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
Tags
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I will combine all my research into one round, as my previous opponent unfortunately forfeited the final round.
Cost:
A study says: "Dramatic fall in costs of renewable energy in the last 24 months has not only accelerated the replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy in electricity generation. The low cost renewable electricity is now starting to replace fossil fuels in other sectors....Another reason is that electricity often offer other opportunities, such as cheaper transport, better control, higher energy efficiency in final production of energy services and lower local environmental costs. Remember that, even if fossil fuel based technology seemed more efficient a long time ago, technology improves over time, and the buying of the fuel itself can result in extra transaction cost that outweighs the one time building of the alt. energy source. Let me prove it with another source:
"Between 2010 and 2019, the cost of large, utility-scale solar photovoltaic projects – where energy is converted directly into electricity – fell by 82%.
What’s the World Economic Forum doing about climate change?
Over the same period, the other main type of solar, concentrating solar power – which uses mirrors or lenses to create power through heat – fell by 47%. Falls in wind power costs are also significant: 39% for onshore wind and 29% for offshore." Unless con can refute the first study, and IRENA's recent showing of the progress in the last 10 years, it seems to me he has lost.
Health:
Global warming (CO2 generation) -- to avoid this become *that* debate, here's source that proves CO2 causes rising temperature, pollution (leading to " $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens "), these are crucial problems that cause fossil fuel to be controversial. Not to mention that in terms of jobs, " 335,000 people work in the solar industry and more than 111,000 work in the wind industry, compared to 211,000 working in coal mining or other fossil fuel extraction". That's right, even more people work in alt than fossil fuels. So... Alt. energy is env. friendly, causes no pollution, and is far more stable than fuels overall. Fossil fuel has extra costs other than merely money associated with it, especially with public health and environment. Unless con can refute this, alt. energy not only can replace fossil fuel effectively, it is actually far far superior.
Trends:
According to a scholarly study, "Total funding for RE has been rising at a remarkable rate. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), the amount of RE finance... rose from USD 45 billion in 2004 to 270 billion in 2014 globally (Fig. 2). This represents a compound annual growth rate of 18%. Moreover, in 2014, net investment into new capacity, as opposed to replacing depreciated assets, was twice as large for RE as it was for fossil fuels in the power sector; this trend is forecast to continue for the rest of this decade". Now you see how reasonable renewable energy overtaking fossil fuel is.
Big companies are following suit. Silicon Angle says, "Meanwhile, Google LLC announced today it’s making what it says is the biggest-ever corporate purchase of renewable energy, increasing its worldwide wind and solar energy portfolio by more than 40%, to 5,500 megawatts." The same goes for Amazon investment. Just a few listed here are Visa, Blackstone, Brookfield Renewable Partners, etc... "over the next 10 years, $5 trillion to $10 trillion overall will be invested into renewable energy worldwide". It's clear that financial wise it will be a big market and can effectively replace that of fossil fuels.
Electric Support:
"A thorough analysis carried out by the University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College concluded that renewable energy could reliably power a large electrical grid 99.9 per cent of the time by 2030, at a cost that matches today’s electricity prices." Another site supported that with wide distribution of power sources, alternative energy can do well. It's very long of a study, but some crucial facts are: "Dispatchability: Resilient DERs can respond to a disruption at any time with little to no advance warning.
2. Islanding Capability: Resilient DERs have the ability to isolate from the grid and serve load during a
broader outage.
3. Siting at Critical Loads/Locations: Resilient DERs reside at critical loads or at critical points on the grid
(e.g., areas of high residential density).
4. Fuel Security: Resilient DERs do not rely on the availability of a limited physical fuel to provide power..." So on and so forth.
As you can see more distributed energy sources are quite reliable. National Renewable Energy Lab has a famous quote, "Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050. "
Round 2
Con
#4
I would like to thank PRO for hosting this thought-provoking debate.
(C.R2.01) Cost:
Although the financial cost of solar and wind and batteries has been declining, the net-energy-gain from these "alternatives" remains negative.
