We should invest in alternative sources of energy

With no arguments to combat, I guess I'll use this speech to basically recap all of my arguments and explaining why I feel I have won this round. I'd like to pull all my arguments through to the last round... For a summation of my arguments: On solar * Silicon (the material used in solar panels) is becoming expensive. This is because the supply is dwindling. When we take this into consideration, we won't be able to make enough solar panels unless we find several more deposits of silicon. I'd also like to bring up that silicon is a main component in many computer chips, forcing any technology (computers, cell phones, video game systems, etc.) to increase in price as well. * Coal is really cheap. Plus, the U.S. has lots of coal deposits; we're actually a leading exporter of coal. Using coal provides no further harm to the economy, as it's status quo. * Solar is excessively expensive. In fact, it's 14 times more expensive, meaning our electricity bills would increase 14 fold... an unreasonable shift in our economy. On wind * Would need more fossil fuel usage. Something has to make turbines and transport them. And those would be factories that use coal/oil and trucks that run on diesel. We're not making the environment any better by using wind * Wind needs to be supplemented with other forms of energy. * Resource shortages are driving up the cost, and no company is gonna foot that bill; it will fall upon consumers' shoulders. * Wind is 4 times more expensive than coal, so it also drives up the cost of electricity. On hydro (I'm going to group them together this time, my opponent can do the same) * Dams require a large amount of money to build, something that's lacking in the current system * Hydro power is inefficient * The oceans massive pressure creates a problem * Won't make a dent in U.S. consumption for decades * Too intermittent And that pretty much covers my last speech. I've referenced it a couple times, and my opponent did in the first speech, "it" being the environment. Should my opponent like to say that the extra cost is worth fixing our environment (despite the fact it's not. Our economy is experiencing overwhelming losses in every sector), I'll respond with the fact that the three forms of energy my opponent brought up all replace coal. Nothing on that list replaces oil. Coal only makes up 25 percent of our energy demands [1] {second slide} My opponent's proposed energy forms don't account for 55% of the fossil fuels! The above arguments (from this speech and the last) prove that: 1) Using my opponent's proposed energies will not fix the environment and 2) Using my opponent's proposed energies will not fix the economy. For those reasons, I strongly urge a CON ballot. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting the debate, the readers for taking time to read this, and the voters for reading and taking interest enough to voice their opinions. I'd like to ask the judges to judge only on the merits of the debate and not to bring personal opinions into the matter. Also, when judging, if you would like to leave comments as to why you voted the way you did, they'd be greatly appreciated. Good luck to my opponent, and I await the response... SOURCES [1]http://leg.mt.gov...