Round 123: TheHutt(Aff) vs. Leapofaith97(Neg)

[leapofaith97]

Standard Rules, 100 word leeway, looking for jadges.

If anyone wasnts to mod the rules, let me know. I'm pretty laid back about this vdebate, so I wont be too uptight or set on anything.

[Xerox]

If you'd like I'll judge....

My paradigm is simple....

Aff- don't drop any arguements

I'll only vote on a counterplan if its well organized and really claims net benefits, its competetive, and overall a better alternative than the aff case

Won't vote on a K

T is alright, as long as its well defended and refuted

Theory.... well make sure its significant.... like claim a counterplan is topical, no neg fiat, etc.

give roadmaps

[Mr. T]

I will judge my Paradigm is in the Paradigm thread.

[Snarf]

I'll judge

Clear impacts and I'll vote on anything.

Case work - do it.

Kritiks - Impacts clear

T - I have a slightly higher neg threshold

Theory - Not preferred, but you can go for it.

[TheHutt]

I'm going to strike Xerox and Peak-a-Who. PFBlogger is fine.

2 or 4 more judges would be good. The 1AC will be up as soon as I knock out a 12 page term paper and finish cutting a new advantage.

[brainjohn2005]

I'll judge. I can copy/paste my paradigm from another thread if you need it, but the gist- I will vote on anything thats impacted well.

[nukified]

I could possible judge if needed.. my paradigm is in the thread, but i will go ahead and post again in here..

I have a few years of debate experience on me, and I debate in Kansas, so I'm a contemporary-style debater in a traditional state ...

Generic:
I will tend to wave as a policy-maker, though if u tell me to view the round in a different paradigm, then sure! Also, I believe in no judge intervention, so please, do the work for me, don't make me try to figure out where things go

General AFF:
Give me some offense to work with.

CP:
I'm fine with 'em... just impact it out.

K's:
I'm starting to get into and read critical literature, so if you run this, please explain and give detailed analysis. Tell me what the role of the ballot is. I would prefer more specific links, but wont vote down if its a generic link (i understand its hard to find that kind of crap).

DA's:
I would prefer case-specific links, but it won't be necessary (i run gen ones all the time)

T:
With this topic, i tend to err aff on T, unless neg proves a big story (once again, trying to stay more tab than anything)

Theory:
I will vote on theory, as long as you give well warranted arguments, and really prove your story. I tend to allow neg some room on CP theory, especially if its something like condi bad, compared to say, consults are abusive or PICS abusive...the SPECS i tend to find hilarious, unless you can prove a solid abuse story where it totally torches your chance of running anything.

[leapofaith97]

Originally Posted by TheHutt

I'm going to strike Xerox and Peak-a-Who. PFBlogger is fine.

2 or 4 more judges would be good. The 1AC will be up as soon as I knock out a 12 page term paper and finish cutting a new advantage.

Agreed, and I'm down with brainjohn and nukified.

And take your time with the paper if you need to. No reason to submarine your grade for a vdebate!

[TheHutt]

We could use two more judges if anyone is up for it.

I'll post the 1AC tomorrow night after my tournament.

[aldjzair]

yeah, I'm down to judge

I left a pair o' dimes in the pair o' dimes thread.

you can ask me anything.

I like Ks and humor.

But I have no problem with a good policy strat.

just keep it real.

[4n6er]

preston, youre silly. go prep for real debate.

[TheHutt]

aldjzair is fine. One more judge and I'll post the 1AC.

[aburo]

I'll judge if you guys need me. I'm pretty much tabula rasa. My full paradigm is on the judges page.

[Studley Dudley]

I'll judge as well. However I'll just preface this by saying that I've never run "aff must interpret and meet every word in the resolution in the 1ac" theory before.

[aburo]

Originally Posted by FPS9_16

I'll judge as well. However I'll just preface this by saying that I've never run "aff must interpret and meet every word in the resolution in the 1ac" theory before.

Haha, that's good to know! Are you alluding to something?

[TheHutt]

I affirm: Resolved, the United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.


Contention 1 - I am topical

First, Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the context of the resolution

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)

Resolved:
5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).

And, the colon just elaborates on what the debate community was resolved to debate:

Encarta World Dictionary, 07 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861598666)

co·lon(plural co·lons)
noun
Definition:
1. punctuation mark: the punctuation mark ( used to divide distinct but related sentence components such as clauses in which the second elaborates on the first, or to introduce a list, quotation, or speech. A colon is sometimes used in U.S. business letters after the salutation. Colons are also used between numbers in statements of proportion or time and Biblical or literary references.

Next. ‘The’ means unique, as in there is one USFG

Merriam-Webster's Online Collegiate Dictionary, 08, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
b -- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class <the President> <the Lord>

The U.S. government is 3 branches

Black’s Law Dictionary, 90 (6th Edition, p. 695)

In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.

Should expresses desirability

Cambridge Dictionary of American English, 07 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=should*1+0&dict=A)

should (DUTY) auxiliary verb used to express that it is necessary, desirable, advisable, or important to perform the action of the following verb



A substantial increase in energy incentives is at least 18 billion dollars

US Fed News, 08 (Press Release for Representative Phil Hare, 2/27, “REP. HARE AGAIN VOTES TO REDIRECT FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FROM OIL COMPANIES INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY,” lexis)

Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) today voted to repeal $18 billion in tax cuts for oil companies and substantially increase federal investment in renewable energy. It is the third time he has voted for such a measure in the 110th Congress.
"Providing tax giveaways to profit-rich oil companies adds insult to injury for every American struggling with the price at the pump," Hare said.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act redirects these subsidies into tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel. "Investing in renewable energy will directly benefit 17th District farmers and businesses and create thousands of new jobs in our region," Hare said.


Increase means net increase

Words and Phrases, 08 (v. 20a, p.264-265)

Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of existing thermal power plant, refers to “net increase” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy Commission cannot ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant. West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 25123.


‘Alternative energy’ excludes any energy involving coal, oil, or natural gas
Information Architects, June 18, 2008, “Green Glossary,” online: http://www.iagreen.com/glossary.htm, accessed July 13, 2008
Alternative Energy: Energy from a source other than the conventional fossil-fuel sources of oil, natural gas and coal (i.e., wind, running water, the sun). Also referred to as "alternative fuel."

And, Incentives are government measures designed to influence investment decisions

Wang, 02 (Yan, Chinese Legal Reform: the Case of Foreign Investment Law, p. 226)

An OECD study gives the following working definition of incentives (and disincentives): “An incentive (or disincentive) will be understood as any government measure designed to influence an investment decision, and increasing (or reducing) the profit accruing to the potential investment or altering the risks attaching to it.” It is evident that a very large number of measures are covered by this notion. See OECD, Investment Incentives and Disincentives and the International Investment Process. Paris: OECD, 1983, p.10.

Next, the word ‘in’ means throughout


Words and Phrases, 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207)

Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.


United States includes all areas under U.S. jurisdiction

Rainey, 95 - US District Judge (John, DONALD RAY LOOPER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS FIRM'S CLIENTS, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM C. MORGAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE, AND ALL UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH OF A BRIEFCASE AT INTER-CONTINENTAL AIRPORT IN HOUSTON, TEXAS, Defendants.
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10241, lexis)

The term "United States" means the United States and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not really. But here we go for real - should be about 2070 words I think.

Contention One - “Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.”

