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.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 30 2013: in fact you googled them, or just picked some from forums, and posted without looking into them. we need a new term for that. i proposed "google trolling"
      • thumb
        Aug 30 2013: I like the term "google trolling". It seems to fit so well. I mean the internet is completely free of information that is bias, skewed, out right untrue or self serving, isn't it?

        What is the term for those who read up to 2000 characters in a comment and finds fault with a dangling participle? Compulsive Context Focal Disorder?

        And then there are those that take a conversation subject and address an entirely different matter that has little to do with the comments at hand....

        Whoops, I may have been guilty of that one
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: in the previous post, you originally wrote "vitamin K potassium is not cesium". you have edited your post to look less silly, but still contain reference to vitamin K so it does not look edited. you do this in order to hide that you don't know the difference between potassium (chemical symbol K) and vitamin K. i would say that here goes your credibility, but no, you did not have credibility to begin with.

          obviously, you do not have a degree in health, such a blatant mistake would never be made by anyone ever learning about the human body in any way.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: it was an exact quote, which is further supported by the fact that you left the vitamin K part in, which would be otherwise be totally unrelated. i expect now that you edit that out too. i wonder if there are rules on TED forums against heavily editing comments.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: keep quoting, as you keep editing. this time it is

          "... potassium with Vitamin K since they are both K in the periodic table"

          vitamin K in the periodic table?
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 31 2013: because it is. both K40 and Cs137 are beta emitters, and they emit approximately the same energy electron. actually, K40 emits higher energy. both of them are members of the first group of the periodic table, and behave alike. and to those that curious, potassium has a natural 4000-5000 bq radiation in a human body. this amount does exactly nothing. to be any dangerous, we need mega- or gigabecquerels of radiation.

          so where do we find vitamin K in the periodic table? have you edited your post already? lemme check... no, it is still there. unlike your remark about "vitamin K potassium".
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

    • Aug 30 2013: So let me get this straight, anyone who isn't persuaded by your arguments is automatically assumed to be on payroll by a corporation whose interests don't match your own?

      That's convenient. Your arguments must truly be infallible then, for everyone to be so easily swayed by your logic except those paid to pretend otherwise.

      If only persuading people was so simple for the rest of us mortals...
      Or if a corporation was actually paying me for posting on random forums; I could use the money. Perhaps you could do me a favor and use your great skills of persuasion to talk one into putting me on payroll?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 30 2013: have you researched becquerel? you were talking about like 15000 or so bq cesium in fish. tell me what is the normal level of radiation in bq in an average human body coming from potassium. can you google that too?
        • Aug 31 2013: Legitimate reasons? Sure, its expensive as hell.
          As the price of energy affects anything and everything, expensive energy means expensive everything, and the quality of everyone's lives goes down.

          I've posted a link bellow of a study in OECD countries proving that fossil fuels and even nuclear are all cheaper than any of the renewable alternatives on a kilowatt per dollar basis. Natural gas and coal are usually between 20 to 40 times cheaper than the best case renewable (onshore wind).
          Granted I'm not factoring in air pollution (only really an issue for coal) or set up costs (expensive for nuclear, cheap for fossil fuels), but all in all, fossil fuels still come out a lot cheaper, especially natural gas.

          Look, I'm not saying that new developments in renewable won't change that, as they might, but one simply can't place their trust in as yet uninvented technology to come solve all our problems for us. When its here, I'll believe it, until then, I'm sticking to what I know works.

          That's for developed countries.
          In developing ones, the higher expenses usually mean that using renewable means more people who don't have power period, never mind that you need cheap energy to set up any real sort of industry.
          Remember, most electric consumption isn't by the average user, its by industrial processes. Cost and competitiveness are a very real issue--otherwise, they just move their operations to some other country with cheaper energy bills (or lower taxes, whichever saves them more money).

          Just because people all over the world are adopting renewables doesn't mean its a good solution. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
          Besides, while I don't have the numbers on hand, if you look you'll find that there is plenty of investment it fossil fuels and nuclear as well--apparently some people at least agree with me.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 31 2013: Pinter
        I believe that anyone who is so focused on their points to pretty much ignore reading the complete comments and further hide in some unanimity is not worth discussion. In several of my comments I wrote that there is a place for some alternative power sources, I cited my local company who has managed to use a variety sources to provide power at the best possible price to their customers. Which is what commercial enterprises do. Fanaticism is not a basis for discussion.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.