The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,290 times Debate No: 48752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




In this Debate I would like to know my opponents opinion on replacing Thermal Power plant by Solar and wind Power plant.
Its a very simple debate that might take less time for us to debate on.


I accept, I thank Pro for the instigating his resolution. It is important to clarify first before we begin.
Take Note: Pro specified his rules in comments

"Round 1 is just acceptance.
You can present your argument in 2nd round.
That is why i have selected 5 rounds."

Replace- "to take or fill the place of"

In this case, the resolution is vying to replace thermal power plant with so called "safe" and "renewable" energy, that is solar and wind. It is nice to have renewable energy but it comes with a price, a price I'm not willing to trade thermal power plants for considering the level of technology we are currently having. Arguments will be on the second round as per our agreement.

Thank you and you may present your case.
Debate Round No. 1


We have lots of Thermal Power Plant all over the world. About 40% of the worlds electricity comes from coal.
The energy efficiency of a thermal power plant is typically 33% - 48%.
The waste products released by a thermal power plant are carbon dioxide and water vapor, as well as other substances such as nitrogen, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and (in the case of coal-fired plants) fly ash and mercury.
All these gases are green house gases which pollutes the environment and especially causes Ozone layer depletion.
We all know about the negative effects of thermal power plant with reference to air pollution but let us take its land and transmission side effects.

1) As thermal plants should be located far away from the load, Transmission line increases leading to loss in power distribution.
2) The area required to build a thermal power plant is quite big.
3) It has lot of components such as heaters, boilers and even flue tower etc.
4) Due to all of this components, the installing cost is high also the capital cost for the land.

In my opinion yes, up to a certain level.
Considering the above points
1) Solar plant can be located near the load, hence transmission line cost decreases.
2) The area required to build Solar and Wind Plant is less compared to Thermal plant, hence capital cost is reduced.
3) It has less components, ant the components used in Solar is very Compact.

Any Disadvantages?
1) Solar can be installed in areas where there is a high peak sunlight.
2) Wind plant should be located where there are high pressure winds.

Now, we can combine Solar for day time and wind for night time to provide 24 hrs electricity production.

The disadvantages of Solar and wind can be overcome by proper arrangement and storage of electrical energy in batteries.


I'd like to thank Pro for presenting his arguments. I will do my best to keep this interesting even though I am a newbie to this website as well as having average knowledge in this field. My contention will not deal with specifics but energy in general, in addition to refuting my opponent's arguments and proposing an alternate resolution.

Take note: I am trying to post a picture,forgive me as I am new, if the picture did not show up or it turns into zombie text instead.; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3520/141496-3520-nfg75-a.jpg" alt="Source:; />


Renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average, This includes all renewable resources but with only solar and wind, the figure will be significantly less. With a ratio of 1:10, to convert to a complete consumption of renewable resources is inadvisable, especially in its current state. The reasons are outlined below.

I propose the following...

Co-Generation as an alternative(1)

Instead of replacing, which is what Pro is trying to advocate, it is better to consider Co-generation rather than hunting down thermal power plants. Thermal power plants are governed by the law of thermodynamics, such plants produces enormous heat as waste products.The implementation of Co-generation in thermal plants is used to deal with the excess heat and convert it into energy. With Co-generation, the energy efficiency can be increased to a further 80% as a result instead of the flimsy 33% as what was offered by Pro

With energy doubling, it is very easy to meet current energy demands. For us to meet the current energy demand is very important as our lives are highly dependant on electricity. What we use everyday, from cars to dish washers, require electricity. Since the priority of human being is to survive at the expense of other species, We have no choice but to use thermal power plants regardless of the issue of global warming

The International Energy Agency, acknowledged co-generation as a viable alternative.
" One technology by itself will not bring

about the dramatic changes that are needed to resolutely reform the energy system. Co-generation

and renewable, both low-carbon solutions, will be part of the SOLUTION."(2)

Its nice to see your originality pro, but IEA's proposed alternative is very powerful. We have to be realistic in order to change our world

The Current Crisis of Renewable energy

The adoption of such 'green' technology have garnered lots of negative feedback. Wind turbines are said to produce noise pollution that will likely cause health problems(3). Migraines will start kicking in at the sound of these dreadful turbines(3). Forests are destroyed for the sake of these giant unearthly machines. Over 3,500 acres to be exact(4) while it manages to power 140,000 homes(5) only, out of 5 billion inhabitants on this planet. Moreover, It produces only 7% of the world's energy. Though renewable, its harms weigh more than its benefits.

