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 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.

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.

Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels

Extend round 1.

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.

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.

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

Solar energy

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.

Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions

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.

Wind energy is a renewable resource than can replace coal.

Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels

Nuclear energy

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.

Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels)

Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions

Wind energy

Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases

Natural gas

Wind energy is the best available energy because it will never run out. All other energy's will either run out or are way to expensive to start up and keep running. Some other energy's are bad for the environment and will make the world a worse place than it is and will be with using fossil fuels. Also, some people are too busy with work and handling kids that they don't have time to try to make a difference in the world and change what energy sources we are using most frequently.

Wind energy is the best available energy for now and in the future.

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

Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power

"Natural Gas -- A Fossil Fuel". Energy Information Administration. - "Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It has fewer emissions of sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen than coal or oil, and when it is burned, it leaves almost no ash particles. Being a clean fuel is one reason that the use of natural gas, especially for electricity generation, has grown so much and is expected to grow even more in the future."

Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases

Sorry for the delay. I often do that.Argument:We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy. Hydroelectric Energy:By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants. http://nationalgeographic.org...Geothermal Energy:Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.

Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

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.

Offshore oil addresses energy shortages better than most renewables

"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."

Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels

Your point is a valid one my friend. Unfortunately your idealism gets in the way of practicality. America, as it is, is currently going through an energy crisis. Our dependence on foreign oil has negatively affected both our foreign policy and our economy. We must break free of the vice that the middle east has put us in! To do so, we must find our energy hear, in America. There are several plausible and practical solutions. They range from drilling in ANWR to providing more subsidies for alternative fuels. Within that spectrum there are many other options. Coal is a good one. Clean coal technology is making coal much more environmentally friendly. Yes, I know it is a fossil fuel, but until alternative energy becomes more effective, it is a legitimate way to break free of oil in the short term. And the most effective way to get coal is mountain top removal. If we limit the number of mountains it can be done on, this will not ruin the beauty of the region. I agree, it is a sacrifice, but things like this occasionally have to be done if only to provide people with energy.

moutain top removal

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.

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil 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

the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels"

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.

Nuclear Energy

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.

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.

Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...

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.

Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition.

Natural gas is seen by many of its supporters as a cleaner alternative to gasoline and coal, but in the context of it acting as a segue fuel onto even cleaner alternatives. The supporters of the Broadwater LNG terminal in Long Island Sound make this case: "Natural gas play a vital role in providing a bridge from traditional fossil fuels to a renewable energy future".

Natural gas can smooth transition to renewable energy

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.

renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide.

As you said, yes propane is cheaper. However, it still gives off toxic fumes. Eventually, we will run out of propane gas, and then what? Go back to fossil fuels? Not exactly an option. If we change energy scourges, it will need to be a renewable resource such as wind, solar, or even hydroelectricity. May the best man win!

Pros and Cons of using Propane as a alternative fuel

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.

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Natural gas will simply relieve demand pressures on coal and petroleum and, subsequently, decrease prices. This will only make it easier for people to buy and consume oil and coal. Natural gas will not, therefore, replace coal and petroleum. It will only add to the absolute amount of fossil fuels we are burning, and greenhouse gases we are emitting.

Natural gas will lower fossil fuel prices and increase consumption.

"Clean coal" involves burning coal, but sequestering all or most of the subsequently emitted carbon. This makes nuclear energy, as a clean alternative to coal, unnecessary.

"Clean coal" makes nuclear energy an unnecessary "replacement".

Okay, now i belive you took this out of actual reality. I understand your point and i do agree with you that totally converting to alternative fuels by 2010 is impossible. What i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST. I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture. No thats a joke. Well these fuels such as wind, solar, and ethynol can be used very soon. You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it. If our big car companies would make more cars that could tolerate these fuels i would not have made this argument. But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money. Now is money more important than the environment. I think not. Just watch the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" and you will understand my point. Alternative Energy will help Americas future, and if this is what we need then why NOT DO IT?

