Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
This exact graph is why I shake my head when people say we should replace oil with renewables.
Renewables first target is coal. Because they nearly perfect substitutes for one another. The primary energy form that both produce is electricity. I'm not saying its as simple as a bunch of brownfield coal plant replacements, but the backbone of the grid is already there.
Oil, on the other hand, is primarily used to generate kinetic energy. To transform renewable energy sources into kinetic energy will take a massive infrastructure overhaul to get solar rays and moving air molecules transformed into kinetic energy in my car. Hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions?) of infrastructure.
Then add on the fact that coal is a massive (the largest?) source of CO2 emissions.
Tinordi, why is oil your target for renewables? Why doesn't it make more sense to target coal first?
|
Because people don't see "big coal".
Who knows a coal miner? Or someone that works in the coal patch? Does coal have pipelines that are easy to protest? Are there movies written about evil coal companies, or theories about war plots and terrorist funding via coal companies?
Car's don't run on coal byproduct. Everyone wants to see cars running off something clean, not ironically the plants that would generate whatever would power the gas run car replacement. People also have a gripe with gas prices ingrained in them. It then is easy to link the gas in your car with oil companies (big oil) and hate them.
Are the middle east countries and other nations that we look down upon (Russia, Venezuela, etc.) big coal exporters?
Somehow oil become the de facto sexy target... So why would it be rational to start with the worst perpetrator?
Every coal plant produced bit of power should be replaced by Nuclear and NG. Then we should work on everything else.
Or at least that's what I interpret.