Question: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

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

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

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

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: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: As CON, I will try to prove that an alternative energy source is something that is either a loss or a draw for the United States. In order for PRO to win, judges, my opponent must prove to you that an alternative energy will pull us out of the economic crisis and will be beneficial to our environment. I am deciding to allow my opponent the opportunity to bring some forms of alternative energy to the table. It's not practical for me to organize arguments against alternative energies, only to have PRO state that my argued forms of energy aren't the ones we, as a nation, should pursue. So then, PRO, which form(s) of alternative energy would you like to see implemented in today's society and why?

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: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: The topic of alternative energies is one that I am currently debating in public forum. Good luck!

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: 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: 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: Natural gas Content: 0-emission renewables are a superior alternative to natural gas

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: 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: 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: 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: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway Content: Fossil fuels are finite, we should start developing alternatives now rather than later.

Title: Solar Power is the future not wind or being oil dependent Content: Apparently not.Though I really need not put forth much in the way of an argument supporting my position, as you have already, for the most part, though none too coherently, done so, I shall provide a little bit more of a case, as if you actually were playing the role of the Con.Perhaps one of the most common arguments given against solar power, and in favour of petrol, is that solar power is weaker than burning hydrocarbons, and that switching to completely electric fuel would be detrimental to the economy. However, these arguments are not valid, and are merely slanted in such a direction as to keep the world dependent upon large oil corporations, and because humans are generally afraid of progress.Now, there are also significant environmental concerns, from burning hydrocarbons, to the atmosphere, and thus the biosphere. Normally, the planet's carbon should remain in its crust and biosphere. When, as carbon dioxide, it is released from burning hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, it can cause an unbalance in the planet's natural atmospheric balance. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it traps heat in the form of infrared radiation inside the atmosphere, maintaining a level of warmth necessary for life. Were there too few greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be significantly colder. However, the burning of petrol, coal, and other compounds rich in CO2, releases unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing Global Warming. Too much global warming eventually leads to a cascading climate change, that cannot be prevented, Runaway Greenhouse Effect. This would destroy our ecosystem beyond repair, and cause the largest extinction Earth has even known: total extinction. This is obviously not a favorable occurrence.There would be no significant economic damage, if the world were to take itself off of hydrocarbon fuel sources, except for countries whose only major export is natural oil, particularly in the Middle East. Germany has already proved that solar energy can be just as efficient as any other energy we have yet devised, in fact, more so even than nuclear energy. The Middle East could easily accumulate solar energy to make up for the lost economic staple, natural oils. In fact, it could become a world energy producer by that. Thus, the economy could flourish on solar energy.One of the large qualms that has been raised, particularly by America, is that the loss of petrol would be multiple nails in the coffin of the automobile industry. While I do not personally think that is such a bad thing, I understand that much of America's economy has been based on automobiles, and they certainly are the primary transportation there. I thus acknowledge that solar energy could also provide the fuel for automobiles. No, not solar panels mounted on the roofs of cars. That would be impractical and tacky. However, Nikola Tesla devised a way of wirelessly delivering electricity from one point to another. Solar power plants could collect energy, by either photovoltaics or some other method, then deliver it to cars through wireless energy transfer coils planted in the roads. This would solve the common complaint that electric cars are not as energy efficient. It has been shown that they are practical in every other way. In fact, in the early 90s, General Motors built a number of prototype electric cars, which were test-driven and found to be highly useful, but recalled and destroyed, because of the possible economic repercussions to the rest of the American auto industry.Sources:http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...

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: Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant Content: It is important to clarify first before we begin. Take Note: Pro specified his rules in comments "Round 1 is just acceptance. You can present your argument in 2nd round. That is why i have selected 5 rounds. " Definition Replace- "to take or fill the place of" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... In this case, the resolution is vying to replace thermal power plant with so called "safe" and "renewable" energy, that is solar and wind. It is nice to have renewable energy but it comes with a price, a price I'm not willing to trade thermal power plants for considering the level of technology we are currently having. Arguments will be on the second round as per our agreement. Thank you and you may present your case.

Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: Here is the debate structure: R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense I will be arguing that fossil fuels are a better energy source than Renewable Energy Sources. My opponent will argue that Renewable Energy Sources are a better energy source than Fossil Fuels. Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. Definitions Renewable Energy: any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, that is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel. Source http://www.dictionary.com...

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

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

Title: Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant Content: Pro's voice on green resources is admirable but he made numerous mistakes in his arguments. Pro's ConcessionFirstly, my alternate resolution was to consider Co-Generation as what was also advocated by the IEA in order to disapprove the resolution of replacing. Pro concedes to this resolution as he says in his R3 argument:"Yes, I agree that we should go hand in hand with all power generating plants, i. e, We can have Wind,Solar and thermal all together for power generation and when solar and wind efficiency and many other factor increases we may reduce the thermal plants. .. I agree for that with Brother Relativist. " Untouched RefutationsI am responsible for denouncing the resolution with proper reasons and I have rightly so. Pro did not respond to my refutations at all as he continued with his energy efficiency analysis instead so I assume that my refutations have successfully nullified his argument. This includes:a)Global Warming Myth(By Carter) in response to his greenhouse gases. b)Crisis of Renewable Energy(As an additional problem to green energy, to shift support towards thermal)-Extinction of various types of species as a result of destroying 3,500 acres(9000 for Alta Wind Farm) of forests. c)Economic Problems for poor countries -The Brandt report accurately elaborates how poor countries are, thus unable to afford green energy (which is in opposition to the resolution as it advocates replacements, which are very expensive)d)Pro's energy efficiency analysis (Elaborated below)These are my main oppositional arguments and they are left virtually untouched by Pro and with no responses, I hereby conclude that my argument have successfully denounced his resolution. Other Minor detailsThroughout this debate, my opponent seems so fixiated on energy capacities. He devoted his last round to prove that it is at least 3-5 times(instead of 5-6). Even his round 3 argument was devoted to this same concept. Regardless, Thermal Power plants still yields more energy than the combination of both Perovo and Alta, thus it is more reasonable to adopt conventional measures. Pro made an analysis on solar cells but fails to provide how it is linked to the resolution as he did not provide a proper evaluation. Pro claims that thermal power plants should be 2km away from homes, the same should be done with Wind. The main point is to find incentives on why wind should replace thermal, if they are both floating on the same boat, then there is no reason to adopt the resolution as both are essentially the sameConclusionMy refutations are my main contentions for disapproving the resolution. Without any response, his argument is nullified along with the resolution. I'd like to thank him for his politeness, one which is rare considering that youtube comments have been my standards for decency as well as his proposed resolution and I hope our debate entertained him as it did to me. Thank You And Have A Nice Day.

Title: Nuclear Energy Content: I will begin with my opponent's case and then present an alternative to nuclear energy. Opening statement: My opponent has produced some very impressive data on the efficiency of nuclear energy. Prima facie or first glance could easily sway a person to support nuclear energy. I vaguely recall having done rudimentary research on nuclear energy for a Lincoln-Douglas topic last fall. In fact, a conversation I had with our science department head revealed only one significant pitfall, what to do with the waste? My opponent has even identified dis-ads of nuclear waste and offered suggestions on the very subject of nuclear waste. If we dig deeper though, what are other concerns? Let's explore! 1) Effectiveness. At first glance the only disagreements I could identify were really nitpicky stuff. I could say that some of the water which became steam would inevitably evaporate and have to be replaced. I could even strengthen my opponent's defense by saying that the moving parts replacement schedule is likely very minimal. There is no shame in expanding Robert Fulton's use of steam even if it is an old idea. We still use wheels right? :o) There is no doubt that nuclear energy can offer power to communities. I, and the judges, are likely tired of semantical battles of topicality, that being said; much of my opponent's first point are stipulated and conceded. 2) Safety. This is a cause for concern. While technologically developed nations such as the U.S.A., the U.K., and France have operated plants for upwards of 60 years without serious incident, that does not make them immune to trouble. Many safeguards have been implemented since the 1950's to improve and upgrade the facilities. Yet, even superpowers such as the U.S. (3 mile island) and the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl) have had their share of growing pains. Most recently, another developed nation, Japan, experienced a calamity of catastrophic proportion. Are nuclear power plants compeletly safe? No. Now consider lesser developed nations that are seeking nuclear power, Iran and North Korea for example. Both are suspect for being politically unstable as well as using nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. Oversight can be a tricky thing when a more radical nation prefers not to be inspected or have other's watching over their shoulders as they attempt to develop energy, or secretly weaponry. This forces them to be sneaky, which may lead to shortcuts, which may lead to disaster. Security of nuclear facilities. There are high protocol, likely classified, to protect the integrity of nuclear facilities in developed nations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for less stable nations. Can anyone, with any certainty, verify the count of every spent rod or piece of weaponry from the the Former Soviet Union, especially after the breakup of the former into 15 separate and independent nations? I would have to say no. Further, what would prevent well organized and well funded terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials in lesser developed nations? This too eats away at the safety argument. An article I discovered addresses nuclear waste in a different light than that of my opponent. Like my opponent, it identfied waste that was short term and had reduced effects with proper handling and recycling. Also, like my opponent it identified longer term waste. However; the safety of the longer term waste was the compelling factor. It is quite dangerous, ecologically unfriendly, and can take an estimated 1000 years to decay. http://www.scienceclarified.com... These are a few "what if" or otherwise hypothetical scenarios that challenge nuclear energy safety as well as historical examples such as 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Japan. While precautions and protocol do exist, they are far from foolproof, and are not necessarily as safe as my opponent would have us believe. http://www.nirs.org... 3) Costs. My opponent has demonstrated that nuclear energy does indeed exceed the effectiveness of fossil fuels. It's common knowledge and widely accepted that once established, nuclear is more logical than fossil. It appears to be cleaner in emissions, and uses fewer resources in producing more energy. At first glance, this seems to make perfect sense. This leads me to ask a question. Why then isn't everyone using nuclear energy then? A Smithsonian study showed that only approximately 16% of the worl'd energy is nuclear based. Since it is demonstrably more effective as shown by my opponent's CBA, why aren't most nations using it? Simply put, the necessary precautions make it cost prohibitive. Many African and Central American nations struggle to even provide basic necessities to their citizens. Citizens in African nations do not enjoy clean water, adequate food, clothing, or shelter. Haiti and Honduras don't even have a pot to piss in. In fact, many nations have substandard living conditions to include plumbing and basic sanitation. Constructing a nuclear power plant is not in their foreseeable future. My case: At first glance my alternative seems to be a reinvention of the wheel. There are alternatives to nuclear energy though. All of which can be done at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy, and boast a much better safety record. HYDRO: Every nation does have rivers. Dams can be constructed, and power can be retrieved via hydro energy. SOLAR: Especially with so many "experts" verifying the existence of greenhouse gases and global warming, you would think that would open the door even wider for good ol' solar power. Yes the sun shines all over the earth! Yes, solar panels are expensive, and yes, at present they need to be rather large to capture this energy. Why can't every roof be a solar panel? This is worth research and development money! Opportunity is knocking! (For my beloved Israelis, I am offering triple mitzvah points if you discover it first) Who among us on this earth will be the first to develop more efficient solar power for all to enjoy? WIND: The wind blows. Meterologists have ways to track weather and determine the most strategic locations to place wind energy generators. KINETIC GENERATORS: Quite possibly the world's best kept secret! These puppies are built at a nominal cost, and run virtually clean, quiet, and very efficient. This is probably the better answer to the energy crisis. We (Collectively) have put boo-koodles of investment money into so many things. It makes sense to look into research for the large scale, big picture. http://www.homestandbygeneratorsystems.com... In closing: While nuclear energy is a better alternative than fossil fuels, it has yet to replace them. Why? It is both dangerous, and cost prohibitive. I am suggesting that nuclear energy research monies be diverted toward large scale research of kinetic generators. Thank you!

Title: government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels Content: First I will address my opponents three points. 1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels. 2) "Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? " This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. Yes any alternative fuel is acceptable so long as it is within the bounds of the law. As for the plan itself there are already many sources of alternative fuels currently available to automakers. Things like hybrid gas electric, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and propane. Alternative fuels are defined by the Michigan State Document Center as anything other that Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas or Peak Oil. 3) "Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then. " It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. This can only be done with firm decisions and a strong governmental role. As for my opponents analogy "That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. " This couldn't be more untrue. It would be true if all the cellular phone suppliers in the U. S. were bankrupt or going under, if they cell phone grid where destroying the environment, if foreign cell phone suppliers were all moving forward and taking business from the United States and if instead of Solar Power you told them to use a whole new form of power and they could decide what it was. If that were the analogy then it would fit pretty well. And I think you will agree that if that were the case a change would need to be made on the part of the cell phone business. There is also the issue my opponent has brought up with timing. First my opponent says "2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " My opponent then compares the resolution to switch to alternative fuels with some others related to cell phones, "The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. " Imagine if the rest of the world took this approach. What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect. As for government mandates, they can be repealed if it is necessary. A mandate is merely a direct rule or order. If changes are necessary the government can form a new mandated that make the new adjustments.

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

Title: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: After two dropped rounds, I have nothing further to add... I feel as if I should apologize to the readers and voters, since my opponent isn't going to do it. I, personally, wish my opponent wouldn't have started this debate and walked away... I'd have loved to see the clash! All I ask is you vote CON. All my arguments still stand, and I believe all my points are stronger than those presented by my opponent. Finally, I'd like to ask that you vote on the merits of the debate, and not whether you think we should have an alternative form of energy or not. Thanks.

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

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: Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save Content: Besides ethanol, there are also successful hydrogen-powered and oxygen powered cars, and even solar-powered cars, that can fit the current infrastructure (road) system. They just need to be mass-produced. Your argument against the use of nuclear energy and its links don't matter since I agree with you on that - nuclear energy isn't a good idea in my opinion. Since I never disagreed with you about it, we don't need to argue about it. "All electric and hybrid battery cars..." Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without? Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there. "Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more." It will not take that long, and with the proper funding, it can happen. I've already stated that some alternative-energy cars are efficient and suited to the current infrastructure. And using hydroelectric power at major water bodies can provide enough energy for alot of places. Using wind power on the coast and in high places can provide energy for those places. Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions".

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

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: Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia Content: "Fossil fuels are already used commonly so using it to make a better environment for the future would be better than sticking with fossil fuels,"- SquidKing Do wind turbines reduce the amount of carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere? Of course not. If you use the oil or other fossil fuels to make something it still will effect the environment. Having a massive tall structure made out of plastic stuck into the ground you will still effect the environment.I would also like to point out that thousands of dollars cannot be spent. We have billions of dollars at debt and money doesn't grow on trees so we cannot just spend "thousands of dollars". Also where did I say "sticking with fossil fuels". I never did ! In fact I propose a better plan which leads me to my argument. Instead of using wind turbines as a source of energy we can further harness our great Australian sun. Solar panels are made out of silicon, a much more environmentally friendly material. If we put a solar panels on most houses we would provide a lot more power and the extra power it generates can be sent back to the grid.

Title: the government should mandate that all vehicals be powered by an alternativr fule souce by 2040 Content: On behalf of the members of this site, I should like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for addressing this important issue. Unfortunately, my opponent was not explicit as to the nature of his objections so I have, therefore, been obliged to conclude that he either believes that alternative fuels are not associated with glamorous, high-performance cars or, otherwise, that he is an oil tycoon and consequently has a vested interest in putting profits before pollution. Now, please don't be deceived into believing that that alternatively-powered cars have too be small, slow and as dull as ditchwater. Here's what's available on the market right now: The Tesla Roadster is powered by an electric motor: http://www.teslamotors.com... The Venturi Fetish is hybrid-powered http://www.hybridcars.com... All Saabs are available with biofuel engines http://www.topgear.com... The Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen http://automobiles.honda.com... And here's what's coming soon: The Audi R8 V12 Le Mans is powered by a V12 diesel engine http://www.audi.co.uk... The Saab Aero X Concept is powered by a V6 biofuel engine http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... The RUF Porsche 911 is powered by an electric motor http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de... Glamorous enough for you? And who knows what else will be available by 2040? If my opponent agrees that green cars can be desirable, and it is rather the case that he makes a living by prospecting and drilling for oil, and stands to lose out financially if alternative fuels are mandated by the United States Government, I have little sympathy for him - the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one and just as steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, the switch to alternative fuels is inevitable and I advise my opponent to adjust his investment plans accordingly. Thank you.

