TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

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!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 20 2013: Solar panels & Wind Turbines only last 20-40 years and normally only create power about 50% of the time. So the lifespan is really 10-20 working years, they use up a lot of space, are costly, and do more harm to the environment then good.

    Not every place can have Hydro-Electric.

    The green power movement is just one big massive scam, like any scam there is some truth mixed into the lie.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2013: I have my reservations about hydro, but what harm is being done to the environment with solar and wind?
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2013: I'm no expert but off the top of my head,
        In addition to the manufacturing process, wind turbines kills birds, changes migration patterns, generates noise pollution disturbing nearby wild life. Solar panels has just the opposite effect of a green roof, so you have a “heat island effect” increasing cool cost/power needed, unfriendly environment for wild life, with zero carbon capture.
        • thumb
          Aug 21 2013: the number of birds killed by windmills is really insignificant. cars kill more than 100 times the number of birds than windmills.

          About 4 years ago, I lived near a windfarm and there really wasn't that much noise. (about a km away) The cows and goats grazed the land with no disturbances. some of the land under it was farmed too.

          http://www.gereports.com/how-loud-is-a-wind-turbine/

          Manufacturing to me seems to be the big impact and when I compare it to oil, fracking, making dams, It's much much less.

          solar panels do allow or vegetation under them, which is again much much better than oil,

          Have you read about the never ending fires that burn continuously underground spouting up smoke from coal seams that have had oxygen exposed to them?

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/centralia-pennsylvania-fire_n_1546552.html

          What I'd really love to see is landfills, livestock farm runoff and sewage treated as if they were fuel sources. I really think that it could make up for the lulls in solar and wind peaks alongside the existing dams so no new dams need to be built.

          A friend in Mumbai said "don't all cities do it?" when I complained about the rivers of raw sewage flowing into the ocean.
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2013: I should add that the lack of support given to Allen Savory by so called environmentalist has me questioning everything they clam.
        http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
        • thumb
          Aug 21 2013: I agree Allen savory needs more support. people should allow the possibility of growing more livestock to support meat eating, and understand that this is a huge step above factory farming.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2013: In UK windfarms, the embodied carbon in the manufacture, transportation, siting and requirements for infrastructure roads, exceed the carbon that can be saved within the lifetime of the turbines. This renders them pointless.

      This is because of the clumsy siting of them on hilltops and ridges on peat substrates (peat is a significant carbon sink), which if disturbed, release a high tonnage of CO2 into the atmosphere.

      Many people in the UK also object to massed turbines on aesthetic grounds. Unspoilt landscapes are rapidly dwindling here because of this.

      The only option for wind technology as I see it, is for smaller local schemes supplying local demand.
      • thumb
        Aug 21 2013: Aesthetics are relative. We live with telephone and electricity poles, broadcast towers, roads cutting through beautiful scenery, and my neighbor's collection of 'vintage' (rusty) cars. Ever been on a picnic to the nearest strip mine? how 'bout an oil field?

        avoiding peat bogs is probably a good idea, but siting along the existing roads shouldn't be a problem.

        I really don't see a way of avoiding emitting some carbon without ending up in the stone ages, unless we make carbon sinks... like rebuilding tropical rainforests WITH all the storeys, and limiting humans to land that has already been 'humanized'.
        • thumb
          Aug 23 2013: Manishka, I agree that aesthetics are relative. Engineers probably find wind turbines beautiful, but artists may not.

          The main point I'm making is that (in the UK at least), industrial scale windfarms are being sited in areas of outstanding natural beauty, very close to the periphery of National Parks including what few wilderness areas we have left in Wales and Scotland. I have deep misgivings in trashing wilderness areas like these with industrial development, for the sake of very dubious benefit:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382813/The-battle-for-Britain-s-countryside-Windfarm-war-escalates

          I'm as passionate as you are about reversing global warming, but in the mix of the natural order of things, the preservation of wilderness and landscape beauty is massively important for a whole host of reasons.

          I agree with you that siting along existing roads would not be a problem, neither would siting turbines around already developed urban areas - but we don't do that here in UK. Why? Because it was all about the vast subsidies for which big landowners are eligible in allowing wind farm development on their land. The primary raison d'etre therefore, has been skewed towards big money and big business, rather than any genuine desire to reduce carbon emissions - hence the clumsy, socially divisive planning loopholes that have been responsible in blighting the British upland landscape.

          However, this is changing with a proposed 25% cut in subsidies for onshore schemes
      • thumb
        Aug 23 2013: LOL! renewable subsidies as a bad thing!

        So basically big landowners own land on the periphery, and big land owners stand to gain the most from the subsidies.

        Siting is of course very important. I wouldn't advocate ruining perfectly good wilderness or the edges of them to be used for windfarms. Actually, I believe it's best to keep technology where humans are and preserving untouched habitat and also leaving a margin around it to let it grow more.

        That's the plan with reversing desertification too is to identify the edges rather than cutting straight through like chinese and saharan green walls.

        And also create green corridors connecting isolated habitats.

        perhaps then, the subsidies could scale up with the population density? keeping in mind safety of course.

        I can see you are passionate about renewable energy from some of your posts, keep it up!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.