Jump to content
TheHutt

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

Recommended Posts

The roadmap is CP with an overview, case with an overview (important!), then econ. WC = about 2050.

 

 

CP:

 

 

Overview:

 

This is what happens when you write hasty counterplans - don’t let him weasel his way out. His CP text is binding and shifty CP texts are abusive. He doesn’t solve either case advantage, I’m flogging him on the NB’s and he’s stuck with this CP as it stands.

 

1. Perm - do the plan and ban all other forms of nuclear reactors/plants.

 

- Not intrinsic because it’s functionally all the plan plus part of the CP (ban all but one reactor type).

- Solves all case advantages. Boosts solvency by guaranteeing that 100% of new domestic reactors would be IFRs.

 

2. TURN: CP BANS ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS - INCLUDING REACTORS THAT PRESENTLY POWER US NAVAL SUBMARINES AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. OOPS.

 

FAS 2000 [“Nuclear Propulsion”, Feb 29, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html]

 

The propulsion plant of a nuclear-powered ship or submarine uses a nuclear reactor to generate heat.

 

 

A. THAT’S BAD - NUCLEAR NAVY CRITICAL TO MILITARY ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

 

Spencer and Spring ‘07 [Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy.” Nov 5, http://www.heritage.org/Research/homelanddefense/wm1693.cfm]

 

Energy Independence. The armed forces have acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent congressional testimony, "[We] take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent.

 

 

B. THE NAVY IS GOING NUCLEAR NOW - THE CP KILLS THIS

 

eScience News 08 [“Rising fuel costs could lead to nuclear-powered ships.” June 12, http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/12/rising.fuel.costs.could.lead.nuclear.powered.ships]

 

Now some members of Congress believe they have a way to keep ships out of harm's way and prevent similar incidents happening in the future. A bill recently passed by the House of Representatives aims to make many more of the ships in the US naval fleet nuclear powered, including amphibious assault ships that carry troops into combat. The benefit will be two-fold, argue proponents of the bill. Rocketing oil prices make nuclear power an economic way of funding naval expeditions, and thanks to the slow burn of the highly enriched nuclear fuel in marine reactors, ships will have no need to pull into potentially hostile ports to refuel. However, critics claim the presence of a nuclear reactor on a ship would make it a terrorist target. "It beggars belief in these days of heightened terrorism alerts that people are seriously suggesting building nuclear-powered assault ships," says Ben Ayliffe, head of anti-nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace in the UK. The new bill represents an escalation of recent efforts to get the navy to use more nuclear fuel. The rising cost of oil means it is getting close to the point at which it will be more economic for the navy to use nuclear power, says Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, who backs the proposed measures. "A 2007 study by the navy on alternative energy for ship propulsion indicated that the break-even price for nuclear propulsion for amphibious ships was an oil price of $178 dollars per barrel. We're now creeping up to that number - oil hit a new record of $133 a barrel today," he said in a statement on 21 May. There is also the question of securing the military's energy supply, says Bartlett. Ninety-six per cent of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries other than the US. "Many of these countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Nigeria, are unstable and ambivalent or outright hostile to America and our allies," he says, pointing again to nuclear propulsion as the answer. "It offers greater power and unparalleled safety and operational endurance without the vulnerabilities of fossil fuel refuelling," he says. The move towards a navy that relies more heavily on nuclear power is also being driven by the increasing use of ever more powerful radar and radio links. These are turning ships into energy guzzling data-processing centres, said a report by the US Defense Science Board task force on energy strategy in February. In its report, entitled "More Fight, Less Fuel", the task force said that a major reason nuclear power is being seen as an option for surface ships is because not enough is being done to ensure electronics and radar systems are energy efficient. This is forcing the navy to look for new power sources to ensure ships have a steady supply during combat, it says. Congress upped the ante on the use of nuclear power across the fleet last year, when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, an annual piece of legislation that tells the Pentagon how it should spend its budget.Under the act all future aircraft carriers, submarines and battle cruisers have to be built with a nuclear power system at their heart. The risk of a nuclear disaster does not necessarily increase significantly because such ships do not tend to get close to combat zones.

 

C. IMPACT: AN OIL-ADDICTED NAVY WOULD SPUR TERRORISM AND PUT NATIONAL & ECONOMIC SECURITY ON THE ENDANGERED LIST - TURNS THE CP

 

Eggers 8 (Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director for combating terrorism at national security council “Armed Forces Journal” “The fuel gauge of national security” http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573)

 

The events of January highlight a national security cycle that is now fully closed and rapidly tightening. The pattern has been evolving for nearly a century as Western powers, reliant upon Middle Eastern oil to power their warships and economies, developed a persisting interest in the region. That interest evolved into a major presence and, fueled by past resentment and a war in Afghanistan, drove the eventual creation of al-Qaida to expel the “infidels” from the holy land. The ensuing war against al-Qaida has increased America’s footprint in the Middle East, concerns of instability are growing and oil prices are on the rise. As Saudi revenues grow, more money is funneled to Wahhabi madrasas, another generation is taught to resist the West and the cycle of deterioration continues, clearly underscoring an imperative for change. Conservatively stated, our reliance on Middle Eastern oil has severely distorted and crippled our foreign policy options abroad. More squarely, oil has become a catalyst for terrorism.Discussions on the severe national security consequences stemming from the U.S. “addiction” to petroleum are well trodden. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that “the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.” Going back 50 years, President Eisenhower cautioned that importing more than 20 percent of our oil would severely undermine U.S. security. Attention is now beginning to focus on a less discussed vulnerability: the natural but ironic predicament that our national security apparatus is as addicted to oil as our country is. Of the 84-plus million barrels of oil consumed globally each day, more than half is moved to market by ships, most of which pass through one of the ocean’s major strategic chokepoints. All such waterways are special nodes of global power, but the Iranians reminded us again that certain straits, particularly those of Hormuz and Malacca, play a critically strategic role because one-third of the world’s oil consumption flows through these two narrows daily. This channeling, coupled with diminishing excess supply, elevates the likelihood that future conflicts will be over energy resources and might occur in such locations.And the U.S. warships that patrol strategic chokepoints are fully dependent on the resource they might be expected to safeguard. In fact,with few exceptions, the U.S. military is powered, fueled and transported by petroleum-derived commodities.A significant oil disruption not only threatens our national economic security, it endangers the national security machinery itself.

 

 

4. By banning nuclear power (20% of our electricity) we’ll have to immediately replace it with fossil fuels, that means warming will accelerate even more. Extend and cross-apply his warming scenario (Johansen 02, Margoulis 96, Brandenburg 99)

 

5. The CP doesn’t solve prolif - countries will still build thermal reactors and use PUREX. Extend Marsh 07 - nuclear power will expand globally whether we play a role or not. Extend his own Harding 07 and Smith & Makhijani 06 cards which say that expansion of thermal reactors causes prolif. Only the plan prevents extinction.

 

6. He says the plan sends waste to Yucca: wrong. We keep it in the temporary storage where it is now and put it into the IFR closed fuel cycle as soon as they’re built. The waste never goes to Yucca.

 

7. SUBDUCTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL: CAN’T IMPLEMENT - LOST MEANS WE CAN’T DUMP WASTE IN THE OCEAN

 

NationMaster Encylopedia No Date [“Radioactive Waste”, no date, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Radioactive-waste]

 

Sea-based options for disposal of radioactive waste include burial beneath a stable abyssal plain, burial in a subduction zone that would slowly carry the waste downward into the Earth's mantle, and burial beneath a remote natural or human-made island. While these approaches all have merit and would facilitate an international solution to the vexing problem of disposal of radioactive waste, they are currently not being seriously considered because of the legal barrier of the Law of the Sea and because in North America and Europe sea-based burial has become taboo from fear that such a repository could leak and cause widespread damage. Dumping of radioactive waste from ships has reinforced this concern, as has contamination of islands in the Pacific. However, sea-based approaches might come under consideration in the future by individual countries or groups of countries that cannot find other acceptable solutions.

 

8. CAN’T IMPLEMENT - INVENTOR HIMSELF SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL

 

Baird 2008 [Jim, inventor/patent holder of SWD concept, “How we got here?” May 23, http://www3.telus.net/subductionservices/How%20we%20got%20here.htm]

Selected sites in the deep ocean trenches (subduction zones) are so good a site for nuclear waste disposal, and solve the problem so perfectly, that it became necessary to stop it happening. Skilled people were able to convince the politicians and the bureaucrats of the major nations of the world to draft and sign a treaty. A treaty making it all illegal. It was a confidence trick to end all confidence tricks."

 

 

9. INVENTOR SAYS IT’S EXPENSIVE, SWD LINKS TO ECON

 

Baird 2008 [Jim, inventor/patent holder of SWD concept, “How we got here?” May 23, http://www3.telus.net/subductionservices/How%20we%20got%20here.htm]

The subductive waste disposal method would be expensive to implement but this cost and the technical challenge would preclude any future plutonium mining endeavor.

 

 

10. Seriously - the CP indiscriminately bans nuclear power immediately. That’s removing twenty percent of America’s electricity overnight. We barely have enough power in the SQ - you can’t just remove 1/5 of the electricity supply without wreaking havoc on the economy with price spikes. CP links hard to his econ impact.

 

 

Case:

 

 

Overview:

 

aldjzair never contests that nuclear power is inevitable both at home and abroad - extend Campbell 06, Lake 06, Marsh 07, and the first Hannum/Marsh/Stanford 07 card. These cards are loaded with warrants to why nuclear power is here to stay. In the world in which nuclear power is inevitable, all his impacts will happen anyway - making all his offense terminally non-unique. And, the plan turns his offense because IFRs solve the links and/or impacts, turning them into advantages to the plan and permutations which the CP cannot possibly access. There’s only a risk the plan solves.

Line-by-Line

 

Group 1NC (1 and 3):

 

1. Turn - see the overview. This functions as an advantage because IFRs solve his offense.

 

2. Both cards assume conventional reactors. He says enrichment, reprocessing, and MOX causes prolif, but IFRs don’t use any of these. Pyroprocessing is a closed cycle and therefore is resistant to prolif - extend my 1AC Stanford ’01 evidence.

