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

The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,008 times Debate No: 54192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




p1 renewable energy is insufficient to meet energy needs of our society. Dr. Daniel LaGatta stated on February 16, 2010, that the U.S. cannot meet its energy needs by 2035 without at least 40 new nuclear plants
p2 Fossil fuels are a finite resource
p3 Further evidence from:
-""There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline."


P1 "In the United States, coal is used to generate more than half of all the electricity produced." Since renewable energy is insufficient, we need fossil fuels to meet energy needs of our society.

P2. It is true that fossil fuels are not infinite. But, nuclear plant is not a good solution. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste" which causes tremendous harm to any living organism.

P3. The alternative is cost. According to the New York Times, Ivanpah solar plant, which located in California, will presumably costs 2 billion our tax money, and a large area of land. With that much amount of cost, it will only produces 3600 acres that is far from the state"s demand of 52,000 megawatts.

C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
Debate Round No. 1


P1 However, this argument is irrelevant because traditional nuclear reactors is danger to our environment . Without the shift to IFR technology, those traditional reactors will continue to generate waste which will be stored in Yucca Mountain.
P2 We, as a country, have lost a lot of credibility over the last decade. This would surely help us out in that area.
P3 as stated in 2008 by Dr. James Hylko nuclear power is one of the most cost effective forms of energy at 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour.
C That why we should increase alternative energy incentive.


P1. nuclear power is dangerous. In terms of fatalities, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, ad natural gas system.

P2: In 2013, a nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, caused a radioactive disaster that not only impact Japan but the rest of world. One area of the Pacific Ocean floor was 98 percent covered by decomposing sea creatures in July 2012, which there was originally only 1 percent before the meltdown.

P3. After the radioactive disaster in Japan, Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its reactors. U.S. should also consider the risk of nuclear plant meltdown because it is dangerous.
Debate Round No. 2


P1 The National Nuclear Security Administration to construct the federal government"s largest wind farm at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. The wind farm"s five turbines will generate annual energy savings on average of $2.8 million and will supply more than 60 percent of the annual electricity required for Pantex.
P 2 As fossil fuels diminish; energy solutions for the future depend on the increased use of renewable energy resources.
P3 As the wind industry develops, it is creating new jobs throughout the U.S. Siemens is contributing to this job growth with the creation of more than 50 jobs at the recently opened Siemens Wind Service Training Center in Orlando, Florida.
C "If an investment group has a 20-year contract to supply a utility with wind-generated electricity, it's much easier for them to set up the financing," said William Marcus, the principal economist at JBS Energy, a consulting firm based in West Sacramento, California.


P1: Wind is unpredictable. In order to generate power, a large amount of is need to support wind turbine. When winds strength is too low, the wind energy will not be working.

P2: Wind power is not efficient. The wind turbine only extract a low percentage of wind power into energy. "A wind farm rated to produce up to 468 megawatts... will on average only produce an expected 174 megawatts" the percentage is lower that half.

P3: the problem with job in U.S is not that we do not have jobs. It is because the jobs that we created are going overseas. Study found that Nearly $2 billion in money are spent on wind power, and "nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines." So, Wind farms in the U.S. do not bring jobs.

C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Watchemoket 7 years ago
Um, Con (SBC) did you really cite to the American Petroleum Institute's website to support the proposition that "we need fossil fuels"?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.