hurts the environment – launch cost and productionGlobus, 10(Al, Globus, Online Journal of Space Communication, Winter 10, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/globus2.html , KJ)

<Unlike the ground antennas and power beams, an SSP satellite segment (the aggregated powersat infrastructure) large enough to deliver a substantial part of the 15 terawatts of power we use today may have significant environmental impact if launched from the ground. This 15TW figure includes all energy use, not just electricity, but with sufficient R&D and infrastructure development, electricity can in most cases be substituted for other energy forms, as with electrical cars. Also note that much of the world's population does not now have access to significant energy resources. These people are unlikely to accept that condition forever; thus, energy production will need to increase.

Ten (10) TW continuously supplied will provide somewhat more than half of today's energy use. This number will be used for our comparisons. Assuming a powersat mass of 5kg/kw, 40% end-to-end efficiency and 500 tons/launch using the large Sea Dragon booster (a large, robust, reusable, ocean-launched rocket design from the 1960s),[1] some 250,000 launches will be needed. Such an enormous number of launches from earth would dump a great deal of rocket exhaust into the atmosphere. In addition, when space structures are launched from earth, all the mining, processing and construction must take place on earth with the usual environmental costs . While there are ways to minimize the impact of lifting these satellites into space, for example using hydrogen/oxygen propellant which produces only water in the exhaust, from an environmental perspective it would be better to eliminate the launches altogether. These costs can be eliminated entirely by taking the lunar option.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Energy Advantage 1. no solvency--SPS unable to provide enough energy to meet demand Lifsher, LA Times staff writer, 9(Marc Lifsher, LA Times, 5/17/9, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/business/fi-space-solar17, 6/22/11, KJ)Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.

2. No impact—no wars fought over resource scarcity Seng, staff officer in JID. 2000 (Ronnie, Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, July 2000, http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_3/3.htm) LL

Countries go to war for a variety of reasons. In the past, wars were often resource wars (wars to gain resources) - for land, to expand human settlement, or for food or other resources. Sovereignty issues also cause armed conflicts - perhaps as important previously, although perhaps less now for outright war. Motives for such conflicts in the regions do not for the most part concern economic issues, other than the resources i.e. oil, gas, fish that island territorial disputes involve, as in the example of the Spratlys where the main contention is the oil-rich resources that the atolls could provide. Nevertheless, the resource motivations for conquest in the past are less significant now that education, technology and the national manpower resource skills are more substantial sources of wealth. Although natural resources in some countries have contributed to immense wealth, the highly industrialised world today thrives on economies with a leading advantage in technological skills, financial stability, and good governance to bring in foreign investments. Globalisation has enabled the opportunity for an economy to be 'networked' with the external world where technological and economic activities abound. It is precisely the dependence on these very factors that Singapore, devoid of natural resources, has remained relatively unscathed during the financial crisis. Going to war for the purpose of gaining resources is highly improbable, as governments contemplating to do so, would weigh the costs against the benefits to be reaped from an outright war. For example, Vietnam had been secure with oil freely available on the open markets and it is less costly and more efficient to gain resources through the market than through the conquest of another country. Consequently, as the country's 'wealth' is increasingly enshrined in the quality of its technology-based economy and stable governance, an inclination to declare war to gain resource becomes even more remote.

3. N/U-Electricity consumption is expected to declineMadison Street Capital, international investment banking firm, no date(Madison Street Capital, http://madisonstreetcapital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243&Itemid=224, last modified 2011, as)During the first half of 2009, total U.S. electricity consumption fell by 4.4% compared to the same period a year ago, mainly driven by decline in industrial electricity sales in response to the economic downturn. However, the EIA expects the pace of decline in electricity consumption to moderate in second half of 2009, particularly in the Southwestern U.S. For 2009, the EIA has projected the total U.S. electricity demand to decline by 3.3%. The electricity demand growth is projected to fall over the period 2007-30, primarily due to efficiency gains (in reaction to rising energy prices) and new standards in energy efficiency for lighting, heating, and cooling appliances. In the base case of its Annual Energy Outlook for 2009 (AEO 2009), the EIA projects electricity demand to rise by 26% from 2007 to 2030, at an average rate of 1% per year.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Energy Advantage 4. No impact A risk of armed conflict doesn’t occur with scarce resources – only with abundant resourcesBillon, is Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia with the Department of Geography and the Liu Institute for Global Issues, 2001 (Philippe Le Billon,“The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts”. NP) p. 565

According to the abundant resource wars argument, primary commodities are easily and heavily taxable, and are therefore attractive to both the ruling elites and their competitors (Collier, 2000; Fairhead, 2000; Le Billon, 1997). The availability of abundant resources would therefore represent the ‘prize’ of state or territorial control thereby increasing the risk of greed-driven conflicts, while providing armed groups with the ‘loot’ necessary to purchase military equipment. Such armed conflicts thus tend to be commercialised; that is, characterised by both the integration of trading in natural resources into their economy and a move from political towards private economic agendas (Keen, 1998; Dietrich, 2000). Furthermore, a country’s natural resources endowment influences both its political economy and type governance (Auty, 2001; Karl, 1997; Ross, 1999). Natural resources abundance is linked in many of these analyses to poor economic growth and governance, two factors generally associated with a greater likelihood of conflict (Auty, 2001; de Soysa, 2000; Leite & Weidmann, 1999; Sachs & Warner, 1995). The relationship is empirically demonstrated by the higher risk of armed conflict faced by primary commodity exporters (Collier, 2000). However, there is a possible endogenous relation between the lack of economic diversification and the (re)occurrence of war, which is demonstrated by the higher risk of repeated war for primary commodity exporters. Other quantitative examinations of resources and conflicts links through multivariate models confirm part of the scarce resource war argument and the overall argument of abundant resource war. Low levels of violences (25–1000 battle-related deaths per year) have a positive relation with environmental degradation (Hauge & Ellingsen, 1998), yet low levels of renewable resources endowment are not associated with the risk of armed conflict; while abundant renewable resource in otherwise poor countries and non-renewable resources in all countries increases the likelihood of armed conflict (de Soysa, 2000).

5. Shocks have zero effect on the economy – we just had one, and all economists agree no impact Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren (senior fellows at the Cato Institute) October 17 2007 “No need to fear oil shocks,” National PostAlthough oil prices hit US$80, the inflation, unemployment and recession that supposedly follow oil-price shocks are nowhere on the macroeconomic radar screen. If the economy goes into a tailspin, it will be in response to bad news in the housing market, not the oil market. The lesson to be derived from this is pretty clear: While oil-price spirals are certainly nothing for consumers to celebrate, the health of the economy is not held hostage to oil markets. The orthodox view that governed our understanding of oil-price shocks until recently was that the economic damage associated with those shocks was not the result of oil-price increases per se. Higher oil prices, after all, simply make oil producers richer, and everyone else poorer. Over the long run, more money spent on oil equals less money spent on everything else. This reduces the demand for, and thus the price of, everything (including labour!) save for oil. As long as oil producers are spending and/or investing their increased profits, the net effect of all this -- from a macroeconomic perspective--is zero. All of this will eventually happen, but the length of time required to get oil consumers to adjust their behaviour in response to a price shock is what was thought to trigger the economic downside associated with an oil crisis. If wages and consumption rates outside the oil sector fail to go down, either unemployment will follow or inflation will result, because there's only so much money to go around, unless the Federal Reserve accommodates everyone's demand for money. The main dissenting view was most strongly forwarded by then Princeton University economist and now Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues. They argued that different ("better") monetary policy -- more specifically, one that maintains the federal funds rate at a constant level, rather than raising it in the face of an oil shock -- could reduce or even eliminate the recessionary effect of oil shocks. Economists James Hamilton and Anna Herrera, however, were skeptical of that proposition. They argued that the "better" monetary policy advocated by Bernanke et al. effectively calls for massive declines in the federal funds rate over the entire course of an oil shock, something that is probably not possible in the real world. Moreover, the Federal Reserve would have to keep the funds rate below levels anticipated by market actors for 36 months in a row, which is, of course, an unlikely proposition. Interestingly enough, the Federal Reserve, now chaired by Ben Bernanke, is not pursuing the policies advocated by its chairman when the chairman was in the academy. That was the state of the debate until the most recent price shock. The economy's failure to respond to one of the steepest oil-price increases in history with a recession, however, sent economists back to the theoretical drawing board. All the new analyses agree that the more flexible economy that we have now allows us to cope more easily with oilprice shocks . It underscores the danger of the price-control regimes of the 1970s, something that politicians are increasingly flirting with as energy prices continue to climb and put into question a panoply of government programs.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Energy Advantage 6. US economy is resilient to shocksMalcolm Gillis (professor of economics at Rice University) May 8 2002 “Engines of the World Economy,” Offshore Technology Conference, http://www.professor.rice.edu/professor/05082002.asp?SnID=2

III. The U.S. Economic Engine: Resiliency in Diversity Except for Morgan Stanley, most forecasters are seeing "V"s, not "W"s in our economic future, with the economy growing at an annual rate of 3.0 percent to 3.5 percent over the next twelve months. The implicit assumption underlying this rosy scenario must be that there will be no severe economic shocks from any geo-political disturbances. The recent recession was one of the mildest and shortest on record. Before 1940, recessions averaged about a year and a half in length. Since 1960, their average length has been eleven months. The downturn of 2001 lasted only nine months. Several factors were responsible for the apparent shallowness of the recession. Consumer spending held up surprisingly well, aided by a big lift from motor vehicle sales and a housing market vibrant enough to offset much of the decline in household wealth from a weak stock market. Strong consumer spending was needed to counter the drag in spending coming from business, exacerbated by a very sharp increase in liquidation of business inventories. In the Conan Doyle's "Silver Blaze," Holmes solved the case by finding a dog that did not bark. In our tenth postwar recession, the oil price was the dog that did not bark. Higher oil prices have figured in every recession since 1970, except the current one. Nominal oil prices remained relatively stable, below $20 bbl. until early this year. Per barrel prices rose above $21 only after the recovery was underway. Oil price spikes matter much less in today's $10 trillion economy than in the smaller and less diversified U.S. economy of 1973, or even 1978. And, surprising to some, the real inflation-adjusted price of oil in February 2002 was only 40 percent of its level in 1980. And even at oil prices of May 1, the real price was less than half its 1980 level. In fact, relative prices of oil appear rather puny when contrasted with the prices of other life-supporting liquids. In late April, the price of one important refined petroleum product, gasoline, was only about $1.50 per gallon, including gasoline taxes. Other fluids prices spiked much higher. Orange juice was more than $5.00 a gallon, and in late April, Perrier and other high-end water was running about $6.50 to $7.00 per gallon. There were other reasons for the relative mildness of the recession of 2001. Two factors under-girded consumer spending and soothed investor expectations during the recession: 1) monetary policy, 2) fiscal policy. Never before in our nation's history has the Federal Reserve deployed such aggressive monetary policy against recession: By the end of calendar year 2001, the federal funds rate had been reduced to less than one-third its level on New Year's Day, in an unprecedented series of twelve reductions in eleven months. Fiscal policy reinforced the tonic effect of adroit and timely monetary policy: while the tax cut enacted in June was not planned as an anti-recessionary device, it served that purpose admirably, largely because it was enacted just after the recession began.

7. US can withstand disruptionsGal Luft (executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security) July 5 2007 “Iran’s Oil Industry: A House of Cards?,” inFocus, http://www.iags.org/n050707.htm

Considering the long-term risks associated with a nuclear Iran, higher prices at the gas pump should not drive any Western country's Iran policy. No doubt, if Iran's production falls, due to investors' departure or a calculated decision by Iran to use the oil weapon and cut its production, there will be economic fallout. However, Iran will be the main casualty of any disruption. Additionally, in recent years, the U.S. economy has shown remarkable resiliency in the face of mounting oil prices and can withstand even higher prices. There is also a safety net in place. Most major oil consuming countries maintain massive strategic petroleum reserves in the event of a drop in supply. The U.S. alone has some 700 million barrels of oil in reserve – two years worth of Iranian exports. To insulate the U.S. further, President Bush seeks to double the size of the American oil reserve in the coming years. The President also seeks to reduce America's oil dependence through increased efficiency and to shift to alternative fuels. Applied in unison, these tactics advance the strategic goals of reducing global energy prices, protecting the West against supply disruptions, and limiting the flow of petrodollars to Tehran. This increased pressure on the Iranian regime could, over time, generate a much desired regime change. If Washington executes this strategy with expediency and determination, this outcome could be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Leadership Advantage 1. No impact---no chance we would let a hostile rival rise up AND loss of readiness from energy costs can be addressed by latent power Wohlforth, Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, 2007William, Harvard International Review, “The Rules of Power Analysis,” Vol. 29, Spring, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1611&p=3, accessed 6/27 TR)

Rule No. 4: Consider Latent PowerUS military forces are stretched thin, its budget and trade deficits are high, and the country continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad—notably from the Chinese government. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that the United States suffers from “imperial overstretch.” And if US power is overstretched now, the argument goes, unipolarity can hardly be sustainable for long. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. One must be careful to take into account both the level of resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a government actually tries to mobilize them. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces. Indeed, one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged.Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined the term “imperial overstretch” to describe the situation in which a state’s actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign policy commitments. This situation should be contrasted with what might be termed “self-inflicted overstretch”—a situation in which a state lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term, but has untapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. This is arguably the situation that the United States is in today.But the US government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign policy commitments. Instead, it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. Although it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global “war” on terrorism, the United States is not acting like a country under intense international pressure. Aside from the volunteer servicemen and women and their families, US citizens have not been asked to make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. The country could clearly devote a greater proportion of its economy to military spending: today it spends only about 4 percent of its GDP on the military, as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold War. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently, shifting resources from expensive weapons systems to boots on the ground. Even more radically, it could reinstitute military conscription, shifting resources from pay and benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. On the economic front, it could raise taxes in a number of ways, notably on fossil fuels, to put its fiscal house back in order.

