Question: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun.

Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.

fossil fuel Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: •Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases •Easy to install •Virtually no energy costs once installed •The technology for solar power is constantly improving •Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: •No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions •Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land •The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options •Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.

Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Extend round 1.

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Electric cars can be expensive to own (the price of the batteries). They won"t go far without stopping to re-charge the battery. Except in London, there is almost nowhere you can go to charge them up. Most of the electricity in this country is made by burning coal, gas or oil, so this means that electric cars end up being as pollutants as the fossil burning cars. The batteries used to power electric cars are very heavy. This slows the cars. Battery costs will vary but may be several thousand pounds and they have to be replaced every 5 years. The batteries use lithium and other rare metals. Disposing of batteries causes real environment problems. In an accident it may be difficult to get you out of the car because of the dangers of electrocution. Chemicals spilled from the battery may also be dangerous. The average electric car available in the UK will reach 50-55 mph. this is lower than even a small 1.1L car. A kilogramme of petrol contains enough energy to propel a car about 15 miles. A kilo of fully-charged lithium-ion battery will drive your electric car 500 yards. And you only get about 100 miles to a fully-charged battery at best, compared with 1,000-plus miles from the most economical diesels. This leads to "range anxiety", or the fear you will be stranded miles away from a socket. The energy intensive manufacturing of EVs means that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries. In the UK, during 2012, electricity generation from coal-fired power stations actually increased to almost 40% of total production, as the price of gas soared, and gas-fired electricity generation was reduced. Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. This means that depending on the electricity produced based on coal, the impact of an electric car can vary. If the production of burning coal based electricity is really high, it means that the impact of an electric car can be even higher than a fuel powered car.

Solar energy Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions

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...

fossil fuel Contradicting to what my opponent argues, many of these alternatives are been used by many countries in the world. An example of this is Brazil who last year or two started using ethanol products such as sugar cane to manufacture most of their fuel and tend to their needs. Brazil have progressed a lot and in fact, they are the most improved country in the world since the resent years. My opponent mentions that Nuclear fission cases cancer however he failed to mention the fact that Magnetic reactor which are already in use is able to contain and transform these waste into useful materials thereby making Nuclear fission a safer product than that of fossil fuel. Fusion is not a chain reaction, therefore it can be stopped at anytime and there is no threat of a meltdown opponent also states that nuclear fission is more expensive than fossil fuel power but an article from thinkquest.org/ states that nuclear fission is The fuels that could be used are relatively inexpensive and readily available fusion would be a virtually inexhaustible energy supply that could eliminate most of the world's dependence on other fuels. giving all these facts we must see that Nuclear fission energy is a wise and a very good alternative to Fossil Fuel. Geothermal Energy: I agree that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers but geothermal energy can also be drawn from the earths core as I mentioned in my previous debate. an article from darvil.clara.net states that Geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating and these countries have progressed energy wise. geothermal energy is also an energy efficient alternative and could serve as more than 85 percent of the earths power need. my next point leads me to solar power. The production of energy from the use of fossil and some renewable fuels can be noisy, yet solar energy produces electricity very quietly. One of the great pros of solar energy is the ability to harness electricity in remote locations that are not linked to a national grid. A prime example of this is in space, where satellites are powered by high efficiency solar cells. The installation of solar panels in remote locations is usually much more cost effective than laying the required high voltage wires. Solar energy can be very efficient in a large area of the globe, and new technologies allow for a more efficient energy production on overcast/dull days. Solar panels can be installed on top of many rooftops, which eliminates the problem of finding the required space for solar panel placement. Another great pro of solar energy is the cost. Although the initial investment of solar cells may be high, once installed, they provide a free source of electricity, which will pay off over the coming years. The use of solar energy to produce electricity allows the user to become less dependent on the worlds fossil fuel supplies. Wind power: unlike what my opponent said, wind power is a cost efficient way and does not require the wind to blow as more renewable energy is developed, the nation's electricity supply will balance renewable energy supplies with regional demands. Studies have shown that significant investment in offshore wind on the Atlantic Coast would virtually always be producing electricity – so if the wind stops blowing in Massachusetts, South Carolina's offshore resource may supply power to the Northeast. comparison with other anthropogenic activities, the climate impact of wind power is negligible. The continued burning of fossil fuels and unsustainable development inflicts the greatest harm on the earth's climate. If wind energy generated enough electricity to meet current electricity usage, this would amount to about 6% of all other wind disturbances, like reforestation efforts and tall buildings. This would have no significant impact on global wind patterns. Additionally, wind turbines could have a side benefit of decreasing temperatures at higher latitudes, offsetting the anticipated warming caused by greenhouse gases. we could see that fossil fuel is not the answer but better alternatives are. http://na.oceana.org...

Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout... Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.

Alternate energy Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels. There is two main points that I would like to make in reference to my claim. 1. ) Creating a wind/solar infrastructure is very expensive. Although there is a massive movement towards the 50/50 ratio of wind/solar vs fossil fuel energy, humans haven't actually reached 15% yet. That is, 15% of all energy created by ALL renewable energy sources. . The IEA, international Energy Agence, claims that in "2012, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.2% of its total primary energy supply. " . http://www.iea.org... 2. ) Big businesses and governments will do everything that they can to prolong and preserve the market for energy created by fossil fuels. Companies such as ExxonMobile, which is worth 412 billion dollars, have political power and will do everything in their power to not only keep the production of fossil fuels but also to slow the expansion of renewable energy. . http://mashable.com... . http://energyrealityproject.com... I have viewed you're sources and I cannot find any information that leads to the conclusion that we will ever be at a 50/50 ratio of fossil vs renewable. Only information about the minuscule renewable energy infrastructure that is now being created. What would I have to do to get you to change you're mind? Tell me and I will do it.

Solar energy cannot produce enough energy to replace coal. Coal is the primary fuel for generating electricity around the world. Solar power cannot realistically produce enough energy anytime soon to replace this massive source of electricity. It is incapable, therefore, of making a serious dent in coal-electricity production and the related greenhouse gas emissions.

fossil fuel Responding to my opponent: I know that alternatives to fossil fuel exist – the fact that I named most of them in the previous round proves I know of their existence. The problem is that none of them are yet viable as a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity generation or in car locomotion because they are either too expensive, are not capable of being produced on a large enough scale, or are not a reliable/consistent enough form of power. Nuclear power I think my opponent means nuclear fission. Fission is a reaction that breaks apart an atom (usually Uranium-235) to generate energy. Fusion is the process the sun uses of fusing together protons to generate energy. Scientists have yet to produce a commercially viable fusion power plant, and many people still consider fusion power a pipe dream. Nuclear power, in contrast, is not a good fossil fuel replacement. The Huffington Post reports that nuclear power plants, even when operated correctly, cause cancer. "Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. . . . after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer." [1] The Huffington post cites a number of studies proving the link between nuclear power and cancer: "Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near [nuclear power plants]. One study showed child cancer exceeded the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern U.S. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown . . . A November 2007 article on U.S. child leukemia deaths updated the 1990 National Cancer Institute study and showed local rates rose as nuclear plants aged -- except near plants that shut down." [2] Studies in Germany have also proved the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. [3] The fear of cancer sparks a "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) attitude towards nuclear power plants, whereby locals and politicians protest the location of nuclear power plants near their homes, thereby making it impossible to build nuclear power plants anywhere. If countries all decided to pursue nuclear power, it would take well over a hundred years to build all the power plants. There is only one steel plant in the world, Japan Steel, that has a forge big enough to make the containment vessel for nuclear power plants. They are only capable of forging 5 such containment vessels per year. [4] The Star continues that the waiting list is filled up until at least 2018, even though demand for nuclear power is relatively low right now. Building enough nuclear power plants is infeasible. Other arguments against nuclear include: it is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The Post-Gazette reports that "A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW) . . . A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build." [5] Nuclear power reliance worldwide would create a spent fuel storage problem – where does all the radioactive waste go? Nevada has been unwilling to allow the U.S. to store the waste at the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, nuclear is non-renewable: uranium sources will run out. And lastly, a global trade in uranium/plutonium makes it easier for a terrorist to get their hands on one of these substances. Nuclear power as a replacement source is negated. Geothermal: The Energy Information Agency explains that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers, most of which are located on the west coast of the Americas and the east coast of Asia. [6] These energy sources are not widely available, which is why geothermal has the potential to provide far less than 1% of the world's power. Geothermal as a fossil fuel replacement is negated. Solar/wind: My opponent does not answer my analysis that these are intermittent power sources with no way to store their energy. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we must get our power from coal or natural gas. Studies show that wind power in particular does not replace fossil fuel power because electric utility companies are forced to keep natural gas power plants readily available in case the wind is not blowing and since power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, the natural gas plants are constantly on. In addition, my opponent does not answer the evidence from the Energy Information Agency that in the best case scenario, the United States could only generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. In addition, wind and solar plants are very expensive because they need to built in specific locations (where wind blows or where cloud cover is rare) and necessitate new power grids to be built. Power grids typically cost $3 million per mile to build. In addition, the further the power plants are located away from the houses that need them, the more energy that will be lost due to "line loss." The friction caused by electrons moving through the wires causes lost electricity due to heat. This is another of the many challenges facing solar/wind. Wind has further challenges. The annoying noise from the rotor blades and the blinking lights to warn airplanes/helicopters of their presence decrease property values near wind farms. According to Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, "Large wind turbines in concert with each other, especially those sited on ridgetops with side slopes shaped like a parabolic reflector, create profound, relentless noise reverberations extending out for more than a mile, sounding like "a boot tumbling in a dryer" or the revving of jet engines on a runway." [7]. Wind farms thus generate the same NIMBY attitude that nuclear power plants generate. For all of the above reasons, solar and wind power are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. If we like to have electricity and to drive our cars, fossil fuels are the only option for the foreseeable future. UV light: As someone who is extremely fair skinned, the lives of Australians sound extremely similar to my own. I cannot leave the house without sunscreen and protective coverings or else I will develop a sunburn within a matter of 15-20 minutes of sun exposure. Even ozone-shielded UV radiation can be highly damaging, and doctors recommend that even dark-skinned individuals wear sunscreen. In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that the particular ozone hole he is talking about over Australia is widely acknowledged as being caused by the emission of CFC's, not of fossil fuels. Lastly, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated worldwide by fossil fuels and related industries, and the fact that fossil fuel-exporting dependent countries would have their economies collapse without fossil fuels, causing a massive drop in global demand for good and services, sinking all countries further into the global recession. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] Ibid [3] http://www.currentconcerns.ch... [4] http://www.thestar.com... [5] http://www.post-gazette.com... [6] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [7] http://www.wvmcre.org...

Alternate energy Thank you for this Debate.From the brief description, you say that Solar/Wind energy will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels (this is incorporating the comments section as well).I have evidence that proves this is not the case, And will discuss in further detail later - However will post the sources for ease and future reference now:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://lasvegassun.com...[3]http://www.ubergizmo.com...[4]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...Looking forward to your response :)

Solar power cannot produce enough energy to replace coal Coal is the primary fuel for generating electricity around the world. Solar power cannot realistically produce enough energy anytime soon to replace this massive source of electricity. It is incapable, therefore, of making a serious dent in coal-electricity production and the related greenhouse gas emissions.

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.

Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions Global warming is driven by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar energy emits none of these gases, and is abundant, so can dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and help reverse global warming.

Wind energy is a renewable resource than can replace coal. Wind is a renewable resource that relies on the energy of the wind to generate electricity, burning no fuel and contributing no greenhouse gases to the global warming problem. Because wind energy can produce a significant quantity of electricity, in the United States, up to 20% of US electricity demand, it can be a significant renewable replacement of dirty coal. This will make a major contribution to the fight against global warming.

Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short.

Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels I thank whoever accepts this debate. As the pro side, I define nuclear power as power generated as a result of nuclear fission and fossil fuels as coal, natural gas, and oil. The job of my opponent is to provide a suitable alternative that is more viable than nuclear in substituting fossil fuels. My first argument is nuclear power's ease of location. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere on land (and possibly sea) which could provide power for more desolate places or places which have temperature extremes. While the sun may be shining for the day, there are many places where solar panels are not cost effective. Geothermal energy is self explanatory as it can only be done where there is sufficient warmth in the ground. Wind energy has to be put in rather desolate places that have seasonal temperatures as the cost of maintaining wind farms in a blizzard is tremendous. Hydro has to be near water and cannot be inland without rivers. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere and the energy can be generated at a rather low cost which will later tie into my second point. Nuclear power can be in all temperatures and can be provided to every place in the world. Even coal, oil and natural gas have to be reasonably to a mine or well or the transportation cost would be too high. As shown in the following website, the cost of uranium needed for nuclear does not really affect the price. Logically following, the location of the uranium that it uses does not have to close to the plant. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...

Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power There is little doubt that the current mix of energy provision is simply unsustainable. Fossil fuels are simply too damaging to the environment and nuclear is just too expensive. Wind power is an established technology providing, for example, 21% of electricity in Denmark.[i] The research is already done and can be made available around the world. Once externalities are taken into account nuclear energy is the single most expensive way of producing a therm. Clean coal is, frankly, a myth and the trend for oil and gas is constantly upwards in term of price. Other renewables are embryonic technologies fraught with development costs whereas wind is an established technology already providing a significant share of the energy mix in several developed economies. [i] World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2010, April 2010, p.5

Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Thank you for this debate, I believe very strongly what I am about to say, and this is an issue that needs to be hammered out to get to the real problems. I am going to argue for the alternative energy source known as geothermal energy. It is obvious that fossil fuels are finite, and we as humans need to be responsible in creating a safe, reliable, and (if possible) limitless energy. Thank goodness there is such a resource. Why geothermal energy? 1) Geothermal energy is inexpensive and easy to obtain. My opponent makes the claim that GE can only be obtained in places where sufficient warmth is available. What he doesn't say is that place is EVERYWHERE. The US being the best country to take advantage of this(1). However, no matter where you are in the world, you can dig a hole. There are better areas than others to dig, of course, but the process to gain the energy is extremely cheap because all you need to do is make generators similar to those in nuclear power plants to get the steam. This means that we can peacefully extract resources in our own country without sending troops to other countries to extract oil in the Middle East. 2) Geothermal energy is virtually limitless. The Earth's core holds around 8,000 zeta joules of energy ripe for the taking. It takes .5 zeta joules of energy to power the rest of the world for eternity. Tapping into this beast of an energy supply is obviously in our benefit. Why not use our planets most powerful energy creating resource into our hands? Why not Nuclear Energy? 1) Nuclear energy is dangerous to obtain. The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment. As a result, humans and the entire ecosystem are adversely and profoundly affected. Some of these radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily long-lived, remaining toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Presently, we are only beginning to observe and experience the consequences of producing nuclear energy. If our goal is to preserve the environment and protect our future on Earth, then this seems like one of the worst ways to do it. 2) We cannot share nuclear energy technology other countries for risk of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear energy relies on the fact that some elements can be split (in a process called fission) and will release part of their energy as heat. Because it fissions easily, Uranium-235 (U-235) is one of the elements most commonly used to produce nuclear energy. It is generally used in a mixture with Uranium-238, and produces Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) as waste in the process. The technology for producing nuclear energy that is shared among nations, particularly the process that turns raw uranium into lowly-enriched uranium, can also be used to produce highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium. We do not and cannot share this information with many nations because it is a great risk to security. This problem is completely absent in the drive for geothermal energy. In conclusion, we may need alternative sources of energy, but nuclear energy is not the way to obtain it. Geothermal energy is plentiful, cheap, and safe to get. Thank you 1-http://www.ucsusa.org...

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.

Wind energy Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions

Nuclear energy Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels

Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels "The future is green, the future is nuclear." Times Online. October 4, 2009: "Professor David MacKay, the government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, has said what many people have long believed. You cannot meet Britain’s future energy needs and reduced carbon emissions without a big expansion of nuclear power. [...] As we report today, he believes we should aim to be producing four times the amount of electricity from nuclear as now. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wavepower will never provide more than a fraction of the country’s energy needs. Relying on gas, coal and oil, with an increasing proportion imported, does not square with Britain’s international climate commitments."

We should invest in alternative sources of energy As I understand it, my opponent proposes to use a combination of: 1) Solar 2) Wind and 3) Hydropower in order to stabilize Earth and the United States economy. I would like to spend the bulk of this speech focusing on the effects the aforementioned alternative energies have on the economy. First, I'll start with solar: 1) Silicon prices are skyrocketing [1] (This cost will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer) 2) Solar costs 25 cents a kilowatt hour [2] {ctrl f "25 cents"} 3) Coal costs 1.75 cents a kilowatt hour [3] {ctrl f "1.75"} I apologize for the lengthy articles, but they do contain relevant information considering price. I take a break here to crystalize the above information. Currently, solar costs 25 cents per kWh vs coal at 1.75 cents. When you do the math, solar is roughly 14x more expensive than coal. What this means for consumers is that if we use solar, energy bills will increase fourteen fold! When you apply this across the entire nation, our economy simply can't handle it. It means America would be paying fourteen times more every single year. Solar also has some negative effects as it is, but I won't go into that unless my opponent would like me to. This debate has a focus on the economy and so that is what I'm debating. When we look at wind energy, we find that 1) To use wind energy, we'd have to increase fossil fuel use. To create enough wind energy, that's 25x current world peak production [4] {ctrl+f "100"} 2) Wind turbines can't power the U. S, they have to be supplemented [5] {ctrl+f "anywhere"} 3) Resource shortages are driving up the cost. [6] {ctrl+f "shortage"} This cost will be passed on to consumers. Analytically, this shortage also means that wind energy can't be used as expansively as it would need to be, not to mention it can't power the U. S. anyway. 4) Wind costs 7 cents a kWh [7] Wind is 4 times more expensive than coal. .. energy bills are still increasing, exactly the opposite of what America needs right now. Again, I apologize for the long articles. Feel free to read them if you want to, but searching for the words/numbers in quotes will get you the information I'd like you to pull out of it. Wind, as shown above, can't help the U. S. Not only is it more expensive, but it's getting more expensive as the disparity of resources grows greater. The last form, hydropower, has several sub-sects. Two general sub-sects are hydroelectric (primarily though dams) and hydrokinetics (primarily without dams) Both are refuted below, and I'd like my opponent to specify which form was intended for debate, if there was a conscience decision between the two. Starting with hydroelectric: 1) Dams require a huge amount of capital. [8] Definitely not what our economy needs right now 2) Hydroelectric is incredibly inefficient [9] Hydroelectric would require enormous amounts of money to get a project up and running, and would then be more expensive because the energy output is unacceptably low, meaning it takes more land, and therefore more money, to get the same amount of power. And then moving to hydrokinetics: 1) Ocean pressure creates a challenge. [10] 2) Ocean power won't be significant for decades. [11] {ctrl+f "contribution"} 3) Wave energy is too intermittent [12] All of this means that hydrokinetic energy is years away because of technological difficulties, and monetary setbacks, and even if it does enter mainstream society, it's too unpredictable to even get a feel for how much energy will be produced. When you look at the three sources of energy my opponent wishes to see in society, they are all expensive: initially, in use, or both. With the amount of damage our suffering economy has right now, we can't afford this. The money to do this would have to be borrowed, which only adds to the national debt [13] because we have to pay it back PLUS interest. Not a good deal for anyone to say the least. I'd like to thank my opponent once again, as well at the readers and judges. I'm sorry for the long post, but there was a lot of information that needed to be presented on these energies. I tried to make things as easy as possible, but with 13 sources, that can be rather difficult. I also apologize if you go on overload from reading this and the sources; I know I have a headache just from typing it. I look forward to the response from my opponent. .. SOURCES [1] . http://www.planetark.com... [2] . http://www.investmentu.com... [3] . http://www.marketwatch.com... [4] . http://www.zmag.org... [5] . http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com... [6] . http://www.windaction.org... [7] . http://www.informationweek.com... [8] . http://sierraclubca.blogspot.com... [9] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [10] . http://www.peopleandplanet.net... [11] . http://www.cera.com... [12] . http://www.usnews.com... [13] . http://www.brillig.com...

Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal Patrick Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."

Alternate energy Without breaking down into an argument of Semantics, This is what I thought we were debating "Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid" - I had solid proof and evidence to support that this is not the case. However, I will debate upon the new topic you raised "Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels." by a simple play of logic. You have created quite a steep slope for yourself by using the word "never" so frivolously - You back yourself into a logical corner that I can easily exploit by saying "20, 30, 40 years is undeterminate to ensure that Fossil Fuels will NEVER be exceeded by Solar/Wind or even other renewable sources" - The fact that these technologies are in their infantile stage, and still can generate megawats of electricty, is evidence alone that time is the main barrier to this transition. However to me that is not playing fair. I will discuss and prove to you why this is not the case, as sitting in a defensive position is not my way of debating. You state that power generated by the wind and solar radiation is inconsequential in comparison to the power generated from burning and compressing fossil fuels. I call balderdash! The ideals that are conjured when I imagine this scenario, are similar to the power of an Atomic bomb, as opposed to the power of a spear. Sure, the atomic bomb may deal a LOT of damage, and can be remembered for centuries afterwards for its impact, But statistically, a spear has 'killed' more than any type of Bomb we have - and that is just technically a piece of wood, that was later upgraded to have a metal pointy end. This is due to the fact it is time based (part of my original response in this round), and the fact that it is re-newable. You stab a person, pull it out - and you are good to go again. In comparison, only 2-3 Atomic bombs were created at one time, when they were first made (Weapons of Mass Destruction are not included in this, as this is outside of the scope of these bombs), they have a 'once off then it is gone' policy. It is similar here, we can generate alot more force for alot less effort using fossil fuels; However the resource is finite, and it heavily polutes its' external environment. Solar/Wind - This will be here as long as the Earth and Sun are, when those resources fail - im pretty sure our electric / sail cars not working will be the least of our problems. In your previous round, you made reference to the fact that the world is pushing for a 50/50 split between renewable sources, and fossil fuels. This is only a temporary estimation, it is recommended to push for a 100/0 split between Renewable resources and fossil fuels (the ration is split accordingly RN/FF, where RN = Renewable and FF= Fossil Fuels). The reason for this, is that the ability to generate as much force as we do, is nothing to do with our technology to harness the power, but the explosive force that the FF has latently. We basically do nothing by direct which way that explosive power goes, and happen to call the generated force "Horsepower" - which basically means we take the credit for natures 'liquid gunpowder'! On the flip side, all the power we have generated has been through minimal funding but maximum dedication - and has split of into the myriad of power sources we have today (Tidal, Wind, Solar, Nuclear - though this is not a 'Green' source) - That is all us. We have learnt to harness the forces that are everywhere and convert that into energy we can use. Time will improve this, and Time will prove you wrong - of that, I am certain. I look forward to your last round, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic!

Hydropower is capable of scaling to fully replace coal. The World Energy Council Hydropower Data shows that hydropower is presently generating about 3,000 TWh (Terrawatt hours, or millions of megawatt hours annually). If we include both high head (hydropower dams) and low head (run-of-the-river micro plants) systems using current technologies, the world can probably economically generate almost 15,000 TWh annually.[2] This means that hydropower could move from its current position of supply roughly 10% of all electricity demand globally to supplying upwards of 50%. Some argue that "we have enough economically usable river water resources to generate virtually 100% of current global electrical demand."[3] This is a very important conclusion, as it means that hydropower is a viable long-term 0-emissions alternative to coal, the biggest culprit in the global warming crisis.

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. 1) "I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory." I understand the point you think you're making here, but my original contention still holds and you did not refute it simply by restating your argument from Round 2: we have no idea the magnitude of the "Hubbert Peak", nor can we even estimate when we might reach that peak with any degree of accuracy, which you yourself note here by writing: " It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds". Therefore it would seem to most people that you have conceded this particular argument based on your own admission that you actually have no idea the magnitude of our oil reserves and can no more make an accurate prediction of when we might run out of oil than a homeless man on a street corner - because you both are simply guessing. Another interesting tidbit for you, Hubbert using his model in 1974 predicted that the world would run out of oil by 1995, which I think both you and I can agree was wildly inaccurate, much like the predictions you are making now (1). Indeed, this entire argument assumes we actually reach the Hubbert Peak, as both you and Hubbert himself have neglected to mention artificial ways of producing oil (liquid hydrocarbons) from kerogen rich oil shale (2). Either way, your point has been refuted regardless of whether or not you have chosen to acknowledge it. 2) "With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process." False. We have upgraded existing refineries' capacities by up to 300,000 barrels per year - the equivalent of adding one new, modern refinery per year (3). Naturally assuming this trend is accelerated by increases in supply, your point is fallacious and misleading. Furthermore, you did not refute my original contention. Therefore, you have conceded this point. 3) "If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil." We are not assuming anything. I am arguing that we have enough oil within the regions of the United States to meet our current and future demands. I have provided more than enough evidence to support this. You have acknowledged the validity of my statement by instead changing your argument to state that it would "take too long" to get the oil. Most would consider this improper conduct in a debate as you are changing the frame of your argument in the last round - you need remember that we are simply arguing quantities of oil. Therefore, you have conceded this point by nature of changing the frame of your argument to an irrelevant position. 4) "One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply." Your argument for the environmental positives of solar panels is that we can mine silica (indeed it must be mined as it is most often found in ores, not in "sand"), cut down forests (wood too must be harvested commercially), and obtain silica from coal with little to no damage to environment relative to burning fossil fuels. This is an absolutely absurd argument to make. You also completely ignored that point that we still would need to mine for phosphorus, which is one of the most volatile minerals found on Earth in terms of potential for environmental damage. 5) "Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas." You completely missed the point here. "Clearing" flood areas still removes vast areas of vegetation, which then decays, which then releases Methane - the most potent greenhouse gas man is capable of emitting on a large scale. Therefore my original point still stands, alternative fuels are no more environmentally conscientious than fossil fuels - they're simply portrayed that way because it's commercially beneficial for corporations to convince you that progress has been made. 6) "Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases." Of the most fuel efficient cars in the world, the top 6 rely on gasoline (read fossil fuels). Diesel comes in at number 7 (4). Indeed, of the Top 10 most fuel efficient cars in the world, only 2 are diesel. I would say you need to work on your facts. 7) "Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free." Not only do biofuels emit much more greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels (5), they also cost significantly more than any fuel made from crude oil (6). It would seem your either willfully citing made up "facts" that you have no sources for, or your simply ignorant of the true cost behind much of what you seem to be promoting. Either way, your facts have completely decimated your own argument by removing any credibility you might have had. ----------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent initially offered the common and popular arguments supporting a change to alternative fuels. However, when confronted with the facts he changed the frame of his arguments and proceeded to straw man. Finally when that didn't work, he resorted to simply making up facts for which he has no sources. In conclusion, my opponent failed to effectively refute my contentions, failed to provide evidence affirming the resolution as was his duty, and failed to address his opponents arguments. For these reasons I urge a vote for the Pro. http://en.wikipedia.org... (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.politifact.com... (3) http://www.thedailygreen.com... (4) http://www.nature.org... (5) http://www.usnews.com... (6)

Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Fossil fuels are not just dangerous because of the co2 released into the atmosphere causing climate change. When fossil fuels like gas and oil are spilled, destruction follows. Thousands of animals have been tortured and killed from an oil spill or leakage in their environment. This usually happens in oceans, but can also happen on land. Fossil fuels also release toxic chemicals that cause lung disease to humans. When these fine particle emissions are inhaled, they can enter the blood stream and can cause diseases or problems almost anywhere in the body. If Renewable sources of energy are utilized, there is no chance of harm to the environment or people. Exploring new renewable energy resources will not only benefit our environment and communities, but will also benefit generations to come because of new innovative ways of the mass production of energy. Our current rate of fossil fuel usage will eventually lead to an energy crisis. To overcome this crisis, renewable energy research and production will grow in awareness and the government will rely on this innovative new source to power our country and eventually our entire world. 1) http://www.ehow.com... 2) http://www.alternativeenergysecret.com... 3) http://www.alternative-energy-news.info...

