Tsdc spending Core neg shell



Download 142.58 Kb.
Page3/8
Date18.08.2018
Size142.58 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Link

Generic

Ocean funding is incredibly low. Any plan will call for a substantial increase in spending
Gonzalez 12 [Robert T. Gonzalez, “James Cameron says today's ocean exploration is “piss poor.” He's right.” iO9, 3/29/12. www.io9.com/oceanorgaphy/gonzalez]


The lack of knowledge surrounding the oceans' depths isn't particularly surprising when you realize that funding for deep sea research has been dwindling for years. And according to Craig McClain — chief editor at Deep Sea News, and a deep sea researcher, himself — more cuts to deep sea funding are imminent. McClain says that John R. Smith, the Science Director at the Hawai'i Undersea Research Laboratory, recently sent out an email notifying the community that NOAA has zeroed out funding for the Undersea Research Program (NURP) for FY13 beginning Oct 1, 2012, and put all the centers on life support funding (or less) for the current year. Many other NOAA programs, mostly extramural ones, have been cut to some level, though it appears only NURP and another have had their funding zeroed out completely. McClain says that what's especially striking about this "is that within the FY13 NOAA Budget, the Office of Ocean Exploration [the division that contains NURP] took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%). Sadly, the biggest cut came to education programs (-55.1%)."

Oceanic exploration and development costs millions


Conathan 2013 [Michael, “Rockets Top Submarines: Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending” American Progress, June 18, 2013. http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/18/66956/rockets-top-submarines-space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/]

All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life.


Deepwater projects are costly – Coast Guard proves


Perera 2011 [David, “Deepwater too expensive, says GAO” July 29, 2011. http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/deepwater-too-expensive-says-gao/2011-07-29]

Costs for the Coast Guard's massive modernization effort, Deepwater--now in its fifteenth year--has grown past the point of likely funding, says the Government Accountability Office.¶ In a report dated July 28, the GAO says that Coast Guard officials have said they'll need $1.9 billion a year to complete all of Deepwater's planned acquisitions, but that they don't expect to receive more than $1.2 billion annually over the next several years, particularly given the current climate of austerity.


Hadal Zones

Funding for deepwater exploration is unstable and costly. Means the plan will cause several new forms of spending
Jackson, Keith II 2012


Project Management Institute, June 2012, (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea)

With research funding provided by philanthropists, including former Google executive Eric Schmidt's Marine Science and Technology Foundation, DOER Marine's US$40 million Deepsearch program includes construction of two unlimited-depth ocean submersibles and supporting infrastructure, including glass that can withstand the crushing pressure found in deep water."With no reliable funds coming in and having to start and stop while completing other projects, this had the ability to become an unwieldy and unmanageable project. And we recognized that fairly early in the process," Ms. Taylor says. "So we modeled our project after some of the more successful U.S. Navy projects that also had financial constraints and received a lot of insight on how to handle the Rendering of DOER submarine complexities and flexibility of the project. What we're using is almost a hybrid of agile and phased waterfall, and we use those principles to guide the project."



Bio Rock

Biorock is costly – deployment and consistency expenses prove


Heng 12 [Natalie Heng, “Tioman coral reef gets an electrical current boost” The Star Online, September 18, 2012. http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2F2012%2F9%2F18%2Flifefocus%2F11701966]

Faedzul, a marine biologist by training, says it would be expensive to deploy Biorock structures in a routine manner. “But if the technology is proven to help coral regeneration, then it can be a good alternative to rescue or revive damaged reefs, such as those from ship grounding or natural disasters.”¶ It is precisely situations where the reef faces pressure from coastal development, watershed-based pollution, over-fishing and destructive fishing practices, that Biorock comes in useful. Faedzul says the time needed to establish a reef would depend on the species planted – fast-growing species could lead to faster reef formation. In some documented cases, a difference in the Biorock can be seen in six months. The electricity must be turned on all the time but the current is too weak to impact fishlife.

Energy Development

Oceanic energy development costs millions


Runyon 12 [Jennifer, chief editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com. : Is Ocean Energy More Than "A Very Expensive Hobby"?” Renewable Energy World. June 22, 2012. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/06/is-ocean-energy-more-than-a-very-expensive-hobby]

That was the question posed to industry experts at the EnergyOcean International conference and exhibition that took place in Danvers, Mass., this week. Referring to three levels of development — Epoch 1, 2, and 3 — Andrew Tyler, CEO of Marine Current Turbines (MCT), a company now owned by Siemens, gave a few key pointers to companies interested getting beyond the “very expensive hobby” stage of ocean energy development.¶ While his tongue-in-cheek reference to marine and tidal energy development was sarcastic, the sentiment was real. It’s a pricey endeavor. The proof-of-concept stage will run about $1 million, he said. The small-scale stage will run $2 miliion to $5 million and to get to the full-scale prototype stage, a company will need to have $15 million to $30 million at its disposal. Tyler said that for financing companies should look to venture capitalists or government because “banks won’t touch them” since the risk is just too high.




Download 142.58 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page