 

3. AND, NO URANIUM ENRICHMENT OR MOX NEEDED. THE IFR CAN BURN UNREFINED URANIUM WITH NO ILL EFFECTS

 

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]

 

Today's reactors only use uranium 235 which is less than 1% of the uranium found in nature. The IFR, with its fuel reprocessing capability, can use all the uranium. There is enough uranium that has been mined and placed in barrels (uranium 238) for IFR-type plants to provide all the electricity for the United States for over 500 years -- without mining.

 

 

4. Extend Stanford 01, IFR closed cycle means no proliferation.

 

 

OFF 1NC (2):

 

1. Talk about poor strategy - he contradicts his own argument with the cards he sandwiches this one in. Harding 07 and Smith & Makhijani 06 both say expanded conventional nuclear power causes proliferation and that’s exactly what the SQ will do - proliferation is inevitable absent the plan.

 

 

OFF 1NC (4):

 

Off his A:

 

100% irrelevant, nuclear electricity has literally nothing to do with vehicle emissions. He says in cross-x this is pre-emptive so I’ll return the favor - his Soupcoff 08 card won’t apply here because nuclear electricity and auto fuel are two separate things; the case won’t affect things like ethanol should the market select it to replace gasoline.

 

Off his B:

 

Turn - see the overview. IFRs don’t exacerbate warming.

 

a) NO IFR EMISSIONS, PERIOD - YOU’LL PREFER THIS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT’S SPECIFIC TO IFRS AND THE AUTHOR HELPED DESIGN IT

 

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

 

And of course, in common with all nuclear reactors, IFRs emit no carbon dioxide.

Do they put out any atmospheric pollutants? None worth mentioning.

 

 

B) Cross apply Berkeley DNE 03 from above, no need to mine uranium with IFRs for hundreds of years, and no need to enrich the current uranium, means no emissions.

 

c) CO2 produced by plant construction would be, what? .0000000000000001% of current global emissions? Not enough to trigger an impact.

 

d) In the long run nuclear is far cleaner than burning fossil fuels - IFRs mean a massive net decrease in emissions.

 

e) IFR solves for waste storage, further reducing emissions - that’s our Ockert 06 card.

 

 

OFF HIS C:

 

a) Non-unique and No Link: nuclear power is inevitable - also extend Lake 06 that the electricity market is currently very favorable to inexpensive nuclear power. The plan is just pre-empting what the market is going to force anyway - a shift towards nuclear. All it does is ensure we use a superior reactor type - the market won’t choose IFRs now because they’ve been virtually forgotten by the industry.

 

B) In cross-x he concedes this is just a warming link, at the point where I solve for warming on the emissions-free electricity front this card goes away.

 

c) NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY VIABLE SOURCE TO REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS AND CHECK WARMING - OTHER RENEWABLES TAKE TOO LONG.

 

McCarthy 04 [Michael, IUK staff writer. “Lovelock: ‘Only nuclear power can now halt global warming.” Independent UK, 23 May 04, http://www.energybulletin.net/320.html]

 

He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN'sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001. On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power- the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm. He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition.

 

 

OFF 1NC (5):

 

1. Turn - see overview.

 

2. Cross-apply Berkeley DNE, we have enough uranium to last 500 years without mining.

 

3. 10,000 YEARS OF URANIUM. PREFER MY EVIDENCE, IT’S SPECIFIC TO IFRS

 

Lightfoot, et al 2006[H Douglas, Global Environmental Climate Change Center; Wallace Manheimer, Naval Research Lab; Daniel Meneley, Engineer Emeritus, AECL; George Stanford, Argonne Nat’l Lab; September 12, “Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible,” http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0609lightfoot.pdf]

 

Nuclear fission energy is as inexhaustible as those energies usually termed "renewable", such as hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. But, unlike the sum of these energies, nuclear fission energy has sufficient capacity to replace fossil fuels as they become scarce. Replacement of the current thermal variety of nuclear fission reactors with nuclear fission fast reactors, which are 100 times more fuel efficient, can dramatically extend nuclear fuel reserves. The contribution of uranium price to the cost of electricity generated by fast reactors, even if its price were the same as that of gold at US$14,000, would be us$0.003/kwh of electricity generated.At that price, -economically viable uranium reserves would be, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible. Uranium could power the worldas far into the future as we are today from the dawn of civilization-more than 10,000 years ago. Fast reactors have distinct advantages in siting of plants, product transport and management of waste.

 

4. Cross-apply 2AC Stanford 01 - no environmental impact from burning lower-grade uranium. This is due to the efficiency of the IFR.

 

 

GROUP 1NC (6 and 7) - WARMING:

 

1. It’s terminally non-unique - nuclear power is inevitable in the SQ, extend Campbell, Lake, Marsh and the first Hannum/Marsh/Stanford card. In the long run the plan is just establishing the most superior type of reactor.

 

2. No link - cross apply Stanford 01, IFRs create no emissions and by trading off with coal and other unclean sources they create a net decrease in emissions. In the world in which nuclear is inevitable IFRs solve the links and stop warming.

 

3. Cross-apply McCarthy - emissions-free nuclear power key to solve warming.

 

 

OFF 1NC (8):

 

1. Turn - see overview.

 

2. NO LINK - IFRS DON’T USE WATER, THEY’RE METAL COOLED

 

Ragheb 04 [College of Engineering at University of Illinois. Magdi, research on nuclear power, “INHERENTLY SAFE REACTORS DESIGNS”, 7/19, https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Inherently%20Safe%20Reactor%20Designs.pdf)

 

It offers a large degree of inherent safety from two perspectives: 1. The core of the reactor is immersed in a large pool of sodium liquid metal possessing a large thermal inertia, and capable of absorbing the heat generated by the fuel under any credible accident condition.2. The coolant is operated at atmospheric pressure and is not pressurized like in the gas or water cooled designs. In the case of sudden depressurization of a pressurized coolant it is lost to the system. In the case of water as a coolant, it flashes into steam and is lost. This cannot happen in the case of the IFR since the coolant is operated at atmospheric pressure. If the coolant pumps fail, the reactor naturally shuts itself off, without the need for human intervention. If the secondary steam system shuts off, the reactor shuts itself off even without any control rod movements or actions on the part of the reactor operators.

 

 

ECON:

 

 

1. Non-unique - nuclear power inevitable, extend Lake 06. Plan just ensures the superior reactor type is built.

 

2. No Link - the plan spends next to nothing. Loan guarantees would cost nothing - extend Adams 08 - given my Totty evidence which follows, and the earliest the government would even potentially have to pay something would be years down the road - after the economy recovers in 2009, that’s their own Robb evidence. Cooperative agreements don’t cost money since we’re just incorporating the nuclear industry into existing government nuclear research programs which already have flexible budgets.

 

3. No link - the government doesn’t actually pay to build the plants, we just encourage private investment with incentives.

 

4. TURN - THEIR EVIDENCE IS MISLEADING, FEDERAL INCENTIVES BRING DOWN INFLATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS SAVING BILLIONS

 

Totty 08 (Michael, Journal Report News Editor, The Wall Street Journal, “The Case For and Against Nuclear Power”, June 30, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, Date Accessed: 7/5/08)

 

So, what's the case against nuclear power? It boils down to two things: economics and safety. Neither holds up to scrutiny. First, economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump.

 

 

4. TURN - YUCCA WLL COST $90 BILLION, THE PLAN REDUCES GOVERNMENT SPENDING BY STOPPING YUCCA

 

Las Vegas Sun 08 [daily newspaper, “Yucca Mountain price tag: $90 billion.” July 15, http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/news/2008/jul/15/price-tag-yucca-mountain-operation-90-billion/]

 

The new price tag for building and operating Yucca Mountain is estimated to be $90 billion, the Energy Department said today, providing the first real snapshot of lifespan costs after Congress has repeatedly pleaded for an updated financial picture.

The estimate is $19 billion higher than previous rough estimates provided last year for the nation's nuclear waste dump about a 1 1/2-hour drive outside of Las Vegas.

 

 

5. TURN - THE PLAN BOOSTS CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURING JUMPSTARTING THE ECONOMY

 

ACGNC ’07 [American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, “An Assessment of the Economic, Employment, Environmental and National Security Benefits of New Nuclear Facility Construction in the USA,” http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/documents.html]

The ongoing nuclear renaissance offers the promise of spurring new nuclear power plant construction in the United States. New plant construction, in turn, could stimulate our heavy manufacturing sector and restore United States leadership in global nuclear energy markets. Many billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a large share of the growing United States and global nuclear energy markets. This is not just speculation. The initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction, which peaked in the 1970s and 1980s, resulted in more than 400 plants being built across the globe. These plants generate about 16 percent of the world’s electricity without emitting air pollutants or greenhouse gases.

 

 

6. TURN - THE PLAN WILL INCREASE US EXPORTS, MAKING UP FOR ANY INCREASE IN IMPORTS

 

Scherer 7 [Ron, The Christian Science Monitor, “Surge in Exports Buoys U.S. Economy,” October 17, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p01s05-usec.html]

 

In a major shift from the past five years, the US trade deficit, after stabilizing last year, is now shrinking. US companies, faced with slower economic growth in their home market, are now targeting foreign buyers. It doesn't hurt to have the dollar shrinking in value – down almost 9 percent so far this year – and a relatively strong global economy. In fact, the US economy would be flirting with recession if it weren't for the 1 percentage point of growth fueled by the export surge. "Exports have suddenly become a key source of growth at a time when the economy is looking for any growth it can get," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. The largest US exports last year: nuclear power plants, followed by electrical machinery, vehicles, airplanes, and medical equipment. The trade situation has shifted so dramatically, Mr. Zandi says, that the US is now exporting lumber to Canada for the first time in 25 years.

 

 

7. Case outweighs - my prolif impacts are inevitable and cause nuclear Armageddon - it’s try or die for the aff. Biosphericide means instant extinction. All he’s got is a sketchy link story that’s easily defeated by the facts on my side, and Nyquist 07 never mentions nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a couple of questions:

have we started building any IFRs?

 

how are they structurally different from thermal reactors? like do they have different parts and stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a couple of questions:

have we started building any IFRs?

