Why the negativity? Has this nation forgotten that setting a high goal encourages  meeting the challenge?
Have we forgotten that each journey begins with a single step? Are we so busy justifying our old thinking/behavior patterns we cannot envision a viable solution anymore?

To suggest that new renewable electricity generation will require huge infrastructure to transport the power from a remote location is simplistic and incorrect.
Population centers are growing in the sunbelt. Sunbelt = available solar. Vast expanses of commercial rooftops are available already ON transmission lines, within populated areas. SCE is already beginning a project of scale in this area.
To assume solar will not be a player in the future is shortsighted, to say the least.

To avoid needing huge transmission-line improvements, local, small-scale power-generation instead of centralized, large-scale generation is the solution. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.

Geothermal resources are located all over the Western States- part of the rapidly growing area-Geothermal generation plants are non-polluting and could be located very near population centers if the resource were present without creating a health hazard to residents. They also produce power 24/7.

To assume that a coal-fired plant would be located in a populated area, or a Nuclear plant, is unlikely. They, too, will be located in areas that are not likely served by transmission lines due to the health hazards associated with them. Additionally, these plants historically take many years to come online.

The idea that we shouldn't set high goals because we cannot achieve ALL of them is like suggesting we lower the standards for educational tests so all students will pass. (Oh- I think we already did that...Hmmmm. )

Mr. Gore has selected the wrong technology and will hurt other more realistic technology from getting heard.

its not that mainly that we have to add more transmistion line its the ones that we have need to be replaced, since we have a power grid of a 3rd world country now. most long haul power lines should be changed to DC because its more efficient at long distance then AC.

power requirments can be meet if we make every new electronic more efficient with power consumption.

Al Gore's 10 year plan is too optimistic.  It would need the drive, resources, questionable availability of raw materials and the spare energy capacity to implement. Such drive and focus could only be found in times of War.
Come to think of it. Did not the US meet such a challenge to upgrade and equip its armed forces during the Second World War and come out a victor?
The effect on national pride and the material damage inflicted at Pearl harbour is miniscule compared to the damage that delaying such a massive program into renewables would inflict on the US.  The US has done much more for less. Many in the rest of the free world still look at the US to take the lead. There is still some truth that US policy is driven by the interests of a few - probably like in other countries. I find the US efforts in R&D for renewables is pathetic to say the least.  Its attempts at implementing a renewable energy infrastructure AND find ways to reduce energy consumption (cheaper than energy production) does not correspond to one of the highest per capita demand for energy. Look towards Europe: Spain, Germany and Denmark and realize how far back the US has fallen.

I agree with this. Kevin Bullis, you are showing unfounded negativity.
Your arguments (I'm sorry...) are quite poor and discutable:
- I don't want to over-simplify things and make quick analogies but, going from 1% of RE to 100% must be possible when you make the step "never been to the moon" -> "walked on the moon" ;
- As for the new transmission infrastructure, Al Gore DID mention the need to reengineer it, and said that anyways big parts of it needed renovation. Investment for investment let's switch to the grid of the future (a mix of HVDC grids and inter-connections of AC grids, high-voltage electricity storage, hydraulic/hydrogen production storage, smart-grid technology... all of which exist as solutions between advanced research prototypes to full-deployment).
It is true that Al Gore didn't provide specifics as to how the USA will eventually reach that target in ten years, but in the same time did JFK provide the details about how to get - technically - a man to the moon? You cannot explain large scale complex problems without disappoiting a non-specialist audience. Which is different from "empty rhetoric"...
Something else: there is no one word in this blog about the main reason behind Al Gore's challenge, which concerns us all: the climate change issue. Are you guys not convinced by its reality?

Kevin is right in saying that it will be a difficult challenge for the United States to become energy independent, but our history shows that our nation responds well to and thrives on challenges.  I think giving $700 billion of our wealth each year for foreign oil is insane and, more importantly, has cost us much in the way of good lives to protect the flow from the Middle East.  Our leaders should be honest with the American people and tell them that there are no quick fixes, including drilling for more domestic oil, and we all have to do a better job of conserving energy.  We should also not be so quick to condemn individuals like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore who are proposing viable, long-term solutions.