A. CURRENT NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY RELIES ON THE OPEN FUEL CYCLE

Bodansky 06 [David, emeritus prof physics- U of WA, Physics Today; Dec2006, Vol. 59 Issue 12, p80-81]

The once-through (also called open) fuel cycle, which does not include reprocessing, is currently used for US commercial nuclear power. Spent fuel is initially kept in water-filled cooling pools at the reactor site, pending eventual transfer to a central repository for interim storage or long-term disposal. No central repositories have been developed yet, and some of the cooling pools have reached their capacity. A common solution has been dry storage--moving the fuel to on-site, heavy, protective casks where convective air cooling suffices. An American Physical Society study published in 2005 judged that dry cask storage, either at the reactor sites or at central facilities, would be "safe and affordable" for at least 50 years. Two years earlier an MIT study recommended continuing the US reliance on the once-through fuel cycle "for the next decades." The possibilities of interim storage and of long-term disposal in the Yucca Mountain repository do remove the urgency of selecting a reprocessing option, but the once-through cycle will not suffice for the long-term, large-scale use of nuclear energy.



B. FEDERAL ENERGY POLICY MARGINALIZES FAST REACTORS

US DOE ’08 [US Dept of Energy, April 25, http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV4.html]

While the Department is supporting research on several reactor concepts, priority is being given to theVHTR, a system compatible with advanced electricity and hydrogen electricity generation capabilities. The VHTR concept is being pursued in the United States as the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) in accordance with the Energy Policy act of 2005. The emphasis on VHTR reflects its potential for economically and safely producing electricity and hydrogen at high efficiency without emitting noxious gases. This fits within the medium-term Administration goals of enhancing the security of our energy supply and doing so in an environmentally responsible manner. Fuel cycle options for the VHTR (a thermal-spectrum reactor) are more limited than for fast-spectrum reactors. Fast-spectrum reactors are a potential component in our long-term energy solution and, as such,are researched at a lower level of activity than the other reactor concepts. Their mission strengths result from their superior ability to burn recycled nuclear fuel. Closing the fuel cycle by recycling will reduce quantity and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste and increaseuraniumfuel utilization.


C. THE U.S. INEVITABLY WILL REVIVE NUCLEAR POWER - IT’S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT KIND OF REACTORS GET BUILT

Lake o6 [James A., Associate Director for the Nuclear Program, The Idaho National Laboratory, http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060706173216SAikceinawz0.2218897.html, 07/14/08]

As we close out the second era of nuclear power, the era of financial and safety recovery, nuclear power is poised to contribute even more to U.S. and world energy needs. This recovery will be fueled in part by growing national energy security concerns and rising costs of imported fossil fuels; substantial demand growth for energy to fuel our economic prosperity; increased attention to eliminating environmental threats associated with burning fossil fuels and substituting emissions-free nuclear power; and an electricity market very favorable to inexpensive nuclear power.


Thus the Plan:

The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for commercial closed fuel cycle, integral fast reactor technology using pyroprocessing, specifically: offering uncapped federal loan guarantees, and by offering cooperative agreements for collaboration on IFR research and development demonstration programs.

I’ll clarify if needed.



Contention Two is U.S. Leadership

A. NUCLEAR POWER IS EXPANDING GLOBALLY - THE U.S. CAN STILL EXERT INFLUENCE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY, BUT THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY IS RAPIDLY CLOSING

Marsh 07 [former DoD consultant on strategic nuclear tech and policy, Gerald E, “Can the Clash of Civilizations Produce Alternate Energy Sources?”, USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education, Vol. 135, January 2007.]

Nuclear power is going to expand globally whether the U.S. plays a role or not. China brought six new reactors on-line between 2002-04, and plans at least another 30 in the next 15 years. India is planning for 30, with seven due to come on-line by 2008. For nuclear power to spread through the developing world beyond these two countries without the threat of additional proliferation of nuclear weapons, we need a new model, hopefully one fashioned by the U.S. with its ability to structure the necessary international framework.A somewhat promising start has been made with the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, under which the world's leading nuclear exporters would guarantee that all countries have access to a reliable source of fuel for civilian reactors at a reasonable cost. The spent fuel would be returned for recycling and waste disposal. In return, the non-nuclear weapons nations would renounce enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel. To win acceptance, the supplier nations' fuel and waste-disposal services must be guaranteed by a global entity such as the International Energy Agency or the International Atomic Energy Agency.The technical part of the new model already exists: Under an arrangement known as "hub-spoke," self-contained reactors, sometimes called "nuclear batteries," would be available in a variety of sizes. Sealed and failsafe, they would be manufactured at a central location and rented to nations needing more energy. Running them would not require advanced nuclear expertise. At the end of their 15- to 30-year life, the exhausted reactor cores, still sealed, would be traded for rejuvenated ones. In fact, Toshiba has developed a nuclear battery and, to demonstrate it, the company has offered to install one at Galena, Alaska (population 650) for free. The reactor would put out 10 megawatts of electricity--just right for Galena--although much larger modular units can be produced. The combination of hub-spoke with a secure, internationally guaranteed fuel recycling and waste disposal arrangement for all nations having conventional nuclear reactors would permit the inevitable spread of civilian nuclear power without making the proliferation of nuclear weapons any more likely. If the IEA is correct, the time we have to formulate an appropriate policy and begin investment is a mere five to seven years. We need to act now.




B. STATUS QUO PUREX SPENT FUEL RECYCLING IS GAINING MOMENTUM

Hannum, Marsh and Stanford 07 [William H, Gerald E, and George S. Stanford is a renowned nuclear physicist recognized for his work on the IFR. “Recycling Nuclear Waste.” American Physical Society Special Session on Nuclear Reprocessing, Nuclear Proliferation, and Terrorism, 15 April, http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/up...ing_APS_07.pdf. Accessed 7/15/08]

Nuclear power will be rapidly expanding worldwide for the foreseeable future—and plans and policies announced by China, India, Japan, France, and other nations make it clear that recycle of nuclear fuel will be a growing part of the picture. The growth of nuclear power will displace much of the demand for fossil resources, and will relieve much of the concern over release of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, the growing use of nuclear power around the world contains the prospect of de facto acceptance of PUREX type reprocessing. The French model is considered to be successful - it allows distinct waste management advantages in terms of engineered waste forms, a modest resource extension, and at least a partial recovery of waste management costs from plutonium recycle. However, it will lead to expanded inventories of and commerce in separated plutonium, complicating the already challenging safeguards problem.



WE’LL ISOLATE TWO IMPACTS -

C. FIRST IS PROLIFERATION

1) PUREX ALLOWS FOR UNCHECKED PROLIFERATION

Gilinski, Miller, and Hubbard 04 [Victor, Marvin, and Harmon, The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “A fresh examination of the proliferation dangers of light water reactors.” October 22, http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/20041...kyEtAl-LWR.pdf, accessed 7/17/08]

Conclusion: small-scale clandestine reprocessing is a credible possibility in countries seeking nuclear weapons.It is credible that states that operate nuclear reactors could also build and operate small PUREX reprocessing plants to extract militarily significant quantities of plutonium from LWR spent fuel. It is also credible that they could extract such quantities before detection by the IAEA or by national intelligence. The clandestine reprocessing of old spent fuel— that has been in storage for many years— is particularly worrisome because its lower radiation level makes it easier to divert, transport, and reprocess, and more difficult to detect. Krypton-85, the most detectable signature for reprocessing plant operation decayswith a ten year half-life.These considerations underline the fact that the once through fuel cycle is not a panacea for preventing proliferation, and cast doubt on current proposals to lessen theIAEA inspection effort at LWRs, at least without further assessment.