 

how are they structurally different from thermal reactors? like do they have different parts and stuff?

1. No.

 

2. Some technical differences: the IFR does not require the low level radwaste cleanup station, the emergency core cooling system, and requires fewer control rod drives and control rods for comparable power. Because of the low pressure in the sodium systems, less steel is required for the plant piping and reactor vessel. Reactor containment will be less massive. The IFR does not require the services of the Isotopic Separation Plants for fuel enrichment. Additions would include the pyroprocessing system and a secondary sodium system, though these costs are offset by cheaper reactor fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roadmap is Case (specifically prolif) with an overview and counter-overview, followed by Econ with a lengthy overview - 2023 words

PROLIF

 

Overview:

There are a few arguments as to why the world is better off without the plan in terms of proliferation. First, he concedes that theres no risk of prolif in the status quo. He literally says that theres been no risk of prolif since 2002. Second, our Smith and Makhijani 06 evidence is specific to ANY form of nuclear expansion. The warrants state that nuclear expansion causes expanded proliferation because countries are waiting to see what the U.S. will do in terms of energy, and an expanded nuclear program will allow them to have at least the potential to create nuclear weapons. Finally, look to his Utgoff evidence. It says that increasing nuclear energy puts more pressure on other nations to obtain nuclear weapons. Everyone wants to be safe. Nuclear power is the best way of keeping the potential to attain nuclear weapons alive.

 

On his overview:

He makes a big mistake in banking on his nuclear inevitable scenarios. However, out of all the cards he tells you to pull through, only the Lake evidence is specific to the U.S. The rest reference the globe. Moreover, the Lake evidence only says that nuclear energy is poised to contribute more to US needs. The problem is that several forms of alternative energy are poised to contribute more to US needs. My argument is that picking nuclear has serious ramifications. Lastly, on the overview he says the plan turns his offense because IFRs solve the links and/or impacts. Thats all. Literally. Dont buy any of his arguments that just say Turn - look to overview. There is absolutely no warrant as to why IFRs solve.

 

Line-by-line

Off his number 1:

Relying on the overview is a terrible idea, especially when he gives you absolutely no warrants. Prefer my analysis that IFRs cause prolif because they are seen as nuclear expansion rather than a move towards disarmament

 

2. And 3. Ok, I concede that Harding talks about conventional reactors, but Smith & Makhijani dont. They talk about how now is just a bad time for nuclear expansion, so extend that across as a reason that the plan causes prolif. He seriously has no answer to this card.

 

Off number 4

A) His plan doesnt guarantee that IFRs will be built around the world.

B) The countries least like to get IFRs are rogue states that pose the greatest threat

C) Countries still have to reprocess used waste - this creates a significant prolif threat - in fact, Stanford concedes that this is why Congress abandoned IFR technology.

D) Countries will look to US nuclear expansion as a reason to keep nuclear programs alive - even if we build IFRs here, theyll pursue thermal nuclear reactors there - technology and price become barriers to advanced nuclear power construction.

 

Squassoni in '07

(Sharon Squassoni, Sharon Squassoni is a senior associate with the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Risks and Realities: The "New Nuclear Energy Revival," May 2007, pg online @ http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_05/squassoni.asp //cndi-ef)

 

Brazil, which is commissioning a new centrifuge enrichment plant at Resende, will likely produce more low-enriched uranium than is needed for its consumption by 2015. If such decisions were made purely on economic grounds, the thresholds for achieving economies of scale are high but not insurmountable.[24] One estimate is that indigenous centrifuge enrichment becomes cost effective at the capacity level of 1.5 million separative work units, an amount required by 10 1-gigawatt plants. Even then, such an enrichment plant is unlikely to be competitive with larger suppliers such as Urenco.[25] More than a dozen countries without nuclear power are reportedly considering their nuclear energy options. These include states in Europe (Poland and Turkey), the Middle East (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates), Africa (Namibia), Central Asia (Georgia), and Asia (Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam). It is unlikely that these states will pursue a full nuclear fuel cycle in the short run, but they may also desire to keep their options open.

 

Even if you dont buy that, the amount of proliferation post-plan dwarfs current concerns. Any risk whatsoever of proliferation post-plan is a reason to negate because of safe, viable, energy alternatives.

Makhijani 04 [Arjun, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law]

If the world continues to use oil for transportation (and oil accounts for about forty percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use today, most of it in the transport sector),15 a very large number of nuclear power plants will have to be built in the next four decades to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Most existing coal-fired power plants would have to be replaced with nuclear ones, and present-day nuclear power plants (over 400 in all) will have to be retired and replaced with new ones. In order to make a significant dent in CO2 emissions, at least one-third, and perhaps one-half or more of the global growth in electricity demand must be supplied by nuclear power. In any scenario involving two percent or greater global electricity growth, the use of nuclear power will mean the construction of thousands of nuclear power plants in the next four decades. Consider for instance, an electricity growth rate of two percent, which is far less than that occurring in China and India, but more or less typical of recent U.S. trends. To make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we might hypothesize that (i) all present day nuclear power plants will be replaced by new ones, (ii) half the electricity growth will be provided by nuclear power, and (iii) half of the world's coal-fired plants will be replaced by nuclear power plants. This would mean that about two thousand large (1,000 megawatts each) nuclear power plants would have to be built over the next four decades. That is a rate of about one per week. If small plants, like the proposed Pebble Bed Modular Reactor were built instead, the required rate of construction would be about three reactors every two days. The proliferation implications of building so many plants and supplying them with fuel are stupendous. Inspecting them, enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are not diverted into weapons programs would present challenges that would make today's proliferation concerns look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. We already have confrontations between the United States and other countries over alleged nuclear weapons aspirations from far more modest programs involving a handful of power plants. The risk of losing a city once in a while to nuclear bombs should be an unacceptable part of an energy strategy.

 

His answer to my second argument once again relies on his argument that nuclear expansion is inevitable. However, look to my analysis in my answer to his overview. None of his evidence claim that US nuclear expansion is inevitable - far from it - the closest he gets is the Lake evidence saying that nuclear energy COULD be used. His other evidence tries to pressure us into pursuing nuclear energy by claiming that other countries are going to get nuclear programs, so the US should as well.

a) This doesn't mean that the US is sure to get nuclear energy

B) His evidence claims that the US exerts an enormous amount of influence - picking a no-risk renewable rather than nuke energy can still spill over to the globe

c) My Squassoni evidence claims that even current programs are small-scale and not likely to be pursued as full nuclear programs. Expanding nuclear power gives countries a reason to keep nuclear ambitions alive.

 

ECON

 

Overview:

Extend the newsweek 08 evidence from the 1NC: high oil prices make imports more expensive, this means that we import less - decreasing the trade deficit, and manufacture more - increasing production and revenue.And there are two more links due to plan spending - first is that they spend too much money in terms of cooperative agreements and loans that are expensive now killing the economy now. The second is that new government spending - such as the plan - leads to more inflation by taking money from banks and creating more money than we back up, and prolongs the downturn. Thats Saville from the 1NC. Finally, the plan spurs the creation of new plants, but this creates labor shortages, unemployment, and the need to outsource. This is explained in more detail on the line-by-line. The stagflation (unemployment in addition to inflation) which ensues from their plan definitively crushes the economy. Sailor tells us that the inflation pressures the already low economy until it collapses. His argument that the disad is non-unique is bogus - this is exactly the sort of pressure which delays a transition to alternative energies and kills the economy. When the change to renewables comes it wont be through government incentives and subsidies like the plan, but through innovation at the market level like what is coming in the squo. Its better to let the market take its course than to back the wrong horse.

And the disad outweighs.

A) Timeframe/Probability - you vote here. His Yucca impacts have 0 risk until 2017, and even then the probability remains low. The site is protected against earthquakes and considerably calm. Economic collapse triggers the impacts - this happens within a year of his plan being passed.

B) Disad turns case: Collapsed economy means no leadership means countries wont model IFRs

Ferris and Jackson 94 [stephen Ferris, Department of Finance Chair at U of Missouri-Columbia & Timothy Jackson Head of Strategy at College of Naval War (Silber, Fall)] (Strategic Review, pg. 54)

 

Although collective security implies multi-national activity, leadership within that coalition is essential. Coalition leadership will have to provide direction and vision for the efforts of the member states. One nation must emerge to coordinate the coalitions initatives as well as offer a sense of moral guidance. In many cases, the United States will be expected to provide this leadership. National economic strength will largely determine the ability of the United States to respond to such demands. The extent of possible American human and material resources will be determined by the robustness of the economy. An economically depressed state cannot be expected to provide the leadership necessary for an international coalition.

 

C) Magnitude: See, Nyquist does talk about nuclear weapons.

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."]

The world is made up of armed nation states, and some of those states have nuclear and biological weapons that could easily kill several hundred million people. We dont like to think that these weapons would ever be used, but its safe to say theyll be used all the same. Weapons are always used. This is not because of some dark conspiracy to use them. They are used because they exist to be used, and the occasion for using them – though unwelcome by most of us – nonetheless recurs through time. People always seem ready to hate somebody, to blame somebody, and to unleash destruction on somebody. The reasons for hatred may be ethnic, religious or ideological. We can see these reasons falling from the lips of al Qaeda spokesmen, from Latin American dictators and Chinese generals. Everyone knows that war plans were drawn up in Washington and Moscow long ago. But war did not come when the two sides were carefully watching one another; mainly on account of the nuclear balance of terror. Such balances, however, do not last forever. In fact, a major economic disruption might overthrow the balance of terror.

 

And dont weigh the Yucca scenario first like his misleading tag tell you too theres no warrant. Nyquist's impact happens before Yucca, is more likely, and culminates in extinction

Ross 2003 (Larry- Founder of NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association, “RACING TOWARD EXTINCTION”, Dec 10, http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/racing.htm)

People have forgot, or never learned, how nuclear weapons can destroy our world. Here is a chart with 6,000 dots divided into 100 squares. The one dot in the centre represents all the explosive power of allied bombs dropped in WWII - equal to 3,000,000 tons of TNT or 3 megatons. Millions were killed. We have enough for about 6,000 WWII's. The dots in just one of the 100 squares represent the firepower to kill all life on earth. We have made enough weapons to kill everyone on earth many times over. That is our dire situation today. We are not adapting to change our behaviour, but reinforcing old behaviour that leads to war? The nuclear arms race, accelerated by the vested interests of the military-industrial-political complex, and the phantom threats we invent to sustain it, is the major occupation of many top brains and huge resources today. It has huge momentum and power. It is embedded in U.S. society and some others. It is an accepted part of the culture. This weapons culture and the new doctrines mean that nuclear weapons are no longer treated as a last resort. They can be used in addition to conventional weapons to achieve military goals. . The culture has programmed itself for self-destruction and now has the ideology to continue until they precipitate a nuclear holocaust which kills all life. The quantumleap in destructive power has now been matched by this new will, or self-permission, to use these weapons. Laws, fears and reservations have been swept aside. Humanity seems to have accepted the new doctrines. Few seem concerned that any usage can kill millions, and quickly expand beyond any countries control, leading to a global nuclear war which ends humanity. We have radically altered our environment in so many other ways as well, that also threaten our existence in the longer term. Population growth and our economic growth ideology augment the trends of climate change - global warming - pollution - dwindling natural resources - deforestation etc. To emphasise again, the biggest change we have made in our environment is the quantum leap in our ability to destroy ourselves. Our psychological and social climate makes it more probable. Most people are not aware of this huge change in our environment. Others just accept it. We have learned to live with and treat nuclear weapons as a normal part of the environment. Many feel that to question or oppose this situation is silly, disloyal or threatens the security we think nuclear weapons give us. Nine countries are dedicated to constantly developing their nuclear arsenals. That makes accidental or intentional usage more likely. That the U.S. has said the nuclear barriers are down adds to the likelihood of nuclear weapons use by some other state. A probable escalation would follow.

 

Line-by-line

 

Off his number 1:

Not inevitable - extend soupcoff - we dont know where the USs metaphorical alternative energy car is headed, plenty of renewable energy sources are poised to fill our energy needs.

 

Group 2 and 3:

A) On the adams evidence - his evidence claims itself that building nuclear factories are subject to rising cost. This is exactly what my soupcoff evidence talks about. We cant predict the future, and empirically government intervention has simply hurt the market.

B) Plan still pays cooperative agreements which are like grants - those cost money

C) Low confidence in nuclear energy means the loans WILL cost money, and a lot of it.

 

And he has two number 4s!!! juh-udgecheating

 

On his first number 4: his evidence damns him. It presumes that there would be high prices when we start to build plants, but then As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down. However, high priced loans due to low confidence levels now is what causes economic collapse. Hes going to say that incentives are needed to take us over the hump but that just means we have to pay money in loan guarantees until builders trust us. And heres some evidence that goes well with his own - State regulations will deter investment investors fear it more than the federal government

Gelinas, 07-- Chief Executive

“Is Wall Street Ready to Go Nuclear?” Nicole.. New York: Sep 2007. , Iss. 228; pg. 42, 5 pgs

But skepticism abounds, particularly within the financing community. This skepticism could be a deal breaker because nuclear-power operators with small market caps do not have the resources to finance capital-intensive new nukes with equity or with corporate-level debt. In recent history, new construction in the power generation sector has been financed mostly with non-recourse debt, meaning that banks and bondholders, rather than shareholders, take the risk.

So far, Wall Street isn't biting. "The asymmetry of risk is just too large for Wall Street to finance these projects over time horizons that exceed political and economic cycles. ... Utilities [are] willing to make this investment, but I don't see [the debt markets] stepping up and funding this program. ... The markets aren't going to support it," said one veteran from Wall Street who attended a recent Manhattan Institute conference on nuclear power. While the financier characterized the 2005 subsidies as "helpful," he said that it's unlikely the sector will get off the ground without a far more comprehensive "federally based insurance scheme" that, in effect, would eliminate virtually every risk except, perhaps, commercial risk.

The skeptics note that first, there are still political risks. Nobody wants to be the first to invest in a new nuke. While streamlining the regulatory process for new plant siting and operating may work in theory, financiers want to see it work in real life before they make an investment. They're not quite sure, for example, how the loan guarantees will really work. Beyond Washington, state and local political risks loom, perhaps even larger than federal political risks. Several states, including Illinois, periodically "appear on the verge of passing legislation" to reregulate power rates to residential users and thus curtail the power industry's ability, in a deregulated environment, to pass capital costs through to end users, another conference attendee noted.

 

On his second number 4:

a) Plan wont reduce spending until nuclear plants are built and congress is sure that theres a place to put the waste.

B) Plan doesnt mandate that waste be moved, his answer that plan stays in storage is complete extrapolation on his part it goes to yucca unless plan text says otherwise.

c) And plants take too long to be built even by 2050 nuclear power wont exceed 20% of our energy needs

Shrader-Frechette, 08 - teaches biological sciences and philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (Krisitin, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, American Magazine, 6/23, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884)

In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies—a total of $20 billion—to atomic power. Why? Some officials say nuclear energy is clean, inexpensive, needed to address global climate change, unlikely to increase the risk of nuclear proliferation and safe.

 

Group 5 and 6:

 

A) Rise in nuclear plant exports happened over 2 years ago, the economy is dynamic

B) Specific to conventional reactors - talks about repeating the initial waves of reactors

C) The rest of the world uses thermal energy - they wont import IFR materials

D) Turn: New Construction would create skilled labor shortages (unemployment) and the need to outsource.

Electricity Journal 7 (Economics of Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon-Constrained World, December, L/n rday)

In the near term, reliance on foreign manufacturing capacity could complicate construction and licensing. NRC Chairman Dale Klein recently indicated that reliance on foreign suppliers would require more time for quality control inspections, to ensure that substandard materials are not incorporated in U.S. plants.8 Skilled labor and experienced contractors present another problem. A recent study by GE-Toshiba identified a potential shortage of craft labor within a 400-mile radius of the Bellefonte site, forcing the adoption of a longer construction schedule.9 Other sources have pointed to the potential for skilled labor shortages if nuclear construction expands.

 

Outsourcing ensures continued American unemployment

Roberts 05 [Paul Craig, “A Greater Threat Than Terrorism: Outsourcing the American Economy”, http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04192005.html]

The result is a lose-lose situation for American employees, American businesses, and the American government. Outsourcing has brought about record unemployment in engineering fields and a major drop in university enrollments in technical and scientific disciplines. Even many of the remaining jobs are being filled by lower paid foreigners brought in on H-1b and L-1 visas. American employees are discharged after being forced to train their foreign replacements.

 

Plan increases nuclear energy, decreasing the demand for oil. Decreasing the demand for fossil fuels lowers oil prices thats basic economics

Amadeo 08 (Kimberly, The New York Times Company [http://useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/p/high_gas_prices.htm] Why Gas Prices are so High- Why Gas Prices are Increasing/ May, 2008)

The only real way to lower gas prices is to lower demand for gas and oil over a long period of time. This would work, since the U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil. This has increased over the last 20 years, from 15 million barrels per day (bpd) to 20.7 million bpd. A concerted effort might convince commodities traders, who have driven up oil prices 25% in the first quarter of 2008, that oil was a bad investment, thus allowing oil prices to return to pre-bubble levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0. In your overview you say "Second, our Smith and Makhijani ’06 evidence is specific to ANY form of nuclear expansion. The warrants state that nuclear expansion causes expanded proliferation because countries are waiting to see what the U.S. will do in terms of energy, and an expanded nuclear program will allow them to have at least the potential to create nuclear weapons." Can you pick out and quote the actual warrants from the card which say this? Because Smith and Makhijani never talk about this at all.

 

1. Where do I say, word for word, "there has been no risk of prolif since 2002"? Because I don't recall saying such a thing.

 

2. You say that "Countries still have to reprocess used waste- this creates a significant prolif threat - in fact, Stanford concedes that this is why Congress abandoned IFR technology." Where does Stanford ever say this? Point out the specific line in a card for me.

 

3. Why do you continually ignore my Stanford 01 from the 1AC which says, quote, "The IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons." ? The IFR alleviates all reprocessing concerns.

 

4. You say a cooperative agreement is like a grant, what evidence do you pull that out of? Cooperative agreements mean, literally, "cooperative agreements" - an agreement between national laboratories and private nuclear firms to collaborate on IFR research. They don't need additional funding, they just draw it out of their budget.

 

5. Your Shrader-Frechette 08 evidence talks about how only 20% of our electricity could come from nuclear power. Where's the warrant to how long construction would take? Where's the warrant to why safety requirements prolong construction? If IFRs solve safety requirements is this card still applicable?

 

6. In the tag of electricity journal 07 you say "New Construction would create skilled labor shortages (unemployment) and the need to outsource." How the hell does a labor shortage indicate unemployment? That flies in the face of all logic. And, where does this card talk about outsourcing?

 

7. How is this labor scenario responsive to my ACGNC 07 evidence which indicates an increase in construction would create high-paying jobs? Isn't high pay an incentive for people to obtain the manual skills needed to take such a job?

 

8. How exactly do you outsource something that has to be built on American soil?

 

9. Your Amadeo 08 card talks about lowering the demand for gas and oil, but where the hell do you read a card that says nuclear lowers the demand for gas and oil? Where's the internal link to economic collapse? It's not enough to point to "basic economics" considering gasoline and electricity are two totally separate things.

 

10. On your Gelinas 07 tag you say "However, high priced loans due to low confidence levels now is what causes economic collapse." Where's the warrant to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0. In your overview you say "Second, our Smith and Makhijani ’06 evidence is specific to ANY form of nuclear expansion. The warrants state that nuclear expansion causes expanded proliferation because countries are waiting to see what the U.S. will do in terms of energy, and an expanded nuclear program will allow them to have at least the potential to create nuclear weapons." Can you pick out and quote the actual warrants from the card which say this? Because Smith and Makhijani never talk about this at all.

 

"The largest risk of such an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be the increased potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons. "

 

"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."

 

1. Where do I say, word for word, "there has been no risk of prolif since 2002"? Because I don't recall saying such a thing.

