Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

TOPICALITY- INCENTIVES A. Interpretation- ‘Incentives' is defined as something that induces action or motivates effort. DICTIONARY.COM, ‘08 In-cen-tive n. Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort. B. Violation- the plan does not create any incentive to make fusion energy. C. Voter- 1. Ground- This steals Neg ground to argue because they can simply create any plan that has something to do with energy. It also takes out a huge arguing point within incentives. 2. Education- We take nothing out of this round except for a loss if Aff runs a un-practical case. This is our first Neg debate, something that should teach us a lot. SOLVENCY: Fusion power is not yet ready to be an energy source. From his own source, Wikipedia.org: "There are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible…Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050." VOTE THEM DOWN because they are being abusive by only using certain parts of the article that work in their favor. Now my own source: Fusion energy research is taking too long to become a new energy source. New Scientist, June 06. (http://www.newscientist.com...) "Most scientists and engineers working on ITER are more wary. "The current timetable is very, very, very ambitious," said one veteran last week. "I think it will be 100 years before we have commercially viable energy." Such caution is not surprising. The reactor will heat plasma to temperatures 10 times those in the core of the sun. Harnessing such extremes in an engineered bottle will take many decades, and ultimately may not be practical." Fusion energy will cost too much. This is Peplow in March '06. (http://fire.pppl.gov...) "But the projected costs of building and maintaining a plant, let alone getting it to work, are simply too high for fusion ever to become a viable power source, according to William Parkins, formerly chief scientist with the California-based technology company Rockwell International and author of an article in this week's Science… Parkins wrote that the energetic neutrons produced in the fusion reaction will gradually degrade the walls of the reactor itself. All design studies have indicated that the vessel will need periodic replacement, which would drive up costs. The large size of the reactor makes it virtually impossible to stop air leaking into the reaction chamber, causing further expensive problems… ITER currently commands a budget of around US$5.5 billion, making it one of the more expensive scientific projects ever conceived. "It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power," wrote Parkins." COUNTERPLAN: TEXT: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by increasing farm subsidizes to develop wind energy. SOLVENCY: Wind energy is the energy of the future. American Wind Energy Association, '07 (http://www.awea.org...) "Wind power is ready to be a significant source of American energy. Diversifying federal support to include newer, non-polluting, domestic energy industries like wind is smart energy policy." Wind energy will never run out. Energy Information Association, Nov. '07 (http://www.eia.doe.gov...) "Wind is called a renewable energy source because the wind will blow as long as the sun shines." Subsidies provide incentives for farmers to create wind energy by providing tax breaks. AWEA, Previously cited. "The main incentive for wind, the production tax credit (PTC) is an effective policy to facilitate wind power development, as evidenced by today's growth in the use of wind power. Wind project owners receive tax credits only for energy produced; thus they have an incentive to use better wind sites and better technology – harvesting the most energy possible from every wind turbine." Subsidies have been effective in the past. AWEA, previously cited. U.S. subsidies for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro power totaled approximately $500 billion from 1950 to 1977 (in 2004 $).1 In the last century, this investment created an abundance of affordable domestic energy, powering strong economic growth. It also contributed to a heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Today's rising energy demands – and volatile prices – reveal a need for a more diverse energy supply. WE ALSO solve all of Aff's advantages as well as harms. NET BENEFIT: Cost. Cross-apply Peplow in '06, which states that there is a demand for $5.5 Billion for fusion energy, not to mention updating and replacement costs. Wind energy costs 5 cents per Kilowatt/hour and costs are decreasing. AWEA FAQ, no date cited. (http://www.awea.org...) "The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced." BECAUSE farmers are doing this, not the government, it will help farmers get back on their feet, create more jobs, and create competition. The counterplan is conditional.