OTEC AFF Cards – 1 Week Lab
*** For some of you this was your first time cutting debate evidence. This file is
not a completed AFF file but is the combination of all of your work based on the
small amount of time that we put into researching this week. If the evidence
you cut did not have a full citation – it is not included in this document.
Hopefully if OTEC is an AFF you are interested, you can use this as a resource to
continue your research as you leave camp. Thanks for being an awesome lab!
- Roger
Global Warming Advantage
Warming I/L
OTEC does not pollute – zero carbon
Cross 13 (Martin, quals, 11/29/13, “How An Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion OTEC Plant Works,” https://suite.io/martincross/67sw266)
OTEC technology has the potential to produce vast amounts of zero-carbon electrical power.
The potential hydrogen production could completely replace all fossil fuel consumption with
the exception of lubricants. The technology even makes it feasible to mine the sea for
minerals and metals. Reduction of costs is still a concern but the technology is effectively still in its infancy and, as with all
currently used technologies, ongoing research and experience will produce advances that will reduce costs considerably. The
advantages of OTEC technology are that the power source is constantly available, essentially
inexhaustible, creates no significant pollution, provides significant useful by-products, is
relatively easy to maintain and has a long service life with no inconvenient waste products
such as ash, clinker or nuclear waste, requiring disposal or specialized storage. Plants can be landbased, offshore (similar to oil platforms) or even floating.
OTEC is environmentally friendly – no fossil fuels
Feakins 14 (Jeremy P., Chief executive officer of Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, 1/13/14, “Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation Completes Reverse Merger With Public Shell Company,” http://www.otecorporation.com/ocean-thermal-energycorporation-completes-reverse-merger-with-public-shell-company/)
Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation (OTE), a leading developer of environmentally friendly and
energy-saving Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) and fossil-fuel free Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion (OTEC) systems, today announced that the Company has completed a reverse merger with a public shell
company in the U.S. OTE is finalizing the going public formalities and simultaneously, OTE is calling Warrants held by investors in the
Company, valued at USD$8 million. In making the announcement, Jeremy P. Feakins, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, noted
OTE’s successes with obtaining contracts and agreements for its sustainable technologies. “We are pleased with OTE’s progress
these past three years and the best is yet to come. The Company has adopted the reverse merger strategy as a proven successful
alternative method of obtaining the financing we need while at the same time providing our investors with clear path to liquidity.”
Mr. Feakins continued: “For our customers around the world, OTE’s
technologies provide sustainable energy
saving/energy producing resources. Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) is a way to take
advantage of the deep cold sea water to provide air-conditioning in an environmentally
friendly way, offering our customers considerable energy savings when compared to
traditional systems. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is a proven method of
producing 24/7 electricity without the use of fossil fuels. An eager global marketplace exists for OTE
technologies. Potential customers have asked us to provide them with Seawater Air Conditioning
and OTEC thermal electric power including supplying them with millions of gallons per day of
desalinated water that can be produced as a by-product of our technology. Clearly, our
technologies will provide sustainable benefits for millions of people worldwide.
OTEC is zero emissions
Lockheed Martin Corporation 13 (Advanced manufacturing, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Renewable
and stable power for energy needs of today and tomorrow,”
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/OTEC-brochure.pdf)
OTEC provides a reliable, clean energy solution for many areas of the world. The process
generates electricity by leveraging the temperature difference between warm surface water
and deep cold water. In geographical areas with warm surface water and cold deep water, the temperature difference
can be leveraged to drive a “steam” cycle that turns a turbine and produces power. There is
no supplemental storage of the power required and practically zero carbon emissions. Critical
advances in the technologies related to the system’s cold water pipe and heat exchanges will
allow OTEC to serve as an economically viable energy source. OTEC power can be used to
produce energy carriers such as hydrogen and ammonia, which can be shipped to areas not
close to OTEC resources. The system can also include fresh-water production by flash
evaporating the warm seawater and condensing the subsequent water vapor using cold
seawater.
Biodiversity Impacts
A hotter world leads to more extinctions and significant losses in biodiversity
Walsh 13 (Bryan, senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment. Previously was the Tokyo bureau
chief for TIME, and reported from Hong Kong on health, the environment and the arts. “Why a Hotter World Will Mean More
Extinctions” http://science.time.com/2013/05/13/why-a-hotter-world-will-mean-more-extinctions/ //JRS)
carbon levels are higher
now than they’ve been for at least 800,000 years, and most likely far longer. There’s nothing special per se
The end of last week saw the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere finally pass the 400-part-per-million threshold. That means
about 400 parts per million — other than giving all of us a change to note it in article like this one — but it’s a reminder that we are headed very fast into a very uncertain
future.¶ Parts per million and global temperature change, though, are just numbers. What matters is the effect they will have on life — ours, of course, but also everything else
that lives on the planet earth. I’ve written before that while I certainly worry and fear the impact that unchecked climate change will have on humanity, I also feel relatively —
Human beings have already proved that they are
extremely adaptable, living — with various degrees of success — from the hottest desert to
the coldest corner of the Arctic. I don’t think a future where temperatures are 4˚F or 5˚F or 6˚F
warmer on average will be an optimal one for humanity, to say the least. But I don’t think it will be the
end of our species either. (I’ve always favored asteroids for that.)¶ But the plants and animals that share this planet
with us are a different story. Even before climate change has really kicked in, human
expansion had led to the destruction of habitat on land and in the sea, as we crowd out other species. By some
estimates we’re already in the midst of the sixth great extinction wave, one that’s largely human
caused, with extinction rates that are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the background rate
of species loss. So what will happen to those plants and animals if and when the climate really
starts warming? According to a new study in Nature Climate Change, the answer is pretty simple: they will run out of habitable
space, and many of them will die.¶ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that 20% to
30% of species would be at increasingly high risk of extinction if global temperatures rise more
than 2˚C to 3˚C above preindustrial levels. Given that temperatures have already gone up by nearly
1˚C, and carbon continues to pile up in the atmosphere, that amount of warming is almost a
certainty. But Rachel Warren and her colleagues at the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, wanted to know more precisely how that extinction risk intensifies
with warming — and whether we might be able to save some species by mitigating climate change. In the Nature Climate Change paper, they found that almost twothirds of common plants and half of animals could lose more than half their climatic range by
2080 if global warming continues unchecked, with temperatures increasing 4˚C above
preindustrial levels by the end of the century. Unsurprisingly, the biggest effects will be felt near the equator, in areas like Central
America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Amazon and Australia, but biodiversity will suffer across the board. ¶ In statement, Warren said:¶ Our
research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common
species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would
significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides.¶ We looked at the effect of
relatively — confident that we will, in some ways, muddle through.
rising global temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather events, pests, and diseases mean that our estimates are probably conservative.
Animals in particular may decline more as our predictions will be compounded by a loss of food
from plants.¶ The good news is that a much hotter future isn’t a certainty. If global
greenhouse-gas emissions peak within the next few years and begin to decline afterward, the
UEA researchers suggest that we can preserve many species that would otherwise be lost.
