Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,13 +1,0 @@
1		-A ban is empirically verified to cause a shift back to fossil fuels.
2		-Chameides 12: Chameides, Bill (Dean of Nicholas School of the Environment 2007-2014, Professor Emeritus at Duke University). "The Nuclear Power Conundrum." Nicholas School of the Environment. Duke University, 5 July 2012. Web. http3A2F2Fblogs.nicholas.duke.edu2Fthegreengrok2Fnuke-conundrum2F
3		-
4		-What to do when your favorite nuclear plant gets shut down? One ~~the~~ option would be to just do without. Another option, and the one that Japan and California have chosen, is to replace the lost nuclear power with another source. And what do you suppose the source of choice is? Fossil fuels of course. The shutdown of Japan’s nuclear power plants corresponded with a more than doubling in the consumption of fuel oil and crude oil (primarily for electrical generation) in January 2012 compared to January 2011. There was also a 27 percent increase in liquid natural gas usage, although coal usage went down by eight percent. This, despite the fact that overall energy usage in Japan dropped sharply since the disaster. Overall, Japan’s carbon dioxide emissions for 2011 increased by about 2.4 percent. The cost of all that extra fossil fuels has been huge. For the first time in decades Japan has experienced a trade deficit. The economic damage caused by the shutdown of Japan’s nuclear fleet is perhaps an explanation for why the prime minister has decided to take a baby step back toward nuclear power with the restarting of the Ohi plant. California’s experience with the loss of San Onofre is like a miniature version of Japan’s. Since the San Onofre shut down, two retired natural gas units at Huntington Beach have been called back into service. So what to do if you are uneasy about nuclear power and worried about climate change? Many experts opine that you would be foolish to think we could immediately do away with both — you’ve only got two options: choose nuclear or choose fossil fuels. As Per Peterson, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times: "We are really faced with a choice, at least in the next decade. Do we turn off nuclear plants first, or do we turn off coal plants first? You have to do one or the other."
5		-
6		-
7		-====Wind, solar, water, etc are unreliable and would require coal and oil to supplement them due to the unpredictability of their natural factors which is 2-4x worse than just nuclear power. ====
8		-IAEA 15 ,,International Atomic Energy Agency "CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2015" Vienna Austria 2015,,
9		-Renewable technologies (hydropower, wind, solar) do not face the risk of interruptions in fuel supplies, making them somewhat similar to nuclear power. The difficulty associated with their prospective major expansion in the first half of the twenty-first century forecasted by the IEA ~~11~~ is not in making reserves of energy sources but in creating storage for the produced energy. The reason is intermittency: in contrast to the dispatchable technologies powered by fuels (nuclear or fossils) with guaranteed energy output allowing long term planning, some renewables depend on unpredictable variations in natural conditions, such as windiness and insolation. Considering the fact that large scale storage of electricity is not yet affordable, this creates a significant challenge for the stable and reliable functioning of the power grid. In order to close the gap between demand and unstable supply, alternative energy sources are needed. Normally, these are thermal power plants (as the output of NPPs cannot change fast enough to balance the variations in wind or solar outputs), paradoxically increasing the importance of fossils fuels. It follows that in order to secure the dependability of electricity supply in systems using significant shares of intermittent renewables, such systems will have to include a substantial share of power plants fuelled by coal or gas. This reduces their environmental benefits significantly below the levels estimated by LCAs of various solar and wind technologies (see Section 2.3). Therefore, at the current level of development of energy storage technologies, power systems relying heavily on intermittent renewables will not only be subject to less stable supply but will also face the energy security threats associated with fossil fuels. Moreover, in terms of operational and environmental benefits, such systems are characterized by the inefficiency of fossil fuel power plant operation due to the unpredictable and abrupt changes in their required output. Though their ability to change output quickly makes them preferential options in comparison with nuclear, it leads to an inevitable trade-off in the form of significant N2O emissions that are hard to control under changing power rate regimes. The magnitude of such environmental penalties is not yet clear but, according to a study of the US National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), reductions in N2O emissions in energy systems with a 20 share of wind or solar PV are only 30–50 of those estimated by ignoring the fossil fuel backup. In the worst case scenarios, emissions of N2O from such systems can actually increase by 2–4 times ~~37~~.
10		-
11		-====Coal causes huge harms and environmental racism—turns case.====
12		-GEP 15: "Environmental Racism in America: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement and the Role of Race in Environmental Policies", The Goldman Environmental Press, 24 Jun 2015, BE
13		-The problem of racial profiling in America relates to more than just police brutality and the senseless acts of violence that have recently captured the national spotlight. Race also plays a determining role in environmental policies regarding land use, zoning and regulations. As a result, African American, Latino, indigenous and low-income communities are more likely to live next to a coal-fired power plant, landfill, refinery or other highly polluting facility. These communities bear a disproportionate burden of toxic contamination as a result of pollution in and around their neighborhoods. Moreover, these communities have historically had a diminished response capacity to fight back against such policies.¶ A recent report from the NAACP entitled "Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People," found that among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39 are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36 proportion of people of color in the total US population. The report also found that 78 of all African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.¶ In an interview for Yale Environment 360, Jacqueline Patterson, the Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the NAACP commented on the disproportionate burden faced by communities of color:¶ "An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child, and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks as a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke. When we did a road tour to visit the communities that were impacted by coal pollution, we found many anecdotal stories of people saying, yes, my husband, my father, my wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. And these are people who are living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-26 02:47:41.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Martin Sigalow, Chris Theis, Daniel Shatzkin

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harrison RP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Octas

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lexington Weiler Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPTOCT- Coal DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Valley