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. [01]
Think of a solar panel or a wind turbine as a battery.
Now think of all the (oil and coal) energy you use to mine the materials, build and operate the manufacturing plant and equipment, cook the food for the designers and scientists and miners and drivers involved in the process, not to mention the (oil and coal) energy you use to heat and cool the facilities and vehicles involved. If you take all that energy and you compare it to the energy you get out of the solar panel or wind turbine, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics if you were able to generate OVER-PARITY (more energy output than you input).
Not to mention the energy cost of disposal (or "recycling" at end-of-life-cycle).
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.” [02]
(C.R2.02) Health:
Although solar panels and wind turbines emit much less pollution LOCALLY, the manufacturing process still emits the same amount of pollutants as conventional sources (per watt of energy yield). Especially if you consider the disposal (or "recycling") cost.
(C.R2.03) Trends:
Certainly these "alternatives" are becoming more popular and more dollar efficient. This trend does not however magically violate the second law of thermodynamics.
(C.R2.04) Electric Support:
Certainly these "alternatives" are becoming more popular and more dollar efficient. This trend does not however magically violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Round 3
Pro
#5
So con has decided to drop everything and try to focus on net problems as well as waste disposal. I have remarkable questions about his use of Quora, and exactly whose source he is referring to. The former physics and engineering teacher remarks in his final paragraph, "a fossil fuel generator can make enough energy to produce itself in just a couple days, but we don’t know how to make fossil fuels stop polluting at a similarly quick pace. However, we do know how to use that dirty energy to make a lot of solar panels that don’t pollute. That example gas turbine generator could make a solar panel every 30 minutes it runs; the Merrimack Station generates enough to make 50 panels every hour. How many panels could have been made in the hours since 1968? (Answer: 22 million solar panels!) Yes, it may realistically take a few years for one solar panel to collect enough electricity to make another one just like it, but then we’d have twice as many solar panels that don’t pollute. I think that means we better stop fooling around and make more solar panels!"
The one man who agrees with con is a Sales professional, not energy expert, so it's hard to say for sure. SolarCraft confirms pro side by saying: " A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conclusively demonstrates that the manufacturing energy cost versus the energy production payback for solar modules is generally less than 4 years." So it's very clear that over time it works out for renewable energy, and con side is not a problem.
Secondly, Forbes is a news site and that article was two years ago. Since then we have made much progress on research. Turkey had been able to recycle a lot of the metal toxic waste, and scholar resource suggests this is key to solving con's problems. There is still a little more work to be done but overall there is a net positive impact on the environment. (" Considering the full life cycle of the panel, the energy produced by the panel grants the most significant environmental benefits. 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.")
Applying second law of thermodynamics does not work in terms of trends or support.
Con
#6
(C.R3.01) THE INVISIBLE ENERGY COST OF DISPOSAL/RECYCLING
(C.R3.01.A) RECYCLING SOLAR
It's significant to note that the energy cost of disposal/recycling of photovoltaics is shockingly absent from all net-energy-gain estimates.
“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.” [01]
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]
(C.R3.01.B) RECYCLING WIND
It's significant to note that the energy cost of disposal/recycling of wind-turbines is shockingly absent from all net-energy-gain estimates.
Xcel Energy estimates conservatively that it will cost $532,000 (in 2019 dollars) to decommission [NOT RECYCLE] each of its wind turbines [02]
(C.R3.02) EROEI & ESOEI
Here's some good news. When comparing energy-return-on-investment for both energy production methods and energy storage methods there are some interesting winners and losers.
(C.R3.02.A) EROIE (Energy Return on Energy Invested) [03]
EROEI 106:1 - Nuclear
EROEI 51:1 - Wind
EROEI 50:1 - Hydroelectric
EROEI 31:1 - Coal
EROEI 28:1 - Natural Gas
EROEI 21:1 - Parabolic Solar
EROEI 7:1 - Photovoltaic
EROEI 3.5:1 - Biogas
EROEI 1:1 - Ethanol
(C.R3.02.B) ESOEI (Energy Saved on Energy Invested) [04]
ESOEI 5:1 - Lead acid battery
ESOEI 32:1 - Lithium ion battery
ESOEI 704:1 - Pumped hydroelectric storage
ESOEI 792:1 - Compressed air energy storage
I would once again like to thank PRO for hosting this thought provoking debate.
(C.R3.03) SHOCKING CONCLUSIONS
Let's examine the debate resolution: "Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Don't get me wrong, I wish we could all switch to solar and battery powered cars and call it a day, I really do.
But that's not going to get us to the promised land. We tend to forget about all the strip-mining required to gather all those rare & precious rocks.
It does look like (based on the EROEI & ESOEI data) we need to focus on WIND and COMPRESSED AIR (both surprisingly efficient).
Also, there's a very strong case for microreactors. [05]
Let's examine the debate resolution: "Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Right, I'm going to still say "NO". No they can't.
Solar + batteries is shockingly inefficient. Wind looks promising, but we're still going to need oil and coal and natural gas in order to produce the metals and glass and resins and high-performance plastics required to produce turbines (not to mention all the energy we're going to need to dispose of/recycle the materials).
Round 4
Pro
#7
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 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.
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.
Con
#8
(C.R4.01) PRO CLAIMS RECYCLING "PROBLEM" IS SOLVED
Exhibit A:
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:
Here's what PRO chose to highlight,
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.
This highlighted quote (from PRO) is evidence that recycling is a major problem that is NOT currently solved.
Also, even in countries where photovoltaic recycling is mandatory, PRO fails to mention anything about the ENERGY cost and or TOXIC byproducts.
PRO continues,
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.
PRO also fails to "copy the entire abstract". I'm really not sure why PRO expects me to build a case for them, but here's "the entire abstract" as requested,
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. [01]
Certainly this study aims to show that the recycling process can be improved, but it does absolutely nothing to suggest that recycling is anywhere close to energy neutral and or non-toxic.
The primary focus of this study (and PRO's argument in general) is purely in dollars cost and dollars recovered.
I believe we would all be much better served with a focus on gross energy cost and net energy recovered.
We could conceivably build wind turbines out of 100% steel and aluminum (both materials easily recycled).
People seem to be completely blind to the fact that toxic materials are REQUIRED for the production of photovoltaics (and computers and electronics).
People seem to be completely blind to the fact that fiberglass (used in wind turbines) is impossible to recycle.
(C.R4.02) PRO'S COMPLAINTS
Dropped arguments: current trends are looking to replace fossil fuels and big companies no longer want to use coals energy, despite con's claims.
I never disputed what "big companies" want or don't want. They only care about "consumer demand" and "making money". PRO's pursuit of this line of reasoning is immaterial to the debate resolution.
(C.R4.03) PRO'S FINAL STATEMENT
The support for electricity is entirely possible and can efficiently replace fossil fuels. Vote for pro.
PRO has failed to present any evidence that "alternative" sources of electricity can replace ALL fossil fuels (much less "efficiently").
(C.R4.04) SHOCKING CONCLUSIONS
Let's examine the debate resolution: "Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Don't get me wrong, I wish we could all switch to solar and battery powered cars and call it a day, I really do.
But that's not going to get us to the promised land. We tend to forget about all the strip-mining required to gather all those rare & precious rocks.
It does look like (based on the EROEI & ESOEI data) we need to focus on WIND and COMPRESSED AIR (both surprisingly efficient).
Also, there's a very strong case for microreactors. [02]
Let's examine the debate resolution: "Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Right, I'm going to still say "NO". No they can't.
Solar + batteries is shockingly inefficient. Wind looks promising, but we're still going to need oil and coal and natural gas in order to produce the metals and glass and resins and high-performance plastics required to produce turbines (not to mention all the energy we're going to need to dispose of/recycle the materials).
"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
https://youtu.be/BPcsx9l5eNM?list=WL
Don't forget about the plants!! - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
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).
Thank you for your thorough and insightful analysis.
[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).
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.
Sure, I can do that.
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
I disagree.
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! 🤣