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

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

Title: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: There are many alternative sources of energy available, and I believe that those that are both renewable and non-toxic would help the environment best. Such sources are solar energy, hydropower, and wind energy. Alone, these kinds of power have seemed to be less-than-needed by the large population, but when put together could have a tremendous positive effect on the economy and the overall homeostasis of Earth. Solar energy is energy gathered from the wavelengths of light produced from the sun, which can be captured with solar panels that contain light-capturing cells. Instead of wasting some of this energy powering huge electrical appliances, it could be kept in it's primitive form to heat houses, water, and small hand-held devices such as calculators, watches, etc. It can also be converted into electricity through various machines. If the United States were to further invest in Solar Power, the citizens themselves would be able to spend less money on house electricity and thus result in more money to the Federal Government, which could be used for multiple things to better our situation with other countries, such as China, to which we owe enormous debt, and as the National Debt decreases, the value of American currency will increase and we will slowly but surely achieve a better political and economic condition. Hydropower and Wind energy are could be used to move rotors or wheels, and the resulting movement would create electricity. These, if used correctly, would greatly decrease the amount of money we use to buy foreign oils and the National Debt would decrease further and the previous results would occur in a quicker time. :)

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: 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: 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: The Green New Deal is Ridiculous. Content: First off, Thank you for accepting! Now, Into the arguments. First, You said that fossil fuel will eventually run out. Well, So will a lot of things. The sun will allegedly burn out one day, But that doesn't stop us from using it's energy. We have almost unlimited access to fossil fuels, And we are in no danger of running out anytime soon. Next, You said that the Green New Deal is necessary to solve the "problem. " But, If you look at the plan, They want to eliminate all fossil fuel in just a dozen or so years! Andrea Ocasio Cortez has mentioned getting rid of air travel because of their "effect on the earth. " This idea simply could not be put into action. We do not yet have a reliable method of storing mass amounts of solar energy, And that's something we're going to need if this plan is to go forward. While I acknowledge that the science of solar energy may prove promising in the distant future, It simply is not sufficient right now. Wind power is practically useless on the large scale, And water power cannot be harnessed on a mass level. There is no way we can get enough energy to power the entire US in just a dozen years. Next, You said that there are no good other options besides the Green New Deal. This is because this is not (at least right now) a truly pressing problem. Until there is a verifiable danger of energy running out, Another option is not necessary. Lastly, The Green New Deal isn't trying to accomplish this just to save energy because we're "running out. " It's because they claim we will all be dead in a dozen years because of "global warming" and the "harmful effect of fossil fuels on our planet. " So, What I'm saying is, You're going to need to prove that either there is a true threat of running out of fossil fuels soon, Or that we will not survive if a solution is not found soon. P. S. - The burden of proof is not solely on you. Unlike the guy who calls himself "killshot, " I believe that the burden of proof is on BOTH sides. Don't ever let someone tell you that the burden of proof is solely on you. That's just unethical debate style if someone tells you that. Once again, Thank you for accepting, And back to you!

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

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

Title: Nuclear Power Content: The primary intention of my argument, will be to convince the reader that nuclear energy is becoming obsolete. I hope to put nuclear energy in the same category as fossil fuels, and perhaps show that nuclear energies carbon footprint actually has more impact on the environment than oil, coal, and all other fossil fuels. I believe that nuclear energy represents an old standard of large, company owned energy when society is on the cusp of technological advances that will help promote individually owned energy. While energy saving batteries and solar panels become more advanced and cheaper as time moves forward, nuclear energy, and all energy companies may find it increasingly difficult to compete, and will struggle to justify their existence. If we owned the means of our own energy production, then the risks involved with nuclear energy would become unnecessary. Out of all forms of terrorism, nuclear terrorism is on the highest rung of terror. One could argue that steps could be taken to lessen the risk of a terrorist attack on a nulclear plant, but that would raise the price of nuclear energy, and there's never a garuantee. Unfortunately, terrorism is more technologically advanced too. Cyber terrorism can potentially penatrate the safeguards of a nuclear power plant, and destroy lives. The only true garuantee against such a nightmarish scenario would be to abandon nuclear energy, and embrace renewables, embrace the future. Any government investment in a renewable energy based infrastructure could potentially be paid back to the taxpayers in the form of savings on energy costs. Investments in nuclear power would come from the consumers, and may not have the same energy saving bennefit. I will show you that money used to "update" nuclear power plants doesn't fall solely on the consumers, but on taxpayers as well. In my oppinion, goverment investment in nulclear energy is nothing more than a bailout, whereas a government investment in renewables, is an investment for the future of energy. *Nulclear is becoming obsolete* The Tesla power wall and other products like it are becoming more of a mainstream option for home energy consumers. More and more renewables are being looked at as a viable option for homeowners and renters. Less and less are renewables being thought of as solely an environmentally conscious decision by the wealthy. Renewables are becoming more efficient and less expensive, and there's no evidence that trend will plateau anytime soon. True, waste annihilating molten salt reactors (wamsr) are a technological advancement for the nuclear industry, but they are not inducive toward individually owned energy. WAMSRs also don't represent a cheaper trending source of energy. Actually, the cost of nuclear energy may go up initially because of the cost of converting old reactors into newer WAMSRs. As time goes on renewables are becoming more of a mainstream option for energy consumers. . http://theconversation.com... *Nulclear is not clean energy* High grade uranium is a finite recourse, so nuclear energy is automatically barred from being considered a renewable energy. Nuclear reactors need uranium to function. The uranium minning process is an environmental nightmare. Just like coal minning, uranium minning leaves toxic remnants but the remnants of uranium minning are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. And of course, just like coal minning, uranium minning needs large heavy machinery to move and process, and then needs to be shipped to the plants. All this moving and processing needs fossil burning fueled truck and machinery. Then there is the spent nuclear rods, and other nuclear waste that has to be isolated for hundreds of thousands of years. WAMSRs can help with using up much of the nuclear waste, but does nothing to lessen the environmentally disruptive minning process, and won't be able to use up all the nuclear waste. When you consider the environmental litigation, the storing of used material, the energy needed to convert nuclear power into energy, (it takes energy for nuclear conversion) then nuclear energy is very inefficient. In my humble opinion along with many in the science community, nuclear energy is the WORST polluter of all energy sources. Most scientists believe, if we stop using fossil fuels today the effects on the environment would begin to reverse in as little as a decade. If we stop using nuclear power today, we will have to deal with the environmental effects for hundreds of thousands of years to come. Don't believe the hype, nuclear energy isn't clean! . http://www.beyondnuclear.org... . http://www.psr.org... . https://www.theguardian.com... *Nulclear power plants are susceptible to terrorism* . http://www.cbsnews.com... The fact of the matter is, terrorists don't need old fashioned brute force and guns to gain control of a nuclear power plant. Cyber terrorism is the new technological weapon in the arsenal, and there's far less calorie burning required, much to the chagrin of the lazy terrorist. A skilled computer tech, or a team of techs could potentially infiltrate a nuclear power plant and shut it down, release radioactive material into the air, or even cause a meltdown. But for the nostalgic terrorist, guns and brut force still is an option. *Nuclear power relies on goverment bailouts* The nuclear industry has needed government assistance to help save them from bankruptcy. They also need government assistance for environmental litigation and high insurance costs. . http://www.psr.org.... The taxpayers money needed to help the nuclear industry qstay afloat may never be reimbursed to the taxpayers, and there's no assurance that the nuclear industry will stop needing assistance for the foreseeable future because of old outdated and crumbling nuclear plants. . http://www.psr.org... I would like to thank my opponent for letting me debate him on this matter. I look forward to some thought provoking argument.

