We should invest in alternative sources of energy

As I understand it, my opponent proposes to use a combination of: 1) Solar 2) Wind and 3) Hydropower in order to stabilize Earth and the United States economy. I would like to spend the bulk of this speech focusing on the effects the aforementioned alternative energies have on the economy. First, I'll start with solar: 1) Silicon prices are skyrocketing [1] (This cost will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer) 2) Solar costs 25 cents a kilowatt hour [2] {ctrl f "25 cents"} 3) Coal costs 1.75 cents a kilowatt hour [3] {ctrl f "1.75"} I apologize for the lengthy articles, but they do contain relevant information considering price. I take a break here to crystalize the above information. Currently, solar costs 25 cents per kWh vs coal at 1.75 cents. When you do the math, solar is roughly 14x more expensive than coal. What this means for consumers is that if we use solar, energy bills will increase fourteen fold! When you apply this across the entire nation, our economy simply can't handle it. It means America would be paying fourteen times more every single year. Solar also has some negative effects as it is, but I won't go into that unless my opponent would like me to. This debate has a focus on the economy and so that is what I'm debating. When we look at wind energy, we find that 1) To use wind energy, we'd have to increase fossil fuel use. To create enough wind energy, that's 25x current world peak production [4] {ctrl+f "100"} 2) Wind turbines can't power the U. S, they have to be supplemented [5] {ctrl+f "anywhere"} 3) Resource shortages are driving up the cost. [6] {ctrl+f "shortage"} This cost will be passed on to consumers. Analytically, this shortage also means that wind energy can't be used as expansively as it would need to be, not to mention it can't power the U. S. anyway. 4) Wind costs 7 cents a kWh [7] Wind is 4 times more expensive than coal. .. energy bills are still increasing, exactly the opposite of what America needs right now. Again, I apologize for the long articles. Feel free to read them if you want to, but searching for the words/numbers in quotes will get you the information I'd like you to pull out of it. Wind, as shown above, can't help the U. S. Not only is it more expensive, but it's getting more expensive as the disparity of resources grows greater. The last form, hydropower, has several sub-sects. Two general sub-sects are hydroelectric (primarily though dams) and hydrokinetics (primarily without dams) Both are refuted below, and I'd like my opponent to specify which form was intended for debate, if there was a conscience decision between the two. Starting with hydroelectric: 1) Dams require a huge amount of capital. [8] Definitely not what our economy needs right now 2) Hydroelectric is incredibly inefficient [9] Hydroelectric would require enormous amounts of money to get a project up and running, and would then be more expensive because the energy output is unacceptably low, meaning it takes more land, and therefore more money, to get the same amount of power. And then moving to hydrokinetics: 1) Ocean pressure creates a challenge. [10] 2) Ocean power won't be significant for decades. [11] {ctrl+f "contribution"} 3) Wave energy is too intermittent [12] All of this means that hydrokinetic energy is years away because of technological difficulties, and monetary setbacks, and even if it does enter mainstream society, it's too unpredictable to even get a feel for how much energy will be produced. When you look at the three sources of energy my opponent wishes to see in society, they are all expensive: initially, in use, or both. With the amount of damage our suffering economy has right now, we can't afford this. The money to do this would have to be borrowed, which only adds to the national debt [13] because we have to pay it back PLUS interest. Not a good deal for anyone to say the least. I'd like to thank my opponent once again, as well at the readers and judges. I'm sorry for the long post, but there was a lot of information that needed to be presented on these energies. I tried to make things as easy as possible, but with 13 sources, that can be rather difficult. I also apologize if you go on overload from reading this and the sources; I know I have a headache just from typing it. I look forward to the response from my opponent. .. SOURCES [1] . http://www.planetark.com... [2] . http://www.investmentu.com... [3] . http://www.marketwatch.com... [4] . http://www.zmag.org... [5] . http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com... [6] . http://www.windaction.org... [7] . http://www.informationweek.com... [8] . http://sierraclubca.blogspot.com... [9] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [10] . http://www.peopleandplanet.net... [11] . http://www.cera.com... [12] . http://www.usnews.com... [13] . http://www.brillig.com...