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

The United States Should Focus on Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) Energy Instead of Nuclear Power

While nuclear power (NP) may seem like a viable solution to reduce global warming, air pollution, and energy instability, it is not the best option. Investing in WWS energy is a better choice, as it is cheaper, cleaner, safer, and faster to deploy. Moreover, WWS has better impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, national security, water supply, wildlife, water pollution, reliability, and sustainability than NP.

WWS is technologically and economically feasible, and researchers at Stanford have shown how the US can provide 100% of its energy with WWS by 2030. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions doesn't require building a global network of NP. Instead, the US should focus on WWS energy, which can provide quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

NP is fraught with unsolvable infrastructural, economic, social, and environmental problems. These problems include immense capital costs, slow deployment, reactor safety issues, waste storage issues, vulnerability to the effects of climate change, weaponization of uranium, vulnerability to terrorist attack, and even reliability issues (since it depends on foreign sources of uranium). WWS is better on every front.

Global warming requires quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, we'll soon reach a tipping point, after which runaway climate change will make the planet uninhabitable to humans. It takes about 11-19 years to build a new NP plant, whereas WWS only takes 2-5 years. That means the US can lower greenhouse gas emissions much faster by investing in WWS instead of NP.

NP is also expensive. The average cost of electricity produced by a next-generation nuclear plant is $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Comparatively, WWS is much cheaper. Solar, which is more expensive than wind or water, is already as low as $0.0508/kWh. Moreover, EIA's estimate is lower than it should be because it doesn't take into account the costs of building, insuring, and decommissioning plants, as well as storing radioactive waste.

The more NP expands, the more opportunities that become available for using (or diverting) nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. These risks must be taken into account. NP plants are a major target for terrorists. If a plane were flown into a

= MEDICINE = You claim that human-level medical AI is "centuries" in the future. This is absolutely flat wrong; it is 35 years in the past. An AI called MYCIN (http://en.wikipedia.org...) in the 1970s outperformed expert human diagnosticians. Today's AI are well over a billion times more powerful; think what they could do! Medical diagnosis requires calculating the outcome of a huge amount of interdependent data: symptoms, family history, lifestyle, proteomic and genomic data, test results, results of scans etc. AI already does this sort of analysis much better than humans. Medical AI has been proved in practise, so I needn't argue it too much. Beyond diagnosis, things like dispensing drugs are easily done by automated systems and digital reminders. Autonomous surgical robots are also under development. Adciv.org/Medicine presents in more detail what is becoming possible in medicine. = ENERGY = Your vision of the Chinese and Indian governments rolling out alternative energy in grand top-down projects completely misses the point; advancing fabrication technologies, along with open-source know-how, are giving people the ability to take care of their own needs of technology (including power-generation). We no longer have to rely on the bureaucratic arrangements of government projects or free-market enterprises to create abundance. Nor do people have to rely on the monetary system, which circumvents the "not enough money" snafu that you keep bringing up. Your arguments about nuclear power have some validity, but nuclear power is not essential to what I am proposing - I brought it up merely as one of many available energy sources. (Besides, most of what I said was about fusion, which doesn't have the same waste problems as fission.) = MAINTENANCE = You claim "I doubt we would trust automatic systems to watch over a potentially radiation catastrophe". I find it hard to see your logic here; don't we already rely on automatic systems to monitor surges in our power-plants, to diagnose problems in our aeroplanes, to calculate radiation doses for our chemotherapy, to drive certain train networks, and to do any one of hundreds of tasks with human lives at stake? People rightly trust AI more than human monitoring for such vital tasks, because we know how error-prone humans are. Again, your speculations have ignored the facts of the world. = WATER = Creating nanotubes is easy; you heat carbon with a laser in a helium chamber. The technology is far from being "incredibly complex", as you claim, and is frequently done on small scales in university labs and the like. The raw materials are graphite, helium and a cobalt-nickel catalyst - all cheap, abundant and ubiquitous. That is why carbon nanotubes are so cheap now, about two or three dollars per gram. The Tata Swach is a nanofiltration device for water that costs just $21. Doesn't that prove that nanofiltration is cheap and feasible? = ABUNDANCE OF FOOD RESOURCES = Your claim that growing more food means a land-grab is totally wrong. Increasing food-production means using better strains of plants, better pest management and all-round smarter farming to increase the amount of food grown per unit of land. The UN predicts that 90% of our food-production increase will come from increased yield, with only 10% coming from expanding farmland (http://www.fao.org...). We currently have 31.8 trillion square meters of farmland. If we grow high-yield crops in dense intercropped systems and intelligently apply scientific knowledge, we can grow food for a person on 400 square meters. (This is taking a pessimistic estimate. For a list of sources on the farmland needed per person, see adciv.org/Talk:Food. There will obviously be regional variations; in some places just 20 square meters have fed people.) 31.8 trillion divided by 400 is 79.5 billion. That is the number of people that could be fed without expanding farms one inch. If we expanded into the deserts and remediate bad soil, we could increase food-production by another 25%. If we learn to grow meat in-vitro, we could feed billions more. Densely-packed aeroponic greenhouses could feed hundreds of billions more than that. Growth-promoting bacteria can increase yields 10-25%. These are just a few examples of what is possible. We have the resources to feed hundreds of billions (maybe a trillion), yet our population is not expected to grow beyond 9-15 billion. Just as with energy, there is a marvellous superabundance of agricultural resources. More importantly, there is an enormous amount of knowledge about how to utilise these resources. This know-how is being spread around the world for free through the open digital culture. "Now, the main problem with arable land is that most of it is underneath civilization and residences." Where on earth did you get this from? Only a few percent of the world's land is under human developments. Please check your facts before making claims like this. = POPULATION = "nothing indicates that the population growth will stop someday." I don't know where you keep getting these claims. There are many such indications and they are widely documented. Population is in decline in many countries in Europe. As countries in Africa, Asia and South America are developing, their birth rate is decreasing. Everything indicates that population will peak around 2050, at 9-15 billion, in line with UN projections (http://www.un.org...). But, as I have shown, the Earth can carry hundreds of billions. = ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES = You twice claimed that the changes needed are too big and would require massive top-down, heavily funded projects. That is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about technology enabling people to create abundance locally, without reliance on governments, big business or the monetary economy. Digital fabrication technologies are improving and will continue to improve. We currently have Fab Labs that can make any electronic or mechanical device, and cost less than $50,000 (http://www.ted.com...). In the next two or three years, we will have self-replicating Fab Labs for under $20,000. (This is called RepLab; it is a project I am helping manage.) Fabrication is getting to the point of the molecular assembler (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which can make anything from anything by rearranging the atoms. Extrapolating miniturization (http://www.singularity.com...) predicts we will have molecular assemblers around 2025, while the nanotech industry roadmap says 2022-2037 (http://www.productivenanosystems.com...). Understanding the societal impact of these fabrication technologies is key to understanding the AdCiv thesis, so I'm gonna stress it a bit more. When such fabrication technologies become widespread, technology becomes decoupled from monetary needs, government intervention and market forces. Do you see that? Without digital fabrication, people must rely on government and business to provide their needs. With digital fabrication, this reliance falls away, and with it go the bureaucratic, financial and economic obstacles to abundance. People will no longer need money to provide their needs; they will need only raw materials plus information. Raw materials are ubiquitous and cheap; information is freely available through open digital culture. In exactly the same way that music has become free and abundant by cutting out the monetary aspect, so it will be for all the things needed for a wealthy life. I see no roadblocks to this happening. I started this debate in the hope that someone would point out a roadblock that I had overlooked, but you have not done so.

