A very concise and reasonable man. It is very rare to get someone talking on energy these days and not have them dismiss everyone else off hand and then tell you what they got on sale.

Forgets to mention how renewables are subsidized and utilities are forced to have a certain percentage of electricity coming from renewables. Sounds like a war.

@Pdiddy2400

3 жыл бұрын

Great point, hard to compare prices when renewables get government funding and coal is taxed higher and has to pay extra costs to the government

@SamSung-jq4ho

3 жыл бұрын

14:06 "Selected ... Energy Supply Unit Prices" Nice of him to label his cherry picked data.

No mention of falling prices of energy storage. THAT's the game changer

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

I agree 100%. Wind and solar are now quite cost effective now. The up and coming technology is grid scale electrical energy storage, which is still expensive, because it's still in it's infancy. Because of the intermittency of both wind and solar, load leveling isn't enough. We will also need supply leveling. Now, we need something with good round trip efficiency, and low life cycle cost, to firm up the grid, when renewables become the majority of electrical supply.

@jamesaritchie1

5 жыл бұрын

You babble like a drunk, and say just as little that means anything.@@vincentrobinette1507

@jamesaritchie1

5 жыл бұрын

That's not a game changer at all. Even if energy storage were free, it would still be an extremely foolish choice. Too many think solar is clean energy, but it's just as damaging to the environment as modern coal burning plants. More so in some ways.

@josephfernandes3888

4 жыл бұрын

Storage is not the question. What type of storage, that is the question. Joseph France

@chrisbraid2907

4 жыл бұрын

It is really only a game changer if it is affordable and easily mass produced and installed. We need many more Storage making plants ...

Outstanding presentation

The issue with renewable power is variability. As long as it represents less than 30% of the total energy supply generation, sources of on-demand power such as gas fired peaking plants can offset the imbalances between supply and demand. Coal fired power plants or nuclear power plants are stable base load power, which ensure we do not experience brown outs or black outs. Either we need the combination of cheap storage (new battery chemistries) and renewable production, or we need a better (less pollution and less risk) base load source of power. The Molten Salt (LFTR) Reactors have that potential if our government will invest in them. The pilot at Oak Ridge Labs developed in the 1950's proved it can be done, but it needs to be perfected and scaled.

@patrickdonohue530

7 жыл бұрын

arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/as-ca-bill-aims-for-100-renewable-by-2050-utility-starts-30mw-battery-system/

@patrickdonohue530

7 жыл бұрын

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/tesla-s-battery-revolution-just-reached-critical-mass

@gregtabor1342

7 жыл бұрын

While I agree Patrick that storage is the key, when people talk about wind or solar being the cheapest source of energy, the statement is generally being made absent the cost and conversion inefficiencies of moving excess power into storage and retrieving it later when that power is needed. While the economics of batteries will likely advance as did Solar panels and wind turbines, their costs will not be zero and therefore, they raise the bar when we consider grid parity. Markets like California will adopt because they are blessed with some of the highest costs for conventional power, improving the economics of embracing green alternatives and even storage. This is logical and I applaud the initiatives that are getting underway in this regard. One thing which is rarely discussed is the life expectancy of storage and its performance degradation as batteries wear out. We understand this very well today in the PV panels, and they have warranties to produce at least 80% of rated capacty after 25 years and may last 50 years at useful levels of production. However, this is not the same for batteries. Most warranties are pro-rated to 8 years and 3000 duty cycles. Much discussion has been given to using "Spent" car batteries (less than 80% of original rated capacity) for stationary purposes to get remaining benefits, and this is a good strategy, but battery life and the rate of degradation after automotive use is not well understood. At $0.10/kwh, my 6.6kw array of net metered PV will take just over 10 years to recover invested costs after utility rebates and federal income tax credits are factored in and I had a cost basis of $1.65/watt installed, so adding storage is nowhere near economical in my market. California is mandating storage because their economics of net metered PV are much better and the adoption of variable green energy is reaching a point where it could destabilize the grid due to the imbalances of production supply versus consumption demand. In my case, I average only 28% of the power I consume comes directly from the array on my home. That's because I'm charging an EV at night and during much of the year, I get home near or after the sun has set, so car charging is from the grid and represents a major portion of my consumption. Similar with heating and lighting which are needed more when it's night time and we're occupying the house. New battery chemistries are in development which will eventually improve the combined economics and PV still has some room to run on efficiency, but not as much as will be needed to make the package economically viable in most US markets for many decades to come, especially as subsidies are phased out.

