Jump to content
TheHutt

[ENERGY TOPIC] [M] Round # WGAFF* (80) - TheHutt (AFF) vs. aldjzair (NEG)

Recommended Posts

* who gives a flying fuck.

 

RESOLVED: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

 

Affirmative: TheHutt

Negative: aldjzair

 

Judges: We need three. Post with judging paradigm if interested.

 

 

  1. Starting the round. Before the round starts, both debaters must post in this thread, stating that they agree to the rules, stakes and judges, and also stating who will be which speaker. All three judges must post their paradigms. The round starts as soon as the 1AC is posted.
  2. Speech order. The order of the speeches is the same as for a typical policy debate round. 1AC, CX, 1NC, CX, 2AC, CX, 2NC, CX, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR
  3. Speech lengths. Each constructive speech will be no more than 2000 words and each rebuttal no more than 1200 words.
  4. Cross-examination. Cross-examination begins immediately after a constructive speech is posted and lasts 24 hours. If you are being cross-examineded (ie you just posted a speech), you are expected to check this thread reasonably often and answer questions.
  5. Questions asked after cross-ex. You may ask additional questions after cross-ex ends and before your next speech is due. However, your opponents are not required to be online for this, so answers to these questions should be considered a courtesy.
  6. Due dates of constructives. The 1NC, 2AC, and 2NC are due 24 hours after the end of cross-examination. This means the 1NC is due 48 hours after the 1AC is posted, the 2AC is due 48 hours after the 1NC is posted, and the 2NC is due 48 hours after the 2AC is posted.
  7. Due dates of rebuttals.
    (a)The 1NR starts immediately when cross-examination ends after the 2NC. In other words, the 1NR is due exactly 24 hours after the 2NC is posted.
    (B) The 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR are due exactly 24 hours after the previous speech is posted.
    © Exception to rule (B): If the 1NR was posted during cross-examination, the 1AR still is not due until 24 hours after cross-ex ends. In other words, if the 1NC was posted during cross-ex, the 1AR is due exactly 48 hours after the 2NC was posted.
  8. Prep time. There is no maximum limit on prep time. However, participants are expected to maintain a reasonable rate of speed (no slower than 4-5 days between speeches and preferably faster, please) and consistency in posting speeches, unless a logical excuse is presented in a timely manner.
  9. Posting a speech early. Debaters may post their speeches early if they choose to do so. Debaters with upcoming speeches are expected to check this thread frequently in order to prevent loss of prep time in the event a speech is posted early.
  10. Posting a speech very early If a speech is posted so early that it is still cross-ex, then cross-ex ends immediately and the next relevant time period begins. EXCEPTION: cross-examination of the 2NC continues even if the 1NR posts his/her speech during cross-ex. The affirmative has the right to their entire 24 hours of cross-ex time and 24 hours of speech-writing time.
  11. Postponement of speeches. Postponement of a speech should be allowed if and only if
    (a) a good reason is given in advance (test coming up, going to be at a tourney over weekend, etc) and
    (B) a majority of judges agree to the postponement.
    Judges should try to be generous with postponements if it is in the interest of keeping the round from fizzling, but must also be fair to both teams.
  12. Judge decisions. An observer should volunteer to collect ballots at the conclusion of the round. Judges are expected to send decisions to the ballot runner in a timely manner. If a judge expects to be longer than 24 hours, he or she should let the debaters know beforehand.
  13. Observers, please be quiet. Until the round is over, only participating debaters and judges may post in this thread. This rule ends after the judges have posted their decisions. After that, the thread is open for free discussion.
  14. Please label your post. As a courtesy, debaters should label their posts so everyone knows what speech they are giving.
  15. Do your own work. You may only seek assistance from your partner. No help from other debaters is allowed.
  16. Changing the rules. Judges may change the rules or make new rules so long as it is unanimous, and the rule change is believed to be fair to all debaters.

 

 

OUTLINE OF THE ROUND (These aren't rules. This outline is for your convenience)

  • New Thread. A new thread is created for the round. The rules of the round are posted.
  • Participants post. The debaters post that they agree to the rules, stakes and judging panel, and say who will take which speaker position. The judges introduce themselves and post their paradigms.
  • 1AC - 2000 words max. The round starts as soon as the 1AC is posted.
  • CX of 1AC - 24 hours long, starting when the 1AC is posted. The neg may post as many questions as they like, within reason. The aff is expected to check back regularly (again, within reason) to answer them during this 24 hour period.
  • 1NC - 2000 words max. The 1NC should be posted in a reasonable period after the 1AC is posted.
  • CX of 1NC - 24 hours long, starting when the 1NC is posted. The aff may post as many questions as they like, within reason. The neg is expected to check back regularly, as above.
  • 2AC - 2000 words. The 2AC should be posted in a reasonable period after the 1NC is posted.
  • CX of 2AC - 24 hours long, starting when the 2AC is posted. Same stuff as above.
  • 2NC - 2000 words. The 2NC should be posted in a reasonable period after the 2AC is posted. Same stuff as above.
  • CX of 2NC - 24 hours long, starting when the 2AC is posted. Same stuff as above.
  • 1NR - 1200 words. The 1NR should be posted in a reasonable period after the 2AC is posted.
  • 1AR - 1200 words. The 1AR should be posted in a reasonable period after the 1NR is posted.
  • 2NR - 1200 words. The 2NR should be posted in a reasonable period after the 1AR is posted.
  • 2AR - 1200 words. The 2AR should be posted in a reasonable period after the 2NR is posted.
  • Judges decide. The judges issue their verdicts, RFDs, and comments.
  • After-round stuff. The thread is now open for comments by observers. Everyone talks about what a great job the debaters did and how horrible the judges' decisions were.

