Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[2]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-16 19:33:48.862
	1	+2016-09-16 19:33:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,15 @@
	1	+====When countries ban nuclear power, they shift to fossil fuels—empirically proven by Japan====
	2	+**Follett 16**, Andrew. "The End Of Nuclear Power In Japan Is Bringing Back Coal."The Daily Caller. N.p., 13 June 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/the-end-of-nuclear-power-in-japan-is-bringing-back-coal/.
	3	+An analysis published Monday by Bloomberg states that coal power will become the largest source of electricity in Japan due to an effective ban on nuclear power. Nuclear power provided 29 percent of Japan's total power output before 2011, but will decline to 13.6 percent by 2023 and 1.2 percent by 2040, according to the report. Japan got 24 percent of its electricity from coal in 2010 and the country plans to get more than a third of its power from coal by 2040. Japan previously shut down all of its nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which triggered the Fukushima disaster. The country has since transitioned away from nuclear power. Prior to the disaster, Japan operated 54 nuclear power plants and the government planned to build enough reactors to provide 50 percent of the country's electricity power. After the disaster, Japan pledged to effectivly abandon nuclear power by the 2030s, replacing it mostly with wind or solar power, causing the price of electricity to rise by 20 percent. The transition to green energy hasn't gone well and the country likely won't meet its goals, according to the report. Japan remains a top importer of oil, coal and natural gas and the government estimated that importing fuel costs the country more than $40 billion annually. Japan's current government sees a revival of nuclear power as critical to supporting economic growth and slowing an exodus of Japanese manufacturing to lower-cost countries, but has faced incredible pushback. Electricity from new wind power is nearly four times as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants, according to analysis from the Institute for Energy Research. The rising cost of the subsidies needed to make green energy work have been passed to ordinary Japanese rate-payers, triggering complaints that poor households are subsidizing the affluent. Statistically, nuclear reactors are the safest form of generating power and are responsible for 1,889 times fewer deaths than the coal plants replacing them in Japan.
	4	+
	5	+====Won't go to renewables—there's no link between nuclear and renewables; only nuclear and coal have been empirically linked====
	6	+**Cherp 15 **, Aleh (Aleh Cherp is professor of environmental sciences and policy at Central European University (CEU) and Lund University.) . "In Germany and Japan Less Nuclear Means More Coal but Not More Renewables." Polet Network. N.p., 9 Nov. 15. Web. 06 Sept. 2016. http://polet.network/blog/2015/11/7/is-the-nuclear-lobby-against-renewables-or-against-coal.
	7	+Many people who love renewable energy hate nuclear power and vice versa. But does it mean that these two sources of electricity compete in reality, and not just in the minds of their over-zealous advocates? In the last entry, I argued that Japan's huge nuclear industry has little to do with its failure to develop wind power. Here I will show that in the next 15 years nuclear power is posed to compete with coal, not renewables, in both Germany and Japan. An interesting set of historic data makes such analysis possible. In 2010, just before the Fukushima accident, both Germany and Japan issued strategic energy plans with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. German Chancellor Angela Merkel'sEnergiekonzept involved extending the lifetime of German nuclear reactors so that nuclear energy would still account for 17 of Germany's electricity in 2030. Japan's Strategic Energy Plan of 2010 envisioned constructing 14 new reactors and supplying over 50 of Japan's electricity from nuclear power by 2030. After the Fukushima's accident in 2011 both countries changed their plans. Germany went back to the nuclear phase-out timeline agreed in 2002, so that it will have no nuclear power by 2030. Japan seems to have decided not to build new reactors and gradually retire the existing ones, so that about 20-22 of electricity will come from nuclear power in 2030 (somewhat similar to what Germany planned before Fukushima). Thus, we can compare four energy plans from two countries: two pre-Fukushima with more nuclear and two post-Fukushima with less nuclear. If nuclear power was an enemy of renewables, the 'pro-nuclear' plans would have less wind, solar and biomass. However, in the pre-Fukushima plans, renewables in both Germany and Japan would grow 2.7 times between 2010 and 2030. This is especially remarkable in Japan, with its planned spectacular nuclear growth. In the post-Fukushima plans and scenarios they grow even more: by 3.1-3.3 times, which does not, however, compensate for the dramatic cut in nuclear power. What does then? The answer is: coal. In the pre-Fukushima scenarios, coal-based electricity declines 2.6-2.7 times, but in the post-Fukushima plans and scenarios, it only goes down 7-10 (see figures below). Thus, in their less-nuclear plans both countries would produce 17-19 more renewables, but 2.5 times more coal than in the pro-nuclear plans. In other words, the competition between nuclear and coal seems to be much more apparent than between nuclear and renewables. Why is this so? A likely explanation is two-fold. The first part is that these two states plan to deploy as much renewables as possible independently of their attitudes to nuclear energy. Both countries planned the same amount of renewables both in the relatively nuclear-friendly pre-Fukushima years and nuclear-hostile post-Fukushima years. This means that their plans for renewables were shaped not by the 'nuclear lobbies', but rather by other factors (costs, grid capacities, etc.) . The second part is that once the amount of renewables is given, it should be supplemented by certain baseload andpeaking generation. While peaking generation can be provided by coal or natural gas, nuclear or coal are needed for baseload generation, at least in the near future. That is why nuclear power competes with coal, but not with renewables.
	8	+
	9	+====Turns case-coal emissions uniquely harm minorities====
	10	+**Bienkowski**, By Brian. "Spotlight Hits Coal Ash Impact on Poor and Minority Communities." — Environmental Health News. N.p., 14 Jan. 20**16**. Web. 02 Sept. 2016. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/jan/coal-ash-environmental-justice-epa-civil-rights.
	11	+Too often toxic coal ash, a byproduct of coal-fired power, ends up in poor, minority communities. U.S. civil rights officials are launching a deeper look at federal environmental policy to find out why. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a hearing next week on environmental justice and the Environmental Protection Agency. The focus is the impact of coal ash, a toxic waste product of burning coal that often contains harmful metals such as lead, mercury, chromium and cadmium. Depending on exposure, such contaminants can cause cancer and harm most human organs, and kill or sicken wildlife. Coal ash is the second largest source of industrial waste in the country, after mining, according to a joint report from the nonprofit environment law organization, Earthjustice, and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. The Commission intends "to shine a light on the civil rights implications of toxic coal ash, as well as other environmental conditions, on communities most in need of protection," said Commission Chairman Martin R. Castro in a statement. Those planning to testify next Friday in Washington, D.C., at the hearing say minorities and poor people should no longer bear the burden of these dangerous pollutants. Esther Calhoun of Uniontown, Alabama, and president of Black Belt Citizens for Health and Justice, knows coal ash pollution all too well. The Arrowhead Landfill in Uniontown not only takes in the garbage from dozens of states, but also took in heaps of coal ash from the infamous ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008. "People in Uniontown have all kinds of health problems that they didn't have before," Calhoun intends to tell the committee, in remarks shared with Environmental Health News. "I am only 51 years old and I have neuropathy. "The neurologist said that it may be caused by lead, and it is not going to get better." She paints a picture of a broken system—calling out both Alabama environmental officials and the EPA for allowing Uniontown, a predominantly black community, to become a dumping ground for toxic ~~waste~~s without giving residents information about the hazards. "No one thought that the members of this poor community would fight back or that anyone would listen to us," she says in her testimony. Uniontown is nearly 90 percent black with an average median household income 74 percent lower than the national average. The coal ash, three million cubic yards and counting, represented a windfall for a community where almost 50 percent live below the poverty line. County commissioners, mostly black, saw an opportunity to improve the community's life: touting local jobs and the millions paid to the county from landfill operators. But economic benefits come with social, health and environmental costs, and stories like these spurred the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate. Friday's hearing aims to find out what more can be done to prevent places like Uniontown from dealing with a disproportionate amount of the nation's coal ash. There are about 200 sites nationwide where coal ash pollution has tainted air and water. The most recent disaster was in 2014 at Duke Energy's Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina where 39,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of wastewater gushed into the Dan River. The EPA estimates at least ~~for~~ 1.5 million people of color live in the catchment areas of coal ash surface impoundments at 277 power plants throughout the country, says Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans in her planned testimony. Catchment areas leave those nearby subject to leaks, discharges and spills, Evans warns. Waste disposal rules for coal ash were unchanged for more than 30 years until Earthjustice filed a lawsuit in 2012 forcing the EPA's hand. The agency finalized new rules in December 2014 and began phasing them in last October—requiring ash ponds to monitor groundwater for harmful pollutants, bolster the ponds that hold the ash, and set limits on the levels of coal ash discharged into rivers. While the rules will limit pollution and force some coal ash pond closures, Evans says the new rules fail to address the problem of environmental injustice. Evans and colleagues are pushing the EPA to work directly with minority and low-income communities to enforce the coal ash rules, test communities' drinking water, conduct health tests and bolster coal ash regulations. The hearing's panel will include representatives both from the EPA and coal ash manufacturers. "EPA has to reform the way it runs its Office of Civil Rights so that it actually works to protect communities like ours," Calhoun says. "From my perspective, there's really no civil rights enforcement protecting our community from bearing the burden of environmental pollution."
	12	+
	13	+**====And coal emissions are more radioactive than nuclear waste—turns waste====**
	14	+**Hvistendahl**, Mara. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste."Scientific American. N.p., 13 Dec. 20**07**. Web. 02 Sept. 2016. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/.
	15	+The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity. Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a ~~coal~~ power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * ~~See Editor's Note at end ofpage 2~~ At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium ~~contained in coal~~ are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock. Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile ~~one kilometer~~ of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays. So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon." Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases. With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear poweris gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source. The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-16 19:33:51.189

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT-Coal Turn

Tournament

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