Tim Miles
Bowie, MD

Kevin is right to do the math for Gore. Here's another calculation.

A single nuclear power plant can cut 2.3% of oil imports and reduce CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 3 million cars of the road. The 2011 Chevy Volt can go 40 miles on a single electric charge of 8 KWH costing $1.20. In a 24 hour day a single 1 GW nuclear power plant can charge 3 million of these electric cars. At 20 mpg conventional cars would consume 6 million gallons of gasoline per day, requiring 325,000 barrels of oil – about 5.1% of US OPEC imports.

Stop it already!

Al Gore's appearance on MTP the the most coherent, accessible, and lucid vision for a different energy future I've seen since 9/11.

He stated the problem very clearly:

This is not a technological or financial problem, it is one of political will.

What Al Gore is doing is injecting leadership where there has only previously been feckless droning on about the obstacles. Overcoming obstacles requires leadership, not whining.

Continuing to spout the party line on how it can't be done is total BS. We should start the "Energy Moon Shot" today, tomorrow is too late. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but quit yer complainin'!

How can anyone say Al Gore is providing leadership? All he is doing is whining! He has the most inefficient home in the US, is selling the same carbon vouchers to different people and isn't actually doing anything. His Nobel prize winning movie? A judge in Britain said they could only show it if they showed the other side too because over half of the arguments he presents are scientifically...here we go...wrong! Had a real scientist made the movie he would have been put in jail for falsifying data. Instead, Al Gore gets a Nobel peace prize. Is it disheartening to see what is happening to our Nation? Yes. Should something be done about it? Yes. Is Al Gore helping the problem? NO! South Park has Al Gore totally pegged. I'm super cereal you guys. Anyway, Kevin is right. Roof top systems (solar) are only available to the people that can pay for them. They are extremely expensive to install and yes, the cells themselves (right now operating at only ~25%) are guaranteed for 25 yrs but the connections are not! The problem isn't with the cell, it's with converting AC to DC and the corrosion of the electrical wires. And let's not forget that energy consumption will only increase. It would be insane for us to think that our energy consumption as a planet is going to level off. As the population grows, so does the consumption. Al Gore's plan is more than optimistic, it is unreasonable. And what happens when your boss sets expectations that are too high and you don't meet them, like 8 TPS reports? Morale drops, right? And you get less accomplished. We are the leadership. The people that write and read these blogs. The voters. We need to make the difference in our homes, in our apartments and by what we buy and what we vote for. If you think Al Gore is really in this to help, wake up and take a look at his lifestyle.

10 years in present-day progression mode is not like your father's 10-year plan.  quit the outdated thought modes and give peace and possibility a chance, will you?  it all starts in every individual's head and ends in the world we are subjected to every day, so please consider changing the "not gonna' happen" mentality, because if this is not cleared up in less 10 years, there's a strong possibility neither you nor i will be here to debate the point.  apply this concept in your head to peace in the middle east and watch what can happen there.  how long have people been thinking "not gonna' happen" on that subject, and you wonder why it's still a mess?  if you can think it, you can do it, and WE can change our entire energy production system in much less than 10 years if you'd pull your brain out of the resistance mode and see the light that these technologies have already existed for decades and that greed and manipulation are the only things holding them back and the only reason they are not the de-facto standard presently.  so, really, what's so difficult about achieving that which is only held back by money-hungry power dweebs like the ones you inadvertently are supporting with your "not gonna' happen" mentality?  what, you have to see a 10-year yield on your present investments in old technologies before you'll let go?  that's so small-minded to think we can't perform these tasks in short order, and again, you are the ones holding it back with your thoughts.  however i am willing to bet that the power of those who "can do" in their thinking will prevail.  this energy debacle can and will be solved in only a few years: how many thousands of warships and planes did American workers assemble in just a few years, converting auto assembly lines and so forth to produce aircraft consisting of millions of parts when these lines were previously set up for only thousands of parts?  i can imagine you sitting there reading your 1944 newspaper saying the same thing: "It's not gonna' happen."  Well, thousands of workers said it will happen, and it did.  Now, this is only one lame example so don't feel the need to jump on it: you freaking know what the point is, and you know inside you that anything is possible, especially this energy situation! it's a result not of a lack of technology but is an entire different story of control, greed, manipulation and exploitation.  we've been purposely held back from free energy in this civilization at least since Tesla was erased from the picture by the Gettys and Rockefellers of this sham nation.  but, really, what would one expect coming out of MIT?

