Greetings, one and all, and welcome to round 2 of the first great ATS debates of 2007. In this round TruthWithin and I will be debating the
resolution: "We currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".
Fossil fuels are a wonder of nature. They have been readily available and reasonably plentiful since the dawn of the industrial age. Oil, coal and
natural gas have brought us from the old days of burning wood and whale oil for heat and light to our modern days' planes, trains and automobiles.
Unfortunately, natural fossil fuel reserves are finite. Estimates show that the depletion of known oil reserves, at current rates of consumption,
will occur sometime before the turn of the next century. And, in a future where more and more nations will
become increasingly industrialized, we may be looking at depletion within 50 years.
But, whether or not we find even more reserves before that time arrives, fossil fuels are still and forever a finite energy source. Without
alternative energy production, we will be faced with no choice but to abandon our energy dependent way of life. We must return to the ways of an
agrarian culture, relying on horse-drawn coaches for cross-country travel, as there will be no airliners to shuttle us across the globe.
Or, we could develop new, clean and efficient ways of harnessing the omnipresent energy that comes from such supplimental resources as biomass, wind
and storable solar energies, as well the cheapest and most efficient of all: nuclear energy.
During the course of this debate I will discuss all of these options. For the central question of the 21st century and beyond is: "Are we or are we
not willing to settle for a future where we deny our innate longing to cross the next river, climb the higher mountain, shoot the moon and,
ultimately, reach for the stars?"
Because the fact is that, at some time in the not too distant future, we will be living our lives independently of fossil fuels. The only questions
are "when?", and "what will our way of life be like?".
But, my argument is not merely that we must find a way to power civilization will non-fossil fuels. It's that we already can do it. We have
the knowledge and the technology in place to do it right now. This we can do, and all we have to do is do it.
Excelsior.
[edit on 20-8-2007 by The Vagabond]
Round 2. Tuning Spork v TruthWithin: Beyond Oil?, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
reply posted on 21-8-2007 @ 11:02 PM by Tuning Spork
In this installment we'll look at what I'll call supplemental energy sources. None of these, on their own, are able to replace all of our
current fossil fuel energy consumption. But, working together, they can go a long, long way.
Solar Energy
On a small scale, solar paneling is a convienient and low maintenance means of harnessing the sun's energy to heat a home and to provide hot water. Solar paneling has been around since the late 19th century, and it's major selling points were that is was cleaner than burning wood in the fireplace and that it was cheaper than natural gas, which was very expensive at the time.
On a much larger scale, one solar energy planet in the California desert could create enough electricity to power up to 200,000 homes, independent of all other energy sources.
www.energyquest.ca.gov...
The problem with solar energy has always been that it only worked when the sun was shining. But several recent developments have addressed the issue of storing solar energy for use at a later time, such as at night or on a cloudy day. (More about energy storage in a bit.)
www.patentopedia.us...
Biomass
Biomass is fuel created from such materials as wood, plants, vegetable oils, animal fats, garbage, corn and sugar.
Corn and sugar are fermented to create ethanol, while vegetable oils and animal fats are used to create biodiesel. Both of these fuels can be used to power automobiles, lawn mowers, chainsaws and anything else that currently runs on gasoline, kerosine or any other petroleum product.
While a gallon of ethanol will provide only about 75% of the power that a gallon of gasoline provides in most of today's engines, we do possess the knowledge to build engines that will optimise a vehicle's performance exclusively using ethanol and/or biodiesel fuel.
As for other forms of biomass, garbage in landfills creates methane, the main ingredient of natural gas, and wood and other dead plantlife can be burned to harvest their stored energies.
All in all, biomass fuels currently account for approximately 3% of total U.S. energy consumption. But, more importantly, with the biomass refineries that are currently in operation to produce ethanol and biodiesel fuel, together with those that are currently under construction, we now have the capacity to replace approximately 30% of current gasoline usage. And, together with hybrid semi-electrical technologies that now exist, and increase in production of these new engine designs can totally replace the need for petroleum in motor vehicles.
www1.eere.energy.gov...
Wind power
The most amazing thing about wind power is that we have the potential to harness 50 to 100 times the energy that we can get from biomass. While wind power currently provides only 1% of all electricity worldwide, it is so readily available that it now produces 20% of all electricity used in Denmark.
