It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Round 1. JediMaster V Gryffen: Alternative Energy

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:21 PM
Debate 6

The topic for this debate is "More focus needs to be placed on Alternative Energy Sources."

JediMaster will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Gryffen will argue against this proposition.

Each debator 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.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 10:22 AM
To start what is Alternative Energy? It is defined as "Alternative energy refers to energy sources which are not based on the burning of fossil fuels or the splitting of atoms".

The main reasons why we must use alternative energy sources to fuel our power is because, of the effects of pollution, caused by such power sources like coal burning, the effects that nuclear waste has on our environment, and the most vital reason.... That alternative energy sources will never run out, unlike coal or can destroy and kill millions if it is destroyed.

The main alternative energy sources that we have available today are solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and the power of our ocean's tides.

For example solar energy, which is one of the best options out there at this moment, creates 35,000 times more energy than we humans use on earth. Though 1/3 of this is taken away due to the process of albedo, there is still 2/3 of that energy hitting us. Solar energy does not cause any pollution, and is continuously being put toward us. It would be impossible for us to run out. Though clouds can block out the sun in come areas, sunlight can still escape through and the entire planet cannot be encompassed in clouds at the same time. As a backup the others alternative energy sources would be used.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 02:55 PM
Opening Statement

As Jedi has stated his views and points on the benefits of Alternative Energy Sources, I am here to state the opposition views on this subject. During the course of this debate I will hopefully make people aware of the main disadvantages of Alt. Energy such as Nuclear, Wind, Tidal etc, and explain why, even though Fossil Fuels are low, they are the best.

By using sources of information I have collected of the last day or so from various sites and local papers and petitions in Scotland and around the area, I hope to sway your views or at least give u a broader understanding of the resources and other points that come into effect if the government starts mass alternative energy stations.

Here are the main points I hope to clarify and broaden understanding on:

Alternative Energy is WAY to expensive to operate and build.
Damage to wildlife and the ecosystem and landscape of the local area where AE stations are.
It would take to long to build and if it didnt work then its a waste of money that could go elsewhere.
The Weather itself is unstable..what would happen if we didnt have sun for ages..less power output.

Hopefully by the end of the debate I will have answered all the problems above and show u that Fossil Fuel consumption is the best to go by as we know it works well, and why cant we just reduce our usage of it and that way solve some other present problems.

Jedi master....I pass to you.

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:47 PM
As stated Gyrffen stated, alternative energy may be more expensive than coal or other utilities. However as explained atSource, qoute

"Also, an alternative energy system can start very small and be easily expanded as your finances allow. A single solar panel or wind turbine could be installed for well under $1000. Even a small system will help reduce dependence on generator or utility power. The components that would need to be replaced as the system grows are relatively inexpensive, and the major components, such as solar panels, wind turbines and storage batteries, can be purchased one at a time and added to the existing system."

The start off of using alternative energy may be a bit of a hassle but the long term effects are not. The savings of not having to keep the generator constantly supplied with fuel are considerable, due to the fact that fuel prices are rising.

The main benefit of alternative energy is that it not only can be used time after time, but it has no emissions or waste. Also stated at the site I sourced earlier "If every home on earth were powered with an alternative energy system, it would never cause a shortage of wind, water or sunlight."

The odds of the sun being blocked out for very long spans of time is near impossbile, so far impossible that maybe only an act of God or freak science can make it happen. Even when it is cloudy amounts of sunlight will get through.

Gryffen off to you......

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:38 PM
Thank you Jedi

Yes, I agree Alternative Energy is very flexible but it all depends on where u live and what types of weather your area is prone too.

As state here:

For the whole alternative energy project to work u must have at least 3 factors readily available to implement.

1: Enough land to build the wind fields/water generators and solar panels
2: The stable weather conditions to make sure your equipment will supply enough power to your area
3: Government money and/or funding

Many people in the highlands of Scotland are very interested in the change to AE, but due to the environmental impact the building of such stations will have on the area, they are unwilling to do so, and with good reason. Basically how would u like it to wake up in the morning and see beautiful mountains in the distance and in your back garden this monstrosity of a wind turbine?

For example...Saddleworth Moor:

To quote: "Saddleworth Moor in Lancashire is one of several beauty spots at risk from thousands of proposed new wind turbines, a report has claimed.

Other areas "under threat" from the expansion of wind power, according to Country Life magazine, include Bradworthy in North Devon, Ramsbury in Wiltshire, and Romney Marsh in Kent" end quote

Money is a major factor in this as well, due to government funding, local councils willingness to pay for council tenants to convert to AE and other financial factors. Many people just simply dont have the funds to convert and also have many worries incase the whole project goes belly-up and it will be impossible for them to be reimbursed for financial loss, also would there be a Tax and Insurance to pay for this upgrade of technology?

Also the whole weather deal comes into it.

Many people dont live in places that have a great deal of sunshine, water access or wind due to environmental factors. So conversion to AE may be impossible or improbable due to local factors. Also, as stated above, local environment would be damaged do the building of wind fields, water turbines and other AE generators. Many people do not wish these 'fields' placed around the lands, as it would destroy local beauty spots and may cause damage to local wildlife and the eco system of that area.

More importantly, what kind of impact would this type of technological upgrade have on those surrounding AE generator stations and Windfields?

Would there are many questions and concerns raised and what would they expect if something arise unexpected from the plants failure?

I believe all these questions must be answered plainly and straightforward before anything can be decided.

Back to you Jedi...

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 10:29 AM
Post forfeited.

[edit on 13-6-2004 by Kano]

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 04:58 PM
second response

Over the last couple of years every goverment has discussed and debated the use of Alternative Energy to be used in widespread commercial, industrial and home use. Discussing if the Pro's outweight the Cons, how many years would the goverment and involved parties need to complete construction of such equiptment and how much money would be needed.

Many people fear the change as the energy they have mostly used all there lives has been very sufficient and the whole cost and converting of they're house, workspace and whole living enviroment is niggling at the back of there minds.

Are you willing to spend god knows how much money on parts that have not been around long enough to know if they are the best design to be outdated and replaced and discontinued? Take BetaMax for example..remember the first VCR, people went out and bought them, they were replaced fast by the VHS version and people were lets just say annoyed. All these machines and you cant get the tapes anymore!!

Conviencience in a day where people cant even get up to change the channel on tv with out the help of a remote, where they have use of microwaves, cell phones, GPS, air conditioning, air travel, internet, ect. Do you expect to take a step backwards, spend all their money, and make their fast paced life any more hectic taking their car to one of a handful of mechanics that knows how to work on the new stuff? Maybe lose your car for a week or two because there just is not enough people that know how to fix it? Or maybe driving 30 or 40 miles to take it there? Or paying this person insane amounts of money to fix something that is so new that he is one of few that knows about it so they have no choice to bring it to him?

The key is to improve apon what we have now. Modify it to make it acceptable. If not make the change optional for those that dont want to and they will come around when something comes out that actually works and is worth while. Like hemp.

I have created a small list of arguments to why we should not swap over to AE:

1: green power is more expensive than fossil fuels, the development and science of alternative energy is still in its early days and more care and time should be taken so we can get everything right the first time, instead of wasting millions of pounds in building the stations and findin out they need fixed months later.

2: green power is not efficient. There needs to be more develpment and information directed to everyone involved in using it. Unless green power is as efficient as fossil fuelsm we should continue to use fossil fuels. There is just note enough green power to meet the demands for power.

3: Global Warming is not real. There is no real scientific proof that GW is a real phenomenon. The Earth naturally goes through climate cycles changing sometimes very dramatically, without the infulence of industrial pollution. The Earth also produces greenhouse gases naturally." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

There is also the main deal of the whole recycling of old fossil fuels to AE...modern day recycling means u have to seperate all ur diffrent rubbish and to be honest its a bloody hassle, why recycle something when most people cant be bothered to recycle.
Other main problems are is that emission laws are pushing it, and other main industries, such as oil which is used for many things, will suffer and not only will goverments have problems but other countries who mass produce oil for a financial gain shall have severe problems. If they keep on suppresing the information that Fossil fuels are the best, then oil, and coal industrie infrastructures could collapse.