No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic measures, but there is nothing in economics, political science, or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to continue to grow rapidly for decades. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support, which is a function of the public’s perception of a threat. And as unnerving as terrorism is, there is nothing like the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing public support.With latent power in the picture, it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. For example, China’s rise might push India and Japan closer to the United States—indeed, this has already happened to some extent. There is also the strong possibility that a peer rival that comes to be seen as a threat would create strong incentives for the United States to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent power.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Leadership Advantage 2. Non-unique—US hegemony declining now due especially in Asia due to counterbalancing, overstretch caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the bad US economy

The Australian, 2010(August 5, 2010, “As the US wanes, China gains,” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/as-the-us-wanes-china-gains/story-e6frg6z6-1225901301983 accessed 6/28 TM)

America's decline in the Pacific poses grave security concernsBENEATH the radar, almost by stealth, the tectonic plates of power are shifting in the Pacific Ocean.A resurgent China is baring its teeth at the once indomitable US Pacific fleet . The certainty of US hegemony over this vast ocean, which Australians have taken for granted since World War II, is being challenged. But this steady transformation of our security outlook has failed to capture public attention in Australia precisely because it has been so steady and does not lend itself to an easy headline in a world of 24-hour news cycles. It is being driven by twin factors: the rise of China as a Pacific power and the decline of imperial America.The first is undeniable. China is working feverishly to create a navy and a land-based anti-ship missile system that will prevent the US 7th Fleet from dominating its territorial waters , including Taiwan. The second assumption is more contentious. But there is a growing view among some of the world's foremost thinkers that the American empire is now in inexorable decline and that the sun will soon set on the US era of hegemony in the Asia-Pacific . This Pacific retreat, they argue, will not be voluntary but will be forced on Washington by financial pressures as the world superpower teeters under the burden of its $US13 trillion in debt and $US1.47 trillion deficit, now equal to 10 per cent of GDP. Last week, Harvard economist Niall Ferguson delivered a stark warning about the imperial decline that affects great powers when they are no longer able to manage their economies.Giving the John Bonython Lecture at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Ferguson warned that the US economy is now so mired in debt that Washington has little choice but to try to save itself by slashing defence spending.`` The US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting,'' he said.``Military expenditure is the item most likely to be squeezed to compensate because, unlike mandatory entitlements (such as social security), defence spending is discretionary.''He points out that the US Congressional Budget Office's latest projections say debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and to an astonishing 344 per cent by 2050 -- a figure that would see net interest payments become a crippling 85 per cent of revenue.``What if the sudden waning in American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region? Are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power?'' he asksWhile Ferguson's warnings will be dismissed by some as alarmist, there is an underlying logic to many of his arguments.For the first time since the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001, there is serious debate in the US about the size and cost of the armed forces .A decade of rapid increases in military spending have spluttered to a halt, and with US combat forces withdrawing from Iraq and due to leave Afghanistan from 2014, the mood is ripe for cuts in military spending.``We're going to have to take a hard look at defence if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction,'' Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the US Congress's deficit-reduction commission, said last month.Even Defence Secretary Robert Gates admits ``the gusher [on military spending] has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time''.According to a report last month by Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the legacy of the global financial crisis will be to stymie US defence spending in the long term relative to nations such as China, Russia and India.`The 2008 financial crisis had a more detrimental impact on advanced economies like the US than on developing economies like China and India,'' according to the report.It says China and Russia have increased defence spending at a faster rate than the US in the past decade and that this will continue because they have had a more robust economic recovery ``Revenues will decrease for the US government as debt and entitlements will exponentially grow,'' it says. ``Defence spending is set to decrease in real terms over the long term. As such, the Pentagon will have to grapple with dwindling resources [and] this may be a serious challenge.''One of Australia's leading defence analysts, Mark Thomson, agrees.`The GFC has left US public finances in a parlous state,'' he says in a recent report for the Australian Strategic and Policy Institute.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Leadership Advantage 3. No impact—loss of US hegemony will not cause war and conflict—international institutions, regional frameworks, and economic interdependence all prevent conflict from escalating

4. No impact---alternative to US hegemony isn’t chaos Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies, 2010,(Christopher, “U.S. military power- preeminence for what purpose,” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/03/u-s-military-power-preeminence-for-what-purpose/ accessed tm )Most in Washington still embraces the notion that America is, and forever will be, the world’s indispensable nation. Some scholars, however, questioned the logic of hegemonic stability theory from the very beginning. A number continue to do so today. They advance arguments diametrically at odds with the primacist consensus. Trade routes need not be policed by a single dominant power ; the international economy is complex and resilient . Supply disruptions are likely to be temporary, and the costs of mitigating their effects should be borne by those who stand to lose — or gain — the most. Islamic extremists are scary, but hardly comparable to the threat posed by a globe-straddling Soviet Union armed with thousands of nuclear weapons . It is frankly absurd that we spend more today to fight Osama bin Laden and his tiny band of murderous thugs than we spent to face down Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. Many factors have contributed to the dramatic decline in the number of wars between nation-states; it is unrealistic to expect that a new spasm of global conflict would erupt if the United States were to modestly refocus its efforts, draw down its military power, and call on other countries to play a larger role in their own defense, and in the security of their respective regions . But while there are credible alternatives to the United States serving in its current dual role as world policeman / armed social worker, the foreign policy establishment in Washington has no interest in exploring them. The people here have grown accustomed to living at the center of the earth, and indeed, of the universe. The tangible benefits of all this military spending flow disproportionately to this tiny corner of the United States while the schlubs in fly-over country pick up the tab.

5. Non-unique Competitiveness up nowWalden 2010 (7/28/10 Michael Walden is William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University. Walden’s commentary was written before Friday’s release of the latest unemployment numbers for North Carolina, which showed the jobless rate had dipped to 10 percent from 10.4 percent, “ Is U.S. still competitive? The answer is a resounding ‘Yes!’” accessed 9/30/10 http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8050877/)To many, the recession of the last two years is a symptom of a larger economic problem in the nation - that we just can't compete anymore. This viewpoint says that in today's globalized economy, where businesses can locate virtually anywhere and then ship their products physically or send their services electronically, it's a losing battle to think the U.S. can go head-to-head against lower wage countries. So should we just throw in the towel and wait for the day when everything we use will be made somewhere else? Is it inevitable that we become a nation of consumers and not producers? Based on the latest report from the World Economic Forum (WEF), the answer is a resounding "no." The WEF, which organizes a highly publicized and well-attended annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland each year, produces a Global Competitiveness Index for over 130 countries. The index is based on scores of factors, including worker costs and training, education quality, financing, infrastructure like roads and airports and innovation. The WEF combines these factors into a single number based on their relative importance to business persons and investors. And now the drum roll please. Based on the WEF Global Competitiveness Index, where does the U.S. rank in the latest reading for 2010? The answer is number two out of 133 countries. Only Switzerland ranked higher. The U.S. actually ranked number one in 2008 and 2009 and only missed the top spot this year due to the depth of the recession.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Leadership Advantage 6. No internal link—US Military already adopting green tech for military

Zavis, Writer for Los Angeles Times, 2009

(Alexandra Zavis, April 2009, LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/26/local/me-army-green26, June 28, 2011, AJ)

Inside a futuristic-looking dome that rises from the sandy wasteland of the high Mojave Desert, soldiers in plywood cubicles work at computers powered by solar panels and a towering wind turbine. Plug-in cars shuttle the troops across the vast expanses here at Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino County. At night, tents lined with insulating foam provide a cool retreat at the end of a 100-degree day. The desert base, which houses the Army's premier training center for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a testing ground and showcase for green initiatives that officials estimate could save the services millions, trim their heavy environmental "boot-print" and even save lives in the war zones, where fuel convoys are frequent targets. The Department of Defense is the single largest energy consumer in the United States. Last year it bought nearly 4 billion gallons of jet fuel, 220 million gallons of diesel and 73 million gallons of gasoline, said Brian Lally, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment. American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are using more fuel each day than in any other war in U.S. history. When oil prices spiked last summer, the Defense Department's energy tab shot up from about $13 billion per year in 2006 and 2007 to $20 billion in 2008. The Army alone had to make up a half- billion-dollar shortfall in its energy budget, said Keith Eastin, assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment. "That was, I think, a grand wake-up call that we somehow had to get a handle on what is loosely called energy security," Eastin said. Defense officials now consider reducing consumption and embracing energy alternatives to be national security imperatives. At Ft. Irwin, commanders are experimenting with ways to power the desert training area -- which replicates austere combat conditions -- using wind, solar and organic waste-to-fuel technologies. When Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard took command of Ft. Irwin in 2007, he was stunned by the cost of housing troops in tents powered by generators, as they often are in Iraq and Afghanistan. A brigade of about 4,000 to 5,000 troops was spending about $3 million to rent the tents and keep the air conditioners humming during a month-long rotation, Pittard said. By building tents covered with two to three inches of insulating foam and a solar- reflective coating, they reduced the generator requirements by 45% to 75%, a technique that is now being used at some larger bases in the war zones. Estimates are that a $22-million investment to replace all the rented tents at Ft. Irwin with insulated, semi-permanent ones would pay for itself within nine months and could save the Army $100 million over five years, said Eric Gardner, a logistics management specialist at the base. By reducing generator use, Ft. Irwin also expects to cut carbon emissions by 35 million pounds each year -- equivalent to taking 3,500 vehicles off the road, Gardner said. This year, for the first time, the facility did not need a waiver allowing it to exceed the state of California's emissions standards in the training area, Pittard said. Some kinks still have to be worked out as the base increases its use of alternative energy. Although there is plenty of sunshine in the desert to keep solar systems running through the day, the military needs ways to store that energy for nighttime use. And although there is plenty of wind, the Air Force has expressed concern that turbines could interfere with its radar systems. Even so, Pittard, who left Ft. Irwin in March to become deputy chief of staff of the Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters at Ft. Monroe in Virginia, is convinced that within five years it

will be possible to take Ft. Irwin off the electric grid. The nearby Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, also in the Mojave Desert, already is powered completely by geothermal energy generated by hot water below the surface. Producers and advocates of green technology are taking note. The Defense Department derives 9.8% of its power from alternative sources and is looking to expand use of wind, solar, thermal and nuclear energy. Some believe that the military has the potential to become a catalyst, helping to turn more expensive power sources into financially viable alternatives to coal and petroleum. "If the military were to go green, I think that this really could achieve some environmental goals, for a very simple reason: the military is so big," said Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at the UCLA Institute of the Environment. Although that remains to be seen, Kahn noted that it would not be the first time the military has had a transforming effect on technology. Cellphones, the Global Positioning System and the Internet all have roots in the military. Some in the green energy sector hope that as the military adopts alternative power sources, the technology will gain broader acceptance among political conservatives.

7. No internal link Domestic innovation and competitiveness aren’t key to heg and competitors’ growth is unsustainable.Reihan Salam, Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation, “ROBERT PAPE IS OVERHEATED,” 1/21/2009, http://www.theamericanscene.com/2009/01/21/robert-pape-is-overheatedPape spends a lot of time demonstrating that U.S. economic output represents a declining share of global output, which is hardly a surprise. Yet as Pape surely understands, the more relevant question is how much and how readily can economic output be translated into military power? The European Union, for example, has many state-like features, yet it doesn’t have the advantages of a traditional state when it comes to raising an army. The Indian economy is taxed in a highly uneven manner , and much of the economy is black — the same is true across the developing world . As for China, both the shape of the economy, as Yasheng Huang suggests, and its long frontiers, as Andrew Nathan has long argued,

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negativepose serious barriers to translating potential power into effective power. (Wohlforth and Brooks give Stephen Walt’s balance-of-threat its due.) So while this hardly obviates the broader point that relative American economic power is eroding — that was the whole idea of America’s postwar grand strategy — it is worth keeping in mind. This is part of the reason why sclerotic, statist economies can punch above their weight militarily, at least for a time — they are “better” at marshaling resources. Over the long run, the Singapores will beat the Soviets. But in the long run, we’re all dead. And given that this literature is rooted in the bogey of long-term coalition warfare, you can see why the unipolarity argument holds water. At the risk of sounding overly harsh, Pape’s understanding of “innovativeness” — based on the number of patents filed, it seems — is crude to say the least. I recommend Amar Bhidé‘s brilliant critique of Richard Freeman, which I’ll be talking about a lot. Pape cites Zakaria, who was relying on slightly shopworn ideas that Bhidé demolishes in The Venturesome Economy. The “global diffusion of technology” is real, and if anything it magnifies U.S. economic power. “Ah, but we’re talking about the prospect of coalition warfare!” The global diffusion of technology is indeed sharply raising the costs of military conquest, as the United States discovered in Iraq. The declining utility of military power means that a unipolar distribution of military power is more likely to persist. And yes, it also means that unipolar military power is less valuable than it was in 1945.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Leadership Advantage Answers Extensions—no impact

No impact—Obama won’t let US leadership erode Walt, Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Relations, resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, serves as co-editor of the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs, previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, 2009(Stephen, American Review, “Restoring solvency,” November, http://americanreviewmag.com/articles/Restoring-solvency, accessed 6/27 TR)<Yet appearances can be deceiving, and this is almost certainly the case when it comes to foreign policy. Although Obama has made a number of positive moves, his actions to date are more style than substance. To be blunt, anyone who expects Obama to produce a dramatic transformation in America’s global position is going to be disappointed.

There are three reasons why major foreign policy achievements are unlikely. First, the big issue is still the economy, and Obama is going to focus most of his time and political capital there. Success in this area is critical to the rest of his agenda and to his prospects for re-election in 2012. Second, Obama is a pragmatic centrist and his foreign policy team is made up of mainstream liberal internationalists who believe active US leadership is essential to solving most international problems. Although they will undoubtedly try to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration, this group is unlikely to undertake a fundamental rethinking of the US’s global role. Third, and most important, there are no easy problems on Obama’s foreign policy “to-do” list. Even if he was able to devote

his full attention to these issues, it would be difficult to resolve any of them quickly.

In terms of grand strategy, his ultimate aim must be to bring US commitments back into alignment with its interests and resources

—to restore what Walter Lippmann termed “solvency” to US foreign policy. This broad goal can be achieved by extricating the

nation from some current obligations, by improving relations with adversaries, by getting other states to bear a greater share of

America’s burden, or a combination of all three. Obama will try to keep US commitments within bounds and to improve relations

with several adversaries, while taking symbolic steps to repair the damage the Bush administration did to the country’s global

reputation. But he is unlikely to achieve any far-reaching breakthroughs. The foreign policy agenda at the end of his first term is

likely to look a lot like it does today. To see why, let us look more closely at the crises he faces.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativeLeadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy

Military already increasing spending renewable energy technologies

Kaften, Writter for Corporate and Public Audiences, 2011

(Cheryl Kaften, June 13, 2011, Green Technology World, http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/185547-us-military-use-renewable-energy-grow-25-billion.htm, June 28, 2011, AJ)

According to a new report from Boulder, Colorado-based Pike Research (News - Alert), military spending on renewable energy technologies will continue to rise rapidly over the next two decades, growing from $1.8 billion per year in 2010 to $26.8 billion by 2030. The various branches of the U.S. Department of Defense (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, according to Pike Research – as well as of the supporting governmental infrastructure that facilitates and controls it. Clean, reliable power is of pivotal importance, not only in terms of energy efficiency, but for use in all military operations across multiple domains— including base and facility operations; land, air, and sea, and transport; and portable power access for troops on the ground. “Military investment in renewable energy and related technologies, in many cases, holds the potential to bridge the ‘valley of death’ that lies between research and development and full commercialization of these technologies,” stated Pike Research President Clint Wheelock. “As such, the myriad of military initiatives focused on fostering cleantech are anticipated to have a substantial impact on the development of the industry as a whole. This presents a sizable market opportunity for defense contractors, project developers and systems integrators, and technology developers across all renewable energy sectors.” Pike Research’s analysis indicates that in the facilities segment, the market opportunity is largest for solar energy , followed by wind power, and geothermal . Military agencies also are using microgrids for distributed energy generation that can be “islanded” from the commercial power grid. In the mobility sector, much of the focus is on biofuels and synfuels that can replace petrofuels for vehicles ranging from tactical vehicles, trucks, and tanks to fighter jets and naval vessels. Portable power for soldiers is also a major priority, and the DOD in particular is pursuing a variety of fuel cells and advanced battery technologies in this area. Pike Research’s report, Renewable Energy for Military Applications, provides a comprehensive examination of military applications for renewable energy and related clean technologies including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydrokinetic energy, biofuels and synfuels, fuel cells, microgrids, smart meters, and energy efficiency, among others. The study analyzes the economics and performance characteristics of emerging energy technologies across a host of application areas within the facilities, transport, and portable power domains. It includes detailed profiles of key industry players and provides detailed market forecasts through 2030. An Executive Summary of the report is available for free download on the firm’s website.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativeLeadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy

Military using green tech

Nosowitz, former writer for FastCompany.com and SmartPlanet, 2010

(Dan Nosowitz, October 5 2010, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/us-military-aims-use-50-renewable-energy-within-ten-years, popsci.com, June 28, 2011, AJ)

Of all places, the U.S. military has proven one of the fiercest proponents of renewable energy, and for totally practical reasons -- most importantly cost and safety. Now, military higher-ups plan to rely on renewable energy sources for 50 percent of their power by 2020, which could help the worldwide advancement of those technologies immeasurably. One company of Marines, saddled with tons of solar power tech, is kickstarting this revolution. The military is not a new player on the renewable energy scene; the Navy has previously pledged to have a "Green Strike Group" by 2012, was the biggest purchaser of electric cars in the country, and is working on "zero-footprint" camps. These aren't ideological choices--renewable energy and many of its applications are simply better than fossil fuels in many ways. Says Ray Mabus, secretary of the Navy: "Fossil fuel is the number-one thing we import to Afghanistan, and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people." The convoys that deliver fossil fuel are frequent targets of insurgent attack, which can impair both the delivery system and the lives of civilians and soldiers--a study found that roughly one civilian or soldier is killed for every 24 fuel convoys sent. And given that fuel often makes up, 30 to 80 percent of every convoy's load, according to the New York Times, that's a lot of danger. The reason renewable sources have been slow to take hold is largely for their high cost of production--a certain amount of solar energy is far more expensive to produce than the same amount of energy from fossil fuels. But given the astronomically high prices of transport for fossil fuels, solar energy, for one, doesn't seem so pricey. Solar energy may be more expensive to produce, but carting around solar panels is far less dangerous and expensive than repeatedly shipping fossil fuels around the world. The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, which set off from California last week, are the first to bring renewable energy tech to a battle zone. That tech includes portable solar panels, solar chargers, and solar tents. The military clearly hopes this venture will serve as a model for the future--Mabus said that he's pushing for the military to rely on 50 percent renewable energy by 2020. And with the military pushing so hard for new innovations in the field, the results will eventually drift down to us civilians. Hopefully these efforts can kickstart renewable energy--if it's good enough for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, it's surely good enough for your office.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativeLeadership Advantages Ext—military already uses alternative energy Military use of clean energy is on the rise

Greene, Writer for earthtechling.com monitor of alternative sources on earth, June 23rd, 2011

(Jasmine Greene, June 23rd, 2011, Earth Techling Energy monitor, http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/06/solar-power-feeds-into-israeli-power-grid/, June 28, 2011, AJ)

The U.S. Department of Defense no doubt, like other armed forces in the world, consumes vast amounts of fossil fuels in its operations. Thankfully our military and those of other nations are moving towards more renewable sources of energy to cut down their costs and reduce their carbon footprint. Pike Research believes that global military spending on renewable energy will increase from the $1.8 billion in 2010 to $26.8 billion by 2030, with likely a good portion of that being right here in the U.S. There are many renewable energy initiatives being put forth by the DoD. The army has mandated a minimum of 25 percent renewable energy by 2025 and reduction of energy consumption by 30 percent by 2015. Many plans have been forth to achieve these goals, ranging from solar installations at various military facilities to greater use of biofuels in military aircraft and energy efficiency upgrades of at different bases. image via U.S. Marine Corps/Gunnery Sgt. William Price While the DoD accounts for about 80 percent of the US government’s total energy annually, according to Pike Research, their energy consumption has decreased 60 percent over the past 25 years. Approximately 75 percent of that energy goes towards mobility (primary liquid fuels consumption) during wartime, with 25 percent spent on facilities.  During peacetime, the energy is dispersed more evenly among the two categories. Naturally, the majority of the renewable energy spending will go towards mobility by pushing forward synth and biofuels for military vehicles and improved battery/fuel cells for portable soldier power. As far as the facilities go, the DoD has invested in over 450 renewable energy initiatives, with solar leading the way followed by wind, geothermal, hydrokinetics, fuel cells, wave energy and other projects. The DoD plans on having all facilities operating, at least partially, off the grid by 2030.The DoD also received $12.02 billion in 2009 and 2010 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund 45 energy conservation projects in 17 states. According to Pike Research’s report, “Renewable Energy for Military Applications” , should the military continue to invest in renewable energy, they will not only create a green army, but reportedly create a “green revolution” that will impact non-military sectors. The only issue, of course, is that renewable energy must be as reliable as fossil fuels and meet military standards.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Leadership Advantage Extension—competitiveness high now Competitiveness is high now – prefer our ev, it assumes trends.Titus Galama and James Hosek, RAND Corporation, “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology,” 2008, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdfWe find that the United States continues to lead the world in science and technology. The United States grew faster in many measures of S&T capability than did Japan and Europe, and developing nations such as China, India, and South Korea showed rapid growth in S&T output measures, but they are starting from a small base . These developing nations do not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan. The United States accounts for 40 percent of total world R&D spending and 38 percent of patented new technology inventions by the industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), employs 37 percent (1.3 million) of OECD researchers (FTE), produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications, citations, and highly cited publications, employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners and 66 percent of its most-cited individuals, and is the home to 75 percent of both the world’s top 20 and top 40 universities and 58 percent of the top 100.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Leadership Advantage Extension—economic power not key to military

Military strength is not tied to economic powerJulius, 05 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Deanne, Harvard International Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18)The concept of national power has both military and economic dimensions . While the two are related , they can also exist independently . The Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s, for example, was a military superpower but economically weak and isolated , while Japan during the 1980s was an economic superpower with a weak military . Much attention has been devoted, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the military aspect of US power and how it is exercised both in unilateral action and through alliances like NATO. By contrast, the question of economic power has been relatively neglected, perhaps because it is more difficult to define and measure. This article is an attempt to remedy the imbalance and provoke further discussion on the emerging shape of the world economy and the ability of the United States to influence it.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Aerospace Industry resilient now Aerospace industry resilient – job growthLancaster Eagle Gazette 2/6 (2/6/11, " Aerospace business big for Ohio ", http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20110206/NEWS01/102060304/-1/NEWS17/Aerospace-business-big-Ohio?odyssey=nav%7Chead)

President Barack Obama could have been speaking about Ohio's aerospace industry when he said in his State of the Union address: the nation is facing a "Sputnik moment." More than a century after Dayton's Wright brothers gave birth to flight, innovation is driving employment for more than 100,000 Ohioans directly involved in all facets of aviation. Now, the No. 2 technical industry in Ohio needs a new coordinated, statewide focus to counter growing international competition, budget cuts and shifting priorities. That's the central conclusion of a yearlong analysis by 75

industry leaders from across the state. "It's incredibly important we don't take our aerospace industry for granted," said Gary Conley, president of Bond Hill-based TechSolve, an industry consulting center. "Every other country in the world wants what we have." Conley is part of the Ohio Aerospace and Business Aviation Advisory Council, created under former Gov. Ted Strickland and preparing to present its findings to new Gov. John Kasich. Building on the state's aviation heritage and expertise, the panel concluded Ohio needs to pursue emerging markets such as unmanned systems while continuing to invest in aviation infrastructure, advanced materials and high-skill worker training. Council member

Charles Dutch, director of Boeing Co.'s electronic guidance and repair center, which employs 518 workers east of Columbus, said panel members all "came away surprised at the breadth and depth of the capabilities we have in Ohio." But, he said, "a lot of other states do a better job of coordinating the aerospace industry." Obama's call for a "Sputnik moment" to mobilize the nation's education, technology and investment for the future also could accelerate aerospace research and development in Ohio, industry leaders have said. "Anything the federal government does in terms of a national goal in that regard will benefit Ohio," Conley said. A GROWING MARKET Only motor-vehicle manufacturing employs more highly skilled workers than aerospace, the panel said. It estimated an Ohio aerospace worker earns an

average $76,600 a year compared to $46,300 for manufacturing as a whole. "It has everything you want in an industry," Conley said. "It's a growing market, and it pays well." GE Aviation, based in Evendale, is the world's largest jet engine maker and the state's largest exporter. It employs 8,000 in Ohio, most of them at the sprawling local complex. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton is Ohio's largest single aerospace employer, with more than 27,000 workers. It's a center for Air Force aerospace systems, material procurement and a main research lab. Cleveland's NASA Glenn Research Center has one-of-a kind testing and research capabilities in propulsion and space systems. It employs 1,600. The state also counts a strong university network that includes the University of Cincinnati, which offers advanced degrees in aerospace technology and engineering. Leading aerospace component makers include Goodrich Corp., Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Eaton Corp. European aircraft-maker Airbus said it buys more than $4 billion of its $10 billion in U.S. purchases annually from Ohio companies. The other leading aircraft-maker, Boeing Co., said Ohio represents its second largest supplier base approaching $5 billion annually.

The market is resilient – sales proveFinancial Times 1/24 (John O'Doherty, 1/24/11, " Defence groups target US military spending ", http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3825e908-27f7-11e0-8abc-00144feab49a.html)BAE, Britain’s largest defence company, has led the charge into the US. In 2004, it made £4.2bn in sales to the US military and £3bn in sales to the UK. By 2009, BAE’s sales to the US military had doubled to £8.4bn while sales to the UK were up by only a third to £4.1bn. Despite the loss of US government contracts for armoured cargo carriers in 2000, that trend has continued over the past year. BAE’s sales to the US military rose 18 per cent year-on-year, while sales to the UK rose a more modest 12 per cent. Chemring – a maker of decoy devices, munitions and detection equipment – has also seen strong US growth. In 2009, sales to the US jumped 66 per cent to £236m, accounting for just under half of group revenue. The group’s Niitek division, which makes landmine detection vehicles used to counter roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been particularly successful. Sales to the UK and mainland Europe, the group’s two other large markets, have been buoyant but less rapid, up 45 per cent and 13 per cent respectively over the year. Cobham, which makes cockpit electronics and radio equipment for battlefield communication, has followed a similar path. In 2005, revenues from the US made up 40 per cent of turnover, with 20 per cent from the UK. The US now makes up 62 per cent of the group’s £1.9bn annual turnover while the UK makes up less than 10 per cent. The main attraction of the US market has been the growth in defence spending over the past 10 years. The US defence budget grew from $316bn in 2001 to $793bn in 2010.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Warming Advantage 1. No need for plan—existing solar tech will displace coal and oil Better solar cell technology will replace half of energy sources within 5 yearsPritchard 07(Ambrose Evans- Pritchard, The Daily Telegraph, February 19, 2007, Lexis-Nexis UNT, JP)

WITHIN five years, solar power will be cheap enough to compete with carbon-generated electricity, even in Britain, Scandinavia or upper Siberia. In a decade, the cost may have fallen so dramatically that solar cells could undercut oil, gas, coal and nuclear power by up to half. Technology is leaping ahead of a stale political debate about fossil fuels.Anil Sethi, the chief executive of the Swiss start-up company Flisom, says he looks forward to the day - not so far off - when entire cities in America and Europe generate their heating, lighting and air-conditioning needs from solar films on buildings with enough left over to feed a surplus back into the grid. The secret? Mr Sethi lovingly cradles a piece of dark polymer foil, as thin a sheet of paper. It is 200 times lighter than the normal glass-based solar materials, which require expensive substrates and roof support. Indeed, it is so light it can be stuck to the sides of buildings.Rather than being manufactured laboriously piece by piece, it can be mass-produced in cheap rolls like packaging - in any colour.The "tipping point'' will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in the late 1970s.Mr Sethi believes his product will cut the cost to 80 cents per watt within five years, and 50 cents in a decade.2. Can’t claim to solve warming---even if they reduce emissions they can’t stop the effect of previous emission levels Walsh, covers environment, energy, and disease for TIME magazine, 2011(Bryan Walsh, TIME magazine http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01/10/climate-unstoppable-global-warming/#ixzz1QVftMyb3, January 10, 2011, accessed 6-27 as)

One of the biggest obstacles to reducing carbon emissions is the simple fact that political time and climatological time are very, very different. Politicians in elected democracies think on two- or four-year cycles—if that—while even the leaders of an autocratic state like China, without the pressures of an election, are still limited in just how far ahead they can plan. That's not just politics—that's human psychology. We tend not to be very good at planning for the future—just look at the long-term decline in the American savings rate—and that's just thinking over the scale of a human lifetime. Climatological time is closer to "deep time," the writer John McPhee's term for how the planet's geology changes over millions to even billions of years, a span of time simply unfathomable to human beings. Climate can change a lot faster than that—thanks largely to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases we've been pumping into the atmosphere over the past 150 years—but it still moves a lot slower than political time, so it's easy to put off until tomorrow.

But two papers published over the weekend in Nature Geoscience show that the very length of climatological time can frustrate our efforts to slow global warming—assuming we can begin to do that. In one paper, a group of Canadian researchers decided to see how the climate system might react over the next hundreds of years if greenhouse gas emissions kept rising to a high level until 2100, and then were zeroed out. (Download a PDF here.) As of 2100, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reach some 1,000 ppm—two and a half times the current level, and well above the 450 or 350 ppm that many scientists believe would be a safe limit. At that point, emissions magically stop—impossible in the real world, but this is a model. Carbon dioxide, however, can stay in the atmosphere for centuries or even longer, so warming doesn't end when the emissions do. The damage is already done—and continues for the next 900 years.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Warming Advantage 3. Our DA outweighs your climate claims---Nuclear War leads to greater climate threat than global warmingHarrell, covers nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, and nuclear security issues for TIME magazine, 2011(Eben Harrell, TIME magazine http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/25/why-nukes-are-the-most-urgent-environmental-threat/#ixzz1QVhvwQ00, February 25, 2011, accessed 6-27 as)

Environmentalists: Wake up! There is a greater and more urgent threat to the climate than even global warming: the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Why are nuclear bombs an environmental problem? We have long known that a large-scale nuclear war would lead to a sudden change in climate—called a nuclear winter—that could threaten all life on earth. But in the past decade, climate scientists have used advanced climate modeling to show that even a small exchange of nuclear weapons—between 50-100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, which India and Pakistan already have their in arsenal—would produce enough soot and smoke to block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history.

4. no internal link—adaptation

Ecosystems, sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2002

(Ecosystems, http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/ecosystems/Hazards/global_warming.htm, 2002, as)

Dinosaurs used to live in the Northwestern part of the U.S. where it now gets very cold in the winter. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. What does that tell you? A good part of Texas was once underneath the ocean. What does that tell you? In short, we know from studying the earth's history that there have been Ice Ages and global warming periods long before humans existed. Scientists do not know why these major climate changes have occurred, but there are some possibilities: Explosions on the sun ("sun spots") Volcanic eruptions on a massive scale Changes in earth orbit Changes in earth's orientation toward the sun Explosions caused by large meteors hitting the earth As the world evolves, changes in the earth's environment affect the climate in various ways. For example, explosions on the sun generate even more heat than the sun normally gives off and some of this heat makes it to the earth causing rising temperatures. Volcanic eruptions on Earth can cause temperatures to decrease, because the smoke and gases given off can act like an umbrella shade and prevent sunlight from passing through the atmosphere. Any slight change in the earth's orbit could cause the earth to move closer or farther away from the sun. This could radically change temperatures, because the earth would be closer or farther away from its principle source of heat.

5. CO2 from humans has a minor effect on warmingCunningham 2010[Walter Cunningham, United States Marine Corps, National Aeronautics and Space Administration - pilot of Apollo 7, graduate degrees from UCLA in physics and the Harvard Graduate School of Business, member of the Advisory Board for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010 “Global Warming: Facts versus Faith” The Heartland Institute p.7-9]The advocates of AGW say the United States must impose a devastating tax scheme to force industry to emit less carbon dioxide, thereby reversing the warming trend. This policy prescription is based on three assumptions: (1) that CO2 is the cause of changes in the Earth’s temperature; (2) that a warmer Earth would be bad for the planet’s flora and fauna, including humans; and (3) that humans are capable of controlling the temperature of the Earth. In reality, water vapor has more than twice the impact on temperature as atmospheric CO2, aided and abetted by other greenhouse gases, like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). With CO2 representing just 3.6 percent of greenhouse gases, by volume, and human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that, we can influence only a tiny portion of the total greenhouse gases. Some studies have found CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. The true believers in AGW base their case on a broad and weak correlation between CO2 and global temperature in the last half of the twentieth century. They cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Looking at much longer periods of the Earth’s history, it becomes clear that temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels by anywhere from 100 to 800 years, suggesting that higher temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, rather than vice versa. The

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negativeonly other time in history that temperature and CO2 levels were this low, together, was 300 million years ago. There have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times higher than they are now—periods characterized not by warming but by glaciations. (See Figure 4.) You might have to go back half-a-million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you have to go back only to the Medieval Warm Period, from the tenth to the fourteenth century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of those events can be attributed to variations in CO2 levels. Since CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” and human activity contributes only a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, why have alarmists made it the whipping boy for global warming? Probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other atmospheric drivers of climate—water, methane, and nitrous oxide—not to mention volcanic eruptions, or ocean temperature, or solar activity, etc. So they wage war on man-made CO2, no matter how ridiculous it makes them appear. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of -18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable +15 degrees Celsius. Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon dioxide is a non-polluting gas that is essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger crop harvests and larger and healthier forests—results environmentalists used to like.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Frontline versus Warming Advantage 5. It’s too late – past emissions guarantee locked weather cycles for the next 1000 years Gitlin 2009[Jonathan M. Gitlin, January 27, 2009, “Study: too late to turn back the clock on climate change,” http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/01/study-too-late-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-climate-change.ars]This week's PNAS brings with it some bad news on the climate front: even if policy makers and the general public get on board with drastic CO2 emission cuts, it's already too late to prevent serious changes to the planet's climate, and those changed will be remarkably persistent. Those are the findings of a group of researchers from the US, Switzerland, and France. In their paper, they look at the effect of increasing CO2 over millennial time frames, and it's worrisome stuff. Currently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 385 ppm, a 35 percent increase over pre-industrial levels. The most optimistic scenarios arrive at a figure of 450 ppm as the best we might be able to achieve in the coming decades, but even at that level, changes in precipitation patterns, temperature increases, and a rise in sea level appear to be locked in for at least the next thousand years. The dynamics of the oceans are to blame. According to Susan Soloman, Senior Scientist at NOAA and lead author, "In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases." One of the most profound effects looks to be a severe decrease in rainfall that will affect the southeastern US, the Mediterranean, southern Asia, and swathes of subtropical Africa and South America. Sea levels are going to rise too. Without even accounting for melting ice sheets, the sheer thermal expansion of the Earth's oceans will be between 0.4-1m, and as with the temperature rise and the changes to rainfall, these effects look set to persist for at least until the year 3000.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Warming defense ext Warming is Natural – Solar variability Singer 2008[S. Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia atmospheric and space physicist, founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, has served as chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62), 2008 “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate; Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change ” Science and Environmental Policy Project, The Heartland Institute]If human influences on global climate are minor, what are the major influences? There are many causes of global climate change, each one prominent depending on the time scale considered. On a time scale of decades to centuries, solar variability may be the most important factor. There are also natural oscillations of internal origin, especially on a regional scale, that do not appear to be connected to human causes either. ! Internal oscillations play a major role in climate change, yet cannot be forecast. The most prominent natural climate oscillations are the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The IPCC report describes them well and assigns them to internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system. It is significant, however, that they cannot be forecast by conventional climate models although attempts are being made to incorporate them into climate forecasts to improve forecasting skill [Smith 2007;Kerr 2007]. On the other hand, these may be merely attempts to provide ‘band-aid’ solutions to explain the absence of a warming trend since 1998.Tsonis et al. [2007] analyze large-scale circulation pattern indices, like ENSO, PDO, NAO; they obtain the 1976/77 climate shift as due to a combination of these indices and show a future shift around 2035. ! The role of solar influences on the climate can no longer be neglected. The IPCC has been disingenuous about solar influences on the climate. Its first report completely ignored solar variability. The IPCC began to take notice only after the pioneering work of Baliunas and Jastrow [1990] and the startling correlation between twentieth-century temperature and solar-cycle length, published by Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991]. Even then, IPCC reports have persisted up until now in concentrating on solar-cycle changes as ‘total solar irradiance’ (TSI),which are quite small, of the order of 0.1 percent[Lean et al. 1995; Willson and Mordvinov 2003].By disregarding or ignoring the very much larger changes of solar ultraviolet [Haigh 1996, 2003] or of the solar wind and its magnetic-field effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage [Svensmark2007a], the IPCC has managed to trivialize the climate effects of solar variability. The AR4 report reduced the IPCC’s already-too-low solar impact by about a factor of three so that it became a mere ~1/13 of the anthropogenic influence. The IPCC does not discuss or even reference basic research papers in this field (by Veizer, Shaviv, and, to some extent, Svensmark).Such an omission is difficult to justify in a report that claims to be the most definitive and inclusive assessment of knowledge on climate change. However, this neglect may no longer be acceptable. The demonstration of solar influence on climate is now overwhelming. One of the prize exhibits is seen in Figure 14 [Neff et al. 2001], which summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman. The carbon-14 variations are a clear indication of corresponding changes in galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which are modulated by variations in solar activity. The oxygen-18values are proxies for a climate parameter, like temperature or precipitation, from a shift in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The correlation extends well over 3,000 years, with amazingly detailed correspondence. The bottom graph shows the central 400 years expanded and is accurate on almost a yearly basis, making a cause-effect relationship very likely. The best explanation for these observations, and similar ones elsewhere, is that – as has long been recognized [Singer 1958] – GCR intensity is modulated by the strength of the solar wind and its magnetic field. More recently, a detailed mechanism whereby cosmic rays can affect cloudiness and therefore climate has been suggested and verified experimentally by Henrik Svensmark [2007a,b].More detailed work is to take place under the CLOUD project proposed by a group of scientists at CERN, the world’s largest particle accelerator. Lockwood and Frohlich [2007] have claimed a divergence between TSI and temperature in the past20 years; but this claim is disputed by both solar and climate experts. For example, evidence for climate effects of TSI in more recent times is presented by Scafetta and West [2007], and of solar activity by Usoskin and Kovaltsov [2007]. Shaviv [2002, 2005]has demonstrated the climate effects of flux variations of Galactic Cosmic Rays on the hundred-million-year time scale. See also Shavivand Veizer [2003].There now is little doubt that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of climate change on a decadal time scale. Once the IPCC comes to terms with this finding, it will have to concede that solar variability provides a better explanation for 20thCentury warming than GH effects. Indeed, solar variability may explain the pre-1940 warming and subsequent cooling period, the MWP and LIA – and other quasi-periodic climate oscillation with a period of roughly 1,500 years, going back a million years or more [Singer and Avery 2007].

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Warming defense ext no impact—CO2 not the key source of warming Bedard, world and report US news, 10/7/11(Paul Bedard, usnews.com, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming, retrieved on 6/28/11, HM)

<Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the   greenhouse   gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global

warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand   plant   growth. Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other

scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and

unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at   higher CO2 levels   make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less   water . He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Warming Advantage--Nuke war outweighs warming extension Impact- Nuclear war leads to cancer, eye damage, depletion of sea life, and famineHarrell, covers nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, and nuclear security issues for TIME magazine, 2011(Eben Harrell, TIME magazine http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/25/why-nukes-are-the-most-urgent-environmental-threat/#ixzz1QVhvwQ00, February 25, 2011, as)

Scary? It gets worse. New research by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) suggests that the above scenario of a "limited" nuclear war would also burn a hole through the ozone layer, allowing extreme levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth's surface, which would greatly damage agriculture and most likely lead to a global nuclear famine.

It seems it does not take a cold war posture of MAD—mutually assured destruction—to threaten civilization as we know it.

Presenting the research at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Washington D.C. last week, NCAR scientist Michael Mills explained that the heat and soot in the stratosphere following limited nuclear war would lead to "low-ozone" columns over cities, which would increase cancer rates and eye damage dramatically. But the ozone loss would be so great that it would also have serious repercussions for plant life, including   “plant height reduction, decreased shoot mass, and reduction in foliage area” and long-term genetic instability. Another risk is depletion of phytoplankton that feed sea life.

“It would be very difficult for us to grow the type of crops we grow today,” Mills said, according to Global Security Newswire. “In addition to ecological damage, there would be a global nuclear famine.”

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

SQ solves increase in SPS California contracting for SPS in SQWang 09(Ucilia Wang, November 4 2009, Green Tech Media, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Space-the-Next-Frontier-For-Renewable-Power/, JP)<Now Spirnak is leading a small team at a company he co-founded to tackle an unprecedented mission: building a space solar power plant that will convert electricity into radio waves that can be beamed down to Earth, where the radiation will be converted back to electricity for feeding the grid.The Manhattan, Calif.-based company, Solaren Corp. , expects to close funding in less than two months to start developing the project in earnest, Spirnak told Greentech Media. He hopes to raise more than $100 million, the amount Solaren will need to validate its designs in the lab."Space solar power was in the realm of the government and academic world before," said Spirnak, Solaren's CEO who also and a former spacecraft project engineer for the U.S. Air Force. "This is a business for us. It's about making a good return for our investors."The space solar company seemed to have popped out of nowhere when it announced a deal to sell electricity from the space solar farm to Pacific Gas and Electric in April this year. It also made PG&E the only utility in the United States, if not the world, to agree to a space solar power contract.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

**counterplans**

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

***Someone Else Do It***

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Japan CP 1NC Text: The government of Japan should

Contention one: avoids politics and spending Contention two: solvency Japanese companies already testing and developing spsThe Yomiuri Shimbun 11(The Yomiuri Shimbun, Jan 23 2011, http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110122002679.htm, JP)<A team of scientists from several organizations will begin tests this spring on a space-based power generation technology using satellites, it was learned Saturday.The technology would start by generating electricity from sunlight in space, convert the power into microwaves and then send it to Earth, the team said. The planned test will attempt to convert a strong electric current into microwaves and transmit them 10 meters away in a simulated outer space environment at Kyoto University.The group comprises scientists from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., IHI Corp. and Kyoto University.A successful test would likely accelerate the goal of putting a space-based power generation system into practical use by 2025.Space-based solar power generation, which is 10 times more efficient than earthbound generation, would be a major step forward in terms of fulfilling energy needs, as the strength of sunlight in space is about twice that on Earth, and there are four or five times the hours of sunlight due to the absence of clouds.Mitsubishi Electric has proposed what it calls the Solarbird project, in which 40 relatively small 200-meter solar power generating satellites would be launched. This could produce 1 million kilowatts of electricity, equivalent to a nuclear power plant.The Solarbird system would collect sunlight using reflecting mirrors fitted onto satellites in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the equator. After the electricity is generated, it would be converted into microwaves and transmitted to Earth. The microwaves--to be sent as harmless radio waves--would be received at ground stations 3 kilometers in diameter and placed on the sea or in sunny desert areas, and then converted back into electricity.The key to making the system practical hinges on the efficient conversion of electricity into microwaves.The experiment will be conducted in a room that does not reflect electromagnetic waves to mimic the conditions of space.If the team succeeds in converting a strong electrical current into microwaves and transmitting them about 10 meters, it will then start work on reducing the weight of the power generation equipment and improving the transmission technology. The team hopes to launch a trial satellite sometime after 2016.It is estimated that implementing a workable space-based solar power generation system will cost about 2 trillion yen.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Japan CP Solvency extension Japan improving SPS tech Mohammed and Ramasamy, Politicians and former Members of the Legislative Assembly, ‘09(S. Sheik Mohammed and K.Ramasamy, proceedings of international conference on energy and environment, Ebsco, AJ)The research on SPS system was started by the Japanese scientists and engineers in early 1980’s.A series of MPT experiments were held by them and the important of which is the world’s first rocket ionosphere experiment in 1983 and experiments on the ground. Many computer simulations and theoretical works were also conducted. The Japan Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA) initiated various studies on the conceptual and technical feasibility of SPS. JAXA proposed its first SPS model in 2001. In 2001 model, the efficiency of the entire module was degraded by excessive heat. In the subsequent year; the 2002 model was conceived by JAXA to solve the main problems of the 2001 model. A major breakthrough in SPS development is the formation flying SPS which was proposed in 2003.A simple, technically feasible and practically configurable SPS has been investigated and a simpler model is proposed by the institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF). The Solar Power Satellite working group of the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science(ISAS) proposed SPS-2000 for demonstration of electrical power supply to the customers at the earliest opportunity in the year 2002. Various aspects such as social, economic, legal, political and other non-engineering aspects have also been considered in SPS-2000. Recently, JAXA is said to begin testing on the microwave power transmission system with an attempt to beam power over 2.45 GHz band to power a household heater at 50m.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Japan CP Solvency Extension Japan investing now – solves warmingKaplan, Fox News Staff writer, 09(Jeremy A. Kaplan, Fox News Digital Network, FOXNews.com, 6/22/11, KJ)Japan is aiming to collect solar power in space and zap it down to Earth using laser beams or microwaves. The government has picked companies and researchers to turn the multi-billion pound dream of unlimited clean energy into reality by 2030. Japan has few energy resources of its own and is heavily reliant on oil imports. The predicament has forced the country to become a leader in solar and other renewable energies . This year it set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, but its boldest plan to date is the Space Solar Power System . It involves an array of photovoltaic dishes, reaching across several square miles, that hover in geostationary orbit outside the Earth's atmosphere. "Since solar power is a clean and inexhaustible energy source, we believe that this system will be able to help solve the problems of energy shortage and global warming," Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of the project participants, said. "The sun's rays abound in space." The solar cells would capture the sun's energy, which is at least five times stronger in space than on Earth, and beam it down to the ground through clusters of lasers or microwaves. These would be collected by huge parabolic antennae, likely to be located in restricted areas at sea or on dam reservoirs, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Jaxa) said. The researchers are trying for a 1-gigawatt system, equivalent to a medium-sized atomic power plant. It would produce electricity at 8 yen (about 9 cents) per kilowatt-hour - six times cheaper than its current cost in Japan. Jaxa said the technology would be safe but conceded it might have to dispel fears of laser beams from above roasting birds or slicing up aircraft in mid-air. The government-selected consortium, called the Institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer, includes Mitsubishi Electric, NEC, Fujitsu and Sharp .

