Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

TR Editors' blog

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Blog Topics

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • djweber : This specific case is in all likelihood a complete scam. The assistant is the one decides what...
  • walt : I hope those students learn that "burn...volts" makes no sense.
  • doanwon : My first thought is whenever the magnetic field aligns the coil, it will exert a force parallel...
  • plasticdoc : This is just one subject which could be used to prevent boredom when teaching young students the...
  • bildan : The ground systems depend on where you are and what equipment you have.  It can be either fully...
  • ... : Students showcase a new wave of biological machines.
  • ... : Very informative...  I enjoyed and learned.
  • ... : Wow!!! I have view your article and this is interesting and very useful. I need any more...
  • nancy16 : When doing research on cancer. Scientist should not indulge in whether the cancer was inherited...
  • david k : There is strong history of the street view as art.  Ed Ruscha took photos along the Sunset Strip...
Advertisement
Friday, July 18, 2008

Al Gore's Inconvenient Plan

One hundred percent renewable energy won't come as easily as he thinks.
By Kevin Bullis

Yesterday, Al Gore said that the United States should produce all of its electricity from carbon-free, renewable energy within 10 years. Although he didn't lay out specifics, he seems to want to do it with wind, solar, and geothermal, although it's not clear from his speech whether nuclear would be acceptable. Can it be done? It isn't likely.

To get a sense of the scale of the problem, consider: last year, wind, solar, and geothermal power accounted for an impressive-sounding 48 million megawatt-hours of electricity. (I rounded up. If I had rounded down, it would have obliterated the contribution from solar, since it is such a small part of the total.)

But in 2006, the most recent year with complete figures, four billion megawatt-hours of electricity were produced in the United States. Eventually, wind, solar, and geothermal power could cover this. But right now, they account for a little more than 1 percent of the total. Going from 1 to 100 percent will require not only building the wind turbines and solar panels and steam turbines for harvesting geothermal energy: it will also require massive new transmission infrastructure for distributing this power, from the deserts or windy plains, where much of this energy can be found, to the coasts, where people actually live. And it will require massive amounts of energy storage, since solar power doesn't work well at night, and wind power is erratic.

In light of this scale, even some truly ambitious schemes seem like a drop in the bucket. Over the past couple of weeks, T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon, has been using some of his billions to run television ads supporting his personal energy plan for the United States. Part of that plan is his project to build what seems to be the biggest wind farm in the country. It would nearly double the amount of wind produced in the state of Texas, the state with by far the most wind power. But that project will only produce 4,000 megawatts of power. (Total electricity generating capacity in the United States is about 1 million megawatts.) And it won't be cheap. To cover transmission-line costs alone for that and other proposed wind projects, the state of Texas plans to spend about $5 billion.

Al Gore is right, of course, that the country needs to turn to renewable energy. And it's frustrating how slowly the change is coming. But as we've recently seen with biofuels and food prices, scaling up a new source of energy can bring unanticipated consequences. Careful planning is required. We need some realistic plans for making the switch to renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals.

Comments

  • Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
    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. )
    Rate this comment: 12345

    surfgrrl54
    07/19/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
      Your comment is in accord with expert advise. To make the electricity revolution possible, please read the EnergyBlogs.com EWPC article Is Gore's Revolutionary Leadership Challenge Feasible?

      For more comments on EWPC on M.I.T. TR, please hit my 'javs' hyperlink.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      javs
      07/22/2008
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
    • Our future energy picture is surprisingly bright
      A major reason for negativity regarding energy solutions is people don't realize the good news that is relatively close to realization. Innovation is likely to allow for distributed power nodes ... down to the house level. This obviates the concern for having to upgrade the power distribution network.

      Solar is coming on strong because of advances in solar panel manufacturing technology. Nanosolar has established a factory with huge capacity in CA (1 Gwatt/year). Last I read, their production is sold out for the next 18 months. The cost for electricity generated will be competitive with coal! Regarding the 10 year time issue, other companies are HOT on their trail trying to grab THEIR share of the market.

      An obvious challenge with solar-generated electricity is that the sun is not always shining. A company called Eestor in TX is coming out with a super capacitor which should help to resolve that problem. Their product has much greater storage density and a cheaper cost than traditional batteries. Eestor already has two significant contracts for their product - one with a Canadian company which produces small cars and the other for military applications.

