Content Knowledge
To prepare for our chemistry debates, my group and I did lots of research on energy. We created a document on the pros & cons of fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear energy and created visual information on the types of energy. Then for one day we participated in the actual debate, four groups per classroom, and would flip a coin for each topic to see who would be pro or con. At the end of the day, there would be a winner, and the debates would conclude.
Down below is an example of my group's CER document.
Down below is an example of my group's CER document.
CER (ASHLEY, ALE, ISAIAH, DAHLIA)
FOSSIL FUELS
Pro - Yes, fossil fuels should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, fossil fuels should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: Fossil fuels are cheap and have historically and statistically proven economic benefits.
Evidence: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages_fossilfuels.php
Technologies are available that can extract fossil fuels with high degree of efficiency, substantially reducing the overall cost. In fact, in the modern day, extraction of fossil fuels is cheaper than installing wind and solar technologies. If you look at the economies of oil and gas producing countries, you will see a common trend; economic prosperity.
Reasoning: Buying fossil fuels is much cheaper than other forms of energy
Claim: Although fossil fuel technology may be costly to build, the profits are high.
Evidence:
http://priceofoil.org/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/
Oil companies in the US and Canada made a total profit of $257 billion dollars in 2014.
Reasoning: This huge influx of money is beneficial to the economy. Huge oil companies employ many people, which strengthens the US’ overall economic standpoint.
COST
Claim: Fossil fuels are expensive (trillions) and we pay for the many problems they cause.
Evidence:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/high-cost-fossil-fuels
American consumers and businesses already spend roughly $700 billion to $1 trillion each year on coal, oil and natural gas, and suffer the incalculable costs of pollution from fossil fuels through damage to our health and environment. In 2006, American consumers and businesses spent $921 billion – or close to 7 percent of America’s gross domestic product – on fossil fuels, more than the nation spent on education or the military. In 2008, national expenditures on fossil fuels likely topped $1 trillion for the first time ever. Each year, more than 70 percent of this money is spent on oil.
Reasoning: Our country spends trillions on this harmful form of energy. We could be using this money other forms of energy that do not cause worse problems than solutions.
Claim: Fossil fuels can cause huge disasters, which cost a lot of money.
Evidence: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/14/bp-deepwater-horizon-costs/87087056/
The pre-tax cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster costed $61.6 billion dollars to fix, and the aftermath is still present today.
Reasoning: Disasters, such as Deepwater Horizon, demonstrate the costly dangers that fossil fuels can pose to the world.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Air emissions of fossil fuels have gone down in recent years, which could signal an even bigger drop in the future.
Evidence: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/environmental-performance/air-emissions-reductions/overview
From 2013 to 2015, Balder, one of ExxonMobil’s permanent, floating production vessels stationed offshore Norway decreased its nitrogen oxide emissions by about 21% (290 metric tons of NOx per year).
Carbon emissions have gone down
The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%.
Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.htmlhttp://constitution.com/proof-mans-use-fossil-fuels-co2-minimal-effect-climate-change/Those who say are against fossil fuel and say it is harmful to the environment have no proof, only invalid climate models based on a false Premise that Man-Made CO2 is a huge quantity and causing unlimited warming – They will have no idea that Water Vapor (H2O) is the primary -Greenhouse Gas and Man-Made CO2 is an Extremely Trace quantity that does not significantly affect warming. While the Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and as a Molecule that must be eliminated and sequestered, the GWA have posed an irrational argument, since:Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is essential to all life on earth since all plant life combines it with light and water to nourish themselves with Glucose (C6H12O6) and emit the Oxygen that all animal-life on Earth, including Humans, must breath. You and I exhale about 4% CO2 with every breath.
CO2 Concentrations up to around 10,000 ppm are safe (25-times the current CO2 concentration) for humans to live and work.OSHA Standards of 5,000 ppm are a bit more conservative, recommending that CO2-concentrations not exceed this level for an 8-hour work day (12.5-times the current CO2 concentration). Such High-Levels of CO2-concentrations can occur naturally, but are often artificially created for agricultural applications to increase crop quality and yields, in submarines, space capsules and other special environments.
Reasoning: Over a span of only 2 years, Exxon Mobil has already decreased their air emissions by 21% at one site. Imagine what they would look like in a couple of years, especially with all of the new technological advancements yet to come.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Fossil fuels cause global warming, fires, and destruction to the environment.
Evidence:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WSiGiJArLrc
Mining and drilling both carry serious health and environmental impacts. Mines can collapse or gradually subside, affecting surface and subsurface water flows. Mine fires can also occur in abandoned mines. And acid mine drainage at underground coal mines can be a long term environmental management issue. The resulting drainage water is detrimental to human, plant, and animal life Surface mining involves removing the overlaying soil to access the coal below, devastating local environments.Natural gas’s climate emissions are not only generated when it’s burned as a fuel at power plants or in our homes. The full global warming impact of natural gas also includes methane emissions from drilling wells and pipeline transportation.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide—some 34 times more effective at trapping heat over a 100-year timescale and 86 times more effective over a 20-year timescale. Oil drilling also produces methane. The World Bank estimates that 5.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the equivalent of 25 percent of total US consumption, is flared annually worldwide, generating some 400 million tons of unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions. transporting fuel can generate its own pollution, and increase the potential for catastrophic accidents. Between 2008 and 2012, offshore drilling rigs experienced 34 fatalities, 1,436 injuries, and 60 oils spills of more than 50 barrels each. Causes acid rain. approximately 78 percent of US global warming emissions were energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Of this, approximately 42 percent was from oil and other liquids, 32 percent from coal, and 27 percent from natural gas
Reasoning: Look at all the harm fossil fuels do to our environment. Acid rain? Extremely large carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Devastating oil spills? Is it all worth it?
