*Debate* Should we stop using fossil fuels and move on to a new energy source?

Fossil Fuels, it is what is powering your home everyday, it supplies the globes majority of energy in electricity. Fossil fuels are made over millions of years deep in the earths crust, it forms by heat and large amounts of pressure.

But if it has taken over a million years to form then surely we will run out someday and if we run out then what will power our cars, house, computers, iPods, planes and nearly every man made object.

The repercussions of using fossil fuels are much to great, in 1995 it was estimated that over 6000 million tons of Carbon Dioxide emmissions was added to earths atmosphere. All which add to Global Warming and the melting of the Polar Ice caps raising the sea level, which will eventually cut off the gulf stream partly responsible for keeping Britain a land of greenery during the winter.

What are your views? Should we move to a new energy source? What would happen if we did move what would the disadvantage of that energy source be?

Debate it. :)

Obviously we should, somehow we should use air :D There was a car in the news that ran on air ;o That's the future :8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm

Well yeah obviously, but renewable energy power plants are so expensive to make and so unefficient that they take up looooooooooooads of space and look ugly.

People are happy to say "YAYAYAY renewable energy" but would they really want the fields around them full of windmills or solar panels?

I think we should, pollution from gases etc are destroying the atmosphere and killing wildlife.

It's very easy to say 'yeah, let's move on and use new energy', but the reality is, the human race will continue to burn away these precious fuels until we're forced to move on. We are actually slowly cutting down on this, but it has yet to show anything significant. Of course it would be nice to move on to a new energy source, but I don't think it would happen while we're alive...

this is a very hard question as :

Fossil fuel is running out and would take millions of years to restore it , but if we sue modern fuel such as eletricity etc well itll be poluting the planet cuasing global warming but we can use fueal such as hydro and solar , just use our fuel aficintely (cant spell it :( )

Once again I refer to "50 Facts That Should Change The World" By Jessica Williams. One of these facts is that, The World's Oil Reserves Will Be Exhausted in 40 Years.
I do believe that we should begin to convert to using renewable energies, it will help to stem the pollution problem, our reserves would be available for longer... But if that is to have any impact, we must also think about the other things that have an affect upon our environment, Cows farting for instance :D
The problem is, a transfer to renewable energy sources would be incredibly difficult and slow.. Many people would not like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by --ss--2

aficintely (cant spell it :( )

---

Efficiently? :)

Very soon the earth's natural resources will of ran out. The problem is that the people who make the decisions about this are old men who won't be here in 40 years. We know that it is possible to power houses and heat water yet solar panels are barely popular? This is because people charge too much and in my opinion the government should step in and start converting a lot of these houses into solar energy for free, or subsidised prices. It isn't hard at all to fit a solar panel yet it isn't being done? As well as it benifiting the owner of the house with the fact that it costs lots and lots less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8Freak8

Well yeah obviously, but renewable energy power plants are so expensive to make and so unefficient that they take up looooooooooooads of space and look ugly.

People are happy to say "YAYAYAY renewable energy" but would they really want the fields around them full of windmills or solar panels?

---

I would rather have a field full of windmills or solar panels rather than a shorter life expectancy because we're breathing in carbon monoxide etc. because of pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8Freak8

Well yeah obviously, but renewable energy power plants are so expensive to make and so unefficient that they take up looooooooooooads of space and look ugly.

People are happy to say "YAYAYAY renewable energy" but would they really want the fields around them full of windmills or solar panels?

---

I would really rather have solar panels and windmills imo. Why can't people accept the fact that somethings aren't gonna be pretty in life? I mean seriusoly i see people everyday at my school that wear expensive clothes and they always make fun of people becus they have cheap clothes. IT DOESNT HURT TO ATLEAST HAVE SOEMTHING THAT WILL GET YOOU THROUGH A DAY. solar panels will help us without running up your gas bills and will also help preserve the scarce amount of fossil fuels. in doing that, we can save the scarce amounts and use them for times when we really really need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bonxalot

I would rather have a field full of windmills or solar panels rather than a shorter life expectancy because we're breathing in carbon monoxide etc. because of pollution.

---

I compltely agree. Pollution will in the end make everything look ugly because it's plants and animals. A few white windmills in a field with lots of flowers around will make things look clean and nice(er).

I know I'm going to get some stick for this, but I feel that nuclear is probably, for a short term thing only, the way to go. Very few alternatives to fossil fuels are efficiet, therefore making them not really alternatives at all, as some things such as wind need around 4000 turbines or something to replace just 1 power station or so i've ehard. We've done a ot of this in science, so here is my rough guide to my ideas of the pros and cons of different forms or energy.

