253 BQ Railroads DA

Railroad DA
DDI 2008 – Berthiaume – Quinn

Ben Benson
Railroads
A Ben Benson redux-compilation-update production
Railroads.................................................................................................................................................................1
File Explanation.....................................................................................................................................................4
Railroads 1NC........................................................................................................................................................5
Railroads 1NC........................................................................................................................................................6
Railroads 1NC........................................................................................................................................................7
Coal Prices High Now............................................................................................................................................8
Coal Prices High Now............................................................................................................................................9
Coal Prices High Now..........................................................................................................................................10
Coal Demand High Now......................................................................................................................................11
Coal Demand High Now......................................................................................................................................12
US Coal Demand High Now................................................................................................................................13
US Coal Demand High.........................................................................................................................................14
Renewables Links................................................................................................................................................15
Renewables Links................................................................................................................................................16
Credit Trading Link.............................................................................................................................................17
RPS Links.............................................................................................................................................................18
RPS Links.............................................................................................................................................................19
RPS Links.............................................................................................................................................................20
PTC Links.............................................................................................................................................................21
Wind Links...........................................................................................................................................................22
Wind Links...........................................................................................................................................................23
Wind Links...........................................................................................................................................................24
Solar Links............................................................................................................................................................25
Solar Links............................................................................................................................................................26
Solar Links............................................................................................................................................................27
Solar Links............................................................................................................................................................28
Nuclear Power Links...........................................................................................................................................29
1
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Profitable Now – Coal........................................................................................................................35
Railroads Profitable Now....................................................................................................................................36
Coal Key to Railroad Profits...............................................................................................................................39
Coal Key to Railroad Profits...............................................................................................................................40
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure..................................................................................................41
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure..................................................................................................42
Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure..............................................................................................................43
Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment............................................................................................................44
Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism...........................................................................................................45
Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs.....................................................................................46
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse..........................................................................................................47
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse..........................................................................................................48
Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment.......................................................................................49
Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions.....................................................................................50
Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs.....................................................................................................51
Railroads Key to Readiness.................................................................................................................................52
Railroads Key to the Economy...........................................................................................................................53
Railroads Key to Agriculture..............................................................................................................................57
Railroads Key to Low Food Prices.....................................................................................................................58
Food Prices Impacts – Starvation.......................................................................................................................59
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan..........................................................................................................................60
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan..........................................................................................................................61
Food Prices Impacts – Economy.........................................................................................................................62
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Renewables..................................................................................................................63
AT: Clean Coal Solves – Cap and Trade............................................................................................................63
AT: Clean Coal Solves - RPS...............................................................................................................................65
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Wind.............................................................................................................................66
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Solar.............................................................................................................................67
2
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now.........................................................................................................68
AT: Railroad Profits Resilient.............................................................................................................................69
AT: Nuclear Shipments Low...............................................................................................................................70
AT: Railroads Failing Now..................................................................................................................................71
AT: DoE Routes Turn..........................................................................................................................................72
AT: Nuclear Trades of with Natural Gas, not Coal...........................................................................................73
AT: Budget Not key to Infrastructure Investment............................................................................................74
AT: Cars are Super Strong..................................................................................................................................75
AT: New Tech Solves............................................................................................................................................76
AT: Budget not key to Infrastructure Investment............................................................................................77
AT: Coal Peak coming by X year........................................................................................................................77
A2 Coal Prices falling now..................................................................................................................................78
A2 Exports Turn...................................................................................................................................................79
A2 Railroads can’t keep up with production.....................................................................................................80
A2 Rising demand doesn’t mean investment.....................................................................................................81
A2 Derailment impacts: 5% is dangerous.........................................................................................................82
A2 Derailment impacts: 5% is dangerous.........................................................................................................83
AT: Infrastructure not key to Safety..................................................................................................................84
2NC Short Overview ...........................................................................................................................................85
3
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
File Explanation
This is an amazing disad. I have been impressed with it since I saw the coal generic. Subsequent smaller files have been
released without proper titles or cohesion with previous files. Here is the compilation of the files in one coherent and complete
file as well as some additions.
It starts with the 1NC shell followed by all of the generic coal uniqueness cards. The next contains specific links to nearly
every affirmative. This section is followed by additional impact scenarios and turns case scenarios.
The AT: section begins with case specific to the clean coal turn (plan increases clean coal, which the trains can then transport)
to nearly every affirmative. There should be more generic answers to these claims in other generics as well.
The rest is general ATs as well as a simple 2NC overview that explains the basic 1NC shell and leaves the impact portion open
for you to discuss whichever ones you choose to read in the round.
If you have any questions, you can email me at benson_benjamin@muhs.edu.
I think this picture bests describes your round should look like with this file:
I’m Ted “The Iceman” Jackson – Check me
4
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads 1NC
A. Railroads are booming now because of demand for commodities like coal
Alex Roth, staff writer, 6/25/08, “Vote ’08: CSX vs. Activists”, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433409393200635.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
CSX Corp. and two activist hedge funds with big stakes in the railroad company have bickered for months -- over past
performance, profit potential, plans for capital investment and even how to interpret the company's balance sheet.They've
fought to a de facto impasse in federal court over securities law.They've even argued about the location of the annual
shareholder meeting, a New Orleans railyard that CSX calls a showpiece. The investors have labeled it "a swamp."Now,
shareholders are scheduled to decide Wednesday morning whether to give five of 12 CSX board seats to candidates offered by
The Children's Investment Fund and 3G Capital Partners LP, the activist hedge funds that control at least 8.7% of the
company's stock. Through so-called stock swaps, the funds have an economic interest in a substantial additional block totaling
more than 11% of CSX shares.The proxy vote comes at a pivotal time in the railroad industry. Trains in the U.S. are
undergoing a boom not seen in decades, spurred in part by railroads' fuel-efficiency advantages over trucking and their
ability to bypass the country's increasingly clogged highways.Big-name investors such as Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn
have taken sizable positions in some of the U.S.'s biggest railroads, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., and Union
Pacific Corp. Stock prices have soared. Since the end of 2002, the Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Railroads Index has
increased nearly 240%. By comparison, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index is up roughly 61% over the
same period.Last year, TCI, headed by London financier Christopher Hohn, began accumulating shares of CSX, which
operates a 21,000-mile rail network in 23 states, mostly in the eastern U.S. The company reported $2.3 billion in operating
income in 2007. Roughly half its revenue comes from freight such as agricultural products, crushed stone and metal; a
quarter comes from transporting coal.CSX management says the company is performing well and needs no infusion of
outside leadership on its board. The stock has more than tripled under the leadership of Chief Executive Michael Ward, who
took the helm in 2003.
B. Alternative energy increases railroad competition for remaining coal shipments, driving down profits
Association of American Railroads, 10/07,
http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx
Coal-fired power plants compete against power plants fueled by other energy sources. In 2006, for example, fuel sources other
than coal accounted for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. Railroads had little or no involvement with this
generation. This “product competition” constrains railroads, since a railroad serving a coal-fired power plant must price its
services low enough to make that plant’s electricity competitive compared to electricity generated from another fuel source.
Coal-hauling railroads also face strong “geographic competition”---i.e., the ability of a utility to obtain coal from different
mines served by different railroads or modes of transportation.
Product and geographic competition will continue to be an important means for utilities to constrain rail rates. For years,
significant change has been taking place in the electric power industry, including greater competition and interconnection
between utilities as a result of “Wheeling”; improved gas turbine technology, and increasingly-restrictive environmental
regulations. Electricity consumers often can obtain electricity purchased on the wholesale market or produced from natural has
and other fuel sources as an alternative to electricity generated from coal.
5
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads 1NC
C. Profits from coal are key to infrastructure investments
Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,”
9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html
Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new
improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that
come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about
American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining,
were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually
developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all
the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted
758 tons, or 44% of the total.
D. Poor infrastructure causes radioactive catastrophe

Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 10/25/04, http://www.nirs.org/press/10-25-2004/1
Detroit, MI -- According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), highly radioactive nuclear fuel rods could travel the
same railway that experienced the train derailment involving highly flammable methyl alcohol in Detroit this morning.
Concerned citizens' groups fear that if high-level radioactive waste were to be involved in a massive methyl alcohol
explosion or fire, as could have happened in Detroit today, a radioactive catastrophe could result. A brand new website
shows that the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping route passes within 0.3 miles of Greenfield Union Elementary
School, one of the two schools evacuated today due to the train derailment in Detroit. An address can be typed into the website
at http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php, and a map showing the distance to a proposed high-level
radioactive waste transport route will be generated. The website is based upon DOE's high-level radioactive waste
transportation route maps which were released in February, 2002 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed national dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A copy of this DOE map is attached. The Environmental Working Group
website also lists schools and hospitals in Detroit that are located next to the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping
route (see www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/schoolhosp.php?stab=US).
6
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads 1NC
E. Another nuclear accident will cause extinction
Charles Hyder, B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from University of New Mexico and PhD in astrogeophysics from the University of
Colorado, formerly employed by NASA, UCLA, UNM and the Southwest Research and Information Center, 2001, “Human
Extinction on this Chernobyl-Contaminated Planet”, http://members.fortunecity.com/osservatorio/charleshyderbook2.html
Herein a mathematical and empirical model involving a cause-and-effect relationship between Chernobyl's Radioactive
releases, Species' Extinctions (Amphibia first!), and Human Survival is presented. It is a powerful statement.
What is needed to specify and clarify the true nature of the global extinctions is to take definitive measurements of
radioactive Pu, Sr, Cs, U, Br, Kr, Rb, I and Xe concentrations in all Amphibia, Humans, etc. and in their environments,
predators, and prey worldwide. These measurements would be the basis for the definitive empirical models for the
quantitative relationships between Chernobyl radioactivity, species Extinctions (Amphibia first!) and Human Survival.
The sooner that these global measurements of radioactive isotopes in Amphibia, Humans, environments, etc. are taken, the
sooner we can determine what steps really need to be taken over what time-scales.
Never forget: One of the 450 operating nuclear reactors is the world's next Chernobyl racing toward its explosive
extinction and the next wave of worldwide, radioactive mass extinctions of Humans, more amphibia and most other
vertebrates.
There is no compromise with nature! We must comply with nature's laws or fail.
As a species, we pursue imaginative, unlikely, and remote doomsday scenarios when the inevitable repeat of Chernobyl
explosions, and their immediate and chronic releases, will complete the purge of Amphibia started at Chernobyl. The
rest of us earthlings will be engulfed too.
I have developed a much deeper respect for Sternglass, Gofman, Gould, Tamplin, et ilk who have had the courage to calculate,
address, observe and think about the real costs of the Global Nuclear Folly in real numbers. I have taken that step that glimpses
the specific horrors that will befall the untold billions of Chernobyl's victims, 1986-2075 AD (Cs-137 globally plus Pu and Sr-
90 locally).
We must do all that can be done to minimize, then to end, the global horrors that the unbridled nuclear technologies have
brought down on our heads.
7
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Prices High Now
Despite recent shocks, prices remain high
Alex Wilson, Staff Writer, Dow Jones, 7-3-08, Posted on the Australian Business,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23963477-5005200,00.html, Junaid
Market commentators also said prices in Asia were set to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the
market. The Newcastle spot coal price fell sharply today, following on from a 20 per cent drop in spot thermal coal prices in
Europe overnight, sparking heavy selling in Australian coal stocks. However the price drop is only a partial retracement of
gains seen in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of
$US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal. Brendan Harris, mining analyst at Macquarie, said the coal
market remains tight with prices set to stay high and the pullback overnight would not be prompting him to downgrade
earnings for the Australian miners he covers.
Coal Prices soaring- demand

Tom Fletcher, Staff Writer, BC Local News, 7-14-08, http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/25412649.html, Junaid
B.C.'s coal industry came off a weak 2007 with prices more than doubling so far this year for all types of coal, and that trend is
expected to continue. The price of metallurgical coal, used in steel production, is forecast to rise from an average $85 per tonne
in 2007 to $198 this year, according to BC Stats. For the highest-grade metallurgical coal, B.C. producers have signed some
contracts for more than $300 per tonne. Despite coal's high concentration of carbon and particulate emissions, demand from
steel-producing countries Japan, South Korea, Brazil, China and India has driven up prices. B.C. coal also benefited from
supply problems including flooded mines in Australia, safety-related mine closures in Russia and heavy snowfall in Chinese
coal production areas.
Despite drops, prices are high

Bloomberg, 7-14-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aR42fKuwDfXA&refer=australia, Junaid
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, fell for the first time in 12
weeks, dropping 3.5 percent from a record. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the New South Wales port
declined $6.79 to $188 a metric ton in the period ended July 11, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The index last
week rose to a sixth consecutive record, reaching $194.79 a ton. ``The market is signaling the upward momentum is probably
easing from here,'' Mark Pervan, senior commodity analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., said today in
Melbourne. ``When you get well over historical highs, the market is trying to find a ceiling price, and we may have found that
last week.''
8
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Asian countries’ demand maintains high coal prices
Seeking Alpha, Stock Market Analysis site, July 03, 2008, “Rising Asian Demand Keeps Coal Prices Inflated, Energy
Stocks: Coal” http://seekingalpha.com/article/83756-rising-asian-demand-keeps-coal-prices-inflated [Bapodra]
In May, China reverted to being a net coal importer, with imports exceeding exports by 250,000 metric tonnes, as local output
failed to keep pace with demand. Between January fiscal ‘08 and May fiscal ‘08, China’s coal exports fell 4.1 per cent on year,
to 18.5 million tonnes.
Vietnam said today it will reduce its coal exports by 10 million tonnes or 31 per cent this year to meet growing domestic
demand. Currently a major coal exporter in the region, Vietnam has said it plans to progressively reduce its exports until 2015
when it plans to halt them altogether, as it redirects coal to domestic electricity generation to power its booming economy.
It is not surprising to see volatility in the coal market, but analysts believe the fundamentals will support prices at very strong
levels into 2009. Yes, spot coal prices could ease in coming months, but infrastructure constraints in Australia (Australia is the
world’s largest supplier of sea-borne coal) and rising demand in Asia are likely to keep a high floor on prices.
Prices will rise due to soaring demand

Reuters, 3-3-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKSYD20866820080303, Junaid
SYDNEY, March 4 (Reuters) - Asian demand for thermal coal is expected to rise 6.3 percent this year, underpinned by soaring
power demand from China and India, an Australian government report said on Tuesday, adding prices were likely to keep
rising. The Australian Bureau for Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) said demand for imported coal in Asia would
rise by 23 million tonnes this year to 390.9 million tonnes, upgraded from a December forecast for 361.4 million tonnes.
"Several countries, including India, China, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, have advanced plans to increase coal-fired
electricity generation capacity to meet growing power demand," ABARE said in its quarterly report.
Cost of coal has been shooting up

SABC News, 7-18-08, http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,173443,00.html, Junaid
Eskom has reported a significant decline in its profit before tax for the year ending in March, mainly because of the price of
coal and diesel. Profits fell from R6.5 billion last year to R3.2 billion. The utility says the costs of diesel and coal have
increased by 40% during the period under review. However, revenue rose to R44.4bn from R40bn the previous year. Despite
the approval of a 27% electricity hike that Eskom received, the company says its problems are far from over. Coal costs
increased by R5 billion for the period. Coal is used to generate almost 80% of Eskom's electricity. The utility is currently
sitting on R7.5 billion rand in unrecoverable expenditure. And due to electricity supply constraints, some power stations are
running above capacity, pushing-up the demand for additional coal. Eskom's CEO Jacob Maroga says the company is currently
using 21% of short-term coal contracts compared to 2% in 2001.
9
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal costs have been consistently rising
Blooomberg, 7-7-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&ref
er=australia, Junaid
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, rose 13 percent to a record for a
sixth week amid reduced supplies of the fuel. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the port in New South Wales
state gained $22.69 to $194.79 a metric ton in the week ended July 4, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The volume
shipped in the week ended 7 a.m. local time today fell 17 percent to 1.7 million metric tons from 2.06 million tons a week
earlier, Newcastle Port Corp. said today on its Web site. Australian producers, the world's largest exporters of the fuel, are
switching output to semi-soft coal from thermal coal to take advantage of higher prices, reducing supply of power station coal,
Mark Pervan, a senior commodity strategist with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Melbourne, said today by
phone. ``That is tightening the thermal coal market; you are basically taking thermal coal supplies out of the market,'' Pervan
said. ``That is an additional squeeze on the market so it is no surprise we are seeing these higher prices.'' The weekly
globalCOAL index is up 46 percent since the start of May. The monthly index gained 18 percent to $163.68 a ton in June, from
$138.31 the previous month.
Demand is pushing prices

Blooomberg, 7-7-08,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&ref
er=australia, Junaid
Thermal coal prices will remain at record levels into next year as power stations demand more of the fuel and railroad and port
bottlenecks in Australia and South Africa limit supply, Preston Chiaro, the head of Rio Tinto Group's energy unit, said June 6.
``We have seen the bulk of the gains; we are now at a point where it is going to struggle to push much higher,'' ANZ's Pervan
said of the current Newcastle spot price. `Ì think $194 a ton is getting pretty close to the upper limits.''
10
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Demand High Now
High price of oil driving demand for coal
Mineweb, “Atlantic Coal releases final results,” Company Releases, 7/17/2008,
Anthracite coal, washed and sized into eight products, is sold into the domestic heating and industrial markets. Domestic
heating market demand remains robust and commands the highest prices. Coal is sold to dealers for final delivery to
households utilizing coal as a primary or secondary heating fuel. The north eastern states of the US consume
approximately 85% of total USA fuel oil used for heat. As the price of fuel oil has escalated unabated, demand for
anthracite coal as a primary fuel for heating has surged. This demand is further bolstered by the substantial increase in
shipments of hand fired coal stoves into the market. The weighted average selling price for this segment of the market was
$130 per tonne. It remains an attractive and dynamic segment of the market. Industrial market consumption is
concentrated on steel producers using anthracite as a carbon additive in their melting shop operations. Steel
production continues at high levels with concomitant demand for coal. The high quality of Mammoth seam anthracite
mined by SCG creates a superior high fixed carbon product for the steel market. These very characteristics also make our coal
desirable for use in ore reduction processes with potential future demand by this segment. Industrial markets are price
competitive with the weighted average selling price.
Demand for coal is coming back

