Question: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: 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.

Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: 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.

Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: Extend round 1.

Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: 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.

Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: 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.

Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: 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.

Title: the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels" Content: Don't you have a rule that when people insult you they instantly lose? I expect your resignation next round. (not really) A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy. Preferably electric energy derived from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal energy sources. However, even if derived from just coal it actually ends up putting less pollution into the atmosphere (still). * You misapprehend the battery comment. We make hydrogen by splitting water. By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel. That makes it an energy storage substance. Other than from other energy sources (electric, natural gas) where do we get hydrogen? * Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. * "Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. The recharge time has been improved on a Toshiba batter. 90% in five minutes. http://www.dailytech.com... Cheap Li-ion batteries: http://www.popularmechanics.com... Nanotech advancement 10x battery life: http://www.news.com... And potentials to advance completely away from batteries to capacitors. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org... We are dealing with storing energy in either chemical form or in the electric field of a capacitor. That's pretty limitless and allows for massive amounts of innovation. * Being messy and tiny and leaky is far is not discredited by your comment of it being the "cleanest". Frankly, it's not. To get the hydrogen you're using actual energy. Just because it's a fairly green battery doesn't mean it's green energy. If you filled a building filled with hydrogen rupture it it might well just leave a giant hole in the ground if anything sparks. * We used the water to make hydrogen. The fact that hydrogen burns into water again is just confirming what I said in my intro... glorified battery. * I ignored the embrittle problem and certain other problems as they are simply small technological hurdles. I think however, the fact that it leaks all the time (think a 2-day old helium balloon) is problematic. * You cannot hijack the natural gas infrastructure. First, it will leak! Secondly, we use that for natural gas! My stove isn't set to run on a hydrogen and natural gas mix. My water heater, dryer, my heater they aren't either. Am I to forgo my use of natural gas in order to have leaky hydrogen to power a car which cannot pressurize the gas itself? We only have so much natural gas, and that's only while we're using it at the rates we're using it. Power cars with the stuff would drop our amount of natural gas and drive up the price. And we'd end up with electrolysis (which scales). * If you wanted to convert cars over to run on natural gas, that is something to be independently discussed. As is, you're arguing that one gas is pretty much another. And though we currently use natural gas in things made for natural gas. * Building the infrastructure is an acceptable ideas. Though, here we are faced with a catch-22. Do we build the infrastructure first or the cars first? How much infrastructure do we produce before the cars and who foots the bill if it doesn't work? Though, I assume that will be overcome. * Not a hazmat team to deal with a crash, but rather a well trained group of firefighters who know where they should not use the jaws of life to cut you out of that? How to detect a hydrogen leak, and what the risks are involved when different parts rupture or the car catches on fire. * I've seen them at car-shows but other than that I've seen them nowhere. * I do not typify the "non-scientific liberal reaction to hydrogen" -- the fact of the matter is that hydrogen has a large amount of following within the liberal community. My objection however is simply a scientific understanding that hydrogen is just a glorified battery and not a very good one at that. * Converting the power grid to carbon neutral profile is certainly a requirement to moving forward with energy today. Global warming is not our friend. We need to switch to carbon neutral sources of power (hydrogen is not a source) sooner rather than later. * I am strongly pro-nuclear. I am pro-science and the science behind nuclear is sound. * I never advocated ethanol, at least not corn ethanol. Sugar ethanol works well as it's a biproduct and works out quite effectively and doesn't replace food. * I said 2nd law because that's what prevented it. 0,1,3 weren't mentioned as they weren't needed. -- My solution (which isn't needed for the topic) is plug in hybrid cars, which transition to electric as the technology does. * The EV1 wasn't a failure, GM just recalled all the cars and forcibly scrapped the project (they didn't want politicians forcing them to make electric cars), see "Who Killed the Electric Car". Further, there are cars being put out all the time. Tesla Roadster - http://www.topspeed.com... There is massive potential for increases in technology here, whereas you're scrambling with "just build the infrastructure" or "we'll use this fossil fuel instead. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road today. * For quick charge comment see Toshiba. Further, supercapacitors would have the ability to charge in a few seconds (you don't want to do that/might as well be lightning). * Hydrogen has less energy density than gasoline. Pure liquid hydrogen has less hydrogen than gasoline (the molecules pack the energy better than simple pressurization). * There's no room for advancement when you're dealing with chemicals. But, take a look at cell-phones. The charge time, the battery technology, the rather continual and gradual improvement. That's what we need in a car technology. Hydrogen has nothing behind it, and it can't scale. --- Your calculations about the "price per gallon" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon.

Title: fossil fuel Content: 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.

Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: 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.

Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: 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.

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

Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: 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...

Title: the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels" Content: Once again, it is silly to argue with a fool with no scientific background at all, it is like arguing with a college freshman (or high schooler) lets first go over all your ERRORS first, and then I will adress your correct arguments ERROR 1 "A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy." CORRECTION how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft? electric alone wont even work for Priuses (more on than later) ERROR 2 By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel CORRECTION WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period. it is mostly made from methane right now, which is NOT renewable. It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O) ERROR 3 Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. CORRECTION Climate change is a total BS tax scheme. But I am not here to argue that the main reason we need renewables is NATIONAL SECURITY and ECONOMICS. period ERROR 4 * "Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). CORRECTION Methane steam reforamtion stoichiometry 101 (a couple catalzed steps actually) CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) ) Nice try, Chemistry genius (note that this is typical of liberals- they LIE and use words like "by the Chemistry" when they have NO CLUE what an atom or molecule is at all) ERROR 5 * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! CORRECTION (so now I see we have switched to Physics to act like were a smart liberal) No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT. a BATTERY is a SOLID ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, with an ELECTROLYTE. Your nonsensical arguments about the source of hydrogen are irrelevant ERROR 6 * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. CORRECTION What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine. There IS of course HOPE for improvement in batteries- but you know NOT of the current state of the technology or the physical and chemical limiations The main issues with batteries are (1) Weight (2) Cost (3) Longevity (4) Recharge Time (5) Materials limitations (6) Environmental factors (temperature coeffient of voltage) ALL of the examples YOU note do not fulfill criteria 1,2,and 6 for TRANSPORT You have NO CONCEPT OF HOW MUCH POWER A CAR NEEDS Now I am going to skip to your last statement for ERROR 7 ERROR 7 Your calculations about the "price per gallon" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon. CORRECTION This completely nonsensical statement belies your complete and utter ignorance here are some FACTS (1) For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power http://www.toyota.com... (2) for a real SUV (toyota highlander) , it is about 270 HP in power http://www.carseek.com... For you, genius, 270 Hp at 1 HP = 0.766 kW = 206 kW So to be an ALL electric car, in one hour, you will need 57 kWh for the prius or 206 kWh for the Highlander Thus the hybrid is mostly using GASOLINE for now, NOT electricity ALL of your arguments for new batteries are NOT for cars, they are for computers and small EXPENSIVE things the HYBRID is the answer the fuel for the motor needs to transition to HYDROGEN, which is the ONLY fuel that can power everything and be scalable to any size. HYDROGEN can power AIRPLANES, the SPACE SHUTTLE and ANY TRANSPORT VEHICLE this is a FACT HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER Sooner of later, after enough peasants starve to death, maybe congress will get it and give up the Ethanol and Biofuel DISASTER At least you support NUCLEAR ENERGY - you are not totally hopeless SOLARMAN

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

Title: Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save Content: Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, "Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save": "Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them." Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules. "The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves." As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support. "Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence." It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.