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Japan CP Solvency

Japan CP: Japan can solve for SPS development

Flournoy, Professor of Telecommunications Ohio University, Athens Ohio, 2010

(Don, Online Space Journal of Communication http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/flournoy.html)

It is encouraging to see that Japan has already made a financial commitment to go to space as one of its alternative energy solutions. In September 2009, a research group representing 16 companies, including Mitsubishi Electric and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, announced a two trillion yen ($21 billion) effort to build and launch a 1 GW solar station into GEO orbit that will be in operation by 2030. The satellite will be fitted with four square kilometers of solar panels. In 2015, a smaller demonstration satellite fitted with wireless power transmission equipment will be used to test power beaming to earth.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Japan CP AT: “Japan has no SPS interest/research” Japan focused on sps now—tech development Mohammed and Ramasamy, Politicians and former Members of the Legislative Assembly , ‘09(S. Sheik Mohammed and K.Ramasamy, proceedings of international conference on energy and environment, ebsco, AJ)Ground Demonstration of power relays to test the WPT up to 10kms, laboratory demonstration for initial SSP platforms for 100kW and lunar pole exploration using robotic rovers powered by WPT in the power range from 5kW to 20kW are planned for 2008-2010. Moderate size SSP platform for 10MW power could be developed and demonstrated by the period 2016-2020. Beyond 2020, technology needed for full scale in-space SSP prototype platform which produces 1 to 2GW of power or greater could demonstrate base load power transmission for terrestrial market . JAXA, which plans to have a Space Solar Power System (SSPS) up and running by 2030, envisions a system consisting of giant solar collectors in geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. The satellites convert sunlight into powerful microwave (or laser) beams that are aimed at receiving stations on Earth, where they are converted into electricity. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan announced the plan to begin the operation Solar Power generation from space by 2040.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

France CP Solvency France develop SPS in the SQMohammed and Ramasamy, Politicians and former Members of the Legislative Assembly, ‘09(S. Sheik Mohammed and K.Ramasamy, proceedings of international conference on energy and environment, ebsco, AJ)France is at the fore front of European interest in Wireless Power Technology. In 1995 France proposed the transmission of 100kW power across a 3km chasm on Reunion Island. The “Sail tower” SPS was proposed by Europeans in 2001. In the year 2003, the Advanced Concepts Team(ACT) of the European Space Agency initiated a three phased multiyear program related to solar power from space and a point to point wireless transmission to deliver 10 kW of electricity power to reunion island was also examined in the same year.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private companies CP infrastructure Private funding exists for SPS infrastructure Xin et al , Masters degree in aerospace management, 2009 (Sun Xin , Evelyn Panier, Cornelius Zünd, and Raul Gutiérrez Gómez, Toulouse Business School, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2009-FinancialAndOrganizationalAnalysisForSSP.pdf, AJ)

With the exception of government funding as indicated in the Political section, there aredifferent ways in which a SSPS project could receive money. Depending on how the SSPSproject is structured, sources of income other than the government could include businesspartners, private investors, income from related activities, or even income related to the sale ortransfer of technologies discovered during the development phase.Although at first the question of funding may seem to be a very difficult obstacle, with a littlecreative thinking it could prove to be very beneficial.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private companies CP- aerospace industry NEG: Private CP: Private key to aerospace industryRogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07(Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study, JP)<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 century—that 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 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. >

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private Companies CP – Solvency investment Private companies investing in SPS now

Boyle, quals, 9(Alan Boyle, MSN, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30198977/, 6/22/11, KJ)California's biggest energy utility announced a deal Monday to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity from a startup company that plans to beam the power down to Earth from outer space, beginning in 2016. San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric said it was seeking approval from state regulators for an agreement to purchase power over a 15-year period from Solaren Corp., an 8-year-old company based in Manhattan Beach, Calif. The agreement was first reported in a posting to Next100, a Weblog produced by PG&E. Solaren would generate the power using solar panels in Earth orbit and convert it to radio-frequency transmissions that would be beamed down to a receiving station in Fresno, PG&E said. From there, the energy would be converted into electricity and fed into PG&E's power grid. PG&E is pledging to buy the power at an agreed-upon rate, comparable to the rate specified in other agreements for renewable-energy purchases, company spokesman Jonathan Marshall said. Neither PG&E nor Solaren would say what that rate was, due to the proprietary nature of the agreement. However, Marshall emphasized that PG&E would make no up-front investment in Solaren's venture. "We've been very careful not to bear risk in this," Marshall told msnbc.com. Solaren's chief executive officer, Gary Spirnak, said the project would be the first real-world application of space solar power, a technology that has been talked about for decades but never turned into reality. "While a system of this scale and exact configuration has not been built, the underlying technology is very mature and is based on communications satellite technology," he said in a Q&A posted by PG&E. A study drawn up for the Pentagon came to a similar conclusion in 2007. However, that study also said the cost of satellite-beamed power would likely be significantly higher than market rates, at least at first.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private CP – Solvency Private sector solves – tech is feasibleHaislip, Reuters Staff Writer, 09(Alexandr Haislip, Reuters, 7/21/9, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/21/us-solar-roundup-idUSTRE56K3CD20090721, 6/23/11, KJ)Solaren isn't the only company that is working on collecting solar power from space. Japan's space agency, JAXA, is also looking at how to deploy a similar system, but it is not planning to have anything available for launch before 2030, according to the space agency. Angel investors, presumably the investors that Spirnak is reaching out to, may be more skeptical than he realizes. "As of now, there remain major unsolved technical issues with this type of project," says Burton Lee, principal and co-founder of the Space Angels Network. Lee says that he has seen two similar startups aim to collect solar power from space. He says that he's wary of entrepreneurs pushing for this type of commercial space endeavor. "Space advocacy groups need to take care not to let their justifiable enthusiasm for human exploitation of space resources color their professional judgment as to near- and medium-term feasible space businesses and technologies," he says. If solar power from space sounds like it has a science fiction bent to it, that's because it does. The concept was proposed in 1941 by science fiction author Isaac Asimov in his short story "Reason," which tells the tale of two astronauts who are assigned to a space station that supplies energy via microwave beams to the planets. The robots that control the energy beams have highly developed reasoning ability. Using these abilities, the robots decide that space, stars and the planets beyond the station don't really exist, and that the humans that visit the station are unimportant, short-lived and expendable. Outside of science fiction, however, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office gave space-based solar power high marks in a 2007 report: "There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship ... and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a."

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private Sector CP - ComSat

CP: Private Sector solves SPS development

Flournoy, Professor of Telecommunications Ohio University, Athens Ohio, 2010

(Don, Online Space Journal of Communication http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/flournoy.html)

No solar power satellites (SunSats) are yet in operation. While all space-based satellites host some type of solar collector for the energy needed to power and control them, no satellites are in orbit today for the primary purpose of gathering energy from the sun and delivering it to earth. Because an abundant and sustainable new source of energy is desperately needed on earth and the current level of technological development will now permit it, a huge new satellite sector is about to emerge relaying energy from space to the ground where it will be used as electricity .

The logical path forward in development of solar power generation plants in space is to go in partnership with the commercial satellite (ComSat) industry, a well-established ($140 billion per year) sector with 30-plus years of expertise in designing, manufacturing, launching and operating spacecraft in orbit above the earth. ComSat stakeholders can be predicted to take the lead in any new SunSat ventures because this is their home territory. Once it is clear that satellites parked in geosynchronous orbit can safely and profitably deliver energy as well as video, voice and data signals, the ComSat industry will be there with the global perspective, the venture capital, the regulatory clout, the managerial experience and the marketing skills to turn such an enterprise into a viable business.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private Sector CP - PowerSat The synergy of SPOT with BrightStar allows for efficient SPS which dramatically reduces launch costs – PowerSat can successfully sustain SPS

PowerSat, a pioneer in generating safe, clean, reliable energy, 2009 (PowerSat, “PowerSat Files Patent That Accelerates Viability Of Space Solar Power (SSP) Satellite Systems”, June 16 2009, http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090616005687&newsLang=en, Accessed on June 22, 2011. NP)

PowerSat Corporation’s first patented technology, BrightStar, allows individual powersats to form a wireless power transmission beam without being physically connected to each other. This “electronic coupling,” conceptually similar to cloud computing, effectively eliminates the need to handle large (gigawatt) levels of power in a single spacecraft. Because of BrightStar, one transmission beam may now come from hundreds of smaller powersats. Another advantage of Brightstar is increased reliability. If any of the individual component satellites fail they can be easily replaced without significantly affecting the performance of the system, thus establishing much greater reliability. The other technology being patented by PowerSat, Solar Power Orbital Transfer (SPOT) propels a spacecraft to an optimal, Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) using electronic thrusters that are powered by the same solar array that is eventually used for wireless power transmission. Until now, all satellites have had to use chemical propulsion or a chemically fueled “space tug” to move from Low Earth Orbit (LEO), which is 300-1,000 miles in altitude to GEO, which is 22,236 miles in altitude. SPOT technology also decreases the weight of a powersat by 67%, dramatically reducing launch costs, and enabling PowerSat modules to fly on rockets to LEO, deploy their solar powered electronic thrusters and then fly themselves out to GEO. GEO, the orbit for most communications satellites, is optimal because it allows a powersat to harvest the sun’s energy continuously.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Private Sector CP—tech development

By investing time in SPS technology it leads to disruptive technology which accelerates everything

Flournoy, Professor of Telecommunications Ohio University, Athens Ohio, 2010

(Don, Online Space Journal of Communication http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/flournoy.html)

While development of the thinner, lighter, cheaper photovoltaic (PV) cells that make terrestrial power production increasingly more efficient is benefitting communication systems in space, the benefits will be much greater for the solar power producers looking to reduce the size and increase the productivity of their antennas while holding down the costs of launching their much larger collector-arrays into space. Also benefitting the SunSat as well as ComSat industry will be promising new developments in remote construction, assembly, repair and replacement.

SunSats will need bigger, more efficient solar panels than are used by current day ComSats, since they will be collecting and processing sun's energy in substantially larger quantities. The principal purpose of their on-board power conversion and transmission systems will be to convert the sun's energy into microwaves and beam them down as a source of electrical power.

Among the more innovative SunSat designs are architectures that consist of more than one satellite, networking them together within a common space orbit, creating a photovoltaic mass of one-kilometer size or more. Multiple clusters of such satellites may one day be operating in space orbit, and these will be linked for global service. While building such structures, launching them and assembling them in space will be a massive undertaking, past space achievements (like the International Space Station, the Hubble Telescope, the Mars rovers and the many spacecraft that operate safely and productively in earth orbit) give us confidence that locating solar stations in space is within our reach.

ComSat architectures in the digital age have greatly improved functionality and performance as a result of on-board computer processing and control and effective use of spot beam technologies. These advance technology spacecraft can direct their communication transmissions to more narrowly defined regions, and increase power levels through cloud cover. Such beams can be moved from one receiver to another on command from earth. While transmitting a communication signal requires quite different operations from those needed in wireless power transmission, these more advanced ComSat designs will help to solve some of the challenges faced by SunSat engineers.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Xprize CP solves competitiveness -Prize spurs private corporations to compete in the space industry.Medin, Chief Industrial Designer, 10(Kristin Medin, “Disruptive Technology: A Space-Based Solar Power Industry Forecast”, Winter 10, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html, 6/22/11, KJ)

<In the early 1980's, Society Expeditions, a travel company known for its exotic cruises and eco tours, commissioned the Phoenix Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) to take tourists to space beginning in 1992. But, the Challenger shuttle explosion in 1986 made the government and the commercial markets more cautious, causing a delay in the progress of tourism services in the private sector.[3] In 1994, a visionary named Peter Diamandis created the X-Prize Foundation on the premise that it should not cost millions to travel to space. The best known of these prizes, dubbed the Ansari X-Prize, was for the development of an RLV that could launch, fly to sub-orbital space and return to land on the same runway from which it took off, and repeat the trip within two weeks. These were thought to be the tough but necessary criteria for a sustainable private spaceflight industry. That prize was claimed by Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites a full decade later.[4]>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

CP Solvency – International consortium for SPS International consortium creates benefits Cox, prosecutor and public interest lawyer, 11(William Cox, May 32 2011, The Public Record, http://pubrecord.org/politics/9116/race-space-solar-energy/, JP)<Rather than a competition, however, the United States, China, Japan, and perhaps Russia, should organize a public service consortium to cooperatively produce energy from outer space.Such a consortium could take advantage of the unique abilities of each nation to collectively produce space-solar energy, and it would avoid private corporate domination over the distribution of a product that is essential to human civilization.A Space-Solar Energy Consortium would be a giant step toward world peace and a small leap into the universe of unlimited and unimaginable futures that surround and await us.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Someone Else CP AT “U.S. Key” US Not key –other actors could act for sps Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07(Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study, JP)<Over the course of the study several overarching themes emerged: The SBSP Study Group concluded that space ‐ based solar power does present a strategic opportunity that could significantly advance US and partner security, capability, and freedom of action and merits significant further attention on the part of both the US Government and the private sector. The SBSP Study Group concluded that while significant technical challenges remain, Space ‐ Based Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability. A government‐led proof‐of‐concept demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector development. The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high ‐ level leadership and resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion energy research or International Space Station construction and operations. The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S. begin a coordinated national program to develop SBSP, it should expect to find that broad interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government, ranging from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments such as Japan, the EU, Canada, India, China, Russia, and others; to many individual citizens who are increasingly concerned about the preservation of energy security and environmental quality. While the best chances for development are likely to occur with US Government support, it is entirely possible that SBSP development may be independently pursued elsewhere without U.S. leadership. Certain key questions about Space‐Based Solar Power were not answerable with adequate precision within the time and resource limitations of this interim study, and form the agenda for future action (a complete description of these questions can be found in Appendix A – Space Based Solar Power Design Considerations and Tradeoffs). The fundamental tasks/questions are: o Identification of clear targets for economic viability in markets of interest o Identification of technical development goals and a roadmap for retiring risk o Selection of the best design trades o Full design and deployment of a meaningful demonstrator The study group determined that four overarching recommendations were most significant: - 2 - • _Recommendation #1: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should organize effectively to allow for the development of SBSP and conclude analyses to resolve remaining unknowns • _Recommendation #2: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should retire a major portion of the technical risk for business development • _Recommendation #3: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should create a facilitating policy, regulatory, and legal environment for the development of SBSP • _Recommendation #4: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer of SBSP and incentivize its development >

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

***Microwave PIC***

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC 1NC TEXT: The United States Congress should establish a coordinated national policy for the purpose of creating a space based solar power infrastructure excluding the use of microwave based delivery method.

Contention One: Competition—it is and it avoids the microwaves DA

Contention Two: Solvency Lasers alone solveGray, Science correspondent for the telegraph, 2010 (Richard Gray, 1/23/10, “Lasers to beam energy to Earth from space” accessed 6/28/11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/7060015/Lasers-to-beam-energy-to-Earth-from-space.html aes)It sounds more like a scheme dreamed up by a James Bond villain attempting to destroy the Earth than a technology that could help provide a solution to the planet's dwindling energy supplies. Engineers plan to put satellites into orbit around the planet that can gather energy from the sun, concentrate it into powerful laser beams and transmit the energy back to the Earth where it can be used to generate electricity. While harvesting solar energy in space has been discussed by scientists for more than 30 years, engineers at EADS Astrium, Europe's largest space company, now believe the technology is available to allow them to start building a working prototype. They hope to have a small demonstrator of a full sized space-based power station, capable of beaming back 10-20kW of power, ready for launch in the next five years. Using a network of these solar power stations it would be possible to provide energy on demand 24 hours a day – something that is not possible with solar power on the planet's surface which can only produce energy during the hours of sunlight.

