query: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

positive: Nuclear power is beneficial for society In each argument I plan to only post one point. Now to refute my opponents idea that hydro power combined with wind and solar could in theory power the US, I would first like to point our that that hydro power causes huge habitat destruction and involves the flooding of an area in order to build the dams necessary. The main problem with hydro power is simply that it requires water in order to build and usually involves damming up a river. However, in many states and in US and places all over the world, there are places where water is not abundant enough to be dammed up as opposed to being used. Now, in order to refute his second point that energy that is most easily found is the supposed "best" energy. Following my opponent's logic, then fossil fuels should be the best alternative because there is a large amount of it. I beg to differ. Furthermore, his point on how there has been "catastrophic" disasters in nuclear, there has not been a single casualty or even injury in all of the year's that the US has used nuclear reactors and nuclear energy. Now, I can nearly guarantee that my opponent will at some point bring up the Chernobyl incident as why nuclear energy is unsafe. However, one must understand that the Chernobyl nuclear plant had NO CONTAINMENT dome for some reason over the plant. Also, the plant was made using soviet style nuclear plants, which have improved tremendously in terms of safety. Nowadays, all of the plants in the US are build using the western style and no casualties have happened in the US as a result of a nuclear plant malfunction. Furthermore, my opponents point about how there is no chance of hydro, solar or wind of hurting citizens is rather unfounded. The following is a table obtained from . http://nextbigfuture.com... It is the deaths per TWh produced by each energy. Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) My opponent's point that nuclear technology can be stolen and turn into potential nuclear weapons is rather amusing. Every single country in the world that currently has nuclear bombs first made the bombs as a result of military use and AFTER that began to develop civilian use nuclear factories. N. Korea already has nuclear bomb but has never actually used the on another country, and as you claim, if a country is so dangerous then there is a very high chance they will use nuclear bombs. However, N. Korea has not currently done so. Finally, if the technology of nuclear is as easy to steal as you claim it is, why don't terrorists just steal the thousands of nuclear bombs that the US already has? Now, back to my second point. Nuclear power can actually produce enough power to replace fossil fuels. It is actually viable. If solar were to replace the power that nuclear is producing CURRENTLY, it would have to cover New Jersey. If wind were to replace the nuclear energy currently produced, it would have to cover West Virginia. Hydro power can only be made on a river or lake and thus has very limited areas where it can actually produce energy. Nuclear power plants can be built anywhere and the energy produced by a single nuclear atom is 10 million times that of a coal atom. France is currently the world leader in nuclear energy and it has never had any casualties as a result of nuclear power. France has also reduced its CO2 levels compared to other countries. Essentially, my second point is that nuclear power can actually replace fossil fuels at a low cost and can easily generate enough power to power the US. Hydro, wind, solar etc. do not.

positive: Nuclear Power Thanks to Smooosh for this debate. I will now present my case. I. IntroPro is implicitly using a cost-benefit analysis framework to analyze the arguments in this debate by appealing to the negative consequence he believes will arise from negating the resolution. That's fine--I can accept a cost-benefit analysis framework for this debate. This allows us to skip a lengthy framework debate and move straight into the issues. Given that many of the disadvantages to negating (e. g. terrorism) that Pro brings up would seem to be inherent to nuclear power at all times, Pro should argue for immediate or near immediate prohibition of nuclear power. Any phase-out mere prolongs the dangers Pro talks about, if you buy that his dangers are real. This is particularly relevant in terms of global warming (GW). If the point of reducing pollution is to end global warming, then action ought to be taken immediately (as I will show later on). And if uranium mining is as polluting as Pro claims, Pro ought to want it to end now, not later. Pro himself writes, "nuclear energy is the WORST polluter of all energy sources. Most scientists believe, if we stop using fossil fuels today the effects on the environment would begin to reverse in as little as a decade. " Clearly, Pro should want us to stop using nuclear "today" if this is what he's arguing. Finally, it is important to note that it is not my task to show that nuclear energy will always be desirable in all circumstances. Merely, I must show that it ought not be prohibited. In this sense, Pro has a harder task ahead of him, because if nuclear power has neutral or beneficial outcomes, there is no good reason to prohibit it. Only if nuclear power is clearly harmful, would Pro be able to affirm under a cost-benefit paradigm. II. Global WarmingA. GW Needs to be Tackled SoonWe've all seen the reports about rising temperatures and sea levels. We've heard political pundits on the right deny that the problem exists and castigate the left for its alarmism. Yet, the data seems to confirm that the left's alarmism may be justified. If the earth's temperature rises between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, 20-30% of the world's animals and plants could vanish. [1] This would constitute a mass extinction. Increasing temperatures could cause sea levels to rise such that island nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands, or coastal cities like Venice and Bangkok, could become entirely submerged; it could also cause crop yields to decrease, resulting in global food shortages. [2, 3] In order to stabilize temperatures before 2050, CO2 emissions will have to fall 60-80% by that time. [4]B. Nuclear Power cuts down on Greenhouse Gases (GHG)"Cumulatively, nearly 60 GtCO2 have been avoided globally since 1971, thanks to nuclear power. Thus, if the present nuclear energy capacity were to be phased out and replaced by remaining technologies in the world's current energy mix. .. global annual CO2 emissions from electricity supply would rise by 12%. " [5] These OECD findings also show that, when factoring in direct and indirect emissions, nuclear power is cleaner than coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, and hydropower energy. The example of France is also a great case study in how nuclear power can significantly and positively impact the environmental picture. In fact, "the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and '80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. " [6]C. Nuclear Plants vs. the AlternativesI've already established that nuclear power is cleaner, in terms of GHG emissions, than the alternatives, but it also has some other advantages related to its energy capacity. In the US, the average solar plant or wind farm operates at 15 or 25% capacity, respectively. In contrast, a "nuclear plant can operate also at 90 percent of full capacity and can replace a coal-fired plant on a one-to-one basis. " It would take six solar plants or four wind plants to replace a single coal-fired plant. [7]Moreover, many alternative forms of energy suffer from inherent intermittency. The wind is not always blowing, the sun is not always shining, and the rivers are not always flowing (or at peak fullness). Nuclear power, however, can run at the same pace year round, and is not contingent on the weather to operate. The fact that nuclear power is clean, can produce more energy than alternatives, and is not subject to environmental conditions in the same way that the alternatives are, makes is a key tool in combating GW. It would make sense to scale up nuclear to quickly address the threat posed by GW, because of nuclear's advantages. Any phase out would likely prolong our reliance on coal, because of the inefficiencies of the non-nuclear, clean alternatives. III. Nuclear Power's Practical AdvantagesA. Nuclear Power is Cheap"On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. " Nuclear power has a lower levelized cost than advanced coal with carbon capture, conventional combustion turbine, biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. [14]B. Nuclear Power is SafeNuclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than coal, oil, natural gas, biofuel, peat, rooftop solar, wind, and hydro, averaging just 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour. [15] Since the first nuclear power plant was constructed 63 years ago, there have only been three major nuclear meltdowns: Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those, only one--Chernobyl--produced any fatalities [16, 17, 18]. That's 1 accident every 21 years, but, in reality, the accidents are becoming rarer. TMI and Chernobyl were less than 10 years apart, but Fukushima was 25 years after Chernobyl [16, 17]. And, Chernobyl happened only because of a design flaw that, given its notoriety, will never again be repeated. IV. Miscellaneous Benefits of Nuclear PowerA. Nuclear Power and MedicineRadioisotopes are key for conducting CT Scans and nearly half of all US cancer patients receive some kind of radiation-based treatment. More than 80% of drugs are tested using radioisotopes, and radioisotopes are used in medical research (e. g. finding a cure for AIDs). [8] Moreover, alternatives like cyclotrons (a kind of particle accelerator which can produce some kinds of radioisotopes) cannot replace nuclear power in serving the medical community. "More than 80 per cent of the radioisotopes used in medical procedures worldwide come from research reactors. Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), which decays to form technetium-99m. .. the most commonly used radioisotope--is currently only produced in nuclear research reactors. A recent report (2010) from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency indicates that non-reactor technologies for Mo-99 production are still decades away from fruition, and expresses strong doubts as to whether they could ever substitute for reactor technologies. " [9]B. Nuclear Power and VehiclesNuclear-powered submarines are a key elements of some countries' defense forces, and prohibiting that technology could disadvantage any one of them in the face of the others, should those others not similarly prohibit that technology. Nuclear-powered icebrakers are important for keeping Arctic trade routes open, for rescues, and for research. They are more powerful than conventional icebrakers, giving them a wider range of use. [10]C. Nuclear Power and Space Exploration"Unmanned spacecraft rely on radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for the power they need for space exploration. RTGs use heat from plutonium to generate electricity. " [11] RTGs of this kind could also be useful for rovers. Rovers, like the European Space Agency's Rosetta, often carry solar panels and batteries that they rely on for power. Rosetta landed in an area shaded by cliffs, meaning that it could only send out data for 64 hours before it shutdown. [12] A non-solar power source, like RTGs, could prevent wasted missions like that. They could also allow rovers even in areas not subject to constant shade to transmit continuously, not just when then sun was up. This technology is currently in the works: "The Idaho National Laboratory's Centre for Space Nuclear Research in collaboration with NASA is developing an RTG-powered hopper vehicle for Mars exploration. " [12] Looking towards future missions into space beyond our solar system, nuclear power will be an essential tool. "Nuclear energy proves to be the most effective when attempting to make long distance missions in space. Nuclear energy not only provides way more power than batteries, fuel cells, and photovoltaic, but it also is an enduring source of energy as it has a much longer lifespan. Unlike solar energy, nuclear power is not dependent on the intensity of the Sun's rays, which makes it the optimal choice for traveling into deep space. " [13]V. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . https://tinyurl.com...6 - . https://tinyurl.com...7 - . https://tinyurl.com...8 - . https://tinyurl.com...9 - . https://tinyurl.com...10 - . https://tinyurl.com...11 - . https://tinyurl.com...12 - . https://tinyurl.com...13 - . https://tinyurl.com...14 - . https://tinyurl.com...15 - . https://tinyurl.com...16 - . https://tinyurl.com...17 - . https://tinyurl.com...18 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I negate. Thanks to the readers for following along and to Smooosh for the debate. I look forward to a great debate.

positive: Nuclear Power Thanks, bsh1! I apologize in advance for my delay. I have been extremely busy over this past weekend and I like to put a lot of time and effort into researching and writing my arguments. I. FrameworkI mostly agree with my opponent's framework. Countries should do what is best for their people and for their citizens, thus, my burden and goal is to prove that prohibiting nuclear power would be a net harm to citizens, and I will be showing the net-positives of nuclear power. II. Scientific Consensus Nuclear power is inherently a scientific issue. When I look at science issues, the first place I go is to journals and to experts in the particular field in question. Although a scientific consensus does not in of itself prove the benefits of nuclear power, understanding the scientific consensus helps us to understand where the scientific evidence actually leads. The science is clear not because of the consensus, but rather a consensus exists because the evidence is clear. In 2015, Pew Research took a poll of scientists that represented the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest bodies of scientists in the United States. Their poll found that 65% of AAAS scientists favor building more nuclear power plants. By contrast, only 35% of AAAS scientists support expanding offshore drilling [1]. III. Reliability Nuclear power is one of the most reliable energy sources today. Unlike most alternative forms of energy which require natural gas and traditional sources of energy to back it up (more on this later), nuclear power does not. Furthermore, nuclear energy by far has the highest average capacity as can be seen in this chart [2]. Nuclear Matters notes: "Nuclear power is the most efficient and reliable source of large-scale, around-the-clock electricity. Nuclear energy plants maintain a national average reliability between 85 and 90 percent, with many power plants routinely operating at 93 to 95 percent capacity over extended periods." Furthermore, "High reliability and dependability mean that electricity is available on the grid whenever needed, all the time.This is particularly important during periods of extreme heat or cold." [3]IV. EnvironmentA. Global WarmingClimate change is undoubtedly one of the greatest environmental threats we face today. Bruno Comby notes:"If we want to be serious about climate change and the end of oil, we must promote themore efficient use of energy, we must use renewable energies – wind and solar –wherever possible, and adopt a more sustainable life style. But this will not be nearlyenough to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, and satisfy the needs of ourindustrial civilization and the aspirations of the developing nations. Nuclear powershould be deployed rapidly to replace coal, oil and gas in the industrial countries, andeventually in developing countries" This is because "Nuclear energy produces almost no carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide ornitrogen oxides whatsoever. These gases are produced in vast quantities when fossilfuels are burned." [4] Furthermore, climateologist James Hansen noted: "Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change. The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy." [5] B. Sustainability As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems with other alternative energy methods is that they all rely on fossil fuel and natural gas as a backup. [6] Furthermore, other methods are unable to supply the large amounts of energy that we consume each year. A 2014 paper published in Sustainable Materials and Technology concludes [7]: "Renewable energy sources (primarily wind and solar) will not be able to supply the needed large quantities of energy sustainably, economically and reliably. In addition, renewable energy sources with fossil-fired backup power will in many cases not contribute towards reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. Distorting the market with subsidies and by legislation to attract intermittent energy technologies into applications for which they are not well suited is economically wasteful. Also, replacing stand-alone coal-fired stations with stand-alone gas-fired stations will, in many cases, not result in a reduction in the rate of emission of greenhouse gases due to (often poorly quantified) problems of methane leakage. Countries that depend on imported natural gas should be aware that they carry full responsibility for their part of the global consequences due to atmospheric leakage of methane associated with their part of the imported gas, including the leakage taking place outside their borders."In conclusion, a total ban on nuclear powe all at once would not be a wise move. V. CostsI'll go into more detail in the next round as this was also one of pro's contentions. Nuclear energy is one of the most affordable sources of power we have today. There is little fluctuation in the production cost, is one of the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity, and among the most efficent sources of energy in the US. [8] The following chart gives a nice visual representation of the cost. (Image from: http://tinyurl.com...) VI. SummaryIn conclusion, we ought to embrace, not prohibit, nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean, affordable, reliable, and can help combat climate change. Please vote con! **Note: Please wait a day or so before posting your rebuttals.** VII. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...)

positive: the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels My opponents argument is essentially this: 1. We need ‘green’ energy 2. Governments will lead us down a greener path faster 3. Therefore, we need government intervention in order for green energy to reign supreme However, the basic premises behind this argument are fatally flawed. 1. We need ‘green’ energy This is the basic foundation behind my opponents assertion. Conventional methods of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear) are the ‘dirty’ evil energy sources whereas the alternative energy sources (solar, wind, hydro) being efficient alternatives. Further, her argument relies on the fact that these pollutants are actually going to significantly harm the environment. Lets talk about these conventional sources. Natural Gas: Natural Gas is the second most clean conventional energy source (behind Nuclear). Natural Gas emits 117,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per btu of energy, compared to oil (164,000) and Coal (208,000). Further, natural gas is much more efficient than coal. 90% of natural gas produced is energy used by the public, whereas the number for other conventional forms of energy is about 30%. The market, at this stage, is moving towards Natural Gas. Even assuming that climate change and pollution is a major issue, a switch from coal to gas will lead to a huge reduction in pollution [1]. The Wall Street Journal writes, “U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal. Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 … many experts believe the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has been the biggest factor [in CO2 emission reduction].”[2] Coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy which is commonly used, however, the fact is that coal actually works to save lives in aggregate, not decrease longevity. Energy is one of the most important things humans have. It gives us warmth, it gives us cold, it gives us electricity, computers, phones, cooking equipment, etc. For poor people, energy is a matter of life and death. The cheaper it is, the more access these people have, and the longer lives they live. The question is whether or not coal’s pollution factor outweighs the health benefits of pollution. Researchers have found that if we take coal out of the energy equation, 150,000 people would die--for the government to restrict coal (a form of supporting alternative energy) and then promote expensive alternatives would lead to deaths, and a destruction of human life--not benefiting it. Another study argues that coal prevents 14,000-15,000 premature deaths in the US each year. Further, in countries with more energy consumption per capita (increases if energy is cheaper), human development is much higher [3]. Nuclear: Nuclear power is the cleanest, and one of the cheapest, forms of energy on the planet, and is considered ‘conventional’. In the United States, Nuclear was cheaper than all the other common energy types, including one of the cheapest, coal. Oh, and Gas is also pretty cheap too [4]. The fact is, if the government should be involved in anything, it should be nuclear. Nuclear is clean, cheap, and efficient. In fact, it is seen by many environmentalists that Nuclear is the energy source of the future, it is the way to prevent ‘climate change’. Nuclear is superior because renewable energy is intermittent: we will need a backup power plant to power us when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn’t blowing. A few options: use batteries, inefficient and not ‘green’ for disposal, or another power plant, probably natural gas or coal. In either scenario, alternative energies will not be able to sustain us alone. As Mark Perry writes, “To use more wind and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from renewables.”[5] Nuclear, on the other hand, is always working as long as it is being run properly. It could easily provide for all of our energy needs. Also, James Hansen--known for his rampant environmentalist fervor--co-authored a study saying that nuclear is ESSENTIAL to our future, and that it has saved 1.8 million lives [6]. Solar: As stated, solar is an intermittent source of energy, and when the sun isn't shining, the carbon savings will be washed out by the very cheap, reliable, conventional energy source having to fill in the gaps. Not to mention, it costs a lot. Solar power costs 20 cents per killowatt hour, compared to about two cents for coal [7]. Remember what I said? Expensive energy kills poor people. Wind: There is zero scientific proof that wind reduces CO2 emissions, according to the Ways and Means committee. They argue that CO2 savings will be minimal, and will look like nothing compared to the conventional nuclear power option [8]. Hydro: The fact is, hydroelectric power is dirty. Newscientist refutes hydropower’s fans, saying “Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels,”[9]. 2. Governments need to make us green! This premise is also flawed--the fact is, the free market will opt for the most efficient energy source. At this point, natural gas is the favored option--and as stated, it is cheap and clean. It will increase life spans, keep energy cheap, and ‘save the planet’, if you like that sort of thing. And in the foreseeable future, it is likely that nuclear will emerge as a key player in energy. And, thats a good thing. But this premise begs the question--do we even want to go green? The simple fact is, carbon dioxide is beneficial to the biosphere, and is a necessary component to life [10]. Further, there is significant peer reviewed evidence that climate change will not harm humanity, and in fact may benefit our existence [11]. There is even literature arguing that the link between CO2 and temperature is weak, exaggerated, or even nonexistent [12]. Other than the fact conventional ‘pollutants’ are likely beneficial with no strong proof of harm, overall air pollution in the United States is falling, and is expected to continue decreasing [13]. Therefore, this premise, too, is flawed. 3. Therefore, government needs to support alternative energy I deduce that this conclusion is false based on my above reasoning. Alternative energy sources are expensive and inefficient, whereas conventional sources are cheap, economically viable, and in many cases, clean. 1. http://www.aga.org... 2. http://online.wsj.com... 3. https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com... 4. http://www.nei.org... 5. http://news.investors.com... 6. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... 7. http://www.businessinsider.com... 8. http://waysandmeans.house.gov... 9. http://www.newscientist.com... 10. http://www.co2science.org... 11. http://www.co2science.org... 12. http://www.co2science.org... 13. http://www.ncpa.org...

