The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Solar roads

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,681 times Debate No: 32941
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

16kadams

Pro

Definitions: "A solar roadway is a road surface that generates electricity by solar power photovoltaics"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

First round acceptance
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate. And if my opponent doesn't post untill Monday I'll be enternally greatful.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro


Benefits of Solar Power


Solar power is a renewable (as opposed to fossil fuels) resource which is becoming increasingly popular amongst modern renewable energy sources. On the current path, photovoltaic power (which is what’s used in solar roads) will power 1 – 2 million homes. In 2007, the solar power industry expanded 57%. Not even accounting solar roads, proper investment in these technologies would lead to America’s power source being 80% of the countries power usage at 2020 [1]. An analysis in solar power in Arizona finds “input/output analysis demonstrates that every $1.00 spent within a community produces about $1.67 of local economic activity. A direct savings of $2.8 - 4.5 million of economic activity for Arizona communities.”[2] New “research continues into ways to make the actual solar collecting cells less expensive and more efficient.”[3]


Solar power does not emit pollutants. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) notes, “Solar energy systems do not produce air pollutants”, but one problem they note is the fact solar needs “a large surface area … to collect the energy at a useful rate.”[4]


Solar roads do just this.


Benefits of solar roads


Solar roads are a great way to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Solar roadways have a much longer lifespan: 30-40 years as opposed to 7 years of conventional asphalt roads. These roads would also lower the usage of power lines and they would be simply placed along the roadway offering efficient and reliable power when most needed during disasters or simply daytime use [5].


Using solar panels with 18% efficiency (though solar panels with 40% efficiency are being created) calculations show solar roads, at only 18% efficiency and an average of 4 hours of daylight, the US could create 20,233 billion Kilowatt hours per year [6]. This amounts to over three times the US energy consumption at the moment (note that three times number was created after subtracting 30% of the total numbers because it would be difficult to angle the solar powers on parking lots and such) [7].


Conclusion


I didn’t feel the need to write a long case because it is actually, now that I have thought about it, very hard to oppose solar roads—even if they are only built regionally (i.e. NM, AZ, CA, TX, CO, etc.) because of their countless benefits and the lack of opposing arguments. Let’s see if my opponent will change that.




1. http://www.statesadvancingsolar.org...


2. http://www.azsolarcenter.org...


3. http://www.world-nuclear.org...


4. http://www.eia.gov...


5. http://en.wikipedia.org...


6. http://solarroadways.com...


7. Ibid and: http://www.eia.gov...
lannan13

Con


Economical strain.

The solar highways industry is an economic strain and it has even been proven by many people that no matter how much money you put into the program it still fails. According to Investors Business Dailey, "Three years ago, when Obama's Department of Energy started approving roughly $16 billion in federal loan guarantees for solar energy companies, the DOE agreed to put taxpayers' money behind startups that were working on ways to make solar panels cheaper. Two, Solyndra and Abound, have now gone belly-up." (http://news.investors.com...)


We also know that the US is starting to come out of an recession, but we can't go around throughing away money like that. Especially since the the companies of which we are currently funding for this program have gone bankrupt even with the lump sum of money the project is getting. How much would a solar highways system cost you may ask. Well according to Brusaw (the man who invented the solar highways) stated that it would cost $4.4 million per mile of road. http://www.cnn.com... to make things even worse he even stated that there is a high possibility that it will be a failure! http://www.treehugger.com...



But if you think that's bad you should see how they're made and the effect on the envirnment. which brings me to my next contention (sorry I have to use debate cards on this contention because I have to hurry)

Jellyfish overfishing hurts the economy.

____Jellyfish Proteins are the cheapest solar cell for solar panels.

Energymatters.com 10 (Energymatters.com, written September 10th, 2010, http://www.energymatters.com.au..., accessed October 10th, 2012, AL)

As the world switches on to solar power more than ever before, a Swedish research team has come up with a novel solution to comparatively high cost of producing silicon-based solar photovoltaic cells. A research team headed by Zackary Chiragwandi at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg have isolated the protein that makes the bioluminescent jellyfish Aequorea victoria glow in the dark; and by placing it between two electrodes, the team have been able to produce solar energy from animal matter. The method is quite complex, but biologically amazing: the green fluorescent protein (GFP) is placed on a wafer of silicon dioxide between two aluminium electrodes. The protein then transforms itself into strands between the electrodes. When ultraviolet light is directed onto the electrodes the protein absorbs the photons and emits electrons, which flow through a circuit and produce electricity, effectively becoming a miniature photovoltaic cell.

