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

Nuclear power stands as the most cost-effective and efficient method to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation. When considering the requirements for energy supply, three essential criteria must be met: energy security, reliability of supply, and low-cost energy. Health, safety, and environmental impacts are secondary but still crucial considerations. Nuclear power outperforms renewable energy across all these criteria, making it the superior choice for a major component of the electricity system.

Nuclear energy has proven its capability in France, where it supplies over 75% of the electricity in a modern industrial economy for over three decades. Economically, nuclear power is substantially cheaper than renewables. Safety-wise, nuclear power results in the least fatalities per unit of electricity supplied. Environmentally, nuclear power is more benign than renewables, with a higher energy return on energy invested (ERoEI), estimated around 75, compared to renewables' range of 1 to 9. Nuclear power also requires significantly less material and land per unit of electricity supplied through its lifecycle and has less expensive transmission needs due to its higher average capacity factor.

Nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and requires minimal storage space, enhancing energy security and reducing transport-related environmental impacts. In terms of cost and emissions reduction, the CSIRO's "MyPower" calculator illustrates that nuclear power would be the most cost-effective method to reduce emissions, even in Australia, where coal is abundant and nuclear power is met with resistance. Comparing different technology mixes, nuclear power clearly stands out as the best option to achieve significant emissions reductions while keeping electricity price increases at a minimum.

In conclusion, nuclear power is the most cost-effective and efficient solution for substantial reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity. Its superiority over renewable energy in meeting the essential energy supply criteria is evident, and the resistance to nuclear energy is hindering progress towards lowering emissions at the lowest possible cost.

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...

This is also my first debate. I find it noteworthy that Pro argues, "the world IS overpopulated," as in seven billion people will consume more resources than they can produce, so someone or several someones, must be eliminated/allowed to expire without replacement, and no one/only certain people should be allowed/should choose to reproduce, or less likely we must immediately colonize other worlds. If that is not the intent, I would like to know what it is. That could be another debate in itself, so here I will show that: 1)Natural resources such as minerals and hydrocarbon-based fuels will not run out at current population's consumption levels. 2)The earth as a whole will not run out of food or productive farmland from current population levels. 3)Environmental stability is not in danger from current population levels. Despite correlation in some regions, causation is not present. 4)There is good reason to believe population can continue to grow from its current level by significant amounts without endangering the amount of resources available to the population as a whole. +Mineral resources are too numerous in variety to list in this argument, so I will limit myself to the example of iron, which has been in use for thousands of years, and local deposits have been exhausted in the past, so I hope Pro will agree that it is a good example of a critical mineral that would be in danger of exhaustion if overpopulation is a danger. "Andrew Carnegie, a pioneer of the American steel industry, worried about the impeding depletion of the richer [iron] ores, consisting mainly of iron. In his address to the Conference of Governors at the White House in 1908 he said: I have for many years been impressed with the steady depletion of our iron ore supply. It is staggering to learn that our once-supposed ample supply of rich iron ores can hardly outlast the generation now appearing, leaving only the leaner ores for the later years of the century. It is my judgement, as a practical man accustomed to dealing with those material factors on which our national prosperity is based, that it is time to take thought for the morrow. But again, technology has expanded such that today we can exploit ore with just 30-40% iron. It is estimated that the currently identified reserves leaves us with 297 years of consumption at present levels. As we can see...there were actually many more years (sic)of consumption left in 2000 than in 1957, despite the fact that annual production has more that doubled. Actually, since the US Geological Service in 1957 estimated the world resource at 25 billion tons, we have used 35 billion tons and now the reserve base estimate is at some 300 billion tons." -The Skeptical Environmentalist, p141, 142 Humans, and other creatures, will instinctively go for the proverbial "low hanging fruit" first. Bog irons and other easy pickings went first, then smelting lower quality ores found on the surface, recycling already refined scrap, and digging shallow pits for high quality ores, then digging deeper for them, then learning to refine slightly lower quality ores when the prior are exhausted, and so on, is a logical progression for any metal producer, and one that we see throughout history. As the higher quality ores are exhausted, prices will temporarily go up, making costlier refinement methods practical, and once the development costs of those methods are paid for, cost for the product will decrease with free market competition. More efficient methods will be invented, until a more economical alternative is discovered (such as an eventual surplus of aluminum 1), and more remote regions will be opened for exploitation. Recent metal finds Afghanistan 2 and Africa 3 continue to increase the world's supply of untapped raw materials, and many regions remain largely unexplored for minerals. (Antarctica 4, the ocean floor 5) +Hydrocarbon products are currently critical energy sources around the world, so I will use them as my energy source example. "True, Earth is spherical and limited, but this is not necessarily a relevant objection. The problem is rather how large are the deposits that are...accessible for exploitation. These deposits can seem limited, but if the price(sic) increases this will increase the incentive to find more deposits and develop better techniques for extracting these deposits. Consequently, the price increase actually increases our total reserves, causing the price to fall again. … ...it is clear we have more oil left, not less and less...How can we have used ever more and still have even more left? … "Known resources" is not a finite entity. It is not that we know all the places with oil, and now just need to pump it up. We explore new areas and find new oil. But since searching costs money, new searches will not be initiated too far in advance of production. Consequently, new oil fields will be continuously added as demand rises. This is part of the reason why we see years of consumption increasing and not decreasing. Actually, it is rather odd that anyone could have thought that known resources pretty much represent what is left, and therefore predict dire problems when these have run out. It is a little bit akin to glancing into my refrigerator and saying: "Oh, you've only got food for three days. In four days you will die of starvation." No, in two days I will go to the supermarket and buy some more food. The point is that oil will come not only from the sources we already know but also from many other sources which we still do not know. U.S. Geological Surveys have regularly been making assessments of the total undiscovered resources of oil and gas, and writing in March 2000 they state: "Since 1981, each of the last four of these assessments has shown a slight increase in the combined volume of identified reserves and undiscovered resources." ...An initial drilling typically exploits only 20% of the oil in the reservoir. Even with present-day, advanced techniques...more than half the resource commonly remains in the ground...It is estimated that the ten largest oil fields in the US will still contain 63% of their original oil when production closes down. Consequently there is still much to be reaped in this area. In the latest US Geological Survey assessment, such technical improvement is expected to yield more than a 50% increase of identified reserves." -The Skeptical Environmentalist, p124, 125 I can't judge Pro too harshly since I've never set up a debate before, but I might have provided more time with this many rounds, so in order to post this in a timely manner, I will put up my argument on food during the next round. 1 http://sam.davyson.com... 2 http://www.nytimes.com... 3 http://www.newstimeafrica.com... 4 http://www.coolantarctica.com... 5 http://www.popularmechanics.com...