Title: I'm a Utopian idealist - prove me wrong! Content: I feel that the points he raises are well-reasoned, but are based on an insufficiently detailed understanding of my case. In this post, I will point out what he overlooked. I apologise if my use of the phrase "apparent scarcity of oil" led readers to think I meant oil is not running out. I do accept that oil is running out. I deny that this is problematic. Oil is good for two things: energy and plastics. Non-oil sources of energy are so vast that to call them "abundant" would be like calling Pol Pot "eccentric". Even if all we has was solar panels, converting just 0.02% of the sunlight that falls on our planet to electricity would more than meet our needs for the foreseeable future. Nuclear fusion (which was successfully done last month) can liberate as much energy from a litre of seawater as 300 liters of oil. (That is to say, our oceans contain 10^31 joules of nuclear fuel. ) Factor in space-based solar, wind energy, geothermal, wave energy, microbial fuel cells, nuclear fission etc. and we have a staggering abundance of energy. As for plastics, I challenge my opponent to name a single case where oil-based plastics are used where an alternative material cannot satisfactorily replace them. We are running out of oil. But that's ok, because humans are ingenious and can apply know-how to overcome such scarcity. Even if oil were irreplaceable (which I have shown it is not), scientists expect that we will soon be able to grow oil with bioengineered bacteria, and much progress has already been made in this direction My esteemed opponent has claimed that only 0.65% of water is "easy of access". This is a matter of opinion; it depends on what one means by "easy". I consider all the water in the air around us, all the greywater in our buildings, all the water in our lakes and rivers and all the water in the sea to be "easy" to purify. I make this claim based on the fact that the most required is some carbon nanotube filters (made of carbon, using helium - both extremely abundant elements) and some ultraviolet LEDs - a very cheap, abundant technology. Humanity's water resources and the technologies for harvesting water are analyzed in much greater detail at adciv. org/Water. You will find that nothing is needed that is not in fantastic abundance on Earth. My opponent believes that desalination requires "considerable amounts of energy, time, and money". Desalination was once energy-intensive - true. (Though if you think we lack energy, you ain't paying attention! ) But emerging technologies are changing this, specifically nanofiltration and microbial desalination. Nanofiltration slashes energy needs by a factor of four compared to the old membrane technologies, and microbial desalination actually generates electricity while desalinating. The claim that we can't desalinate water because we lack the time to do so doesn't merit refutation. As for money - money is not needed to desalinate water (nor to do anything else for that matter). Take seawater. Pass it through a nanotube filter. There, you desalinated it! The laws of physics (by which our technology functions) do not have meters on them. The laws of physics do not send us bills when we use them. They do not charge by the hour. Money is required by one thing and one thing only: the monetary system. An alternative to the monetary system is proposed in my first post; it is the free sharing of know-how and the local application of that know-how. My opponent has claimed that an insurmountable problem with minerals is that they are unprocessed. I don't know what to say to this, except that it is a problem that was solved by the advent of the Bronze Age. Mining and smelting are now extremely well-developed technologies that we know a lot about. We have invented plenty of machines that do most of it for us. Mining and smelting (along with every other aspect of our infrastructure) are becoming more and more automated with each passing year. Extrapolating this trend, we will arrive at full automation. (A general point about my thesis is worth repeating: it considers a world on the horizon in the next several decades. Some of the technologies I discuss are as yet in the prototype phase or are otherwise not fully mature. They are all very near though, and all considered entirely possible or inevitable by researchers. ) A weak point of our current automation is maintenance and repair. But scatter sensors throughout a machine to detect problems, have other machines ('repair bots') that can replace faulty parts, and build machines from smart, self-healing materials and there is no need for maintenance by humans. I do not claim that this has already happened; I claim that it is now possible with current technology and I expect it will be done soon. See adciv. org/Advanced_automation/Self-maintenance_and_repair for more details. (Besides, even if infrastructure is not 100% automatic, if it becomes ninety-something percent automatic, that is enough to create a leisure society. And this has almost happened already, with logistics, loading and unloading ships and other aspects of infrastructure now automated, saving enormous amounts of human labour. The main obstacle to the leisure society is the monetary system, which as I've said, can be bypassed if open culture generates abundance. ) My opponent claims that "the changes proposed by the theory requires large amounts of investments". Let's be specific: The "changes" my thesis requires are some successful open-source projects, ones that will create free education, free healthcare, free fabrication etc. If my opponent was referring to some other "changes", I would ask him to be specify what changes he means. At the risk of stating the obvious, open-source projects require very little money compared to private or public projects. In fact, they are often one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than equivalent private or public projects. This is because people work on them for free. Wikipedia has accrued over 100 million man-hours of labour for free. Linux is a world-class operating system (often considered better than Mac or Windows) put together by free labour. Open-source bypasses the monetary system, so money can be cut out of the loop in many areas. However, as of 2010, money cannot be completely cut out. It is true that open-source projects do need some money to manage. (I have managed some myself. ) This is because the monetary system is currently so dominant and so ubiquitous that one cannot avoid dealing with it. But the money is always forthcoming when the projects are worthy. The Wikimedia Foundation raised $8 million dollars in 2 months last year, surpassing its targets. OpenPCR raised 202% of its target. Diaspora raised 2006% of its target. (And all this happened in the middle of the most acute financial shortage in living memory! ) The investments are forthcoming and that is the fact of the matter. I challenge my opponent to name a single open-source project scuppered by lack of funds. My opponent was worried about population growth. Population just means having a lot of people around. I think having a lot of people around is a good thing. I find people to be hilarious and sexy. I think the problem you have in mind is not a surfeit of people per se, but rather a lack of resources relative to those people. Correct? If so, what resource is lacking? Minerals are not lacking; our planet is made of them. Water is not lacking; the surface of our planet is covered in it. Food (and land to grow it) is not lacking; we have enough farmland to grow food for 80 billion people (and enough plant nutrients to grow for hundreds of billions more with controlled-environment growing). See adciv. org/Food for a more detailed analysis of the amount of food that can be grown on this planet.

Title: Deep water oil drilling, Kimo vs. Pono Content: Part of the issue? Global warming patterns are more directly correlated to the sun patterns than with CO2 emissions. "So what Beginner seems to be saying is he drives a gas guzzling vehicle and could give a damn if he kills innocent life forms." My opponent seems to think that gas is ONLY used in vehicles. The oil extracted is a very precious and much needed commodity. Oil runs everything. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the car you drive, the housewares...all the items in this link: http://www.anwr.org... and much more. Almost everything requires oil. The world is now in a state that it cannot run without oil. By giving up oil, you are agreeing that we should give up the production of nearly everything in the world. We should stop producing housing, ventilation, commodities (such as clothing, toothbrush), etc. You are saying we should give up running water (because the engines running such pumps are, guess what? OIL-facilitated) and nearly all common necessities you probably don't even think about. By denouncing nuclear energy, my opponent has also agreed to alternative forms of energy. Since we do not have anything close to a sufficient amount of supplies (economically and literally) to produce enough 'clean' alternative energy, we would be relying on the burning of fossil fuels (the old method) which is much more accessible/practical to mass produce. The irony is that we use nuclear energy because its proponents want cleaner energy. They are against using oil/burning fossil fuels so they support using nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is very clean and does not harm the environment when contained. If my opponent is against oil-energy, than the only other practical option is nuclear and vice versa. Other options such as wind and solar are expensive and hard-to-make products. The production of such clean energy alternatives will not cover our energy consumption rate. We consume millions of barrels per day even with nuclear energy: http://www.accuval.net...