Title: Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal Content: 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."

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

Title: What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen. Content: Hi James I dont know how much background you have in the subject, but your points are quite wrong. #1 Alcohol, or EtOH as I call it , is ethanol, the widely touted "new" alternative fuel It takes 3 times as much energy in fossil fuels to make and transport a gallon on EtOH to the pump as gasoline it is an inferior fuel, having less BTU/ gal it also emits aldehhydes, like formaledyhde finally, it is dependent on photosynthesis to start, which is 1% effieient Bottom line : EtOH is a total loser and is only being pushed by misguided politicians with no clue by the farming lobby hers is just one of many technical links to educate you , or just type in "ethanol is a disaster" is a google search http://www.lewrockwell.com... #2 yes we have gasoline electric hybrids, which are more efficient and intriduce regenerative brakes and and electric drive train Hybrids will eventually be hydrogen-combustion - electric hybrids #3 This is where you obviously have no background in science " 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." How can H2, which burns with O2 to make H2O, emit hydrocarbons (HxCy) this is nonsense. Hydrgoen is split from water, through electrolysis, and remade into H20 there is no pollution whatsoever, unless you think water is a pollutant #4 The ONLY way to fuel the ENTIRE transportation sector is with hydrogen and electricity, produced from renewable resources. this is a plain and simple fact that is irrefutable why havent we done it yet ? becuase gas has been 2$ a gallon until recently hydrogen costs about 5$ / gallon equivalent (in Germany currently- where gasoline is 7-8$) that is the only impediment IT does need to be a TOP-DOWN, i.e federally mandated transition

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: 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...

Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) "I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government." This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) "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." I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). "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." This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States "should" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: 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.

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: 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...

Title: fossil fuel Content: 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...

Title: America should not become more dependent on oil Content: History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don’t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.

Title: the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels" Content: 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

Title: Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases Content: "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."

Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I accept the challenge. Hopefully this will be fun. I wish there were good alternatives to gasoline but there are not any good alternatives here right now that can replace it. Electricity is not unlimited source. The biggest sources of electricity is coal. It is cleaner but is still fossil fuel and still produces a lot of CO2. Coal is also limited. People can argue that solar and wind power are not limited but the technology use to harness the electricity is not advanced enough yet. A lot of fossil fuel are needed to make solar panels and wind mills. There is also no good way to store of this energy. When night comes the solar panel doesn't produce electricity. Right now engineers are trying to develope a storage for electricity during the day but it isn't efficient and cheap enough at this time. "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." This statement is false for many reasons. 1) The environment will not be better off. Vegetable oil burns less CO2 but that isn't the only thing that concerns the environment. In order to use vegetable oil to replace even 50% of gasoline it will have to take all the farm land of the United States of America and none will be used for food. This makes the environmental impact a disaster. 2) Farmers will make more money but starvation will increase. During the gas price boom last year ethanol (in which is more efficient than vegetable oil) use skyrocket. As a result a corn shortage happened and prices went up for food that had relation with corn. This shortage wasn't a problem in United States as much in poor countries. 3) Obesity is the problem in the United States not really starvation. Going hungry in the United States is nothing like going hungry in Africa. There is enough food production and food is profitable. More farmers live in Beverly Hills than movie stars. Food is a good enough reason to farm.

Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: 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.

Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: 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.

Title: moutain top removal Content: 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.

Title: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels Content: "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."

Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in Content: 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."

Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: 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.

Title: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway Content: 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.

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

Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: 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.

Title: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions Content: 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.

Title: fossil fuel Content: 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...

Title: Solar energy Content: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: 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.

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

Title: What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen. Content: EtOH is a disaster - both using more energy than is produced, and also depleting food sources (ie corn ) for humans, which is more important Biofuels are OK but have major problems and will never make up even a FRACTION of our energy usage in the transportation sector (cars, planes , boats, trains, trucks etc) Bottom line :any source of energy based on current photosynthesis, which is 1% efficient, is meaningingless in the long term or from an efficiency standpoint Hydgrogen can be made from any source of electricity and water. the world is 2/3 water the sun provides about 15000 times the energy we need on a daily basis just in the US lower 48 territory alone to produce the hydrogen to run our entire transportation sector at only 5 % efficiency. photovoltaics, nuclear, wind power, hydrolectric, coal, gas, and and other sources of electricity can all be used to produce hydrogen hydrogen will only make water when burned stoichiometrically (correct 1:2 ratio), and some NOx if not, no CO2 for all you scared global warming schmucks Cars should go from gas- electric hybrid, to nat gas / electric to hythane hybrid, to hydrogen / electric hybrid Planes run fine on liquid H2 I would love to hear some schmuck who wants to try and push Ethanol or biofuels, or someone who thinks we can drill our way away from the muslim nutckaes and loser dictators (saudi, Iran, Venezuela, etc) who WE ARE COMPLETELY DEPEPENDENT ON cheers hydrogen guy

Title: Should the world stop using Oil/gas Content: 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...

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

Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: 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.

Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: 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...

Title: Horses Should be Used Widely in the US Content: Thank you for clearing up the definition of "Peak Oil". However, the scenario that I mentioned (with the oil running out) will eventually happen, as my opponent has admitted. As I suspected he would, he suggested alternatives to fossil fuels as a good substitute to them. I thought that I got them all (aside from the theoretical ones like Hydrogen or saltwater). I thank my opponent for bringing up another source of energy: electricity. He mentioned electricity-powered cars, many of which are commercially available and fairly cheap. But here's where his argument falls short: electricity needs to be generated by something else. According to these statistics, the large percentage of electricity in the United States is supplied by non-renewable energy sources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power. http://www.ehow.com... So really, if the fossil fuels run out, electricity will run out in a lot of places too. My opponent mentions the fact that a drought (which could kill horses) is much more likely than an EMP Attack (which would wipe out cars). I admit that this is true. HOWEVER, a drought that covers the entire United States would be needed to wipe out all horses. And even then, if Americans were not all killed off by the drought, then they could share the water with horses. However, also considering that there are underwater sources of water which we have the technology and resources to access, this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Let's contrast an EMP and its widespread effect on vehicles. Perhaps 3 or 4 EMPs (or less) being used on the United States could incapacitate the entire nation, excluding certain military devices that are designed to withstand such attacks. http://www.newsmax.com... Interestingly, this article also mentions geomagnetic storms being capable of having the same effect. Such a (minor) storm happened in 1989, leaving 6 million Americans and Canadians without power for 12 hours. A considerably bigger storm like this one could completely wipe out power for millions of Americans. Then, my opponent mentions allergies to horses. This is true; not everyone can ride a horse. But I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits (then they'll be used on a larger scale). However, since you brought the subject up... Some cars have leather seats. http://www.ehow.com... Many cars are made out of plastic. http://www.ehow.com... Sometimes that "New Car Smell" can be deadly. http://theweek.com... My opponent turns proceeds to bring up the fact that horses do not provide shelter from the rain. I will just say this: getting a little wet or being outside in fairly high temperatures usually won't kill you. It'll provide discomfort, but if it actually does provide a health hazard, you can just get back inside your car. As stated before, horse paths would actually be quite cheap to make. I live near a woods and I can make a small dirt path in those woods by kicking straw to the sides and uprooting some small plants. It's easy, really (or at least compared to building an asphalt road). Finally, animal cruelty: A. A path in the woods will likely be shaded. B. Horses walk on concrete during parades, so they can withstand walking on it to an extent. C. The horse paths would be in the woods anyway. D. There are horses that are bred for carrying heavy loads. https://answers.yahoo.com... Or, you can use a mule for that. E. Most of these places where horses are used would be away from big cities like New York. Oh, and here's another thing about horses which I forgot to mention last time: They are environmentally friendly. No sources needed to back up that claim.

