Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Can alternative energy sources effectively substitute for fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are finite resources, implying that they will eventually be depleted. Due to this scarcity, there must be a viable alternative energy source. The term 'alternative' inherently signifies a replacement. Thus, any energy-providing mechanism can serve as an alternative. Given this understanding, when fossil fuels are exhausted, an alternative source must necessarily exist. We are already exploring various alternatives, including solar power, wind energy, and others. Consequently, when fossil fuels are no longer available, there will always be alternative options to rely on.

=== CONTENTION 1: OTHER USES ===The article ' Oil is too Precious to be Used as Transportation Fuel,' [1] states: 'An oil executive once observed that burning oil for energy is like burning Picassos for heat. Oil is extraordinarily valuable as the basis for so many products we use every day that the thought of simply burning it ought to be unthinkable. So versatile are oil molecules that they can be transformed into substances that serve as clothing, medicines, building materials, carpet, skin care products, sporting goods, agricultural chemicals, perfumes, and myriad other products. Increasingly, when we make oil-based products for homes and businesses, we are finding ways to reuse those products or recycle the materials they are made from (think: recyclable plastics). But, burning oil is always a one-time, irreversible act that leaves nothing of value behind. '=== CONTENTION 2: OIL SPILLS ===The article 'How Oil Tankers Work,' [2] states the following: 'Soon after entrepreneurs in the 1850s began exploiting crude oil as a source of energy, the nascent oil industry found itself in a dilemma. How were early oil prospectors supposed to transport this "blackgold" from the remote locations from whence it sprang, to places where it could be refined, sold and used? It didn't take long for these early oil barons to come up with a solution. The first oil tankers were built in the 1860s and propelled by wind-powered sails. In 1873, the Palmers Shipbuilding & Iron Company assembled the first steam-driven oil tanker, named the Vaderland. Meanwhile, oil producers in Pennsylvania had been making use of barges -- large, unpowered boats that must be tugged by another ship [source:Port cities Southampton]. Today, oil tankers fall into two basic categories, crude tankers and product tankers. Crude tankers are the larger of the two. They move raw, unrefined oil from the places where it's pumped out of the earth, to the refineries where it's processed into fuel and other products. 'By not using oil for transportation fuel, we will reduce the risk of an oil spill, and the oil can be used for other purposes (see above arguments). The MT Haven was. .. well, the wikipedia article [3] states: 'MT Haven, formerly Amoco Milford Haven, was a VLCC (very large crude carrier), leased to Troodos Shipping (a company run by Lucas Haji-Ioannou and his son Stelios Haji-Ioannou). In 1991, while loaded with 144,000 tonnes (1 million barrels) of crude oil, the ship exploded, caught fire and sank off the coast of Genoa, Italy, killing six Cypriot crew and flooding theMediterranean with up to 50,000 tonnes of crude oil. [1] It broke in two and sank after burning for three days, and for the next 12 years the Mediterranean coast of Italy and France was polluted, especially around Genoa and southern France. '=== CONTENTION 3: GREENHOUSE GASES ===The article 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions,' [4] states:'Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, like carbon dioxide (CO2), entering the earth's atmosphere. GHGs come from producing and using fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The challenge we all face is how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while demand for energy – and the amount of energy the world is consuming – is growing. 'The article 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Oil – Cons Disregarded by Powerful Lobbies,' [5] states:'Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) – One of the biggest Disadvantages of Oil is that it releases Carbon Dioxide which has been sequestered for millions of years in the dead bodies of plant and animals. This transfers the Carbon from the Earth to the Environment leading to the Global Warming Effect. 'Back to CON. [1]-. http://oilprice.com...[2]-http://science.howstuffworks.com...[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]-http://www.capp.ca...[5]-http://www.greenworldinvestor.com...

Alright my opponent begins his final round by telling me that I am abusive. He does this by quoting me when I defined biopower. I would agree that this would be very abusive of me if it wasn't for my solvency specifically stating in round 1, in the last paragraph: "This plan takes away all of the political energy known as biopower and replaces it instead with the energy of the single individual and the energy of the whole." My plan throughout this entire debate has been to decrease biopower, I openly stated such. It is not my fault in any way that my opponent did not understand this. TOPICALITIES: My opponent puts no standards for voter on any of his topicalities. Thus if you as a judge agree that my opponent has won on any of the topicalities then you do nothing. However if you feel my opponent has lost any of the topicalities then the result is a pre-fiat vote in my favor. Thus the only way that anything else said in this round is important is if my opponent wins all three topicalities, otherwise I win this debate by default. Significant/Substantial: My opponent doesn't bother arguing this standard in his final round. Instead he argues that there will not be an increase in energy. Whether there is an increase in energy or not whatever happens is going to be substantial as this class will be offered nationwide. Nationwide = substantial. My opponent once again agrees that this is a reverse voting issue, and agrees with all of my standards by dropping them. Thus this issue flows to my side and results in an automatic vote for Pro. Substantial increase: See above. This class will decrease biopower whilst increasing individual power. These two being opposite ends of the spectrum. My opponent has shown no evidence on the contrary, and once again drops all standards thus agreeing that my interpretation is the most fair. Energy: My opponent once again pushes his definition which contains 3 examples. I will once again therefor remind the voters that energy, while including those examples, is not limited to them. Humans are an energy source in themselves, they can work, and they can attain an output. Without humans being used as energy society as we know it could not exist. My opponent drops my standards thus my opponent agrees: 1. Humans as energy increases the education in todays round. 2. Humans as energy makes this round fair. 3. Humans as energy gives us each equal ground to debate on. Furthermore my opponent drops my r.v.i thus he once again concedes that he should be voted against. II/III DISAD: My opponent completely drops each point I brought up in my last speech. I would ask that all of those are extended into this round as they all still hold just as much weight as they did then. He then goes on to state that I can not possibly solve for murders. Thats great, I never claimed to, I am solving for Genocide and War. As my opponent has dropped both of these points they flow to my side. IV Counter plan: My opponent drops my 4 points and 3 subpoints. Instead he simply states that his plan would cost less money, apparently he missed point D from my last round, "having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money." Thus his counterplan would actually not save money. Once again my opponent concedes to my plan solving for genocide and wars. Therefor at the end of this round even if you agree with everything my opponent says its saving money vs stopping genocide and war. Once again I must restate that his counterplan is not mutually exclusive therefor it can and will happen at the same time as my plan. Vote Pro, my plan prevents wars and genocide. My opponents case can claim no such benefit.

