Resolved: Electric cars should be a priority in plans to fight global warming
| Started: | 8/20/2011 | Category: | Technology |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 987 times | Debate No: | 17976 |
 Pro Round one: Intro Round two: main round/ Case Round three: CX Round four: conclusion. My opponent will answer the following questions as well as use these questions as a base for his contentions: Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming? Are electric cars economical? Are electric cars compatible with electric grids? Are electric cars reliable? My opponent also agrees that i could use the same case as i did in my previous debate. http://www.debate.org... Thank you.  Con I appreciate Pro extending this challenge to me. His opponent in a previous debate declined to make a case. It's an important topic to understand. The resolution Since the debate would be pointless if the resolution does not affect public policy, so I assume "given priority" means given a government subsidy or either mandated or encouraged by law. I interpret "helpful" as having a significant effect rather than merely a symbolic effect. We would "give priority" to something only if it had a significant impact on global warming. Pro has the obligation to show a worthwhile cost-benefit relationship between some form of mandate or subsidy for electric cars and the outcome on global warming. For this debate, I will assume that the consensus climate sensitivity supposed by CO2 crisis advocates is correct, which is is to say that CO2 causes two to three times the among of global warming than the straight physics pf CO2 as a greenhouse gas predicts. It's debatable whether that's true, but that's a subject for a different debate. Pro's Questions For the purpose of introduction I will answer Pro's questions without arguing the reasons for my answers. Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming? No, the use of electric cars would have an insignificant effect on global warming. Are electric cars economical? They are economic only for very limited use, basically only for small cars used for short commutes. Are electric cars compatible with electric grids? Small numbers of commuter electric cars are compatible, because they can be charged at night. However large numbers are not compatible. Pro needs to be specific about how many electric cars he supposes will be put to use and in what time frame. Are electric cars reliable? Yes, electric cars are reliable up to their battery capacity. Pro need not argue the point. My question How much will what Pro advocates cost and what reduction in global warming does he expect to get as a result? |
 |
|
Pro Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming? When discussing an issue such as this one, we must properly discuss the advantage of the product as well as the possible disadvantages of the product. In terms of electric cars, we find that electric cars can significantly reduce green house gases. Electric cars are environmentally friendly as it reduces air pollution. electric cars are 100% emission free as well as free of any pollution by product. "There are many advantages that are accompanied in an electrical vehicle. Namely, you are saving air of pollutants that would otherwise be spewing into the environment. Electrical vehicles are 100% emission free, and are free of pollution by-products. They provide their power from batteries, solar, or hydrogen fuel cells." (http://www.articleinspector.com...) "A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price not seen at the pump for 30 years." (http://www.scientificamerican.com...) "A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country's current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants." (http://www.scientificamerican.com...) "the good news is that over the years the repair costs have significantly come down due to manufacturers better understanding the technology, and have become much more adept to building reliable parts. " (http://www.articleinspector.com...) " Electric cars can utilize the existing electric grid rather than require the development of a new, expensive energy infrastructure (as would be the case with hydrogen)." (http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com...) Con Definitions An "electric car" is a car powered by electricity. That's consistent with, "An electric vehicle or EV, by definition will use an electric motor for propulsion rather than being powered by a gasoline-powered motor." http://inventors.about.com... Pro's references sometimes confuse hybrid cars with electric cars. Pro offered no alternative to my interpretation of "given a priority" so I assume he accepts it. So far, Pro has not said what he would do to give electric cars a priority, perhaps a subsidy or mandate, nor has he offered any evidence that impact on global warming would result. Therefore, his case thus far is irrelevant to the resolution. Pro's four questions 1. Are electric cars helpful in fighting global warming? Pro's reference on the advantages of electric cars is an unsigned articles posted on a web site where apparently anyone can post. The articles has no authority. The says that the cars have no emissions, but it neglects to point out that the energy for the cars comes from electric power plants fueled predominantly by coal (45%) and natural gas (23%). http://www.eia.gov... Shifting the production of CO2 from the car to power plants does nothing in itself to fight global warming. Pro's [2] confirms this, saying "Right now, electric power plants could power a huge number of PHEVs with little effect on the air quality from extra particulate—thanks largely to coal plants." |