____Solar Highways uses Solar cells in the solar panels

Jacquot 07 (Jeremy Jacquot, PhD in Marine Science, written August 20th, 2007, http://www.treehugger.com..., accessed October 10th, 2012, AL)

Brusaw theorized that paving the country's interstate highway system(which incidentally covers close to 1.7% of the nation's land surface) with glass panels that could collect and distribute solar energy would accomplish that goal. The solar cells would create enough energy to light the road at night, heat it in the winter and power buildings — each mile could supply as many as 500 homes, according to Brusaw. His system of roadways — which would consist of three superimposed layers— would contain a revised version of the nation's electric grid (complete with a distributed network of independent power sources) and a network of fiber optic cables for television and communication. In addition, a "smart" system would be able to reduce gridlock by reconfiguring travel lanes, warn drivers of impending construction, accidents or adverse weather events and even protect wildlife by keeping them off the road.


____Overfishing leads to Jellyfish boom.

CBS 12 (CBS written April 10th, 2012, http://www.cbc.ca..., accessed October 10th, 2012, AL)

Among the spineless creatures of the world, the Nomura’s jellyfish is a monster to be reckoned with. It’s the size of a refrigerator — imagine a Frigidaire Gallery Premiere rather than a hotel minibar — and can exceed 450 pounds. For decades the hulking medusa was rarely encountered in its stomping grounds, the Sea of Japan. Only three times during the entire 20th century did numbers of the Nomura’s swell to such gigantic proportions that they seriously clogged fishing nets. Then something changed. Since 2002, the population has exploded — in jelly parlance, bloomed — six times. In 2005, a particularly bad year, the Sea of Japan brimmed with as many as 20 billion of the bobbing bags of blubber, bludgeoning fisheries with 30 billion yen in losses. Why has the Nomura’s jellyfish become a recurring nightmare? The answer could portend trouble for the world’s oceans. In recent years, populations of several jellyfish species have made inroads at the expense of their main competitor — fish — in a number of regions, including the Yellow Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Black Sea. Overfishing and deteriorating coastal water quality are chief suspects in the rise of jellies.

_____Jellyfish population increase leads to collapse of Japanese fishing industry.

Casey 12 (Michael Casey, author, written April 3rd, 2012, http://www.globalrp.org..., accessed October 11th, 2012, AL)

Over fishing has also contributed to the current problem, the increased demand for fish and advancement in technology has encouraged over fishing, over fishing has resulted into a decrease in the number of jelly fish predators, this has resulted into an increase in the number of jelly fish given that the factors that control their population is depleted. The other reason why over fishing has resulted into an increase in jelly fish population is due to the decline in species that depend on the microscopic plankton for food, this means that as over fishing increases fish that depend on microscopic plankton for food decline and this increases the food supply that increases jelly fish population. There are some economic consequences as a result of this increase in the number of jelly fish, they include Japanese industry revenue losses, unemployment, endangers fishermen and beach goers and a decline in fish prices.

Opponent's flaws

I would like to point out a few flaws before I turn the reins back over to him. Firstly he states that Solar Power doesn't create pollution. Well he is incorrect. According to Envirnmental impact. The Solar Power impact on the world is a 52.38 which to put in perspective of everything else: Wind- 8.55 and Hydro- .49 http://envimpact.org... you can see right off the bat that solar power produces way more pollution than the other uses of clean energy. Plus it's going to take tons of energy to remove the existing roads and put in the solar roads. Here's some more scarey facts for you. Did you know that solar panels are actually deadly? It uses NF3 which if it escapes into the atmosphere it can be truely deadly. NF3 warms the atmosphere 17000 times more than CO2. Now how are we going to fix the envirnment with something that bad. http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca... you have the solar power gives humans radiation posioning which leads to cancer.

Conclusion
So we can see here that Solar Roads are dangerous since they cause cancer and hurt the envirnment more than CO2 by 17000 times! Now if we do this plan which will kill the ecosystem, kill the envirnment, and it will hurt our economy and sink the US back into a recession.

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro


1. Solyndra and economics


My opponents prime example is a Solyndra, and even with government loans it failed to compete with fossil fuels. My opponent fails to note Solyndra made their panels out of non-silicon panels which are more expensive than traditional solar power which would be used for the current highway system. The Solyndra failure was not because of inherent flaws in renewable energy. Indeed, the same technology of the company is actually very popular in Germany and France, and other companies have since bought the technology and are NOT failing in their countries. It seems the idea my opponent has about Solyndra illustrating the failure of solar power is false [1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...]


Indeed, solar power could easily replace fossil fuels. MIT speakers have noted a few hundred square miles of the US in the Southwest area could power our whole nation—meaning solar roads may not even need to be a national idea (so, even accepting my opponents cost premise, the benefits would overpower the losses) [2. http://mitei.mit.edu...]


My opponent worries about cost. But the debate may not be about the now—because the cost of solar power has fallen 75% in the last three years! [3. http://www.forbes.com...] As solar technology is the fastest growing green technology, it is possible that PV solar would be much cheaper in the years to come.


The maker of the idea says 1.7% of the US land surface could be covered in solar panels would mean we have all of our energy from a few miles of solar panel. Now, it is 4.8 billion total to power our nation [4. http://www.treehugger.com...] It is 250,000 dollars to make normal road [5. http://thetimes-tribune.com...] There is a difference, but one is constantly making valuable energy. And my opponent seems he barely read my cases I showed solar roads last more than twice as long as normal roads, meaning overall maintenance costs would, in the long run, pay for themselves. And, as stated, solar roads make an economic benefit of transportation AND energy, meaning the roads pay for themselves. It seems as though my opponent is cherry picking his facts.


2. Jellyfish?


My opponents argument really lacks any logic or coherency. It shows future solar may be powered by jellyfish, though they currently aren’t. The reason they studied this was because of costs. But recent analysis shows solar power is now competitive with fossil fuels. As PV keeps getting cheaper, the less likely this will happen.


My opponents argument here is purely speculative. An ounce of evidence is superior to a ton of speculation. As we can see, there is absolutely no factual basis to these claims. However logic shows the decreasing cost of solar will make this discovery (which was made to curb costs) obsolete.


3. Environment


I can’t access my opponent’s source. So, for all I know those stats don’t exist. But my opponents analysis relies on green greenhouse gases, mainly CO2. Note CO2 is a non-toxic gas which increases plant growth. I was focusing on Toxic gases, which most renewables are comparatively equal.


But let’s say CO2 is the scary guy in the room. Wind emits 0.02 – 0.04 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour. [6. http://www.ucsusa.org...] Solar is 0.08 [7. http://www.ucsusa.org...] Yes, solar emits more, but all this does is help plants. Further, wind harms migratory birds and uses much more land. Wind plants would have to be built all over the country side to work. Solar on the other hand does no more encroachment onto environmental sanctuaries and merely get built upon preexisting roads, and only take up a fraction of those! Wind turbines gear boxes need to be rebuilt every 10 years [8. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu...], whereas a solar road can last at least 30 years. Again, in the long run, solar wins… again.


My opponent claims Hydro out does solar. I really don’t think his analysis includes construction emissions, which are enormous for hydro. Hydro actually emits more GHG’s than coal, and probably emit more toxins than the other renewables [9. http://ktwop.wordpress.com...]. Hydroelectricity also displaces people and animals living in the rivers, increasing evaporation of the river and harming the fish [10. http://www.hydroreform.org...]


Conclusion


No power source is perfect, and I will never think solar powers are perfect. But I have demonstrated they are a viable and excellent idea for our country. My opponent is forced to enter exaggerations (like how this would cause a recession) to make his point. He makes a speculative case over jellyfish which will likely never come to fruition and he forgets to mention how even silicon solar power, which is supposedly expensive, has come down in price and now competes with coal and natural gas. My opponent is forced to cherry pick cost data as well to prove his point. All in all, it is pretty clear that solar roads are not bad, and are highly beneficial to any country which has a large amount of sunlight.
lannan13

Con

1. Solyndra and economics

My opponent states that Solyndra hasn't failed in other nations, but that's Europe! And this is America. There is a difference between the two both economicly and geographicly. Secondly I offer this card to shead some light on this.

_____Solar Panels projects under Obama fail.

Snyder 12 (Jim Synder, Ph.D in business, written April 20th, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com..., accessed October 11th, 2012, AL)

The failure of a second solar manufacturer that received loan guarantees from the U.S. Energy Department adds to pressure on President Barack Obama to justify incentives for the clean-energy industry that’s being undercut by Chinese competition. Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million loan guarantee in 2010, said yesterday it will suspend operations and file for bankruptcy next week. Abound said its thin-film panels couldn’t competeagainst Chinese products, the same reason cited by Solyndra LLC, which closed its doors in August after receiving a $535 million guarantee from the same program. Half of the four solar manufacturers that received loan guarantees have failed, supporting the argument that backing clean-energy is a mistake, according to Representative Cliff Stearns.


My opponent states that solar power can easily replace natural gas, but that statement is incorrect for several reasons. A) Natural gas is abundent due to the new natural resources that US private companies have uncovered and they have showned that there's enough in these reserves to last the US the rest of the century. http://views.washingtonpost.com...) Solar power is a low density source that it can only power light appliance, but not larger ones such as fridges, washers, etc...

Brusaw, the man who invented this project had stated that solar power would be very very expensive.

_____Solar Highways cost $4.4 million per sq. mile.

Patterson 11 (Thom Patterson, CNN reporter, (Brusaw is the founder of solar highways), written January 19th, 2011, http://www.cnn.com..., accessed October 10th, 2012, AL)

How much would the solar highway cost? Brusaw calculates an estimated cost -- in great detail --on his website. Short answer: each mile would cost $4.4 million. Payoff?

Not only that but many experts state that though it's a great technology it's not economic. http://www.sciencedaily.com... make things worse from the Silicon Valley (Solar Power field in California) has reported that the costs of maintaining solar pannels outweigh the benefits. http://gigaom.com...;


2. Jellyfish

My opponet says that I'm just speculating, but that's false, because on the fact of that sciencist already use jellyfish protiens in solar pannels http://www.popsci.com..., the reason that we don't see the massive impact now is because we currently don't have a massive production of solar pannels. SO since you see that I actually have evidence here so you can extend my arguemnts here.

3. Envirnment

My opponent dropps almost all of my harms That I brought up. So let me copy and paste them again so to see if he can see them for the final round. Plus it's going to take tons of energy to remove the existing roads and put in the solar roads. Here's some more scarey facts for you. Did you know that solar panels are actually deadly? It uses NF3 which if it escapes into the atmosphere it can be truely deadly. NF3 warms the atmosphere 17000 times more than CO2. Now how are we going to fix the envirnment with something that bad. http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca... have the solar power gives humans radiation posioning which leads to cancer.
Here's some more evidence to back this up if you don't like that source http://www.ehow.com...

Conclusion
We are here today to debate solar roads and solar energy, but as you can see not only does it hurt the average Joe, but it also kills O3, aka Ozone. So if you don't want to die due to the bad chemicals from the solar pannels or want the Japanese to starve due to overpopulation of Jellyfish, then I suggest that you vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro


1. Economics


My opponent claims Europeans utilizing this technology is not the same as America. If anything, it is harder in Europe. Europe has a much more restricted economy, implying its success should be less likely. The fact is survives here shows the reasons it fail here are irrelevant to the entire situation. Solar panels continue, when using the normal (silicon) platform are competitive with fossil fuels. Solyndra used a more expensive hybrid, which is not even used in solar roads—and my opponent ignored that point of the argument—making solyndra itself irrelevant.


Further, companies in Arizona have utilized the same solyndra platform and have found ways to make the more efficient technology cheaper than previously. If anything, the death of solyndra has caused other smaller companies to make the technology even better, making it a very practical power source. Solyndras technology, now being improved since its collapse (and is thriving) merely shows how solyndra is anecdotal evidence [1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...]