All goverments and indutrial organisations have plans for Global Warming and energy efficiency, to lower there output of the dangerous gases and pollution. I beleive if over the next few years they can lower this again, they will do much more good than a badly inefficient AE system, which may not work at all due to no wind/sun/nuclear power etc.

Unless the goverment can come up with some solid proof that AE works 100% and will outweight the risk, fossil fuels will still be the most reliable fuel source known to man.

Jedi.....back to you.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 03:10 PM
Now, one does not need to use massive amounts of land for solar energy. Slabs of solar panels made of silicon are built onto the roofs of one's house. As for cost and insurance, most insurance companies do cover the installation of solar panels.

As stated here "Over 2 billion people in the developing world have no access to electricity. For these people, PV (photovoltaic) is probably the most economical power source today, so in the broadest sense the answer is now".

As for the increasing price on oil these days, that further bolsters the need for solar power. Using solar power had a jump in the 70s when oil was $40, and the government supported installation of solar panels was, $10,000. Though the interest fell when the price of oil dropped to $10 a barrel, this is something we must invest in during our "oil crisis".

For the failure of solar power for instance, the only way that your solar panels can be destroyed is if something physical happened such as some punk kid throwing a rock at it.

Stated at the above source, solar panels can work in cold weather and when there is a minimal amount of sunlight. "Contrary to most peoples' intuition, PVs actually generate more power at lower temperatures, other factors being equal. This is because PVs are really electronic devices and generate electricity from light, not heat. Like most electronic devices, PVs operate more efficiently at cooler temperature. In temperate climates, PVs will generate less energy in the winter than in the summer, but this is due to the shorter days, lower sun angles and greater cloud cover, not the cooler temperatures"

As for minimal amount of sunlight, they may produce less energy but specially made panels like those used in calculators, can be used to create sufficient energy while these panels operate poorly in full light.

As for wind power, personal wind towers may be built near a home, destroying the notion that large amounts of green will be taken up by blades and metal.


It is a known fact that the use of gasoline will create much much more pollution than using solar power. If we were to use alternative means to gasoline the pollution in the United States alone would drop significantly, making the air much safer to breathe.

Back to you, Gryff.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 03:57 AM
3rd response

thank you Jedi

I think a main area we havent looked at in AE is money...

Without a stable economy, many people cannot afford to transfer over to alternative energy due to the fact of weather conditions that could seriously diminish there power output from whatever source they gather energy from, whether from Solar, Hydro, Wind etc.

Because energy is such a main basic importance in the economy, it soon became a target from the government and a handful of multinational companies who use and distribute energy to create money and trade. Over the last few years there has been another main concern for many people in the scientific field; it is not the fact that the government is monopolising the energy industry, but the very serious secondary effect of no new advances being made in the development of alternative energies. Many people believe no new developments have been made because the government does not wish to loose the multi million pound deals with oil, coal and assorted other fossil fuel dealers in other countries.

Exp: would u rather use a petrol car that u know works and u can store how much fuel u need inside the machine? Or would u rather use one of the so called Green cars, that could stop working at one moment due to a faulty solar panel and get stranded in the middle of god knows where?

A prime example of the war in Iraq.

I think we all know that Iraq and other Middle East countries are major suppliers in Oil and assorted other fossil fuels, both UK and US governments have taken over shipment and supply of the oil and used it to gain more power over the people. If they introduced AE to these countries, where I admit would be prime areas for Solar Energy, they would loose millions of dollars/pounds a day.

Also, have u ever though how these Hydro Dams and Wind Farms work?

They use Oil and assorted other generators to move the mechanical parts.

Again, many people are sceptical as our economy is somewhat 'schizophrenic' since the Industrial Revolutions and recent other events, but what we have to remember is that without fossil fuels, energy development wont be going anywhere as this is the main energy producers and there is NO alternative to the most reliable, efficient energy on this planet.

