Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

Its not often topics of science and technology are put up for discussion. In saying this, I am assuming the stance that solar power is both more viable and productive than wind and hydroelectric energy synthesis. It is readily apparent that all three candidates have some form of physical limitation or another, be it sunlight for solar cells, topography and terrain for turbines, and the presence of a viable water source for hydroelectric. The easiest case that I can make thus far without statistical analysis and empirical evidence is simply that the solar resource is available on a much larger scale than either options put forth by Pro. With the exception of polar latitudes [Extended periods of darkness], nearly every corner of the globe is bathed in electromagnetic waves, which we see as visible light. However, I think it is important to point out that my argument will not simply consist of terrestrial elements [We can only do so much here], but also that of orbital solar relays. The majority of the solar industries losses come from a lack of efficiency. This comes in the form of many natural phenomenon and technological limits. For instance: - 17% of solar energy is reflected by atmospheric conditions - 8% is scattered by molecules - 6% is reflected off the surface This combined effect is known technically as albedo. Of the remaining 69%: - 19% is absorbed by dust - 4% is absorbed by clouds This means roughly 47% of the total available power reaches Earth, which translates into 1 part per 2.3 billion of the sun's output. You may be somewhat confused at the moment, because it sounds like I am making a case against myself. Perhaps, but my main point is to illustrate the potential of solar power in space. The potential is literally billions of times higher than current Earth based installations. The technology is within our reach and while the costs may be significant, they are minuscule to other spending conducted by the federal government. The case above will be expanded upon later in the argument. My purpose now is to illustrate that the solar energy we have available now already surpasses the potential of both wind and hydroelectric sources. Wind energy has already had a variety of studies conducted that show, on a large scale, turbines are inefficient, costly, and endanger wildlife [1]. Turbines have enough force applied to the blades to generate sufficient energy gains about 17% of the time on average. A farm rated to produce 468 megawatts will on average only produce 174 megawatts. Consequently most wind farms have backup generators that run on fossil fuels to subsidize the energy losses from the turbines themselves. This essentially defeats the purpose of a wind farm: clean energy. Whats more, turbines are largely dependent on topography. The federal government and corporations routinely survey areas based on contours and elevation, scoping out optimal sites for wind farms. These sites are more often in remote locations, farther away from major settlements. Additionally, each year wind farms are responsible for 1.4 million fatalities among native bird and bat populations, often resulting in hefty fines. Its easy to see wind has some serious drawbacks. As for hydroelectric, here are its downfalls. Hydroelectric plants typically consist of dams, which can heavily damage ecosystems. The effects that account for this consequence include physical and biological factors, ranging from water level to fish populations. They are also largely dependent on viable water sources, like larger rivers, to make them cost effective. These sources are often habitats, and effecting water velocity, composition, and direction can often be fatal. And, similarly to turbine systems, they are dependent on topography. There are limited locations that they can be applied to, and, again, those are liable to effect environmental conditions. Not only this, but in the case of droughts and flooding, they can either suffer heavy damage, or be rendered inert. And as briefly alluded to in the beginning of this segment, they are hugely expensive, environmentally damaging, and limited [2]. As for solar power, it is an abundant, unlimited, and sustainable resource. Solar energy is available to us as long as the sun is alive, and with an estimated 6.5 billion years left in its lifespan according to NASA, its not going anywhere soon. But my overall point is the fact that solar energy has potential beyond imagination. The surface of the Earth alone receives 120k terawatts of radiation, which at the moment is 20k times more than is needed to power the entirety of human civilization. Now, I would have the audience keep in mind, this massive amount of energy is 1 in 2.3 billion, and while it is not feasible to harvest every bit of EM radiation that graces the surface, space surpasses these limitations. It multiplies the energy available tenfold with less area required [3]. Overall Points; [1] Turbines are inefficient, costly, and endanger wildlife [2] While hydroelectric power provides a reliable and sustainable resource, it cannot surpass the potential of the sun [3] Solar is a near unlimited, clean, environmentally sound, and unimaginably vast resource Simply put, the burden of proof is on Pro. Unless you can prove that turbines purposed for hydroelectric and wind power can surpass the near infinite potential of the sun that dwarfs anything we have in terrestrial limits, he cannot win this debate. Sources: [1] . http://energy.mit.edu... [2] . http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu... [3] . http://zebu.uoregon.edu... [4] . https://www.nasa.gov... [5] . http://www.nss.org... [6] . http://www.nss.org... [7] . http://www.seia.org... [8] . https://www.eia.gov... [9] . https://www.wind-watch.org... [10] . https://energy.gov... [11] . https://www.ff.org... [12] . http://energyinformative.org... [13] . http://energyinformative.org...