The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Alternate 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 87585
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid


Thank you for this Debate.

From the brief description, you say that Solar/Wind energy will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels (this is incorporating the comments section as well).

I have evidence that proves this is not the case, And will discuss in further detail later - However will post the sources for ease and future reference now:


Looking forward to your response :)
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this opportunity.

Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels.

There is two main points that I would like to make in reference to my claim.
1.) Creating a wind/solar infrastructure is very expensive. Although there is a massive movement towards the 50/50 ratio of wind/solar vs fossil fuel energy, humans haven't actually reached 15% yet. That is, 15% of all energy created by ALL renewable energy sources.. The IEA, international Energy Agence, claims that in "2012, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.2% of its total primary energy supply."

2.) Big businesses and governments will do everything that they can to prolong and preserve the market for energy created by fossil fuels. Companies such as ExxonMobile, which is worth 412 billion dollars, have political power and will do everything in their power to not only keep the production of fossil fuels but also to slow the expansion of renewable energy.

I have viewed you're sources and I cannot find any information that leads to the conclusion that we will ever be at a 50/50 ratio of fossil vs renewable. Only information about the minuscule renewable energy infrastructure that is now being created.

What would I have to do to get you to change you're mind?
Tell me and I will do it.


Without breaking down into an argument of Semantics, This is what I thought we were debating "Wind and solar energy will never surpass or even come close to surpassing the amound of energy created by the grid" - I had solid proof and evidence to support that this is not the case.

However, I will debate upon the new topic you raised "Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels." by a simple play of logic.

You have created quite a steep slope for yourself by using the word "never" so frivolously - You back yourself into a logical corner that I can easily exploit by saying "20, 30, 40 years is undeterminate to ensure that Fossil Fuels will NEVER be exceeded by Solar/Wind or even other renewable sources" - The fact that these technologies are in their infantile stage, and still can generate megawats of electricty, is evidence alone that time is the main barrier to this transition.

However to me that is not playing fair. I will discuss and prove to you why this is not the case, as sitting in a defensive position is not my way of debating.

You state that power generated by the wind and solar radiation is inconsequential in comparison to the power generated from burning and compressing fossil fuels. I call balderdash!

The ideals that are conjured when I imagine this scenario, are similar to the power of an Atomic bomb, as opposed to the power of a spear. Sure, the atomic bomb may deal a LOT of damage, and can be remembered for centuries afterwards for its impact, But statistically, a spear has 'killed' more than any type of Bomb we have - and that is just technically a piece of wood, that was later upgraded to have a metal pointy end.

This is due to the fact it is time based (part of my original response in this round), and the fact that it is re-newable. You stab a person, pull it out - and you are good to go again.

In comparison, only 2-3 Atomic bombs were created at one time, when they were first made (Weapons of Mass Destruction are not included in this, as this is outside of the scope of these bombs), they have a 'once off then it is gone' policy.

It is similar here, we can generate alot more force for alot less effort using fossil fuels; However the resource is finite, and it heavily polutes its' external environment.

Solar/Wind - This will be here as long as the Earth and Sun are, when those resources fail - im pretty sure our electric / sail cars not working will be the least of our problems.

In your previous round, you made reference to the fact that the world is pushing for a 50/50 split between renewable sources, and fossil fuels. This is only a temporary estimation, it is recommended to push for a 100/0 split between Renewable resources and fossil fuels (the ration is split accordingly RN/FF, where RN = Renewable and FF= Fossil Fuels).

The reason for this, is that the ability to generate as much force as we do, is nothing to do with our technology to harness the power, but the explosive force that the FF has latently. We basically do nothing by direct which way that explosive power goes, and happen to call the generated force "Horsepower" - which basically means we take the credit for natures 'liquid gunpowder'!

On the flip side, all the power we have generated has been through minimal funding but maximum dedication - and has split of into the myriad of power sources we have today (Tidal, Wind, Solar, Nuclear - though this is not a 'Green' source) - That is all us.

We have learnt to harness the forces that are everywhere and convert that into energy we can use.

Time will improve this, and Time will prove you wrong - of that, I am certain.

I look forward to your last round, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic!
Debate Round No. 2


12345t forfeited this round.


Maybe my opponent ran out of 'gas'?

No new arguments made so I shall add nothing new.

I hope you all have a great weekend :-)
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago

Voted on arguments, as promised! :)
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
Posted by ssadi 2 years ago
I will consider voting on arguments as well..
Posted by zookdook1 2 years ago
Ah, I was under the impression that it produced no radiation. In any case, it's only radioactive whilst fusion is occurring, and produces no radiation otherwise. However, it will make the site and equipment radioactive, but it will be much less radioactive than with fission.
Posted by Blade0886 2 years ago
Actually, nuclear fusion will also bring about radiation, much much more than nuclear fission. Not only the temperature requirements will be extremely high, but the resistance t radiation too. Of course, technically, the only "waste" nuclear fusion produces is helium. But you have to take into account that when you'll need to change the pieces, the old pieces will be extremely radioactive.
Posted by zookdook1 2 years ago
Nuclear fusion is the way forward. No radiation, toxic waste, or cancer, but sun-levels of energy.

Only problem is how to keep that energy from destroying the plant. Hm.
Posted by Blade0886 2 years ago
oh sh**, my screen was stuck on con left to be picked. nvm
Posted by Blade0886 2 years ago
Hum. I would probably accept the debate, if you allow me to input some definitions.
Posted by zookdook1 2 years ago
What exactly are we meant to debate here? You haven't been very clear on the actual intention of the debate; are you saying we should find new sources of alternate energy? Or are you saying 'The world is doomed, we should give up already'?
Posted by Quadrunner 2 years ago
This outta be good. Germany is already coming pretty close as far as electricity goes with coal producing less than 50%, oil at negligible levels, and Renewable energy over 30%. You did mean electricity right? Like electrical grid.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 2 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 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: 1. FF by Pro, so conduct to Con. 2. Pro claimed in R1 that solar/wind energy will never surpass fossil fuel energy. To prove their claim they provided 2 arguments; 1-"Creating a wind/solar infrastructure is very expensive." and 2-"Big businesses and governments will do everything that they can to prolong and preserve the market for energy created by fossil fuels." However, as Con pointed out, this doesn't sufficiently support the claim that solar/wind energy would NEVER surpass fossil fuel energy. On the other hand, Con argued that fossil fuels are finite and not renewable, where solar/wind energy is renewable until there is wind and the sun. They provided the example of spears to support the idea that a spear has very low effect, but given a long time it can achieve huge results, even greater than atomic bombs. They also argued that in the future solar/wind energy potentially and probably surpasses fossil energy. To me Con's arguments were more convincing than Pro's! =>A goes to Con!