Edited by TheHutt
Title change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. 1AC is ready to go, need 2 more judges.

 

Also aldjzair, make sure you read the rules. There's no set prep time, just be reasonable in keeping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll judge if John still wants to judge so that way you'll have five...

 

my paradigm is posted elsewhere on the site find it... but i'm a straight policymaker judge would listen to a K but has to be explained... no preferences on arguments just tell me what to vote on but i will weigh the impacts at the end of the round BUT i will do no work for you... ain't happening...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's something like 1950 words.

 

Contention One is “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. THERMAL REACTORS CAN’T CLOSE THE FUEL CYCLE

 

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]

 

At present the nuclear fuel cycle is “open”—that is, the spent fuel that is now considered waste still contains most of the energy it started with. Current U.S. policy is to use the fuel once and then throw it away, along with more than 95% of its original energy. In addition, a huge amount of energy is latent in the depleted-uranium residue from military and civilian enrichment activities. In a fully closed cycle, essentially all of the energy in the mined uranium would be exploited, with only the real waste— the fission products— left over for disposal. The fuel cycle cannot be closed with today’s thermal reactors by themselves, even with recycling.* It can be done, however, by supplementing them with fast reactors, which can use as fuel the heavy, fissionable isotopes that accumulate in thermal-reactor fuel.

 

 

C. USDOE 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 the VHTR, 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.

 

 

D. THE REST OF THE WORLD IS GOING NUCLEAR - THE U.S. MUST CATCH UP

 

Campbell’06 - President ofAmerican Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, Energy Strategies International, LLC, Former Director, Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy 2006

(Scott L., Remarks, “The Nuclear RenaissanceSeizing the Historic moment”, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/ANS_Remarks_Nov_2006_Campbell.pdf)

 

Does it matter if American companies are no longer in the nuclear business? In short, it matters greatlybecause nations that are engaged in the nuclear energy business sit at the non-proliferation table, have the technology to address global climate change, have the keys to combating global poverty and failed states, and hold the catalyst to advances in science and technology. Having American companies competing in the global nuclear energy market will deliver more revenue and better paying jobs to America, and will, thus, help improve American competitiveness. It’s no secret that nuclear power in the United States was almost knocked out by its opponents. No orders for new nuclear plants have been made for thirty years. U.S. companies that once dominated the design and manufacture of nuclear reactors have largely disappeared or been sold to foreign companies. Former administrations halted reprocessing and eventually cut nuclear R&D funding to zero. Increasingly, the U.S. has been out of the nuclear game and now it is largely in the hands of foreign, state owned or directed companies. While the United States argued about its nuclear future (and that argument finally has turned markedly pro-nuclear recently), the rest of the world recognized nuclear energy’s benefits and moved aggressively forward. We see this in France, Japan, Russia and China. Countries all across the globe are looking to expand their use of nuclear energy and this is, of course, an exciting development. But the United States can’t flounder in indecision and inaction anymore. The world is going nuclear and we must too or fall sadly, irrevocably behind.

 

E. THE U.S. INEVITABLY IS GOING NUCLEAR - 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. Thisrecovery 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 pyrometallurgical processing, specifically: offering loan guarantees and cooperative agreements for collaboration on Research & Development demonstration programs.

 

I’ll clarify if needed.

 

 

Contention Two is U.S. Leadership

 

A. 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. SQ 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/uploads/Recycling_APS_07.pdf. Accessed 7/15/08]

 

Nuclear power will be rapidly expanding worldwide for the foreseeable futureand plans and policies announced byChina, 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.

 

 

C. THAT’S BAD -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/20041022-GilinskyEtAl-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 thatthey 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.

 

D. PROLIFERATION CAUSES COLOSSAL NUCLEAR SHOOTOUTS, EXTINCTION IS VIRTUALLY ASSURED.

 

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. 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, widespread proliferation 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.

 

 

E. THE IFR SOLVES PROLIFERATION - 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, radioactivity and 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 IS KEY TO REASSERTING U.S. NUCLEAR ENERGY LEADERSHIP & PREVENTING RAMPANT PROLIFERATION FROM TAKING GRIP UPON THE WORLD

 

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/uploads/Recycling_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 Biosphereicide

 

 

A. THERMAL REACTORS CREATE THE NEED FOR WASTE STORAGE FOR A SPAN OF AT LEAST 10,000 YEARS

 

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.

 

 

B. 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.

 

 

C. RUH ROH - AN 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.

 

 

D. BIOSPHEREICIDE MEANS THE EXTINCTION OF ALL LIFE ON EARTH - THIS MUST COME FIRST BECAUSE OF MAGNITUDE

 

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-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain-testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm

None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable.We are not talking about the short-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.

 

 

E. THE IFR SOLVES YUCCA - USES WASTE AS FUEL

 

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 prototype ALMR 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. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ARE A KEY INCENTIVE FOR NUCLEAR R&D PROGRAMS

 

Bengelsdorf & McGoldrick 07 [Harold D. Bengelsdorf, consultant, formerly held top positions with US Atomic Energy Commission, US Department of Energy, former Senior office director in the Department of State for dealing with international nuclear and non-proliferation negotiations, and Fred McGoldrick, principal associate in global consulting firm Bengelsdorf, McGoldrick and Associates, LLC. Has held senior positions in the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency. THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY. May 2007. American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. <http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf> Accessed: July 17, 2008 4:50 PM]

 

Further, the revitalization of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure will depend on the U.S. ability to provide sustained bipartisan support for nuclear R&D programs in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. The ability of theUnited States to continue to make significant contributions to the improvement of safeguards, physical protection and proliferation resistance of nuclear systems is dependent, at least in part, onthe continued health of the U.S. technological base. This assumes close collaboration between industry and the national laboratories, which could be increased through greater use of Cooperative Agreements between U.S. firms and national laboratories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What is the main element used in the IFR nuclear power plants?