And Microwaves hurt the environment including birds of prey ECE, department of electrical and computer engineering, 2011 (“SOLAR POWER SATELLITES & MICROWAVE TRANSMISSION” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2011, http://electricalandelectronics.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sps.pdf aes)On the earth, each rectenna for a full-power SPS would be about 10 km in diameter. This significant area possesses classical environmental issues. These could be overcome by siting rectenna in environmentally insensitive locations, such as in the desert, over water etc. The classic rectenna design would be transparent in sunlight, permitting growth and maintenance of vegetation under the rectenna. However, the issues related to microwaves continue to be the most pressing environmental issues. On comparing with the use of radar, microwave ovens , police radars, cellular phones and wireless base stations, laser pointers etc. public exposures from SPS would be similar or even less. Based on well developed antenna theory, the environmental levels of microwave power beam drop down to 0.1µW/cm² [12]. Even though human exposures to the 25 mW/cm²will, in general, be avoided, studies shows that people can tolerate such exposures for a period of at least 45 min. So concern about human exposure can be dismissed forthrightly [4]. Specific research over the years has been directed towards effects on birds, in particular. Modern reviews of this research show that only some birds may experience some thermal stress at high ambient temperatures. Of course, at low ambient temperatures the warming might be welcomed by birds and may present a nuisance attraction [13].

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativeMicrowave PIC 1NC

Birds Key To EcosystemsAspen Center for Environmental Studies, 2000. ("Birds of Prey," ASPEN, http://www.aspennature.org/locations/hallam-lake/birds-prey) “Bird of prey” refers to eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys and owls; all of which are adapted for a lifestyle of aerial hunting. These birds are also called raptors, from the Latin raptor (a robber) and rapere (to seize) referring to their ability to seize and carry off prey. Raptors share several characteristics including: Powerful talons for gripping and killing prey Sharp, curved beaks for tearing food Keen eyesight to spot prey from great distances Why are Birds of Prey so important? The presence of raptors in the wild serves as a barometer of ecological health. Birds of prey are predators at the top of the food chain; because pesticides, drought and habitat loss have the most dramatic impact on top predators, we refer to them as indicator species. The raptors also play an important ecological role by controlling populations of rodents and other small mammals.

Human Survival Depends On Stable EcosystemsMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.” http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems. The ways in which ecosystems are affected by human activities will have consequences for the supply of for the prevalence of diseases, the frequency and magnitude of floods and droughts, and local as well as global climate. Ecosystems also provide spiritual, recreational, educational, and other nonmaterial benefits to people. Changes in availability of all these ecosystem services can profoundly affect aspects of human well-being—ranging from the rate of economic growth and health and livelihood security to the prevalence and persistence of poverty. Human demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly. At the same time, humans are altering the capability of ecosystems to continue to provide many of these services. Management of this relationship is required to enhance the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being without affecting their long-term capacity to provide services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was established in 2001 by a partnership of international institutions, and with support from governments, with the goal of enhancing the scientific basis for such management.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – AT: Perm Do CP The counterplan is competitive---the national coordinated policy would include normal means of delivery which includes both microwaves and lasers Microwaves and Laser combination is normal means – perm do cp is severance which kills negative ground – voter for competitive equity Coopersmith, Historian of Technology at Texas A&M University 2009(Jonathan Coopersmith, thespacereview.com, 9/28/09, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1475/1, retrieved 6/22/11, HLM/AS)<A wide range of challenges confronts SBSP. Perhaps the easiest to solve are the technological. SBSP technology has matured greatly since first studied in the 1970s. Advances in solar cells, wireless power transmission, robotics, construction techniques, and other areas have made SBSP much more attractive technically. As the workshop made abundantly clear, a wide range of options exist for most systems and components.Transmitting power to Earth, for example, could be done by microwave or laser or a combination. In the latter, an infrared laser on the station would transmit power to a balloon at 70,000 feet (21,000 meters), to avoid having the lower atmosphere absorb the laser’s power; the balloon would then retransmit the energy by microwave to a rectenna on the ground. The combination would send smaller amounts of power to more substations, just as a modern communications satellite uses several spot beams to numerous ground stations.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Solvency – Lasers Good Laser solve – Japan provesEvans, consultant for gizmag, 2009 (Paul Evans is a staff writer for Gizmag, 2/22/09, “Solar power beamed from space within a decade?” accessed 6/28/11 http://www.gizmag.com/solar-power-space-satellite/11064/ aes)The Japanese scientists have also experimented with direct conversion of sunlight into a high powered laser to transmit power wirelessly back to earth using light. Using solar plates made from chromium, a ceramic material that absorbs the sunlight, and neodymium, which converts it into laser light, these solar panels demonstrated a 42% solar-to-laser energy conversion efficiency – an impressive figure that outperforms previous technology by a factor of four. Unfortunately cloud cover has an adverse effect of laser transmissions, perhaps why they are also testing a microwave system. Comparing the energy provided by Space Based power with a conventional ground based solar PV or thermal system of the same 3 km size as the receiving antenna shows that earth based systems are more than competitive. Using a value of 1.4kW per square meter as the radiant solar intensity at the Earth's surface with a 20% power conversion efficiency a ground based solar plant could generate 2.5 gigawatt (only during daylight of course) compared to the Space satellites 1 gigawatt. Many solar thermal power generation plants now incorporate thermal energy storage therefore providing the 24 hour a day base load at a small fraction of the cost of developing and launching solar power station that would be larger than the International Space Station into geostationary orbit.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Microwaves Bad – Kills bees and birds Concentrated microwaves fry birdsVaessen, consultant for Leonardo energy, 2009 (Peter Vaessen KEMA September 2009 “ Wireless Power Transmission” accessed 6/28/11 http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/2837 aes)Since 1950, there have been thousands of papers published about microwave bio-effects. The scientific research indicates that heating of humans exposed to the radiation is the only known effect. There are also many claims of low-level non-thermal effects, but most of these are difficult to replicate or show unsatisfying uncertainties. Large robust effects only occur well above exposure limits existing anywhere in the world [5]. The corresponding exposure limits listed in IEEE standards at 2.45 or 5.8 GHz are 81.6 W/m 2 and 100 W/m 2 averaged over 6 minutes, and 16.3 or 38.7 W/m 2 averaged over 30 minutes [11]. This low compared to average solar radiation of 1000 W/m 2 . A clearly relevant bio-effect is the effect of microwave radiation on birds, the so-called "fried bird effect". Research is done on such effect at 2.45 GHz. The outcome showed slight thermal effects that probably are welcome in the winter and to be avoided in the summer [5]. Larger birds tend to experience more heat stress then small birds [11].

Microwaves hurt honeybees and birdsOsepchuk, Full Spectrum Consulting in Concord, 2002, (John M., IEEE magazine, 12/02, “How safe are microwaves and solar power from space?” accessed 6/28/11 http://electricalandelectronics.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/01145676.pdf aes) If environmental SPS levels are comparable to levels existing from today’s technology, is there reason for special concern? This can derive only from the much greater scope in area and total power. Thus, one might be concerned about the potential effects on workers, but, more importantly, on birds that might fly into the rectenna area and remain there for extended periods of time. Concern about human exposure can be dismissed forthrightly. Even though human exposure to the 25 mW/cm 2 will, in general, be avoided, modern studies [9] of human exposure at 2.45 GHz show that people easily tolerate such exposures for a period of at least 45 min. Specific research over the years has been directed towards effects on birds, in particular. Modern reviews of this research [10] continue to show only that some birds may experience some thermal stress, such as blue jays at 2.45 GHz, at high ambient temperatures. Of course, at low ambient temperatures the warming might be welcomed by birds and present a nuisance attraction (that, in turn may require new techniques for repelling birds from a given area—as in airports). At worst, more research is needed if the frequency of 5.8 GHz is used, at which frequency smaller flying creatures, like honeybees, might be affected. Past extensive research [1], [3] led investigators to conclude that there would be no adverse effect “on the flora or fauna of the region.” They noted that rectenna design would allow 98% of the incident sunlight to reach the ground. Extreme environmentalists (see page 568 in [3]) have claimed that birds would be killed by the microwave beam, and that the ground under the rectenna would dry up. More rational environmentalists, such as those from the Audubon Society, recognize the more sensible view that any loss of birds is minor compared to those killed by wind farms for energy generation.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Honeybees – Impact – Extinction Bees are essential to life on earth—extinction would happen within four years without themPedro Perez, Why to Be Stung by Bees, accessed 2004, www.khumbala.net/Buddhism/tmp115.shtml. And if you like it, be a beekeeper. The human being survival depends on them. The bees have an essential role in the pollination, the multiplication of the floral species and the development of the cultivation. Without pollen there is not fruit, without bees there is not pollination. According to Einstein: "If the bee disappeared of the surface of the globe, the man would only have four years of life left. Without bees, there are not pollination, grass, animals, or men..." At the moment, due to an acarus called varroa, there are no longer wild beehives. The beekeepers pollinate, with the bees, the species of the nature and the human cultivation?s. To be beekeeper is to contribute to the human being survival.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Honeybees – Impact – Economy bees are key to economy and food supplyRenee Johnson, CRS, “Recent Honey Bee Colony Declines,” CRS REPORTS, 8—14—07.Honey bees (genus Apis) are the most economically valuable pollinators of agricultural crops worldwide.1 In the United States, bee pollination of agricultural crops is said to account for about one-third of the U.S. diet, and to contribute to the production of a wide range of high-value fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, forage crops, some field crops, and other specialty crops.2 The monetary value of honey bees as commercial pollinators in the United States is estimated at about $15 billion annually3 (Table 1). This estimated value is measured according to the additional value of production attributable to honey bees, in terms of the value of the increased yield and quality achieved from honey bee pollination, including the indirect benefits of bee pollination required for seed production of some crops. About one-third of the estimated value of commercial honey bee pollination is in alfalfa production, mostly for alfalfa hay. Another nearly 10% of the value of honey bee pollination is for apples, followed by 6%-7% of the value each for almonds, citrus, cotton, and soybeans. A number of agricultural crops are almost totally (90%-100%) dependent on honey bee pollination, including almonds, apples, avocados, blueberries, cranberries, cherries, kiwi fruit, macadamia nuts, asparagus, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, onions, legume seeds, pumpkins, squash, and sunflowers. Other specialty crops also rely on honey bee pollination, but to a lesser degree. These crops include apricot, citrus (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, tangerines, etc.), peaches, pears, nectarines, plums, grapes, brambleberries, strawberries, olives, melon (cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew), peanuts, cotton, soybeans, and sugarbeets.4

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Birds – Impact – Keystone Species

Raptor Extinction Kills The EcosystemThe Peregrine Fund- 1/28/2004 ("Asian Vulture Crisis Press Releases," The Peregrine Fund, http://www.peregrinefund.org/press_full.asp?id=21&category=Asian%20Vulture%20Crisis)A major discovery documenting a pharmaceutical as threatening the extinction of three species will be published in the journal Nature The paper links the veterinary use of “diclofenac” with the catastrophic crash of three species of raptors.  The discovery is the result of a three-year effort by an international team of scientists.  The team was assembled and led by The Peregrine Fund and included members from Washington State University, The Ornithological Society of Pakistan, Bird Conservation Nepal, United States Geological Service, Zoological Society of San Diego, and University of California, Davis. “To lose three of the world’s species of raptors would be a tragedy beyond comprehension,” stated Dr. Tom Cade, Founder of The Peregrine Fund. “The speed of the decline is eerily similar to the decline of the Peregrine Falcon in the 1960s,” continued Cade.  “We’re in another race against time to save these species,” finished Cade.  In the last decade, population losses of more than 95% of three raptor species have been reported in many areas.   A decline of this magnitude is without precedence among vertebrate species.     The three species are the Oriental White-backed Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, and Slender-billed Vulture in South Asia.   “This discovery is significant in that it is the first known case of a pharmaceutical causing major ecological damage over a huge geographic area and threatening three species with extinction,” said Dr. Lindsay Oaks of Washington State University, the lead diagnostic investigator for The Peregrine Fund’s team. “Finding that a drug is responsible for the collapse and threatened extinction of these species is helpful yet alarming,” stated Dr. Rick Watson, International Programs Director for The Peregrine Fund. “Helpful, because now we can do something about it and we may have time to save these species.   Alarming, because this may not be the only pharmaceutical impacting wildlife,” concluded Watson. Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has been in human use for pain and inflammation for decades.  The veterinary use of diclofenac on livestock in South Asia has grown in the past decade and is now widespread.   Livestock that die shortly after being treated with diclofenac contain sufficient residues to cause kidney failure and death in vultures that consume livestock carcasses. Like Peregrine Falcons and DDT, vultures in this case are the “canary in the coal miner’s cage” warning of a potentially dangerous environmental health hazard.   Vultures are sampling the environment and their deaths and population collapse have demonstrated a widespread toxic effect.   The results are important to toxicologists, conservationists, and drug manufacturers worldwide. “Vultures have an important ecological role in the Asian environment, where they have been relied upon for millennia to clean up and remove dead livestock and even human corpses.   Their loss has important economic, cultural, and human health consequences,” says Dr. Munir Virani, Biologist for The Peregrine Fund.  Virani coordinated the massive field investigations across Nepal, India, and Pakistan. “Declines of this magnitude in once very common species have not been seen since the extinction of the Great Auk, or the Passenger Pigeon in the 19th century,” stated Dr. Martin Gilbert, veterinarian for The Peregrine Fund.  Gilbert conducted and supervised ecological field studies, and vulture necropsy and tissue collection in Pakistan. To expedite this transfer of knowledge and responsibility to the various countries, The Peregrine Fund and partners have organized an international Summit Meeting on 5 and 6 February 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal.  The Kathmandu Summit Meeting will include senior government officials from the affected countries and carries the endorsement of the United States Department of State.  In a letter to invitees from John Turner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs urged national governments of the region to participate. The summit will include a briefing on the scientific evidence of the role diclofenac has in the catastrophic population collapse of these species, potential solutions to mitigate the effects of diclofenac, and a forum to develop a strategic response to this new environmental threat and to begin the effort to restore these species. The Peregrine Fund was founded in 1970 and works worldwide to conserve wild populations of birds of prey.  Conserving raptors provides an umbrella of protection for entire ecosystems and their biodiversity.  The organization is non-political, solution-oriented, hands-on, science-based organization. Goals are achieved by restoring and maintaining viable populations of species in jeopardy; studying little-known species; accomplishing research; conserving habitat, educating students, and developing local capacity for science and conservation in developing countries; and providing factual information to the public.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 1/3 Microwaves disrupt telecomm industry – interferes with communication signalsHoffert and Potter 1997 (Martin I Hoffert is a professor of physics at New York University. Seth D Potter was a Research Scientist in Physics at New York University when this article was written. He is currently an engineer at The BoeingCompany in Seal Beach, California, USA, and serves on the Board of Directors of the National Space Society Education Chapter, October 197, “Beam It Down: How the New Satellites Can Power the World” accessed 6/28/11, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/beam_it_down_how_the_new_satellites_can_power_the_world.shtml aes)A bigger potential problem is that of sharing the limited frequencies in the microwave spectrum. Motorola has come under fire, for example, because its planned system will employ frequencies in the 1.616-to-1.626-gigahertz range, which almost overlaps the 1.612-gigahertz frequency that astrophysicists tune to when gathering data about the cosmos. Radio astronomers worry that interference from a solar power satellite will overwhelm the comparatively weak signals they are seeking to detect. Motorola promises to limit spillover of its communications beams into the radio astronomers' frequency niche, but the issue underscores the fact that the microwave spectrum is a limited resource jealously guarded by commercial and nonprofit users alike. Allocation of the spectrum must be addressed promptly and effectively to avoid preemption of space power technology before it's born. Whether solar power satellites become a reality will ultimately depend on the willingness of telecommunications and electric utility companies to enter the space power business. So far, neither industry has shown much interest. But then, they are for the most part unaware of the commercial possibilities. One has to know that an option exists to choose it. Thirty years ago, communications satellites were a novelty. Ten years ago, no one had heard of the Internet.