Plan: The United States federal government should amend the Title V of the Federal Land Policy Management Act and Bureau of Land Management right of way regulations to replace the "fair market value" standard for rental rates of federal lands for concentrated solar power plants. The rental rate for concentrated solar power plants should be set at the same rate as livestock grazing. Will Clarify. _____________________________________________________________________ Contention One; Inherency No solar plants on federal land now – The Bureau of Land Management is half-stepping on contracts for solar plants – this destroys investor confidence in the solar industry Werner, Associated Press Writer. July 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., accessed July 6, 2008) BLM has yet to approve a solar project on federal land; the solar projects already built or under way in this country are on private property. Still, industry officials already impatient about the BLM's pace worried that putting a stop to new applications would allow other industries to lay claim to federal land that could go to solar. They feared it would also send the wrong signal to potential investors just as the solar industry is getting started. And Concentrated Solar Power, or CSP, works but needs land area – federal intervention is key – CSP is the only form of solar that can be cost competitive with fossil fuels NREL 07 http://www.nrel.gov... The 2000 NRC review found that a major hurdle facing CSP technologies was that they must be relatively large to be competitive, and that large installations are expensive. Parabolic troughs have demonstrated performance and reliability over 20 years of operation in California,24 and the technical feasibility of power tower systems was proven during the mid-1990's. Unless there is a significant market intervention by the Federal and/or State governments, an economically feasible project in the United States will not be possible. Contention 2; Harms A. The economy The economy is collapsing now – rising energy prices, oil, and lack of investor confidence are devastating the US stock market Faiola and Irwin 7-16-08 (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) the stock market has fallen sharply and broader problems have emerged in financial markets, and there have been new signs of slowing global growth and economic downfall. of higher energy prices, tighter credit conditions and a still-deeper contraction in housing markets all represent significant downside risks to the outlook for growth. Plan jumpstarts the Economy in four ways: 1. Investor Confidence Plan spurs an economic boom by invigorating alt-energy stocks – venture capitalists see solar as the new internet stock – they perceive peak oil, rising energy prices, and impending carbon taxes and want alternatives – they'll look to solar and wind now – spurring investment leads to an economic boom Economist 2008 ("The power and the glory," June 21, accessed on July 14, 2008 http://www.economist.com...) The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, there is growing concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run out and new reserves become harder to find. Americans have become intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants. That has opened up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge 2. Energy Grid Blackouts are economically devastating Smith, 08 The cost of a large-scale blackout is almost impossible to measure. The economic consequences alone can be billions of dollars. the impact can be wide ranging. Weather can blow down a single distribution feeder affecting a small region, or an ice storm can take out a major portion of a transmission grid affecting millions of people for days. And Independently, Blackouts risk reactor meltdowns which will kill hundreds of thousands Vann 03 http://www.wsws.org... Nine nuclear power reactors were forced to shut down during the blackout. Had the diesel generators used to maintain essential operations at any one of these plants failed, a catastrophic nuclear meltdown would have occurred. Had a meltdown taken place at one of these plants, hundreds of thousands of people in surrounding communities would have received deadly doses of radiation without even being aware of what has happening. Heat storage solves non-peak demand making CSP the most cost-efficient form of solar power – plan solves intermittency issues across the grid solving blackouts. Lockwood 08 http://democrats.science.house.gov... By incorporating large insulated tanks filled with molten salt, heat captured during the day can be stored and used to produce electricity when the sun is no longer shining. The molten salt and heavily insulated tanks are able to retain heat with very high efficiency, and the stored heat not only increases the total amount of electricity generated, it also adds specific operating benefits. Even after the sun has set, the solar trough with thermal energy storage provides the maximum value. 3. High Tech Jobs High-Tech Jobs are key to US economy Norman 08 http://jan.freedomblogging.com... Orange County has more than 100,000 high-tech jobs, ranking it 14th nationally among major metropolitan areas. The average salary for O.C. tech jobs is $81,000, 68% higher than the county's private-sector average of $48,000 and 7.4% of the county's private sector jobs are at high-tech firms. The tech industry has long demonstrated its ability to drive the U.S. economy. A Healthy Solar industry creates massive amounts of high-tech labor Fried 07 http://www.sustainablebusiness.com...) Solar energies are much more impressive job creators than the fossil fuel industry, creating 10 times the jobs. if 20 percent of our energy were to come from CSP, then 188,000 to 240,850 jobs could be created. 4. Competitiveness The U.S. is behind in energy productivity Council on Competitiveness 08 http://www.compete.org... The United States Is a Global Laggard in Energy Productivity. The United States is the most energy-intensive developed region today and lags behind its OECD competitors in improving energy productivity. is an important part of production costs, the United States is losing competitive ground relative to its global competitors. Solar key to tech competitiveness which is key to the economy DOE 08 (http://www1.eere.energy.gov... Technological leadership is necessary for economic competitiveness and to make solar electricity a significant contributor to the nation's economy would result in sound and well-conceived programs and sustained investments. Finally, Economic downturn leads to nuclear war, so vote Pro Mead 1992 Sir Walter Russell, New Perspectives Quarterly, p. 30 Summer) What if the global economy collapsed? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s. I thank anyone who chooses to debate me. It is a great way to utilize our right of peaceful assembly, to be free to speak, and to let out your mind. Good luck.

