Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Would You Accept

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:57:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The US building 200 new nuclear power plants, in order to have enough power for everyone to drive an electric car(assuming that all cars were replaced with electric)?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:41:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes

But no for the cars
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:46:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assuming that the electric cars were better in every single way, then the government could buy the previous cars and sell the new electric cars. Since the newer cars are inherently superior, few people will turn the offer down.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 12:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:57:50 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The US building 200 new nuclear power plants, in order to have enough power for everyone to drive an electric car(assuming that all cars were replaced with electric)?

The Fool: yeah for sure it will work out in the long run, its an invetable anyways. Oil is just going to go up and up. Its much better to just invest money on increasing the technology of electric cars. Making them as efficient as possible first. Before making that decision before hand. Why?

1. Maybe you won't necessary need that much power.

2. Two as I said its just a matter of time. when the time comes you will have the highest tech in electric cars.

3.Where are other countries going to be running to BUY THEM? It would be a world monopoly.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:26:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would argue that enough nuclear power plants should be constructed in order to provide enough energy to eliminate the need for coal.
turn down for h'what
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:32:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:26:29 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I would argue that enough nuclear power plants should be constructed in order to provide enough energy to eliminate the need for coal.

That would take about 350 new nuclear plants at 1000 MWH...

It's crazy how much energy we use...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:33:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

That's cray.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

We might have the technology, but how much will it cost to build and how much will it cost to maintain? You have to think about how much construction we do on roads now, and then add the problem of needing additional training to work with the new solar pannels and figure out exactly how much damage driving vehicles over them every day is going to do.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:36:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

What are the disadvantages? Costs? Environmental impact? Efficiency(you have to factor in the energy that goes into production).

Do you have any sources for efficiency, costs, etc?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:36:48 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

What are the disadvantages? Costs? Environmental impact? Efficiency(you have to factor in the energy that goes into production).

Do you have any sources for efficiency, costs, etc?

I don't know. But I can go on a crazy hunch that it's less expensive than gas and has less of an environmental impact.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, that raises other questions.

For example -- do you believe it's possible for the economy surviving the dissolution of one market sector entirely with the simultaneous introduction of a new and unique market sector?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:43:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:39:01 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, that raises other questions.

For example -- do you believe it's possible for the economy to survive the dissolution of one market sector entirely with the simultaneous introduction of a new and unique market sector?

Fixed.
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:44:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

But that is only if we want to improve the centralized power network. Where I live electricity is rather costly, solar panels are cheap and we have some laws and technology that enables us to sell back power to the central grid.

The effect is that more and more people buy and instal solarpanels on their own houses, because in tye end you save quit a penny.

Now if I got a electrical car, I would just add some more solarpanels to my roof. Pricy one time investment, but I wouldn't have to pay for gasolin anymore, so in the long run I would properly be saving money. Also we wouldn't need to build more power planets.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you are really into the whole "State forcing people to buy renewable stuff for the greater good" thing then just force everybody to have solar panels and small wind turbines on the top of their houses. That would probably cut down on non-renewable energy sources per household by 40-50%.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:50:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:44:40 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

But that is only if we want to improve the centralized power network. Where I live electricity is rather costly, solar panels are cheap and we have some laws and technology that enables us to sell back power to the central grid.

The effect is that more and more people buy and instal solarpanels on their own houses, because in tye end you save quit a penny.

Now if I got a electrical car, I would just add some more solarpanels to my roof. Pricy one time investment, but I wouldn't have to pay for gasolin anymore, so in the long run I would properly be saving money. Also we wouldn't need to build more power planets.

Producing your own power with small solar panels and small wind turbines is much less cost effective than large-scale projects.

It's an expensive option. I haven't run the figures for one car, so I don't know how much that would cost each individual.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:47:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If you are really into the whole "State forcing people to buy renewable stuff for the greater good" thing then just force everybody to have solar panels and small wind turbines on the top of their houses. That would probably cut down on non-renewable energy sources per household by 40-50%.

+1
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 2:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:47:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If you are really into the whole "State forcing people to buy renewable stuff for the greater good" thing then just force everybody to have solar panels and small wind turbines on the top of their houses. That would probably cut down on non-renewable energy sources per household by 40-50%.

Not saying the state should force anyone. It is all about free market. It cheaper to buy your own solar panel so that is what you do.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:25:55 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/18/2012 12:41:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Yes

But no for the cars

Reasoning being?

For which? I assume you mean the cars. The reasoning is because they are, basically, inferior to a good diesel. They are more expensive then other cars. Its expensive to run them. It takes (sometimes) 48 hours to recharge, meaning its inefficient to use them for many people. Charging them a faster way harms the batteries. Many of these cars have little range. Increases electricity bill. Raise electricity taxes. Reselling them is hard to do as the batteries efficiency lowers meaning the cost to the dealer is higher (so you get less). For people who dont live in cities their short driving range makes it impractical.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk...

Its like a phone. Takes forever to charge, loses its charge fast, and using it often lowers its battery life. Its not practical, at all.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:36:48 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

What are the disadvantages? Costs? Environmental impact? Efficiency(you have to factor in the energy that goes into production).

Do you have any sources for efficiency, costs, etc?

And at night... How do you store it? Huge, ugly, inefficient batteries...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:47:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If you are really into the whole "State forcing people to buy renewable stuff for the greater good" thing then just force everybody to have solar panels and small wind turbines on the top of their houses. That would probably cut down on non-renewable energy sources per household by 40-50%.

And on the other side hurt the economy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't care about the nuke plants, all I know is, I am NOT ever, as long as I live, driving an electric vehicle. I'd ride a bike or walk before I did. :P
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:55:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:54:04 PM, EvanK wrote:
Don't care about the nuke plants, all I know is, I am NOT ever, as long as I live, driving an electric vehicle. I'd ride a bike or walk before I did. :P

I'll probably be flying an electric plane before driving an electric car.Last time I checked, there was a company that got over 1000 miles out of their electric plane.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:56:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
as much as i want to say yes, it really depends on where they put the nuclear reactors. I have a highly irrational and unfounded fear of living in areas close to nuclear reactors
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 2:33:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:32:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/18/2012 2:21:32 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 1:32:41 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
I don't understand how come it have to be nuclear power. Why not solar power or something like that?

Because if it was wind power, we would have to fill the entire state of Missouri to generate that much power, assuming that each and every turbine were in a prime location for wind generation.

Same problem with solar.

We currently have the technology to make durable roads out of solar panels. If all the public roads were paved with it, it would generate enough energy to power the nation. It could even power vehicles as they drive on it.

That's cray.

thats f*cking awesome!!!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:00:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:56:23 PM, imabench wrote:
as much as i want to say yes, it really depends on where they put the nuclear reactors. I have a highly irrational and unfounded fear of living in areas close to nuclear reactors

So why do you have that fear?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross