Premier Debate 2016 September/October ld brief

NEG—T

T-Plural

The aff must defend more than one country prohibits the production of nuclear power

Google n.d. “country” accessed 8/10/16 google.com/search?num=40&safe=off&espv=2&q=countries+definition&oq=countries+definition [Premier]

plural noun: countries 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

Violation – aff defends one country

1: Predictability – my interp at least doubles the chance the neg has prep and blocks against the aff. Key since the topic is underlimiting – they can pick any of 200 countries to avoid neg prep.

2: Grammar – only my interp is grammatical since it respects the plural form of the word country. Most predictable on common usage too – no one would look at your plan and think it proves countries ought to prohibit. Grammar is a constraint – even if it’s better to debate something else, grammar tells us what the res actually says.

3: Ground – you still get all your ground since you can read your aff but with ONE more similarly-situated country. But better balance since your ground is massively better on your interp.

T-Nuke Power=energy

Nuke power = energy produced by atomic reaction

West Law 08

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Power [Premier]

A form of energy produced by an atomic reaction, capable of producing an alternative source of electrical power to that supplied by coal, gas, or oil.

T- No Weapons

nuclear weapons are distinct—they’re not electricity

Corrice 16

[--includes a Bachelors degree in Nuclear Technology and Environmental Sciences. I also have a Masters degree in Philosophy. I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information; “Uranium is not an explosive,” Hiroshima Syndrome, 2016] [Premier]

Uranium is not an explosive In January, 1957, Walt Disney Studios released the animated short film Our Friend the Atom. It was an instant sensation, shown in theaters and classrooms across America. In it, a nuclear chain reaction was demonstrated using ping-pong balls and mousetraps. A large box was lined across the bottom with mousetraps loaded with two ping-pong balls each. One additional ball was tossed into the box, tripping one mousetrap, sending two other balls flying to trip other traps, and soon all the mousetraps were tripped with ping-pong balls flying everywhere. This was a very good demonstration of how the nuclear chain reaction worked for bombs, but it didn’t work for reactors. The reason is two-fold; first, the Uranium used in bombs is highly concentrated in Uranium isotope 235 (U-235) while reactors use only a very dilute, non-explosive concentration of U-235. Bomb grade Uranium (U-235) is so concentrated (>90%) that the high-energy neutrons released from each initial fission immediately causes just enough additional fissions to make the "prompt, supercritcal" explosion happen. However, the neutrons from fresh fissions are about a million times too energetic to produce a chain reaction in low-concentration reactor fuel. This was either unknown to Disney’s staff, or considered too technical for the audience. Whatever the reason, the mousetrap and ping-pong ball demonstration resulted in misleading the public's understanding of chain reactions in bombs and reactors. They seemed to be the same. But, they are not. It’s the wrong kind of Uranium Naturally-occurring Uranium cannot be used to make a bomb because it is not a natural explosive. Natural Uranium is a uniform mix of two isotopes, U-238 and U-235. Natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. U-238 is such a poor neutron-induced fissioner, under any conditions, that we can correctly say it won't experience a chain reaction in any way,shape, or form. It’s the U-235 that makes the nuclear chain reaction possible because it is a very good fissioner, relative to U-238. However, U-235 doesn't fission very much when bombarded by high energy neutrons which is the kind of neutrons released out of the fission. In order to make a bomb core that will actually explode, the U-235 concentration must be increased to in excess of 90% to produce enough immediate fissions to make an explosion possible. This highly concentrated form of U-235 is necessary for a detonation...anything less won't work. This is in no way a secret, at least not any more. The U-235 concentration needed to make a bomb that works can be easily found in library encyclopedias and numerous websites on the internet. Regardless, anything less than a 90% U-235 concentration, and you can’t make a weapon small enough for a deliverable bomb…even if launched by a powerful rocket. In theory, a ridiculously enormous amount of Uranium with about a 20% U-235 concentration is possible, but in no way realistic; the bomb would be bigger in diameter than the Empire State Building is tall. Less than a 20% concentration of U-235 and a nuclear explosion is absolutely impossible, no matter how much of the material is amassed. However, this is the reason that 20% "enriched" Uranium and Plutonium are defined as "weapon's grade". The 1-3% U-235, and/or Pu-239 in reactor fuels cannot explode, regarless of how much is amassed. Power plant reactors never use Uranium with a high U-235 concentration, in order to keep fuel costs manageable. Back in the 1960s, early power plant reactors used Uranium with concentrations of U-235 in the 3-5% range. These were relatively small power plants using cores so small that a concentration increase of U-235 from the natural level was needed to sustain a chain reaction sufficient to produce electricity. As plants got bigger and the reactor cores larger, the U-235 concentrations dropped to between 1 and 3%. The precious few nuclear power plants completed in America after the Three Mile Island accident were quite large, and did not need the natural abundance of U-235 changed much at all. They used what is essentially natural Uranium, but those levels have been increased in order to allow longer in-core lifetimes between refuelings. In all cases, the concentration of U-235 found in any reactor fuel is way-too dilute to produce anything like a nuclear explosion. No matter how severe a reactor accident that can possibly be imagined, the fuel cannot explode like an atomic bomb. How can an explosive be made out of something that is not itself an explosive? Perhaps the best commonly-known example is Nitrogen. About 79% of each breath you take is Nitrogen. No one would mistake it for an explosive. It is the wrong form of Nitrogen to detonate. However, chemically transformed from a gas into another, non-gasseous molecular structure, the Nitrogen becomes the primary active ingredient in Nitroglycerine and Tri-Nitro Toluene (TNT), which are unquestionably explosive. Devastating explosives can be made out of Nitrogen, which is not-itself an explosive. With Uranium, the natural form of the element must be metallurgically transformed into a highly un-natural type of Uranium in order to become the primary ingredient in a nuclear bomb. A terrible explosive can be made out of Uranium, which is not-itself an explosive. Power plant reactors use a very dilute concentration of U-235 in their fuel, a level which can never cause a nuclear detonation. It’s not even weapon's grade. Power reactors cannot explode like a nuclear bomb.