2) PROLIFERATION LEADS TO COLOSSAL NUCLEAR SHOOTOUTS, ANNIHILATING ALL LIFE ON EARTH

Utgoff 2002 (Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival Vol 44 No 2 Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions, p. 87-90)

Many readers are probably wilting to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent's nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second, as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons falling into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Increased prospects for the occasional nuclear shootout Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons.And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used,unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero.To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in airy confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero." These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict.China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them.Again, history provides counter-examples. Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain's efforts to take them back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a 'victory or destruction' policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat.} And Japan's war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested 'Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower''- If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states.' Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognise clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. 'These people are not willing to die for this interest'. 'No sane person would actually use such weapons'. 'Perhaps the opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons'. 'If I don't hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed'. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within, might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.'Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980's led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. <continued…no text removed>
<continued…no text removed> Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand.' Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespreadproliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.



D. SECOND IS TERRORISM

1) CONVENTIONAL REPROCESSING ALLOWS TERRORISTS TO STEAL SEPARATED WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM FOR NUCLEAR BOMBS UNNOTICED

UCS ‘08 (Union of Concerned Scientists ‘08 7/9/08)(http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...pent-fuel.html)

Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear terrorism. Less than 20 pounds of plutonium is needed to make a nuclear weapon. If the plutonium remains bound in large, heavy, and highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies (the current U.S. prac*tice), it is nearly impossible to steal. In contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive and is stored in a concentrated powder form. Some claim that new reprocessing technologies that would leave the plutonium blended with other elements, such as neptunium, would result in a mixture that would be too radioactive to steal. This is incorrect; neither neptunium nor the other elements under consideration are radioactive enough to preclude theft. Most of these other elements are also weapon-usable. Moreover, commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much of this material that it has proven impossible to keep track of it accurately in a timely manner,making it feasible that the theft of enough plutonium to build several bombs could go undetected for years. A U.S. reprocessing program would add to the worldwide stockpile of separated and vulnerable plutonium that sits in storage today, which totaled roughly 250 metric tons as of the end of 2005—enough for some 40,000 nuclear weapons. Reprocessing the U.S. spent fuel generated to date would increase this by more than 500 metric tons.

2) NUCLEAR TERRORISM ESCALATES INTO A THIRD WORLD WAR, CAUSING GLOBAL NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON

Sid-Ahmed ‘04 (Mohamed, staff writer, Al-Ahram, Sept. 1, issue number 705, “Extinction!”, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

The phenomenon of terrorism is even more dangerous than is generally believed. We are in for surprises no less serious than 9/11 and with far more devastating consequences. A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harboring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if itfails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening worldin which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilizations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.



E. THE IFR SOLVES PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM - PYROPROCESSING MAKES EXTRACTING PLUTONIUM FROM THE CLOSED-FUEL CYCLE IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Stanford '01 [George, Ph.D., nuclear reactor physicist, retired from Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html, accessed 7/17/08.]

Why is the IFR better than PUREX? Doesn't "recycling" mean separation of plutonium, regardless of the method? No, not in the IFR - and that misunderstanding accounts for some of the opposition. The IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons. If a proliferator were to start with IFR material, he or she would have to employ an extra chemical separation step. But there is plutonium in IFRs, along with other fissionable isotopes. Seems to me that a proliferator could take some of that and make a bomb. Some people do say that, but they're wrong, according to expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory. They looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactiv(e)ityand spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium. So? Why wouldn't they use chemical separation? First of all, they would need a PUREX-type plant - something that does not exist in the IFR cycle. Second, the input material is so fiendishly radioactive that the processing facility would have to be more elaborate than any PUREX plant now in existence. The operations would have to be done entirely by remote control, behind heavy shielding, or the operators would die before getting the job done. The installation would cost millions, and would be very hard to conceal. Third, a routine safeguards regime would readily spot any such modificationto an IFR plant , or diversion of highly radioactive material beyond the plant. Fourth, of all the ways there are to get plutonium - of any isotopic quality - this is probably the all-time, hands-down hardest.



F. PLAN SOLVES - ADVANCING IFR TECHNOLOGY GLOBALLY IS KEY TO REASSERTING U.S. NUCLEAR ENERGY LEADERSHIP AND DISPLACING REPROCESSING WITH IFRS

Hannum, Marsh and Stanford 07 [William H, Gerald E, and George S. Stanford is a renowned nuclear physicist recognized for his work on the IFR. “Recycling Nuclear Waste.” American Physical Society Special Session on Nuclear Reprocessing, Nuclear Proliferation, and Terrorism, 15 April, http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/up...ing_APS_07.pdf. Accessed 7/15/08]

The choice facing us in the United States is stark: participate or not. Our country is still the single most important economy, and continues to have by far the most important political voice in the world. We need to be a leader both in the technology of nuclear power, and in the diplomatic initiatives to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. None of the international structures set up since WW-II would exist if it were not for the United States. Without strong U.S. participation, the needed international structures will not be developed, and the unrestricted spread of technology that can be subverted to bomb-making is assured. Widespread nuclear power—properly managed, and made feasible by the advent ofeffective recycle technology—will provide a major economic benefit, will have a huge, positive environmental impact, and will be a major part of a successful counter-proliferation strategy.


G. IFR TECHNOLOGY WILL BE MODELED INTERNATIONALLY

Stanford 06 [George, PhD, retired nuclear physicist, interview with Ann Curtis, August 8, http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1600390#post1600390]

6. If the US were to embrace the IFR, would other countries follow the lead?
Only if the U.S.-developed technology were shown convincingly to be superior (which I think it is). Already India, China, France, Japan, and other countries are proceeding with their own development programs. We abandoned leadership in the field with the termination of the IFR program in 1994, and are now starting to feel the consequences.



Contention Three is Yucca Yucca Yucky Yucca

A. THERMAL REACTORS REQUIRE WASTE STORAGE FOR 10,000 YEARS, MAKING THE OPENING OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN INEVITABLE

Llanos 08 [Miguel. Staff reporter, MSNBC, “Nuclear waste: No way out?” MSNBC Interactive, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3072031/]

The slow ride into the belly of Yucca Mountain offers time to reflect on the magnitude of what’s going on here. Never before has man tried to dig a tomb shielding us from something so deadly for so long — at least 10,000 years. What the $58 billion project would bury is 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants across the United States. For Abe Van Luik, a senior policy adviser for the U.S. Energy Department’s Yucca Mountain Project, that engineering challenge is what drives his dedication. And that dedication makes him defensive about the work that’s gone into the project so far — $7 billion to pay for millions of manhours of research and the exploratory tunnel that takes scientists and visitors into the mountain. “They try to make us look like dopes and doofuses,” he says of critics. “It’s time for the gloves to come off.” But critics, including environmentalists and the state of Nevada, say that even more time and thought should go into how to dispose of the waste, especially since it would be lethal for thousands of years. Burying the waste in Yucca Mountain is “extremely bad science, extremely bad law and extremely bad public policy,” Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, told Congress shortly before the U.S. House voted overwhelmingly last month to back President Bush’s recommendation that Yucca go forward.

