The Instigator
Zealotical
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
grayron
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

An alternative to Gasoline

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
grayron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 7697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Zealotical

Pro

I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later.

Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline.

Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.
grayron

Con

I accept the challenge. Hopefully this will be fun.

I wish there were good alternatives to gasoline but there are not any good alternatives here right now that can replace it.

Electricity is not unlimited source. The biggest sources of electricity is coal. It is cleaner but is still fossil fuel and still produces a lot of CO2. Coal is also limited. People can argue that solar and wind power are not limited but the technology use to harness the electricity is not advanced enough yet. A lot of fossil fuel are needed to make solar panels and wind mills. There is also no good way to store of this energy. When night comes the solar panel doesn't produce electricity. Right now engineers are trying to develope a storage for electricity during the day but it isn't efficient and cheap enough at this time.

"If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving."

This statement is false for many reasons.

1) The environment will not be better off. Vegetable oil burns less CO2 but that isn't the only thing that concerns the environment. In order to use vegetable oil to replace even 50% of gasoline it will have to take all the farm land of the United States of America and none will be used for food. This makes the environmental impact a disaster.

2) Farmers will make more money but starvation will increase. During the gas price boom last year ethanol (in which is more efficient than vegetable oil) use skyrocket. As a result a corn shortage happened and prices went up for food that had relation with corn. This shortage wasn't a problem in United States as much in poor countries.

3) Obesity is the problem in the United States not really starvation. Going hungry in the United States is nothing like going hungry in Africa. There is enough food production and food is profitable. More farmers live in Beverly Hills than movie stars. Food is a good enough reason to farm.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealotical

Pro

Thank you for taking me on with this challenge and you put up a pretty good arguement.

True, but electricity is still a better alternaive then gasoline.

what about hydro powered cars? Cars that run on water instead of gasoline? You could easily fill up your car right at home and the Earth is full of water. We may of had shortages on water recently but that is because the pollution of fossil fuel. Pollution caused the weather to be weird around where I live.

Another alternative to Gasoline is getting rid of vehicles and riding bikes, running, jogging, running, etc...
If you think about it, it would help you get to some places faster because you wouldn't have to wait in car traffic. It would be crowded but at least you would keep moving and also, this would help people lose weight because you would be getting exercise and also, people would be more active and healthy once they get use to it.
grayron

Con

hydro power aren't run by water they are run by hydrogen. The hydrogen is sparked and reacts to make water. Hydrogen isn't a real practical source of energy because the amount of it on this planet is very little to almost none. The hydrogen is abstracted from water through electricity so some CO2 is involve. The process of abstracting hydrogen is not practical for replacement of gas. Maybe in the future but not now. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The effects of it one the environment if massively produce are unknown. I think environmentalist need to look at its impact before suggesting it.

Getting rid of vehicles may decrease green house gases but it is unrealistic. It may help traffic in cities but not else where. I don't think this will happen unless nuclear war happens in which will be worse for the environment.
Debate Round No. 2
Zealotical

Pro

Zealotical forfeited this round.
grayron

Con

I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it.

First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time.
Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however.

Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone.

We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future.

In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
@ RoyLatham

Yea we debated that a lot this year, we call it SPS or SBSP (Solar power sattelite or space based solar power)

It also atrributes to the information war, disaster relief, and even space colonization... oh and some think we can use them to deflect asteroids and other space debris.

The big debate was over the cost of A) technological breakthroughs B) acutally creating them and C) launch costs. That was one of the more fun debates I've had...
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
For all practical purposes, electricity is an unlimited resource. the concept is to put solar power stations in orbit and beam the power down using microwaves. The stations orbit so they are never eclipsed and can run 24/7. The energy density in the beam is low enough to be harmless. The engineering has been studied for decades. The only problem is COST.

Discussions that don't consider cost are pipe dreams. Pro never made a case that he had a practical proposal. Con's arguments were mostly correct, but kind of weak. No references used by either side. Pro loses conduct for forfeiting.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Electricity is an unlimited resource, ha!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ZealoticalgrayronTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 7 years ago
Zealotical
ZealoticalgrayronTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
ZealoticalgrayronTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03