But, wind is a variable. Not only does it vary according to the time of day or the time of year, it varies from place to place across the globe. It is most powerful at high altitudes and over large bodies of water. Denver, Colorado, for example, could gather a significant percentage of it's electricity needs from Rocky Mountain wind farms. Mobile, Alabama, on the other hand, would have to rely much more heavily on alternative power sources.
en.wikipedia.org...
Energy storage
As with solar power, the main hurdle to effective wind power use is it's reliance on an inconstant resource. The solution is, simply, to use currently available technologies to store electricity produced by solar and wind power.
One of these is called flywheel energy storage.
en.wikipedia.org...
Another is the more recently developed hydrogen fuel technology.
With the facility to store excess electricity produced by solar and wind energy when they are at their peak production, we can rest assured that we will not have to go without light and heat on a calm and lazy rainy day.
But, of course, that'd only be a concern if all we had was solar power, wind power and biomass at our beck and call. Fortunately, we don't. As I said at the outset, these are supplimental energy sources, and there is one cheap and efficient energy source that can make much of the need for the above described energies largely unneccessary in any home.
But that's a topic for the next installment.
Solar Energy
On a small scale, solar paneling is a convienient and low maintenance means of harnessing the sun's energy to heat a home and to provide hot water. Solar paneling has been around since the late 19th century, and it's major selling points were that is was cleaner than burning wood in the fireplace and that it was cheaper than natural gas, which was very expensive at the time.
On a much larger scale, one solar energy planet in the California desert could create enough electricity to power up to 200,000 homes, independent of all other energy sources.
www.energyquest.ca.gov...
The problem with solar energy has always been that it only worked when the sun was shining. But several recent developments have addressed the issue of storing solar energy for use at a later time, such as at night or on a cloudy day. (More about energy storage in a bit.)
www.patentopedia.us...
Biomass
Biomass is fuel created from such materials as wood, plants, vegetable oils, animal fats, garbage, corn and sugar.
Corn and sugar are fermented to create ethanol, while vegetable oils and animal fats are used to create biodiesel. Both of these fuels can be used to power automobiles, lawn mowers, chainsaws and anything else that currently runs on gasoline, kerosine or any other petroleum product.
While a gallon of ethanol will provide only about 75% of the power that a gallon of gasoline provides in most of today's engines, we do possess the knowledge to build engines that will optimise a vehicle's performance exclusively using ethanol and/or biodiesel fuel.
As for other forms of biomass, garbage in landfills creates methane, the main ingredient of natural gas, and wood and other dead plantlife can be burned to harvest their stored energies.
All in all, biomass fuels currently account for approximately 3% of total U.S. energy consumption. But, more importantly, with the biomass refineries that are currently in operation to produce ethanol and biodiesel fuel, together with those that are currently under construction, we now have the capacity to replace approximately 30% of current gasoline usage. And, together with hybrid semi-electrical technologies that now exist, and increase in production of these new engine designs can totally replace the need for petroleum in motor vehicles.
www1.eere.energy.gov...
Wind power
The most amazing thing about wind power is that we have the potential to harness 50 to 100 times the energy that we can get from biomass. While wind power currently provides only 1% of all electricity worldwide, it is so readily available that it now produces 20% of all electricity used in Denmark.
But, wind is a variable. Not only does it vary according to the time of day or the time of year, it varies from place to place across the globe. It is most powerful at high altitudes and over large bodies of water. Denver, Colorado, for example, could gather a significant percentage of it's electricity needs from Rocky Mountain wind farms. Mobile, Alabama, on the other hand, would have to rely much more heavily on alternative power sources.
en.wikipedia.org...
Energy storage
As with solar power, the main hurdle to effective wind power use is it's reliance on an inconstant resource. The solution is, simply, to use currently available technologies to store electricity produced by solar and wind power.
One of these is called flywheel energy storage.
en.wikipedia.org...
Another is the more recently developed hydrogen fuel technology.
With the facility to store excess electricity produced by solar and wind energy when they are at their peak production, we can rest assured that we will not have to go without light and heat on a calm and lazy rainy day.
But, of course, that'd only be a concern if all we had was solar power, wind power and biomass at our beck and call. Fortunately, we don't. As I said at the outset, these are supplimental energy sources, and there is one cheap and efficient energy source that can make much of the need for the above described energies largely unneccessary in any home.
But that's a topic for the next installment.
reply posted on 22-8-2007 @ 08:47 PM by Tuning Spork
First, in response to some of TruthWithin's comments:
Au contraire. In fact, I noted that these were supplemental energy sources and that, taken together, would go a long way toward eliminating the need for fossil fuels. The bulk of the required energy production would not be via these supplemental resources.