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels aren't as dangerous as nuclear power.
Evidence: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet
If the fuel and surrounding containment structures are severely damaged, radioactive materials and ionizing radiation may be released, potentially posing a health risk for people. Human exposure to I-131 released from nuclear power plant accidents comes mainly from consuming contaminated water, milk, or foods. People may also be exposed by breathing dust particles in the air that are contaminated with
I-131.
http://constitution.com/proof-mans-use-fossil-fuels-co2-minimal-effect-climate-change Also, this article is proof that fossil fuels don't affect climate change very much, which would be the biggest toll to our health. So therefore fossil fuels really aren't THAT harmful.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2014/08/22/saving-lives-with-fossil-fuels/#29aefc613105 We have already forgotten that electrification has ended the scourge of indoor air pollution in the rich world, saving millions of lives. Rather, we’re very concerned with climate change.
Reasoning: Radiation is more harmful than fossil fuels. Enough radiation can kill someone on the spot. Nuclear power causes things like Chernobyl, which killed 49 people immediately.
Claim: Oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, provide healthcare to their many workers.
Evidence: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/about-us/safety-and-health/employee-health
“ExxonMobil’s Culture of Health is our U.S.-based health and wellness program, which is designed to support the health of our employees and reduce health care costs. We provide collaborative health education, nutrition and fitness programs that are formatted to meet the needs of a variety of work environments such as offices and manufacturing sites. Additionally, we offer employees health coaching and disease management.”
“In total, ExxonMobil contributed more than $670,000 to Ebola-related community health investments.”
Reasoning: Exxon Mobile does put a lot of work into providing health care for their workers, as well as for those who need it.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels pose many types of health effects and causes many deaths.
Evidence: :http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WSiGiJArLrcFatalities at underground coal mine sites in the United States totaled 77 from 2010 to 2013, including a 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia that killed 29 miners.
Coal mining can lead to chronic health disorders.The disease was responsible for the deaths of approximately 10,000 former miners between 1990 and 2000, and continues today.
Mines can pollute local drinking water sources with toxic chemicals like selenium, arsenic, manganese, lead, iron, and hydrogen sulfide.
Particulate matter (soot) emissions produce haze and can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and elevated occurrence of premature death. In 2010, it is estimated that fine particle pollution from US coal plants resulted in 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, a byproduct of all fossil fuel combustion, contribute to acid rain and ground-level ozone (smog), which can burn lung tissue and can make people more susceptible to asthma, bronchitis, and other chronic respiratory diseases.
Fossil fuel-powered transportation is the primary contributor to US NOx emissions. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, primarily the result of burning coal, contribute to acid rain and the formation of harmful particulate matter. In addition, SO2 emissions can exacerbate respiratory ailments, including asthma, nasal congestion, and pulmonary inflammation
Reasoning: Is it worth it to use an energy source considering how many health effects and deaths it causes? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and data showing the REAL effects of fossil fuels on our ecosystem.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Cars depend on gas, so how will cars be fueled if fossil fuels were eliminated? Additionally, the grid would go down and lives could be lost.
Evidence:
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-all-the-worlds-oil-was-to-disappear-tomorrow
“Electricity would stop in most locations within a week. Mass chaos and panic as civilization immediately collapsed. Loss of oil would definitely cause the end of the world as we know it. It would likely set human civilization back 200-400 years before everything was restored to today's quality of life using alternative energy supplies. The end of oil means the end of transportation.”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS
80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels!
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-the-most-dependent-on-fossil-fuels.html
Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei Darussalam depend entirely on fossil fuels.
Reasoning: If we just stopped using fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to power most of the things we use today. Everything is connected, it would result in big problems. Some countries would be left without power.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Fossil fuels might take some time and cost some money to replace, but in the long run, more money and power will come out of renewables.
Evidence:
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001244
Al Gore, Jr., Chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection and former Vice President of the United States, stated the following in his Nov. 9, 2008 article "The Climate for Change," in the New York Times:
"Here's what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth...
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-run-on-renewable-energy/
“A study by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) concluded, “Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.”
Reasoning: It would take some time, and extra time, but it is a better option than harming plants and animals and running out of fuel in a near future. Plus you can’t build an oil rig ANYWHERE.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: We will find more reserves and there are still many out there.
Evidence:
http://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html
For example, the Energy Information Administration reports that in 1977, the United States had just 32 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Between 1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times the 1977 reserve estimate) and 610 trillion cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the reserve estimate). And, large reserves remain. In fact, in recent years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011), primarily as a result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technologies that enable economical access to oil and gas deposits trapped in underground rock formations.
Reasoning: There are new types of technology that can help us find more and more, in some places we never thought of, reserves always grow.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Fossils fuels will “run out” someday.
Evidence:
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels
Globally - every year we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil in fossil fuels. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at the rate of 4 billion tonnes a year – if we carry on at this rate without any increase for our growing population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be gone by 2052. We’ll still have gas left, and coal too. But if we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, then those reserves will only give us an additional eight years, taking us to 2060. coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. Even if we find new reserves, it won't last very long at all, given we DO find more.
Reasoning: Fossil fuels will run out at some point, fairly soon if you look at the timeline of civilization. Even if we found more reserves, it will run out fairly soon.