positive: The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...) I argue that the US ought to continue to support traditional sources of energy rather attempt to develop clean energy. I argue this because it better upholds the value of utilitarian morality. The reasons that it better upholds utilitarian morality is because traditional energy sources are cheap, plentiful and reliable while clean energy is not; and that they improve the crop yield of agriculture. FrameworkIn order to evaluate the proposition of what the USFG ought to do, we must first establish how a just government determines what political actions to take. All autonomous entities act, or ought to act on a utilitarian basis; meaning to act in ways that bring about the most overall good. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. Every sentient being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (pleasure) and minimize undesirable states (suffering). For example, if I have a cramp that is creating a negative mental state—in this instance: pain—I naturally seek to alleviate it. Because the suffering of a sentient being is bad, all beings ought to seek to prevent it. Because morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether an autonomous entity should or shouldn't do something, and the government is an autonomous entity, morality is a valid framework for the debate. This means that the side that wins this debate is the one that does the most good for the citizens of the United States. The strength of an arguments is determined in the extent to which is benefits US citizens. Observation: I will explain later in the debate that humans can rely on fossil fuels for the next few thousand years. Although wind and solar will be reliable forever, no reasonable entity can make a decision at one moment in preparation for thousands of years from now. Would a just government purposely harm the welfare of the people in order to solve a problem that won't become a problem until thousands of years from now? When that time comes, a reliable, clean, and renewable resource will be created that will allow us to abandon fossil fuels. But until that time comes, the US ought to continue to support fossil fuels instead forcing the development a thousand years too soon. C1) Cheap, Plentiful, and Reliable EnergyCitizens need as much access to energy as possible. Every function of energy is to make humans better (safer, more productive, healthier, happier, more intelligent, etc.) The computers that we use for pleasure, education, or work; the medical instruments that reduce suffering and save lives; the transportation that allows the most productive lifestyles possible; the agricultural technology that sustains an exponentially more populous country. All of this requires energy. Furthermore, all of this requires energy to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Without these characteristics, Americans couldn't sustain an ultra-productive lifestyle. I find that all known sources of clean energy aren't cheap or reliable; while traditional energy sources are. The most prevalent forms of clean energy are wind and solar. I will prove that those two forms of energy are expensive and unreliable. Then I will explain why fossil fuels are cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Therefore, the judges must negate the resolution in order to uphold the value of social welfare. Solar and WindExpensiveIn order for something to be cheap, all of the steps of the process have to be cheap. The amount of steel needed to produce one megawatt of energy from wind power is significant. [1] Solar is also expensive because of the inefficient procurement energy produced when put in the context of acquiring the rare and expensive resources to build it. Such materials can include highly purified silicon, titanium dioxide, phosphorus, boron, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide. The Institute for Energy Research concluded, “[solar energy] remains considerably more expensive when compared to conventional electricity sources such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear…” [2] “‘the per-killowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle’ – of electricity from a new solar photo-voltaic (SPV) plant in 2020 will be $74.20 per MWh, compared to $56.40 per MWh for power from a natural gas plant.” [6] The following image illustrates the cost gap [11] UnreliableBoth sources of energy fluctuate in the amount of energy created. For example, solar only produces energy during the day, and when there are little cloud cover. Wind can only produce energy when it is windy out. When Germany implemented widescale development of clean energy the average amount of energy produced by solar and wind fluctuated wildly [7]. These fluctuations aren't reliable. They require a backbone to make up for when the energy is lacking, namely traditional sources. Clean energy only works supplementally. Alex Epstein writes, “In practice they often have so much excess that they have to pay other countries to take their electricity—which requires the other countries to inefficiently decelerate their reliable power plants to accommodate the influx.” [3] Because of the nature of current wind and solar technologies, traditional energy sources cannot be discontinued. PlentifulIt is a truism that wind and solar are plentiful because they come from unlimited renewable resources. But, this point is irrelevant because fossil fuels will last us thousands of years into the future. Traditional Energy SourcesCheapTraditional Energy sources are extremely cheap because they are abundant, widely distributed, and easy to extract. Their low cost is evident; a gallon of drinking water costs $1.22 [4] while a gallon of gas costs $2 [5]. The previous graph under heading “Expensive” illustrates the point as well. PlentifulWhile the gas and oil consumption has increased rapidly in the billions, the amount of resources left still numbers in the trillions [7]. The first graph is oil and the second is natural gas This is a resource that can be produced continuously for thousands of years. In 1977 scientists predicted that there was 32 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. But between 1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil [9]. And these are only the proven oil reserves. With rapidly growing technology we are able to drill deeper, horizontally, as well as extract resources from shale. With the potential fossil fuel resources growing and growing as our technology advances, the human race will have many generations before running out will become a problem. C2) Improvement in Crop YieldFossil fuels are remains of long dead plant and animal matter. All of the energy that they consumed from the sun is trapped in highly condensed forms: natural gas (gas), oil (liquid), and coal (solid.) Because life matter is composed mostly of carbon, CO2 is released when they are burned for energy. Because plants breathe in CO2, plants thrive [8] Increased vegetation means increased crop yield, leading to more food production. Increased food production means a decreased mortality rate. By increasing CO2 emissions the government is saving lives. RebuttalsPro’s PlanPro’s plan is adequate to affirm the resolution. I find a problem with the first premise of the plan which is to implement a $40 per ton carbon tax. This creates a large burden for energy companies, which results in prices for energy goes up. This deters the use of energy, which makes society less productive. The harms that Pro has brought up from carbon emissions have no impact (as I will explain in the next heading.) Thus this provision in the plan does no good while doing massive amounts of harm to social welfare. Thus this plan cannot be accepted. Environment HarmsPro’s argues that “various species and ecosystems face extinction…[and that] arctic sea ice and coral reef ecosystems [face harm to due ocean acidification.]” These are nonimpacts. The only value relevant in the debate is impact to human beings. Ecosystem damage and species going extinct don’t have any impact. Thus these can be dismissed. The other argument Pro makes is that carbon emissions are causing natural diseasters such as “heat waves, coastal flooding, and typhoons.” He argues this is due to a 1.2 C increase in temperature. Yet, data shows that climate related deaths have been on a decrease over the last 30 years. Down 99.6% from 1939 [10]. This path of logic only works if fossil fuel combustion will cause dramatic global warming, (2) Dramatic global warming will cause a harmful change in the climate system, *and* those changes will overwhelm man's capacity for adaptation. We have increased the CO2 amount from 0.3 to 0.4. CO2 is a decelerating phenomena, meaning that every particle of CO2 added to the atmosphere is less potent than the last [12]. CO2 won't be doing any harm to our planet. Because CO2 has, and will have, so little of an impact on our environment any claims about large scale extinction via loss of keystone species is negated; this would happen in both worlds regardless of CO2. The statistic that Pro brings up that fossil fuels cause the deaths of 3 million people worldwide. First of all, the judges cannot discern specific impact from this because it is worldwide, not in the US. But we can accept that a fraction of these deaths happen in the US. The problem with this is for the reason in the previous paragraph: CO2 isn't a problem because it is a decelerating phenomena. Continual use of fossil fuels won't have an impact on air pollution. This would exist in both worlds. (continued next round)Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...