The sun doesn't shine only on the desert. It's true, though that Seattle could harness less energy from the sun than, say, San Diego could. This is mainly due to Seattle's northern latitude and, thus, it's receiving less direct solar rays. Seattle would rely more heavily on other resources.
Actually, we're working with the resolution that we currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels. You and I are infering that it means that alternative resources must equal the current output of fossil fuels. We, of course, have the technology to live like the Amish live. We'd just prefer not to.
The other 70% comes partly from an increase in biomass production, but mainly from electricity via hybrid technology. We could, of course, run our motor vehicles on 100% electric power, but we really aren't too keen on driving glorified golf carts during our daily commutes. And electric powered vehicles today may not be suitable for towing so much as a hitched trailer carrying a large biomass-powered lawnmower. Hybrids are the way to go, at least until we develop a way to get significant and sustained horse power from a flywheel and/or battery.
As I said, these are largely supplemental resources. While an individual home can run exclusively on solar and/or wind power, having every home in the country so equipped may not be feasable. But that's where the most efficient resource comes in.
Nuclear energy
While only about 15% of today's energy is provided by nuclear power, we have the technology today to bring it 100%. France, for example, gets approximately 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power plants.
science.howstuffworks.com...
There really isn't much we can't do with electricity. It can heat our homes, heat our water, power our appliances, power our tools, etc. Just about any task that the energy from solar power and biomass can do, can be done with electricity. With cheap and safe nuclear power, together with wind and hydroelectric power, electricity can virtually eliminate all need for fossil fuels.
The technology is here today. It's merely a matter of building the facilities.
Tuning Spork...has argued that all of them combined might make up a whole, ie COMPLETELY eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
Au contraire. In fact, I noted that these were supplemental energy sources and that, taken together, would go a long way toward eliminating the need for fossil fuels. The bulk of the required energy production would not be via these supplemental resources.
The fact is that this amount of sunlight, enough to absorb, store and still have enough left for tomorrow is only available in the desert. What would the people in Seattle do?
The sun doesn't shine only on the desert. It's true, though that Seattle could harness less energy from the sun than, say, San Diego could. This is mainly due to Seattle's northern latitude and, thus, it's receiving less direct solar rays. Seattle would rely more heavily on other resources.
Remember, we are working with the resolution that all of these alternatives can equal the energy supplied by fossil fuels ENTIRELY, thus eliminating fossil fuels completely.
Actually, we're working with the resolution that we currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels. You and I are infering that it means that alternative resources must equal the current output of fossil fuels. We, of course, have the technology to live like the Amish live. We'd just prefer not to.
So where do we get the other 70% from today? Will the US develop a dependency of destroying plants and livestock in our own country to fuel our energy needs and then ultimately start wars in other countries to obtain enough "biomass" to fuel our cars and other energy needs? Or will we seek to turn the rest of the country in a desert so that we can hope to harness the sun's potential?
The other 70% comes partly from an increase in biomass production, but mainly from electricity via hybrid technology. We could, of course, run our motor vehicles on 100% electric power, but we really aren't too keen on driving glorified golf carts during our daily commutes. And electric powered vehicles today may not be suitable for towing so much as a hitched trailer carrying a large biomass-powered lawnmower. Hybrids are the way to go, at least until we develop a way to get significant and sustained horse power from a flywheel and/or battery.
As I said, these are largely supplemental resources. While an individual home can run exclusively on solar and/or wind power, having every home in the country so equipped may not be feasable. But that's where the most efficient resource comes in.
Nuclear energy
While only about 15% of today's energy is provided by nuclear power, we have the technology today to bring it 100%. France, for example, gets approximately 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power plants.
science.howstuffworks.com...
There really isn't much we can't do with electricity. It can heat our homes, heat our water, power our appliances, power our tools, etc. Just about any task that the energy from solar power and biomass can do, can be done with electricity. With cheap and safe nuclear power, together with wind and hydroelectric power, electricity can virtually eliminate all need for fossil fuels.
The technology is here today. It's merely a matter of building the facilities.
reply posted on 22-8-2007 @ 10:59 PM by TruthWithin
Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Au contraire. In fact, I noted that these were supplemental energy sources and that, taken together, would go a long way toward eliminating the need for fossil fuels. The bulk of the required energy production would not be via these supplemental resources.