My opponent then cites another anecdotal evidence piece, Abound Solar. The loan, while being $400 million, was actually $70 million (only $70 million have been given by the time of its closing). Abound Solar was an extremely small company whose focus was inventing new PV solar panels. The fact a small company went bankrupt attempting to take on a large task isn’t surprising. The reason Abound went out of business was not that solar panels fail, it was because they succeed. The Energy Department wrote, “[w]hen the floor fell out on the price of solar panels, Abound’s product was no longer cost competitive.” [2. http://energy.gov...] Although Abound was making more efficient technology, the traditional (and improving) PV technology of other, larger, companies forced the small company to lose money. It was not “solar panels suck, so we went bankrupt”, as my opponent claims, it was that solar power became too cheap for Abound. The reason Abound went out of business is because solar power got cheaper, not because it is bad.


My opponents cost comparisons are flawed, mainly because asphalt road costs do not include the power needed to create the asphalt, its transportation, etc. Further, solar roads save money through lighting of the streets at night and, well, everything else. Those costs benefits have not been factored in with solar roads. If they were added, the costs would fall substantially [3. http://www.solarroadways.com...]. Indeed, current roads cost $28.7 billion in 2010 – and that is only federal costs [4. http://www.artba.org...]. In other words, solar roads costs about 6.5 times less than federal road spending currently. Since solar power creates energy, and therefore has a benefit to it, solar power will substantially lower costs.


My opponents study was about solar power for houses. Now, the study was not about roads. Solar roads, as stated, last to 30 years whereas asphalt lasts to seven years. My source three notes, “At today's price of 12¢/kWh, a Solar Road Panel would have to generate 10,000/0.12 = 83,333 kWh of electricity over 20 years to pay off its initial cost. That's a worst case scenario: assuming that the price of electricity doesn't increase over the next 20 years (we know it will!).”[3] This fact notes in less than one lifetime it pays itself off, and this means there are ten years where solar roads generate revenue. And, again, that analysis is a conservative one. My opponents second source is a broken link, like most of his sources, making it very, very irritating to understand what he is trying to say as he has not elaborated much at all.


Solar roads are like a car. Sure, a diesel is more expensive than a normal car, but the extra gas mileage will pay for itself. (just like solar)


2. Jellyfish


My opponent seems to not understand how discoveries work or my argument. I said that it is an assumption that they would be used, not that they work. Not once did I say jellyfish would not be a source of power. I merely noted it is full speculation that these will actually be implemented in commercial use. When a discovery is, well, discovered, it is generally in a lab. There are many solar panels in labs which are not currently in civilian or commercial hands. There is no reason to think the jellyfish method will come into use for a simple reason: it was created because solar power was costly. But, as stated, recent developments in technology have lowered solar costs which make the Jellyfish idea obsolete in the modern debate.


3. Environment


My opponent must have skipped my argument here. I did not drop anything. I will say again: I DID NOT DROP ANYTHING. My opponent said this:


Wind is good


Hydro is good


Solar has Co2, so it sucks


But I extensively refuted this. I noted (1) the life cycle of wind versus solar roads would make it so winds construction costs would increase the amount of CO2 assumed by my opponent. Solar roads = 40 years, wind = 10 years lifetime. I cited statistics that solar emits 0.8 pounds of Co2 per kilowatt hour, and wind 0.04. So, to make the comparison fair, 30 vs 30, we need three wind cycles. 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.04 = .12, therefore wind actually emits more. (2) I noted how Hydro power often had a large amount of Co2 emissions, sometimes even more than coal due to construction and maintenance, and coal is much worse than solar in that respect. Indeed, even though the EPA does not add construction (or maintenance) to their analysis they still agree that Hydro emits large amounts of methane to the atmosphere [5. http://www.epa.gov...].


I directly refuted my opponents analysis, and I added a little bit here, I do not see how I dropped anything.