Title: Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs Content: For this debate, "alternative energy" means a fuel, method, or apparatus designed to reduce or eliminate consumption of traditional fossil fuels as they are now employed. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "Total costs" includes all the costs associated with producing, shipping, storing, and using the alternative energy. Costs include dollar costs and environmental impact. Dollar costs include capital costs, indirect induced costs, and operating costs. The resolution is largely moot for private investment in alternative energy, because investors make it their business to understand costs. For private investment, the laws governing environmental impact apply. The resolution has it's primary impact for proposed government funding, subsidies, and regulations. Citizens have a right to know the true costs of government actions not only in terms of what the government is spending, but including the indirect costs on society. An example of the principle of the resolution being applied is the accounting of nuclear power plant decommissioning costs. When a nuclear power plant is ultimately taken out of service, there are significant costs in making the plant site safe. Those are figured into the costs of the plant, disclosed, and accounted for by setting up a fund to pay for the plant decommissioning. (A quirky California law requires decommissioning costs to be disclosed on electric bills; it's about four cents on a $200 electric bill.) Examples of the principle of the resolution being ignored are plentiful. Solar and wind power are generally unreliable. The sun is absent every night. Even in windy locations the wind may cease for many days at a time, or the winds may be seasonal. Consequently, usually a backup power source, like a gas-driven power plant must be added to the grid to pick up the load when the alternative energy source is unavailable. The capital costs of the backup are generally about 70% of the cost of running the plant full time. In other words, the fossil fuel is about 30% of the cost of the power, including the delivery system. Here is an example of wind power being touted as cheaper, while totally ignoring the costs of a backup energy system: http://www.ucsusa.org... The article says that farmers can make money from selling wind energy, but ignores the extra cost to the public. The wind turbine operator is getting a substantial subsidy from ratepayers who must pay the capital costs for two systems. In some applications, no backup system will be required. For example, if solar power is used to supply peak loads to Las Vegas or Phoenix in the summer, it is probably a good assumption that the sun will be shining when the power is needed. If it happens to be cloudy, then the weather is probably cooler so than the air conditioning load will be less, so that seems like a very good application for solar power. However, if the costs are analyzed for Chicago or New York, it's likely that a full accounting would reveal a different story. Failure to perform and disclose total costs has lead to a major policy error in the government subsidies for ethanol. Ethanol production from corn requires lots of energy-intensive fertilizer, an expensive delivery system, and high costs of taking land out of food production. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... That was not disclosed or even a thought through before the policy was committed. The U.S. government is now adopting policies that favor electric cars. The energy and environmental costs http://green.yahoo.com... of making the batteries are generally ignored, and the very high capital costs of the cars is downplayed. An electric car that will run for 40 miles may cost $40,000. http://www.cbsnews.com... To make that widely salable, large government subsidies would be required. Total cost accounting amounts to honesty in developing energy policy. It does not preclude adopting more expensive alternatives. For example, a case could be argued that ethanol and electric cars effective consume coal (to produce fertilizer and batteries) in favor of imported oil. If costs are disclosed, that case can be argued on the merits. The resolution would avoid bogus claims that, for example, if a kilowatt hour of wind power is the same or lower than coal, the wind power is obviously preferable. The wind power costs may be double when the backup generator is taken into account. How much the backup costs is site dependent. In some circumstances, wind power might be used to pump water uphill into an existing hydroelectric project. That's probably much cheaper than having to build a gas-turbine plant. My point is only that full costs should be disclosed. This is a "should" resolution. It means that environmental activists and government officials should honestly perform the total cost analysis and disclose the numbers to the public. This is now rarely done, so it would greatly improve the quality of public policy decisions. Con may argue that government should not provide any subsidies. If so, that does not dispute the resolution. Investors should be fully informed of costs even if government is not involved. Con may argue that even when total costs are disclosed, there is economically sound alternative energy. If so, that does not dispute the resolution either. The resolution will nonetheless favor the best solutions. The resolution is affirmed.

Title: Pros and Cons of using Propane as a alternative fuel Content: 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!

Title: The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels Content: 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...

Title: The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives Content: 1. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. According to the BBC on June 29, 2010, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the recession is causing even West Virginia coal miners to re-think status quo fuels. 2. Traditional renewable energy is insufficient to meet America's energy needs. According to Dr. Daniel LaGatta on February 16, 2010, the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs by 2035 without at least 40 new nuclear plants. 3. Some form of nuclear power is inevitable. According to the Texas Tribune on June 28, 2010, more than $18 billion is currently being spent on developing nuclear power plants, and Congress is considering adding another $9 billion. A review done by the Department of Energy in 2008 found that there are 108 nuclear plants in operation in the U.S. 4. Status quo nuclear technologies create thousands of tons of radioactive waste. According to National Geographic in 2002, there is currently 52,000 tons of highly toxic waste in the U.S. 5. Despite his promise to scrub the project, President Obama recently lost a lawsuit challenging the current plan to store the waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. According to the New York Times on June 29, 2010, although the Yucca plan still faces significant hurdles, it is still highly likely that the project will continue. 6. Unfortunately, the Yucca Mountain area contains an active volcano range. According to the New Scientist in 2002, if a volcano were to erupt, the magma would burst into the storage tunnels underneath the facility, sending radioactive magma several miles into the sky. 7. A nuclear volcano would have devastating consequences. According to Dr. David Camarow, if a volcano near Yucca Mountain were to errupt, it would contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere. Even if the risk is extremely low, we cannot risk the survival of the human race. 8. Thus I present the following plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives by funding the development of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). 9. The IFR is an entirely different form of nuclear power. According to Dr. George Stanford in 2001, the IFR uses spent nuclear waste as fuel. This will allow the IFR to burn waste and old decommissioned nuclear warheads, and prevent the need to store waste in Yucca Mountain. 10. The IFR was a pilot project terminated in 1994, despite being only three years away from completion. According to Dr. George Stanford in 2001, the IFR is a proven technology, but only needs funding to complete the prototype. Once the prototype is complete, construction can being on a mass scale, replacing the use of traditional nuclear power. 11. There are several other advantages to implementing IFR technology. According to the London Guardian in 2008, more than 1 billion people have insufficient water supplies, causing millions of deaths each year and millions of dollars of drought damage in the United States. However, according to Dr. Robert Pfeffer in 2001, a small nuclear power plant could create millions of gallons of fresh water as a by-product of the cooling process. 12. Although there are some signs of recovery, the economic recession is still continuing. According to the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness in 2006, nuclear power can generate billions of dollars of economic growth and thousands of high paying jobs would be created in the U.S. 13. Another factor in prolonging the recession is the loss of cheap energy. However, according to Dr. James Hylko in 2008, nuclear power is one of the most cost effective forms of energy at 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Title: Natural gas can smooth transition to renewable energy Content: 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".

Title: Nuclear Energy Content: While I am all for alternatives to fossil fuels i have to say that nuclear energy is my least favorite. I may not produce any green house gasses it still is dangerous to dispose of it could kill many living thing the way that the careless scientest dispose of it. Not to mention the fact that it could create acid rain, and kill trees, fish, animals of all kinds, and human beings.

Title: Nuclear energy Content: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels

Title: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in Content: 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.

Title: Nuclear Energy Content: 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.

Title: It is all delaying and worsening the innevitable Content: As stated before by the opposition team, the world is nowhere near to replace fossil fuels with renewable energies. Studies and polls show that even to people with average income from well developed countries, the price is the biggest problem. Also, the deficiency of available land and resources, let alone the still-developing-technologies, makes it less practical for the whole world to adopt renewable energies as its sole source of energy. Until these drawbacks are, at least halfway fixed, it will be a futile decision to ban oil companies to drill offshore. Furthermore, adoption of widespread usage of renewable resources, or even a reduction in our oil usage, is not only a matter of treating our "addiction to oil" but also of making the next generation technology ready – which simply has not happened yet. We also don’t believe that offshore drilling diverts funds from renewable energy development because contrary to the proposition’s belief, offshore drilling is profitable and provides governments and companies with more money that can be used for other uses the proposition may deem appropriate. It is hard for millions of people to make ends meet because of the already high petroleum price ( much cheaper than renewable resources though). If all the oil companies worldwide stop drilling offshore and the current oil supply nears an end, it is definite for the already high prices to soar up even higher. In contrast to the proposition’s belief that the decision of the ban will be “good to all of us and not just the few who want some more money”, the decision will have an even severe impact on the people, especially the poor who are striving to live in LEDC’s, than on others. Therefore, the opposition team believes that the world is not yet ready to switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources. Encouraging the ban on offshore drilling is the same as asking the hundreds of millions of financially vulnerable to suffer (for some to even die) during the t

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I apologize for not posting the link to the chart and it is as follows. http://nextbigfuture.com... The quote of "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. " was directly taken from a website link I provided and was not of my opinion even though I agree to it. My opponent has yet to provide the real cost of digging a hole a couple miles deep and releasing many toxic materials as I have previously mentioned. My opponent is suggesting that we just transport thousands of gallons of water to our desired 2 to 3 mile hole and allow it to turn into steam. After that, we could just use this steam to generate our geothermal energy, or so he claims. While this is technically possible, the actions of this would make geothermal energy even less viable than it is currently. While I know that many people think of nuclear energy as very dangerous and radiation related, this is not true. Nuclear has been safe for more 20 years. There is a reason governments don't just dig holes in random places and dump water into it. While I am not part of any government, I suppose it to be because it is simply just way to expensive to do. As for my "lack" of evidence for mining uranium. I offer this link. http://www.world-nuclear.org... I previously believed that I had posted that link but now after checking I did neglect to add it. For the claim of the lack of deaths, I got that information from a book but also found it at the following link. http://www.washingtonpost.com... I agree with my opponent that radiation is very dangerous. However, studies have been made which have found that radiation beside nuclear plants is actually less than radiation around some places without nuclear plants. I offer this link http://www.scientificamerican.com... and http://www-formal.stanford.edu... As to my opponents second rebuttal, I am quite offended. I ask him to do his research first before making any rash statements. I have never said that many countries have the ability to make nuclear weapons nor any promise that they would not use them. There is A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND A NUCLEAR BOMB. A huge difference actually. That is the reason why countries are having their nuclear plants made by foreign countries even if they don't possess the secret of the nuclear bomb. I believe there is a reason that countries do not use geothermal energy because it is neither cost effective nor can it produce energy en mass and enough to supply demand. Nuclear can. http://www.wisegeek.com... Towards the end of the article, one can see that many countries that have nuclear power plants are not currently holders of nuclear weapons. I wonder why that is?? My point on the fact that very few countries that use geothermal energy use it to produce very little amounts because there simply aren't that many places to make it en mass and still cost efficient. I ask my opponent not to twist my words. I specified for a country that uses geothermal energy over 40% not just use. There is a reason that countries do not use a lot of geothermal energy because it simply isn't that cost efficient and there aren't enough places where is economically viable. For nuclear however, there are numerous countries that use it over 40% as I have in my previous argument stated. I am rather confused by his statement of "And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it." especially the last statement and I would ask him to explain it. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to provide valid reasons on why geothermal would be a viable replacement economically and the amount of energy it can produce. They have instead offered a highly idealistic and extremely expensive way of how geothermal energy could in theory be produced en mass. Nuclear however, does not even need theories to produce energy that can supply the world. One just needs sufficient nuclear plants. I however, have offered reasons including nuclear can be done anywhere in the world and that nuclear is one of the cheapest energies that can supply our world. My opponent has failed to refute these two points and has instead sidetracked them while I have met his points head on. For these reasons, I strongly urge a pro vote.

Title: Pro/Con with the use of turbines Content: 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...;

Title: Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Content: haha... your last argument made me laugh... but I will make 3 points as to prove why this round belongs to PRO. 1) My opponent forfeited the debate in his first round... His first two words were literally "I forfeit" 2) My opponent did ALL of this by his own free will (including MY round 2 argument)... We were eating lunch together and I was asking people if they wanted to take my debate and he said he would so that he could run a counter-warrent. Then he got lazy and started typing essentially nothing (as I went and got lunch) he posted his "argument" and then got on my computer and posted my "argument"... 3) The only argument in this round is ridiculous, has no links, is not significant, does not apply to the resolution, has no effect on if you pass my plan or not (he even admitted to that), and does not outweigh my advantages PROVEN in solvency. And besides, if we stop using fossil fuels, I'm pretty sure that means we stop having to destroy the environment as we can then use the RENEWABLE recource known as fusion energy. Even if it doesn't, it still has NO additional negative effects against the squirrels. Therefore my opponent stands on no ground... Thanks for a laugh but if people actually want to take this debate it is currently in the challenge period right now...

Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: 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.

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

Title: Alternate energy Content: 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.

Title: the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: 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...

Title: Alternate energy Content: 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 :)

Title: Gary Johnson is our best choice for president Content: In fact, over the last decade, the rate of climate change has been declining, despite the fact that we use more Co2 emitting energy sources. Now, I believe that Co2 has a small effect on the climate, but there is simply no evidence saying that we will die. And fossil fuels can be used to make countries stronger in the face of the effects some scientists hypothesise will effect them the most. for instance, fossil fuels can actually be used to make stronger structures and communities that can easily bounce back from devastating natural disasters. For instance, there is a correlation between fossil fuel and clean water, this is because fossil fuel can be used to power refineries and the entire pipe system used to get water to the tap. Now, of course all this energy can be found in other energy sources, such as nuclear and hydroelectric, but I suppose that you want to talk about wind and solar right? After all they are free supposedly? Well, not true, in fact, it is quite pricy, just to get the rare resources to make solar panels. But in inclusion to the solar panels and wind power, you'd need a reliable alternate. After all, the sun isn't shining all the time and the wind isn't blowing all the time. This is why despite the fact that Germany has invested so much in solar and wind energy, they have more coal plants then ever. And this in turn has caused some to go in to "energy poverty" I hope this clears up why we can't elect a president with no experience just because of climate change. Now, I'd like to talk about the flaws in Jills other plans. She would like to raise taxes on the rich. Of course this sound like a great plan, after all, virtually everyone (including me) thinks the rich should pay their fair share. But the top 10% already pay 70% of government funding. And not only that, but research shows that the laffer curve for the rich indicated that the revenue collected from them INCREACES then taxes on them are DECREASED. Weird right? Well it turns out that when the rich know that less of their money is going to govt, they are far more willing to spend it. This also often indicates that they are putting money into their business, meaning they are probably hiring more people. And luckily for me Gary Johnsons tax plan will allow this to happen. And again, Jills environmental plan was tried in Germany, and as I said, failed. Her minimun wage of $15 will put far to may people out of work.

Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: Thank you for taking me on with this challenge and you put up a pretty good arguement. True, but electricity is still a better alternaive then gasoline. what about hydro powered cars? Cars that run on water instead of gasoline? You could easily fill up your car right at home and the Earth is full of water. We may of had shortages on water recently but that is because the pollution of fossil fuel. Pollution caused the weather to be weird around where I live. Another alternative to Gasoline is getting rid of vehicles and riding bikes, running, jogging, running, etc... If you think about it, it would help you get to some places faster because you wouldn't have to wait in car traffic. It would be crowded but at least you would keep moving and also, this would help people lose weight because you would be getting exercise and also, people would be more active and healthy once they get use to it.

Title: Alternate energy Content: 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.

Title: Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade. Content: The very fact that nuclear energy is the only feasible alternative that can contribute a large bulk of the world’s demand makes its expansion imperative. In contrast to the affirmative’s “belief”, the opposition stresses that banning nuclear reactor technology strains the development and expansion of a critically important resource. While team affirmative contradicts itself by having stated strict standards impair development then suggesting nations should develop such technologies for themselves, team opposition recognizes that first, many nations do not have the power to develop the technology for themselves or to develop the technology fast enough to allow for a gradual and safe transition into alternative energy sources. Many developing nations must depend on the trade of such technologies for it to either be available to them or open possibilities of market entry the way economies such as South Korea have done with IT industries. In other words, trade allows for underdeveloped countries, where the technology is unavailable domestically, to access such technology. As for developing countries, a cheaper domestic alternative can be developed based on versions present in the market both dropping prices in the international market and increasing energy security, but as history shows, this only works as well as it can if the technology is readily available on the market. Secondly, team affirmative have introduced a counter argument regarding what we have disproved directly before. Again, we have stressed that alternative sources like solar or wind energy alone will not satisfy global energy demand. Even in the case that these technologies are developed enough in certain countries, they will be strictly geographically limited. Because of this inherent factor, such alternative energy sources will neither be universally applicable nor reliable. Therefore, such factors enforce the necessity of keeping nuclear technology available through trade.

Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life – cars – and I thank Anikiforouk very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 – My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel – which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... http://www.hybridcars.com... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 – Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 – 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is "nothing special" about that year that my opponent "ought to win" this debate by default! Thank you.

Title: Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Content: I'll go paragraph by paragraph: INHERENCY: Inherency was dropped by negative. SOLVENCY: My first argument was really a generic argument (for clarification). You claim that I do not get solvency (which is his big argument from last speech.) Therefore I would like to use my reserved right to add evidence to prove that solvency will be reached (still on first paragraph). -From: http://www.firstscience.com... -"Nuclear power is deeply unpopular while renewable energy sources – wind, solar and tidal – yield relatively little energy for their high cost. But nuclear fusion could render carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels obsolete by 2100." -This quote proves two things, 1) If congress keeps cutting costs, then we will lengthen the amount of time it takes to achieve fusion power… 2) By fossil fuels running out and getting more expensive… therefore we must increase the incentives of fusion power, which is the energy of the future. -(Same Source) -"Energy production from nuclear fusion has proven an insurmountable challenge so far. Yet scientists are now saying that plans for larger and more sophisticated reactors around the world could finally make this possible in 50 years time. Is this more than just wishful thinking?" -This proves that we can't be cutting the funding for fusion power ESPECIALLY NOW. If we substantially increase the energy incentives by increasing funding, these "larger and more sophisticated reactors" will be created if the plan is passed. The ITER is the head of fusion development, but the US must do its part and if Congress cuts this spending (that should be overturned and increased by passing this plan), then fusion power will only be prolonged. The question is not IF solvency will be reached, but when. The sooner this funding can go through the sooner the energy crisis can be over (because fusion power will end the crisis). This is proven by the estimates made by Chris Warrick (the UK Atomic Energy Authority) "You need 50 megawatts of power to heat it and you should get around 5,000 megawatts out." (Next paragraph)--> The whole argument about "hidden agendas" is ridiculous. The CHANCE of hidden agendas does not make adequate grounds to vote down the plan. Furthermore, you have to see that the ONLY agenda that these scientists need to stick to is the agenda of finding usable fusion energy… that's it. The fact that there is a group of people being made to create fusion energy seems to be enough to see that they are going to have the agenda of creating fusion energy. ALSO, my opponent has not offered what these other agendas could be AND how they will harm anyone. This argument carries no weight whatsoever. Solvency was proven to be met two paragraphs ago… Simply cross-apply it here. (www.fas.org argument)--> This argument does not link to ANYTHING that has to do with fusion energy. If you go to the specific website of where he got this quote, it mentions fusion energy a whopping ZERO times. Furthermore, it never says HOW MUCH water would need to be boiled AND there is no link to how this would harm society. This argument continues to carry no weight… --> First of all, the evidence mentioned has already been proven insufficient to proving anything… Furthermore, my opponent has yet to show how boiling water (still unsure about how much) can harm ANYTHING… BUT STILL, the 1 harm of boiling water can't even begin to weigh while compared to the MULTIPLE advantages listed in solvency AND the ones solved from inherency harms. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS: --> This argument isn't topical to my plan whatsoever. This evidence deals with nuclear power plants BUT my plan calls for fusion energy which is as safe as can be (which is proven in my solvency advantages)… The evidence only speaks about nuclear power which does not talk about fusion energy specifically… please drop this from the round. --> This paragraph clears up that my opponent does not understand what I am trying to do with my plan. FISSION power has many harms but FUSION power has yet to be linked to anything. My opponent talks about nuclear waste that is proven to not be caused by fusion energy (in my solvency). Then he talks about water pollution caused by fission energy but fission and fusion are completely different types of energy. There are no links and there are therefore NO disadvantages. (www.aecl.com) --> Again the water pollution is not linked to fusion energy. The water pollution he talks about only deals with fission energy which has nothing to do with my energy plan. In the end… even if ALL of these harms are passed (which they do not link so they don't), fusion energy should STILL be invested in. It IS the energy of the future with little to no negative effects. Boiling water does not kill millions of people. The harm is not significant but the advantages are. The costs of fossil fuels ARE expensive and ARE running low AND are causing significant pollution to our earth. Therefore, the plan should be passed immediately. Thank you!

Title: Alternate energy Content: Accept

Title: Alternate energy Content: 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!

Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: 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.

Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: 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...

Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: 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.

Title: Natural gas will lower fossil fuel prices and increase consumption. Content: 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.

Title: The Future Fuel: Hydrogen Content: With the inevitable end to our World's fossil fuel reserves we must look to other forms of fuel to power our automobiles and other forms of transport. With Hybrid's, Natural Gas Vehicle's, and Diesel's Engines dependence on petroleum based products for power they are not a viable alternative to regular gasoline. And with the clear and massive limitations of electric vehicles the only common sense choice for the future fuel of the world is Hydrogen and the Fuel Cell Vehicles it powers.

Title: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power Content: 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.

Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I agree that my definition of the United States was a little too ambiguous. You are right that I am arguing on both moral and government policy grounds. As for the definition of fossil fuels, artificial coal would be considered an alternate fuel if the definition of artificial coal is coal created by rapidly applying vibrating pressures to wood (Karweil) and/or rapid application of intense heat (Hill). In Illinois, USA artificial coals are created by heating the lignin to about 150˚C in the presence of montmorillonite or illite clays (catalysts). <. http://www.answersingenesis.org...;. With this debate, I would like to prove that we should move away from fossil fuels and move toward renewable energy sources such as biodiesel because: (1)Fossil Fuels such as oil has a finite amount in this world and is not being naturally formed as fast as we are using it. Based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory, once we have reached the point of maximum production, we will experience an exponential decline. 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. < . http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (2) Oil, coal and natural gas make up of more than 85% of the energy consumed in the United States. Using oil as an example the US in 2004 imported 61% of consumption (13.12 million barrels per day). By 2005, the US imported 67% of consumption (16.54 million barrels per day). We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future. An example would be the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo because the United States resupplied the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the price of oil by 70%. October 19, 1973, President Nixon didn't back down and appropriated $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, which created a negative effect by other Arab states and joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. Since there was a low supply of oil in countries under the embargo, oil had to be increased in price to decrease the demand. Market price for oil rose from $3 to $12. The Middle East has control of a vital commodity, which became known as the "oil weapon". The United States needs to not allow room for such vulnerability, by depending less on imported fossil fuels. < . http://www.quoteoil.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (3)From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. In the extraction of oil in cases of offshore exploration, sea beds have been disturbed, which have killed the sea plants that many of the marine creatures need to survive due to the dredging process. In the extraction of coal, there are two methods; opencast mining and Underground mines. The Opencast mining tends to disfigure the country side and produces a large amount of atmosphere pollution due to the surface activity. If the Opencast mining is refilled after the mining project, the soil is usually a mixture of layers which mean that harder elements are exposed on the surface leaving the land almost barren. With Underground mines, roof collapsing of the mines can be felt on the surface level leaving buildings and roadways susceptible to cracks and sometimes disappearing into a hole. 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. The combustion of fossil fuels has contributed to more than 90% of the United States greenhouse gas emissions. It produces air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Such air pollutants can contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, which can affect habitats and wildlife. 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. < . http://www.planete-energies.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. I hope I have provided enough information to prove why I believe that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

Title: Being the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel energy, expansion of the technology must be available through trade. Content: Although this argument seems to be a rephrased form of the previous argument, team propoition will be dealing with it again. Team opposition will have you believe that countries that are incapable of producing such technologies themselves should promptly be offered this technology by other more developed countries. In doing so, they fail to realize the security threat the region will face if this sensitive technology gets transferred to countries that are incapable of maintaining and securing it. It is crucial under this case to see how even one incident caused by such a lack of responsibly by an importer country will devastate the whole region. Furthermore team opposition fails to realize that it is nuclear technology we are debating on. They fail to even notice the great security threat it poses to the region when one power plant in one incapable, under developed country falls short on security measures and cripples the economy of the region, in addition to a potentially colossal loss of life. We at team proposition realize the importance of even the life of one individual, who may lose his/her life just because of the incapability of the state. As we explained time and again, under developed countries lack the resources and expertise to maintain and secure such imported nuclear power plants, if they did have these resources and expertise, they would initiate their nuclear program themselves and hence the threat to their security cannot be ignored. Just because it seems nuclear power can replace the use of fossil fuels does not mean that the threat to global security be ignored. According to statistics, 43% of nuclear power plants in the US failed in countering mock security threats. What would happen if we transfer this technology to countries in Asia and Africa that are completely incapable of dealing with even minor security issues? At team proposition we cannot ignore this threat.

Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life – cars – and I thank Russia very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 – My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel – which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com...... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk...... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk...... http://www.hybridcars.com...... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 – Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 – 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is "nothing special" about that year that my opponent "ought to win" this debate by default! Thank you.

Title: Should the U.S. increase exploration and development Content: I, as the Pro side of this debate believe that the U.S. should increase its development and exploration of the oceans. For my argument I offer the following reasons: 1.) New Resources subpoint a.) Geothermal energy 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals 3.) Preservation of Ocean Life ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1: New Resources For years there has been a debate in efforts to move to green alternative energy sources. The ocean offers the U.S. two sources for alternative energy; hydroelectric, and geothermal. For this debate I will focus solely on geothermal energy one of the various types of energy. Subpoint A.) Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy utilizes the heat within the core of the Earth, making this method a reliable source of energy. This wonder of the alternative energy has several benefits, such as that geothermal energy only gives 1/8 of the emission of carbon of coal, one of the leading fossil fuels used within the U.S. currently. Unlike other forms of alternative energy, geothermal energy does not revolve around fluctuations from day to day being that it's a constant energy derived from the heat of the Earth's interior. Lastly, this environmentally friendly fuel source is cost effective. Conservative estimates claim that savings on heating bills range from 30-60%, and cooling ranges from 25-50%. 2.) Underwater Pharmaceuticals Science has searched for alternative medicine from natural sources. It has been found within the oceans surrounding the United States. Various marine plants and organisms have properties that have improved human health. Just to name a few of these organisms: A Caribbean sea sponge's generative compound has been used in medicines such as AZT to treat AIDs and HIV. Skate, a flat fish, has provided clues in advancing poor eye vision. Secosteroid enzymes found in coral are also being used in medicine, and is used to treat arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders. These are just a few of the many organisms currently being used in modern medicine practices, however this isn't the end as scientific tests are being ran. 3.) Preservation of Wild Life According to the NOAA, 2215 creatures are protected under the ESA. These marine life creatures range from least concern to critically endanger status. However to name a few, lets look at the current population numbers for the top 4 marine mammals on the list. Only 55 Maui dolpjons, 350 northern right whales, and a range of 500- 600 Vaquitas , the rarest dolphin, remain. Without these creatures in existence, food chains would become disrupted and cause an unbalanced diet and cause possible over population. By allowing the United States federal government to explore the earth's oceans , we could find ways to preserve dwindling ocean life. This would include repopulation efforts or even creating regulation to protect them. In order to avoid the disruption of food chains and extinction, we must understand the causes and find ways to prevent further damage to these animals' habitats and their well-being. For these reasons I argue in favor of expanding exploration and development.

Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: 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.

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I apologize for leaving this to the last minute, but I will finish this debate. My opponent starts off by making the following statements. 1) Digging holes can't possibly be economical. My opponent asks me how digging holes can possibly be economical. Well, I thought it was obvious, but I will explain why "digging holes" is a very enlightened choice when trying to save money or even decrease our country's deficit. The reason why geothermal energy will be so economical is because EVERYONE WILL WANT IT. It will cost a lot less because you do not have a limited amount of it, as we do oil and plutonium. Creating geothermal energy could even be economic boom our economy needs right now. Weening off of our dependence on oil in the middle east. Now on to the science evidence your presented 2) "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. " My opponent here is assuming that we need to find areas that have water in them at high temperatures, and admits that it only takes a few miles of digging from anywhere for adequate heat, which as proven above is easily obtainable and economical. So the only real problem here is, we need bodies of water. OR the third option, which is supplying water ourselves. In the evidence I sited in my last speech, "Enhanced Geothermal Systems" are capable of such things. Hot rock reservoirs are given water and the steam from the heated rocks + water is harnessed as energy, thus also eliminating our need for perfect water bodies at our desired locations. It can be anywhere. Now onto my opponents refutations of my attacks. 1) My opponent offers a chart of deaths. First of all, I would like to see the link for this please. And since I cannot see the link, or a description of this chart, I assume that his survey was done in one week or month. There is no timeline. This evidence is incomplete. In opposition you also claim that mining uranium is like mining anything else, but offer no evidence on the validity of this. I offer the following articles as evidence to the contrary (1) (2) . My numbered one article specifically talks about the mining risks, but the rejection of the fact that retrieving nuclear energy IS dangerous because is puts off radiation is not productive in this debate. It is a FACT that radiation is created by particles traveling at almost the speed of light and can be very dangerous going through the human body. It can be the cause of cancer and sexual deficiencies. If even there has never been a death in the U.S., which by the way only claimed with no link to this source, it creates diseases to be passed down in their children, and becomes very serious. 2) A lot of countries have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, but they promised they wouldn't. But that's alright we trust them. We are giving countries the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Countries that hate democracy, countries that deny the Holocaust ever happened, countries that want to see the U.S. in flames. There is no way to turn geothermal energy into a weapon of mass destruction, exception maybe in a squirt gun fight. Giving other countries the ability to use geothermal energy and giving them the technology to accomplish this does not put the U.S. in a bad position to where we have to choose between environmental safety or preventing nuclear winter. In the world of the con, we have both pretty easily. 3) Nuclear energy is very cheap. So is geothermal energy, what's your point? Geothermal energy doesn't damage humans or our environment. 4) My opponent wants me to name a country that uses geothermal energy. A lot. What kind of an argument is this? Because it is not popular and funded as much as nuclear energy, it isn't as good? Well if I was thinking the same way as you then Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga are the best musicians because they are the most popular and richest. Or that the best race is Asian, because there are a lot more Asians in the world then any other race. That makes absolutely no sense and judges should just ignore this argument. In conclusion, geothermal energy is better because it is cheap and easy to obtain just like nuclear energy is, but we do not need to worry about nuclear proliferation and radiation if we share this information to the world. And if we can easily share our technology with other countries without needing to worry about WMDs, our environment can benefit at a much accelerated rate than nuclear energy ever would, simply because the US would not allow it. http://www.wagingpeace.org... http://www.physics.isu.edu...

Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: So, thank you! I will begin my argumentation by referencing one of the most political and economic minds of all times. Adam Smith. His ideas were the basis for the world economy and the United States' government. He claimed that a government has 3 duties to its people, and no more. 1) Public Institutions 2) Domestic Security 3) Protection from foreign invasion Alternative energy does not fall under any of these three duties that the government holds and should therefore the government shoud not act. Next, you advocate that the market cannot take care of the 'problem' (I will talk about this 'problem' later on. ) itself. You only contention for this is that biodiesel is an effective energy source. There is a major problem with this though. BIODIESEL REQUIRES MORE CHEMICAL ENERGY TO MAKE THAN IT CAN PRODUCE MAKING IT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ITS CAUSE. But you go on further to note that biodiesel is too expensive and is the only reason why it isn't being used. I answer this back with two responses. Biodiesel is cheaper than regular diesel fuel (which is the only thing that biodiesel replaces) meaning that money isn't the problem so that automatically deteriorates your argumentation. But furthermore, biodiesel is ineffective, it clogs up cars, and it takes away from agriculture raising the price of food which would effect the poor and the economy even more. Next with your 'conventioanl wisdom' aruments, they have no basis and there is no analysis on how this 'wisdom' even exists. It does not exist because the rich would not invest money in a risky area. It is the middle class that would make this technological advancement simply for the emperical support that comes along with it. It was the middle class that lead the textile, industrial, and technological advancements of the past, therefore it should be left to these people to do it again. And, you advocate that the government would be the best operative to change the current status quo of oil consumption to alternative fuels, ummmmm. .. .. the government has strong ties to OPEC and other oil agencies that make them the worst possible advocacy group. No matter how much they call for a change in the current energy 'crisis' they never will make this change. This is reason enough to deny the use of the USFG. Next, LEAVE IT UP TO THE MARKET! Smith also created the concept of the 'invisible hand' that drives prices of goods down and creates the highest amount of techonological innovations. A free market also weeds out the bad ideas and further iterates the good ones because people look to what works and buy it. Basic consumer/producer relationship. This is the only way that we would ever be able to find the best source of energy. Finally, you make the assumption that we should divest away from oil and to alternative energy sources. I ask you why? Oil provides more CO2 for plants increasing crop production around the world, it has shown no signs of 'global warming'. We have not seen the effects of burning oil and we will not see them in the future. Thank you! Matt

Title: Tidal energy burns no fossil fuels and releases no emissions. Content: Tidal power derives its power from the ocean tides and currents. Because it does not burn fossil fuels to obtain energy, it emits no greenhouse gases or air-borne pollutants. As such, tidal energy can act as an important substitute for fossil-fuel energy, removing greenhouse-gas polluters from operation.

Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: 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."- PowerPikachu21 I highly doubt there are as reliable, considering the world's energy consumption only consisted of 1/3rd renewable energy [1], . "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."- PowerPikachu21 "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."- PowerPikachu21 Geothermal energy has alot of problems with it. It only works for areas with specific conditions and isn't developed enough to help power the world [1]. "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."- Powerpikachu21 Biomass is also very expensive to convert and transport, and is also very inefficient when compared to fossil fuels [2] We can rely on them to be around, yes. But we can't rely on them for energy. The processes to convert renewable resources into energy cost alot of money, and they can only do a third of the job of coal. Sources [1]- http://www.tsp-data-portal.org... [2]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... [3]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...

Title: Pickens Plan wrongly diverts natural gas from replacing coal Content: "What Pickens Has Right, What He Has Wrong". ClimateProgress. 28 July 2008 - "That brings us to the second part of Pickens’ plan and to Joe’s correct judgment that using natural gas to run vehicles rather than power plants is a bad idea...Because we need to reduce carbon emissions, because we don’t have limitless supplies of domestic oil and gas, and because we would be stupid to allow even more dependence on foreign resources, domestic natural gas should be treated carefully as transition fuel to a sustainable low-carbon economy. Given the growing urgency for climate action, it makes sense to use natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, to replace coal, the dirtiest."

Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: 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.