Ok, but we are working with the resolution that we can COMPLETELY eliminate fossil fuels here. Its great they can go a long way, but that doesn't solve the problem for the purpose of our debate.
It's true, though that Seattle could harness less energy from the sun than, say, San Diego could. This is mainly due to Seattle's northern latitude and, thus, it's receiving less direct solar rays. Seattle would rely more heavily on other resources.
You are merely illustrating a major flaw in solar energy here and giving no viable alternative to how the "northern latitude" states would make up for this deficiency. If we are to go on your statement that "taken together, (alternative energy sources) would go a long way toward eliminating the need for fossil fuels", then how can this variance be made up by the northern states, and more importantly how can this ensure that we can ENTIRELY eliminate fossil fuels?
The answer is that it does not. That is why, today, at this very moment, while we can greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels, the technology does not exist to ENTIRELY eliminate them.
You and I are infering that it means that alternative resources must equal the current output of fossil fuels. We, of course, have the technology to live like the Amish live. We'd just prefer not to.
I am inferring nothing. I am stating the reality of the world we live in. I think we can agree that the world is not going to back down from its demands on energy. It is therefore impossible that the world would regress back to the technology of the Amish, as you concede yourself by saying that "we would prefer not to". It is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of survival. The simple truth is that the US could not survive with out its current use of energy.
So then we HAVE to make up for the current energy produced by fossil fuels in order to maintain the standard of living the world has grown accustom to.
So far, your case is not convincing me that alternative energies can pick up 100% of the slack from fossil fuels.
And electric powered vehicles today may not be suitable for towing so much as a hitched trailer carrying a large biomass-powered lawnmower. Hybrids are the way to go, at least until we develop a way to get significant and sustained horse power from a flywheel and/or battery.
Thank you for illustrating my point that, while the technology is promising, it is not yet suitable to ENTIRELY replace fossil fuels, or even make up a significant part of the total alternatives needed to ENTIRELY replace fossil fuels.
Hybrid cars still require fossil fuels, and until we can develop the technology to make cars that run on 100% electricity, or a biomass/electric hybrid, then we cannot ELIMINATE fossil fuels. As your own source stated, bio mass can only eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 30%.
As I said, these are largely supplemental resources. While an individual home can run exclusively on solar and/or wind power, having every home in the country so equipped may not be feasable. But that's where the most efficient resource comes in.
Nuclear energy
The BIGGEST consideration for nuclear energy that has to be taken into account is that in order to power the US alone, the amount of waste expelled from Nuclear power plants would CONSUME the country.
The fact is that we are not building these massive plants because we have not yet developed a safe way to maintain, manage and most importantly DISPOSE of all of the NUCLEAR WASTE produced by them.
This article explores the current multitude of problems with nuclear power plants.
The bottom line with nuclear power is that if there were means to handle nuclear energy in a safe way, then they would be everywhere. But again, this reinforces my argument that this technology is not at a point currently where it could entirely eliminate fossil fuels.
Again, it is Tuning Sporks burden to present the case that all of these alternatives can match the productivity and efficiency of fossil fuels. So far I am not convinced that this technology is developed enough to substitute fossil fuels entirely.
reply posted on 23-8-2007 @ 11:29 PM by Tuning Spork
Well, I'm running late and up against the 24-rule, so this will be a brief post. (Stop posting only two hours after I do, TruthWithin! 
)
Judging from TruthWithin's last installment, I think I need to reiterate that what I call "supplemental resources" are, and will likely always be, supplimental resources.
I haven't explained how increasing the contribution of solar power, wind power and biomass will, together, completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels for the simple reason that I am arguing that, at all. While their production can be greatly expanded alongside existing hydro-electiric power, the major power source of the future will be nuclear power.
As for the problems with nuclear power, as discussed in TruthWithin's link, they are:
1) Reactor accidents
2) Radioactive waste disposal
3) Nuclear weapons proliferation
Reactor accidents
The deaths resulting from radiation exposure from the Chernobyl disaster is estimated to be as high as 4,000.
en.wikipedia.org...
But how many deaths can be attributed to our dependence on oil? The economics of fossil fuel dependence has led us into a precarious geopolitical mine field that can arguably have resulted in the violent deaths and brutal suffering of many more thousands than one tragic accident at one power plant.
