About: Solar vs. Coal: The Real Battle | Ben Reed | TEDxBillings
Solar and wind combine can't cover the production of coal PERIOD. Wind and solar is not dependable. Anbybody that thinks that will work is SO FAR detached or simply doesn't understand how any wind and solar works.
How many thousands of acres of solar panels, or wind farms will you need to produce as much electricity as one coal plant. Better yet one natural gas plant. Or even better yet one nuclear plant ?. Solar, & wind energy is not dependable. The sun doesn't always shine. One super volcano eruption could darken the skies for years if not decades. Mount Tambora erupted 1815, 1816 was known as the year without a summer. Mount Toba darkened the skies for a nearly a decade !!! And the wind is not constant. Look at Germany. In their attempt to go green. They have to fire up old coal plants(not energy efficient plants) when demand is high. Not to mention energy bills have more than doubled. Producing solar panels using cadmium, & chromium is horrible for the environment. And what do you do with the millions of panels when they are no longer efficient(they lose 1% per year). Not to mention all the plowed up land, & what it does to the flora, & fauna. Let's not forget the wind mills, the land they occupy. And worse yet the millions of fowl killed every year. I predict 20,30, maybe 40 years from now people will be questioning why we chose something so inefficient, & detrimental to the environment as solar & wind. Presently coal, or natural gas is not only affordable to the masses. But hi-tech, emission friendly plants produce mostly water vapor. Never put all your eggs in one basket !!!
Coal and gas are as free as wind and solar and water. The collection and harnessing and distribution systems are the cost. There is no argument that solar and wind are cheaper than coal when the wind blows and the sun shines. As others have mentioned below cost effective storage of energy is the issue so cheap intermittent generation can deliver round the clock in all seasons. Renewables as a majority source are coming, just not yet.
Solar means nothing. Natural gas is what has made a dent in the need for coal. Solar is NOT, in any way, a clean energy field, and never will be as long as millions of batteries are need to store solar energy as electricity. In many ways, solar is far more damaging to the planet than is coal.
The nergy source of the future is nuclear, pure and simple. Technology is at the point where we don't need dangerous elements such as uranium to fuel nuclear reactor. With rectors and fuel safe enough to use anywhere, we'll have clean, renewable, lomg term energy.
Again they do not know what they are talking about.... It is not about one vs the other it is about how you Think.... Coal can be used thinking is how= change the tech how you burn it... Solar... change how you use... speed more money on R&D make better solar collectors bring them close to the towns and cities make it cheaper... on and on THNIK....
208,000 people producing 0.5% of our energy needs is more economically viable than 74,000 people producing 40% of our energy needs? I'm no Richard Feynman but that math doesn't seem to add up.
How many solar panels, and I'll even throw in windmills would it take to create the amount of fossil fuels produce without harming sever land mass
A great comparison would be life expectancy of Solar Workers vs Coal Miners. . .
More people need to see these independent red talks.
The trouble will be with the oil they're going to start texting anybody with the electric vehicle or anything to do with electrical consumptions
What is the largest coal company?... Why dont they just diversify now? Open a few solar plants right now and as their main source of income - coal - continues to decline, they can be switching over to solar and they can just ride the wave of change that is coming.
But I guess that would be good business, not lazy business. That would be focusing on overall profits, not short term gains and long term losses like how companies so often prefer... it's insane.
The fossil fuel people are moral imbeciles
so the only difference between these technological movements is that coal is an industry that has monopolies and the others didn't?
What people don't seem to understand is this: Coal IS
(since coal is dead plants and plants grow using solar energy coal is technically solar)
U come to appalachia and look at how it looks like a war zone , run dowm homes , empty stores schools hospitals and the epidemic of drug addiction , its a sad state in appalachia , im fortunate to have a job in the coal mines and without it id be unemployed , even the educated cant find work here its really sad , u havent seen poverty till u come to harlan co. Ky. Or appalachia Va. Or the other small appalachian towns ...
Maybe a more realistic analogy would be a forced switch from transportation systems of the early 1900s to the new technology of pogo sticks. Or a forced switch from the slide rule to working things out long hand using the new technology of wood burning pens.
A tortured analogy - Calculator manufacturers didn't receive tax payer subsidies, nor where they in a position to lobby for regulatory restrictions on their competition. They succeeded because they eventually provided greater value. Also, the calculator makers didn't have a government-media propaganda machine working for them.
Solar with out batteries is only a partial solution. Batteries are expensive, short lived and generally toxic. Eventually we'll get there but It will likely take the adoption of one of the newer nuclear reactor designs to create a complete functional system that is capable of replacing fossil fuels.
exactly on point!!!!
Luke Skywalker??? Why is he talking about Solar and Coal????