      With what's described above we have an answer for affordable solar-generated electricity and a way to save it up for gradual release.

      I expect that people reading this blog are very competent to be able to search for news about Nanosolar and Eestor. I like to use the powerful Google News Alert service to keep up to date.

      It's significant to me that a number of people around the World are pursuing a similar approach to creating totally clean energy, and it appears that the "state of the art" is getting close to "proof of concept". A consequence is that I expect that within 5 years we will see a totally clean energy production device that is being produced in large quantities and is scalable. That will spell the end of expensive oil. I have NO financial interest in this area, so I can be quite objective. Here's a link to one example of recent news in this type of innovation:
      http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2898

      A big challenge with this type of device is that it appears to violate the law of the conservation of energy, and that understandably causes great upset for most physicists. I suspect how that difficulty will ultimately be resolved is when the _source_ of that "extra" energy is finally understood.

      As an analogy, think about the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Think about how tiny that range is, compared to the whole electromagnetic spectrum that we now understand exists. It took mankind a LONG time to understand just how much more there was beyond what we can see with our eyes. It was always there. Mankind just didn't understand it yet. THAT is how I think of the mysterious "extra energy" that appears to exist in the device described in the link above.

      One beautiful thing about both energy production innovations described above is that they allow for energy independence at the home or building level. Presently, when an area electrical grid goes down hundreds of thousands of people can be impacted, sometimes for many days. If/when each house has its own electrical power generation capability that will eliminate such mass disruptions. It also makes the availability of electric power more SECURE.

      What I see as a big challenge to the good news described above is mankind's reluctance to seek to understand and embrace new paradigms. 

      Rich Putman in MN

      PS: I should note that my 1963 college major in physics is very dated. My other majors were math, Spanish, and Russian.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RichMLM
      07/22/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Our future energy picture is surprisingly bright
        "I suspect how that difficulty will ultimately be resolved is when the _source_ of that "extra" energy is finally understood."

        We would all like free energy, but the problem that people have with these claims, is not that they violate existing laws of physics (although that should be a cause for pause), it's that they are never demonstrated. There are thousands of people claiming to have produced over-unity devices, but nobody can reproduce the experiment. If it's not a hoax, it should be easy to reproduce. Until then, people are right to be skeptical. If the laws of physics need to be revised, so be it, but there must be adequate reason to do so.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        chadwickmeye...
        07/26/2008
        Posts:6
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
      Al Gore should know about energy, his home and lifestyle show him to be a major consumer. Of course he also created the internet. . . remember. For all of his attention grabbing, he does make a few good points as usual by checking which way the pack is running and getting out in front, like the politician he is.

      He conveniently neglects the time between now and ten years from now. Gas is over four dollars a gallon and rising. How do we get from here to there is missing in all of his comments. he just rehashes other folks ideas with no plan, just a vision, and that vision is not even his own. He is part of the Washington crowd that already produces enough hot air and wind to supply our whole country for the next hundred years.

      A national or regional energy grid is a single point of failure in times of upheaval. We have all seen the deleterious effects of brownouts and blackouts on whole cities and towns. Energy at the source is the only correct independent future for any country.

      True energy independence must be attacked at multiple levels.

      First, usage must be moderated by manufacturers of lighting, energy miserly appliances including TVs and computers, alternative types and modes of transportation, elimination of natural gas piped to individual homes, etc. Devices should be zero usage when switched off.

      Second, energy must be captured by many sources, such as fision, fusion, solar, wind, wave, coal, oil (USA produced), geothermal, etc. One size does not fit all and regional variations do matter.

      Third, power must be generated at the source, such as houses and community power generation. It can be shared back, but must be capable of originating at the source.

      Fourth, battery power or alternative energy storage devices must be enhanced at least tenfold to capably store energy more efficiently.

      Fifth, eliminate the counterproductive governmental controls, laws, and regulations that prevent independent thinking, promote the status quo, and stifle competition. Washington has always done better for the people by offering incentives rather than taxing and legislating.

      Sixth and most difficult, we must learn to conserve at all levels and think of personal alternates at home, school, and work.

      Bottom line, Gore makes for a great discussion starter, but so did George Carlin
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Shubnell
      07/23/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
        Have you got an ax to grind? Can you envision a politician with whom you disagree having ideas that might be plausible and sound?

