TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why are the alternate power sources not being implemented on a world-wide scale? There is a tipping point and we must be close by now!!!

Solar panels
Wind Turbines
Hydro-Elecric

We all see the signs of the world changing. Ice caps disappearing, mega storms, tempature rise, ect.
Yet we are more concerned with royal babies, wars, and profits.
We will have none of that if this planet stops supporting life as we know it.
This is a back burner issue always used for politics but never solved by politics.
Turn the heat up on this, the Earth is!

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 16 2013: It is still more economically viable to produce energy on a large scale using fossil fuels than to use renewable energy. If research and implementation of alternative sources of energy are continued, we will soon reach a point where the falling costs of the alternative sources will meet the rising cost of conventional sources, making renewable energy the more economically viable option. This is the point when renewable sources will be implemented on a world wide scale.
    • Aug 17 2013: No, it isn't.

      The environmental damage done by fossil fuel is calculable and should be a cost that is factored into the equation, it isn't. That includes asthma and other health care costs. The only reason there is any debate over the damage done by greenhouse gases is to delay the implementation of liability. Even so, acid rain is a very real and calculable damage.

      Also, the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should also be included in the cost of maintaining a flow of oil to the US. That cost is also not included.

      There is a very real benefit to spending money in the US, a "Made in America" vs sending the money overseas. Once the money leaves the US we don't get the benefit of it being spent and reinvested back into the US economy. It results in the trade deficit which can only be maintained by the US going deeper into debt. On the other hand money spent in the US returns back to the US government in the form of taxes, about 40%, it also supports families and people who spend the other 60% in the US on goods and services. When you include this benefit renewable energy looks much better economically.

      Also, fossil fuel use is subsidized by the US government. The US government pays for roads. This is the transmission line for trucks of oil, gas, and coal. If the US government paid for the transmission lines of wind energy wind would be about half the cost that it is today.

      Finally, solar energy should not be compared to coal. No one burns coal at home to generate electricity, it is burned in large power plants, hence you need to calculate the cost as "wholesale". However, solar is often generated at the point it is used, hence it should be compared to retail cost. It is also generated at the hottest time of day which is also "peak hours" so it should be compared to the peak hour retail cost. Finally, since solar is generated on site you save the cost of transmission which can often be 33% or more of the total cost.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.