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: The Republican Party Content: You admitted that climate change exists. But you said that it's largely natural, which is false. I'm not sure what you mean when you state that "something needs to exist in order to be natural," but I can say with absolute certainty that climate change is not natural. It is a real phenomenon, brought about by our burning coal. I am not saying that we need to stop using electricity and water. I never said that. you're using Straw Man. We do not need to stop using electricity and water to stop burning fossil fuels. We simply need to install more wind turbines and solar panels. And we shouldn't produce those wind turbines and solar panels by burning fossil fuels. That would be counterproductive. Solar panels and wind turbines, if installed all over, could absolutely produce sufficient energy. Putting wind turbines and solar panels into developing countries would actually be great for a developing country. One thing a developing country shouldn't have to deal with is pollution. The Earth is not going to become an infinitesimal amount warmer. It's going to be so warm that it will melt all the Polar ice caps and flood most major coastal cities. Here's a map of the United States once all the ice melts: https://i.ytimg.com... And here's some articles about solar panels and wind turbines. Both of them are efficient and helpful. They release no CO2 and can power homes well. https://www.livescience.com... https://www.energy.gov... My SkepticalScience link is incredibly relevant, as it does mention both Lewis and Curry- and says that climate change is very reasonable. My AndThenTheresPhysics link does say that the paper is somewhat PLAUSIBLE, but also says that Lewis and Curry manipulated data to better prove their hypothesis like the shameless frauds that they are. Their paper is only one among thousands which say otherwise, sir. They made their paper for a reason. It has one diabolical purpose. That purpose is to lie. There is a big consensus, but it is by no means magical. There is real math, and real science. And that science and that math all leads to one undeniable conclusion: that our burning of fossil fuels could spell the end of civilization as we know it. We do need real solutions. One real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and use alternative energy instead. Do you know why we don't use alternate energy, sir? It's because the oil and fossil fuel industry is run by Republicans, big Corporate execs who would let their planet die for a quick buck. I'll tell you what real science is not, Sir. Real science isn't a denial of real science. Real science cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Real science is not used to prove a hypothesis, but to prove or disprove it. We do not need to stop everything. We simply need to recycle more and stop digging up dinosaur remains. That Graphene Sieve you mentioned does sound nifty. We should also stop burning fossil fuels. That helps too. You don't know what The Little Ice Age is. The Little Ice Age, sir, is not a true ice age. It was just a cold spell. And the Medieval Warm Period, the period right before it, was warm- but not as warm as it is now, sir. The Earth is at an unprecedented point of warmth. Things are going to be heating up quite a bit from now on- and all because people like you never stopped to listen. We have everything to do with it. Before us, there was no species that burned coal. The climate began to change when WE began to change. You, sir, are ignorant. If poor people live in a violent area, they should move. That's my solution, sir, in a Republican-controlled economy. My ideal situation would be for a gun ban, and I'd like it if the slums were spruced up a little, with Republican taxpayer money, so that black and lower income families wouldn't need to live in fear of being mauled by gunmen at every second of their lives. But, in a Republican controlled economy, where guns are bought and sold freely, with no rules or restrictions placed upon them- well, I hope that every non-criminal family in the slums finds a better place to live. They probably won't be able to, you're right. I just hope they do. I care about people, you know? The rich can be taxed enough to improve the sums, but they won't, because rich people want to keep their money. Such is the bizarre, counter-intuitive nature of Capitalism. I think making nicer neighborhoods would help the poor. You wouldn't have to gentrify anything. All it would take is a better, more just police force, some rules on guns, and a few trees. If a family doesn't constantly have to worry for their lives, they might be able to concentrate on getting a job. Gentrification is a choice, sir. You can make a neighborhood more livable without gentrifying it. I'm glad that Thomas Jefferson didn't say that. If he had, I would have lost some respect for him. Guns are machines designed for killing. Think about what a better place the world would be without them. We're not savages anymore, sir. Have you no civility? There's a reason mass shootings happen in gun free zones. They happen in gun free zones because that particular region isn't free enough of guns. They can still be traded around, on the black market. Think about Colorado, home of the Columbine massacre and the Aurora Theater shooting. It might be a region that's opposed to guns, but they're not illegal. No state has yet made guns illegal. Once a state makes guns illegal, we'll see a big decrease in shootings. Guns are for killing. They are not for defense. You reduce the amount of killing machines sold, less people are killed. It's as simple as that. https://en.wikipedia.org... You don't decrease the amount of people dead by increasing the amount of killing machines. That's not how it works, sir. people in schools might get shot, but they'll have gone out not as ferocious cowards, but as symbols of the atrocious nature of guns- and every shooting will make Congress change its mind just a bit more, until the killing machines are banned in every single state. Crime will go down. I'd rather keep a criminal alive. I'm not sure why. I think that prison is bad enough. They don't need to get shot at by insane redneck vigilantes. The wealthy do gain from dead poor people. Dead poor people don't buy products, but they don't provide any competition for rich people. They don't ask for any charity. Rich people wouldn't have to worry if all poor people were dead. that why you give them guns. You know. Like handing booze out to native Americans. They can kill themselves- and you'll be guilt free. The police can stop and frisk. Metal detectors only take a few seconds. Let's say that the criminal isn't even concealing it, because gun laws are so easy. On the other hand, though, they're pretty hard to conceal. But police need to do a better job of searching places for guns. In places where gun laws are easier, criminals can get their guns easily. Also, police can keep records of past offenders, keep a close eye on all gun owners- there are lots of things they can do to save lives. They can also infiltrate the black market. You make the Black Market sound as if it's a supermarket. Police can easily figure out if anybody is buying anything from a black market. this isn't the days of Al Capone anymore. Forensic Science has gotten better and better, almost perfect- and if it isn't, and people can still easily access the Black Market like you say, then we just need to improve forensic science a little more. It's as easy as that. Australia is acting like a safe, sane government when they ban killing machines. If the Government gets rid of all their weapons, they won't be giving criminals free reign. remember what I said? there are no guns in my hypothetical situation. I know it might be a hard concept to wrap your puny little mind around, but let's just say that all trade on guns is shut off, and we blow the things into space, where they can never be accessed again, and police can use bows and arrows and other, less dangerous weapons to stop crime. Things will be much, much safer. Wikipedia is a reliable source. try and vandalize it, and see how quickly your vandalism gets taken down. But you have your doubts- so here's some more articles about Reaganomics. it had nothing to do with Jimmy carter. Reagan made bad choices on his own. https://mises.org... https://www.thebalance.com... Everything I have pointed out indicates that abortions are a good idea for poor families. You simply won't listen. Life does not begin at conception. Life begins at roughly the fifth month. Before that, the thing inside the mother's womb is a lump of cellular matter. All science supports this. I have never heard of science that says a sperm cell and an egg cell have the "right to live". I've asked you about this "right to live," several times over the course of this debate, and now I can finally see where it comes from. You made a very weak move, sir. very weak indeed. I didn't know this was a religious debate. Instead of relying on facts, or statistics, or real, undeniable science, what do you rely on? Belief, Religion, plain and simple, and quotes from a 2,000 year old book that was written before abortion existed. I'm a Catholic, sir, but a tolerant one, and if a woman isn't a Catholic, or if she doesn't follow the Bible word for word, and if she has trust in her doctors and her own sense of judgment- well, then she can do whatever the Hell she pleases with her uterus. That's not up for you to decide. it never will be. You don't get to decide what life is- especially not by looking at archaic Gospels and declaring them the truth. If you follow nothing but Religion, then you have no mind. I'll send you part 2 soon. Voters, vote wisely. I'm outta here.

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: government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: For it to be the case that the government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels, if must first be the case that transitioning to alternative fuels is a good thing, which my opponent implied is true, but without giving any logical argument or sources to support the case. My opponent must first prove that alternative energies gives an economic advantage and/or environmental advantage, and if it has one at the cost of the other, my opponent must prove that the advantage of one outweighs the disadvantage of the other. Once my opponent makes that case, then we can discuss whether or not it is worth government intervention to help reach the goal of transitioning to alternative fuels. But until then, it doesn't make sense that government should intervene in something that is not proven to be a beneficial cause in the first place.

Title: Choose a Resolution Debate Content: I'm just going to post what was my previous argument, since I still have it saved and apologize once again, for marring the debate. Please assess and dock me for this in the voting. I would like to also point out, for the benefit of those voting, that I did indeed concede with my opponents first two points, in the previous round. 1.) Nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch. I apologize for any ambiguity. The resolution, as stated, is ": Nuclear power plants should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. (I'm PRO)". My opponent is attempting to prove that nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. I am simply trying to prove that nuclear power should not replace it. When saying that nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch, I am pointing out that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal for the fact that, though it is safer and more environmentally friendly, as my opponent pointed out, it does not fix the bigger problem that we as a nation face. That problem being that our entire outlook on energy usage is flawed. We need a new approach, one that does not rely on a non-renewable energy source, and one that isn't short term. "Without further support in showing that coal is superior to show that coal is superior to nuclear, this argument is refuted by itself." Just to clarify again, I am not stating that coal is superior. I fully agree that nuclear power, in most senses, is far superior to coal power. But the resolution does not ask me to prove that coal power is superior nuclear power. It merely asks me to prove that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal power in the home. (I didn't do the semantic argument thing did I? If so, I apologize, and ask that I be docked during the voting period by those voting). 2. Nuclear waste My opponent states he expects that scientists would become more innovative with their ideas for nuclear storage. This is valid assumption. But the problem still persists because all you can do with nuclear waste is store it. That's it. And eventually, with the amount of energy that the United States uses, we would run out of space. My opponent has to concede that point. No matter how crafty, how innovative we get, logic simply says that we will run out of space. "Finally, my opponent brings up solar as an alternate to both nuclear and coal. However, this debate is about whether nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity, not about solar." Completely right. I was bringing up solar power to give my opponent a better idea of the outlook we should have on energy usage. We need to utilize a PURELY renewable source, and back out of the faulty energy processes we're using today. I wanted my opponent just to get an idea of a better way. He also said that the pressing need for storing nuclear waste would lead to more jobs, etc. So would the need to commercialize solar energy. In fact, more so, since there are so many more components and needs for expansion inside of the field. Just to wrap up, I feel as if I have marred this debate a little because I'm a noob. To make my opponents last round a bit easier, I'll try and attempt to use a quick little template I've seen on other debates, and ask that he refute my points above ^ and use the set up to get an idea of my thought process and contentions, in order to fix the debate a little. Resolved: Nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. 1. Nuclear Power is another quick fix solution with the some of the same flaws as coal power. - It relies on a non-renewable energy source that will eventually run out. - It loses a lot of energy through the already flawed, multi-stepped energy generation process. - It's too shortsighted, and would only be beneficial until we ran out of materials. 2.) Nuclear Power's on unique flaws prevent it from being readily identified as the standing energy source of the future. - The only means to dispose of nuclear waste, even after reprocessing it and using it again, is storage. Through that idea alone and keeping with the amount of energy used in the US, my opponent has to concede that we will eventually run out of space to put our nuclear waste, if we don't run out of usable materials before the problem occurs. For these reasons, I conclude that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States.

Title: The US needs to do much more to combat climate change Content: Since my opponent gave a short blurb to define the debate, I will too in order to maintain parity.Basically, the fundamental issue is this: "Is drastic government intervention on behalf of the environment worth the cost?" Because solar and wind are expected to be cheaper than fossil fuels by at most 2030 (likely a lot sooner)http://www.businessinsider.com...The question becomes "Is it worth the tremendous cost to slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions for five to ten years?"

Title: Climate Change is the end of the world Content: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

Title: The United States should fund alternative energy research Content: "This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic." Don't worry, I completely agree with the eligibility of your stance as Con. First, to address the comment by "the instigators opening statement seems unclear as to if the government should just fund the initial research or if it should continue to make it viable (eg.Further research, or funding of Infastructure.", I will present a case that supports the current infrastructure of alternative energies, and the main factor on why they are not more technologically advanced today is a lack of funding. The most efficient manner of researching alternative energy is through the private sector. Directly funding companies instead of government agencies will grant growth in both the economic and technological sectors. "This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal." This is only the case when the government restricts the contracts to one or a few companies, typically known as no-bid contracts. Before granting a contract to the private sector, the companies must compete for the contract not only by giving the government the best deal but also by having the strongest business proposal. There are risks involved in funding the private sector, but if the companies begin to work out of line and diverge away from the desired goal that the government seeks, then the government can pull its funding as a breach of contract. It seems that the both of us agree on the potential of alternative energy reducing oil dependence and rectifying America's long-term future. The solution to alternative energy has been found, however it has not yet been implemented because of a large gap in technology. Solar voltaic cells and nanotechnology are the future of the United States. Professor Nate Lewis of California Institute of Technology presents a lecture series evaluating and assessing both the theoretical and practical yield of power output for several forms of alternative energy including geothermal, solar, nuclear, and wind. He states that the most efficient manner is solar power, which holds the potential of harvesting 600 Terawatts, but can practically yield 60 TW. This is enough power to solve the world's energy for over a century. Dr. Lewis goes so far as to even provide geographical positions where the solar panels may be placed to successfully provide this much power. Once solar power is instituted, it will lower the cost to all consumers worldwide, emit no pollution, and solve the obvious problem of a limited supply of fossil fuels on earth. The annual consumption for the world is 13 TW annually, 10 of which are fossil fuels, and by the year 2050 it is estimated that the earth will consume almost 25 TW per year. At this rate, unless there is significant alternative energy source, the world will not be able to power itself by 2050. The main flaws with solar power are: 1)Perfecting the nanotechnology of voltaic cells 2)Perfecting the preservation of energy 3)Lowering the cost of the cells by improving technology These projects are a main focus for many engineers, businessmen, and corporations in America, as their production capabilities are limited by their available funds to spend on such projects. These projects need not to be started by the government, but provided additional funding. This eliminates a strong possibility of government spending being inappropriately allocated. Your solution, of government funding its own projects, is inefficient because: 1)Current projects already exist, and merely need funding 2)Less economic benefits 3)Less options for success The solution to alternative energy is an increase in funding, a realistic goal that can be accomplished more subsidizing and government spending.

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: 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: Nuclear energy Content: Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal

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

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: 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: the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels" Content: Let's remember that this debate isn't about me or where I see the future of fuel going. And though, due to innovation, existing infrastructure and the possibility of gradual implementation I believe it will continue to go in the way it has already shown a willingness to go (with plug-in hybrids already on the road and production models hitting the road soon in far greater numbers / get on the waiting lists now... it'll be a while with demand what it is). I was simply pointing out where I see the economy going. We have a massive investment in gasoline and it's going to take years to get away from it. Plug-in hybrids allow for a transition away from gasoline to another readily available infrastructure with energy, the power grid. The higher the price goes the greater the demand. The greater the demand the more people use electricity and buy cars with better mileage and more of a push for electric to be used. The technology used is improving and allows for massive amounts of additional innovation. We're already heading in that direction, and the higher gasoline prices and entrenched oil structure make my points more obvious. People aren't going to replace their cars or shift away from gasoline soon. This is a major reason I think plug-in hybrids are an obvious choice. We need to reduce demand and allow people to shift over to a more electric when the gas prices are high, to allow the gas prices to stabilize. However, this debate isn't about that, this debate is about whether "Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline" or "a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline" -- Do you recall any argument to this effect? He did suggest, "Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term" He did not, however, make an argument at any point as to why hydrogen works. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's produced by breaking water apart or by converting methane (already a fuel / fossil fuel) into hydrogen. That's hardly an amazing feat. Electricity -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Car -> Car moves. vs. Electricity -> Car -> Car moves. -- or Gasoline -> Car -> Car moves. (we aren't going to lose that paradigm soon) How did Solarman respond to these objections? How are the infrastructure problems overcome? -- Build it. Ship it in containers. Use natural gases' infrastructure. Something something... How is the leaky nature of hydrogen overcome? -- "Non-issue." How is the lack of cars overcome? -- YOU NON-SCIENTIFIC LIBERAL WITH YOUR TREE-HUGGING HYSTERIA! Why is hydrogen better than the current approach? Why will hydrogen work? Why is it the only solution? Why? I'd go to the trouble of refuting my opponent's argument, if he had an argument! All the technical problems with hydrogen which has constantly and consistently kept the technology on the backburner and given people pause is somehow ignored and everything else, even proven technology on the roads in ever increasing numbers, is wrong because... why? Other than matter-of-factly declaring things, solarman has done nothing to establish his argument (whatever it may be). He hasn't met his burden of proof or apparently even tried to argue his side. Problems aren't problems for him and solutions aren't solutions. Hydrogen isn't a bad technology, it simply has a lot of hurdles to get over before it become viable solution to our energy problems. The same can be said for a number of the technologies vying to solve this problem. Why is hydrogen different? This is what solarman would needs to have addressed in this argument and he perhaps should have given that a shot rather than being rudely typical. ------------------------------ -- "how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft?" Not every solution fits to every problem, there's plenty of room for trucks and buses and ships to store plenty of batteries. I am not aware of any major projects doing so currently. Though I've heard less about hydrogen on the point. Electric alone works fine depending on the range. Comparing hybrids with plug-in hybrids is a little bit off. Hybrids charge up their batteries in order to run the stop and go traffic of day to day life (which they are highly efficient at) without running a poorly suited electric engine for the task. A plug-in hybrid has more batteries and is better suited to accept electricity as energy rather than a buffer. -- "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" ---- "WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period." What an interesting way of violating physics: declaring it so! -- "It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O)" You managed to escape physics there too? Why don't you just burn the hydrogen resulting in water, generating power, then simply make more hydrogen out of water and start the process over again. You'd have a perpetual motion machine! If you're just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, go all out! -- "CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) )" 4 H2 = 8 Atomic weight = 8. C = 12.01 O2 = 32 Atomic weight = 44.01. Though, I'm glad to see you're going by the atom. *smirk* So if you put 1 gram of diamonds on a 10 grams of gold ring it's more diamond than gold? "In central station hydrogen production from natural gas reforming, the mass of CO2 emitted is 2.51 times greater than the mass of hydrogen produced." http://www.getenergysmart.org... -- "No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT." You can't get energy from nothing. It's going to take power from the power grid or from a non-renewable source. -- "Batteries can be improved." ---- "What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine." No I gave you a great list of many of the improvements being made in batteries. Anybody with a cellphone can tell you that massive strides have been made over the years and new technology and innovation comes around all the time. We're already going in the right direction. Hydrogen is simply a battery, and isn't a very good one. Battery technology however is making fantastic strides in the right direction. And can continue to be improved ways elements cannot. -- For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power 57 kW @ 5000 rpm. That 5000 RPM is pretty important. Your calculations were still based on misunderstanding the term being discussed and it still works out to a bit over a dollar a gallon (as much as that makes any sense when dealing with electric energy rather than an actual volume of something).

Title: The Green New Deal is Ridiculous. Content: You know, I read this thing on the Burden of proof as defined by DDO and it was interesting. They qualify some debates as having "No burden of proof" in situations where there are multiple factors involved. I honestly didn't know that burden of proof could be shared or eschewed in some cases. Goes to show that I'm a rank amateur, Lol. Onto the debate. "First, You said that fossil fuel will eventually run out. Well, So will a lot of things. The sun will allegedly burn out one day" Sure, But there's nothing that we can do about the sun. We can definitely do something about fossil fuel. I liked the comparison though. "We have almost unlimited access to fossil fuels, And we are in no danger of running out anytime soon. " I know that sources aren't posting well right now, But would you be able to quote me some data from a source in your own words? I honestly have no idea how far the "fossil fuel well" reaches down and I think it would serve as good evidence if you're correct. I boiled down your next paragraph to two key points. "Time frame is insufficient" and "the problem is exaggerated" Okay, So you make a good point that the green deal may not be as strong as we would like. But does it meet your standards for the topic of being ridiculous? So on the time frame, I would say that I could grant you limited effectiveness, But no insufficient effectiveness. We have to give the movers a little credit and assume they won't just shut the whole airport system down if they can't handle the aftermath. Same goes for fuel dependency. So you've brought me two probably half efficiency. Can you push me into ridiculousness? If I assume that you're correct and that the fossil problem isn't right around the corner, That means we can safely let them work at a slower pace without being too worried about it. I would probably agree that the problem is exaggerated, This is a big issue that we're seeing out of politicians lately. They want everything to be a crisis. But knowing it's probably not a crisis allows us more freedom in our options as well. "Next, You said that there are no good other options besides the Green New Deal. This is because this is not (at least right now) a truly pressing problem. Until there is a verifiable danger of energy running out, Another option is not necessary. " based off your prior statement about the fossil fuel floor being vast, I could be inclined to agree. But let's not just stop there. While we're on this subject. Maybe some alternatives would be a good idea for practicality sake. If you provided me with a viable alternative, It would be very close to an airtight case for you. Not that you want have to drag me kicking and screaming :) to your last statement, I would say that even if the fuel limit is vast, It would still be wise to start some sort of low level program as soon as possible. We don't necessarily want to tap our fuel wells to the bottom due to the effects of pollution, Not to mention our planet will end up looking like swiss cheese. We may not know when it's going to run out, But it is inevitable and we have to think about future generations. This doesn't necessarily have to be the green new deal, But until we can find an alternative, They're the only ones who can fit the part. I think I covered the key points for all the arguments posited thus far. your floor.