Thanks to Pro for offering the challenge and presenting the arguments for electric cars as a solution to global warming.Pro claims he answered my question as to what he would do, by mandate or subsidy, to make electric cars a priority. I don't see any sign of that. He also claims to have said how much it would cost. I don't see any sign of that either. Pro provided no analysis of costs and benefits.I calculated the cost of replacing the fleet of cars with electrics and of converting fossil fuel power plants to wind and solar. CO2 is only saved if the power plants are converted, otherwise the CO2 generation is just moved from the cars to the power plant. Optimistically $25 trillion would save about 0.01 degree in global warming. Pro did not contest my calculations or provide an alternative claim. The estimate is optimistic, because electric cars have a short range and many people will be unwilling to accept that severe limitation.I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. They may be useful in lowering the concentration of pollution in central cities, although right now the economics are not favorable even for that. However, as a means of stemming global warming the high cost and low benefit rules them out as being an sort of a priority. Electric cars might also provide a reduction in foreign oil dependence, again if the economics of the vehicles can be improved.What should be a priority is research on climate engineering. Pro did not rebut my claim that climate engineering offers a much greater payoff at much lower cost. Climate engineering might yield a degree or more of cooling for under $1 trillion.Pro did not meet the burden of proof. The resolution is negated.

I will go from paragraph to paragraph... INHERENCY The true inherent barrier is stated in the plan. This plan will only accomplish what it is supposed to when passed because of the money from Congress (that was cut off) is going to be paid. Since that money was overturned, the inherent barrier was created. Thus, the only way these incentives will be substantially increased is if the plan is passed. SOLVENCY The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased. AGAIN, I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained or how long, but simply that the incentives will be increased and that when they are increased, the energy will come soon. The big problem with fusion energy is that people don't know a whole lot about it. But when we get the power of the sun, anything will be possible. My opponent puts the burden of me to prove that environmental harms won't happen. But it is my job to show the advantages of the plan and it is my opponents job to show the disadvantages. My opponent offers no evidence that these harms will happen and I have seen nothing of this. The point of policy debate is to have AFF provide the advantages and NEG to provide disadvantages and compare them... THEN have the judge to decide if they should pass the plan. BESIDES ALL OF THAT, I would like to cross-apply my Advantage 5 from my case that states the few environmental harms. Even if there are some, it will not outweigh the numerous waste products there are now from current energy forms. the environment harms come from the factory (if there are any, but NEG still has to provide evidence that there is ANY), but then the harms would STOP right there. Let's just say that before this plan was passed that it would be 100 years before fusion energy could be achieved. WITH increasing energy incentives, THEN it can be made possible to get the energy in 20 years. In other words, increasing the energy INCENTIVES does not mean that this energy will be ready for use tomorrow, but rather that we will have the POWER OF THE SUN in a shorter time. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS 1) There is NO link to water pollution 2) There is NO quote from the evidence that has ANYTHING to do with water pollution from fusion energy and if there was it has not been quoted in the round yet. 3) NEG MUST prove (with evidence) the link between fusion energy and water pollution AND must prove that it is significantly worse than current water pollution for energy. (numbers on the bottom) 1)-->It is NEG's job to provide evidence of environmental harms. 2)-->It is NEG's job... again... to provide harms and disadvantages. 3)-->The agenda will be created by the legislative intent claimed in case. It will consist of making fusion energy WHICH increases energy INCENTIVES. 4)-->Must only increase energy INCENTIVES. With that increase comes the chance of getting the energy significantly sooner. The sooner we can get the power of the sun the better. In the end, my opponent has offered NO disadvantages with any proof WHATSOEVER. If this was allowed, he could say that "he has not proven that fusion energy won't provide EVERY harm known to man." It is NOT my job to show that fusion energy does not have every harm known to man... Rather, it is NEG's job to show the disadvantages (with evidence) and then have us compare that to the advantages (in case) to decide if the plan should be passed. Therefore, I urge a PRO vote... Thank You!