Nuclear Energy yes I suppose I only had one argument. I do believe you had more convincing arguments. You have won, but just for the record I wasn't saying that nuclear energy is not one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. I need to complete three arguments and this is one of the only ones that was open.

Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Okay, first, I will start off by stating my arguments, and introduce my topic. I believe renewable energy is the ideal source of energy for the future for many reasons 1. Renewable energy will never run out As fossil fuels do run out, as they are non-renewable, renewable energy will not. They come in natural forms such as sun and wind which are things that will never run out. 2. Fossil fuels pollute earth and melt polar ice caps As shown in numerous studies, the use of fossil fuels has melted the polar caps greatly and have raised ocean levels several inches. 3. Easy to get As for fossil fuels, you have to go drilling deep down into earth, for renewable energy, it's as simple as getting sunlight.

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Another main reason why Renewable energy resources are more superior and efficient than fossil fuels and other non renewable resources is that there is no possible harm to our environment. While nuclear energy, oil, and gas usage releases profound amounts of carbon emissions, renewable energy resources releases very little to no carbon emissions. Renewable energy resources like solar power and wind power has been used more and more by large businesses and companies since it has costed them a lot less for electric and heat in comparison to oil and gas prices.

Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions A study by the Irish national grid stated that "Producing electricity from wind reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore leads to emissions savings", and found reductions in CO2 emissions ranging from 0.33 to 0.59 tonnes of CO2 per MWh.[1]

wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply. Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power

Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power No renewable energy is going to provide the sheer quantity and variety of energy needed to power a developed society. Wind suffers from being unreliable – producing either too little or too much – and as a result would be a bad choice to be the core technology. The basic staple of the energy supply needs to be predictable as well as clean. Wind may well have a useful role providing a surplus that can be tapped in to at times of high demand. However, it is simply not reliable enough to be the mainstay of the energy blend. It is worth noting that wind energy requires government subsidies which is simply not viable in the long term, people are unlikely to be keen on the idea of paying for their energy twice; once through their power bill and then again in their taxes[i]. [i] Industrial Wind Energy Group. 23 August 2008.

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I will adopt my opponents format and address his points with the appropriate numerals: 1) "As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057." I agree with my opponents assertion that fossil fuels are indeed finite in supply. Where I disagree with him however is in the amount he estimates the world to currently hold within its depths. Take for instance the recent discovery of the largest ever oil field found in the Gulf of Mexico by BP - a well containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas (1). Indeed not only have huge oil deposits recently been discovered, there have also been vast numbers uncovered - 200 fields this year alone (1). With these recent discoveries, it would now appear that our estimations of world oil supplies are in need of serious revisions. For truly it seems scientifically dishonest to state that the world will run out of oil in 2057 when we have no idea how much oil the world actually holds. Therefore this point of contention you hold - that the supply of oil will run out sometime in the near future - is misleading in its assertions and rather invalid for the purposes of this debate. 2) "We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future." As noted earlier, the oil reserves in the United States more than adequately meet our own consumption requirements - roughly 21 billion barrels (2). We also must keep in mind that this figure is from 2007 - discounting the monumental recent findings addressed in 1 - and that it also discounts "unproven" oil reserves such as shale deposits and deep ocean wells. Therefore, your point that the U.S. doesn't have enough oil and has to import it is rather a moot point - we have the oil necessary to meet our own demand, we have simply chosen not to use it. 3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment." I find it curious that some environmentalists - for I consider myself an "environmentalist" too - always point to the "unhealthy" nature of drilling for oil, when in reality the damage it does pales in comparison to the damage done by "alternative" methods of energy production. Take for instance solar panels. If we were to produce these on a commercial scale we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus. One could easily argue that the environmental damage done by mining for these minerals greatly outweighs both the damage done by gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the established mining for ores necessary for coal production. Another common alternative energy source offered is hydrothermal dams. However the environmental impact of building a dam is inarguably worse than burning fossil fuels (3). Indeed the building of dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2 - making dams less environmentally efficient than the burning of fossil fuels (3). Furthermore recent advances in fossil fuel technology have reduced that amount of C02 produced by modern coal plants by 40% (4). Therefore coal - despite all the connotations and taboos associated with it - is actually not a very "dirty" energy production method, negating your point. "Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats." This is problem with the shipping of oil, not its production. The problems of transporting oil have little to do with whether or not the United States should continue to use. Indeed, the prospects of transporting alternative energy sources - say nuclear waste - are much more environmentally dangerous than shipping oil. "Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident." This is the full quote from your source, since you decided not to show it: "Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. However, this radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not shown to have any adverse effect on human physiology." Plagiarizing Wikipedia and deliberately editing quotes is not acceptable in a debate. Furthermore, your own sources are contradicting your arguments which is usually not a strategy employed by people interested in being taken seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to take some space to offer forth a point my opponent neglected to address: cost. The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels - in the case of wind its close to a 50% increase in cost per kilowatt per hour (5). This is due mainly to the fact that alternative energies are as of now unproven, contain inefficiencies of design, and have no infrastructure which can harness the energy they create. Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully support developing alternative energy sources, but I am steadfastly against the sort of panic-driven hysteria that my opponent has offered as a reason to adopt alternative energy sources in their entirety. Because the truth is the sources we have now are rather infeasible and forcibly adopting them would do much more harm than good - the technology simply isn't ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent offered relatively weak reasons for why the United States should change energy production sources. Furthermore I offered evidence that forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources would be economically disastrous and infeasible as the technology is not ready for commercialization. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://e360.yale.edu... (4) - http://www.worldcoal.org... (5) - http://www.nytimes.com...

An alternative to Gasoline I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it. First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time. Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however. Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone. We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future. In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.

Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost Nuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2. Wind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight. "Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."3 1'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam',  2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007,  3"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006:

Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels First, the rebuttals on why geothermal energy would NOT be a viable resource to replace fossil fuels and why nuclear power would be a better choice. Geothermal energy as my opponent claims is everywhere. That's about the same as saying that we all live above Earth's core. If one drills 3 TO 4 MILES deep, one can reach temperatures of about 300 to 400F (about 200 degrees Celsius). I ask my opponent how this is economically viable in any way. Secondly, after doing some research on geothermal energy, I found that there are actually many requirements of locations of geothermal energies. One first needs magma that heats up ground water to 100 degrees Celsius (212 F) in order to be USABLE. My opponent uses the States as an example where geothermal energy is everywhere. It's not. It is only in Western USA, Alaska, and Hawaii that these geothermal place are actually viable. I quote from a website on geothermal. "To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. " Not only are geothermal places difficult to find, the drilling cost of these sites in a hot, dry and corrosive location is far higher than any other kind of drilling. There are also many very toxic and corrosive materials in the process of geothermal drilling. Arsenic, mercury and ammonia all come with the hot water generated from geothermal and cause many health hazards on a near daily basis. . http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... . http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com... Now I will begin to defend my points. My opponent claims that nuclear energy is dangerous to explain. He claims the mining of uranium is very dangerous. I ask him to refer to the following chart on how "dangerous" it is. Now, I know people with think of the Chernobyl accident in Russia, but nuclear plants have improved tremendously, and that plant did not even have an upper containment system. Now, no nuclear plant in the world does not have a containment system, and the last major accident of nuclear was pretty much Chernobyl in 1986. Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) *Notice that geothermal is not even included because the percentage where it is actually used is smaller than 0.1%. Uranium mining is just like any other kind of mining and uranium itself is more abundant than gold. The concentration uranium is not high enough to be any danger and there has NEVER been a death related to nuclear radiation in the US EVER. The disposal of nuclear waste has many ways, such as the Yucca mountain idea. However, I personally agree with France's way of reprocessing the nuclear waste so it can be reused and the parts left will become not radioactive in just a few hundred years. Nearly all of the world's largest countries already have access to nuclear energy. All of these countries first made nuclear weapons and then turned to civilian nuclear plants. These plants can be built for countries without nuclear secrets as it has been done before. As long as the plant is for civilian purposes, most countries will agree to build a nuclear plant for a country as a method of producing electricity. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... Finally, I will present my second point. Nuclear energy is one of the cheapest energies that can produce a large amount. Nuclear energy costs under 2 cents a kilowatt and the amount of energy one pound of uranium can produce is absolutely tremendous. Nuclear power can be adjusted to produce more energy in on-peak times and less energy in off-peak times and is one of the very few that can keep up with demand in nearly any conditions. Nuclear factories can be mass produced in the world and France currently has more than 75% of its energy from Nuclear. France is a large European country so it is a working example of how nuclear energy can be a suitable replacement from fossil fuels. I ask my opponent to give an example of a country that has more than half or even 40% of its energy produced from geothermal. For nuclear, I can give (over 40%) Armenia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Germany is currently considering to also go into nuclear power because it can be mass produced and provides energy at a low cost. For the reasons I give above, it is my firm belief that nuclear energy is the best substitute and most viable substitute from fossil fuels. Geothermal simply just does not have that kind of capacity. Thank You.

renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. The World Bank estimates that 1.2 billion people in the world do not have any access to modern energy, and that 2.8 billion people only have access to fireplace cook stoves. [1] Today"s current methods of energy production are failing to provide power to 4/7ths of the world. Renewable energy is the only long term sustainable solution to power this planet. We live on a finite planet. There are very few sources of energy that regenerate and even fewer that regenerate at a sustainable rate. By that standard, renewable energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro is the only logical way to produce energy for as long as we inhabit the planet. Any one source of renewable energy is not the solution, but using each source in the best locations available for the specific needs of the source, and using them in the most efficient manner is a way that we can improve the global energy infrastructure. All these sources have factors that are the most effective for the performance of the source. Wind power needs area"s that are flat and have a lot of wind like the great planes or a few miles of the coast. Solar performs best in areas with no weather and a lot of sun like a desert, and deserts are also not very good for supporting life. Geothermal is most applicable at fault lines were tectonic plates meet because the distance to the heat is more shallow there. Hydro power has many forms apart from dams like wave, tidal, and ocean current. There is also a form called ocean thermal that uses the difference in water temperature to heat and cool liquid and spin a turbine. The largest argument against renewable is that they are not efficient enough but the truth is that we don"t apply them efficiently enough. A 2006 study by MIT reported that geothermal could power the entire world with improving technology [2] and a 2005 study by Stanford calculated that it would take 20% of the wind power available to power the entire world. [3] Using these sources together is the only way to power the world and prevent further pollution of the planet. We have the technological ability and that should become our reality. Since the industrial revolution our planet has increased in temperature and amount of CO2 at a rate much faster than natural. The EPA has all the information to support that statement. [4] It"s the use of conventional and outdated systems that are the main factor of this climate change. Sources like oil and coal are no longer necessary to provide energy to our planet and are logically and scientifically unsustainable. They continually consume resources and destroy our planet. These industries are even fighting against the technologies will save us. Oil and gas have spent record amounts to lobby against renewables. [5] Finally the nuclear industry might cause the most amount of danger to our actual public health. It"s fact that nuclear power plants emit radiation into the environment and into the water sources that people use every day. This must be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [6] Nuclear power has the danger of accidents like the tsunami that hit Fukushima Japan in 2011 that caused damage to the reactor and nuclear radiation was emitted into the atmosphere. [7] There are too many dangers with nuclear energy and conventional sources are too damaging to our environment. Renewable energy can provide energy to the entire planet and is the safest and most sustainable option [1]http://www.worldbank.org... [2]http://mitei.mit.edu... [3]http://web.stanford.edu... [4]http://www.epa.gov... [5]http://www.nytimes.com... [6]http://www.nrc.gov... [7]http://www.world-nuclear.org...