Title: go nuclear Content: Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost

Title: Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better Content: Good luck with your project, I realise the importance of the change to renewable energy resources in the future and that these can be used alongside other resources. I must say your title and first argument slightly misled me into thinking that you were championing this resources alone, saying that it was better than all others. As I personally believe there is no argument against your revised claim I forfeit my opposition to it. Sorry to be unsporting but I agree! Thank you for the debate.

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

Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: My opponent conceded my arguments so just pull them across. It makes more sense that the government should not intervene with alternative energy, so don't vote for the pro. Thanks! - Matt

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

Title: Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better Content: Hello there, this is my first debate so I am unpractised: hoping that will change. To begin! Now first of all I would like to question what it is you mean by 'better'. -If you mean more efficient at producing energy I am sure you're right as this technique requires no transportation, no mining and little maintenance. -If it is better for the economy I am sure you are wrong: with the age of fracking (essentially mining shale gas) around the corner, already having made a serious impact in America, this solar method is expensive and certainly less tested than fracking. Britain (as I say I'm new I assume we're in the same country) would benefit far more from a concerted effort into mining this easily obtainable and (more importantly) British resource as for too long we have been reliant on foreign fuel which could be stopped at a diplomatic whim (exaggeration I know but true nonetheless). -If you mean better globally we run into another problem: in that this resource is highly dependant on the weather. In hotter countries this is surely a viable and attractive option but in Britain the efficiency will be greatly reduced and thus make the method less cost effective. -If, as I'm almost certain you do, you mean better for the environment then I cannot fault you. Despite some carbon costs in manufacturing and of course the land used up and of course obtaining the materials necessary for construction and, of course, harvesting the salt needed there is next to no cost to the environment. However, clean energy is already something of a British penchant in the form of wind power and yet, despite extremely concerted efforts, this only accounts for around 5% of energy production. -If you mean that it is renewable and will therefore last longer I direct you to the newly discovered shale gas, to scientific predictions that more oil will be found and of course to nuclear power which I personally believe to be a far more viable option, it being so very efficient at energy production - producing thousands of times more power per unit mass than fossil fuels. In short I believe that such a system would be inefficient in many areas of the world, it would be cost ineffective in those areas, there are more viable candidates for clean energy (let's not argue about nuclear - if everything is done properly there is no risk whatsoever, it even creates large natural habitats because of the required space for dumping etc.) and that as interesting the method of production this energy source is just one of the many forms which are considered renewable, as most rely on the sun, and should not be singled out for promotion. How was that? :)

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

Title: Choose a Resolution Debate Content: Resolved: Nuclear power should not replace coal as the primary source of electricity generation in the United States of America. I would first like to stress that I agree wholeheartedly with my opponent on his contentions. I agree that Nuclear Power is more environmentally friendly AND safer in general. However, there are aspects of Nuclear power that remain to be considered, and will found my contentions, which are as follows: 1. ) Nuclear power simply replaces the crutch that coal based electricity generation has become. Electricity generation as it stands is a very flawed and highly inefficient process. It comes from using a source of energy to boil water and use the resultant steam in order to do mechanical work, turning a turbine to produce electricity. The many different steps of the process hold it back this form of electrical generation back in and of itself. Looking into the future, we also see that though coal is plentiful, it is bound to run out at some period in time. This is the same for the sources of energy behind nuclear fission; though the resources are plentiful (by some standards. There are those who, like I, debate whether or not you can even consider nuclear power a renewable energy source [2]), they are also bound to run out at sometime, be it even 1,000's of years from now. [1] 2. ) Nuclear power has certain flaws that prevent it from being a long lasting energy source for the future Nuclear power may not pump carbon into the air, but it has byproducts that need to be dealt with; I'm speaking of nuclear waste, of course. We just simply have nothing to do with it, other than essentially sticking it in different places [3]. I mean, this is a huge flaw in and of itself. The primary pollutants of coal are indeed dangerous, but not as hazardous as nuclear waste. And once we run out of space to store it, or enough of it collects to emanate harmful radiation through sure to come shoddy management practice, we'll run into some real problems. ________ To close, I'd just like to say that I agree with my opponent in his obvious sentiment that coal is obsolete and harmful to the human condition. However, I don't think nuclear power (fusion, maybe. definitely not fission) is the way ahead. We're just going to run out of space to store our waste, or materials to generate heat. And then, we're left to scrounge around for the next viable energy source. What we should instead do is develop technology to redefine our energy production and consumption, not simply supplant faulty techniques with duplicate faulty techniques. I truly feel that the way of the future in energy production for the world is solar power [4]. Even with the solar panels of today, it would take less land usage than the area of Spain to power the entire world [5]. The problem with solar power simply lies in our inability to effectively and economically harness the power of the sun to positive ends (I read somewhere that if we could get solar panels to optimum efficiency, the United States would need only 10% of the area of Montana to power the entire nation). We need to continue to work on efficiency of photo-voltaic cells and improve battery life and size in order to really send our society into the future of energy production. I thank my opponent and look forward to his coming argument. 1. ) . http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2. . http://www.renewableenergyworld.com... 3. ) . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 4. ) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 5. ) . http://gizmodo.com...

Title: Conservatism vs Liberalism! Content: Yeet has made some very good points in this last round. 1. To address your very first concern, I think that the alternative to fracking is the clean energy you so clearly are doubtful about. I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say that "We don't have the knowledge at this point to complete such a task". I think that you mean the government is not putting enough time and energy into it. I live in Hawaii. On our island of Kauai (with a population of nearly 70,000) 60% of our daytime usage is covered by just three solar fields, which produce 30 megawatts of electricity (just look up 'KIUC'). One solar field costs $40 million (KIUC). There are about 1.7 million fracking wells in the US (http://www.fractracker.org...), which cost from $8 million to $14 million (http://breakingenergy.com...). So, for the price of four fracking wells about one 10-megawatt solar field can be built. Jobs would be made to build and maintain the solar field, the US would lose a good amount of it's dependence on foreign oil, there would absolutely be no ecological downsides, and the US would become the world leader in renewable technology. I know that the solar fields would not supply the whole nation with power, but 425,000 solar fields would be created (1.7 million / 4), and if three produce enough power to supply at least 70,000 people with 60% of their daytime needs (such as it is on my island), a minimum of 29.8 million people would have to pay 60% less for their power bills (425,000 * 70,000). So, THAT is the alternative to fracking. 2. Why do you say that Obama and Hillary are controlled by the oil industries? Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill, which obviously goes against the interests of oil companies. In a 2007 democratic debate, Hillary said: "I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies. . . And we could spend about $50 billion doing what America does best. . .We can solve these problems if we focus on innovation and technology. Alternative forms of energy are important. So is fuel efficiency for cars and so is energy efficiency for buildings." Hillary Clinton is advocating for renewable energy, and so I don't see why an oil company would pay Hillary to say this. Obama and Hillary have traditionally been pro-renewable energy. 3. What you say about healthcare doesn't make sense. You say that if someone refuses Obamacare and uses a different, private company then they get fined. In reality, someone would only get fined if they did not have health insurance at all. 'healthcare.gov' says that "the annual fee for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child", which is capped at $2,085. For taxes, that may be substantial for some people, but if they don't want to get fined then they should get healthcare, either from a private company or the government. I covered in my last argument why it is better for the American people if everyone has healthcare. Additionally, if you really want to end the problems with institutionalized health care, we should just have the government pay for it. That way it won't put stress on businesses to provide for their employees, or create a "monopoly" as you suggest. And why would you believe 'Forbes' over the people who helped create the program (healthcare.gov)? 4. Well, as it turns out jobs may be leaving the country, but more are being created here at home. The unemployment rate has dipped below 5% for the first time since before the financial crisis of 2008 (http://money.cnn.com...). I agree with you that the TTP bill was a horrible decision, but every presidency has it's low point. This for Obama, the wars in the Middle East for Bush, the Monica Lewinsky affair for Clinton, and the Iran-Contra Affair for Reagan. However, I think that the NAFTA increased cooperation and alliances among our two major North American allies. Investopedia.com says that about one third of our exports go to Canada and Mexico, while about one fourth of our imports come from those two countries. NAFTA has spanned three administrations, each one making it's own changes to the deal. In 1994, Clinton believed that it would initially create 200,000 jobs, and in January 2008 Bush implemented his own version (http://www.investopedia.com...). Obama is merely continuing this old North American agreement. 5. I think that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that those who are not as fortunate can have a decent life. Workers would help stimulate the economy because they would be buying more and therefor putting more money into the economy. And in response to your Walmart claim, they (1) never actually 'said' that, and (2) 'heritage.org' is a conservative website that argues for conservative principles, which leads me to (3) the fact that they didn't give any examples are facts behind their claim. This is very similar to what is happening here. Yeet is appealing to the fear or anxiety of people by saying that our leaders are corrupt, or saying that things cause inflation when they really don't, or putting 'non-truths' in all caps. The sources that Yeet have cited have been from Forbes, whose majority of articles are opinion (which I have no problem with, just don't quote them); and heritage.org, a conservative website which is of course slightly biased (and no real facts supporting Yeet's claims came from the article). I urge Yeet to use facts, not hunches, and sources when tying to prove his/her claim. I really enjoyed this debate and I am looking forward to seeing what people say in the comments! Thanks again, Yeeet2016:)