Telecom Key to economy Etner and Lewin 5 (Roger Entner & David Lewin are consultants for CITA. September 2005. A study for CTIA-The Wireless Association. The Impact of the US Wireless Telecom Industry on the US Economy Lexis aes)After a review of the data available to us, we conclude that the economic impact of the US wireless telecom industry in 2004 included the following: • 3.6 million jobs are directly and indirectly dependent on the US wireless telecommunications industry; • the industry generated $118 billion in revenues and contributed $92 billion to the US GDP; •the industry is currently slightly smaller than the computer, automobiles, publishing and agriculture industry segments; • the wireless telecom industry is expected to become a larger sector of the US economy than the agriculture and automobile sectors within 5 years , based on the wireless industry’s current 15% annual growth rate; • the industry and its employees paid $63 billion to the US Government, including federal, state and local fees and taxes; • the use and availability of wireless telecom services and products created a $157 billion consumer surplus which is the difference between what end-users are willing to pay for a service and what they are actually having to pay.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 2/3 Economic collapse causes global nuclear war. Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009 (Walter Russell, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)The damage to China's position is more subtle. The crisis has not--yet--led to the nightmare scenario that China-watchers fear: a recession or slowdown producing the kind of social unrest that could challenge the government. That may still come to pass--the recent economic news from China has been consistently worse than most experts predicted--but, even if the worst case is avoided, the financial crisis has nevertheless had significant effects. For one thing, it has reminded China that its growth remains dependent on the health of the U.S. economy. For another, it has shown that China's modernization is likely to be long, dangerous, and complex rather than fast and sweet, as some assumed. In the lead-up to last summer's Beijing Olympics, talk of a Chinese bid to challenge America's global position reached fever pitch, and the inexorable rise of China is one reason why so many commentators are fretting about the "post-American era." But suggestions that China could grow at, say, 10 percent annually for the next 30 years were already looking premature before the economic downturn. (In late 2007, the World Bank slashed its estimate of China's GDP by 40 percent, citing inaccuracies in the methods used to calculate purchasing power parity.) And the financial crisis makes it certain that China's growth is likely to be much slower during some of those years. Already exports are falling, unemployment is rising, and the Shanghai stock market is down about 60 percent. At the same time, Beijing will have to devote more resources and more attention to stabilizing Chinese society, building a national health care system, providing a social security net, and caring for an aging population, which, thanks to the one-child policy, will need massive help from the government to support itself in old age. Doing so will leave China fewer resources for military build-ups and foreign adventures. As the crisis has forcefully reminded Americans, creating and regulating a functional and flexible financial system is difficult. Every other country in the world has experienced significant financial crises while building such systems, and China is unlikely to be an exception. All this means that China's rise looks increasingly like a gradual process. A deceleration in China's long-term growth rate would postpone indefinitely the date when China could emerge as a peer competitor to the United States. The present global distribution of power could be changing slowly, if at all. The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global integration is a fairly recent development in India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has resisted many shocks, a deep economic recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still major concerns could undermine political order, long-term growth, and India's attitude toward the U nited States and global economic integration. The violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the country could get worse; religious extremism among both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics; and India's economic miracle could be nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear- armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the U nited States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities)

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negativehave become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Bad – Kills Telecomm Industry 3/3

political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. 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 U nited States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Microwave PIC – Bad – Military Readiness

SPS use of the microwave spectrum trades off with military access – kills military effectivenessPaige, assistant secretary of defense for command, control, communications and intelligence, to the Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association Spectrum Management Symposium, 1997 ( Prepared remarks by Emmett Paige Jr., assistant secretary of defense for command, control, communications and intelligence, to the Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association Spectrum Management Symposium, 13 April 1997 Volume 11, Number 83 Electromagnetic Spectrum: Key to Success in Future Conflicts accessed 6/28/11 http://www.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.jya.com/emskey.htm aes)This intangible but immensely useful resource, the electromagnetic spectrum, has another key characteristic -- it is finite. We have today all the spectrum we are ever going to have. But because of its immense utility, our use of the spectrum is growing every day, and by "our" I mean everybody: the private sector; local, state and federal government; domestic and international alike. This seeming paradox -- ever greater use of a finite resource -- is made possible by our technological advances. We are able to exploit the spectrum wisely and ever more efficiently. Through technological advances, such as the digital communications techniques initially developed by the military, we as a society are able to do more with the same amount of spectrum. It is this technology-enabled increase in efficient use of the spectrum that has enabled humankind to wring ever increasing usage out of the finite electromagnetic spectrum. So let there be no doubt that the spectrum is an intangible and finite resource of ever increasing utility and ever increasing value to all of us. I am convinced that we still have a lot to learn and a long way to go in terms of getting more effective and more efficient use of the overall spectrum. We in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community fully understand the ever increasing utility and ever increasing value of the electromagnetic spectrum. The DoD's needs are increasing too. Our tasks for the nation have become more challenging since the end of the Cold War, for we are being called upon to do more things in more places than ever before. Right now, the department has efforts under way across the breadth of the world, involving peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation, regional security and the protection of U.S. citizens. All of this is occurring while we are also maintaining our readiness to fight two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts and continuing our deterrence of nuclear conflict. These diverse and far-flung activities share at least two common features: First, they are being accomplished in defense of our nation and its citizens; second, they cannot be accomplished without use of the electromagnetic spectrum. That's a hard, cold fact that everyone must face up to. We are not "blowing smoke." As our use of technology has advanced, enabling us to have greater impact with fewer forces, our dependence on the electromagnetic spectrum has increased. Our military, just like much of our modern society, simply cannot function without adequate access to the electromagnetic spectrum. What does loss of spectrum access mean to our nation's military capability? Essentially, the impact of diminished spectrum access will be a reduction in the effectiveness and overall capability of our military forces. It will impact our capacity to efficiently execute our mission. Losing spectrum is like losing any other resource, it costs. Less spectrum access yields an increased expenditure of time, funds and other resources to develop, test and field alternative capabilities or work-arounds that in many cases will be less effective than the capabilities they replace. Less spectrum access yields a degradation of military readiness while alternative capabilities are developed and due to more complicated training requirements. Each work-around is one more thing our young people must learn and remember, perhaps while under fire. Each time we are forced to "adjust" training in the United States away from operational norms to accommodate domestic spectrum constraints, our training realism and hence training effectiveness suffers. Loss of spectrum access forces us to expend other resources to compensate or make expenditures that do not advance our capabilities. The issue of spectrum stress is as great at home as it is with our deployed forces. With our permanent overseas presence significantly reduced, 85 percent of our forces train and exercise in the continental United States. If we cannot train as we fight, no matter how advanced our equipment may be, there can be little doctrinal development or organizational changes, and in the mind of the warrior, no confidence [in] the use of those advanced systems. As a result, our great technological advantage is squandered. The reallocation of government spectrum executed over the past decade and the upcoming reallocation of spectrum associated with Title IV of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 are already forcing DoD to re-engineer or replace equipment that is still effective and long before the end of its planned life cycle.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

**Advantage Counterplans**

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

CP Wind Power Solves Energy Advantage Wind power could meet half the world’s power needs

ESI Africa, Power journal of Africa, 2011(ESI- Africa, Online Power Journal of Africa, 04 February 2011, http://www.esi-africa.com/node/1233927, June 2011, AJ)

Amsterdam, The Netherlands --- ESI-AFRICA.COM --- 04 February 2011 - A newly released academic study claims that the installation of 3.8 million 5MW wind turbines could generate half the world’s power needs by 2030. Published in the respected journal ‘Energy Policy’, and entitled ‘Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power,’ the study noted that climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity were among the greatest problems of our time. “Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure,” said two California academics, Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi. “Here, we analyse the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS).” Jacobson ‒ who is in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University ‒ and Delucchi ‒ who is in the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California ‒ estimated that by combining the 3.8 million wind turbines with enough concentrated solar, solar PV, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as wave devices and tidal turbines, by 2030 the world could use electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes. “Such a WWS infrastructure would reduce world power demand by 30% and required only 0.41% and 0.59% more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively,” they said. “We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that of today.” Their study showed that wind power could supply 50% of projected total global power demand in 2030, while the concentrated solar plants, the solar PV power plants and the rooftop PV systems could supply another 40%. The remainder would come from geothermal and hydro-electric power plants, wave devices and tidal turbines. The study also showed that the total footprint on the ground for the 3.8 million wind turbines would only be 48 sq km, which is smaller than Manhattan. The existing transmission infrastructure would of course need to be greatly expanded. On a European level, The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) is endorsing a declaration calling for a 100% renewable energy vision by 2050. EWEA believes by 2050 wind energy could supply 50% of Europe’s power needs, provided certain actions were taken ‒ above all the power grid being extended and upgraded in good time. The effort would require 3.5 trillion euro’s (US$4.8 trillion) a year in spending by 2035 on modernising buildings and electricity grids and expanding wind farms and solar parks. It would take until 2040 to pay off. This ‘Energy Policy’ report is the second one this month claiming that almost all of the world’s demand for energy for electricity, transportation and heating could be met from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power by 2050. “The Energy Report” ‒ a report produced over two years by WWF with researchers at Dutch organisations Ecofys and the Office for Metropolitan Architecture ‒ claimed that the share of oil, coal, gas and nuclear power in the global energy mix could be whittled down to 5% over the next four decades. Energy saving measures could cut total demand by 15% from 2005 levels, even as the population, industrial output, freight and passenger travel rise,” they said.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

CP Wind Power solves oil shocks Wind power replaces coal and oil—solves oil shocks

Associated Press, 2009(Associated Press, April 06, 2009, http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/04/salazar_wind_power_can_replace.html, June 27, 2011, AJ)

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. -- Windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today. The secretary spoke at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how the nation's offshore areas can be tapped to meet America's energy needs. "The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility," he said. "It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now." Offshore energy production, however, might not be limited to wind power, Salazar said. A moratorium on offshore oil drilling has expired, and President Barack Obama and Congress must decide whether to allow drilling off the East Coast. "We know there are some people who want us to close the door on that," he said. "We need to look at all forms of energy as we move forward into a new energy frontier." Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States, according to the Energy Department. Salazar could not estimate how many windmills might be needed to generate 1 million megawatts of power, saying it would depend on their size, and how near or far from the coast they were located. Today's hearing was hosted by Salazar and is the first of four to be held around the country to discuss how energy resources including oil, gas, wind and waves should be utilized as the new administration formulates its energy policy. It was held at the Atlantic City Convention Center, whose roof-mounted solar energy panels are the largest in the nation. In 2007, the Outer Continental Shelf, a zone extending roughly three to 200 miles from shore, accounted for 14 percent of the nation's natural gas production, and 27 percent of its oil production. Salazar said it is essential that the nation fully exploit renewable energy resources to reduce its reliance on imported oil. By buying oil from countries hostile to the United States, "we have, in my opinion, been funding both sides in the war on terrorism," he said. Environmentalists are urging the Obama administration to bar oil and gas drilling off the East Coast, and invest heavily in wind, solar and other energy technology. "This is a defining moment, whether we're going to have a clean energy future or continue to rely on oil drilling," said Jeff Tittel, New Jersey director of the Sierra Club. "Right now the government is fossil-foolish, and we need to change that." U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said offshore drilling should not be allowed, citing the economic cost of a spill. "The risks are great, the rewards are less," he said. "It perpetuates our reliance on oil. Frankly, we simply just don't want it." But Skip Hobbs, a petroleum geologist from New Canaan, Conn., said oil and gas drilling has been shown to be safe. "We should recognize that as a practical matter, fossil fuel will rule for another generation," he said. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the nation needs to drill more, saying "it can be done intelligently." "We need to start looking at the self-inflicted energy dependence we have because we refuse to develop our domestic energy industry," he said. New Jersey is tripling the amount of wind power it plans to use by 2020 to 3,000 megawatts. That would be 13 percent of New Jersey's total energy, enough to power between 800,000 to just under 1 million homes. In October, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture of PSE&G Renewable Generation and Deepwater Wind, was chosen to build a $1 billion, 345 megawatt wind farm in the ocean about 16 miles southeast of Atlantic City. That plant would be able to power about 125,000 homes. In Atlantic City, the local utilities authority has a wind farm consisting of five windmills that generate 7.5 megawatts, enough energy to power approximately 2,500 homes. Rhode Island Gov. Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, said renewable energy's appeal crosses partisan lines. "There is a sense of urgency that we get this moving and get it right," he said. "There is a national emergency right now; the dependence on oil and natural gas has gone on for too long." -- The Associated Press

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

CP Wind Power Solves—spurs development Big Spenders and gov point large interest in wind energy, provides first steps to more renewable energy

Hargreaves, CNN Staff Writer, 2008(Steve Hargreaves, CNNmoney.com July 31, 2008, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/economy/pickens_wind/index.htm, June 27, 2011, AJ)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- High-profile personalities have been telling the nation to ditch that dirty fossil fuel and turn to renewable energy. T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire oilman, has been hitting the airwaves, pitching a plan to use wind to replace all the natural gas that's used to produce electricity, then using that saved natural gas to fuel cars. In addition to weaning the nation from foreign oil, Pickens' plan is not entirely altruistic. He's investing hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle, and his hedge fund, BP Capital, is said to own stakes in several companies that equip cars to run on natural gas. If his energy efforts pan out, he could get even richer in the process. Then there's Al Gore. The former U.S. vice president and Nobel Prize winner said last week that electricity generation should be completely fossil-fuel free in 10 years. The questions is, are these plans realistic or just dreams? "It's not out of the realm of technical feasibility," said Chris Namovicz, a renewable energy analyst at the government's Energy Information Agency. "But they come with pretty significant price tags." The order is indeed tall. The nation currently relies on coal - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels - for 50% of its electricity production. Natural gas makes up about 21%, and nuclear power comprises about 20%. Hydro and oil each contribute a bit as well, while traditional renewables - wind, solar, biomass and geothermal - ring in at only 3% combined, according to the EIA. Pickens has a loosely detailed plan to replace the natural-gas-produced electricity with wind energy. He says it could be done in 10 years. "That is extremely aggressive," said Dave Hamilton, director for global warming and energy projects at the Sierra Club. "But it's in the right direction. It's a good thing we have an oilman saying we can't drill our way out of this problem." Unpredictable wind One of the big challenges with using wind to replace natural gas is that, unlike the steady flame from natural gas, the wind doesn't blow all the time. To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, backup generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co. That could mean maintaining those natural gas plants in case of emergency, or implementing even more novel ideas like systems in Europe that use excess wind electricity to pump water uphill when the wind is blowing, then release it through hydro dams when the wind stops. Either way, any type of backup system comes with a price. "It's very costly, and very inefficient for society as a whole," said Fremont. "Policy makers will have to decide if the benefits are worth it." The utility industry also has reservations about using wind on a large scale, again pointing to the fact that it doesn't blow all the time. The Sierra Club's Becker downplayed the problem. While a challenge now, he said technological advances will allow several wind farms from varying regions of the country to be tied together in the same electricity grid; when some are idle, others could make up the difference. "The more we focus on how to get this done, the quicker we'll solve our problems," he said. Government regulations Another impediment to large-scale wind generation is a lack of turbines and infrastructure, said Hamilton. Companies like General Electric ( GE , Fortune 500 ), India's Suzlon and Spain's Gamesa, which make wind turbines, aren't building enough of those turbines to meet demand because government tax credits offered to energy producers expire every two years. These tax credits are a big incentive for people to invest in wind energy - Pickens would net $60 million a year, according to Jefferies' Fremont, and that is likely why he's currently pitching his plan to lawmakers. Companies fear that, if the tax credits aren't renewed, they will be stuck with unwanted wind turbines if energy producers scale back their demand for wind power. Also impeding the development of wind power is the fact that the government is unclear about how or whether it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If regulations were enacted, investments in wind energy would likely increase as utilities seek cleaner sources of power. Wind farms also could benefit when companies or people buy carbon offsets - essentially payments to producers of clean energy and others who take steps in reducing greenhouse gasses. Despite these challenges, wind power's ability to produce 21% of the nation's electricity needs isn't out of the question. While wind currently only makes up 0.8% of the country's total electricity production, and would need to grow well over 20 times that to replace gas, it's worth noting that wind capacity has increased twelvefold since 1990, according to the EIA. The second part of Pickens' plan - using natural gas to power vehicles - is perhaps easier. While automakers are betting on electric cars as the vehicle of the future, those electric cars will still need backup engines to recharge the battery on long trips, at least for the foreseeable future. Those backup engines could run on natural gas, said Julius Pretterebner, a vehicles and alternative-fuels expert