RENEWABLES
Pro - Yes, renewables should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, renewables should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: (look at trend of wind/solar over the years and how it compares to fossil...it’s gotten wayyyyy cheaper) Renewables in recent years have actually costed less than fossil fuels. What does this say about projected costs? Will they be even cheaper in the future?
Evidence:
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. However, since few petroleum units are used at that cost (petroleum only produced 0.7 percent of U.S. electricity in 2011), it is better to compare nuclear production costs to coal production costs, which averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011 and to natural gas production costs which averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html
“Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.”
Reasoning: Renewable energy prices have gone down in recent years, even below coal and petroleum. What will future advancements in renewables look like? Patterns show that the prices will decrease even further.
COST
Claim: It is expensive to store energy in batteries. Plus, the cost of raw materials, which are the metals in solar panels, is high.
Evidence:
According to this U.S. Energy Information Administration fact sheet, in 2014 the typical U.S. household used 911 kilowatt-hours a month, which works out to roughly 210 kilowatt-hours per week (911 per month / 30 days per month x 7 days per week). The best lithium-ion batteries store less than 0.2 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/It-Is-Surprisingly-Hard-to-Store-Energy
So a lithium-ion battery large enough to store 210 kilowatt-hours would weigh at least 210 / 0.2, or 1050 kg. 1050 kg is about 2314 pounds, or more than one ton.
If you wanted to store that much power in a lithium-ion battery you would end up spending $0.30 per kilo-watt hour for the battery but the average cost for electricity $0.10 per kilo-watt hour.
Reasoning: Batteries cost a lot to build and store power, and the materials used to make the power sources themselves are expensive, as well. Renewables end up costly a lot of money to produce, especially on the large scale.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Renewable energies produce way less CO2 than fossil fuels. After all, they are called “green energy” for a reason.
Evidence:
Almost all of the renewable energy plans emphasize that they have a much lower carbon footprint that any of the fossil fuel options available. Renewable energy sources make the environment healthier as they do not pollute it with Co2 and other toxic gases that are produced by fossil fuels. Apart from that, they are not going to reduce our natural resources which can be conserved for a long time.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-renewable-energy.php
Reasoning: Since renewables don’t release CO2, they have less of a carbon footprint. Therefore, they are more environmentally friendly.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels can’t be recycled because of the elements in the solar panels
Evidence: At cell structure level, different kinds of panels exist, such as monosilicon, polysilicon or thin-film. Monosilicon cells are manufactured from a single crystal. Their higher production costs leads to them being more expensive than other types. Monosilicon cells often have a higher efficiency rating than other technologies. However, as they are cut from cylindrical ingots, they do not completely cover a panel without substantial waste, lessening the efficiency of the overall panel.
Certain solar cells require materials that are expensive and rare in nature. This is especially true for thin-film solar cells that are based on either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Reasoning: Since some of the materials used in solar panels are rare and non-recyclable, they can create waste. Also, the processes to get the materials can be bad for the environment.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Doesn’t produce harmful waste and produces less CO2 than fossil fuels.
Evidence: Compared with natural gas, which emits between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh), and coal, which emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of CO2E/kWh, wind emits only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh, solar 0.07 to 0.2, geothermal 0.1 to 0.2, and hydroelectric between 0.1 and 0.5.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power#.WS5NeWjytPZ
Reasoning: Compared to natural gas, renewable energy is cleaner and safer, since it creates less carbon dioxide.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Wind turbines can cause radiation.
Evidence: The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.
America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Reasoning:
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Renewable energy creates jobs.
Evidence: The report, from NextGen Climate America, showed that investment in efficiency, renewable sources of electricity, and fuel switching — such as moving from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric vehicles — would add a million jobs by 2030, and roughly 2 million jobs by 2050, while increasing GDP by $290 billion and improving household income. The researchers looked at scenarios that would reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
http://grist.org/article/moving-to-renewable-energy-would-create-millions-of-jobs-study-finds/
Reasoning:
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Right now, we can’t run the whole world on renewable energy.
Evidence: When it comes to renewable energy, there are two basic problems: supply and transport. Unlike traditional nuclear or coal power plants, which deliver predictable, steady streams of electricity to houses and factories, wind, solar and hydro power depend on weather, which can be fickle and unpredictable. That means supplies can dip too low at crucial times or soar too high, sending excess electricity into a carefully calibrated power grid.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/statoil/2015/01/21/why-the-world-isnt-ready-for-renewable-energy-and-how-we-can-be/#49184b03687e
Reasoning:
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Renewables are sustainable as long as the sun lives
Evidence: The Sun’s energy warms the planet’s surface, powering titanic transfers of heat and pressure in weather patterns and ocean currents. The resulting air currents drive wind turbines. Solar energy also evaporates water that falls as rain and builds up behind dams, where its motion is used to generate electricity via hydropower.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/the-sun/
All renewable sources are more or less derivates of the existence of the sun (even tides: it is the attraction of the sun that predominates,
Reasoning: Since solar power is powered by the sun, and wind power is powered the temperature differences between air masses, which is also connected to the sun, then these power sources will exist as long as the sun is alive.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Even if a source of energy is renewable, it doesn’t mean it’s sustainable.
Evidence: Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Reasoning: By the evidence presented since something like wind turbines takes rare metals to have a magnetic field to generate electricity but we have a limited amount of supplies that wouldn’t last forever
Claim: Some renewable energies are highly dependent on the weather, which makes them unreliable and inconsistent.