The answer to fueling the future is not to turn our back on nuclear power, but to keep it safe. One oil tanker steered by a drunken Exxon captain may pollute hundreds of miles of shoreline. But it would take gross negligence on the part of myriad nuclear technicians -- and/or their bureaucratic superiors -- to result in the failure of a power plant.
We know how to provide safe, clean, cheap nuclear power. The technology and the protocols for working it are here. Just like in handling any large and awesome machinery, the key to safe nuclear power is to keep our eye on the road and to remember to have a sober designated driver.
Nuclear weapons proliferation
Whether we build boats or not, the sea is still there. Whether we build nuclear power plants or not, the uranium is still there. Whether it's installed in a nuclear reactor or interned in a lead-lined incarnation of Fort Knox, radioactive heavy metals need to be guarded. That is always the case.
Radioactive waste disposal
From TruthWithin's link:
Emphasis on political.
Safe disposal of nuclear waste is a problem only because we drag our feet and make it a problem. We know how to do it. We also know how to keep the gate on the gorilla cage at the zoo locked.
The "problems" with nuclear power have never been -- and never will be -- our lack of understanding of how or what to do with it. The problem is that we're afraid that, because you and I are not nuclear scientists or technicians and don't understand how to handle the job of providing safe, clean, cheap power, that perhaps no one else knows how to handle it, either.
That's a frightening thought. But, as my uncle once said as he held up a bottle of concentrated motorcycle detergent: "Hogwash!".
On that note, (and since I am dead tired), Good night, and have a present tomorrow.
) Judging from TruthWithin's last installment, I think I need to reiterate that what I call "supplemental resources" are, and will likely always be, supplimental resources.
I haven't explained how increasing the contribution of solar power, wind power and biomass will, together, completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels for the simple reason that I am arguing that, at all. While their production can be greatly expanded alongside existing hydro-electiric power, the major power source of the future will be nuclear power.
As for the problems with nuclear power, as discussed in TruthWithin's link, they are:
1) Reactor accidents
2) Radioactive waste disposal
3) Nuclear weapons proliferation
Reactor accidents
The deaths resulting from radiation exposure from the Chernobyl disaster is estimated to be as high as 4,000.
en.wikipedia.org...
But how many deaths can be attributed to our dependence on oil? The economics of fossil fuel dependence has led us into a precarious geopolitical mine field that can arguably have resulted in the violent deaths and brutal suffering of many more thousands than one tragic accident at one power plant.
The answer to fueling the future is not to turn our back on nuclear power, but to keep it safe. One oil tanker steered by a drunken Exxon captain may pollute hundreds of miles of shoreline. But it would take gross negligence on the part of myriad nuclear technicians -- and/or their bureaucratic superiors -- to result in the failure of a power plant.
We know how to provide safe, clean, cheap nuclear power. The technology and the protocols for working it are here. Just like in handling any large and awesome machinery, the key to safe nuclear power is to keep our eye on the road and to remember to have a sober designated driver.
Nuclear weapons proliferation
Whether we build boats or not, the sea is still there. Whether we build nuclear power plants or not, the uranium is still there. Whether it's installed in a nuclear reactor or interned in a lead-lined incarnation of Fort Knox, radioactive heavy metals need to be guarded. That is always the case.
Radioactive waste disposal
From TruthWithin's link:
When spent fuel assemblies are removed from nuclear reactors, they are transported to "swimming pool" storage facilities to dissipate the heat of decay of short-lived isotopes as well as for isolation from the environment. The long term disposal of these wastes remains a major problem. It was assumed that these wastes would be encased in glass and placed in geologic disposal sites in underground salt domes. The site at Yucca Mountain was chosen as a first site, but both technical and political problems have thus far blocked its implementation.
Emphasis on political.
Safe disposal of nuclear waste is a problem only because we drag our feet and make it a problem. We know how to do it. We also know how to keep the gate on the gorilla cage at the zoo locked.
The "problems" with nuclear power have never been -- and never will be -- our lack of understanding of how or what to do with it. The problem is that we're afraid that, because you and I are not nuclear scientists or technicians and don't understand how to handle the job of providing safe, clean, cheap power, that perhaps no one else knows how to handle it, either.
That's a frightening thought. But, as my uncle once said as he held up a bottle of concentrated motorcycle detergent: "Hogwash!".
On that note, (and since I am dead tired), Good night, and have a present tomorrow.
I couldn't resist)
Pages: ^^TOP^^