FOSSIL FUELS
Pros: these are efficient and produce a lot of energy
They are relatively inexpensive comapred to a lot of other things.

Cons: they pollute the environment and this is a problem that is not going to go away, we can only try and impriove, so we need to think about how to reduce this quickly
They arre also all going to run out sometime, whihc is another reason why we need an alternative.


NUCLEAR
Pros: There's a lot of contreversy over this one, but the pros of nuclear have got to be that it is non-polluting energy.
It is also very efficient, so we'd only need to replace each fossil fuel power station with 1 nuclear station

Cons: There's the problem of where to dispose of nuclear waste, butr the main con that people worry about is terrible nuclear disasters such as the one in Chenoble. I personally feel that this is very rare, and could be avoided if we were careful, but I do see poeple's point of view as a major drawback. However more research has gone into nuclear, so it must be fairly safe. I think thatthis still makes nuclear a lot better than fossil fuels, which will also kill people but in a longer space of time. My view on nuclear is that until we have better renewable energy sources, this shoyuld really be the way forward as a short term solution.


SOLAR
Pros: this is a clean, quite efficient way of making energy. It also doesn't use any space as panels can be attached to people's houses, or even have solar roofs.

Cons: this is mainly the cost. Solar panels are expensive, however I think that this could be overcome if more research went into finding cheaper waysto make them, because I really think solar panels could be a long term solution to a lot of energy problems. There's also the problem that ion places like Britain there isn't always enough sun, but this could be overcome by supplementing it with other less efficient ways.


WIND
pros: well, it' clean. I'm not a big fan of wind, so I cna't really think of much else to say about it. to be honest.

cons: turbines are ugly, expnsive and damaging to habitats and birldife. Birds can get trapped in these turbines. Wind is also very inefficient. I think off-shore wind farms are slightly better because they're more efficient and not an eyesore, so maybe these could be used to supplement other energy resources, as when there isn't sun, then there's often wind.


Hydroelectric
Pros: I think this is quite effiicent, and very cheap to run, once the inital cost has been paid. These are already used in the higlands of scotland where they seem to work quite well. They are also non polluting.

Cons: These have a very high initial cost, and they are damaging to habitats, but I think this could be overlooked, because of the fact that it's not much space they cover. You also need rushing water, so they're certainly not a solution for everywhere.



Biomass

Pros: Another one I think is worth a look into resarching. This is burning organic materials in the same way that we burn fossil fuels. This is better than fossil fuels, becuase for example, a tree willonly release the amount of carbon dioxide that it took in during it's lifetime, so although carbon dioxie is released it's not that much, and if we sustain forests and things then this won't affect us much. They are also quite efifcient. Not as good as fossil fuels, I don't think, but fairly good.

Cons: I think this is quite expensive. I can't think of many cons, because I don't know too much about this.



So that's my rough list of a few energy sources and theur pros and cons. OI haven't mentioned less welll known and used ones, such as tidal or geothermal, becausethey could not be done anywhere and especially things such as ytiddal are not widely used.

Yeh global warming will happen it's just a matter of when exactly it will happen. We need to find a new energy source such as wind power than can still create electricty and everything we need for our lifes. It would be great to find things like cars running simple on air as it wouldn't cause any greenhouse effects.

I think now is the time to move on and find a renewable source.

Yeah, we also need to ease off the oil too. I don't mind if there are more hydroplants/wind/solar.

I think fossil fuels should be banned as they're polluting our atmosphere, and as Stephen Hawkings recently said due to problems such as this and global warming we will have to find new solar systems to inhabit as Earth will become un-inhabitable.

Also people are selfish when they don't want Fossil Fuels to be extinguished as they're not looking towards the future for their children and grand children who will suffer the consequences of a crap Earth after we have polluted it to the max so people have to live underwater due to the fact we wanted to find the quick way of killing ourselves and also getting energy to power our cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bonxalot

I would rather have a field full of windmills or solar panels rather than a shorter life expectancy because we're breathing in carbon monoxide etc. because of pollution.

---

Right on dude :8

should we **** u over **** face

Hydroelectric's pretty decent, as far as I'm aware it's used in Britain quite a lot when we need extra power for a short while (ie: during ad breaks at peak times where people often get up and boil the kettle, people doing that around the country uses quite a bit of electricity, so in some areas hydroelectic is used for any "extras" needed).

As the bubbly chap said, nuclear is easily the best type of power in terms of efficiency, despite taking a long time to set up initially. Still, time's hardly an issue if we start making the switch soon, someone said we have about 40 years until fossil fuels run out, that's quite a long time really to set up some alternative power. Problem of course is waste, but if we can work out a way to store nuclear waste and possibly speed up the process of its corrosion then we can stop that problem, or at least cut it back.

Solar I don't think is as great as many people say it is. It's extremely expensive to set up, and you're never assured of how much energy you'll be able to get. Also, in winter (when you'll need more energy) there'll be less to go around, as there'll be less sunshine.

Biomass I believe is used already in a few places, mostly by burning chicken poo ^_^

what fuel shall we use you have to wait ages for fuels to apper or you have to find oil in the 1st place

to the person who said it needs 400 windmills to make 1 power station when i was somewere i read this fact you can build something like 12 032 wind mills for the price of a coal plant

On Blue Peter they once showed a town being powered by cow shiz =]

Should we turn to new energy sources? Absolutely. Are we able to? No, not to the point where we could become totally independent of fossil fuels. We humans do not yet have the capacity to create enough energy off of windmills or solar power plants to be able to let that take up the slack of fossil fuels. In time solar power will improve. Years ago, it took a whole roof of solar panels to create the amount of energy that can be created with just one panel. now. In the future they will be even more effective and the possibility would be more realistic. Even with nuclear power right now, do we have the capacity to create enough energy to power the world?

One other thing we must realize is that we should have multiple alternative energy sources. What happens when these forms of energy are not possible to use any more? Yes provided it will be billions of years before the sun blows up but what happens to solar power when it does? People say that sources like nuclear power will never run out but do we really know that? As I stated before, the reason is not "Should we?" but "Can we".

Assuming for a moment that the question is "Should we?" Absolutely we should. We should also make the transition before the fuels run out. Experts expect oil to run out in 2050. While it may seem a long time off to a kid, it is necessary to immediately act because 24 years isn't all that far off. Also, as we get closer to the complete loss of oil and other fossil fuels, prices will go up and possibly bankrupt the world's economies and populations. Then there's the pollution factor. Life expectancies are greatly diminished by the presence of pollution and carbon monoxide. Not only are our systems broken down gradually, but we can inherit diseases which cut us down short of our life expectancy as well. There really is no reasonable argument for not making the transition except for cost, but the cost is nothing compared to the priceless "cost" of human lives, and the reality which is the major factor.

Now for Shoutcast's

The efficiency / cost you're right about but what about space? We're worried about our fossil fuels because their limited but so is the space we have available to us, especially with the world's population rapidly rising. So windmills cannot support us on their own.

I'll stop ranting now as you all probably want me to shut up ;) Anyway writing too much can make it harder for your point to get through.

EDIT: I forgot the point I really wanted to make. Regarding air power as some of you mentioned. Yes air power is a magnificent idea BUT! It cannot run on its own. You need some alternative electricity source to COMPRESS the air so that it can be used. Yes it would possibly lessen the amount of undesirable fuels we use but it would not at all eliminate it.

Absolutely-- this debate should be 'what should be our new energy source?'

The thing that makes me mad about gas is how all the money just goes to oil companies in the U.S. The UK has the right idea, all the money in gas goes to the government for energy research. Also, we need an energy source that can be produced worldwide so that we do not have to rely on other nations for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

Yes provided it will be billions of years before the sun blows up but what happens to solar power when it does?

---

When the Sun blows up, the least of our troubles will be what to use in order for us to still be able to watch TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

When the Sun blows up, the least of our troubles will be what to use in order for us to still be able to watch TV.

---

Haha, youre right. There is no way we can live without the sun. There is no way, it's impossible.

To be honest, I'll be dead by the time it all runs out, so I'd rather enjoy a life of fossil fuels :]

Well of course we should stop using fossil fuels. We're gonna have to anyway, it's almost run out! Some people are so lazy. They couldn't care less about the next generation suffering because of us not acting upon it. And why has the subject of the sun blowing up come into this? Chances are it'll blow us all to pieces, and if it doesn't, most vegetation cant live without sunlight, meaning animals will die, eg US. So YEEES

I believe we should use the fossil fuels while they are still here, and in the meantime start building Nuclear Power Plants.
You may think Nuclear is dangerous, We've moved on alot in the past 50 years.
Here are the options:

• Wind Power - Costs Loads, Unrealiable and they need replacing within 10 - 15 years.

• Hydro Dam - Very efficent, Lasts long.

• Nuclear - Very Efficent, Lasts Long and VERY Cheap.

• Solar - Efficent in Hot Countries.

• Tidal - Like Hydro Dam, Its Efficent and lasts long.

