Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
birdwing7

Flying windmills

Recommended Posts

and if a company is commercially marketing a product, it's fair to say they've tested it....

The company hasn't begun commercial marketing (I can't buy one of these generators) they are simply seeking venture capital. As such they have huge incentive to play up the positive and minimize any obstacles. On the other stuff - a critic shouldn't give heft to any "Z" a neg can conjure - only those that can forseeably stop the advantages. The men's and women's doors are a great example of a pointless argument...how does me going into the ladies room change the power output of the system? The system collapsing due to turbulence is a different scenario altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why is biopower off of the plan text

"The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its family planning assistance to sub-Saharan Africa regardless of prior restrictions on family planning assistance"

extra-topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand your question.

 

If the topic were "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its family planning assistance to sub-Saharan Africa regardless of prior restrictions on family planning assistance," would it be extra-topical to run bio-power as an affirmative?

 

I am not expert enough about bio-power to answer your question. And I think I would need a plan text to make that evaluation. Could you pose a different hypothetical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was a reference to this year's topic. To increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan africa. Specifying the type of PHA (family planning) is legitimate but specifying who it goes to (those who do not comply with the GGR) and then claiming an advantage off of that (the repeal of the GGR) is extra-topical since it is not germanely linked to increasing public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. Just like specifying who the grants go to and then claiming advantages off of THAT would be extra-topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was a reference to this year's topic. To increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan africa. Specifying the type of PHA (family planning) is legitimate but specifying who it goes to (those who do not comply with the GGR) and then claiming an advantage off of that (the repeal of the GGR) is extra-topical since it is not germanely linked to increasing public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. Just like specifying who the grants go to and then claiming advantages off of THAT would be extra-topical

 

You are completely incorrect- not only is GGR topical except for possibly the fact that it is NGO'S, any EFFECT of a 100% topical plan is not applicable to how topical the plan is.

 

You don't need topical advantages- the topicality challenge must be on the plan text.

 

I am sure that solving a chinese invasion of taiwan isn't "public health" but a number of TOPICAL medflags aff's claim it as an ADVANTAGE. They are fundamentally different.

 

In this example, the aff is topical, and the advantage is based off the topical plan, therefore it doesn't need a "germaneness" test- only the plan text must be topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Zak Black said, I don't think that example would be applicable to flying windmills anyway. Plan increases incentives for flying windmills. That's all it does. It doesn't condition incentives on anything. The affirmative then reads evidence saying without alternative energy, we will build more nuclear and coal fired power plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Zac when he states only plan text has to be topical and in my opinion this case is very much so. It applys to everything in the Resolution (unless you get squirrely definitions). Is there a committee in congress for the specific purpose of alternative energy? (A little off topic but who better to ask)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the Energy subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: nuclear, coal and synthetic fuels research and development; nuclear and non-nuclear energy commercialization projects; nuclear fuel cycle policy; DOE National Laboratories; global climate change; new technologies research and development; nuclear facilities siting and insurance program; commercialization of new technologies including, solar energy systems; Federal energy conservation programs; energy information; liquefied natural gas projects; oil and natural gas regulation; refinery policy; coal conversion; utility policy; strategic petroleum reserves; regulation of Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and other oil and gas pipeline transportation systems within Alaska Artic research and energy development; and oil, gas and coal production and distribution."

 

And there is the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality under the Committee on Energy and Air Quality. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Subcommittees/eaq.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the arg is interesting no doubt, but I'm not sure how deep the literature goes. I think you'd need to investigate the extent of the lit on Flying Windmills, because I have a feeling that there are a lot of issues that are pretty simple to bring up, and there won't be a lot of lit from non-maufacturers to defend it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this could be a very good position, even though it sounds weird. It's more formal name is "high altitude wind power." The premise is that the wind blows harder at higher elevations. Technology companies are working on how to tether generating devices to harness this energy. One company's web site is: http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

 

It has some good evidence:

 

"While the public is aware of the high winds in the jet stream, there is no need for the jet stream to be overhead in the sense as reported in weather forecasts. Think, rather, of the average winds which make a difference in the time flying coast to coast in the U.S. from east to west versus west to east. Tremendous energy can be captured from these average temperate zone winds, enough to supply all the world's energy needs economically."

 

"Our figures show now, that with the advent of very strong but light tether materials, through use of what is essentially existing rotorcraft technology, capture of high altitude wind energy should prove cheaper than as derived from any fossil fuel.

 

In mass use, our calculations show that FEGs of Roberts' design should be able to produce electricity at a life cycle cost of LESS THAN TWO CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR using tether materials now available. And new tether materials with even stronger strength to weight ratios are being developed."

 

I think this could be run as a case take-out, because the authors claim the market will adopt the technology without government interference:

 

"When the United States realizes that high altitude wind energy is capable of being its most economical energy source, market forces will lead to its gradually supplanting oil and to energy independence - as well as end the debate on global warming - because its most economical energy source will produce no greenhouse gases."

 

This also brings into play my concerns about the domestic/international nature of this topic. The jet streams this technology uses are in temperate climates, but the authors suggest generating hydrogen in temperate zones, and shipping it to

 

"Because vehicles will probably best be powered electrically using new battery technology, the most important use of this hydrogen probably will be to supply energy for use in tropical regions where the high altitude winds are insufficient to supply this energy to civilization directly below. This use of hydrogen in the tropics shipped from the temperate zones is in the world's interests, as the global warming from green house gases there are as undesirable as anywhere else, and the non-global warming hydrogen should be able to be economically competitve in that use even though shipped from elsewhere, as fossil fuel is now.

 

It is important to note that future U.S. and world energy needs will undoubtedly increase, and, in addition, that many current energy needs now provided by fossil fuels directly, not through generating electricity, will switch to high altitude wind supplied electrical grid energy as the relative economics change and the need to address global warming problems become more generally recognized.

 

Thus, the number of FEG arrays required to meet future world needs will increase significantly. However, in the U.S., this whole subject should really be addressed from the viewpoint of combined U.S. and Canadian supply and demand, as the U.S and Canadian electrical grids are connected.

 

But Canada, a Kyoto protocol subscriber, the U.S., which is not, and the World, may all find the Kyoto objectives achieved through simple economics without painful legislation. Too good to be true? Well, there certainly are opposing interests."

 

Before Ankur jumps in to tell me that any competent scientist will tell me that this technology will never work, I will pre-empt. Some of the best debate positions are those which fly under the radar of the relevant establishment. There will be lots of evidence against solar and wind energy generally. I'm not sure there will be much evidence against flying windmills.

 

 

how would you source this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a novice moving up to JV and i want to make this to an aff. I am on a new debate team that does not have any JV yet, so could someone please help me tag this? What would i use as the authors name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The workability argument sounds like a nice FYI...perhaps a timeframe argument--but nothing approaching the devastating argument you frame it to be.

 

The affirmative arguments would be predictive + warranted reasons why incentives would make this a more efficient + workable technology.

 

Maybe i don't understand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...

I run High Altitude wind power and really its a pretty solid case.

Does anyone have a peak coal Advantage?

 

would you trade this 1ac/blocks? I have files i can trade. PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have any case neg for this one? We keep hitting it and haven't been able to find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...