The energy output is not worth it. Who is to justify the millions of species extinct in the blink of an eye? We’ve only scratched 14% of earth's species (6). There's bound to be some extinction when you cut over 3,500 acres.I have no contentions with green energy, but at its current rate, it is disastrously inefficient and too risky.

For the sake of fairness as Pro could not refute my contention since he went first, I will hold my rebuttals and additional arguments until the next round.

Thank You

Pg 8





Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal and counter question's 1:

Quote: "
Wind turbines are said to produce noise pollution that will likely cause health problems(3). Migraines will start kicking in at the sound of these dreadful turbines(3). Forests are destroyed for the sake of these giant unearthly machines."

1) Please provide what type of health problems effect due to wind turbine.

Researcher Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., coined the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" for sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and other maladies experienced by some people who live near wind energy farms. Her research says wind turbines should never be built closer than 2km (1.24 miles) from homes!


Therefore, wind turbine should not be located below 2km near the homes.
But what about Thermal plant; Does this implies to thermal also!!!
No, it should be located more than 10-20 km from homes/forests.

Now you yourself compare 2km or 10 km....

New technology, developing wind and especially solar plants have increased its efficiency.

now lets look here:
Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second. At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second) wind turbines shut down. A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed.

Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output (higher offshore). This is known as its capacity factor. The capacity factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%. Because of stoppages for maintenance or breakdowns, no power plant generates power for 100% of the time."


" Solar and wind power systems have 100 times better lifetime energy yield than either nuclear or fossil energy system per tonne of mined materials"



The theoretical limit for silicon based solar cells is 29% conversion efficiency. Currently, polycrystalline and monocrystalline solar panels generally available have efficiencies anywhere from 12% to 18%. With the addition of solar concentrators, The efficiency of photovoltaics is eventually likely to rise above 60 per cent.

Global annual photovoltaic installations increased from just 21 megawatts in 1985, to 32,000 megawatts in 2012.

Manufacturing solar cells produces 90% less pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies.

And most importantly, the solar industry creates 200 to 400 jobs in research, development, manufacturing and installation for every 10 megawatts of solar power generated annually.


Again I am saying that we are not generating energy from single source but with both wind and solar plants which will be almost equivalent to thermal plant.

Yes, I agree that we should go hand in hand with all power generating plants, i.e, We can have Wind,Solar and thermal all together for power generation and when solar and wind efficiency and many other factor increases we may reduce the thermal plants.

I agree for that with Brother Relativist.

We have no idea what will happen in future in power developing system.



I'd like to express my gratitude to Pro for presenting a strong case. I'd like to thank him for that preposition.

Before we start I'd like to clarify the missing picture in R2. The picture is supposed to show right before "renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average", the source is
Here is the picture
(Should the picture fails to appear, please refer to the source given above, It is a supplement to my given contention in R2)

I'm really sorry if it troubles my opponent, I have very minimal experience with this website's interface. Please forgive me.
Before I add any new arguments, I'd like to make rebuttals first.

Firstly, Pro asks and I quote "Please provide what type of health problems effect due to wind turbine". My source have already provided the list. You said so yourself with Dr Nina Pierpont's research hence supplementing my argument that Green Industries cause numerous pollution.

Pro's Pollution Argument
Pro mentions that with thermal power plants, the following will occur:
a) Acts as a huge contribution to global warming
b) The area required to build one is huge
c) Overall Costs are expensive than Solar and Wind
And if we are to embrace "green energy", these problems would fade away which he demonstrates in R3.

The issue with global warming is a common one, It does EXISTS but the trend is over exaggerated. Humanity's role in producing global warming is hugely questioned, I have no credentials to judge but a fellow expert, Carter(1) argues that global warming is neither environmental or scientific, but a "self-created political fiasco" as he put it(2). Temperatures from 1998-2005 showed not an increase, nor a status quo but a slight DECREASE according to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia(2). Thermal power plants hardly affects the pace of global warming given that these years were the golden years of us taking fossil fuels for granted.