T-Power=fission

Nuclear power is the

Energy.gov 16

[“Nuclear Power,” USFG] [Premier]

Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity. Nuclear power plants provide about 6 percent of the world's energy and 13–14 percent of the world's electricity.

Several steps to the nuclear fuel process

Taebi 11

Behnam Taebi, prof of philosophy @ Delft University, “The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production” Philos. Technol. (2011) 24. [Premier]

Any nuclear fuel cycle consists of several major steps, including the mining and milling of uranium ore, its enrichment, fuel fabrication, irradiation in a reactor, and the optional waste treatment methods employed after irradiation and before the final disposal of the waste.

T-Implementation

Careful reflection on nuclear power requires discussing opportunity costs, specifying different technological methods of nuclear energy

Taebi 11

Behnam Taebi, prof of philosophy @ Delft University, “The Morally Desirable Option for Nuclear Power Production” Philos. Technol. (2011) 24. [Premier]

Obviously, nuclear power has serious disadvantages too, one needs only think of the accident risks—the unfolding disaster in Japan speaks for itself—there are security concerns in relation to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, indeed, there is the matter of long-lived waste. In this paper, I do not intend to get involved in the general desirability debate. I assert that when carefully reflecting on the desirable energy mix for the future, one needs to reflect on nuclear energy in relation to other energy sources. In so doing, one should first be aware of the distinctive aspects of nuclear technology, such as the problems that long-lived waste poses to future generations. We should furthermore include different technological methods in the production process (or fuel cycles) as these methods deal differently with the distinctive aspects.

T-Prohibit Allows Research/Mining

Australia prohibits power but allows research and mining

WNA 15

World Nuclear Association, submission to the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, ISSUES PAPER THREE – ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM NUCLEAR FUELS, http://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/ac94e701-1980-4af4-a5b1-c5215fc5f385/WNA-Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Royal-Commission-issues-paper-3-submission-final.pdf.aspx [Premier]

The World Nuclear Association is grateful for this opportunity to answer in full the Royal Commission’s questions regarding the potential development of nuclear energy in South Australia. We note that for this to be possible there must first be changes at the national level. Regardless of other outcomes, we hope to see the Commission recommend the revision of the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act of 1998, both of which currently prohibit nuclear power plants and other nuclear fuel cycle facilities from being constructed in Australia. [but] In many ways Australia is already a nuclear nation. It is home to one of the most advanced nuclear research and medical facilities in the world at Lucas Heights and is also one of the world’s largest suppliers of uranium. Many advanced nuclear technologies have also been developed with the assistance of Australian scientists. The country has a long and proud nuclear history and is well placed from a technical, regulatory and social standpoint to start a nuclear power program

T-Plans Good 

Here’s an author using “prohibit” in the context of the res to mean something smaller than a total ban on all processes

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99

"Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances: Opinions and Decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with Selected Orders, Volume 49" 1999. Google Books. [Premier]

In addition to requesting that the NRC take steps to prohibit nuclear power plants from operating with fuel cladding damage, the report specifically requests that plants be shut down upon detection of fuel leakage, and that safety evaluations be included in plant licensing bases that consider the effects of operating with leaking fuel to justify operation under such circumstances.