2. Have we already built any thermal reactors in the United States?

3. If yes, would shutting them down be sufficient to solve biosphericide?

4. Have we built any IFRs in the US?

5. Why do IFRs solve proliferation?

 

More forthcoming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. What is the main element used in the IFR nuclear power plants?

2. Have we already built any thermal reactors in the United States?

3. If yes, would shutting them down be sufficient to solve biosphericide?

4. Have we built any IFRs in the US?

5. Why do IFRs solve proliferation?

 

More forthcoming

1. I'm sure what you mean by "main element", could you clarify this further?

2. Yes, thermal reactors are the conventional design in use today. Examples include Indian Point and San Onofre. However, no new commercial reactors have been constructed in the last 30 years.

3. No. The problem is that for the last 30+ years, nuclear plants have been accumulating radioactive nuclear waste. The majority of the waste is currently stored on the site of the plant in either dry casks or cooling pools - however this solution is temporary at best as they can only hold so much waste. Shutting down thermal reactors will not eliminate the existing waste that will be headed to Yucca Mt. in 2017.

4. We built a highly successful prototype reactor at Argonne National Laboratory. However, Congress was goaded by fearmongering environmentalists into dismantling the program. Since then no IFRs have been built in the US or anywhere else, although our understanding of fast reactor technology in general has increased.

5. Two reasons - one is nuclear leadership. Nuclear leadership on the part of the U.S. enhances its non-proliferation abilities, that's my F) on that flow (Hanum Marsh & Stanford '07). The second reason is that the IFR would displace PUREX - the IFR is superior in that it can't be subverted for bombmaking. Our nuclear leadership - specifically the non-prolif agenda - is what will place IFRs at the forefront of the next nuclear generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I'm sure what you mean by "main element", could you clarify this further?

I mean what actual chemical element is used for the energy - uranium, plutonium, etc.

 

3. No. The problem is that for the last 30+ years, nuclear plants have been accumulating radioactive nuclear waste.

 

So IFRs get rid of all this waste? How?

 

6. What is the timeframe to the Yucca adv if the plan is not passed?

 

7. Your evidence claims that countries like "India, China, Japan, France" will model IFRs, but what about countries that can't afford IFRs/countries that don't like the US? Do they follow us?

 

8. Your prolif -> extinction ev is from 2002, but haven't countries been proliferating since then? why haven't the impacts happened?

 

9. Define "proliferation"

 

10. Where will the reactors be built?

 

11. Is the waste in Yucca now or is it projected to head there? when will it get there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean what actual chemical element is used for the energy - uranium, plutonium, etc.

 

 

 

So IFRs get rid of all this waste? How?

 

6. What is the timeframe to the Yucca adv if the plan is not passed?

 

7. Your evidence claims that countries like "India, China, Japan, France" will model IFRs, but what about countries that can't afford IFRs/countries that don't like the US? Do they follow us?

 

8. Your prolif -> extinction ev is from 2002, but haven't countries been proliferating since then? why haven't the impacts happened?

 

9. Define "proliferation"

 

10. Where will the reactors be built?

 

11. Is the waste in Yucca now or is it projected to head there? when will it get there?

1. Uranium and/or plutonium are used.

 

3. What the IFR can do is it can take these nuclear wastes out of storage and burn them as fuel - once inserted into the system it can recycle the waste over and over again (hence the term "closed cycle" until the vast majority of the energy has been extracted. What is left over is far, far less radioactive and would remain so for an average of only a few decades (400 years max for the most radioactive product) as opposed to 10,000. It would not pose any sort of significant threat to human health.

 

6. Earthquakes are obviously impossible to calculate, but wastes stored at Yucca would not become safe until Stardate 1011708.17. (Or, the year 12017). Given that a 5.4 earthquake struck just 6 miles away just 16 years ago it's extremely likely a catostrophic event could occur in the near term. USFG probabilty graphs at the coordinates 36°51′10″N, 116°25′36″W indicate a 70% chance of a least one 5.0 or greater earthquake occuring within approximately 10 kilometers of Yucca sometime in the next 50 years, a 95% chance of a 5.0 within 100 years, a 45% chance of a 6.0 earthquake occuring within 100 years, and a 95% chance of a 7.0 within 1000 years.

 

Don't forget that Yucca is buried underground - even a moderate earthquake is far more violent underground than above ground.

 

7. Studies show that a commercial-scale IFR would be comparable in cost to thermal reactors and coal plants - if a country has the resources to build plant it may as well be an IFR. Increased US leadership on the non-proliferation issue would affect all nations - you can't hide a nuclear power plant, and in a world in which the global non-prolif community is led by the US it would be unacceptable for any country to build a thermal reactor that could be used for weapons when a weapons-free, safer, and technologically superior alternative exists in the IFR.

 

8. There hasn't been any significant prolif since 2002. US intelligence says Iran doesn't have them. North Korea just demolished it's cooling towers. Unless you can point out an instance of significant increase in nuclear weapons since 2002 this pretty much goes away.

 

9. In a static context it basically means to mulitply. In the context of nuclear weapons it means the spread of nuclear weapons to states that had not previously maintained nuclear forces.

 

10. Most likely, on the site of existing thermal reactors, since that makes most sense (it's easier to expand/replace an existing facility, thereby avoiding NIMBY lawsuits, etc, plus you don't have to transport the spent fuel from the thermal reactor more than a few hundred yards into the IFR closed fuel cycle). There could also be IFRs built in other areas.