Overview, line by line, and voting issues: My opponent has offered a lot of things within this debate that COULD do harm, but NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan. He has said that we will have to boil a lot of water… but where is the disadvantage in that. He has yet to say how these "harms" will outweigh ANY of my advantages let alone have they been PROVEN to hurt anyone. The amount of money we presently spend in the status quo should SLIGHTLY be shifted to the energy of the future… fusion energy. --> So my opponent says that I've called his arguments irrelevant. Well… 1) The evidence does not specifically say anything about fusion energy. 2) There are no harms PROVEN with boiling this water. 3) Even if there were harms, they would NOT outweigh the advantages already PROVEN. --> I don't know the exact date of when fusion energy will be achieved, but I DO know that fusion energy will be EXTREMELY for longed if the plan is not passed. Fusion energy will be achieved, the question isn't when but how can we make it come sooner… the answer? Advocating this plan will make fusion energy (the energy of the future) come MUCH sooner. The reason that fusion energy hasn't come yet is because of people like negative who expect a new form of energy tomorrow. But in reality, it will take a consistent amount of funding until this new form of energy is reached. To all people judging this round, I ask you to be patient and pass this plan, if you do, the chance of fusion energy being here as soon as possible is increased. --> AGAIN… It is not Affirmatives job to show the environmental harms of his OWN PLAN… I guess since I haven't shown any environmental harms then there aren't any. The only harms argued in this debate are that we have to boil a lot of water. 1) That's not a bad thing. 2) The harms from fossil fuels are MUCH greater. --> The whole agendas thing must be dropped from this round. He himself has said that he doesn't know what these agendas are AND (like the other insignificant "harms") are not proven to do ANYTHING bad AND if those bad things (that don't exist) outweigh the advantages in my original case. --> As proven in my previous speech, the energy exchange is 50 megawatts put in, 5,000 megawatts received (from fusion energy). Therefore the Deuterium argument must be dropped. He says that we need to put in energy to get energy… BUT when you get 500 megawatts for every 1 megawatt you put in, it is WORTH it. Multiply that many times and soon the energy crisis is over! Even the CHANCE of this is enough reason to pass the plan. (he said), "proving that bad things can come of this. " --> He says that bad things CAN come from this but has yet to say WHAT these bad things are. (he said), "if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will"--> He never gave any evidence that fusion energy can not be found. I gave evidence that it is likely to come relatively soon, you simply have to be patient AND pass the plan in order to offer the appropriate funding. LEGISLATIVE INTENT EXTENSION: Cap on the emergency fund is all controlled by the government and is issued by the government (post-plan). The point of the emergency fund is if there is need for more funding if what is originally issued becomes not enough. --> Negative has brought up (in a small manner) the amount of money that this will cost. However, if you look to the amount of money that we spend on fossil fuel is SLIGHTLY transferred to fusion energy; it is not that much money. Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels, therefore, investing in another form of energy that will be cheaper in the end could HARDLY be "too expensive. " (he said) "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be? " --> 1) Again, it is not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" solvency will be reached. Fusion energy has not been reached yet because the incentive is not high enough yet, therefore, I urge that this alternative energy incentive is substantially increased and therefore we make the "WHEN" sooner. It has been said that two heads are better than one… therefore the more we put into the research of fusion energy, the better we are. 1)--> Instead of providing evidence that you pressed for I turned it against you. You pressed me to provide evidence that there were no harms but it was you job to provide the harms and my job to prove that they are not that bad AND/OR they don't outweigh the advantages. 2)--> My new evidence was 1) reserved, and, 2) expansions and/or responses on previous arguments VOTERS: In the end of this debate, I want judges to ask themselves, "Why not? " My opponent has said that we will have to boil a lot of water and that we might have to spend some money but has yet to show how this will "harm" society. One thing is for certain, we are in an energy crisis. Billions of dollars are being spent on fossil fuels and it is ridiculous. Imagine a world where you never have to fill your car with any form of energy… A world that you get all of your energy in each of your everyday items and only have to pay pennies for all of it. "The power of the sun in the palm of my hand" is what we are trying to achieve and the BEST way to achieve it is by passing my plan.

