5 ms·
This certainly gives a new twist to the story, but it doesn't change the fact that natural gas is no real solution and that the greenhouse gas emissions of natu
by hannob 7y ago
This certainly gives a new twist to the story, but it doesn't change the fact that natural gas is no real solution and that the greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas have been underestimated in the past.
It's not that switching from coal to gas is bad for the environment. It's simply that both are bad and we need something else.
- AtlasBarfed 7y agosolar/wind is cheaper than coal. In fact it is cheaper to build a new solar/wind farm than keep an EXISTING coal factory running. When solar/wind pass natural gas, which hopefully happens in the next few years, a glimmer of hope to stabilize global warming sparks.
- ThomPete 7y agoSolar and wind cant give us the power we need and its not cheaper because it will need backup from coal, oil, gas or nuclear. In fact the more wind and solar the more expensive it becomes exactly for this reason. Wind and solar provides less than 1% of our energy needs.
- CameronNemo 7y agoIn many areas of the world, wind and solar have complementary power profiles. Energy storage mechanisms are also being developed and scaled in a major way. Not just batteries. Geothermal energy stores, heated and pressurized water chambers, and moving water to a higher elevation to store potential energy are all viable options.
- azernik 7y agoSure, but if you want a good price comparison you have to include the cost of the necessary storage.
- AtlasBarfed 7y agoOk walk a couple more years down the cost curve they are following, especially since battery tech is being heavily invested in for EVs and grid storage. And if (or I should say when) grid storage becomes cheaper than peak power generators, then you still can save money shutting down the extra power plants.
- ThomPete 7y agoWind and solar is less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption AND they are unreliable. They will never be the solution to our energy needs.