PRO has cited obejctions to sources: I will defend with full force.
Google's announcement came on May 20, 2020. CON was caught off-guard, it was a very recent announcement. It does not deny that Google was involved in developing solutions for FF industry . Microsoft and Amazon are still in this game. One cannot critisize a source for being unreliable when the article I cited was published on Jan 1,2020.
PRO's investment argument: Pro cites investments but the same study also points out that the FF industry is pegged at 1.1 trillion dollars and of the total it is around 16% of the 1.6 trillion dollars spent. Which has been PRO's stance from the first place 20-25% market penetration nothing more than that.
PRO's highlight of the Delaware study: CON has previously highlighted 20-25% market penetration is fairly possible, university of delaware study chooses cryogenic storage of hydrogen, which is at best in pilot program stages across the world. The article is good but it only tackles economics of the problem, attaching the DOI number: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Cryogenic storage increases the volumetric density by liquefying H2 but still liquid or cryogenic hydrogen occupies three times more volume than gasoline for the same energy content. The LH2 technology is not used frequently for several reasons. Firstly, around 35% of the fuel energy is used to turn the fluid to liquid state (three times more energy than is needed to compress it). Secondly, due to the hydrogen boil-off, the LH2 can evaporate even with highly insulated tanks. Thirdly, the LH2 pressure quickly increases as heat is absorbed from the environment. It is therefore necessary to vent the tank every 3–5 days. Finally, during the usage of the vehicle, it is common to observe pressurization of the H2 because of heat absorption.
Same time CON would like to highlight that the study took only a 72 GW system in consideration, which does not even cause a dent in the world's 18 TW or 18000 GW consumption.
Cost: Solar and wind energy is good and fine how to produce energy at night? and where to store it ?
Grid: Quoting the same study “A DER is a resource sited close to customers that can provide all or some of their immediate electric and
power needs and can also be used by the system to either reduce demand (such as energy efficiency) or
provide supply to satisfy the energy, capacity, or ancillary service needs of the distribution grid. The resources,
if providing electricity or thermal energy, are small in scale, connected to the distribution system, and close
to load. Examples of different types of DER include solar photovoltaic , wind, combined heat and power
, energy storage, demand response , electric vehicles , microgrids." They have included FFs and they are only talking about diversifying energy sources not switching to RE.
15 year study: Same study also quotes it would need electron superhighways to transport the energy and same article also cites "If you think about it from a regulatory and a market resolution standpoint, I just think there’s a lot of things that would have to get resolved". Basically it would need super-grids.
Concluding remarks: Every study on economics is good, when it comes to implementation and engineering side of it all goes haywire. Trying to store hydrogen on an industrial scale at -253 C is very difficult. I am not opposing alternative fuels and I never have, but shouting on politicians like Greta Thunberg does not change the actuality of the situation. Design for biofuel based engine is there, but only 5 to 10% ethanol mixing is achieved that too in USA that too from ethanol made from food grains not other biomass. Advocating is great but unless the technical problems are solved nothing can get done and we are only talking about US think about India, Nepal, What about african countries?
Seldiora really reminds me of User_2006. The "User_2006" is now top 5. I am pretty sure Seldiora can do it too.
lately he's been on a roll
wow, seldiora is really winning.
Ah, that makes sense
sorry for the forfiet IST timeline is very different in India, If I fall asleep early I often get a forfeit.
forfeit in 8 mins :(( you could've pulled through
I... Uh... I mean I guess so?
I think there are problems with replacing all energy with alternative sources for certain. I'm just talking from a debate judging perspective
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Just need less people.
You can side with him no problem, but it does not change core problems of the field, everything he provides lacks technicality , it is fine people can build their imaginary castles, but they are effectively straying away from tech and its limitations.
The real handicap of this debate is the character count... I get you have a high debate workload rn, but I feel that this topic deserves to be a bit more fleshed out
I don't like to make bets early, but Seldiora is right on this one... you've neglected to really respond to that health argument so far There are some good responses for you to give, so it's not a matter of not having them.
you forced my hand.... by failing to tackle public health sector costs, you risk me pulling up the stronger core argument about people's wellbeing!
Vox is typically fine for factual sourcing as long as it isn't something to do with Trump, racism, sexism, or just SJW culture in general
Business part of it, I can attach research papers but they are not open access
you: uses Vox
me: I'm not convinced this is your field lol
This is literally my field
also I had too smol char limit lol, should've added 1,000 char
you do realize, effectively does not necessarily mean 100% better?
This is a easy win.
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels". This is an undeniable truism, unless you specify a context. Where when etc.
Good topic.