P. 1
NEG - Abolish Nuclear LGs - CON

NEG - Abolish Nuclear LGs - CON

|Views: 164|Likes:
Publicado porPreston Black
It's not finished... But expect an update sometime : )
It's not finished... But expect an update sometime : )

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Preston Black on Dec 12, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/27/2010

pdf

text

original

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

NEG – Abolish Nuclear Loan Guarantees – CON
TOPICALITY................................................................................................................................2
A. Interpretation.......................................................................................................................................................2 B. Standards..............................................................................................................................................................2 C. Violations..............................................................................................................................................................3 D. Voters....................................................................................................................................................................3 3) Coal Mining

TOPICALITY
A. Interpretation
1. Resolution That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. 2. Definitions a. Environmental Policy “The official rules or regulations concerning the environment adopted, implemented, and enforced by some governmental agency.” William P. Cunningham [Ph.D. in Botany from the University of Texas in (1963); Emeritus Professor at the University of Minnesota where he taught for 36 years], Mary Ann Cunningham (Bachelor’s of Arts in Geology from Carleton College (1986), Master’s of Arts in Geography from the University of Oregon (1992) and Ph.D. in Geography from the University of Minnesota (2001)], & Barbara Woodworth Saigo (St. Cloud State University), The Text Book “Environmental Science: A Global Concern,” McRawHill (Online Learning Center) Glossary Page, Copyright 2003, http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html b. Reform “To amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform 3. Conclusion We conclude that the affirmative team’s plan – in order to fall under the resolution – must reform the official rules concerning the environment. Reform had been defined as to change the structure of something directly, not to simply improve it. So the affirmative team must directly change the structure of an existing policy that concerns the environment. If the “rule” the affirmative team reforms does not directly concern the environment, then it is not Topical and outside of the boundaries of the resolution. We would now like to offer some standards to help determine which interpretation of the resolution should be upheld.

B. Standards
1. Brightline An interpretation of the resolution must portray it in a way that draws a clear, bright line between what is Topical and what is not. Our definitions of reform and environmental policy make it clear as to what the affirmative team can and cannot do, while the affirmative team’s interpretation draws no such brightline.

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 1 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2. Fair limits An interpretation of the resolution that offers fair, reasonable limits should be upheld over one that is ridiculously broad. Our definitions offer an interpretation that is not ridiculously broad, but not too narrow. I could think of a dozen cases off the top of my head that fall under the resolution as defined this way, but the affirmative team’s interpretation is so broad as to include policy reform that should fall under energy policy. 3. Framer’s Intent An interpretation of the resolution that matches up most with the original intent of the resolution’s framers should definitely be upheld over another interpretation. If we think about the framer’s intent in this year’s resolution, clearly they did not intend for people to reform energy policy when they said reform environmental policy. There are two separate acts for the policies: National Energy Policy Act, and National Environmental Policy Act – if the framers wanted us to reform the energy one, they would have specified in the resolution.

4. Common Man Is this interpretation of the resolution one that the average person would agree with or understand? The common man would logically break down the word and decipher its meaning: re….form… we all know what form means, and “re” means to do it again. If when forming a policy one makes its structure, then a reform would be to change the structure. Quite simple, really. In addition, the common person would picture an environmental policy as a rule or law that is strictly environmental – you can discern that once again by breaking down the term. Our interpretation of the resolution using our definitions of reform and environmental policy most upholds the standards of the brightline, fair limits, framer’s intent and common man. Therefore it should be upheld above the affirmative team’s interpretation.

C. Violations
The affirmative team is reforming – through abolishment (or encouragement) the policy that gives loan guarantees for nuclear energy. However, Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power are an Energy policy! The Department of Energy said: “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program(,) paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects that use innovative technologies, and spurs further investment in these advanced technologies. [e]stablished under Title (17) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (authorizes) the Secretary of Energy is authorized to make loan guarantees to qualified projects in the belief that accelerated commercial use
of these new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.”

So we see that the affirmative team’s plan is actually reforming an Energy policy, carried out by the Department of Energy, and established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. By our interpretation of the resolution, they are not explicitly reforming an environmental policy, but reforming an Energy policy that affects the environment. Because of this, they are clearly outside of the boundaries of the resolution that state an affirmative case must reform an environmental policy, not and energy policy that affects the environment.

