CER (ASHLEY, ALE, ISAIAH, DAHLIA)
FOSSIL FUELS
Pro - Yes, fossil fuels should 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/advantag
es_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-compa
nies-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.
ENVIRONMENT
Con - No, fossil fuels should not be the energy
source of the present and future.
COST
Claim: Fossil fuels are expensive (trillions) and we
pay for the many problems they cause.
Evidence:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/h
igh-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 Americas
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/2016/07/1
4/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/e
nvironmental-performance/air-emissions-reduction
s/overview
From 2013 to 2015, Balder, one of ExxonMobils
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 worlds 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/i
ea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-
even-as-global-economy-grew.htmlhttp://constitution.c
om/proof-mans-use-fossil-fuels-co2-minimal-effect-climate-chang
e/Thosewho 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
Claim: Fossil fuels cause global warming, fires,
and destruction to the environment.
Evidence:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-othe
r-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 gass
climate emissions are not only generated when its
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
dioxidesome 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?
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.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels aren't as dangerous as nuclear
power.
Evidence:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prev
ention/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/2014/0
8/22/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, were
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.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Fossil fuels pose many types of health
effects and causes many deaths.
Evidence:
:http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-oth
er-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WSiGiJArLrc
Fatalities 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.

Claim: Oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil,
provide healthcare to their many workers.
Evidence:
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/abo
ut-us/safety-and-health/employee-health
ExxonMobils 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.
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-t
he-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.COM
M.FO.ZS
80% of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels!
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-the-m
ost-dependent-on-fossil-fuels.html
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: 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.p
hp?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."
Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-th
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.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: We will find more reserves and there are
still many out there.
Evidence:
http://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.ht
ml
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.
e-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 cant build an oil rig ANYWHERE.
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Fossils fuels will run out someday.
Evidence:
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/ener
gy-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. Well 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.
COST
Claim: (look at trend of wind/solar over the years
and how it compares to fossil...its 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/elect
ric-generating-costs-a-primer/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-a
nd-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-fir
st-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.
ENVIRONMENT
Con - No, renewables should not be the energy
source of the present and future.
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-Surprisin
gly-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 dont release CO2,
they have less of a carbon footprint. Therefore,
they are more environmentally friendly.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Claim: Doesnt 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-en
ergy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power#.WS5Ne
WjytPZ
Reasoning: Compared to natural gas, renewable
energy is cleaner and safer, since it creates less
carbon dioxide.
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels
cant be recycled because of the elements in the
solar panels
Evidence: Atcellstructurelevel,different
kindsofpanelsexist,suchasmonosilicon,
polysiliconorthin-film.Monosiliconcellsare
manufacturedfromasinglecrystal.Their
higherproductioncostsleadstothembeing
moreexpensivethanothertypes.Monosilicon
cellsoftenhaveahigherefficiencyratingthan
othertechnologies.However,astheyarecut
fromcylindricalingots,theydonotcompletely
coverapanelwithoutsubstantialwaste,
lesseningtheefficiencyoftheoverallpanel.
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: 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 MITs estimate)
and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of
Atomic Sciences estimate) of rare earths were
used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also

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:
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Renewables are sustainable as long as the
sun lives
Evidence: The Suns energy warms the planets
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
means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million
pounds of radioactive waste were created to make
these wind turbines.
Americas 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-w
inds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
Reasoning:
INFRASTRUCTURE
Claim: Right now, we cant 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/w
hy-the-world-isnt-ready-for-renewable-energy-and
-how-we-can-be/#49184b03687e
Reasoning:
SUSTAINABILITY/LONGEVITY
Claim: Even if a source of energy is renewable, it
doesnt mean its 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
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.
https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ideal-worl
d/are-there-co2-free-energies/
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.
that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752
pounds of rare earth minerals.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-w
inds-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 wouldnt
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 backupeither fossil fuel plants
or energy storageto compensate for dips and
spikes. But its rarely clear just how much the
output will vary, so that backup power is often on
standby even when its not needed.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/518051/bette
r-weather-analysis-could-lead-to-cheaper-renewa
bles/
Reasoning: If a power source isnt 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 wouldnt be possible.
Claim: After the lifetime of solar panels, the panels
cant be recycled because of the elements in the
solar panels
Evidence: Atcellstructurelevel,different
kindsofpanelsexist,suchasmonosilicon,
polysiliconorthin-film.Monosiliconcellsare
manufacturedfromasinglecrystal.Their
higherproductioncostsleadstothembeing
moreexpensivethanothertypes.Monosilicon
cellsoftenhaveahigherefficiencyratingthan
othertechnologies.However,astheyarecut
fromcylindricalingots,theydonotcompletely
coverapanelwithoutsubstantialwaste,
lesseningtheefficiencyoftheoverallpanel.

NUCLEAR
Pro - Yes, nuclear energy should 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.
Reasoning:
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.
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.
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).
Con - No, nuclear energy should not be the
energy source of the present and future.
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: 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
 There is an estimation of saving 7 million to be contaminated about once every 50
lives over the next 4 decades. years, by more than 40 kilobecquerel of
All fossil fuels sources replacing nuclear caesium-137 per square meter.
power would contribute a very significant It appears that the global risk of such a
concentration of greenhouse gases to catastrophe is higher than previously
atmosphere and severely aggravate the thought.
effects of climate change. Reasoning: A disaster could happen in our
Since 1957 since then, it has proven itself environment once every 10 to 20 years. Are
as one of our safest energy technologies. we really going to risk having nuclear. That if
an event happens half of radioactive caesium
Reasoning:
would spread about 1,000 kilometers.
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-a
bout-5f84a4a769d0

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemi
cal-spills/significant-incidents/deepwater-horizon-o
il-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.

HEALTH EFFECTS 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
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
 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.
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 states 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
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:
Evidence (include a source):
Large infrastructure projects require
long-term planning, massive
investment and another key
ingredientreasonable 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.
 plant is available to everyone. These
benefits should be recognized for their
social value and supported as part of
the countrys broad infrastructure.
The administration looks to reshape
the nations 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 countrys
broad infrastructure.
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.
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 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 isnt perfect, and we
need to be really careful.