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. For the reasons explained above (diminishing supply, environmental damage) we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. We also see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. However, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped. The subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China. Solar energy has never lived up to expectations since it is hugely inefficient. A solar panel the size of Europe would be needed to power a city the size of London! Wind energy is only marginally better with an unsightly wind farm the size of Texas needed to provide the energy for Texas alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are strong enough! The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound! The opposition to the building wind farms in certain areas has been just as strong as the opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery, being so unsightly and large, and may also be bad for wildlife.

Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy Nuclear energy should be used as a primary source of energy for many reasons. Costs being one of them. Nuclear energy costs 2 cents per Kilowatt-hour. This is a fraction compared to the other sources of energy. Oil being 18 cents Per KWh and gas being around 8 cents Per kWh. Over time nuclear energy proves to be much less expensive and more practical. Safety might be more of the controversial subjects when it comes to nuclear power. The problem is when fission occurs it is very difficult to stop. With today's technology the chance of a melt down is around .00026% for the average reactor life. If that meltdown is to occur it would be contained. All modern reactors have a containment building. A large dome completely surrounding the reactor. The containment consist of many feet of concrete and are able to withstand a collision with a fully loaded passenger airliner. Nuclear energy is a declared green energy, the nuclear fission produces two byproducts. One being steam and the other nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is safely contained in canisters that do not allow any radiation or leakage of the waste to reach the outside. In other words nuclear waste does not harm the environment in anyway. Also nuclear waste is can be recycled through a reactor as plutonium, this reduces the amount of nuclear waste as a byproduct. Other energies like fossil-fuel energies produce tons of Co2. Coal-fire energy is extremely dangerous to the environment and is harming it now. The strip mining that is needed for coal causes devastation to landscapes. Coal fire plants use tons and tons of coal per day. While nuclear reactors use fuel rods which consume only a few uranium pellets every 30 years. The numbers between the two energies just do not compare. Other alternative energies don't contend with nuclear power when it comes to being used on a large scale. Nuclear power plants take a few hundred acres to produce its typical 1,000 megawatts per hour. To equal one reactor you would need around 2400 turbines and 60,000 acres and of coarse wind is not always blowing. On average, wind turbines are working at full potential 25% of the time. And a nuclear reactor is always producing energy. To be realistic you would have to quadruple the acres and turbines to equal a reactor. So the numbers would be 9,800 turbines and 240,000 acres. To put it another way 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. And the square miles needed for a nuclear reactor is 2 . This is 1/187.5 fraction. For solar panels to match one reactor, the land needed would be around 5,000 acres. And again solar panels only reach peak energy levels 25% of the time. And again you would have to quadruple 5,000 acres. This would be 20,000 acres of land needed to reach 1000 megawatts per hour. This is a 1/15 fraction. Hydro electric power is just plain unfriendly to the environment. On one side of a dam a river is made much more shallow. The other side of the dam a reservoir is created and thousands of acres of land is flooded, forcing the natural habitat out. Clearly, by the evidence that I have given there is no reason not to use nuclear energy as a primary energy.

Alternate energy OutlineI. Opening statementII. Solar panelsIII. Electric carIV. Wind powerV. Hydro powerVI. FoodVII. SummaryVIII. LinksI. Stupidape's opening statementI will make my argument based upon reduction as opposed to alternate energy. Including such topics as net metering for solar panels and how the people with the most solar panels use the most electricity. Solar panels taking oil to manufacture. Wind farms are dangerous to birds. Remember, reduce, reuse, recycle. I will focus on the reduce part.II. Solar panelsSolar panels sound great in theory. Yet, in practice the people who use the most electricity have the most solar panels. Since solar panels are based upon light energy, when a cloudy day occurs conventional production of electricity is needed. What this creates is a spike in energy usage and demand on the grid. This is why electric companies are fighting back with net metering. "What else should I know about net metering?The rules for net metering vary greatly depending on the state you live in. For most net metering arrangements, you must pay a monthly connection fee to transfer your electricity into the grid. The value of the energy credits you receive, particulars on how banked energy credit is paid out and how long the energy credits you receive last are other considerations that vary by state as well." [1]"Low-income households, they say, are paying higher electric bills to subsidize solar arrays that only wealthier people can afford." [2]"Electric utilities argue that these policies have become far too unwieldy. After all, these new solar-powered homes and businesses are all still connected to the grid (not least because they still need electricity from traditional power plants when the sun isn't shining). But the utility is getting less money from these customers to maintain and repair that grid. As such, utilities argue that they should be allowed to charge rooftop solar owners a maintenance or connection fee of some sort." [3]What this shows is that solar panels do less good than orginally predicted. Another problem is if people see the electricity as free they are more likely to use more. Finally, solar panels take raw materials to construct. "Solar panels don’t come falling out of the sky – they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases." [4]All in all its clear that reducing your electricity useage via turning off lights, energy efficient machines, led lightbulbs, etc, is a better option. III. Electric carMany of the same arguments for solar panels can be used for electric cars. It takes material to make an electric car. Repair and replacement of parts. Building of charging stations. Electricity to run electric cars. A person is much better off walking or bicycling.IV. Wind power"But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines." [5]The same arguments about cost to build and maintain solar panels can be made for wind farms. During low wind days, coal powered power plants are still needed. Some birds are killed by wind farms.V. Hydro power"Hydroelectric power plants may affect fish is a complex interaction between numerous physical and biological factors. More user interests related to exploitation of fish species, which helps that this is a field that many have strong opinions on." [6]Again, cost and maintenance as opposed to using less electricity. During droughts coal powered plants are still needed. Hydro plants affect wildlife.VI. FoodOur food choices affect the environment also. Beef is very resource intensive."A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing beef (see below).1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for drinking and processing.1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is for producing wheat (see below).1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water." [7]."The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [8]"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [9]VII. SummaryIn summary alternative energy is not the way to go. In lieu of alternative energy reduce your consumption and make more environmentally friendly choices. Ultimately, the more energy you consume the more infrastructure that will be needed, built, and repaired. Instead, go vegan and reduce your energy consumption. Consider less children. Thanks for the debate. VIII. Links1. http://mysolar.com...2. http://www.latimes.com...3. http://www.vox.com...4. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com...5. http://science.howstuffworks.com...6. http://energyinformative.org...7. http://www.latimes.com...8. http://www.greenpeace.org...9. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted. While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.

Solar energy Alternative clean fuels generated from solar power reduces dependence on oil

the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels My opponents argument is essentially this: 1. We need ‘green’ energy 2. Governments will lead us down a greener path faster 3. Therefore, we need government intervention in order for green energy to reign supreme However, the basic premises behind this argument are fatally flawed. 1. We need ‘green’ energy This is the basic foundation behind my opponents assertion. Conventional methods of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear) are the ‘dirty’ evil energy sources whereas the alternative energy sources (solar, wind, hydro) being efficient alternatives. Further, her argument relies on the fact that these pollutants are actually going to significantly harm the environment. Lets talk about these conventional sources. Natural Gas: Natural Gas is the second most clean conventional energy source (behind Nuclear). Natural Gas emits 117,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per btu of energy, compared to oil (164,000) and Coal (208,000). Further, natural gas is much more efficient than coal. 90% of natural gas produced is energy used by the public, whereas the number for other conventional forms of energy is about 30%. The market, at this stage, is moving towards Natural Gas. Even assuming that climate change and pollution is a major issue, a switch from coal to gas will lead to a huge reduction in pollution [1]. The Wall Street Journal writes, “U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal. Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 … many experts believe the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has been the biggest factor [in CO2 emission reduction].”[2] Coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy which is commonly used, however, the fact is that coal actually works to save lives in aggregate, not decrease longevity. Energy is one of the most important things humans have. It gives us warmth, it gives us cold, it gives us electricity, computers, phones, cooking equipment, etc. For poor people, energy is a matter of life and death. The cheaper it is, the more access these people have, and the longer lives they live. The question is whether or not coal’s pollution factor outweighs the health benefits of pollution. Researchers have found that if we take coal out of the energy equation, 150,000 people would die--for the government to restrict coal (a form of supporting alternative energy) and then promote expensive alternatives would lead to deaths, and a destruction of human life--not benefiting it. Another study argues that coal prevents 14,000-15,000 premature deaths in the US each year. Further, in countries with more energy consumption per capita (increases if energy is cheaper), human development is much higher [3]. Nuclear: Nuclear power is the cleanest, and one of the cheapest, forms of energy on the planet, and is considered ‘conventional’. In the United States, Nuclear was cheaper than all the other common energy types, including one of the cheapest, coal. Oh, and Gas is also pretty cheap too [4]. The fact is, if the government should be involved in anything, it should be nuclear. Nuclear is clean, cheap, and efficient. In fact, it is seen by many environmentalists that Nuclear is the energy source of the future, it is the way to prevent ‘climate change’. Nuclear is superior because renewable energy is intermittent: we will need a backup power plant to power us when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn’t blowing. A few options: use batteries, inefficient and not ‘green’ for disposal, or another power plant, probably natural gas or coal. In either scenario, alternative energies will not be able to sustain us alone. As Mark Perry writes, “To use more wind and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from renewables.”[5] Nuclear, on the other hand, is always working as long as it is being run properly. It could easily provide for all of our energy needs. Also, James Hansen--known for his rampant environmentalist fervor--co-authored a study saying that nuclear is ESSENTIAL to our future, and that it has saved 1.8 million lives [6]. Solar: As stated, solar is an intermittent source of energy, and when the sun isn't shining, the carbon savings will be washed out by the very cheap, reliable, conventional energy source having to fill in the gaps. Not to mention, it costs a lot. Solar power costs 20 cents per killowatt hour, compared to about two cents for coal [7]. Remember what I said? Expensive energy kills poor people. Wind: There is zero scientific proof that wind reduces CO2 emissions, according to the Ways and Means committee. They argue that CO2 savings will be minimal, and will look like nothing compared to the conventional nuclear power option [8]. Hydro: The fact is, hydroelectric power is dirty. Newscientist refutes hydropower’s fans, saying “Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels,”[9]. 2. Governments need to make us green! This premise is also flawed--the fact is, the free market will opt for the most efficient energy source. At this point, natural gas is the favored option--and as stated, it is cheap and clean. It will increase life spans, keep energy cheap, and ‘save the planet’, if you like that sort of thing. And in the foreseeable future, it is likely that nuclear will emerge as a key player in energy. And, thats a good thing. But this premise begs the question--do we even want to go green? The simple fact is, carbon dioxide is beneficial to the biosphere, and is a necessary component to life [10]. Further, there is significant peer reviewed evidence that climate change will not harm humanity, and in fact may benefit our existence [11]. There is even literature arguing that the link between CO2 and temperature is weak, exaggerated, or even nonexistent [12]. Other than the fact conventional ‘pollutants’ are likely beneficial with no strong proof of harm, overall air pollution in the United States is falling, and is expected to continue decreasing [13]. Therefore, this premise, too, is flawed. 3. Therefore, government needs to support alternative energy I deduce that this conclusion is false based on my above reasoning. Alternative energy sources are expensive and inefficient, whereas conventional sources are cheap, economically viable, and in many cases, clean. 1. http://www.aga.org... 2. http://online.wsj.com... 3. https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com... 4. http://www.nei.org... 5. http://news.investors.com... 6. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... 7. http://www.businessinsider.com... 8. http://waysandmeans.house.gov... 9. http://www.newscientist.com... 10. http://www.co2science.org... 11. http://www.co2science.org... 12. http://www.co2science.org... 13. http://www.ncpa.org...

renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. By 'best solution', I presume that you argue that it can provide the energy non-renewable sources currently provide, without the negative environmental effects or the fear of it running out. I support the use of renewable energy where possible, but believe that it is currently nonviable. Thus, I support the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels to provide our energy.

Nuclear power will help lower oil dependencies and risks. Nuclear energy is one of the most viable alternatives to oil, particularly because it is capable of supplying such massive amounts of energy. According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors (that convert Uranium into other nuclear fuels while generating energy) have the potential to generate energy for billions of years, thus they make nuclear energy sustainable while lowering our dependency on oil, thus increasing our energy security.

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. 1) First we debated about the finite supply of fossil fuels. You argued that there were recent discoveries of new oil fields. One example being the Gulf of Mexico which contains from 4-6 bil. barrels of oil and natural gas. You continue to argue that due to such discoveries the estimation of world oil supplies need to be revised leading to the inability to make statistical hypothesis of when we expect the world to "run out of oil". I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory. Imagine a bell curved graph of year (x-axis) vs production (y-axis), to the right side of the peak there will be an exponential decline in production. It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds, but it is very important to at least attempt a statistical estimation of known oil reserves to compare with daily consumption. I can use this statistic with daily production specifically for one reserve vs its estimated oil supply to calculate how longevity of oil site, which could reflect on the company's decisions for on funding for the discovery of new oil sites. One of your sources mentioned that "since the early 1980s, discoveries have failed to keep up with the global rate of oil consumption, which last year [2008] reached 31 billion barrels of oil. Instead, companies have managed to expand production by finding new ways of getting more oil out of existing fields, or producing oil through unconventional sources" Recently we have made a large number of discoveries but we will at one point reach our production peak (Hubbert) in which we will no longer be able to produce as much as demanded. 2) The second reasoning stated that we are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the end. I used the example of the 1973 oil crisis. You noted that "we [currently] have the oil to necessary to meet our own demands" and that we just choose not to use it. With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process. The US does not refine enough crude oil to meet our daily needs and therefore we send it mainly to Canada to be refined and imported back to us. It is cheaper to send to Canada then to ship it 1500 miles to the next US refinery. As for the claim that we have enough oil reserves to meet our own demands, we do we not currently use them? Are we talking about emergency reserves and reserves found on land that we currently are not allowed to drill? If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil. As time goes by, the demand would increase and would witness the affects of a lower oil supply on the economy. 3) Within this third reasoning, I stated that the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The opponent states that alternative method does more damage to the environment. One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply. Solar panels contribute to the mining of coal. Your second example was hydrothermal dams. The source you received this information on was mainly talking about China and how they are irrationally, planned poorly and in need of more safeguards for affected people. Their goal for building so many dams is not to combat climate change or the fostering of development, but as a bargaining tool to have access to natural resources such as metals, fossil fuels, and farmland in exchange (Scudder). "Building of the dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2". The direct quote from your source is "Dam building creates other significant impacts as well. Drowned trees and vegetation burp methane — which traps heat at 25-times the rate of CO2 — out of the reservoirs, particularly in tropical regions like Brazil. In fact, scientists at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research calculate that the world's large dams are responsible for producing 104 million metric tons of methane a year — making dams the single largest source of human-caused methane." Failing to mention that the methane was due to drowned trees and vegetation. Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas. Also this describes "particularly in topical regions like Brazil". This debate specifically argues for the United States which is a different type of region. Before a hydroelectric dam can be constructed a study of the area is required to be studied and have federal and state licenses. These studies include site studies, hydrological studies and environmental impact assessment with required hydrological data of up to at least 50 years. Though there are some disadvantages there are also some advantages of hydroelectricity such as that it produces no waste, has a considerably lower output level of CO2 and eliminates the cost of fuel. The cost of operation is almost unaffected by the increase cost of fossil fuels, require no imports and usually have a low labor cost. Hydroelectric plants also have longer life spans than fuel-fired generation, currently have some built 100 years ago and still in service. 4) Last of all was cost. "The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels", this is a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not true of its parts. For example, bio diesel is a cheap alternative fuel and we have efficient technology to use it. Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases. Bio diesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline. Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free. This figure was calculated using today's chemical prices and a bio diesel experiment provided by NC State University. Conclusion my opponent states that I offer evidence that is forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources. United States was defined as "both moral and government policy grounds" with no further opposition. I argued for both grounds, meaning that there should be a behavioral change from the public and government policy change. Would it still be considered forcing if the public wants it? The presumption states "that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels". This does not mean that we should create sides and drastically change from the fossil fuel side to the alternative side. The key word "toward" could also mean a shift in a particular direction over time. If I was to find definitions they would be with a view to obtaining or having, In the area or vicinity of. Yes, we do have a form of time limit due to our finite supply of fossil fuels, but we do have the ability to use our time now to make efficient ways to use alternative fuels so that when we do need to change we can do so without disaster.

Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels With the non-stop hype about blaming CO2 for the warming of the Earth, Renewable resources such as solar and wind have risen as potential substitutes for fossil fuels. However, the renewable energy sources are unreliable and much more expensive. "While raw forms of energy are both free and practically infinite, the equipment and materials needed to collect, process, and transport the energy to the users are neither one. Currently, the RE costs are generally higher than that of fossil-based and nuclear energy. In addition to this, unlike well-established conventional designs, the advancement in different RE technologies still requires substantial investments. " [1]. It is also fair to point out something important to this debate: the most common sources of renewable energy are solar and wind. The problem with this is that the Sun won't always be out, and the wind doesn't always blow. This means that you won't always be able to get energy if you rely on solar and wind, as there is no areas that wind and solar energy are stored to be distributed; they must be used right away. So during winter, when the sun isn't always out, it would be much harder to get energy. You would have to place more solar panels to get enough energy to power a country through winter months, which would be very costly. And in order for wind turbines to be useful, the wind would have to constantly be blowing, which is hard to do, since wind speeds are unpredictable. Germany, who's currently leading the world in use of natural resources, spends lots of money because they still need to rely on fossil fuels when natural resources don't come through, which is why their energy poverty rates (people who can't pay electric bills due to a price increase) have rose. [2] "Wind power is unpredictable and unreliable as it often produces either too much or too little power. This damages a power grid that can"t function unless demand for electricity exactly matches supply. With conventional power plants, like nuclear or natural gas, having demand match supply isn"t difficult because they can easily adjust output far in advance of predicted demand for electricity. Solar and wind power, however, cannot easily adjust output because especially cloudy or windless day can"t be predicted in advanced." [3] Fossil fuels came a long way, and thanks to fossil fuels, we have much better air [4] and water quality [5] . In fact we are on the road to obtaining energy from fossil fuels that don't emit as much pollutants. [6]. Fossil fuels currently supply 2/3 (67%) of America's energy [7], roughly the same for the world [8]. Its job is too big to be taken by something as inefficient as renewable resources now. Sources [1]- http://www.renewable-energysources.com... [2]- http://www.forbes.com... [3]-http://dailycaller.com... [4]-https://www.epa.gov... [5]-http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://phys.org... [7]-https://www.eia.gov... [8]-http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...

There is no such thing as totally RENEWABLE energy. Valid point, however, we don't deplete it's energy but what am saying is that in the same that fossil fuels won't last FOREVER neither will solar energy!

Natural gas Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases

Alternative clean fuels generated from solar power reduces dependence on oil Hydrogen produced by solar power from the electrolysis of water is a emission free fuel that can be used to power cars and other vehicles. Moreover, hydrocarbons can be produced from pure hydrogen, e.g. by Fischer-Tropsch process.

Biofuels Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca...

Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca... Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the scaling up of production, their price per gallon (or litre) will continue to fall. Oil looks likely to maintain its current high prices well into the future, due to the exhaustion of many existing fields, strong demand from developing economies such as India and China, and security concerns which are unlikely to go away. Given these long-term trends, without investment in biofuel technology we actually risk our economies being crippled by sky-high fuel costs, for example if oil prices head up over $100 a barrel. Some subsidies to this investment seem highly justified, especially as they can replace existing agricultural support payments, rather than being additional money.\ Biofuels are also a sensible bridge to a greener future, allowing us to develop a more sustainable future without unbearable economic or social cost. Unlike alternatives such as hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels do not need a completely different infrastructure to be widely adopted. \

Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition. Ideally, renewables, the necessary fuel of the future, should be subsidized, and fossil fuels should not be. In this situation, the transition to renewables can be made much faster, thus more quickly eliminating the oil-dependencies that are currently used to justified oil subsidies.

fossil fuel Since the topic is unclear, I'd like to interpret the topic to be: "the world should stop using fossil fuel." My opponent is pro and I am con, so this topic interpretation makes sense. 1. No alternative We need gasoline for the foreseeable future. Most people who currently own cars in the world own a car that runs primarily on gasoline. Cars are expensive products and most people are not too keen on purchasing a new one right now, considering the global recession. Other options are not viable anyway. Ethanol Normal cars can run on a blend of ethanol/gasoline, but ethanol cannot comprise more than 15% of the concoction, or else it will corrode the engine parts. In addition, ethanol does not yield a net positive amount of energy because it takes gasoline to create the fertilizer used to grow the crop (usually corn) and to harvest it (picture tractors). "UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains." [1] So it essentially takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. In addition, we don't have enough crops in the world to turn into ethanol. According to Energy Bullet, "if the entire US corn crop were used for fuel, it would only replace 20 percent of US gasoline consumption." [2] Lastly, food to fuel increases world food prices and results in starvation. Environment News Service explains, "The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before. The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. . . . The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off." [3] Cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable and may never be because the enzymes to break down cellulose are far too expensive to produce. Electric Since 80% of power that is generated in the United States is from fossil fuel (coal and natural gas), if we stop using fossil fuels, we won't be able to charge our cars. Electric cars are also much more expensive than normal cars and cannot travel very far on a single charge. Hydrogen fuel cell The fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Prototypes running solely on fuel cells have not even been made. There are no refilling stations. Hydrogen is not energy-dense enough to be a viable transportation fuel because the fuel tank would be too heavy. Power 80% of U.S. power comes from coal and natural gas. Less than 1% comes from solar and wind. Around 20% comes from nuclear power. However, the nuclear plants in the U.S. are approaching the end of their life cycles, meaning we will rely more on fossil fuels in the future. Solar and wind are not yet viable to provide all our energy because they rely on intermittent energy sources (wind is not always blowing, sun is not always shining), and we do not have a reliable way to store the energy, meaning we need fossil fuels to act as a back-up for power generation if these intermittent sources are not available. The Energy Information Agency did projection forecasts on alternative energy development to 2030, based on current incentives/tax breaks and rates of investment, and found that in the best case scenario, renewable energy can provide 10% of the United State's energy needs by 2030. [4] If we stopped using fossil fuels now, the global economy would come to a standstill. 2. Clean fossil fuels Clean diesel cars have been manufactured that emit absolutely no particulates from their tailpipes, such as a model highly touted by Volkswagen. In addition, carbon capture and sequestration promises to create coal power plants that no longer emit any carbon dioxide. 3. World economy Fossil fuel jobs employ tens of millions of people worldwide in the oil exploration/drilling industry, the coal mining industry, and in electricity generation. These people would all lose their jobs. Oil/natural gas exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia would have their economies devastated if they could not sell fossil fuels. A collapse of demand in many fossil fuel exporting-dependent countries would further exacerbate the global recession. Responding to my opponent's case: 1. Ozone layer holes Most of the holes in the ozone layer were caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which international agreements have since banned. Science Daily reports that currently, one of the most promising new ways to decrease ozone depletion is newly discovered devices to detect rogue CFC emissions. [5] There are two ways that fossil fuels directly decrease ozone, but both ways only have a "weak" effect on ozone. [6] 2. Global warming Many countries are attempting to implement emissions reduction strategies, but these will likely be very expensive to consumers of energy and will have only a marginal impact on global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation's consortium of the smartest scientists on the global warming issue across the world, recently ranked the best solutions to global warming, and a number of geo-engineering projects (engineering projects that would cool the globe) were ranked higher than emissions reduction. Solutions include the one described in Super-Freakonomics, essentially simulating a volcanic burst in the troposphere, during which particles decrease sunlight penetration to the Earth's surface and decrease atmospheric temperature, and putting sunlight shields in outer space. No matter how costly these engineering solutions are, they will be cheaper and more effective than drastic emissions reduction programs, like cap and trade. In addition, some of the renewable energy solutions aren't much better for global warming. Stanford University published a study in 2007 on the ways that shifting to a hydrogen economy would increase global warming. [7] 3. Peak oil Many different experts disagree on the date when peak oil production will occur, but few experts still believe that it will be as soon as 2020, as my opponent suggests. In fact, the Energy Information Agency recently did projections until 2035 and found that due to technology improvements, peak oil will not occur between now and then. [8] One such improvement is EOR – enhanced oil recovery. Carbon dioxide (usually captured from a coal power plant using carbon capture and sequestration) is pumped into oil wells and makes the yields of oil from the well jump from 20-40% (under traditional techniques) to 40-60% by increasing the pressure inside the well-head and forcing more oil to come out. We need oil for the foreseeable future – alternatives are just not available yet on a large enough scale and are not yet affordable for the average person. [1] http://www.sfgate.com... [2] http://www.energybulletin.net... [3] http://www.ens-newswire.com... [4] http://news.mongabay.com... [5] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [6] http://wiki.answers.com... [7] http://gcep.stanford.edu... [8] http://www.altenergystocks.com...

Tidal energy could replace unsafe/polluting nuclear energy. There are many concerns surrounding nuclear energy, regarding the potential radiation hazards for nuclear-plant workers and locals as well as for the environment when radioactive nuclear waste is buried. There is pressure to continue to build nuclear plants because they can supply a significant amount of electricity and do so without producing greenhouse gases like coal. Yet, the above concerns remain. Tidal energy can act to replace nuclear-electricity generation, and so by-pass these concerns.

Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Global warming is threatening our life, natural environment and modern civilization these days. Many countries and communities of the world are seriously tackling in developing new energy sources like solar, wind and atomic energies. However, I believe their efforts and endeavours are facing serious and difficult problems to promote for the introduction of new alternative energy sources replacing with fossile energies.