C1) Nuclear Programa) The presence of fossil fuels does not rule out the developement of fossil fuels I agree, but when the world asks Iran to stop its nuclear program while it has current ample reserves of potential energy they begin to look a little suspicious. i. The more oil they export the more money you take in in revenues giving you more money for developement of current energy sources while the current regime works out its problems with the West. Like I said, most of their energy problems come from inefficient waste due to falty infrastructure. Iran can use this oil revenue to help rebuild its infrastructure instead of a nuclear program. ii. Yes, these reserves are finite but show no signs of being depleted in the near future. According to sources the world's oil supply will last through the mid-21st century [1]. This means Iran can live off of these reserves for many years to come before having to transfer to nuclear energy. iii. If Iran is truly running out of energy and is having troubles meeting demand then clean air is not going to be a very high concern. Also, nuclear power creates nuclear waste and Iran has not given any indication on how to handle such waste responsibly. b) There have been issues raised. Iran is known only to release its nuclear information after they the fact [2] so to speak which lends itself to suspicion that the next nuclear test is already underway long before they alert the IAEA. Also you failed to address the fact that Iran's current nuclear facilities are not set up to be condusive for electrical power but are only set up for enriching uranium for broad purposes. As for Israel, it is not publically known nor confirmed by any official party that Israel is a nuclear state which is why they refuse to comply with international law. They do not want it known whether they do or do not possess nuclear weapons and think that ambiguity is better than outright knowlege.[3] Israel will most likely to agree to such talks about banning nuclear weapons after Iran has given up theirs. Why should they forfeit what Iran routinely refuses to forfeit? However this debate is focused around self defense and any attack by Israel on Iran would not be one of aggression or conquest but a preemptive strike to deter potential Iranian nuclear ambition.What my first contention all adds up to is that Israel has more than enough evidence to suspect Iran of suspicious nuclear activity. IAEA glitches, refusing to back down from their nuclear program after repeated instances of being told to do so in a situation where it is apparent that they do not need nuclear energy at this time. Its not the act of simply developing nuclear power but the continuing defiance when it comes to the program itself. Iran simply refuses over and over again. [4] Such defiance makes one wonder why they would be so defiant. Certainly not simply over energy since they are not hurting for fuel. Once again this all adds up to extremely suspicious cercumstances and with the West's failure to stop Iran Israel feels as if they must take matters into their own hands before something can happen. --------------------C2) Israel and IranThe status of Palestinian residents in Israel is another debate completely. They have been offered deals and peace talks about dividing up Israel but no agreement can be reached since both sides feel entitled to Jerusalem, however this has nothing to do with the debate at hand.I already addressed the misinterpretation and said it was more akin to removing the Israeli regime from the pages of history (scroll up). Nevertheless the rhetoric stands belligerent and aggressive. Also my opponent failed to address the rest of the quotes (of which there are dozen) highlighting Iran's strong and ardent anti-Israel mentality. He has failed to do so because there can be no way to combat such blatent quotes calling for the removal of Israel. Wouldn't a nuclear weapon do just that? Either way, which ever way you spin it the current Iranian government hates Israel and has announced that it would revel in her destruction. The rhetoric stands. And while Iran may not have attacked another nation "aggressively" they have behaved quite aggressively as of late. Aggressive behavior:- threatening to close the Straights of Hormuz- refusing to give up nuclear program after dozens of requests- wishing that Israel would disappear- arming anti-Israel terroristsWhile they may not have overtly attacked a country they have certainly behaved in an aggressive manner. -------------------------------C3) Putting Two and Two TogetherOnce again Israel would never attack Iran just for the heck of it but instead would attack only if backed into a corner. With Iran's current unpredictable and arguably crazy "president" there is no guarentee that such a Cold War-esque stand off would truly result in a stand off. In order to preserve itself as a nation Israel will work to prevent such a situation. No one wants to be in a cold war.Also I would like to point out again that Israel is not a confirmed nuclear power but only suspected to be one. Perhaps they have no nuclear weapons at all and that is why they are working so hard to prevent Iran from getting one because a cold war stand off would be one sided due to their own lack of nuclear weapons. In that case the scenario you laid out would be unfair and threatening to Israel. -----------------------------Terrorists and CowardiceThere is evidence to suspect that if Iran ever obtained a nuclear weapon they would not use it overtly. As you said yourself they have not attacked someone openly in over a hundred years but that in no way means they haven't attacked anyone in the past century. Iran has always been afraid to take on Israel directly which is why they have funnelled money through Syria, another anti-Israel country, and Hamas in order to fight Israel indirectly. In light of this one must take into account the possible use of a terrorist operated and detonated "dirty bomb" or even small nuclear device. Iran has a history of backing terrorists, including Hamas and Hezbollah which have both staged attacks on Israel in the past. [4] Nuclear waste could easily be used to create a dirty bomb which is probably the most likely threat to Israel thus neutralizing the cold war scene you painted since without concrete evidence Israel could hardly launch a nuclear attack back on Iran. -------------------Preemptive Strike IIOnce again I will lay out the evidence that supports a justified Israeli preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. * Iran does not need the energy at this very moment* Iran has refused to shut down a suspiciously managed and unneeded nuclear program* Iran has partaken in heavy, belligerent and aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric* Israel might not have nuclear weapons thereby justifying keeping nukes out of the Middle East* Iran funds terrorist groups and partakes in state sponsored terrorism esp. against Israel* Iran can not be ruled out of using a nuclear tinged "dirty bomb" or small nuclear device via terrorist groups agains IsraelAll of these things together create a convincing case for a defensive preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities alone. My opponent dropped the rhetoric points (the extensive quote collection) and the terrorism argument because they are undeniable. Iran is dangerous and can and will use nuclear capabilities against Israel if given the chance. While I admit neither side is completely blameless, Israel would be justified in defending itself against shady scheming nuclear terrorist attacks from a nation who has made it a mission statement to destroy them.I thank you for a great debate, one of the best I've participated in. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://terrorism.about.com...

