Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
alternative energy: energy generated in ways that do not deplete natural resources or harm the environment, especially by avoiding the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
effective: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect (in this case, sufficient to replace fossil fuels as an energy source)
fossil fuels: a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Based on data from our NH home and a worst-case scenario, it would take 29 years for a panel to recoup this 100% energy investment. 
Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”Researchers with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) undertook a study for U.S. solar-owning utilities to plan for end-of-life and concluded that solar panel “disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil” and so “disposal is potentially a major issue.” 
“We believe the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue,” Meng said. “It’s on the order of a 10-to-1 ratio.” 
Interestingly, studies by Latunussa et al., 2016, Wambach, 2017, Aryan et al. (2018) and Corcelli et al. (2018) agree on the environmental significance of incinerating the halogenated plastics in the backsheet. Unfortunately, as reported by Wambach (2017), if the ‘halogen content is too high, then incineration in a specialized hazardous waste plant must be carried out’, in order to minimize the emission of potentially toxic air pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF). Moreover, the above-mentioned studies provided little information on the impacts of incinerating PV plastics. For example, Corcelli et al. (2018) estimated that the incineration of waste panels releases 0.87 g/m2 of HF, while Latunussa et al. (2016) considered life cycle inventory data for general plastic incineration. [01.b]
Finally, it is confirmed that the low quantity of PV waste collected so far is discouraging investments in industrial processes for PV recycling. However, this situation is not a justification for delaying research in this field, or the problem of managing PV waste is simply postponed to the near future. Claims about the sustainability of PV technologies cannot be fully supported until efficient and environmentally-friendly recycling processes for them have been developed and are deployable. [01.b]
Xcel Energy estimates conservatively that it will cost $532,000 (in 2019 dollars) to decommission [NOT RECYCLE] each of its wind turbines 
Con says that recycling costs too much, but forgets that I already acknowledged this and that highly efficient recycling, for example, that existing in Turkey's, can generate more revenue than costs. His own source [also PRO's own source, both exactly the same source] says US is horrible at Recycling and must reform that policy rather than stop using alternative energy:
When solar panels do reach their end of their life today, they face a few possible fates. Under E.U. law, producers are required to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly. In Japan, India, and Australia, recycling requirements are in the works. In the United States, it’s the Wild West: With the exception of a state law in Washington, the U.S. has no solar recycling mandates whatsoever. Voluntary, industry-led recycling efforts are limited in scope. “Right now, we’re pretty confident the number is around 10 percent of solar panels recycled,” said Sam Vanderhoof, the CEO of Recycle PV Solar, one of the only U.S. companies dedicated to PV recycling. The rest, he says, go to landfills or are exported overseas for reuse in developing countries with weak environmental protections.
Also, he uses the same scholarly source as I did but fails to copy the entire abstract where it says that the efficient recycling with PV can manage waste relatively well.
Although the amount of waste photovoltaic (PV) panels is expected to grow exponentially in the next decades, little research on the resource efficiency of their recycling has been conducted so far. Conversely, high-efficient recycling can meet these targets and allows to recover high quality materials (as silicon, glass and silver) that are generally lost in base-case recycling. The benefits due to the recovery of these materials counterbalance the larger impacts of the high-efficiency recycling process. However, benefits due to high-efficient recycling are relevant for some impact categories, especially for the resource depletion indicator. The article also points out that thermal treatments are generally necessary to grant the high efficiency in the recycling. Nevertheless, these treatments have to be carefully assessed since they can be responsible for the emissions of air pollutants (as hydrogen fluoride potentially released from the combustion of halogenated plastics in the panel’s backsheet). The article also identifies and assesses potential modifications to the high-efficiency recycling process, including the delocalisation of some treatments for the optimisation of waste transport and the introduction of pyrolysis in the thermal processing of the waste. Finally, recommendations for product designers, recyclers and policymakers are discussed, in order to improve the resource efficiency of future PV panels. 
Dropped arguments: current trends are looking to replace fossil fuels and big companies no longer want to use coals energy, despite con's claims.
The support for electricity is entirely possible and can efficiently replace fossil fuels. Vote for pro.