Solar roads

1. Solyndra and economics My opponents prime example is a Solyndra, and even with government loans it failed to compete with fossil fuels. My opponent fails to note Solyndra made their panels out of non-silicon panels which are more expensive than traditional solar power which would be used for the current highway system. The Solyndra failure was not because of inherent flaws in renewable energy. Indeed, the same technology of the company is actually very popular in Germany and France, and other companies have since bought the technology and are NOT failing in their countries. It seems the idea my opponent has about Solyndra illustrating the failure of solar power is false [1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...] Indeed, solar power could easily replace fossil fuels. MIT speakers have noted a few hundred square miles of the US in the Southwest area could power our whole nation—meaning solar roads may not even need to be a national idea (so, even accepting my opponents cost premise, the benefits would overpower the losses) [2. http://mitei.mit.edu...] My opponent worries about cost. But the debate may not be about the now—because the cost of solar power has fallen 75% in the last three years! [3. http://www.forbes.com...] As solar technology is the fastest growing green technology, it is possible that PV solar would be much cheaper in the years to come. The maker of the idea says 1.7% of the US land surface could be covered in solar panels would mean we have all of our energy from a few miles of solar panel. Now, it is 4.8 billion total to power our nation [4. http://www.treehugger.com...] It is 250,000 dollars to make normal road [5. http://thetimes-tribune.com...] There is a difference, but one is constantly making valuable energy. And my opponent seems he barely read my cases I showed solar roads last more than twice as long as normal roads, meaning overall maintenance costs would, in the long run, pay for themselves. And, as stated, solar roads make an economic benefit of transportation AND energy, meaning the roads pay for themselves. It seems as though my opponent is cherry picking his facts. 2. Jellyfish? My opponents argument really lacks any logic or coherency. It shows future solar may be powered by jellyfish, though they currently aren’t. The reason they studied this was because of costs. But recent analysis shows solar power is now competitive with fossil fuels. As PV keeps getting cheaper, the less likely this will happen. My opponents argument here is purely speculative. An ounce of evidence is superior to a ton of speculation. As we can see, there is absolutely no factual basis to these claims. However logic shows the decreasing cost of solar will make this discovery (which was made to curb costs) obsolete. 3. Environment I can’t access my opponent’s source. So, for all I know those stats don’t exist. But my opponents analysis relies on green greenhouse gases, mainly CO2. Note CO2 is a non-toxic gas which increases plant growth. I was focusing on Toxic gases, which most renewables are comparatively equal. But let’s say CO2 is the scary guy in the room. Wind emits 0.02 – 0.04 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour. [6. http://www.ucsusa.org...] Solar is 0.08 [7. http://www.ucsusa.org...] Yes, solar emits more, but all this does is help plants. Further, wind harms migratory birds and uses much more land. Wind plants would have to be built all over the country side to work. Solar on the other hand does no more encroachment onto environmental sanctuaries and merely get built upon preexisting roads, and only take up a fraction of those! Wind turbines gear boxes need to be rebuilt every 10 years [8. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu...], whereas a solar road can last at least 30 years. Again, in the long run, solar wins… again. My opponent claims Hydro out does solar. I really don’t think his analysis includes construction emissions, which are enormous for hydro. Hydro actually emits more GHG’s than coal, and probably emit more toxins than the other renewables [9. http://ktwop.wordpress.com...]. Hydroelectricity also displaces people and animals living in the rivers, increasing evaporation of the river and harming the fish [10. http://www.hydroreform.org...] Conclusion No power source is perfect, and I will never think solar powers are perfect. But I have demonstrated they are a viable and excellent idea for our country. My opponent is forced to enter exaggerations (like how this would cause a recession) to make his point. He makes a speculative case over jellyfish which will likely never come to fruition and he forgets to mention how even silicon solar power, which is supposedly expensive, has come down in price and now competes with coal and natural gas. My opponent is forced to cherry pick cost data as well to prove his point. All in all, it is pretty clear that solar roads are not bad, and are highly beneficial to any country which has a large amount of sunlight.