The Instigator
danocan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Torvald
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Solar Power is the future not wind or being oil dependent

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 3 votes the winner is...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,775 times Debate No: 26129
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

danocan

Con

Solar power has replaced many Nuclear generators in Germany, the sun gives rays everyday ,wind is not everyday,the suns rays can be magnified and wind can not,any type of gas keeps us oil dependent,Abeam and Romney and Harper should be wearing Head Turbins ,protestors and citizens don't want wind turbines or gas powered plants in thier communiites but the media does not ever show solar as a better solution under fear of the Governement for not following the mandate to squeeze more money from you and i even when it means our health and saftey, solar panels or solar power has not exploded or leaked into valuable water sources or cities , does not require pipes to distribute it or send it to be processed to another country and then bought back for an higher fear amist complaining of no refineries to turn gas to oil i.e Canada and the U.S. . building a pipeline to have Canadas oil refined and then sold back to Canadians at a way higher rate is insane, the billion spent on pipeline can build 10 Oil refineries right here in Canada creating jobs and saving tons of money not to mention safer to the enviroment then building pipes from Alberta to texas lol,Solar is relatively free but there is a push to use wind turbines and electricity which is powered by you guessed it oil and gas lolIn Ontario Canada there is a move to charge criminally the Miinister of Energy for moving 2 gas powered plants in midst of last election then burying the paperwork and fees and now hes in Contempt and may face criminal charges ,Governements should fear the people not the peoiple fearing the Governement but our Media outlets wont print or broadcast anything opposing Political parties that in Rule at the time ,Ontario Minister Dalton McGuinty hides behind his decisions while the Energy minister is thrown under the bus, thousands of people from dozens of ontario Communities are protesting wind turbines and gas powered plants in thier communities but never once is solar ever mentioned ,i can provide proff of Solar Producing Plants in Germany that have replaced dozens of Nuclear and gas powered plants ,safer, cheaper , practically free, quietter, can be magnified like science in school when using a magnifying glass the suns rays can start fire ,produce heat and energy while not hurting the enviroment or pocketbook
Torvald

Pro

Unless I am mistaken, while you are in the Con position, your argument is that of the Pro position. This shall put the debate off to a very interesting, or very boring start, considering you've started by shooting yourself in the foot.

Now, it is principally more difficult to predict the future than to mould it. One cannot say that solar power, or any other power, is the future, with any predictable accuracy if one is not ensuring what the future is to be. With that technicality also out of the way, I shall make my case (Pro, that solar power is the future, and that oil is not).

The two most basic reasons that hydrocarbons are inferior as a fuel source to solar energy are that A) The planetary supply of hydrocarbons is highly limited, and near depletion already. Scraping the metaphorical bottom of the barrel cannot harvest sufficient hydrocarbons to power the world's industries, and will only damage the environment further, which brings up the next point, B) Normally, the vast majority of Earth's carbon dioxide would be found in the crust, with only a small percentage found in the atmosphere. By burning and hydrocarbons for fuel, we release massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which has resulted in a massive spike in average global temperature, and the often disputed Global Warming. Solar energy does not have such potentially lethal side effects, and is completely renewable.
I would like to make an amendment to the topic, being that wind energy is a form of solar energy. Wind is a series of complex convection currents resulting from uneven heating of the atmosphere by solar radiation, en lieu with the planet's rotation.
Debate Round No. 1
danocan

Con

Solar power has replaced many Nuclear generators in Germany, the sun gives rays everyday ,wind is not everyday,the suns rays can be magnified and wind can not,any type of gas keeps us oil dependent,Abeam and Romney and Harper should be wearing Head Turbins ,protestors and citizens don't want wind turbines or gas powered plants in thier communiites but the media does not ever show solar as a better solution under fear of the Governement for not following the mandate to squeeze more money from you and i even when it means our health and saftey, solar panels or solar power has not exploded or leaked into valuable water sources or cities , does not require pipes to distribute it or send it to be processed to another country and then bought back for an higher fear amist complaining of no refineries to turn gas to oil i.e Canada and the U.S. . building a pipeline to have Canadas oil refined and then sold back to Canadians at a way higher rate is insane, the billion spent on pipeline can build 10 Oil refineries right here in Canada creating jobs and saving tons of money not to mention safer to the enviroment then building pipes from Alberta to texas lol,Solar is relatively free but there is a push to use wind turbines and electricity which is powered by you guessed it oil and gas lolIn Ontario Canada there is a move to charge criminally the Miinister of Energy for moving 2 gas powered plants in midst of last election then burying the paperwork and fees and now hes in Contempt and may face criminal charges ,Governements should fear the people not the peoiple fearing the Governement but our Media outlets wont print or broadcast anything opposing Political parties that in Rule at the time ,Ontario Minister Dalton McGuinty hides behind his decisions while the Energy minister is thrown under the bus, thousands of people from dozens of ontario Communities are protesting wind turbines and gas powered plants in thier communities but never once is solar ever mentioned ,i can provide proff of Solar Producing Plants in Germany that have replaced dozens of Nuclear and gas powered plants ,safer, cheaper , practically free, quietter, can be magnified like science in school when using a magnifying glass the suns rays can start fire ,produce heat and energy while not hurting the enviroment or pocketbook
Torvald

Pro

Ought I take it as a concession on your part, since you are now not only arguing my point for me, but repeating the same argument?
Debate Round No. 2
danocan

Con

danocan forfeited this round.
Torvald

Pro

Interesting. I am curious, would you be willing to explain yourself?
Debate Round No. 3
danocan

Con

danocan forfeited this round.
Torvald

Pro

Apparently not.

