Solar roads

1. Economics My opponent claims Europeans utilizing this technology is not the same as America. If anything, it is harder in Europe. Europe has a much more restricted economy, implying its success should be less likely. The fact is survives here shows the reasons it fail here are irrelevant to the entire situation. Solar panels continue, when using the normal (silicon) platform are competitive with fossil fuels. Solyndra used a more expensive hybrid, which is not even used in solar roads—and my opponent ignored that point of the argument—making solyndra itself irrelevant. Further, companies in Arizona have utilized the same solyndra platform and have found ways to make the more efficient technology cheaper than previously. If anything, the death of solyndra has caused other smaller companies to make the technology even better, making it a very practical power source. Solyndras technology, now being improved since its collapse (and is thriving) merely shows how solyndra is anecdotal evidence [1. . http://www.scientificamerican.com...] My opponent then cites another anecdotal evidence piece, Abound Solar. The loan, while being $400 million, was actually $70 million (only $70 million have been given by the time of its closing). Abound Solar was an extremely small company whose focus was inventing new PV solar panels. The fact a small company went bankrupt attempting to take on a large task isn’t surprising. The reason Abound went out of business was not that solar panels fail, it was because they succeed. The Energy Department wrote, “[w]hen the floor fell out on the price of solar panels, Abound’s product was no longer cost competitive. ” [2. . http://energy.gov...] Although Abound was making more efficient technology, the traditional (and improving) PV technology of other, larger, companies forced the small company to lose money. It was not “solar panels suck, so we went bankrupt”, as my opponent claims, it was that solar power became too cheap for Abound. The reason Abound went out of business is because solar power got cheaper, not because it is bad. My opponents cost comparisons are flawed, mainly because asphalt road costs do not include the power needed to create the asphalt, its transportation, etc. Further, solar roads save money through lighting of the streets at night and, well, everything else. Those costs benefits have not been factored in with solar roads. If they were added, the costs would fall substantially [3. . http://www.solarroadways.com...]. Indeed, current roads cost $28.7 billion in 2010 – and that is only federal costs [4. . http://www.artba.org...]. In other words, solar roads costs about 6.5 times less than federal road spending currently. Since solar power creates energy, and therefore has a benefit to it, solar power will substantially lower costs. My opponents study was about solar power for houses. Now, the study was not about roads. Solar roads, as stated, last to 30 years whereas asphalt lasts to seven years. My source three notes, “At today's price of 12¢/kWh, a Solar Road Panel would have to generate 10,000/0.12 = 83,333 kWh of electricity over 20 years to pay off its initial cost. That's a worst case scenario: assuming that the price of electricity doesn't increase over the next 20 years (we know it will! ). ”[3] This fact notes in less than one lifetime it pays itself off, and this means there are ten years where solar roads generate revenue. And, again, that analysis is a conservative one. My opponents second source is a broken link, like most of his sources, making it very, very irritating to understand what he is trying to say as he has not elaborated much at all. Solar roads are like a car. Sure, a diesel is more expensive than a normal car, but the extra gas mileage will pay for itself. (just like solar) 2. Jellyfish My opponent seems to not understand how discoveries work or my argument. I said that it is an assumption that they would be used, not that they work. Not once did I say jellyfish would not be a source of power. I merely noted it is full speculation that these will actually be implemented in commercial use. When a discovery is, well, discovered, it is generally in a lab. There are many solar panels in labs which are not currently in civilian or commercial hands. There is no reason to think the jellyfish method will come into use for a simple reason: it was created because solar power was costly. But, as stated, recent developments in technology have lowered solar costs which make the Jellyfish idea obsolete in the modern debate. 3. Environment My opponent must have skipped my argument here. I did not drop anything. I will say again: I DID NOT DROP ANYTHING. My opponent said this: Wind is good Hydro is good Solar has Co2, so it sucks But I extensively refuted this. I noted (1) the life cycle of wind versus solar roads would make it so winds construction costs would increase the amount of CO2 assumed by my opponent. Solar roads = 40 years, wind = 10 years lifetime. I cited statistics that solar emits 0.8 pounds of Co2 per kilowatt hour, and wind 0.04. So, to make the comparison fair, 30 vs 30, we need three wind cycles. 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.04 = .12, therefore wind actually emits more. (2) I noted how Hydro power often had a large amount of Co2 emissions, sometimes even more than coal due to construction and maintenance, and coal is much worse than solar in that respect. Indeed, even though the EPA does not add construction (or maintenance) to their analysis they still agree that Hydro emits large amounts of methane to the atmosphere [5. . http://www.epa.gov...]. I directly refuted my opponents analysis, and I added a little bit here, I do not see how I dropped anything. CONCLUSION 1. Solar is becoming economically efficient, and is competing with fossil fuels. 2. Solar roads are at first expensive, but after 20 years (probably less) they will begin running a profit 3. Solar roads, only covering 1% of our highways, would fuel our entire energy needs 4.