Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-04 22:45:10.847
	1	+2016-10-04 22:45:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
	1	+Increase CP
	2	+Text
	3	+Text: Countries will increase their production of nuclear power.
	4	+Competition
	5	+Mutual exclusivity: you can’t ban nuclear power while increasing it’s production.
	6	+Solvency Advocate
	7	+
	8	+Increasing nuclear power is economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial,
	9	+Baddoo, N. R. "Stainless steel in construction: a review of research, applications, challenges and opportunities." Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64.11 (2008): 1199-1206. MC
	10	+
	11	+A number of factors currently weigh in favour of increased nuclear power generation. Firstly, the higher world market price for fossil fuels, largely driven by sustained demand, has put nuclear power on the agenda of many countries. Nuclear power plants have a ‘front-loaded’ cost structure, i.e. they are relatively expensive to build but relatively inexpensive to operate. The low share of uranium costs in total generating costs protects plant operators against resource price volatility. Secondly, strengthening a country’s energy supply security is best achieved by increasing the number and resiliency of energy supply options; for many developing countries, expanding nuclear power would increase the diversity of energy and electricity supplies. Thirdly, environmental considerations weigh increasingly in favour of nuclear power. Nuclear power at the point of electricity generation does not produce any emissions that damage local air quality, cause regional acidification or contribute to climate change. And finally, there are positive statements and newly-expressed interest from governments around the world. ¶ Worldwide, at the beginning of 2007, there were 435 nuclear power reactors in operation, totalling 367 GWe (gigawatt electrical) of generating capacity. In 2005, nuclear power supplied about 16 of the world’s electricity. In 2006, updated projections of nuclear power expansion to 2030 were published by the IAEA 20, and by the IEA in its World Energy Outlook 2006 21 and a further study extended these predictions to 2050 22. Fig. 5 show these projections, which consider a range of scenarios covering a number of drivers such as introduction of measures to reduce CO2 emissions and improve energy security.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+Global Warming Net Benefit
	15	+Nuclear power plants, even with their energy it takes for their construction, have extreme low greenhouse emissions compared to natural gas and coal. World Nuclear Association. "Comparison of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various electricity generation sources." WNA Report, London (2011). MC
	16	+
	17	+Nuclear power plants achieve a high degree of safety through the defence-in-depth approach where, among other things, the plant is designed with multiple physical barriers. These additional physical barriers are generally not built within other electrical generating systems, and as such, the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to construction of a nuclear power plant are higher than emissions resulting from construction of other generation methods. These additional emissions are accounted for in each of the studies included in Figure 2. Even when emissions from the additional safety barriers are included, the lifecycle emissions of nuclear energy are considerably lower than fossil fuel based generation methods. Averaging the results of the studies places nuclear energy’s 30 tonnes CO2e/GWh emission intensity at 7 of the emission intensity of natural gas, and only 3 of the emission intensity of coal fired power plants. In addition, the lifecycle GHG emission intensity of nuclear power generation is consistent with renewable energy sources including biomass, hydroelectric and wind.
	18	+
	19	+Nuclear power plants emit little gas emissions compared to coal. World Nuclear Association. "Comparison of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of various electricity generation sources." WNA Report, London (2011). MC
	20	+
	21	+Based on the studies reviewed, the following observations can be made: • Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass. • Lifecycle emissions of natural gas generation are 15 times greater then nuclear. • Lifecycle emissions of coal generation are 30 times greater then nuclear. • There is strong agreement in the published studies on life cycle GHG intensities for each generation method. However, the data demonstrates the sensitivity of lifecycle analysis to assumptions for each electricity generation source. • The range of results is influenced by the primary assumptions made in the lifecycle analysis. For instance, assuming either gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge enrichment has a bearing on the life cycle results for nuclear.
	22	+Energy Security NB
	23	+
	24	+Nuclear energy can ensure states are security in their energy supply with relatively little resources. Yusuf, Moeed. Does Nuclear Energy Have a Future?. Boston University. Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, 2008. MC
	25	+
	26	+Nuclear energy compares favorably to fossil fuels in terms of enhancing energy security for states with full fuel-cycle facilities. Compared to fossil fuels, the input of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium, is relatively democratically distributed and is in abundance. As many as 43 countries possess sizable uranium reserves. 125 Estimates suggest that proven reserves extractable through currently available techniques will last 80 years.126 Next, nuclear energy benefits from a much higher energy density—this is a measure of the amount of fuel input required to produce a given amount of energy—than fossil-based alternatives.127 For instance, the per annum concentrated uranium requirement for a 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant is 25 tons as compared to 2,300,000 tons of coal for a coal-based plant.128 Therefore, uranium stocks lasting over long periods can be imported in one consignment. Currently, countries regularly using nuclear energy can store two to three years worth of uranium but the period can be extended should uranium supply concerns arise.129 Finally, while coal and natural gas constitute 45 and 70 percent of production costs for these two fossil fuels, respectively, uranium constitutes only 15 to 20 percent of the same at nuclear plants.130 According to Lauvergeon, even a 50 percent increase in uranium prices would result in a four percent tariff increase for nuclear energy as compared to 38 percent for coal or gas.131

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-04 22:45:12.623

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Joseph Barquin

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Peninsula KJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Marlborough Coates Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sept-Oct-Increase CP

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola