Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[24]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[24]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 14:18:51.871
	1	+2016-10-16 14:18:51.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,27 @@
	1	+Ukraine is heavily dependent on nuclear power – it mostly relies on Russia but has been moving towards Europe for nuclear. World Nuclear 9/26
	2	+World Nuclear“Nuclear Power in Ukraine” Updated 26 September 2016 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine.aspx
	3	+Ukraine is heavily dependent on nuclear energy – it has 15 reactors generating about half of its electricity.¶ Ukraine receives most of its nuclear services and nuclear fuel from Russia, but is reducing this dependence by buying fuel from Westinghouse.¶ In 2004 Ukraine commissioned two large new reactors. The government plans to maintain nuclear share in electricity production to 2030, which will involve substantial new build.¶ The government is looking to the West for both technology and investment in its nuclear plants.¶ A large share of primary energy supply in Ukraine comes from the country's uranium and substantial coal resources. The remainder is oil and gas, mostly imported from Russia. In 1991, due to breakdown of the Soviet Union, the country's economy collapsed and its electricity consumption declined dramatically from 296 TWh in 1990 to 170 TWh in 2000, all the decrease being from coal and gas plants. In December 2005 Ukraine and the EU signed an energy cooperation agreement which links the country more strongly to western Europe in respect to both nuclear energy and electricity supply. Today Ukraine is developing shale gas deposits and hoping to export this to western Europe by 2020 through the established pipeline infrastructure crossing its territory from the east.¶
	4	+
	5	+Plan stops that progress and causes a shift to coal. Empirically proven in japan a ban on nuclear triggered a shift to coal. Follett 16
	6	+Follett, Andrew. (Energy and Science Reporter ) "The End Of Nuclear Power In Japan Is Bringing Back Coal." The Daily Caller. June 13, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/the-end-of-nuclear-power-in-japan-is-bringing-back-coal/. SP
	7	+
	8	+An analysis published Monday by Bloomberg states that coal power will become the largest source of electricity in Japan due to an effective ban on nuclear power. Nuclear power provided 29 percent of Japan’s total power output before 2011, but will decline to 13.6 percent by 2023 and 1.2 percent by 2040, according to the report. Japan got 24 percent of its electricity from coal in 2010 and the country plans to get more than a third of its power from coal by 2040. Japan previously shut down all of its nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which triggered the Fukushima disaster. The country has since transitioned away from nuclear power. Prior to the disaster, Japan operated 54 nuclear power plants and the government planned to build enough reactors to provide 50 percent of the country’s electricity power. After the disaster, Japan pledged to effectively abandon nuclear power by the 2030s, replacing it mostly with wind or solar power, causing the price of electricity to rise by 20 percent. The transition to green energy hasn’t gone well and the country likely won’t meet its goals, according to the report. Japan remains a top importer of oil, coal and natural gas and the government estimated that importing fuel costs the country more than $40 billion annually. Japan’s current government sees a revival of nuclear power as critical to supporting economic growth and slowing an exodus of Japanese manufacturing to lower-cost countries, but has faced incredible pushback.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+Nuclear is baseload power, which means it’s best suited to replace coal – it also means renewables can’t replace coal or nuclear – Germany proves. Kharecha and Hansen 13
	12	+
	13	+Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen. "Response to Comment on “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power”." Environmental science and technology 47.12 (2013): 6718-6719.
	14	+
	15	+Sovacool et al.1 begin their critique of our recently published¶ paper2 by claiming that nuclear power is unable to displace¶ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as effectively as energy¶ efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies in the¶ near term. However, much of their rationale reflects the¶ common misconception that the electric energy produced by¶ different electricity sources is interchangeable. For near-term¶ mitigation of climate change and air pollution, fossil fuel¶ sources of base load power such as coal and natural gas (i.e.,¶ those that can provide essentially continuous power) are most¶ effectively replaced by proven alternative base load sources such¶ as nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, and properly (sustainably)¶ designed biomass energy (e.g., see ref 3). This is rooted in¶ the fact that wind and solar photovoltaic energy sources are¶ inherently variable and therefore cannot provide base load¶ power.¶ These issues are highlighted by the consequences of¶ Germany’s recent decision to phase out its nuclear power¶ production by 2022 following Japan’s Fukushima nuclear¶ accident. Despite a major, laudable expansion of wind and¶ solar power in recent years, Germany’s nuclear phaseout has so¶ far led to an increase in coal burning and an associated increase¶ in national GHG emissions4,5a disappointing outcome, given¶ the government’s stated intentions to reduce GHG emissions.¶ (It has also led to a significant increase in Germany’s electricity¶ rates.4¶ ) While the emissions increase has been modest so far, it¶ could become substantial in the mid- and long-term, due to the¶ typically multidecadal lifetime of fossil fuel-fired power plants.¶ Many of Sovacool et al.’s assertions regarding the various¶ costs of nuclear power rely on their Table 1. With the exception¶ of column two, the values in that table are, at best, misleading.¶ For instance, the 0−4.1 gCO2/kWh range for nuclear power in¶ column four (sourced from coauthor Jacobson6¶ ) represents¶ GHG emissions from the incineration of megacities due to¶ hypothetical nuclear war; this purely speculative estimate¶ appears to reflect the common and irrational conflation of¶ nuclear power with nuclear weapons. More importantly, the¶ “opportunity costs” for nuclear power listed in column three¶ (which substantially exceed the life-cycle emissions listed in¶ column two) are based on another set of highly dubious¶ assumptions by Jacobson6¶ namely, that it takes 10−19 years¶ between planning to operation for a nuclear reactor, and, as a¶ result of this delay, continuing fossil fuel GHG emissions from¶ the electricity sector are assigned to nuclear power. This¶ approach, based solely on the U.S. experience, is immediately¶ undermined by simply considering the example of France: in a¶ period of just 10 years (between 1977−1987), nuclear power¶ production in France experienced a ∼15-fold increase that led¶ to its share of electricity rising from 8.5 to over 70 (based¶ on ref 7). Thus, under the right conditions it is not inevitable¶ that the international construction of nuclear plants will face¶ long delays.