Interesting article and comments. Here are my opinions.

1. I'm sure Al's a nice, well-meaning guy, but ...

He's selling snake oil, and getting really rich doing so. That's good for him, but it's not the kind of oil we need.

2. USA: Drill Deep. Drill Often. Drill Now!

If only we could break the logjam of ridiculous legal and "environmental" restrictions and carefully make use of our own natural resources while we develop new technologies ... sigh.

2. Spend at least HALF of any proposed government energy investments on modernizing our interstate highway system.

For decades, its highways gave America a huge advantage in personal freedom, productivity, and civil defense. Cars aren't going away in our lifetime, and we're forced to waste obscene amounts of fuel due to the government's purposeful failure to maintain and improve the system. On top of that, they've jammed it even more with punitive social engineering experiments like HOV lanes.

I recommend serious jail time for the slackers who, in recent decades, took an efficient system and stalled it at '70s era size, efficiency, and quality. Same goes for those state and local governments which have failed to provide safe and efficient roadways and bridges.

3. Get over the wholesale fixation with solar.

It doesn't work where I live (Portland) or in other major areas of the Pacific Northwest, where six of the cloudiest, two of the foggiest, and one of the rainiest cities in the country are located.

Besides, solar still needs much work in terms of energy storage and distribution, same as it did when it was a fad in the early '70s. Solar panel technology is improving, but let's not get overwrought about it.

4. There is no Energy Utopia. There is no Energy Utopia. There is no Energy Utopia.

So let's stop wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on light rail, trams, streetcars, and the like.

Instead, America needs to fix and expand its damn roadways to reduce fuel use. Citizens can also buy whatever good*, energy-efficient products each can afford, and reduce consumption wherever possible. Hey, if you just keep your car tuned and tires properly inflated, use the correct motor oil, and keep the air filter clean, you can improve your car's fuel efficiency by about 20%. And, with more than 250 million registered cars in America, an overall improvement of 20% would be huge!

*Not including fluorescent lightbulbs, which contain that pesky little thing called MERCURY.

5. This ain't no moonshot. And Al ain't no JFK.

In 1961, the U.S. wasn't yet a socialist nation run by lawyers and led by hacks. When our country was whupped by Russia in the space race, we happened to have a strong leader with the vision and power to focus people and resources to pursue a ridiculously great stretch goal. He also had the support of the majority of American's because of our collective dislike of Russia and our love of competition.

Given the scenario needed to put an American on the moon, can you fathom a huge national effort to achieve a ridiciously great stretch goal would work today, no matter how beneficial it could be? Me, either.

6. Nukes ARE a viable alternative.

It's not so much the plant building and operation that are problematic. It's the transport and storage of radioactive waste that's rightly concerning.

So, let's learn from the French (that was odd to write!) and others to leverage their Nuke knowledge so we can develop new and better waste management methods. Then, let the states that are interested and qualified bid for the work of hauling and managing the waste.

In addition to many of us getting cheaper, cleaner power from nuclear reactors, the waste gets buried in a state that wants it for the new jobs and increased revenues that come with it. Seems pretty reasonable ...