Even if the peak is delayed until 2030, fewer species will go extinct. Mitigation will also buy us time to figure
out adaptation strategies for some species that are being displaced by climate change.¶ Of course,
there’s virtually no chance that global emissions will peak within the next few years — and odds aren’t much better even if we give ourselves another 15 years. Even if we
can curb warming, an expanding and (hopefully) richer human population is going to put more and
more pressure on what we once quaintly called the natural world. The future is going to be
difficult for a lot of nonhumans — and tough for a lot of humans too. But a crowded world is a
better bet than a hot and crowded one.
Humans and other species will go extinct- blame climate change
Edwards 10 (Lin. Writes for Phys.org and Medical Xpress. “Humans will be extinct in 100 years
says eminent scientist” http://phys.org/news196489543.html //JRS)
Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo
sapiens will not
be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become
extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year
estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year. ¶ Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his
pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because
the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages
or comet impacts.¶ Fenner said that climate
change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of
our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More
people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”¶
Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what
was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The
population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were
wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After
about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th
century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the
planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”¶ While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of
Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary
changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there's
a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve
the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will,”
Boyden said.¶ ¶ Fenner, 95, is the author or co-author of 22 books and 290 scientific papers and book chapters. His announcement in 1980 to the
World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated is still seen as one of the World Health Organisation’s greatest achievements. He has also
been heavily involved in controlling Australia’s feral rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus.¶ Professor Fenner has had a lifetime interest in the
environment, and from 1973 to 1979 was Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at ANU. He is currently a visiting fellow at the
John Curtin School of Medical Research at the university, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. He has won numerous awards including
the ANZAC Peace Prize, the WHO Medal, and the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. He was awarded an MBE for his work on control of malaria in
New Guinea during the Second World War, in which Fenner served in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps. ¶ Professor Fenner will open the
Healthy Climate, Planet and People symposium at the Australian Academy of Science next week. ¶
Species can’t adapt
Lynas 7 – (Mark, Associate @ Oxford’s School of the environment advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives,
Educational focus on Politics and History, Six Degrees, pg. 116)
Species have evolved to fill particular ecological niches, which may disappear as other species die out or
migrate. Ecosystems also tend to be highly adapted to their geographical habitat. Chalk
grasslands, for example, will not have much success moving north if the soils in cooler climes
are all underlain by clay or granite. Habitat fragmentation is another problem: Cities,
agricultural monocrop "deserts," and major roads all present insurmountable barriers to
species migration. In southern England, the timid dormouse will not cross open fields, let alone scurry through the busy
streets of Birmingham on its supposed journey north. As a result, climate change calls into question the very
basis of site-based nature conservation: There is no point in declaring somewhere a nature
reserve if all the species within it have to flee north within a few decades in order to avoid
going extinct.
Global warming is real and is happening now- species are already going extinct
Hoag 2006 (Hannah Hoag, Writes for Nature, New Scientist, Discover, National Geographic News (online), Canadian Geographic, Green Living,
CR Magazine, Canadian Medical Association Journal, American Archeology, Seed, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and The Gazette (Montreal),
among other publications. Produces radio segments for Free Radicals, a weekly program aired on CKUT, a Montreal community radio station. “Global
Warming Already Causing Extinctions, Scientists Say” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061128-global-warming.html //JRS)
No matter where they look, scientists
are finding that global warming is already killing species—and at a much
faster rate than had originally been predicted.¶ "What surprises me most is that it has happened so soon," said biologist Camille Parmesan of the
University of Texas, Austin, lead author of a new study of global warming's effects.¶ Parmesan and most other scientists
hadn't
expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020.¶ But populations of frogs,
butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change,
Parmesan said.¶ Scientists were right about which species would suffer first—plants and animals that live only in narrow temperature ranges and those
living in cold climates such as Earth's Poles or mountaintops. ¶ "The species dependent on sea ice—polar bear, ring seal, emperor
penguin, Adélie penguin—and the cloud forest frogs are showing massive extinctions," Parmesan said.¶ Her review compiles 866
scientific studies on the effects of climate change on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species. The study appears in the December issue of the Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. ¶ Global Phenomenon¶ Bill Fraser is a wildlife ecologist with the Polar Oceans Research Group in
Sheridan, Montana.¶ "There
is no longer a question of whether one species or ecosystem is
experiencing climate change. [Parmesan's] paper makes it evident that it is almost global," he said.¶ "The scale now is
so vast that you cannot continue to ignore climate change," added Fraser, who began studying penguins in the
Antarctic more than 30 years ago. "It is going to have some severe consequences."¶ Many species, for example,
have shifted their ranges in response to rising temperatures. ¶ A number of butterflies and
birds from temperate climates have kept pace with the changes by moving to higher latitudes
or altitudes where the temperatures remain within their comfort zones.¶ "Sweden and Finland
are actually gaining species diversity because of butterflies coming up from the continent that
they never had before," Parmesan said.¶ But many species have run out of suitable habitat or fallen
prey to pests and disease, while others are suffering from extreme weather events such as El
Niños—global climate disruptions that have increased in intensity and severity since the early
1900s.¶ One El Niño in 1997-1998 caused 16 percent of global corals to go extinct, which in
turn threatened many fish species.¶ "Fish depend on the structure coral reefs provide," said
biologist Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. ¶ For species such as coral, the extreme swings in
temperature that can be caused by global warming are more of a concern than the rising
average temperatures, Worm said.¶ Harlequin frogs native to the cloud forests of Costa Rica have been hit especially hard.¶ In January J.
Alan Pounds, a resident scientist at Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, reported that about two-thirds of the 110 known harlequin frog
species had been killed off by a disease-causing fungus. (Related: "'Frog Hotel' to Shelter Panama Species From Lethal Fungus" [November 2, 2006].) ¶
In the Antarctic, three
decades of declining sea ice have led to a reduction of ice algae. This, in turn, has reduced the
number of krill, an essential food for many fish, marine mammals, and seabirds, including penguins.¶
"We've predicted that the Adélie penguin will soon be locally extinct," Fraser, of the Polar Oceans
Research Group, said.¶ The species has already nearly disappeared from its northernmost sites in the Antarctic. The population
on Anvers Island, for example, has declined more than 70 percent, from 16,000 breeding pairs 30 years
ago to 3,500 today (map of Antarctica).¶ And this year the Adélie population on Litchfield Island disappeared.¶ "It is the first time in 700
years that the island does not have penguins on it," Fraser said. ¶ Arctic polar bears living in Canada's Hudson Bay, at
the southern end of the species' range, are fewer in number and scrawnier because they lack
the ice they require to feed from.¶ "The arctic ice is reducing in area and thickness—some places are just too thin to support a
polar bear," the University of Texas's Parmesan said. ¶ Such animal woes may hint at hard times ahead for humans, Fraser
added.¶ "The planet has warmed and cooled in the past, but never have we seen the type of warming that is occurring now, accompanied by the
presence of 6.5 billion people who depend on these ecosystems," he said. ¶ "Whether we want to admit it or not, we are
completely and totally dependent on them."¶
The fungus thrives in warmer temperatures, which also make frogs more susceptible to infection. ¶ On Thin Ice¶
Global warming is speeding up- ice Loss in the Arctic increases the amount of
heat absorbed by the Earth.