 |
|
Pro "Pro offered no alternative to my interpretation of "given a priority" so I assume he accepts it. So far, Pro has not said what he would do to give electric cars a priority, perhaps a subsidy or mandate, nor has he offered any evidence that impact on global warming would result. Therefore, his case thus far is irrelevant to the resolution. " Rebuttal: I will like to state that my opponent's source does not match with the cite provided. My opponent brings up the interesting point of electric power plants fueled predominantly by coal and natural gas. My opponent however misunderstood my point.The fact still remains that an electric car has no emission of its own. It is true that the power plant does have small amount of emission; however we must always compare it to that of a gasoline powered car. The gasoline powered car not only emit huge amounts of green house gases, but the power plants used to drill this gasoline also emit huge amounts of green house gases. At the end of the day, after comparing the gasoline powered car to the electric powered car, we find that the electric powered car is far more environmentally friendly than the gasoline powered car. The fact that electric cars do not have any tail pipe excision also adds to its positive impact on global warming. below is proof of the electric car's positive impact in the issue of global warming. "BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent. " (http://www.ucsusa.org...) ". Switching the power generation sources is would cost about $26 trillion and save only 0.026 degree of warming" This statement is false. The problem with the gasoline powered car is not the power grid but the oil intake. The fact that the electric car unlike the gasoline car does not need oil, the amount of oil drilling will significantly decrease. "gasoline. The production and use of gas and diesel in cars, trucks, and buses also account for 27 percent of U.S. global warming pollution. Promising new transportation technology called plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) could help Americans spend less money at the pump, and at the same time reduce global warming pollution and decrease our reliance on oil." This means that the electric car can solve about 27% of the U.S global warming pollution. Con I hope Pro and any readers are enjoying the debate. I think the discussion is worthwhile. What does"giving a priority" mean? I asked Pro what he meant by "giving a priority" to electric cars, how much it would cost, and what result would be achieved. So far, he has said nothing about what "giving a priority" means. Does it mean subsidies or mandates? He doesn't say. I also want to know what he claims will be accomplished in terms of lowering the warming of the earth. He hasn't said anything about that either. Electric cars only move the CO2 to power plants Electric cars are very expensive. Pro's sources admit that. All that electric cars do is transfer the CO2 produced by automobiles to CO2 produced by power plants. For power plants to produce less CO2, they must be converted to something other than fossil fuels, and that's an extremely expensive proposition. Even if we did that, it would have almost no effect on global warming, because the US currently produces only 18% of the CO2, and that percentage is dropping rapidly as the developing world consumes more energy. To combat global warming, the priority should be put on methods of climate engineering that not only can solve the problem, but at reasonable cost. Pro claims that moving energy production from vehicles to power plants substantially reduces CO2. Pro relies on the Union of Concerned Scientists web site that asserts. "BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent." The site gives no references for the assertions. It has no credibility beyond that of an unsupported blog post. The Union of concerned Scientists has few scientists as members. It is composed of political activists http://www.sullivan-county.com... who get scientists to sign petitions outside of their specialties, like physicists willing to go on record with claims about engineering. The first statement is that power plants are "up to 99% cleaner" than automobiles. "Cleaner" means lower in production of sulphates and other pollutants. That's not the subject of our debate. However, 8% of electricity is from hydroelectric plants and 23% from nuclear. Neither produces any emissions, so they are 100% cleaner. The key is the "up to" part. That means that it is possible if you happen to be charging the vehicle from one of those sources. However, most of the power