Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-07 20:24:19.701
	1	+2016-12-07 20:24:19.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,59 @@
	1	+Desal DA
	2	+
	3	+A water crisis is coming and will cause instability and conflict, nuclear energy solves.
	4	+White 9 (Commodities Editor ) “Can nuclear solve the global water crisis?” The Telegraph December 20th 2009http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6851983/Can-nuclear-solve-the-global-water-crisis.html
	5	+
	6	+As the global population expands, demand for water for agriculture and personal use will increase dramatically, but there could be a solution that will produce clean drinking water and help reduce carbon emissions as well. That process is nuclear desalination. Many areas of the world are suffering from a water crisis – and it's not just arid, developing countries that are suffering. The Western US is particularly vulnerable and its water crisis is getting more severe by the day. Las Vegas could be one of the first US cities to be hit by a serious water shortage, some are even questioning whether it can survive at all. The city gets 90pc of its water from Lake Mead, the body of water created by the Hoover Dam. The water in Lake Mead, and the Colorado River which feeds it, has been falling for some time. It is slowly running dry due to overuse. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography believes there is a 50pc chance that the lake will be completely dry by 2021 if climate change continues as expected and future water usage is not curtailed. Water is so important that, as a population grows and demand increases, there is a strong chance of conflict in the future. Related Articles Shale gas – a fossil fuel with a future 20 Dec 2009 According to the World Water Council, 260 river basins are shared by two or more countries. "In the absence of strong institutions and agreements, changes within a basin can lead to transboundary tensions," the Council said. "When major projects proceed without regional collaboration, they can become a point of conflicts, heightening regional instability." The World Water Council cites the Parana La Plata in South America, the Aral Sea, the Jordan and the Danube as examples. It's not just tensions between countries that are a potential problem. Civil unrest caused by scarcity has already started. In India on December 3, one man was killed and dozens injured during a protest over water rationing in Mumbai following the country's poor Monsoon. The prospect of further water riots is very real. However, nuclear energy could help provide the solution for this thorny issue. Oil-rich Middle Eastern nations are rushing to build new nuclear plants. Anwar Gargash, a foreign affairs minister in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), said last month that nuclear power was "best able" to meet future power demand in his country. Demand for electricity is expected to double by 2020. This followed comments from Saudi Arabia, which said it planned to generate up to a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power within the next 15 years. Everyone thinks the trend for oil-rich nations to move towards nuclear power generation is about limiting domestic consumption so they can boost oil exports. However, that's just part of the story. Saudi Arabia, for example, has very little water – and global warming is likely to make this situation much worse. This is a major problem because Saudi Arabia is about to see its population explode. The overwhelming majority of the Saudi people are young. Almost 40pc of its population is under the age of 14, with just 2.5pc being in the over 65 bracket. This means its population is growing at about 2pc per year – and as the young start to have families of their own, the rate of population growth will increase. In fact, many of the nations that are predicted to have the strongest growth in population over the next years are the areas where the water crisis is most acute. For example, the UAE has the largest growth rate of any nation in the world – at 3.69pc, according to data compiled by the US government. Nuclear reactors can be used to generate electricity – but they can also be used to desalinate water. Nuclear desalination is not a new idea – it's a proven technology, thanks to Kazakhstan. A single nuclear reactor at Aktau on the shore of the Caspian Sea successfully produced up to 135 megawatts of electricity and 80,000 cubic metres of potable water a day between 1972 and 1999, when it was closed at the end of the reactor's life. Water has also been desalinated using nuclear reactors in India and Japan. The problem with desalination is that it is very energy intensive. Most desalination today uses fossil fuels, contributing to carbon emissions. However, because nuclear power generation does not emit carbon, it is a clean and efficient way of producing the most important commodity around. For countries experiencing rapid population growth, it could be a lifesaver.
	7	+
	8	+A water crisis trigger nuclear conflict in the world
	9	+Zahoor 11 (researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics, National Defence University, Islamabad ) “Water crisis can trigger nuclear war in South Asia” Writer-South Asia June 4th 2011 http://writerasia.blogspot.com/2011/06/water-crisis-can-trigger-nuclear-war-in.html
	10	+
	11	+Islamabad, 4 June: Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. Water has been a permanent source of conflict between the tribes since biblical times and now between the states. The conflicts are much more likely among those states, which are mainly dependent on shared water sources, reports Musharaf Zahoor in KMS. The likelihood of turning these conflicts into wars is increased when these countries or states are mainly arid or receive low precipitations. In this situation, the upper riparian states (situated on upper parts of a river basin) often try to maximize water utility by neglecting the needs of the lower riparian states (situated on low lying areas of a river basin). However, international law on distribution of trans-boundary river water and mutually agreed treaties by the states have helped to some extent in overcoming these conflicts. In the recent times, the climate change has also affected the water availability. The absence of water management and conservation mechanisms in some regions particularly in the third world countries have exacerbated the water crisis. These states have become prone to wars in future. South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters of Indus Basin. All the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir, a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan Ganga hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan. The construction of Kishan Ganga dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government. The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft. In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan Ganga hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day. The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy, manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war. The existent A-symmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a nuclear catastrophe. The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline, which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means.
	12	+Resource Wars DA
	13	+
	14	+Nuclear infrastructure is aging and limited to a handful of rich countries—Continued investment key.
	15	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	16	+Many countries using nuclear power are experiencing an aging of the reactor fleet and workforce, as well as difficulties in accessing capital and technologies to renew, expand, or launch new nuclear programs. Twenty of the 31 countries with nuclear power programs have not started building a new reactor in the last 20 years, and in 19 countries the average age of nuclear power plants is over 25 years. Large-scale enrichment, reactor manufacturing, and reprocessing technologies and capacities are currently concentrated in just a few countries. Transfer of these technologies and capacities to a larger number of countries is constrained by serious concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation, which is one of the main controversies and risks associated with nuclear energy. If nuclear energy can address energy security challenges, it will only happen in a few larger and more prosperous economies.
	17	+Energy insecurity is rampant and especially prominent in low income countries.
	18	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	19	+Uninterrupted provision of vital energy services (see Chapter 1 , Section 1.2.2 ) – energy security – is a high priority of every nation. Energy security concerns are a key driving force of energy policy. These concerns relate to the robustness (suffi ciency of resources, reliability of infrastructure, and stable and affordable prices); sovereignty (protection from potential threats from external agents); and resilience (the ability to withstand diverse disruptions) of energy systems. Our analysis of energy security I ssues in over 130 countries shows that the absolute majority of them are vulnerable from at least one of these three perspectives. For most industrial countries, energy insecurity means import dependency and aging infrastructure, while many emerging economies have additional vulnerabilities such as insufficient capacity, high energy intensity, and rapid demand growth. In many low-income countries, multiple vulnerabilities overlap, making them especially insecure.
	20	+Nuclear power requires government support, banning nuclear energy means that most of the world has to rely on oil and inefficient technologies
	21	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	22	+At the same time, there are significant energy security risks associated with technological, economic, and institutional characteristics of nuclear power production. As the most capital-intensive electricity generation technology, it is economically difficult for nuclear energy to compete in liberalized markets where the investor has to assume the financial risk of investment. As a result, strong government backing is necessary for the development of nuclear power (Finon and Roques, 2008 ).
	23	+And
	24	+The technology that most of the world relies on today causes rampant blackouts
	25	+Various vulnerabilities in electricity supply are often made worse by demand-side pressures. Some 4.2 billion people live in 53 countries that will need to expand the capacity of their electricity systems massively in the near future because they have either less than 60 access to electricity or an average demand growth of over 6 over the last decade. Both fuels and infrastructure for such an expansion will need to be provided without further compromising the sovereignty or resilience of national electricity systems. The reliability of electricity supply is a serious concern, especially in developing countries. In almost three-quarters of low-income countries blackouts are on average for more than 24 hours per month, and in about one-sixth of low-income countries blackouts average over 144 hours (six days) a month. In over one-half of low-income countries blackouts occur at least 10 times a month.
	26	+
	27	+ Nuclear energy provides a stable resource, while price fluctuations in the oil market make it difficult for anybody to get power
	28	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	29	+Whereas the energy security concerns related to fossil fuels are primarily related to the supply and demand of resources, in case of nuclear power the primary concerns relate to nuclear energy infrastructure and technologies. Unlike fossil fuels, the fuel of nuclear energy (uranium) has a fairly high security of supply, offers protection from fuel price fluctuations, and is possible to stockpile. In comparison to oil and gas, uranium is abundant and more geographically distributed, with a third of proven reserves in OECD countries (NEA, 2008 ). Recent estimates indicate that even in the face of a large expansion of nuclear energy, proven uranium reserves would last at least a century (Macfarlane and Miller, 2007 ; NEA, 2008 ). 8 Furthermore, electricity produced from nuclear energy offers a greater protection from fluctuations in raw commodity prices; while doubling uranium prices leads to a 5–10 increase in generating cost for nuclear power, doubling the cost of coal and gas leads to a 35–45 and 70–80 increase, respectively (IAEA, 2008 ). Uranium is also a relatively easy fuel to stockpile. The refueling of a nuclear power plant generally provides fuel for two to three years of operation (Nelson and Sprecher, 2008 ), and it is possible to store up to a 10-year supply of nuclear fuel (IAEA, 2007b ). In contrast, oil and gas emergency reserves, where they exist, are measured in days, weeks, or – in exceptional cases – months, not years.
