The Instigator
Gauen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Wave Carpet Renewable Energy

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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 68537
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Gauen

Pro

Harms
A. Global warming is real and caused by humans – the only way to avoid the devastating impacts of warming, such as extinction, is to reduce CO2 emissions

IPCC, 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 11/2/14, “Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report”, http://www.ipcc.ch...)

"Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence) (Figure SPM.10). In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts (those with 2100 atmospheric concentrations >1000ppm CO2eq), warming is more likely than not to exceed 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence). Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. {2.3, Figure 2.5, 3.2, 3.4, Box 2.4, Table SPM.1}Substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades can substantially reduce risks of climate change by limiting warming in the second half of the 21st century and beyond. Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Limiting risks across reasons for concern would imply a limit for cumulative emissions of CO2. Such a limit would require that global net emissions of CO2 eventually decrease to zero and would constrain annual emissions over the next few decades (Figure SPM.10) (high confidence)."

B. Climate change is a very serious threat to national and global security; if left unchecked it will affect stability, disease, migration, and access to food, water, and electricity. It will also lead to an increase in extremist ideologies and foster terrorism.

Pentagon Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, 10/13/2014

The Pentagon (the headquarters of the DoD), 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, October 13, 2014, pages 4-5

"Maintaining stability within and among other nations is an important means of avoiding full-­R08;scale military conflicts. The impacts of climate change maycause instability in other countries by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability. These developments could undermine already fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively, and challenge currently stable governments, as well as increase competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism."

Plan:The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of earth’s oceans by implementing wave carpet renewable energy in the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone.Advantage One: EconomyA. Wave energy will not only save the environment, but it will create jobs and will boost the economy

Bedard, 7 (Roger, Roger Bedard is the Ocean Energy Leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, “Economic and social benefits from wave energy conversion marine technology” http://faculty.washington.edu...)

"The economic opportunities are significant. An relatively minor investment today by government could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people while using an abundant and clean natural resource.Ocean energy is an indigenous energy resource. By harvesting this indigenous resource, jobs will be created and localeconomies will be improved. Construction and operations of wave energy plants would bring significant positive economic impacts to coastal states. As an example, EPRI estimates that the operation and maintenance activities alone will create about 25 direct local jobs per 100 MW wave power plant and these jobs are permanentfor as long as the plant is in operation.The U.S. economy would benefit from the large export potential of a strong domestic renewable energy industry."

B. Adding to this, wave carpet technology can create $16 billion of revenue in the US annually – the benefits of the plan are obvious

TAF Lab, 13 (Theoretical and applied Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of UC Berkeley, “Wave Carpet: An Efficient and Multidirectional Ocean Wave Energy Converter” http://taflab.berkeley.edu...)

"we can use the power of ocean waves to generate electricity and fresh waterWave Energy is able to efficiently harvest this energy. The ability to cancel waves can be used to create safe zones in the ocean, prevent erosion and protect harbors the energy conversion creates seawater at high pressure. This can be used to generate electricity, be used for desalination and for the distribution of fresh waterWorld-wide demand for electricity is expected to double.According to the Electric Power Research Institutean estimate of ocean wave energyindicatesmarket value eventually reaching $16 billion per year."

Advantage Three: WaterA. A global water crisis will occur in the next 30 years unless we switch to renewable energy

Tully, 14 (Andy, veteran news reporter and news editor for oilprice.com, “Humanity May Face Choice By 2040: Conventional Energy or Drinking Water”, http://oilprice.com...)