Title: Increasing Funding for Micropower (Alternative Energy) Content: Since my last alternative energy debate was so interesting, I thought I'd keep it up by starting another one, with more specific wording to avoid the meta-debates that occurred in my last debate. This topic is: "The United States federal government should increase funding for the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) to give grants for micropower." 1. My first argument is that the status quo is unacceptable: a. According to the Department of Energy, the current electricity generation and distribution model in the United States is based on a centralized grid. b. There are (at least) five problems with the centralized grid model: i. Sabotage: According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the because much of the grid is unprotected, our energy infrastructure is one of the most vulnerable targets to terrorists. A terrorist strike would cause nationwide blackouts. ii. Global Warming: The centralized grid promotes fossil fuel based energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil fuels have caused global warming, which threaten to destroy the planet. iii. Economic Competitiveness: The ITP program is vital to nine key energy intensive industries, supply 90% of the materials to the U.S., produce $1 trillion in revenue, directly employ 3 million people, and indirectly employ 12 million people. iv. Spillover: Micropower can be used to aid developing countries. According to Seth Dunn, an energy specialist at the WorldWatch Institute, providing micropower to North Korea can reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation. v. Oil dependence: Currently, the U.S. imports more than 60% of the oil it consumes. According to Dr. Martin Feldstein, our dependence on oil is a security threat. Iran has declared that any hostile actions taken by the United States would cause them to destroy the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the U.S. oil supply. c. Current subsidies for non-alternative forms of energy prevent micropower from becoming mainstream. According to Bioenergy Update, the $120 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels prevents a shift away from the centralized system. 2. My second argument is that the ITP/micropower program can solve these problems: a. First, micropower is a system of distributed generation of electricity, using solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and other forms of renewable energy. Essentially, a business would generate its own electricity on-site, based on the most appropriate renewable source, thus bypassing the need for a centralized electric grid based on fossil fuels. Although it has become more popular in recent years, there are still barriers to widespread adoption. b. The ITP program currently gives out $175 million in grants for micropower projects. However, this amount is tiny compared to the $120 billion in annual subsidies for fossil fuels. c. Micropower can solve the five harms I outlined above: i. Sabotage: A decentralized grid means that there would be no place for the terrorists to strike if they wanted to disable the electricity supply. Since each business would generate their own electricity, there would be no supply to interrupt. ii. Global Warming: According to Bioenergy Update, if the U.S. switched to a micropower based system, we could cut carbon emissions by 50%, much more than our current targets. iii. Economic Competitiveness: The ITP program funds projects in nine key industries, several of which are struggling for global competitiveness. If they were able to access low cost renewable energy, they could better compete with their foreign rivals. iv. Spillover: As stated above, micropower gives countries an opportunity to work together and increase international cooperation. According to Mr. Dunn, this lessens the risk of North Korea becoming belligerent. v. Oil Dependence: According to NPR, developing alternative fuels has the ability to shift us away from oil dependence to a form of domestically generated renewable energy. d. The ITP program actually works. According to the Department of Energy, more than 140 new technologies have been created by ITP-private firm cooperation. e. The plan can be accomplished without adding to the deficit if fossil fuel subsidies were ended. With the $140 billion in money that goes to oil and coal companies, the ITP program can develop and spread micropower technology to businesses, which can then spread it to consumer use, all without adding a dime to our budget deficit. Hopefully, someone will pick up the gauntlet for this debate, and it will be an interesting discussion!

Title: The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels Content: i have no opinion because honestly i agree with the opposition

Title: fossil fuel Content: 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...

Title: Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition. Content: 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.

Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: 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.

Title: Alternative Energy used by 2010 Content: 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?

Title: Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies. Content: 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...

Title: The United States should fund alternative energy research Content: 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.

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

Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: Thank you for this interesting and invigorating debate. First of all I would like to thank you for posting the link to the chart. I was pretty confused but I am no longer confused, but this chart is irrelevant to my arguments as they are about diseases and afflictions that are caused by radiation and toxicity of the enrichment process to create energy. This matters very little this debate however because the numbers are completely unknown, so I will drop this argument. My opponent then continues to say "My opponent has yet to provide the real cost of digging a hole a couple miles deep and releasing many toxic materials as I have previously mentioned. " You mean like how you gave the real cost to creating a powerplant? We do not need to give exact numbers, reasonable comparisons can be made in exchange. Judges please base this off of logic and reasoning AS WELL AS persuasive evidence. My comparison is, of course, oil. Companies who obtain oil must dig holes to extract it. But in the world of my opponent, they won't get past digging the hole because of how expensive it is? That makes no sense to me. Every bit of energy we obtained must be prepared. For example, coal needs to be mined in a facility, oil needs to be drilled, nuclear energy needs to be fissioned in proper conditions, geothermal energy needs to be drilled. How is geothermal energy hole drilling any more expensive than oil hole drilling? Realistically, it is not. My opponent goes on to say "My opponent is suggesting that we just transport thousands of gallons of water to our desired 2 to 3 mile hole and allow it to turn into steam. " Yes exactly, just like how nuclear energy requires the transportation of 60,000 tons uranium (number from your evidence cited for the "chart") each year. How does this make either sources of energy any less viable? Just because we aren't getting spoon fed alternative energy sources means we cannot work hard to obtain it? That is utter nonsense. My opponent also says "As to my opponents second rebuttal, I am quite offended. I ask him to do his research first before making any rash statements. " No, you asked me a question where you and I both already knew the answer. Of course geothermal energy is not used 40% or more in other countries. It is a new science, we are still learning about how to make it better and more productive. I made a few comparisons to what you attempted to do with Lady Gaga, which you happened to slither right by. Judges take note of this because later on he makes the claim of hitting all of my arguments "head on" because that little line is all he said about it. He did not defend WHY energies should be judged on that scale, only that they should with no warrant for his claim, and when I call him out on his lack of warrants, he gets "offended. " He then continues his statement by saying "There is A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVILIAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND A NUCLEAR BOMB. " This is a great example of him not hitting MY arguments head on. My argument is not the nuclear plants are similar to nuclear bombs. It is THE PROCESS of taking energy from uranium is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to the process that creates weapons grade plutonium. Other countries are given the right to plans of nuclear powerplants, but they are under constant watch by US forces exactly for the reason that the two processes are so similar. But lets go into a scenario. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen decide to go to war with the United States. Uh oh, we already taught them how to make nuclear weapons, do you think that since there would be a war between us that they would respect our rights enough to not make nuclear weapons? Absolutely not. The risk of nuclear proliferation is greater than anything you can imagine. Communist Soviet Union actually wanted to maintain power and did not drop bombs on the US because they knew we would do the same thing. But how would an extremist country like Iran handle that situation. Amadimajhad is already trigger happy to drop bombs on our allies even without nuclear weapons. If we completely replaced nuclear energy with geothermal energy, the risk of nuclear proliferation is completely absent. My opponent goes on to speculate with "I believe there is a reason that countries do not use geothermal energy because it is neither cost effective nor can it produce energy en mass and enough to supply demand. Nuclear can. " Well, if I was going to speculate, I would say that the reason that we use nuclear instead of geothermal energy is for three reasons. 1) it is too new. not very many people realize its potential, proven by our debate. 2) nuclear energy produces weapons grade plutonium that our military can use. (therefore the GOV funds it. ) 3) The oil and coal industries have made it almost impossible to provide an alternative energy source with pure money (buying off country leaders, buying off politicians, muscling out small companies, everything needing energy relies on gas or oil. ) My opponent makes this funny statement next "Towards the end of the article, one can see that many countries that have nuclear power plants are not currently holders of nuclear weapons. I wonder why that is? ?" First of all, that is nuclear weapons that we know about. Secondly, only 7 countries are ALLOWED to carry nuclear weapons. If any country carries nuclear weapons that is not the US, France, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, India, or China, they would have to go through a process to be allowed to have them. Iran and Saudi Arabia do not tell us they have nuclear weapons because they know we will not allow it. And as to my statement that I made that confused my opponent, I agree it is confusing so let me clarify. What I meant was that if we used geothermal energy instead of nuclear energy, we could share this technology with the world without fearing WMDs, and if we did, our environment would become safer at a faster rate than with nuclear energy because our government will simply not allow most countries to build nuclear power plants. I am sorry for my grammatical mistake. To pull this whole debate together, I have proven that geothermal energy is just as viable and just as economical as nuclear energy, but can actually be shared with the world to benefit us as a whole and without supplying other countries with the means to make nuclear weapons. My opponent says he has hit my points head on, I still have yet to see him do that. Even if nuclear energy WAS cheaper, and I will never admit that it is, it is not worth that risk of nuclear proliferation which we are forced to fear right now because we do not have control of every country. The risks of having nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. Geothermal energy has the same benefits and little to no risks. In the world of the Pro, we live in a world with great alternative energy and the possibility for every country who uses nuclear power plants to make WMDs. In the world of the Con, the same exact thing, except it can never cause nuclear winter.