CONCLUSION


1. Solar is becoming economically efficient, and is competing with fossil fuels.


2. Solar roads are at first expensive, but after 20 years (probably less) they will begin running a profit


3. Solar roads, only covering 1% of our highways, would fuel our entire energy needs


4. Solar, although not perfect, is likely the lest environmentally damaging renewables we have


VOTE PRO



lannan13

Con

1. Economics

We can both agree that the Euro economy is alot worse then the American economy, but the matter of the fact is why are solar pannel companies succeeding in Europe but failing in America? The answer is obvious and that is America is not ready for this kind of technology and this is where geographics come into play. That is the span of land that it covers. You see currently in Europe the High Speed Rail industry is highly succeeding, but in America it is failing. http://www.nytimes.com...'s that you may ask? That is due to the fact that America is just to big compared to Europe and the same goes to renewable energy. The US is bigger and the renewable energy is just to little to supply America as we've already seen. Plus to make things worse is that it doesn't substain now what makes us think that in the future, when our energy needs will increase by 25% by 2040, that we will be able to supply the whole US.

I also never stated that the loan was $400 million, what I stated was that the loan had reached up to $535 million and the company still failed! Plus you're going to have to take my word on this because of the fact that I have a source (round 3) and he doesn't.

High cost estimates and no reason why highways key

Alter 9 (Lloyd Alter, Infrastructurist on Solar Roadway: FAIL,

http://www.treehugger.com..., 9/22/09, Accessed 7/13/12, KW)

Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels-already a bit pricey-totally indestructible? We're guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America's sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don't drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into.


No Solvency—cost, strength, repair and reliability

Science Channel 11 (from the website “Curiosity?”, an online educational site sponsored by the Discovery Channel, http://curiosity.discovery.com.... Noparstak)

A U.S. company called Solar Roadways has designed a model for highways that are themselves made of solar panels. Some wonder whether is it feasible to use the highways to produce solar energy. The following are some major concerns: Cost - - Each solar panel costs almost $7,000 to build, and the plan would require billions of solar panels to cover the world's highways [source: The Telegraph]. In the current situation, the expense makes the plan impractical. Strength - - The proposed solar panels would be built to withstand the weight of heavy vehicles, but we do not understand the full extent of their durability. If the solar panels get damaged, the traffic signals could fail, thereby compromising our safety. Repair - - It is much more expensive to repair and upkeep solar panels than standard asphalt. Reliability - - Solar energy becomes unreliable when the weather is cloudy or dark.

Costs outweigh the benefits- no return in the short-term

Raikar 11(Sudhir, EcoFriend, “The good, the bad and the ugly: Harnessing solar energy on highways”, http://www.ecofriend.com..., June 16, 2011, Accessed 7/9/12, WITASZEK)

Too difficult and costly to implement For all its benefits, the solar panel highways are a costly proposition. While the manufacturing cost of a single panel is about $7,000, the plan of laying them on the highway expanse would mean a financial loss of billions. Apart from the installation cost, implementation training, and maintenance would create major cost chunks. It would easily take several years before the return on investments would cover the costs incurred. Precisely, this is the reason why the company is hinting at small-scale projects to start with. Can this be avoided? It's clear that repairs and maintenance of these solar panels is much higher as compared to fixing on normal asphalt roads.

2. Jellyfish

My opponent is ignoring the arguement here and as I brought up earlier that solar roads will and have to use jellyfish proteins and we end up getting the huge disadvantage that I brought up. But if you still need more proof then I had already given you then I guess here's some more.

Scientists use jellyfish to produce solar panels because it’s inexpensive and there is a large supply of jellyfish now

Dillow 10 (Clay, writer and editor for POPSCI, Swedish Researchers Harness Green Goo to Create Solar Cells from Jellyfish, Sept 7 2010, http://www.popsci.com.... Noparstak)

A group of Swedish researchers are looking beyond plants for living models upon which to base their solar harvesting tech, turning instead to the photovoltaic prowess of the jellyfish. Tapping a protein in the jellyfish Aequorea victoria known as green fluorescent protein (GFP), the team has assembled a device that converts ultraviolet light into free electrons using a drop of green goo. The team assembled its cell from two simple aluminum electrodes separated by a small gap atop a silicon dioxide substrate. The GFP is placed between the two electrodes where it assembles itself into strands connecting the electrodes. When introduced to UV light, the GFP gobbles up photons, producing electrons that enter the circuit as electricity. Why GFP? For one, it’s inexpensive. It doesn’t require expensive additives or costly processing, but can go directly onto the substrate where it starts cranking out juice. Further, it can be integrated into a self-contained fuel cell that requires no outside light source. Photons would instead be generated within the fuel cell by enzymes like the ones found in natural light-producers, like fireflies or sea pansies. Such a power source could be miniaturized to power tiny nano-devices. Not to mention, jellyfish are in great supply. Populations are booming in some areas, leading inexplicably to massive jellyfish swarms (the Gulf oil disaster could lead to a spike in jellyfish numbers in those waters). If researchers can harvest something good from all that extra GFP in the water, more power to them.