Alternative energy is something that the United States desperately needs to look into but nuclear power should not be one of the areas. It is not cost effective. It is dangerous and is subject to terrorist attacks. Nuclear power was formerly known as "to cheap to meter." It now needs to be renamed "to expensive to produce." France invested in nuclear power in 2007, the main investor is now millions of dollars in debt. There are more effective alternative energies to invest in such as wind or solar. America has invested in nuclear power before and it just hasn't worked out. The fact that a repeat of the three mile island disaster is still prevalent should be a reason in itself on why we should not be investing. Like most energies, waste will be produced. To this day storage containers for this potentially deadly nuclear waste has not been developed. Many states have ended all research of nuclear power. It has turned into a "not in my backyard" argument. America wants to be a secure country. Investing in nuclear power only increases the chances of it becoming insecure. Of the 61 nuclear sites in the United States over half were deemed vulnerable of a terrorist attack. Some shocking news is that Al Qaeda's original 9/11 plan was to fly planes into nuclear power plants, as if the executed attack wasn't deadly enough. When making a decision on where the United States should invest it's time and money, I sincerely hope nuclear power is not considered.

Unfortunately, as much as I believe in progress, nuclear is not the answer. A nuclear fueled spacecraft isn't required to make a journey to mars. A journey to mars is caused by an escape orbit from Earth which would intersect with Mars and allow the spacecraft to travel freely along this "line to mars". In other words, rockets do not fire fuel constantly to move because energy is not lost due to friction in space. Space exploration is possible without nuclear fuel, and actually it could be possible for Curiosity to dig using alternative power sources, namely solar and radio-transferred power, which may be possible in the future at some point. Also to be noted is that Mars One is a mission to mars using current technology.

I would like to begin my final round by congratulating Pro on a lively and challenging debate. I'm particularly glad that we were able to avoid getting bogged down by semantics, disputed definitions and the like and have a robust discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. A number of matters have been considered, but essentially most of the disagreement has been concerning two issues - whether nuclear power is financially viable, and whether it is safe. If the answer to these questions is yes, Pro has made his case. If the answer is no, then we have to conclude that atomic power is not beneficial. Is nuclear power financially viable? Pro has provided several graphs which look quite impressive, yet fail to tell the true story. The LCOE figures presented in round two appear to show nuclear power in a favorable light compared to all other sources, and yet as I have pointed out, there is no indication that they take into account the massive subsidies and post-production costs which falsely lower the apparent cost per unit of production. The two graphs Pro presents in round four do claim to include startup costs, however the very significant costs associated with decommissioning of the reactor at the end of its life do not appear to be factored into the equation. In round 4, Pro quotes Ellen Vancko of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support of his case. Unfortunately, the source of the quote is not given, and I am unable to match the quoted text using Google search. But there is no worse source that Pro could possibly quote on the subject. Ellen Vancko and her organization have published some of the most detailed and scathing criticisms of the financial viability of nuclear power to be found anywhere. I will finish my critique of Pro's arguments on this topic by reproducing a little of what a press report which announced the release of their 146 page study of the topic has to say on the subject: "...subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced." It goes on to say "The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk".[1] Is nuclear power safe? In round four, Pro makes the statement "I'm not sure why my opponent keeps arguing about the deadly risks of nuclear power when I've pointed out several times it's [sic] safety record". The reason I keep arguing about it is because the safety record Pro is suggesting is a fabrication of atomic energy interests, and pro appears to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Let's look at Pro's claims one by one: * Three Mile Island was "fully contained" This was indeed the official line from the power plant operators and the early studies. But "A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties."[2] How could this be? Well, this same article also reports disturbing events well away from the supposedly "contained" disaster area, including: "Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney "just dried up and disappeared" -- an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure."[3] This and many other experiences have become the subjects of more than one book. * Fukushima resulted in no deaths This is perhaps the most brazen lie of all to come out of pro-nuclear groups. It has been observed that "lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses - that there is a 5 to 40 year 'incubation period'"[4]. It is not yet four years since the Fukushima disaster, so the worst is still to come. Quoting the same article, here are a few more estimates and observations: Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk predicts "a death toll of more than a million". Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: "The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan." Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is also quoted: "The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain ... radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local." * Chernobyl was the result of major design deficiencies and bad safety measures Chernobyl's meltdown occurred in 1986. Fukushima was 25 years later, in 2011, just three and a half years ago. This demonstrates that in spite of the supposed vast improvements that have been made, disastrous failures still can occur, threatening hundreds of thousands to millions of lives with each event. The supposed safety record of the nuclear industry is based on denials and cover-ups, not on fact. Concluding remarks: Pro has made several references to the cost and safety of nuclear power compared to old technologies such as fossil fuels. There is little point in debating any of this, as we appear to be in agreement that fossil fuels should be a thing of the past. The choice, then, comes down to nuclear energy or renewables, such as wind and solar. Of these, not only has nuclear only survived for over fifty years because of massive subsidies and ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars in costs due to accidents, but the costs of production are continually rising, and the demands on the public to subsidize these facilities are becoming intolerable. In contrast, the cost of solar PV has plummeted over a 30 year period "from $22 dollars in 1980 down to under $3 today" [5] (2010 figure). According to the same source, "battery prices are dropping exponentially too". With far less propping up from the public purse than nuclear has received for decades, renewable energy technologies such wind and solar power can become cheaper than both fossil fuels and nuclear. And they can achieve it with minimal scarring of the landscape, and without leaving a radioactive legacy that will last long after humans no longer inhabit the planet. As I have referred to before, countries across Europe are turning away from dirty, dangerous nuclear energy - it is just not worth the risk to our planet or our people. Nuclear energy is not beneficial. References: [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://pittsburgh.about.com... [3] http://www.southernstudies.org... [4] http://www.theecologist.org... [5] http://rameznaam.com...