Spotts 14 (Pete, staff writer-Christian Science Monitor,Global warming: Ice loss makes Arctic itself a bigger climate changer,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2014/0218/Global-warming-Ice-loss-makes-Arctic-itself-a-biggerclimate-changer-video)
A long-term darkening of the Arctic region – occurring as sea ice retreats in the face of warmer summers – has been a
stronger contributor to global warming during the past 32 years that previously estimated,
according to a new study. The Arctic's contribution over this period is about 25 percent of the warming the
climate has from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions alone, say the researchers. That's "considerably higher"
than estimates from climate models or from studies that use less-direct methods of
measuring, they have found.The average darkening of the Arctic's surface is a result of a long-term decline in the extent of
sea ice in the summer. This leaves an increasing expanse of dark, open ocean to absorb
summer sunlight that otherwise would be reflected back into space. The ocean absorbs the incoming sunlight, then returns the radiation to
the atmosphere as heat. The same process occurs with melt ponds that form on the surface of remaining ice.The results confirm, for the first time by
direct observation, a 50-year-old idea that warming would become more intense in the Arctic than at lower latitudes, thanks to sea-ice loss. Rising
greenhouse-gas concentrations, triggered by land-use changes and by burning fossil fuels,
would trigger the ice losses initially. Then, these losses would gradually present a darker ocean surface to incoming sunlight, the
Arctic region would warm, and the additional warming would further reduce sea ice and amplify the
warming. The Arctic has warmed, in fact, by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 1970s – a
change about three times larger than the warming that has occurred at lower latitudes.Previous studies had shown a link between sea ice loss and the
Arctic's gradually declining ability to reflect sunlight back into space, a trait known as albedo.Because of those earlier results, and because the Arctic
Ocean covers such a small area of the planet, "I didn't expect to find such a big signal" on warming globally from sea-ice loss, says Ian Eisenman, a
climate researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and one of three Scripps researchers reporting the results in the current
issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."I was surprised to find such a big number and to find that sea ice has been that
important a player in the global warming that we've observed in recent decades," he says.The team used satellite measurements of sea-ice extent and
of the amount of sunlight the Arctic reflects, as well as infrared radiation the region emits, to pin down changes in the Arctic's albedo. It gathered the
measurements between 2000 and 2011.Using the relationship observed in the data between sea ice changes and the region's albedo, the team
calculated the albedo change between 1979 and 2000.The researchers compared their results with those from climate models, which generally have
underestimated the retreat of summer sea ice, says Christina Pistone, lead author of the paper, which also included work from climate researcher
Veerabhadran Ramanathan. The model the team used for its comparisons did a good job reproducing the relationship between sea-ice loss and albedo
that the team found in the real-world measurements.Still, the researchers note that the model yielded an Arctic with a higher albedo, reflecting more
light back into space, than the satellite data yielded.The results also appear to suggest that cloud cover over the region is not changing significantly,
despite the warming and the additional open water available each summer to provide the moisture for producing clouds.Some researchers had
suggested that cloud cover would increase with warming over the Arctic Ocean, perhaps slowing the pace of warming by raising the region's albedo
somewhat compared with clear skies, which would leave remaining ice and ocean exposed to the sun.The 2000-2011 data suggest "that clouds
wouldn't save you," says Don Perovich, a researcher at the US Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover,
N.H., who was not a member of the research team.Pistone and her colleagues caution that their estimate of the energy the Arctic's lower albedo adds
to the atmosphere may not be entirely due to warming's effect on ice extent. Some of the ice decline may be attributed to natural variability, as well as
to the warming effect of black-carbon soot, which winds deliver from lower latitudes.Still, the impact of the Arctic's declining albedo on global climate
is nothing to sneer at, suggests Dr. Perovich. Noting the
additional energy the loss of sea ice is adding to the
climate system globally compared with CO2, "that's some serious leverage," he says
Global warming not inevitable – cuts solve
Somerville 11 – (Richard, Professor of Oceanography @ UCSD Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I for the 2007
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3-8-2011, “CLIMATE SCIENCE AND EPA'S
GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS,” CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis)
Thus, atmospheric
CO2 concentrations are already at levels predicted to lead to global
warming of between 2.0 and 2.4C. The conclusion from both the IPCC and subsequent
analyses is blunt and stark - immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse
gases are urgently needed if the 2 deg C (or 3.6 deg F) limit is to be respected. This scientific conclusion illustrates a
key point, which is that it will be governments that will decide, by actions or inactions, what level of
climate change they regard as tolerable. This choice by governments may be affected by risk tolerance, priorities,
economics, and other considerations, but in the end it is a choice that humanity as a whole, acting through
national governments, will make. Science and scientists will not and should not make that choice. After governments have set a
tolerable limit of climate change, however, climate science can then provide valuable information about what steps will be
required to keep climate change within that limit.
Food Impacts
Warming leads to weather disasters – this is worse for agriculture than the
benefits of CO2 fertilization - top agriculture experts agree
Gillis 11 (Justin, Editor @ NYT, 6-11-2011, “A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself,” Factiva)
Now, the latest
scientific research suggests that a previously discounted factor is helping o
destabilize the food system: climate change. Many of the failed harvests of the past decade
were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in the United States, drought in Australia and
blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia. Scientists believe some, though not all, of those events were
caused or worsened by human-induced global warming. Temperatures are rising rapidly
during the growing season in some of the most important agricultural countries, and a
paper published several weeks ago found that this had shaved several percentage points
off potential yields, adding to the price gyrations. For nearly two decades, scientists had predicted
that climate change would be relatively manageable for agriculture, suggesting that even under
worst-case assumptions, it would probably take until 2080 for food prices to double. In part, they were counting on a
counterintuitive ace in the hole: that rising carbon dioxide levels,the primary contributor to global
warming, would act as a powerful plant fertilizer and offset many of the ill effects of climate change. Until a few
years ago, these assumptions went largely unchallenged. But lately, the destabilization of the food system
and the soaring prices have rattled many leading scientists. “The success of agriculture has
been astounding,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher at NASA who helped pioneer the study of climate change and
agriculture. “But I think there’s starting to be premonitions that it may not continue forever.” A
scramble is on to figure out whether climate science has been too sanguine about the risks. Some researchers, analyzing
computer forecasts that are used to advise governments on future crop prospects, are pointing out what they
consider to be gaping holes. These include a failure to consider the effects of extreme
weather, like the floods and the heat waves that are increasing as the earth warms. A
rising unease about the future of the world’s food supply came through during interviews
this year with more than 50 agricultural experts working in nine countries .
Food Advantage
OTEC could develop tropical areas and small islands, assist arid regions with
food production, freshwater and fish
OTEC Foundation 2013 (“What is OTEC” http://www.otecnews.org/what-is-otec/ VK)
The distinctive feature of OTEC is the potential to provide baseload electricity, which means day
and night (24/7) and year-round. This is a big advantage for for instance tropical islands that
typically has a small electricity network, not capable of handling a lot of intermittent power.Next
to producing electricity, OTEC also offers the possibility of co-generating other synergistic
products, like fresh water, nutrients for enhanced fish farming and seawater cooled
greenhouses enabling food production in arid regions. Last but not least, the cold water can be
used in building air-conditioning systems. Energy savings of up to 90% can be realized. The vast
baseload OTEC resource could help many tropical and subtropical (remote) regions to become
more energy self-sufficient.
U.S. Key
U.S. is key to OTEC
Makai Ocean Engineering 2014 (“OTEC- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”
http://www.makai.com/otec-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/ VK)
Since 2008, increased energy prices, environmental concerns, and new Department of the Navy
energy policy led to government and commercial support to improve key OTEC technologies.
Concurrently, Makai Ocean Engineering and Lockheed Martin rekindled their earlier OTEC
support from the 1970′s, and directed internal R&D resources to create an OTEC technology
development team. Lockheed invented a unique fiberglass cold water pipe fabrication
technology, which led to a cooperatively funded Department of Energy project. Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) conducted a competitive bid during 2009 for companies to
develop OTEC plant designs intended for tropical naval bases. Makai and Lockheed Martin won
this project and have been refining designs to meet NAVFAC requirements. The Office of Naval
Research (ONR) and NAVFAC have jointly funded construction of a new OTEC Heat Exchanger
Test Facility. Makai Ocean Engineering is the designer and contractor for this facility, and will
conduct performance and corrosion testing of several heat exchanger designs being built by
several different firms. This effort is also being supported by the State of Hawaii.
A2 – Feasibility
Metallic alloys could solve problems related to OTEC
Outram 2003 (Nick reporter for OTEC news “Could ‘Liquid Metal’ technologies transform the
economics of OTEC components?” October 16, 2003 http://www.otecnews.org/2003/10/232/
VK)
‘Liquid Metal’ is a revolutionary new metallic alloy that offers properties tailored to the end
application such as seawater corrosion resistance, thermal conductivity and hardness. Most
interestingly it can be shaped and moulded like conventional plastics using lower temperature
methods while still offering metallic properties. Titanium is the current metal of choice for -for
example- the plate heat exchangers for an OTEC, however the metal has high costs associated
with shaping the end product.
A2 – Costs
Production benefits outweigh OTEC costs
Vega 1992(Luis PhD “Chapter 7 of "Ocean Energy Recovery: The State of the Art" June 7,
2014//KW)
A straightforward analytical model is proposed to compare the cost of electricity¶ produced
either with OTEC or with petroleum or coal-fired plants. In the case of OTEC,¶ when appropriate,
the cost of electricity is estimated with credit for the desalinated water¶ produced. The
production cost of OTEC products are levelized over the life of the plant¶ (nominal value: 30
years). Two generalized markets are considered: industrialized¶ nations and smaller, lessdeveloped island nations with modest needs. The model is used¶ to establish scenarios under
which OTEC could be competitive.¶ The scenarios are defined by two parameters: fuel cost, and
the cost of fresh¶ water production. In the absence of natural sources of fresh water, it is
postulated that the¶ cost of producing desalinated water from seawater via reverse osmosis (RO)
be¶ considered as the conventional technique. This approach yields a direct relationship¶
between desalinated water production and fuel cost; and therefore, a scenario defined¶ with
one parameter.
OTEC is not cheap, but the benefits can make it financially viable
2013
(“OTEC Project” http://www.otecafrica.org/Project.aspx//KW)
OTEC is not a cheap technology, as the plants need to be big in order to generate enough energy
from the water temperature differences. The figure below is some years old but illustrates how
the cost per kW becomes smaller the bigger the OTEC plant is. Electrical power from OTEC is
higher than using crude oil, but the combination of electricity and fresh water makes OTEC
financially sound in many regions.
OTEC is cost efficient
Vega 99 (L.A. Vega PhD OTEC Overview http://www.otecnews.org/portal/otec-articles/oceanthermal-energy-conversion-otec-by-l-a-vega-ph-d/)
It is estimated that, in an annual basis, the amount solar energy absorbed by the oceans is
equivalent to at least 4000 times the amount presently consumed by humans. For an OTEC
efficiency of 3 percent, in converting ocean thermal energy to electricity, we would need less
than 1 percent of this renewable energy to satisfy all of our desires for energy. However, even
assuming that the removal of such relatively small amount of ocean solar energy does not pose
an adverse environmental impact we must first identify and develop the means to transform it
to a useful form and to transport it to the user.¶ The use of the cold deep water as the chiller
fluid in air conditioning (AC) systems has also been proposed. It has been determined that these
systems would have tremendous economic potential as well as providing significant energy
conservation independent of OTEC. For example, to produce 5800 tons (roughly equivalent to
5800 rooms) of air conditioning only 1 m 3 s-1 of 7 °C deep ocean water is required. The
pumping power required is 360 kW as compared to 5000 kW for a conventional AC system. The
investment payback period is estimated at 3 to 4 years.
OTEC is not cheap, but the benefits can make it financially viable
2013 (“OTEC Project” http://www.otecafrica.org/Project.aspx//KW)
OTEC is not a cheap technology, as the plants need to be big in order to generate enough energy
from the water temperature differences. The figure below is some years old but illustrates how
the cost per kW becomes smaller the bigger the OTEC plant is. Electrical power from OTEC is
higher than using crude oil, but the combination of electricity and fresh water makes OTEC
financially sound in many regions.
Costs are main barrier – plan removes resolves this
Rick 3.14 (http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energyconversion/) AJJ)
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high
costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have
proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built.
Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC
summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to
100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability.
“We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge
capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less
risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.Moreover, OTEC
is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like
Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a
country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In
addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the
machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National
Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s
development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at
the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think
pollution.Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal
support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company
specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small
[governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to
this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government
funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.”OTEC is
not completely off the government’s radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a
decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the
proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii ’s
National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now,
though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval Research
Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu
and Oregon , respectively.
Science Diplomacy Advantage
U.S. Loosing Ocean Leadership
US Losing Influence on Ocean Research
US Senate 04 (US Senate Hearing, Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, April 22,
2004, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg93902/html/CHRG-108shrg93902.htm)
The current annual Federal investment in marine science is well below the level necessary to
address adequately the nation's needs for coastal and ocean information. Unless funding
increases sharply, the gap between requirements and resources will continue to grow and the
United States will lose its position as the world's leader in ocean research.
US Losing Influence and Power Quickly to China
Huang 13 (Yanzhong, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, The
Diplomat, “The US Is Quietly Losing Its Innovation Edge to China,” October 27, 2013,
http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/the-us-is-quietly-losing-its-innovation-edge-to-china/)
I am not a supporter of the faddish idea that America is in decline. Despite all the hullabaloo about the rise of China,
the United States still boasts the most formidable military force and the largest, most innovative economy. But as a
student of international studies, I am keenly aware that the rise and fall of great nations are often associated with
significant historical events. It is hard to deny that the 2008 financial crisis exposed the Achilles’ heel in
our economy and accelerated the shift in the international power balance. This month, the self-
inflicted U.S. government shutdown highlighted the partisanship and immobilism in our
political system and undermined our ability to engage with the outside world. China for
example lost no time in questioning U.S. global leadership, urging all emerging countries to
consider building of a “de-Americanized world.” At the same time, an OECD report forecast
that China will overtake the United States in 2016 to become the world’s largest economy .¶
One might argue that these developments do not represent a permanent setback to U.S. global leadership – after all,
we continue to enjoy unrivaled advantage in the ability to innovate, a critical pillar of U.S. superpower status. Since
the mid-19th century, the United States has been the engine of almost all the major technological advancements.