WE’LL ISOLATE TWO IMPACTS

B. FIRST BIOSPHERICIDE -

1) YUCCA IS PRONE TO EARTHQUAKES - EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

MacFarlane ‘00 (Allison, The Earth Around Us, Jill Schneiderman- editor, pg. 291)

Perhaps the second most pressing technical issue at Yucca Mountain has to do with its geological stability Actually, the Yucca Mountain region is not as stable as it first looked. It is located in the heart of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States, an area that was and still is tectonically active. The majority of recent earthquake activity is located south and west of Yucca Mountain, relatively close to the San Andreas fault system. The Yucca Mountain region itself has experienced seismicity. On 29 June 1992,a magnitude 5.4 earthquake centered on an unknown fault in Little Skull Mountain, six miles southeast of Yucca Mountain, rocked the area.’4 There are other active major faults in the region also. The length of the mountain runs north—south, parallel to the most potentially hazardous fault in the region, the Bare Moun*tain fault, located about six miles to the west of Yucca Mountain. There are active faults within the repository itself, the largest of which are the Ghost Dance and Bow Ridge faults.

2) A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE WOULD CAUSE PLUTONIUM TO LEAK INTO THE ATMOSPHERE

Cyber West`97 (Cyber West Magazine, Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository September 2, 1997 http://www.cyberwest.com/cw14/14scwst2.html)

But within a 6-mile area north of the proposed storage facility the groundwater level rapidly rises to a more normal depth of about 600 feet. The reason for this abrupt change in the water table is a cause for concern, Davies said. Davies and Archambeau believe that the presence of open fractures underneath Yucca Mountain has allowed the water table to descend to unusually low depths, and that closed fractures to the north have resulted in a more normal water table level. The danger is that an earthquake of sufficient magnitude could cause the open fractures underneath the Yucca Mountain site to squeeze shut, forcing the water upward into the storage facility. "If water hits the storage area it could cause a rapid corrosive breakdown of the containers and allow the plutonium to leak into the water table and the atmosphere," Davies said.


3) THE IMPACT IS BIOSPHEREICIDE

Comarow, 2001 Yucca Mountain: Time to Think the UnthinkableTestimony presented at US Department of Energy Public Hearing 12-8-2001 by David Comarow http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...2001-12-08.htm

None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable.We are not talking about theshort-term or even long-term economic prosperity of Las Vegas. We are talking about nothing less than the survival of the human race. Lest you dismiss this as just more fanatic hyperbole, let this be a reality check: Yucca Mountain will holdall of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US - with about 10% additional defense waste-- some 77,000 tons. The danger of getting it here aside for a moment, the amount of radioactivity and energy to be stored in one place, under that relatively tiny little bump in the desert is easily enough to contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere.Is that unthinkable? No. If it is possible, it is thinkable.When you are talking about these types of risks, risks that can endanger entire segments of our population, let alone the entire earth, then the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to merely calculate the risks as "extremely low" - because there is no "low enough" when the consequences are so cataclysmic. We accept certain risks, which are relatively high - 50,000 traffic deaths per year for example. But, as terrible as those deaths and injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation or the survival of the human race. We are less willing to accept such risks when the consequences happen all at once -- plane crashes for example. That is our human nature. We are willing to spend much more to lower the risk of death in groups than chronic deaths spread out over time and space. As a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions.


C. SECOND SCENARIO IS TRANSIT TERROR

1) TRANSPORTING WASTE TO YUCCA REQUIRES THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL MOBILE CHERNOBYLS - MAKING AN IRRESITABLE TARGET FOR TERRORISTS

NIRS 06 (Nuclear Information and Resources, "Mobile Chernobyl" - High-Level Radioactive Waste Transport, http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/hlwtran...echernobyl.htm)

The same material that blew apart and burned during the Chernobylwould be transported through countless communities across the U.S. if the nuclear establishment gets its way nuclear catastrophe in 1986 – highly radioactive, irradiated nuclear fuel – . The U.S. Department of Energy proposes shipping tens of thousands of trucks, trains and barges carrying irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through 45 states and the District of Columbia. DOE wants to dump these highly radioactive wastes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A nuclear utility consortium called Private Fuel Storage, LLC proposes shipping 4,000 irradiated nuclear fuel railcars to Skull Valley, Utah for "temporary storage." Such proposals dwarf the 2,500 to 3,000 irradiated nuclear fuel shipments that have taken place in the U.S. since the beginning of the Nuclear Age well over 50 years ago. Each truck-sized container would hold up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The much larger train/barge containers would each hold over 200 times Hiroshima’s long-lasting radioactivity. These shipping containers are vulnerable to severe accidents. Even a fraction of a single shipping container’s radioactive cargo escaping into the environment could prove catastrophic for an entire areadownwind and downstream. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not even require them to undergo full-scale physical safety testing! The containers are also vulnerable to terrorist attack, making them massive “dirty bombs on wheels.”


2) CROSS-APPLY SID-AHMED ’04 FROM THE LEADERSHIP FLOW - A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK WOULD LEAD TO EXTINCTION


E. THE IFR SOLVES BOTH SCENARIONS - IT USES WASTE AS FUEL, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Ockert,’06 [Carl E., retired nuclear engineer. “Energy Alternative”. The Washington Times, May 7]

Although dangerous, atomic power has the best safety record of any U.S. industry. That is because we have from the beginning designed each such power plant with triple redundant safety features. The biggest problem we have had is the safe and efficient disposal of the spent fuel. However that problem was solved over 12 years ago at the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago. Their final design, called the Integral Fast Reactor, essentially burns up the portion of the spent fuel elements that require permanent storage. It not only eliminates almost all its own long storage waste, it can efficiently extract power from existing waste fuel produced by the current generation of pressurized water cooled nuclear reactors. In addition to solving the fuel storage problem, the IFR introduces passive safety features such that under any conceivable circumstance, even with a total loss of electrical power and a total disablement of the reactor operators, the reactor will safely shut itself down.

Contention Four is Solvency

A. ONLY A FAST REACTOR CAN CLOSE THE FUEL CYCLE - THE U.S. MUST ACT NOW

Stanford ’03 [George, nuclear physicist, ret Argonne Nat’l Lab, from the Proceedings of “Global 2003,” ANS Winter Meeting, New Orleans, November 16–20, http://www.nationalcenter.org/LWRStanford.pdf]

A technology that fully closes the fuel cycle must consume the plutonium and minor actinides almost completely. Currently, at least, that can only be done in a fast-neutron spectrum.Under the present schedule, the United States is putting off the decision as to whether to close its fuel cycle until the year 2030.[3] That decision could be made much sooner, however. Technologies that can do the job have already been established or are close to being demonstrated. Of potential fast-neutron systems, the one that is closest to commercial viability is the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR; PRISM), developed by General Electric with support from Argonne National Laboratory, [3] and converted by GE to a larger design called Super-PRISM (SPRISM).[4] The reactor uses metallic fuel and a liquidmetal coolant (sodium), and is passively safe. It operates in conjunction with a pyrometallurgical reprocessing facility that is part of the reactor complex,* thereby minimizing the need to transport plutonium and spent fuel. The pyroprocess is non-aqueous and exceptionally proliferation resistant—its plutonium is sequestered in an inert atmosphere in very radioactive surroundings, never has the chemical purity needed nor the isotopic purity desirable for weapons, and never leaves the complex during the plant’s lifetime (except for possible shipment of startup fuel for a new plant, when spent fuel from thermal reactors is no longer available). The details of a feasible system for integrating the thermal- and fast-reactor cycles have been presented by Dubberly et al.[5] Ehrman et al. have shown that LWR spent fuel can be processed to supply LMRs at no cost to the government— the cost being covered by the (competitive) busbar cost of power from the LMRs.[6] In 1994 a consortium headed by General Electric proposed to design, construct, and test a functioning prototypeALMR in less than fifteen years. Such a project could be initiated immediately, while optimization studies for future systems proceed in parallel under Gen-IV.