My argument here will be brief and I will restate something that I might have misunderstood. If your thesis is : CAN we, according to nowadays technologies, achieve a leisure society in the next decades? Then the answer is yes on all fronts, except for the specific case that requires moral and creativity. Those, as for example, judges, advocates, policeman, musician, film makers/producers, etc, will still be in need of several years of practice and education. Therein lies the problems: Why would you bother if you are offered the possibility to achieve your life without as much as the tough of work crossing your mind? Why would you work for beings that passes their whole days achieving nothing? Why would you even be tempted to receive the education as you can afford a whole life of leisure? Another fact is that we might trust A.I. for basic security (and even more complex) functions. Personally, I do think they could achieve the whole security functions. Now, could you tell me one instance of where we had a nuclear power facility working without any personal to watch over? What would happen with a system breakdown, or a lack of power at a moment where it needs to be watched? This is a considerable roadblock, as a society without moral jurisdiction or entertainment will quickly fall into chaos. However, if your debate is based on: WILL we achieve it in the next few decades, then I'm afraid it won't happen, as too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society. First of all, China and India were mere examples of WHY it cannot happen. The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect. Energy creation and water filtering requires facilities that cannot be created and maintained, at first, by open-source project. As for a quick example, even if you consider heating carbon in an helium chamber to be easy, it cannot be done at home, as the prerequisite are not what we could call affordable for many that lives in in-development countries. As for food production, many of the enhancing soils capabilities do require GMO, which we do not know long-term effect on living organism, or technology that are, for the most part, still in the experimental phase. As for the medical AI, it does still require a doctor to enter the answers to the specific questions this one will need to establish a diagnostic, but this may indeed change in the next years.

Dependence on the limited, and financially unstable, foreign oil supply is ruining both the economy and the environment. Harm: The constant use of fossil fuels to power internal combustion engines for means of transportation will only end in economic burdens, environmental maltreatment, and many negative effects of personal health, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and diabetes. Harm 1.Fossil fuels contribute to pollution Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, when burned, lead nearly immediately to damaging impacts on local environments. When left unchecked, the use of fossil fuels spread to national, and eventually, global environments. Citation: Environment And Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust, 2006, www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml Evidence: "Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution generated from the combustion of fossil fuels from many other sources, including the burning of coal and oil in power plants, incinerators, home heating oil, and construction equipment. The combustion of gas and diesel fuels produce greenhouse gases that are contributing to local, regional and global climatic changes." Inherency #1: The use of gas-powered cars is heavily implemented into the current system. Large automotive corporations would be reluctant to transition, thus stunting an electric vehicle market. The implementation of electric-powered vehicles means an effective cutback, and if pursued strongly enough, an entire extinction, of tailpipe emissions. Cars powered by motors produce zero emissions, while internal combustion engines continue to contaminate the global environment. Citation: U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE) Evidence: "EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, and PHEVs produce no tailpipe emissions when in all-electric mode." Harm 2.Gas-powered vehicles are significantly less efficient than electric vehicles Although new technology, electric vehicles surpass internal combustion engines in energy consumption significantly. The Honda CR-Z is currently rated the best miles per gallon vehicle- for gasoline-powered cars. In fact, it"s 10th, following the eight electric cars before it, which all exceed 100mpg (excluding the hybrid Prius at 42 mpg). Citation: U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE) Evidence: "Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge) and kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles are common metrics. Depending on how they're driven, today's light-duty EVs (or PHEVs in electric mode) can exceed 100 mpge and can drive 100 miles consuming only 25-40 kWh." For example, the Tesla Model S, a standard setting, electric vehicle, has an 85 kWh battery. On average, it costs $10.25 to charge from dead to full. A conventional vehicle, depending on gas prices, takes anywhere from $25-50 to fill up. In its absolute worst conditions (subzero temperatures, air conditioning on highest setting, constant acceleration, and city driving, one can still expect 240 miles on a single charge. As far as efficiency, electric cars travel further, on less energy. Citation: Tesla Motors, "Go Electric: Your Questions Answered ", 2015, http://my.teslamotors.com... Evidence: "Efficiency is thought of in terms of range: more efficient cars can drive farther on a gallon of gas or a kWh of electricity. The Tesla powertrain is more efficient at using energy than a combustion engine. Only about 2025% of the energy stored in gas actually turns the wheels. A Tesla is about three times more efficient." Inherency #2: The general public is not educated well enough on the harmful effects of the burning of fossil fuels. The scientific awareness of the populous is incomplete and unclear Inherency #3: The general view of electric cars is negative. Most people deem them "spineless" and "weak" because of their lack of aggressive engine power. Harm 3.Gas powered cars contribute massively to human health concerns. The burning of gas for transportation is not only killing the environment, but us, as humans, as well. The inhalation of carbon dioxide is scientifically linked to countless life-threatening diseases which can, and as scientists are founding out, are, linked to emissions exiting the tailpipe. Citation: Environment and Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle, http://www.ehhi.org... Evidence: "Scientific experts now believe the nation faces an epidemic of illnesses that are caused by air pollution. These illnesses include cardiovascular disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and diabetes." I will post further arguments in later rounds, but this is my opening set.

Ecological You state, “1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. “ Believe it or not, water usage is a concern. Though fresh water is replenished by the water cycle we have a limited amount at a given time and it takes vast amounts of energy (non-sustainable) to treat the water. In 50 years, our population will increase by 3 billion people. It will become increasingly difficult to provide water for everyone. You can read about it here: http://www.whyzz.com... Also, you say that if we didn't eat the cows, they would consume the water anyway. The meat industry breeds these animals in MASSIVE quantities. They are forced to reproduce much more frequently than if they were wild. If we stopped breeding them for slaughter their numbers would decrease dramatically in a few years. Also, you did not consider that meat production not only takes the water the animals drink directly, but all the water it takes to grow the food they eat. You state that if we all switch to eating plants, we would decrease the world plant population and thus decrease the oxygen on earth. Most of the plants farmers grow are fed to meat animals. If we switched to plant diets there would be more plants, and, according to you, more oxygen. http://www.news.cornell.edu...... About global warming, if you don't believe it is a concern, I'm not sure what to tell you. You might consider having a look at some of these articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...http://www.independent.co.uk... Animal Rights You state: “Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. “ Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific concept. Survival of the fittest is not a code of conduct for life, it was never intended to be that. Evolution does not define morality. Just because something behaves a certain way in nature does not make it ethical (e.g. causing other species' extinction). 97% of scientists accept evolution as scientific truth. This does not change what is ethical. http://www.people-press.org... I want to bring to attention that this is not a religious debate. It is a debate on ethics, which to some people does include religion, so I will address it briefly. I am a protestant Christian and I think that evolution is probably true. I don't see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. God has the power to bring about life on earth in the way he chooses. I believe this way to be evolution. All the life on earth shares some percentage of DNA. This makes sense if you believe they come from the same Creator. You mention that the Bible gives authority to man to rule over the creatures of the Earth. Does this mean we can do whatever we want to them? No, we must take care of them. Before the flood, God forbade the eating of meat. After the flood, he designated certain animals as “clean” to eat. Does this remove our responsibility to rule over the creatures with respect? Here are some other things the bible has to say: "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.” -Isaiah 65:25 “The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel. “ - Proverbs 12:10 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. “ -Deuteronomy 25:4 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea tell you. Every one of these knows that the hand of the Lord has done this. The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God’s hand.” -Job 12:7-10 (NCV) Many early Christians were vegetarian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great to name a few. In some early church writings, Matthew, Peter and James (Brother of Jesus and first leader of the New Jerusalem Church) were all vegetarian. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". God giving us dominion over the animals does not give us license to mistreat them. God rules over us, and he is merciful to us. We rule over the creatures of the earth, should we not be merciful? I do not think we should give rice plants rights. We only share 15% of our DNA with it. Plants have no brain, no central nervous system. There is no reason to think that plants have emotion or feel pain.There is a reason to think animals have emotion and feel pain. Animals are closer to us than plants, some animals are very close to us. Even bacteria share about 2% of our DNA. Does this give them rights? No. When you wash your hands, you kill thousands of bacteria. If you have ever felt pain, than you can surely understand why we should hesitate to inflict pain on the things that can feel it (animals, not plants and bacteria). I agree with you about abortion. For the same reasons I think we should not kill animals, I feel we should not kill unborn humans. But this debate isn't about abortion. Human Consumption I'm not sure what you are saying about the health implications of a vegetarian diet. 8 years more of life is 8 years more of life. To me, that indicates it is healthy to be a vegetarian. Yes, there are many healthy, long-lived people who eat meat, but a diet without meat can be just as healthy (or possibly more-so). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... You conclude: “Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it.” 18,000 children die every day for lack of food. If the entire nation switched to a completely plant-based diet, there would be 5 times more protein food than the meat produced. We feed farm animals enough to feed 800,000,000 people every year. This world needs all the extra food it can get. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... “And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing.“ Well, maybe punching my neighbor in the nose would “make a good day” for my neighbor's ex-wife, but that doesn't make it ethical. Note: I apologize if my arguments seem a little strong, I'm just trying to present the situation as accurately as I can.


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

Nuclear energy is a critical alternative energy source that cannot be overlooked in the quest to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
While no single source can entirely replace fossil fuels, nuclear energy stands out as the most promising contender to significantly offset the energy production currently supplied by fossil fuels. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece] As the third largest energy source, nuclear power contributes about one-sixth of global electricity generation, nearly on par with hydroelectric power. [http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html] Nuclear power plants are notably more land-efficient than fossil-fuel and hydroelectric plants, and with the potential for global expansion and a sustainable supply for tens of thousands of years, it becomes a viable long-term solution. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last] Considering the vast availability of uranium, energy security is bolstered, making nuclear energy a reliable alternative. Furthermore, nuclear energy is pivotal in mitigating carbon emissions; in the US, it prevents the release of 700 million metric tons of CO2 annually, equivalent to the emissions from all passenger cars. [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363] Restricting the expansion of nuclear energy would be a shortsighted approach, hindering our progress towards a sustainable energy future.

corny get real I refer wind eaters as in the human body the wind turbines turn the wind into energy. Now to sum up my arguments. Firstly they are useful and efficient for the world and secondly they are Eco friendly. Thank for listening and I hope I have convinced you that Wind turbines are a good source of energy. There is the AIR of defeat.

