after listening to another tedx: Why renewables can’t save the planet - this one is moot.
francescoaccomando
Sound, sensible, powerful, congruent, articulate, stark, important. Thanks Adrian - we need more of this message.
edwardgrey
For equal electricity generation with 1/10 the steel & concrete of prevailing tower/turbines see SkySails. Also, instead of 60-story mega turbines dotting the sea-scape, how about reeling in the sky sail on weekends/holidays?
cherylpomeroy
Absolutely we have to say goodbye to fossil fuels. Great talk!
rogiervantilburg
Thank you for sharing this talk! This is a better version of the future to look forward to and these new technologies are very exciting. ❤
MaisyDaisy
This TED is a biased fairytale and contains a lot of misleading information and he plays the game of fear ... on the other side he talks just about the little nice spots in a picture of RE, but it has a lot of problematic parts. But the most important question he can't answer; when RE is so superior, why it needs this talk about; everybody would make money with it. But there are a lot of inconvenient information he doesn't like to talk about.
It is important to don't inform biased. I don't trust people who do this because this is a kind of a lie and dangerous for the long term trust in science.
schoeppemichael
Renewables are so cheap except for when you have to factor for overbuilding and storage to maintain 100% supply at all times.
IanCocking
Search for this video for a counter argument: Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger from TED.
devinfraserashpole
The problem of renewables is it is intermittent. To compensate it use natural gas / diesel powered generators for the fast response of power demand. So i dont really know which is better, renewables / low emmission energy
ubeidsubhan
The reason why none likes to charge is.... That there are only a few chargers in the parking lot
RANDOMh
How could that full stop be possible....?
RANDOMh
It sounds good. It doesn't take into account the short time scale, the current capacities of systems, scalability, or new resources needed to fulfill the promises of such a future, but it does sound nice.
There is an estimate that to upgrade the electrical system to a point of offsetting fossil fuels. Like replacing the energy in cars, trucks and industry, it would take something like 4+ Billion tonnes of copper. Yet, we only know of reserves that have less than a Billion tonnes, and a chunk of that is under the ocean floor. Not exactly cheap and easy to get. Also, by today's current mining standards, it would take close to 200 years to extract that much copper.
Keep in mind, that's just for the copper involved. Not any of the many other elements, many ot which are much more rare.
Also, Hydrogen is in itself a greenhouse gas. At least he wasn't pushing a Hydrogen economy. We do need Hydrogen for the purposes he mentioned, but we can't likely do nearly what he says it can. Currently the vast majority of Hydrogen is produced with Methane and coal. It would take considerable effort and cost just to use green energy to produce that much, nevermind trying to live up to the claim that we could run airlines on it.
The reality is, we definitely cannot keep living life as we know it now. Changes are going to be necessary. Not terrible one if we do things smart, but significant ones. Anyone preaching no changes are needed are likley being funded by the oil and gas industry at some level.
haddow
Vested interests is exactly right.
If all electric world, then that one industry TRIPLES in size.
Not 1 nuclear power plant to replace 1 fossil fueled power plant.
Demand LOAD on the grid will TRIPLE.
3 nuclear power plants.
3 grids, power load increases
3 'poles and wires' to the streets and homes and businesses, power load increases.
World must go nuclear if no CO2 in the world.
USA military costs will explode.
World military costs will explode.
90% of the world's population is in dictatorships.
Much more to be
The opposite is now practical and true....
Climate destabilisation is exactly right.
We will only know after we fall over the cliff because we are in the dark.
stephenbrickwood
In Australia, 25Gw fossil fueled power plants today.
At $0.30kwh that's $200million a day income from infrastructure that was paid for decades ago. A DAY.
$66billion annually.
Plus $1.00 a day to be connected and 20million connected.
$200million plus $20million.
EVERY DAY.
$7.3billion annually.
You need to know the numbers to make sense of the opposition.
Yes it was a rough calculation but very close to the truth.
If everything is electrified and central electric power plants,
Then TRIPLE the cash flow ? ?
$660million a day to the central electric power companies.
stephenbrickwood
Watch micheal shellenberhers “why renewables can’t save the world”
TheGreen
Lol that's a wishlist not a sensible view on the energy situation.
tinemoslo
This video made me regret for choosing petroleum engineering 🤦
adalatqumbatov
The hushed state intraspecifically snow because ship developmentally whine as a crabby apparatus. mere, dark string
sicongwang
Electric eels can actually generate electricity, and can actually shock things with about 800 volts, a Taser is about 50, 000 volts..But what if they start to farm electric eels and try to harness them for energy.