	30	+Resource concentration and increased demand cause resource wars over oil.
	31	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	32	+Oil and its products lack easily available substitutes in the transport sector, where they provide at least 90 of energy in almost all countries. Furthermore, the global demand for transport fuels is steadily rising, especially rapidly in Asian emerging economies. Disruptions of oil supplies may thus result in catastrophic effects on such vital functions of modern states as food production, medical care, and internal security. At the same time, the global production capacity of conventional oil is widely perceived as limited. These factors result in rising and volatile prices of oil affecting all economies, especially low-income countries, almost all of which import over 80 of their oil supplies. The costs of energy (primarily oil) imports exceed 20 of the export earnings in 35 countries with 2.5 billion people and exceed 10 of gross domestic product (GDP) in an additional 15 countries with 200 million people. The remaining conventional oil resources are increasingly geographically concentrated in just a few countries and regions. This means that most countries must import an ever-higher share or even all of their oil. More than three billion people live in 83 countries that import more than 75 of the oil products they consume. This does not include China, where oil import dependency is projected to increase from the current 53 to 84 in 2035. The increasing concentration of conventional oil production and the rapidly shifting global demand patterns make some analysts and politicians fear a “scramble for energy” or even “resource wars.”
	33	+
	34	+Oil+China DA
	35	+
	36	+A nuclear phase-out leads to price fluctuations, adversely affects the impoverished. Leads to a dependence on Oil.
	37	+Brinton and Freed 15
	38	+Samuel Brinton and Josh Freed “When Nuclear Ends: How Nuclear Retirements Might Undermine Clean Power Plan Progress” Published August 19, 2015 http://www.thirdway.org/report/when-nuclear-ends-how-nuclear-retirements-might-undermine-clean-power-plan-progress
	39	+Scenario 3 envisions a complete nuclear phase-out. This may be the least likely scenario, but it is an important benchmark in understanding the full impact nuclear power has on emissions in the U.S. Indeed, Germany’s nuclear energy policies are leading them toward a phase-out of domestic nuclear power.12 That country now gets 43 of its electricity from coal, and Germany’s nuclear phase-out will result in at least a short-term spike in emissions. A similar phase-out of nuclear in the U.S., as Scenario 3 models, could also make electricity markets more reliant on natural gas and coal, further exposing the market to fuel price fluctuations and potentially impacting on the final price that consumers pay for electricity. This is especially true for high-stress events, such as an extended heat or cold wave, like the East Coast saw with the 2014 Polar Vortex.
	40	+Oil dependence causes massive Chinese aggression over perception of a U.S. “energy containment” policy- that creates multiple flashpoints for conflict and military build-ups
	41	+Salameh, International Association for Energy Economics International Oil Economist, 2014
	42	+(Dr Mamdouh G., “Oil Wars”, file:///C:/Users/loganmcroberts/Downloads/SSRN-id2430960.pdf, accessed 6/25/14)
	43	+The great rivalry between the United States and China will shape the 21st century. It is a truth universally acknowledged that a great power will never voluntarily surrender pride of place to a challenger. The United States is the pre-eminent great power. China is now its potential challenger.Though a terrifying possibility, a war between the oil titans could be triggered by a race to secure a share of dwindling reserves of oil or over Taiwan or over the disputed Islands in the South China Sea claimed by both China and Japan with the US coming to the defence of Japan. In such conflicts, the United States would try to starve China of oil by blocking any oil supplies from the Middle East passing through the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca. China’s robust economic growth and its emergence as an economic superpower would falter without oil, particularly from the Middle East. China’s global oil diplomacy is, therefore, geared towards ensuring that this never happens. 26 As Chinese state-owned companies scour the globe for oil and gas to fuel their country’s rapid economic growth, criticism of China for supporting despotic, oil-rich regimes, for driving up U.S. oil prices, and for worsening global warming has grown more strident. Some Washington hard-liners say the United States should prepare for future energy conflict with China by strengthening alliances with key oil producers while denying China access to strategic oil supplies. Such policies would increase Chinese concern about the security of oil supplies, encourage China to lock in oil resources from unsavoury regimes, and undermine moderates in Beijing. Hard-line policies on oil could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy, fostering a new Cold War between the United States and China and possibly a hot one. China’s economic boom, fuelled by its massive supply of coal, has begun to overwhelm its domestic energy resources. While coal still meets 68 of China’s primary energy needs, the percentage filled by imported oil is growing. A net oil exporter in 1993, China today is the world’s largest importer and the second-largest consumer of oil. Over the next 15 years, its demand is expected to roughly double.By 2020, China will likely import 70 of the oil it consumes, compared to 65 today. 