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...

apparently you decided to ignore my spelling suggestion. Future reference put a reasonable response time for the debate(reason why the round was forfeited). There are many trees still here, and trees can be replanted and grown again. We are not in a dire state to where people can't breathe because of a lack of trees. The homeless problem is actually an issue. The wood from trees provide many benefits to society, then trees are planted to make up for what was used. And if there is not enough trees to supply the needed oxygen, we would die from suffocation not "posan".

why the government should intervene more with alternative fuel. people say the market will take care of itself. in the end, it will. but at what cost in the mean time? we should act now because we'll look back and see how much we've wasted on gasoline. companies say they can make alternative biodesial fuels for a dollar a gallon. (using algae farms, or any organic material using bacteria to make ethanol from hte cellulose material, switch grass and other things more entergy intensive than corn etc.. and exemplified by brazil etc who are energy dependant right now from gas) but, there's a catch 22 occuring. comanyies make alternative companies but often must put operations on hold. why? because there's no demand. the consumers who make demand say there's no supply. who can afford as a consumer to buy altnernative vehicles? the richer. does the rising prices right now of gasoline hurt them? not as much so they don't buy. but, even if they bought cars sometimes as they are now, there's still not much there in way of an infrastructure for the supply side. the rich won't start buying more until it really starting hurting them. the poor won't do it cause they can't. the middle won't do it, probaly for the same reason. it's conventional wisdom that the rich are the ones who start these new technologies... and the conventional wisdom is probably true here too. but, unlike many situations with conventinoal wisdom... for altrnernative fuel, waiting till the rich start teh technology isn't in the best interest of the country right now. that's because... for many other things, like buying a DVD player... fuel isn't something that's simply a perk as much, and isn't such a regular and substantial cost for the consumer. it has a noticable affect on the economy. fuel is the opposite. while we're waiting for the rich to convert, what's happening? in the mean time, the poorer are spending their money on gas, or not being as productive as they could with cheaper gas or some gas at all. the middle class largely too. consider all that money they're spending on that, when they could be spending on an array of other things. all that money could have been going to the economy at large, instead of the pockets and costs of a few. (and foreignors, which is a major concern in and of itself) to make it more of a practical example. say a new biodesial machine at a gas station costs fifty thousand. all that money that the poorer are wasting right now would have been more than enough to either subsidize or lend to that station. (you could lend the money to them... and ensur ethey make a tidy profit before they ever have to pay it back, if ever considering there's a risk they might not make money) if we invested in them as a government then, the effects would be much sooner, and the poorer and middle class would save more, and it'd be a boon to the economy. (plus all the jobs involved with the transitioning infrastructure) there'd be so much savings, you could even lend or subsidize biodisal plants too, though it'd probably not be needed for them. government intervention is the way to break the catch 22 sooner when it'll make a difference for hte economy, than later when we'll look back and see all that wealth that has been squandered.

Rebuttal: 0. Stuxnet - "you think anyone will let you"?No. That is why a virus with forged security clearance is necessary. We are hijacking the Earth's energy reserves, not asking for them nicely. EMP's - "How can you control the accuracy of an EMP?"We are not using 1 EMP. We are using millions, selectively placed around the Earth. "Hundreds, if not thousands of euros of damage from the destroyed computers, phones, and electrical systems" Civilian life isn't a threat to this program. Only defense and weapons technology, surveillance systems, and financial databanks will be fried. 1. This program fries the technology used already to hold the world hostage. The goal is not control, but open access.The mines referred to are resource mines and will be automated to stockpile and organize every usable resource on Earth. 2. If the preliminary measures and Step 1 are initiated successfully, by this step all resources and energy reserves are at our disposal. Cost is of no consequence. 3. Every renewable farm is fully automated. Safety regulations are of no consequence. Cost is of no consequence. 4. 50% of energy usage worldwide is currently for war (or preparations thereof).Frying every trace of military technology assures no further waste. An international monitoring program will be established to measure energy usage. The reserve is determined by the planets annual energy consumption, not the other way around. 5.We are de-salinizing water on every continent. We are not de-salinizing the entire ocean.Speculations suggest that less than .5% of the oceans will require de-salinization - even less with proper water recycling. 6. Very few humans will choose not to live under our system, but those that do are welcome to."A few locals" do not threaten the intercontinental forest established in this step. Intercontinental monitoring systems will keep the forests pasturized and hydrated forever; for any of our lumber needs or theirs. 7. The goal is to put everyone out of a job. 50% of the human race is still tilling the land. That's pathetic. We were made for greater things. Once our system is established, there will be no incentive to farm beyond personal means. There is no point in market-sized farming if there is no market. Anyone still wanting to farm for themselves is welcome to, but the economic demand will vanish when our system already automatically feeds everyone... for free. 8.Soylent is a tweakable chemical food replacement. It can provide 100% of an individual's daily nutritional needs on a level of accuracy incomparable to solid food.Nobody will be forced to consume it, it is only mentioned as a preliminary step for individuals near starvation or facing chronic illness. Food is for recreation, not survival. 9. Memory concrete is real, yes.The houses will not be fried by the EMP's. Most of them, however, will be recycled for useful resources.None of these homes will be recycled without permission from the squatter, however trading them in for an indestructable structure is hardly a sh*t deal.10.Costs again. We have all the resources and all the energy reserves. We've also wiped out the financial grid. We also have technical specifications from every patentenabling us to build just about anything - City Printers notwithstanding. 11.What about already present vehicles?Place sensors in EVERY TRANSPORT VEHICLE. Every vehicle will also be capable of manual steering. Very few people will choose this option, as they are only putting themselves in danger. Any dangerous driving they engage in would be of no consequence to the rest of the world. 12.Google CEO Larry Page stated "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide".Likewise, the criminal justice system is no longer used on any level of society. No online activity can be considered wrong and therefore, there is nothing to hide. Nobody faces punishment for anything they do or say on the internet.