 

11. Waste is slated to be deposited at Yucca in 2017. There's nothing in there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1NC - 2066 Words - 2 Off then case

 

 

Text: The USFG should shut down all operational nuclear reactors/plants, ban further construction of all nuclear reactors/plants, and dispose of all accumulated nuclear waste using the Subductive Waste Disposal Method.

 

Ask, well clarify.

 

Observation 1: Counterplan solves the case:

 

Environmental News 99 [http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm#nw4, “Nuclear Waste: Storage and Disposal Methods”]

 

The Subductive Waste Disposal Method is the most viable means of disposing of radioactive waste. The idea is that the waste is removed from the biosphere faster than it can return. Subduction refers to a process in which one tectonic plate slides beneath another at rate of about 6 cm annually, while being reabsorbed into the Earth's mantle.

The Subductive Waste Disposal Method involves the formation of a radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate. As the plate is reabsorbed, the waste will be absorbed along with the plate where it will be dispersed through the mantle. Subducting plates are naturally structured for absorption in the Earth's mantle. And the plate is constantly renewed at its originating oceanic ridge. The plate moves slowly so that any fractures over a repository would be sealed at the contact point between the overriding plate and the subducting plate. Therefore, this method would obviously need to be implemented in a geographically active region. The most accessible site would then be on the ocean floor at a point above where subducting plates meet several thousand feet below the water's surface and then another 2,000 meters beneath ocean sediment. The repositories would be virtually inaccessible once filled and sealed. Once the waste is carried into the interior of the Earth, it would take many millions of years "for the waste to circulate through the Earth's mantle before it could re-emerge in a diluted, chemically and physically altered form at an oceanic ridge (Baird)." The Subductive Waste Disposal Method would prevent radioactive waste from mixing with the water table, provide inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material, remove radioactive waste completely from its threatening position, and be completely safe for marine life.

 

Observation 2: Counterplan solves infinitely better -

A) doesnt even send the waste to yucca so theres absolutely no risk of biosphericide

B) Doesnt create nuclear plants: the only thing better than safe nuclear material is no nuclear material at all.

 

Observation 3: Mutually exclusive CP competes both functionally and via the net benefits.

 

 

 

Econ

 

A. The economy is low now but recovery is on the horizon.

Robb 6/17/2008 (Greg, Staff Writer, “Oh, by the way, the Fed will pause next week” Market Watch Online, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/way-fed-hold-next-week/story.aspx?guid=%7BEFF3F4F9-11BE-43E9-834C-E39070F1827D%7D&print=true&dist=printMidSection)

At the moment, the Fed forecasts that the economy will begin to recover in the second half of this year and strengthen further in 2009. The Fed also expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters as energy prices level out. Top Fed officials have expressed comfort with rates where they are. "For now, policy seems well positioned to promote moderate growth and price stability over time," Fed chief Ben Bernanke said early this month.

 

B. An influx of nuclear energy projects will cost billions more than previously expected.

Loder, St. Petersburg Times Staff Writer, 7.

(Asjylyn, “Nuclear Power Costs Surge”, St. Petersburg Times, December 12, 2007, http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/12/State/Nuclear_power_costs_s.shtml, Date Accessed: 7/5/08)

 

Nuclear energy - billed as the cheap, carbon-free energy source of the future - isn't sounding so cheap anymore. In fact, the price for a new nuclear plant has soared as the rush to construct nearly 30 facilities across the country over the next 15 years has pushed up the cost of labor, raw materials and possibly even the plants themselves. New industry estimates double and even triple prices quoted a year ago by utilities throughout the Southeast, including those for Progress Energy Florida's planned nuclear plant in Levy County. Based on cost estimates for other nuke plants and analyst reports, Progress Energy's costs could balloon to more than $10-billion, far more than early estimates of $4-billion to $6-billion.

 

 

C. New government spending leads to inflation

Saville 7/8/2008 (Steve, Editor of the Speculative Investor, “Government Spending and Inflation” Safe Haven Online http://www.safehaven.com/article-10688.htm)

That being said, the seeds are being sown for the next round of monetary expansion. Those seeds are the frenetic calls for increased government spending and other "stimulus packages" to address the economic downturn, and the virtual certainty that politicians of all stripes will heed these calls. The bonds issued by the government to finance the additional deficit-spending will lead to more inflation because they will be purchased by the central bank or private banks with newly-created money. As noted above, an increase in government spending cannot possibly help. Its likely effect will be to PROLONG the downturn, but the longer it takes for a sustained recovery to begin the greater the opportunity for the government to 'fight' the downturn via even more inflation-financed spending.

 

D. Plan lowers the price of oil but, high oil prices spur production and decrease imports

Newsweek June 23, 2008 Learning From the Oil Shock; SECTION: ROBERT J. SAMUELSON; JUDGMENT CALLS; Pg. 39 Vol. 151 No. 25 ISSN

We all know that gasoline is at $4 a gallon and oil is at $135 a barrel. But if you think that's the end of the story, don't talk to economist Jeffrey Rubin of CIBC World Markets. By Rubin's reckoning, we've barely passed the halfway point on a steady march upward that will take gasoline to $7 a gallon and oil to $225 by 2012. Though there will be fluctuations, the underlying rise in prices, he says, will have pervasive and often surprising side effects. Among them: U.S. manufacturers benefit, because rising ocean-freight costs--reflecting fuel prices--make imports more expensive. Some production returns to the United States, and some shifts from Asia to closer exporters (Mexico over China). Since 2000, estimates Rubin, the cost of shipping a 40-foot container from East Asia has gone from $3,000 to $8,000. With oil at $200 a barrel, the shipping cost would be $15,000. Already, he says, China's steel exports to the United States are falling while U.S. production is rising.