Nuclear power presents the only viable option for reducing CO2 output Ok, so you've decided to utilize both traditional uranium fuel supplies, then you moved onto thorium nuclear energy, and now fusion energy... cool. Firstly, i would like to point out that ITER does not solve, it would take another 30 years to develop safe and affordable fusion energy, might i mention that Global warming needs to reversed now in order to end the negative effects of climate change. You have cited economic statistics on the negative impacts of climate change which i agree with. The fact is, ITER is not even functioning, merely it is a concept. Fusion energy has yet to create a net positive creation of electricity. Even if ITER works within the next couple years, it would take another decade to refine the theoretic concept and make it safer and more efficient for the public, then take another couple years to make these plants that would cost millions of dollars. Fusion energy has not even opened a single power plant that works and puts energy into our system. By 2050, which is when Fusion energy should be up and ready, Global warming would most likely have taken nasty destructive effects. Fission energy cannot solve either since Countries like the US don't want other countries to use nuclear energy(ie Iran, North Korea) therefore it cannot solve in those regions. Fusion energy will also not be trusted in other non-nuclear proliferation countries due to it's potential bomb making qualities. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Btw in your evidence for thorium reactors, it stated: Current international research and development efforts are led by China, where a $350 million MSR programme has recently been launched, with a 2MW test MSR scheduled for completion by around 2020. So essentially this technology has potential , i won't deny that. But i want to point out that the first test for this new technology will not occur until 2020. Based upon the assumptions of the time it takes for these nuclear plants to be constructed and refined, this will not be a viable source of fuel until around 2050, we cannot implement this undeveloped technology simply due to the fact that we cannot wait that long period of time and let Global warming continue to destroy our environment. India wants to do this plan and supply 30% of it's energy by 2050 but in order to solve global warming, we need a global effort and radioactive substances can't be trusted to some nations/ http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org... On climate change, i can't agree with you more. We need to take action now to prevent the destruction of the environment. This destruction is destroying aspects of our economy and the global economy. The fact is current nuclear energy can last a decade or so. By the 2030's nuclear fuels will run out and nuclear energy cannot solve until the new technological changes can power the rest which will be around 2050-2070's. The fact is, we need to act now or we will face the economic and climate catastrophes that await us since nuclear can't solve completely in this century. Therefore i propose the following plan: The World should substantially increase Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources to power our future. You agree that fission material will be everywhere and will cost money. net benefit - no radioactive fuel or environmental catastrophes from nuclear failures or breakdowns which bear environmental and economic costs. plus you don't have to spend millions of dollars storing all this nuclear waste, and you solve faster. Wind and solar technologies are tested. In the UK, offshore wind is set to take about 15% of the energy markets of the UK by 2020, which is only 5 years and a substantial portion of their energy. Onshore wind is now powering 4% of the US's electricity, like right now. Wind power can supply US energy by 20% by 2030 with current tax credits. The international energy agency(IEA) in 2014 estimated that solar energy can power 27% of global energy by 2050. Wind will supply another 18% of global energy. Hydro electric power will continue to be a large resource for energy producing around 15% of the worlds energy in the status quo. Here's the fact, if you don't support solar, wind, and hydro electricity, our energy future looks bleak. Sustainable nuclear energy cannot be created for another 40 years or so and until then, we need to find alternative fuel sources. Nuclear energy is not the only viable resource because it is not feasible at it's current state. Pro is arguing that in the future, Nuclear will BECOME A VIABLE source of energy. He is not arguing that it IS a viable source of energy. Vote con for solar and Wind, it will solve for around 45% of energy by 2050 and is currently solving in the UK, US, and other countries like China. The debate topic is that nuclear energy is the only option, i am arguing that alternate energy sources can solve as well. http://www.businessgreen.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.iea.org... http://www.iea.org... http://large.stanford.edu...

Hydropower is a clean alternative to coal. Coal is the greatest source of electricity in the world. In places like the United States, it constitutes over 50% of the electric energy supply. It is also one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases and, therefore, contributors to global warming. Replacing coal, therefore, is one of the greatest priorities in the fight against global warming. Hydrolectric power, as a primary electricity supplier around the world, can act decisively as a substitute to coal electricity generation. Because hydroelectric emits 0 greenhouse gases, it is a highly valuable substitute for coal, and thus a major tool in the fight against global warming.

There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area. Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.

Tidal power can generate massive energy and slash emissions Tidal energy can produce massive quantities of energy. And, because tidal energy is clean, it can replace fossil fuels and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to one source, a single tidal barrage can prevent the release of approximately one million tons of CO2 per TWH generated.[2]

The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in p1 renewable energy is insufficient to meet energy needs of our society. Dr. Daniel LaGatta stated on February 16, 2010, that the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs by 2035 without at least 40 new nuclear plants p2 Fossil fuels are a finite resource p3 Further evidence from: http://www.energycrisis.org...... -""There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline."

Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant We have lots of Thermal Power Plant all over the world. About 40% of the worlds electricity comes from coal. The energy efficiency of a thermal power plant is typically 33% - 48%.The waste products released by a thermal power plant are carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as other substances such as nitrogen, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and (in the case of coal-fired plants) fly ash and mercury.All these gases are green house gases which pollutes the environment and especially causes Ozone layer depletion.We all know about the negative effects of thermal power plant with reference to air pollution but let us take its land and transmission side effects.1) As thermal plants should be located far away from the load, Transmission line increases leading to loss in power distribution.2) The area required to build a thermal power plant is quite big.3) It has lot of components such as heaters, boilers and even flue tower etc.4) Due to all of this components, the installing cost is high also the capital cost for the land.CAN SOLAR AND WIND REPLACE THERMAL?In my opinion yes, up to a certain level. Considering the above points 1) Solar plant can be located near the load, hence transmission line cost decreases. 2) The area required to build Solar and Wind Plant is less compared to Thermal plant, hence capital cost is reduced. 3) It has less components, ant the components used in Solar is very Compact.Any Disadvantages? 1) Solar can be installed in areas where there is a high peak sunlight. 2) Wind plant should be located where there are high pressure winds. Now, we can combine Solar for day time and wind for night time to provide 24 hrs electricity production.The disadvantages of Solar and wind can be overcome by proper arrangement and storage of electrical energy in batteries.

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Renewable energy resources can produce more energy than fossil fuels and nuclear power since the process is continually replenished and is therefore recyclable.(1) There is plenty of space for hydro power, wind power, solar power, and geothermal power on our governments thousands of acres of unused land and and in our oceans. Also the energy that comes as a product is known as clean, compared to Fossil fuels and nuclear energy.(2) 1) http://nationalatlas.gov... 2) http://energy.gov...

We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway As fuels become more scarce their price will rise, alternatives will be developed and become cost-effective on their own. We do not need to waste time and money on expensive government funded early development programmes.

Offshore oil addresses energy shortages better than most renewables Renewable energy is not yet an adequate alternative to oil. While the transition is made to renewable energy in the long-run, other offshore oil and gas alternatives should be found in the short-to-medium run.

Alternate energy Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid

There is no such thing as totally RENEWABLE energy. == Definitions == My opponent focuses the entire debate on what the term "renewable" means, so this is fundamentally going to be a semantics debate. American Heritage defines "renewable" as: "Relating to a natural resource, such as solar energy, water, or wood, that is never used up or that can be replaced by new growth." [1] Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "renewable" as: "restored or replaced by natural processes : able to be replaced by nature." [2] Google defines "renewable" as: "(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used." The Texas Legislature has defined "renewable energy" as: "Any energy resource that is naturally regenerated over a short time scale and derived directly from the sun (such as thermal, photochemical, and photoelectric), indirectly from the sun (such as wind, hydropower, and photosynthetic energy stored in biomass), or from other natural movements and mechanisms of the environment (such as geothermal and tidal energy). Renewable energy does not include energy resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil sources, or waste products from inorganic sources." [3] The common theme here is that "renewable" means something that either (a) we can create more of (like biofuels derived from algae) or (b) something that derives from natural processes, so our use of its does not deplete it. Contention 1: solar, wind, etc. meets my definition of renewable The Google definition is the most clear: that renewable means something that is not depleted by our use of it. My opponent says the sun is not renewable because it will some day run out of energy and supernova. However, I have three responses to this. First, that's not the definition of "renewable." Our *use* of sunlight does not actually deplete the sun. The sun was going to emit that sunlight anyway. We are merely tapping into a natural process that was going to happen anyway. Similarly, wind energy comes from the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun, causing air to move from colder areas to warmer areas. Wind energy will continue to exist as long as the sun exists, and our use of it does not deplete the total amount of wind that there is. Second, when the sun supernovas, we will either (a) all die from the supernova, or (b) travel to another solar system that has its own sun. Therefore, either we all die, so we won't need an energy source, or we can find another sun. We will never be in a scenario where we are alive and without sunlight. This particular form of power, therefore, will always be viable for all practical purposes. Third, there are types of energy that meet even my opponent's absurd definition of "renewable." Biofuels can be made by growing algae. We can literally "renew" our supply of algae whenever we went. Obviously, this is in sharp contrast to fossil fuels, which require so much time and pressure that we can never practically renew the Earth's supply of them. Lastly, I'll note that words are an artificial construct and are only useful to us in distinguishing things from each other. The words "renewable energy" is only useful as a concept to distinguish sustainable sources of energy from unsustainable ones. To define "renewable" the way my opponent does would mean that there would be no word in the English language to distinguish (solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuel) from (fossil fuels). There's no point in defining "renewable" in such a way so as to rob the word of any usefulness. Furthermore, given that language is an artificial construct that dies with us, it seems safe to define renewable as including sunlight because if there is no sunlight, we are all dead and there will be no language. So any problems with the word "renewable" and the sun eventually dying pretty much solve themselves, because the word "renewable" will die with us when the sun does. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.treia.org...

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER you are plainly and simply completely wrong here is your first point While biomass still takes energy to produce yes it takes MORE ENERGY IN THE FORM OF GAS? DIESEL that it MAKES and the WASTE STREAM is MINIMAL compared to our gasoline consumption "so it is ever-abundant" No it is NOT there is VERY LITTLE in the WAY of WASTE BIOMASS Now you move on "Nuclear facilities are a tough candidate because of the potential danger and political contreversy surrounding them" you have no concept hwat you are talking about please explain fast breeder reactor technology to me and also the TOTAL amount of nuclear waste EVER generated to date, and finally HOW MANY PEOPLE have DIED due to NUKES in the USA? again, you have NO CLUE except that the ONLY opposition is by STUPID IDIOT DEMAGOGIC dcemocrats YOUR NEXT POINT "OK, so hydrogen is made with electricity. Where does the electricity come from? People could spend all day circling a hand crank like those Farraday flashlights..." you are an idiot and are not worth debating science with you probably dont even know what a kilowatt hour, Joule and Faraday are. FOOL! "If you want to use solar energy to convert water to hydrogen, keep in mind that it takes 1.3 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of H energy." yes electrolyzers are about 70% efficient- WAY TO GO, SCIENCE GENIUS! "Laws of thermodynamics dictate we will always get less out of H than we put in. To create the kind of electricity we would need to replace natural resources it would take a massive amount of sunlight. So, anywhere other than CA or the Sahara is pretty screwed." Again, YOU ARE A MORON Why dont you tell me what the sun hours are exactly for Los Angeles New York Miami Fargo Anchorage Seattle Omaha and also tell me why GERMANY now has about 1/3 of its peak load from solar (not a very sunny place) as soon as you can even tell me what a sun hour is, then you can talk "Also, building solar plants big enough to replace the resource vacancy is about 50 times MORE costly than current plants." THis is nonsensical crap there is 1000W /m2 = 100W / sf you do the math , genius at 15% , PV makes 15 W/ ft2 or for 1000ft2 = 15,000 W DC = 15 kW DC the average house uses about 2 kW average load so I only need to put about 400-500 sf of panels to get rid of the electric bill on a house typically or on a business , 5,000-20,000 SF of panels so once again, you are COMPLETELY WRONG PG&E just signed a 20 year deal for a 900MW plant in the desert and the Luz solar plant has been very profitable since the 1970s (Mojave desert) YOU HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT WITH SOLAR NOT THE SLIGHTEST Ok back to H2 "Also, hydrogen is simply not dense enough. It would take 237,000 litres of gas hydrogen or 60 gallons of liquid hydrogen to replace a 20 gallon gas tank. " This is your first real argument You can use high pressure compressed gas or liguid for planes It works fine you can also use hybrids with it Im not going to get into details in this debate, but the Germans (BMW) have a full line of H2 cars coming out this year. and H2 can be MIXED into the fuel stream for now Now you just lose it, becuase you dont have a clue "Also, you don't answer the impracticality of hydrogen. Why invest in an energy middle-man? Especially one that costs a boatload. All hydrogen does is transfer energy. It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell. We put energy we already have into a 'fuel' that provides diminsihing returns at staggeringly higher costs?" You are clueless, as proven by this statement "It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell" study a little and get back to me it is a CARRIER, or a CURRENCY a FUEL CELL is a GENERATOR that can use MULTIPLE FUELS , including H2 Give me your alternative that will possibly work, if not H2 Anything involving biological entities is not practical, or possible, period. I appreciate your efforts here but you need to learn alot more about it. SOLARMAN

Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements The renewable sector is a rapidly changing market moving in between micro-renewables and massive offshore projects. It is a fascinating area as an emergent technology field but it lacks stability both in terms of technology and investment. Realistically nuclear power is going to have to play an important role in bridging the gap – at the very least – on the road away from a carbon dependent economy[i]. The technology and funding is simply not in place for any renewable technology to take up the hard lifting from oil and coal yet. [i] G Paschal Zachary. “The Case for Nuclear Power”. SFGate (San Fransisco Chronicle). 5 February 2006.

government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels Who are these various companies? I ask my opponent to give sources to support this. This source says that renewable energy is more expensive despite government subsidizing it: http://www.economist.com... I don"t believe this is a catch 22 scenario. There is no demand for alternative energies because it is more expensive. Government should not subsidize a more expensive alternative. I have no idea how it can be said alternative energies have an uphill battle. Alternative energies have had a downhill battle because they have had government subsidies supporting them.

Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant I will do my best to keep this interesting even though I am a newbie to this website as well as having average knowledge in this field. My contention will not deal with specifics but energy in general, in addition to refuting my opponent's arguments and proposing an alternate resolution. Take note: I am trying to post a picture,forgive me as I am new, if the picture did not show up or it turns into zombie text instead. . http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/4/3520/141496-3520-nfg75-a. jpg" alt="Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; />Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com... Renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average, This includes all renewable resources but with only solar and wind, the figure will be significantly less. With a ratio of 1:10, to convert to a complete consumption of renewable resources is inadvisable, especially in its current state. The reasons are outlined below. I propose the following. .. Co-Generation as an alternative(1) Instead of replacing, which is what Pro is trying to advocate, it is better to consider Co-generation rather than hunting down thermal power plants. Thermal power plants are governed by the law of thermodynamics, such plants produces enormous heat as waste products. The implementation of Co-generation in thermal plants is used to deal with the excess heat and convert it into energy. With Co-generation, the energy efficiency can be increased to a further 80% as a result instead of the flimsy 33% as what was offered by Pro With energy doubling, it is very easy to meet current energy demands. For us to meet the current energy demand is very important as our lives are highly dependant on electricity. What we use everyday, from cars to dish washers, require electricity. Since the priority of human being is to survive at the expense of other species, We have no choice but to use thermal power plants regardless of the issue of global warming The International Energy Agency, acknowledged co-generation as a viable alternative. " One technology by itself will not bring about the dramatic changes that are needed to resolutely reform the energy system. Co-generation and renewable, both low-carbon solutions, will be part of the SOLUTION. "(2) Its nice to see your originality pro, but IEA's proposed alternative is very powerful. We have to be realistic in order to change our world The Current Crisis of Renewable energy The adoption of such 'green' technology have garnered lots of negative feedback. Wind turbines are said to produce noise pollution that will likely cause health problems(3). Migraines will start kicking in at the sound of these dreadful turbines(3). Forests are destroyed for the sake of these giant unearthly machines. Over 3,500 acres to be exact(4) while it manages to power 140,000 homes(5) only, out of 5 billion inhabitants on this planet. Moreover, It produces only 7% of the world's energy. Though renewable, its harms weigh more than its benefits. The energy output is not worth it. Who is to justify the millions of species extinct in the blink of an eye? We’ve only scratched 14% of earth's species (6). There's bound to be some extinction when you cut over 3,500 acres. I have no contentions with green energy, but at its current rate, it is disastrously inefficient and too risky. For the sake of fairness as Pro could not refute my contention since he went first, I will hold my rebuttals and additional arguments until the next round. Thank You Sources (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.iea.org... Pg 8 (3). http://www.naturalnews.com... (4). http://www.slate.com... (5). http://www.nytimes.com... (6). http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout... Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.

Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.

Tidal energy can't produce enough electricity to replace nuclear. Tidal energy is incapable of producing electricity on a large, global scale, due to its low capacity factor (0-production when tides aren't moving) and because it is viable in a very limited number of sites. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is capable of scaling to produce massive quantities of electricity. It currently supplies around 20% of all electricity demand in the United States, and could supply the majority of electricity demand if more nuclear energy plants were constructed in the United States. For these reason, tidal energy is incapable of replacing nuclear energy as a fuel source.

Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas "The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it’s a similar case for oil as it’s virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can’t take its place. [...] Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant."

Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy I will makes my comments on your argument by corresponding them with the same template. 1a) I have already made my point on the use of solar and wind. They are more of a small scale energy. One wind turbine cost 1,000,000 dollars. A farm of 100 would cost 130,000,000 dollars. That lot of 100 would not even produce the amount of one nuclear reactor. Industrial solar panels cost 40-80 thousand dollars. Just imagine a farm of them. And again both these energies do not work 24/7 as nuclear plants do. 1b) You need to put things into perspective. What exactly is a serious nuclear accident? Do you mean an accident like Chernobyl or an accident like 3 Mile-Island. If Chernobyl, that accident happened in 1986. The U.S has much more advanced nuclear technology then that of Chernobyl of 1986. Also Chernobyl did not have a containment building, as all modern nuclear plants do. An accident like Chernobyl happening in the U.S today is next to impossible. If you meant a 3 Mile-Island accident, the worst accident in U.S history ,then you are looking at more of a 900 million dollar clean up. Not a 600 billion dollar clean up. Also that accident was in 1979. So, again our technology is much more advanced. The damage done to the surrounding areas of 3 Mile-Island are minimal. Residents that live next to the plant receive more radiation form the sun then the melted reactor. 3) Nuclear is a declared green energy by the government. Steam produced from nuclear plants create green landscapes as it is keeping plants well watered 24/7. The steam has almost no effect on the acceleration of global warming. Recycling of nuclear waste is not practiced by the U.S only. Every other nuclear country recycles nuclear waste and they prove that recycling waste is practical. Yes, mining of uranium is not very friendly to the environment but you must also ask where all the metal to make wind turbines come from. The answer is mines as well. 4) Previously answered Your case 1) What could the cost of letting a canister full of waste sit in a designated area be? The maintenance is not expensive. Also if Jimmy Carter did not make recycling of nuclear waste illegal the amount of waste would be significantly lower, which would ultimately lower the maintenance cost. 2) Nuclear plants last up to 50-65 years. And almost all plants are not dismantled. They are stripped of nuclear substances and are left to crumble. 3) Obviously you have not seen security at a nuclear plant. I can guarantee that there are no terrorists stealing nuclear waste from secured canisters or diving into the fuel pool to steal waste from fuel rods. Let me know when terrorists in the middle east can send a rocket 5000 miles across the earth and hit a containment building precisely. 4) One, those numbers are wrong. We are looking at a 240 year supply. Two, like a said recycling nuclear waste would increase those years significantly. I have one last thing to say. The U.S Navy has been using nuclear power for decades and have not encountered one problem.

Renewables can meet all future energy needs, nuclear unnecessary "The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "There are now dozens of studies, including many by government, engineering consultants, eminent academics and energy industry bodies all showing how this scale of electricity generation could be met through energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in Scandinavia.

By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels America relies largely on foreign countries for oil and other necessities. If we don't do something about the dwindling oil supplies soon we could come to a point where we don't have enough gasoline to power our cars. This is why the switch to alternative fuels is not only an option it is a necessity. As of right now it is estimated that we have enough oil to last us only until the year 2030. Thus I must agree with the resolution that by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. There are two main reasons we should convert to alternative fuels: Air Pollution and Oil Dependence. The need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one. Steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, and the switch to alternative fuels is clearly next in line in this succession. Please don't be deceived into believing that alternatively-powered cars have to be small, slow and as dull. There are quite a few vehicles that already are powered by alternative methods such as the Telsa Roadster which is powered electrically, the Honda FCX Clarity which is run on hydrogen, or the RUF Porsche 911 which is also run electrically. There are already many vehicles in production that are run by alternative fuels. These vehicles are helping our environment. Contention 1: Oil Dependence: The United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil. Our economic engine is now 70 percent dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. So basically if we anger the countries we depend on then the United States will be cut off from its oil supply. If that happens and we don't have alternative fuel run cars the results would be disastrous. Plus, The scientific concenses concludes that Peak oil will happen soon. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline according to dictionary. com. We all know that oil is not infinite, it will run out one day (most conclude it will peak on the year 2010) When this happens, our economy that is 70 percent dependent on oil, will be immediately shot resulting in an economic collapse. Katherine A. Siggerud says, "Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transportation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation's oil consumption". It is easy to see that our oil dependency threatens our economy greatly. Rising demand and shrinking domestic production of oil means that America is importing more and more oil each year—most from the worlds most unfriendly and unstable regions. We are spending more than $13 million per hour on foreign oil and more than $25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone. The answer is simple; end this oil dependency by switching to alternative fuels. When we can do that we can have a stronger, more independent economy. Right now our economy is tied up on something that will run out someday, and that day is too soon for comfort. According to Senator Richard Lugar, large industrializing nations such as China and India are seeking new energy supplies, so oil and natural gas will become more expensive. In the long run we will face the prospect that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large rapidly growing economies. As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict Contention 2: Air Pollution According to Naturalgas. org Global warming, or the 'greenhouse effect' is an environmental issue that deals with the potential for global climate change due to increased levels of atmospheric or 'greenhouse gases'. There are certain gases in our atmosphere that serve to regulate the amount of heat that is kept close to the Earth's surface. Scientists theorize that an increase in these greenhouse gases will translate into increased temperatures around the globe, which would result in many disastrous environmental effects. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts in its 'Third Assessment Report' released in February 2001 that over the next 100 years, global average temperatures will rise by between 2.4 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The principle greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and some engineered chemicals such as cholorofluorocarbons. While most of these gases occur in the atmosphere naturally, levels have been increasing due to the widespread burning of fossil fuels by growing human populations. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become a primary focus of environmental programs in countries around the world. Switching to alternative fuel powered vehicles will cut back on the emissions of greenhouse gases a great deal since the fuel they are powered by at this moment is one of the main contributors to the increase of greenhouse gases in the environment. Contention 3: Longer Vehicle Life According to ezalternativefuelvehicles. com The use of alternative fuels can extend the operation life of a vehicle. The process of corrosion and build-up will slow down if your car is running on cleaner fuel. Vehicles using alternative fuels will operate more efficiently and will have fewer maintenance problems and will ultimately save people money on maintenance costs. The Telsa Roadster, an alternatively powered vehicle, has a motor with just one moving part, the rotor, when in comparison the typical four-cylinder engine of a conventional car consists of over a hundred moving parts. When the engine consists of fewer parts the car becomes significantly lighter and its parts wear down much slower. Contention 4: Health Motor Vehicles in America have become such a huge issue due to the amount of pollution they emit. Areas where there are enormous amounts of people, such as Los Angeles and New York, are having major issues with health due to the pollution. The lung capacity of children growing up in Los Angeles is 10% to 15% less than that of the children growing up in cities with cleaner air. Alternative fuels can make gigantic and immediate improvements. The pollution caused by motor vehicles is also known to cause asthma. According to CNN. com 17 million people suffer from asthma right now and if we cut back on the pollution by switching to alternative fuels we could reduce the number of people with this horrid disease.

renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. Apart from large scale energy production, conventional sources are far less viable for small scale use than renewable energy. Burning oil or coal at a household level would not be efficient do to transporting resources to all the houses needed and the number of machines and size taken up by them. It would also be damaging to the health of the family inside of the house. Another factor is the complexity of the machines could result in dangerous accidents. This is especially true with nuclear power. The intrinsic danger is far too strong to be considered for personal use. The only small scale energy production is propane which is not suitable to power a house continuously [1]; however, all sources of renewable energy have small scale options. Renewable energy has the ability to provide clean energy on a small scale level and can provide energy to those living in underdeveloped areas of the world. small scale energy production can be used along side large scale renewable energy to provide energy any area on the planet.[2] The use of small scale energy production requires no resources apart from those that are required for the product itself. Geothermal heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro power provide a diverse range of options to suit any situation. [2][3] small scale renewable energy allows to fill any gapes in energy production that currently are not being met and are causing a large amount of underdeveloped regions.[4] Independent energy production is a key to creating a more equal and advanced civilization. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com... [2]http://energy.gov... [3]http://energy.gov... [4]http://www.worldbank.org...

Alternate energy Accept

government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels No. Yes, the market will take care of it. Currently, non-renewable sources, especially natural gas, is the cheapest form of energy according to the EPA (http://www.eia.gov...), and that won't change in the near future. Some renewable sources will catch up, but the majority will still be more expensive than non-renewable sources. Also if you take a look at the mill/kWh of different energy sources from 2002-2012 (http://www.eia.gov...), you can see that natural gas even declined in price over thise period, whereas all other mentioned resources, renewable and non-renewable, increased by up to 80%. Secondly, if the government should intervene, my question to you is how. Monetary, or by introducing new legislature? I'd like to remind you that if you want the government to assist renewable energy sources monetarily, the money has to come from somewhere; either from new taxes or cut away from other budget items (where I'd prefer the lesser option, gov is big enough already). Thirdly, you don't provide any sources for your claims. Therefore I have some questions regarding your very vague arguments: 1) "companies say they can make alternative biodiesel fuels for a dollar a gallon" -> where does this number come from? What does it include (only investment, or also operating / maintenance cost, or only variable costs)? 2) "alternative energy companies often must put operations on hold. why? because there's no demand" -> Well, according to the EPA the demand for renewable sources is rising and will continue to rise, whereas e.g. coal is projected to decline (http://www.eia.gov...). Again, I ask you to elaborate on your claim and show me your sources for that. Your argument that there's "no" demand is invalid. 3) "say a new biodiesel machine at a gas station costs fifty thousand" -> This is just the investment. You purely ignore the O&M costs. I could continue demading more sources, but altogether your arguments can't be judged as highly valueable if you only provide things you may know or may have heard/read somewhere without any source to prove your credibility. Fourth, let me remind you that Tesla's foudner, Elon Musk, recently released the patents of Tesla cars and thereby made the technology open source (http://www.teslamotors.com...). This can be an incentive for car companies to create their own electric cars, as they don't have to do the R&D anymore (which can reach hundreds of millions of dollars). In the following costs per car can decrease as the large manufacturers can produce the cars faster and have more experience in assembling them (whereas Tesla's USP was the technology and R&D). Thereby electric cars can get cheaper, meaning more people will buy them. Following that, the demand for electricity will rise whereas the demand for fossil fuels will fall. Whether the electricity comes from renewable or non-renewable sources is another question, but according to various sources (e.g. http://www.acore.org...), wind power will increase heavily, as well as solar power, geothermal, TPD and others. Last but not least: rather than allowing the government to intervene to increase renewable energy sources, the government should, and is already, stop to prefer non-renewable sources like oil. The DoD for example already plans to lower its reliance on oil and increase renewable energy consumption (http://energy.defense.gov...).

