Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[12]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[12]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-28 18:49:10.583
	1	+2016-10-28 18:49:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+Coal DA
	2	+Link
	3	+Nuclear power will be replaced by coal construction and natural gas.
	4	+Biello 2013 - David Biello. “How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming,” December 12, 2013.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/. SD
	5	+As long as countries like China or the U.S. employ big grids to deliver electricity, there will be a need for generation from nuclear, coal or gas, the kinds of electricity generation that can be available at all times. A rush to phase out nuclear power privileges natural gas—as is planned under Germany's innovative effort, dubbed the Energiewende (energy transition), to increase solar, wind and other renewable power while also eliminating the country's 17 reactors. In fact, Germany hopes to develop technology to store excess electricity from renewable resources as gas to be burned later, a scheme known as “power to gas,” according to economist and former German politician Rainer Baake, now director of an energy transition think tank Agora Energiewende. Even worse, a nuclear stall can lead to the construction of more coal-fired power plants, as happened in the U.S. after the end of the nuclear power plant construction era in the 1980s.
	6	+
	7	+After a ban on nuclear power, coal consumption would rise dramatically. Nakata 2002
	8	+Toshihiko Nakata Professor at Tohoku University, “Analysis of the impacts of nuclear phase-out on energy systems in Japan” April 2002
	9	+Fig. 3 illustrates the changes in the electric power generation under the nuclear phase-out case. The total energy consumption and the carbon dioxide emissions for four scenarios in the year 2041 are shown in Table 4. We can see three ways in which the system has adjusted to make up the nuclear boiler after its phasing out: ∂ The use of coal boiler and coal IGCC rise and the total coal consumption rises by four times. The use of gas combined-cycles and gas boiler rise gradually, and the total gas consumption grows by three times. The renewables are not seen in the electricity market.
	10	+
	11	+Germany proves that ending the production of nuclear power results in the increased use of coal.
	12	+Abrams 2013 - Lindsay Abrams (Staff Writer at Salon on sustainable energy), "Germany’s clean energy plan backfired", Salon (web), July 30, 2013. www.salon.com/2013/07/30/germanys_clean_energy_plan_backfired/
	13	+When a nuclear power plant closes, a coal plant opens. At least, that’s the way things are shaping up in Germany, where the move away from nuclear energy appears to have backfired. For the second consecutive year, according to Bloomberg, the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to increase. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made headlines back in 2011 when, in the wake of the reactor meltdown in Tokyo, she announced the impending closure of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors. Up until then, nuclear-generated energy contributed to a full quarter of the nation’s electricity. At the time, the closings were framed as a positive effort to increase the country’s use of clean energy. As an expert then predicted to the New York Times: “If the government goes ahead with what it said it would do, then Germany will be a kind of laboratory for efforts worldwide to end nuclear power in an advanced economy.” But predictably, when nuclear plants began to shut down, as eight immediately did, something else had to take its place. And coal, which according to Bloomberg is favored by the market, did just that. In the absence of a strong government plan to push natural gas and renewable forms of energy, the share of electricity generated from coal rose from 43 percent in 2010 to 52 percent in the first half of this year, according to the World Nuclear Association.
	14	+Impact
	15	+Fossil fuels cause air pollution that harms humans.
	16	+IAEA 2013 – International Atomic Energy Agency, “Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2013,” Vienna, 2013. AT
	17	+NPPs emit virtually no air pollutants during their operation. In contrast, fossil fuel power plants are among the major contributors to air pollution. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is a major human health risk factor. Outdoor air pollution due largely to fossil fuel burning causes over one million premature deaths worldwide each year. Air pollution also contributes to health disorders from respiratory infections, heart disease and lung cancer 46. New evidence indicates that the adverse health effects of air pollutants occur in some cases at lower air pollution concentrations levels than previously thought. The range of health effects is also broader. They now include impacts on neurodevelopment and cognitive function. Air pollution is increasingly linked to chronic diseases such as diabetes 47.¶ A recent joint study from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute examined the historical and potential future role of nuclear power in preventing air pollution related mortality. The study estimates that globally, nuclear power has prevented over 1.8 million air pollution related deaths that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning between 1971 and 2009. The largest shares of prevented fatalities are estimated for European OECD Member States and for the USA. Furthermore, the calculations show that the deployment of nuclear power can make an even higher contribution to reducing air pollution related deaths in the future. Projections from a simulation model assess hypothetical scenarios in which all nuclear capacity would be phased out and substituted by fossil fuels. If all nuclear electricity production projected by the IAEA in 2011 (that is, after the Fukushima Daiichi accident) 48 for the period 2010–2050 were to be delivered by coal fired power plants, the number of premature air pollution related deaths could increase by 4.4 million for the low IAEA projection and by 7.0 million for the high projection. The large scale expansion of natural gas use would likewise cause far more deaths than the expansion of nuclear power. In the all gas case (generating the projected nuclear electricity by gas fired power plants instead), the resulting additional human deaths are estimated at 0.4 million (low projection) and 0.7 million (high projection). The overall conclusion of the study emphasizes the importance of retaining and expanding the role of nuclear power in the near term global energy supply 49.
	18	+Fossil fuels are more dangerous than nuclear power because of persistent dangers involved in the supply chain.
	19	+Saletan, William. “Nuclear Overreactors.” Slate March 14, 2011. MO. Web. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/03/nuclear_overreactors.html
	20	+If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institutecalculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-28 18:49:11.951

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Nick Steele

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+12

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sept-Oct-Coal DA V2

Tournament

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