"A set of studies based on three years of research concludes that by 2040, the need for drinking water and water for use in energy production will create dire shortages. Conventional electricity generation is the largest source of water use in most countries. Water is used to cool power plants to keep them functional. Most power utilities don’t even record the amount of water they use.¶ “It’s a huge problem that the electricity sector do not even realize how much water they actually consume,” says Professor Benjamin Sovacool of Denmark’s Aarhus University, one of the institutions involved in the research. “And together with the fact that we do not have unlimited water resources, it could lead to a serious crisis if nobody acts on it soon.” The research, which included projections of the availability of water and the growth of the world’s population, found that by 2020, between 30 percent and 40 percent of the planet will no longer have direct access to clean drinking water. The problem could be made even worse if climate change accelerates, creating more heat and causing more water evaporation. That means humankind must decide how water is used, Sovacool says. “Do we want to spend it on keeping the power plants going or as drinking water? We don’t have enough water to do both,” he says. The researchers, also from the Vermont Law School and CNA Corporation in the US, a non-profit research institute in Arlington, Va., focused their studies on specific utilities and other energy suppliers in four countries: China, France, India and the United States. First, they identified each country’s energy needs, then factored in projections of water availability in each country and its population level as far as 2040. In all four cases, they discovered, there will not be enough water by then both to drink and to use at electricity-generating plants. So how to prevent this conflict? The studies agreed on starting with the simplest solution: Alternative sources of electricity that don’t require massive amounts of water. The recommendations are improving energy efficiency, conducting more research on alternative cooling mechanisms, logging water use at power plants, making massive investments in solar and wind energy, and abandoning fossil fuel facilities in all areas susceptible to water shortages. This last proposal may be the most difficult to implement because parched areas now include half of Earth. But Sovacool says it would be worth the investment. “If we keep doing business as usual, we are facing an insurmountable water shortage – even if water was free, because it’s not a matter of the price,” he says. “There will be no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we’re doing today. There’s no time to waste. We need to act now.”

B. The Wave Carpet desalinates water, solving for water shortages

Johnson, 14 (Carolyn, writer for ABC, 3/10/14, “Berkeley team tackles drought with waves” http://abc7news.com...)

"The action of the hydraulic pumps connected to the carpet forces seawater through a single line, which creates a high-pressure flow that can be used to produce electricity on shore. Pumps could also be used to provide something just as valuable to drought stricken California: fresh, drinkable water, forced through desalination filters. "In fact in the current test we have it generates high pressure water that can be used for desalination. And desalination is the first application we're working on at this point," says Alam. The team is currently setting up partnerships to create a large scale prototype, and hopes to begin ocean testing within two years. "With this kind of technology we could fill in the gaps," says Lehmann. "In terms of over-all production of electricity, we could switch over to fresh water, and at night when there's no sun, we could produce electricity."Because it sits on the ocean floor, researchers believe it will take far less punishment than surface systems and potentially require less maintenance."

16kadams

Con


I thank my opponent for instigating.



C1) Wave-Carpet energy will take too long to develop


This is probably the largest flaw in relying on wave carpet energy. Something assumed is that when carbon emissions hit 0, that the radiative forcing of CO2 will also become zero—so warming would decrease. But this is untrue. New research published in Nature has demonstrated even if emissions hit zero, warming will continue as the way the ocean intakes heat will change and act as a positive feedback [1]. In other words, even if we cease CO2 emissions, warming will still occur.


Why is this relevant? Using my opponents logic—that CO2 is the main climate driver and that warming is bad—we must cease CO2 emissions in order to reduce warming. Even though *some* warming will occur no matter what, less warming would occur if we cease CO2 emissions how. However, wave carpet energy will take 10 more years before it becomes commercially available [2].


We need to stop emitting carbon now, using my opponent’s logic. However, wave carpet technology means we have to wait a decade—maybe even longer—before it becomes commercially available and has the ability to reduce carbon emissions. This means wave carpet energy is actually a poor choice if you want to prevent climate change. Other technologies currently in use should be used if you really fear climate change.


C2) Modern technologies can combat climate change


Nuclear power has actually already saved lives. According to environmentalist extremist James Hansen, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives due to reduced carbon pollution [3]. Wave carpet energy will not have any life-saving potential for at least another decade. By then, it will probably be too late. The study also noted nuclear power has the potential to save 7 million more lives by midcentury.


Indeed, nuclear power is a cost efficient conventional power source which also is environmentally friendly. Nuclear power actually emits fewer carbon emissions than solar power over a long period of time. In other words, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power would likely be *better* than switching to many other renewable energy sources [4]. Nuclear power generation also cost much less than coal, oil, and natural gas [5]. The left-leaning Brookings institution has noted how switching to solar or wind would cost more than if we switched to nuclear power [6].


Nuclear power *can* reduce CO2 emissions, and already has been. Nuclear power already exists, and if we act now nuclear power can quickly reduce carbon emissions to nearly zero. It will take a decade for wave-carpet energy to be on the market, and probably a decade more before it can generate a meaningful amount of energy in order to reduce emissions. Nuclear power is a much better option for carbon reduction.