7. Sorry, but Peace in the Middle East is not on the menu.

Even if we try wishin' real hard, there is NOTHING America could say or do to improve relations in the Middle East. We've bought their oil, fought their wars, dumped $84 billion into Israel and $60 billion into Egypt (thus far), and held sleepovers at Camp David. The result? War in the Middle East.

Thousands of years of religious hatred and ceaseless warfare. And now, the resurgent radical Islamists tossed into the mix? Peace has no chance.

USA: Drill Deep. Drill Often. Drill NOW!

At the end of the day, the lawyers for the Environmentalist will stop this non-sense.

I happen to live in San Diego, in our local mountains where we have plenty of wind a group wanted to build some Wind Mills, but where stopped by non other then the sierra club because of the possiblity of bird deaths, to the east of us is a vast desert, another group wished to build a large solar facility, but is currently being sued by another environmentalist group because the land used might effect the Desert Tortise and other endangered creatures.  Even a transmission line that would take the renewable energy from the desert to the city is in court due to the fact that it would run through a national forest and somehow disrupt the natural order of things.

Untill you get rid of the fantatics in the environmental movement nothing will ever get accomplished.  It is time we start building Nucler plants, start encouraging Solar Rooftops and Windmill farms and also start drilling for Oil in this country, because while 20 to 30 years from now renewables will play a much bigger part of our energy pictures, oil is not going anywhere.  If you don't believe me just ask yourself how we are going make all that plastic we use in all of our stuff.

Since when is geothermal entirely clean? Most geothermal sites emit significant amounts of toxic hydrogen sulfide and the condensate is a highly mineralized water that cannot be allowed into water systems. These are the residues of PGE's Geysers Geothermal plant in California.

4000 billion MWh should be 4000 billion kWh or 4 billion MWh.

We use a lot of 'tricity. But not that much!

If $5 Billion from T Boones Pickens will put 4,000 Megawatts of renewables in place what could have been acheived with the $1 Trillon that was wasted in Iraq?

Regardless of if the plan calls for 100% by 2020 or 25%, I think the key is to motivate action as quickly as possible. The trouble with co2 is that by the time the average person is effected by it its to late to do anything.  Gore's plan may be calling for such drastic action because the co2 output is still growing at an increasing rate. Though past rhetorical efforts have failed to reduce the rate of emissions growth they may have provided the seeds for future reductions. 

There are other countries that have signed up for significant fractions of green energy.  Scotland agreed to 50% renewable energy by 2020 and I think 33% by 2011. Germany is also producing a significant percentage from solar and wind. 100 percent may be to optimistic but a very significant fraction is not without precedent in other counties.  California is also way ahead of the us average and there economy did not collapse.   

It would be nice to see an energy policy compromise where conservative people are given concessions of some new nuclear power, clean coal maybe some drilling in less environmentally sensitive offshore areas and liberal people get to fund solar, wind, wave power, batteries, fuel cells, 2nd generation biofuels, conservation etc. The key is to rapidly get funding into the green technologies and compromise is needed to break up grid lock and encourage action. Funding for the solar tax incentive is currently holding up major solar thermal projects that will produce competivley priced solar even for the first few plants. Consider contacting your representitives on that bill.

Both sides can agree that energy production at home is better for national security. One economic advantage to alternatives like wind and solar is that once the equipment is in place the the energy price is fixed for the life of the equipment and insensitive to future price increases.  

Green energy prices continue to drop while fossil fuels rise.  In the not too distant future clean technologies will likely be cheaper and just plain more profitable.  I haven't seen any predictions of cheaper oil a decade from now.   

On a recent appearance on Charlie Rose, Amory Lovins pointed out how economically inviable nuclear is relative to the alternatives by points that I probably misquote from memory, but basically get right:
1) no private nuclear plants are being constructed; all current construction is funded by central planners and in the US private financing is contingent of government insurance against default.
2) Spain, the US, and China each added more solar than the entire world added nuclear.
3) more wind power was added in the US than nuclear in the entire world.
4) 30 times as much micropower was added than nuclear (cogeneration produces electric power "for free" from the fuel used to produce heat and steam is an example of micropower).