Alternative Energy used by 2010

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.

Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources

Natural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.

Wind power could free up natural gas to replace oil in cars.

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.

Tidal energy could replace unsafe/polluting nuclear energy.

I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.

An alternative to Gasoline

Very few people argue that corn ethanol is THE replacement for oil and the solution to global warming. Rather, they argue that it is merely a part of the equation, or that it is an element of a diversified portfolio in both reducing foreign dependencies on oil and solving the problem of global warming. To argue that corn ethanol can't fully replace oil is to miss this point.

Corn ethanol is merely a part of the equation in replacing oil.

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 :)

Alternate energy

University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel, who is studying global warming: "The sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution." In general, only misperceptions can lead to conclusions that sunshades are "replacing" approaches to cutting emissions.

Solar shading need not "replace" clean energy

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."

Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal

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...

Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels

Oil development is unjustified because it further exacerbates the problems of consumption. The more we rely upon fossil fuels, the longer we delay the inevitable: the vital shift to renewable energy. Other action should be taken to limit fuel consumption, such as an increased use of hybrid cars, stricter emissions standards and government support for promising new technologies.

Consumption is inevitable. Proponents of renewable energy have not made clear how opening ANWR woul...

Alternative energy research is the future of America. Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers. This debate should not be restricted to alternative fuels, but also include alternative energies to power the country.

The United States should fund alternative energy research

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.

Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...

After the World War Second many developed countries have used fossile fuels to maintain stable economic activities. We have been dependent too much on those natural resources to make our life comfortable and convinient. Here, we have to recognize that ``fossile fuels (oil, coal and natural gas ) currently provide about 85percent of all the energy use both in U.S. and worldwide. These resources are being constantly depleted.``(www. renewable- energysources.com) Without oil, we can not drive and produce electricity. Using fossile energies has contributed to building mass-produced and mass-consumption Affluent Society since the end of the War for many countries of the world. These days newly emerging countries like China and India are catching up with the U.S. and Japan in the GDP(gross domestic product) based on the economic model of highly developed countries. Both countries are using fossile energies too much. On the other hand economy and industry which are dependent on fossile energies have produced global warming. And as I mentioned earlier, natural resources are decreasing every year. Shortage of those resources and global warming are threatening human survival and are contributing to making an impasse for attaining stable economic development. To coping with these serious problems facing us today many governments, local cities and communities are tackling with developing of new alternative energy sources. However, unfortunately there are number of hurdles to promote the project. What kinds of difficult factors lie ahead for developing of new energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear power? In round 3, I discuss them from the viewpoint of international political relations and social perspective.

Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.

Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies

"Clean coal" makes nuclear energy an unnecessary "replacement".

Nuclear energy

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.

Solar energy cannot produce enough energy to replace coal.

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.

We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

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...

Wind power could free up natural gas to replace oil in cars.

Wind energy

Oil subsidies essential until clean tech becomes viable alternative.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies

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.

Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared. This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation Please vote in affirmation.

government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

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...

Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas

Nuclear energy

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...

Should the world stop using Oil/gas

Natural gas is a good first step in cutting emissions, and can act as a bridge to cleaner alternatives. The supporters of the Broadwater LNG terminal in Long Island Sound make this case: "Natural gas play a vital role in providing a bridge from traditional fossil fuels to a renewable energy future".

Natural gas can help smooth the transition to renewable energy.

Solar energy cannot produce enough energy to replace coal.

Solar energy

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).

Solar electricity cannot significantly reduce dependencies on oil.

Wind energy is a renewable resource than can replace coal.

Pickens US energy plan

Natural gas is considered to be the rising energy star of the 21st century. Oil sands will have a hard time competing with this. Natural gas is cheaper, more abundant, and is much cleaner. That it is cleaner will become particularly important as countries place a price on carbon.

Oil sands can't compete w/ cleaner, abundant, cheaper natural gas

We live in a world in which the past is now blending with the present and possibly influencing the future. A world in which our most valuable resources are not being used and where our oil is thought to be depleted by year 2050. I am in strong affirmation that the United States must start using alternative energy such as wind, solar, ethynol, and electric type vehicles. We have to see that our Ozone layer is depeleting and our world as we know it will not be there for our children and our grandchildren if we do not start focusing on this topic. Corn is thought to produce a fuel that is cheaper and easier to make called E-85 and is already sold around the United States but we need to use it quick and stop using oil as our primary resource. The Nations with the most oil are our enimies at this moment and we must starting fighting this problem. Lewis Black once said "We live in a world without a Ozone layer, and we have men, we have rockets, and we have siran wrap...FIX IT!!"

Alternative Energy used by 2010

The is no need for me to discuss points that are irrelevant to the topic. Con rambles about social stability, nuclear war, dynastic stability, and numerous other obvious irrelevancies. Since there are no claims relevant to the resolution, there is nothing to refute. Con concedes that his alternative does not facilitate public policy debate and avoids real issues. He says, "I answer with a simple, so what?" Since Con is participating in a public policy debate, he implicitly recognizes the value of such debates. therefore his argument is sophistry. I cite Con for bad conduct in accepting the debate challenge then wasting my time and the reader's time with irrelevant childish arguments. Moreover, Con killed the topic, which might have otherwise been accepted by someone who could explain why the practice of ignoring the total costs of alternative energy is so widely ignored. Even if one does not believe CO2 is responsible for climate change, we should be concerned with energy independence and with the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the resolution should be affirmed to help develop practical alternatives.

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]

Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions

various companies have shown that they could make alternative fuels cheaper than gasoline if there's wasn't such an uphill battle, or that catch 22, no demand cause no infrastructure and no infrastrcutre cause no demand.

government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

Euan C. Blauvelt, research director of ABS Energy Research, an independent market research firm in London. - "The environmental benefits of wind are not as great as its champions claim. You’ve still got to have backup sources of power, like coal-fired plants."[2]

Inconsistent wind energy has to be backed-up by 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...

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.

There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market

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.

Nuclear power will help lower oil dependencies and risks.

This is the round for opening statements. Sorry didn't realize I only made 3 rounds. We will combine the question asking in the comments and the answers and closing statements can be in round 3. Sorry for that. Intro: We all know about water wheels, solar panels, wind farms, etc . . Let's talk about fossil fuels and alternate energy. 1: Why fossil fuel is bad for the atmosphere. Tons of CO2 is burned every year. CO2now.org says, "he 2014 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 398.55 parts per million (ppm). The 2013 average is 396.48 ppm. For the past decade (2005-2014) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year." 2: What are our alternatives. These alternative energies do us no harm. In fact outside Evanston, Wy we have tons of wind farms and it generates over 1/4 of our energy. 3: How these will help us. BBC news says, "Ozone layer 'shows signs of recovery', say scientists. The Earth's protective ozone layer is starting to repair itself, according to a panel of United Nations scientists. The main reason behind its recovery, they say, is the fact that certain chemicals, such as those used in aerosol cans, were phased out in the 1980s.Sep 10, 2014" This will help us by slowing emissions into the air and letting the ozone layer heal itself. Conclusion: Please vote for me.

Alternate energy

"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 plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas

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.

Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted.

In response to your challenge, I find that maybe using alcohol might be better due to the fact that we need a cleaner way to fuel our cars. As you are probably aware we already have hybrid cars which run on battery or gas in the vehicle. Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe.

What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

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.

Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power

The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite resource and will run out shortly. Current (2005) high oil prices reflect both rapidly rising demand for energy across the globe, and the limited supply of fossil fuels to meet this need. Although estimates are very variable as to exactly how long fossil fuels will last it is possible that oil will be exhausted within 50 years and coal within 25 years. It is therefore a necessity to find a new source of energy; we must therefore start to convert to nuclear energy now (so there is not a major crisis when fossil fuels do run out) and invest in nuclear energy for the future.

The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite ...

Both Fossil Fuels and Renewable Resources have their pros and cons. But for this debate, I'll argue that renewable resources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc) have more advantages than Fossil Fuels.

Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels

Natural gas will simply relieve demand pressures on coal and petroleum and, subsequently, decrease prices. This will only make it easier for people to buy and consume oil and coal. Natural gas will not, therefore, replace coal and petroleum. It will only add to the absolute amount of fossil fuels we are burning, and greenhouse gases we are emitting.

Natural gas will decrease price of oil and coal and increase consumption.

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.

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ...

Alternative clean fuels generated from solar power reduces dependence on oil

Solar energy

I agree that electric engines cannot be used in military use but the electric engines are commonly used in private cars on the street. And although electric engines are more expensive than gas engines, the recharge fee is much cheaper. A research in 2013 said that transportation contributed more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted into our air. This air pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment. Through clean vehicle and fuel technologies, we can significantly reduce air pollution from our cars and trucks by using electric engines, while cutting projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years. This is the end of my debate. Hope you like this debate as I am.

Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles

Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that " fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.Example One: Geothermal Power PlantsGeothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary. Advantages ï¿½It is almost infinite and does not emit CO2. ï¿½There are no by-products, and almost no waste. ï¿½It can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal. ï¿½Power stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals. To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Pro/Con with the use of turbines

So here are your arguments "Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers." 1. oil dependence 2. economy 3. pollution 4. save money To debate this, I will debate the method of finding alternative energy. METHOD You say we should use government subsidies and funding. I am assuming this goes into businesses. How bout we go through government agencies to try and find alternative energy. Like NASA must research solar power. The branch of our military that works on building nuclear weapons must research nuclear power. This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal. This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic.

The United States should fund alternative energy research

P1 "In the United States, coal is used to generate more than half of all the electricity produced." Since renewable energy is insufficient, we need fossil fuels to meet energy needs of our society. http://www.api.org... P2. It is true that fossil fuels are not infinite. But, nuclear plant is not a good solution. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste" which causes tremendous harm to any living organism. http://science.howstuffworks.com... P3. The alternative is cost. According to the New York Times, Ivanpah solar plant, which located in California, will presumably costs 2 billion our tax money, and a large area of land. With that much amount of cost, it will only produces 3600 acres that is far from the state"s demand of 52,000 megawatts. http://www.nytimes.com... C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies

All major technological revolutions (electrification, mass production, computerization etc.) have been accomplished by private companies without government subsidies. On the other hand, government attempts to run the economy almost invariably result in costly failures. There is no reason to believe that "this time it will be different".

government should intervene more with alternative fuel

Biofuel technology may improve, but this is not guaranteed and it may require more use of genetic engineering than the public is willing to tolerate. Even if the industry does live up to its boosters’ optimistic promises, biofuels are still not the right focus of our energy policy. They may be a little better than fossil fuels, but they will never realistically replace them entirely, and their promotion takes attention away from more worthwhile approaches. Not only do biofuels let the auto industry continue with business much as usual, they also provide a cover for the fossil-fuel industry by prolonging the life of the oil economy. A much better approach would be to concentrate on reducing our use of energy more radically. This could be achieved through conservation measures, improved fuel efficiency standards, new types of engine, replacing much private vehicle use with public transport provision, better town planning, etc.

Biofuels already have a great deal to offer today, but prospects for the future are even more exciti...

Fossil fuels are not inherently required in mining Uranium and building nuclear plants. It just so happens that all modern machinery and vehicles involved in this process are powered by fossil fuels. Yet, these fossil-fuel-based machinery can be replaced by electric vehicles and machinery, possibly supplied by nuclear power plants themselves. In sum, nuclear energy is inherently clean. It is only the processes surrounding it that are dirty. This can and will change.

Nuclear energy has a carbon footprint, but it is negligible.

