Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,19 +1,0 @@
1		-====Nuclear energy is becoming one of the main sources of electricity for most countries – energy production will only increase with time====
2		-**WNA 16 1 **(The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx JC)
3		-In the 1950s attention turned to the peaceful purposes of nuclear fission, notably for power generation. Today, the world produces as much electricity from nuclear energy as it did from all sources combined in the early years of nuclear power. Civil nuclear power can now boast over 16,500 reactor years of experience and supplies almost 11.5 of global electricity needs, from reactors in 31 countries. In fact, through regional grids, many more than those countries depend on nuclear-generated power. Many countries have also built research reactors to provide a source of neutron beams for scientific research and the production of medical and industrial isotopes. Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability. By contrast, 56 countries operate about 240 civil research reactors, over one third of these in developing countries. Now 31 countries host some 440 commercial nuclear power reactors with a total installed capacity of over 380,000 MWe (see linked table for up to date figures). This is more than three times the total generating capacity of France or Germany from all sources. About 65 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, equivalent to 18 of existing capacity, while over 150 are firmly planned, equivalent to nearly half of present capacity. Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three-quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one-third or more. South Korea and Bulgaria normally get more than 30 of their power from nuclear energy, while in the USA, UK, Spain, Romania and Russia almost ~~gets~~ one-fifth ~~of its electricity~~ is from nuclear. Japan is used to relying on nuclear power for more than one-quarter of its electricity and is expected to return to that level. Among countries which do not host nuclear power plants, Italy and Denmark get almost 10 of their power from nuclear. In electricity demand, the need for low-cost continuous, reliable supply can be distinguished from peak demand occurring over few hours daily and able to command higher prices. Supply needs to match demand instantly and reliably over time. There are number of characteristics of nuclear power which make it particularly valuable apart from its actual generation cost per unit – MWh or kWh. Fuel is a low proportion of power cost, giving power price stability, its fuel is on site (not depending on continuous delivery), it is dispatchable on demand, it has fairly quick ramp-up, it contributes to clean air and low-CO2 objectives, it gives good voltage support for grid stability. These attributes are mostly not monetised in merchant markets, but have great value which is increasingly recognised where dependence on intermittent sources has grown. As nuclear power plant construction~~increases~~ returns to the levels reached during the 1970s and 1980s, those plants now operating are producing more electricity. In 2011, production was 2518 billion kWh. The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement is due to better performance from existing units.
4		-CROSS APPLY THE COAL TURN LINK- WE WILL SWITCH
5		-
6		-====Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal – switching now will increase costs.====
7		-**WNA 16 2**("The Economics of Nuclear Power" The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx JC)
8		-There have been many studies carried out examining the economics of future generation options, and the following are merely the most important and also focus~~ing~~ on the nuclear element. A May 2016 draft declaration related to the European Commission's Strategic Energy Technology Plan lists target LCOE figures for the latest generation of light-water reactors (LWRs) 'first-of-a-kind' new-build twin reactor project on a brownfield site as €48/MWh to €84/MWh, falling to €43/MWh to €75/MWh for a series build (5 and 10 discount rate, in 2012€). The LCOE figures for existing Generation II nuclear power plants integrating post-Fukushima stress tests safety upgrades following refurbishment for extended operation (10-20 years on average) are €23/MWh to €26/MWh (5 and 10 discount rate, in 2012€). The 2010 edition of the OECD study on Projected Costs of generating Electricity compared 2009 data for generating base-load electricity by 2015 as well as costs of power from renewables, and showed that nuclear power was very competitive at $30 per tonne CO2 cost and low discount rate. The study comprised data for 190 power plants from 17 OECD countries as well as some data from Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa. It used levelised lifetime costs with carbon price internalised (OECD only) and discounted cash flow at 5 and 10, as previously. The precise competitiveness of different base-load technologies depended very much on local circumstances and the costs of financing and fuels. Nuclear overnight capital costs in OECD ranged from US$ 1556/kW for APR-1400 in South Korea through $3009 for ABWR in Japan, $3382/kW for Gen III+ in USA, $3860 for EPR at Flamanville in France to $5863/kW for EPR in Switzerland, with world median $4100/kW. Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Rep and Hungary were all over $5000/kW. In China overnight costs were $1748/kW for CPR-1000 and $2302/kW for AP1000, and in Russia $2933/kW for VVER-1150. EPRI (USA) gave $2970/kW for APWR or ABWR, Eurelectric gave $4724/kW for EPR. OECD black coal plants were costed at $807-2719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3223-5811/kW, brown coal $1802-3485, gas plants $635-1747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1821-3716/kW. (Overnight costs were defined here as EPC, owner's costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction.) At 5 discount rate comparative costs are as shown above. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than coal and gas in all countries. At 10 discount rate (below) nuclear is still cheaper than coal in all but the Eurelectric estimate and three EU countries, but in these three gas becomes cheaper still. Coal with carbon capture is mostly more expensive than either nuclear or paying the $30 per tonne for CO2 emissions, though the report points out "great uncertainties" in the cost of projected CCS. Also, investment cost becomes a much greater proportion of power cost than with 5 discount rate. A 2004 report on The Economic Future of Nuclear Power from from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compared the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options were covered, and for an initial ABWR or AP1000 they ranged from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60-year plant life, five-year construction and 90 capacity. Coal gave 3.5-4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5-4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price