@patrickdonohue530

7 жыл бұрын

"...but not as much as will be needed to make the package economically viable in most US markets for many decades to come..." I respect your experience, however, I believe we are at the "knee of the curve" provided by the geometric rate of technological change taking place across the board. Accordingly, the rate of scientific discovery may be about to go into over drive due to the geometric the same. news.stanford.edu/2016/08/04/stanford-probes-secrets-rechargeable-batteries/ www.bnl.gov/compsci/projects/deep-learning.php www.anl.gov/cse/facilities www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-supercomputers-will-yield-a-golden-age-of-materials-science/ DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b02648 "Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules" by Gomez-Bombarelli, et al. arxiv.org/pdf/1610.02415.pdf news.mit.edu/2017/multi-university-effort-will-advance-materials-define-future-of-mobility-0403

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Coal powered plants are soon to be history. Renewable and nuclear energy is the future.

Play at 1.5x playback speed. ;)

@CessnaPilot99

7 жыл бұрын

Good tip. I wish I would have read it before watching the whole thing. It totally sounds normal at 1.5x

@dewiz9596

5 жыл бұрын

But can we think at 1.5x?

@Eoin_D

3 жыл бұрын

V necessary

exactly on point!!!!

Does wind power price take into account the production tax credit?

More people need to see these independent red talks.

I'm sorry but the .9% of solar production does not have a major effect on the 30% coal production. Its been very well documented that the problems for coal in electricity have been caused by natural gas demand skyrocketing since the 1990s.

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

He mentioned that.

Great talk, Ben! Good to hear and see you again as I was your rep. at Southwest Windpower, manufacturing and selling residential wind turbines, here in the U.S. Small wind is pretty much gone in favor of cheaper solar, which is and will continue to be the cheapest form of power generation.

@dabigisland1

7 жыл бұрын

Russell Fine Art Studio Thanks Russell for all your great information in response to marmoset. That fast payback on your solar panels is why you and the world will go solar quickly. Tony Seba and you will be proven right and everybody's health will improve.

@reference2me

6 жыл бұрын

Is solar still subsidized by the Govt.?

@calkinsb0713

5 жыл бұрын

Russell Fine Arts w

@MrArtist7777

4 жыл бұрын

@@reference2me Yes, far less than fossil fuels. And, only subsidized by reduced taxes, no grants or loans are given to solar.

Change is hard!

It's more of a tantrum than a war. 😊

... but don't think its going to be easy or that there isn't going to be resistance, or that there won't be decent hardworking people who suffer, and whose families suffer. My little town went through it in the late 1960s and early 70s. It was hell, and because there was nothing to replace it then, it is still, to an extent.

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Adapt or die. Get new skills or not. Migrate or vegetate. Stop whining and do something, or not.

One question I always wished was asked, but never has been, is what is the remedy of a 3" (or more) snow fall? What if there is a 10,000 acre solar field that recieves a 6" snowfall.

@noname-iz1eq

6 жыл бұрын

Paul Savka. Perhaps the technology that heats our car window screens could keep the panels warm stopping snow settling. Just an idea.

@pes1957

6 жыл бұрын

Either way you cut it it would be using part of, possibly too much, of the solar energy to warm the panels. I am near Chicago and the winters often go below zero here. They would have to have batteries to store the solar if they have to be heated during the night as well.

@noname-iz1eq

6 жыл бұрын

Paul Savka technology has your answer. I'm no tesla but iam in the motor industry and it takes very little power to warm a window screen. or you could have a window wiper system. Look forward the answer. Don't let problems stop you moving forward

@pes1957

6 жыл бұрын

I did hear, however, that there is a Lithium Ion battery replacements in the works. It is called a sodium-glass battery. 100% safe, holds 3 times the amount of energy, and charges quickly. Oh heck yeah, I am for solar all the way. I am also for electric cars to be the norm before too long.

@incognitotorpedo42

6 жыл бұрын

Paul, solar panels are aimed at the sun, so the closer to the poles you are, the steeper your panel is. This will help snow slide off. In the tropics, the panels are close to flat, but there is no snow unless you're on a mountain. In many parts of the US, solar panels spend a lot of their energy running air conditioners, so supply and demand are nicely matched. In the winter, most people heat with natural gas, a highly efficient way to produce heat. Electricity requirements for climate control are thus high in summer and low in winter. If I occasionally have snow on my solar panels in winter, it's not a big deal.