Of course, Lovins emphasizes NEGAwatts, changing the way we do things to cut energy use without sacrificing anything other than the high energy bills no one wants to pay.

Lovins noted that the reduction in oil use prior to Reagan changing the US energy policy in 1986 was a 5% year over year reduction for the prior decade.  And that was the decade that demonstrated that nuclear power was a financial disaster for any investor foolish enough to own stock or buy bonds in such projects.  Blaming environmentalists for the failure of nuclear power ignores the environmental obstacles for wind and solar.  It took Al Gore a year to get the environmental permits to install solar (solar panels are considered unsightly on roofs) and the Cape Wind project has been waiting for nearly a decade for approval.

The can't do mind set that says Gore is unrealistic is based in the central planning mindset that is required to believe nuclear is part of the solution.  If a true price is placed on each source of power, about a billion people will be implementing sustainable energy solutions worldwide.  Adding a carbon tax on fossil fuels which is rebated to each US citizen equally will motivate 100 million decision makers to quickly make the US independent of fossil fuels, mostly by way of investing in NEGAwatts, whether that be a smaller fuel efficient car, more insulation for the home, a switch from oil heat to ground source thermal, CFLs, or walking and biking, or all of the above.

Gore should be highlighting the studied potential of solar thermal: does not require the silicon of photovoltaics and steam stores energy during night hours.
"The almost complete elimination of both fossil fueled generation and oil usage for transportation in the USA appears to be technically feasible."
http://www.ausra.com/pdfs/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf

According to the numbers the author of this article uses;
1) Pickens windfarm and the transmission infastructure will cost less than building new nuclear plants, even without considering costs of nuclear waste disposal.
2) 4000 megawatts is 4% of total current electric capacity, from just one wind farm. Twenty-five similar projects to replace fossil fuel sources for a country of 300 million people, that's amazing and exciting. Small potatoes compared to the interstate highway system.

I definitely agree with Kevin that there are numerous important reasons that we would not even WANT to be 100% renewable in 10 years.

I do think that Al Gore does us a favor by getting people to envision just how quickly we could accomplish this. Too many people think that it would take a century if ever. Most others think we must move at a snail's pace.

Al has risked looking a bit naive in order to promote serious conversation about the effort it would take and to put the image in people's minds that we really could get there much faster than they imagine.

In fact, we could replace coal with 75 million acres of Giant Miscanthus. That's just 75,000 1,000 acre farms. How quickly could that be done? When you add solar and wind to the mix, you have a good blend of renewable baseload and peak power that could power America and run our cars.

Add to that conservation measures so that we use less to heat and cool buildings and less to drive and we have a means to offset some effects of population increase.

We have a way forard, but we also need time and we have substantial investment in mineral energy that needs to expire.

Frankly, you guys who think renewable energy is the answer are not being realistic about the realities of the technology. I know one guy said that PV panels were 25% efficient, but when I look at pricing a solar system with a local distributor, the high efficiency panels where rated at 14~16% efficient. The higher efficiency panels are the expensive three layer ones that are used for satellites and special offsite power applications that only the government and corporations can afford.

When I priced a 10kwh system, the equipment cost where around $55,000. The reason I chose a 10KWH system is you have to compensate for winter and cloudy days. I then read where the typical solar system will degrade 30% over their lifespan and have a 20 year projected lifespan. You also have to keep them clean for optimum efficiency. I don't know what the factors yet are for tracking systems and what the added costs are. Heres the sites I went to get the info.

http://www.kyocerasolar.com/products/pv_calculator.html

http://www.affordable-solar.com/gt-estimator.htm

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=703#more-703

Some of you seem to blame big oil and coal for the lack of progress in renewables. You are sadly misinformed. Go to windaction.org or depletedcranium.com for some sobering facts. It's high gasoline taxes and generous subsidization that has promoted renewables in European countries. It's also because those people have been use to living with much less effluencey and have build their lifestyles around mass transit systems and frugal cars and houses. Over here are lifestyles have been geared around the convenience of the auto and cheap oil which has suddenly become not so cheap. But still Europe can't reach the 20% renewable target as wind and solar are currently, inherently expensive, have comparatively low energy density to coal, and are intermittent with no good way of energy storage. The average efficiency from wind over there is 20%, not 35% as someone incorrectly claimed. And they have been unable to meet passed Kyoto targets so it's a joke over there.