9		-
10		-====Electricity is key to the economy – even a 10 decreases causes an irreversible collapse====
11		-**NRECA 15 **(NRECA is the national service organization for more than 900 not-for-profit rural electric cooperatives and public power districts providing retail electric service to more than 42 million consumers in 47 states and whose retail sales account for approximately 12 percent of total electricity sales in the United States. "New Study Highlights Impact of Increased Electricity Prices" http://www.nreca.coop/new-study-highlights-impact-of-increased-electricity-prices/ JC)
12		-The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) released a new economic study detailing a devastating relationship between higher electricity prices and job losses. The study, Affordable Electricity: Rural America’s Economic Lifeline, measures the impact of a 10 and 25 percent electricity price increase on jobs and gross domestic product (GDP) from 2020 to 2040. According to the study, a 10 percent increase in electricity prices results in 1.2 million jobs lost in 2021. Nearly 500,000 of those lost jobs are in rural areas of the country, and even 20 years later, the economy fails to fully recover. The impact of a 25 percent increase would be more damaging with 2.2 million jobs lost in 2021, with more than 890,000 of those occurring in rural areas. "Affordable electricity is rural America’s economic lifeline. This study shines a light on the true, real-life cost of higher electricity prices – a cost that policymakers in Washington would do well to remember," NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson said. "And federal regulations that result in higher electricity prices, such as the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, could wipe out any modest gains rural America has made since the Great Recession. "For 75 years, America’s not-for-profit electric cooperatives have been the guardians of rural America – bringing safe, affordable, and reliable power to more than 42 million Americans across 47 states. Affordable electricity has revolutionized the rural American landscape, creating jobs while taking agriculture and manufacturing operations to new heights. Rural America simply cannot afford to suffer hundreds of thousands of lost jobs because Washington regulators and policymakers fail to understand the impact their actions have on Main Street." In terms of national GDP from 2020 to 2040, a 10 percent increase results in a cumulative loss of $2.8 trillion and a 25 percent increase results in a cumulative $5.4 trillion loss. The impact of higher costs on the electric bills of those who can least afford it will be devastating. On average, 23 percent of co-op households nationwide earn an annual income of less than $25,000. The average income for households served by electric cooperatives is 11.5 percent less than the national average.
13		-
14		-====Economic decline causes war – multiple studies prove====
15		-**Royal, 2010, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives’ eds. Goldsmith and Brauer, ~~Director Cooperative Threat Reduction DOD, Jedediah~~, p. 213-215**
16		-Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectations of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, the linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the flavor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, and Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government . ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection
17		-Economic decline systematically oppresses the poor
18		-IFAD 16
19		-As a result of high population growth and a decade of civil war that ended in 2002, poverty remains widespread throughout the country. The severe economic decline that went hand in hand with civil war and social unrest destroyed social and physical infrastructure and impoverished the country. Sierra Leone is the poorest country in the world, according to the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI). It ranked last out of 177 countries on the HDI in 2005. Health and nutrition indicators remain among the worst in the world. A large proportion of youth, who include many former combatants, are unemployed or underemployed. This situation presents a threat to sustainable peace and stability. With the assistance of international donors, the country has successfully tackled reconstruction and has embarked on a process of democratization and stabilization. Sierra Leone is currently making progress towards securing macroeconomic stability. The country’s poorest people are landless people and small-scale farmers, particularly women who head rural households. Among these groups, the most disadvantaged are people who were refugees or internally displaced during the war, together with young people, especially former combatants, sexually abused young women and single mothers. Poverty is heavily concentrated in rural areas and in urban areas outside Freetown, the capital. About 75 per cent of the entire population was living below the poverty line in 2007, and more than half of them live on less than a dollar a day. The proportion of poor people living in rural areas is about 80 per cent. The poorest areas are in the Northern and Southern provinces and in the eastern border provinces, which were particularly hard-hit by the war. The social and economic effects of a decade of civil war were devastating for the country and for poor people in particular. In the aftermath of the war poverty will become pervasive and intensified. Agricultural output has continued to decline, with drastic effects on food prices and rural incomes. The war disrupted education in many areas. During the conflict, the dislocation of large segments of the population, the separation of families and frequent violence against women contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS. In almost all aspects of human resources development, the country’s poor rural people are disadvantaged. Their levels of health, nutrition, education and food security are inadequate. As a result, productivity is generally low. Low productivity also stems from limited access to ~~resources~~ land and to technologies, markets and financial services.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-14 20:44:43.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Demarcus Powell

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Kinkaid VL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-9

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Southlake Carroll Patel Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPOCT- Electricity DA

Tournament

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