It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 2. Tuning Spork v TruthWithin: Beyond Oil?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "We currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".

Tuning Spork will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TruthWithin will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.

Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.


Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.


Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

When this thread becomes unlocked, you may proceed.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
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]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
"We currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".

Opening Statement

First, thanks again to ATS and The Vagabond for organizing and hosting this debate, and good luck to Tuning Spork. Judging from his other debate, I know I have my work cut out for me!

Tuning Spork has painted a lovely utopian picture of what life would be like without fossil fuels, and our responsibility to attain that goal. I too share in that hope that we can get rid of this dependence of oil and other fossil fuels, and move towards a cleaner and healthier way to produce energy for all of our needs. If I had my way, we would get rid of oil all together, and the sooner the better!

It would be AMAZING to think that by making a few changes, we could all wake up tomorrow with the ability to drop this nasty habit. Unfortunately, TODAY that is not the reality, at least not within the scope of our conclusion, "We currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".

To open, I want to take a moment to really examine the argument we will be debating. It is important that we are clear from the start of this debate what this statement is really suggesting. So let's define the terms that we are looking at.

"We currently have the technology" indicates that we possess the means to eliminate ALL fossil fuels NOW, meaning today, this very second. Not 10 or 20 years from now, but this very moment.

The statement concludes with stating this CURRENT technology, with out a doubt, can "entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".

Fossil fuels, as defined by the EPA, are:

A general term for a fuel that is formed in the Earth from plant or animal remains, including coal, oil, natural gas, oil shales, and tar sands.

This statement puts a great burden of proof on my opponent. He must be able to demonstrate that we CURRENTLY have the technology to eliminate ALL fossil fuels which, needless to say, is a very tall order.

There are 2 major points that I will be emphasizing during the course of this debate that illustrate why this statement is completely impossible to fulfill.

1. While the CURRENT alternative fuel technologies we posses are very promising, these technologies, in their current state, can not even begin to cover EVERY SINGLE energy need we have and therefore ELIMINATE the use of ALL fossil fuels. This is not to say that one day it could replace fossil fuels entirely, but again, that is not what we are debating. We are debating whether or not we CURRENTLY have the technology, and the plain reality is that we do not. I will delve into this subject at greater lengths through out the debate.

2. There is a significant lack of political and social will around the globe to completely convert away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels mean convenience and big money to those that cultivate them. The oil lobbyists in Washington DC have a lot of say in how money is spent by the government to research and produce alternative energy sources. This excessive lobbying hinders research and keeps the potential of new alternative technologies from reaching their full abilities to replace fossil fuels. The global economy would be shattered by the complete elimination of fossil fuels. The buoyancy of the US dollar is in great part due to its uses in the oil trade. We all know that the US dollar is no longer backed by gold, so its strength is purely relative to the world's economy. A large factor of the value of the US dollar is its weight in oil. So the effects would be far too devastating on the world economy, and thus the COMPLETE elimination of fossil fuel would sink the global markets and its ripple effect would have far reaching consequences.

I do not doubt that we can reduce our need for fossil fuels. That is not the crux of this. The crux is that we simply are not in a time or place, within the realm of technology or social conscience, to allow for a COMPLETE migration from fossil fuels.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Tuning Spork has taken the next logical step and has laid out some of the many alternative energy sources that are being developed. He has argued that all of them combined might make up a whole, ie COMPLETELY eliminating the use of fossil fuels.

Let's have a look...




www.energyquest.ca.gov...

This experimental power plant is called Solar II. It was re-built in California's desert using newer technologies than when it was first built in the early 1980s. Solar II will use the sunlight to change heat into mechanical energy in the turbine.


This is a fascinating experiment that could, one day, provide power to 200,000 homes. Sounds great! Of course this EXPERIMENT is
providing that the sunlight near the Mojave desert is available to all parts of
the country. How much of the US is desert?

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 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.)


In terms of the collection of this energy for later dispersion, the technology is promising, but it is NOT there yet. Nowhere in the article does this suggest that this technology is developed enough to work in areas with less sunlight TODAY. At it's best, it would require the solar output of the Mojave desert.

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.

So far we have a lot of fractions, but they do not quite equal a whole.

Biomass is moving right along. Today's technology is PROMISING, but not quite there yet, certainly not far enough along to count it as viable solution to COMPLETELY end our consumption of fossil fuels. The US can, according to the article:




www1.eere.energy.gov...

A joint study conducted by the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the
Billion Ton Study (PDF 5.5 MB), estimates that 1.3 billion tons of biomass feedstock is potentially available in the U.S. for the production of biofuels. This is enough biomass feedstock to displace approximately 30 percent of current gasoline consumption on a sustainable basis.


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?

Sounds like we are moving back to square one.

In regards to wind power, the future looks bright. TODAY, however, wind power, according to Tuning Sporks article, primarily comes from:



Most of this wind energy can be found at high altitudes where continuous wind speeds of over 160 km/h (100 mph) occur.


So let's recap:

IF you live in a desert, at 10,000 feet and have a large supply of biomass around (which is SO easy to find in a high altitude desert) you are maybe 70% of the way to removing your dependency from fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, most people do not live in such FAVORABLE conditions.

I stress favorable, because that’s what most of the alternative energy sources rely on; favorability (and also because I can never stray from sarcasm).

Let's face it though –rarely do things ever happen "favorably". That is why we must continue to research and find solutions to these problems, but TODAY, the total solution is not available.