comes from coal and natural gas, and that's not going to change without the many trillions of dollars of expense in building new plants. Incidentally, Kilauea, the volcano in Hawaii, emits more pollution than all the cars of the world combined. The second part of the statement uses the same trick. CO2 emissions may be reduced "up to 70%." If the car is charged from a hydroelectric or nuclear source, the reduction is 100%, so they can make any claim they please "up to" 100%. How warming would be prevented by electric cars? Pro claim by numbers of $25 trillion for 0.026 degree reduction in global warming are false, but he gives no reason why. I thought my claim might prompt him to find some numbers, but not so. The temperature reduction I gave is an upper bound, assuming that somehow the US could reduce its CO2 output by 50% by converting all the cars and power plants. It would reduce U CO2 contribution for 18% to 9% of the world total. The rise in global temperature is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. http://motls.blogspot.com... So if the total CO2 produces a one degree rise in fifty years, a reduction by half the US total would reduce the temperature by 0.026 degree, That comes from the math of logarithms. There are 250 million passenger cars in the US. Going to $40K electric cars would cost $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace 70% of the power plants in the country, times about six. The US needs about 900,000 megawatt. http://www.eia.gov... A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. http://www.jsonline.com... A green energy upgrade would be about $12.6 trillion. The total for just the cars and power plants is $22.6 trillion, to which we must add the new infrastructure for charging stations and new plants to accommodate the 250 million electric vehicles. The current grid will not accommodate that many electric vehicles. How much CO2 is from cars? Pro cites, "The production and use of gas and diesel in cars, trucks, and buses also account for 27 percent of U.S. global warming pollution." No one claims that heavy long haul trucks can be converted to electricity, and each long haul truck uses as much fuel as forty cars. http://online.wsj.com... There are 2 million heavy trucks, http://www.truckinfo.net... which therefore consume as much fuel as 80 million cars. That means that converting all the cars to electric can at most reduce 20% of the country's CO2 emissions. Going back to the previous calculation, if reducing US CO2 emissions by half saves 0.026 degree of warming, the 20% reduction can obtain at most 0.01 degree. Actually, it's less, because warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Summary Around $25 trillion spent on electric cars and green power plants in the US will save about 0.01 degree of global warming. That's not worth any priority. Instead, we should put priority on climate engineering, where less than $1 trillion can get a degree or more of cooling.
|
 |
|
Pro Con Thanks to Pro for offering the challenge and presenting the arguments for electric cars as a solution to global warming. Pro claims he answered my question as to what he would do, by mandate or subsidy, to make electric cars a priority. I don't see any sign of that. He also claims to have said how much it would cost. I don't see any sign of that either. Pro provided no analysis of costs and benefits. I calculated the cost of replacing the fleet of cars with electrics and of converting fossil fuel power plants to wind and solar. CO2 is only saved if the power plants are converted, otherwise the CO2 generation is just moved from the cars to the power plant. Optimistically $25 trillion would save about 0.01 degree in global warming. Pro did not contest my calculations or provide an alternative claim. The estimate is optimistic, because electric cars have a short range and many people will be unwilling to accept that severe limitation. I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. They may be useful in lowering the concentration of pollution in central cities, although right now the economics are not favorable even for that. However, as a means of stemming global warming the high cost and low benefit rules them out as being an sort of a priority. Electric cars might also provide a reduction in foreign oil dependence, again if the economics of the vehicles can be improved. What should be a priority is research on climate engineering. Pro did not rebut my claim that climate engineering offers a much greater payoff at much lower cost. Climate engineering might yield a degree or more of cooling for under $1 trillion. Pro did not meet the burden of proof. The resolution is negated. |
 |
| wierdman | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
| wierdman | RoyLatham | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 |
Hybrids store the energy that would otherwise be wasted in braking. Current hybrids can repay the extra initial cost in three to seven years, which is could enough to make it in the marketplace without subsidies. So whatever the initial intent, it's only the market now at work.
http://newcars.indiandrives.com...