I think that it is impossible for the human race to overpopulate the earth - considering our resources* - if we increase the population gradually and in a regulated manner to allow the vegetation to keep up with converting rock into biomass which can be eaten. Of course we can outnumber the space, but that is not what I am stipulating. I believe that so long that there is Space to literally live, then the world can produce enough resources to sustain us. If we lived in the planet, then we can house ourselves aware from the fruit production, then we can maximize efficiency. Despite the fact that the earth would thus become smaller, via using structures to create multiple layers of living space with less material, we could still increase the worlds habitable zone-age.. :S Thus. Human's can not overpopulate the planet to a point where it cannot provide, while we can still move about and function happily.*** the argument*** I believe that the planet can sufficiently feed potentially hundreds of trillions of people.

I guess Pro's busy, so I'll elaborate on a couple points, but won't put too much down, as I already have a significant amount for him to respond to. 1.) “...the facts about the coming catastrophe are so obvious. Just apply a little grade-school math and economic common sense: Our planet’s natural resources can reasonably support about 5 billion people. That’s a fact. Another: Today we have 7 billion. That’s a problem, 2 billion too many. We’re consuming commodities and natural resources at a rate of 1.5 Earths, according to estimates by the Global Footprint Network of scientists and economists.” This was from Pro's cited Marketwatch.com article. The author here is citing Global Footprint Network's conclusions that Pro also cited. It is reasonable to assume that if we are using 1.5 Earths worth of resources, we have a serious problem. So let's take a look at some analysis by someone who's DAY job it is to dig into the numbers that are so central to Pro and his supporters' claims. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 2.) “The fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and thus limited is an established fact that is not the focus of this debate. It is therefore reasonable to state that the present consumption of hydrocarbons is unsustainable because it is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted. The same logic would apply to other finite resources.” No, it's not the focus of the debate. But if you cite an article to back that up (as you did) that has no citations or hard scientific data, just a statement of conventionally held ideas, and I cite a published paper with many citations to the contrary, http://www.csun.edu... I suggest one should draw back from the claim of factuality until more research is done, and a more scientifically transparent source is presented. I do not claim this paper establishes fact as I have not yet made time to study his claims and figures thoroughly, I am just saying that my source's claim calls yours into question, and seems to do a better job at presenting the argument, and actually cites research.

To topicalities! 1. Significant. Group all of his arguments together. As of now… I don't see any logical thinking of HOW these classes will ever be successful in increasing (let alone significantly) ANY Biopower whatsoever. He assumes that by offering these classes that people will all of the sudden have more "Biopower." We have P.E. classes in this world… so does that mean that everyone is in shape? We have history classes, so everyone understands all of history and remembers it? He has not yet offered what will even be in these classes yet, so how do I know if it will significantly increase anything… And as far as the abusiveness goes… if you don't want topicalities to go through the round… BE TOPICAL… 2. Increase. Group these arguments as well… He simply says his plan calls for an increase, but that doesn't mean that he'll get it… I hand in an assignment, but that doesn't mean that I'll get a good grade… In other words, you don't always get what you try to get. What are in these "classes"? The rest of this debate is about the disadvantages IF there is a significant increase but don't let my opponent assume this increase. Adding classes doesn't mean that everyone will be increased. You can attempt significant (as you say by giving it to the entire nation) but that doesn't mean the entire nation will get the increase whatsoever. Your plan actually calls for the DECREASE of biopower which goes right against the resolution itself. 