Since pollution hardly affects global warming, there is no point in pursuing expensive conventional green energy as temperatures would still remain around the optimum line. The resolution is disapproved.

Comparison of Costs and Size
The biggest wind power plant around the world(as of 2013) is the Alta Wind Energy Center, occupying 9000 acres(3). The energy produced from this enormous giant is a mere 800 MW(3). Compare that with a simple Kashima Oil Power station, the plant produces a staggering 5,204 MW(4). It yields 5-6 times better energy than green resources. Since the fear of frying warming the earth is inconsistent, there is no point in chasing an ideological crusade that yields little results.

Pro says this reduces overall expenses but without a source, it is unverifiable. Even if its true, thermal power plants significantly produce more energy than wind or solar hence the point of replacing is irrelevant.

Pro's Energy Efficiency analysis
Pro's R3 argument made a lot of factual analysis on solar and wind power plant, how much conversion efficiency they have, Furthermore he concludes:
"but with both wind and solar plants which will be almost equivalent to thermal plant."

Well, Let's add solar power plant to the equation. I have already proven how an oil thermal station yields 5-6 times more energy than the largest wind power plant. Now, Let's take any existing photovoltaic power station(5) and combine them with Alta's energy yield. I'll take the largest MW yield, Perovo in Ukraine, since it claims to have 100 MW(5).

Total energy yield between Alta and Perovo= 900 MW
Total energy yield of a normal Kashima Power station= 5,204 MW

Comparing both, there is still a huge gap with little to no difference, thermal power plants are still 5-6 times larger. Kashima isn't even the largest thermal plant and it still manage outwit both wind and solar on a huge scale.

Hence, there is literally no incentive to pursue wind or solar as thermal power plants yields a chuck load of energy more than green resources.

Most of my sources above are from wikipedia, it is acceptable to use them as this debate deals with general concepts, not one which deals with specifics.

I'll reassert my alternate preposition,

Why would you replace thermal power plants for something that yields significantly less? With global warming dismissed as a "self-created political fiasco" by Carter, Then Why do you still intend to pursue green energy considering that temperatures had little change over past decades?

Continuing with additional arguments,

Economic Advantages
It is sufficient to say, given my above contention that wind and solar are also 5-6 times more expensive than non renewable resources. Poor countries could not afford such luxury to buy equipments just for the sake of being green while their national dept quadruples. The brandt report(6) accurately illustrates this divide between the north and south. In other words, It is the difference between the first world and the third world. A summary map of their research is given here(7)

In general(based on their research),the north contains 4/5 of the world's wealth while the south collects the remaining 1/5. This is a huge gap, more so that the south contains 3/4 of the world's population while the north takes up only 1/4(6). For the south to adopt green industries would be disastrous for their economy. The bargain is not worth it. It yields significantly less energy and with global warming dismissed by its lack of consistency, it is not realistic for solar and wind to replace thermal. Thus, the motion that wind and solar should replace thermal is nullified.

I have proven my case that economically, it is better to stick with Co-generation whilst having a triangulation of both sources, instead of one replacing the other which the resolution is desperately vying to prove.

Thank you Pro for your case and I rest mine.


Debate Round No. 3


RKPCE forfeited this round.


Perhaps 5 rounds may be too much, I do hope Pro is Ok. This is a forfeit though and with my rebuttals and alternate prepositions left unchallenged, I shall wait next round since my proposal have nullified the bulk of his argument.

Lets finish with a conclusion and closing arguments on round 5.
Thank You

Debate Round No. 4


Sorry for the delay.

Brother has misunderstood the energy generation by the 3 plants specified by him.

Alta wind Power Station produces 1320MW/month

Perovo solar plant produces 100MW/month (This is correct)

Kashima plant produces 4400


1320+100=1420 (not 900MW)
nearly equal to approx. 1450MW/month

So, Kashima is producing 3-3.5 times more than solar and wind.
As I have said earlier, we are still in developing mode, we will Insh'Allah try to increase the energy production by solar and wind Plants by the proposed new technologies.