Firstly a thank you for the font size reduction.It's clear you expect me to provide my own solution, which I'll gladly supply now. You see, your problem involves a lot of control and surveillance, which anyone with some healthy paranoia will see as a threat. Sensors, stuxnet viruses and automation can be seen as government control. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar once said "let me have men about me that are fat", and he meant that people who are content will not be bothered to threaten a leader. Your plan may satisfy people, but it still establishes totalitarian control, which will lead to freedom based opposition, who don't want to survive, they want to live. I know I use many film references here, but you will create the Wall-E humans with your plan, lazy and overweight, surviving but accomplishing nothing.But enough about that, it's time for my alternate plan.1; Poverty, is the first problem I would tackle. http://www.visionofearth.org...Now, it's fairly easy to spend that much, and I'll cut spending in other places to compensate for the cost.2; A full scale global education scheme. You see, when people have an education, they can get a better job, and earn more money. They can live in a better house, eat better food and educate their children as well. As education rises, corruption decreases with an increase in opposition to corrupt leaders, and as quality of life rises, the need to have more children as well as birth control standards reduces world population. This solves overpopulation and corruption, since the education scheme extends to first world counties and will contain dietary and health lessons.3; When the education scheme is complete, and I'll assume I'm heading America in this, since my podium in Ireland wouldn't accomplish much, I will begin a plan of social and political reform. Troops must be evacuated from occupied countries and talks to decrease tensions with the said countries will follow. I'll also close that damn Guantanamo while I'm at it. This cut in military spending will compensate for the previous spending, and for the next step as well.4; Research into clean energy. Now we begin the clean energy development. In fact, now that America has improved its standing with the rest of the world, which may increase support for this step. Of course, this isn't all entirely guaranteed, but most of it can be accomplished. Now we begin switching to safe clean energy.5; Improving effiency of farming. Education has already given a hand to farming effiency, but donations of machinery and education on its use will mean that farming will take less effort. The point is not to remove work entirely, but improve the effiency and minimise required effort.6; If the clean energy has built up enough, it can worked into the electrical grid and sold to homes nationwide at low costs, even internationally when the efficiency increases. Importance is on the cheap and affordable, but not free yet. We can then begin improving water quality, de-salinisation and even move to develop better scientific progress, a personal quest to make stem cell research cheap and eay so that my vegetarian friends can enjoy a steak that didn't require a cow's death.A Recap; Poverty ended Overpopulation ending Corruption declining International tensions decreasing Clean and cheap energy available Food available for all Satisfaction for vegetarians Now, in six points I have dealt with that much. My next part involves current political problems.North Korea; work with China to pressure Kim Jong Un to bring in social reform, education and healthcare. Eventually, this will lead to a flourish in democracy, and while it'll be a struggle, the Jong family will lose their clutches on the nation. North Korea may become a communist state, or even join up with the South, but the quality of life there will improve at least.Syria; A tricky one since Vladmir Putin is a tough nut to crack. Compensating Russia for the loss of their favorite arms customer with a cash alternative. Then do a Libya on it and help the rebels overthrow their oppressors, then staying around until the elections are done, providing education too, and then getting everyone out, stressing to them that we're leaving, keeping with our image of a reformed USA.Pakistan and Israel; Tough one. I guess keep with the education and try to encourage a tolerance between both sides. The religious leaders will have an educated population who aren't easily swayed anymore, and will lose power, bringing more moderates who want peace to the table.USA's debt; I suppose firstly we'd appeal to have the debt removed since we've been so nice lately, or at least to have the interest rates lowered or the total debt reduced. THen we could gradually ease our way out. Then I'll just help the other countries while I'm at it. Crime in general; Crime will always be an issue, no matter the society, but the cheaper cost of living and education improvements will lower that signifigantly. And with all the retired soldiers, we can go back to the old "cop on every corner" that remained a dream for amny a yeat in the past.In conclusion, my society is similar in structure, but the living standards are better and more affordable, and while an army may be required to stick around, and I can't get rid of WMDs in other countries, peace can be aquired and people will work, but require less effort. My system built on education will ensure a system that will not be violated as I can have accomplished succesors.But a final sad note of my plan; the time required. For A lot of it could be done in the space of a seven year term, I would require a second term to finish the job, and I would likely be attacked by the Republican party for pulling out the troops and reforming the American political systems. I would most likely not earn a second term, and my plan would end there. But there it is regardless. You may have your own suggestions, which you may message me about, or if you wish, rematch me or challenge to a new debate entirely, I don't mind at all. Until then, I'll be here, awaiting our next encouter with a renewed vigor,Duncan.

Introduction: My name is Jacob. I am 14 yrs. old. I live in New York. Please bear with me. I registered the day this debate was added. Rebuttals: 1. Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. 2. True. Energy is finite. 3. Yes. The Sun does. 4. Mass and energy does not fill up those spaces. Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, I'll rebut my opponents last case. My opponent begins by telling us that the continued usage of coal and oil will help boost our economy. That is what I get from this contention, and If I'm wrong, I pray that my opponent will correct me. My opponent tells us how the usage is benefiting the United States monetarily. My opponent fails to show an impact. Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use? If my opponent cannot prove that it would lower our economic stance significantly to discontinue use of coal and oil, then we must see that there is no impact in my his argument. Are we debating on a global aspect or US interest exclusively? My opponent goes on to say that alternative sources of energy would reduce our personal need for coal and oil. So why don't we? Considering it'd be in our better interest not to use coal, as it harms our environment with pollution and such, which obviously lead to health issues. I urge a negative vote. Thank you.

The most simple way is to go back to nature there was no global warming. If we go back to basis all the complexities of electric will be removed and we will use horses. Yes

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...