 

 

E. High inflation leads to economic stagnation and recession.

Sailor, Author of India Daily, 07

(Tania, India Daily: “Higher Inflation, lower short-term rates can push gold to $1500 an ounce – but what the long term prospect of yellow metal?”, June 24, http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/17296.asp, Date Accessed: July 7, 2008)

The gold bugs are getting happier every day. The economy is facing stagflation. Stagflation is great for the gold investor. The stagnating economy puts political pressure on the Fed to lower short-term rates. But inflation in the economy just pushes gold fundamentally higher. The stagnating economy will also create far higher budget deficit, which will lower the dollar and raise the price of gold. So gold is a total winner isn’t it? Well before thinking about the gold homerun, let us analyze a few things. What happens after stagflation? The inflation actually puts more pressure on the economy. The economy stagnates further and finally plunges into recession. With such high budget and trade deficit, if the long-term bond yields cross the 10% level, it will plunge the economy into depression. Now what happens if economy stays depressed for more than a quarter? Deflation starts. The inflation changes very fast into deflation. So, if stagflation continues and get deeper, it will transform into depression accompanied by deflation. It happened in Japan. The Japanese economy, since the late eighties, stagnated and collapsed into deflation under heavy debt. That shows depression is not needed for deflation to take over the economy. If the world economies start experiencing deflation, the gold will eventually collapse.

 

F. Economic collapse paves the way to ruthless tyranny and nuclear war, indeed the greatest war humanity has ever seen, whether it be a war of the classes or of nations

 

Nyquist 07 [The Path of Dissolution, Financial Sense Global Analysis, J.R. Nyquist is a renowned expert on America's fatal illusion of an international balance of power; diplomatic and Cold War history; the survivability of a thermonuclear world war; and is the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War."]

 

Global financial disaster – the so-called “crisis of capitalism” – has a special place in modern political thought. The creepy crawlies of the intellectual underworld look forward to a global economic fiasco. They see it as an opportunity. For example, the founder of modern communism, Karl Marx, wanted to become the revolutionary dictator of Germany. And so, he looked forward to an economic crash and resulting social chaos as his window of opportunity. His theoretical work was an intellectual armament for propelling his revolutionary career. He was not the first of his kind and not the last. History records the lamentable success of figures like Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Today we can see Marxs egotism and ambition in Venezuelas Hugo Chavez. Any country that suffers an economic disaster is vulnerable to this species of opportunist. A global economic dislocation signals danger on a global scale. The malicious nobodies of the world, who dream of seizing power, look forward to economic troubles and the resulting social chaos. The anti-Semite, the fascist and the communist are all the same. Their ambition is to take and hold power. (Probably as a salve to their own insignificance.) A global financial crash, therefore, isnt simply an economic problem. It is also a political problem.

If the world suffers a serious economic setback in the near future, there will be a political implosion. The United States is thought to be one of the most stable, successful societies in history. A severe economic setback today, however, would be occurring in a highly charged, partisan environment, in which the public has already been divided one from the other according to race, ideology and social class. As Julien Benda pointed out in his book, The Treason of the Intellectuals, “Our age is the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds. It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity.” Hatred fuels ambitious demagogues and revolutionary agitators. It propels the anti-Semitism of the neo-Nazi and the class hatred of the socialist firebrand.

Writing between the First World War and the Second, Julien Benda wrote, “Indeed, if we ask ourselves what will happen to a humanity where every group is striving more eagerly than ever to feel conscious of its own particular interests, and makes its moralists tell it that it is sublime to the extent that it knows no law but this interest – a child can give the answer. This humanity is heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world, whether it is a war of nations, or a war of classes.

 

 

 

Case

 

1) Nuclear power throughout the world will not be as efficient or safe as in the US - plan invariably creates prolif

 

HARDING, 7

(Jim, “Economics of Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon-Constrained World,” Electricity Journal, 12/03 online)

 

Over the longer term, it will be challenging and difficult to replace existing nuclear capacity in the U.S. and Europe with low-carbon resources, including new reactors. For new reactors to make a significant incremental contribution to the global warming problem, many new plants must be built in the developing world, and associated bulk fuel handling facilities (enrichment, reprocessing, and mixed oxide fuel fabrication) involve significant risk of weapons proliferation.

 

2) In cross-x he concedes that there has been no significant proliferation since 2002 - this means there is no current threat of prolif. SQ solves.

 

3. However, when we act to expand nuclear power, we make proliferation inevitable - Turns Case

SMITH AND MAKHIJANI, 6

(Brice, assistant professor of physics at the State University of New York, Cortland; and Arjun, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland, “Nuclear Is Not the Way,” Wilson Quarterly, Autumn)

The largest risk of such an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be the increased potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has been known since the dawn of the nuclear age that nuclear power and proliferation are inextricably linked. In order to fuel 2,500 reactors, the world's uranium enrichment capacity would need to increase by approximately six times. Just one percent of that capacity could supply enough highly enriched uranium to create 500 nuclear weapons every year. The Iranian enrichment facility at Natanz that has created an international uproar and rumblings of war would, if completed, represent less than 0.1 percent of the enrichment capacity needed to fuel 2,500 reactors. If the plutonium in the spent fuel discharged from that number of reactors each year was separated, it would be enough to make more than 60,000 nuclear bombs, about twice the number in the world's nuclear arsenals today. Proposals to reduce proliferation risks require intrusive inspections and a consensus that countries will not use commercial technology for weapons purposes even in a crisis. The 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) gives more than 180 non-nuclear weapon states that are signatories the "inalienable right" to nuclear power technology. It also requires the five recognized nuclear-armed states that are signatories to get rid of their weapons, according to a World Court advisory interpretation of the NPT. Yet the United States and the other four powers show no signs of moving toward fulfillment of that commitment. Without a clear movement toward disarmament, the desire for at least the potential to build nuclear weapons will remain widespread, and the acquisition of commercial nuclear technology will remain the most attractive means of keeping that potential alive. No overt move toward nuclear weapons is required. But it is interesting that Brazil opened a commercial uranium enrichment plant in 2005 and Argentina has announced that it is returning to pursuit of commercial enrichment.