positive: The US Should Subsidize Nuclear Power NP = nuclear powerWWS = power from wind, water, and sunlight --If the US wants to reduce global warming, air pollution, and energy instability, it should invest only in the best energy options. NP isn't one of them. WWS is cheaper, cleaner, safer, and faster to deploy (a critical factor given the tight timeframe re: global warming). And WWS has better impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, national security, water supply, wildlife, water pollution, reliability, and sustainability than NP.Most importantly, WWS is technologically and economically feasible. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions doesn't require building a global network of NP. Researchers at Stanford have shown how the US can provide 100% of its energy with WWS by 2030. [1] Why should the US invest in NP, the more expensive, less efficient, and more harmful energy source? Pro offers no answer to this question. And Pro offers no answer because there isn't one.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.--UrgencyGlobal warming requires quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Pro agrees that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced. In fact, Pro's entire argument focuses on impacts from global warming and emission reductions. But Pro doesn't seem to recognize the urgency or scale of the problem. 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. [2] The high-albedo Arctic ice is disappearing, and when it does, it'll trigger rapid positive feedbacks to warmer temperatures by uncovering the low-albedo ocean below. Time is of the essence. Emissions need to be reduced very quickly if we are to avoid a planetary ecological catastrophe. It takes about 11-19 years to build a new NP plant. [3] WWS, on the other hand, only takes 2-5 years. That means the US can lower greenhouse gas emissions much faster by investing in WWS instead of NP. This is why it's possible for the US to provide all its energy with WWS by 2030. [1] The same cannot be said about NP. Moreover, because WWS is rolled out more quickly, the cumulative greenhouse gas savings from WWS far outweigh those from NP. [3] As Mark Jacobson, a researcher and professor at Stanford, notes: "if we invest in nuclear versus true renewables, you can bet that the glaciers and polar ice caps will keep melting while we wait, and wait, for the nuclear age to arrive. We will also guarantee a riskier future for us all." [4] These are powerful words. I urge Pro, voters, and anyone else reading this to heed Jacobson's warning.CostsNP is expensive. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the average cost of electricity produced by a next-generation nuclear plant (which is cheaper than current plants) is $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour ("kWh"). [5] Comparatively, WWS is much cheaper. Solar, which is more expensive than wind or water, is already as low as $0.0508/kWh. [6] That's half the cost of NP. And costs of WWS are decreasing, whereas costs of NP are going up as uranium is depleted. 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. Decommission costs $3 billion per plant. [7] Waste management was $96 billion 2008 -- and that cost is ongoing and rising, because nuclear waste keeps building up, and it lasts thousands of years. [8] Finally, there's the costs of cleanup after a meltdown (e.g. costs of Fukushima were estimated at $100 billion). [9]Former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Peter Bradford put it best: "If asked whether we should increase our reliance on caviar to fight world hunger, most people would laugh. Relying on an overly expensive commodity to perform an essential task spends too much money for too little benefit, while foreclosing more-promising approaches. That is nuclear power's fundamental flaw in the search for plentiful energy without climate repercussions, though reactors are also more dangerous than caviar unless you're a sturgeon." Bradford continues: "nuclear power is so much more expensive than alternative ways of providing energy that the world can only increase its nuclear reliance through massive government subsidies like the $8 billion loan guarantee offered by the federal government to a two-reactor project in Georgia approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year." [10]TerrorismThe 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. And they're not entirely speculative. Historically, the growth of NP has increased the ability of nations to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "The historic link between energy facilities and weapons is evidenced by the development or attempted development of weapons capabilities secretly in nuclear energy facilities in Pakistan, India, Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran, and to some extent North Korea." In fact, "one of the factors leading several countries now without nuclear power programs to express interest in nuclear power is the foundation that such programs could give them to develop weapons." [3] Moreover, NP plants are a major target for terrorists. If a plane were flown into a nuclear plant, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl. 9/11 would be tiny by comparison. Terrorists could also target waste sites, for a similar effect.ReliabilityExtreme weather, flooding, and storm surge have increasingly made NP unsafe to operate (e.g. three plants were shut down in the wake of Hurricane Sandy). [15] Anticipated effects from global warming will interfere with NP, making NP an unreliable source of power. Moreover, rising seas and flooding don't just create a risk of shutdown, but also a risk of releasing hazardous materials, like what happened at Fukushima. Global warming increases the risk and uncertainty associated with NP. Given the high upfront costs of building new NP plants, and the difficulty of adapting them to climate change, WWS is a better option going forward. WWS sources are decentralized, small, and easier to move, making them more reliable in the case of extreme weather. MeltdownsShould failure occur, the consequences are probably the worst of any high risk activity that humans engage in. There have already been four nuclear accidents: Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible. Yet each happened. Failures like these can and will continue to happen. The risks and costs are too high.--Rebuttal(1) EnvironmentPro is wrong that NP doesn't produce any greenhouse gas emissions. Vast amounts of fossil fuels are burned to mill, mine, leech, transport, and enrich uranium, and to build and decommission nuclear plants. [3] In fact, many NP plants are nearly as carbon-intensive as a coal plant. [11] For instance, "in 2002, the Paducah [uranium] enrichment plant [in Kentucky] released over 197.3 metric tons of Freon, [a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide]." [12] And the emissions produced by NP are only increasing because the deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting, leaving only lower-quality deposits. [13] As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, leading to greater greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, by 2050, NP will produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as today's fossil fuel plants. [14]Compared to WWS, NP results in 25 times more carbon emissions, due to emissions from uranium refining and transport and reactor construction, the longer time required to site, permit, and construct a NP plant, and due to greater loss of soil carbon due to the greater loss in vegetation resulting from covering the ground with NP plants. [3] (2) Re: Pro's C2: All energy needs can be met through WWS. [1](3) Re: Pro's C3: Addressed above. NP is extremely expensive. If it were cheap, the market would choose NP. The government wouldn't need to subsidize it. But as is, NP requires billions in subsidies per plant. WWS is cheaper.(4)FusionThe US shouldn't subsidize the building of thorium or fusion. There's no indication that thorium or fusion is even possible. To date, no thorium or fusion power exists. And most physicists don't think controlled fusion will ever be possible. [16] [17]We're facing serious problems from global warming, air pollution, and energy instability. The US needs to invest in solutions to these problems before it throws away money on a wild goose chase. The US needs to focus on today's pressing issues, not on building a power plant that might never be built. The urgency of today's problems require that we invest in WWS. That's the first thing we need to do. Investment in fusion may come after we solve today's problems. But first, the US needs to focus on ensuring our species survives a looming catastrophe.--[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...

positive: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.

positive: Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity Nuclear power is the least cost and fastest way to substantially cut GHG emissions from electricity 1Energy supply requirements The most important requirements for energy supply are: 1. Energy security (refers to the long term; it is especially relevant for extended periods of economic and trade disputes or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970"s oil crises [1], world wars, Russia cuts" off gas supplies to Europe). 2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks " e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2]) 3. Low cost energy - energy is a fundamental input to everything humans have; if we increase the cost of energy we retard the rate of improvement of human well-being. Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements. Second order requirements are: 4. Health and safety 5. Environmentally benign 1.1Why health and safety and environmental impacts are lower priority requirements than energy security, reliability and cost: This ranking of the criteria is what consumers demonstrate in their choices. They"d prefer to have dirty energy than no energy. It"s that simple. Furthermore, electricity is orders of magnitude safer and healthier than burning dung for cooking and heating inside a hut. The choice is clear. The order of the criteria is clearly demonstrated all over the world and over thousands of years " any energy is better than no energy. 2Nuclear better than renewables Nuclear power is better than renewable energy in all the important criteria. Renewable energy cannot be justified, on a rational basis, to be a major component of the electricity system. Here are some reasons why: 1.Nuclear power has proven it can supply over 75% of the electricity in a large modern industrial economy, i.e. France, and has been doing so for over 30 years. 2.Nuclear power is substantially cheaper than renewables 3.Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity; it causes the least fatalities per unit of electricity supplied. 4.Nuclear power is more environmentally benign than renewables. 5.ERoEI of nuclear is ~75 whereas renewables are around 1 to 9. An ERoEI of around 14 is needed to support modern society. Only Nuclear, fossil fuels and hydro meet that requirement. 6.Material requirements per unit of electricity supplied through life for nuclear power are about 1/10th those of renewables 7.Land area required for nuclear power is very much smaller than renewables per unit of electricity supplied through life 8.Nuclear power requires less expensive transmission (shorter distances and smaller transmission capacity in total because the capacity needs to be sufficient for maximum output but intermittent renewables average around 10% to 40% capacity factor whereas nuclear averages around 80% to 90%). 9.Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited. 10.Nuclear fuel requires a minimal amount of space for storage. Many years of nuclear fuel supply can be stored in a warehouse. This has two major benefits: "Energy security - it means that countries can store many years or decades of fuel at little cost, so it gives independence from fuel imports. This gives energy security from economic disruptions or military conflicts. "Reduced transport - nuclear fuel requires 20,000 to 2 million times less ships, trains etc. per unit of energy transported. This reduces shipping costs, the quantities of oil used for the transport, and the environmental impacts of the shipping and the fuel used for transport by 4 to 6 orders of magnitude. There is no rational justification for renewable energy to be mandated and favoured by legislation and regulations. 2.1Nuclear cheaper and lower emissions than renewables Renewables v Nuclear: Electricity Bills and Emissions reductions by technology proportions to 2050 The CSIRO "MyPower" calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear power would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au... "MyPower is an online tool created by CSIRO that allows you to see the effect of changing the national "electricity mix" (technologies that generate Australia"s electricity) on future electricity costs and Australia's carbon emissions." Below is a comparison of options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The results below show the change in real electricity prices and CO2 emissions in 2050 compared with now. Change to 2050 in electricity price and emissions by technology mix: 1.80% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 0% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21% 2.0% coal, 50% gas, 50% renewables, 0% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%. 3.0% coal, 30% gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%. 4.0% coal, 20% gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%. 5.0% coal, 10% gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%. Source: CSIRO 'MyPower' calculator Points to note: "For the same real cost increase to 2050 (i.e. 15%), BAU gives a 21% increase in emissions c.f. the nuclear option a 77% decrease in emissions (compare scenarios 1 and 3) "For a ~20% real cost increase, the renewables option gives 62% decrease c.f. nuclear 91% decrease. "These costs do not include the additional transmission and grid costs. If they did, the cost of renewables would be substantially higher. 3Conclusion: Nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity. The difference is stark. Nuclear is far better. But progress to reduce emissions at least cost is being thwarted by the anti-nuclear activists.

positive: Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted. While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.

positive: Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save This is a peer reviewed report on the costs of producing ethanol using corn, switch grass and wood. It is also the most comprehensive report done so far. There are many reports out there that are used by the proponents of ethanol but most are not peer reviewed and leave out many aspects relating to the actual production and distribution of ethanol. Again this is a peer revived report by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek. Both are peer reviewed scientists http://petroleum.berkeley.edu... This is a peer reviewed report on yucca mountain repository. It describes every aspect of the repository and a final conclusion statement made by the scientists who conducted the study. It is clearly stated that it passes all of their minimum requirements to store nuclear waste for ten thousand years. But goes on to say that more should be done to make it even safer and that more reviews are necessary even though it passes inspection. That means it will never get a license to operate as all of the other recommendations will never ever be able to be met. Scroll to page 63 for the conclusion and recommendation statement. http://www.nea.fr... This blog link will be all of the arguments that will prohibit it from ever being opened yet the repository has passed all of the requirements for theses arguments. I find this to be an acceptable link as I am only using it as an example for arguments against the repository, not as facts about the repository. http://ag.state.nv.us... As I stated before Nuclear Energy is a waste of everyone's time and money and effort. It will never be allowed on a large scale to provide power where it is needed. It is a very cheap and clean source of fuel but is made artificially cost prohibitive be endless regulation and protests and lawsuit injunctions that make it not even worth trying. Hydro and wind power are only useful to the surrounding area within a 100 or 200 mile radius. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these energy sources. The initial start up cost is astronomical and third world countries will not invest in them and are unsuitable for the locations that most third world countries are situated. All electric and hybrid battery cars: The battery life is only guaranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles and that is prorated. It can cost anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 dollars to replace the battery in one of these cars. I used car dealer information and I know you don't like them but forums and blogs about people who own or have owned ether type of these vehicles. I found no discrepancies between the dealer information and these blogs when it comes to the price of these batteries. These batteries are filled with the same hazardous acid that is in regular lead acid batteries but ten to 20 times as much. If these cars end up being massed produced there will be hundreds of thousands of these batteries sitting around and many people who would recycle them for metal content will just dump the acid on the ground to get at the metal to make a few bucks. You have to pay a mechanic to remove it and a disposal fee to get rid of it. Many people will not be willing to pay these fees and just dump the battery some where and sell the car as scrap. When these cars get older they will make their way over seas into the third world countries where the only thing people care about over there is having a job and feeding them selves, They will most assuredly drive these cars until they die and dump the battery acid and scrap the battery and car for metal content. "Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life." I don't believe any of the prediction made by global warming alarmists. But this statement proves a very important point. The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace fossil fuels in the next 20 years. But the world is going to be flooded and the reaming land will be deserts by then. I use the movie An Inconvenient truth as my source for this coming calamity. It is an acceptable source as it won a Pulitzer Prize but is not peer reviewed. The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves. It is the Environmentalists goal to eliminate these things from the planet in 20 to 50 years or they say the planet is doomed and they must start now!! If they do this millions will die of starvation. Whether or not I believe in global warring being caused by man or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is the environmentalists movement to eliminate fossil fuel consumption without having a cost effective alternative fuel source in place and a infrastructure to deliver it. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more. They are worthless as alternative fuel sources if fossil fuels are to be eliminated in the next 20 years if we are going to save this planet from the coming calamity predicted by the environmental movement. People are going to start dying by the millions if restrictions on fossil fuel production aren't lifted.

positive: wind turbines are a godd source of energy Wind turbines are a useful efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy.Did you know that in 70 wind farms we can power 1.3 million homes with increased capacity these giant wind eaters can be our future to power Australia with solar power. Wait till coal gets wind of this

positive: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I will adopt my opponents format and address his points with the appropriate numerals: 1) "As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057." I agree with my opponents assertion that fossil fuels are indeed finite in supply. Where I disagree with him however is in the amount he estimates the world to currently hold within its depths. Take for instance the recent discovery of the largest ever oil field found in the Gulf of Mexico by BP - a well containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas (1). Indeed not only have huge oil deposits recently been discovered, there have also been vast numbers uncovered - 200 fields this year alone (1). With these recent discoveries, it would now appear that our estimations of world oil supplies are in need of serious revisions. For truly it seems scientifically dishonest to state that the world will run out of oil in 2057 when we have no idea how much oil the world actually holds. Therefore this point of contention you hold - that the supply of oil will run out sometime in the near future - is misleading in its assertions and rather invalid for the purposes of this debate. 2) "We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future." As noted earlier, the oil reserves in the United States more than adequately meet our own consumption requirements - roughly 21 billion barrels (2). We also must keep in mind that this figure is from 2007 - discounting the monumental recent findings addressed in 1 - and that it also discounts "unproven" oil reserves such as shale deposits and deep ocean wells. Therefore, your point that the U.S. doesn't have enough oil and has to import it is rather a moot point - we have the oil necessary to meet our own demand, we have simply chosen not to use it. 3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment." I find it curious that some environmentalists - for I consider myself an "environmentalist" too - always point to the "unhealthy" nature of drilling for oil, when in reality the damage it does pales in comparison to the damage done by "alternative" methods of energy production. Take for instance solar panels. If we were to produce these on a commercial scale we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus. One could easily argue that the environmental damage done by mining for these minerals greatly outweighs both the damage done by gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the established mining for ores necessary for coal production. Another common alternative energy source offered is hydrothermal dams. However the environmental impact of building a dam is inarguably worse than burning fossil fuels (3). Indeed the building of dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2 - making dams less environmentally efficient than the burning of fossil fuels (3). Furthermore recent advances in fossil fuel technology have reduced that amount of C02 produced by modern coal plants by 40% (4). Therefore coal - despite all the connotations and taboos associated with it - is actually not a very "dirty" energy production method, negating your point. "Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats." This is problem with the shipping of oil, not its production. The problems of transporting oil have little to do with whether or not the United States should continue to use. Indeed, the prospects of transporting alternative energy sources - say nuclear waste - are much more environmentally dangerous than shipping oil. "Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident." This is the full quote from your source, since you decided not to show it: "Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. However, this radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not shown to have any adverse effect on human physiology." Plagiarizing Wikipedia and deliberately editing quotes is not acceptable in a debate. Furthermore, your own sources are contradicting your arguments which is usually not a strategy employed by people interested in being taken seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to take some space to offer forth a point my opponent neglected to address: cost. The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels - in the case of wind its close to a 50% increase in cost per kilowatt per hour (5). This is due mainly to the fact that alternative energies are as of now unproven, contain inefficiencies of design, and have no infrastructure which can harness the energy they create. Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully support developing alternative energy sources, but I am steadfastly against the sort of panic-driven hysteria that my opponent has offered as a reason to adopt alternative energy sources in their entirety. Because the truth is the sources we have now are rather infeasible and forcibly adopting them would do much more harm than good - the technology simply isn't ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent offered relatively weak reasons for why the United States should change energy production sources. Furthermore I offered evidence that forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources would be economically disastrous and infeasible as the technology is not ready for commercialization. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://e360.yale.edu... (4) - http://www.worldcoal.org... (5) - http://www.nytimes.com...

positive: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.

positive: Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society Let's consider Pro's round two arguments in favor of nuclear energy: Amount The first of these is the amount of fuel available, and how long it could potentially last. The figures quoted here are so rubbery and based on speculation as to be pretty well meaningless. We are told that based on current consumption rates and current known supplies there is around 230 years worth of material remaining. This is fair enough. Then, we are told that using other sources of uranium, and other radioactive elements and isotopes that are not currently in use, and fission technologies that are not yet in production, the figure "could" be raised to thirty thousand years. That's a massive jump, and a lot of "ifs". Finally, Pro makes the claim that "it may be so that, at current energy consumption, we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years on nuclear fission reactions alone." This is a quantum leap from the thirty thousand quoted in the referenced article, and the source is not quoted. Pro, could you please provide the source of this claim? Pro closes his argument by stating "Nuclear energy clearly has much greater reserves than fossil fuels, and energy that is always available, unlike renewables". Unlike the elastic figures and speculation about future technologies used by the nuclear industry to estimate there may be around 30,000 years worth of atomic fuel left, we know for certain that "The sun runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core about five billion years from now"[1]. Furthermore, since winds are caused by heating of the Earth by the sun, we know for certain without any speculation that there is five billion years worth of renewable energy left, regardless of how much is used. Efficiency According to Pro, "Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient that other forms of energy, as it has a greater capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs than than other forms of energy, both fossil fuels and renewable." This argument is just not true, as typically, figures quoted by nuclear energy producers look only at ongoing production costs, and ignore massive initial setup costs - for example $10 billion to construct a reactor, and clean up costs of up to hundreds of billions of dollars (as discussed in my round two argument) when something goes wrong. "Cheap" atomic energy is based largely on massive subsidies: "Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."[2] Furthermore, private sector investors recognize that nuclear is not an economically viable energy option for the future: "Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive."[2] In summary, as Time Magazine eloquently puts it: "private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill."[3] Environment This is where the pro nuclear lobby have to stretch the furthest. According to Pro, "Nuclear energy actually has very little effect on the environment". Perhaps Pro should try convincing the Navajo people, whose lands were used for uranium mining from 1944 til 1986, of that. It is no coincidence that "Risk of lung cancer among male Navajo uranium miners was 28 times higher than in Navajo men who never mined"[4]. In addition, "Rates of birth defects in babies born to Navajo women living in uranium mining areas in New Mexico and Arizona between 1964 and 1981 were 2 to 8 times the national averages, depending on the type of defect."[4] Or perhaps he should try convincing the Scottish farmers of the "minimal" environmental impact of nuclear power generation: "The direct consequences of the accident [Chernobyl] were felt in Scotland until 2010 when the last of the agricultural restrictions put in place following the catastrophe were lifted".[5] But it isn't over yet. Even today, 28 years after Chernobyl, "the country could still face contamination from the world's worst nuclear accident if the 1,600-mile exclusion zone around the now defunct power plant goes up in flames. The forests have been allowed to grow wild and unmanaged since the tragedy almost three decades ago and have continued to absorb contamination still evident in the area. Raising temperatures and lack of rain have now created a serious risk of a massive blaze, which could rage on for several days and have far-reaching consequences. Lack of resources mean spotting and putting out flames before they burn out of control is near impossible although a core group of volunteers is trying to do their best. Scientists in Scotland agree the prospect of redistribution of contaminated particles is "very real""[5]. The radioactive half life of products used in nuclear power generation ranges from tens of years to millions of years. Radioactive products which are left laying on the ground (tailings), or buried under the ground or ocean leave an environmental legacy that could last well beyond the life expectancy of the human race. And now I'd like to consider some additional arguments raised by Pro in round three: Firstly, we have this rather odd statement: "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". Hopefully, this represents an unfortunate choice of words, and not really a total disregard of the many tens of thousands who have already died or will die as a result of accidents which have already occurred in the nuclear industry. Concerning storage of nuclear by products, various solutions are being explored globally; but no permanent solutions have been implemented. One pro-nuclear source admits: "Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently".[6] Regarding transportation of nuclear waste, Pro states that "elaborate packaging" reduces the chance of a catastrophe to almost none. It would be interesting to see the "probabilistic risk analysis" on which these figures were based, but it is not essential, because the argument ignores the most significant factor - the potential for terrorism. As I pointed out in round two, this month has seen the first recorded instance of a deliberate attack on a nuclear reactor. Particularly with the increasing use of drone technology, the potential for an attack on radioactive materials during transport is a very real, and very frightening possibility. And no amount of "elaborate packaging" will be effective against a missile attack. The remaining arguments from Pro in this round seem to be, in the main, denials of plain facts on the dangers of radioactivity from the nuclear industry. For example: - "Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed". - "As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small." - "As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare" - " " 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." All of these claims are contradicted by facts that I have raised in round two. Rather than refute them again here, I will refer to them in the last round when I summarise our respective cases. And finally, on the subject of economic viability, Pro cites an article by the Nuclear Energy Institute in saying: " "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". Again, this claim by a major interest group is simply smoke and mirrors. It refers to the yearly "economic output" from a typical nuclear power generator, and claims it to be in the order of $470 million dollars per year. Yet what is not factored into this is the cost to construct the reactor in the first place. Even allowing for only $8 billion dollars which is claimed in the article, this gives an interest bill alone (at a modest 5%) of over $400 million dollars per year, which virtually wipes out all profits made. In comparison to this, renewable energy sources have negligible construction costs and vastly lower operating costs. References: [1] http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu... [2] http://www.motherearthnews.com... [3] http://content.time.com... [4] http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us... [5] http://www.express.co.uk... [6] http://nuclearinfo.net...