D. Voters
1. Fairness, Educational Value and Precedence By voting affirmative, you would be sending a message to affirmative teams that non-Topical cases are okay. If cases are allowed that are outside the resolution, then it becomes harder for negative teams to prepare for all of the cases that may be possible – because up until now they have been researching topics under the resolution, but if the resolution doesn’t matter, then affirmative cases will get harder and harder to predict – up until the point that it becomes impossible for negative teams to research properly. There are several impacts of this. First, the clash inround is severely damaged. Without proper research and knowledge to back up their arguments, negative teams’ will not be able to intelligently debate the issue at hand in any given debate round – and affirmatives will always win. Secondly, if it gets so hard to research a topic without limits (or at least, limits that are ignored), negative teams will not even bother to research – or debate for that matter. If we know the affirmative team will always win – since they basically have infinite prep time and the negative team doesn’t even know what to prepare for – why should we debate? But by voting negative, you can send a message to affirmative teams that non-Topical cases are not okay – upholding the fairness, educational value and future of debate.

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 2 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

In addition, there is an even weightier impact of non-Topicality, called…

2. Jurisdiction In order to justify this debate round, the affirmative team must convince you that the resolution must be upheld – namely, that the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. This is because your jurisdiction extends as far as the resolution. You have the power to negate or affirm it – hence, we have negative and affirmative teams, the resolution and affirmative and negative boxes on the ballot. But if the affirmative team is non-Topical, they are not upholding the resolution. Since the affirmative team’s case does not reform and environmental policy, even if they convince you at the end of this round that their case should be done, their case does not uphold the resolution, so they have not convince you that the resolution should be upheld. Since you only have the jurisdiction to affirm or negate the resolution, and the affirmative team has not given you a reason to do so, we urge to vote negative at the end of this round. Also, if the affirmative team is not affirming the resolution, it only makes logical sense that they are negating it. So we have two negative teams in this round! No matter which “case” you prefer (the status quo/counterplan, or the non-Topical 1AC-case), you should still check “negative” on your ballot at the end of this round.

SIGNIFICANCE
1. Loan Guarantees Needed for the Survival of Nuclear Energy
1. Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants 2. Developing Nuclear Reactors need billions in loans to be built, and the key to getting those loans is getting federal guarantees to back them 3. Only nuclear power can the power this nation needs to move forward – and it needs loans 4. Nuclear projects live or die based on whether or not they can get an LG 5. LGs needed and are win-win-win for the environment, the economy and consumers 6. Nuclear energy is good, and loans help encourage it 1. Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants Dr. Aris Candris (president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company; B.A. in physics, math and engineering from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky; M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; member of the Board of Trustees for Transylvania University; member of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Board of Directors), “Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

“These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that’s needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country’s economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.” 2. Developing Nuclear Reactors need billions in loans to be built, and the key to getting those loans is getting federal guarantees to back them Mark Clayton (staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor), “Nuclear power’s new debate: cost,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 13, 2009, http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 3 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

“The big hurdle for Calvert Cliffs III and at least 21 other nuclear power reactors now in the US development pipeline is all about money – finding the billions in loans to build them. And the key to getting those loans is winning federal guarantees to back them. Today, the US has 104 nuclear reactors, (provide) about 20% of the nation’s power. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1978. This is not because of protestors, but because of a lack of investor funding
and Wall Street remembering the ghosts of nuclear power’s past – massive construction cost overruns, utility defaults, and bankruptcies. Yet these no longer seem to haunt the nuclear industry or its supporters.”

3. Only nuclear power can the power this nation needs to move forward – and it needs loans Mark Clayton (staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor), “Nuclear Power’s New Debate: Cost,” Christian Science Monitor (an international newspaper published daily online that covers international and United States current events), August 13, 2009,
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/ [PB]

“Only nuclear power, [Leslie] Kass [director of business policy and programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute] says, can provide the sheer volume of reliable ‘base load’ power the nation will need going forward – and meet the challenge of climate change at the same time by not emitting carbon. The reason federal loan guaranties are needed, she says, is because Wall Street is still averse to large capital projects of all kinds. ‘Our challenge, like everyone [else’s] is access to capital during a recession,’ she says.” 4. Nuclear projects live or die based on whether or not they can get an LG Mark Clayton (staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor), “Nuclear Power’s New Debate: Cost,” Christian Science Monitor (an international newspaper published daily online that covers international and United States current events), August 13, 2009,
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/ [PB]

“Most new nuclear projects will live or die based on whether they get those loan guarantees. ‘We’re poised to commence early site preparation this year for the first new nuclear plant in the US in 30 years, but to be clear, we cannot move forward without federal loan guarantees,’ Michael Wallace, vice chairman of Constellation Energy, said last year.” 5. LGs needed and are win-win-win for the environment, the economy and consumers Frank L. Bowman (the Nuclear Energy Institute’s president and chief executive officer Nuclear Energy Institute), “Nuclear Energy
Administration News Release: Congressional Budget Agreement Will Help Encourage Construction of New Nuclear Plants,” Nuclear Energy Administration, December, 17, 2007, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/congressionalbudget/ [BC]

“The availability of loan guarantees to facilitate debt financing on reasonable terms for the first wave of these applications will help reduce uncertainties surrounding these capital-intensive projects, and ultimately will lower the cost of the electricity produced by these new power plants to the consumer. Loan guarantees will not involve the expenditure of any federal tax dollars when the clean-energy projects are successfully completed. That makes them a win-win-win for the environment, the economy and consumers.” 6. Nuclear energy is good, and loans help encourage it United States Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, “DOE Announces Loan Guarantee Applications for Nuclear Power Plant Construction,” October, 2, 2008, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/press/100208.pdf [BC] “DOE’s (Dept. of Energy) loan guarantee program is an important step in advancing President Bush’s goals of diversifying our energy mix, increasing energy efficiency and improving the environment, while reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. “These loan guarantees are an integral step in building up our nation’s nuclear infrastructure and will further the broader goal of enhancing national energy security through the advancement of nuclear power as a domestic, affordable and emissions-free source of energy.”

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 4 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2. Nuclear Energy = Sustainable

1. Nuclear will last for thousands of years (with recycling) 2. Nuclear Energy the most sustainable available energy source 3. Nuclear Energy is cleaner and more sustainable than fossil fuels 1. Nuclear will last for thousands of years (with recycling) Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that nuclear fuel is defined for at least thousands of years, through the gradual adoption of advanced nuclear cycles and reprocessing.” 2. Nuclear Energy the most sustainable available energy source John C. Zink (Ph.D.; former Assistant Professor of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma), “Sustainable energy future needs nukes,” Power Engineering, October 2002, http://0-proquest.umi.com.library.acaweb.org/pqdweb?
index=2&did=234146111&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1259355588&clientId =15123 [Accessed via ProQuest] [PB]
“A Swiss financial management company calling itself the Sustainable Asset Management Group believes that long-term (sustainable) corporate success requires continually ‘embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments.’ They have established mutual funds that invest in companies meeting these criteria, and have

If sustainability is important when investing money for the long term, it is even more important when planning for a total economy’s long-term well-being. With modern economies inextricably linked to energy, a sustainable energy supply becomes essential. Nuclear energy fits the sustainability criteria better than other available energy sources.”
worked with Dow Jones to establish a stock index tracking the value of shares in such companies.

3. Nuclear Energy is cleaner and more sustainable than fossil fuels The South African Institution of Civil Engineers, referring to Dr. Patrick Moore (Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of
Animal Resource Ecology at the University of British Columbia under the direction of Dr. C.S. Holling in 1972), “Nuclear Power ‘Best Energy Source,’” April 2008, http://0-proquest.umi.com.library.acaweb.org/pqdweb? index=0&did=1489291571&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1259355588&clientI d=15123 [Accessed via ProQuest][PB]

“[Dr. Patrick Moore argues that] Nuclear Power is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand. This is the opinion of Dr. Patrick Moore, internationally renowned environmentalist and
chairperson of Greenspirit Strategies, who visited North-West University (NWU) on 4 March 2008 to share his perspectives on alternative energy sources and the implications of nuclear power

nuclear energy is not only cleaner than energy from fossil fuels, but also more sustainable than other energy sources such as fossil fuel, wind, and the sun. In his opinion, hydroelectric plants and nuclear plants are the best options for base load to sustain a country’s economy. He is also positive about wood and geo-thermal sources as renewable
for South Africa and the world. Dr Moore believes that energy sources. He points out that wood captures carbon and, when replaced with new trees upon felling, wood recycles the carbon contained in it. When put to good use, wood, containing approximately 50 % carbon, can be viewed as sequestering carbon.

[Dr. Moore says that] ‘If we have to weigh the consequences of introducing nuclear energy or not, taking into account the carbon dioxide emissions and the future depletion of fossil fuel, it is clear that the pros are more than the cons,’ Dr. Moore said.”