Jedi...back to you

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:48 AM
Thanks Gryff, now as I stated earlier using AE was a benefit when oil prices where high, ($40 a barrel in the 70s), like we are having now. If the government were to promote the use of AE sources foir cars, such as using "grassoline" or electric power, the price of oil would drop since a big slice of what oil is used for is not being used. Its the old case of supply and demand. The demand for oil right now is high, and the supply is low, therefore the price is high. But if enough people were to, use AE in cars the demand drops and the supply rises.

Another subject which I belive Gryffen must elaborate on is how much pollution is caused by non-AE power sources. AE sources do not produce any harmful emission, or any emission at all for that matter. No worries about large billows of smoke from a clogged highway with electric cars. Now, Gryff how does one prevent harmful emissions with non-AE cars and other sources.

Hydro dams and several others may use oil but the oil is not emissioned during the creation of power. The oil never leaves the clogs and the wheels it turns.

Back to you Gryff.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 04:37 PM
closing statement

Here are the alternatives you have given why we should change to alternative energy:


why windmills are poor sub: They have to be located in a place where they are not obstructed from the wind, which means u have to cut down trees.
How is a normal houseowner, with no eletrical training, meant to fix a siezed, bearing or broken blade?

Whats wrong with windmills? The same thing that is wrong with watermills, location and its impractical.


They also have a bigger and immediate impact on the enviroment. To use hydrodamns to power a country like the US or UK, it would take a dam at every river, every couple of miles..causing major distruptance and impractability of use, also devistating to the surrounding enviroment.

solar panels

Since they have been out so long, would they not be on every home if they actually were worth it.
Yes some homes and a few buisnesses have them but to relie only on solar would require a really large solar pannel on your roof......more than just a punk kid would cause damage to this. Hail, Tree limbs, high winds ripping it off, snow weight cracking, weather wear and corossion....

again impratical and expensive and probably dangerous if it was to be blown off the rood during a hurricane or tornado it even just a strong thunder storm . Most planned communities and homeowner associations forbid solar panels and most likely windmills. They are considered eyesores and big and obstructive. These same homeowners associations a lot of times forbid something as small as a satellite dish muchless a windmill or solar panel.

Extremely dangerous to use in a alcohol powered car race; When the alcohol ignites and you cant even see the flame cause it burns a hot blue flame that you cant see . Plus the energy to produce it is way more than the yeild from the alcohol.

All the above are the reasons u should not change over to alternative energy, it is not 100% effective, its impractical, damaging to enviroment and possible economical damages to ur own country and others who supply fossil fuels.
Hopefully this debate has shown that fossil fuels are the most effective energy sources known to man, since the creation of the first technological development known to man. Its reliable, and the whole outlay of the usage has better benfits than alternative energy.

Jedi...its been a pleasure debating with you...good luck

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 11:19 PM
Well done guys, I will light up the giant spotlight with the gavel silhouette on it and set the judges to work.

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:51 PM
The votes are in, and the winner of this debate is Gryffen by a margin of 6-3. Congratulations to Gryffen and comiserations to JediMaster.

Comments from the Judges:

Though JM had the most forceful arguments, his forfeit post hurt him significantly against the quantitative nature of Gryffen's points. It just came down to scoring.

Gryffen had posted more information and did a much better job than Jedi. I believe she won right from the beginning.

Interesting debate although I feel both participants could have added a bit more information to support their respective arguments.

With that topic, The debate that was needed was not one on implementation variables, restraints & cost, but one of focus in the adoption of more robust groundbreaking towards mainstreaming alternate energy.
The Pro side did that.

This debate was very good and very difficult to judge. Both sides presented good arguments, but in the end it's my opinion Gryffen has won.

Jedimaster had two things that made it difficult for him: a forfeited post and the fact that Gryffen introduced more arguments in his/her last post. Jedimaster could have defended his side of the argument much better in my opinion, by for example expanding more on the arguments for his side and by using the disadvantages fossil fuels have: they run out and their emissions are very bad for nature. Gryffen provided a lot of good arguments, especially considering that she had to defend to the more difficult side of the argument.

Good luck to Gryffen in round 2.

top topics


log in