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

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!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • Aug 29 2013: This thread asks "why they aren't being implemented"? So unless your answer is that they are being implemented and the question is wrong you are not answering the question.

      You say that implementing renewable energy solutions are a "win win solution and should be supported by everyone!" Which of course ignores everyone that doesn't support them. Do you think the people who own coal mines are going to support shutting them down and being replaced by renewable? Do you think people who have spent 25-50 years of their life and invested everything that they have into fossil fuel should "support" losing everything they have and call it a "win win solution"?

      The status quo always resists change. One solution is to have growth in power production come from renewables so that the existing power companies and structure do not have to shutter their operation and have massive layoffs. That is a response to the question in this thread -- we are not implementing faster because it would cause layoffs and massive disruption to the workforce, as well as to the existing power structure. In addition it takes time to ramp up production of renewables because you have to have trained people. Growth rates over 10% in an industry often cause many problems.

      If our goal was to have carbon neutral energy production then that would imply a mixture of renewables with nuclear. However in the context of the current political environment that would not be practical.

      However, if we made a law that required new power production to be "carbon neutral" then that would be much more effective than government subsidies at implementing renewables. However you will still come one day to the issue of Nuclear. Without effective political leadership such a law would push the US into a corner at some point in the future.
      • Comment deleted

        • Aug 29 2013: Yes, we know all that, but it still doesn't address the question.

          For example, China is a very big producer of renewable energy and yet they are building coal fire plants and burning coal and turning their country into a toxic nightmare.


          Is it because you can only have 20% of your power from an intermittent power source?
          Is it because it is faster and cheaper to build a coal plant?
          Is it because of financing? Existing political power?

          China is a nuclear power and a dictatorship with a central control so they could easily adopt nuclear which would clean up the smog. So why did they choose coal? Was it because it takes too long to build a nuclear plant?
      • Comment deleted

        • Aug 30 2013: Yes, that is the point, they still use Coal and so does the rest of the world. Emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel has continued to grow year by year. Even with all of the wonderful advances.

          This is not a question of what is right or what is wrong, if that were the case they would stop using coal.

          This is a question of what is right versus what is easy. Coal is still the easiest choice to make.
      • Comment deleted

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.