 

4. Turn - Nuclear power exacerbates global warming

A) it doesnt solve for cars, one of the main contributors to warming

B) Increases Carbon Emissions

 

Caldicott 07 [Helen, March 26, http://calitreview.com/19]

 

Nuclear power is not clean and green, as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the primary “greenhouse gas”—into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (“greenhouse gas”) than CO2, but it is a classic pollutant and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.

 

And C) Government Intervention will delay the transition to renewables - when the switch-over comes it will be market-driven

 

Soupcoff '08 [http://network.nationalpost.com, “Government intervention will delay the alternative energy future” Marni Soupcoff , Editor, The National Post]

 

For all the bluster of green-seduced leaders about how they are going to transition the industrialized world to a post-carbon future through banning, capping, taxing, regulating, legislating or subsidizing, the switch from fossil fuels to alternatives will be market-driven, when it comes. If politicians and governments were capable of planning, or even just prompting, such massive economic evolution, then centrally controlled economies would have been history's most successful. More than likely, government intervention will delay the alternative energy future, since politicians and bureaucrats are typically lousy at picking winners and losers. Despite the bluster of green-seduced leaders, the end of fossil fuels use will be market driven like putting the cart before the horse and expecting our little rig will roar off at a gallop. Still, both the Liberals' "Green Shift" proposal and Barack Obama's alternative energy plan — which he announced on Tuesday — presume that government will direct the transition through an enlightened blend of rewards for those who embrace the new energy regime and punishments for those who do not. If only it were as simple as all that. But, of course, to decide when to apply the brake and when the accelerator the driver has to know exactly where his car is headed. And the direction of the West's path to an alternative energy tomorrow is both unknown and unknowable, at least at this point. "The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless," Mr. Obama told an audience in Las Vegas earlier this week. That's true, in a way. But it is true largely because renewable possibilities are not constrained by the need to be practical. The world consumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day. No one is expecting renewable sources to replace that consumption anytime soon, so no politician is worried about the "how," only the "what."

Collateral problems will be created by erecting millions of wind turbines across tens of thousands of square kilometres of prairie and desert. Do they know what those will be? How about covering hundreds of square kilometres with solar-collection panels? Or converting more of our farms to biofuel crops? Since the real world doesn't have to answer such questions yet, undoubtedly, the possibilities of alternatives are endless. "We've heard promises about [renewable energy] in every State of the Union for the last three decades," Mr. Obama went on. "But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil--a 19th-century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive." Putting aside his gratuitous, sophomoric characterization of the fuel that has, well, fuelled civilization and progress for two centuries, why exactly does Mr. Obama think renewable energy promises have never materialized? Is it because Big Oil has managed to corrupt every Western government and suppress alternatives? Or could it be the technology to make alternatives practical is not ready yet and that such a fundamental alteration of the ways we live is beyond government's power to achieve? For example, it still takes more energy to convert hydrogen to a usable fuel than is saved by the switch from oil to hydrogen. Breakthroughs with wind energy or electric cars or any of a hundred other attractive dreams will occur. Rising prices for fossil fuels will make alternatives more attractive to industrial and individual consumers -- and point to which are the most practical -- far faster than government prodding and poking of the marketplace. Economies of scale will surely develop and there will be Rockefellers of the alternative energy age. But these landmarks will come through entrepreneurial innovation and private initiative. Since 1997, it is estimated that the Canadian government has invested $20-billion on alternative energy technologies and climate change. It could invest another $20-billion, or $40-billion, and still not devise large-scale, realistic alternatives to fossil fuels -- because true innovation comes from individual and small-group inspiration, not stakeholder committees taking months and years to arrive at funding decisions that come with all sorts of political and bureaucratic conditions. Unless Messrs. Obama and Dion have discovered magic wands they may wave to make alternatives come quicker, they would do best to stay out of the way of real progress driven by commodity prices and human inventiveness.

 

5. Turn - Uranium supply will run out in ten years, resulting in more environmentally hazardous emissions.

Co-op America 05 (Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power, http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/...gy/nuclear.cfm)

Not enough uranium Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, were running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. Whats more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

 

 

6. The rapidity of global warming places ecological systems and networks on a path toward destruction as they fail to adapt quickly enough to changing climate dynamics.

 

Johansen 2002 Prof Communication @ U Nebraska-Omaha

The Global Warming Desk Reference, p. (66-67)

 

