renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide.
Debate Rounds (4)
Renewable energy is defined as "energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat."
The four of these sources (rain, tide, and wave fall under hydro energy) together can power the globe cleanly.
I support the use of renewable energy where possible, but believe that it is currently nonviable. Thus, I support the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels to provide our energy.
Any one source of renewable energy is not the solution, but using each source in the best locations available for the specific needs of the source, and using them in the most efficient manner is a way that we can improve the global energy infrastructure. All these sources have factors that are the most effective for the performance of the source. Wind power needs area"s that are flat and have a lot of wind like the great planes or a few miles of the coast. Solar performs best in areas with no weather and a lot of sun like a desert, and deserts are also not very good for supporting life. Geothermal is most applicable at fault lines were tectonic plates meet because the distance to the heat is more shallow there. Hydro power has many forms apart from dams like wave, tidal, and ocean current. There is also a form called ocean thermal that uses the difference in water temperature to heat and cool liquid and spin a turbine. The largest argument against renewable is that they are not efficient enough but the truth is that we don"t apply them efficiently enough. A 2006 study by MIT reported that geothermal could power the entire world with improving technology  and a 2005 study by Stanford calculated that it would take 20% of the wind power available to power the entire world.  Using these sources together is the only way to power the world and prevent further pollution of the planet. We have the technological ability and that should become our reality.
Since the industrial revolution our planet has increased in temperature and amount of CO2 at a rate much faster than natural. The EPA has all the information to support that statement.  It"s the use of conventional and outdated systems that are the main factor of this climate change. Sources like oil and coal are no longer necessary to provide energy to our planet and are logically and scientifically unsustainable. They continually consume resources and destroy our planet. These industries are even fighting against the technologies will save us. Oil and gas have spent record amounts to lobby against renewables.  Finally the nuclear industry might cause the most amount of danger to our actual public health. It"s fact that nuclear power plants emit radiation into the environment and into the water sources that people use every day. This must be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Nuclear power has the danger of accidents like the tsunami that hit Fukushima Japan in 2011 that caused damage to the reactor and nuclear radiation was emitted into the atmosphere. 
There are too many dangers with nuclear energy and conventional sources are too damaging to our environment. Renewable energy can provide energy to the entire planet and is the safest and most sustainable option
rikomalpense forfeited this round.
Renewable energy has the ability to provide clean energy on a small scale level and can provide energy to those living in underdeveloped areas of the world. small scale energy production can be used along side large scale renewable energy to provide energy any area on the planet. The use of small scale energy production requires no resources apart from those that are required for the product itself. Geothermal heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro power provide a diverse range of options to suit any situation. 
small scale renewable energy allows to fill any gapes in energy production that currently are not being met and are causing a large amount of underdeveloped regions. Independent energy production is a key to creating a more equal and advanced civilization.
I do not contend against the fact that coal and oil have contributed to global warming and cause pollution, as it is true. However, I do contend that nuclear energy is not as harmful as Pro has claimed, and that so-called "renewable" energy can be environmentally unfriendly as well.
Various companies in the solar panel industry have created tens of millions of pounds of hazardous waste from creating solar panels . Geothermal energy produces CO2 emissions as well . All renewable sources have effects on nearby wildlife, such as wind turbines killing birds and dams destroying wildlife reserves .
I do not claim these environmental effects are worse than those of oil and coal, however, it should be considered that renewable sources are not perfect either.
It is true that people in nuclear plants are exposed to radiation. What is failed to be taken in account, however, is the fact that a minimum of 100.00 mSv of radiation is required for there to be an observable increase in cancer. Even then, an exposure to 1000.00 mSv of radiation was necessary before it was observed that 5% of people contracted cancer in later years . Even the radiation around Fukushima was only around 400.00 mSv- a normal nuclear plant will not be harmful. It is true that accidents can happen, but in general all are the result of poor design and maintenance, which can be easily mitigated by proper caution. In the past sixty years, there's only been around thirty accidents, and most of them were low on the lower half of the nuclear accident scale .
The waste from nuclear plants is an issue, but can be mitigated by a shift to thorium plants, that produce less hazardous waste, and its hazardous waste cannot be use to forge weapons .
Viability of renewable sources
All renewable sources are very location specific, in particular geothermal and hyrdro- a relatively small number of sites around the world have the potential to provide energy of that form. Nowhere in the study Pro cites about geothermal energy is it claimed that geothermal energy could power the world- only that it could provide some amount of energy. In fact, for example, looking at a geothermal resource map of the US, it can be seen that only the West Coast in general can easily host geothermal plants .