Envirnment
My opponent is again ignroing what I brought up about how NF3 is 17000 times more deadly and dangerous than CO2, so at this point I can care less about CO2. By the fact that my opponent is trying to help the envirnment but is his alternative is something that would litterally kill the envirnment and the econsystem this is just horrible. So yet he has said nothing on that matter so you can eaily see that I win this arguement here.

Conclusion

So at the end of the debate we have to look at the major facts that were made.

A. Solar Highways means Jellyfish proteins, which using in excess will collapse the ecosystem.

B. Solar Highways emitt NF3 which, as I brought up several times, is 17000 times more powerful than CO2 and more deadly.

C. It won't work in the US

So you can see here that my opponent is actually trying to destroy the envirnment with this plan and you can stop it with your vote for Con.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by justjm 3 years ago
justjm
I have just have a few questions/thoughts.

Why could we not use the Solar Roadways on just the shoulders of the road? Wouldn't this help identify roadways over painted lines, help produce some power (reducing fossil fuels), and yet maintain the current infrastructure with minimum costs?
What about starting with Sidewalks, and Crosswalk areas for safety? See how it holds up over a 5 year plan.
how invasive is it if a panel in the middle of the road fails can just that one be replaced without tearing up the whole road? That should be helpful then dealing with pot holes, right?
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Note to Lannan: Click on the links you post in the review section before you post your argument to prevent broken links from being posted. That was a major error on your part.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol. No it wasn't. All he said was "hero deep, it makes energy, and will be used". It seems you ignored how I gave significant evidence as to why it would not be implemented, ever. See last round. All con did was re-use arguments after being refuted.
Posted by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
You dodged Jellyfish by saying it was incoherent, but it was explained very thoroughly. I'm not biased, I'm a massive dump.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol. I didn't drop any argument on the environment. That's retarded. The voter is obviously biased. I'm the one that cited better sources, hands down. Even assuming that stupid RFD is correct.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
k
Posted by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
Ill accept Monday when I have computer access.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
16kadamslannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: While con had just about the same number of sources as pro (~23-22), a lot of con's links didn't work. This created huge gaps in his arguments, as they turn from proven points to heresay. This was a key turning point. Con's main argument was seemingly the jellyfish argument, and although pro pretty much dropped it, it was rather irrelevant when compared to pro's points. His economics arguments were the best in the debate, and were strong enough to earn him arguments. The other arguments were pretty much even on point/rebuttal, especially because con seemed to repeat the same arguments for every round, hoping to gain an advantage, even though pro had already refuted them before. Also, S/G goes to pro for because con's was worse. This was a pretty good debate, but con needs to use the review feature to his advantage so he can check his S/G and sources.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
16kadamslannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Only a couple of Con's sources worked, and they were kind of bodgy ones, but all of Pro's sources that I checked were good. This seemed like an easy win for Pro. Maybe some of Con's arguments were valid, but he didn't really provide enough evidence to believe them.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
16kadamslannan13Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed completely with the jellyfish argument. I felt Pro won in economics. Most other arguments were balanced, but Con was lacking some areas. Finally, I saw more sources that were more reliable on Pro's side.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
16kadamslannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Noted more errors in S&G on Lannan's side. I didn't find the jellyfish to be all that important; if they are really that effective why can't we use them to make solar roads? And Con had several links that didn't work, so sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
16kadamslannan13Tied
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: The jellyfish argument was very relevant and dodging it was not the way to go about this debate. Con expertly linked solar roads to a collapsing ecosystem due to jellyfish cell use and won himself the arguments points. Sources for using more government sites and overall credible organizations (and avoiding the deadly wikipedia). This is my first vote on a legitimate debate, so please counter me if I'm wrong.