If you go through the math it would take 8 to 10 trillion dollars today to even reach the 20% figure of energy from wind. And the big wind props from GE would take much more concrete and transmission wires then nuclear. Wind and solar are subsidized 25x more then nuclear. If the US had an Manhattan project for nuclear for generation IV reactors there would be no waste problem cause the waste could be reprocessed for more fuel. Go to world-nuclear.org for details on that. It will take decades for renewable to really replace the viability of conventional energy sources. the only recent positive outcome of peak oil is the mandated CAFE standards and I have seen promising technology that could make present SUVs 3~4 times more efficient but you cant bet the farm on it, you just have to wait and see if it becomes reality.

But hey, a French company- ZPM is coming out with compressed air cars, about the size of the large Beatles and smaller, that get the equivalency of 80~100MPG. Great for commuting or zipping around town. If the maglev Skytrain can be implemented then owning personal transportation could be a thing of the past. people could take the maglev to a local destination and then rent the small commuter to where they have to go. Larger vehicle based on the technology could be rented for trips or outings. they do require small amounts of fuel for boosting at higher speeds, cold weather and the heater or AC. The compressed air could be supplied by solar and wind. The needed fuel from bio sources. That feasible technology that can extend oil and gas. Syn fuels can also be derived from coal and Germany does that alot. Just have to get by the ecowackos who have fallen for the messiah prophesy of Al Gore, he majored in divinity courses and political science while doing terrible in earth sciences. That's why he won't debate real scientists, he knows he'll be exposed for his pseudo science rants.

On the fiasco of global warming. I have been checking that out for that past 15 years and have found it to be mostly natural. In the last 10 years temps have flattened and gone down. Only the hype remains. Check out adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com and click on the subject links on the right hand section or explore the links. The Nobel Peace price is for peace efforts and not for scientific quality or objectiveness. Al gore is 70% bogus. AGW is 60% bogus, the recent cold weather proves it. The IPCC bases it's predictions on climate computer models that are over tweaked on positive feedbacks like CO2 when the Earth has sufficient negative feedbacks to counter the added CO2 which becomes a decreasing factor of climate forcing as more is added. Most of you guys are just not up on the real science of climate.

Solar power has been cited by many as the power of the future.The way to tap solar energy is a solar panel.A solar panel is made of silicon or rather a particular compound of silicon called silicosis.This compound is in shortage and its manufacturing thus has become expensive.Like ethanol and any other yet to be developed biofuels this source might cause us to lose more than gain.

The NY Book Review a while ago printed Freeman Dyson's review of a couple of books on AGW, and one is of particular interest. Nordhaus, an economist, took AGW as given and projected forward the costs and benefits of various response strategies. At about 100 years, the great majority of both were realized, so he summed at that point. Result: Gore's approach was net -$21 trillion (current dollars), the worst option. Doing nothing was about -$2 trillion. Kyoto was about break-even. Carbon taxing was about +$3 trillion.

The best result was for a "low-cost backstop", as he termed as-yet unrevealed or discovered low-carbon energy technologies, at +$17 trillion.

My candidate for the latter is Lawrenceville Plasma Physics' 'Focus Fusion', which has zero waste and ¼¢/kwh projected output.

Nuclear Reactor on a truck ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes £13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry John Vidal and Nick Rosen guardian.co.uk,
Sunday November 9 2008 00.01 GMT The Observer, Sunday November 9 2008 Article history

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£16m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.