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 20 2013: The numbers aren't even close anymore. It's much cheaper to buy renewables, than it is to steal oil. Renewables will exponentially elevate everyones standard of living.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2013: and of course you got your numbers from some green website. not financed by wind and solar, so i'm told.
      • Sep 1 2013: for a measly $25 billion:
        Thank you for alerting me that some people believe that renewables do not compete with oil. They think that an electric car plugged into a house powered by sol/wnd somehow uses gasoline. Also, I didn’t get my numbers from a ‘green website.’ I started with 3rd grade math and the retail price of solar panels. I’ll show my math with some big round easy numbers.
        In the U.S., it costs $15,000 to solarize 1 house (labor, Inverter, & panels). If we solarized 10 million houses (that’s over 10% of U.S. houses, think of all those jobs), that would cost ($15,000 X 10,000,000 = $150,000,000,000) $150 billion. The govt. could pay for it all, but lets just offer a half-off rebate to the public and make it a 3 year project ($150B ÷ 2 = 75B, then 75B ÷ 3). That would bring the cost to the govt. down to a measly $25 billion per year, bad game over, good game starts. For the first time ever (fossil fuel) power plant usage would begin to decline, oil prices would plummet. So, America could say to the world and to itself, we are going forward, we are not self-destructing.
        • thumb
          Sep 1 2013: two observations.

          1. you did not even attempt to back up your original claim, namely that solar is cheaper than oil.

          2. government paying something means people paying. government only redistributes, does not create. if something is economically viable, we don't need the government. people choose it for their own good. we need the government in cases when we want to push something that is not economical.
    • Aug 21 2013: Actually, wind and solar aren't competing with oil, they're competing with coal, gas, and nuclear.
      Oil's high demand as a motor fuel makes it far too expensive for electric generation, to a point that even some oil producing nations export the stuff and use the money to buy coal or gas instead.

      Coal and gas typically come from stable countries, no need to "steal" them from anyone.

      Never mind that wind and solar are both completely uneconomical. 20 times more expensive than coal or gas is a best case scenario.
      • thumb
        Aug 22 2013: Maybe 20 times more expensive to install.... then the only time you have to spend money is to upgrade them to more efficient models. I think that would beat spending money everyday to get fossil fuels, not to mention all the labor and equipment costs for the coal mines, oil wells, power plants and their power lines, pollution, ect. The change would be a nice little shot to the wallet today but it's like renting VS buying. Spend more at once to save in the long run.
        • Aug 22 2013: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

          Not install, but fully operate at a power grid level.

          Renewable doesn't require any fuel, true, but you still pay for maintenance and staffing, and have a lower power output to show for it, which leads to higher operating costs per unit of power. 20 times more expensive than fossil fuels is a best case scenario for on shore wind. Off shore wind is typically worse, due to increased maintenance costs at sea and greater power transmission distance. Solar is the worst of the lot even close to the equator, and only gets worse the farther you get from it.

          Also note that having mother nature in charge of the on/off switch is economically problematic, as you need a reserve to supply power needs in case the wind is slow or sky overcast (or just generally after sun down for solar).
          As electricity storage technology as of today is rather poor (read: impractical on a mass scale), this creates all sorts of added technical problems, and increases cost overall.

          Initial investment for installation is typically only an issue for nuclear, which is more sophisticated than the other technologies. At least fuel costs are negligible, as Uranium is dirt cheap for the amount of power it produces.
      • Comment deleted

        • Aug 22 2013: 1. I'll concede that coal is filthy, but gas doesn't pollute the environment with anything other than CO2 and water vapor.

          2. the figure actually comes from an assessment of OECD countries, many of which don't subsidize fossil fuels. Granted, cleanups were not factored in, but again, that's only really an issue with coal.

          3. good luck using solar or wind to replace oil. As bad as they are for electric generation, they're even worse for mobile applications--a car or aircraft can't run on sunlight or wind, after all.
          You could try to make a switch over to electric cars I suppose, but batteries have an atrocious power to weight ratio. It barely scrapes by for cars, and is laughable for aircraft.
          New capacitor technology might solve that, but as with all these yet undeveloped technologies, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.