When the energy production increases we will slowly substitute Solar and wind in place of Thermal.

Brother has misunderstood by the economical aspect;

Solar plants are much cheaper that thermal plant; this is due to:
1. No moving parts involved, hence less losses
2. it needs less components than thermal

Solar panels can be planted over a house for that individual home itself and reduce the thermal consumption.
In this way we may reduce the thermal plants.

As adopted in Germany.

It depends on you; whether to help others or not.
Let us assume I am a rich person, I plant a couple of panels on top of my house and my energy consumption is less than the energy production then I will send the remaining energy to the poor instead of my neighbour if he is rich.

We need to understand our brothers and help each other. In that way there is no different world will be created. Forget about the people what they are doing. You do what is said by the Humanity.

Hence, my conclusion is I agree with the brother to go hand in hand with all types of energy production plants even hydro; and substitute the green production in place of harmful production provided that it's efficiency and energy production is almost matching or it is suitable to supply to homes.

Thank you!


I'd like to thank Pro for that fine closure and for being very polite.Pro's voice on green resources is admirable but he made numerous mistakes in his arguments.

Pro's Concession

Firstly, my alternate resolution was to consider Co-Generation as what was also advocated by the IEA in order to disapprove the resolution of replacing. Pro concedes to this resolution as he says in his R3 argument:

"Yes, I agree that we should go hand in hand with all power generating plants, i.e, We can have Wind,Solar and thermal all together for power generation and when solar and wind efficiency and many other factor increases we may reduce the thermal plants...I agree for that with Brother Relativist."

Untouched Refutations

I am responsible for denouncing the resolution with proper reasons and I have rightly so. Pro did not respond to my refutations at all as he continued with his energy efficiency analysis instead so I assume that my refutations have successfully nullified his argument. This includes:

a)Global Warming Myth(By Carter) in response to his greenhouse gases.

b)Crisis of Renewable Energy(As an additional problem to green energy, to shift support towards thermal)
-Extinction of various types of species as a result of destroying 3,500 acres(9000 for Alta Wind Farm) of forests.
c)Economic Problems for poor countries
-The Brandt report accurately elaborates how poor countries are, thus unable to afford green energy
(which is in opposition to the resolution as it advocates replacements, which are very expensive)
d)Pro's energy efficiency analysis
(Elaborated below)

These are my main oppositional arguments and they are left virtually untouched by Pro and with no responses, I hereby conclude that my argument have successfully denounced his resolution.

Other Minor details

Throughout this debate, my opponent seems so fixiated on energy capacities. He devoted his last round to prove that it is at least 3-5 times(instead of 5-6). Even his round 3 argument was devoted to this same concept. Regardless, Thermal Power plants still yields more energy than the combination of both Perovo and Alta, thus it is more reasonable to adopt conventional measures. Pro made an analysis on solar cells but fails to provide how it is linked to the resolution as he did not provide a proper evaluation.

Pro claims that thermal power plants should be 2km away from homes, the same should be done with Wind. The main point is to find incentives on why wind should replace thermal, if they are both floating on the same boat, then there is no reason to adopt the resolution as both are essentially the same


My refutations are my main contentions for disapproving the resolution. Without any response, his argument is nullified along with the resolution. I'd like to thank him for his politeness, one which is rare considering that youtube comments have been my standards for decency as well as his proposed resolution and I hope our debate entertained him as it did to me.

Thank You And Have A Nice Day.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Sorry to my opponent, instead of a picture, zombie text is deplayed. I tried pasting it but it seems that it didn't work. I will explain it in the next round, apologies for the confusion.

please ignore; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3520/141496-3520-nfg75-a.jpg" alt="

This is a source to back "Renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average,"
I will make it clear in the next round
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Ah thanks will adjust accordingly. I'm really excited for this just so you
Posted by RKPCE 2 years ago
Round 1 is just acceptance.
You can present your argument in 2nd round.
That is why i have selected 5 rounds.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Is round 1 acceptance or should I continue presenting my argument?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
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: Thye should go together, and Pro forfeited.