The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 49094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun.


I accept this debate and I shall be against.
Debate Round No. 1


Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.


Electric cars can be expensive to own (the price of the batteries). They won"t go far without stopping to re-charge the battery. Except in London, there is almost nowhere you can go to charge them up. Most of the electricity in this country is made by burning coal, gas or oil, so this means that electric cars end up being as pollutants as the fossil burning cars. The batteries used to power electric cars are very heavy. This slows the cars. Battery costs will vary but may be several thousand pounds and they have to be replaced every 5 years. The batteries use lithium and other rare metals. Disposing of batteries causes real environment problems.

In an accident it may be difficult to get you out of the car because of the dangers of electrocution. Chemicals spilled from the battery may also be dangerous.

The average electric car available in the UK will reach 50-55 mph. this is lower than even a small 1.1L car.

A kilogramme of petrol contains enough energy to propel a car about 15 miles. A kilo of fully-charged lithium-ion battery will drive your electric car 500 yards. And you only get about 100 miles to a fully-charged battery at best, compared with 1,000-plus miles from the most economical diesels. This leads to "range anxiety", or the fear you will be stranded miles away from a socket.

The energy intensive manufacturing of EVs means that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries.
In the UK, during 2012, electricity generation from coal-fired power stations actually increased to almost 40% of total production, as the price of gas soared, and gas-fired electricity generation was reduced. Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. This means that depending on the electricity produced based on coal, the impact of an electric car can vary. If the production of burning coal based electricity is really high, it means that the impact of an electric car can be even higher than a fuel powered car.
Debate Round No. 2


If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.


This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: What? This is confusing. Con misintrepreted the resolution and continued with a barrage of electric car contentions that were irrelevant to Pro's given case. Con's duty was to denounce pro's case, whereby alternate energy CANNOT replace fossil fuels as CON agreed he will be against(per R1). Continuing with electric car energy capacity facts and failing to establish the link to the resolution nullifies his own argument as it is irrelevant to the resolution. Pro gets conduct due to the fact that Con fails to follow rules. Both made arguments that were untouched by either side, as such equal. I was going to award Con arguments for his electric car analysis(as electric cars are under alternate Energy), but without a link as to why it disapproves the resolution, it remains irrelevant. Pro made generalised claims as his argument without digging furthur into the subject(suprisingly Con did). Both are guilty of their own respective mistakes. Neither one deserves the 3 point award.