C3) Global warming fears are exaggerated


My opponent must prove *why* we need wave carpet energy. He mainly suggests global warming is manmade, and will affect is significantly. I will refute that here.


First, future warming is likely not a major issue. There are now at least 14 studies indicating low climate sensitivity—in other words, the amount of warming from CO2 will not be very significant. A lot of these studies rate future warming at 2 degrees C or even lower, with some predicting less than 1 degree C [7]. A moderate one degree rise in temperature, if anything, would benefit the planet.


Second, there has been an elongated warming pause. If surface warming has stopped, why worry about warming? Global warming has seen zero trend over the last 17 years [8].


Finally, global warming will likely not harm anyone. A warmer climate means more crop production and an overall increase in economic production [9].


R1) Water shortage


To say we are running out of water is plain BS. No water leaves the water cycle. It is called a cycle for a reason. The amount of water on earth will never change. Further, not all of the country would be harmed. Areas where I live—New Mexico—may become more drier and be harmed. However, northern areas will likely see more rainfall [10]. As more people live in the northern states, more people will *benefit* from warming, regardless if a few people like me live in the south. If you think global warming will cause this shortage, as noted, other energy options should be adopted as they will do better in fixing the problem right now.


R2) Economics


My opponent doesn’t understand how revenue works. The industry *may* provide $50 billion in money, but revenue is what the government will receive. The government will not receive all of that money—at most, they will get half of it, so 25 billion. In contrast, every *single* nuclear power plant provides about $500 million (450) dollars in economic output [11]. There are 62 nuclear power plants in the US [12]. So 62 * 500 million = 31 billion. So each year, the government (assuming they get 50%) gets about 15 billion. So over the next decade—when wave carpet won’t exist—the government would get $150 billion in revenues. So it would take the industry at least 6 years in order to catch up to what nuclear power would have provided over the past decade. And at the same time, nuclear power would still be producing energy and money (another $90 billion). I don’t feel like doing the math, but it would likely take wave carpet energy another 10 years to be as good as nuclear power is *right now*. If we adopted nuclear power as our energy source right now, there would be more built, meaning it would likely produce *more* revenue for the government than wave carpet.


Further, using my opponent’s global warming logic, wave carpet energy will come too late, and the damages from warming would be extreme. So, therefore, wave carpet energy would increase costs as warming would have continued *because* we waited for its development. Therefore, there would be a *net negative* from us waiting for it.


The projections also fail to account for developmental costs, which will likely be extremely expensive. This argument does not hold up to any scrutiny.



1. http://www.nature.com...


2. http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...


3. http://pubs.acs.org...


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


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


6. http://www.brookings.edu...


7. http://www.cato.org...


8. http://www.forbes.com...


9. http://www.co2science.org...


10. http://www.epa.gov...


11. http://www.nei.org...


12. http://www.eia.gov...


Debate Round No. 1
Gauen

Pro

Gauen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Gauen

Pro

Gauen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Gauen

Pro

Gauen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Gauen

Pro

Gauen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Make a new debate without quote spam and better formatting and I would accept.
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
RealCS is right. Debate is about what *you* think in *your* words. Anybody can copy-N-paste.

Kindly reformat or remove.
Posted by Gauen 2 years ago
Gauen
The rules are implied. The debate topic may be found under the heading "plan". There is analysis above each source, and much more analysis will come in later rounds. Unless you have an actual reason to say this debate should be removed, don't say that it should.
Posted by RealCS 2 years ago
RealCS
This is not a debate, you are merely copying from sources. This debate should be removed.
Posted by RealCS 2 years ago
RealCS
Please, the debate topic is not clear, and you already started an argument right at round 1 without even saying the rules.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Gauen16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Gauen16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Gauen16kadamsTied
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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds which is rarely acceptable in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide any rebuttals to the challenges raised by Con. Whereas Con was able to rebut each point raised by Pro. Due to Pro failing to maintain his BOP by leaving Con to stand unchallenged, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. I found both sides to present strong sources for strengthening their case. While quantity is valued as well, the quality of application was equal.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Gauen16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by PapaNolan 2 years ago
PapaNolan
Gauen16kadamsTied
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 bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Gauen16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF