 Ieithaf, wrth gael, i'r dweud i 3 ffwrdd ac yn rwy'n dweud i'ch ddau'r ddau'r ddau, dyfodol o'r ddau ar y cyfnodau ond yn ymwyafol yn cyfan cyfnodau wrth gael. Ieithaf y ddau, roeddwn i'w Portrey High School i'r Maria MacAskill, Mallan Lewis, a Callan Campbell. Ieithaf, roeddwn i'r Hermitage Academy i'r Cameron King, Rebecca Freils, I would now like to invite the first speaker to open the debate for the proposition, and that is from Portree High School. Good morning, Madam Chair, judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen. Today, my team and I will be proposing the motion. This house believes that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. I shall introduce our arguments, Maria McCaskill will expand and then Malin Lewis will go on to give her a conclusion. Marine energy is a type of renewable that is created from usually one of two things, the tide or waves. When either one of these passes over a generator, it creates large amounts of kinetic energy, which is then stored in vast amounts. This energy is then used, as I am sure you all know, to power homes, industries and transport, among other things. The first argument that we will be speaking about today is that marine generated power will provide our country with safer, cleaner and more efficient energy than many of our other alternatives. Renewables, as we know, are much safer, cleaner and more efficient alternatives to fossil fuels. Marine power is no different. Fossil fuels pump out an astounding 51 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year, and hydropower, being a renewable energy, pumps out none. Obviously, a far greater alternative if we wish to do no further damage to our planet. Aside from its effects on the environment, the price of ocean energy works out at just £30 per megawatt, around the amount needed to power 10,000 light bulbs, far ahead of coal and other fossil fuels, around a much larger £100 for every megawatt. We agree that fossil fuels are bad for our environment. We as the opposition are proposing using alternative methods of renewable sources. That would work, but marine power, as I've already mentioned, is one of the safest and most cost economical methods we have. Why would we not use that? The second point that we shall be putting forward today is that Scotland is currently one of the world leaders in this type of energy. If that is correct, what reasons do we have to stop? If we continue down our current path, we could be producing 35 per cent more than a quarter of Europe's marine power. If we keep going, we can forget the Government's current target of dependency on renewables. We could satisfy our entire nation's electricity and energy demand solely from the power of marine energy. The final point that I and my team will be speaking about today is how practical marine energy is for our country. A small seaside town is an ideal location for a marine power station. Scotland has more than 10,000 miles of coastline, so imagine the potential for wave or tidal power. Scotland has the potential to create 35 per cent of Europe's marine energy, and all of that from our one little country sounds like far good an opportunity to be missed. Waved machines must be placed near coastal cities, and they will only help coastal cities. Will they not help to be able to have the technology right now to transport the energy into land cities? I do not have that technology right now, but by 2020 we believe that Scotland could satisfy its entire electricity demand solely from this one type of energy. I am sure that none of you are in any doubt by now that marine energy is clearly the way forward for our country, and we should and we will continue to lead the way for the foreseeable future. America leads the way in medical research. Asia leads the way in education. Why not let Scotland lead the way in marine energy technology? Why not give the Scottish people a future that they can be sure in? This is Scotland's chance. Why should we not take it? I am now going to invite the first opposition speaker to outline their case from hermitage. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, honourable judges, fellow debaters and madam chair. I am here today to oppose the notion that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy. I will start off our argument with a couple of points. My partner Rebecca will elaborate on those points and add some of her own, and then my final partner Ryan will summarise our argument. I would first like to start by defining what our side sees as marine energy. Marine energy or marine power refers to the energy carried by ocean waves, tides, salinity and ocean temperature differences, or in other words, wave and tidal power. I would first like to rebut a point made by the first proposition of the speaker, Callum. You said that wave power is by far one of the safest while solar power is proved to be safer as it does not disturb the seabed or sea creatures. I will start off by touching on the general disadvantages of marine power. The biggest disadvantage to getting your energy from the waves is location. There aren't many suitable locations for wave or tidal power in Scotland that would generate enough to be cost efficient. As clean as when a wave energy is, it still creates hazards for some of the creatures near it. Large machines have to put near and in the water to gather energy from the waves. These machines disturb the seafloor, change the habitat of near shore creatures, like crabs and starfish, and create noise that disturbs the sea life around them. There is also danger of toxic chemicals that are used on wave energy platforms spilling and polluting the water near them. Another downside is that it disturbs commercial and private vessels. Power plants that gather wave energy have to be placed near the coastline to do their job, and they have to be near cities and other populated areas to be of much use to anybody. However, those are places that are major thoroughfares for cargo ships, cruise ships, recreational vehicles and beach scores. All those people and vessels will be disrupted by the installation of a wave energy gathering source. That means that Government officials and private companies that want to invest in wave energy sources have to take into account and consider the needs of those that may be disturbing. Wave power is also highly dependent on wavelength, i.e. wave speed and water density. They require a consistent flow of powerful waves, which will not always happen, to generate significant amount of wave power. Some areas experience unreliable wave behaviour and it becomes unpredictable to forecast accurate wave power and therefore cannot be trusted as a reliable energy source. My final point today will be about cost and efficiency. A few years ago, the world's largest wave farm was built in Scotland at a cost of £4 million. For that amount, you would expect a high peak of energy, at least 100 megawatts. What would be wrong? This wave farm gives a peak of three megawatts, so you wouldn't always be getting that. If you compare this to a £4 million wind farm, which generates a peak of 104 megawatts, we can see that marine energy is clearly not cost efficient. A plan was put forward for a tidal barrage, which would cost £15 billion, which would create 8,000 gigawatts every 10 hours a day, which sounds good. Recently, a plan was approved of a factory, which would build enough wind turbines to make the biggest wind farm in the world during 20,000 gigawatts for only £310 million, again not cost effective. Those are just some of the things wrong with marine energy, ladies and gentlemen, and these are the reasons that we beg you to oppose. I am now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the proposition from Portree. Good morning, Mr Chairman, fellow judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen. As main speaker for our team, the proposition, we believe that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. Why shouldn't we? But before I go on to speak about our arguments in more detail, I would firstly like to refute one of the points made by the Opposition. Hermitage Academy has claimed that wind turbines are the way forward, but they are killing off millions of birds every year. Scotland, as we know, is leading the way in marine energy technology. Hermitage Academy, however, are claiming that it is not the best way to secure Scotland's future, which, at the moment, is looking brighter and more promising than ever before. As many of you know, Scotland and the rest of the UK have just come out of a dreadful recession and we are entering a time where jobs are few and far between. Marine energy, as well as other types of energy, are going to ensure that we are entering a future worth living. Our arguments for this motion will be providing our country with clean, efficient energy at a low environmental and wildlife cost. We are currently leading the way. Why shouldn't we continue? It is a better alternative to fossil fuels and it can be used whenever. Lastly, Scotland is perfectly suited to marine energy as marine energy lends itself to small seaside towns, which Scotland is full of. We have 25 per cent of Europe's tidal power and 10 per cent of their wave power. The Scottish Government has said that it is completely committed to the development of a totally successful marine energy project. We have the Government support, the EU support and, with support, comes funding. We have £103 million to spend on renewable energies and that is from our Government alone. Our first point in the debate this morning is that, by continuing to lead the way in marine energy technology, Scotland will have clean, efficient energy that is renewable. You talked about our budget for renewable energy. Why would we spend our renewable energy budget on just one form when we could branch out to different forms? I am not saying that we are going to spend all of our renewable energy budget on marine energy, but I am saying that some of it is going to go towards marine energy. Renewable energy is a big priority in the Government's plans, both nationally and internationally, with goals such as 100 per cent demand for renewable energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. The EU has set a goal that 20 per cent of their energy is to come from renewable sources. We are contributing towards those goals by using renewable energy projects such as marine energy. Our next point to support our motion is that, by using marine energy projects, we are providing our country with clean and efficient energy that is safe. By using renewable energies, we are cutting our fossil fuel usage, reducing our carbon footprint and doing our industrial wrecked polluted world a helping hand. Currently, we are using solar, wind, biomass and many other types of renewable energy. What makes this inefficient wave energy any better? We are not saying that marine energy is going to take up all of our renewable energies. We are saying that it is the best way to help Scotland and we should continue to lead the way in it because we are already leading. Currently, we are using 82.4 million battles of oil a day. Because of that, we need to seriously start thinking about ways to replace old habits for when our oil runs out. Marine energy, along with other types of renewable energies, are Scotland's key to a brighter future. Fossil fuels, however, are killing off thousands of animals every year, whilst renewable energy sources such as wind turbines are in danger of killing a minute 1 per cent of birds every year. By using fossil fuels, we are emitting harmful greenhouse gases, which are warming up our planet and increasing our risk of losing certain species of animals. Marine energy is also wildlife friendly. I will not harm fish or other living things in our watersh, because everything that needs to happen in a marine energy project happens inside of the machine. Unlike fossil fuels, which destroy natural habitat and wipe away anything in their path, it will not harm anything. Our third point in the debate this afternoon is that we are currently leading the way in marine energy technology, and why shouldn't we continue? This is our opportunity to make our mark in the world, and why not let it be something clean while we're at it? Our team's third point in today's debate is that Scotland is perfectly suited to marine energy, as marine energy lends itself to small seaside towns, which Scotland is full of. No, thank you. Arcney and the North Sea is one of Scotland's first commercial marine power stations in the world. The county state, which owns the seabed, has awarded leases for over 1.6 gigawatts of marine energy projects in the Pentland Firth and Arcney Waters, potentially enough to power 750,000 homes. Arcney is the perfect place for marine energy, and the European Marine Energy Centre, the EMEC, has their only commercial power station there, and so far it has been a huge success. Marine energy in Scotland is a success, and it will continue to be a success. We are around 50 per cent reliant on renewable sources, but we are only 2.3 reliant on oil for our electricity at the moment. Ladies and gentlemen, as the proposition, we strongly believe that, leading the way in marine energy technology, we are doing our already direct world a favour. We can't afford to dig up more fossil fuels, burn more oil, because, to be honest, our world can't take it. We need to get our act together now to try and save it. Ladies and gentlemen, do you really want to be part of a generation that ruins our world for the future? No. Marine energy is the best way forward, and we have every right to lead in something that the Scottish people care about, that we care about. I am now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the Opposition, and that's her. Ladies and gentlemen, hon. judges and madam chair, my name is Rebecca Freels, and I am here today to prove to you that Scotland should not continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. I would like to start off by rebutting a few points made by proposition speaker 2, Maria. You were saying that wind turbines kill thousands of birds each year. A recent study has found that there may be birds and bats deaths, but they are minimal and will not lead to extinction. You were also saying that marine energy benefits small coastal towns. What are you suggesting we use for further inland towns and cities? We, as the Opposition, are not proposing fossil fuels. We are proposing using an energy mix with other renewable forms of energy and marine energy. Firstly, I would like to expand on my partner Cameron's argument about the disadvantages of marine energy. One of the most frequently asked questions about renewable energy is where will we put these structures? Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is the exact question that we, as the Opposition, are asking. The locations that hold suitable conditions for marine energy are severely limited, as my colleague Cameron stated, as they will have to be placed along the coastline, only towns and cities along the coastline will directly benefit from these machines. Shipping industries have expressed concerns as wave and tidal machines must be placed along the coast, and that could affect the importation of their goods. That also means a drop of interest in trade, which severely affects our economy. In 2012, if we are careful as to where we place our marine energy projects, marine energy and fishermen can work hand in hand. As I mentioned, there are severely limited places to place these machines, so no matter where we place them, they will always be conflict. In 2012, the shipping industry employed over 75,000 people in Scotland. It generated over £3.8 billion for our economy and generated over £1.2 billion of tax revenue. So, continuing to develop this form of energy would limit our third largest source of revenue in Scotland. It would also affect other industries such as tourism. Over 90 per cent of people would recommend Scotland for its wildlife. As my colleague Cameron has already outlined, marine energy has a huge effect on this marine life. The amount of tourists choosing to view wildlife has risen by 62 per cent since 1997. If our amount of marine life were to decline or the tourists were unable to observe these beautiful creatures in their natural habitats due to renewable energy projects, this would affect the amount of tourists visiting our country and resultantly our economy. My second point is about alternatives. The motion states that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy. Surely if we are leading the way, that means that we are already advanced in this field. As marine power alone does not have the potential to power the whole of Scotland, should we not be focusing on inland alternatives as well? Many of these alternatives are also more reliable and effective. Let's start with wind power. Scotland boasts 25 per cent of Europe's offshore wind resources, so wind is clearly a key player in our future energy mix. It will also only take up a small plot of land and, unlike marine energy, the locations that fit the conditions for these turbines are plentiful. Another viable alternative is hydropower. Hydropower can rapidly change its power output to meet fast-changing energy demands as we can constrict the flow of rivers and streams, and open them up so that more water can get through. As rivers are constantly flowing, is that accepted? Hydropower dams are also a good way for renewable energy, but are they not harming the same amount of wildlife as marine energy saying that they are still using water? Rivers and streams are smaller than the sea, so, if we place hydro and tidal, there is more wildlife out in the sea that can be affected by these machines. As rivers are constantly flowing, we will never run out of hydropower. Also, a form of hydropower technology is being developed called pumped storage. That will give us the ability to store electricity from other forms of renewables for later use. As well as that, more hydroschems are in the pipeline, and a Scottish Hydropower Reserve study found that there could be as many economically viable, untapped hydropower potential to power a quarter of Scotland's homes. That's roughly 500,000 homes. Also, once the dam is built, energy can be supplied at a constant rate, unlike wave energy, which relies on the size of waves, or tidal power, which the process only occurs twice daily. Finally, I will talk about solar energy. Solar panels, despite common misconception, can operate in a low level of sunlight, as they are capable of producing hot water in cloudy weather. Also, PV solar panels don't generally require maintenance, as they don't have any moving parts or mechanisms which could break, unlike wave and tidal power, which rely on moving turbines. Meroe energy severely affects our economy and environment. We as the Opposition believe that there are better, more effective forms of renewables. For those reasons, we beg you to oppose the motion. Thank you very much, Hermitage. We're now going to move on to the submissions for each side. I'm going to call on the third proposition to sum up the cases for Portrait. Thank you. Hynny'n gweithio, mae'n cydweud i'r cyfnodau, mae'r ddau a'r ddweud i'r dweud i'r ddweud. Felly, dweud o'n ddweud i'r ddweud i chi a ddim yn ddigon. Cynyddo'r ddweud yn ddweud i'r ddweud? Ynrhyw y gallu ddweud, ddweud y gallu bod yn ohon yn unrhyw o'r myl ar y bael. Abertau'r ddweud o'r ddweud a ddweud o'r ddweud, ddweud i'r ddweud i ddim yn ddweud i'r ddweud. As our team's final speaker, I would like to consolidate, finalise and reinforce some of the arguments we have made. As you have heard, marine energy is the energy carried by the tide and ocean waves and ocean heat. There are five forms in total with marine energy, the two main ones, tidal and wave. Clearly, you can see it is a very diverse form of renewable energy. It's clearly an incredible energy, and therefore one of the best, if not the best, making it a valuable asset to Scotland. That's why we should continue leading the way in marine energy. It's clearly worth it. Some people have said to us that it uses fossil fuels to install the making and completing renewables, but big surprise, so do all other renewable energies. Hermitage Academy has implied we want to put all our eggs in one basket with marine energy. We do not. We want to boost marine energy and support it with other renewable energies. Although marine energy is still in its early stages of development in Scotland, we already account for 10% of worldwide wave usage and 25% of worldwide tidal usage. These figures speak for themselves and show just how much potential there is if we are still only in the early stages. The key to our access, the EMEC, the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. It is the only commercial marine power station in the world, and it is in Scotland. That shows how much the Government believes in it, and rightly so. As already said, Scotland lends itself perfectly to marine energy because marine energy itself lends its perfectly to Scotland. It's small seaside towns and small-scale production. Currently, the EMEC have several pre-commercial devices in testing, so when they are released we can only imagine the benefits. It is an investment finally paying off. Hermitage Academy have also said that there are a few locations for marine energies, but these smaller technologies can fit into small spaces, and they will almost completely be non-disruptive. Some people have also said that it's unreliable, but in comparison to others it is far more. For example, wind turbines, according to a marine energy expert, are only able to run for 15% of the time. There are over 65% of the time for wave energy, and as the tidal wealth, as long as the moon keeps travelling around our Earth, the tide will go in and out 100% of the time. Compared to other energies, it also has a far lower environmental cost when installed, and far, far less, almost none when completely installed. It may not be as developed as others, but it is already, as you can see, better, and so imagine a huge potential when it is complete. Millionaires don't make their money by playing it safe. They make it by investing and taking a chance, and with something that holds such a high and positive chance, we cannot afford to miss out. By spending millions, we make billions. You say we cannot afford to, but the truth is we need the money and we need to invest, therefore we cannot afford not to. We hope you can see now that the best way forward is to continue our funding and researching in marine energy, so that we can continue to lead the way in renewable energy for Scotland. Thank you very much, judges, madam chair, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Campbell and Ms McCaskill. Thank you very much for that summation and that portray. Finally, I am going to call on the third opposition speaker to sum up and close the debate from her message. Good morning, ladies, gentlemen, madam chair, honourable judges and fellow debaters. My name is Ryan Brown, and I am here today to round up the opposition's argument on why Scotland should not continue to lead the way in marine energy. I will start by rebutting some points, made by the first opposition speaker, Colin Campbell. He said that wave energy and tidal energy were one of the safest, however solar would be the safest as it does not disrupt any environment unless you have many animals living on top of your roof. Also, you stated that you were planning on 100 per cent wave, although the rest of your team did not agree. We can't go on solely one energy. No other country has ever been able to do this. Now I will rebut some points by the second proposition, Maria McCaskill. She said that wind farms were responsible for many birds deaths, but offshore wind farms cannot kill as many birds as you think. They need somewhere to land in order to get that far out. Birds cannot just miraculously keep on flying and flying and flying. They will be tired and run out of energy. I must stress that we as the opposition believe fossil fuels are bad and we should not use them. We have been arguing that we should use other forms of more efficient renewable energies. Now I would like to quickly rebut some of the things that the final speaker, Malin Lewis, stated. He said that there is no reason for us not to invest in these energies. I think that I can think of one reason. We would be wasting taxpayers' money when we could be spending out on more efficient energies such as wind, which has been proven to get more energy in peak hours, as Cameron has stated previously. I will start by rounding up Cameron in the first-off position speaker's points. Cameron started off by speaking about cost and efficiency, outlining the many flaws in wave power farms. For example, a £4 million wave power farm produced three megawatts of power at the peak time, whereas a £4 million wind farm produced 104 megawatts at peak time. As you can see, the wind farm is clearly superior. Also, he outlined the massive inefficiency in wave power in the form of a project that would cost £15 billion, the amount that taxpayers cannot just magically get out of their wallet, and give less than half of the amount of energy a wind factory could produce wind turbines to make double the amount, and that would only cost £310 million. He then went on to state the general disadvantages of wave power and tidal power such as damaging the environment, business and briefly on the weak performance in rough weather. Starting with the environmental damages, there is no doubt that wave power generators will harm the seafloor and alter marine habitats and have negative effects on the sea creatures such as crabs, starfish and mollusks. As soon as we attach one of those machines to the seabed, it disturbs the marine creatures' lifestyles. It is like putting a massive rod in the middle of the royal mile, crushing homes, quite scary, quite new and very disruptive. Then he went on to explain the shipping industry as Rebecca has and how it would be disrupted. Ladies and gentlemen, let's take Glasgow, for instance, and let's say that they installed tidal and wave energy machines. In doing so, it would make transporting cargo into Glasgow harder and harder until commerce from Europe would just go to another major city such as Edinburgh or perhaps London where it's not as tedious. Also in rough weather can severely damage these machines and it is Scotland so rough weather is not a rare occurrence. Now I will move on to sum up my colleague Rebecca's points. She started her argument by outlining general disadvantages like they could only be placed on the coast to power coastal towns and cities at this moment in time, meaning they could not power in cities and we have many. Also how the use of wave power machines would cause a decline in our wildlife tourism which is one of our largest forms of tourism if not the largest. She then went on to talk about how renewables such as solar, hydro and wind were much more efficient. I hope that we can all agree that the best way forward is to not waste our time, our money on such a small energy source for these reasons. I beg you to oppose the motion. Thank you very much for that final summation. I thank you to all of our speakers. The debate has now closed but I think that you'll agree that Portrey and Hermitage have debated very, very well and intensively so a round of applause to our two teams. Again, we have a short period of time now to change over with allness and can you say taking their places at the tables please.