Bob Reynolds, Staff Writer, WNEP News Station, 7-9-08,
http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=8649997&nav=menu158_1, Junaid
Coal is making a big comeback in some areas. That means more jobs and more demand for certain products that bring with
them lower fuel costs. Pete Onuskanich of Pottsville showed off his new coal-fired furnace in his Pottsville home. The high
cost of home heating oil pushed Onuskanich to invest $5,000 for the furnace and the installation. Having a coal unit takes a
little more effort, loading the coal and taking out the ashes. "Go to coal. It's a lot cheaper, maybe a little bit of work but if
you're that lazy there's nothing I can do about it," Onuskanich said.
Coal Demand boom likely to last

Reuters, 6-26-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626m, Junaid
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of
Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-
bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of
expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic
growth that is driving persistent coal demand.
11
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Demand High Now
Coal Demand has reached record levels
AP, Associated Press, 7-27-08, Posted on CNN,
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/fe0a5d47eda58198fd91b624f9c62b79.htm, Junaid
NEW YORK (Associated Press) - International demand is leading coal prices to near-record levels. Weather-related disruptions
and other global supply problems have shined a spotlight on U.S. miners. Calyon Securities analyst Gordon Howald says
despite their meteoric rise, coal shares have room to grow. He recommends taking advantage of pull-backs to snap up what he
calls strong players like Arch Coal Inc. and Foundation Coal Holdings. He raised his rating on the two to "add" from "neutral."
Howald raised his target on Peabody Energy Corp. to $88 from $66. He predicts prices for coal, like other commodities, will
climb through next year. The price of coal used in steel production is booming and steam coal, used in boilers to produce
electricity, could gain even more as utilities renew annual contracts with customers. Demand could also rise if the summer is
unusually warm, he says.
Demand is sky high

Bloomberg, 10-30-07, Posted on Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/bloomberg/sxcoal.php, Junaid
Energy coal prices at the port of Newcastle, Australia, the world's biggest export harbor for the fuel, rose 1.3 percent to a record
on expectations of supply shortages in Asia and a disruption to deliveries from a Queensland State mine. Coal for immediate
delivery at Newcastle rose 96 cents to $76.95 a metric ton in the week ended last Friday, according to the globalCOAL NEWC
Index. The previous all-time high was $76.16 reached two weeks ago. Supply has struggled to meet demand this year because
of bottlenecks in producer countries like Australia and South Africa, and as China became a net importer of coal for the first
time. Anglo American, the world's second-biggest mining company, last week declared force majeure on shipments from the
Dawson mine in Queensland. "It's the expectations that demand continues to outpace supply so the market is in deficit; it's
about people's perceptions of what is around the corner," Rory Simington, a senior coal analyst at AME Mineral Economics in
Sydney, said of the record price. "We're coming into a period of higher demand, winter is approaching, and people are
wondering where the additional supply is going to come from."
High demand in the future- Asian imports

EIA, Energy Information Administration, Jan 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html, Junaid
Australia is one of the few countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that
is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied
natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both
coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and
LNG).
12
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
US Coal Demand High Now
US coal demand high
WSJ, Wall Street Journal, June 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426607541798571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj,
Junaid
U.S. coal producers have been largely unable to meet growing demand because of a lengthy permitting process, lack of capital
investment and a shortage of skilled miners, which will keep supplies tight and prices high. The underlying industrywide issues
are compounded by severe floods in the Midwest, which have stranded barges full of coal and submerged railcars used to haul
coal. It isn't clear what impact those interruptions will have on supplies and prices. Paul Forward, a coal analyst with Stifel,
Nicolaus & Co., expects demand for coal in the U.S. to outstrip supply this year by 15 million tons, in large part because of the
increase in exports, which shot up 49% through April compared with last year. Constraints to production also played a role in
the growing shortfall, he said.
Coal is in high demand in the US- low cost alternative

Richard Heinberg, Staff Writer, Global Public Media, 5-28-08,
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states, Junaid
The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas)
consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel
in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US
coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent
more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are
implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society’s use,
since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40 percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic
liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues,
this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a
tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current
mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time.
US coal consumption is high and growing

U.S. coal production and consumption will almost certainly continue to grow. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2007,
released in January 2007, the EIA projects 1.5 percent average annual growth in U.S coal production through 2025, due
mainly to increasing coal use for electricity generation. Assuming no major changes in emissions legislation, Western
coal production is forecast to increase far more quickly than interior production; Appalachian production is forecast to fall
slightly.
13
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
US Coal Demand High
Coal remains in high demand
Kirby Lee Davis, Staff Writer, Journal Record, 3-12-08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080312/ai_n24936262, Junaid
"The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on the percent of coal used to generate it," said Craft, defending his industry's
performance and interests while linking future gross domestic product growth to a continued abundance of inexpensive
electricity. "Coal remains the low-cost alternative." Craft said electrical power generation by coal-fueled plants rose 50 percent
last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projections estimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by
2030, with improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-fired market share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected
to rise 48 percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of power generation. Renewable sources would increase 60
percent, he said, while nuclear power generation would climb 19 percent and petroleum sources 9 percent.
14
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Renewables Links
Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree
Ethan Goffman, politics correspondent, 6/17/08 (“Renewable Energy Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think”
Gather, <http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977375141&nav=Namespace> )
Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel
(Tipping Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other
renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at
an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about
climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are likely to replace oil
and gas sooner rather than later. Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this
expansion are severely under-reported, according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new
renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations. Government policy has been a key driver,
Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy. If current policies supporting renewable energy are simply maintained,
he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable. Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment,
explains that the implications of current growth are far bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only
incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional
thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve
upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of conventional energy.
Alternative Energy shafts coal – World Energy Council Agrees

Ingvar B. Fridleifsson, United Nations University—Geothermal Training Programm, 12/03 “Status of geothermal energy amongst
the world's energy sources” Geothermics Volume 32, Issues 4-6, Science Direct, )
The World Energy Council (WEC) has presented several scenarios for meeting the future energy requirements, with varying
emphases on economic growth rates, technological progress, environmental protection and international equity. All the scenarios
provide for substantial social and economic development, particularly in the developing countries. They provide for improved energy
efficiencies and environmental compatibility. During 1990–2050, the primary energy consumption is expected to increase by some
50% according to the most environmentally conscious scenario, and by some 275% according to the highest growth rate scenario. In
the environmental scenario, the carbon emissions are expected to decrease slightly from 1990 levels. The high growth rate scenario is
expected to lead to a doubling of the carbon emissions ([Nakicenovic et al., 1998]). The scarcity of energy resources forecasted in the
1970s did not occur. With technological and economic development, estimates of the ultimately available energy resource base
continue to increase. Economic development over the next century will apparently not be constrained by geological resources.
Environmental concerns, financing, and technological constraints appear more likely to limit future development. In all WEC
scenarios, the peak of the fossil fuel era has already passed. Oil and gas are expected to continue to be important sources of energy
in all cases, but the role of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy varies widely in these scenarios as does the level to
which these energy sources replace coal. In all the scenarios, the renewables are expected to become very significant
contributors to the world primary energy consumption, providing 20–40% of the primary energy in 2050 and 30–80% in 2100.
They are expected to cover a large part of the increase in energy consumption and to replace coal.
15
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Renewables Links
Renewable energy replaces coal within a few years
Moreland Energy Foundation – No Date (“Renewable energy can replace coal!” <
http://www.mefl.com.au/documents/MW_renewable_baseload.pdf.>
The short answer is yes. There are many sources of renewable energy which can already provide strong and steady electricity to
supply our baseload needs as well as our peak demand. In order to make this happen, we must start scaling up our installation of
renewable energy, develop a broad range of renewable energy technologies, and combine investment in renewable energy with strong
programs to save energy. By doing these three things on a large-scale, within a few years we could start turning off the most
polluting coal-fired power stations and replacing them either with megawatts of power produced by renewable energy, or ‘nega-
watts’ of power saved by cutting energy waste.
Coal will be relied upon until we develop large-scale alternative energy

sources
Eric McLamb is the president of Ecology Communications and went to the University of North Carolina at Capitol Hill, “Fossils
Fuels vs. Renewable Energy Resources: Energy's Future Today” Ecology: Global Network, No Date
http://www.ecology.com/features/fossilvsrenewable/fossilvsrenewable.html
The oil, coal and natural gas companies know these are serious problems. But until our renewable energy sources become
more viable as major energy providers, the only the alternative for our global population is for these companies to
continue tapping into the fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs. And, you can pretty much count on these companies
being there providing energy from renewable sources when the fossil fuels are depleted. Many oil companies, for example, are
involved in the development of more reliable renewable energy technologies. For example, British Petroleum Company, today
known as BP, has become one of the world's leading providers of solar energy through its BP Solar division, a business that
they are planning on eclipsing their oil production business in the near future.
16
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Credit Trading Link
Credit trading sends a signal mandatory reductions are coming – this
decimates coal
Marlo Lewis, Sr. Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 27, 2004, Et Tu, Edison?,
http://cei.org/gencon/019,03981.cfm
Coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel (CO2 emissions per unit of energy obtained from coal are nearly 80 percent higher than
those from natural gas and about 35 percent higher than those from gasoline).[4] Consequently, Kyoto-type policies can easily
decimate coal as a fuel source for electric power generation. For example, according to EIA’s analysis, the McCain-Lieberman
bill would reduce U.S. coal-fired electric generation in 2025 by 80 percent—from 2,803 billion kilowatt hours to 560 billion
kilowatt hours.[5] A transferable credit program will send a political signal that mandatory reductions are in the offing and,
hence, that coal’s days are numbered. As environmental lawyer William Pedersen observes, the Administration’s plan to
develop “company-by-company greenhouse emissions accounts” makes little sense “except as a step towards legally binding
controls.” Indeed, why would firms go to the trouble and expense of earning offsets applicable to a future regulatory program
“unless they believed such a program was coming?”[6] DOE cannot issue or certify early credits without ratifying the opinion,
tirelessly asserted by green groups, that some form of carbon regulation is “inevitable.” Anticipating such constraints, many
companies will make plans to switch from coal to natural gas. That, in turn, will put additional pressure on already tight natural
gas supplies.
17
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
RPS Links
RPS dramatically reduces coal demand.
EIA, 09-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eeim/execsummary.html
The RPS causes a dramatic shift away from coal and natural gas to renewable fuels, particularly biomass and wind.
Coal-fired electricity generation in the Policy Case is 938 billion kilowatthours (28 percent) lower in 2030 than in the
Reference Case. Natural-gas-fired generation is 99 billion kilowatthours (11 percent) lower in 2030. Generation from nuclear
power is 80 billion kilowatthours (9 percent) lower in 2030.
RPS decreases coal prices

EIA, 06-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html
The shift away from coal to renewable fuels, together with the costs of retail electricity sellers holding RPS credits, affects
electricity prices. In 2030, EIA projects the national average electricity price with the RPS to be 2 percent higher than in the
reference case, i.e., 8.2 cents per kilowatthour with the RPS compared to 8.1 cents per kilowatthour in the reference case. By
2030, prices for natural gas and coal, two key fuels for the electric power sector, are lower with the RPS than in the reference
case.
RPS reduces coal demand and prices

Renewable Energy World, 06-17-07, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ rea/news/infocus/story?id=48961
The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are
also lowered to a lesser degree.
Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS
case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when
compared to reference case projections.
RPS trades off with coal – proven several states

Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES
Report No. 01-07 Pg 11 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper
_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf> )
• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.

In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would
lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan,
New York, Virginia, and Texas.
18
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
RPS Links
RPS devastates the coal industry
Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES
Report No. 01-07 Pg 44 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper? >
Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In
Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by
Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the
price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil
fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.
Projected demands will prioritize coal usage now; RPS would displace the coal industry
Alan Nogee et al , Clean Energy Program Director with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 4/23/07 (Jeff Deyette, Energy
Analyst with UCS, and Steve Clemmer, Research Director for UCS’ Clean Energy Program, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard” The Electricity Journal Volume 20, Issue 4, Science Direct, >
Under the business as usual scenario (AEO 2004), the United States increases its dependence on coal and natural gas in order to
meet a projected 30 percent increase in demand for electricity from 2005 to 2020 (Figure 2). Non-hydro renewable energy use
nearly doubles between 2005 and 2020, mostly as a result of existing state RPS policies and the increasing ability of wind power to be
cost competitive with conventional energy sources. However, the total contribution from non-hydro renewable energy increases from
2.4 percent to just 3.5 percent during that same period.24
Renewable energy diversifies the energy portfolio by meeting a much larger portion of U.S. electricity demand under a 20
percent national RPS (UCS assumptions). By 2020, non-hydro renewable energy accounts for 15.5 percent of total electric power
generation (Figure 3).25 In the earlier years of the forecast, the increased renewable energy generation displaces more natural gas.
In the latter years, as coal generation begins to compete with more expensive natural gas, renewable energy generation
displaces more coal. However, new growth in both coal and natural gas are still needed under the RPS to meet the projected
increase in energy demand by consumers. By 2020, nearly two-thirds of the increase in coal generation projected under business
as usual is displaced as a result of the new renewable energy generation.
19
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
RPS Links
Tradable RPS decreases coal generation
Energy Information Administration 6/06 (“Energy Market Impacts of a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard” Department of
Energy, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/emice/pdf/sroiaf2006(02).pdf> )
This report responds to a request from Senator Norm Coleman that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyze a proposed
clean energy resources policy. The proposal, a copy of which is provided in Appendix B, requires retail electric suppliers to
account for an increasing fraction of incremental sales growth with clean energy resources, including nonhydro renewable
resources, new hydroelectric or nuclear resources, fuel cells, or an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that sequesters its
carbon emissions. Electric suppliers may also comply by purchasing tradable clean energy generation credits from other
generators or by purchasing credits from the Federal government at a clean energy credit price of 2 cents per kilowatthour.
Irrespective of the incremental target over the 3-year baseline sales period, suppliers are not required to hold credits in excess of 10
percent of their total prior-year sales in any year. Electric suppliers with less than 500,000 megawatthours of sales are exempt from the
requirements. This analysis is based on the reference case from the Annual Energy Outlook 2006.
The key findings include:
• In aggregate, through 2019, the proposal does not induce any significant carbon-free generation above reference case levels because
enough qualifying resources are built in the reference case to meet the Clean Energy Portfolio Standard (CEPS) targets. Reference
case growth in renewable and nuclear generation is large enough to comply with the targets in those years. Sixty percent of the
required clean energy generation in 2030 is achieved in the reference case.
• In the last 10 years of the projections, additional nuclear and renewable generation is stimulated, and the clean energy target levels
are achieved without the purchase of government-issued clean energy credits.
• In 2020 CEPS credits are projected to begin trading at just below 1 cent (2004 dollars) per kilowatthour. Over the next few years, the
credit price hovers just above 1 cent per kilowatthour before declining to between 0.3 and 0.5 cents per kilowatthour in the last 5 years
of the projections as competing fossil fuel prices rise.
• Almost 43 percent of the qualifying generation in 2030 is from new nuclear facilities (210 billion kilowatthours out of a requirement
of 489 billion kilowatthours). Biomass (118 billion kilowatthours) and wind (90 billion kilowatthours) also provide substantial
compliance generation. Other compliance generation comes from geothermal (42 billion kilowatthours), landfill gas (33 billion
kilowatthours), and solar (6 billion kilowatthours).
• The increase in carbon-free generation leads to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2030, coal generation is reduced by
over 5 percent, and natural gas generation is reduced by 2 percent from their respective reference case levels.
20
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
PTC Links
Unique Link – Coal plants are set to grow, permanent tax credits substantially weaken the coal industry
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways & Means, 5/07 (“Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit
for Wind Generator” Energy Information Administration < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/> )
In the reference case, coal-fired plants are expected to grow as the primary source of electricity, increasing from 50 percent of
total supply in 2005 to 57 percent in 2030. Both nuclear and natural gas plants provided 19 percent of total generation in 2005, but
their 2030 shares of generation are projected to fall to 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively. While both technologies show a gradual
growth in capacity over the forecast horizon, their shares decline because this growth is smaller than the corresponding increase in
total electricity generation. In the reference case, wind generation is expected to more than triple over this 25-year period, although the
share of total generation remains below 1 percent through 2030. Compared to the reference case, a five-year extension of the full
PTC for wind facilities increases their generation in 2030 by almost 40 percent. The 1.5 cent tax credit has a nearly identical
effect. In these cases, the share of total generation from wind is approximately 1.2 percent by 2030. A five-year extension with a
reduced PTC of 1 cent per kilowatthour is not expected to result in additional wind power than what is projected under business-as-
usual conditions
A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference case, a
permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind plants. With a
similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still more than double
relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would increase wind generation
by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case, wind generation at the end of
the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come from wind facilities in 2030 with a
permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3 percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour
credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind
displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of
generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from
dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual
forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a
similar effect on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the
additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels
that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent
extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity
generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.
21
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Wind Links
Wind Power would tradeoff with coal if backed by government incentives
MSNBC 8/23/01 (“Replace dirty coal with the wind, engineers say” < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071926> )
Wind power is now cheaper than coal and could become a leading source of electricity with the right political support and
investment, researchers said Thursday. The Stanford engineers calculated that building some 225,000 wind turbines across the
country would be expensive — at an initial cost of $338 billion — but that the payback would include a huge drop in emissions tied to
global warming. “There is no reason not to invest in wind at this point,” said Mark Jacobson, a Sanford University professor of
environmental engineering. “Wind is so obviously cheaper if we look at total costs.” Writing in the journal Science, Jacobson and
Stanford colleague Gilbert Masters calculated that wind-generated energy costs 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Coal power is priced
around there as well, but if you factor in the indirect health and environmental costs the price is more like 5.5 to 8.3 cents per kilowatt
hour, the engineers calculated. The researchers also noted that coal dust kills 2,000 U.S. mine workers annually and has cost taxpayers
about $35 billion in monetary and medical benefits to former miners since 1973. Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the National
Mining Association, acknowledged that coal mining has an environmental impact, but said “we are all working toward a goal of
reducing emissions and have made tremendous strides in reducing emissions in the past 30 years since the Clean Air Act.” Critics of
wind power argue that the turbines — which look like giant propellers — have been linked to the accidental deaths of migratory birds
that get caught inside the propeller blades, and that the turbines take up a tremendous amount of space. But Jacobson said these
problems could be avoided by selecting sites out of migration paths and by paying farmers to put them on their land. “Wind has trivial
health and environmental problems associated with it in comparison with coal,” Jacobson said. Although wind power is the fastest
growing source of energy in the world, the United States has been slow to use it because coal is so cheap and wind has received
no government incentives, Jacobson said. Wind power provides the United States with less than 1 percent of its energy, compared to
52 percent from coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Analysts say the U.S. market will see 1,500 megawatts of new
wind power installed by the end of the year. For America to catch up with major wind power nations such as Germany, Spain and
Denmark, political backing by the Bush administration and Congress is essential, Jacobson said. In order to build more wind
farms in the United States, lawmakers must be willing to offer the same investment opportunities and tax incentives given to
the more established coal, gas and oil industries, he added. The energy bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this
month focuses heavily on boosting domestic oil, coal and natural gas production, doing far less to promote wind power as an energy
source. The Senate, still working on its version of the energy legislation, is virtually certain to focus on conservation and energy
efficiency. The authors added that a massive campaign to build turbines, while costly, would have an additional payback: a sharp drop
in carbon dioxide emissions, one of the gases that many scientists fear are warming Earth by trapping heat via a greenhouse effect. If
around 225,000 turbines were built, Jacobson noted, it would cost an initial $338 billion with a minimum of $4 billion annually for
maintenance. But doing so would eliminate almost two-thirds of coal-generated electricity and thereby reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to below 1990 levels, the authors estimated.
A boost in wind power would decrease coal usage and deter the development of new coal technology
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 5/13/08 (“Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says” Washington Post,
Lexis, )
The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation
needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption. But in a
report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in
turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of
wind-turbine installation. The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer
the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that
expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating
capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by
2030 to meet rising demand.
22
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Wind Links
Wind Power reduces the need for coal
Climate Protection Agency 2/27/06 (“Replace Coal with Wind” <
http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/02/replace_coal_wi.html> )
Can wind power replace coal in the US for generating electricity? The answer is YES, and it can be done more cost-effectively
than using nuclear. The US generates about half of its electricity using coal-fired power plants. Combustion of coal accounts for 37%
of US greenhouse gas emissions overall, and 81% of emissions in the electricity sector. These coal plants will have to be shut down
or replaced with other non-emitting electric power generation technologies. Efficiency improvements can take us a long way
toward reducing the need for these coal plants. However, the power produced by these plants provides so-called "baseload" power,
which will need to be generated by other sources.
Farmers would shift to wind