27 China’s leaders worry that this dependence on imported oil leaves them vulnerable, since long-term global energy “scarcity” that undermines economic growth and increases unemployment could bring social instability.Beijing also worries that the United States will exploit its energy weakness. For some people in Washington, China’s global oil strategy is a menace to U.S. interests. They would deny China access to energy resources, build up U.S. military capability and strengthen alliances with key oil-producing states. Africa, which supplies over a quarter of China’s oil and gas imports and is expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, is already emerging as the next point of discord. The newest U.S. military command, AFRICOM, focuses on the Gulf of Guinea, a region dominated by major oil-producing states.The growing dependence on oil imports particularly from the Middle East has created an increasing sense of ‘energy insecurity’ among Chinese leaders. Some Chinese analysts even refer to the possibility that the US is practicing an ‘energy containment’ policy toward China, or could implement one in the future. Chinese leaders tend to believe that dependence on imported oil leads to great ‘strategic vulnerability’. The war on Iraq and growing US hegemony in the Middle East have made it even more urgent for China to reduce its dependence on the Arab Gulf. 28 Much of China’s imported oil from the Middle East must pass through a major chokepoint: the Strait of Hormuz which is guarded by the US navy (see Figure 1).
	44	+
	45	+Renewables DA
	46	+Phase out of nuclear energy destroy any carbonless source of energy, renewables are not enough
	47	+Holthaus 15
	48	+Eric Holthaus Dec 7,2015 “Change Plan Is an Environmentalist’s Dream, Except for This One Thing” http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/07/bernie_sanders_climate_plan_calls_for_end_to_nuclear_energy.html
	49	+But there’s one major flaw in Bernie’s plan: Sanders is calling for a total phaseout of nuclear energy. He would place a moratorium on relicensing of the country’s aging nuclear power plants—from which we currently get about 20 percent of our electricity. In the U.S., a phaseout of nuclear power would greatly complicate our ability to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades. A recent modeling report by Third Way, a centrist think tank, showed that shuttered American nuclear plants would likely be replaced by natural gas—increasing net emissions. In calculations for Slate, Michael Shellenberger, one of the founders of the “ecomodernist” philosophy that advocates for a technology-focused approach to tackling climate change that includes support for nuclear power, figured out that “under Sanders’ proposal to not re-license nuclear plants, U.S. carbon emissions would increase by a minimum of 2 billion tons, about the same amount as the U.S. produces each year making electricity.” Though Sanders says he would replace that nuclear with solar and wind, Shellenberger notes that “as long as there is any fossil fuel on the grid, lost nuclear power is always replaced by fossil fuels. Even if it is nominally replaced by renewable power, a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity that replaces lost nuclear electricity is a kilowatt-hour that is not available to displace coal and gas from the grid." It’s weird that many climate change activists are also anti-nuclear, but it’s easy to understand why: Humanity has had a decidedly mixed experience with atomic energy. But it’s also exactly the sort of quickly scalable, carbon-free energy source that could serve as the foundation of a stable power supply in the 21st century. Simply put, there’s no realistic way of eliminating fossil fuels as quickly as science demands without maintaining or increasing our nuclear fleet. In some countries, the nuclear phaseout is already happening, with troubling consequences. After Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011, a few fearful major economies began to pull the plug on nuclear energy. In Germany’s case, that decision, combined with an ambitious and simultaneous phaseout of fossil fuels, left them with diminished options for reliable sources of electricity. In the years since Fukushima, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan, and France have all expanded their use of coal, much of that imported from the United States. Sanders’ announcement was timed to coincide with the high-level negotiations happening right now in Paris, which are expected to result in the first-ever global accord on climate change later this week—but the nuclear portion of his plan is contrary to accepted climate science. At an event in Paris last week, leading climate scientists, including James Hansen, made a stern statement in favor of the expansion of nuclear energy. At the event, Hansen said, "The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools such as nuclear energy to solve the problem is crazy."
	50	+Space Col DA
	51	+
	52	+Nuclear technology presents the best future for human survival, it is the most promising possibility for colonizing space
	53	+Wall 13
	54	+Mike Wall, Space, 6-11-2013, "NASA Eyeing Nuclear Fusion Rockets for Future Space Exploration," Space,http://www.space.com/21519-nasa-fusion-rocket-space-exploration.html
	55	+Rockets that harness the power of nuclear fusion may provide the next big leap in humanity's quest to explore the final frontier, NASA's science chief says. Nuclear fusion rockets could slash travel times through deep space dramatically, potentially opening up vast swathes of the solar system to human exploration, said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. "It's transformative," Grunsfeld said last month after his presentation at Maker Faire Bay Area in San Mateo, Calif., a two-day celebration of DIY science, technology and engineering. "You could get to Saturn in a couple of months. How fantastic would that be?" Superfast Propulsion Concepts (Images) For a little perspective: NASA's robotic Cassini spacecraft blasted off in October 1997 and didn't enter Saturn orbit until July 2004. Speeding things up Traditional chemical propulsion systems can get humans to destinations in deep space, but with a lot of travel time. For example, a roundtrip manned mission to the vicinity of Mars, which NASA aims to execute by the mid-2030s, would require about 500 days of spaceflight. Speeding up the trip to Mars, or anywhere else, is desirable for a number of reasons — to minimize the radiation dose astronauts receive during the journey, for example, and to save money on consumables such as food and water. So NASA and researchers around the world have been investigating advanced propulsion technologies, including space-bending "warp drives," enormous solar sails and matter-antimatter engines. Nuclear fusion is perhaps the most promising of these possibilities
	56	+
	57	+Colonizing space is the humanities last chance for future survival, either we try or die
	58	+Matheny 11Matheny,2011 (Pending) (Jason Gaverick, research associate with the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, “Ought we worry about human extinction?”, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)
	59	+Animal life has existed on Earth for around 500 million years. Barring a dramatic intervention, all animal life on Earth will die in the next several billion years. Earth is located in a field of thousands of asteroids and comets. 65 million years ago, an asteroid 10 kilometers in size hit the Yucatan , creating clouds of dust and smoke that blocked sunlight for months, probably causing the extinction of 90 of animals, including dinosaurs. A 100 km impact, capable of extinguishing all animal life on Earth, is probable within a billion years (Morrison et al., 2002). If an asteroid does not extinguish all animal life, the Sun will. In one billion years, the Sun will begin its Red Giant stage, increasing in size and temperature. Within six billion years, the Sun will have evaporated all of Earth’s water, and terrestrial temperatures will reach 1000 degrees ~-~- much too hot for amino acid-based life to persist. If, somehow, life were to survive these changes, it will die in 7 billion years when the Sun forms a planetary nebula that irradiates Earth (Sackmann, Boothroyd, Kraemer, 1993; Ward and Brownlee, 2002). Earth is a dangerous place and animal life here has dim prospects. If there are 10^12 sentient animals on Earth, only 10^21 life-years remain. The only hope for terrestrial sentience surviving well beyond this limit is that some force will deflect large asteroids before they collide with Earth, giving sentients another billion or more years of life (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004); and/or terrestrial sentients will colonize other solar systems, giving sentients up to another 100 trillion years of life until all stars begin to stop shining (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). Life might survive even longer if it exploits non-stellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how life could survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). This may be the upper limit on the future of sentience.4 Deflecting asteroids and colonizing space could delay the extinction of Earth-originating sentience from 10^9 to 10^41 years. Assuming an average population of one trillion sentients is maintained (which is a conservative assumption under colonization5), these interventions would create between 10^21 and 10^53 life-years. At present on Earth, only a human civilization would be remotely capable of carrying out such projects. If humanity survives the next few centuries, it’s likely we will develop technologies needed for at least one of these projects. We may already possess the technologies needed to deflect asteroids (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004; Urias et al., 1996). And in the next few centuries, we’re likely to develop technologies that allow colonization. We will be strongly motivated by self-interest to colonize space, as asteroids and planets have valuable resources to mine, and as our survival ultimately requires relocating to another solar system (Kargel, 1994; Lewis, 1996).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-07 20:24:22.123

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any3

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any3

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East Moorhead Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT- all DAs

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any3