 

"There hasn't been any significant prolif since 2002."

answer number 8 on post number 15

 

2. You say that "Countries still have to reprocess used waste- this creates a significant prolif threat - in fact, Stanford concedes that this is why Congress abandoned IFR technology." Where does Stanford ever say this? Point out the specific line in a card for me.

It's actually later in the article. I'll post the section of the article that you don't read in my next speech.

 

3. Why do you continually ignore my Stanford 01 from the 1AC which says, quote, "The IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons." ? The IFR alleviates all reprocessing concerns.

 

reprocessing means there is a step where waste can be stolen and then enriched for weapons. and once again, IFRs won't be built throughout the world.

 

4. You say a cooperative agreement is like a grant, what evidence do you pull that out of? Cooperative agreements mean, literally, "cooperative agreements" - an agreement between national laboratories and private nuclear firms to collaborate on IFR research. They don't need additional funding, they just draw it out of their budget.

 

I beg to differ. A cooperative agreement costs the federal government. It's a form of assisting I can post the federal definition of a cooperative agreement in my next speech or right here if you want.

 

5. Your Shrader-Frechette 08 evidence talks about how only 20% of our electricity could come from nuclear power. Where's the warrant to how long construction would take? Where's the warrant to why safety requirements prolong construction? If IFRs solve safety requirements is this card still applicable?

 

20% of nuclear power by 2050. Means that in over 40 years, we'll have barely advanced construction. The warrant isn't that safety requirements prolong construction, and it's not something IFRs can solve. The warrant is that nuclear plants have to undergo safety checks and stuff before they can be opened and used.

 

6. In the tag of electricity journal 07 you say "New Construction would create skilled labor shortages (unemployment) and the need to outsource." How the hell does a labor shortage indicate unemployment? That flies in the face of all logic. And, where does this card talk about outsourcing?

 

7. How is this labor scenario responsive to my ACGNC 07 evidence which indicates an increase in construction would create high-paying jobs? Isn't high pay an incentive for people to obtain the manual skills needed to take such a job?

 

I'm gonna answer these questions together:

My electricity journal evidence says "reliance on foreign manufacturing capacity" and "sources have pointed to the potential for skilled labor shortages if nuclear construction expands." Put those together and that means you need to rely on foreign countries for domestic nuclear construction jobs - means outsourcing. This means that we won't create jobs for nuclear construction as your evidence assumes - instead we'll rely on outsourcing. I point out that your evidence suggest continuing the initial wave of commercial reactors. That means it's not specific to IFRs. The switch from thermal to IFRs creates labor shortages.

 

8. How exactly do you outsource something that has to be built on American soil?

 

You outsource the building of the parts before they get sent here.

 

9. Your Amadeo 08 card talks about lowering the demand for gas and oil, but where the hell do you read a card that says nuclear lowers the demand for gas and oil? Where's the internal link to economic collapse? It's not enough to point to "basic economics" considering gasoline and electricity are two totally separate things.

 

Look, the purpose of nuclear power is to replace oil. In your answer to the CP you say that if we banned nuclear power plants they'd have to be replaced by oil, this means that nuclear power is used to replace oil. Replacing oil means that the demand for oil goes down...

 

10. On your Gelinas 07 tag you say "However, high priced loans due to low confidence levels now is what causes economic collapse." Where's the warrant to this?

 

You're right, that was a bit power tagged, my bad, really I was just trying to say that high priced loans due to low confidence means that you'll be spending a good amount of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There hasn't been any significant prolif since 2002."

answer number 8 on post number 15

So if you said, "there have been no significant nuclear strikes since 1945", does that mean there would never be even a risk of a nuclear strike? Did I ever say there was no risk of prolif?

 

It's actually later in the article. I'll post the section of the article that you don't read in my next speech.

Okay that's cool, just keep in mind even though this is a virtual debate you still have to post and underline the part of the article that says that. (Because what you claimed about Congress isn't the whole truth).

 

20% of nuclear power by 2050. Means that in over 40 years, we'll have barely advanced construction. The warrant isn't that safety requirements prolong construction, and it's not something IFRs can solve. The warrant is that nuclear plants have to undergo safety checks and stuff before they can be opened and used.

And how long does that take? Why the hell would it take ~ 40 years to get safety checks done?

 

You outsource the building of the parts before they get sent here.
How do we outsource something when we're literally the only country who knows how to build it?

 

So do you have warranted evidence that indicates this or no? It's a yes or no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you said, "there have been no significant nuclear strikes since 1945", does that mean there would never be even a risk of a nuclear strike? Did I ever say there was no risk of prolif?

 

There's a huge difference in those two scenarios. Proliferation in and of itself isn't an impact. You have to have proliferation before you have something bad happen because of proliferation. True - you never said that there was no risk of prolif - however, the fact that there is no prolif now means there's no risk of the impact. My point is just that SQ is solving.

 

And how long does that take? Why the hell would it take ~ 40 years to get safety checks done?

 

The card makes the claim that it takes that long because of safety checks AND construction times. The card doesn't give warrants as to why it takes a long time to build nuclear plants, it just says that it does.

 

How do we outsource something when we're literally the only country who knows how to build it?

 

People learn how to build it.

 

So do you have warranted evidence that indicates this or no? It's a yes or no question.

 

no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a huge difference in those two scenarios. Proliferation in and of itself isn't an impact. You have to have proliferation before you have something bad happen because of proliferation. True - you never said that there was no risk of prolif - however, the fact that there is no prolif now means there's no risk of the impact. My point is just that SQ is solving.

 

 

 

The card makes the claim that it takes that long because of safety checks AND construction times. The card doesn't give warrants as to why it takes a long time to build nuclear plants, it just says that it does.

 

 

 

People learn how to build it.

 

 

 

no

Cool, that's all. Post the 1NR whenever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order is case (specifically global warming). counterplan

Global Warming

 

Its a wash - I concede that nuclear power doesnt pollute, but he never contests that the status quo free market solves.

 

On Lake 06:

Cross-apply the analysis from the 2NC - the current energy scenario means that being poised to contribute to energy needs doesnt mean anything.

 

On his answers to Soupcoff:

Completely non-responsive - Soupcoff talks about allowing a free market shift to renewables rather than using government incentives, he just cites reasons that nuclear power doesnt pollute. This means that:

A) theres still the risk that government intervention delays the overall shift to alternative energy - which would mean continued carbon emissions.

B) Theres no risk that the plan solves global warming better than the status quo, which means this either flows as a wash or goes neg. He has no unique offense.

 

On his McCarthy evidence

A) Its specific to conventional thermal nuclear reactors - the expansion he talks about is to build more thermal reactors, thats the only way that we would get a fast fix.

B) Plan would be just as slow as the free market shift to renewables.

C) The card was written in 04. Almost 5 years later, the renewables he cites have made a lot of progress. It doesnt even cite biofuels, a renewable source which has been growing in popularity and efficacy.

D) The unfettered free market of the SQ solves global warming and our dependence on oil. The shift will come through private innovation, unaided by government incentives.

Callahan '07 [ http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150], The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming" October '07 (Gene Callahan is the author of Economics for Real People)]

 

Just as the free market is still the optimal economic arrangement, regardless of how many citizens are angels or devils, so too does the free market outperform government intervention, regardless of the fragility of Earth's ecosystems. When trying to determine if the free market is to blame for possibly dangerous carbon emissions, a logical starting point is to list the numerous ways that government policies encourage the very activities that Al Gore and his friends want us to curtail. The U.S. government has subsidized many activities that burn carbon: it has seized land through eminent domain to build highways, funded rural electrification projects, and fought wars to ensure Americans' access to oil. After World War II it played a key role in the mass exodus of the middle class from urban centers to the suburbs, chiefly through encouraging mortgage lending. Every American schoolchild has heard of the bold transcontinental railroad (finished with great ceremony at Promontory Summit, Utah) promoted by the federal government. Historian Burt Folsom explains that due to the construction contracts, the incentive was to lay as much track as possible between points A and B-hardly an approach to economize on carbon emissions from the wood- and coal-burning locomotives. For a more recent example, consider John F. Kennedy's visionary moon shot. I'm no engineer, but I've seen the takeoffs of the Apollo spacecraft and think it's quite likely that the free market's use of those resources would have involved far lower CO2†emissions. While myriad government policies have thus encouraged carbon emissions, at the same time the government has restricted activities that would have reduced them. For example, there would probably be far more reliance on nuclear power were it not for the overblown regulations of this energy source. For a different example, imagine the reduction in emissions if the government would merely allow market-clearing pricing for the nation's major roads, thereby eliminating traffic jams! The pollution from vehicles in major urban areas could be drastically cut overnight if the government set tolls to whatever the market could bear-or better yet, sold bridges and highways to private owners.

 

Of course, there is no way to determine just what the energy landscape in America would look like if these interventions had not occurred. Yet it is entirely possible that on net, with a freer market economy, in the past we would have burned less fossil fuel and today we would be more energy efficient. Even if it were true that reliance on the free-enterprise system makes it difficult to curtail activities that contribute to global warming, still the undeniable advantages of unfettered markets would allow humans to deal with climate change more easily. For example, the financial industry, by creating new securities and derivative markets, could crystallize the "dispersed knowledge" that many different experts held in order to coordinate and mobilize mankind's total response to global warming. For instance, weather futures can serve to spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected. Perhaps there could arise a market betting on the areas most likely to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area, inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur. Creative entrepreneurs, left free to innovate, will generate a wealth of alternative energy sources. (State intervention, of course, tends to stifle innovations that threaten the continued dominance of currently powerful special interests, such as oil companies-for example, the state of North Carolina recently fined Bob Teixeira for running his car on soybean oil.)

 

Private insurers have a strong incentive to assess the potential effects of global warming without bias in order to price their policies optimallyif they overestimate the risk, they will lose business to lower-priced rivals; if they are too sanguine about the dangers, they will lose money once the claims start rolling in. Individuals finding their homes or businesses threatened by rising sea levels will find it easier to relocate to the extent that unfettered markets have made them wealthier. Industrial manufacturers, as long as they are held liable for the negative environmental effects of their production processes—a traditional common-law liability from which state policies intended to “promote industry” have often sought to shield manufacturers—will strive to develop technologies that minimize the environmental impact of their activities without sacrificing efficiency. Government interventions and five-year plans, even when they are sincere attempts to protect the environment rather than disguised schemes to benefit some powerful lobby, lack the profit incentive and are protected from the competitive pressures that drive private actors to seek an optimal cost-benefit tradeoff.