A great comparison would be life expectancy of Solar Workers vs Coal Miners. . .

@jamesaritchie1

5 жыл бұрын

With modern mining technology, the coal miners win. Solar is a deadly field, and a lot of people are killed every year.

@ibezag0

4 жыл бұрын

James Ritchie elaborate

so the only difference between these technological movements is that coal is an industry that has monopolies and the others didn't?

good man, great human being.

I agree with what you are saying and if there is anything that could help you to make an impact, it would be updating the presentations... Making big ideas connect requires radical editing. The slides should evoke Emotion and connect with the ideas visually - If you're talking, there is no need for the Text slides - Nobody is reading it. You CAN connect with ideas and influence people - but the message needs to be succinct and clear.

What people don't seem to understand is this: Coal *IS* Solar. (since coal is dead plants and plants grow using solar energy coal is technically solar)

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Wow, this is what the lack of a basic science education looks like! He doesn't even know he's clueless.

@simonhill6267

5 жыл бұрын

Sequestered solar power yes

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

Grow a tree, burn the wood. That's carbon neutral. That's the basis of "biofuel". All energy on the planet, except nuclear, is indirect solar. Even wind turbines are an indirect form of solar power. Notice, a lot of pictures of wind turbines in the video? The best choice, is the one with the best capacity factor, for that area. If it's windy all the time, turbines will return the investment the quickest. If not, solar is the more universally viable solution.

His cost of production is not explained. Maybe wind is cheap but what if it isn't blowing.

I have the technology to generate electricity from waves, looking forward to cooperation and dual tracking solarfram

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.

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Do you people live in caves? Are you reproducing? I sure hope not.

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.

look up Escanaba Ore Docks/they will not open this year. Ordered to haul the coal to MN

It's pretty obvious if you pick on Carbon as a villain then you automatically Vilify coal Much of which is Carbon ....

Play at 2.0 sounds better

the 'war' on the 1936 Buick....

Maybe they did call or write to their Congress men, you never know

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

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.

@dewiz9596

5 жыл бұрын

Vincent Keith : See the Tesla Battery in South Australia

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 ...

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Adapt or die off. Sad reality but true.

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

@halfdeadedlifereturningwit3420

3 жыл бұрын

As well as the animals that are affected by loosing same land mass.

Vaclav Smil may disagree

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 !!!

A very insightful session by a seasoned investor in the energy business.

Nuclear is to expensive. Where is Westinghouse? :))

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Westinghouse is building nuclear power plants. They adapted while you weren't paying attention.

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....

*Thorium Molten Salt Reactors* and Nuclear fusion need help from innovator like Ben Reed. Solar Energy has limitations: *Dilute : need large area* * *Seasonal variations - Need fossil power backup* * *Intermittent on hourly basis - need battery/pumped hydro backup* * *Location specific*

@Marmocet

7 жыл бұрын

The wind and solar power industries, in my humble estimation, about 85-90% driven by the feelgood factor. It's really frustrating how so many people are almost incapable of looking at them with a skeptical eye because they're too fond of how the idea of wind and solar makes them _feel_ and they don't want facts taking away those warm, fuzzy, happy feelings. Ironically, I think public enthusiasm for wind and solar is also driven to some extent by the fossil fuel industry through funding of their useful idiots in major environmentalist lobbying organizations. People in the fossil fuel industry know that if we build lots of intermittent renewables, we'll wind up locking ourselves into continued fossil fuel dependency because of all that flexible "backup power" we're going to need.

@MrArtist7777

7 жыл бұрын

Thorium reactors are horribly, horribly expensive and a pipe-dream, for now. Even IF they can be built, the cost of energy will be 3-4 times that of solar, making it non-competitive. Solar is the way to go, for everyone!

@MrArtist7777

7 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, Marmocet, you're naïve to the facts. Solar and wind, industries I've worked in over the past 10-years, are growing because they can produce energy are cheaper rates than fossil fuel, even without Gov't subsidies. There's nothing "fuzzy" about saving money and if it's clean and renewable, that's just added bonuses. On the small scale, I use ~500kWh's/mo. at my house, of power. So I just bought 16 solar panels, installed myself for very cheap and will produce: 650 kWh's/mo. in power. My solar panels will pay for themselves, in: 2 years. You tell me any other energy source that's cheaper, quieter and more efficient, that I can own. Same principle applies to large companies and utilities.

@Marmocet

7 жыл бұрын

Your solar only appears cheaper to you because of subsidies and because you aren't paying for the externalities it produces. If you had to pay the extra cost incurred by thermal power plants who have to respond to ebbs and surges in solar power output by ramping their own output up and down, your solar power would be very expensive. Alternatively, you could avoid the cost of the externality I just mentioned by simply not using electric power when the sun isn't shining, in which case the cost of solar you'd bear instead would be the cost of not having electric power more often than not.

@MrArtist7777

7 жыл бұрын

You're assuming a lot, Marmocet. I've used NO subsidies for my solar or for my residential wind turbine, which I've had for 9 years. My power bill is $0, most every month and the rare times I use power from my utility, it comes primarily from hydro and wind. So what are the "externalities" in solar production I've missed over the past 10 years of working in the solar and wind industries? Solar production receives very, very little tax subsidies, in fact, far less than the fossil fuel industries receive. I know, I worked with Senators in D.C., last year, on the actual costs of RE and fossil fuels and I know the real costs. Yes, renewables are intermittent power sources as fossil fuels are variable, meaning their capacity factors change, for both, all through a 24-hour period. RE power can be leveled off by batteries, which I plan to buy and use soon and WON'T be subsidized. So, the purchase price of my solar panels and BOS are the only real costs of the system, nothing hidden or subsidized and the actual ROI is exactly what I said it is. Fact I, fossil fuels will continue to phase out in favor of RE power as they are more expensive, unreliable (long-term scale) and people are just sick of dying from the pollution they produce.

love to see what guy would say today in 2022. smartphone and gigabyte wifi everywere

Luke Skywalker??? Why is he talking about Solar and Coal????

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

I'll admit: He does look a little like Mark Hammel!🤣😁😝

roller and calculator producers are not so powerfull like oil and gas ........and coal oil gas energy for demend solar wind not so much........last year without suport of state on my coutry wind generators 1 bilion lost.....

@JD-yx7be

6 жыл бұрын

Tomasz Kedzierski technology is improving at a increasing rate. just because it is expensive today doesn't mean it will be expensive in the future

missing the fact that renewable is subsidized, calculaters were just a better product, renewables are just getting even,

@Smellindamix

6 жыл бұрын

killer3883 and non renewable isnt?

@dewiz9596

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah. Fossil is subsidized to the teeth.

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, renewables are subsidized, but not as much as the conventional sources. You'd be amazed how much the fuel industry is subsidized. If ALL subsidies were dropped, renewables would win, because after the initial commissioning costs, they could pay themselves back, because they don't have to continue to pay for fuel, to generate electrical energy. Buying gas, coal, or oil really dips into the profits, making return on investment take much longer. Sure, a turbine doesn't put out as much power per dollar invested, but every dollar of energy it produces can help pay it off. Then, it's nearly pure profit, minus a little maintenance, here and there. Solar is even better: it's largely "set and forget". Virtually no maintenance. Solar is now cheaper than wind!

@vincentrobinette1507

5 жыл бұрын

@@Smellindamix Let's just say: If they drop all subsidies on renewable, they should also drop all subsidies on fossil, and nuclear. Let free enterprise run her course. Solar and wind would still come out the clear winners. Cheap fuel will no longer be available, if they cut subsidies for drilling and mining. All that, even if you ignore the environmental benefits of phasing out fossil energy.

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.

I heard that ten to twenty thousand coal mining jobs will be created by Trump in Kentucky and West Virginia alone by the end of the year. maybe forty thousand in Illinois.

@MrArtist7777

7 жыл бұрын

And you believe anything Trump says?!! Ha ha ha, that's funny!!! No, there's won't be any jobs create in coal, in KY, WV or anywhere as coal is the most expensive form of power, next to solar, wind and nat. gas.

@akram4179

7 жыл бұрын

Not every state has coal. But every state has sun shine. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of jobs solar industry would create in ALL states in USA

@gregtabor1342

7 жыл бұрын

Sunshine isn't equally distributed by state and even states that are considered to have good solar irradiance can have days wthout sun or panels that are covered in snow that produce almost nothing until the snow melts and falls off. States that are further north are subject to shorter, colder days and steeper sun angles. How does solar work in Alaska for instance when they are in winter darkness for days on end? Certainly it works when they are in summer and have daylight for 24 hrs/day, but that variability is extreme and they also have snow and cloud cover to deal with. My experience with solar in CO is that production is best in Spring and Fall when the sun is relatively high in the sky, days are getting longer, and temps are cooler. Production is worse in Summer when efficiencies decline due to excess heat, just when you need more AC for cooling. Production is worst in winter when you need heat and more lighting due to shorter days, less efficient EV operation due to cold, and shorter hours of sunshine and days of cloud and snow covering panels. The production variance over the last two years can be as much as 50% between the best and worst months, and as mentioned, it's not aligned with demand patterns. Batteries can deal with intermittent variability but they cannot deal with extended demand/production imbalances regardless of the causes.

@Dragonlungz21

7 жыл бұрын

Wind and solar alone create more than twice that, not even including biomass, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy. The U.S solar and wind industry employs around 350,000 people while coal employs less than 100,000.

@reference2me

6 жыл бұрын

As of 2013, coal provided approximately 41% of the world's electricity needs. And 29% of total world energy supply, coal is second only to oil's 31% share.

You need steel iron and high levels of heating moulding to make solar panels, coal could be far cleaner energy source most definitely more than oil. Coal as an interim energy source to self sustaining energy is best alternative, and after usefullness could be transformed into thermatic heating, if not production of electricity.

As of 2013, coal provided approximately 41% of the world's electricity needs. And 29% of total world energy supply, coal is second only to oil's 31% share.

@JD-yx7be

6 жыл бұрын

reference2me and declining

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

You forgot to mention how much more polluted the air and land are from burning coal! I don't know about you, but I would rather breath clean air and drink clean water. Maybe your a slime and none of this matters to you!

good business produce more with less people, the fact they hire more people is not a good thing

Coal for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Every watt of solar has to be backed up by another watt of reliable power. Paradigm shift sounds cute, but it won't keep the lights on.

@reference2me

6 жыл бұрын

As of 2013, coal provided approximately 41% of the world's electricity needs. And 29% of total world energy supply, coal is second only to oil's 31% share.

@tnk4me4

6 жыл бұрын

RIB B there will probably never be a day were both the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow throughout a whole country. Coal isn't going to survive the adoption of renewables and it's cannibalizing via natural gas. The coal industry is like the ottoman empire. Old powerful but dying slowly with no way to save it.

@fredfrond6148

6 жыл бұрын

Check out Germany they have way more solar than US and they are fine with adjusting when people use electricity, back up with wind and minimal natural gas which they buy from Russia at many times the price of the US cost. They probably use too much coal for power but reducing usage all the time not making it great again. China has 13,000,000 solar jobs because they manufacture for the world and have committed to infrastructure not increasing a massive military force all over the world and blowing $5trillion in Iraq.

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

Have you heard of a thing called a battery? You know, it stores energy for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow!

@fredfrond6148

6 жыл бұрын

Batteries are not cost efficient enough to store at such a large scale. Lithium ion batteries are being sold by Tesla in some desperate location like Hawaii where they have fewer options than others and no natural gas and even coal is costly to ship in just for power so renewables may have a compelling cost advantage there. Vanadium flow batteries and filling deep underwater balloons with air might be ready soon. So utilities on the continental US are probably waiting for a clear winner or a compelling cost advantage. Not here yet I don’t think but coming soon.

So this is the perspective of a non-expert and a solar power entrepreneur. Talk to preeminent climate scientists Hansen, Caldeira, Wigley and Emmanuel and they'll tell you the most important struggle will be between low carbon nuclear and coal -- because both provide reliable, always on energy in a small land footprint which solar and wind don't.

@yurona5155

7 жыл бұрын

Well, they've obviously been proven wrong by now. Traditional 'peakers' like gas-fueled plants are on their way out already, i.e. the 'always-on' part has been solved (mostly by storage becoming massively cheaper). Plus any kind of centralized power generation - even at zero cost - is on the verge of being outcompeted based on its need of a transport infrastructure. Basically, decentralized renewables have won this battle already and we are in the midst of the disruption right now...

@Dragonlungz21

7 жыл бұрын

MokaPot biomass is more efficient than coal.

@reference2me

6 жыл бұрын

As of 2013, coal provided approximately 41% of the world's electricity needs. And 29% of total world energy supply, coal is second only to oil's 31% share.

What a boring presentation! TED used to be great but now they let anyone talk about anything and the quality went to shit.

@kennyw871

6 жыл бұрын

People like you are going to be left behind, or are you still using a horse and buggy, a slide rule, a rotary phone and a typewriter and perfectly content? Are you Amish?