Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.