Evidence:
The output from wind and solar power plants varies, they need backup—either fossil fuel plants or energy storage—to compensate for dips and spikes. But it’s rarely clear just how much the output will vary, so that backup power is often on standby even when it’s not needed.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/518051/better-weather-analysis-could-lead-to-cheaper-renewables/
Reasoning: If a power source isn’t effective or reliable all of the time, then what use does it have for people. People already have trouble with power outages, so what will they do with this energy? Additionally, a total reliance to renewables probably wouldn’t be possible.
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels can’t be recycled because of the elements in the solar panels
Evidence: At cell structure level, different kinds of panels exist, such as monosilicon, polysilicon or thin-film. Monosilicon cells are manufactured from a single crystal. Their higher production costs leads to them being more expensive than other types. Monosilicon cells often have a higher efficiency rating than other technologies. However, as they are cut from cylindrical ingots, they do not completely cover a panel without substantial waste, lessening the efficiency of the overall panel.
Certain solar cells require materials that are expensive and rare in nature. This is especially true for thin-film solar cells that are based on either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
NUCLEAR
Pro - Yes, nuclear energy should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, nuclear energy should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: Throughout the years the cost for nuclear has changed
Evidence (include a source):
Obviously not everything in the world is super cheap but with nuclear a lot of renewable are found cheap in different parts of the country. What they are doing is undercutting some of the prices of some older sources of electricity like nuclear power.
COST
Claim: One of the reason nuclear is a con to the world is because of how expensive it has become.
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning: The reasoning why is because when nuclear was first introduced to the world. It was said that nuclear was going to be a cheap way to get electricity. But now we have learned that nuclear power is to expensive to finance. In 2002 all the way to 2008
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: No carbon emissions
Evidence:
Reasoning:
people worry about what nuclear could do to our environment. But they mainly focus on the harm it could do. But for 9 years nuclear power prevented an average 76,000 deaths. So people need to stop worrying about the bad side and see how good things come out of this
Evidence: https://thinkprogress.org/what-a-year-45-fossil-fuel-disasters-the-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-5f84a4a769d0
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
Deepwater Horizon, an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that exploded in 2010, killed 11 people and devastated the surrounding wildlife. In Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013, a crude oil pipeline ruptured and and spilled 210,000 gallons of oil. There are so many of these cases, both documented and undocumented. According to Think Progress, “nearly 300 oil spills and 750 oil field incidents had gone unreported to the public since January 2012.”
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Nuclear waste
Evidence:
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: There are always pros and cons to almost everything and just as nuclear energy has its cons towards health it also has its pros.
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning:
Nuclear energy does good things for our health at the end of the day. For example they give us nuclear medicine like x-rays which is something that we need as humans. Also there is evidence that exposure to radiation poses some risk but these risk are really low.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: The cons nuclear energy will do to your health effects
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning: Exposing this to your body can cause you so much harm. Also if a disastrous meltdown never occurred, a small portion of radioactivity must be released from reactors. This radioactivity enters the human body through breathing and the food chain, as gases and tiny metal particles. They kill and injure healthy cells
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: The pros to nuclear infrastructure.
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning:
The evidence shows that The clean air benefit of avoided emissions from running a nuclear plant is available to everyone. These benefits should be recognized for their social value and supported as part of the country’s broad infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim:
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning:
With this evidence it is clear that Nuclear infrastructure require a massive investment, long term planning and etc. it's not just something you can get done with the snaps of you fingers
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: The longevity of Nuclear and their sustainability.
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning: Overall with the evidence presented that nuclear power will most likely last about 50 or 70 years.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: The cons to the sustainability to nuclear energy.
Evidence (include a source):
Reasoning: Overall we need to remind our ourselves that sustainability isn’t perfect, and we need to be really careful.
FOSSIL FUELS
Pro - Yes, fossil fuels should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, fossil fuels should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: Fossil fuels are cheap and have historically and statistically proven economic benefits.
Evidence: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages_fossilfuels.php
Technologies are available that can extract fossil fuels with high degree of efficiency, substantially reducing the overall cost. In fact, in the modern day, extraction of fossil fuels is cheaper than installing wind and solar technologies. If you look at the economies of oil and gas producing countries, you will see a common trend; economic prosperity.
Reasoning: Buying fossil fuels is much cheaper than other forms of energy
Claim: Although fossil fuel technology may be costly to build, the profits are high.
Evidence:
http://priceofoil.org/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/
Oil companies in the US and Canada made a total profit of $257 billion dollars in 2014.
Reasoning: This huge influx of money is beneficial to the economy. Huge oil companies employ many people, which strengthens the US’ overall economic standpoint.
COST
Claim: Fossil fuels are expensive (trillions) and we pay for the many problems they cause.
Evidence:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/high-cost-fossil-fuels
American consumers and businesses already spend roughly $700 billion to $1 trillion each year on coal, oil and natural gas, and suffer the incalculable costs of pollution from fossil fuels through damage to our health and environment. In 2006, American consumers and businesses spent $921 billion – or close to 7 percent of America’s gross domestic product – on fossil fuels, more than the nation spent on education or the military. In 2008, national expenditures on fossil fuels likely topped $1 trillion for the first time ever. Each year, more than 70 percent of this money is spent on oil.
Reasoning: Our country spends trillions on this harmful form of energy. We could be using this money other forms of energy that do not cause worse problems than solutions.
Claim: Fossil fuels can cause huge disasters, which cost a lot of money.
Evidence: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/14/bp-deepwater-horizon-costs/87087056/
The pre-tax cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster costed $61.6 billion dollars to fix, and the aftermath is still present today.