 

 

CP

 

You should spend less time commenting on hastily written counterplans and more time thinking out your perm:

A) The perm doesnt prove anything - the prolif turns and econ disad still link to the perm. The counterplan is still competitive...

B) The Nuclear Navy turn links to the perm - he shuts down existing reactors

C) It doesnt boost solvency, the CP still solves better - SWD solves better because construction times means the waste will be stored in Yucca for a while, and shutting down all nuclear plants solves better because countries model our movement away from nuclear power, solving prolif.

 

On the Nuclear Navy turn:

1. His oil dependence scenarios are solved by the free market.

A) Cross-apply soupcoff - government intervention delays the transition away from oil, means that the case links to the turn.

B) Cross-apply callahan - The free market is the best bet to solving the shift away from fossil fuels, turns the disad.

2. No Internal Link - oil doesnt have to replace nuclear power, other alternatives can replace oil.

3. And, his Eggers evidence says that were already threatened now, meaning the disad is non-unique. i.e. If the cp is passed were threatened, if the cp isnt passed were still threatened.

4. No Impact even if there was an oil shock or terrorist hijacking of foreign oil, we have extensive domestic reserves for a situation such as that.

 

Off number 4:

A) Global warmings a wash - see above.

B) Free market solves - see above.

 

Off number 5

A) Turn - his Hannum, Marsh and Stanford evidence says that PUREX is bad because it leads to plutonium-related proliferation problems, but the unread part of his second Baird evidence says that SWD would preclude future plutonium mining, completely solving the PUREX issue.

B) Other countries model SWD.

C)Cross-apply my prolif answers from the 2NC

 

Off number 6

Cross-apply analysis from the bottom of 2NC prolif - waste must be stored for at least some time as nuclear plants are built. Remember, plan doesnt mandate that plants be built meaning that they dont begin construction immediately after the plan.

 

Group 7 and 8

A) Its not a US law, its an international law/treaty that the US ratified. But the US can still go against it, kyoto protocol, iraq war, both of those are examples of the US not adhering to international law.

B) Even if you dont buy that fiat the CP through LOST and any other legal barriers. Its legit because -

a) Reciprocity - Aff gets to fiat through structural barriers.

B) Illegal doesnt test the substance of the CP - its still a good idea.

c) Its not abusive in any way.

d) We get more education by debating whether the CP is a better policy option or not than just mooting it with illegality.

 

 

On 9

A) we wouldnt be spending money till later - after the economy rebounds. The hammer doesnt hit until 2017 meaning that we have time to let the economy rebound before implementing SWD

B) Expensive is vague - its not saying much.

C) Even if it is expensive, as you can see from the extensive 2NC economic link stories and internal link scenarios, expensive is not enough to trigger economic collapse.

D) Cross-apply his Las Vegas Sun evidence that says that Yucca costs $90 billion. Since we dont send the waste to Yucca we reduce that spending in order to spend on SWD.

 

On 10

A) Cross-apply his own argument that we would instantly switch over to fossil fuels, meaning that we wouldnt cause price spikes.

B) This argument is empirically disproven - weve had large-scale power outages before without inducing massive price spikes.

C) Theres no way that the CP causes price spikes throughout the entire US economic system - 80% of the system goes untouched. Make him show you where the price spikes happen (i.e. What sector, what products) and how spikes in that particular sector affect the economy.

 

and - As defined in the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6304 and 6305),a grant or a cooperative agreement is a legal instrument used by a Federal agency to enter into a relationship whose principal purpose is assistance (that is, the transfer of something of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by U.S. law).

 

-http://alpha.lmi.org/dodgars/grant_agreement.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word count's about 1260. Keep in mind I manually subtracted hyphens from the word count since they aren't really words.

 

Roadmap is Prolif, Econ, CP, Warming.

Prolif: (580)

 

OVERVIEW:

A. aldjzair’s massive, fatal mistake was conceding Campbell’06, the first Hannum/Marsh/Stanford’07, and Marsh’07 - “Nuclear power is going to expand globally whether the U.S. plays a role or not.” Extend the Harding’07 and Smith/Makhijani’06 cards which say global conventional nuclear expansion equals prolif. Extend Utgoff’02, prolif equals extinction, he never contests this. Prolif is guaranteed absent the plan, I control uniqueness on this flow. No other impacts in the round outweigh when the SQ equals extinction - we either try or we die, so timeframe doesn’t matter. I also win maximum magnitude/probability.

 

B. He says plan doesn’t solve proliferation but concedes my second Hannum/Marsh/Stanford’07 card (extend). U.S. leadership critical to strengthening the international non-proliferation framework. In a world where US leadership makes the IFR viable, that framework will prevent thermal reactors, PUREX from being deployed while providing IFRs. REVITALIZED LEADERSHIP MEANS COUNTRIES WILL BUILD IFRS

 

Bengelsdorf, 07 [consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affair (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May, http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)//DH]

Historically, the ability of the U.S. to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons has stemmed from many factors, not least of which has been the political, military and economic power that the US has exercised in international affairs. The U.S. has used many tools to promote its nonproliferation objectives. One important instrument that the U.S. has employed for decades in building the international nonproliferation system has been its ability to provide nuclear fuel, nuclear power plants and fuel cycle services to countries on a reliable and stablebasis, under strict nonproliferation controls and conditions. In the early days of the nuclear era, the U.S. essentially had a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms andrestraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, most notably, the NPT. The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with other states, which require strict safeguards, physical protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs. Moreover, the strength of U.S. civil nuclear capabilities gave it an important seat at the international table, not only in negotiating the norms that should govern the conduct of civil nuclear power programs to protect against their misuse or diversion to nuclear weapons, but also in shaping the key elements of the global nonproliferation regime. In addition domestic U.S. nuclear programs have enabled the United States to make important contributions to achieving technical improvements in international safeguards, physical protection, and nuclear detection systems.

However, the challenges now confronting the international nonproliferation regime come at a time when the U.S. commercial share of the global nuclear market has declined and when there are serious concerns about the health of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure.

 

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

 

LINE-BY-LINE:

 

> He says I conceded no risk of prolif:

 

1. Bullshit. At the point where he concedes that SQ means nuclear expansion is inevitable globally, proliferation is inevitable according to his own cards (Harding’07, Smith&Makhijani’06).

 

2. Remember PUREX? Pull that scenario through, he never contests it’ll increase in SQ.

 

> In the 2NC he says plan will give countries reasons to proliferate.

 

1. Read Smith&Mahjanki’06. There are zero warrants that say this.

 

2. Extend Ockert’06, fuel elements like plutonium can be burned by IFRs. Nuclear weapons contain such fuel elements - the plan would advance disarmament, not hinder it

 

Randall 2001 (Tom, Director of The National Center's John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs. “Beating Swords into Plowshares - The 21st Century Way” ER 4/07/08 http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA376.html

 

What can we do with it? In this age of terrorism, how can we keep it from falling into the wrong hands? If Congress acts, we could use the nuclear material in the warheads as part of the means of providing nearly limitless, virtually pollution-free electricity. We could also consume the waste from current nuclear reactors and cut the length of time that nuclear waste needs to be isolated from tens of thousands of years to just a few hundred. As a result we could, in time, transfer much of the natural gas now used for electricity generation to other uses - such as powering cars and trucks, thus reducing our dependency upon foreign oil. In short, our desire to convert decommissioned plutonium warheadsand nuclear waste to electricity could and should provide the impetus for building revolutionary newintegral fast reactors (IFRs) - the embodiment of the technology that can make all this possible. In the early 1990s, scientists at Argonne National Laboratory, outside of Chicago, and at "Argonne West" in Idaho, were within just a few years of completing research leading to the design of full-scale IFR power plants. In fact, they had a small pilot plant up and running, performing safety functions flawlessly when the project was abruptly halted in 1994 by the then-Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary. The project shutdown was based on the unfounded fear that the IFR and fuel reprocessing, which contributes significantly to its efficiency, would produce a market in weapons-grade plutonium. But this is false. The IFR would use a process known as pyroprocessing to convert plutoniumand nuclearwaste into useable fuel. Further, it allows for the repeated reuse of that fuel. It cannot, however, create plutonium of the chemical purity needed for weapons. The process, known as PUREX, that is used by today's generation of reactors can do so,

 

3. Cross-apply my (B) overview, leadership promotes IFRs, prevents proliferation.

 

 

> Off #4

 

A. Cross-apply my (B) overview, leadership ensures IFRs get built globally.

 

B. There’s no warrant to this argument. We solve rogue states, in the SQ they can build conventional reactors, but post-plan, the US will help anyone build IFRs, rogue states will have no excuses to build thermal reactors.

 

C. Extend Stanford’01, pyroprocessing (closed-cycle reprocessing) is immune to proliferation. Extend Lightfoot’06, IFRs are so efficient you don’t need external mechanisms to reprocess waste. Stanford never mentions Congress.

 

D.

 

Squassoni’07:

 

1. Cross-apply my (B) overview analysis, US leadership makes IFRs go global.

2. HE CITES COST, THAT’S FALSE

 

DNE ‘03[Department of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley, "An Introduction to Argonne National Laboratory's INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) PROGRAM", University of California, Berkeley, July 25 2003, accessed 09 May 2008, http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html]

 

Costs of today's nuclear plants are just slightly above that of coal as a national average. Several nuclear plants have operated with costs significantly below that of coal however. A new IFR should cost less than either a new nuclear (typical of today's technology) or coal plantbased on the following. The IFR does not require some of the complex systems that today's reactors require. Examples include the low level radwaste cleanup station, the emergency core cooling system, and fewer control rod drives and control rods for comparable power. Because of the low pressure in the sodium systems, less steel is requiredfor the plant piping and reactor vessel. There are studies that suggest that the reactor containment will be less massive. Other cost savings will be made because the IFR does not require the services of the Isotopic Separation Plants for fuel enrichment.

