fossil fuel

Responding to my opponent: I know that alternatives to fossil fuel exist – the fact that I named most of them in the previous round proves I know of their existence. The problem is that none of them are yet viable as a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity generation or in car locomotion because they are either too expensive, are not capable of being produced on a large enough scale, or are not a reliable/consistent enough form of power. Nuclear power I think my opponent means nuclear fission. Fission is a reaction that breaks apart an atom (usually Uranium-235) to generate energy. Fusion is the process the sun uses of fusing together protons to generate energy. Scientists have yet to produce a commercially viable fusion power plant, and many people still consider fusion power a pipe dream. Nuclear power, in contrast, is not a good fossil fuel replacement. The Huffington Post reports that nuclear power plants, even when operated correctly, cause cancer. "Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. . . . after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer." [1] The Huffington post cites a number of studies proving the link between nuclear power and cancer: "Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near [nuclear power plants]. One study showed child cancer exceeded the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern U.S. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown . . . A November 2007 article on U.S. child leukemia deaths updated the 1990 National Cancer Institute study and showed local rates rose as nuclear plants aged -- except near plants that shut down." [2] Studies in Germany have also proved the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. [3] The fear of cancer sparks a "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) attitude towards nuclear power plants, whereby locals and politicians protest the location of nuclear power plants near their homes, thereby making it impossible to build nuclear power plants anywhere. If countries all decided to pursue nuclear power, it would take well over a hundred years to build all the power plants. There is only one steel plant in the world, Japan Steel, that has a forge big enough to make the containment vessel for nuclear power plants. They are only capable of forging 5 such containment vessels per year. [4] The Star continues that the waiting list is filled up until at least 2018, even though demand for nuclear power is relatively low right now. Building enough nuclear power plants is infeasible. Other arguments against nuclear include: it is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The Post-Gazette reports that "A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW) . . . A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build." [5] Nuclear power reliance worldwide would create a spent fuel storage problem – where does all the radioactive waste go? Nevada has been unwilling to allow the U.S. to store the waste at the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, nuclear is non-renewable: uranium sources will run out. And lastly, a global trade in uranium/plutonium makes it easier for a terrorist to get their hands on one of these substances. Nuclear power as a replacement source is negated. Geothermal: The Energy Information Agency explains that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers, most of which are located on the west coast of the Americas and the east coast of Asia. [6] These energy sources are not widely available, which is why geothermal has the potential to provide far less than 1% of the world's power. Geothermal as a fossil fuel replacement is negated. Solar/wind: My opponent does not answer my analysis that these are intermittent power sources with no way to store their energy. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we must get our power from coal or natural gas. Studies show that wind power in particular does not replace fossil fuel power because electric utility companies are forced to keep natural gas power plants readily available in case the wind is not blowing and since power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, the natural gas plants are constantly on. In addition, my opponent does not answer the evidence from the Energy Information Agency that in the best case scenario, the United States could only generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. In addition, wind and solar plants are very expensive because they need to built in specific locations (where wind blows or where cloud cover is rare) and necessitate new power grids to be built. Power grids typically cost $3 million per mile to build. In addition, the further the power plants are located away from the houses that need them, the more energy that will be lost due to "line loss." The friction caused by electrons moving through the wires causes lost electricity due to heat. This is another of the many challenges facing solar/wind. Wind has further challenges. The annoying noise from the rotor blades and the blinking lights to warn airplanes/helicopters of their presence decrease property values near wind farms. According to Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, "Large wind turbines in concert with each other, especially those sited on ridgetops with side slopes shaped like a parabolic reflector, create profound, relentless noise reverberations extending out for more than a mile, sounding like "a boot tumbling in a dryer" or the revving of jet engines on a runway." [7]. Wind farms thus generate the same NIMBY attitude that nuclear power plants generate. For all of the above reasons, solar and wind power are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. If we like to have electricity and to drive our cars, fossil fuels are the only option for the foreseeable future. UV light: As someone who is extremely fair skinned, the lives of Australians sound extremely similar to my own. I cannot leave the house without sunscreen and protective coverings or else I will develop a sunburn within a matter of 15-20 minutes of sun exposure. Even ozone-shielded UV radiation can be highly damaging, and doctors recommend that even dark-skinned individuals wear sunscreen. In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that the particular ozone hole he is talking about over Australia is widely acknowledged as being caused by the emission of CFC's, not of fossil fuels. Lastly, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated worldwide by fossil fuels and related industries, and the fact that fossil fuel-exporting dependent countries would have their economies collapse without fossil fuels, causing a massive drop in global demand for good and services, sinking all countries further into the global recession. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] Ibid [3] http://www.currentconcerns.ch... [4] http://www.thestar.com... [5] http://www.post-gazette.com... [6] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [7] http://www.wvmcre.org...