1. Helps fight global Warming. Environmental Defense 2003. Our light trucks and cars contribute more to global warming than 190 other countries. 2. Nano-solar technology is a viable option, it runs at 80 % efficiency only way to be better is having your car be a nuclear power plant. 3. helps solve oil dependency - oil dependence as bad as WMDs ( Senator Dick Lugar) - Oil dependency = 1/3 of the US's account deficit harming the US economy - Oil dependency funds terrorists, 1 million of Velenzuela oil profits to Al quada from USA money - 15/19 9/ 11 hijackers received funds from our oil profits 4. mandate needed - Romm a senior fellow at American progress; no country has ever introduced a mass market of Alternative Fuel vehicles without a mandate/ - Tampa Tribune 2008, Free Market wont solve . The fickle nature of the market along with market fluctations hurts private invesments. We need alternative fuels to help combat global warming and oil dependency a mandate ensures completion.

2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels

The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity.

Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies

If government wants to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, it can do it very effectively by raising taxes on their consumption. Letting government directly subsidize business companies will only create new opportunities for corruption and waste of taxpayers money. See Solyndra as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org...

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.

An alternative to Gasoline

Humanity as a species is working itself into complete destruction by the use of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuel ends up polluting the Earth and contributes to negative global phenomenon such as global warming. Scientific research has shown that average yearly temperature increases in relation to the amount of carbon in our atmosphere (1). We need to move into using renewable energy sources that are efficient and effective so that we don't deplete the Earth of non-renewable resources and lose the ability to use machines due to the lack of those non-renewable resources. If we do not switch to renewable resources we will end up possibly ending our own existence. 1. https://climate.nasa.gov...

The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels

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.

fossil fuel

So last argument, fossil fuels do have there negative effects, i.e. carbon emissions and oil spills, but so do nuclear power plants. A. Nuclear waste takes over 20,000 years to decompose, and it can't be avoided since it is the natural byproduct. B. Oil spills can be avoided and since we aren't attempting to greatly raise our level of fossil fuels, as well as not having a hard time producing our current requirements, the needs versus safety factor is not a factor. C. Carbon emissions are a gradual effect that is focused mostly in highly populated areas, but have less affects on areas where little to no oil/gasoline/natural gas is used. D. Where use is high, native animals aren't greatly affected, where as nuclear waste areas can't be inhabited within some area and it destroys most wild life in the immediate area. E. Fossil fuels are easier to acquire whereas nuclear elements such as Plutonium and Uranium need high levels of care and can't be relied on to drastically increase output without a sharp rise in death in those mining areas.

Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels

Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel resources at an alarming rate, and often damaging the environment in order to extract them. If we go on relying on fossil fuels they will one day run out, and not only will our descendants no longer have viable energy reserves, but they will also have to cope with the ecological damage coal, oil and gas extraction have inflicted on the earth. Making fuel from crops provides a perfect, sustainable solution.

Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel reso...

In response to that although I don't have a background in science, I still think that a hybrid car would be more efficient.Next Please. Water does not burn it is the additives in the hydrogen that burn which would cost much more than the regulation of the gas that is already being produced. Gas additives do not work due to the fact that hydrogen is part water and carbon dioxide. it is the carbons that would be emited into the air not water. Hydrogen would be more expensive to produce than water or gasoline produced today. This would not be cost efficient. To regulate gas would mean bringing down the prices we are paying at the pumps today. The solution to gas burning cars is to look for cost efficient ways to cut down on fuel costs. Next Please. Car Dealers have a device that can be put into the carbourator that can give the driver 50 to 100 mpg. The government does not want the general public to know about this, they would rather look for alternative fuels which would cost the public more money for the research and development of this.

What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

While it is true that nuclear energy does compete with renewables, it should be noted that fossil fuels are equally competitors. In so far as fossil fuels contribute to global warming and nuclear energy does not, therefore, fossil fuels are the real enemy of renewables.

Fossil fuels, not nuclear, are the real enemies of renewables.