MDTA - Minnesota Debate Teachers Association

bullet 

Minnesota Novice Case Limits for Alternative Energy Topic

Minnesota Novice Case Limits for Alternative Energy Topic Quote
8/31/2008 12:00:00 AM


DJ Brynteson
Posts: 212
100100

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States through one or more of the following:

1. Renewable Portfolio Standards: Require a Renewable Portfolio Standard of at least 20% by the year 2020.
 

2. Nuclear Power: Increase incentives for Integral Fast Reactors.

3. Cap and Trade: Establish an upstream auctioned system of tradable carbon permits.

4. Biofuels: Increase incentives for domestic biofuels.

Novices can first run counterplans and kritiks starting at the Wildcat Invitationals on October 31st and November 1st

 

DJ Brynteson
Robbinsdale Cooper Debate
Crazy Ideas No One Likes
   

Re: Minnesota Novice Case Limits for Alternative Energy Topic
9/2/2008 12:37:18 PM


Shane Stafford
Posts: 143
10025

Looking for clarification

 

Alot of the evidence student brought back from institute is fairly specific.   What was the discussion on what is a "Integral Fast Reactor".

 

This Wikipedia site seems to lay out two categories.  What is allowed within the novice case limits?  The 2nd three and not the first three?  Or just one of the 6? Or maybe all 6?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

thanks for the clarification

 

 

Shane Stafford Director of Forensics The Blake School sstafford@blakeschool.org
  Reply #1
 
Re: Minnesota Novice Case Limits for Alternative Energy Topic
9/2/2008 1:06:29 PM


Aneesh Sohoni
Posts: 246
10010025

I'm not sure I have a specific answer, but here might be a better wiki cite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

 
  Reply #2
 
Re: Minnesota Novice Case Limits for Alternative Energy Topic
9/2/2008 6:37:52 PM


Arif Hasan
Posts: 87
252525

Looks like IFR is cooled specifically by liquid sodium.  The evidence that exists according to wikipedia about safety problems (neg ev, I suppose), indicates that sodium's reactivity with water (and therefore, most air) is a problem.  Even the other liquid metal coolant under Gen IV has a different cooling process (using convection, which generally involves air), so the evidence on IFR wouldn't even apply to the other liquid metal coolants.  I imagine that most of the evidence on IFR makes some fine distinctions between the different Gen IV coolants (CP Ground, I'm sure).  So the Novice Case Limits is (should be?) about specifically sodium cooled reactors.

EDIT: There are two types of liquid sodium cooled reactors, by the way. IFR and the Fast Breeder Reactor, which is entirely different (it is designed to increase the fissile material from what is inputed).  So even within Sodium reactors, there are distinctions that would exist in the ev.  It seems that they're radically difficult enough--the Fast Breeder Reactor has two functions for it's liquid metal and the IFR seems to have one (I could be reading the schematic wrong).

 
  Reply #3