New York Times 10/20/07 (“Fight Against Coal Plants Draws Diverse Partners” Lexis)
For many farmers and ranchers, their aversion to coal is more pragmatic than philosophical. Their crops and livestock have been
plagued by severe droughts and storms lately, and some wonder whether those are linked to global warming. Whether that proves to
be the case, the strain on their finances has made them more interested in renewable-energy projects, like wind turbines, on their
land. Janyce and Leonard Harms, who grow wheat and millet in Hereford, Colo., near the Wyoming and Nebraska borders, last year
agreed to allow eight towering wind turbines on their land. The turbines are part of the new 274-turbine Cedar Creek wind farm owned
by BP, the huge energy company, and Babcock & Brown. The project is expected to churn out electricity for some 90,000 homes,
mostly near Denver. The Harmses, though a bit skeptical about coal plants, have not become involved in any battles. But they typify
the fascination with wind energy that is sweeping rural America. They have received about $5,000 from the wind farm’s owners
for leasing their land, and once the wind farm is fully operational by year’s end, they will receive at least $3,500 a year per turbine.
“We’re not environmentalists by any means,” Ms. Harms said as she gazed through her sliding glass door at the huge turbines
spinning in the distance. “I see this as supplemental income. We’re getting older and we’d like to retire. This is a great deal, and the
fact that it’s clean energy makes it even better.”
Wind would replace coal due to carbon dioxide emissions

David Keith, Adjunct Professor Department of EPP at Carnegie Mellon, 11/11/04 (“Wind Power and Climate Change” <
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/index.html>)
The primary reason for building large amounts of wind-power is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate
changes such as global warming by replacing coal-fired power plants (and other carbon dioxide emitting power sources) with wind
power. Suppose one builds a single wind-turbine and uses its power to replace electricity from a conventional coal-fired power
plant. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the wind turbine will have a tiny (unmeasule) effect in reducing global climate
change. The wind-turbine will also cause a tiny and likewise unmeasule amount of climate change by altering wind patterns. The
question is what is the ratio of these two climatic changes? What is the ratio of climatic cost to benefit? This question matters for any
amount of wind-power if it is build with the intention of reducing climate change.
23
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Wind Links
Wind Power supplants coal usage – its cheaper and at a lower risk to investors than other alternatives
Climate Protection Campaign 3/2/06 (“Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal” Blog
<http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/03/cost_of_wind_vs.html>)
One of our commenters, David Bradish, has asked how wind is more cost effective than nuclear to replace coal. The short answer
is: It is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and it is a lower risk to investors, which means that the cost of financing for wind
is lower on private capital markets. To make this case I use figures from two sources: "The Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity" produced by the International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency, and "The Future of Nuclear Power" produced by
MIT. First, and most important, the cost of capital. Unlike in previous decades, much of the regulatory risk shield for utilities has
been taken down by deregulation. Now new power plant projects must compete for capital on private capital markets, i.e., investors.
Investors attach a cost to the money invested in terms of a return on capital. This is often expressed as a "discount rate" in financial
calculations. Higher risk projects are expected to have a higher return, and thus the cost of the capital is assessed at a higher discount
rate.
24
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Solar Links
A transition to solar power displaces coal plants
Ken Zweibel et al, president of PrimeStar Solar, 12/07 (James Mason, director of the Solar Energy Campaign, and Vasilis
Fthenakis, professor in at Columbia University’s Center for Life Cycle Analysis, “A Solar Grand Plan” Scientific American, <
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan> )
The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That
investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The
infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they
consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension
in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by
plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels,
putting a major brake on global warming.
Solar Power reduces reliance on coal and fossil fuels

David R. Mills and Robert G. Morgan, Principal Research Fellows of Solar Energy Group in the Department of Applied Physics
of the University of Sydney, 7/3/08 (“A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil” Renewable Energy
World < http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reworld/story?id=52693>)
Although it is often said that ‘solar cannot produce baseload electricity,’ STE is probably the only currently available technology
that can be considered for a globally dominant role in the electricity sector over the next 40 years.
Humankind evolved to be most active when the sun was up, and this is why human activity and energy usage correlate
significantly with the energy delivery from direct solar systems. Additional seasonal correlations detected result from the influence
of the US national building air-conditioning load, which is greater toward summer months when the sun delivers more direct solar
energy to the earth’s surface. We have up to now largely neglected these advantageous correlations when designing power systems
technology. Such hourly and seasonal natural correlations with energy output from a solar system are substantially enhanced
using storage. An immediate advantage is that load-following solar plant does not need expensive peaking plant back-up and it
is clear that natural correlations can be used to economic advantage in solar power system design. The relevance of baseload
generation as a technical strategy needs to be carefully re-examined. Human activity does not correlate well with baseload coal or
nuclear output and it should be recognized that baseload is what coal and nuclear technologies produce, not what is required by
society and the environment. Solar power with storage can take up as much of the grid generation load or vehicle energy load as is
desired, and can host other clean energy options by treating them as a negative grid load. A mixture of storage and non-storage
renewable options thus appears to be fully self-consistent as an alternative to the present generation mix, with the main co-contributors
to STE probably being hydro and wind. Not only is STE an energy option of great significance, but with only 16 hours of storage it
has sufficient diurnal and seasonal natural correlation with electricity load to supply the great majority of the US national grid (and by
logical extension, those of China and India) over the year, with the hourly solar radiation data including typical cloudy weather
patterns. Furthermore, STE can supply much of an electrified transportation market without destroying these natural correlations. An
almost complete elimination of both fossil-fuelled generation and oil usage for transportation in the US appears to be technically
feasible and will cost less than continuing to import oil.
25
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Solar Links
Solar power reduces natural gas, which reduces coal usage
Gar Lipow, guest contributor, 6/30/08 (“Power from rooftops could replace coal” Grist < http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/29/132129/715>)
Enough sunlight strikes unshaded U.S. rooftops to replace all the coal and some of the natural gas we use to make electricity.
Backup via ground source heat pumps, and smart grid technology would allow this variable energy source to displace base-load
coal with today's technology. Whether this is the most cost effective way to displace coal is another question. Also rooftop solar is a
silver BB rather than a silver bullet: Even after massive efficiency improvements we will need to get many times the power from non-
rooftop sources than from rooftops. According to a 2003 study by the Energy Foundation (PDF), solar PV that converts 15 percent of
sunlight to electricity could produce 710,000 Megawatts on rooftops that will be available in 2050. Doug Wood thinks that with
concentrating PV using advanced aerospace quality cells we could convert solar at 30 percent rather than 15 percent efficiency.
Scaling back to rooftops available today (using 2003 numbers from the same study and extrapolating forward) we could produce
around 1.05 billion megawatts today. We normally assume 22 percent capacity factor (PDF) for PV. So that would give us about 2.3
billion megawatt hours, or around 56 percent of today's electrical production -- more than coal provides. Further, waste heat from this
process could provide much of our heating and cooling needs as well. The EF study I cited suggests that about 65 percent of
commercial roof space is unshaded compared to about 22 percent of residential roof space. Since some commercial scale chillers run
on low to medium temp heat today, with enough storage solar CHP could provide close to 100 percent of commercial heating and
cooling. But that much storage takes a lot of capital for a small incremental gain. So more realistically, we would put 16 to 24 hours of
low temp Phase Change Material storage and use ground source heat pumps to provide the other 15 percent of low temp needs. As a
side effect, the overnight storage would let us run those heat pumps when the electricity was cheapest -- which will prove more
important than it might appear at first glance. The comparatively low mount of residential roof space available means you will only
have 200 to 300 square feet of unshaded roof space available per home on average. I don't know if this means some houses provide a
lot of available solar space, and others with none or if this is distributed more or less evenly per home. Even in the latter case, you will
have a certain number of unshaded south walls, and a certain amount of yard space that could be devoted to solar generation. To be
conservative, let's say that 40 percent of residential space heat and hot water could be provided as a side effect of concentrating PV
electricity generation. Again, let's add PCM storage and the other 60 percent with ground source heat pumps. This is for existing
buildings. New buildings could be designed to use 70 percent to 80 percent less energy through a combination of better insulation and
sealing, passive solar, more efficient air exchange, and more efficient lighting and appliances. New buildings could also optimize the
amount of solar oriented unshaded roof space. Now, since we are talking concentrating PV, we would have almost no control of when
it would be generated -- mostly during the five peak hours of sunlight except when it was cloudy. However, we are assuming all space
heating and cooling other than solar is switched to ground source heat pumps with PCM thermal storage. So when solar electricity was
produced at a time it was not needed, it could run heat pumps to generate heat or cold in storage for climate control systems to draw
on later. Sixty percent of 2005 residential heating and cooling was about 5.7 quad. Fifteen percent of 2005 commercial heating and
cooling was about .6 quad. Without climate control efficiency improvements a climate control storage would let a smart grid absorb
around 85 percent of solar electricity. If insulation and other improvements reduced climate control in existing buildings about 40
percent, climate control needs could still absorb about half. If we reduce climate control demand further, industry could add PCM and
heat pumps to absorb pretty much as much of this as needed. Industry consumes about 33 quads. About 70 percent of this is used by
boilers, and about 35 percent of boiler energy is used to produce process heat below 700 degrees Fahrenheit. That is 8 quads, or more
than the total solar energy that would be produced. Because lower temperature heat is cheaper to store than high temperature, the high-
end of this would be a last resort; climate control would be the cheapest form of energy to store, followed by hot water at or below the
boiling point, followed by hot water at not too much above the boiling point. Between residential, commercial, and industrial hot
water I suspect we could place most of what space heating did not require without ever needing storage above the boiling point or
below the freezing point of water. What is the bottom line on coal displacement? It would save slightly more electricity than we
currently produce via coal, plus around as much again in displace climate control, hot water and low temp water heat. A small
amount of this could displace coal use directly. But the majority would displace natural gas currently used for electricity
production, climate control, hot water, and process heat. That natural gas in turn could be used to replace coal for base load,
as a first step towards phasing out all fossil fuels, with a bit left over to contribute to phasing out oil. In other words total non-solar
electricity generation would go down, even with increased demand to run heat pumps, while natural gas currently used to heat
buildings would be available for electricity generation. We could completely replace coal based electricity generation with natural gas,
and have some natural gas left over.
26
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Solar Links
Solar Power replaces coal – cost
David Roberts, staff writer, 1/22/07 (“Vinod Khosla's forecast for 2007: Trends and outlook” Gristmill,
< http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/22/13054/5411> )
On the technology side, we will see a horse race between clean coal, solar thermal (not photovoltaic), and wind for central utility-
grade power generation. I would personally handicap this in favor of solar thermal power because it can be stored easily as heat and
is half the cost of solar photovoltaic and is dispatchable by the utility when it is needed, unlike wind power which must be used
when the wind blows. Heat is much cheaper to store than electricity and that gives solar thermal technologies (often called CSP
for concentrated solar power) a big leg up over wind and photovoltaic. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect we will find that clean
coal plants (often called IGCC plants with carbon capture and sequestration) will prove to be too unreliable and the cost of
gasification of coal (the G in IGCC), the separation of carbon dioxide from the waste gases, and compression too high. Liquefaction,
handling, and eventually underground storage in large reservoirs will be so expensive that it is likely that solar thermal
technologies will win the cost race. The financial risk of building a fifty year lifetime coal plant will become much more visible in
2007, and utilities that are doing it will see their stock suffer as investors recognize this risk fully! You have got to be crazy to build a
fifty year asset with the escalating risk of environmental regulations and the certainty of carbon pricing at some point which will triple
the effective price of coal. It will be much like all the gas plants built in the last decade that are already uneconomic. Besides, all the
renewable portfolio standards (RPS) will make it where you can't produce coal-based electricity and sell it. Already California has a
law requiring 33% of the power be renewable by 2020! The eastern states have their own renewable goals. The RPS standards are
spreading like wildfire.
27
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Solar Links
Solar Power replaces dependency on coal
Sarah Lozanova, staff writer, 3/27/08 (“Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?” Clean Technica <
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/> )
One of the most common arguments against large-scale use of renewable energy is that it cannot produce a steady, reliable
stream of energy, day and night. Ausra Inc. does not agree. They believe that solar thermal technology can supply over 90% of
grid power, while reducing carbon emissions. “The U.S. could nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity
and transportation, drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills, chief
scientific officer and founder of Ausra. You may be wondering, how will we have electricity at night or during cloudy weather? Will
we use large banks of batteries or burn candles? The ability to utilize solar thermal technology after the sun sets is made possible by a
storage system that is up to 93% efficient, according to Ausra’s executive vice president John O’Donnell. High efficiency is achieved
because solar thermal plants do not need to convert energy to another form in order to store it and do not rely on battery technology.
Flat moving recflectors or paolic mirrors focus solar energy to generate heat. This heat generates steam that turns turbines, thus
generating an electric current. If you want to generate electricity-at, say, 3 am-heat from the sun can be stored for later use. This gives
solar thermal technology the ability to not just produce peak power, but also generate base load electricity. Peak Power: The First
Wave of Solar Thermal Plants The maximum amount of electricity demand on the power grid occurs during weekday afternoons and
evenings in the summer months in most regions of the United States. This is largely caused by air conditioning loads, which gobble up
electricity. Because the electric grid needs to be able to handle these peak loads, capacity is built to specifically handle these loads.
Natural gas and oil typically comes to the rescue to produce this electricity. Although these plants are expensive to operate, they are
cheaper to construct than most of the alternatives. They are fast to start, producing power in 30 minutes or less. Additional power
plants are constructed just to generate electricity for the times when it is needed most. This causes peak electricity to be more
expensive. A kilowatt hour of electricity at 3 pm and 3 am does not come with the same price tag to the utility company. “Adding solar
plants that reliably generate until 10 pm displaces the highest cost alternative power,” said John O’Donnell. “That is the first wave of
solar thermal plants. The daily and seasonal variation in grid load in the United States matches solar availability.” Base Load:
Replacing Coal Power Base load is the minimum amount of electricity demand placed on the power grid over a 24 hour period. Coal
and nuclear plants commonly supply this energy. These plants can take hours or even days to heat up to operating temperatures and are
run more continuously than peak power plants. Due largely to the lower cost of fuel, these plants can produce electricity at a
lower cost. If a carbon tax is implemented in the future, this will increase the cost of electricity generated from coal.
Generating electricity around the clock with solar thermal technology relies on storage systems that run turbines long after the
sun sets. “Ausra has a very active energy storage R & D group and we will be prototyping a couple of systems this year here in the
US,” said John O’Donnell. Solar Energy Storage This is not a new technology, having been used for plastic manufacturing and
petroleum production for a long time. Solar thermal plants have a cost advantage compared to photovoltaic technology because
energy can be stored as heat without being converted to another form or relying on batteries.
28
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Nuclear Power Links
Nuclear power causes shift away from coal – key to railroad industry
Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,”
9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html
Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new
improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that
come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about
American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining,
were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually
developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all
the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted
758 tons, or 44% of the total.
29
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Nuclear Power Links
Nuclear power will trade off with coal
Miguel Llanos, MSNBC, 7/7/05, Hot Idea: Fight Warming with Nuclear Power, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/
Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be
needed, he said. "But it's really a trade-off against burning coal," Brand said. By ramping up nuclear, he said, nations can phase
out coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone.
Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

Australian Labor Party, 10/31/07, Labor Committed to Coal- Howard Committed to Nuclear,
http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/mseng310.php
The biggest threat to the coal industry is the Howard Government’s plans for twenty five nuclear reactors across Australia.
In contrast with its reluctance to support the future of the coal industry the Howard Government has been eager to push for the
construction of twenty five nuclear reactors across the country. These reactors would potentially replace existing and future
coal fired power stations.
Nuclear Power replaces coal –perceived as being more efficient

EIA 3/5/03 (“Nuclear Power: 12 percent of America’s Generating Capacity, 20 percent of the Electricity” Energy Information
Agency, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html> )
A number of notes should be made on this chart. The first of these is that the data gather all steam-based fossil fuel energy
together. Fuel costs are lower for steam-based power for coal than for oil or gas. Thus, coal-based power has only a slightly higher
U.S. average production cost than does nuclear. The costs are so close that, while nuclear costs average lower than coal, there is
a good deal of overlap when regions of the country or individual reactors are considered. Nuclear power does, however, have an
advantage in day-to-day operations in its low marginal costs. Day-to-day marginal costs are primarily fuel costs. A disproportionate
part of nuclear power operating costs come from operations and maintenance costs that do not vary much with output. Because
nuclear power’s marginal costs are lower than coal’s marginal costs, nuclear power plants tend to use their full output capacity
before coal plants. This gives nuclear power an advantage in base load operations and results in a higher capacity factor.
30
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Nuclear Power Links
Nuclear Power shafts coal – it’s the best cost alternative
EIA 9/25/03 (“Nuclear Power and the Environment” Energy Information Agency, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/
page/nuclearenvissues.html > )
Views on the suitability of nuclear power for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, acid gases, particulates, and metals are highly
charged. There is no question that producing an increased share of electric power using nuclear fuels in lieu of fossil fuels will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Substantial replacement of fossil fuels would result in substantial declines in acid gas emissions and
if coal is replaced, particulate and solid waste production. Such changes would increase the volume of nuclear spent fuels that
must be disposed. Many of the same reductions in emissions might also be obtained by switching electricity production from coal to
natural gas or to lower sulfur coal. Emission control technologies are also an alternative. Because natural gas-based power production
produces many of the same emissions as coal-based power production, a greater volume of replaced generation capacity would be
required replacing coal-based power using natural gas than would be required using nuclear power. Because natural gas-based power
involves different proportions of particular emission than coal-based power, reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
particulate production would be more substantial than reductions in carbon emissions, though carbon emissions would also decline.
Sulfur dioxide emissions across the board could be reduced substantially by choosing lower sulfur versions of a specific fuel.
Emissions control devices and improved operating procedures are available that can reduce the output and disposal of specific
emissions from a fuel. These conclusions regarding fossil fuels and emissions abstract from the very substantial issue of the
availability of specific fossil fuels and on the impact of increased consumption on their prices. The suitability of nuclear power as an
alternative method of reducing power emissions thus turns on three issues: 1) What level of emissions reductions is desired, 2) What
are the costs of obtaining the emissions reductions by using nuclear power when compared to other methods, 3) Do any costs involved
in switching to nuclear power (such as spent fuel disposal) offset any environmental gains from the displaced emissions. Within this
context, if nuclear power is substantially more expensive than the alternative fossil fuel-based power then the alternative methods of
emissions reductions will be more attractive than nuclear power. If nuclear power were to prove to be less expensive to build and
operate than fossil fuel-based power, any environmental arguments for nuclear power would not be a diminished factor in
economic decisions. Emissions reduction arguments in favor of nuclear power carry their greatest weight when nuclear power
approached the cost of alternative fossil fuels and when nuclear power presented the least cost alternative for obtaining the
emissions control gains. Emissions from fossil fuels vary by fuel. Environmental reasons for replacing coal-fired power with
nuclear power can cover the entire stack gas, particulate, and solid waste spectrum. Replacing natural gas-fired power
generation with nuclear for environmental reasons depends more substantially on greenhouse gas emissions targets. All of these
evaluations would be made within the context of non-economic values placed on nuclear power and its “emissions”.
31
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Nuclear Power Links
Increases in Nuclear power shafts coal usage – IAEA agrees
Kari Livingston, writer for the Associated Content, 10/24/07 (“Nuclear Power Making Inroads against Coal, Oil” Associated
Content < http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425825/nuclear_power_making_inroads_against.html?page=2&cat=15> )
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 435 operating nuclear reactors world wide, providing
hope that nuclear power will eventually replace coal and oil based energy systems. With 103 nuclear reactors, the United States has
the most reactors. France follows the US with 59 reactors, Japan's 55 reactors and the Russian Federation's 31 reactors rounding out
the top. In addition to the currently operating nuclear reactors, there are 29 under construction internationally. Currently, there are
nuclear expansion programs in Ukraine, Bulgaria, Finland and France. The IAEA reports that the average growth of nuclear power is
expected to jump 2.5 per cent, or 679 gigawatts, by 2030. Seventy-eight per cent of electricity in France, who plans to begin
construction on a new plant later this year, is provided by nuclear reactors, but only two per cent of China's electric power is supplied
through nuclear reactors. The report did point out that China's energy needs are rapidly expanding and that the country is exploring all
energy sources,including nuclear power. There are four nuclear reactors under construction in China, but because of the country's
massive population growth, that will still only provide four per cent of China's electric power. Other countries planning significant
growth include Japan and South Korea, which already gets 39 per cent of its power from nuclear. Most of the current nuclear power
construction is in Asia. India gets only 3 per cent of its power from nuclear reactors, but 25 per cent of the current nuclear construction
is in the country. India has set a goal of 10 per cent of electricity from nuclear by 2022 and 26 percent by 2052. The United States gets
19 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, and most of its development plans have centered around increasing capacity at pre-existing
nuclear facilities, but there are four Early Site Permit applications under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The United
Kingdom also uses a significant amount of nuclear power, but many of the country's 19 nuclear reactors are aging facilities with
uncertain futures. However, the government has issued a White Paper reinforcing its position that the advantages greatly
outweigh the disadvantages of nuclear power. Nuclear power use has remained largely stable since jumping from one per cent in
1960 to 16 per cent in 1986. While the global use of electricity continues to rise, only 15 per cent of total electricity is generated
through nuclear reactors.
Nuclear Power replaces coal usage

Mamdouh G. Salameh, Corresponding Author Oil Market Consultancy Service, 6/03 (“Can renewable and unconventional energy
sources bridge the global energy gap in the 21st century?” Applied Energy Volume 75, Issues 1-2, Science Direct, )
Though not strictly renewable, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy-sources. It has the ability to generate enormous energy
from a small volume of fuel. One metric ton of nuclear fuel is estimated to produce the energy equivalent of 2–3 million tons of fossil
fuels [22]. Nuclear power produces no atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, the public perception of nuclear power is still negative.
Hanging over it is the question of radioactive waste and how to dispose of it safely. In 2000, nuclear power contributed 7% to world
energy supplies [23]. After peaking around 2010, production of nuclear power is projected to decline to 5% of the global primary
energy mix by 2020. Nuclear power must, however, expand before 2020 to help supply the increasing world demand for
electricity. Modular, fail-safe, economically competitive nuclear power plants with zero emissions, can be built to replace coal-
fired power plants. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to generate a new fuel and reduce waste [24. Edwards JD. Twenty-first
century energy: transition from fossil fuels to renewable, non-polluting energy sources. Summit on US Energy Policy, Washington
(DC) 23 April 2001. p. 4.24].
32
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Nuclear Power Links
Nuclear power replaces coal – it’s economically more competitive
Michael Totty, Staff Writer, 6/30/08 (“The Case For and Against Nuclear Power” Wall Street Journal – Energy, <
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html> )
So, what's the case against nuclear power? It boils down to two things: economics and safety. Neither holds up to scrutiny. First,
economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when
compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that
no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new
plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are
unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders
become more comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent
subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that
regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a
while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is
more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going. It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is
raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the
demand, lowering the price. Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of
"cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs,
and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain. That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to
greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which
would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies
whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more
expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price"
of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor
concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants. Even without a carbon tax, rising natural-gas prices are beginning to make
nuclear power more competitive. That's true even in some deregulated markets, such as Texas. NRG Energy Inc., based in Princeton,
N.J., has filed an application to build a reactor adjacent to an existing plant in Texas. Though it's too early to know how much the plant
will eventually cost -- or even if it ultimately will get built -- high natural-gas prices alone are enough to justify construction,
according to NRG.
33
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
34
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Profitable Now – Coal
Need for coal transportation leads to successful railroad businesses now
Thestockadvisors.com, 07/14/08, http://www.thestockadvisors.com/content/view/2420/9/
"Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the agriculture
boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has been in Japan covering the G8 Summit.
Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight transport
available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP).
"My long-held thesis on the group has been that the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their
growth.
"It’s no longer appropriate to look at this sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the
broader market and the rails has been breaking down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating.
"In 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of
436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That makes freight trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks.
"Union Pacific is the largest railroad in the US and has long been one of my favorites. The company’s network is nearly 33,000
miles long and is concentrated in the West and Midwest. It also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for
the rails, particularly in the coal and agriculture industries.
"Union Pacific’s energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the company’s business. Coal
transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of Union Pacific’s energy
transport business.
"Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot for the railroad in recent years. Better still, Union-
Pacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower freight rates. As these contracts expire, Union Pacific
should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.
35
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Profitable Now
Railroad doing well now – market forces favor rail
PR Newswire, 7/8/08, “Greenbrier Companies Reports Third Quarter Results”, http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-
railroad/20080708/AQTU05608072008-1.html
Furman concluded, "The long-term outlook for the rail industry remains bright, as market forces continue to favor rail.
In the nearer term, we expect that our marine, refurbishment & parts, and leasing & services businesses will continue with their
strong performance, while new railcar manufacturing will likely remain soft, due to macroeconomic forces. Greenbrier remains
committed to delivering value to shareholders through its integrated business model, which builds on the Company's core
strengths of railcar and marine manufacturing and engineering, while providing diversification and reduced risk through
various business cycles and economic conditions. Our near term operating focus is to integrate recent acquisitions, ensure
the smooth start up of our tank car production line at GIMSA, and to continue to realize revenue and cost synergies
from our integrated model."
Railroads revenue increasing

US Government Accountability Office, “Freight Railroads: Updated Information on Rates and Other Industry Trends,” E-
supplement, August 15, 2007 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07291r.pdf
In 2005, industry rail rates increased 7 percent over their 2004 levels, the largest annual increase over the past 20 years,
outpacing the rate of inflation for only the second time in 20 years. Rates also increased for the commodities we
reviewed— including such commodities as coal and grain. Freight railroad companies continued a 20-year trend of
shifting other costs to shippers, including railcar ownership. Revenues railroads reported as miscellaneous revenue—a
category that includes fuel surcharges—nearly tripled from $633 million 4 in 2004 to $1.7 billion in 2005. While it remains
difficult to precisely determine how many shippers are captive to a single Class I railroad because available proxy measures
can overstate or understate captivity, 2005 data indicate that potentially captive traffic continued to drop. At the same time,
traffic traveling at rates significantly above the threshold for rate relief increased in 2005.
36
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
The railroad industry boom is fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel
costs for trucks
Frank Ahrens, staff writer for the Washington Post, 4/21/08, “A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/20/ST2008042002409.html
When Bob Billingsley hired on with Norfolk Southern railway 31 years ago, he was a rookie on work crews that were closing
unused lines as the nation's economy turned its back on the railroads.
Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the
double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful
global factors.
"For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're
building business to increase profits."
The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is
ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads
laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock
prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.
This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open
tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the
Transportation Department.
In the 1970s, tight federal regulation, cheap truck fuel and a wide-open interstate highway system conspired to cripple the
railroad industry, driving many lines into bankruptcy. The nation's 300,000 miles of rails became a web of slow-moving, poorly
maintained lines, so dilapidated in spots that tracks would give way under standing trains.
The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 largely deregulated the industry, leading to a wave of consolidation. More than 40 major lines
condensed into the seven that remain, running on 162,000 miles of track.
But the changing global market has fueled prosperity -- and the need to add track for the first time in 80 years. Soaring
diesel prices and a driver shortage have pushed freight from 18-wheelers back onto the rails. At the same time, China's
unquenchable appetite for coal and the escalating U.S. demand for Chinese goods, means more U.S. rail traffic is
heading to ports in the Northwest, on its way to and from the Far East.
Coal still accounts for the most tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads, but it is the ocean-crossing shipping container -- carrying
autos, toys, furniture and nearly every product a consumer will buy -- that has lit a rocket under the railroad industry.
Passenger rail traffic is also increasing; 2007 was Amtrak's fifth consecutive year of increased ridership, up 6 percent
from 2006.
The zeitgeist has even dropped a "green" gift in the industry's lap. A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of
diesel fuel, about a 3-to-1 fuel efficiency advantage over 18-wheelers, and the railroad industry is increasingly touting itself as
an eco-friendly alternative. Trucking firms also use the rail lines; UPS is the railroad industry's biggest customer.
Rail traffic, revenue and profit began to soar in 2002-03 and seem largely immune to the economic downturn. Last Tuesday, for
instance, CSX reported a record first-quarter profit. On Friday, the stock price of Western rail giant Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) hit an all-time high. At the industry's nadir in the 1970s, the average annual rate of return on investment for a
railroad company was 1.2 percent. By 2006, that number was 10.2 percent.
And even though the economic slump has reduced key traffic about 4 percent this year compared with last, it has not slowed
the railroads' urgent tracklaying. Capital expenditures this year are up, as the railroads think the downturn is temporary, said the
industry's trade group, the Association of American Railroads.
37
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroad industry booming – Illinois proves
The Herald News, 7/18/08, “Will, Kendall among tops in job growth”,
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/business/1063001,jo18_jobs_web.article
On the heels of Naperville, Bolingbrook and Orland Park honored as Top 100 towns by Money Magazine, the magazine also
lists Will and Kendall counties among the top 25 counties in the nation in terms of job growth since 2000.The magazine ranked
Kendall County Number 2 with job growth of 63.69 percent from 2000 to 2007 and had this to say:“A population boom in this
rural area just outside of Chicago has meant boom times for businesses. Kendall County’s employment growth reflects a
healthy restaurant trade, gains in construction and an influx of malls, shopping centers and big-box stores.“The population
spike has meant a major infrastructure boost, including highway improvements and a $30 million courthouse expansion. The
county is considering extending the commuter rail line from Chicago, which could fuel even more growth. Top employers
include home-improvement chain Menard, heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar and energy provider ANR Pipeline.”Will
County was ranked 21 on the list with a 35.9 percent job growth during that time. The writers had this to say:“As gas prices
continue to reach historic highs, the railroad industry is booming again, and Will County is reaping the benefits. After
doubling the amount of industrial space available in the county, the shipping hub has become a central staging ground
for importing and exporting, as goods change hands at the Burlington Northern Logistics Park.“And with at least three new
shopping centers, a new Ikea opening and an intermodal rail and industrial park planned, the county expects to add
more jobs overall than in any other Illinois area in the next few decades.”
Railroad profits increasing

Cargonews Asia, “US railroad on the up and up” 7/16/2008
http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/article.aspx?id=20&article=16501
US railroad company CSX Corporation recorded higher second-quarter net profit as strong pricing offset a three
percent decline in freight volumes, Reuters reports. Net income rose to US$385 million, or 93 cents a share, from $324
million, or 71 cents a share, a year earlier.
38
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Key to Railroad Profits
Railroads dependent on interest from Energy Department who only cares
about getting their coal shipped
Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January
2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf
Coal has long been the dominant commodity carried by rail in the United States. In 2004, it accounted for about 43 percent
of the tons carried (see Figure3) and about 20 percent of revenues of Class I railroads.28 Coal traffic has trended upward over
the past 10 years (see Figure 4 on page8). The principal sources of railroad growth over the past decade have been coal
and intermodal (“miscellaneous mixed”) shipments.29 Coal traffic (as measured in tons) rose about 37 percent from 1994 to
2003; in terms of revenue, however, it increased just 12 percent.30 Inter- modal shipments, which tend to be relatively high in
value and can command higher rates, grew about 33 percent in tonnage and 46 percent in revenues from 1994 to 2003.31
Projections of Growth in Demand for Rail Transportation Rail traffic is projected to continue to increase as the economy
grows. The Department of Energy’s Energy In- formation Administration (EIA) projects rail growth of 1.7 percent
annually, rising from about 1.6 trillion ton- miles in 2004 to nearly 2.4 trillion ton-miles in 2030.32 The Energy
Department’s interest in rail transportation derives primarily from its interest in the production and consumption of
coal. The EIA projects an increase in the number of tons of coal consumed in the United States of about 62 percent
between 2004 and 2030.33 About 92 percent of coal consumption in 2004 was for the production of electricity.34 The EIA
projects Western coal production to increase to nearly 1.1 billion tons in 2030 from 627 million tons in 2004.35 Most of
that coal will have to be transported over distances for which trucking costs would be prohibitive and where water
transportation is unavailable, so railroads will probably be called upon to fill the need for coal transportation.
Coal for electricity is key to rail revenue

Association of American Railroads “Overview of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008
http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Overview.pdf
America’s freight railroads operate in a highly-competitive marketplace. To compete effectively against each other and against
other transportation providers, railroads must offer high-quality service at competitive rates. Railroads account for 41 percent
of freight ton-miles, more than any other mode of transportation. The rail ton-mile share has been trending upward over the
past 15 years, after remaining flat or falling for decades. In part due to their superior cost effectiveness, railroads generate less
than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads’ revenue share has been falling for decades, a reflection of the intensity
of the competition they face and of the large rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers over the years.
Coal is the most important single commodity carried by U.S. railroads. In 2007, coal accounted for 44 percent of rail tonnage
and 21 percent of rail revenue. The vast majority of coal is used to generate electricity. Coal accounts for around half of U.S.
electricity generation, and railroads handle more than two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments.
39
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Key to Railroad Profits
Coal is 75% of railroad freight
Rob Cameron, BBC News writer, Wyoming, 29 August 2006, “Coal keeps U.S. economy burning”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5295922.stm
Cheap it is, no doubt about that. Cheaper than natural gas, which is why coal is used to generate 52% of America's electricity.It
is also plentiful. The United States contains the largest coal reserves in the world, enough to last for 250 years or more. But the
energy utilities that burn the coal take issue with the reliability. They complain that supplies are not meeting demand, leaving
them low on reserves and Americans potentially exposed to power shortages. In a country where most homes, offices and
restaurants are heavily air-conditioned, this is clearly a problem. So who is at fault? Mile-long trains. The railroads - in this
case US's largest, Union Pacific - play a crucial role in the coal supply chain. Union Pacific moves huge quantities of coal
from the Powder River Basin to the power stations of the east. The task is approached with steely determination by men and
women who clearly take deep pride in their jobs. Locomotives move huge quantities of coal to US power stations "It's the
1,000lb gorilla that you have to watch day in day out," says Cameron Scott, Union Pacific's general superintendent of
railway operations, in North Platte, Nebraska - a crucial transport hub for US rail freight. "The coal trains represent about
75% of everything that runs in and out of this yard." And coal trains are no ordinary trains. They typically consist of up to
135 cars - making them about a mile and half long. Getting the coal to its destination is therefore a massive logistical challenge.
Union Pacific's space-age Harriman Dispatching Center, in Omaha, uses satellite-based GPS and other state-of-the-art
technology to keep track of its trains every minute of the day. Some, however, are beginning to question the wisdom of such
heavy reliance on coal.
Coal is the most important commodity carried by rail

National Atlas.gov, 07/04, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
Measured in ton-miles (the movement of one ton of freight one mile), railroads move 42 percent of intercity freight, more
than any other mode of transportation. The rail share of intercity ton-miles has been trending slightly upward over the past
10 to 15 years, after falling steadily for decades. In part because railroads' rates are so low compared to their competitors,
their 42 percent of ton-mile traffic generates less than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads' share of intercity
freight revenue has been trending down for decades, a reflection of the intensity of the competition for intercity freight
transportation in the United States and of the significant rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers.
Coal is the most important single commodity carried by rail. In 2002, it accounted for 44 percent of tonnage and 21
percent of revenue for Class I railroads. The vast majority of coal in the United States is used to generate electricity at
coal-fired power plants. Coal accounts for half of all U.S. electricity generation, far more than any other fuel source, and
railroads handle approximately two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments. Other major commodities carried by rail include
chemicals, including massive amounts of industrial chemicals, plastic resins, and fertilizers; grain and other
agricultural products; non- metallic minerals such as phosphate rock, sand, and crushed stone and gravel; food and
food products; steel and other primary metal products; forest products, including lumber, paper, and pulp; motor vehicles and
motor vehicle parts; and waste and scrap materials, including scrap iron and scrap paper.
40
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Coal profits key to infrastructure investments – forty percent of revenue is
invested
DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory reports that, as of May 2007, some 151 coal-fired generating plants in dozens
of states representing 90 gigawatts have been announced or are in development. If ultimately built, this new generation would
increase annual U.S. coal requirements by several hundred million tons. Railroad’s past performance strongly suggests that
they will be able to handle this increased demand, as long as the necessary investments in their networks are made. Because
railroading is a network business, improvements or investments in one location can affect rail traffic at distant points.
Therefore, even investments made on rail lines that do not carry substantial amounts of coal can positively impact railroads’
coal operations. It takes an enormous amount of money to run a freight rail system. The rail industry is near the top among all
U.S. industries in terms of capital intensity. In fact, from 1996-2005 (the most recent year for which data are available) the
average U.S. manufacturer spent 3.4 percent of revenue on capital expenditures. The comparable figure for U.S. freight
railroads was 17.2 percent, or more than five times higher. Similarly, in 2006 railroad net investment in plant and equipment
per employee was $620,000---nearly eight times the average for all U.S. manufacturing ($84,000). When maintenance
expenses are included, rail investments rise substantially. Including capital and maintenance spending, from 1980 through 2006
Class 1 railroads invested more than $375 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve their
infrastructure and equipment---with most of this spending directly or indirectly benefiting coal. After accounting for
depreciation freight railroads typically spend $16 billion to $18 billion per year---equal, on average, to more than 40 cents out
of every revenue dollar---to provide the high quality assets they need to operate safely and efficiently. Moreover, rail capital
spending, which was already enormous, is expected to rise to around $9.2 billion in 2007, up from around $5.7 billion just five
years earlier. This huge increase demonstrates the diligence with which railroads are responding to the capacity and service
issues and positioning themselves to handle rail shippers needs in the future. Looking ahead, billions of dollars of rail
investments will be directed specifically at coal, including new locomotives and train sets; double-, triple-, and even quadruple-
tracking heavily-used coal routes; bypasses, sidings, and terminals; and thousands of new employees. These investments will
enhance coal-carrying capacity and the fluidity of rail operations.
41
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Coal-fired electricity is key to railroad infrastructure investments
Jeremy F. Plant, The Public Manager, Fall 2005,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HTO/is_3_34/ai_n25120956/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1
Rails transport coal for electric production and industrial use, as well as export to other nations. Historically, coal has
been one of the most important cargoes for the rail industry, with inland waterways the only major modal competitor. Since
the 1980s, the locus of coal mining and rail operations has shifted from traditional mining centers in the East to the
Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, where the two major western U.S. rail systems, BNSF and Union
Pacific, have invested heavily in new rail infrastructure to meet growing demand, mostly from the electric utility
industry.
Coal key to railroad profitability and infrastructure

Tom Murray, Railroad Consultant and Columnist for TRAINS magazine, 07/07/06,
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=539
As the U.S. economy has grown, it has kept on producing the kinds of things that railroads typically haul: coal, grain,
chemicals, forest products, and other commodities that have a high ratio of weight to value. Because the population and the
economy have grown in absolute terms, the need for these commodities has continued to increase, which has allowed the
railroads to expand their traffic base. However, this growth has not kept pace with rest of the economy. And because
railroads haul the lowest-value commodities, they have limited ability to improve their profitability by charging their
customers higher prices. The importance of value versus weight as an economic factor is one of the themes that Alan
Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, kept returning to. He referred to this phenomenon as "the displacement of
physical weight of output with concepts." More people are doing things that involve ideas (like writing computer programs)
and a smaller percentage of the work force is involved in producing and using heavy, bulk materials. Those heavy commodities
are losing out to smaller, lighter goods. Mr. Greenspan cited copper as an example. Much of the copper formerly used in
electrical circuits has been displaced by electronic components that are not only smaller and lighter but also enable machinery
to run at a much higher level of efficiency. Copper, of course, was once an important commodity for the railroads. In other
words, the railroad industry's major sources of revenue represent a declining share of the economic pie. More significantly, as
heavy commodities (like steel) are replaced by lighter ones (like aluminum), the importance of inventory and logistics costs in
the final value of products is greater than it was in the past. Railroads as they operate today are well suited to commodities that
can stand significant variability in delivery schedules. Those, by definition, are low-value products. Motor carriers (in
combination with air and express companies) have captured virtually 100 percent of the market for service-sensitive, high-
value products. The key question for the rail investor is whether there is hope for the industry in light of its shrinking role in
the North American economy, and declining status in the eyes of the investment community. My view is that railroads are
simply too important to fail. By that, I don't mean that the government will have to step in to save the railroads again, as it did
with Penn Central and the other northeast bankrupts. Instead, I think that the boards of directors of one or more major railroads
will realize that they have a responsibility to bring about dramatic change. In the 1990's, railroads did a great job of
building the physical infrastructure to take them into the 21st century. If they can do an equally good job of matching
their services to the needs of the 21st century economy, rail investors will really have something to celebrate.
42
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure
Revenue key to safety
US Government Accountability Office, “Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and
the Department of Transportation,” GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies; Committee on Appropriations; House of Representatives, March 6, 2007.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07545t.pdf
Financing mechanisms for the nation’s transportation system are under stress. Our nation’s transportation
infrastructure is threatened by increasing demand for transportation services, and revenue from traditional funding
mechanisms for the nation’s highway and aviation systems may be unable to keep pace at current tax rates. In addition,
freight traffic is projected to grow substantially, but current planning and financing mechanisms impede public
strategies to address needs. Our nation’s mobility is threatened because the nation’s infrastructure is under great
strain. Congestion across modes (e.g., aviation, highways, and rail) is expected to worsen. However, funding by mode and
the lack of performance-related goals result in little assurance that funds are being channeled to the most critical mobility
concerns and that intermodal approaches can be integrated into the transportation system. Improvements in transportation
safety are needed to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from transportation accidents—about 95 percent of which
occur on our nation’s roads. Increases in congestion across modes as a result of population and economic growth could
cause deterioration in transportation safety despite departmental and state efforts to reduce accidents. The transition
from the current air traffic control system to a broader and modernized system will be one of the department’s most complex
undertakings. In previous years, FAA has faced systemic management and acquisition problems that led us to designate its air
traffic control modernization program as high risk. While the agency has made significant progress in recent years, a key
challenge going forward will be to institutionalize these improvements and to continually improve. In addition, the
department and the transportation sector face persistent human capital challenges due to an impending shortage of
skilled people to meet changing transportation needs. Furthermore, despite recent improvements in financial management,
the department received a qualified opinion on its 2006 financial statements. Finally, the department is working to clarify its
role in transportation security and emergency preparedness and response.
43
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment
Poor tracks lead to accidents
ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis
Meanwhile, congestion and high fuel costs and surcharges remain significant transportation concerns, shippers say. Congestion
and poor transport infrastructure, including old and neglected highways and tracks, are expected to worsen as freight volumes
rise. Infrastructure problems, in particular, have been blamed for many of the accidents and injuries in the last year. An
undetected break on track has been cited as the cause of an explosion last March when a CSX train carrying liquid
propane derailed and near Oneida, NY About 200 residents were evacuated due to the blast. The track was already
broken when the train passed over it, FRA says. The agency conducted a 23-state inspection of CSX tracks and found safety
violations, which resulted in CSX paying $ 350,000 in fines, FRA says. The incident also drew the attention of some
lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., NY), who testified before a Senate panel on rail safety last year about "the
inadequacy of the current system of monitoring and managing safety issues" on the railroads. She also called for further
inspections of major railroads and for increased FRA oversight and enforcement power.
Major capital investments prevent derailment – empirically proven

Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois, and C.
Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad derailment
factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf
The US railroad mainline accident rate has declined by over 75% since 1980 (Figure 1) and the hazardous materials
accident-caused release rate has declined by nearly 90% (1,2,3). This improvement is the result of major capital
investments in infrastructure and equipment, improved safety designs of tank cars (4), employee training efforts, and the
development and implementation of new technology (5). Most of this improvement in safety took place in the 1980s, and
although the downward trend in mainline accident rate continued through the 1990s, it declined at a lower rate and has leveled
off in recent years (Figure 1). The occurrence of major accident-caused hazardous materials releases has declined to such an
extent that identification and implementation of further safety improvements is much more challenging because there is less
empirical information on which causes are contributing the greatest risk.
44
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism
Derailment create a target for nuclear terrorist attack
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-20-2006/1
Surrey Township, Michigan— Concerned citizen groups are raising questions about the nature of the radioactive wastes
aboard a derailed train amidst conflicting press reports. The Associated Press first reported that the train, which derailed
in the early morning hours of June 16 in Clare County, was hauling eight to ten railcars containing radioactive water
used for cooling nuclear materials at Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan.
However, Consumers Energy spokesman Timothy Petrosky later told the Saginaw News that Big Rock no longer ships
radioactive liquids, and its cargo aboard the derailed train consisted of radioactively contaminated concrete and soil. According
to a spokesman from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Waste and Hazardous Materials Division,
the six rail cars carrying 42 "inter-modal" atomic waste containers from Big Rock are bound for a licensed radioactive waste
dump in Clive, Utah.
Clare County Sheriff's Department Emergency Services Division Sergeant William J. Larson told Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (NIRS) in a phone inquiry that tampering with the rails is suspected, and an investigation has been launched.
"This raises serious concerns about the security of atomic waste shipments," said Kevin Kamps of NIRS. "High-level
radioactive waste shipments from Big Rock that would travel this same rail route would be potentially catastrophic
targets for sabotage or terrorist attack rolling through countless Michigan communities."
45
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs
Accidents turn trains into mobile Chernobyls, causing mass deaths from radiation
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-
20-2006/1
According to workers at the factory who spoke on condition of anonymity, the derailment took place close to the rail spur
leading into, and the shipping dock area of, the Renosol Corp. plant, manufacturer of polyurethane products for the auto
industry. "We know that extremely hazardous materials, such as toluene diisocyanate, are present at the Renosol
factory," said Kay Cumbow of Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, headquartered in nearby Lake Township.
"If the derailment had ignited a fire at the factory, could a toxic cloud have formed? What would be the health and
safety consequences downwind?" Cumbow asked. "Previous derailments have occurred on this very same section of track,"
said Keegan. "Was this train traveling at high speed, which led to the derailment? Why were hazardous radioactive wastes
being shipped in the dead of night to begin with? What emergency preparations are in place to deal with accidents involving
radioactive wastes?" The Saginaw News also quoted railroad spokesman Jim Dunn as saying of the radioactive waste
"[i]t's not dangerous at all." In response to a telephone inquiry from NIRS, Dunn stated that although the radioactive
"crushed concrete" from Consumers Energy was placarded as hazardous, it only emitted a "minimum" of radiation. Clare
County Sheriff's Sergeant William J. Larson told the Saginaw News that the rail cars containing the atomic wastes are "armor-
plated." "Such false assurances raise more questions than they answer," said Kamps of NIRS. "The only radioactive
wastes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires to be packaged in special containers during transport are
the most radioactive and hazardous of atomic wastes. So if these train cars are 'armor-plated,' that makes it sound like
these particular radioactive wastes from Consumers Energy are intensely radioactive." Kamps also pointed out that,
according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) documents, the very same Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway that experienced
this atomic waste train derailment would also be used to ship eight massive rail carloads of high-level radioactive waste from
Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant to Nevada if the Yucca Mountain dumpsite ever opens there.
Irradiated nuclear fuel from Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan would travel the
Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway through Boyne Falls, Kalkaska, Walton, Cadillac, Marion, Clare, Mount Pleasant, Alma,
Ashley, Owosso and Durand before transferring to the "Grand Trunk Western" railway through Lansing, Battle Creek, and
Schoolcraft. The rail shipments would then exit Michigan bound for Nevada if the Yucca dump ever opens. A copy of the DOE
route map can be viewed at: http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/NuclearWaste/pdf/eis_j_IN-MI-OH.pdf. "Severe accidents
or terrorist attacks can turn high-level radioactive waste shipments into Mobile Chernobyls or dirty bombs on wheels,"
said Kamps, referring to the 1986 Soviet nuclear catastrophe and radiological dispersal devices. "Release of just a
fraction of such a cargo could unleash a radioactive catastrophe deadly to emergency responders and residents
downwind."
46
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse
A railroad nuclear accident would cause thousands of cancers and deaths and
cost billions of dollars – the surrounding population would be exposed to the
equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour
Elizabeth Ridlington, spokesperson for Paryland PIRG and member of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, Timothy Telleen-
Lawton, political analyst with Frontier Group, Johanna Neumann, legislative advocate for Maryland PIRG group, Maryland PIRG
Foundation, Mar 2007, “The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor”,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/cz/AW/czAWZsu0DUwXPz9kzBq61Q/MaryPIRG.NuclearPowerReport.March-
2007.pdf
Low-level radioactive waste presents another problem. By the time that a third reactor begins operation at Calvert Cliffs,
Maryland will no longer be allowed to send its low-level radioactive waste to Barnwell, South Carolina, the site of a regional
dump for low-level waste. That low-level waste will have to remain in Maryland. The last major release of radioactive material
from a commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. was several decades ago, but there have been close calls since then. The worst
nuclear reactor accident on U.S. soil occurred at the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March
28, 1979. A partial meltdown of the reactor’s core led 140,000 people to evacu- ate from the area.47 The accident resulted from
a combination of human and mechanical error—a plant malfunction combined with operator override of automatic safety
systems. Cleanup at the plant has cost approximately $1 billion.48 In addition, victims of the TMI accident have successfully
sued the plant’s owner and the nuclear industry for at least $50 million.49 The full health consequences of the TMI accident are
unknown. One study, conducted by researchers at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests that the accident
caused an increase in lungcancer and leukemia rates downwind of the Three Mile Island reactor compared to upwind.50 The
Three Mile Island accident does not represent a worst-case scenario for the potential impact of a major nuclear accident. A
1982 study by the Sandia National Labo- ratories found that a serious core accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cause hun-
dreds to thousands of deaths immediately.51 Estimates of early fatalities ranged from 700 to 100,000, depending on the size of
the reactor and the proximity of large populations (in 1982).52 A serious core accident at the two existing Calvert Cliffs
reactors could cause 5,600 immediate deaths, 15,000 injuries and 23,000 deaths from cancer, assuming there are no more
people living near the reactors than in 1970.53 The two existing units at Calvert Cliffs have not had a major incident that
attracted public attention recently. The plant does have a history of violations, however. The NRC has levied fines for unsafe
practices at the reactors. In 1996, the plant was fined $50,000 for problems with emergency equipment that had been identified
in 1992 but had not been repaired four years later.54 The NRC issued a $176,000 fine in 1997 and a $55,000 fine in 1998
because personnel at Calvert Cliffs had been careless with exposure to radiation.55 Other problems have led to warning
notices but no fines. Problems have included malfunctioning water pumps and, in 2006, incorrect settings for a circuit breaker
that allows an emergency diesel generator to function. The incorrect settings were the result of an error that occurred during
installation of the emergency generator in 1996.56 In 2001, a sink hole formed outside the turbine room of the plant. By the
time the hole was discovered, it had grown large enough that filling it required 40 tons of dirt.57 The sinkhole was caused by
an underground drainage pipe that collapsed. The pipe carried groundwater away from the area under the plant and into the
bay. Over the years, saltwater corroded the pipe, allowing dirt into the pipe where it was carried away from the site. Calvert
Cliffs may be vulnerable to other unexpected natural disasters. Although Maryland is not known for its tornadoes, a category
five tornado (the strongest category, with winds above 260 miles per hour) formed in Maryland in April 2002, and passed
within two miles of the Calvert Cliffs facility.58 Meanwhile, Constellation has pared back staffing at the two existing units. In
2001, 1,400 people worked at the plants. However, to reduce costs, Constellation has eliminated 465 positions, cutting the
workforce to 935 people.59 At the same time, the facility was generating record amounts of energy. Fewer staff increases the
odds that personnel may be forced to work overtime or that there may not be as many staff available to handle an emergency.
Calvert Cliffs is also vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Nuclear power plants make attractive potential targets for terrorists—
either via external assault or internal sabotage. Specific information about security strengths and weaknesses at Calvert Cliffs
is not available because of security concerns; only general data about nuclear plants has been released. That general security
record of nuclear power plants is far from reassuring. In tests at 11 nuclear reactors in 2000 and 2001, mock intruders were
capable of disabling enough equipment to cause reactor damage at six plants.60
<CONTINUED…no text removed>
47
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse
<CONTINUED…no text removed>
Prior to September 11, 2001, half of reactors failed to defend themselves against simulated attacks.61A 2003 GAO report found
significant weaknesses in the NRC’s oversight of security at commercial nuclear reactors, including failing to require plants
to correct identified security weaknesses and con- ducting simulated attacks to test security staff and systems in which plant
operators were given advance warning and an opportunity to prepare.62 In September 2004— three years after the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks—the GAO reported that the NRC had not yet implemented some of the GAO’s earlier
recommendations andthat the NRC was not yet in a position to assure that plants are able to defend against terrorism.63 And in
March 2006, the GAO was unable to conclude that all nuclear power plants were capable of defending themselves against a
plausible terrorist attack, since only about one-third of the plants had conducted the necessary inspections through simulated
attacks. The GAO also questioned changes made to the NRC’s standards for protection against terrorist attacks, noting “the
appearance that changes were made based on what the industry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather
than on an assessment of the terrorist threat itself.”64 Most recently, the NRC ruled that nuclear power plants do not need to
create protections against the possibility of a terrorist attack by plane, despite evidence that the 9/11 attackers had considered
targeting a nuclear power plant.65 Were an accident or terrorist attack to occur at Calvert Cliffs, evacuation routes from the
area around the reactor would be limited and might be insufficient to remove all residents from harm’s way. The Calvert Cliffs
reactors are in the far southern tip of Calvert County where the county tapers to a point between the Chesapeake Bay and the
Patuxent River. The only major road serving the area is Route 2, which runs north/south. In case of an evacuation order,
people living south of Calvert Cliffs in Calvert County would need to drive south on Route 2 to the Governor Thomas Johnson
Bridge over the Patuxent River to St. Mary’s County. In normal traffic conditions, roads leading to the bridge are frequently
congested.66 During an evacuation, the road could become a bottleneck, preventing residents from escaping radiation
released from the plant. Releases During Waste Transport The danger to Maryland residents from radioactive waste will not be
over once a federal repository is finally constructed. stored in spent fuel pools for at least five years before it is placed into
casks for on- site storage or shipping. Transporting waste creates a hazard as the waste is shipped via train or truck. In theory,
the federal waste repository at Yucca Mountain will store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes from commercial
reactors around the nation. The logistical challenges of actually achieving this are tremendous. Nationally, 118,000 tons of
spent nuclear fuel and 22,280 can- isters (typically containing 1 cubic meter of waste) of high-level radioactive waste could be
moved to Yucca Mountain if the site is ever opened.67 The Department of Energy plans for the transportation to occur over
the course of 38 years, assuming the department’s plans are carried out without a hitch.68 The waste would be shipped in
casks that would each contain as much as 240 times the amount of radioactive material released by the Hiroshima bomb.69
Radioactive Waste Management Associates, a consulting firm working for the state of Nevada, has estimated that 100 to 450
accidents will occur as nuclear waste is transported via train and truck to Yucca Mountain.70 A single serious accident could
cause thousands of cancers and cost billions of dollars.71 Fortunately, no major accident has occurred during the transport of
radioactive material, but many minor ones have. The Radioactive Material Incident Report data- base maintained by Sandia
National Labo- ratories identifies 402 incidents from 1971 to 1999 in which a vehicle transporting radioactive material killed or
injured some- one or was so damaged that it could not operate under its own power.72 Furthermore, even outside of an
accident, emissions from passing casks will deliver involuntary doses of radiation to people living within one-half mile of road
and rail routes. The DOE acknowledges that commuters stuck in traffic near a highly radioactive waste shipment would be
exposed to the equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour.
48
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment
Derailment causes chemical spills, killing the environment
Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663
Even though risks related to railroads may be perceived as familiar, the contents that they are transporting may not be
perceived in the same way. It is not uncommon for trains to carry hazardous materials, and train derailments involving
chemical spills have been associated with greater environmental worry about chemicals in the environment (Bowler et
al., 1994). Because the accident under study in the current paper involved liquid propane and hazardous material, there is a
possibility that risk perceptions for chemicals may become elevated.
A railroad derailment can kill millions through toxic gases and chemicals
The Washington Post, 06/03/07, lexis
A 90-ton rail car of chlorine passing within blocks of the Capitol, if its cargo were released, could kill or injure about
100 people per second. It would be lethal within two to five miles and dangerous for 14 miles. These facts frame a debate
about whether to reroute rail cars carrying hazardous materials away from the District of Columbia, as explored
recently in The Post. But there is a cheaper and more immediate way to enhance public safety, whether or not trains are ever
rerouted. We need to develop quality training for preventing and handling accidents -- and acts of terrorism -- and then invest in
such training for railroad personnel, emergency responders and community residents. At the moment, training by the railroads
is woefully inadequate. Improvements in railroad safety are critical to regional and national security and to the health
and well-being of Americans. One million tons of hazardous materials, including chemicals and nuclear waste, roll
along railways every day through cities and towns across the United States, unprotected by adequate emergency
procedures or personnel trained in how to manage a toxic-materials crisis. Millions of lives and billions of dollars are at
stake. Training can mean the difference between life and death. In Graniteville, S.C., in 2005, one of three rail cars, each
carrying 90 tons of deadly chlorine, was breached after a derailment. More than 60 tons of chlorine vaporized into a
toxic cloud. The engineer, a young man in good health, ran through the cloud for safety, but, because he was breathing deeply,
he was overcome. The conductor, who had military training in responding to poison gas, walked slowly through the cloud
using shallow breathing and was able to escape with his life. A former chemistry teacher recognized chlorine gas emanating
from the crash site and warned residents to stay indoors and turn off their ventilation systems.
49
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions
Improving rail infrastructure leads to lower transportation generated emissions
ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis
Some $ 148 billion will be needed to improve rail infrastructure and meet freight volumes that are expected to nearly
double over the next 30 years, according to a study conducted by Cambridge Systematics (Cambridge, MA) for AAR. Most
of that investment, $ 135 billion, would be concentrated along the lines of the nation's seven major freight railroads, and
would go toward new tracks, signals, bridges, tunnels, terminals, and service facilities.
"If needed investment isn't made, most of the increase in freight will move on the highways, further stressing overburdened roads
and bridges," AAR says. "However, if the investments are made, the freight rail industry will be able to significantly lower
transportation-generated emissions, reduce highway congestion, and ease wear and tear on highway infrastructure.
50
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs
Railroads are key to decrease GHG emissions
Second, railroads are environmentally friendly. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that for every
ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other
studies suggest trucks emit six to 12 times more pollutants per ton-mile than do railroads, depending on the pollutant measured.
Railroads also have a clear advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, railroads account for
just 9 percent of total transportation-related NOx emissions and 4 percent of transportation-related particulate
emissions, even though they account for 42 percent of the nation's intercity freight ton-miles.
51
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Key to Readiness
Railroads are key to getting military tech delivered on time – necessary for
combat
Robert S. Korpanty is a former U.S. Army Colonel, “Preserving Strategic Rail Mobility,” The Army, Nov-Dec 1999,
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm [ND]
The Railroads for National Defense Program ensures that the commercial railroad network is ready to deliver combat
power where it is needed when it is needed. Tell any mechanized maneuver commander he has to fight a battle without
his Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, and you probably will see a puzzled look on his face that could be
interpreted as, "What planet are you from?" or, "What language are you speaking?" Since it is doubtful that a major
conflict will occur just outside the gates of Fort Stewart, Georgia, or Fort Hood, Texas, a key element of a successful
engagement will be getting combat power wherever it is needed on time. Without a reliable commercial rail
infrastructure, it is doubtful the tanks and Bradleys will make it to their place of business. To make sure they do, the
Military Traffic Management Command developed the Railroads for National Defense (RND) Program in 1976. In 1991,
the RND Program was assigned to the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency
(MTMCTEA), which now executes the program on behalf of the U.S. Transportation Command. This program ensures that the
commercial rail infrastructure in the United States meets Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for deploying a force.
The RND Program works to preserve our strategic rail mobility.
52
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Key to the Economy
Railroads key to the economy – shipping costs, manufacturing, and trade
Railroads of New York, 05, http://www.railroadsofny.com/economy_environment.htm
Both the United States and the State of New York are dependent upon a safe and efficient transportation system to
move people and goods. In today's global economy, many of the things we use, as well as the things we make to sell to
others, must be transported by the nation's freight transportation system. In New York State and the nation, that system
has undergone significant changes over the course of our history. Originally, it was focused on our waterways, then to our
railroads and more recently on our highway systems. Even so, today's rail freight system still plays a critical role in moving
freight across our nation and state. According to a recent report entitled "Transportation - Invest in America: Freight - Rail
Bottom Line Report", prepared by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 40% of
intercity freight ton-miles are handled by rail. Rail freight moves over 600 miles on an average trip, while the average
truck trip is about 245 miles. 92 billion truck-vehicle miles of travel would be added to the nation's highway system
without our rail freight system. This additional truck traffic would cost federal, state and local transportation agencies
an additional $64 billion over the next 20 years. If all rail freight were shifted to trucks, it would cost shippers an
additional $69 billion per year - or $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. Rail freight provides shippers with cost-effective
transportation, especially for heavy and bulky commodities. Rail is also a preferred mode for hazardous materials
shipments because of its positive safety record. Rail freight can be a critical factor in retaining and attracting
manufacturing industries (and jobs) that are central and regional economies. Rail freight carries 16% percent of the
nations' cross-border trade. Intermodal freight-rail service is critical to the global competitiveness of U.S. industries.
Rail freight is fuel-efficient and generates less air pollution per ton-mile than trucking. Rail freight is vital to military
mobilization and provides critically needed transportation system redundancy in national (and state) emergencies. The
rail industry today is stable, productive and competitive, with enough revenue and profit to operate, but not enough to replenish
its infrastructure quickly or grow rapidly.
Railroads are key to US competitiveness in a global economy

William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06,
http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm
Chairman LaTourette, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the House Railroads Subcommittee, on behalf of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Rail
Capacity Crunch. We very much appreciate that the Subcommittee is taking a comprehensive view, considering both passenger and
freight issues. While goods movement is critical, the emergence of America's service economy has heightened the importance of
on-time movement of people as well. America long has enjoyed the most extensive and efficient transportation system in the
world. Today, other countries are catching up. Policies that support the growth of railroads - passenger and freight - are
critical to America's mobility and our ability to compete in a global economy. The critical capacity issues affecting railroads -
passenger and freight - are a part of an overall crisis in transportation system capacity that also affects our airports, roadways, port
facilities, and public transportation infrastructure. Such congestion is putting severe stress on America's transportation and
logistics network, which historically has given America its economic edge.
Railroads are key to US competitiveness

Freight railroads are critical to the economic well-being and global competitiveness of the United States. They move 42 percent
of our nation's freight (measured in ton-miles) - everything from lumber to vegetables, coal to orange juice, grain to
automobiles, and chemicals to scrap iron - and connect businesses with each other across the country and with markets
overseas. They also contribute billions of dollars each year to the economy through investments, wages, purchases, and taxes.
There were 554 common carrier freight railroads operating in the United States in 2002, classified into five groups.
53
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads key to the economy – they stimulate demand and employment
FHA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration), 06/22/06,
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/today.htm
The benefits of freight transportation to the economy are enormous. Freight transportation increases the value of goods
by moving them to locations where they worth more and encourages competition and production by extending the
spatial boundaries of commodity and labor markets. Freight transportation also stimulates demand for goods and
services and employs millions of people. Freight transportation infrastructure is a significant component of our nation's
wealth and productive capacity.
From a macroeconomic perspective, transportation accounts for a significant share of the U.S. GDP. In 2000, purchases of
transportation-related goods and services accounted for approximately 11 percent of GDP (USDOT BTS 2002). Only housing,
health care, and food accounted for a greater share (Figure 3). For-hire transportation services, which include warehousing,
contributed about 3.3 percent ($303 billion) to GDP. Many industries and businesses depend on their own transportation
operations (primarily trucking) to move goods. These "in-house" transportation services contributed an additional $142 billion
to the economy (USDOT BTS 2001b).
Railroads key to the economy – they’re the most efficient means of transportation
William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06,
http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm
Looking to the future, railroads - passenger and freight - are poised to play an even greater role in enabling commerce
and economic growth. Earlier this year America surpassed the 300 million mark in population. In 30 more years we are
projected to reach 400 million. Most of the population will be living in metropolitan areas, making our use of land and
transportation corridors all the more important. A look at the Los Angeles region's Metrolink commuter rail system
provides a projection of demand anticipated for commuter rail services. Freight and passenger rail traffic in the L.A. /
Orange County / Riverside corridor is expected to leap from 172 trains today to a total of 265 trains by 2010, and to a projected
390 trains per day in 2025.
While America needs a transportation policy balanced on the strengths and synergies of roads, ports and rails, overall there
should be a higher reliance on rail modes, which are much more efficient in terms of land and energy. Indeed, adding
rail capacity is imperative also for its positive impact on parallel freeways already clogged with traffic. These
urban/suburban areas have roads that are not only hopelessly congested, but roads that have already been expanded to close to
their maximum capacity. Adding highway capacity in these areas is enormously expensive. For a fraction of the cost of such
road construction/expansion, existing railroad rights-of-way can be reactivated / expanded / improved to accommodate
traffic and reduce highway congestion for both freight and passenger movements.
Railroads key to the economy – they move billions of tonw of freight

Brenda Turner, Employment Economist, 03/25/08, http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00002986
Freight and passenger railways tied the nation together like never before, allowing people and materials to move
overland faster than ever. It was a revolution. Rail transportation remains an important component of today's economy.
Railroads deliver billions of tons of freight and thousands of travelers to destinations throughout the nation, while subways
and streetcars transport millions of passengers within metropolitan areas.
54
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Poor rail performance hurts the economy
Freight is big business. It is a necessity, not a luxury. When transportation system performance decreases, freight-
related businesses and their customers are affected in two ways. First, freight assets become less productive. Second,
more freight transportation must be consumed to meet the needs of a thriving and expanding economy. Thus, when
freight transportation under-performs, the economy pays the price.
Reliable, predictable travel times are especially important in an economy where many goods are expensive and are needed in
tightly scheduled manufacturing and distribution systems. Late arrivals can have significant economic costs for factories
waiting for parts to assemble and for carriers who are missing guaranteed delivery times.
Railroads key to the economy – jobs