        I stopped reading after your second sentence gave you away.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ChuckInReno
        07/23/2008
        Posts:19
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
        Well so far there are not very many politicians spurring us to real action, so I don't think you can claim Al Gore is doing it just for political expediency, i.e. sensing the direction of what's popular and then getting ahead of the pack. Besides, he's the one who popularized global warming, he made converts of many people with his documentary. Although "green" is hip in popular culture, it's not translating into much action in the political world. Most politicians are still too timid to make a plan, and demand tough changes (because they don't want to upset their constituents). It's easier to give lip service to environmental issues and then do nothing.  Gore is in a great position to make these sorts of plans because he doesn't have any constituents that will be angry at him because his plan could theoretically put some people out of work or upset the "lifestyle" that we have all come to believe we "deserve". He is a world leader, he has people's attention, and he can make these "crazy" ideas popular to a larger audience. He can say things that others know to be true but are too timid to say. He can set an agenda, and start a conversation. It's important that we start doing something now, and that we set radical goals like this. So what if it takes us 15 years instead of 10. It's better than the 30 year "realistic" plans proposed by oil companies who hope to suck every penny out of their existing investments before converting to alternatives.

        We must do something now, with the technology we have, while we still have a strong economy (yes our economy is strong, compared to what it will be when we start running out of resources and prices triple). If we go in debt trillions of dollars to become energy independent, it will be a boon for our economy, and in the long term it will save us money, e.g. since 2001 we've spent 860 Billion on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars alone (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80), not to mention the losses this has contributed to in our economy, and more importantly the thousands of American lives it has cost, as well as upward of 100,000 Iraqi lives. We have the money to do this, and we have the technology to do it, we only lack the motivation. That's why we need good leaders, to challenge us, educate us, and mobilize us into action, for our own good.

        Rate this comment: 12345

        chadwickmeye...
        07/26/2008
        Posts:6
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan

      When someone comments: “Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.”
      I find no word for comments.
      Kelvin Bullis rightly said:"We need some realistic plans for making the switch to renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals."
      Everybody should know that the most eminent challenge today is that expected demand for electricity would require during the coming two decades the installation of as much power generation capacity as  was installed in the entire 20th century.
      Because of its abundance in the most energy-consuming countries such as China, the USA, parts of Europe & India, and Australia, coal is likely to be increasingly the main basic  fuel for these plants, and its use would increasingly have to be accompanied by CO2 separation and sequestration. Despite the unresolved problems of waste storage, and to some extent safety, nuclear power plants are likely to be constructed for special needs, such as countries that have better access to uranium than to fossil fuels. The amount of uranium in the world is insufficient for massive long-term deployment of nuclear power generation, which can only change if breeder reactors are used, but that technology is not safe and mature enough and is not likely to be in the next couple of decades.
      Wind power progress is remarkably successful,with a capacity increase of about 15 GW electricity in 2006, forecasted to rise to an increase of 29 GW/year by the year 2014.  “Wind Force 12” is a plan to globally reach by the year 2020: 12% of global electricity demand.
      Wind power generation will be deployed massively, but will be limited to regions where wind is economically available.
      PV power generation will continue increasing in efficiency and decreasing in price, but being still several times more expensive than other power generation methods and for other technical reasons, it may not reach priority in the coming decade.
      Under ground coal gasification may be a suitable environ-mental friendly technology for obtaining valuable products from coal. Future progress of mankind will be impossible without a substantial and continuing energy supply ‘‘Energy is essential for mankind and always will be.’’
      Our preliminary research work shows capture of CO2 from various emission points like power plants and its ultimate conversion to essential chemicals may be the most important way in future for CO2 reduction and its management.

      Professor Dr-Ing.Rafiqul Islam
      Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences
      professorrafiqulislam@yahoo.co.uk


      Rate this comment: 12345

      professorraf...
      07/27/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Free Energy Forever
    Mr. Gore has selected the wrong technology and will hurt other more realistic technology from getting heard.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    holoman
    07/20/2008
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • More infrastructure
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hellofu
    07/20/2008
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Renewables - Already too late?
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    aaabez
    07/21/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Renewables - Already too late?
      We must have the guts to do what our parents and grandparents did...to enter and win WWII. It may come to having even more pain inflicted on us before we get of our soft rear ends and move forward with boldness....

