Personal tools
 
Views

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

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 18:00, 11 March 2009; Guy30 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

YOU CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! BE BOLD, CLICK EDIT, AND HELP MAKE THIS PAGE INTO A VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE THAT THOUSANDS WILL READ. SEE THE GETTING STARTED TUTORIAL.

Contents

Background and Context of Debate

The USA ("Underwear" is Stephen's favorite Article) is the second-largest polluter in the world, passed in CO2 emissions last year by China. Washington has also declined to sign on to multiple international climate change agreements, most famously the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush's absence at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development is also notable. However, America is also at the cutting edge of many environmental technologies, including those related to alternative energy.

Common energy alternatives

  • Solar power
  • Nuclear power
  • Wind energy
  • Water energy
  • Geothermal energy
  • Biofuels

Solar Power is the way to go for the future

Yes

By switching to Solar power, the US would be able to make the enviroment a better place plus reduce US dependency on foreign oil, causing less money being spent overseas and more in US consumer's hands. [1] Solar power is abundant, clean, and renewable. And unlike oil, solar power barely produces Carbon dioxide. And also by reducing spending on foreign oil, the US becomes more independent, making it more capable of leading the world.

There are figures that suggest that alternative power costs much more per unit of electricity to produce than more conventional sources. These "cost" figures ignore a few important (yet in some cases difficult to accurately quantify or predict) cost components:

1) Total lifetime costs. Photovoltaics, once purchased and deployed, are nearly cost free; wind turbines have only minor maintenance costs. Fossil fuels, by comparison, carry high ongoing costs: fuel and plant maintenance. As we've all learned, these costs are anything but predictable or stable. 2) Political costs. The US, and many other countries, have compelling national interests in the Persian Gulf: energy. These interests draw us periodically into armed conflict in the region. There is considerable room for disagreement regarding causes of any particular Gulf Conflict, but there can be little debate that, absent the reserves of fossil fuel in the Middle East, we would not expend the same treasure or American lives as we have, and will continue to do. As a result, it is proper to allocate some of the costs of our Middle Eastern entanglements into the true cost of fossil-based energy sources. Add any reasonable percentage of the $9B/month that we are paying in Iraq, and the cost of fossil fuels carries a much smaller advantage than claimed. 3) Externality costs. The quoted cost of fossil-based power generation does not include costs that have been transferred to others. Think of the example of midwestern coal-fired plants producing pollution that creates acid rain in the northeast, reducing agricultural yields, and fish stocks, and economically damaging farmers and fishermen. One only needs to hear a few minutes of the whining of a coal plant operator, complaining that enacting federal clean air standards would render their plants uneconomic before realizing that fossil fuel operations RELY on the ability to shift significant costs onto others in order to retain their pseudo-price-advantage.


No

Not only for the reason that there isn't sun all the time. You can say that sun will save us a lot of money but it also does cost us a lot of money to buy the technology to use this energy. Another reason would be that its a waste of time because America will never be less dependent on oil, the only way we could reduce foreign oil dependence is to have our own supply of oil. You must also consider the inefficiency of solar energy. With current solar cell technology only about 8% of the energy absorbed into the solar panel is output as usable electricity. This coupled with the expense of solar technology makes it very costly to create a system that produces enough energy to be useful in everyday life.

I agree also not only do we need the sun because the federal can raise taxes just to pay for the technology we need.

Also for the point that solar energy costs .25 dollar compared to the natural gas of .07


Is the alternative energy source biofuel, worthy of USFG incentives

Yes

It is a way to use our vast amounts of farmland as a energy source. It releases less CO2 emissions on a daily basis then other methods of fueling: such as fossil fuels, coal, or nuclear energy



No

Biofuels have a high CO2 emission in the clearing of the land for the energy crop. Biofuels force farmers to focus on energy crops and less on crops we need in the food industry, therefore increase the prices of the remaining crops sold to consumers




The US Federal government should increase incentives for the use of alternative energy

Yes

Because global warming can cause human extinction. If humans don't die, then animals will. We all connect, if 1 species goes extincted then the rest would be in danger.



No

If global warming is decreased then carbon dioxie would also decrease. Causing the next ice age. If human beings do not die of global warming then they would die of the Ice Age.


Will nuclear power solve the energy problem for the United States?

Yes

Nuclear Power has proven itself to be more than worthy to solve the United States energy needs. The US Navy has been using nuclear-power for several years now to operate their ships. It poses little if any temptation as a target for terrorist. It currently provides only 20% of the United States with power, but if increased much of the US could survive and thrive off its vast benefits. The waste still holds over 95% of its original energy which if not disposed of could be used by future more technological generations. If that can't be worked out then dumping it in the Mariana Trench is more than plausible because it would be sucked back to the core of the earth leaving no traces of waste, and being of no danger to sea creatures.



No

No, Nuclear energy creates a fear in the citizenry. Above all else, people are afraid of the Nuke Pwr Plant becoming a Nuke Bomb. There's also the argument that other countries try to model the US, so creating Nuke Pwr in the US would cause proliferation of nuclear materials. Nuclear Terrorism is also a threat. Also, Thorium Power, a way to circumvent most arguments against Nuclear pwr, is prohibitively expensive. For it to not be prohibitively expensive, one would need to wrap the thorium fuel rod in uranium. The reaction then creates plutonium waste, usable in nuke weapons.




Pro/con sources

Yes

No

References

[2] Green House Gas Reductions

See Also

External Links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.