The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

why do car manufactures continue to make cars which use fosil fuels and dont try to find an alternat

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Cars
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 40744
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Why do main car manufactures such as ford continue to make cars which rely on fossil fuels? Should they be trying to find more environmentaly friendly ways to power them instead? As part of a citizenship task need to try and get other peoples opinion on the matter in order to build up a strong case.


Firstly, so you're aware, your argument was stated as a question ergo it'll be very difficult to debate on this topic, but I'll try and answer your question as best I can.

1 - Infrastructure. Currently the entire planet has developed a multi billion pound petroleum refinement, supply and distribution chain, currently no single car manufacturer wants to take the leap and change fuels because they know that making that change would limit their customer base and in turn seriously damage sales. If EVERY car manufacturer changed fuel supply then the big fuel giants such as BP would then be forced to change there market in order to survive but as it stands nobody wants to be the first.

2 - Energy content, The advantage conventional fuels have over many other energy storage methods is the huge amounts of energy contained within petroleum. In fact it's several dozens of times more than can be stored in an lead acid battery of an equal weight. So petroleum is a better storage vessel for energy.

3 - Habits, car makers have become very good at making progressively more and more efficient engines, To make something they know little about would be like starting from scratch.

4 - Speed of refueling, Filling a car with petroleum takes 5 minutes, charging a battery powered car takes several hours if not all night.

5 - Price, the cost of using petrol engines is never going to cost more than it does right now (for the car manufacturers) but changing to an alternative would cost them billions.

6 - Its all the same energy. Asides from nuclear and renewable energy supplies, all other power on earth is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. If you're recharging your new electric car on a night, the chances are you're using power made from burning fossil fuels, for this reason car companies don't see the environmental benefits of switching to an alternative (even hydrogen fuel cells take huge amounts of conventionally produced energy to make)

7 - Safety, You might thinks that petroleum is dangerous but compared with some of the alternatives its really quite safe. for instance its not an oxidizer so it'll only burn with direct exposure to the air. some of the chemicals in modern batteries can burn for a short while, even in a sealed environment

The solution. Petroleum companies need to work on a biofuel which needs to fit the following criteria.
- It needs to be able to operate on conventional infrastructure and in conventional vehicles (possibly with some slight modifications)
- It need to be made from renewable biomass, so perhaps from some kind of fast growing reeds or something (as the plant grows it absorbs the CO2 from the atmosphere which is released as it burns so it'll be CO2 neutral)
- it needs to have the same energy content as current fuels

Until such a fuel is able to be produced in sufficient quantities to supply the world, we are stuck with rising fuel bills and dangerous pollutants.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Areeba 3 years ago
Exactly.... An alternate should be there that we should use because fossil fuels are running out and they are also not environment friendly
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SloppyJoe6412 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a poorly structured debate, the issue was not properly presented and the fact there was only one round made it really sparse. Still, what I think was in in Pro's mind is a valid point and should not be obscured by technicalities: manufacturers should indeed find an alternative to fossil fuels powered cars. And Con missed the point -he assumed that the current state of affairs (electric and electric hybrids) is the only alternative, which does not have to be. It is correct that the current alternatives are poor, but that is not a valid reason to stop research of better alternatives.
Vote Placed by Naysayer 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm confused on this debate. I'm confused as to it even being a debate. Posed question was misspelled. Pro didn't debate at all.