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 5 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. Nuclear Power = Safe (or Safer and Less Polluting than other Forms of Electricity
1. Nuclear does not emit significant amounts of CO2 2. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly electricity producer 3. Nuclear power is far safer than any other comparable alternative source of large-scale energy 4. Nuclear power is clean, safe, cheap and above all: Unavoidable 1. Nuclear does not emit significant amounts of CO2 Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that there are no significant emissions of greenhouse gases from the entire nuclear cycle, despite selective allegations to the contrary, by the much-discredited Storm van Leeuwen and Smith
efforts and others. Had they conducted the same analysis of ALL energy facilities they would have been more relevant and honest, but this would have resulted in a ringing endorsement of

2. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly electricity producer Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly and least environmentally harmful of any electrical generation process. If fossil fuels were to similarly pay for their detrimental environmental and health impact upon society (which they do not do at this time; see externe site: http://www.externe.info/), the costs of fossil fuel would rise considerably, and they would become even less competitive.” 3. Nuclear power is far safer than any other comparable alternative source of large-scale energy Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that nuclear power is far safer than any other comparable alternative source of large-scale energy. It is even safer than the dilute and unreliable and intermittent small-scale renewables like wind and solar.”

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 6 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

4. Nuclear power is clean, safe, cheap and above all: Unavoidable Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250

“There is now a solid recognition by most politicians in the world, and increasingly even by those in once staunchly anti-nuclear regimes in such places as Germany, Sweden, Austria and a few other Politically Correct holdouts (Italy), that nuclear power is becoming unavoidable. Furthermore, it is also shown to be the cleanest, safest, and often the cheapest way of generating reliable electricity in any advancing society.”

4. Nuclear Power = Most Affordable

1. Nuclear power is vibrant and affordable 2. Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal, oil or gas fired electricity 3. Nuclear better than coal as far as costs and emissions 4. Nuclear is the least costly way to generate electricity 1. Nuclear power is vibrant and affordable Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250

“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that nuclear power is vibrant and affordable, as France, Sweden, Switzerland, and even Germany and others so clearly demonstrate. The same is true in the U.S., where utilities now are consolidating their highly
profitable nuclear fleets and are applying for license extensions (generally granted). They are also considering building the next generation of nuclear, once the usually paralyzing influence of frivolous interveners can be blocked, and the regulatory and licensing maze is straightened and made clear. Europe would freeze in the dark were it not for France’s nuclear success as, despite another hysterical fear; that of Global Warming, they seem to be heading in the other direction, with spring a month later than normal, and thousands having frozen to death last winter.”

2. Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal, oil or gas fired electricity Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that nuclear electricity is mostly cheaper than coal, oil, or gas fired electricity, as data from the Utility Data Institute (U.S.) have shown for the last few years, and as France, Japan, Finland, Ukraine, and others already know. No coal, no oil, no gas, no choice.”

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 7 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton
3. Nuclear better than coal as far as costs and emissions

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

Professor Ferdinand E. Banks (has been a lecturer on economics at 14 universities; author of 11 books on economics and over 200 hundred articles ranging from energy to economics), “Deeper thoughts than usual about Nuclear Energy,” Energy Pulse.net, August 7, 2009, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2124
“Assuming that this is comprehensible, I would like to emphasize that nuclear cost issues need to be examined in greater detail for a meaningful discussion of electricity generation to take place.

given the various costs associated with importing and using coal, it was easy to show that nuclear was preferable. It might be possible to argue successfully that this is not true for the U.S., but I happen to enjoy another opinion. This assertion cannot be treated at great length in the present short paper, but my energy economics textbook (2007) presents a more detailed clarification. The core of my argument turns on the supply of reactor fuel, the length of ‘life’ of a reactor, the lack of carbon emissions, the possibility of a radical improvement in reactor technology and the time required to construct reactors (which is important for the investment cost, which in turn is important for the capital cost).”
For France the basic comparison was between nuclear and coal, and

4. Nuclear is the least costly way to generate electricity Professor Ferdinand E. Banks (has been a lecturer on economics at 14 universities; author of 11 books on economics and over 200 hundred articles ranging from energy to economics), “Nuclear: New Sounds from Sweden,” Energy Pulse.net, March 27, 2009, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1991 “Before continuing, let me make it clear that the main issue in this note is the ludicrous belief that the prosperity of this country can be maintained if there is a comprehensive nuclear retreat, or perhaps even a reduction in the supply of nuclear based electricity. In addition, I attempt to suggest that nuclear is the least costly way to generate electricity, although a thorough outline of this topic is relegated to the corrected version of my energy economics textbook and a forthcoming long survey paper (2007, 2009).”