Solar power is also harmful to existing electrical grids, overloading them due to overproduction during daytime . And during nighttime, when electricity is most needed, solar power is unavailable, due to the fact that it has not been possible to create an economically-viable, efficient battery to store solar energy- salt-based storage only has less than 20% efficiency , The same problem lies with wind power, which is just as difficult to store on a large scale. There are certainly other batteries available, but they are terrible expensive (around $1000/kWh, when the average fridge uses 5 kWh a day for comparison) . Even if a economically-viable, efficient storage system was created, however, its very existence would mean that "renewable" energy would be reliant on environmentally-unfriendly non-renewable substances. The biggest problem with solar and wind is storing it.
On an economic level, renewable sources of energy are generally non-viable compared to non-renewable sources, as non-renewable sources often provide much more energy for a lower cost .
Thus in all, at the moment, renewable sources are unfortunately non-viable as a replacement for non-renewable sources.
Thanks for having me. Back to you now.
The second part of my rebuttal is about cons statements on renewable. I need to point out that here main source of information is a site called union of concerned scientist. This is a site that hand over fist is in favor of renewable energy. These are scientist and they know the facts. Cons information is good but she is interpreting it to the reader improperly. Nowhere in the site does it say that "tens of millions of pounds of hazardous waste" was created by solar panels; however, if you examine the page from this site about the environmental effects of solar panels it will tell you that the waste is of chemicals used to treat the solar panels, and there chemicals that can be disposed of in an environmentally responsible way. I question how well con read this site because it also states that geothermal emits SO2. Not CO2 like con stated. Geothermal energy emits SO2 at a rate thirty times less than coal does. There is no world were renewable energy do more damage to the environment than conventional energy.
Lastly I feel I need to explain that the four sources of renewable energy must be used together and not separately. Cons largest claim against renewable energy was that the batteries necessary for when the sources were not producing energy were insufficient. Hydro and geothermal produce energy twenty four hours a day. Solar and wind will be used were best and all the sources will be connected providing power to the world continuously. This eliminates the need for any energy storage. That"s the ideal and it"s what we are technologically capable of.
Before my conclusion I must make clear that con argued against my resources of the MIT study that found that geothermal energy could theoretically power the world. The caption bellow is from the synopsis of the paper
We have estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ). Using reasonable assumptions regarding how heat would be mined from stimulated EGS reservoirs, we also estimated the extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ or about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005. With technology improvements, the economically extractable amount of useful energy could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making EGS sustainable for centuries.
We live on a finite planet and renewable energy is the only way to a sustainable future. Managing our resources is imperative to continued advancement and improved public health. Renewable energy provides a safe and clean solution to the seven billion people that live on this planet. The trend of the last one hundred years is not working today and they will not work two hundred years from now when they have exhausted all of our resources. Today every life support system on the planet is in decline and the only way to reverse this is to use our scientific knowledge and find solutions that are sustainable and effective.  Renewable energy is one of the main ways that we can be able to continue to live on this planet and begin to prosper as a society.
I apologize for not linking directly to the source that stated that solar panel production has led to the production of tens of millions of pounds of waste, as I was attempting to not bloat my sources list. Clicking through a link on the source I provided leads to , stating "The state records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011."
And again, as mentioned, I brought up the environmental effects of renewable sources not to claim that they are worse than non-renewable sources, but simply to point out that no source is perfect. And so the question is always whether the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in all ways, not whether one causes environmental damage or not.
Pro failed to rebut the points made that all renewable sources limited geographically, and that they are too limited in production (for wind and solar) to be successfully utilized globally. Pro also failed to rebut the points about the economic unviability of renewable sources, which is an important factor in deciding the "best solution", given that economic considerations are an important part of the motivations of both the government and individual persons.
As well, the MIT study cited does not state that "geothermal could power the entire world", as Pro claimed, but that the possibly extractable portion was about 2 000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States. America is not the world. Putting that aside, the study does not take in account the issues involved with transporting that energy across the continent, as since geothermal energy is geographically limited, not every location would have access to it. This transport would likely require the use of fossil fuels, which could lead to it being unviable in locations far from a EGS reservoir.
Certainly, money should be invested in renewable sources of energy. If in the future, say, efficient batteries for wind and solar power were created, renewable sources could become the best solution for energy in this world. But at the moment, with so many countries across the globe terribly poor, and the remainder much too stingy with their money, renewable sources of energy are not economically viable. Even putting aside economic considerations, our technology has not advanced to the point to allow us to replace non-renewable sources with renewable sources completely. In this way, renewable sources quite simply cannot be the best solution for energy world-wide.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.