The Instigator
HailedPanic913
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elmarkador
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Pro/Con with the use of turbines

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Elmarkador
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 58770
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

HailedPanic913

Pro

turbines create a useful resource for electricity and is helpful for the environment.
Elmarkador

Con

I accept this debate.

Since Pro has not specified the type of turbines that are to be debated about here, I will use the most common example: Wind Turbines.

Wind Turbines are not always beneficial to the environment, debunking Pro's opening statement. For example, there have been examples of bird strikes on Wind Turbines, with some estimates for the number of birds killed in the US at 400,000. Offshore Wind Turbines could also disrupt ecosystems in the sea. Wind is also, by nature, very inconsistent and incredibly intermittent. Other types of renewable energy gathering are much more effective and consistent than this. I will state these in the next round. Many people also state that they are not asthetically pleasing and spoil the countryside.

All in all, there are many alternative types of energy gathering and Wind Turbines are not the only option. I urge the floor to vote Con.

Sources:
http://energyinformative.org...
http://www.technologystudent.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
HailedPanic913

Pro

HailedPanic913 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
HailedPanic913

Pro

I see your point but what is your form of energy cause the fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer which causes global warming . Yes there is the birds being killed but what would they do if the earth gets extremely hot.
Look I am not saying its the best but, Its natural resource and it can make people money.

Sorry for last round I was out of town
Elmarkador

Con

Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that " fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.

Example One: Geothermal Power Plants

Geothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary.


Advantages

It is almost infinite and does not emit CO2.
There are no by-products, and almost no waste.
It can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal.
Power stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.
It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals.

To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
HailedPanic913

Pro

Yes there are other forms of getting recourse but the thing is its better than sticking to the old ways.

It uses the natural recourse wind which is renewable. Your argument didn't tell me why its bad except the first round
your last round just showed geothermal power which was great.
Elmarkador

Con

I have already shown in earlier rounds why wind power was not beneficial, but pro has not rebutted this in any way. These arguments still stand. I have shown that Geothermal power is a better alternative than Wind Power, and that it is Eco-Friendly and renewable. The BOP is still on Pro to debunk my statements. I urge the floor to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
HailedPanic913

Pro

Wind generators are proved technology. Denmark currently receives over 20% of its electricity from wind energy.

Provides long-term income to farmers and ranchers who own the land on which windfarms are built

If your geothermal system costs $25,000 you are eligible for a Federal Tax Credit equal to 30% of the cost, or $7500. On top of that there may be utility and state tax credits that can be quite generous. On average, this will knock off another 10% off the cost ($2,500).
http://www.sunrun.com...

1. Not Widespread Source of Energy : Since this type of energy is not widely used therefore the unavailability of equipment, staff, infrastructure, training pose hindrance to the installation of geothermal plants across the globe. Not enough skilled manpower and availability of suitable build location pose serious problem in adopting geothermal energy globally.

2. High Installation Costs : To get geothermal energy, requires installation of power plants, to get steam from deep within the earth and this require huge one time investment and require to hire a certified installer and skilled staff needs to be recruited and relocated to plant location. Moreover, electricity towers, stations need to set up to move the power from geothermal plant to consumer.

3. Can Run Out Of Steam : Geothermal sites can run out of steam over a period of time due to drop in temperature or if too much water is injected to cool the rocks and this may result huge loss for the companies which have invested heavily in these plants. Due to this factor, companies have to do extensive initial research before setting up the plant.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...

Wind power works I've seen one in real life I seen nothing wrong. Its a good way for electricity and if you get more than enough power the electric company pays farmers who put there turbines up.
Elmarkador

Con


Rebuttal

I would like to begin by saying that the following point: "If your geothermal system costs $25,000 you are eligible for a Federal Tax Credit equal to 30% of the cost, or $7500. On top of that there may be utility and state tax credits that can be quite generous. On average, this will knock off another 10% off the cost ($2,500)." Is irrelevant as the link provided talks about solar power, not geothermal. Also, pro did not provide evidence for the following point: "Provides long-term income to farmers and ranchers who own the land on which windfarms are built", So this is also irrelevant. Also, pro has not said how the disadvantages of Geothermal outweigh the benefits. So, onto my second alternative form of energy.

Hydropower


—Hydro-electric Power, or Hydropower, is the process of acquiring energy through generators turned by the flow of water. This is usually done by colossal dams.



Advantages


—As it is going to become clear, a huge advantage to all of these Renewable energy sources is that they are almost infinite and do not emit CO2.

—Dams can last many decades.

—When not in demand, water can be stored to be used to produced electricity at another time.

—The reservoir created can be used for a variety of reasons other than electricity generation, such as fishing and watersports, providing a valuable asset to the community.

So to round off, I have provided many alternatives to Wind Power, stated why it is not beneficial, which Pro has not sufficiently rebutted, and not to mention the fact that most of Pro's last argument was plagiarised. I urge the floor to vote Con.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Irrelevance 3 years ago
Irrelevance
I shall be voting Pro as Con brought the environment up in the first go. Even though he is one of my closest friends. I am not biased.
Posted by rings48 3 years ago
rings48
Uh I wish the contender a lot of luck....

Turbines don't really have many cons or other scalable alternatives so.....

Turbines = Electricity

The only power source that does not use turbines is photovoltaic solar panels
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
HailedPanic913ElmarkadorTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
HailedPanic913ElmarkadorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, but Pro was factually incorrect, had not sourced most of her/his assertions and left many of Con's points still standing. Pro had a stronger round 3, only to be negated by Elmarkador.