Reasoning: Disasters, such as Deepwater Horizon, demonstrate the costly dangers that fossil fuels can pose to the world.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Air emissions of fossil fuels have gone down in recent years, which could signal an even bigger drop in the future.
Evidence: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/environmental-performance/air-emissions-reductions/overview
From 2013 to 2015, Balder, one of ExxonMobil’s permanent, floating production vessels stationed offshore Norway decreased its nitrogen oxide emissions by about 21% (290 metric tons of NOx per year).
Carbon emissions have gone down
The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%.
Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.htmlhttp://constitution.com/proof-mans-use-fossil-fuels-co2-minimal-effect-climate-change/Those who say are against fossil fuel and say it is harmful to the environment have no proof, only invalid climate models based on a false Premise that Man-Made CO2 is a huge quantity and causing unlimited warming – They will have no idea that Water Vapor (H2O) is the primary -Greenhouse Gas and Man-Made CO2 is an Extremely Trace quantity that does not significantly affect warming. While the Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and as a Molecule that must be eliminated and sequestered, the GWA have posed an irrational argument, since:Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is essential to all life on earth since all plant life combines it with light and water to nourish themselves with Glucose (C6H12O6) and emit the Oxygen that all animal-life on Earth, including Humans, must breath. You and I exhale about 4% CO2 with every breath.
CO2 Concentrations up to around 10,000 ppm are safe (25-times the current CO2 concentration) for humans to live and work.OSHA Standards of 5,000 ppm are a bit more conservative, recommending that CO2-concentrations not exceed this level for an 8-hour work day (12.5-times the current CO2 concentration). Such High-Levels of CO2-concentrations can occur naturally, but are often artificially created for agricultural applications to increase crop quality and yields, in submarines, space capsules and other special environments.
Reasoning: Over a span of only 2 years, Exxon Mobil has already decreased their air emissions by 21% at one site. Imagine what they would look like in a couple of years, especially with all of the new technological advancements yet to come.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Fossil fuels cause global warming, fires, and destruction to the environment.
Evidence:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WSiGiJArLrc
Mining and drilling both carry serious health and environmental impacts. Mines can collapse or gradually subside, affecting surface and subsurface water flows. Mine fires can also occur in abandoned mines. And acid mine drainage at underground coal mines can be a long term environmental management issue. The resulting drainage water is detrimental to human, plant, and animal life Surface mining involves removing the overlaying soil to access the coal below, devastating local environments.Natural gas’s climate emissions are not only generated when it’s burned as a fuel at power plants or in our homes. The full global warming impact of natural gas also includes methane emissions from drilling wells and pipeline transportation.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide—some 34 times more effective at trapping heat over a 100-year timescale and 86 times more effective over a 20-year timescale. Oil drilling also produces methane. The World Bank estimates that 5.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the equivalent of 25 percent of total US consumption, is flared annually worldwide, generating some 400 million tons of unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions. transporting fuel can generate its own pollution, and increase the potential for catastrophic accidents. Between 2008 and 2012, offshore drilling rigs experienced 34 fatalities, 1,436 injuries, and 60 oils spills of more than 50 barrels each. Causes acid rain. approximately 78 percent of US global warming emissions were energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Of this, approximately 42 percent was from oil and other liquids, 32 percent from coal, and 27 percent from natural gas
Reasoning: Look at all the harm fossil fuels do to our environment. Acid rain? Extremely large carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Devastating oil spills? Is it all worth it?
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels aren't as dangerous as nuclear power.
Evidence: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet
If the fuel and surrounding containment structures are severely damaged, radioactive materials and ionizing radiation may be released, potentially posing a health risk for people. Human exposure to I-131 released from nuclear power plant accidents comes mainly from consuming contaminated water, milk, or foods. People may also be exposed by breathing dust particles in the air that are contaminated with
I-131.
http://constitution.com/proof-mans-use-fossil-fuels-co2-minimal-effect-climate-change Also, this article is proof that fossil fuels don't affect climate change very much, which would be the biggest toll to our health. So therefore fossil fuels really aren't THAT harmful.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2014/08/22/saving-lives-with-fossil-fuels/#29aefc613105 We have already forgotten that electrification has ended the scourge of indoor air pollution in the rich world, saving millions of lives. Rather, we’re very concerned with climate change.
Reasoning: Radiation is more harmful than fossil fuels. Enough radiation can kill someone on the spot. Nuclear power causes things like Chernobyl, which killed 49 people immediately.
Claim: Oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, provide healthcare to their many workers.
Evidence: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/about-us/safety-and-health/employee-health
“ExxonMobil’s Culture of Health is our U.S.-based health and wellness program, which is designed to support the health of our employees and reduce health care costs. We provide collaborative health education, nutrition and fitness programs that are formatted to meet the needs of a variety of work environments such as offices and manufacturing sites. Additionally, we offer employees health coaching and disease management.”
“In total, ExxonMobil contributed more than $670,000 to Ebola-related community health investments.”
Reasoning: Exxon Mobile does put a lot of work into providing health care for their workers, as well as for those who need it.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels pose many types of health effects and causes many deaths.
Evidence: :http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WSiGiJArLrcFatalities at underground coal mine sites in the United States totaled 77 from 2010 to 2013, including a 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia that killed 29 miners.
Coal mining can lead to chronic health disorders.The disease was responsible for the deaths of approximately 10,000 former miners between 1990 and 2000, and continues today.
Mines can pollute local drinking water sources with toxic chemicals like selenium, arsenic, manganese, lead, iron, and hydrogen sulfide.
Particulate matter (soot) emissions produce haze and can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and elevated occurrence of premature death. In 2010, it is estimated that fine particle pollution from US coal plants resulted in 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, a byproduct of all fossil fuel combustion, contribute to acid rain and ground-level ozone (smog), which can burn lung tissue and can make people more susceptible to asthma, bronchitis, and other chronic respiratory diseases.
Fossil fuel-powered transportation is the primary contributor to US NOx emissions. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, primarily the result of burning coal, contribute to acid rain and the formation of harmful particulate matter. In addition, SO2 emissions can exacerbate respiratory ailments, including asthma, nasal congestion, and pulmonary inflammation
Reasoning: Is it worth it to use an energy source considering how many health effects and deaths it causes? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and data showing the REAL effects of fossil fuels on our ecosystem.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Cars depend on gas, so how will cars be fueled if fossil fuels were eliminated? Additionally, the grid would go down and lives could be lost.
Evidence:
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-all-the-worlds-oil-was-to-disappear-tomorrow
“Electricity would stop in most locations within a week. Mass chaos and panic as civilization immediately collapsed. Loss of oil would definitely cause the end of the world as we know it. It would likely set human civilization back 200-400 years before everything was restored to today's quality of life using alternative energy supplies. The end of oil means the end of transportation.”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS
80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels!
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-the-most-dependent-on-fossil-fuels.html
Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei Darussalam depend entirely on fossil fuels.
Reasoning: If we just stopped using fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to power most of the things we use today. Everything is connected, it would result in big problems. Some countries would be left without power.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Fossil fuels might take some time and cost some money to replace, but in the long run, more money and power will come out of renewables.
Evidence:
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001244
Al Gore, Jr., Chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection and former Vice President of the United States, stated the following in his Nov. 9, 2008 article "The Climate for Change," in the New York Times:
"Here's what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth...
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-run-on-renewable-energy/
“A study by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) concluded, “Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.”
Reasoning: It would take some time, and extra time, but it is a better option than harming plants and animals and running out of fuel in a near future. Plus you can’t build an oil rig ANYWHERE.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: We will find more reserves and there are still many out there.
Evidence:
http://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html
For example, the Energy Information Administration reports that in 1977, the United States had just 32 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Between 1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times the 1977 reserve estimate) and 610 trillion cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the reserve estimate). And, large reserves remain. In fact, in recent years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011), primarily as a result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technologies that enable economical access to oil and gas deposits trapped in underground rock formations.
Reasoning: There are new types of technology that can help us find more and more, in some places we never thought of, reserves always grow.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Fossils fuels will “run out” someday.
Evidence:
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels
Globally - every year we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil in fossil fuels. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at the rate of 4 billion tonnes a year – if we carry on at this rate without any increase for our growing population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be gone by 2052. We’ll still have gas left, and coal too. But if we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, then those reserves will only give us an additional eight years, taking us to 2060. coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. Even if we find new reserves, it won't last very long at all, given we DO find more.
Reasoning: Fossil fuels will run out at some point, fairly soon if you look at the timeline of civilization. Even if we found more reserves, it will run out fairly soon.
RENEWABLES
Pro - Yes, renewables should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, renewables should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: (look at trend of wind/solar over the years and how it compares to fossil...it’s gotten wayyyyy cheaper) Renewables in recent years have actually costed less than fossil fuels. What does this say about projected costs? Will they be even cheaper in the future?
Evidence:
On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. However, since few petroleum units are used at that cost (petroleum only produced 0.7 percent of U.S. electricity in 2011), it is better to compare nuclear production costs to coal production costs, which averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011 and to natural gas production costs which averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html
“Just ten years ago, generating electricity through solar cost about $600 per MWh, and it cost only $100 to generate the same amount of power through coal and natural gas. But the price of renewable sources of power plunged quickly – today it only costs around $100 the generate the same amount of electricity through solar and $50 through wind.”
Reasoning: Renewable energy prices have gone down in recent years, even below coal and petroleum. What will future advancements in renewables look like? Patterns show that the prices will decrease even further.
COST
Claim: It is expensive to store energy in batteries. Plus, the cost of raw materials, which are the metals in solar panels, is high.
Evidence:
According to this U.S. Energy Information Administration fact sheet, in 2014 the typical U.S. household used 911 kilowatt-hours a month, which works out to roughly 210 kilowatt-hours per week (911 per month / 30 days per month x 7 days per week). The best lithium-ion batteries store less than 0.2 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/It-Is-Surprisingly-Hard-to-Store-Energy
So a lithium-ion battery large enough to store 210 kilowatt-hours would weigh at least 210 / 0.2, or 1050 kg. 1050 kg is about 2314 pounds, or more than one ton.
If you wanted to store that much power in a lithium-ion battery you would end up spending $0.30 per kilo-watt hour for the battery but the average cost for electricity $0.10 per kilo-watt hour.
Reasoning: Batteries cost a lot to build and store power, and the materials used to make the power sources themselves are expensive, as well. Renewables end up costly a lot of money to produce, especially on the large scale.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Renewable energies produce way less CO2 than fossil fuels. After all, they are called “green energy” for a reason.
Evidence:
Almost all of the renewable energy plans emphasize that they have a much lower carbon footprint that any of the fossil fuel options available. Renewable energy sources make the environment healthier as they do not pollute it with Co2 and other toxic gases that are produced by fossil fuels. Apart from that, they are not going to reduce our natural resources which can be conserved for a long time.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-renewable-energy.php
Reasoning: Since renewables don’t release CO2, they have less of a carbon footprint. Therefore, they are more environmentally friendly.