Indeed, nine of the eleven 2013 Nobel Prize winners in science and economics are U.S.-based. In a 2012 article, Gary
Shapiro attributes the U.S. strength in innovation to “[a] can-do attitude, a free market system that rewards savvy risk
takers[,] an education system that encourages questions rather than rote learning [, and a] First Amendment that
promotes different views without government censorship.” In contrast, any major innovation efforts in China have to
struggle with a social-political system that supports censorship and corruption, and suppresses curiosity and
creativity. The miraculous economic growth in China, to paraphrase Paul Krugman, was largely the result of
perspiration (manufacturing capacity) rather than inspiration (technology innovation). Take Chinese pharmaceutical
industry: despite the size of Chinese pharmaceutical exports – averaging $67 billion annually – virtually none of the
revenue is derived from truly innovative products. Up until 2007, roughly 97 percent of chemicals produced in China
were generic, and only two drugs—artemisinin and dimercaprol—were developed domestically.¶ The past
decade, however, has witnessed the rapid erosion of the financial and institutional
underpinnings of innovation in the United States. Our free market system rewards risk takers
at the expense of the general public, many of our politicians (and the political system itself)
seem to have lost their ability to be effective, and our kids lag globally in math and science.
Simply, we have been increasingly unable to innovate, compete, and get things done. As Tom
Friedman observed, “too many of our poll-driven, toxically partisan, cable-TV-addicted, money-corrupted political
class are more interested in what keeps them in power than what would again make America powerful, more
interested in defeating each other than saving the country.Ӧ The sapped U.S. strength in innovation is epitomized by
the NIH research funding trends. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of applications increased from nearly 35,000
to more than 51,000, while NIH appropriations shrunk from $21 billion to $16 billion (in 1995 dollars). As a
consequence, it has become increasingly difficult for our scientists to garner an NIH grant . Overall
application success rates fell from 32 percent in 2000 to 18 percent in 2012. This is particularly bad news for the new
applicants, most of whom are young scientists who are at their most productive age and are most in need of grant
support: not only have the number of research project grants dropped in absolute numbers, but the success rates
for first-time award recipients has dropped from 22 percent to 13 percent. The story is
dramatically different on the China side. The government is determined to be the next
technology innovation center in the world. By 2011, China had already become the world’s
second highest investor in R&D. Government research funding has been growing at an annual
rate of more than 20 percent. At the end of 2012, for example, 7.28 billion yuan was spent on
promoting life and medical sciences, nearly 10 times the 2004 level. Even more troubling (for
the United States), in 2011, 21 percent of the applications were supported, and for young
scientists, the application success rate was 24 percent, both of which were higher than the
U.S. level. It was predicted that if the U.S. federal government R&D spending continues to
languish, China may overtake the U.S. to be the global leader in R&D spending by 2023.¶ Of
course, being the leader in R&D spending does not automatically make China the next innovation center. China’s
research culture suffers problems of cronyism, mismanagement and ineffectiveness. But
continuing to cut U.S.
research funding while China’s research spending soars could lead to a brain drain and even
further, the abdication of the United States as an innovation leader. If you still think this sounds
alarmist, just read what a professor from George Mason University said: “I have just laid off my technician and will
lose my postdoc in six months. My Ph.D. students need funds to finish their degrees, and now they are working in the
lab without pay. The lab may have to be closed. I will move my lab to China.Ӧ That said, the trend can be reversed,
provided that we stop bickering over divisive social-political issues and move forward to strengthen our economy,
restructure our education, and renew our democracy. The time is now.
Barbados now interested in OTEC
Hurtchinson 14 (Nekaelia, Barbados Government Information Service, “OTEC Of Interest To
Barbados, Region,” February 10, 2014,
http://gisbarbados.gov.bb/index.php?categoryid=9&p2_articleid=11904)
While the Caribbean may not be rich in traditional petroleum energy resources, the evolution of renewable
energy has revealed that the region possesses an abundance of another valuable source –
water.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office with responsibility for Energy, Senator Darcy Boyce,
highlighted this point, as he delivered remarks at the Developing Renewable Energy in the Marine
Environment: UK-Caribbean Knowledge Sharing seminar, held today at the Courtyard Marriott in
Hastings, under the patronage of the British High Commission, Bridgetown.
Minister Boyce told the
gathering of donor representatives, policy and energy specialists that the potential of the ocean for
electricity generation had been recognized regionally. He noted that the CARICOM Energy Policy
had also urged Member States to keep abreast of developments in renewable energy resources such as
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), ocean waves, tides and currents.
“Our government has
recognised that at present, marine energy technologies are new, but advancing towards commercialisation.
We are cognisant of the fact that the cost of marine energy technologies is high, but that the research to
date shows that there is scope for the lowering of these costs as compared to the costs of other forms of
electricity generation. The scope for such is particularly favourable in the Caribbean where the cost of
electricity generation is high,” he said.
The Energy Minister disclosed that a study would be undertaken, in
partnership with the European Union, to establish “the marine potential within the limit of our territorial
waters, by undertaking an assessment of the technical and commercial viability and sustainability of these
marine resources”. “We are particularly interested in OTEC systems which, not only produce
base load electricity, but also cold water which may be used for air-conditioning, which creates a heavy
demand for expensive electricity,” he noted, while adding that this would be of particular interest for
the tourism-driven national economy, as a heavy user of air-conditioning.
With OTEC also of
interest because of the potentially beneficial by-products produced by electricity, the Minister surmised
that it was critical that the technology be explored.
He disclosed that Barbados was already a
recipient of a desk top study on this technology through the SIDS-DOCK (Sustainable Energy
Initiative) mechanism, using Japanese experts. The study, he added, suggests that a 10 megawatt
OTEC plant is technically viable but, given the heavy investment required, its commercial viability would
have to be investigated carefully. “We need to have a better understanding of these opportunities”, he
stated.
Senator Boyce observed that translating this knowledge into action would be necessary for
progress to be realised and commended the British Government for facilitating the seminar, which brought
together regional governments and agencies which could offer guidance on such initiatives.
He also
urged the international community to continue its support for renewable energy advancements, through
financial and technical assistance.
France Interested in OTEC
DCNS 12 (Direction des Constructions Navales, “Ocean thermal energy conversion,”
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/energy/marine-renewable-energy/ocean-thermal-energy/)
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology exploits the temperature gradient between surface
seawater (at around 25 °C) and the much colder water (around 5 °C) found at depths of 1,000 metres or
more. This difference in temperature exists naturally in tropical waters, where OTEC can be used to
generate electricity all year round. OTEC can generate power continuously 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
and could therefore replace fossil energy and eventually make a major contribution to meeting the
increasing electricity demand from tropical countries, helping them to achieve energy self-sufficiency at a
future date. This innovative solution is a practical, green alternative to fossil fuels like gas and coal, which
are still used in very large quantities in isolated locations not connected to continental power distribution
networks. The goal of DCNS is to demonstrate the feasibility of this technology in tropical waters around the
world, and the French overseas departments and communities expressed their interest in (OTEC)
as early as 2008. In the same year, DCNS responded with an initial pre-feasibility study
conducted on the island of Martinique. This first research contract has since been followed by
a series of others, signed with La Réunion, Tahiti and Martinique. The contracts signed with
the island La Réunion have resulted in the installation earlier in 2012 of a land-based
prototype. In Tahiti, DCNS has already presented the results of a feasibility study conducted earlier this
year, and the Group has signed two agreements with Martinique, the second of which covers the detailed
specification and options for a future power plant.
Ocean Policy Key to Leadership
The US needs to implement ocean policies to lead global reform
Rosenberg 11 [Andrew, Senior Vice President, Science + Knowledge at Conservation
International (Former CI Employee), “U.S. Ocean Policy Should Lead the Way for Global Reform,”
http://blog.conservation.org/2011/06/u-s-ocean-policy-should-lead-the-way-for-global-reform/]
At Conservation International, we know that while humans are mostly confined to the quarter of the planet covered by
land, we are surrounded — and sustained — by vast oceans. In addition to supporting incredible biodiversity, oceans
provide benefits to people in the form of food, energy, recreation, tourism and desirable places to live. They are also a
tremendous economic driver, generating an estimated 69 million jobs and over $8 trillion dollars in wages per year in
the United States alone. From renewable energy sources like wave and wind power to offshore aquaculture and deepsea bioprospecting, our oceans and coasts provide new opportunities for technology developers, manufacturers,
engineers and others in a vast supply chain to discover, innovate and develop new economic opportunities around the
globe. America can lead this global innovation. Unfortunately, the health of our oceans is in serious decline; in too
many places, coastal water quality is poor, fisheries are stressed, habitats for ocean life are degraded and endangered
marine species are struggling to recover. Disasters such as last year’s BP oil spill have damaged the oceans and their
inhabitants, which in turn has stressed the communities and industries that depend on healthy oceans.
To turn the tide, our national, state and local leaders must make a commitment to more
coordinated management of ocean resources. Our decisions must be based on sound science, and
scientific work must be a funding priority in order for us to gain the benefits the oceans can
provide. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative recently released America’s Ocean Future, a report that calls on
leaders to support full and effective implementation of our nation’s first national ocean policy — the National Policy
for Stewardship of Ocean, Coasts and Great Lakes — which was established by President Obama in July of 2010. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, the national ocean policy has the potential to act as a catalyst for long-awaited and
important reforms, including enhanced monitoring, assessment and analysis of the condition of our ocean ecosystems,
how they affect and are affected by human activity and whether management strategies are achieving our
environmental, social and economic goals. Using these tools to better understand our oceans will help us to more
effectively manage these resources and strengthen coastal economies and communities across the country. As a
member of the Joint Initiative’s Leadership Council and an advisor to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, I
believe that monitoring what is happening in our oceans is critical to understanding how the
physical, biological, chemical and human elements of ocean ecosystems interact. The Joint
Initiative report recommends fully supporting an ocean observation system that would integrate data from sensors at the
bottom of the ocean, from buoys on the ocean’s surface and from satellites with remote sensing technology high above
the Earth. The report also emphasizes the importance of better integrating the study of our planet’s climate and ocean
systems. We need to have a better understanding of how climate change affects the health of our oceans and marine life
in order to develop strategies to mitigate negative consequences on ocean ecosystems and coastal communities. The
report notes that “information about climate impacts will be particularly important for coastal areas with infrastructure
that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and strong coastal storms, including communities with naval facilities and
transportation and energy infrastructure near the coast.” The development of expanded and improved
science, research and education around our oceans is a sound investment in improving our
economy. The data and information collected from research activities will be used to inform coastal development,
promote sustainable and safe fishing practices, and develop vibrant marine-based recreation and tourism. And
promoting the education of our next generation of marine scientists will help us compete in a
global economy increasingly driven by scientific and technological innovation. Our oceans are
in crisis, and our national economy is suffering the decline of this important economic engine.
For every year that we wait to institute a national ocean policy, we lose jobs and income that
rely on healthy oceans, and miles of healthy coastlines for Americans to enjoy . We can do better
by supporting the science and policy changes that continuously improve our stewardship of the 70 percent of the world
that is our oceans.
OTECH Key to Leadership
OTEC key to competitiveness
Robert Cohen, former program manager for the Department of Energy's ocean energy program,
6/21/01, “Public Comments to the US Department of Energy at a DOE hearing In Denver,
Colorado”
DOE should finish the job of commercializing OTEC. The United States still has the opportunity
to supply leadership and keep ahead of foreign competition. OTEC technology has the
potential for supplying a significant fraction of global energy needs in an economically viable
and environmentally acceptable fashion, while adding diversity to our energy mix . The United
States cannot afford to ignore that potential.
U.S. can become a global leader with OTEC
Bill Moore, discussion with Dr. Hans Jurgen Krock, the founder of OCEES on the revival of Ocean
Thermal Energy Conversion. April 12, 2006 http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008
"The United States is the best placed of any country in the world to do this," he contends. "The
United States is the only country in the world of any size whose budget for its navy is bigger
than the budget for its army." It's his contention that this will enable America to assume a
leadership position in OTEC technology, allowing it to deploy plants in the Atlantic, Caribbean
and Pacific, but he offers a warming. "If we are stupid enough not to take advantage of this,
well then this will be China's century and not the American century.” Krock is currently
negotiating with the U.S. Navy to deploy first working OTEC plant offshore of a British-controlled
island in the Indian Ocean -- most likely Diego Garcia though he wouldn't confirm this for
security purposes. He is also working with firms in Britain and Netherlands and will be headed to
China for talks with the government in Beijing. "The Chinese know very well that they cannot
build there futures on oil," he stated, noting that China's is investing large sums of money in a
blue water navy. "The United States will be playing catch-up in this technology. We're here.
We're willing to do it. We're doing it with the Navy." He expects to put his first plant to sea
sometime in 2008 after constructing it, mostly likely, in Singapore.
Science Diplomacy Key to Peace
Science Diplomacy Benefits World- Solves for Global Crises
Wolfe 13 (Audra, writer, editor, and historian, “Science diplomacy works, but only when it's
genuine” The Guardian, August 23 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/science/politicalscience/2013/aug/23/obama-science-foreign-policy)
The Obama Administration has embraced the concept of science diplomacy as a way to bridge
cultural and economic gaps between the United States and the rest of the world. The director
of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, John P Holdren, regularly meets
with his science policy counterparts from Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea and Russia. The US
State Department has sent a series of American scientists abroad as "Science Envoys" in hopes
of using scientific relationships as an olive branch to the Muslim world. Since 2009, these
science envoys, acting as private citizens, have collectively visited almost 20 countries, including
Indonesia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Kazahkstan and pre-revolution Egypt. This new interest in
science diplomacy is at least partially explained by the nature of contemporary global
problems: issues of resource distribution, climate change, and uneven economic growth can
only be solved with input from science. Climate change, for instance, does not respect
international borders; addressing it will require international partnerships. Nor do American
scientists hold a monopoly on good ideas. For these and a host of other reasons, science
diplomacy makes good sense and promises benefits for the countries on either end of
scientific exchange.But science diplomacy programmes also draw on a long tradition that holds
science and scientists as uniquely qualified to spread American ideals. In the 1960s (the last time
that the United States made a sustained effort to use science diplomacy to build international
partnerships), the concept was marred by ties to propaganda campaigns and intelligence
operations. The idea was that foreign elites who adopted the values of science – objectivity,
internationalism, the free exchange of information – would be more receptive to American
overtures more generally. This assumption drove most US science diplomacy throughout the
Cold War.When government sponsorship was explicit ("overt"), neither intelligence gathering
nor pro-American reporting would have come as a surprise: anyone agreeing to participate in a
US government-sponsored scientific meeting, circa 1962, probably knew what they were getting
into.Things got much murkier when the foreign policy establishment turned to groups of private
citizens as ambassadors for science. An oddity of the history of American diplomacy is that the
United States routinely conducted its Cold War cultural campaigns through arms-length
arrangements. In a few cases, the groups engaged in so-called "private diplomacy" really were
unaffiliated, but – more often than not – organisations touting their "independent" work on
behalf of the US government received help, usually with financial support channeled through
fake philanthropic foundations. The pass-through strategy was common in US international
activities from approximately 1948 until 1967, when an article in Ramparts magazine uncovered
the CIA's covert funding of the National Student Association (a youth organisation), and caused
a major foreign policy scandal.Science turned out to be a particularly good fit for this sort of
arm's-length operation. All attempts at private diplomacy offered benefits of economy and
plausible deniability, but private science diplomacy carried the additional weight of reinforcing
American ideals. The American version of "science" that these scientists and their patrons at the
CIA had in mind stressed disinterestedness, objectivity and scientist-driven research
organisations. They portrayed Soviet science, in contrast, as enslaved to the state, overly
focused on technology and driven by ideology. Who better to spread this message than private
scientists, working as individuals? By definition, this worldview undermined the ability of overtly
sponsored US government science diplomacy to promote the American message.Consider a
specific example. In the early 1960s, the Boulder, Colorado-based Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study produced a series of innovative biology textbooks; it's still around today. In 1961, the BSCS
started accepting funds from the Asia Foundation (now known to be a CIA pass-through) for its
international programmes. Like many of the private organisations that received at least part of
their funding through the CIA, the BSCS also received support from legitimate philanthropic
organisations, including the Rockefeller Foundation and US government agencies, including the
National Science Foundation. Nor is it entirely clear whether the BSCS's leaders were aware of
the true source of Asia Foundation funds: Arnold Grobman, the BSCS's long-time executive
director, denied any knowledge of such links in an interview with me a few months before his
death, in the fall of 2011.In any case, between 1961 and 1967, the BSCS and its overseas
affiliates received 10s of thousands of dollars from the Asia Foundation to underwrite the
adaptation and translation of biology textbooks in Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong
and other nations on the Chinese perimeter. From the historical evidence, the BSCS's overseas
adaptation offices don't appear to be cover for something nefarious: they really did focus on
biology curriculum reform, especially textbook translation. The only thing sketchy about these
offices was that their support came from a different source than their local participants (and
possibly even their American partners) believed.And that's the problem. Covers can be blown.
When the Asia Foundation's board of trustees acknowledged their ties to the CIA in 1967 (in an
attempt to pre-empt yet another damaging story in Ramparts), the BSCS's entire overseas
operation came under suspicion. Indian authorities, for instance, briefly threatened to kick out
any group that received funding from the Asia Foundation; it took the BSCS years to re-establish
trust with the foreign ministers of education who had previously embraced their work. A similar
fate befell almost all projects that involved Americans abroad, as all "private support" became
synonymous with "CIA front". Covert operations discredited the concept of cultural diplomacy
for a generation.The Obama administration's resurrection of the concept of science diplomacy
offers enormous potential. But, once again, the intelligence establishment has found in science
diplomacy a convenient cover for its own needs. The CIA's use of a fake vaccination campaign in
the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the subsequent withdrawal of aid workers from Pakistan over
fears for their safety, are all too familiar. Once again, covert operations are threatening to derail
genuinely helpful, hopeful activities that might otherwise go a long way toward building
international goodwill. The state department's insistence on calling its science envoys "private
citizens", too, is cause for concern. Since the science envoys are obviously doing the state
department's work, why not call them "officials" and avoid the potential for confusion? The US
has been there before. This time, science diplomacy is worth doing right.
OTEC key to Relations
OTEC imperative to relations with other countries- solves global
problems.
Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation No Date (Ocean thermal energy corporation, no date,
Common Ground, http://www.otecorporation.com/common-ground.html)
He prayed, it wasn’t my religion.
He ate, it wasn’t what I ate.
He spoke, it wasn’t my
language.
He dressed, it wasn’t what I wore.
He took my hand, it wasn’t the color of mine.
But
when he laughed, it was how I laughed.
and when he cried, it was how I cried. Amy Maddox,
“Underneath we’re all the same.” With these few words, arising from the fresh eyes and
idealism of youth, this Indiana high school student captured an eternal truth, which many
people believe has been forgotten by some politicians and corporate executives: those
commonalities which unite all human beings run far deeper than the points of difference which
can sometimes divide us. Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation (OTE) was founded upon the
principle that, in seeking common ground, we not only foster a more civil and peaceful
world[and], but ultimately accomplish more in our abilities to address mounting global
concerns. The vast majority of people on this planet have the same needs and desires for
themselves and their families… plentiful food, clean water, electricity and security. They also
share a deep-seeded wish to pass along a better world for their children and grandchildren. At
OTE, we are proud that our corporate mission has attracted untold numbers of supporters
whose areas of personal passion may be remarkably diverse, but who share Common Ground in
their commitment to make a difference. Our wide array of employees, investors and supporters
includes people who: See OTE as an enormous business/investment opportunity in the emerging
global renewable energy market. Believe that moving boldly toward renewable energy is our
moral obligation as stewards of our environment. See the tremendous humanitarian benefits of
bringing clean energy and fresh drinking water to many regions of the world. Understand that as
matter of national and international security, it is critical to global stability that countries
around the world move aggressively away from fossil fuel dependency…because demand for oil
ANYWHERE in the world contributes to the inflation of global oil prices EVERYWHERE, which
may help fund regimes or factions hostile to international security interests. Are moved by all of
the above considerations. Whichever of these considerations stoke your passion, please know
that you are welcome sharing the Common Ground upon which Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation rests
Hegemony Key to Prevent Ext.
Hegemony prevents global nuclear conflicts in every region of the world
Robert Kagan 7/19/07, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End
of Dreams, Return of History”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this
relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the
predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The
United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international
system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations.
Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world 's powers would be peace-loving equals,
conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is
both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however,
it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also
comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and
political liberalism that Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of
progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous
world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The
future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American
world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The return of great powers and great games
If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of
competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold
War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth
and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold
War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by
itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of
the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence.
Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the
United States and with each other. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered
by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are
powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the
preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is passé; hence
their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including
military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more
significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not just wealth and
security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring
postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -- now appears embarked on a
more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about
North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East
Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest
with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and this
competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such
that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again
worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron
Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also
looks like Asia's past. Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being
driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply
seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the
eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and
would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international
status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and
Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable
if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security
from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national
identity than with plausible external military threats. <card continues, no text removed> 16 Russia's complaint today
is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and
wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes
finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with
traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most
intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees
itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which
mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program
is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from
attack by the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national
ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German,
French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek
honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the
world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the
keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized
Negative
Solvency – General
OTEC IS DREAM ENERGY
Kobayashi et al 2001 (Hitachi “The Present Status and Features of OTEC and Recent Aspects
of Thermal Energy Conversion Technologies”
http://www.nmri.go.jp/main/cooperation/ujnr/24ujnr_paper_jpn/Kobayashi //CS)
OTEC provides not only power generation but also some solutions to the three greatest global
issues we are facing in 21st century, i.e. ‘Energy’, ‘Water’ and ‘Food’ associated with the
fundamental problems of environment destruction and population explosion. In collaboration
among Saga University, Xenesys Inc., the title holder of execution right of patents registered by
Saga University, and Hitachi Zosen Corporation, the partner in marine field, they are promoting
several projects concerning the above technologies. As the ocean thermal energy is perfectly
clean and renewable, and the potential is very huge, a bright future for the new OTEC
technology and the wide application is prospected. It is important to calculate how much energy
can be exploited through OTEC, but at present no firm estimate can be given. For this purpose, it
would be necessary to know everything about sea-water temperatures and sea currents all over
the world. Although much is known about sea temperatures, ocean currents are still not fully
understood, and much oceanographic research remains to be done. However, in order to put
OTEC to practical use, it is necessary to identify the places where OTEC could be exploited, and
roughly how much energy might be potentially available there.
Solvency – Tech Issues
OTEC Technology Issues
Friedman 2014 [Becca; ; “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/
//cm]
Oceanic energy advocates insist that the long-term benefits of OTEC more than justify the shortterm expense. Huang said that the changes in the economic climate over the past few decades
have increased OTEC’s viability. According to Huang, current economic conditions are more
favorable to OTEC. At $65-70 per barrel, oil is roughly six times more expensive than in the
1980s, when initial OTEC cost projections were made. Moreover, a lower interest rate makes
capital investment more attractive.¶ OTEC plants may also generate revenue from non-energy
products. Anderson described several additional revenue streams, including natural by-products
such as hydrogen, ethanol, and desalinated fresh water. OTEC can also serve as a form of
aquaculture. “You are effectively fertilizing the upper photic zone…The fishing around the sea
solar power plants will be among the best fishing holes in the world naturally,” Anderson said.
And, he added, these benefits are not limited to the United States . “Look at Africa , look at
South America , look at the Far East . It is a gigantic pot of wealth for everybody… People are
crying for power.Ӧ In fact, as the U.S. government is dragging its feet, other countries are
moving forward with their own designs and may well beat American industry to a fullyfunctioning plant. In India , there has been significant academic interest in OTEC, although the
National Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to a lack of funding. Japan , too,
has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University ’s Institute of Ocean Energy has recently won
prizes for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and various European nations have
also explored OTEC as part of their long-term energy strategy. Perhaps the most interest is in
the Philippines , where the Philippine Department of Energy has worked with Japanese experts
to select 16 potential OTEC sites.¶ Production benefits outweigh OTEC costs¶ Vega 1992(Luis
PhD “Chapter 7 of "Ocean Energy Recovery: The State of the Art" June 7, 2014//KW)¶ A
straightforward analytical model is proposed to compare the cost of electricity¶ produced either
with OTEC or with petroleum or coal-fired plants. In the case of OTEC,¶ when appropriate, the
cost of electricity is estimated with credit for the desalinated water¶ produced. The production
cost of OTEC products are levelized over the life of the plant¶ (nominal value: 30 years). Two
generalized markets are considered: industrialized¶ nations and smaller, less-developed island
nations with modest needs. The model is used¶ to establish scenarios under which OTEC could
be competitive.¶ The scenarios are defined by two parameters: fuel cost, and the cost of fresh¶
water production. In the absence of natural sources of fresh water, it is postulated that the¶ cost
of producing desalinated water from seawater via reverse osmosis (RO) be¶ considered as the
conventional technique. This approach yields a direct relationship¶ between desalinated water
production and fuel cost; and therefore, a scenario defined¶ with one parameter.
Solvency - Costs
OTEC Costs too much
ERC, 2010
(http://energyplace.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D7
%26Itemid%3D11)
Managing costs remains a huge challenge. OTEC plants require expensive, large-diameter intake
pipes, submerged at least a kilometer deep in the ocean to bring very cold water to the surface.
Cold seawater is a requirement for all three types of OTEC systems. The cold seawater can be
brought to the surface by direct pumping, or by desalinating the seawater near the sea floor,
lowering its density and causing it to “float” through a pipe to the surface.
The obstacles to OTEC as a viable power source are considerable, but probably not
insurmountable. Political concerns include the legal status of OTEC facilities located in the open
ocean. Costs, of course, also remain uncertain, because so few OTEC facilities have been
deployed. One study estimated OTEC power generation costs as low as US $0.07 per kilowatthour, compared with $0.05 - $0.07 for subsidized wind systems.
Unfortunately, yes. For example, OTEC plants often use direct contact heat exchangers, which
generate gases that can degrade a plant’s efficiency. Since the theoretical maximum efficiency
of OTEC plants is 6% to 7%, and present plants operate at slightly lower efficiencies, anything
that degrades performance must be considered significant. Other problems include microbial
fouling, which lowers thermal conductivity; improper sealing; and parasitic power consumption
by exhaust compressors. However, these obstacles are the focus of ongoing research, and seem
likely to be solved in the near future.
UPFRONT COST BARRIER
Vega 2014(Luiz “Challenges and Barriers” http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/about/challengesand-barriers/ //CS)
The major challenge associated with commercialization of WEC and OTEC devices is posed by
the requirement to finance relatively high capital investments that must be balanced by the
expected but yet to be demonstrated low operational costs. Perhaps a lesson can be learned
from the successful commercialization of wind energy due to consistent government funding of
pilot or pre-commercial projects that led to appropriate and realistic determination of technical
requirements and operational costs in Germany, Denmark and Spain. In this context, by
commercialization we mean that equipment can be financed under terms that yield cost
competitive electricity. This of course depends on specific conditions at each site. Presently, for
example, in Hawai’i cost competitiveness requires electricity produced at less than about 0.20
$/kWh, while in Oregon the value would have to be closer to about 0.07 $/kWh.
Turn – Environment
OTEC also presents several environmental hazards, such carbon dioxide release
and fish mortality.
Steve Elsworth et al, (It’s a pearson textbook, unknown date)
(http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E22.3.pdf)
Large amounts of seawater would be needed to supply a large OTEC plant. The discharge
expected from a 100 MW OTEC plant is about the size of the flow of the Colorado River into the
Pacific Ocean.(96) If the cold seawater is taken from just under the boundary between
temperature regimes and exhausted at the surface, it would have a different effect from
exhausting the water just above the boundary layer (which would minimize whatever impact
there was). In addition, as we mentioned in the Chapter, carbon dioxide in deep waters would
be released when the water is brought to the surface. This release would be below 7
g/kWhEnergy, Ch. 22, extension 3 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 8 for an open cycle OTEC
plant, compared to 100 times that much from fossil fuels.(96) Of course, there would be little or
no release if a closed cycle is used. Depending on the destination of the seawater, climate
changes could result. The ability to alter climate by building large numbers of OTEC installations
could help humanity prevent another ice age (although this is not a present problem due to the
huge fossil fuel input and global warming), if we can gain a better understanding of the
interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere.(76) We have mentioned that the cold
water exhausted on the surface will draw fish. However, the intake will kill fish eggs and
larvae.(96) What balance exists between these effects is still speculative.