Though I really need not put forth much in the way of an argument supporting my position, as you have already, for the most part, though none too coherently, done so, I shall provide a little bit more of a case, as if you actually were playing the role of the Con.

Perhaps one of the most common arguments given against solar power, and in favour of petrol, is that solar power is weaker than burning hydrocarbons, and that switching to completely electric fuel would be detrimental to the economy. However, these arguments are not valid, and are merely slanted in such a direction as to keep the world dependent upon large oil corporations, and because humans are generally afraid of progress.

Now, there are also significant environmental concerns, from burning hydrocarbons, to the atmosphere, and thus the biosphere. Normally, the planet's carbon should remain in its crust and biosphere. When, as carbon dioxide, it is released from burning hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, it can cause an unbalance in the planet's natural atmospheric balance. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it traps heat in the form of infrared radiation inside the atmosphere, maintaining a level of warmth necessary for life. Were there too few greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be significantly colder. However, the burning of petrol, coal, and other compounds rich in CO2, releases unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing Global Warming. Too much global warming eventually leads to a cascading climate change, that cannot be prevented, Runaway Greenhouse Effect. This would destroy our ecosystem beyond repair, and cause the largest extinction Earth has even known: total extinction. This is obviously not a favorable occurrence.

There would be no significant economic damage, if the world were to take itself off of hydrocarbon fuel sources, except for countries whose only major export is natural oil, particularly in the Middle East. Germany has already proved that solar energy can be just as efficient as any other energy we have yet devised, in fact, more so even than nuclear energy. The Middle East could easily accumulate solar energy to make up for the lost economic staple, natural oils. In fact, it could become a world energy producer by that. Thus, the economy could flourish on solar energy.

One of the large qualms that has been raised, particularly by America, is that the loss of petrol would be multiple nails in the coffin of the automobile industry. While I do not personally think that is such a bad thing, I understand that much of America's economy has been based on automobiles, and they certainly are the primary transportation there. I thus acknowledge that solar energy could also provide the fuel for automobiles. No, not solar panels mounted on the roofs of cars. That would be impractical and tacky. However, Nikola Tesla devised a way of wirelessly delivering electricity from one point to another. Solar power plants could collect energy, by either photovoltaics or some other method, then deliver it to cars through wireless energy transfer coils planted in the roads. This would solve the common complaint that electric cars are not as energy efficient. It has been shown that they are practical in every other way. In fact, in the early 90s, General Motors built a number of prototype electric cars, which were test-driven and found to be highly useful, but recalled and destroyed, because of the possible economic repercussions to the rest of the American auto industry.

Sources:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 4
danocan

Con

danocan forfeited this round.
Torvald

Pro

It has been an interesting debate. I cannot say I understood a single action on your part, but I'm sure you worked very hard. I would be happy to do this again sometime, if you would like. A pleasant afternoon to you, and well fares.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by danocan 4 years ago
danocan
im no specialist in any field im just frustrated at seeing Billions wasted such as recently moving 2 gas powered plants costing ontario residents over 200 Million plus a Scandal and charges of contempt,i feel building gas and oil related power plants to provide electricity is not freeing us from being dependent on oil,for decades electricity was never in shortage here,we sell it to America ,Ontario is rich in resources yet hydro bills in Manitoba the neighboring province are =family of 4 average consumption is mthl bill of $70..00, that same usage in Ontario n your bill is $140.00,discouraging manufacturers not to mention taking to much money from families,It seems to me when obvious gauging at the tanks take place we are un protected by our Governement who know were being ripped off becasue they collect more tax on higher bill,i wish i could bring awareness to this , we dont need more power generating plants when appiances and manufacturers and technology has created energy saving practices yet here we are lead to beleive there is a shortage ,wind turbines pop up and people complain so why not solar !
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
what about geothermal, chemical, or wind energy, those are all acceptable alternatives
Posted by dyljam1997 4 years ago
dyljam1997
@danocan- There is actually always some level of upper level wind
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
would you allow me to propose nuclear power if i accepted?
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Windmills produce more power with less impact on the environment. You have to use vary large surface areas to collect significant amounts of solar power. That surface area cannot be use for plant growth, so it is effectively desert area, like the sprawl of concrete. Windmills can be placed in fields, and their only disturbance to ground surface area is the circumference of the base of the towers. They collect far more power in a given surface area, too.
Posted by danocan 4 years ago
danocan
rays can be captured and or magnified each and every day unlike wind it does not blow on a schedule
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
-.- Why solar as 'opposed to wind'?... They practically are equally renewable.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 4 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Jesus Christ Point your arguments in a "neat" mannar.
If I had to debate this I'd get pissed cause I would have to point your stuff for you.

example?
point 1 :
A. paragraph
point 2 etc etc not hard.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
danocanTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
danocanTorvaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
danocanTorvaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF