EQ: Can solar energy effectively replace the use of fossil fuels?
Background: Pro: The technology to make solar energy effective is either already developed, or requires only a few more years of research development. Con: The cost of producing solar farms in sufficient size makes them not cost effective. Also, the space required for solar farms to be a main stay in energy production would be wasteful, not environmentally friendly, and could be used for other uses.
Claim: Solar energy, with the current methodology, can serve to alleviate the need of fossil fuels, but cannot replace fossil fuels, not without help. The total effectiveness of solar energy can be vastly improved if we rethink how to position the solar farms and accept larger investment costs for greater return
Support: Our industry, economy, and society are based firmly on the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will continue to serve as the foundation of our world for many more years, but we will find ourselves without fossil fuels eventually. When that happens, we need to be prepared and ready to continue providing energy not just for the continuation of current energy usage, but for development and industrial expansion. Renewable sources of energy are going to be needed; but if we wait until their needed to develop them, it will be too late. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass sources can either only be placed in certain, limited locations, or require an inordinate amount of space and resources. Solar farms, while requiring large areas of space, can be placed anywhere that has access to the sun. Maintenance from dust and the dilution of solar energy from the atmosphere reduce effectiveness and increase costs; however, there are two locations where dust is nonexistent and atmosphere is removed from the equation, the Moon and space.