5. Nuclear Power has been Managed Effectively – at Least Better than Fossil Fuels

1. Nuclear wastes have been 100% managed – better than fossil fuels 2. Alternatives other than nuclear cannot provide the energy needed along with minimal environmental impact – but nuclear does 1. Nuclear wastes have been 100% managed – better than fossil fuels Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that all nuclear wastes are 100% managed. Try saying that for coal, oil or gas, which blow most to all of their waste products into the atmosphere. If fossil fuels were required to sequester even a small fraction of their billions of tons of gaseous wastes, the energy diverted to do so, would similarly cripple their present economic rationale.”

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 8 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2. Alternatives other than nuclear cannot provide the energy needed along with minimal environmental impact – but nuclear does Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels and hydro, can’t provide the energy that any industrial or advanced society needs reliably, consistently, affordably, or with the minimal environmental impact of nuclear. And now, many fossil fuels are starting to become too expensive, and are clearly seen to be major environmental polluters.”

SOLVENCY
1. Free Market Investors Wary of Nuclear Power
1. Capitol-intensive power facilities take longer to build – hence, investors are not as interested in them because they do not offer an immediate profit – further justification for LGs Jerry Taylor (adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research; frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and National
Review; has served on several congressional advisory bodies and has testified frequently on Capitol Hill regarding various energy and environmental policy matters; member of the International Association for Energy Economics), “Nuclear Energy: Risky Business,” Reason Magazine, October 22, 2008, http://www.cato.org/people/jerry-taylor

Capital-intensive power facilities take longer to build, which means that investors have to defer returns for longer than if they had invested elsewhere. What’s more, electricity markets have a very
“This raises the opportunity and risk costs of nuclear, making it unattractive to investors. peculiar pricing mechanism that makes it harder for nuclear to maximize returns compared to gas-powered or other plants. In essence, there are two electricity markets: a market for base-load power (electricity sold 24-hours a day) and a market for peak power (electricity sold as needed during peak demand periods like hot summer days). Much of the demand for new power-and thus much of the profit available to investors today-is found in the peak market. But nuclear power plant construction costs are so high that it would take a very, very long time for nuclear facilities to pay for themselves if they only operated during high demand periods. Hence, nuclear power plants are only profitable in base-load markets. Gas-fired power plants, on the other hand, can be profitable in either market because not only are their upfront costs low but it is much easier to turn them off or on unlike nuclear.”

“Investors are also wary of nuclear plants because of the construction delays and cost over-runs that have historically plagued the industry. For instance, the Areva/Siemens nuclear power plant being built for TVO in Finland-the first nuclear power plant to be built in a relatively free energy market
in decades-once scheduled to be operational within 54 months, is now two years behind schedule and 60% over budget. Nor have these construction delays had anything to do with regulatory obstruction or organized public opposition.”

2. The reason free-market investors won’t invest in renewable energy: Control Jeff Vail (an attorney at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP in Denver, Colorado specializing in commercial litigation; a
former intelligence officer with the US Air Force and energy infrastructure counterterrorism specialist with the US Department of the Interior), “Why the free market fails consumers in sustainable energy innovation,” Energy Bulletin, March 5, 2007, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26869

“Now a question: is free-market innovation the best way to develop viable, sustainable energy alternatives? The free market will ignore solutions that can’t turn a profit. Any firm that fails to follow this simple maxim won’t be in business for long. The corollary to this maxim is that the free market will ignore any solution that cannot be controlled, either through property interests (enforceable intellectual property, monopoly licenses, etc.) or because economies of scale demand centralized operation. This means that free market innovation is structurally incompatible with a huge portion of the universe of possible energy solutions. Free markets love non-renewable energy sources because they are readily controlled. In countries where mineral rights are privately owned (only the US and Canada), these resources can be controlled via property rights. In the rest of the world, they can be controlled equally easily through exclusive contracts with governments. But renewable energy presents a serious control challenge to the free market’s need to profit.”