      "Fortune Favors The Bold" - Aristotle
      Rate this comment: 12345

      retzkorn
      07/29/2008
      Posts:1
  • Technology evolution is about challenges
    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?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mehdi.taileb
    07/21/2008
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Technology evolution is about challenges
      100 percent renewable electricity can be achieved--just not in 10 years. The challenges of transmitting the electricity are one reason, but there are many more. Someone's got to build the solar panels, for example, and that takes time. Once key constraint is refining silicon--it can take 2 to 3 years to build a plant for that, and that delay has pushed prices up dramatically in recent years. Those plants can be built faster, but when that's been done in China, corners are cut and the plants end up churning out tons of toxic chemicals, according to an article in the Washington Post.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/
      AR2008030802595.html

      As for global warming, it's likely the biggest reason we need to shift to renewable electricity and do it as fast as we can.

      But we should realize that reckless schemes can actually make things worse, not better.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kevin Bullis
      07/21/2008
      Posts:92
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Technology evolution is about challenges
        It appears, according to a recent TR article, that Europe (the EU more precisely) is paving the way to a 100% renewable energy plan, thanks to (HVDC) interconnections between countries. Quote of the article:
        "Such efforts could pave the way to an entirely fossil-free power supply in Europe, much as Al Gore has proposed for the United States. Modeling by Gregor Czisch, an energy consultant in Kassel, Germany, shows that in theory, Europe and North Africa can source all of their electricity from renewable sources using a supergrid with conventional HVDC lines that can shift power thousands of miles with minimal losses. In this vision, wind power provides 70 percent of Europe and North Africa's energy needs, and Scandinavian hydropower serves as the backup battery, while African solar farms and distributed biomass-fueled power plants play supporting roles."
        And it could very well happen in less than 10 years (which should be enough to design and build such interconnections), thanks to the European Commission's strong commitment to renewable energy development and energy safety.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        mehdi.taileb
        12/08/2008
        Posts:6
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Kevin's Views
    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
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Tim Miles
    07/21/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Kevin's Views
      Could a small percentage of that $700 billion be put aside to subsidize grid connected rooftop solar voltaic panels for the millions of American consumers who might be interested? Could they in turn then sell the electricity they produce back to the utilities during the off peak hours and create a closed loop system of energy redistribution? Just wondering if that proposal could generate some momentum in the right direction.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      phoenix
      07/21/2008
      Posts:172
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Kevin's Views
        It might make sense to build several Polysilicon refinement facilities with that $700 billion, create a glut of PV quality glass, and setup shop making PV panels that can be installed on 100% of our homes through some type of home based peace corp program to generate a new work force and tax base(or New Deal Initiative). They last 20 to 30 years, the glass can be recycled and we get a lot of semi free volts for our power grid that can be used to charge electric vehicle, convert water to hydrogen or charge large battery storage systems attached to the grid.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        mkogrady
        07/21/2008
        Posts:206
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: Kevin's Views
        Small percentage? If infrastructure upgrades cost Texas 5B dollars for a plan to generate .001% of US total.. infrastructure alone is $5 trillion. That does not include the tech to actually generate the electricity! at what cost this?($2 million + for every man,woman and child!) got to be better alternatives than solar/wind! flame away!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Dmeadows
        07/26/2008
        Posts:1
    • Re: Kevin's Views
      The US government should be held accountable and report true costs for all services they provide - especially finanial reporting. If Sarbanes Oxley has any teeth, it can be used to inform the US populatiojn of truer costs for energy, so policies can be setup more accurately and we can vote on feasible solutions.

      We all know the cost of a gallon of gas isn't what you pay at the pump - it's a lot higher. Sending our troops in to defend freedom, fight atrocities and bad deeds of mankind is a hell of a lot more noble than dying for a barrel of oil.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mkogrady
      07/21/2008
      Posts:206
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Kevin's Views
      Combine the $700 Billion spent on foreign oil, with the hundreds of billions spent on war and foreign aid to secure oil, and you have enough capital to go a long way to achieve this goal. Others have made the point, but it's a good one. The risks we face, both through political instability from reliance on foreign oil (which leads to foreign war and domestic economic problems) and the looming threat of global warming, are grave enough to justify dramatic and sacrificial action. What is lacking is popular support for such action. But support can be created, if our leaders educate us, involve us, appeal to us, call us to action and mobilize us. People are willing to make great sacrifices if they believe it's for an important cause. This is where political leadership plays the most important role, in creating an atmosphere that unites us behind a common purpose, and using the vast resources of our nation to innovate, build and deploy solutions that will save us.