B. REAL WORLD RESEARCH PROVES - IFRs WORK

Berkeley Dept of Nuclear Engineering ’03[July 25, “Introduction to Argonne Nat’l Lab’s IFR Program,” http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html]

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program was the nation's premier research and development effort focused on the basic design concepts and testing the next generation nuclear power plant. The IFR development work provides solutions in the areas of concern for today's nuclear plants. These solutions are integrated into a single, coherent nuclear plant concept. The work at Argonne included real-world testing, not just computer simulation, so that the results are not open to question. This was being done to allow larger, commercial plants to be built with confidence. The IFR work included research and development in plant safety, waste, transportation, economics, prevention of the diversion of nuclear materials, and includes a plant for which the fuel is so plentiful that fuel costs cannot reasonably outrun inflation. Theseimportant areas of focus are all included in the IFR, hence the name "Integral". The objective for this work was to determine the best approach for the design of the next generation nuclear plant -- to build on the excellent record of today's nuclear plant, but to simplify, integrate, and take maximum advantage of natural phenomenon for protection and operation. A system has been worked out in which a new fuel type has allowed major advances in improving safety, economics, and minimizing the need for waste storage. It is now clear that the IFR effort would have resulted in a "new and improved" nuclear plant -- one that can serve as the electric power source of choice for an energy hungry, but environmentally aware and concerned world.


C. LOAN GUARANTEES WOULD STIMUATE THE INDUSTRY AND COST TAXPAYERS NOTHING

Adams`8 (Theodore G., a physicist at T. G. Adams and Associates in Springville., Federal loan guarantees key to nuclear plant construction, The Buffalo news, 6/08/08 http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/365369.html)

With America’s greenhouse-gas emissions increasing daily, it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then will we be able to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting our nation’s growing need for electricity.Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants.



D. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS WOULD FAST-TRACK NRC LICENSING AND APPROVAL

Kirsche 2008 (Steve, computer scientist and inventor of the optical mouse [HAIL!]. Excerpt of Q&A with Tom Blees, author of “Prescription for the Planet”, August 17, http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrQandA.htm]

The commercial demonstration should be a top national priority. A private consortium involving GE might be able to do it as well. Ideally, Congress should fund DOE to have General Electric build a demonstration plant built. In order to expedite certification and licensing by the NRC, the most expeditious way would be to build a reactor vessel for $50 million, stick it at a university or national lab, and instead of filling it with sodium fill it with water. Build a mockup of the fuel assemblies, also out of non-radioactive material, and use that setup-which would require no licensing-as a prototype to demonstrate to the NRC the efficacy of the systems. For example, the NRC would say, what happens if you drop a fuel assembly when refueling. So you'd go over and run through it with the prototype. Once the thing is certified, you could drain it and use it in an actual power plant, where a single module would produce 380 MWe. They're designed to be built in power blocks of 2 reactor vessels each, feeding one large turbine that would put out 760 MW. You could fire up the first power block as soon as it's ready, even as you build further ones at the same facility. All would share a central control room and recycling facility.

[leapofaith97]

Okay, tiem for CX:

1.) What happens to nuclear reactors without the plan?

2.) Your cards say that IFr's aren't being utilized, but why is that?

3.) What exactlly is purex?

4.) What makes us developing nuclear power key to nuclear leadership? If other countries are already lightyears ahead of us ie France why does it matter if we do it?

5.) How long has Yucca been used to store waste?

6.) Do you defend all three branches of the Federal Goverment? (Just Kidding.)

7.) Why haven't terrorists attacked yet?

8.) Why hasn't prolif happened yet?

9.) What are the main differences between a gen IV and a Gen III reactor?

10.) How Does pyroprocessing work?

11.)offering cooperative agreements for collaboration on IFR research

lolwut?


12.) and development demonstration programs.

What is a development demonstration program?

[leapofaith97]

Also, what should i run in my 1nc that is most likely to win?

[TheHutt]

Originally Posted by leapofaith97

Okay, tiem for CX:

1.) What happens to nuclear reactors without the plan?

Too vague of a question to answer - be more specific.

2.) Your cards say that IFr's aren't being utilized, but why is that?

Congress killed the original program back in 1994 due to fearmongering environmentalists. Since then research has been focused on thermal reactors, that's USDOE '08.

3.) What exactlly is purex?

All kidding aside, PUREX (Plutonium - URanium EXtraction) is a method used to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, in order to extract primarily uranium and plutonium, independent of each other, from other elements that together would make it unusable as fuel. By separating the elements, pure uranium and plutonium can be put back into a thermal reactor. However, the obvious problem is that separated plutonium is highly suspectible to diversion for use in nuclear weapons.

4.) What makes us developing nuclear power key to nuclear leadership? If other countries are already lightyears ahead of us ie France why does it matter if we do it?

That's the problem - PUREX is on the brink of becoming the world's preferred form of reprocessing. This inevitably will lead to proliferation as other countries adopt the method. It is absolutely critical that the US promote proliferation-resistant IFR pyroprocessing technology as an alternative.

5.) How long has Yucca been used to store waste?

It's not actually open yet. It may be a few years before the facility is open.

7.) Why haven't terrorists attacked yet?

Uh...if you're refering to Yucca, because no waste has actually been moved yet.

8.) Why hasn't prolif happened yet?

We're sitting on the brink of PUREX becoming rampant - action now is key to stopping proliferation that would inevitably spawn from it.

9.) What are the main differences between a gen IV and a Gen III reactor?

Note that the IFR technically isn't classified as either Gen III or Gen IV (although it has a close cousin that is categorized as Gen IV). Basically the main difference between Gen III and Gen IV is that Gen III is entirely light water reactors (LWR) of the thermal variety, and Gen IV includes both thermal and fast reactors, all of which produce minimal waste and are proliferation-resistant.

10.) How Does pyroprocessing work?

Pyroprocessing is a type of spent fuel reprocessing where actinides can be separated out from spent fuel, creating a product from which the majoritiy of unusable waste products have been removed and annihilated by nuclear fission. Note that unlike in the PUREX process, the elements separated by pyroprocessing, including plutonium, are simply too radioactive to handle without instantly suffering a horrendous demise. The separated actinides are then recycled into the reactor, creating the spent fuel which again is separated and put back into the reactor ad infinitum until it has all been used up - giving the reactor an efficiency of over 99%. Only a comparatively miniscule amount of waste remains, and it is nowhere near radioactive enough to pose any significant threat. In addition, pyroprocessing works in the closed-fuel cycle, unlike PUREX, so the entire process is done on the same site as the nuclear reactor, making it all but impossible to access bomb materials.

11.)offering cooperative agreements for collaboration on IFR research

lolwut?

12.) and development demonstration programs.

What is a development demonstration program?

Group these - the incentive is cooperative agreements for further research and development of IFRs. Cooperative agreements work like this - the government allows the private nuclear industry sector to work alongside federally-funded scientists at a national laboratory (likely at either Argonne in Idaho or at Livermore in California) in order to fully flesh out a design for the reactor that could be commercially demonstrated, and then deployed to the satisfaction of the industry. What this does is it gets the nuclear industry involved in the development process (at no cost to them, I might add) such that the government isn't just throwing the existing techonology out there and expecting the industry to fully develop it on its own. What this also does is it gets the reactor design itself approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about a billion times faster since the government is basically taking the existing design and research from the original IFR program (that was shut down) and doing it again.

Also, what should i run in my 1nc that is most likely to win?

Consult the Ministry of Magic.

[leapofaith97]

Okay, tiem for CX:

1.) What happens to nuclear reactors without the plan?
Too vague of a question to answer - be more specific.

Like, if we don't do plan, what happens to those reactors which remain in use in the United States?

[leapofaith97]

Also, the 1nc should be posted sometime tomorrow, I just dont have access to the computer long enough tonight to have it posted.

[TheHutt]

Originally Posted by leapofaith97

Like, if we don't do plan, what happens to those reactors which remain in use in the United States?

Well, the current generation of nuclear reactors would be replaced by conventional thermal reactors, and waste would be shipped to Yucca. Passing the plan would result in a shift to IFRs.

[leapofaith97]

1NC: 3 off, Contentions 2,3,4


About 2015 words, give or take 30


Topicality



A.) Interpretation-Nuclear Energy isn’t alternative energy


Christopher A. Simon, Prof PoliSci @ UNevada, 2007
(Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility)

The federal defition of alternative energy is best summarized byTitle 26, chapter 79, 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: “the term ‘alternative energy facility’ means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.”

B.) Violation- The Affirmative increases incentives for nuclear power, not an alternative energy.


C.) Standards-


1. Limits—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo—our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden

2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP

3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interpretations more predictable than just using the term “alt energy” in context


D.) Topicality is a voting issue, because without topicality, the affirmative could run the same case year after year affirming undeniable truths like “racism bad”. In such an environment, negatives would always lose and debate would suffer.


Next, PTX: Hehe, Dingel.

( ) A. Uniqueness – Henry Waxman, the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is committed to consensus and mending relations with John Dingell, the Committee’s prior chair, over health care – ensures necessary support to pass comprehensive reform
Congress Now, 12-8, 2008, “Waxman Pledges to Be a Dealmaker in Passing Health Care Reform,” p. lexis
In what would be a stylistic shift from his tenure chairing the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today pledged to work with both parties in drafting health care reform legislation.
Waxman said he will work aggressively to enact health care reform in the 111th Congress and expects the House to present legislation that will need to be reconciled with a Senate bill. As Waxman was waging a surprise battle against longtime Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), key Senate players in health care policy - including Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) - were quick off the mark in setting goals for health care legislation and lining up teams to achieve that goal.
The health care system is broken and now is the time to fix it, Waxman argued during a speech before the Prescription Project, a health care advocacy group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Next year is "the greatest [opportunity] we've ever had" to reform health care. "We cannot fail."
The No. 1 priority for reform is to ensure that all Americans receive affordable health care, Waxman said. Currently, he said, costs are too high and there is not enough value for the money spent. Not only would the public benefit from reform, he said, but also suchreform is "critical for restoring the health of our economy."
While no details have been set yet, what is feasible will be an important factor in shaping this bill. "Clearly the best approach is what we can pass," he said.
In the short term, Waxman will seek to add language increasing the federal contribution to Medicaid in upcoming economic stimulus language and to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
He said he is also eyeing legislation to stop the direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to the public and to establish a pathway for the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biologics and to regulate tobacco products, as well as to increase funding for the FDA and other health care agencies. Agencies have been "starved" for resources, Waxman said, and that must change.
But many health care lobbyists and House Republicans have wondered whether Waxman is the right man to deliver a health care reform deal. Waxman's most recently led the Oversight and Government Reform panel, spearheading a range of aggressive investigations that have been seen as partisan. He is also considered more liberal, at least on some issues, than his predecessor, Dingell.
Waxman addressed those concerns today. While running the Oversight and Government Reform panel required more of an advocacy role, he said that "when we do legislation, it involves reaching out." This new position and the legislative responsibilitiesthat it involves "means we have to hear different points of view and try to reconcile, if that is possible, and try to develop a consensus, if that is possible."
Waxman did say he would not stop advocating for changes that he believes are necessary.
Even his own colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus questioned whether Waxman would be the right choice, he acknowledged. When he argued his case for the chairmanship behind closed doors, many of his fellow lawmakers asked what he knew about legislating, given his role on Oversight and Government Reform.
Waxman said he would also reach out to Dingell. "I plan to work hand in glove" with Dingell and Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), he said. "There is an important role for [Dingell] to play. We all can benefit from his leadership."


( ) B. Links
1) Dingell opposes strong efforts to limit climate change – the plan would be seen as a lurch to the left for the Energy and Commerce committee, ensuring backlash
Gregor Peter Schmitz, writer for Der Spiegel (German newspaper), 12-10, 2008, “Europe Puts Hurdles in Obama's Climate Path,” online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...595644,00.html
Goldmark points out that it isn't at all clear what America's future role will be when it comes to climate change. The newly-elected Congress, he says, is unpredictable, even if there is now a clear Democratic majority. "The country is currently fixated on the economic crisis. One thing we know for sure: if Europe hesitates, any progress in Washington will become that much more difficult," Goldmark says. Opponents can simply point to the indecisiveness of the Europeans.
The wretched economic situation also gives more ammunition to climate hawks. The Republican senator James Inhofe warns that any kind of limit on pollutants would be a deathblow for the crippled US industries. Democrat John Dingell in the House of Representatives thunders: "In times of economic downturns, members (of Congress) are extremely reluctant to add burdens to the economy."
The tone is worrying. Democrats have traditionally been more open to environmental protection laws -- and a self-proclaimed environmentalist, Democrat Henry Waxman of California, was recently chosen to replace Dingell as chair of the House's important energy and commerce committee. But there is still a group of "dirty Democrats": representatives from states with important coal or steel interests. They look at ambitious climate measures with skepticism, and they occupy almost a fourth of all senate seats in the Democratic caucus.

2) Waxman-Dingell cooperation is key to health care – it can’t pass the House without their committee’s approval – tension over energy could spoil the entire effort
Roll Call, 12-8, 2008, “Quick Start Vital for Successful 111th Congress,” p. lexis
Democratic leaders also want to start work quickly on two massive but complex tasks - a health care overhaul and passage of a cap-and-trade system intended to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.
Both projects will require months of negotiating between various Democratic factions and the two chambers, and will be a key test of Obama's ability to get his agenda enacted.
The last time Democrats held the White House, Clinton's universal health care agenda flat-lined and a massive energy tax scheme imploded in the Senate; Democrats are intent on not repeating that result.
Already, Senate Democratic stakeholders - such as Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) - have made an effort to avoid the internecine rifts that characterized the Clinton-era health care debate.
The two chairmen with primary responsibility for writing legislation based on Obama's health care plan have been holding joint meetings with each other and with interest groups throughout the fall, in the hopes of having something ready to be introduced and vetted by the beginning of the year.
In the House, the path for health and energy legislation will move in part through the Energy and Commerce Committee, where new Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has some fence-mending to do after unseating the dean of the House, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). Some moderates have worried the party will lurch too far to the left with Waxman in charge.
Dingell had a record of bipartisanship on the committee, while Waxman had criticized Dingell for being too accommodating to Republicans and to industry groups, particularly on environmental regulations.
A Democratic leadership aide predicted Waxman would work with moderates once the dust settles. "It depends on how Waxman proceeds, and I think he's a pretty pragmatic, smart politician who gets that he needs them to be on board," said one aide. "He's not a left-wing loon."


( ) C. The impact – Health care reform is key to the economy – comparatively, it’s the biggest internal link to strong growth
David M. Cutler, professor of economics at Harvard, J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley, and Ann Marie Marciarille, adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law, 9-16, 2008, “Why Obama's Health Plan Is Better,” The Wall Street Journal, online: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html
The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.
Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies.
Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.
Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:
- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.
- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.
- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.
- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.
- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.
In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.
Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.
We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.
The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.

( ) Unchecked economic decline ensures nuclear war, bioweapons use, and terrorism
Phil Kerpen, Policy Director at Americans for Prosperity, 10-28, 2008, “From Panic to Depression?,” online: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JiNWVkMTIxMmU=
It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.


Next, Teh Overcon K:


Your focus on alternative energy can never access a reduction in consumption. The move to increase alternative energy requires increased consumption on the frontside to create the technology needed to have alternative energy.Increasing Supplies Will Not Solve, Only Decreasing Demand is the answer


Princen, Maniates and Conca, 2002

(Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca, July 2002, Confronting Consumption)

Running short of timber, oil, or electricity? In times of shortfall, society's first response is usually to increase supply. Produce more and all is well. Mathematics professor Evar D. Nering of Arizona State University crunches the numbers, though, and shows that it simply will not work. Even conservation and efficiency measures (as those two terms are com¬monly used) will not do it, not in the long run, and not with exponentially increasing rates of consumption, a premise of modem political economies. Imagine a 100-year supply of a fixed resource, a pool of oil for instance. At current rates of consumption, this pool will last 100 years. If, however, the rate of consumption grows by, say, 5 percent a year, the pool will last about 36 years. If the supply actually turns out to be much larger, say, 1,000 years' worth at current rates of consumption, this larger pool will be drained in 79 years. And if this pool turns out to be the mother lode of all pools, one that would last 10,000 years at current rates of consumption, the supply will only last 125 years at a rate of consumption that grows at 5 percent per year. Estimates of known reserves vary a lot, "but the point of this analysis," says Professor Nering, "is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work." This is a disturbing conclusion, especially for those who take ever ¬increasing consumption as given and believe modem societies can produce their way out of their resource problems. In fact, if decision makers had a choice of doubling the supply (the current favorite option, even among many environmentalists who count on alterative sources) orhalving the growth rate, the choice is clear. Doubling the size of oil reserves adds at most 14 years if society uses it at the currently increasing rate. Halving the rate-that is, cutting in half the growth in consumption-will nearly double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what that supply is. So this is where conservation and efficiency come in, right? Better fuel economies, for instance. Not so, says Professor Nering. "If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate." It is the consuming behavior, the "driving more miles" and all the incentives and structural factors that compel such behavior, that must change. In short, resource crises will not solve themselves, certainly not if increasing supply is the only legitimate response, as it certainly is in a production-oriented society such as the United States. These simple calculations, even without a notion of ecological or waste-sink capacity, show that consumption itself must be tamed-to the tune of a zero or even negative rate of growth.


And, Overconsumptive practices lead us time and again into resource hegemony and war. Regardless the resource, the affirmative just refies the notion of overconsumption, leading to the destruction of ourselves.



Heinberg in 03

(Richard, Core Faculty Member @ New College of California, “The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies”, 2003, p. 230) DMZ

Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. The Carter Doctrine, declared in 1980, made it plain that US military might would be applied tothe project of dominating the world’s oil wealth: henceforth, any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In the past 60 years, the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope, power, and durability. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies.This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.


The alternative of rejecting the affirmative plan so that individuals can reduce their consumption action is only way


Vicki Robin, 2006

( New Road Map Foundation, Seattle, WA . www.rferl.org)

Let's debunk the myths.
It's a myth that our consumption patterns are "hard-wired" into us. They result from a deliberate strategy begun in the 1920s to boost U.S. markets by educating people to want things they don't need. It's a myth that our economy depends on more consumption. Leading economists are urging us to consume less and save more, for the health of the economy. It's a myth that new technology or government regulations will save us from having to reexamine our patterns of consumption. Mandating an energy-efficient car won't help if we keep making more cars and driving more polluting miles. It's a myth that recycling will save us. So far the savings are minuscule, and much of what we use we can't yet recycle. What about "pre- cycling"--avoiding needless and wasteful consumption in the first place? Let's reframe the game.
Millions of Americans are discovering the personal benefits of down-scaling,such as being debt-free and having more time, more savings and financial security. They're awakening to the simple fact that "standard of living" (what we have) is not the same as "quality of life" (how much we enjoy living). After a certain point, more stuff just means more complexity and more burden.Having fewer possessions isn't deprivation, it's freedom! Once they realize that they sell their most precious resource (time) for money, people naturally reduce their consumption by asking of each purchase: Is it worth the hours I had to work to buy this? Will it make me happy in the long run? Will it help me reach my life goals?The times are ripe for turning the tide of overconsumption. The winds of change are at our back. We have the personal motivation to lower consumption. We have the constituency for a movement toward healthy thrift. We have amongst us masters of persuasion. Surely we can create the public will to effect lifestyle change, policy change and ultimately change in every corner


Contention 2:

1.) IFR’s Allow Non-Nuclear States and Terrorist Groups Access to Nuclear Material Increasing the Risk of Prolif
Arjun Makhijani (President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) May 17 2001 “Pyroprocessing in the Bush plan,” http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/ieerpyroprocessing5172001.txt
“Pyroprocessing is the tail that seems set to resurrect the IFR breeder reactor dog,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), in Takoma Park, Maryland, which has published many studies on nuclear-related technologies. “Breeder reactors were consigned to oblivion in times past because of their potential for creating huge amounts of plutonium, the proliferation dangers that they posed, their high costs, and their safety vulnerabilities. They should not be revived. Proponents of pyroprocessing, who seem to have convinced the White House energy panel, claim that it is “proliferation-resistant” because the impure plutonium that results will not be used to make nuclear weapons. “It is true that countries that have nuclear weapons already would not use impure plutonium from pyroprocessing for building bombs,” said Dr. Makhijani, “but those who lack the materials would not hesitate to use it. Non-nuclear states that may want nuclear weapons and terrorist groups would be the main customers for this impure plutonium, if this technology spreads.”

2.) IFRs are not Prolif Resistant They are Perfect Weapons for Terrorists
Arjun Makhijani, Hisham Zerriffi & Annie Makhijani March/April 2001 “Magical Thinking: Another Go at Transmutation” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/20...makhijani.html
As noted, all transmutation schemes require the reprocessing of transuranic radionuclides. Proponents of accelerator-driven transmutation argue that pyroprocessing yields plutonium mixed with other actinides, which would make it unattractive for use in weapons. This is true. Nonetheless, pyroprocessed plutonium would still be usable in weapons—and it would be entirely satisfactory to a terrorist group that was not fussy about predicting the exact yield of a bomb or about subjecting workers to health hazards during the manufacture of weapons.

3.) Impact Empirically denied: Prolif has happened since the 70's- no impact seen yet.


