Wave Carpet Renewable Energy

C1) Wave-Carpet energy will take too long to develop This is probably the largest flaw in relying on wave carpet energy. Something assumed is that when carbon emissions hit 0, that the radiative forcing of CO2 will also become zero—so warming would decrease. But this is untrue. New research published in Nature has demonstrated even if emissions hit zero, warming will continue as the way the ocean intakes heat will change and act as a positive feedback [1]. In other words, even if we cease CO2 emissions, warming will still occur. Why is this relevant? Using my opponents logic—that CO2 is the main climate driver and that warming is bad—we must cease CO2 emissions in order to reduce warming. Even though *some* warming will occur no matter what, less warming would occur if we cease CO2 emissions how. However, wave carpet energy will take 10 more years before it becomes commercially available [2]. We need to stop emitting carbon now, using my opponent’s logic. However, wave carpet technology means we have to wait a decade—maybe even longer—before it becomes commercially available and has the ability to reduce carbon emissions. This means wave carpet energy is actually a poor choice if you want to prevent climate change. Other technologies currently in use should be used if you really fear climate change. C2) Modern technologies can combat climate change Nuclear power has actually already saved lives. According to environmentalist extremist James Hansen, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives due to reduced carbon pollution [3]. Wave carpet energy will not have any life-saving potential for at least another decade. By then, it will probably be too late. The study also noted nuclear power has the potential to save 7 million more lives by midcentury. Indeed, nuclear power is a cost efficient conventional power source which also is environmentally friendly. Nuclear power actually emits fewer carbon emissions than solar power over a long period of time. In other words, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power would likely be *better* than switching to many other renewable energy sources [4]. Nuclear power generation also cost much less than coal, oil, and natural gas [5]. The left-leaning Brookings institution has noted how switching to solar or wind would cost more than if we switched to nuclear power [6]. Nuclear power *can* reduce CO2 emissions, and already has been. Nuclear power already exists, and if we act now nuclear power can quickly reduce carbon emissions to nearly zero. It will take a decade for wave-carpet energy to be on the market, and probably a decade more before it can generate a meaningful amount of energy in order to reduce emissions. Nuclear power is a much better option for carbon reduction. C3) Global warming fears are exaggerated My opponent must prove *why* we need wave carpet energy. He mainly suggests global warming is manmade, and will affect is significantly. I will refute that here. First, future warming is likely not a major issue. There are now at least 14 studies indicating low climate sensitivity—in other words, the amount of warming from CO2 will not be very significant. A lot of these studies rate future warming at 2 degrees C or even lower, with some predicting less than 1 degree C [7]. A moderate one degree rise in temperature, if anything, would benefit the planet. Second, there has been an elongated warming pause. If surface warming has stopped, why worry about warming? Global warming has seen zero trend over the last 17 years [8]. Finally, global warming will likely not harm anyone. A warmer climate means more crop production and an overall increase in economic production [9]. R1) Water shortage To say we are running out of water is plain BS. No water leaves the water cycle. It is called a cycle for a reason. The amount of water on earth will never change. Further, not all of the country would be harmed. Areas where I live—New Mexico—may become more drier and be harmed. However, northern areas will likely see more rainfall [10]. As more people live in the northern states, more people will *benefit* from warming, regardless if a few people like me live in the south. If you think global warming will cause this shortage, as noted, other energy options should be adopted as they will do better in fixing the problem right now. R2) Economics My opponent doesn’t understand how revenue works. The industry *may* provide $50 billion in money, but revenue is what the government will receive. The government will not receive all of that money—at most, they will get half of it, so 25 billion. In contrast, every *single* nuclear power plant provides about $500 million (450) dollars in economic output [11]. There are 62 nuclear power plants in the US [12]. So 62 * 500 million = 31 billion. So each year, the government (assuming they get 50%) gets about 15 billion. So over the next decade—when wave carpet won’t exist—the government would get $150 billion in revenues. So it would take the industry at least 6 years in order to catch up to what nuclear power would have provided over the past decade. And at the same time, nuclear power would still be producing energy and money (another $90 billion). I don’t feel like doing the math, but it would likely take wave carpet energy another 10 years to be as good as nuclear power is *right now*. If we adopted nuclear power as our energy source right now, there would be more built, meaning it would likely produce *more* revenue for the government than wave carpet. Further, using my opponent’s global warming logic, wave carpet energy will come too late, and the damages from warming would be extreme. So, therefore, wave carpet energy would increase costs as warming would have continued *because* we waited for its development. Therefore, there would be a *net negative* from us waiting for it. The projections also fail to account for developmental costs, which will likely be extremely expensive. This argument does not hold up to any scrutiny. 1. . http://www.nature.com... 2. . http://newscenter.berkeley.edu... 3. . http://pubs.acs.org... 4. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... 5. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... 6. . http://www.brookings.edu... 7. . http://www.cato.org... 8. . http://www.forbes.com... 9. . http://www.co2science.org... 10. . http://www.epa.gov... 11. . http://www.nei.org... 12. . http://www.eia.gov...