Freight transportation also contributes to the economy by providing jobs to millions of people—an important indicator
of economic growth. In 2000, more than 10 million people were employed in transportation-related industries, including
for-hire services, vehicle manufacturing, and parts suppliers. Of that total, for-hire transportation (including warehousing)
employed more than 4.4 million workers, a majority of whom worked in freight-related jobs. Another 5.5 million people
worked in transportation occupations in nontransportation industries, such as truck drivers for grocery stores (USDOT BTS
2001b). Truck drivers, alone, accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total number of transportation occupational workers
(USDOT BTS 2002b).
Improvements in freight productivity help the United States maintain its competitive position in the world economy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that productivity for the intercity trucking, railroad, air transport, and petroleum pipeline
industries has improved over the last 20 years. The railroad industry has posted the most impressive gains, followed by the
pipeline industry. Improvements in railroad productivity resulted primarily from deregulation, divestiture of
uneconomic lines, reductions in labor force, and changes in technology and logistics. Productivity improvements in
trucking resulted primarily from public investments in a high quality national road network and deregulation.
55
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroad key to international competition
John B. Ficker, president of the National Industrial Transportation League, 3/31/04, Testimony of the National Industrial
Transportation League”, http://www.nitl.org/johnf.pdf
The National Industrial Transportation League is one of the nation’s oldest and largest national associations representing
companies engaged in the transportation of goods in both domestic and international commerce. The League was founded in
1907, and currently has approximately 600 company members. These members range from some of the largest users of the
nation’s transportation system, to smaller companies engaged in the shipment and receipt of goods. League members use all
forms of transportation for the shipment and receipt of goods of all kinds, to literally thousands of points in the United States.
Many members of the League utilize rail transportation, and thus have a very substantial interest in federal policies
relevant to rail carriers, including the status of the Surface Transportation Board and railroad economic regulation.
Indeed, many League members are dependent on rail carriers to move their goods, and therefore need a safe, secure,
efficient and financially healthy rail industry. For this reason, over the years the League has been a staunch supporter of the
rail industry. Many League members are eager to increase their utilization of this vital industry, in order to meet their
own and the nation’s transportation needs. In fact, the ability of American manufacturers to compete in a world
economy and the creation of jobs in the United States, depends in substantial part on the existence of a competitive and
efficient rail industry. Rail transportation is thus not simply a matter of private interest between rail carriers and
shippers, but appreciably contributes to our nation’s overall economic health. Rail transportation also helps to alleviate
congestion on our highways, and thus adds to the overall efficiency and safety of our nation’s entire transportation system.
Moreover, the League well understands the capital-intensive nature of the rail industry and its large capital needs. Rail
shippers depend on those infrastructures for the safe and efficient transportation of their goods. Almost exactly one year ago,
the League appeared before this Subcommittee and urged the Congress to take steps to provide funds to improve the nation’s
rail infrastructure and to reduce the amount of taxes that the nation’s rail carriers pay so that additional monies can be directed
toward improving rail infrastructure.
56
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Key to Agriculture
Railroads key to ag
Association of American Railroads, “The Economic Impact of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008
Without freight railroads, the U.S. economy could not function. In fact, railroads serve nearly every industrial,
wholesale, retail, agricultural, and mineral-based sector of the economy: • Agricultural Products – Railroads have helped
farmers get their goods to market since the earliest days of railroading. Class I railroads originated 1.7 million carloads of
wheat, corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products in 2007. • Chemicals – The more than 2.0 million carloads of chemicals
originated by Class I railroads in 2007 helped clean our water, fertilize our farms, package our food, build our cars and
homes, and enhance our well-being in thousands of other ways. • Coal – Coal generates half of our electricity, and railroads
haul more coal than any other transportation mode. Class I railroads originated 7.5 million carloads of coal in 2007,
enough to meet the electricity needs of every home in America. By helping to keep coal- based generation affordable,
railroads help reduce our dependence on imported energy. • Food Products – In addition to agricultural products, in
2007 railroads hauled 1.5 million carloads of animal feed, beer, birdseed, canned produce, corn syrup, flour, french
fries, frozen chickens, sugar, wine, and countless other food products.
57
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Railroads Key to Low Food Prices
Railroads key to low food prices
AAR (Association for American Railroads), 06/24/08,
http://www.aar.org/Pressroom/News/2008/06/FOODCOST_RAIL_SAVINGS.aspx
In his June 16, 2008 Des Moines Register column "To rein in cost of food, beef up transportation," guest writer Mike
Steenhoek looks at the role the nation's distribution system contributes to food costs, noting that if more went by rail, costs
could be kept lower.
Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, wrote "The primary culprit for today's rising food prices
is a more costly distribution system - significantly impacted by the escalating price of oil. A rise in the price of crude oil
not only equates to a more expensive gallon of gasoline, but also a more expensive gallon of milk."
Mr. Steenhoek's solution, direct enough resources to maintaining and augmenting our transportation infrastructure.
"A railroad can transport one ton of freight 386 miles on one gallon of fuel," he wrote. "Yet our nation's leaders have
missed the opportunity to provide tax incentives to railroads - particularly the shortline and regional railroads serving
rural America - to augment their capacity-constrained network. Railroads, largely financed by the private sector, are
responding to the increased congestion on their systems by raising rates on their customers in agriculture and other industries.
Rail customers have witnessed fuel surcharges of up to $0.70 per car mile, equating to $130,000 in fuel surcharges for a train
full of soybeans headed to the West Coast."
58
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Food Prices Impacts – Starvation
A small food price increase means 1.1 billion deaths
Tampa Tribune, 1/20/96, p. 41
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet
demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in
Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13
percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the
17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of
the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt
poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of
reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He also said many people in low-
income countries already spend more than half of their income on food.
Continued high food prices will cause mass starvation for 95% of the world
Mike Adams is a staff writer for naturalnews.com. “The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse of the Human
Population” April 23, 2008 http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html
So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as these economic and climate
realities unfold, our world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will be felt is in poor
developing nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price of basic
food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions of families. If something is not done to rescue
these people from their plight, they will starve to death. Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be
able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the
honeybees die, in which case prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of
living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.).
That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy. But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small
foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish
biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in
and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be
around the world? The answer, of course, is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means many
more people will starve. Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future food supplies on our planet:
There's also fossil water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then it's
lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not
surprisingly, the water levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in some cases),
that water will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass
starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is
just one crop season away from mass starvation.
59
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan
Rising food prices are creating political instability in Pakistan
Jason Gale “Pakistan's Food Affordability Threatens 77 Million” April 23 2008 http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-
issues/11104-77million-threatened-pakistans-food-affordability-pakistan-may-import-1-5m-ton-wheat.html
Almost half the population of Pakistan, the world's seventhmostpopulous nation, faces difficulty gaining access to
affordable food because of the soaring cost of cereals, a World Food Program official said. The Rome-based United Nations
agency increased its estimate of the number of so-called food insecure people in Pakistan to 77 million from 60 million,
spokesman Paul Risley said in a telephone interview from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, yesterday. Pakistan's food prices
jumped 21 percent in March from a year earlier, the fastest pace in at least six years, as water availability declined and farmers
planted fewer crops, shrinking harvests. The South Asian nation may need to import wheat for a second year if the current
harvest falls short of domestic demand. ``Pakistan has reached a tipping point,'' Risley said. `Ìt is no longer an exporter of
food, but rather an importer.'' Pakistan is affected by world food prices that have surged by about 83 percent in the past
three years, provoking riots in poor nations and threatening to set back efforts to reduce global poverty, according to the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Pakistan's prices of wheat flour, edible oil and pulses are at a record,
according to Fareed Qureshi, chairman of the Karachi Retail Market Association. Flour is priced at 1,750 rupees ($27) for an
80-kilogram bag and the average price of pulses has risen 50 percent since January, he said. Edible Oil Average edible oil
prices have climbed 16 percent since the start of the year and rice is 26 percent more costly than it was on Jan. 1. Hundreds of
people line up for hours outside state-run fair price shops offering subsidized food, where scuffles break out over bags of flour
or rice. Pakistan is one of 40 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, identified by the WFP as being at risk of food
insecurity because of rising food prices, Risley said. `Ìn each of these counties, we are especially concerned that a lack of
access to affordable food could lead to political instability and social disruption,'' he said. The rural poor will suffer hunger
silently, while the urban poor will be more prone to rioting, Risley said. ``This is an expression that hasn't been heard in
decades because recent economic growth, especially in Asia, has helped poor populations in urban and rural settings,'' he said.
``Now we're beginning to see a return to those very critical choices that are forced on families when food is not accessible,
when food is not affordable.''
Unstable Pakistan leads to proliferation

Kristin Roberts “Pakistan political instability raises nuclear risk” 08 Nov 2007
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08386391.htm
Pentagon officials say Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure in military hands, but some U.S. lawmakers and experts warn that
nuclear material and designs could leak out if political instability persists. Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
has concentrated control over the entire nuclear program. But a decline in his support within the military amid the current
political crisis raises a risk that control over the weapons could weaken. That could open the door to theft or sale of
weapons material to extremist groups, some experts say. Some weapons experts and U.S. officials still suspect Pakistan's
military of at least knowing about the smuggling activities of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network that sold weapons technology to
Iran, North Korea and Libya. "This is a country that's leaked nuclear weapons designs, centrifuges," said David Albright,
president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "Two of its scientists talked to (Osama) bin Laden about how
to make nuclear weapons in 2001." "It's a system that's leaked very dangerous information," he said. "You have to worry
about the integrity of the system in a period of growing instability." A senior U.S. general this week said the Pentagon was
worried about the security of Pakistan nuclear weapons after Musharraf declared a state of emergency on Saturday, prompting
protests and arrests. U.S. lawmakers, however, expressed more uncertainty about the security of the weapons. Rep. Ellen
Tauscher, a California Democrat on a congressional committee that oversees the U.S. military, said the United States lacked
full knowledge of Pakistan's weapons. "We need a lot more visibility on what's going on in Pakistan. Who does have that
football? Who is next in line?," she said about Pakistan's nuclear weapons. "I've learned that we don't have as strong a handle
on it," said Tauscher, who has access to some U.S. intelligence as a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee. Asked if she knew specific details of Pakistan's weapons, including their location and the chain of command over
those weapons, she said, "I don't know, and I've asked the question a couple of different ways." Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware,
a Democratic presidential hopeful and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan was at real risk of
becoming a failed state.
60
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan
Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction
Victor A. Utgoff is Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival,
“Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” 2002, pg 87-90
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be
reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both
these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold
War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet
Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea,
Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little
prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed
aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them
to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint
would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear
weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the
technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point,
halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the
transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line
for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally
overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world
peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking
about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop
nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve
without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly
proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery
systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive
nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their
opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are
incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass
destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the
use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the
Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air
strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts,
retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding
anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever
levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with
nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror
the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world
may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of
dead cities or even whole nations.
61
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
Food Prices Impacts – Economy
Food insecurity creates failed states and disrupts the global economy
Lester R. Brown is founder of the Worldwatch Institute and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, “Exploding U.S.
Grain Demand for Automotive Fuel Threatens World Food Security and Political Stability” November 3, 2006 http://www.earth-
policy.org/Updates/2006/Update60.htm
The number of hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and
the number began to rise. The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of
these are considered failed and failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid
programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food
protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political
instability that would add to the growing list of failed and failing states. At some point, spreading political instability
could disrupt global economic progress.
High food prices are the biggest threat to consumer confidence

Robert Gavin, Globe Staff, 03/09/08,
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/03/09/surging_costs_of_groceries_hit_home/?page=2
Rising food prices can be particularly corrosive to consumer confidence because people are so frequently exposed to the
cost increases. "It's the biggest risk we face economically, and it might be the thing that does us in," said Rich Yamarone,
director of economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. "There's nothing really worse than having a job,
making money, and forking most of it over just so you can have the same amount of food. You're running in place, and
it really weighs on you."
As with energy, higher food costs cut into discretionary income that buys everything from cars to computers to movie
tickets and drives the consumer-based US economy. Falling home values and a faltering stock market have battered
consumer confidence, spurring a retrenchment in spending that is contributing to recent job losses and pulling the
economy toward recession.
62
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Renewables
Renewable energy tradesoff with clean coal – its more cost effective, DOE studies prove
David Sassoon, starter of Solve Climate, 2/1/08 (“DOE Report: Renewables Currently Cheaper Than "Clean" Coal” Solve Climate
– Blog <http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080131/doe-report-renewables-currently-cheaper-clean-coal> Rab)
Renewable energy is currently cheaper than clean coal. The DOE proves it in three easy steps. Step 1 (page 5) The overall
goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to develop, by 2012, fossil fuel conversion systems that achieve 90 percent CO2
capture with 99 percent storage permanence at less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of energy services. Step 2 (page 9)
It is believed that a 10 percent cost of electricity (COE) increase would significantly reduce impact to the economy. This level
will also enable fossil fuel systems with CO2 capture and sequestration to compete with other power generation options to
reduce the GHG intensity of energy supply, including wind, biomass, and nuclear power. Presumably, then, DOE believes if you
increase the cost of electricity from coal more than 10%, it can no longer compete with alternatives. (Okay, so they omitted solar
and included nuclear, but hang on.) Step 3 (page 17-18) Preliminary analysis…indicates…that CO2 capture….could raise the cost
of electricity from a new supercritical PC power plant by 65%, from 5.0 cents/kWh to 8.25 cents/kWh. Analysis….show that CO2
capture and compression raises…..the cost of electricity from a newly built IGCC power plant by 30%, from an average of 7.8
cents/kWh to 10.2 cents/kWh. So they've got until 2012, according to their plan, the bring the cost of clean coal technology
down. Way down. Let's see. They pulled the plug on FutureGen a couple of days ago because of ballooning costs. The Bush
administration, in a major policy reversal, canceled its support for a planned $1.8 billion coal-gasification plant that was
supposed to herald a new era of emissions-free power but instead has been plagued by huge cost overruns. Clean energy is moving
in the opposite direction.
Renewables tradeoff with Clean Coal

Northern Territory News, 11/7/07 “ALP 'ignores' clean coal,” p. Lexis
RESOURCES Minister Ian Macfarlane says Labor has ignored clean coal in its energy strategy to gain Greens preferences.
Visiting the coal export region of Hay Point in central Queensland yesterday, Mr Macfarlane said it was important to invest in
renewable energy, but just as important to develop low emission fossil fuels such as clean coal. ''By including only renewables
in its energy target, Labor has placed clean coal technology at a huge competitive disadvantage at a critical stage in its
development,'' Mr Macfarlane said. ''Labor is picking winners to win Green preferences, and has decided against supporting
efforts to clean up our number one energy source, coal.''
Other Renewables tradeoff with clean coal

The Courier Mail, 7/25/05, “Generation glut a concern,” p. Lexis
INCREASING demand for electricity would support a swarm of expensive plans for providing power, industry watchers say.
But the financial feasibility of projects will prove critical and some say government renewable energy targets will impact on
any potential glut of proposals. Numerous competing proposals for generating or supplying power have hit the market, ranging
from clean coal technology to geothermal energy to a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea.
AT: Clean Coal Solves – Cap and Trade

Cap and trade will stop clean coal technology in its tracks
Lawrence Kudlow, former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company,
5/29/2008, Coal-Cap Disaster, Creators Syndicate, http://www.creators.com/opinion/lawrence-kudlow/coal-cap-disaster.html
Let that idea sink in. By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, cap-and-trade will risk a massive
undermining of the American economy, as well as our future economic and national security.
The coal story is so important simply because the United States has massively undeveloped coal resources. With 27 percent of
the world's coal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And yet cap-and-trade
63
Railroad DA
Ben Benson
would destroy this critical sector. New coal technologies being developed right now wouldn't even be allowed to flourish under
cap-and-trade. Synthetic-fuel-developed coal, through the Fisher-Tropsch technology, is a proven gas-to-liquid process that
sequesters coal carbon. It could power the American economy for generations. Rentech Corp. is already using this process to
create an ultra-low carbon and sulfur liquid that can be easily adapted to all our transportation needs. According to the ESS
Environmental company, other chemical-based technologies that produce virtually no carbon emissions also could be used. But
the great risk is that cap-and-trade will stop these technologies dead in the water, right in their tracks. That would be a tragedy.
64
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Solves - RPS

RPS Excludes the usage of clean coal which discourages its development and use
R. Bruce Josten, Executive vice president of government affairs in the chamber of commerce, 6/15/07, letter to Reps. John D
Dingell and Rick Boucher,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
II. Portfolio Inclusions and Exclusions: Which energy sources should be included in an RPS; should there be a tiered” system
for eligibility, and should there be adistinction between new and existing sources; should there be credits for useful thermal
energy from eligible resources; and should energy efficiency be considered, and, if so, how. One of the major drawbacks to
current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.” Clean,
safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excluded
from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and
losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does
not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage
energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while
others benefit.
65
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Wind

Promoting wind energy trades off with coal growth
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways&Means—US House of representative, 4/4/07, “Analysis of Alternative
Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator,” from the Energy Information Administration – Official
energy statistics from the US government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html
A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference
case, a permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind
plants. With a similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still
more than double relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would
increase wind generation by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case,
wind generation at the end of the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come
from wind facilities in 2030 with a permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3
percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged.
Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year
extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal
expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in
500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference
case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal generation. In the
permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the expense
of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a
dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of
additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated from coal. Even in this
case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.
66
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Clean Coal Solves - Solar

Solar power trades off with clean coal development – its cheaper
Matt Peacock, writer for ABC, 10/2/07 (“Solar takes off with US power supply deal” Australian Broadcast Corporation <
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm> Rab)
Dr Diesendorf says the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as solutions to climate
change redundant. "Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many other
countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power," he said. Mr Khosla says solar power is developing rapidly and will
be cheaper than either nuclear power or 'clean' coal. "We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised basis,
we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based
power generation," he said. Dr Mills says big solar plants will be able to replace nuclear and fossil fuel-fired plants in the US. "In
five years time, we'll have very large plants and I would say gigawatt-style plants already commissioned, able to run 24 hours a
day and completely replace the function of nuclear and coal plants," he said.
Solar power replaces clean coal

Dr. Mark Diesendorf, senior lecturer of Enviromental Studies at the University of South Wales, 1/10/07 (“Aust technology to
revolutionise clean electricity” Australian Broadcast Corporation – The 7:30 Report <
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2047734.htm> Rab)
DR MARK DIESENDORF, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, NSW: It's important to get a large scale for the development to
bring down costs, and the United States offers a magnificent opportunity for large-scale solar development.
MATT PEACOCK: Solar power is not new in the United States. This giant photovoltaic plant in the Mojave Desert was built during
the oil shock of the 1980s. And more recent concern over global warming has led to other investment into solar thermal plants like this
one in Nevada. The low cost of Ausra's new design, though, is now attracting the big money.
VINOH KHOSLA: What's very exciting is major utilities in the US are now starting to believe our story after doing their own
independent due diligence. They actually believe this is competitive power generation. More importantly it's reliable power
generation. We can ship them power when the sun isn't shining, which is what most utilities need.
MATT PEACOCK: The coal and nuclear industries have long asserted that base load power can't be supplied by renewable energy, a
mantra repeated by our politicians.
MALCOLM TURNBULL, MINISTER, ENVIRONMENT & WATER RESOURCES : You cannot run a modern economy on wind
farms and solar powers. It's a pity that you can't, but you can't.
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: Solar is a nice, easy soft answer. There's this vague idea in the community that solar doesn't
cost anything and it can solve the problem. It can't. It can't replace base load power generation by power stations.
MATT PEACOCK: But base load power supply is just what Ausra is now being contracted to supply for the insatiable US market. It
says that within two years it'll be able to economically store its hot water for more than 16 hours.
DAVID MILLS: The interesting thing is that there's a correlation between human activity [and energy use]. We get up in the morning
everyday, we start using energy, we go to sleep at night. And the presence of the sun, that's natural. And that correlation means that we
can get away with a lot less storage than we might have thought.
DR MARK DIESENDORF: Well, there's been a lot of nonsense talked about, in Australia and elsewhere, about renewable energy
allegedly not being able to provide base load power. Not being able to substitute for coal. That's never been true. It's even
untrue with regard to wind power and now with solar thermal power, it's certainly untrue.
MATT PEACOCK: the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as a solution to climate change
redundant, according to Mark Diesendorf at the University of New South Wales.
DR MARK DIESENDORF: Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many
other countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power.
67
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now

Railroads are reclaiming market share in the status quo
Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 07/06/08, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/06/economy-environment-have-
railroads-experiencing/
Railroads have not seen a dip in business in the last 20 years, but what they did lose was market share. As more and more
goods were shipped, more of them were on trucks.
In 1960, there were 1.2 billion tons of goods moved by rail in the United States. In 1980, that number was up to 1.5 billion, and
in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, nearly 2 billion tons of goods traveled the railways. And while railroads
have lost market share to the trucking industry, that is starting to change.
The Association of American Railroads figured that while it takes 27 gallons of diesel to move a ton of freight from coast to
coast, the same load could be moved on a train for seven gallons.
68
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Railroad Profits Resilient

Railroads are only becoming resilient because of strong coal demand
Steven Halpern offers the latest market commentary and favorite investment ideas from the nation's leading financial
newsletter advisors, “Union Pacific (UNP): 'Railroad renaissance'” Thestockadvisers.com, Jul 17 2008
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/17/union-pacific-unp-railroad-renaissance/
"Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the
agriculture boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has just returned from Japan where he was covering the G8
Summit. Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight
transport available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP). "My long-held thesis on the group has
been that the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their growth. "It's no longer appropriate to look
at this sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the broader market and the rails has
been breaking down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating. "In 2007, according to the Association of
American Railroads (AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel
fuel. That makes freight trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks. "Union Pacific is the largest railroad
in the US and has long been one of my favorites. The company's network is nearly 33,000 miles long and is concentrated in the
West and Midwest. It also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for the rails, particularly in the coal and
agriculture industries. "Union Pacific's energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the
company's business. Coal transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of
Union Pacific's energy transport business. "Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot
for the railroad in recent years. Better still, Union-Pacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower
freight rates. As these contracts expire, Union Pacific should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.
69
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Nuclear Shipments Low

Nuclear shipments by rail projected to increase
US Government Accountability Office, “Rail Safety and Security: Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security,
but Risk-based Plan Needed,” Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2003 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03435.pdf
The proposed plan to ship spent nuclear fuel, as soon as 2010 and most likely by rail, to the Yucca Mountain Repository in
Nevada—the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste—has
raised concerns about the safety and security of possible transportation to this site.9 A second proposal to ship spent
nuclear fuel to temporary storage in a private facility in Utah has heightened these concerns.10 Such shipments would
substantially increase the volume of nuclear material transported in this country.11
70
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Railroads Failing Now

Coal demand high because of increasing electricity needs
Richard Heinberg, Staff Writer, Global Public Media, 5-28-08,
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states, Junaid
The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas)
consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel
in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US
coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent
more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are
implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society’s use,
since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40 percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic
liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues,
this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a
tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current
mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time.
2. Coal demand high and rising – it’s a low-cost fuel

Kirby Lee Davis, Staff Writer, Journal Record, 3-12-08,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080312/ai_n24936262, Junaid
"The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on the percent of coal used to generate it," said Craft, defending his industry's
performance and interests while linking future gross domestic product growth to a continued abundance of inexpensive
electricity. "Coal remains the low-cost alternative." Craft said electrical power generation by coal-fueled plants rose 50 percent
last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projections estimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by
2030, with improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-fired market share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected
to rise 48 percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of power generation. Renewable sources would increase 60
percent, he said, while nuclear power generation would climb 19 percent and petroleum sources 9 percent.
71
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: DoE Routes Turn

Assumes theft, not derailment – DOE has no plan to solve safety
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
72
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Nuclear Trades of with Natural Gas, not Coal

Nuclear power will trade off with coal
Miguel Llanos, MSNBC, 7/7/05, Hot Idea: Fight Warming with Nuclear Power, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/
Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be
needed, he said. "But it's really a trade-off against burning coal," Brand said. By ramping up nuclear, he said, nations can phase
out coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone.
Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

Australian Labor Party, 10/31/07, Labor Committed to Coal- Howard Committed to Nuclear,
http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/mseng310.php
The biggest threat to the coal industry is the Howard Government’s plans for twenty five nuclear reactors across Australia. In
contrast with its reluctance to support the future of the coal industry the Howard Government has been eager to push for the
construction of twenty five nuclear reactors across the country. These reactors would potentially replace existing and future
coal fired power stations.
73
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Budget Not key to Infrastructure Investment

Coal profits key to infrastructure investments – forty percent of revenue is invested
74
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Cars are Super Strong

Accidents would breach the casks
QuickTime™ and a
75
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: New Tech Solves

Testing is insufficient
QuickTime™ and a
76
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Budget not key to Infrastructure Investment

Capital investments are key to solve derailment
Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois,
and C. Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad
derailment factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf
The US railroad mainline accident rate has declined by over 75% since 1980 (Figure 1) and the hazardous materials accident-
caused release rate has declined by nearly 90% (1,2,3). This improvement is the result of major capital investments in
infrastructure and equipment, improved safety designs of tank cars (4), employee training efforts, and the development and
implementation of new technology (5). Most of this improvement in safety took place in the 1980s, and although the
downward trend in mainline accident rate continued through the 1990s, it declined at a lower rate and has leveled off in recent
years (Figure 1). The occurrence of major accident-caused hazardous materials releases has declined to such an extent that
identification and implementation of further safety improvements is much more challenging because there is less empirical
information on which causes are contributing the greatest risk.
AT: Coal Peak coming by X year

US coal will last over two hundred years
EIA (Energy Information Administration) 2/07, “COAL -- A Fossil Fuel,”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html
Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest known coal
reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use. Coal
production is the amount of coal that is mined and sent to market. In 2005, the amount of coal produced at U.S. coal mines
reached an all time high of 1,131.5 million short tons. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most coal, followed by
West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Coal is mainly found in three large regions, the Appalachian Coal Region,
the Interior Coal Region, and Western Coal Region (includes the Powder River Basin).
US coal supply will last at least 250 more years

Jeffrey W. Johnson, Senior correspondent, BS in industrial engineering at California state polytechnic University, MS in
journalism at University of Oregon, writer for Chemical and Engineering News, 2/23/04, “Getting to Clean Coal,”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8208/8208coal.html
Yet these miners barely tap the U.S.'s coal supply. Geologists say the nation has enough coal to last at least another 250 years.
And U.S. coal is so cheap that even the poor efficiency of the nation's aging power plants doesn't make much difference.
77
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Coal Prices falling now

Despite recent shocks, prices remain high
Alex Wilson, Staff Writer, Dow Jones, 7-3-08, Posted on the Australian Business,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23963477-5005200,00.html, Junaid
Market commentators also said prices in Asia were set to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the
market. The Newcastle spot coal price fell sharply today, following on from a 20 per cent drop in spot thermal coal prices in
Europe overnight, sparking heavy selling in Australian coal stocks. However the price drop is only a partial retracement of
gains seen in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of
$US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal. Brendan Harris, mining analyst at Macquarie, said the coal
market remains tight with prices set to stay high and the pullback overnight would not be prompting him to downgrade
earnings for the Australian miners he covers.
Coal Demand boom likely to last

Reuters, 6-26-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626m, Junaid
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of
Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-
bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of
expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic
growth that is driving persistent coal demand.
78
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Exports Turn
You evidence doesn’t actually say this. It is merely powertagged. It does not say that the plan
decreases exports, but it does reinforce the link by saying coal demand and prices are necessary to
sustain the railroad industry.
79
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Railroads can’t keep up with production

They say that trains can’t keep up with high economic production, but-
1. Turn- the plan would take money away from railroads by decreasing coal demand, killing their
ability to grow. Railroads use coal to buy new locamotives and expand their business, that’s
Freeman. //JMA
2. No impact- a decrease in coal prices would still hurt their business, that’s the Association of
American Railroads. //JMA
3. New tech is making railways more efficient

Jack Speer, Newscaster for NPR, 5/25/06, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5429435 // JMA
Technology has allowed the railroad to root out inefficiencies in its system. For instance, Norfolk Southern cut the time it takes to
move a train from Birmingham, Ala., to Allentown, Pa., by two and a half days. John Hall has been driving trains for 40 years. The
engineer commands a 4,000 horsepower locomotive that costs more than $1.5 million. To him, the technology has been something of a
mixed blessing. "There are so many jobs disappearing, I think maybe it's bad," Hall says. "Maybe it's good in the way they know
where everybody's at." Fifty years ago, about 1 million people worked for U.S. railroads. Today the number is around 160,000.
Despite that decline, railroad workers today move far more freight -- and do it more efficiently -- than their predecessors. The freight
railroads are experimenting with even more sophisticated technologies, including a system that will let them remotely control the
speed of a locomotive. One day soon, the trains might just drive themselves. Moorman says that before the deregulation of the
industry in 1980, many freight railroads weren't investing at anywhere near the levels needed. He says that with business now
booming, that has all changed. "We now manage the railroad in a different way than we used to, because some of the things we
always knew were important but we could not quantify, we can now quantify," Moorman says. That investment is likely to continue.
As West Coast ports become increasingly clogged, more goods are being brought to East Coast ports from Asia. That means more
business for Norfolk Southern. The rail line plans to spend nearly $100 million to upgrade its line between Norfolk, Va., and
Columbus, Ohio, a major Midwest distribution point. Investors are also reaping the rewards of the increased use of technology.
Norfolk Southern's first-quarter earnings were up sharply. The railroad's stock has risen 85 percent in the past two years.
80
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Rising demand doesn’t mean investment

40% of profits go into investing in new infrastructure
http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx //JMa
81
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Derailment impacts: 5% is dangerous

They say that only five percent of cars carry dangerous material, but-
1. Your evidence says 1.7 million cars contain nuclear material. That’s still a substantial risk of
extinction. //JMa
2. Turn- The reason that this is so low is because of investments in

infrastructure
Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois, and
C. Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad
derailment factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf //JMa
3. Our argument is that no matter how safe the track is in the status quo, it will quickly deterioriate
without constant investment which comes from coal, that’s Freeman and Kamps //JMa
4. Nuclear shipments by rail projected to increase

US Government Accountability Office, “Rail Safety and Security: Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security,
but Risk-based Plan Needed,” Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2003 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03435.pdf
The proposed plan to ship spent nuclear fuel, as soon as 2010 and most likely by rail, to the Yucca Mountain Repository in
Nevada—the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste—has
raised concerns about the safety and security of possible transportation to this site.9 A second proposal to ship spent
nuclear fuel to temporary storage in a private facility in Utah has heightened these concerns.10 Such shipments would
substantially increase the volume of nuclear material transported in this country.11
5. Terrorism
a. Derailment create a target for nuclear terrorist attack
Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-20-2006/1 //JMa
Surrey Township, Michigan— Concerned citizen groups are raising questions about the nature of the radioactive wastes
aboard a derailed train amidst conflicting press reports. The Associated Press first reported that the train, which derailed
in the early morning hours of June 16 in Clare County, was hauling eight to ten railcars containing radioactive water
used for cooling nuclear materials at Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan.
However, Consumers Energy spokesman Timothy Petrosky later told the Saginaw News that Big Rock no longer ships
radioactive liquids, and its cargo aboard the derailed train consisted of radioactively contaminated concrete and soil. According
to a spokesman from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Waste and Hazardous Materials Division,
the six rail cars carrying 42 "inter-modal" atomic waste containers from Big Rock are bound for a licensed radioactive waste
dump in Clive, Utah. Clare County Sheriff's Department Emergency Services Division Sergeant William J. Larson told
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) in a phone inquiry that tampering with the rails is suspected, and an
investigation has been launched. "This raises serious concerns about the security of atomic waste shipments," said Kevin
Kamps of NIRS. "High-level radioactive waste shipments from Big Rock that would travel this same rail route would
be potentially catastrophic targets for sabotage or terrorist attack rolling through countless Michigan communities."
82
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
A2 Derailment impacts: 5% is dangerous

b. Terrorism leads to nuclear retaliation killing millions
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004
[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm] //JMa
Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions
between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race
and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical
scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a
conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When
nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
83
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Infrastructure not key to Safety

Investment in infrastructure stops nuclear derailments
Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois, and C.
Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad derailment
factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf //JMa
84
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
2NC Short Overview

The Railroad industry currently has enough steady income to constantly renew its infrastructure, that’s
Roth. An increase in alternative energy reduces the demand for coal shipments – the backbone of the
industry. This drop in demand kills profits, that’s the Association of American Railroads. These profits
are necessary to maintain a constant renewal of railroad infrasture that’s Freeman. Deteriorating
infrastructure will cause radioactive train derailments, that’s Kamps.
---
This leads to our external impacts:…
85

253 BQ Railroads DA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

253 BQ Railroads DA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Railroad DA

DDI 2008 – Berthiaume – Quinn

If you have any questions, you can email me at benson_benjamin@muhs.edu.

I’m Ted “The Iceman” Jackson – Check me

D. Poor infrastructure causes radioactive catastrophe

Coal Prices soaring- demand

Despite drops, prices are high

Prices will rise due to soaring demand

Cost of coal has been shooting up

Demand is pushing prices

Demand for coal is coming back

Coal Demand boom likely to last

Demand is sky high

High demand in the future- Asian imports

Coal is in high demand in the US- low cost alternative

US coal consumption is high and growing

Alternative Energy shafts coal – World Energy Council Agrees

Coal will be relied upon until we develop large-scale alternative energy

RPS decreases coal prices

RPS reduces coal demand and prices

RPS trades off with coal – proven several states

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.

Farmers would shift to wind

Wind would replace coal due to carbon dioxide emissions

Solar Power reduces reliance on coal and fossil fuels

Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

Nuclear Power replaces coal –perceived as being more efficient

Nuclear Power replaces coal usage

Railroads revenue increasing

Railroad profits increasing

Coal for electricity is key to rail revenue

Coal is the most important commodity carried by rail

Coal key to railroad profitability and infrastructure

Major capital investments prevent derailment – empirically proven

<CONTINUED…no text removed>

Railroads are key to US competitiveness in a global economy

Railroads are key to US competitiveness

Railroads key to the economy – they move billions of tonw of freight

Railroads key to the economy – jobs

Unstable Pakistan leads to proliferation

High food prices are the biggest threat to consumer confidence

Renewables tradeoff with Clean Coal

Other Renewables tradeoff with clean coal

AT: Clean Coal Solves – Cap and Trade

AT: Clean Coal Solves - RPS

AT: Clean Coal Solves - Wind

AT: Clean Coal Solves - Solar

Solar power replaces clean coal

AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now

AT: Railroad Profits Resilient

AT: Nuclear Shipments Low

AT: Railroads Failing Now

2. Coal demand high and rising – it’s a low-cost fuel

AT: DoE Routes Turn

AT: Nuclear Trades of with Natural Gas, not Coal

Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal

AT: Budget Not key to Infrastructure Investment

AT: Cars are Super Strong

AT: New Tech Solves

AT: Budget not key to Infrastructure Investment

AT: Coal Peak coming by X year

US coal supply will last at least 250 more years

A2 Coal Prices falling now

Coal Demand boom likely to last