 

Makhijani’04:

 

1. Cross-apply my (B) overview analysis, IFRs solve this scenario by going global.

2. Since nuclear is globally inevitable, this is merely a description of a world in which the plan isn’t passed - a reason to vote AFF.

 

> Off his last block of evidence:

 

1. Proliferation deals with global inevitability - Lake 06 doesn’t matter on the proliferation flow.

2. He says renewables spillover: Nonresponsive, all my cards are specific to nuclear leadership.

3. Refer to my (B) overview, IFRs go global.

 

 

Econ (445)

 

Overview: Cross-apply proliferation overview, since proliferation is inevitable he must win 100% uniqueness and link before he can even weigh impacts - a 0.1% risk of N/U or N/L means you vote aff. Also cross-apply #9 from the 1NR CP flow, just replace “SWD” with “plan”. The exact same arguments apply to the case. We don’t spend money until later and “expensive” doesn’t trigger collapse.

 

> Off Ferris/Jackson’94:

 

Cross-apply Bengelsdorf’07, leadership means exporting IFRs.

 

SECURITY LEADERSHIP IMMUNE TO ECONOMIC DISTRESS

 

Pianta 88 [Mario, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Urbino in Italy. “New technologies across the Atlantic: US Leadership or European Autonomy?”First published 1988 by Harvester • Wheatsheaf]

 

In monetary and military relations, the USin fact has maintained its international leadership; it has even 'specialized' its economy in these functions, with a growing supply of financial services and weapons. On the basis of these priorities, US policy in the 1980s did not address the structural processes ofits economic decline vis-à-vis Europe and Japan. The road chosen by the US government has been to reassert American leadership using themost accessible means, with the most direct effect on international power relations: military and monetary policies, and later technological strategies, haveprovided the tools for such a project.

 

 

Line-by-line:

 

 

Off 1: Extend Lake’06, he says other energies “poised” to contribute but never proves nuclear is mutually exclusive: SQ headed for all of them. He’s empirically denied because the SQ government already incentivizes alternative energy yet nothing dominates.

 

Off 2/3:

 

a) He says plan causes spending - plan’s cooperative agreements transfer valuable R&D, not money (labs already have funding) - extend Bengelsdorf/McGoldrick’07from the 1AC.

B) No warrant to invention linking to spending.

c) He concedes loan guarantees don’t even need to be paid until years down the road once the economy is all better.

 

Off 4A:

 

 

N/L: Zero warrants to large loans collapsing the economy, don’t buy that blip.

 

Extend Totty - financing plants is extremely risky, investors must pass this risk along with higher financing costs. Loan guarantees reduce risk, lowering financing costs. Government doesn’t pay anything unless a builder defaults on the loan, given lower financing costs this won’t happen.

 

Gelinas - Purely defensive, there’ll always be states who don’t regulate.

 

Off 4B:

 

A. No warrants here, and $90 billion in politically-unpopular pork looks like a giant red target.

 

B. USFG SEYZ WASTE >>> IFRs

 

DOE 2008 (Department of Energy, March 26)

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepAdvancedBurnerReactors.html

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) will develop and demonstrate Advanced Burner Reactors, or advanced fast reactors, as a key element of a new, integrated U.S. recycling capability. As they produce power, advanced fast reactors consume transuranic elements (plutonium and other long-lived radioactive material), potentially eliminating the need for their disposal in the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

 

 

C. Shrader-Frechette’08:

 

a) I was unaware “safety checks” take decades.

B) He conceded there’s no warrant to long construction times.

 

Off 5/6:

 

- Cross-apply Bengelsdorf’07 and Scherer’07, leadership means exporting IFRs. Nuclear industry skyrockets, boosting economy.

- Off labor shortages - high-paying jobs mean Americans acquire training to get them. Look to his C-X: People learn how to build it.” And how the hell does a labor shortage create unemployment?

- You can’t outsource something only US nuclear companies know how to build. Extend ACGNC’07, we capture global markets meaning OUR workers go abroad.

- Off plan lowering oil prices - but concedes in cross-x there’s zero evidence to support this, he never proves increasing nuclear energy decreases oil prices.

 

 

 

 

Counterplan: (155)

 

Perm:

 

1. Cross-apply proliferation overview, permutation eradicates prolif.

2. He says countries model anti-nuclear stance, but there’s zero warrants to support that.

3. No link to econ - cross-apply that the plan doesn’t spend.

 

Nuclear Navy - Not going for it.

 

Off intervention bad: non-unique since SQ nuclear navy will expand and government always “picks” something when military replaces oil with alternatives.

 

 

Off 5:

 

C/A Marsh’07, CP can’t solve prolif. “Nuclear power is going to expand globally whether the U.S. plays a role or not”. Cross-apply my prolif overview, the CP does nothing to solve nuclear expansion. He says PUREX but that’s nonresponsive - PUREX reprocesses spent fuel, not mined elements.

 

Off 6: There’s sufficient temporary waste-storage capacity now until IFRs get built - plan means no Yucca. Cross-apply DOE’08.

 

Off 9 - Fiat dictates the CP is implemented *now* - you don’t spec a delay in your text. You must spend government funds immediately to construct SWD, causes inflation.

 

 

Warming: (80)

 

McCarthy:

 

A. Neither IFRs nor thermal reactors cause pollution - an expansion of either one would solve warming.

B. He concedes the free market would be equally slow as the plan, means there’s zero increased risk of the impact.

 

Callahan:

 

1. Reject new 1NR arguments - Soupcoff never says alternatives solve warming, just that alternatives are more attractive.

2. There’s zero terminal impact - at the point where he concedes the plan solves warming as fast as the free market warming goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roadmap - Global Warming, CP, Prolif, Econ (with overview)

Global Warming

he concedes we both solve - it’s a wash

 

CP

Doesn’t solve prolif and is functionally non-competitive, I’m not going for it.

 

Only risk of offense is the blip on spending but he says himself that “expensive doesn’t trigger collapse” and anyways CP pays for itself by stopping Yucca and shutting down funds for current reactors/future reactors.

 

Even if you think he has unanswered offense on it, he reads no theory the entire round so I didn't (and wouldn't) have a chance to respond.

 

Prolif

A) Extend his Bengelsdorf ’07 evidence - this means that his only internal link to Prolif is US leadership. Insofar as US leadership is not revitalized, other countries won’t model.

B) This terminal impact is severely mitigated by the fact that there’s an indefinite time period and probability of his impacts. Even if he wins that proliferation is inevitable, it is entirely possible that his impacts don’t happen for hundreds of years. He gives you no analysis on timeframe or probability and anything in the 2ar is new.

 

Econ

Overview:

Evaluating this round is like evaluating 3 minus 8: A first grader could tell you that it's going to be negative. The econ disad comes well before any of his impacts and I control nuclear power uniqueness in the United States. Moreover, there are three independent link scenarios that you can vote on - one goes cold-conceded, and the other two are seriously undercovered. He tells you to vote aff if there’s a .1% chance of N/U or N/L but that’s bollocks. The disad scenario results in faster extinction than prolif, meaning you don’t take a .1% chance on the disad - you don't take any chance on the disad happening because it's the biggest impact in the round. He never touches extinction or timeframe so extend magnitude and timeframe from the 2NC. We don’t know when prolif goes nuclear, but we know that as soon as plan is passed econ collapses which goes nuclear. This means the DA happens before prolif OR yucca, don’t let him answer this in the 2AR, timeframe/magnitude go conceded. But the DA is unique, links, and turns his prolif advantage anyways so that’s not an issue you’ll even have to evaluate.

 

On Leadership:

This is the worst card he could possibly read. Extend it for me. Read it. It says that US maintains leadership through MONETARY policies and MONETARY leadership. It gives absolutely no warrants as to why the economy is NOT key to leadership, other than listing other factors which are important to leadership. Even though a table stands up with 4 legs, if you remove one of the table’s legs it still collapses. The same is true with the relationship between the economy and leadership. So extend Ferris and Jackson. They tell you that the strength of the US’s economy will be key to maintaining global leadership because it largely determines our influence in international affairs. No leadership means no modeling means he doesn’t solve his prolif advantages.

 

And here’s your RFD - Oil Prices:

This is the ridiculously easy vote for the round. He’s made several mistakes, but this one ensures that he loses. He makes no argument on the entire oil prices scenario other than saying that I never prove increasing nuclear energy decreases oil prices”. Well...

1. It’s straight intuitive logic, but once again I will point to basic economics. In the market place when the supply of a substitute goes up (alternative energy), the demand and price of the original good goes down (oil). This is how I warranted my argument in the 2NC. Though I don’t read evidence, you pull the trigger on a warranted analyt.

 

2. Here’s evidence. It’s not a new argument, it’s new evidence to support an old one.

 

Nuclear energy investment causes OPEC to flood the market

David Goodstein, December 2007. [PhD, Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech. “OPEC Accepts No Substitute,” Nature Physics 3.11, Ebsco.]

For decades, it has been the explicit policy of OPEC to keep the price of oil within certain limits: not too low, of course, to preserve revenue; but also not too high, because that would encourage investment in alternative fuels. The implicit threat is this: if you put money into developing an alternative to oil, we will open the spigot, flood the market with cheap oil and wipe out your investment. In other words, the war with Iraq may also have been about preventing investment in alternative fuels.

 

3. This means you extend my entire low oil prices scenario. Extend Newsweek ’08. Plan causes decreased manufacturing, lower production, and increased imports increasing the trade deficit. Also extend Sailor. Increased imports cause inflation, lower manufacturing causes unemployment, this is the exact stagflation which Sailor says collapses the economy. This goes cold-conceded in the 1AR and is enough to vote Neg right now.

 

Line-by-line

 

Off (1AR) 1:

A)Extend and cross-apply Soupcoff. Soupcoff tells you that the government backing one form of energy means others are compromised.

B)He doesn’t tell you about any SQ incentives, and even if they do exist, they exist for a bunch of alternative energies not just 1 form.

C)Extend all my Lake analysis from the 2NC, he never answers it, he just tells you to extend Lake.

D)This argument ensures that I control uniqueness: Even if you buy that nuclear or other alternatives are inevitable, they’re coming much later, they aren’t coming NOW. The fact that the plan is passed RIGHT NOW is what crushes the economy. The economy can’t deal with it now. None of his arguments are responsive to this.

 

2/3 and 4A:

A)In the 1NR I explained cooperative agreements. I guess now I’ll explain loan guarantees. A loan guarantee allows companies to borrow money from an approved lender (in this case, the federal government). Money is invested when the loan guarantee is issued AND years down the road when the company needs money. Sure, the plan pays money in a few years, but it also spends immediately after it’s passed.

B)Bengelsdorf/McGoldrick’07 from the 1AC doesn’t help him at all. The card says that “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”. The support they talk about is clearly financial. The contributions listed later in the card require money. Saying he transfers “valuable R&D” doesn’t even make sense. He has to give money for R&D to private companies which is why his plan text says: “offering loan guarantees and cooperative agreements for collaboration on Research & Development” He pays money for R&D.

C)Extend Totty and Gelinas, they both say that financing plants is extremely risky (he says this himself) meaning that loan guarantees would be expensive now.

D)This gives me two possible links in addition to lowering oil prices: cooperative agreements (federal grants) for R&D or loan guarantees which cost money now because of the risky situation.

 

 

4B:

A) It’s not just safety checks, it’s a bunch of checks, even if we start building right when the plan is passed (which we won’t), we won’t get any plants up for at least another decade

 

James K. Asselstine Managing Director Lehman Brothers Committee on House Science and Technology, April 23, 2008,

(CQ Congressional Testimony. “Nuclear Power.” Lexisnexis) //CNDI – RV

The process of planning, developing, licensing, building, and financing a new nuclear plant is likely to be one of the most complex endeavors facing an electric utility or power generation company today. As currently envisioned, this process will require a preliminary planning period of about two years, a period of three to four years to complete the process to obtain a combined construction and operating license (COL) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and a construction period of from four to five years. Thus, more than a decade will be required to plan, license, build, and bring a new nuclear unit into commercial operation.

 

B) means we have to store in Yucca for a while.

 

Off 5/6:

A)even if he wins that we export IFRs/materials, we won’t begin to export for a while, at least not until the economy recovers, so no risk of turn.

B) My evidence is specific to skilled labor shortages. We won’t have people who know how to build IFRs here or anywhere else. It causes unemployment because people who are currently working on conventional reactor parts/construction are out of a job post-plan.

C) Cross-apply leadership block. DA guts leadership, other countries won’t import.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be up in the mountains (no electricity or anything) tomorrow through labor day, then I start school Tuesday so don't expect a 2AR until Weds. or Thurs. Sorry for the delay but I'll try to get it up ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it's been an outrageously hectic week for me and I've had literally no time to work on this. I'll try to get it done tomorrow, if not then Sunday at the latest. Sorry for the delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roadmap is overview, theory, prolif w/ calc, econ. WC's about 1275. Good round, thanks for your patience.

 

OVERVIEW:

 

RFD: Evaluating this round is like evaluating the absolute value of 3 minus 8: the smart people know its going to be positive. You’re going to vote aff because aldjzair cheats, he’s got literally no links to econ, and because prolif outweighs econ in every instance.

 

THEORY (OIL):

HERES SUM ADVICE: CHEATING ONLY WORKS IF YOU’RE THE 2AR AND THE JUDGE IN THE BACK IS THE CHAIN-SMOKING SCHOOL BUS DRIVER.

 

THERE’S TWO PARTS TO HIS OIL SCENARIO HE NEEDED TO WIN:

 

1) Nuke energy lowers oil demand.

2) Lower oil demand lowers oil prices.

 

HE’S CHEATING BECAUSE IN HIS FIRST THREE SPEECHES ALL HIS ANALYSIS/WARRANTS ARE ABOUT THAT SECOND PART.

 

ON THE FIRST PART, THE 2NC WAS, QUOTE: “Plan increases nuclear energy, decreasing the demand for oil.” HE HAD JACK TACO WARRANTS SUPPORTING THAT CLAIM. ZERO. BASIC ECONOMICS WAS ABOUT THE SECOND PART AND NEVER MENTIONS OPEC FLOODING THE MARKET, PROVES IT’S BRAND NEW IN THE 2NR.

 

At bare-bones minimum you reject this new argument and let me revise my impact calculus - if he gets to cheat with new arguments I have to shift my analysis to account for his new link. And, new in the 2NR is uniquely different than new in the 1NR because I don’t get a second 1AR to make new responses, justifying 2AR theory.

 

It’s an independent voter for very real in-round abuse -

 

1) I’m fucked - I’m put into a double bind where I’m forced to either cheat or lose. If I play by the rules I can’t introduce new evidence to rebut his, which makes it easier for him to win. Either way he justifies cheating in debate meaning everyone gets to ignore time constraints and go thirty off in the 1NC and give three hour 2ARs with ten new advantages, destroying policy debate.

 

2) Massive time/strategy skew - I’m blowing over a quarter of my 2AR reading this theory, and if I do cheat he still forces me to waste time answering blatantly new arguments, preventing me from adequately rebutting the legit stuff and reducing the depth of my clash. That obliterates fairness by making me climb a rock wall with tiny handholds before I can start arguing what’s on other flows, making it that much harder to win.

 

3) Don’t set a precedent - if you don’t vote aff he’ll just continue cheating in future rounds. He even KNOWS he’s cheating: if I had really straight-dropped it why would he need “new evidence to support an old one”? This isn’t condo bad, its actual cheating and real in-round abuse.

 

4) Theory is a priori; evaluate theory before looking to impacts because he shouldn’t win if he cheated to do it.

 

 

PROLIF (135):

 

Pull through my entire 1AR flow that he concedes and the impact scenarios. I’ll address the leadership blip on the econ flow.

 

Calculus: It’s timeframe vs. probability. I win 100% probability - extend Campbell’06, the first Hannum/Marsh/Stanford’07, and Marsh’07, nuclear power inevitable. Extend my PUREX scenario and Harding’07 and Smith/Makhijani’06 cards - nuclear expansion leads to proliferation. Extend Utgoff’02, prolif = extinction. Even extend his Nyquist ’07 - “weapons are always used.” I’m so far ahead on econ links that the most he’ll ever win is about .1% probability it’ll snowball into collapse. He says timeframe but extend Utgoff, accidental nuclear conflicts which can happen at any time, plus prolif creates a race to the bottom to get nukes which is immediate, he concedes this. Magnitude is equal, cross-apply his Ross’03 that a nuclear exchange means extinction.

 

 

ECON (700):

 

Overview: The lesson here is that if you kick everything but one disad you better have a real strong link story. Vote aff because there’s no link to spending, I win the Yucca link turn, and at worst the links won’t even kick in until after we build IFRs which is after the economy recovers.

 

Leadership - adjzair completely misunderstands the Pianta evidence. The warrant is that when we specialize our economy in nuclear non-proliferation technology by constructing and exporting IFRs, we make our non-prolif leadership immune to overall economic distress. By establishing the technological dominance we aren’t affected by global economic collapse.

 

And, throughout the 2NR he seems to imply that the plan doesn’t create leadership - not only is this borderline new, he never addresses the warrants from the Hannum/Marsh/Stanford’07 card from the 1AC. Bringing in IFRs means strong participation and leadership, especially since other countries model us.

 

Oil - Look to the theory, half the link is brand sparkling new which means this lame sucker punch goes away.

 

Line-by-Line:

 

1 -

 

Initially note that this is just a uniqueness argument, so even if he wins this he doesn’t win any sort of link or any offense because there’s no internal link to Soupcoff about crashing the economy.

 

A) But the government isn’t backing only one form of energy - despite the plan other incentives like the Production Tax Credit for other energies will exist.

B) Dude…there’s alternative energy incentives now. Why are you even trying to dispute that? And, because you say “they exist for a bunch of alternative energies not just 1 form” you just proved my argument, the plan just throws its hat into a pool of existing incentives. The government still isn’t picking one over another.

 

2/3/4A -

 

Off A/C Group: Loan guarantees: not only did he drop that they cause spending in the block, it’s also a flat-out lie, here’s how they really work: investors are hesitant to finance a nuclear plant because a failure would bankrupt them. The USFG promises to refund the majority of the investor’s financing if the IFR fails down the road and the builder defaults (thus “guaranteeing” the loan). Investors, no longer having the massive risk, dump their billions into nuclear plants. The USFG never lends anything and there’s no immediate spending - we don’t even need to potentially spend until years down the road.

 

Off B: Uh…no, my evidence talks about technological support (which still has value), not financial support. That doesn’t involve the USFG handing the nuclear industry wads of money, it means we let them work with our scientists in national laboratories. There’s no link.

 

Off D: Even if you do win some sort of minor near-term spending link $90 billion saved from Yucca will always negate it.

 

4B -

 

aldjzair loses here - I win the link turn because he doesn’t extend the entirety of the flow he had going, extend the Sun ev, canceling Yucca means saving $90,000,000,000, that savings dwarfs any potential spending.

 

The only warrant he extends is that construction takes awhile, even if I grant this it’s still completely non-responsive to my arguments. He basically concedes Yucca is unpopular and a prime target for slashing. He concedes the DOE’08 evidence, which is a federal source, that if we move towards building IFRs we won’t need Yucca. He also concedes that there’s sufficient temporary waste storage capacity for now, which was on the CP flow and which you’ll cross-apply - that means he’s conceded we won’t need to use Yucca. At the point where the only warrant he pulls through is construction times I win 100% of the link turn.

 

5/6 -

 

Off A: This is just a blip, there’s no reason why we can’t start exporting IFR tech right away - we don’t necessarily need to build them first. There’s only ever a risk that I turn the link.

 

Off B: His unemployment argument is dumb since those are precisely the people who will shift to working on IFRs - there’s a net increase in jobs not a loss. 30 years ago people didn’t know how to build computers, now thousands do. People learn, buddy.

 

Off C: You still have to win the link for this to apply. You don’t. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i actually had a day off and i'm done with my ballot... so i can collect or we can have someone else do it... I don't care.

Shree - not a problem, take your time.

 

debatesquad06 - I'll PM the other judges reminding them the round is over and you can collect ballots if you want. If you get the other three ballots and its a 3-1 or a 4-0 you can just post those and Shree can post his on Friday.

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...