During May of 1997, twenty-one nationally prominent ecologists warned President Clinton that rapid climate change due to global warming could ruin ecosystems on which human societies depend. The signers, including Stephen H. Schneider and three colleagues from Stanford University, urged Clinton to take a "prudent course" in the then-upcoming global climate-change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan (Basu 1997). The scientists warned that the warming would happen so quickly that many plant and animal species will not be able to adapt. The resulting breakdown of ecosystems could lead to disturbances with major effects on human populations, the scientists warned. These may include increas*ing numbers of fires, floods, droughts, and storms, as well as erosion and out*breaks of pests and pathogens. The letter said that if present (1997) levels of greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise, the climate will change more quickly during the coming century than at any time during the past 10,000 years. "The signers include the leading international experts on many particular di*mensions of this problem," said Harold Mooney, Stanford professor of biolog*ical sciences and the organizer of the effort. "As you will read in the letter, they all have deep concerns about the ecological consequences of rapid climatic change" (Basu 1997). Among the signers are Mooney, as well as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford (an international leader in ecological research), and Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University, a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Seven of the signers are members of the National Academy of Sciences and five are past presidents of the Ecological Society of America. The scientists said, in the United States [R]apid climate change could mean the widespread death of trees, followed by wildfires and ... replacement of forests by grasslands. National parks and forests could become inhospitable to the rare plants and animals that are preserved there-and where the parks are close to developed or agricultural land, the species themselves may disappear for lack of another safe haven. Worldwide, fast-rising sea levels could inundate the marshes and mangrove forests that protect coastlines from erosion and serve as fil*ters for pollutants and nurseries for ocean fisheries. "The more rapid the rate [of change] the more vulnerable to damage ecosystems will be," the scientists told the president. "We are performing a global experiment [with] little information to guide us. (Basu 1997) The ecologists warned that in some United States temperate-zone forests, rapid climate change could lead to "widespread tree mortality, wildfires and replacement of the forests by grasslands. Species that are long-lived, rare, or endangered will be severely disadvantaged" (Basu 1997). "It would be difficult to imagine, for example," the scientists wrote, "how the imperiled species of Everglades National Park, such as the Cape Sable Sparrow and American Croc*odile, could migrate north into the urban and agricultural landscapes of coastal and central Florida and successfully re-establish themselves" (Basu 1997).

 

7. Results in two scenarios of extinction

A) Destroys Biodiversity

Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996, http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10

 

Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.

 

B) Out of control warming kills the planets ability to sustain life, invariably resulting in extinction.

 

Brandenburg and Paxson 1999 Rocket Scientist and Science Editor

Dead Mars, Dying Earth p. (45-47)

 

The monitoring of air samples at Mauna Loa was able to reveal a trend that has continued predictably over time. Since 1955, when monitoring began, to the present, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen somewhere between 0.5 and 2.88 parts per million per year. Each year, the blip in the graph that indicates the change of the seasons takes the line to yet a higher level, irrespective of whether there was a car driving up the side of the mountain or not.'' Global air contains a little more carbon dioxide every year, and the 1998 reading was the biggest increase in a single year ever recorded. The propane car at the observatory was eventually abandoned when an increase in traffic of regular cars up the mountain made it pointless to attempt to maintain the purity of the air to the same high standard. Yet despite the fact that the liquid propane needed to run the car wasn't readily available in 1972 (and it cost more than gasoline) and that the expense involved in converting the engine of a single car to propane was about $600, Dr. Pueschel felt that conversion was worth the additional expense, even for the average car owner. Dr. Pueschel knew something that virtually no one else knew: what a single automobile could do to air quality. He personally had witnessed the impact a lone car had made on the monitoring equipment. "Someday we will have to pay, and it won't be cheap," he predicted. Dr. Pueschel had also seen the relentless upward climb of the needle measuring carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere during the previous two decades. Could his warning have been any more clear? "We take for granted our air is free, but someday we just won't have it anymore." ' The wisdom of hindsight may illuminate what he really meant when he told the newspaper why they had bought the propane car. Gradually, incrementally, we are changing Earth's atmosphere. But are we slowly altering our atmosphere away from something that supports human life toward something deadly like the atmosphere of Mars? Such an atmosphere would have been very familiar to Joseph Black, who isolated the very first atmospheric gas. Unitarian minister Joseph Priestley would have recognized the atmosphere of Mars as well. So would coal miners from the early part of the 20th century and the canary that lay gasping at the bottom of the cage, for the atmosphere of Mars is made of fixed air. The atmosphere of Mars is made of blackdamp. The atmosphere of Mars is made of carbonic acid gas. The atmosphere of Mars is made of a substance that has over time had many names reflecting the toxic side of its nature. While today we call all of them "carbon dioxide" (which we think of as a benign product of our own bodies and the harmless bubbles in soda pop), this substance has clearly not always been viewed as a harmless gas. Nor should it be in the future, for it is time once again to inform our opinions about this substance and recognize its invisible, dark side. As long as a stylus attached to the monitoring equipment in some lonely station on the top of an inactive volcano in Hawaii continues to etch a line ratcheting upward-showing the increased amounts of carbon dioxide that, year after year, flood our atmosphere, threatening us-then we too must think of it very differently. It isn't a matter of speculation. It is a matter of hard, cold scientific fact supported by numerous studies conducted by many respected scientists. In the overwhelming majority they agree: Earth's atmosphere has far too much of what we now must think of as carbon die-oxide. It is warming our planet to the point where life, human life, is endangered.

 

 

8) Warming also takes out your solvency

Carr and Fernandes, 8.

(False Promises, Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernande, adapted by the staff of Nuclear information and resource center, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf)

 

Perhaps the most poignant way in which nuclear power cannot remedy the climate crisis is the fact that it does not work with hot water. In recent years elevated temperatures in rivers46 and even ocean water47 have caused nuclear power reactors to be taken off-line. Hot water not only may violate the technical specifications for reactor core cooling (requiring the fission reaction to stop)—hot water does not cool the reactor condenserwhich takes the steam generated from the heat of fission and turns it back into water so the cycle can continue. In other words, the device simply does not work.

Edited by aldjzair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to come.

 

CP

 

1. Status of the CP? If dispo under what conditions can I stick you with it.

2. What's the USFG?

3. Describe how the Subductive Waste Disposal Method works. How much would it cost?

4. CP bans all types of nuclear reactors correct?

5. Explain the NB's.

 

Econ

 

6. Econ disad assumes immediate government spending correct?

7. What's the newsweek 08 card saying? Do have any evidence that says nuclear power drops oil prices?

 

Case

 

8. Don't the Harding 07 and Smith & Makhijani 06 cards assume thermal reactors?

9. If IFRs solve the problems those two cards outline does that evidence go away?

10. Again doesn't Caldicott 07 assume uranium enrichment for themal reactors? Do have any evidence saying IFRs need uranium enrichment?