      Yes there are real obstacles, such as: technology, cost, public support, etc. But these can be overcome if we are committed to the cause. The solution may be jury-rigged at first, it may not be the most efficient, due to inferior technology that has not reached maturity yet, but if we can get to the goal we can continue to refine our approach.

      I think it's important to also consider the economic boon this will bring to our nation to accomplish a project so bold. I don't know what the costs would be, but if you compare the costs of other large undertakings, you can see that we can do it, and it can actually bring positive benefits to society.

      A recent Associated Press article reports that the US has spent about $860 Billion on war since 2001:
      Yet the Iraq war has consumed less of the nation's gross domestic product than other pricey conflicts. The Iraq war's costs represented 1 percent of GDP in the peak year of the war. World War II, with a $4.1 trillion price tag in 2008 dollars, was nearly 36 percent of GDP and the Vietnam War was 2.3 percent of GDP in that wars' peak years."
      —http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80


      It's hard to imagine that we would have to spend more than we spent on World War II, and even if we did, the boom after the war was tremendous. Also, we have to remember that much of this money is already being spent. It would not require additional debt, it's money we already invest in energy, but now we would be funneling it into domestic solutions, rather than foreign coffers. Much of the development would pay for itself, and in fact most of this development would be commercially profitable, and not require long term subsidization from the government.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      chadwickmeye...
      07/26/2008
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • A 1 GW nuke can cut OPEC oil 5%
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    robert.hargr...
    07/21/2008
    Posts:27
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: A 1 GW nuke can cut OPEC oil 5%
      Sorry, but a new nuke would take tens years to get approval (the NIMBY effect, etc.) and to be constructed. By that time, it would be not be able to deliver power to the utility's customers cheap enough and for long enough compared with solar or wind power to provide an adequate return on investment. As an additional centralized power plant, a new nuke would likely require money and time (NIMBY, again) for reinforcement of the shaky grid that delivers its power to the customers. A distributed power solution puts far less stress on the grid since it is located at or near the customer.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      NorthernPike...
      07/21/2008
      Posts:11
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: A 1 GW nuke can cut OPEC oil 5%
      First, nuclear power is not renewable energy, and second, it is not clean at all.
      By replacing fossil energy by the nuclear one, we would just displace the problem, not solve it.
      Renewable energies like wind and solar and geothermal ARE clean and thus constitute SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mehdi.taileb
      07/22/2008
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Leadership
    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'!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jschantz
    07/21/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Leadership???
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    raquinlan
    07/21/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Leadership???
      Reading the blogs overnight, and listening to radio talk, it’s marvelous to see the advocates and deniers lining up on either side of Al Gore’s call to action. Folks with direct experience in renewable energy development say “Right on, let’s get at it.” Conservatives say “He’s a gasbag; it can’t possibly work.”

      Well, do the math. The US currently gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear plants and about 7% from hydro sources (granted, we buy some of that from Canada). In 2007 about 2.5% of our power came from “other” renewables — wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. To get to that level, wind and solar have been growing at about 40% annually for the past five years, so that they’ve become the new magnet for progressive investors, from the Kleiner Perkins group to T. Boone Pickens. Pickens wants to replace ALL oil imports, soon, and is putting up $100 billion for the purpose. The Google guys — we all know how naive they are — say they can make renewables cheaper than coal.

      Ed Mazria at Architecture 2030 estimates we can cut about a third of our electricity requirements over the next decade with improved building codes, such as California has just adopted.

      Assume for a moment that Mr. Pickens and his peers can keep renewable energy growing at 40% annually for the next decade. Why shouldn’t they? At that rate, it doubles every two years. In 2010, renewables make up 5% of our electricity mix; in 2012, 10%; in 2014, 20%; in 2016, 40%. Assume that growth of renewables slows at this point but that Mazria's efficiency improvements are valid and that we still have nukes and dams. We’re over the top in ten years.