Should the world stop using Oil/gas Due to the fact that fossil fuels are easily combustible and have a high calorific value, it's one of the most efficient energy sources in the world. [1] It has the highest energy output levels bIt's also the cheapest form of energy in the world as shown in the graph below. [2] Engines can be run on rather small amounts of gas. For example, cars can be taken tens of miles on a couple gallons, because the engine is powered by exploding gas farts in the cylinders. That's kind of a funny way of saying it, but really, gas ignites and powers machines very easily.2) Fossil fuels are highly reliable. This is what I mean. Every time you light a bucket of gas on fire, that thing ignites on fire. If you ignite gas in a cylinder, that gas will explode. If you put up a windmill Colorado Springs, you might get 1 kilowatt of energy per year. Since I'm using windmills as an example, I should point out that it's actually one of the least reliable forms of alternative energy known to man. You have to have the right wind speeds to operate with an 11 mile per gap to work with for effective energy production. [3] As far as other forms of energy go, we know solar energy would only work in the UK for three days out of the year, and Arizona would get nothing out of hydro energy. While it's possible that some of these alternative energies might work sometimes in these areas, it's impossible to say that we would have energy year round. Fossil fuels are the most reliable form of energy.3) Nuclear energy has large disadvantages. Nuclear energy is great as an energy substitute as far as energy output and cost go. However, it has a huge drawback, which is nuclear waste. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to boil water. But these radioactive materials eventually decay past the point of use. When this happens, we have to find a place to put it. If you start to use nuclear energy for everyone in the world, we would have plenty of power, but storing that waste would be a nightmare. If just a little plutonium leaks out of a storage tank due to natural wear on the storage unit and that plutonium gets into water, that piece of plutonium could easily poison a city. Just specks of plutonium can kill anyone who inhales or ingests them. [4]So the alternative energy sources so far are either deadly or unreliable and inefficient. Sources:[1] . http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...[2] . http://www.theenergycollective.com...[3] . http://www.wind-power-program.com...[4] . http://www.world-nuclear.org...

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. The cost efficiency of nuclear energy and fossil fuels far outweigh that of renewable "clean" energy. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed(1). That is not including maitnence of the machines. Solar Energy is also very expensive at about $10,000 for one home to go solar and would take almost twenty years to pay itself off(2). Fossil fuels offer one of the least epensive methods of producing energy in the world. (1) http://www.windustry.org... (2) http://www.solarenergy.net...

the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels" Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline and JP4. Electric motors powered by a combination of stored energy, in batteries, and a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term this is readily appparent the sooner that we start down the correct path, the sooner we have what we ALL 100% want - an energy economy completely run on carbon-less currency electrons and water, hydrogen and oxygen anyone want to argue with this ? feel free this is THE preeminent debate we need to have nationally

Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Con's counter proposal is defective because it does not facilitate public policy debate. The reason why total costs should be disclosed is to get all the facts on the table to facilitate an honest debate. Had that been done, for example, with ethanol or wind power, we might have greatly improved the laws pouring large sums of the taxpayer's money into subsidies. On the other hand, we might have focused more effort into using solar power for demand peaking in the large cities of the American Southwest. Con's counter proposal is another mechanism for ensuring that none of the real issues are avoided. Con's case contains numerous irrelevancies. For example, whether or not global warming is, overall, favorable to human affairs is irrelevant because alternative energy source are sought to reduce foreign dependence on oil, and because it is inevitable that fossil fuels will run out. In addition, most utilities are tightly regulated by government, so there should be an ongoing discussion of the cost-effectiveness of alternatives. If there were no global warming and no foreign dependence on oil, we would still be concerned with obtaining energy at the lowest cost and with minimizing pollution. The resolution is affirmed.

renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. Environmental effects of non-renewable sources I do not contend against the fact that coal and oil have contributed to global warming and cause pollution, as it is true. However, I do contend that nuclear energy is not as harmful as Pro has claimed, and that so-called "renewable" energy can be environmentally unfriendly as well. Various companies in the solar panel industry have created tens of millions of pounds of hazardous waste from creating solar panels [1]. Geothermal energy produces CO2 emissions as well [1]. All renewable sources have effects on nearby wildlife, such as wind turbines killing birds and dams destroying wildlife reserves [1]. I do not claim these environmental effects are worse than those of oil and coal, however, it should be considered that renewable sources are not perfect either. It is true that people in nuclear plants are exposed to radiation. What is failed to be taken in account, however, is the fact that a minimum of 100.00 mSv of radiation is required for there to be an observable increase in cancer. Even then, an exposure to 1000.00 mSv of radiation was necessary before it was observed that 5% of people contracted cancer in later years [2]. Even the radiation around Fukushima was only around 400.00 mSv- a normal nuclear plant will not be harmful. It is true that accidents can happen, but in general all are the result of poor design and maintenance, which can be easily mitigated by proper caution. In the past sixty years, there's only been around thirty accidents, and most of them were low on the lower half of the nuclear accident scale [3]. The waste from nuclear plants is an issue, but can be mitigated by a shift to thorium plants, that produce less hazardous waste, and its hazardous waste cannot be use to forge weapons [4]. Viability of renewable sources All renewable sources are very location specific, in particular geothermal and hyrdro- a relatively small number of sites around the world have the potential to provide energy of that form. Nowhere in the study Pro cites about geothermal energy is it claimed that geothermal energy could power the world- only that it could provide some amount of energy. In fact, for example, looking at a geothermal resource map of the US, it can be seen that only the West Coast in general can easily host geothermal plants [5]. Solar power is also harmful to existing electrical grids, overloading them due to overproduction during daytime [6]. And during nighttime, when electricity is most needed, solar power is unavailable, due to the fact that it has not been possible to create an economically-viable, efficient battery to store solar energy- salt-based storage only has less than 20% efficiency [7], The same problem lies with wind power, which is just as difficult to store on a large scale. There are certainly other batteries available, but they are terrible expensive (around $1000/kWh, when the average fridge uses 5 kWh a day for comparison) [8]. Even if a economically-viable, efficient storage system was created, however, its very existence would mean that "renewable" energy would be reliant on environmentally-unfriendly non-renewable substances. The biggest problem with solar and wind is storing it. On an economic level, renewable sources of energy are generally non-viable compared to non-renewable sources, as non-renewable sources often provide much more energy for a lower cost [9]. Thus in all, at the moment, renewable sources are unfortunately non-viable as a replacement for non-renewable sources. Thanks for having me. Back to you now. [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5]http://www.nrel.gov... [6] http://www.theaustralian.com.au... [7] http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org... [8] http://www.businessinsider.com... [9] http://www.forbes.com...

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.

There is no such thing as totally RENEWABLE energy. Extend all my arguments.

Solar electricity cannot significantly reduce dependencies on oil. Solar electricity will not replace oil because it is electricity. Oil is not generally used to produce electricity and solar electricity would generally not replace the main kinds of modern uses of oil (ie. vehicles and transportation).

CCS is less cost-effective than renewable energy "No, we don't need CCS." RSC: "To better understand the relative importance of the cost of CCS and its effectiveness in avoiding CO2 emissions, we performed a comparison of carbon avoidance via CCS and using alternative energy technologies. ... Considering ratios All three alternative energy technologies considered were found to be much more cost-efficient than CCS at avoiding CO2. The carbon avoidance ratio (ie the CO2 amount avoided by a $5.1 trillion investment in alternative energy over 100 GtCO2) was determined for each technology using CCS as a base case. Wind, nuclear and geothermal power had CO2 avoidance ratios of 1.9, 4.3, and 4.5, respectively. In order for CCS to be competitive with wind and nuclear, the cost of CCS must be improved to $26/tCO2 and $12/tCO2, respectively. In addition to better CO2 avoidance on a per-dollar basis, alternative energy technologies also resulted in revenue, while CCS has no significant revenue. Wind, nuclear, and geothermal power were estimated to result in revenues of $9 trillion, $22 trillion, and $31 trillion, respectively, for a $5.1 trillion investment over 50 years. Our results show that, with current technology, CCS is less effective than alternative energy in avoiding CO2 emissions. We can most effectively address this issue by pursuing virtual CCS, including investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and biofuels until research in CCS (which also faces significant thermodynamic issues4) makes it competitive with alternative energy."

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. There is far more available nuclear energy than there is renewable energy. Nuclear energy is way more efficient for less amount of land, therefore there is more nuclear energy than renewable energy in efficiency(1). Nuclear energy is produced from the reactions of elements that are readily available at the time being and are able to support hundreds more nuclear power plants(1). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant I'd like to express my gratitude to Pro for presenting a strong case. I'd like to thank him for that preposition. Before we start I'd like to clarify the missing picture in R2. The picture is supposed to show right before "renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average", the source is http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com... Here is the picture(Should the picture fails to appear, please refer to the source given above, It is a supplement to my given contention in R2) I'm really sorry if it troubles my opponent, I have very minimal experience with this website's interface. Please forgive me.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Before I add any new arguments, I'd like to make rebuttals first.Firstly, Pro asks and I quote "Please provide what type of health problems effect due to wind turbine". My source have already provided the list. You said so yourself with Dr Nina Pierpont's research hence supplementing my argument that Green Industries cause numerous pollution.Pro's Pollution ArgumentPro mentions that with thermal power plants, the following will occur:a) Acts as a huge contribution to global warming b) The area required to build one is hugec) Overall Costs are expensive than Solar and WindAnd if we are to embrace "green energy", these problems would fade away which he demonstrates in R3.The issue with global warming is a common one, It does EXISTS but the trend is over exaggerated. Humanity's role in producing global warming is hugely questioned, I have no credentials to judge but a fellow expert, Carter(1) argues that global warming is neither environmental or scientific, but a "self-created political fiasco" as he put it(2). Temperatures from 1998-2005 showed not an increase, nor a status quo but a slight DECREASE according to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia(2). Thermal power plants hardly affects the pace of global warming given that these years were the golden years of us taking fossil fuels for granted.Since pollution hardly affects global warming, there is no point in pursuing expensive conventional green energy as temperatures would still remain around the optimum line. The resolution is disapproved.Comparison of Costs and SizeThe biggest wind power plant around the world(as of 2013) is the Alta Wind Energy Center, occupying 9000 acres(3). The energy produced from this enormous giant is a mere 800 MW(3). Compare that with a simple Kashima Oil Power station, the plant produces a staggering 5,204 MW(4). It yields 5-6 times better energy than green resources. Since the fear of frying warming the earth is inconsistent, there is no point in chasing an ideological crusade that yields little results.Pro says this reduces overall expenses but without a source, it is unverifiable. Even if its true, thermal power plants significantly produce more energy than wind or solar hence the point of replacing is irrelevant.Pro's Energy Efficiency analysisPro's R3 argument made a lot of factual analysis on solar and wind power plant, how much conversion efficiency they have, Furthermore he concludes:"but with both wind and solar plants which will be almost equivalent to thermal plant."Well, Let's add solar power plant to the equation. I have already proven how an oil thermal station yields 5-6 times more energy than the largest wind power plant. Now, Let's take any existing photovoltaic power station(5) and combine them with Alta's energy yield. I'll take the largest MW yield, Perovo in Ukraine, since it claims to have 100 MW(5).Total energy yield between Alta and Perovo= 900 MWTotal energy yield of a normal Kashima Power station= 5,204 MWComparing both, there is still a huge gap with little to no difference, thermal power plants are still 5-6 times larger. Kashima isn't even the largest thermal plant and it still manage outwit both wind and solar on a huge scale.Hence, there is literally no incentive to pursue wind or solar as thermal power plants yields a chuck load of energy more than green resources.Most of my sources above are from wikipedia, it is acceptable to use them as this debate deals with general concepts, not one which deals with specifics. I'll reassert my alternate preposition,Why would you replace thermal power plants for something that yields significantly less? With global warming dismissed as a "self-created political fiasco" by Carter, Then Why do you still intend to pursue green energy considering that temperatures had little change over past decades? Continuing with additional arguments,Economic AdvantagesIt is sufficient to say, given my above contention that wind and solar are also 5-6 times more expensive than non renewable resources. Poor countries could not afford such luxury to buy equipments just for the sake of being green while their national dept quadruples. The brandt report(6) accurately illustrates this divide between the north and south. In other words, It is the difference between the first world and the third world. A summary map of their research is given here(7)In general(based on their research),the north contains 4/5 of the world's wealth while the south collects the remaining 1/5. This is a huge gap, more so that the south contains 3/4 of the world's population while the north takes up only 1/4(6). For the south to adopt green industries would be disastrous for their economy. The bargain is not worth it. It yields significantly less energy and with global warming dismissed by its lack of consistency, it is not realistic for solar and wind to replace thermal. Thus, the motion that wind and solar should replace thermal is nullified.I have proven my case that economically, it is better to stick with Co-generation whilst having a triangulation of both sources, instead of one replacing the other which the resolution is desperately vying to prove.Thank you Pro for your case and I rest mine.:DSources(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...(2)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...(4)http://en.wikipedia.org...(5)http://www.solarplaza.com...(6)http://churchillhigh.wikia.com...(7)http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net...