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels can’t be recycled because of the elements in the solar panels
Evidence: At cell structure level, different kinds of panels exist, such as monosilicon, polysilicon or thin-film. Monosilicon cells are manufactured from a single crystal. Their higher production costs leads to them being more expensive than other types. Monosilicon cells often have a higher efficiency rating than other technologies. However, as they are cut from cylindrical ingots, they do not completely cover a panel without substantial waste, lessening the efficiency of the overall panel.
Certain solar cells require materials that are expensive and rare in nature. This is especially true for thin-film solar cells that are based on either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Reasoning: Since some of the materials used in solar panels are rare and non-recyclable, they can create waste. Also, the processes to get the materials can be bad for the environment.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Doesn’t produce harmful waste and produces less CO2 than fossil fuels.
Evidence: Compared with natural gas, which emits between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh), and coal, which emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of CO2E/kWh, wind emits only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh, solar 0.07 to 0.2, geothermal 0.1 to 0.2, and hydroelectric between 0.1 and 0.5.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power#.WS5NeWjytPZ
Reasoning: Compared to natural gas, renewable energy is cleaner and safer, since it creates less carbon dioxide.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Wind turbines can cause radiation.
Evidence: The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.
America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Reasoning:
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Renewable energy creates jobs.
Evidence: The report, from NextGen Climate America, showed that investment in efficiency, renewable sources of electricity, and fuel switching — such as moving from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric vehicles — would add a million jobs by 2030, and roughly 2 million jobs by 2050, while increasing GDP by $290 billion and improving household income. The researchers looked at scenarios that would reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
http://grist.org/article/moving-to-renewable-energy-would-create-millions-of-jobs-study-finds/
Reasoning:
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Right now, we can’t run the whole world on renewable energy.
Evidence: When it comes to renewable energy, there are two basic problems: supply and transport. Unlike traditional nuclear or coal power plants, which deliver predictable, steady streams of electricity to houses and factories, wind, solar and hydro power depend on weather, which can be fickle and unpredictable. That means supplies can dip too low at crucial times or soar too high, sending excess electricity into a carefully calibrated power grid.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/statoil/2015/01/21/why-the-world-isnt-ready-for-renewable-energy-and-how-we-can-be/#49184b03687e
Reasoning:
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Renewables are sustainable as long as the sun lives
Evidence: The Sun’s energy warms the planet’s surface, powering titanic transfers of heat and pressure in weather patterns and ocean currents. The resulting air currents drive wind turbines. Solar energy also evaporates water that falls as rain and builds up behind dams, where its motion is used to generate electricity via hydropower.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/the-sun/
All renewable sources are more or less derivates of the existence of the sun (even tides: it is the attraction of the sun that predominates,
- the wind is generated by temperature differences between air masses, that come from the fact that some places are more insolated than others,
- water in motion is a consequence of rain, itself a consequence of evaporation under the effect of the sun,
- biomass is a result of photosynthesis (sun again).
- and even coal, oil and natural gas are renewable….if we can wait several million years ! But as we are burning all these resources in a couple of centuries, for such a time horizon these energies are not renewable, of course. And anyway we also face here a concentrated derivate of past solar energy, very ancient it is true.
-
Reasoning: Since solar power is powered by the sun, and wind power is powered the temperature differences between air masses, which is also connected to the sun, then these power sources will exist as long as the sun is alive.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Even if a source of energy is renewable, it doesn’t mean it’s sustainable.
Evidence: Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Reasoning: By the evidence presented since something like wind turbines takes rare metals to have a magnetic field to generate electricity but we have a limited amount of supplies that wouldn’t last forever
Claim: Some renewable energies are highly dependent on the weather, which makes them unreliable and inconsistent.
Evidence:
The output from wind and solar power plants varies, they need backup—either fossil fuel plants or energy storage—to compensate for dips and spikes. But it’s rarely clear just how much the output will vary, so that backup power is often on standby even when it’s not needed.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/518051/better-weather-analysis-could-lead-to-cheaper-renewables/
Reasoning: If a power source isn’t effective or reliable all of the time, then what use does it have for people. People already have trouble with power outages, so what will they do with this energy? Additionally, a total reliance to renewables probably wouldn’t be possible.
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels can’t be recycled because of the elements in the solar panels
Evidence: At cell structure level, different kinds of panels exist, such as monosilicon, polysilicon or thin-film. Monosilicon cells are manufactured from a single crystal. Their higher production costs leads to them being more expensive than other types. Monosilicon cells often have a higher efficiency rating than other technologies. However, as they are cut from cylindrical ingots, they do not completely cover a panel without substantial waste, lessening the efficiency of the overall panel.
Certain solar cells require materials that are expensive and rare in nature. This is especially true for thin-film solar cells that are based on either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
NUCLEAR
Pro - Yes, nuclear energy should be the energy source of the present and future.
Con - No, nuclear energy should not be the energy source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: Throughout the years the cost for nuclear has changed
Evidence (include a source):
- Renewables are so cheap in some parts of the country that they're undercutting the price of older sources of electricity such as nuclear power.
Obviously not everything in the world is super cheap but with nuclear a lot of renewable are found cheap in different parts of the country. What they are doing is undercutting some of the prices of some older sources of electricity like nuclear power.
COST
Claim: One of the reason nuclear is a con to the world is because of how expensive it has become.
Evidence (include a source):
- half century later we have learned that nuclear power is to expensive to finance.
- Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit
-
Reasoning: The reasoning why is because when nuclear was first introduced to the world. It was said that nuclear was going to be a cheap way to get electricity. But now we have learned that nuclear power is to expensive to finance. In 2002 all the way to 2008
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: No carbon emissions
Evidence:
- 2000-2009 period alone nuclear power may have prevented an average 76,000 deaths.
- The number of deaths is far lower than those saved by it.
- If we replace power plants with modern safe nuclear reactors we could do a lot of (pollution reduction) quickly.
- There is an estimation of saving 7 million lives over the next 4 decades.
- All fossil fuels sources replacing nuclear power would contribute a very significant concentration of greenhouse gases to atmosphere and severely aggravate the effects of climate change.
- Since 1957 since then, it has proven itself as one of our safest energy technologies.
Reasoning:
people worry about what nuclear could do to our environment. But they mainly focus on the harm it could do. But for 9 years nuclear power prevented an average 76,000 deaths. So people need to stop worrying about the bad side and see how good things come out of this
Evidence: https://thinkprogress.org/what-a-year-45-fossil-fuel-disasters-the-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-5f84a4a769d0
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
Deepwater Horizon, an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that exploded in 2010, killed 11 people and devastated the surrounding wildlife. In Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013, a crude oil pipeline ruptured and and spilled 210,000 gallons of oil. There are so many of these cases, both documented and undocumented. According to Think Progress, “nearly 300 oil spills and 750 oil field incidents had gone unreported to the public since January 2012.”
ENVIRONMENT
Claim: Nuclear waste
Evidence:
- Scientist have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years.
- Scientist determined that, in the event of such major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometers away from the nuclear reactor.
- Results show that western europe is likely to be contaminated about once every 50 years, by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter.
- It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: There are always pros and cons to almost everything and just as nuclear energy has its cons towards health it also has its pros.
Evidence (include a source):
- The radiation particularly associated with nuclear medicine and the use of nuclear energy, like X-rays
- evidence suggests that any exposure to radiation poses some risk, however, risks at very low
- Nuclear power plant operations account for less than one-hundredth (1/100) of a percent of the average American's total radiation exposure...
-
Reasoning:
Nuclear energy does good things for our health at the end of the day. For example they give us nuclear medicine like x-rays which is something that we need as humans. Also there is evidence that exposure to radiation poses some risk but these risk are really low.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: The cons nuclear energy will do to your health effects
Evidence (include a source):
- the amount of the dose - the amount of energy actually deposited in your body. The more energy absorbed by cells, the greater the biological damage.
- The radiation is known to cause cancer in humans. Radiation can also cause other adverse health effects, including genetic defects in the children of exposed parents or mental retardation in the children of mothers exposed during pregnancy...
- After more than a half-century of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including more than 3,500 reactor years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked
- if a disastrous meltdown never occurred, a small portion of radioactivity must be released from reactors. This radioactivity enters the human body through breathing and the food chain, as gases and tiny metal particles. They kill and injure healthy cells
Reasoning: Exposing this to your body can cause you so much harm. Also if a disastrous meltdown never occurred, a small portion of radioactivity must be released from reactors. This radioactivity enters the human body through breathing and the food chain, as gases and tiny metal particles. They kill and injure healthy cells
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: The pros to nuclear infrastructure.
Evidence (include a source):
- A prime example of the centrality of nuclear energy to infrastructure is found in Connecticut, where the Millstone Power Station serves as the bedrock of the grid, providing nearly half of the state’s electricity.
- Their operating costs are relatively low. As power plants begin to generate electricity, they also generate money, paying back the initial investment and eventually reaping a profit.
- The clean air benefit of avoided emissions from running a nuclear plant is available to everyone. These benefits should be recognized for their social value and supported as part of the country’s broad infrastructure.
- The administration looks to reshape the nation’s infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century, nuclear power should have a central role in those efforts
Reasoning:
The evidence shows that The clean air benefit of avoided emissions from running a nuclear plant is available to everyone. These benefits should be recognized for their social value and supported as part of the country’s broad infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim:
Evidence (include a source):
- Large infrastructure projects require long-term planning, massive investment and another key ingredient—reasonable assurance that the initial investment will be paid back and that some profit will be realized. Nuclear power plants require large capital investment upfront
- Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
Reasoning:
With this evidence it is clear that Nuclear infrastructure require a massive investment, long term planning and etc. it's not just something you can get done with the snaps of you fingers
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: The longevity of Nuclear and their sustainability.
Evidence (include a source):
- Increasingly dependable and emitting some greenhouse gases, the U.S. fleet of nuclear power plants will likely run for another 50 or even 70 years before it is retired -- long past the 40-year life span planned
- Nuclear power is presently a sustainable energy source, but could become completely renewable if the source of uranium changed from mined ore to seawater.
- Nuclear power is presently a sustainable energy source.
Reasoning: Overall with the evidence presented that nuclear power will most likely last about 50 or 70 years.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: The cons to the sustainability to nuclear energy.
Evidence (include a source):
- Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations.
- Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Reasoning: Overall we need to remind our ourselves that sustainability isn’t perfect, and we need to be really careful.
Academic Skills
During this project, I gained skills in professionalism, in being able to do a lot of effective research for a topic in school, and for debates in college. During the debate and while writing the paper, we had to use professionalism, especially since that was part of our grade while having the debates. We had to make sure the research was credible, even if the topic was giving us little to no information. We also had to use critical thinking skills to find an effective argument.
LIfe Skills
I can use this knowledge about the energy we use every day my whole life and know how and where to update myself on new discoveries or propositions that have to do with energy. If I ever need to vote or ever want to get into a debate in the future about this topic or any topic, I already have experience!