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+
	19	+Turns the advantage - Natural gas is the worst form of Russian Expansionism. Hermant
	20	+
	21	+Hermant, 14 (ABC's Moscow correspondent from 2010-13. He returned in March 2014 to cover the Ukraine crisis from Moscow and Kiev. (Norman, “Russia's natural gas is Vladimir Putin's political and economical weapon,” ABC Australia, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/natural-gas-is-putins-political-and-economical-weapon/5394030) IS
	22	+
	23	+For Vladimir Putin, natural gas is not just a resource. It is an economic and political weapon.¶ I cannot recall now whether we were heading back to Moscow from Makhachkala, Samara, or Ulyanovsk.¶ But I do remember how we were getting back. There on the tarmac on the side of a Soviet-era Tu-154 jet were the proud words “Газпром Авиа”, or Gazprom Avia. This gas company is so huge it runs its own airline on the side.¶ To understand how energy exports - especially natural gas – have helped fuel Mr Putin's long reign, look no further than Gazprom.¶ Since Mr Putin rose to power in 2000, the energy company has become a colossus.¶ It is an economy within an economy: nearly 400,000 employees, more than $US150 billion in revenues, and $US40 billion in profits heading straight into the hands of the Kremlin.¶ That cash, and billions more from crude oil exports, have allowed Mr Putin to spend vast sums to prop up inefficient industries.¶ It allows the Kremlin to essentially indirectly pay oligarchs to keep the jobless rate down.¶ It provides the money needed to overhaul the armed forces and the security services.¶ Of course, all the way up the pyramid of Russia's elite, entrenched corruption ensures everyone gets their share. Just do not rock the boat.¶ Natural gas is not just another export for Russia. It is a point of national pride.¶ For the Kremlin, it is an economic and political weapon.¶ We have all heard the statistics that the European Union gets about a quarter of its gas from Russia, but that is only part of the story.¶ Twelve European Union (EU) countries rely on Russia for more than 50 per cent of their natural gas. That is nearly half the EU.¶ The Baltic countries and Finland are 100 per cent reliant on Russia. Poland, Austria and Hungary are not far off.¶ Half of that gas makes its way to the EU through pipelines that pass through – you guessed it – Ukraine.¶ The former Soviet republic depends on Russia not only for gas, but also the desperately needed transit fees it earns from the pipelines.¶ When the Kremlin wants to pile the pressure on Kiev, like it did just before the annexation of Crimea, it does not need force. It can just raise the price of gas.¶ This month, Gazprom informed Ukraine's new government the price for its gas was going up 44 per cent. It also warned if Ukraine does not pay a $US1.7 billion bill soon, it could cut off supplies.¶ Kiev said if that happened supplies to Europe might be cut. Even under former president Viktor Yanukovych, Moscow realised the amount of gas passing through Ukraine on the way to Europe made it vulnerable.¶ It is already halfway through a strategy to bypass Ukraine, and cement its European markets.¶ The first step was the Nord Stream pipeline, which carries gas directly from Russia, underneath the Baltic Sea, to Germany.¶ Who was on board to help get that pipeline over the line? None other than Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor.¶ He joined the venture shortly after he left office, and remains the chairman of Nord Stream's shareholder committee. Nord Stream is majority owned by Gazprom.¶ Now Russia is racing to build the South Stream pipeline, which would carry gas under the Black Sea to southern Europe and Turkey.¶ If it succeeds, not only will it make countries like Romania and Greece even more reliant on Russian gas, it will send gas exports away from Ukraine's pipelines and further weaken Kiev's leverage.¶ In fact, many analysts believe Moscow's power play in Ukraine has been softened by one thing Mr Putin cannot do anything about: the seasons.¶ By the time the Kremlin's man in Kiev, Mr Yanukovych, was on his way out, it was nearly March.¶ Winter had already done its worst. If Russia turned off the gas, Ukraine's masses would have been uncomfortable, but they would have lived.¶ The same cannot be said if the confrontation had started in December.¶ European countries seek alternative gas supplies¶ Of course, all of this reliance on Russian gas puts the Kremlin in an interesting spot.¶ It revels in the economic power it derives from the huge role it plays in keeping the heat on in much of Europe.¶ But the episode in Crimea, when Moscow rolled the dice on EU sanctions, has accelerated efforts to undo the very dependence the Kremlin cherishes.¶ Mr Putin bet energy from Russia would trump EU political concerns over Russian expansionism. For now, it seems that he won that wager.¶ But already there is talk of building huge liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals in several locations in Europe to allow for alternative supplies from the Middle East, and possibly even the United States.¶ ¶ However, any serious reduction in Europe's reliance on Russian gas is still years away. Until then, the Kremlin – through Gazprom – will try to make it seem like energy from Russia is simply part of the European fabric.¶
	24	+
	25	+Even if radiation is bad from nuclear, the radiation from coal is worse. Hvistendahl ‘07
	26	+Mara Hvistendahl is a contributing correspondent at Science. “Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste.” Scientific American. December 13, 2007. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ JJN
	27	+The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity. Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * See Editor's Note at end of page 2 At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock. Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile one kilometer of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays. So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon." Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases. With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source. The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-16 14:18:52.763

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+David Dosch

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook NS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+26

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Chaudhary Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT Ukraine Shift DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks