CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
18
Install Don't Install
Debate Score:40
Arguments:24
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Install (16)
 
 Don't Install (9)

Debate Creator

Ultimate(1) pic



Windmills In Lake Erie

How do you feel about the windmills being put into Lake Erie?

Warning:Selected answers will be aired on "Ultimate Radio". To learn about the airing times go to http://www.ultimateradiostation.webs.com.

Install

Side Score: 22
VS.

Don't Install

Side Score: 18
1 point

Any way you look at it, installing alternative forms of energy, and going "green" is going to cost a lot. One generation is going to have to pay for it, so that future generations can have cheaper bills, and more efficient and environmentally friendly energy sources.

I was speaking to a contractor who solely takes Green contracts in NYC. He's saying the same thing.

Side: Install
1 point

Yes, there will be high start up costs, as is the case with any new technology, but the benefit is that we will potentially have an infinite supply of energy, that will decrease in price over time. This frees us from dependency from foreign oil, and is over all, much better for the environment.

That anybody opposes this is absolutely astounding to me.

Side: Install
1 point

Yes, there will be high start up costs, as is the case with any new technology, but the benefit is that we will potentially have an infinite supply of energy, that will decrease in price over time. This frees us from dependency from foreign oil, and is over all, much better for the environment.

That anybody opposes this is absolutely astounding to me.

The downvote fairy likes this thread...

Side: Install
1 point

Well it is nice and windy.

Side: Install
2 points

Windmills were installed into the Essex County area not that long ago and the people of that area are still paying them off and they have not gotten any cheaper electricity. Is it really putting money in your pockets? No!

Side: Don't Install
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
2 points

If they put them in not that long ago, why would you expect them to be payed off by now?

If the people are paying the same price for their electric bill, but included in that is the cost for the windmills, then they are paying less for electricity...

Side: Install

Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years. That is a pipe dream. Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive, if renewable energy so great and less expensive, the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market. Subsidies are the only reason why renewable energy exist. If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive. These subsidies now are the only reason why companies are experimenting; otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the cost.

It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy. Renewable energies have been the talk since the turn of 20th Century. Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.

Side: Don't Install
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
1 point

We won't get anywhere with that attitude!!! Jk, though. No one should expect for someone to snap their fingers and everything be changed over to renewable energy...these things take time.

Of course it's expensive. Anything new is going to be expensive, no one ever said it would be cheap. As time goes on it will be cheaper because it will not cost as much to get air that blows naturally, rather than coal and oil that you have to get people to go out and dig for. I just got a new washer and dryer set, they are energy star. They may be more expensive than my old ones, but if my new washer uses about 10 gallons of water less per load than my old one, then I will begin to see savings in the future.

Side: Install
1 point

No one should expect for someone to snap their fingers and everything be changed over to renewable energy...these things take time.

Good, because I don't anyone to snap thier fingers because that is a pipe dream as well, but in reality, that is exactly what you think is going to be done with alternative energy.

Of course it's expensive.

Good, then you can pay for it all while I will still be paying for cheap energy, so I can still life within my means without going broke paying high energy bills.

Anything new is going to be expensive, no one ever said it would be cheap.

True, but that is not the point, the point is if the alternative energies is so great and cheaper than fossil fuels, it would be here already, but it is not because it is unreliable and inefficient.

As time goes on it will be cheaper because it will not cost as much to get air that blows naturally, rather than coal and oil that you have to get people to go out and dig for.

True, when fossil fuels goes more expensive than alternative energy, it will make sense to investment in it because it is now cheaper because private investment has been researching and developing more reliable and efficient uses, and all this comes from the free market. This exact same thing happened from the transfer from horses to cars. Cars can at the free market, not government force as what you advocate.

I just got a new washer and dryer set, they are energy star.

Did ya, how does that feel? I bet you think you are now saving the Earth. Energy Star is an government scam.

Stossel

Side: Don't Install
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years.

From mid 2009 10.4% of our energy came from renewable sources to early 2010 11.14% of our energy comes from renewable sources. That is an increase of over 1% in less than a year, at this rate we could conceivably entirely replace fossil fuels in well under your proposed 100 years.

In a joint address to the Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama called for doubling renewable energy within the next three years.

Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive.

How do you reason, If the government is the one funding such construction projects? If anything construction companies will receive a much needed boost in business. More work generally means more profit. You're not making a whole lot of sense here.

the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market.

Well, some of it is, but like you said these technologies aren't cheap. So what often happens is the government will either subsidizing or fund these projects, so that in the long term, we will reap the benefits.

If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive.

Technologies become cheaper over time, so they wouldn't vanish it would just take much much longer to get to the level of development that we will have in the immediate future.

It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy

You'd still have to pay higher anyway even if we weren't developing technologies for alternative energies because the total supply of fossil fuels can only decrease driving up prices. The benefit of having renewable sources of energy is that we will never run out, so costs would only decrease over time.

Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.

Yes, because the oil companies are so much more invested in helping the poor. {chuckles}

Side: Install
1 point

From mid 2009 10.4% of our energy came from renewable sources to early 2010 11.14% of our energy comes from renewable sources.

Do you have to back up this claim because if it existed, you have already posted it.

That is an increase of over 1% in less than a year, at this rate we could conceivably entirely replace fossil fuels in well under your proposed 100 years.

Well. Stossel

If the government is the one funding such construction projects?

My reason is perfectly fine, maybe you should double check yours.

Government can't create wealth, because it possesses no assets or doesn't produce anything, so it is merely transferring jobs from one industry to another industry through subsidies such as the case construction projects.

So what often happens is the government will either subsidizing or fund these projects, so that in the long term, we will reap the benefits.

Subsiding projects doesn't make it any cheaper because taxpayers are still paying for it. Benefits if only private investment/

Technologies become cheaper over time, so they wouldn't vanish it would just take much much longer to get to the level of development that we will have in the immediate future.

True, I agree, but it must be done as private investment. The transition from horse to cars was done by private investment.

More work does mean more profit but not by subsidies.

You'd still have to pay higher anyway even if we weren't developing technologies for alternative energies because the total supply of fossil fuels can only decrease driving up prices.

No, the alternative energies are the reason for high prices in fossil fuels because the demand is down, but when fossil fuels is more expensive due to short supply than alternative energy, then it makes sense.

Yes, because the oil companies are so much more invested in helping the poor.

They are in business, they are not a charity. Look elsewhere for charity. Plus, the poor benefits with cheap energy sources.

Side: Don't Install
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Currently, there is no way that renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, well that least within the next 100 years.

This is because fossil fuels contain energy reserves which require relatively minimal effort to extract compared to what is released.

However our planet will most likely become uninhabitable for us if we continue using this resource another hundred years.

Businesses will have less money because renewable energy is extremely expensive, if renewable energy so great and less expensive, the transformation would have already occurred through private investment of the free market.

Businesses are only concerned with profit. Not the environment. There is your answer. If it were more profitable to use nuclear fission, you can bet that today's hot-button issue would be about Big Nuclear dumping radioactive waste into our oceans and the increasing radioactivity of our air. But also you can bet that libertarians would once again defend Big Nuclear because it's the most profitable. Up until, of course, they contract cancer.

Subsidies are the only reason why renewable energy exist. If it was a truly free market in energy, renewable energies would vanish because it is to expensive. These subsidies now are the only reason why companies are experimenting; otherwise, it wouldn't be worth the cost.

Correct. That's why we need to subsidise alternative energy and create an even larger budget for it. Do you want clean air? Green forests? Clean ocean and river water? You have to pay for it, because using toxic fossil fuels are a WHOLE LOT cheaper.

Don't like it? Tough luck. I think our health is more important than your ideological purity.

It is rather unfortunate that we have to pay higher energy costs because of bad policy. Renewable energies have been the talk since the turn of 20th Century.

So you'd rather that there were no subsidies then, and that we still use energy sources which steadily contribute to a damaged environment.

Alternate energies is expensive, and it will prevent the poor of ever getting out of poverty.

I think we can thank capitalism for that one. How much do you make every year? That's money which comes out of the paychecks of workers in South America, Africa and Asia.

Also, if we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars on a military budget, we can divert some of it to alternative energy.

Side: Install