positive: fossil fuel Since the topic is unclear, I'd like to interpret the topic to be: "the world should stop using fossil fuel." My opponent is pro and I am con, so this topic interpretation makes sense. 1. No alternative We need gasoline for the foreseeable future. Most people who currently own cars in the world own a car that runs primarily on gasoline. Cars are expensive products and most people are not too keen on purchasing a new one right now, considering the global recession. Other options are not viable anyway. Ethanol Normal cars can run on a blend of ethanol/gasoline, but ethanol cannot comprise more than 15% of the concoction, or else it will corrode the engine parts. In addition, ethanol does not yield a net positive amount of energy because it takes gasoline to create the fertilizer used to grow the crop (usually corn) and to harvest it (picture tractors). "UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains." [1] So it essentially takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. In addition, we don't have enough crops in the world to turn into ethanol. According to Energy Bullet, "if the entire US corn crop were used for fuel, it would only replace 20 percent of US gasoline consumption." [2] Lastly, food to fuel increases world food prices and results in starvation. Environment News Service explains, "The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before. The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. . . . The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off." [3] Cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable and may never be because the enzymes to break down cellulose are far too expensive to produce. Electric Since 80% of power that is generated in the United States is from fossil fuel (coal and natural gas), if we stop using fossil fuels, we won't be able to charge our cars. Electric cars are also much more expensive than normal cars and cannot travel very far on a single charge. Hydrogen fuel cell The fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Prototypes running solely on fuel cells have not even been made. There are no refilling stations. Hydrogen is not energy-dense enough to be a viable transportation fuel because the fuel tank would be too heavy. Power 80% of U.S. power comes from coal and natural gas. Less than 1% comes from solar and wind. Around 20% comes from nuclear power. However, the nuclear plants in the U.S. are approaching the end of their life cycles, meaning we will rely more on fossil fuels in the future. Solar and wind are not yet viable to provide all our energy because they rely on intermittent energy sources (wind is not always blowing, sun is not always shining), and we do not have a reliable way to store the energy, meaning we need fossil fuels to act as a back-up for power generation if these intermittent sources are not available. The Energy Information Agency did projection forecasts on alternative energy development to 2030, based on current incentives/tax breaks and rates of investment, and found that in the best case scenario, renewable energy can provide 10% of the United State's energy needs by 2030. [4] If we stopped using fossil fuels now, the global economy would come to a standstill. 2. Clean fossil fuels Clean diesel cars have been manufactured that emit absolutely no particulates from their tailpipes, such as a model highly touted by Volkswagen. In addition, carbon capture and sequestration promises to create coal power plants that no longer emit any carbon dioxide. 3. World economy Fossil fuel jobs employ tens of millions of people worldwide in the oil exploration/drilling industry, the coal mining industry, and in electricity generation. These people would all lose their jobs. Oil/natural gas exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia would have their economies devastated if they could not sell fossil fuels. A collapse of demand in many fossil fuel exporting-dependent countries would further exacerbate the global recession. Responding to my opponent's case: 1. Ozone layer holes Most of the holes in the ozone layer were caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which international agreements have since banned. Science Daily reports that currently, one of the most promising new ways to decrease ozone depletion is newly discovered devices to detect rogue CFC emissions. [5] There are two ways that fossil fuels directly decrease ozone, but both ways only have a "weak" effect on ozone. [6] 2. Global warming Many countries are attempting to implement emissions reduction strategies, but these will likely be very expensive to consumers of energy and will have only a marginal impact on global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation's consortium of the smartest scientists on the global warming issue across the world, recently ranked the best solutions to global warming, and a number of geo-engineering projects (engineering projects that would cool the globe) were ranked higher than emissions reduction. Solutions include the one described in Super-Freakonomics, essentially simulating a volcanic burst in the troposphere, during which particles decrease sunlight penetration to the Earth's surface and decrease atmospheric temperature, and putting sunlight shields in outer space. No matter how costly these engineering solutions are, they will be cheaper and more effective than drastic emissions reduction programs, like cap and trade. In addition, some of the renewable energy solutions aren't much better for global warming. Stanford University published a study in 2007 on the ways that shifting to a hydrogen economy would increase global warming. [7] 3. Peak oil Many different experts disagree on the date when peak oil production will occur, but few experts still believe that it will be as soon as 2020, as my opponent suggests. In fact, the Energy Information Agency recently did projections until 2035 and found that due to technology improvements, peak oil will not occur between now and then. [8] One such improvement is EOR – enhanced oil recovery. Carbon dioxide (usually captured from a coal power plant using carbon capture and sequestration) is pumped into oil wells and makes the yields of oil from the well jump from 20-40% (under traditional techniques) to 40-60% by increasing the pressure inside the well-head and forcing more oil to come out. We need oil for the foreseeable future – alternatives are just not available yet on a large enough scale and are not yet affordable for the average person. [1] http://www.sfgate.com... [2] http://www.energybulletin.net... [3] http://www.ens-newswire.com... [4] http://news.mongabay.com... [5] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [6] http://wiki.answers.com... [7] http://gcep.stanford.edu... [8] http://www.altenergystocks.com...

positive: fossil fuel Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: •Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases •Easy to install •Virtually no energy costs once installed •The technology for solar power is constantly improving •Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: •No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions •Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land •The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options •Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.

positive: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.

positive: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels First, the rebuttals on why geothermal energy would NOT be a viable resource to replace fossil fuels and why nuclear power would be a better choice. Geothermal energy as my opponent claims is everywhere. That's about the same as saying that we all live above Earth's core. If one drills 3 TO 4 MILES deep, one can reach temperatures of about 300 to 400F (about 200 degrees Celsius). I ask my opponent how this is economically viable in any way. Secondly, after doing some research on geothermal energy, I found that there are actually many requirements of locations of geothermal energies. One first needs magma that heats up ground water to 100 degrees Celsius (212 F) in order to be USABLE. My opponent uses the States as an example where geothermal energy is everywhere. It's not. It is only in Western USA, Alaska, and Hawaii that these geothermal place are actually viable. I quote from a website on geothermal. "To be both usable and economical a (geothermal) site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate. " Not only are geothermal places difficult to find, the drilling cost of these sites in a hot, dry and corrosive location is far higher than any other kind of drilling. There are also many very toxic and corrosive materials in the process of geothermal drilling. Arsenic, mercury and ammonia all come with the hot water generated from geothermal and cause many health hazards on a near daily basis. . http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... . http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com... Now I will begin to defend my points. My opponent claims that nuclear energy is dangerous to explain. He claims the mining of uranium is very dangerous. I ask him to refer to the following chart on how "dangerous" it is. Now, I know people with think of the Chernobyl accident in Russia, but nuclear plants have improved tremendously, and that plant did not even have an upper containment system. Now, no nuclear plant in the world does not have a containment system, and the last major accident of nuclear was pretty much Chernobyl in 1986. Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) *Notice that geothermal is not even included because the percentage where it is actually used is smaller than 0.1%. Uranium mining is just like any other kind of mining and uranium itself is more abundant than gold. The concentration uranium is not high enough to be any danger and there has NEVER been a death related to nuclear radiation in the US EVER. The disposal of nuclear waste has many ways, such as the Yucca mountain idea. However, I personally agree with France's way of reprocessing the nuclear waste so it can be reused and the parts left will become not radioactive in just a few hundred years. Nearly all of the world's largest countries already have access to nuclear energy. All of these countries first made nuclear weapons and then turned to civilian nuclear plants. These plants can be built for countries without nuclear secrets as it has been done before. As long as the plant is for civilian purposes, most countries will agree to build a nuclear plant for a country as a method of producing electricity. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... Finally, I will present my second point. Nuclear energy is one of the cheapest energies that can produce a large amount. Nuclear energy costs under 2 cents a kilowatt and the amount of energy one pound of uranium can produce is absolutely tremendous. Nuclear power can be adjusted to produce more energy in on-peak times and less energy in off-peak times and is one of the very few that can keep up with demand in nearly any conditions. Nuclear factories can be mass produced in the world and France currently has more than 75% of its energy from Nuclear. France is a large European country so it is a working example of how nuclear energy can be a suitable replacement from fossil fuels. I ask my opponent to give an example of a country that has more than half or even 40% of its energy produced from geothermal. For nuclear, I can give (over 40%) Armenia, Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Germany is currently considering to also go into nuclear power because it can be mass produced and provides energy at a low cost. For the reasons I give above, it is my firm belief that nuclear energy is the best substitute and most viable substitute from fossil fuels. Geothermal simply just does not have that kind of capacity. Thank You.

negative: Algae from coal ties the biofuel to fossil fuels "Leave the algae alone". Low-tech Magazine. 4 Apr. 2008 - "capturing CO2 from power plants ties algal fuel production to fossil fuels. If we switch to solar energy, where will the algal fuel producers get their CO2 from?"

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

negative: Hydroelectric dams Constructing dams burns massive quantities of fossil fuels

negative: Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases res... Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible for global climate change. As with fossil fuels, burning biodiesel or ethanol to drive an engine or generate electricity releases carbon into the atmosphere. Unlike with fossil fuels, however, growing the plants from which biofuels are made takes carbon from the air, so overall the process is carbon neutral. This means policies to increase the use of biofuels could greatly reduce overall levels of carbon emissions, and so be a major part of tackling global climate change. They can also help improve local air quality as mixing ethanol with fossil fuels helps meet clean air standards.

negative: Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels I think that because it is renewable it is better just want opinions and facts please

negative: Free Trade Benefits the United States "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." You claim that greenhouse gas emissions usage, if continued at this rate, would like to runaway climate change that would make this planet uninhabitable. I will grant you the argument that greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to make the planet uninhabitable. I disagree with the idea that gas emissions would continue at our current rate. Free Trade is Beneficial to the Environment "Free trade is incompatible with reducing emissions, slowing climate warming, and saving our planet. Under a free trade regime, prices are set solely by supply and demand, so social costs like climate change and environmental damage aren't reflected in a good's price. Economists call these unaccounted social costs an "externality." Free trade is driven by prices, so if prices are wrong due to externalities, free trade will produce bad outcomes." You provide no sources that demonstrate that free trade is incompatible with reducing emissions and slowing global warming. Negative externalities do result from fossil fuel usage in the form of greenhouse gasses and pollution, but that doesn't mean artificially increasing the price of energy consumption to try to make the price "right" would actually benefit society. On the contrary, there is evidence that free trade actually benefits the environment. One study found that "Our estimates of the scale and technique elasticities indicate that, if openness to international markets raises both output and income by 1 percent, pollution concentrations fall by approximately 1 percent. Putting this calculation together with our earlier evidence on composition effects yields a somewhat surprising conclusion with regard to sulfur dioxide: freer trade is good for the environment." http://www.cer.ethz.ch... Free trade would also benefit the environment because it facilitates the spread of more efficient and greener technologies. A World Bank study found that "Access to climate-friendly clean energy technologies is especially important for the fast-growing developing economies. Within the context of the current global trade regime, the study finds that a removal of tariffs and NTBs for four basic clean energy technologies (wind, solar, clean coal, and efficient lighting) in 18 of the high-GHG-emitting developing countries will result in trade gains of up to 13 percent. If translated into emissions reductions, these gains suggest that—even within a small subset of clean energy technologies and for a select group of countries—the impact of trade liberalization could be reasonably substantial." http://www-wds.worldbank.org... "For example, transportation costs." Sure, there are transportation emissions, but the alternative is worse. "A potential solution is a small, uniform tariff for all imports. This would encourage local production, thereby avoiding an enormous amount of wasted energy in transportation. Another idea is a carbon tax; the US could penalize imports of fossil fuels and other harmful energy-intensive industries. This would help discourage greenhouse gas emissions and encourage clean production facilities and renewable energy sources." This proposal to reduce carbon emissions is flawed. First off, tariffs would lead to an inefficient allocation of resources in society due to the loss of comparative advantage. Losing efficiency means more waste and higher emissions from inefficient production. The carbon tax is a regressive tax that burdens poor people the most, would increase the cost of living for everyone, lead to less economic growth, and would not affect oil consumption greatly unless the tax is set enormously high, due to the inelastic demand for oil. The better solution to facilitate the advancement of alternative energy sources is to decrease regulations that prevent business growth, increase free trade to facilitate the expansion of green technologies, and allow the free market to continue developing alternative energy sources. Free trade is not incompatible with the reducing carbon emissions. Free trade will lead to the reduction of carbon emissions. Free trade is Sustainable "Free trade lets the US import more than it exports (i.e. deficit trading). To make up the difference, the US must assume debt. As a result, foreign countries own over $30 trillion in US assets, and the US net international investment position is -$5.445 trillion. [4]" International investment isn't equivalent to free trade. Free trade is the lack of tariffs and barriers in the transaction of goods and services in the economy. Investing involves buying and holding stocks, bonds, and mutual funds to achieve a profit later. Tariffs don't directly apply to US international investment. But while we're on the topic of sustainability, it has been proven time and again that protectionism hurts the economy and is unsustainable. A famous example of protectionism at work is the Smoot-Hawley Bill. The Smoot-Hawley Bill was a bill that drastically increased tariffs to try to protect American works, but it ended up backfiring and hurting out economy. "U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations." http://future.state.gov... Free trade increases the standards of living of the poor "The Stolper-Samuelson theorem, an underlying mechanism of free-market economics, says that freer trade raises returns to the abundant facctor of production and lowers returns to the scarce once. [11] In the US, the abundant factor is capital and the scarce one is labor. Thus, according to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, free trade increases economic inequality. [12] [13] The jobs that suffer most are those that are easily traded for cheap labor abroad. This primarily impacts low-skill workers, who either lose their job or get paid less. Of course, that means free trade hurts most Americans, as most American work the sorts of blue-collar jobs that are easily traded. So we're talking about a massive impact here: a minority gets richer (and these are folks who are already rich), while the vast majority gets poorer. " Free trade has overall helped poor Americans. Yes, some types of jobs have been lost, but overall poor Americans are better off with free trade than without. One example is how free trade helps job growth. The Heritage Foundation found that, "Today, the $12 trillion U.S. economy is bolstered by free Trade, a pillar of America's vitality. In 2005, U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion and supported one in five U.S. manufacturing jobs. jobs directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than other U.S. jobs." Also, "The average U.S. tariff rate on all goods has fallen from over 19 percent in 1933 to 1.8 percent in 2004. As a percentage of GDP, the importance of Trade in the economy has climbed from single digits in the 1930s to nearly one-quarter of U.S. GDP in 2004. At the same time that Trade has become freer, real per capita GDP in the U.S. (in constant 2000 dollars) has climbed from a low of $5,061 in 1933 to about $36,000 in 2004." Average wages have substantially increased for every single income percentile since the start of trade liberalization. Economic inequality may have increased over time, but the free market isn't a zero-sum game. Free trade benefits every that takes part in the market, rich or poor. I'd rather have economic inequality and increased standards of living for the poor, than having everyone be more equal, but poorer. http://www.heritage.org... As I have ran out of time, I will be discussing and defending my arguments for innovation and the gains of trade next round.

negative: To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming To conclude I just want to say by taking the effects of pollutants of fossil fuel on life and property are extreme. If stop the use the use of fossil fuel these effects will completely removed. I hope we all understand the requirement of stopping fossil fuel. It will be put to effect immeadetely. Ps: iambench, thanks for your participation and opinion in such a crucial topic affecting life.

negative: Wind energy Wind power could free up natural gas to replace oil in cars.

negative: We should stop using fossil fuels!!! Have you stopped using them? If not, you clearly do not believe your own foolishness. Then shut up.