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negativeat Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Pretterebner also pointed to a host of other reasons why natural gas in cars is a good idea: It's about half as expensive as gasoline and 30% cleaner; the infrastructure to get it to service stations already exists; it's relatively cheap to convert existing cars ($500 to $2,000 per car, he said); and natural gas can be carbon neutral, if it's made from plants, a process he said requires no new technology. "It's maybe the best alternative fuel we have, and the quickest way to get off foreign imports," he said. As for Gore's call, there aren't any specific measures to analyze. But if Pickens' timetable is aggressive, Gore's is like Pickens' gone wild. "It's completely impractical to imagine that we could totally wean ourselves off fossil fuels," said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry's trade association. Impractical, maybe. But using more renewables is certainly worth looking into. The EIA estimates that by 2015, wind energy will cost 7 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce, just a half-cent more than coal or natural gas. The EIA says if strict greenhouse gas restrictions become law, renewables might go from 3% percent of the nation's electricity mix to around 25%. Coal, meanwhile, would likely go from more than half to less than a quarter. The EIA said that under the worst-case scenario in bringing about this shift, electricity prices may double. Given the dangers global warming may pose - U.N. scientists predict severe droughts and floods unless greenhouse gasses are drastically reduced - more-expensive electricity may be a cost Americans are willing to bear

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

CP Wind Power Solves—spurs development Small Scale Wind farms are the best alt to fossil fuels

Drabble, Teacher and Writer on Renewable energy and Energy Dependence, 2008(Mike Drabble, ezine articles, energy section, September 19, 2008, http://ezinearticles.com/?Wind-Power---A-Viable-Replacement-For-Fossil-Fuels?&id=1512064, June 27, 2011, AJ)

Though mankind has harnessed the wind for centuries to produce energy, interest in this method of power generation has recently intensified as a result of both increases in conventional energy costs and the debate over the extent of humanity's responsibility for climate change. Policy-makers and generating companies are considering the extent to which wind power can serve as a viable and sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, and are already determining how to encourage wider use at all levels. Historically farmers and millers were the chief users of wind power - for irrigation and grain milling respectively - and this trend carried on with farmers and others in isolated communities being foremost among the early users of windmills to provide electricity. Recent advances in technology have led to the appearance of large-scale wind farms, and it is these that governments are looking at as a solution to problems with increasing energy prices and climate change. There may be debate as to the extent of human involvement in the latter, but for now most governments are set on reducing reliance on fossil fuels so the issues surrounding wind power must be considered. Many government initiatives have been designed to facilitate construction of large scale wind power facilities, commonly known as wind farms. Designed to complement or even replace conventional power stations, wind farms supply power to the grid for distribution to domestic and commercial users. The main benefit is the efficiency in power generation gained from economies of scale: a large scale wind farm will be far more effective at producing electricity than a collection of small scale generators. Cost, though, is a brake on the construction of more large scale wind farms, especially at sea. In the present financial climate companies are becoming increasingly wary of investing in projects that will have little chance of seeing a return, or in projects that often run into objections from local groups, for instance land-based wind farms. Small scale wind power - provided mainly by individual generators for homes and businesses - does not suffer from such opposition, but implementation still has to satisfy local planning authorities. The main problem with it seems to be new research which indicates that due to reduced wind speeds in around concentrations of buildings, wind generators do not provide as much power in cities as in rural areas. However this is disputed, and the potential savings combined with ease of installation and the availability of grants and incentives for the adoption of small scale wind power mean that its future seems brighter than that of larger scale wind power projects. Indeed, it seems that a proliferation of small wind power generators is the best chance wind power has of providing an alternative to fossil fuels, with generating capacity widely distributed and in the hands of consumers rather than centralised and in the hands of traditional generating companies. It is ironic, but wind power seems to be going full circle, from small-scale local generation through large-scale national projects and back to small scale again, with governments and multinationals having little say in the matter: a true democratisation of energy supply.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

**DA Links**

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Spending link--SPS hardware Space Hardware is expensive

SolarHigh.org, research group for solar power, ‘11(Solar high research group, NGO that studies SPS, http://solarhigh.org/resources/16KwordBrief.pdf, 2011, AJ)

Space hardware is expensive. Satellite equipment is expensive because it is constructedin small quantities, by hand, in clean rooms. The mass production needed for power satelliteswill reduce these prices to terrestrial levels. In fact, the fabrication cost for a power satellite willbe much less than for a comparable terrestrial solar power plant, because the solar array ismuch smaller.

The current study by the Solar High Study Group indicates that technology available nowpermits 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.

SPS launch costs limit development

Xin et al , Masters degree in aerospace management, 2009 (Sun Xin , Evelyn Panier, Cornelius Zünd, and Raul Gutiérrez Gómez, Toulouse Business School, May 2009 http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2009-FinancialAndOrganizationalAnalysisForSSP.pdf, AJ)Due to the necessarily large quantity of mass which must be put into orbit, launch costs have always been considered to be the most critical element in the financial analysis of a SSPS. At their current levels launch costs are in fact restrictive, and prevent the SSPS idea from moving forward. The question of launch cost however presents an interesting problem. As is the case with any other economy of scale, the cost of production of an item decreases as the demand and therefore the production of said item increases. This is very much the situation faced by the space industry. In its current form there are only a handful of space launches every year; the United States for example can account for about only15 per year. This is a far cry from the number of launches which may be required to build a fully functioning SSPS, which has sometimes been estimated to be in excess of 120 . The conundrum therefore is that for launch costs to decrease significantly in the near future, there needs to be a much greater demand today. On the other hand in order to create such demand today we need to begin constructing a full scale SSPS which can only begin once launch costs have decreased. This chicken and egg scenario has been referenced many times and is a source of frustration . This is not to say that the SSPS is impossible by today’s launch costs, but that it would be very difficult to fund and operate without making a financial loss. Many current launch systems have been considered, and only a select few will be presented below. It should be noted that the original cost data for the Ariane 5 and the Soyuz launch vehicles are approximately 15 years old. However since the present day price of the Ariane 5 has been confirmed as identical to the older data, the cost of the Soyuz is assumed to have kept up with inflation as well.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Spending Link—launch costs

Launch costs for SPS remain high---plan can’t solveCoopersmith, Historian of Technology at Texas A&M University 2009(Jonathan Coopersmith, thespacereview.com, 9/28/09, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1475/1, retrieved 6/22/11, HLM/AS)<The sessions confirmed that the last decades have produced impressive technological advances in every area except launch costs. Launch costs could doom SBSP to remaining only on paper. At current costs of $10,000 a pound, placing the 3,000 tons needed for a one-gigawatt station into GEO would cost $60 billion, three times NASA’s current annual budget. At $1,000 a pound, launching would demand $6 billion, the cost of a new nuclear plant. At $100 a pound, $600 million would be needed, a large but not implausible amount.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Spending link—maintenance SPS sats require maintenance that’s expensive Loh 09(Kenny Loh, New Straits Times, September 18 2009, Proquest Sirs Jesuit, JP)<Solar panels designed to generate electricity are still expensive to produce and since a single panel can only generate a small amount of electricity, a great number of panels will be needed just to provide sufficient electricity to power a few homes.Also, the materials used to create a solar panel are constantly exposed to other things besides photons. The constant bombardment of ultraviolet (UV) rays and other forms of solar radiation often cause the panels to deteriorate. This means that SBSP satellites must undergo constant maintenance, which is very expensive.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Spending Link-AT “we increase competitiveness” SPS expense makes it a long term investment

Xin et al , Masters degree in aerospace management, 2009 (Sun Xin , Evelyn Panier, Cornelius Zünd, and Raul Gutiérrez Gómez, Toulouse Business School, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2009-FinancialAndOrganizationalAnalysisForSSP.pdf, AJ)

Although the technologies needed to build the SSPS are not new, and no “breakthrough” moments are required, it still carries with it a steep development cost and subsequently a distant breakeven point. Once it is operational the costs to maintain it will be significantly lower, if current satellite business models are any indication (long life, no aftermarket service). Once the SSPS is built and operational, it theoretically produces massive amounts of energy and therefore revenue. Despite this amount of “free money” it is important to include the costs of development and construction which to date have proven to be obstacles xviii . These costs push any potential breakeven point into the distant conceivable future; although subsequent systems can rely on this ground work and will not need to share the bill. Until this point however it remains to be seen how much exactly this system will cost and where this money will come from. The economic aspect is a critical limiting factor in this project

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Spending DA links SPS will expend massive amounts of moneySchubert, Ph.D., P.E., Packer Engineering, Inc., Naperville, IL, 2010 (Peter J., Online Space Journal of Communication, December 2010. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html NP)

The energy required to accelerate objects into orbit is enormous. The areal energy density of sunlight is low. For SSP to make a significant contribution to global energy demands therefore requires an extraordinarily large structure. Large structures require a lot of mass, and a lot of assembly time. These factors are driving a number of research efforts, such as: ultra-thin solar arrays; ultra-lightweight deployable structures; robotic assembly; lunar or asteroid processing; and space elevators. From a systems perspective, the energy required to build, orbit, and assemble huge solar arrays should be significantly less than the energy delivered to earth.

Traditional energy sources typically cost between 0.02 and 0.03 USD/kWh, such as nuclear and coal. These costs do not include environmental costs of: landscape destruction, waste disposal, groundwater contamination; or generation of atmospheric carbon in the case of coal. A consequence of the unpredictable miracle will be to somehow assign a monetary value to these hidden costs. It is not unreasonable to expect a doubling of production costs, so that the breakeven point for SSP can be taken as approximately 0.05 USD/kWh.

A solar power satellite could have an upper limit on lifetime of 15 years, although this may be optimistic. A typical power generation station is on the order of 5-8 GW. This yields a cost of between 33 and 53 billion USD for a single SSP installation. At least one study of SSP shows the potential for projects in this cost range.[13]

Federal research to generate or develop new industries varies widely. Corporate research ranges from 6% to 10% of revenues for high technology enterprises. Taking the value of a single SSP installation, amortized over its lifetime, and drawing 8% for research and development gives a reasonable research budget of 230 million USD/year.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Politics—see also pre-camp

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland NegativePolitics Links—plan bipart

Plan supported by both sides of political aisleXin et al , Masters degree in aerospace management, 2009 (Sun Xin , Evelyn Panier, Cornelius Zünd, and Raul Gutiérrez Gómez, Toulouse Business School, May 2009 http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2009-FinancialAndOrganizationalAnalysisForSSP.pdf, AJ)

Political favour is a fickle beast whose attention sways, by necessity, between different groups and agendas. In many cases large capital intensive projects live or die by the support that they receive from their home governments. Furthermore many large aerospace projects and agencies are untenable without constant funding from government sources. 7 The SSPS can be framed as either a green or strategic (or both) objective. This means that politicians who support the green movement can find reason to support it, and politicians who support strategic initiatives can support it.

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

SPS Popular-military SPS is popular to militaryCho 07 (Dan Cho, Post Carbon Institute, Oct 13 2007, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/35734, Accessed June 28 2011, JP)

<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 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.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

SPS Popular—space advocacy Timeframe of 2012 due to technological certainty makes SPS popular to Space LobbiesBoyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, , Science Editor, MSNCB , October 12, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/power-space-pentagon-likes-idea/, Accessed June 28, 2011, JP)

<The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012."I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday.Space advocacy groups immediately seized on the idea and formed a new alliance to push the plan. But a representative of the solar-power industry was doubtful that space solar power would move from the realm of science fiction into reality anytime soon.>

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

SPS Popular SBSP is popular to the public, military, and Space lobbiesNSSO 07(National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, Accessed June 28, 2011, JP)

<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 customers—the 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 Commerce’s 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. There is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%). >

MGW 2011 Space Based Solar PowerSchade, Casey, McFarland Negative

Space Mil DA link—dual use SPS dual use tech increases potential for space milPop, 2000(Virgiliu Pop, Space Future, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml, 6/23/11, KJ)

<The prospective of exploitation of solar energy in the Geostationary Orbit and of mineral resources on the Moon and asteroids raises the issue of legality of the exploitation technologies to be used from their military point of view. "The development of a mineral resource regime for the Moon" - considers Bilder - "is likely to have less immediate practical military (...) significance than has been the case with the general development of the Antarctic and Law of the Sea regimes"[1]. However, a certain number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the potential of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth orbit, and in that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies. These "dual-use technologies" raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time, important problems arise from the possible use of non-terrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons. >

SPS dual use tech that could be used for space militarization Pop, 2000(Virgiliu Pop, Space Future, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml , 6/23/11, KJ)<The prospective of exploitation of solar energy in the Geostationary Orbit and of mineral resources on the Moon and asteroids raises the issue of legality of the exploitation technologies to be used from their military point of view. "The development of a mineral resource regime for the Moon" - considers Bilder - "is likely to have less immediate practical military (...) significance than has been the case with the general development of the Antarctic and Law of the Sea regimes"[1]. However, a certain number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the potential of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth orbit, and in that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies. These "dual-use technologies" raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time, important problems arise from the possible use of non-terrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons. >

SPS capable of mass destruction—makes it a space weaponPop, staff writer for Space Future, 2000(Virgiliu Pop, Space Future, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml , 6/23/11, KJ)Although Solar Power Satellites were envisioned as an energy program, their use raises significant military implications[2]. Concerns have been expressed regarding the lawfulness of solar power satellites ( SPS) under the Outer Space Treaty in the context of their possible use as weapons of mass destruction and under existing arms control treaties in the context of their use as prohibited means of warfare. At the same time, given the significant importance and value of a SPS system, its use raises also the issue of vulnerability[3], hence self defence[4].