fossil fuel

I'd like to remind everyone of the resolution my opponent has agreed to, considering his silence on the issue and the fact that it seems to be what he is arguing: "The world should stop using fossil fuels." He is pro; I am con. Brazil's sugar ethanol: While Brazil does use a great deal of sugar ethanol, they only export 14% of their sugar ethanol because they use most of it domestically. They do not produce enough sugar ethanol for the entire world. Jack Chang of the Knight Ridder explains, "Brazilian ethanol producers are struggling to keep up with domestic demand for ethanol, which is projected to grow by 50 percent over the next five years . . . suppliers are struggling to plant enough fields of new sugar cane, from which ethanol is produced here, to keep up with the anticipated growth in demand. Some energy experts say this has revealed the limits of Brazil's ethanol program and that it is an unreliable energy source, one that can't be depended on to make much of a dent in worldwide use of fossil fuels." [1] In addition, it still takes more than a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of sugar ethanol. [2] For that reason, "A study by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen found ethanol produced from corn, and sugarcane had a ‘net climate warming' effect when compared to oil." [3] Lastly, stepped up Brazilian sugar production will increase deforestation. The Huffington Post reports that "Brazil is already the world leader in annual deforestation, even without a huge leap in biofuel production." [4] Increased Brazilian sugar ethanol production would increase deforestation because "the Amazon forest is attractive to sugar farmers because its warm climate produces two growing cycles per year, double the single harvest found in cooler, southern states." [5] Brazil's sugar ethanol is great for Brazil, but it cannot supply the world. Nuclear: My opponent keeps confusing the terms fission and fusion. Yes, fusion would be a nearly inexhaustible energy supply (it could theoretically turn water into energy), but fission is not. If the whole world used nuclear fission power, uranium would run out relatively quickly. I don't know what "magnetic reactor" my opponent is referring to (I've heard of a fusion magnetic reactor but not a fission one), but this doesn't answer my argument that routine normal operation of nuclear power plants causes cancer, based on numerous studies in the U.S. and Germany. It also does not answer that nuclear is much more expensive than natural gas/coal, that the world cannot build enough reactors because of the bottleneck of the Japan Steel plant that can produce only 5 containment vessels per year, that there is nowhere good to store the spent fuel (the U.S. does not allow reprocessing), and that creating a global uranium/plutonium trade makes these substances much easier to obtain by a terrorist organization. Geothermal: When my opponent's sources say "geothermal energy may be drawn from the Earth's core," those sources mean that the temperature from the Earth's core is what causes volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers and in turn these sources may be tapped for geothermal power. There are three types of geothermal power plants (dry steam, flash, and binary) and all three require "suitable sites," i.e. hot springs. [6] The largest geothermal plant in the world uses The Geysers in California. Geothermal power does not mean that we drill into the Earth's core and tap its energy. Note: I googled my opponent's claim that geothermal could provide 85% of the world's energy needs, but failed to find any source saying as much. Ignore this statistic because there is no citation for it. It cannot possibly be true. Solar: Solar panels on roofs are not the solution to the world's power needs. The North County Times reports that "solar generation is at its most efficient from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. . . . when most homeowners are at work, not using their home's solar power." [7] And since solar cannot store energy, it is not yet a viable fossil fuel replacement. We still need power at night. Wind: My opponent claims "wind power . . . does not require the wind to blow." I'd like a citation for this. I don't really understand what he means. Wind power only generates electricity when the wind blows and turns the wind turbines. My opponent may be correct that offshore wind farms are more effective than on-shore farms, but offshore farms must be built in specific locations (offshore) and cannot power entire countries. People still need power on non-windy days. At the end of the day, my opponent has no response to the Energy Information Agency evidence that at most, the U.S. could generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. Alternative energy simply cannot replace fossil fuels completely any time in the near future. In addition, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated by fossil fuel and related industry, and the fact that many economies rely on exporting fossil fuels and that if the world stopped using fossil fuels, these economies would collapse. A collapse in many regional economies (such as Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia) would cause a dramatic downturn in global aggregate demand, further sinking the global economy into recession. Therefore, you should negate the resolution that "the world should stop using fossil fuels." Since the world is still so dependent on fossil fuels for its energy needs, a cessation of fossil fuel use would immediately bring the entire world and its economy to a grinding halt. [1] http://www.hubbertpeak.com... [2] http://www.newrules.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] Hubbert Peak [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.nctimes.com...