In this round, I will be addressing my opponent's three arguments against nuclear energy. Dirty To begin with, I will give a quote I provided in the first round, "Because uranium contains many thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, the waste from a nuclear power station is very small in volume and is fully managed and extremely secure at the nuclear sites. " In other words, pro's first argument doesn't really present a problem. Sure, that amount of waste may seem like a lot, but in reality, it pales in comparison to waste from other forms of energy, such as coal-fired plants. [1] The only real consideration for nuclear waste is the radioactivity and the potential threat to life that it creates. However, the considerations are not important. "Storage ponds at reactors, and those at centralized facilities such as CLAB in Sweden, are 7-12 metres deep, to allow several metres of water over the used fuel comprising racked fuel assemblies typically about 4 m long and standing on end. The circulating water both shields and cools the fuel. These pools are robust constructions made of thick reinforced concrete with steel liners. Ponds at reactors are often designed to hold all the used fuel for the life of the reactor. " Putting the nuclear waste deep underground presents an even safer, long-term option, and unlike my opponent's claims, isolates the radioactivity from the biosphere, and eliminates any potential adverse effects. "This immobilises the radioactive elements in HLW and some ILW and isolates them from the biosphere. ""This method of disposal offers an assured means to isolate UNF-HLW and ILW over time periods sufficiently long to preclude any adverse impact on life on the Earth's surface. Repository plans generally allow for retrieval of nuclear waste, at least for an extended period of time. But the designs also provide for safe isolation even without human management. "[2][3] As for statistical evidence of danger to the public, "Potential problems from accidents in transport of radioactive materials are largely neutralized by elaborate packaging. A great deal of such transport has taken place over the past 50 years and there have been numerous accidents, including fatal ones. However, from all of these accidents combined, there is less than a 1% chance that even a single death will ever result from radiation exposure. Probabilistic risk analyses indicate that we can expect less than one death per century in U. S. from this source. "[10] Dangerous Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed, especially with the internal and external regulation because of scientific findings, and the occupation can actually be considered safe. "The revised occupational exposure limit is 20 millisieverts per year averaged over five consecutive years. .. the weight of scientific evidence does not indicate any cancer risk or immediate effects at doses below ablout 50 millisievert (mSv) per year. "[4] As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small. "The estimated risk of permanent damage to a second generation (grandchild) individual is 0.02 cases per million Micro-Sievert [ or around 20 cases per million milli-sievert] of exposure. " As can be seen, the dangers of working in radioactive mining, while larger than the average dose received by someone not working in the industry, is small compared to the doses needed for bodily abnormality. [5] But what of the dangers of working in nuclear reactors, or more importantly, the danger to individuals not involved in the nuclear energy process at all? The risks are much lower. "Despite popular belief, nuclear plants are relatively safe. For years, America's commercial nuclear energy industry has ranked among the safest places to work in the United States. In 2000, its industrial safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for US private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998. .. Even if you lived right next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still receive less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles. You would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure that you get from a single diagnostic medical x-ray. " All and all, nuclear energy has a very low rate of potential danger to anyone involved or not involved in the process of its production. The radiation dose to the public is less than one milli-sieverts a year. [6] As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare. Only three major instances ever occurred, once of which (Three Mile Island) was fully contained, another (Fukushima) resulted in no deaths, and the other (Chernobyl) was more the result of major design deficiencies and bad safety measures in place with Soviet nuclear reactors. "These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 15,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries. " Overall, none of these is a case against modern nuclear power plants. [7] Finally, on terrorism, the chances (it's never happened) and consequences are very small. "But further (see Sept 2002 Science paper and Jan 2003 Response & Comments), realistic assessments from decades of analyses, lab work and testing, find that the consequence of even the worst realistic scenarios " core melting and containment failure " can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure. "[7] Overall, coal plants cause 342 deaths per TW (terawatt, 10^12 watts), natural gas 85 deaths per TW, hydro 883 deaths per TW, and wind around 1000 deaths per TW (with regression analysis), while nuclear only causes 8 deaths per TW. It hardly seems appropriate to call nuclear the most dangerous of energy sources. [7][8] Expensive My opponent's first arguments rest on the three accidents mentioned earlier. Again, considering the amount of nuclear energy used over the years, that amount is small compared to damages to plants of other forms of energy, especially coal and hydroelectric (the latter of which requires the massive rerouting of capital). As for actual power plant cost, my opponent has not considered my opening arguments, and I'm interested to see what he'll have to say in this round. I will simply make one point here. "Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U. S. economy. " A big cost equals an even bigger gain. [9] Sources [1]: . http://www.cna.ca... [2]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [3]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [4]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [5]: . http://nuclearinfo.net... [6]: . http://learn.fi.edu... [7]: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... [8]: . http://www.forbes.com... [9]: . http://www.nei.org... [10]: . http://www.physics.isu.edu...

I would like to start my arguments for this round by going over the ethics of policy debate, for those judges who have not participated in it. My opponent has 1- Ignored several presses for evidence, saying he didn't need to show evidence because he turned my arguments around, which is not true. 2- Stated and restated information as fact but failed to show any proof ie. arguments about environmental effects and chance of getting fusion. 3- Attempted to add to his plan although this is not allowed, referring to his argument about the emergency budget cap. Although some judges may not understand the value of the strict rules and ethics of policy debate on an internet debate site, I urge you to remember that my opponent started this debate as a policy debate, but yet has ignored the rules and ethics of policy debate. My next arguments will flow from PRO's previous arguments. My opponent states that "NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan" so I would like to remind the judges of several things, the low chance of success, the dangers with hazardous materials associated with deuterium, the environmental factor, and the possibility that the money will be used for other means because my opponent has not brought up any enforcement (ethically) during this debate. PRO says my arguments are not relevant to fusion energy but he has ignored the link between deuterium and fusion, the evidence is related to deuterium, deuterium is related to his case, linking my arguments to his case, PRO also states that the benefits outweigh the risk but has never once brought up evidence that we can be sure the benefits will even come, he has only stated it, but never backed his arguments. Until it is proven we must assume that the status quo -ie. not being able to obtain energy from fusion- will continue to be true. The third argument my opponent presents is a prime example of him ignoring my press for evidence, and showing that he cannot prove that we will ever get energy from fusion, he states that it will, but if you read back over this debate you will not see a single fact showing that we will get energy from fusion. My opponents next argument only refers to the process of obtaining fusion energy but ignores the amount of energy needed to harvest deuterium, although I have shown evidence that the amount of energy needed is very high. I believe that any open minded judge will be able to find the examples of bad things from this plan by looking over my arguments again. Again, we must assume that the status quo of not having fusion energy will remain, unless proven otherwise, and we have not seen any proof. This paragraph is what I refer to in point 3 of unethical debating at top, and I would like to reiterate that you may not add to your plan after you have stated it, making this argument void. The correlation my opponent attempts to make about money saved vs money used is flawed, the "Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels" as my opponent states comes from the pockets of citizens, the money spent in an attempt to obtain fusion energy would come from the government, yes the taxpayers give the government this money but think of this comparison if the plan doesn't work, which is likely, the people will still pay for fossil fuel, but will also pay more taxes to make up for the money our government would waste. This proves the same points I make in the paragraph before last. In this paragraph my opponent admits to denying my presses for evidence, and states that I do not provide any harms although I have clearly provided harms. I would like the judges consider a few things when they vote; 1- Will we really get fusion energy? My opponent offered no proof that we will. 2- Will fusion energy be all that it is said to be if we do get it? I have shown many environmental and economic effects in my previous arguments. 3- What will be the economic impact of this plan if it fails? I have shown that there are many opportunities for this plan to fail. 4- If this plan were to somehow work perfectly and all my last 3 points were void, how soon could it happen? My opponent has stated that it could be a century or more before we get fusion energy. If you the judge decide that I have failed to prove my opponent wrong, I would like you to reconsider the ethics of this debate, and decide if my opponent has won this debate ethically, and how much of an effect this will have on your decision.

I really don`t see how you will win as your jokes are corny as well as your argument because all your sources are from other websites there is no way figuring this out your self did you read my argument you also said giant wind eaters what are they eating our air. I guess the wind is turning my way.

To say that since nothing has happened means we are ready is a extremely false statement. Nothing major had happened with Chernobyl until the accidents. The Chernobyl accident killed 30 operators and firemen within the first 3 months. Acute Radiation Syndrome was diagnosed to 237 people on site. There were several cases of childhood thyroid cancer involved. http://www.world-nuclear.org... We can't truly be ready for such a calamity. Our current system allows for a diverse portfolio of efficient energy methods. Wind and solar both are becoming more common. Wind and Solar are both clean, little to no pollution energy sources. Nuclear is risky and can be catastrophic to the environment and human health.

Rebuttals:1) Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.2) Yes, indeed, energy is finite.3) No.There is radiation between the Sun and Earth, which means that there is transfer of energy through space from the Sun to Earth. That solar energy then turns into heat. How does the Sun do that?Well, what happens is, that Sun takes 2 atoms and both go through a process called fusion. Remember that the Sun is not "producing" its own energy, but rather changing one's form.4) #3 is not true. And even if that was true, mass does not. Solid objects are dense, which means that matter is very compact in which they can not move around. However, for gas, it is not. They have space to move around in which they do. Same goes with the Universe.Also, why did you change the subject?Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will concede inherently, thank you for clearing that up. SOLVENCY- I'm not entirely certain if your first paragraph was a rebuttal to my money argument or a generic argument so I'll treat it as both. The PRO says "The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased." but this is not a solvency argument, this is a topicality argument, and as you know I have already conceded topicality, solvency does not focus on the ability to meet the resolution, rather to accomplish what the resolution wants to accomplish ie. help the environment, so we must ask ourselves, will the plan really solve the problem, and will it be worth it, in my upcoming arguments I will prove that the plan will not solve. The PRO's plan states that a group of scientists will be created and that the government will give money to a group of scientists, but the group the money is going to already exists so it is not the same group that the government goes too, therefore the PRO still has not proved that the group will have no hidden agendas yet. My opponent says that "I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained", but if he cannot prove this, will he really solve? The answer is no, the fact that we have been trying for 50 years and have not got fusion energy shows that it likely wont happen so unless he can prove it will, we must assume he will solve nothing. The Federation of American Scientists states that "because of the low abundance of deuterium, an enormous amount of water would have to be boiled to obtain useful amounts of deuterium" http://www.fas.org... Unless my opponent shows evidence that the benefits which may or may not occur outweigh the risks which would undoubtedly occur my evidence, being the only evidence on the issue shows that there could be serious environmental issues from the harvesting of deuterium. SIGNIFICANCE AND HARMS From- Philadelphia Daily News - A nuclear power plant worker was charged yesterday with spiking a lunchroom cooler with radioactive water that eight men drank before the contamination was discovered. The eight who drank the contaminated water last month at the Point Lepreau plant have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer, officials said. http://www.philly.com... The water was from a plant that created deuterium from heavy water, and used it for nuclear fission, it clearly shows that harvesting deuterium does in fact pollute water, think of what would happen if this water were released somehow, no one would know until it was too late. From -AECL-http://www.aecl.ca... "the Girdler process involves large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, raising environmental concerns." This process refers to the production of deuterium, and the process it speaks of is the most economical, and arguably the only corporately viable process for producing deuterium from heavy water. I have clearly shown some of the negatives of deuterium production, and still press for evidence that there is no pollution, although the PRO is correct in saying that it is the CONs job to show disadvantages, once someone claims something such as "No Air Pollution" it is their job to bring evidence proving their point. The rest of my opponents arguments are his generic topicality argument which he attempts to use on other issues, so him claiming that he meets the resolution does not mean that the harms outweigh the risks.


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Nuclear Energy's Role in Society's Energy Mix

Let's evaluate the arguments supporting nuclear energy's benefits. One argument focuses on the availability of nuclear fuel and its longevity. While it's true that current known reserves offer around 230 years of supply based on current consumption rates, the inclusion of other uranium sources and isotopes, along with potential technological advancements, could extend this to an estimated 30,000 years. However, this projection is speculative and based on future technologies that are not yet operational. An even more ambitious claim suggests that we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years using nuclear fission reactions alone, but this statement lacks a credible source. In contrast, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, which are dependent on the sun's energy, are guaranteed to last for 5 billion years, a certainty that nuclear energy cannot match.

Efficiency is another point of contention. Proponents argue that nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient than other energy sources due to its higher capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs. However, this argument often overlooks the substantial initial setup costs, such as the $10 billion required to construct a reactor, and the significant cleanup costs that can reach hundreds of billions of dollars in the event of an accident. The claim that nuclear energy is "cheap" is largely due to massive government subsidies, which have totaled over $150 billion over the past 60 years, far exceeding the support given to renewable energy sources. Furthermore, private investors are not willing to finance new nuclear plants, recognizing nuclear energy as an economically unviable option. Only through substantial government intervention is the nuclear energy sector surviving.

Environmental impact is a crucial aspect to consider. Proponents argue that nuclear energy has minimal environmental effects. However, the history of uranium mining and its impact on the Navajo people, who experienced a 28 times higher risk of lung cancer and significantly higher rates of birth defects, tells a different story. Similarly, the long-lasting consequences of nuclear accidents, such as the restrictions placed on Scottish agriculture following the Chernobyl disaster, which were only lifted in 2010, highlight the enduring environmental damage. The risk of contamination from nuclear waste, which can persist for tens to millions of years, poses a significant legacy for future generations.

The handling and storage of nuclear waste are ongoing challenges. Currently, no country has implemented a permanent solution for storing high-level nuclear waste. The transportation of nuclear waste, despite elaborate packaging, remains vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks, especially

Debate issuesCon says "Roy Latham is considered as the best debater at DDO. However this is not one of his best debates and he appears to be clearly distracted." I'll survive, but that's a personal attack and a conduct violation. When anything is proposed as a requirement it's fair to argue if whatever is proposed is really required at all to treat a problem, if the new requirement will solve the problem, and if there are better, cheaper ways to solve the problem. I agreed at the outset that the climate is warming and that we ought to be concerned over the warming. There is a possibility that warming will not be so severe as to require any government action, I granted that indeed we ought take a cautious approach and prepare for a scenario of significant warming even though the amount of warming and how much of it is natural are in dispute.Con seems to believe that the only legitimate grounds for supporting the resolution is that it is not technically feasible. Con says, "If we are debating economics of CCS, it should be obvious that we are concerned about global warming caused by CO2." No, there is no such implication. If the resolution were, "People should be required to arm themselves with silver bullets," it does not assume that everyone believes vampires exist, and it's only the feasibility of equipping people with silver bullets to kill them. One may deny a vampire problem or propose carrying garlic as a better means of protection.I grant that CSS technology is feasible in the sense that no one doubts it is possible to build such facilities. I argue it is too expensive, does little to solve the problem, and that there are better ways to spend money to secure a solution.1. CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warmingWe have a point of agreement in that the maximum achieved by CCS, assuming alarmist projections of CO2 effects, is to lower 3 degrees of warming by 13%. It's actually much less, because even the high costs are only achieved when incorporating CCS into a new plant built from scratch. That means it will be 50 years before it is even half implemented.Con argues that CCS ought to implemented because the costs, whatever they are, are assigned to the producer. I argued that power companies are not going to pay the costs, but rather the customers consuming electricity. The broad base of users therefore ought to be able to choose cheaper and better methods of fighting global warming.I put forth the idea of requiring people to exhale into balloons and asked why the requirement would be ridiculous, which I clearly stated it was. If all we are allowed to consider is narrow technical feasibility and putting the burden on the source, then it should be a good method. The simple reason that it is ridiculous is that there re better, more practical methods, never mind the idea of burdening sources.2. The Cost Makes CCS ImpracticalCon claims that CSS is "projected to be as cheap as conventional method[s]." Okay, what are conventional methods and what do they cost? Con gives no quantitative estimates. My ref [6] projected costs to the current year, and ref [7] projected costs to future plants as being a 42% premium. Con's cost reference was a Wikipedia article that gave very similar estimates, saying "Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25%-40%. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21-91% for purpose built plants." (Note that the percentage increase would be lower if the initial power cost is high.) Those are clearly projections to future implementation.There is nothing in the technology that's subject to dramatic technological innovation. It's pumps, chemicals, compressors, pipelines and drilling. It's not like computers that are subject to dramatic cost reductions. In fact the risks are that they will prove higher. I cited organic chemist who point our the potential difficulties with siting the foul smelling plants, and Con did not disagree.Con claims that China is involved with the technology, but his reference strongly implies that their interest is solely in selling CCS equipment to the West, not in increasing their electricity costs by 42%. They're eager to sell windmills and solar panels as well. They only are interested in local use to perfect their products. I argued that developing nations should devote resources to providing food, health care, and essential infrastructure rather than sequestering carbon. con did not explain why CCS should be a high priority for poor nations. They are better off being warmer and not starving.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better AlternativesCon seemed to me to grant that the alternative of using nuclear power lowers the cost of electricity from current levels and reduces CO2 emissions to zero. I pointed out tat there is no objection to widespread use of nuclear power, so long as the plants are properly monitored. Therefore, it's an alternative superior to CCS under any assumption of the bad effects of CO2.If we take global warming seriously, we should seek a solution that works whether the cause is CO2 or natural or some combination of the two, and we should solve 100% of the problem not a fraction of 13% of the problem. The idea of spending unlimited money doing everything that can be imagined does not work because money is finite. The alternative of seriously developing climate engineering technology is the only route that is both economic and promises a full solution.Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. I hope readers will get a better understanding of costs and strategies from our interchange.CCS should not be required because alternative accomplish more at lower cost.The resolution is affirmed.

I am a great advocate of green energy and of alternative fuels and believe that more research should be done into the field of electric. However, I took your debate as your first statement gave the impression that electric cars are better than petrol or gas based cars now, without speculation over future advancements, which I think is not the case. Before I move on to the body of my argument against the motion in latter rounds, I would first like to response to the statements of s14tharsh in his opening. - 'Cheaper per mile fuel and maintenance wise' While electric cars are cheaper per mile for fuel, overall electric cars are still more expensive to run than their conventional counterparts, in fact the total 'cost of ownership, which includes the upfront price and running coasts such as fuel and insurance – of electric vehicles is currently around £5000 more than petrol and diesel cars' [1]. Not only is an electric car more expensive to run, but the depreciation of its value is also far greater than it's alternatives: Depreciation by fuel type [2] Fuel type/average retained value after three years: Petrol/electric hybrid 45.3% Diesel 44.7% Petrol 43.6% Electric 20.2% - 'Electricity is a renewable resource and doesn't cost much to use' I think I addressed the cost of electric cars in the previous paragraph so I won't go over that again, however the statement that Electricity is a renewable resource I find quite naïve. - http://www.eia.gov... In fact the percentage of energy for US consumption, rather than generation, that comes from renewable sources reaches only 10% [3] - 'Electric cars now have the ability to get decent range miles and match cars per fill up.' Electric cars are gradually gaining quicker charge times and longer range miles – but currently, they still don't compare. 'Most electric vehicles can only go about 100–200 miles before recharging gasoline vehicles can go over 300 miles before refuelling. Fully recharging the battery pack can take 4 to 8 hours. Even a "quick charge" to 80% capacity can take 30 min.' [4] I think you'll agree that this is not really a 'match'. Sources [1] Influences on the Low Carbon Car Market 2020–2030 - http://www.lowcvp.org.uk... on the Low Carbon Car Market from 2020-2030 - Final Report 010811_pdf.pdf [2] research from car pricing expert CAP Automotive - http://www.cap.co.uk...[3] http://www.eia.gov... [4] United states environmental protection agency - http://www.epa.gov...

i think tidal power is the best power there is becuase it would not harm the envoirment and also it won't hurt the sea life and it prouduces electrity my favorite tidal power is the seagen turbine it powers up to a 1,000 homes and also it can't hurt sea life the 52 feet blades move so slow that sea life can't be harmed and also it moves all the time for more information goto popsci.com.

