Is Solar Energy polluting the world
Debate Rounds (3)
I'll start with a guess of 7 years, in view of the number of cells made and the power consumed. And therein the next seven years of the same cell power collection to fuel the creation of a new set of cells. I have an Arco 1ft by 4 ft panel that is 30years old. The efficiency has declined to about 1/2 power output. Meaning perhaps that each cells generates about 3 times its power consumed before becoming useless. And perhaps therein suggesting that a re-capture energy rate of 3:1 if so,our Solar PV scenario is limited. OK, so you are not happy with the assumptions; however assumption scenarios yield opinion as to investigation; which is the subject of this debate. The value of Solar Photovoltaic Cells versus other power sources is not in question.
The proposition was whether solar energy is polluting the world.
I choose to extend my arguments from above as they are fully valid.
You have not rebutted any of my arguments, so they continue to stand nonetheless.
The number of people concerned about Global Warming, as you seem to be, is growing. It is therein a valid concern as to what pollutants are created and how much. In 1975 the USAF theorized that orbiting lenses in Space could focus solar power to receptor points on Earth and that the Moon could be utilized as a source for the materials. In this sceanrio the Shuttle Craft could gather a higher grade of sources then here on Earth.
How are we to consider the validity of any arguement for an energy source without a consideration of the process and the pollants manufactured also?
Again; the subject is:" how much power and pollution is generated to make Solar Photovoltaic Panels"?
This debate yielded no gain on the subject, and could be an indicator that mankind is simply irrational to the point of being unable to effect self preservation attempts.
He has proven himself to be both illiterate and stubborn.
The proposition is written at the top of the page, 'Is solar energy polluting the world'.
It is against the community guidelines of debate.org to change your premise mid-debate and thus, violating such a term will cost you the debate.
I wholeheartedly wish this is not all you have.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued a literal interpretation of the title of the debate, ignoring what Pro had posted in R1 PRIOR TO CON ACCEPTING. The clarification makes clear what the scope of the debate was to be, and Con's refusal to accept that scope loses him conduct as far as I'm concerned. The question was, at what point does the production of solar energy panels's energy requirements get washed out by the energy they produce through solar. Pro never really contrasted the numbers he presented with the energy produced, so the arguments point is null. All other categories were equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.