Storing this alternative energy is hard, and the technology still needs a lot of work, as pointed out in Tuning Spork's article on energy storage which states:



When the tensile strength of a flywheel is exceeded the flywheel will shatter, releasing all of its stored energy at once; this is commonly referred to as "flywheel explosion" since wheel fragments can reach kinetic energy comparable to that of a bullet. Consequently, traditional flywheel systems require strong containment vessels as a safety precaution, which increases the total mass of the device.


YIKES! We may have energy, but a fly wheel that could produce SIGNIFICANT amounts of energy might shoot metal shards at us! DUCK!

We find ourselves at the same conclusion; while incredible promising, the technology does not yet exist to remove fossil fuels completely from our world, even if we combined all of the "non fossil fuel" sources and, more importantly, even if we wanted to...



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
First, in response to some of TruthWithin's comments:


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.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
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:


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.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
While their production can be greatly expanded alongside existing hydro-electiric power, the major power source of the future will be nuclear power.


If we can make them safe and figure out a way to handle the volume of waste in a safe manor, then yes! We will have nuclear power in the future!

Unfortunately, that is NOT what this particular debate is about. This debate is discussing whether or not we CURRENTLY have the technology to ENTIRELY eliminate fossil fuels.

The reality is that the volume of nuclear waste produced, if the US were to fully embrace nuclear power, would be ENORMOUS! We simply do not have the means or the know how to deal with such volume. One day we might, but TODAY we do not.

As I said in my first post, there are many wonderful things happening and technology is moving forward to the point that in the future we will be able to, at the very least, greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels. The reality is, that at this time, the technology is not refined enough to ELIMINATE our need for fossil.



From TruthWithin's link:


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.


Actually, you also put the emphasis on technical problems as well, thus highlighting that there are problems with the technology, which strengthens my argument that technology is not advanced enough to deal with nuclear energy soundly.

In terms of you emphasizing "political", you bring me back to my 2nd major point in my opening post which said:



2. There is a significant lack of political and social will around the globe to completely convert away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels mean convenience and big money to those that cultivate them.


In order to gauge our ability to remove fossil fuels from the global cycle, politics and social conscience MUST be taken into consideration. Ultimately, it is our governments that will decide where we get our energy from, and if the will of the people is complacent enough, then governments will continue to reap the benefits from big oil and lobbies that seek to disrupt the introduction of new technologies that can bring alternative energy sources to fruition.

It's a simple equation really: If the technology is abundantly safe and logical, the people will demand it. If it is not, people will settle for fossil fuels until the next SOUND technology comes along.

This is my point:

If you are arguing that nuclear technology is going to fill in the major gaps left by the other alternative fuel sources, then you need to explain how we are going to safely build, maintain, and deal with the waste from the HUNDREDS of nuclear plants we would need to build to power the US by itself, let alone the world!.

While I appreciate that you are of the opinion that people will be "sober" to operate nuclear power plants (believe me I concur, that is VERY good idea), I am not sure that argument is sound enough to convince me that it is OK to go ahead and build nuclear power plants because they won't be operated by drunken sea captains (insert favorite pirate slogan here).




That's a frightening thought. But, as my uncle once said as he held up a bottle of concentrated motorcycle detergent: "Hogwash!".


Is that a fossil fuel burning motorcycle? ( sorry
I couldn't resist)



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
In closing, let me once again thank ATS, The Vagabond and, of course, TruthWithin for allowing me the opportunity to debate this issue. I hope my fatique the last couple of days hasn't hampered me too much in providing TruthWithin with an opposition worthy of his debating skills.

So, very very briefly,

The question is not: "do we have the ability to eliminate the use of fossil fuels today?". Of course we don't. The infrastructure is not in place. More nuclear and biomass plants, solar panels and wind farms need to be built. The question is: "do we have the technology and the know-how today to eliminate the need for fossil fuels?".

And we obviously do. These technologies have been around and in practice for decades. A complete conversion to non-fossil fuel energy production may take a quarter of a century to accomplish. That's mainly because the facilities aren't there yet. But, as I've shown, the technology is already being put to use all over the world.

The other thing that's postponing the construction of the faciilities is the present lack of a political and social will to do it. Unfortunately, that may not begin to change until fossil fuel resources begin to dwindle. Because, after all, we have it pretty good right now so why put off 'til tomorrow what we can put off 'til the day after tomorrow?

Hopefully that day wont be too late.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Thanks again to ATS, The Vagabond and my worthy adversary. These debates are a real blast.


My closing will be brief.

The topic we were given to debate was "We currently have the technology to entirely eliminate the need for fossil fuels".

My opponent has given examples of various energy sources, but has not clearly illustrated that they are at a technical scope capable of replacing fossil fuels today, even if we began to convert to all of these systems today.

He relied on nuclear energy as the final push to show that a complete move away from fossil fuels is possible.

While I share in the hope that we can, one day, move away from fossil fuels, the reality is that the technology just simply isn't there.

The hope that we can break this wretched addiction to oil is something I feel very strongly about. We need to urge our governments to get the right technology together to provide energy that take us to wars and cause countries to fight.

Thanks to everyone again, good luck to Tuning Spork and all the other debaters!



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Well done gentlemen. This one is off to the judges.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
The winner is Tuning Spork!


Truth Within did a great job at his debate, he tried to prove that we don't have the infrastructure currently to move to smart fuels, yet he could not disprove the fact that we currently possess the ability to live without fossil fuels.



Hmm a tough one to judge again. Both sides made there point well, however I feel Tuning Spork stuck more to the question at hand (Technology V infrastructure) and overall made the better argument.



TruthWithin takes it in my opinion.

Stayed on point and refuted what his opponent had to say. His opponent seemed to manipulate the theme of the debate ever so slightly to further his own agenda, and TruthWithin nailed him every time he tried to do so.




top topics



 
4

log in

join