Instigator / Pro
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2548

Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
6,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1480
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description

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.

"green energy" has failed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels more than 1 percentage point, despite a 2 trillion dollar investment

we are now in a "nuclear only" world

https://youtu.be/tZN7UDAQYeo

NUCLEAR WASTE AS FUEL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg

-->
@seldiora
@JRob

https://youtu.be/BPcsx9l5eNM?list=WL

-->
@seldiora

Don't forget about the plants!! - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

-->
@JRob

Looking over this again, I think the main point that I should have emphasized more is the fact that photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil and coal. And in their current forms, both photovoltaics and wind turbines require plastics, which are derived from crude oil. If you imagine a world with no coal or oil, the (energy and dollar) cost of producing a photovoltaic and or wind turbine would be significantly increased (and their designs would need to be dramatically modified).

-->
@JRob

Thank you for your thorough and insightful analysis.

-->
@3RU7AL
@seldiora

[Spent way too long writing that. Please let me know if there are any issues with my RFD. I'm a novice by this site's standard, and if there are any major issues I've overlooked in my consideration I'll be quite happy to report my own vote for removal.]

PRO, R1:
P1: Cost; PRO outlines that AE has become cheaper.
P2: Health; PRO outlines that AE is more environmentally friendly and creates more jobs.
P3: Trends; PRO outlines that AE is attracting billions of dollars in investment worldwide to conclude that AE is a financially viable alternative.
P4: Electric Support; PRO outlines that AE is reliable and could potentially be as cheap as current methods of energy by 2030.

Voter Notes;
- The relevance of job creation to health...?
- The job creation point's source relies on a Forbes article that specifies jobs in the US - the US is not reflective of the world.

CON, R2:
P1: Cost; Solar panels pollute, violate the 2nd ThermoD.
P2: Health; CON argues that AE produces the same amount of pollution, but in different areas.
P3: Trends: 2nd ThermoD.
P4: Electric Support: 2nd ThermoD.

Voter notes;
- Solar panels aren't the only type of AE.
- CON offers no evidence in P2, Health.
- CON offers no source that backs the claim regarding the 2nd Law of ThermoD: LumenLearning, Boundless Chemistry, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases."; the voter notes that the relationship between the sun and a solar panel is not an "isolated system", and it is completely plausible - and even logical - that a solar panel produces more useful energy than is required to make it. (The same can be said for an apple tree, for instance - it requires minimal energy to plant a seed and water it, but ultimately the useful energy output of a tree is greater than that of a seed.)

PRO, R3:
- Notes the unreliability of Quora and the contradiction between CON and the source.
- Reaffirms that solar panels are environmentally viable.

Voter notes;
- One of PRO's sources here is malfunctional. CON does not notice this.

CON, R3:
- Recycling Solar; CON uses two sources* to again note the recycling/disposal cost of solar panels.
- Recycling Wind; CON notes the disposal cost of wind turbines.
- EROEI & ESOEI; CON references Wikipedia - noting the EROEI values for several types of energy.
- "Shocking Conclusions"; CON concludes: "...we need to focus on WIND and COMPRESSED AIR.", as well as a passing glance at "microreactors".

Voter notes;
- *CON cherry picks source [01]. In context, the "cost-revenue" ratio refers to the COST of recycling a panel compared to the REVENUE for selling the recycled materials - not cost of producing a panel to revenue of energy production. (To clarify - the source complains that it is cheaper to dump solar panels as opposed to recycle them.)
- CON seems to advocate for wind and compressed air - one of which is an AE, the other of which is a method of storing energy as opposed to generating it.

PRO, R4:
- Attempts to reaffirm that solar panel was can be managed effectively.
- Notes that CON dropped the "Trends" card.

CON, R4:
- Reaffirms that solar panel production pollutes the environment.
- Notes that wind turbines could be built from less polluting materials.
- States that fiberglass used in wind turbine construction is non-recyclable.
- States that the "trends" card is "immaterial" to the debate resolution.*

Voter notes;
- CON's note regarding the possibility of wind turbines being an effective energy source does not support their argument.
- *While CON states that the "trends" card is irrelevant, CON rebutted this point previously.

Conclusion:
PRO makes an effort to demonstrate that AE is an effective alternative to FF - environmentally and practically. This isn't done flawlessly - noted above - but satisfies the BoP - that AE can effectively replace FF. [Cheap, environment +, practical and gaining traction.] CON does not satisfactorily challenge the Health point, the "Electric Support" (practicality) point, nor the "trends" point. CON's point of "solar panel production is extremely polluting" seems to be criticism with criticism - there are some flaws in AE, as shown, no argument is given in support the opposite, FF. This, combined with CON's endorsement of wind/compressed air, sways this voter to the side of PRO.

If I might be so bold to offer a point to both sides:
- PRO: I was tempted to side with CON. Your source work is immaculate, but I feel like motivation was lost after R1. More vegemite, mate!
- CON: Your structure is certainly something to behold - clean, neat and easy to follow. Your use of bold, italic and CAPITALISATION really helps nail home your argument. Try not to focus your argument around one point - solar panels do pollute, but no mention was made of the myriad of other AE's. Hydro, e.g., 16% 2015 of the world's energy. Maybe it would have been best to focus on how AE isn't ready to overthrow FF yet - FF still is the main producer, and there's a long way to go before AE can effectively produce 100% of the world's energy.

Best of luck with the other voters - well fought, both sides.

Remind me in a couple weeks and I’ll vote.

It’s always cool to see someone argue uphill like con did here (not a clue as to the outcome from the skimming I just did).

-->
@seldiora

Thank you very much for your candor and participation in this debate.

I've actually learned a great deal of valuable information as a result of your actions.

-->
@3RU7AL

Sure, I can do that.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?

-->
@Barney

Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?

-->
@JRob

I disagree.

-->
@Barney

That could be a legitimate Kritik for this debate.

This seems like too much of an uphill battle for the contender. Will be an interesting read if someone can stomach playing Devil's Advocate seriously.

But they are failing to replace the greenhouse effect! 🤣