3. Energy 1. You say you meet the power, BUT not the three standards. Is this human power fossil fuel? Electricity? Or solar radiation? I don't exactly think that I'm going to be getting in my human and driving to school… How do individuals get more "energy" and how can they now use it from a CLASS? Biopower is just POWER, not energy. You define it as, "This energy has been defined as Biopower or the power of life"… but this has nothing to do with energy and meets none of the standards in my definition… This topicality stands. II. Sovereignty Disadvantage. A. Unturn… On this argument I find a contradiction. He talks about how we can educate his youth… WRONG… He can ATTEMPT to educate the youth but no matter how hard you try, you will come up short. Also he talks about the world leaders being educated. But that is not who your attempting to educate, you are attempting to educate EVERYONE which leads to many harms if everyone has this so called energy/power. B. The sovereignty we know today is in danger if everyone has a significant increase in Biopower. His definition of Biopower is very vague but if you give enough people enough power, anything bad becomes possible. The decrease in sovereignty is inevitable. The crash of sovereignty is imminent. C. He says the economy would become stronger… but how. As we all know, economies strive because of money flowing around. If people become smarter with their energy, they will seize to spend money and the economy as we know it would crash. He simply does not have enough logical analysis to overturn the possibility of the economy crashing… Even the CHANCE of this happening is a greater harm than not passing the plan… unturn. D. There is imbalance now… but where in his solvency does he solve the imbalance. When we put education into place, some learn… some don't. This increases the imbalance. This imbalance IS a serious harm as vigilantism would be inevitable and this harm alone is enough to vote this plan down… unturn. E. Cross-apply what I said… sovereignty WILL decrease by the adoption of his plan. With people getting significantly increased power, how can the government hold us back anymore? It's like picking a fight with someone 10 times your size. III. Society Disadvantage. A. WRONG… you fail to see the inevitable imbalance that is to come with biopower education. Not everyone will learn this "biopower" and thus this "advantage" becomes a serious impact. With increase in self worth, they will feel they can do anything, which will only lead to disappointment OR harmful success. And again… HOW are these classes going to teach (and be successful) in teaching "biopower"? B. SO, by initiating this plan, how do we solve these (inherency) harms? You say in the status quo, these harms already exist. Okay, and in your inherency harms, you talk about Biopower CAUSING these harms (such as the Holocaust). You solve NOTHING. NO solvency, thus, adopting the plan is useless. C. Unturn… First of all, this is NOT a system; it's an extra class which comes with the extra burden of more teachers and more money. You act like this class is a new law that states that people have to be ethical… this simply can not happen. If you go into this new class and tell people that they can do what they want to do… They'll either ignore it (which would do nothing for everyone), or they'll believe it and ACTUALLY do WHATEVER comes to mind. Which inevitably leads to much harm. This new Biopower increase is still non-topical… this is NOT energy, it's a self-image increase ATTEMPT. D. Unturn… This is really the first time that I'm really starting to understand what is being attempted. This attempt efforts are futile. They will not work, people already have close relations to the law and anything that goes against the individual… It can't be increased, people don't like to be told how to run their life. Solvency does not exist and if the plan does what it wants to, these harms will happen. If he really wants people to be the individual and worry SO much about our government, then they will do whatever they can to get what they want. And with so many opinions clashing, what will happen then. E. With the whole holocaust thing, it would have happened either way you look at it. Again, cross-apply when he said, "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust"… Furthermore, the status quo harms still stand even with the adoption of the plan… The only way to eliminate all the harms is with my counter plan. IV. Counter plan A. How does this system work? It works by having a popular vote with all the elections and bills. No more will politicians tell us how they run but they instead will tell us how they work (so popular vote can be more accurate). If my counter plan is passed, it means that people will have a voice in the way our country is run and it will be CONTROLLED. B. What the heck… now he's calling for the DECREASE in Biopower. What energy is being increased in his plan? Either way, my plan works best on its own. The voice of the people becomes useless when they have too much power. Power simply leads to politics instead of leading to the individual. Our government should be run by individuals with each of them having the same power. My plan increases no energy/power whatsoever. C. Your plan TRIES to increase the voice of the people by offering a class. The difference between our plans is that mine actually takes immediate action to actually increase the voice of the people. With this class happening, only certain people will have this increase which will lead right back to status quo of politicians which does no good to anybody. D. Our world can't be one population by offering a class. Your plan will not solve any harms while mine takes action and WILL. Don't increase the "energy", instead, spread it out. Spreading out this power is only done with my counter plan. The only way we want to TRULY solve these harms without having to spend money on unnecessary classes is with my counter plan… vote accordingly. Please flow through all specific points made against his original case. Thank You!

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.

I will begin with the reasons why I think that the voters should affirm the resolution. 1. Dependency. The United States already depends too much on foreign oil, and, for the reasons I stated in my 1st round, dependency is bad. If we stop offshore drilling, which accounts for 30% of our domestic oil, we will become even more dependent. If we continue, we will prevent dependency. 2. Economy and Jobs. My opponent has not really refuted this point effectively. I showed how many jobs that are provided from offshore drilling jobs, specifically, in the Gulf of Mexico. These jobs are extremely important, and many people along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico will be affected if offshore drilling were discontinued. 3. Environment. I provided sources on how offshore drilling helps improve the environment. If oil is naturally seeping, it doesn't make sense to waste a limited natural resource. I would like to briefly respond to my opponent's points. 1. Offshore drilling is not good for the environment. I showed how in some ways, it is good. Also, it is not very bad. Even with the large BP oil spill, I provided sources showing that the impact was smaller than most perceive and the oil evaporated and dispersed rapidly. 2. Long Term Dangers. Previous oil spills have not had devastating long-term effects. Also, most of the oil evaporated and dissipated so the damage has already been done. 3. We are technologically advanced. This claim really needs some sources. If we were really technologically advanced enough to rely on fossil fuels, why do we use them so much? Why is oil in such high demand if we don't need it? Do we not need gas. Do we not need plastic? If we do not need oil, then why do we use so much? ( see . http://www.nationmaster.com... ). We, right now, are dependent on oil, and we need to harness as much of it as we can. We can't discontinue because alternative energy sources are not viable and my opponent has not provided any. He can't in his final round because I would not be able to refute it. I would also like to clarify that alternative energies are not mutually exclusive. That is, we can still drill offshore while researching alternative energy sources. I think I have met my burden of proof because I have showed how offshore drilling has many more benefits than negative effects. It helps solve dependency, it provides jobs and employment, it can help the environment, and it is necessary for us to use oil.

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: State opening case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal Round 5: Rebuttal This debate was created to discus whether we should accept nuclear energies Nuclear energies could provide and do provide power to many cities, the average output of nuclear energies far exceeds the input. For example: nuclear fusion is estimated to power city for around 150 billion years for a very small amount of deuterium. The nuclear energy used today is known as nuclear fission, a process that releases large amounts of energy in short periods of time. Although nuclear fission is not as sufficient as nuclear fusion, it still powers 6% of the worlds energy production. The benefits of nuclear fission can be applied to several technologies, like weapons, transportation, ect. Just to clarify, nuclear fusion is not used today because of a single problem, it is very difficult to contain the fusion process because of the large amount of heat and radiation that is released. However there are elements, that can create nuclear fusion and are in abundance on the moon, like helium 3. Sorry con for taking so long, I had a lot of work to do. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

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


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

Can alternative energy sources effectively substitute for fossil fuels?

I strongly believe that alternative energy is the key to a sustainable future for our planet. Alternative energy should take the place of fossil fuels as it helps preserve our environment and proves to be more cost-effective in the long term. While some may argue that the technology is not yet advanced enough, it's clear that the technology is available and evident through the increasing number of smart companies transitioning to renewable resources.

you need to address my cogent arguments here are my rebuttals to your areguments (1) Nuclear weapons one word : Iran (run by nutcake Islamic idiots) biggest current threat to the world (2) Biotoxic assault this is a non sequitur there is no evidence of any biological assault ever having any real consequence (3) AIDS this is another non sequitur and is generally only caused by IMMORAL BEHAVIOR, and MOSTLY affects the homosexual male community Once again, Islam is the main threat to the world references www.prophetofdoom.com www.jihadwatch.com

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...

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.

My opponent brings up a number of refutes he made which are mainly based off of assumption. Opponent's first point: Electric cars ultimately get their electricity from coal Response: Falling use of coal: Speaking generally, my opponent, despite producing numbers, assumes that coal is the node of electricity powering the cars. While in some area, this may be true, but it is not a universal truth, as my opponent suggests. I noticed that my opponent seem to point out the countries with the highest coal use in the world, ignoring a large majority of European and North American countries with much lower coal production, which really is where these electric cars will target. America, with a 23% (and declining) use of coal, is completely ignored (1). Europe and its declining use of coal is also overlooked. According to recent surveys, " The EU has seen its historic rise in energy use reversed through a combination of energy efficiency, structural changes in the economy and rising prices. Its use of fossil fuels is starting to fall, with coal use in particular down by two-fifths since 1990. And energy from renewables has tripled" (2). Since my opponent's second point depends on his first, and I just refuted his first, his second point is now voided. 1) http://www.smartdraw.com... 2) http://www.carbonbrief.org... Since my previous body was on the falling use of coal, I feel it necessary to segregate it from my next body, which will focus on the rising use of renewables, which would be the source powering the electric transportation system I propose. However, I would like to address his third argument before I propose new points. My opponent's 3rd point: People do not want aggressive, powerful cars, as I suggested as a reason on why the electric market is not increasing as fast as it ought to. Response: My opponent bluntly stated "My opposition here has fallen for a stereotype that people want strong, powerful cars. This just isn't true. We are in the 21st not the 20th century". My opponent failed to produce any numbers, surveys, studies, or cites confirming that the general public is less interested in powerful cars. Simply saying that live in the 21st century does not poise itself as a legitimate argument. Since my opponent failed to support his statement, I will support my refute: - Ford Mustangs (powerful, aggressive cars) sales are through the roof http://www.usatoday.com... - The Chevy Camaro is making a huge comeback http://www.detroitnews.com... These points go along with my statement that the general public is not educated enough on the how's and why's of electric transportation. First, for the audience and for clarification, I would like to provide a brief definition of 'renewable energy' that Oxford provides: renewable energy NOUN energy from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power: "the environmental benefits of renewable energy" 1. Use of Renewables rising: For the first time in history, in 2014, the global economy grew by 3%, while stalling its global output of pollution (1). To go along with that, recent studies have revealed China's growing ability to produce, retain, and use hydroelectric power (2). The U.S. government assert the superiority of electric vehicles and domestic renewable energy (3). 1) http://www.evwind.es... 2) http://www.gov.cn... 3) http://energy.gov... So what does this have to do with electric transportation? Well, for one, it shows milestones of progress in the scientific community to achieve more efficient uses of clean, renewable energy. This energy can then be used to power EVs (electric vehicles) nationally, and eventually, globally. My opponent mentions the use of coal in developing countries. Since I have addressed his coal concern, I will now address the other side of the argument he failed to defend against- development in countries. 2. What gases do for development in countries India, popularly known as one of the most polluted nations on the planet, has also seen increasing dependence on diesel/gas imports (1). The environment of India is rapidly declining (2), causing massive concern for the health of the nation. If you look at the trends, one can easily see that as gas/diesel dependence rises, environmental integrity decreases. They move in correlation with one another. Now, my opponent already acknowledges that oil causes declines in environment, but I wished to assert my argument with more vigor and evidence. What my true point of this, ultimately, is the prospect of job creation in the renewable energy business. 1)http://archive.financialexpress.com... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3. STEM creation in renewable energies/electric vehicles Present: Currently, oil rig workers make an average of 32,132.00$/year. This is far below the poverty line, which ranges from 45,000-50,000$ in most states (1). It is rated by many as one of the worst jobs in America, highlighted by the psychological and physical exhaustion of the workers. 1) http://www.careercast.com... Prospect: An adoption of an EV society will help boost STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) related careers. Looking at salary and pay, as I did for a large populous employed by the oil industry, the electrical field far surpasses the oil-producing field. I will use an electrical engineer, the largest component to EVs, as my basis. The bottom 10% of electrical engineers make, on average, $56,156.00 annually. The bottom 25% makes $60,277.00. The median of the ranges makes $68,804.00 a year. The top 75% make $70,037.00, while the top 90% make $74,802.00 (1). Not once in any of these salaries did the worker dip below the poverty line. These salaries provide comfortable living for the worker and their family. Electrical engineers often carry degrees, ranging from an Associates to a Doctoral, while oil rig workers commonly do not, and some don't even graduate from high school. The only requirements for an oil rig worker consists of a First Aid Certificate, H2S Alive Certificate, and a standard Driver's License. 1)http://www1.salary.com... Since we do have two more rounds, I will stop here. More arguments will be posed when necessary. I congratulate my opponent on good debates so far, and I look forward to the progression of the debate. However, here are some questions pointed at my opponent I wish to throw into the arena: -What does humanity do when the oil reserves start to dry up? -Why should the U.S. force itself militarily into the Middle East (ex: Persian Gulf War) for oil, rather than creating safe, economically driving jobs domestically? If my opponent chooses to answer these questions, she/he can do so in an informal method. Evidence and citations would be awesome, but not needed. "If aliens did visit us, I'd be embarrassed to tell them we still dig up fossil fuels from the ground as a source of energy." -Neil deGrasse Tyson https://twitter.com...

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.

It is good for the environment because it doesn't release extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and damage it. Also, it repays what you payed for it overtime because you don't have to keep going and buying oil and coal.

Hello This isn't what I was looking for, I'm arguing that drilling Alaska is the fastest way to solve our dependence on foreign oil. I see my mistake. I will try to make an argument. What your saying that it would only last 385 days, that's i just a guess. Who knows, maybe it will last a ton longer, maybe it won't. Lets say that we can put the gas in the pumps by January 1st 2009. Now The government will say to the car companies to start producing hydrogen etc. cars. Also, they can tell the gas stations to be ready to be hydrogen compatible. In the mean time, if we were to make more E85 stations, it would lower your numbers and our dependence on foreign oil. Also, the graph you show is technically wrong. The other countries need oil to sell to keep their economy going, we don't. Also, we have Al Gore and tree hugging liberals who are afraid to produce oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Rockies, etc. Our numbers will be a lot higher if we drilled more. SOrry for the confusion.

IntroductionMy opposition today, has based his/her arguments on fallacies, fallacies that cannot be supported. Most of his/her rebuttals are a straw man fallacy, he/she has continuously misinterpreted what I stated to make it easier to attack. Pro has failed to give his model(plan) yet has failed to hold true to the fair model I later provided. I would like to first point out Pro's sentence "My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now. " This is a lie. I do not refuse to support research. I believe research is the, early implementation. I do not take kindly to blatant untruths. My opposition has no valid reasoning that his/her model present an overall benefit not detriment to our society, thus we cannot implement electric cars while limiting gas powered ones now. Points of contention1. Right now electric cars are more detrimental to the environmentMy opposition stated "My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation". This is not his point. Pro committed his first straw man fallacy here. The point, as can be seen in his first argument was that electric cars are less detrimental to the environment. Pro stated in his first argument how gasoline powered cars are detrimental to the environment. This is true and in my first argument I agreed with it. I however provided statistics proving that electric cars are far more detrimental as they are mostly powered by coal. Pro then stated in his second argument that: (a) Coal is used less and less. This is again true, but the model is supposed to be implemented now. This means that electric cars are still far more detrimental to our environment(b) Not all countries use coal for most of their power. I countered this with statistics illustrating how 2nd world and 3rd world countries use coal and how they contain most of the worlds population. I furthered this point by pointing out the harms of alternation energy sources for those countries that don't use coal. The alternate sources of power were mainly nuclear fission and natural gas energy. In his/her third argument used a "Simpsons" episode to illustrate his point of nuclear fission is clean. Let us be logical, a simpsons episode is not fact, my opposition in fact provided no research to prove that nuclear fission was fine for the environment. Fission uses 5% of the enriched Uranium with 95% being waste. This waste is buried in the ground. How is this not detrimental to the environment? My opposition has thus failed to prove that electric cars are, as of right now not more detrimental to the environment, therefore I win that clashSources:Most can be found in my arguments. . http://nuclearinfo.net...2. Electric cars are more detrimental to peopleThis point closely follows the first. As I won that is is clear to see that electric cars are more detrimental to people. I provide evidence highlight how electric cars cause 85 more pollution related deaths than gasoline powered cars, contrary to no evidence from Pro. Sources:Most can be found in my arguments.3. The whether electric cars are held back by the general public's supposed desire for muscle cars and their lack of educationThis is not the truth. The average citizen does not want a powerful car. Pro firstly provided statistics show how Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros are making a comeback. My opposition has sadly deceived the audience here. The titles of the to pages of his research? (a) "Ford Mustang sales leap ahead of other sporty cars"(b) "2016 Camaro bulks up in muscle car sales race"Pro states that V8's are standard, as seen in the source, this is a falsityThe opposition discounted my evidence that people are reasonable educated about electric cars as it is general knowledge. He the proceeded to provide his/her own general statement and set exceedingly high criteria. This is completely ridiculous. The oppositions illegitimate research means his statement that people want muscle cars is a fallacy. The opposite has failed to provide any relative and legitimate research while I have provided a conductible experiment, therefore I clearly won this argument. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. Whether or not people could afford itMy opposition has come out swinging with the fallacy Ad hominem. (a) He states that people don't have to have all the money when buying a car so a person payed $60, 000 a year could easily afford it. This is not the truth. While people can take out loans there are many limitations. One could not simply take out a $40, 000 loan for a $40,000 car. Pro also discounts people in poverty. 90% of people below the poverty line rely on welfare. Once on welfare, one cannot take out a loan. (b) Pro says that he/she never mentioned anything about a tax on those that don't buy an electric car. What he also didn't state was a model, a key duty of Pro. I fairly provide the model incorporation the standard time frame, now, and a tax as it is one of the only limitations that crosses socio-economic status'. As Pro failed to provide a model, the duty fell to me, therefore their is a tax forced upon people, especially weaken those defenseless people below the poverty line. A Pro failed to provide any evidence. His/her arguments are fallacious as proven above. Therefore the clash falls to me. Sources:. https://www.ato.gov.au...5. Whether electric cars currently have the capabilities to go on the road. Pro has come up with some unsupported, wonderful statistics. They have no support and are untrue. (a) Pro refutes without evidence that most electric cars cannot drive more than 60 miles per day. Pro has provided nothing to my actual statistics. What my opposition has stated is wrong and unsupported. (b) My opponents second point of this issue relies on the first. With no evidence to evidence, the second point is therefore irrelevant. Pro has clearly lost this clash due to his/her lack of evidence. He statements are false are this means electric cars are not yet implementable. ConclusionThe oppositions final argument is irrelevant due to the sudden need for power that will arise if the Globe was suddenly to switch to electric cars. The power must come from somewhere, the power will come from all the excess oil. Pro has failed to provide a model, a significant dereliction of duty. I based a fair model of the motion of the debate. Thus the time frame was the standard now and the limit, a tax. This debate boiled down to whether is was or wasn't viable to implement electric cars now. Pro said yes while con, me, pushed for more research before implementation. Right now electric cars are far more detrimental to both the environment and health of people. Implementing them would be very damaging to those in poverty. Finally they are not ready for the road. Ladies and Gentlemen, research is a must before we can implement electric cars, we must develop electric cars and alternate power sources to one and for rid humanity of the terrible monster that is pollution!

These sources say that USA uses 1500 plastic bottles on average per second, and in 2010, 42.6 billion plastic bottles were produced. Glass bottles would be too costly and can't replace plastic. Many people will die of dehyration because of your stupid idea. Increase the character limit!http://www.treehugger.com...http://www.container-recycling.org...;

Be careful where your examples come from. There is a problem with documentaries today. Very few of them are fair to other sides of the debate. I could easily tell you that the electric car had at least 2 very simple problems that made them uneconomical and weak in the US market. The first was that a charged battery gave a person 150 miles before needing to be recharged, which took several hours. Over time, an expensive electric car battery would decay and require replacement. Chances are, however, someone would recognize that as they got stranded on the side of the road because the battery meter was unreliable after many charges. Another issue was a failure of the country to have an infrastructure that could competently accommodate the electric car. Forget gas prices, that's merely an accusation of a film that is in no way unbiased or fair. You opened yourself up for criticism on a few points with this debate, so I ask you to get a little more specific to this topic. Global warming is a very debatable topic of it's own, so I could challenge that to refute your assertion that there is a special environmental urgency to deal with gas prices. You also mention biofuels, which have their own slew of problems. And then of course, the electric car as an alternative power source. Are you saying that we should challenge high gas prices and find a means to lower them? Are you saying that we need more funding for alternative energies to lower prices? Or are you saying we need the alternative fuels simply to eliminate oil usage for the environment's sake? Please clarify exactly what you would like this debate to focus on.