Contention 3:

1.) There is no way to safely dispose of the remaining wastes IFR’s leave behind
Praful Bidwai (India Keeping Alive a dying Breeder) December 2004 Daily Times http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2003_pg4_13
And what of IFR wastes? There’s no known method even to safely store, leave alone dispose of IFRs, nuclear wastes, some with long half-lives like thousands or millions of years. They present an unacceptable environmental risk, besides imposing a huge decommissioning expense.The PFBR is thus a rotten bargain from all angles. Its safety problems acquire an especially menacing dimension given the DAE’s appalling record. This was recently highlighted by huge radioactive overexposures at the Kalpakkam reprocessing plant.Other DAE facilities too have performed badly: including Tarapur, where 350 workers were overexposed; Narora, which saw a serious fire; Rawatbhata, where operators work without protective gear under tritium concentrations hundreds of times higher than permissible; and in Jadugoda, where uranium miners breathe radioactive dust and where it’s blown by storms into people’s kitchens

2.) History Proves that IFRs are More Prone to Accidents then Other Reactors
Global News Wire September 22 2003
Even as India lays a bigger bet on its fast breeder programme, many advanced countries have lost interest in the technology. The reasons are not difficult to comprehend. The fast breeder was once considered the best energy source to meet growing electricity demand and to help conserve uranium resources. But energy demand has not grown as expected and conserving uranium is no longer a priority. More important factors that go against the fast breeder are its failure to be cost competitive with thermal nuclear reactors and the availability of cheaper alternative energy sources. The liquid sodium coolant, which burns on contact with air or water, presents a technical challenge. Accidents caused by liquid sodium leakage at the Monju reactor in Japan and the Superphenix in France swayed public opinion against the technology. Further, the United States, gripped by a fear of reprocessed plutonium falling into wrong hands, turned down the technology. India therefore needs to tread carefully, testing and refining its expertise in the challenging technology, and ensuring cost competitiveness.

3.) IFRs Require an Increase in Transportation Which Increases the Risk of Theft
Greenpeace October 14 2002 “Russian Weapons Plutonium To Be Shipped To Europe” http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00107.htm
The “Western Option” plan is being pushed by a little known organization, which calls itself the Nuclear Disarmament Forum AG (NDF). It proposes to build a plant to produce plutonium fuel or mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) in Russia, ship the fuel from Murmansk via the Norwegian Sea to nuclear reactors in Western Europe and transport the irradiated nuclear waste spent fuel back to Siberia where it would be stored awaiting either reprocessing the plutonium or final geologic disposal. The plan will be promoted at a ceremony in the Swiss City of Zug, on October 12th. “This proposal combines the worst of two bad ideas being touted by the nuclear industry: construction of a plutonium fuel factory in Russia and shipment of the fuel, from which weapons grade plutonium can be easily removed. It presents an unacceptable proliferation risk; the plutonium should instead be treated as nuclear waste.” said Tom Clements, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner.

Contention 4:
1.) Solvency is temporary- not enough uranium
Nuclear Monitor, 5.
(“Nuclear Power: No solution to climate Change” A new report from NIRS/WISE
International. http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf, feb)
According to the most recent figures of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on global uranium reserves,the total known recoverable reserves amount to 3,5 million tonnes: this refers to reasonably assured reserves and estimated additional reserves which can be extracted at a cost of less than $80/kg (NEA & IAEA, 2004).Given that the current use of uranium is in the order of 67,000 tonnes per year, this would give us enough uranium for about 50 years (WISE, 2003; NEA-IAEA, 2004; WNA, 2004c). Of course, the total reserves of uranium are much greater than this; NEA and IAEA estimate the total of all conventional reserves to be in the order of 14,4 million tonnes. But not only are these reserves very expensive to mine, and therefore not economically viable, the grades of usable uranium are too low for net electricity production. Large parts of the presently quoted reserves (about half) are marginal already. This is the case in Namibia, South Africa, Kazakhstan and with the Olympic Dam mine in Australia. As pointed out by advocates of nuclear power, there are also vast amounts uranium in unconventional sources. For example uranium is found in ocean water, but at a concentration of 0.0000002% (Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004).The costs of extracting this uranium for use in nuclear power generation would be huge. Furthermore, the extraction and enrichment of this uranium would require more energy than could be produced with it. If we replaced all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for between 3 and 4 years (O'Rourke, 2004; Storm van Leeuwen & Smith, 2004). Even if we were to double world usage of nuclear energy, the life span of uranium reserves would be just 25 years. Therefore any potential benefits to the climate are extremely temporary.

2.) It would take at least 20 years for the us to transition to IFRs
SFTT (Soldiers for the Truth) 2001 “Playing with Plutonium, http://www.sftt.org/article10022002c.html
Well, here we go again. Under a deal signed between the U.S. and Russia during the Clinton years, and continued by the Bush Administration, all sorts of new plans for plutonium are afoot. The original aim was to get rid of plutonium from the decommissioned arsenals of the Cold War by using it up as fuel in nuclear reactors .But that brings us right back to the risk of theft along the way. To feed today's reactors, which are geared for uranium, plutonium must first be fabricated into mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX. That means shipping it in weapons-ready form to MOX fabrication plants, then dispersing it among the reactors themselves. Even after it is blended into MOX fuel, plutonium is still relatively easy to separate out. The amounts involved here are staggering, with the U.S. and Russia each pledging to run through 34 metric tons of plutonium, enough to make thousands of bombs. The whole process would take at least 20 years.

[TheHutt]

T:

1. What year was that section of the US code added?

2. Is renewable energy topical?

3. Why does adding just one more topical case destroy limits and ground? Why didn't you get your coal/oil DA's in this debate?

4. You say limits that "literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo", how do you actually access this standard if only four cases are not topical under your interp? Couldn't I run some crackpot technology and still be topical under your interp?

5. Can you explain why T is a voter beyond just being able to prove that I'm not topical? What was it that you lost in this debate because I ran a nontopical case?

Ptix

1. How the fuck is the plan environmental regulations? Your link evidence refers to things like "limits on pollutants", "environmental laws", "cap and trade," - all of these are laws that restrict carbon emissions. How is the plan germane to any of this?

2. Where does your link evidence mention nuclear power?

3. What's the threshold to economic decline causing war? We've been in a recession for over a year, why hasn't the impact already happened?

K

1. Status of the K?

2. Why is the alt mutually exclusive with the plan? In other words why can't we just do the plan and reduce consumption?

3. Why isn't the impact inevitable in a world where nuclear power is inevitable?

4. In your tag on the Princen 2K2 evidence: " The move to increase alternative energy requires increased consumption on the frontside." What is the warrant to this?

5. Isn't the Heindberg evidence talking about the overconsumption of oil? Doesn't the plan solve the impact by putting our consumption in the hands of domestic sources of energy?

6. What happens when the judges vote neg? Does everyone just magically reduce their consumption and sing Kumbaya?

Contention 2:

1. How is this scenario responsive to the Stanford 01 evidence from the 1AC, which says that both inherent radioactivity as well as the closed fuel cycle solve these concerns? Why should we prefer your authors over expert bomb designers at the Livermore National Lab?

Contention 3-4:

1. Doesn't the Nuclear Monitor evidence assume thermal reactors?

2. Where do the last four cards even mention IFRs? What evidence do you read saying MOX fuel is used by IFRs?

I'll put up more later if I think of anything.

[TheHutt]

K

1. What's the text to the alt?

2. Where does your alt evidence say anything about rejecting the plan?

3. What does the world look like post-alt? Why would the plan prevent the alt from working?

Answer c-x and I'll post the 2AC.