negative: Resolved: hydraulic fracturing should continue to be used Intro: we can call agree energy is important and is needed to thrive as a nation so for that reason I go neg today is because, hydraulic fracturing has been the best way to obtain energy and contributes heavily to the economy it is a more effective way to save the environment rather than less advanced ways to get natural gas and petroleum Intro part 2: There are some negative effects of fracking undoubtedly. Of course there need to be improvements like finding a way to completely minimize environmental impact but currently this is our best option in domestic energy and also a good temporary job creator while we explore other energy avenues. Solar energy is generally useless currently as the most high tech panels are only reaching a little above 30% efficiency while wind energy requires certain conditions and windmills. Not saying they can't be improved but until they are fracking is our best option until renewable sources are optional and fully functional. 1.Direct Economic Impact "The direct benefit of increasing oil and gas production includes the value of increased production attributable to the technology. In 2011, the USA produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. Taking an average price of $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that's a value of about $36 billion, due to shale gas alone. "The Yale study group also looked at the potential benefit to consumers of replacing oil consumption with natural gas by converting fleets from gasoline and diesel to compressed gas or LNG. The math works like this - It takes 6 mcf of gas to get the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. The authors assume an average natural gas price of $5 per mcf (nearly double today"s price) and an average oil price of $100 per barrel (about $20 more than today). Thus, you need $30 worth of natural gas to replace $100 of oil, a savings of $70 per barrel. Replacing just 1 million barrels per day of oil demand with natural gas would save $70 million a day, or nearly $26 billion a year. 2.More efficient then coal According to the Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas-fired electricity generates half the carbon dioxide of coal-fired production. It is also cheaper than coal when it comes to usage 3.Can help with foreign issues/relations "Fracturing has eliminated the need for natural-gas exports from Iran, removing Iran"s ability to use energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations. Shale gas will also ease American and Chinese dependence on Middle Eastern natural-gas supplies, limiting the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply away from coal"whose carbon footprint, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas. 4.Uses less water 90% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid is water, and around 5 to 7% sand. Most of the alleged chemicals in frack fluid are slickeners. Hydraulic fracturing surprisingly uses less water. Fracking requires just 0.6 to 5.8 gallons of water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, "renewable" and "sustainable" corn-based ethanol requires 2,510 to 29,100 gallons per million Btu of usable energy. Biodiesel from soybeans consumes 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. Also, in a study of 200 water wells near fracking sites, the water quality stayed the same before and after except in one case. The myth about fracking causing earthquakes has not been confirmed. 5.Fracking directly doesn"t cause leaks "The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenance. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. So basically a solution would be to ensure better construction of the wells and improve maintenance not remove fracking. 6.Fracturing can continue to provide jobs "There are 1.7 million jobs supported by fracking, and jobs will increase to 3 million by the end of the decade Examples of jobs provided, providing tax revenues to the government and creating much-needed high-paying American jobs. Engineering and surveying, construction, hospitality, equipment manufacturing and environmental permitting etc. "$2.5 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local tax receipts between 2012 and 2035. - "Looking at GDP growth, the IHS study found that, 'the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,' all in 2010 dollars. Responses/extra things for speech 1.No ground contamination / is safe 2.Even though 90% of oil and gas wells in the United States (one million wells total) have undergone fracturing to stimulate production, there have been no confirmed cases of contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Water is safe 3.Current industry well design practices ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of drinking water and the production zone of an oil and gas well. "In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater." (Fox News, April 27, 2013) And: "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011) "A 2011 report for the Secretary of Energy counted 19 times that water from hydraulic fracturing operations has been released, out of thousands of wells drilled. None of these instances included groundwater contamination. Hydraulic fracturing allows improved recovery of valuable energy resources and production of greater volumes of hydrocarbons from each well. The size of the area drained by a hydraulically fractured well is larger than wells that are not stimulated by the process. Therefore, fewer oil and gas wells need to be drilled if hydraulic fracturing is utilized, which in turn minimizes waste volumes and surface disturbance associated with oil and gas drilling. Scenario for if the so called spills were to happen and the low cost compared to the economic benifits "costs for a scenario that assumes 100 spills a year out of 10,000 new wells drilled each year. They figure that if 5,000 gallons of polluted hydraulic fracturing fluid were to spill into a field, the cost to scrape up a hypothetical 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and dispose of it at an offsite landfill would be on the order of $2.5 million. Furthermore, if potable water wells were polluted by hydraulic fracturing, the cost to haul in a potable water supply and drill new water wells would be about $5,000 per well. Given 100 incidents in a year, the clean-up costs associated with hydraulic fracturing accidents would be roughly $250 million. Comparing $250 million a year in phantom damages against the $100 billion in savings and economic benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that benefits exceed costs to by 400-to-1. Website links: "http://www.americanthinker.com...

negative: Wind energy All energy sources need back-ups; wind energy is not uniquely bad

negative: Wind energy The number of birds killed by wind turbines is relatively low

negative: Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies Far more subsidies go to oil than renewables.

negative: Nuclear energy Reprocessing nuclear waste is not a viable environmental solution.

negative: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.

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

negative: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions Global warming is driven by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar energy emits none of these gases, and is abundant, so can dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and help reverse global warming.

negative: Solar energy Solar panels are hard to move when a person moves homes.

negative: We should stop using fossil fuels!!! As I said, this mind-number robot does not believe the nonsense he is spewing. Given that, no one else should either.

negative: We should stop using fossil fuels!!! we should stop using fossil fuelw because its rly bad for the environment we are taught at school to stop this so we should stop itt!

negative: We should stop using fossil fuels!!! i dont but you do!!!11 stop ruining the environment we need it for air and stuff how can sumeone live in this world will ruining it???/ so cruel

negative: Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy Welcome to debate.org Dave, I'm sure you'll find it as a very interesting site. I'll let you begin the debate, otherwise I would have more space for my arguments. We'll follow this format if you like: R1: Doesn't matter. R2: Cases, I'll rebuttal. R3: Final rebuttal and voting issues on why you should be voted. Good luck on your first debate!

negative: Tidal energy Tidal energy systems can disrupt recreational activities.

negative: Clean energy contribution from tidal power is good "Pros and Cons of Tidal Energy Use". Energy Consumers Edge - "Tidal energy use may not be a big player in our energy future, but it can make a contribution." By some estimates, tidal power can contribute to 6% of human electricity needs. That's great. Any 0-emission contribution should be welcome and encouraged.

negative: Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy This is my first debate on this site. I apologize Beforehand for my improper format. I look forward to debating this matter.

negative: Hydrogen vehicles It's OK to use more energy to make hydrogen than is obtained out

negative: Hydrogen vehicles Hydrogen is non-toxic, unlike most fossil fuels.

negative: Establishing a $15 per ton carbon tax that increases by 3.5% each year until capped at $80 per ton Let's talk about your first point, that carbon emissions will depend on several factors, and new cost-effective technologies may cut our carbon emissions. However, I am confused on why you are asserting this, as it is a point that favors my argument. If companies are already creating cost-effective innovations and switching to renewable energies, such as wind or photovoltaic, then why is there the need for a carbon tax? As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world"s total greenhouse gas emissions, which makes unilateral efforts" such as a domestic carbon tax"an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years. If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States. In fact, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist. Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil fuels more economically attractive. But contrary to what my opponent stated, the technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are decades away and extremely costly. Instead, the only real way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short run is to reduce energy use and economic output. Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient cars, but the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving, higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices. My opponent also chose to ignore the plethora of repercussions that establishing a carbon tax would generate. While he is correct when he says that it will force U.S. companies to find new ways to utilize energy, what he completely disregarded is that a carbon tax disproportionately targets the low-income in our communities. This is because low-income communities rely on cheap fossil fuels, to heat their homes, power their cars, and live their lives. But when we establish a carbon tax, what we do is we pass that on to the consumers, and that directly increases the amount of money that low-income families have to spend on energy. According to U.C. S. B. Malin Milinger, "reforms to discourage climate pollution hurt low-income Americans." And that is exactly what we saw in Ireland when it passed a carbon tax. In fact, gas and heating bills went up 5 to 10 percent, and it directly affected the poor in Ireland. According to a study done by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, households in the lowest income group pay as a percent of income more than twice what households in the 10% distribution pay. Hence, these low-income families who are already struggling to pay for cheap energy will be hit the hardest and left in the dust from a carbon tax. However, there is an alternative, and that alternative is dividends, where the money is recycled back into the government. But that is something that is not addressed in this tax. Second, I would like to explain again why outsourcing hurts the U.S. Now, you argued in your second rebuttal that if a large company were to remain in a country without a carbon tax, it would greatly benefit the consumers in these countries. But you fail to recognize that while this consumer in another country is reaping cheaper goods and services, our economy, as well as millions of jobs, would suffer and be lost. This is true because when fossil fuel companies have to pay higher taxes, they end up letting go many workers. While the clean energy industry creates many jobs, this is offset by the amount of unemployment that would be created during the transition to renewable energy sources. Stanford professor Mark Jacobson wrote a recent study that found of the 2.5 million jobs added by using 100% renewables, 3.9 million were lost. Clearly, while a new workforce would emerge, it would greatly impact current jobs in the United States. The business that can move to renewable energy will move to renewable energy, like you said, but will take years to build up to levels where they can hire thousands of people for new positions. Additionally, the economy would plummet due to the loss of jobs and the decreased competitiveness of America's global exports. Because a carbon tax leads to increases in prices for energy goods and services, it reduces demand, thus stultifying the economy. You requested some type of statistic to display how the economy would be affected, but a statistic is not necessary here when knowing that a carbon tax would reduce American jobs and decrease global competitiveness because that is going to smash our economy.

negative: shoud we turn to nuclar energy rather then fossil fuels that is a very compelling argument, and refutes everything i have just said up till now. But I have a counter ready, my ulitmate, incredible, superweapon. And it is.........yes

negative: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.

negative: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short.

negative: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.