11. Carr & Ferrandes 08 assume IFRs are water cooled right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP

 

1. Status of the CP? If dispo under what conditions can I stick you with it.

2. What's the USFG?

3. Describe how the Subductive Waste Disposal Method works. How much would it cost?

4. CP bans all types of nuclear reactors correct?

5. Explain the NB's.

 

1. I have to go for it if you have offense on it

2. United States Federal Government - all three branches

3. It's pretty much a natural process, so it's very cheap. Basically you store nuclear waste underneath oceans on still-moving tectonic plates and as these plates run into other plates, the waste is "subducted" or forced into the earth's mantle.

4. Correct.

5. Econ Disad, Prolif Turns, Global Warming Turns

 

Econ

 

6. Econ disad assumes immediate government spending correct?

7. What's the newsweek 08 card saying? Do have any evidence that says nuclear power drops oil prices?

 

6. sure - once plan passes, the gov spends, but spending isn't the only link

7. The newsweek evidence just talks about how high oil prices are good for the economy. I have evidence saying that nuclear power drops oil prices, I just haven't read it...yet.

 

 

Case

 

8. Don't the Harding 07 and Smith & Makhijani 06 cards assume thermal reactors?

9. If IFRs solve the problems those two cards outline does that evidence go away?

10. Again doesn't Caldicott 07 assume uranium enrichment for themal reactors? Do have any evidence saying IFRs need uranium enrichment?

11. Carr & Ferrandes 08 assume IFRs are water cooled right?

 

8. Harding evidence says it would be hard to "replace existing nuclear capacity", and the Smith & Makhijani talk about any type of nuclear expansion, so, no.

 

9. Idk, that's a debate to be had. Depends on how they solve, what they specifically solve, etc.

 

10. All nuclear reactors need uranium enrichment.

 

11. Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12. How long before we can get all the waste buried with SWD? When we bury the initial batch, can we continue filling the repository once its sealed or do we need new ones every time we make a dump?

13. What's that "other" link to econ?

14. You say that no proliferation now means the SQ is working. But in the Cold War, wasn't there always a threat of Russia and America launching nukes at each other despite the fact that it never happened? Did the SQ prevent the Cuban missile crisis from nearly triggering armageddon?

 

Also, why is your argument that nuclear doesn't solve for car emissions even relevant? It's not even defense at the point where I don't claim a warming advantage.

Edited by TheHutt
one more question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12. How long before we can get all the waste buried with SWD? When we bury the initial batch, can we continue filling the repository once its sealed or do we need new ones every time we make a dump?

 

I mean, there are miles and miles of usable land, and there are several tectonic plates. We could bury them all at once, and there would always be more land in which to bury it. It would take as long to bury as it would at a regular geological site, it would just be hugely more effective.

 

13. What's that "other" link to econ?

 

There are several - spending, high oil prices ^ manufacturing, lowers imports, the plan is just an overall bad idea in terms of economics.

 

14. You say that no proliferation now means the SQ is working. But in the Cold War, wasn't there always a threat of Russia and America launching nukes at each other despite the fact that it never happened? Did the SQ prevent the Cuban missile crisis from nearly triggering armageddon?

 

You concede yourself that there is no significant prolif now. Since the Cold War/Cuban Missile Crisis we (see: US, Russia, Europe) have greatly decreased our nuclear arsenals. Moreover, you claim that rogue states like Iran/North Korea either don't have anything or just demolished what they have.

 

Also, why is your argument that nuclear doesn't solve for car emissions even relevant? It's not even defense at the point where I don't claim a warming advantage.

 

Pre-emptive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16. So does SWD bury waste underwater or on dry land? I'm confused.

17. On your Soupcoff 08 card you talk about how government intervention is bad. If IFRs can solve won't we have picked a "winner"? At the point where IFRs solve is it still bad? I don't see a terminal impact to this.

18. Your Nyquist 07 evidence says, "A severe economic setback today, however, would be occurring in a highly charged, partisan environment, in which the public has already been divided one from the other according to race, ideology and social class." Will you defend that? Because your impact appears to be based on this assumption.

19. Where does Nyquist mention nuclear war? Where's the warrant to why the rise of ideologically corrupted leaders would lead to an actual global war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16. So does SWD bury waste underwater or on dry land? I'm confused.

 

under land that's under water

 

17. On your Soupcoff 08 card you talk about how government intervention is bad. If IFRs can solve won't we have picked a "winner"? At the point where IFRs solve is it still bad? I don't see a terminal impact to this.

 

the card is specific to climate-change/global warming. it means your plan won't solve gw, only the free market does, your plan makes warming worse. Even you prove IFR solvency, you only win it in terms of prolif/yucca scenario.

 

18. Your Nyquist 07 evidence says, "A severe economic setback today, however, would be occurring in a highly charged, partisan environment, in which the public has already been divided one from the other according to race, ideology and social class." Will you defend that? Because your impact appears to be based on this assumption.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. If you want to make indicts go ahead. I have to defend the entirety of the card.

 

19. Where does Nyquist mention nuclear war? Where's the warrant to why the rise of ideologically corrupted leaders would lead to an actual global war?

 

I'm sure that the "greatest war" would incorporate nuclear weapons. If you don't believe me, I'll post more evidence by him in my next speech. The warrant is two-fold, corrupt leaders want to increase power, constantly, so a disaster would be the window of opportunity for them to cease power, start a war, etc. Plus he points to empirical evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20. Does the CP ban every reactor in existence (like ones owned by other countries) or just ones the US owns? Is the ban global or domestic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...