Title: Environment Over Economy Content: Rebut: My adversary has not made any strong stand with an example or neither did he rebut my argument. He states that fossil fuels are better as of now, Contradicting his own argument and tends to support the con side. Also, He stated the mass amount of energy is required theoretically is just for human's convenience, However, He did not provide any concrete data to prove his thesis statement, Not only that, By debating on this website, Doesn't he enjoying the benefits of the internet too? And if like what he said, This will take up much of the energy, So why is he debating here? Here he is trying to show life is more important than money and technology, On one hand, It's out of the debate topic, On the other hand, Without money and technology, How are we supposed to maintain our own lives, And even have the luxury to care about animal lives? Thus, Since my opponent hasn't made any solid argument, I will not have any new comments or argument and will stick to the previous argument. Thank you.

Title: Cellulosic ethanol is sustainable bridge while new technologies are built. Content: Kelly Tiller, director of external operations for the University of Tennessee’s office of bioenergy programs asks, what are the alternatives? "There is no perfect solution. This is a sustainable bridge while we develop new technologies."[1]

Title: Wind energy Content: Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions

Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: Please accept if you are willing to have good conversation I stand to negate the following: "Resolved: 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." 1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer. 2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. 3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution Thanks and good luck. Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.

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

Title: To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming Content: I agree with my opponent that The technologies are advancing steadily but They are not so economical : 1)I agree it could have resolved itself but due to human activities that have completely disturbed e bio geochemical cycles which are carbon cycle , nitrogen cycle and oxygen cycle- it is not likely possible. 2) it's not to total extent possible at advancing the technology , which we are doing to completely stop the exhaustion of Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It's will better option for us to use biofuels which exhaust no gas at all and can be used wi current car engines by mixing them to some percentage of gasoline. Electric car are also a cheap solution and many major manufacturer are putting an effort to get electric cars in market. Hybrid cars with ability to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water and using hydrogen as a fuel are also developing and are currently present in the market. 3) Plants and Ocean surface bacteria have a major role in carbon cycle. Human hunt for deep sea fossil fuel and traveling on ships through marine routes have resulted in depletion of half of the ocean surface bacteria from the pacafic ocean which has harmed the whole world in some way or the other. I have to just conclude here that it is just because of us humans that the situation is getting out of hand and we may not be able to recove r from it if we don't react immeadetely and efficiently. 4) Launching mirror into the space to deflect sunlight is very expensive.it is much cost efficient to just move from fossil fuel which is non renewable source of energy to renewable sources of energy. To conclude I would just like to say that it is because of the greediness.of us human that the resources which takes millions of years to refurbish which available to us are depleting and we have to take a good cause against money and solve and get out of this situation.

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: 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: Hydrogen vehicles Content: Alternatives to hydrogen exist to lower foreign oil dependencies.

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: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck Content: I would first like to point out that my opponents arguments are invalid as they only attacked the term "mandate". The government mandating this resolution will help the environment, seeing as alternative fuel powered vehicles are proven to help the environment due to the fact that they release fewer polutents. He never even defined mandate (which shall now be defined as a direct order to do something) And now on with my case. America's oil supply is becoming increasingly valued and needed every day. 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: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: Fine, you want evidence? (Otherwise known as quotes from media stories and random reports that have no credibility) I can give you ‘evidence' I know how to use google! Look all you do is this: "Corn-based fuel is bad" (http://randomlink.com...) For that style of debate you should at least do something like this: (I am using my arguments) Who says they have to be corn-based it is any and all alternatives, a good alternative is biodiesel, which is recycled: "Instead of requiring new resources like its corn-based cousin, biodiesel can be made from the millions of gallons of cooking oil that are discarded by restaurants, cafeterias and households each year." (http://www.cbsnews.com...) We could also use PHEVs, because although not a perfect solution, removing oil based cars off the market immediately (to buy us some time) and selling PHEVs would help while we come up with better solutions. Plus if we find a way to make green energy, the cars will immediately become green as well: "The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewable. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower" (http://www.calcars.org...) On to the debate: See my opponent has neglected to mention the fact there are other alternative fuels then just biofuels. While it is true that some biofuels can have negative impacts on the environment, there are many more developed and undeveloped alternatively powered vehicles that could be used. Solar power, hydrogen, etc. The way you are debating is just giving quotes from random stories, saying they are fact, and comparing them with mine (if I had any ‘quotes' but all I had was ‘logic' which just isn't worth your time) while not defending the quotes with any of your own logic. So let's just compare quotes now from other people, and not really argue back and forth. We'll just let some random people we don't even know do the leg-work, while we just type a few words into google and have our arguments finished. In fact, what if we just chose two people to debate for us, two ‘experts' count as good evidence, don't they? Is that what debating is to you? Just pasting quotes from other people and comparing them with quotes I paste from other people? Because I thought it was writing quotes from yourself and arguing about them with your opponent. Evidence isn't just good sounding quotes from random sources, evidence is showing why those quotes are true, and evidence is showing people why you are right. Debating isn't copying and pasting, it is philosophical discussion and you seriously appear to lack in the discussion and opinionated areas. "There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem." Just like I said only 40 of them are climatologists. Not only that but several died before the petition even came into existence. And even more don't exist in the first place. And that's your solid evidence? Really? You should check your sources before you rely on them so heavily. What's interesting is that the sources you used have turned out to completely be false. Perhaps a lot of your sources could be just as false. (http://www.sourcewatch.org...) "far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists"" Actually, IPCC had over 300'000 conceding scientists, and most of them were actually studying things like Climatology and knew stuff about global warming before just signing a petition online. "Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume)" Anyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist, actually 16, I can send you a copy of my non-profit's license, it has my name on it as a director and president, yes that is a course you are required to take, I took college level last year, not all types, but I understand the basics. 1.Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins Actually, biodiesel, electric, hyrdrogen, are all still very plausible alternative fuels. 2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!! Why do people tell me I have conceded? Perhaps I haven't explained my argument clearly enough yet, but when did I concede? I am still arguing here, and your telling them I agree with you... Kyoto, green electricity development, more research into hydrogen cells, and btw, you just added new evidence, the plan you never argued plan before, therefore I am allowed to add new evidence into this as well. 3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won't have choice to argue them and they're abusive You just abused it, I have the same rights, why are you allowed to add new evidence and I'm not? This is the last round for both of us and I don't have enough room to respond to new evidence. All that con did this entire time was repeatedly paste quotes from unreliable sources. It might be evidence, but not very good evidence. Not until the very end did con officially start attacking my arguments and not my character, and failed pretty miserably at that as well. To tell you the truth I don't care whom you vote for, this was just a funny debate for me, because con was officially the most ignorant buffoon I have ever talked to in my life. And buffoons can say some pretty funny stuff sometimes! Think of it as a metaphor, he slinged poop at my face throughout the entire debate, and then finally grew smart and decided to sling it at my words, and in the very end, tried to keep me from having enough space to react. So really, I could care less whom you vote for, I just hope you think this debate was as much of a crack up as I did. Like we could really trust the media's take on something to be completely true and unbiased, just look at what they said about Barrak Obama, HAH!

Title: Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA Content: Well, that's really too bad. I had hoped that this debate would be very substantial, and sadly kingkd has forfeited again. There's really not much left to say here. I've established that there is a significant environmental harm. For those who are not convinced, there's little more I can say. The reality is that Con is right that, at the very least, natural gas releases less CO2 than oil and coal, and therefore it looks like a better alternative. However, it only serves to extend our dependence on fossil fuels. Con would have to have shown that my point about how green energy will be held back was faulted, but he couldn't. The low cost of natural gas has made it so cheap for companies to use that many are just abandoning green tech projects in favor of using natural gas. That means that they're going to be dependent of fossil fuels for longer, which means that we will eventually use every bit of oil and coal we can, along with all of our natural gas. He's also losing on the economic debate. I've shown that the boom and bust cycles it creates are net harmful to the region, as is the economic damage that results from environmental harms. As such, we can only conclude that any transient benefits we might receive from getting this gas are going to cause more harm than good. Now I leave it to the voters to decide this debate.