Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-28 18:50:45.786
	1	+2016-10-28 18:50:45.0

Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+Econ DA
	2	+
	3	+1. Cross apply the first link card form the blackout DA, WNA 2016, which says that Ukraine currently gets 50 of its electricity from nuclear power.
	4	+And, other resources can’t make up for the loss in energy that would occur if we ban nuclear production. Our Energy Policy Organization ‘16
	5	+Our Energy Policy Organization, July 1-6, 2016, Nuclear Energy: Overview, http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEO.pdf DOA: 8-10-16 LG
	6	+For those who hope that renewables can quickly fill the gap left by closed nuclear energy facilities, NEI points out that wind and solar lack the scale and reliability of nuclear power plants that usually run 24/7 except when they are in refueling outages “Renewable sources are intermittent and do not have the same value to the grid as dispatchable baseload resources like nuclear plants. And renewables do not have the scale necessary to replace existing nuclear plants,” NEI say NEI’s comments also point to analysis by the independent market monitor for the New England and New York independent system operators (ISO) demonstrating that preserving existing nuclear power plants has a lower carbon abatement cost than renewables sources like wind and solar. “Looking to the future, the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook expects nuclear energy to produce 789 billion kWh in 2040. By then, EIA forecasts wind and solar will produce 818 billion kWh. So it will take the next 25 years for wind and solar to catch up to where nuclear energy is today,” NEI says.
	7	+Impact
	8	+Because nuclear power has low price sensitivity, it can favorably contribute to conditions for economic growth.
	9	+IAEA 2013 – International Atomic Energy Agency, “Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2013,” Vienna, 2013. AT
	10	+Price stability is an important precondition for investing in nuclear power, as it prevents unexpected increases in construction costs and unforeseen changes in future cash flows. Financial calculations are made in real terms, as net-present-value discounting includes expected price changes. With a timeframe of several years, unexpected inflation rates can significantly modify the profitability profile of a nuclear power project. Mitigating mechanisms to reduce inflation risk exist, but at a cost. On the other hand, nuclear power may have positive implications for a country’s price stability, due to its potential substitution effect on imported fossil fuels. Nuclear power also boasts low fuel price sensitivity, so electricity prices are not strongly affected by uranium price volatility. The price of nuclear generated electricity is therefore more stable than other baseload technologies. Electricity price stability leads to low inflation and, thus, to a favourable monetary policy context for economic growth.
	11	+Nuclear power stimulates the economy by providing electricity for economic development and by stimulating the economy through direct investment.
	12	+IAEA 2013 – International Atomic Energy Agency, “Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2013,” Vienna, 2013. AT
	13	+Nuclear power can play an important role in driving sustainable economic growth by meeting growing electricity demand, contributing to GHG emissions reduction and generating economic activity within and beyond the power sector. A vast literature exists on the correlation between energy consumption and change in GDP, while a few studies specifically cover the implications of nuclear power technologies on growth 52. Despite not being conclusive, the literature shows evidence that the increased consumption of nuclear power has a positive effect on economic growth. There are two mechanisms making this possible. First, nuclear generated electricity fuels the development of a country’s economic activity, particularly where nuclear power represents a large share of total electricity consumption. Second, nuclear plant investment and operation directly stimulate economic activity and create new employment.
	14	+Building nuclear power plants stimulates employment.
	15	+IAEA 2013 – International Atomic Energy Agency, “Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2013,” Vienna, 2013. AT
	16	+The employment effects of nuclear power are an important driver for the construction of new facilities. Nuclear investment directly creates high skilled employment in construction, operation, nuclear fuel cycle and supporting industries. Additional jobs are created in areas such as design, siting, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, etc. At the same time, nuclear power also generates indirect employment in induced non-nuclear industries. Estimates of the employment effects of NPPs in the USA 54 indicate that, for each directly created job in construction, manufacturing or operations for a new NPP, four additional indirect or induced non-nuclear jobs are created in the economy. Other studies in various countries 52, 55 stress the job multiplying effect of nuclear power. Despite the fragmentation of available data and the need for further research on the topic, the positive employment effect of nuclear power appears indisputable, especially at the local level. There are estimates that the yearly contribution to the local community of the average NPP in the USA is approximately $470 million in sales of goods and services, in addition to $40 million in total labour income 56.
	17	+
	18	+Job loss and financial hardship exacts a tremendous human cost. Dao and Loungani 2010 :
	19	+
	20	+The human and social costs of unemployment are more far-reaching than the immediate temporary loss of income. They include loss of lifetime earnings, loss of human capital, worker discouragement, adverse health outcomes, and loss of social cohesion. Moreover, parents’ unemployment can even affect the health and education outcomes of their children. The costs can be particularly high for certain groups, such as youth and the long-term unemployed (see Katz, 2010; von Wachter, 2010a, 2010b; Holzer, 2010). A. Cost to Individuals and Families Loss of earnings: Layoffs are associated with substantial loss of earnings both over the short and long run. That is, even when workers are re-employed shortly after displacement, they suffer a decline in wages compared to the pre-displacement job and compared to similar workers that were not displaced. The decline in earnings is on average observed for job losers in any period, but is most pronounced for job losers during a recession (see Farber, 2005). Studies for the United States show that these earnings losses persist even in the long run: 15–20 years after a job loss in a recession, the earnings loss amounts on average to 20 (see e.g. Jacobson et al., 1993; von Wachter et al., 2009). An illustration of an average earnings path before and after job separation during the recession in the 1980s using U.S. administrative data is taken from von Wachter et al. (2009) and reproduced in Figure 4. These sustained earnings losses stem from the decline in value of certain occupation- or industry-specific skills that become obsolete, from the time-intensive process of finding an appropriate job, in particular for a mature worker, but also from so called “cyclical downgrading”— when workers take up worse jobs than they otherwise would have had in the absence of a recession. There is also evidence that the adverse effects on lifetime earnings are most pronounced for unemployment spells experienced at youth, especially upon college graduation, making the rising youth unemployment rate a particularly serious concern (see Oreopoulos et al., 2008; Kondo, 2008; Kahn, 2010). Using similar data and empirical methodology as the U.S. studies above, Schmieder et al. (2009) also find that workers who lost their stable jobs in 1982 in Germany suffered earnings losses of 10–15 that lasted at least 15 years. Thus even in countries with more generous welfare systems and lower earnings inequalities, workers are not shielded from long lasting and large income losses caused by job displacement. Impact on health: The hardship of job loss also has serious negative impacts on health. In the short run, layoffs are associated with higher risk of heart attacks and other stress-related illnesses (Burgard et al., 2007). But even in the long term, the mortality rate of workers that have been laid off is on average higher than that of comparable workers that did not lose their jobs, controlling for other relevant individual and aggregate characteristics. Based on social security data for the United States, Sullivan and von Wachter (2009) estimate that increased mortality rate due to unemployment can persist up to 20 years after the job loss and lead to an average loss of life expectancy from 1 to 1.5 years (see Figure 5). Moreover, displaced workers’ loss in earnings is associated with the increase in mortality odds: workers that are displaced but are lucky enough not to suffer a loss in subsequent earnings are not found to have a higher rate of mortality (Figure 6). This suggests that financial resources serve as an important determinant of individual health by influencing the ability to invest in good health care (and access to health insurance) and a healthy lifestyle, while a shortage of resources leads to poor lifestyle choices and can also be the reason for stress and depression.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-28 18:50:47.203

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sept-Oct-Econ DA

Tournament

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