      Just stay the course, and we can shut all the coal plants down, and all the natural gas powerplants, too.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      sethmasia
      07/21/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: Leadership???
      requilan, we're trying to keep the level up here, not bring it down.
      I don't know where you get your informations from, but if you knew the seriousness and value of a Nobel Prize, and the value of the work of the IPCC, which is Al Gore's scientific source, you wouldn't make those comments.
      By the way Al Gore AND the IPCC won not just a Nobel Prize, but the Nobel Prize for Peace.
      Think about it.
      I will not make any comment on your statement about Al Gore's "most inefficient home in the US"...
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mehdi.taileb
      07/22/2008
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Leadership???
        With all due respect, to believe that the Nobel Prize or the IPCC are not politically driven is just plain naive.

        There are plenty of very serious scientists on both sides of the GW argument. Unfortunately for alarmists, facts (should) win scientific arguments, not seriousness and peace prizes.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        kjparker
        07/23/2008
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
    • Re: Leadership???
      You should check out the mods made to Gore's house.  Your information is out of date.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      blarthomore
      07/22/2008
      Posts:1
      • Re: Leadership???
        Source?

        I'll start with one:

        http://www.snopes.com/politics//bush/house.asp

        Given that email is just over a year old, I have to ask Algore, "what took you so long?".
        Rate this comment: 12345

        kjparker
        07/23/2008
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
  • using old standards, you are part of the problem, not the solution
    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?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    johnalphonse
    07/21/2008
    Posts:78
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Al Gore's Inconvenient Plan
    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!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    AbbieKendall
    07/21/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • You are all forgetting one thing
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Lasertop
    07/21/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: You are all forgetting one thing
      Actually I don't ask myself "how we are going make all that plastic we use in all of our stuff", but what I can do to use less or no plastic at all. Actually I have found the solution: I (re)use the same good old strong bag every time I go shopping.
      And surprisingly I survived it! Really!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mehdi.taileb
      07/24/2008
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: You are all forgetting one thing
        It's nice that you saved a few plastic bags, but your missing the point.  Oil is what runs our economy and our way of life.  That is simply the facts as they stand today.  I would love to believe that we can ween ourselfs off of our reliance on Oil but I certainly don't see that happening in the next 10 years.  The Environmental Extremists have taken over the movement and any attempt to build renewable facilities will be stopped by these people in the courts, or at the very least delayed to the point where it is no longer cost efficent to those willing to invest in them.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Lasertop
        07/27/2008
        Posts:5
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • geothermal cleanliness
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    sbkadar
    07/22/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: geothermal cleanliness
      New binary plants are chemically closed loop, which mostly elimates that problem.

      Besides, coal emits at least an order of magnitude more nasties than even older geothermal plants.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      07/22/2008
      Posts:145
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • A correction
    4000 billion MWh should be 4000 billion kWh or 4 billion MWh.

    We use a lot of 'tricity. But not that much!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Siphon
    07/22/2008
    Posts:145
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • [no subject]
    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?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    GP
    07/23/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • 100 percent is not the issue
    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.   
    Rate this comment: 12345

    buelts
    07/23/2008
    Posts:11
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: 100 percent is not the issue
      I agree with the first two paragraphs, but disagree on the third with an "... energy policy compromise where conservative people are given concessions of some new nuclear power, clean coal.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      javs
      07/23/2008
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • Amory Lovins: nuclear doesn't make dollars
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mulp
    07/23/2008
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Solar Thermal
    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
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Sazhu
    07/24/2008
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Why so pessimistic 2 quick points
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Jacksony5
    07/27/2008
    Posts:1
  • There's Value In Thinking Big
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MakeSense
    07/30/2008
    Posts:93
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Renewables Over Rated
    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.


    Rate this comment: 12345

    Scottar
    08/15/2008
    Posts:15
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Renewables Over Rated
      Your political beliefs cloud your judgment. Glaciers and ice caps are melting world wide.  It's one heck of a coincidence that this coincides with the rampup in burning of fossil fuels.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      TooMany
      09/15/2008
      Posts:47
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • What about the diseconomies of solar power
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    sumedhamhn
    08/20/2008
    Posts:1
  • Economics vs. Gore
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Brian H
    08/20/2008
    Posts:28
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • Nuclear Reactor on a truck ?
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    macslayer
    11/17/2008
    Posts:2
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.