I will concede inherently, thank you for clearing that up. SOLVENCY- I'm not entirely certain if your first paragraph was a rebuttal to my money argument or a generic argument so I'll treat it as both. The PRO says "The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased." but this is not a solvency argument, this is a topicality argument, and as you know I have already conceded topicality, solvency does not focus on the ability to meet the resolution, rather to accomplish what the resolution wants to accomplish ie. help the environment, so we must ask ourselves, will the plan really solve the problem, and will it be worth it, in my upcoming arguments I will prove that the plan will not solve. The PRO's plan states that a group of scientists will be created and that the government will give money to a group of scientists, but the group the money is going to already exists so it is not the same group that the government goes too, therefore the PRO still has not proved that the group will have no hidden agendas yet. My opponent says that "I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained", but if he cannot prove this, will he really solve? The answer is no, the fact that we have been trying for 50 years and have not got fusion energy shows that it likely wont happen so unless he can prove it will, we must assume he will solve nothing. The Federation of American Scientists states that "because of the low abundance of deuterium, an enormous amount of water would have to be boiled to obtain useful amounts of deuterium" http://www.fas.org... Unless my opponent shows evidence that the benefits which may or may not occur outweigh the risks which would undoubtedly occur my evidence, being the only evidence on the issue shows that there could be serious environmental issues from the harvesting of deuterium. SIGNIFICANCE AND HARMS From- Philadelphia Daily News - A nuclear power plant worker was charged yesterday with spiking a lunchroom cooler with radioactive water that eight men drank before the contamination was discovered. The eight who drank the contaminated water last month at the Point Lepreau plant have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer, officials said. http://www.philly.com... The water was from a plant that created deuterium from heavy water, and used it for nuclear fission, it clearly shows that harvesting deuterium does in fact pollute water, think of what would happen if this water were released somehow, no one would know until it was too late. From -AECL-http://www.aecl.ca... "the Girdler process involves large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, raising environmental concerns." This process refers to the production of deuterium, and the process it speaks of is the most economical, and arguably the only corporately viable process for producing deuterium from heavy water. I have clearly shown some of the negatives of deuterium production, and still press for evidence that there is no pollution, although the PRO is correct in saying that it is the CONs job to show disadvantages, once someone claims something such as "No Air Pollution" it is their job to bring evidence proving their point. The rest of my opponents arguments are his generic topicality argument which he attempts to use on other issues, so him claiming that he meets the resolution does not mean that the harms outweigh the risks.

if nothing every happens with a nuclea plant, that is reason enough to say we are ready. the current system involves the potential for alternative energy, as a stretch. it in fact involvves millions of deaths per year from air pollution and oil spills and other calamities

WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power. To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe. And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES. My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol ) So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ? 1) Contraceptions are free and widely available 2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also ) 3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education. 4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle ) Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" .... "Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol check out these links http://cgge.aag.org... It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact http://www.childtrends.org... this deals with children of educated parents research http://www.nytimes.com... psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.

The difference between the two examples is obvious, your idea was five hundred years in the future and required us to become psychics. My idea is thirty years away and is necessary in order to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, keep the environment safe, stimulate the automotive industry, and stay competitive in a global market. There is absolutely no assumption involved here, these changes are necessary right now. You have repeatedly argued against yourself, first you say that it is too far in the future, then you say there is not time to accomplish it, what is it? I have already provided several examples of alternative fuels. The most up and coming of these is hydrogen fuel cell use. This systems on emission is oxygen which we need to survive obviously and also is not a greenhouse gas. Also I already defined alternative fuel so clearly there is a standard set that automakers can follow. I also doubt that everyone is going to forget the mandate over the next thirty years, that idea is simply ridiculous. When the technology to make this transition already exists why not take these important steps to keep the United States an environmentally, economically, and globally healthy country. To anything else would be a mistake.

I agree that Earth is finite and has finite resources. However, in his rebuttal, Pro disappointed me by focusing on my quote from The Skeptical Environmentalist where Bjorn Lomborg makes an analogy, rather than the information he provides from US Geological Surveys about differences between “known resources” and actual resources. My point is this: The only reason we think we're near the end of our resources is because it's not economically feasible or technically possible to find all of our resources at one time, and the trend during this population explosion of the last 150 years or so is to discover that there are continually more resources when we actually look for them. I refer to my previous argument to show that despite higher use rates through time of many mineral resources, we have a consistent trend of ending up with more years left of the mineral than we did before. I know this does not mean unending resources, but rather, we have plenty left for a long time from current known reserves, and every year, there are more years left of use of those minerals, and when there is a downward trend in availability, we have always successfully found more when it becomes economically feasible. We have 2 entire continents, and much of the ocean floor mostly unexplored for resources. All trends indicate we're just scratching the surface. “In order to support human life, a number of things are necessary. The fundamental needs for each human being are a house, healthy food, clean water and proper health care. ” I find this assertion to be historically inaccurate. Generations of people lived and had children, with shelter, yes, but not very healthy food (and not much of it), dirty water from muddy wells, creeks, and cisterns, and what we would consider very poor healthcare. Anyone who's reading this who has European ancestors has had ancestors who were brought up with the dominant thought among the learned that all ailments are caused by Humors. Look up medieval medicine if you think “proper heath care” is necessary “in order to SUPPORT human life. .” The fundamentals for each human being are adequate; shelter, food, water, immune system, and something to live for. “Access to food does not only include the ability for the planet to grow food, but also the ability of the world’s population to obtain food. ” No disagreement there. Nor do I see any problem with your statistics about where the poor are located, or their hardships. I do wish to refute the supposed cause. Pro is correct in saying access to food includes the ability to grow AND obtain it. Is there enough food produced on Earth to support 7 billion people? Let's use one of Pro's sources to answer this. If you go to round one, you'll see this link as source 3 . http://www.wfp.org... Click on the tab to the immediate right of that, “What causes hunger? ” “Food has never before existed in such abundance, so why are 925 million people in the world going hungry? ” If you check the UN's FAO website they'll back them up . http://www.fao.org... Observe the number of poor people on earth has been flat, despite the number of total people doubling: . http://www.nationmaster.com... If we're using up all of our resources from overpopulation, how can this be? Observe the concentration of hungry people, as a percentage of their national populations, is highest in Africa, so let's take a look at them. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I knew my assumptions of Africa's problems probably weren't accurate, so I decided to call my brother-in-law to get a first-hand account. He was born and raised in Africa, spending much of his childhood in Kenya, and living in several other nations: Tanzania, South Africa, and Malawi. Why are there so many hungry people in Africa? It's a two-fold issue. People move to the cities because that's where the good paying jobs are, but a lot of them can't pay for an education to get a good enough job to pay for the higher prices in town. Food has to be imported or driven in from the country but people in the country don't grow more than they need, and they don't grow much variety. They eat a lot of field corn, like what we feed cattle here. Why don't they grow anything besides corn? Well, lack of education. Many of them don't know they should have a variety in their diet. They eat field corn. .. and that's it. After we educate them, they start mixing things into the corn, like sorghum. Fruit is scarce, too. We had an orchard at our place and after watching us, the other people wanted to try it, too. Why don't they have any fruit? They have a survival/nomadic mentality that doesn't let them invest in a tree that takes 3 years to grow it's first fruit. Westerners don't understand that. They go in there with good intentions and teach them all these new techniques to care for the land, but it's too much at once. They have the mentality that if the land isn't productive, you move. You don't become attached to the land and make it work. So the Westerners leave, and when the system breaks down, they revert to their old ways. The wells aren't maintained, the land becomes infertile, they get hungry and slaughter a goat, then when they're down to their last goat, they eat it and. .. well, they're left with nothing. It's a completely foreign concept for them to say 'This is my land, it isn't working, so I'll have to do something to make it work. ' Another problem is they'll give a kid underprocessed food. They won't crack the corn, so it will just pass through them; they do that because they're not educated. So when Westerners go in there to help, do things just revert to like they were before, or do they get worse? I've seen it get worse sometimes. They see Europeans and Americans they want to emulate, and they feel they need a cell phone, so you'll see Africans all over with cell phones, but it will cost them most of a year's wage to buy. Kind of like a new car for us? Exactly. But I see the same thing when I'm working with people in trailer parks in the US. They'll have a huge 56” screen that you or I wouldn't buy unless we had a ton of money saved up. Poor people all over have a survival mentality to use what you can today, but they always have one luxury they hang onto, even if they can't afford it. It's a foreign concept to think of the future. So people aren't hungry in Africa because of overpopulation? Definitely not. “The ecological footprint of humanity is a measure of the amount of land that is required to mitigate the actions of one human being” You can see from this chart that world food production has only increased over time, all the while less total land is used with more yield resulting. More food from less land does not show that we are running out of land to farm. . http://pop.org... Your comparison of people to wolves is flawed. Wolves are consumers. Humans don't have chlorophyll in our skin, but we're smart enough to act as producers. When people raise livestock, we try to INCREASE the herd size, not eat what we want and decimate the population. Overall, yield increase is the goal. We DO recycle, we DO increase efficiencies. Metal recycling is as old as metal use. The people of Rhodes used scrap from the Heliopolis to build the Colossus of Rhodes. “It is estimated that the equivalent of 1.5 earths is necessary to sustain the actions of human beings indefinitely at this present time[5]” Yeah, I dug for a while through footprintnetwork. org's methodology paper. . http://www.footprintnetwork.org... One of the common verbs in that paper is “assume,” and it is often used in conjunction with how data that cannot be practically attained will be input into key parts of their equations. I am not impressed with this site.

The topic is going to be "usage of Oil and Coal" where as PRO (me) is going to support the continued usage of oil and coal at currenty or higher then current levels, while CON (my opponent) is going to support lowering the usage of oil and coal. As this is a five round debate, I will keep my arguments short in the first round. Reasons that we should continue using and even expand our mining and usage of coal and oil in the USA are actually pretty overwhelming. First thing first, we should expand our current drilling of oil here in the US, rather then import oil. This will have several major benefits. A) Drilling in the US will us American workers and so provide jobs. B) This will also help keep money in the US, since we import over 9 million barrells of crude oil a day [1], and with oil flucuating around $80 a barrell [2], that is $720 million a day leaving this country (over $260 billion a year). If we could keep some of that in the US, that money would continue to circulate and stimluate throughout the economy. C) This would increase the total amount of oil and so raise Supply without effecting Demand. That means that the cost of oil would go down, meaning the cost at the pump would go down, which would help everyone in the US, individuals and businesses (costs less to ship materials around, costs less to commute to and from work, and so on). [3] Second, we should continue and expand our mining and usage of coal. While I support using alternative energies, Coal currently powers 48% of this nation's electricity. And while the alternative energies may reduce our personal needs for coal, there is still a need throughout the world in developing nations that are too poor to be able to afford solar panels or wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Coal will greatly help those nations get out of the dark and to provide electricity for them. Once the nation is lit, that country can begin to go through the industrial revolution (which is extremely hard with no electricity) and make it more prosperous. Then, maybe once the nation is wealthier and its people have a level of living that they never dreamed possible, the country can move on to more advanced power sources. However, the move up from the dark will almost certainly be on the back of coal power. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com... [3] http://www.investopedia.com... [4] http://www.eia.doe.gov...