DISADVANTAGES
Smile, it’s the end of the world : ) Page 9 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton 1) Global Warming
1. Nuclear does not emit significant amounts of CO2

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

A. Internal Link #1: Nuclear Energy Pollutes Less than other Forms of Electricity

Dr. John K. Sutherland (Chief Scientist at Edu-tech Enterprises; retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for
almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees; writes about energy in general, radiation, radiation protection, and nuclear power, and provides courses to nuclear workers, university students, high school teachers, members of industry, and emergency responders; ) , “The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks,” Energy Pulse.net, April 21, 2006, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1250
“The broad-based anti-nuclear constituency, despite temporary victories in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. and elsewhere (Sweden, Germany, Austria, Finland etc.), has recently seen its legs cut out from under it on most energy issues, as the accumulating facts about safety, environmental impact, health impact, long term fuel availability, and cradle to grave costs, from

the last 50 years of growing commercial nuclear electricity have shown that there are no significant emissions of greenhouse gases from the entire nuclear cycle, despite selective allegations to the contrary, by the much-discredited Storm van Leeuwen and Smith
efforts and others. Had they conducted the same analysis of ALL energy facilities they would have been more relevant and honest, but this would have resulted in a ringing endorsement of

2. Coal-Derived Electricity Pollutes Eric P. Loewen (PhD; consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho), “Nuclear Power Can Help Solve Energy Crisis,” National Defense Industrial Association, August 2001,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ARCHIVE/2001/AUGUST/Pages/Nuclear_Power4218.aspx [BC]

“The United States alone pumped the equivalent of nearly 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2005. More than 2 billion tons of that came from electricity generation – not surprising, considering that we burn fossil fuels for 70% of our electricity. About half of all our electricity comes from more than 500 coal-fired plants. Besides contributing to global warming, their pollution has a serious health impact. Burning coal releases fine particulates that kill 24,000 Americans annually and cause hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart problems.”

B. Internal Link #2: Global Warming Caused by Pollution
Michael D. Mastrandrea (B.S.; Graduate Fellow from the School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, at Stanford University) & Stephen H. Schneider (Ph.D.; Professor of Biological Sciences at Stanford University),
“Global warming,” World Book Online Reference Center, 2005, World Book, Inc, http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310

“The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to
produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.”

C. Link: Aff Abolishes Nuclear Loan Guarantees

Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants

D. Internal Link #3: LGs Needed for the Expansion of Nuclear Power

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 10 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

Dr. Aris Candris (president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company; B.A. in physics, math and engineering from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky; M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; member of the Board of Trustees for Transylvania University; member of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Board of Directors), “Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

“These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that’s needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country’s economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.”

E. Internal Link #4: Without Nuclear Power, Coal and other Fuels will be Used Instead, Increasing Pollution F. Impact: Increased Global Warming 2) Lost Jobs, Hurt Economy, etc. A. Link: Aff Abolishes LGs
Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants Dr. Aris Candris (president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company; B.A. in physics, math and engineering from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky; M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; member of the Board of Trustees for Transylvania University; member of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Board of Directors), “Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

B. Internal Link #1: Nuclear Power Needs LGs to Survive

“These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that’s needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country’s economic competitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.” Nuclear Energy Industry is a Stimulus Package in and of Itself

C. Internal Link #2: Nuclear Power Creates Jobs that Bolster our Failing Economy

Dr. Aris Candris (president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company; B.A. in physics, math and engineering from Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky; M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; member of the Board of Trustees for Transylvania University; member of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Board of Directors), “Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

The growth of nuclear power will also have peripheral benefits, as it constitutes an economic stimulus package in and of itself. To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse’s work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc. Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.”
“Nuclear energy, therefore, must play a larger role in our effort to become and remain energy independent, and to reduce carbon emissions.

D. Impact: Clearly, Without Nuclear Power, These Jobs Will be Lost, Further Upsetting Our Economy

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 11 of 12

NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON Preston Black – Black/Cotton 3) Coal Mining A. Link: Aff Abolishes Nuclear LGs

HSD Research Club – Assignment #3 Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

B. Internal Link #1: Without LGs, Nuclear cannot Survive C. Uniqueness: Nuclear Power Attributes to 20% of our Electricity D. Internal Link #2: Most of the Rest of our Electricity comes from Coal – 60%, to be Exact E. Internal Link #3: It Makes Sense, then, to Conclude that without Nuclear Energy, more Coal will be used in Order to Satisfy our Electricity Needs. And if We Increase our Use of Coal, then We will Have to Increase Coal Mining F. Brink: Not Only Does the Burning of Coal Fuel Global Warming, but Coal Mining Kills Thousands and Causes Irreversible Damage to the Environment G. Impact: Judge, by Enacting the Affirmative’s Plan, You would get rid of the Nuclear Industry (which Decreases the Damage done by Coal Mining and Burning), and Doing so would Increase the Problems of Coal Mentioned Above

Smile, it’s the end of the world : )

Page 12 of 12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->