I wacthed a program about 1 year ago and it was about finding the solution to Oil and Coal.

I used to be for Wind etc.. but that program swicthed me to nuclear power.


I stand for Nuclear, Tidal and Hydro Dams.

I also dont believe that we are causing Globel Warming, I think that we are speeding it up but not causing it - Think Of The Many Ice Ages the earth has had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jordzahhh

To be honest, I'll be dead by the time it all runs out, so I'd rather enjoy a life of fossil fuels :]

---

My thoughts exactly ^_^ Things are so much easier when you don't care about anyone else.

However, I also agree with everything Undertaker put down, nuclear is the way forward. However, poor countries won't get that because Europe and the US don't let them (check out what's happened to every country that's tried to use nuclear power). That's quite unlucky for them really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

My thoughts exactly ^_^ Things are so much easier when you don't care about anyone else.

However, I also agree with everything Undertaker put down, nuclear is the way forward. However, poor countries won't get that because Europe and the US don't let them (check out what's happened to every country that's tried to use nuclear power). That's quite unlucky for them really.

---

I think asia would benefit from Solar if there not allowed nuclear, But im all for Nuclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Bonxalot

I would rather have a field full of windmills or solar panels rather than a shorter life expectancy because we're breathing in carbon monoxide etc. because of pollution.

---

I agree with you...

I'm sure a few scenery sacrifices wouldn't harm us, Afterall, We would suffer alot more if we stay with fossil fuel and ignore solar power ect..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I think asia would benefit from Solar if there not allowed nuclear, But im all for Nuclear.

---

Not all of asia is poor you know. ;) Singapore is one of the advanced asian countries. But we're not allowed to use nuclear power because we have very limited land, we have nowhere to put the nuclear.

Anyway, yes, I agree with undertaker.

This is why I am against nuclear power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

This is why I am against nuclear power

---

Yeh I already knew about that, The program I wacthed included Chernobyl and once I wacthed a Drama on Chernobyl, It was so sad I nearly cried.

But as ive said before we've moved on in the past 50 - 15 Years - AND That was near/russia which is more Corrupt and 'Backwards'.

I still stand for Nuclear.

Hmm theres plenty of reneable sources.

Sorry for bad spellings im itred

IF we could just switch to a renewable fule sorse we already would have done.
Currently we cant. Most renable technolgys dont give anywhere near enogh power and are massivly more exspeince, as well as often being unrelatble.
The cost is more than we can afford hence we dont switch.

ps. a volcanic erupotion can emit a few 100 million tones of carbon monoside initself, and thats not even a partucaly large one.

Reneable fules also have many problems to, Wind power, many dont want ugly wind mills (apprnlty), as the sound has clamed to cause headakes, and theyve been proven to kill large amounts of birds, as well as being VERY unrelatble, and giveing very little power...
Hydro eleticic, possibly the most effective, causes havock with river echo systems, floods massive arias of land, and causes alot of damage too "/

While we still can use follissule fules, and we dont have anything thats realy better to offer, we aint gona change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Yeh I already knew about that, The program I wacthed included Chernobyl and once I wacthed a Drama on Chernobyl, It was so sad I nearly cried.

But as ive said before we've moved on in the past 50 - 15 Years - AND That was near/russia which is more Corrupt and 'Backwards'.

I still stand for Nuclear.

---

I just don't trust it. There was a fire in a power plant near me a year back. I didnt expect anything major, but accedents do happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01101101entor

IF we could just switch to a renewable fule sorse we already would have done.
Currently we cant. Most renable technolgys dont give anywhere near enogh power and are massivly more exspeince, as well as often being unrelatble.
The cost is more than we can afford hence we dont switch.

ps. a volcanic erupotion can emit a few 100 million tones of carbon monoside initself, and thats not even a partucaly large one.

Reneable fules also have many problems to, Wind power, many dont want ugly wind mills (apprnlty), as the sound has clamed to cause headakes, and theyve been proven to kill large amounts of birds, as well as being VERY unrelatble, and giveing very little power...
Hydro eleticic, possibly the most effective, causes havock with river echo systems, floods massive arias of land, and causes alot of damage too "/

While we still can use follissule fules, and we dont have anything thats realy better to offer, we aint gona change

---

How about solar? Most people with solar panels on their house can provide energy for themselves. I know that some people wont be able to get it as well, ubt a system of panels could supply them.

solar panel take more energy to make them than they give out in electricity in 10 years of use, more carbon dioxide is used to make them than would be saved by using them, solar power is not really the way forward, i think it should be nuclear energy although then where to the waste go?