July 17, 2008
A Generational Challenge to Repower America
By Al Gore
www.realclearpolitics.com/artic...h.html
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.
The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake. I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.
Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me. I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises. We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways
that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change. But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row. To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results
with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change. I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers
and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless.
Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity.
Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid. At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become
sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down.
It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest
politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one
small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.
A Generational Challenge to Repower America
By Al Gore
www.realclearpolitics.com/artic...h.html
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.
The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake. I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.
Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me. I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises. We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways
that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change. But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row. To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results
with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change. I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers
and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless.
Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity.
Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid. At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become
sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down.
It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest
politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org. We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one
small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 1:20 PMha!
so right.
and from the office of the vp is where he can most effectively act to bring this about.
right there in daily contact with and counseling the president and the congress and keeping them focused on what's important, keeping them on the straight and narrow. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 1:33 PMVP or no, it's a bold proposal. T Boone Picken's proposal is along the same lines. If the two would join forces it'd be a powerful visual. Nearly everyone I know, on the right and on the left, are openly in favor of ending the reliance on foreign energy sources. It's a idea whose time has come. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 1:44 PMIt is inevitable. Alternative energy is absolutely going to happen.
Just you wait till the better car makers (BMW , Audi, Benz) have affordable electric cars that can go the distance.
I'll want one. So will any one who gets to drive or ride in one. There is only one moving part in the electric motor and there are no inertial or frictional problems. The ICE expends nearly 3/4 of the energy it produces just to keep itself turning over and there are so many complex parts. It's a wonder the thing can work as well as it does.
Nuclear power has to be part of the package.
Imagine for a moment if you will:
No propane, oil, or coal electricity.
No Internal combustion engines on the roads
No propane or fuel oil heating houses.
How sweet would that be?
A four year old can learn to maintain remove replace and repair an electric motor from a car.
Most folks I know can't adjust the tappets on an old honda.
And as an aside: 10 years ago there was a Ford all electric car. The EV1, what the hell happened to that?
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 3:34 PMUranium is a limited energy source just like oil and gas.
You guys, Al Gore included, are all avoiding the COLD HARD REALITY that our present rate of consumption is NOT SUSTAINABLE for any reasonably lengthy amount of time. We must cut our consumption habits.
Mankind will come to terms with this or we will face a mass extinction event. PERIOD.
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 5:43 PM<Most folks I know can't adjust the tappets on an old honda.>
i remember my grandpa reading to me frompopular mechanics about honda's new fangled self adjusting hydraulic valves. christ, how old ARE you?
<And as an aside: 10 years ago there was a Ford all electric car. The EV1, what the hell happened to that?>
gm bought it out and used it as a write-off.
-
Unsu...
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Fri, July 18, 2008 - 6:10 AMThey mysteriously went away...Fox did a piece on them 2 days ago.....the EV1 was poised for big things and sudenty disappeared...???------------anyway, it is almost comical to see big Al trying to make himself relavant---he had 8 years to try and enforce his " go green" policies............I think he got distracted building the internet.................
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 1:34 PM
-
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 5:18 PM
lots of generalities. lots of self-promotional grandstanding. but I just don't see how this is anything more than a political speech.
what exactly am I missing? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 5:20 PMI have a plan too. it is as follows:
1) allow the price of gas to rise in order to discourage wasteful driving and the purchase of large gas guzzling automobiles.
2) allow the price of energy to rise to discourage wasteful use of air conditioners, lights, etc.
3) increase benefits to those of us that drive hybrids.
4) build nuclear plants.
5) open up ethanol production to imports. buy Brazilian ethanol.
6) open subsidies to crops besides corn. in fact target subsidies to crops that are cheaper and more efficient in the production of ethanol.
but the fact is that there isn't a democrat in the congress or senate that would support any of these solutions because it cuts into critical constituencies. they are about winning seats not solving problems. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 7:57 PM<1) allow the price of gas to rise in order to discourage wasteful driving and the purchase of large gas guzzling automobiles.>
Which will massively increase the cost of ALL of our goods - between the trucks that move our goods to the use of fossil fuels to MAKE those goods, prices for food and other items would rise ridiculously. Right?
<2) allow the price of energy to rise to discourage wasteful use of air conditioners, lights, etc.>
Quite an anti-progressive tax. Poor people would be hit the hardest. Not a good idea.
<3) increase benefits to those of us that drive hybrids.>
Yep. Make the cars cheaper.
<4) build nuclear plants.>
Yes, but where? No community would allow that.
<5) open up ethanol production to imports. buy Brazilian ethanol.>
Then you're looking at a food shortage, since foodstuffs would be pushed to the side for ethanol. Plus, it takes quite a bit of energy to create the ethenol. Not the best solution.
<6) open subsidies to crops besides corn. in fact target subsidies to crops that are cheaper and more efficient in the production of ethanol.>
Read # 5.
Gore is right. We need a national plan aligned with his take on the situation. No doubt.
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 8:39 PM>> Which will massively increase the cost of ALL of our goods - between the trucks that move our goods to the use of fossil fuels to MAKE those goods, prices for food and other items would rise ridiculously. Right? <<
this epitomizes the joke of it all. you expect the CHANGE to be painless. somehow you can regulate big oil or big whatever and magically the prices will all stay the same and we can consume and spend exactly as we have for the last few decades. as if the american consumer wasn't the primary driver in all of this.
>> Quite an anti-progressive tax. Poor people would be hit the hardest. Not a good idea. <<
I love terms like anti-progressive. it isn't a tax. it is just a reflection of the actual price of energy. you start subsidizing energy and the cost decreases. and the compensatory response would be that people continue spending and consuming the way they always have (poor, middle-class and wealthy).
>> Then you're looking at a food shortage, since foodstuffs would be pushed to the side for ethanol. Plus, it takes quite a bit of energy to create the ethenol. Not the best solution. <<
corn is being used in the production of ethanol. if some of the fields used to grow corn, a less efficient input, to a more efficient precursor like brazilian sugar cane then you get more bang for your buck... this isn't rocket science so I don't understand what you're misunderstanding.
>> Gore is right. We need a national plan aligned with his take on the situation. No doubt. <<
gore isn't right and he isn't wrong... because he didn't say anything. we don't need anymore grandstanding. I mean it's nice that it sells books and helps win over the nits in Hollywood, but at some point he needs to actually advocate something. but he won't because as soon as you move from generalities to specifics you lose your godlike status. it's all part of the war on people that actually do things. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 10:30 PM<this epitomizes the joke of it all. you expect the CHANGE to be painless.>
No, I don't "expect the CHANGE to be painless". I expect that we can work to a more careful landing. A crash-landing would not help anyone. And, I DO believe that we can do that. You may disagree. Well, I hope that I'm right.
<corn is being used in the production of ethanol. if some of the fields used to grow corn, a less efficient input, to a more efficient precursor like brazilian sugar cane then you get more bang for your buck... this isn't rocket science so I don't understand what you're misunderstanding.>
No, I do understand it, but I still hold out that this would put a tremendous amount of pressure on corn and land used today for food. And, anyway - producing ethanol takes a tremendous amount of energy just to PRODUCE it, so that's not the best option. You're closer with the nuke issue.
Also, it's GREAT that Gore is pushing these ideas. THAT is what we need, a national discussion on the possible. He did that, and it will bear fruit. No doubt. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 11:07 PM>> No, I do understand it, but I still hold out that this would put a tremendous amount of pressure on corn and land used today for food. <<
yes.... and you realize that corn is a piss-poor input for ethanol. you could get more bang for the buck switching to something like sugar cane like the brazilians. and if you use a more efficient precursor, you would either generate more fuel at a lower price or use less land to generate the same amount.
>> You're closer with the nuke issue. <<
it's not an either or. it's going to take several approaches INCLUDING wind, solar, etc.
>> Also, it's GREAT that Gore is pushing these ideas. THAT is what we need, a national discussion on the possible. He did that, and it will bear fruit. No doubt. <<
what ideas? it's the same tired rhetoric he was peddling last year and the year before that... and what's come of it? what coherent policy are the democrats offering? sorry but the answer is notta. at least the evil Republicans are offering nuclear plants and more drilling. the democrats just seem to want to keep this issue open because it is a good issue to have around.
nope. pick a couple details and get something done. the time for generalities is over. the last thing we need is another blast of hot air.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Yoni: 100% brain free posting for 10 years. and counting.
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 5:38 PM<lots of generalities. lots of self-promotional grandstanding. but I just don't see how this is anything more than a political speech.
what exactly am I missing? >
a brain.
apparently. -
-
Re: Yoni: 100% brain free posting for 10 years. and counting.
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 5:50 PM>> a brain.
apparently. <<
it's as if the dirt under my boot could speak. -
-
Re: Yoni: 100% brain free posting for 10 years. and counting.
Thu, July 17, 2008 - 8:37 PM<it's as if the dirt under my boot could speak>
still counting ....
-
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 1:00 PMYes We Can
By BOB HERBERT
July 19, 2008
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19...erbert.html
As I was listening to Al Gore on the telephone, I was thinking: “Uh-oh, the naysayers will have a field day with this one.”
Skip to next paragraph
Go to Columnist Page »
The former vice president was giving me an advanced briefing on the speech that he delivered on Thursday, calling on the United States to behave like a great nation and actually do something real about its self-destructive and ultimately unsustainable reliance on carbon-based fuel for its 21st-century energy needs.
“I’m going to issue a strategic challenge that the United States of America set a goal of getting 100 percent of our electricity from renewable resources and carbon-constrained fuels within 10 years,” he said.
“One hundred percent?” I said.
“One hundred percent.”
Mr. Gore’s focus is primarily on solar, wind and geothermal energy. His belief is that a dramatic, wholesale transition to these abundant and renewable sources of energy is not just doable, but essential.
My view of Mr. Gore’s passionate engagement with some of the biggest issues of our time is that he is offering us the kind of vision and sense of urgency that has been so lacking in the presidential campaigns. But the tendency in a society that is skeptical, if not phobic, about anything progressive has been to dismiss his large ideas and wise counsel, as George H. W. Bush once did by deriding him as “ozone man.”
The naysayers will tell you that once again Al Gore is dreaming, that the costs of his visionary energy challenge are too high, the technological obstacles too tough, the timeline too short and the political lift much too heavy.
But that’s the thing about visionaries. They don’t imagine what’s easy. They imagine the benefits to be reaped once all the obstacles are overcome. Mr. Gore will tell you about the wind blowing through the corridor that stretches from Mexico to Canada, through the Plains states, and the tremendous amounts of electricity that would come from capturing the energy of that wind — enough to light up cities and towns from coast to coast.
“We need to make a big, massive, one-off investment to transform our energy infrastructure from one that relies on a dirty, expensive fuel to fuel that is free,” said Mr. Gore. “The sun and the wind and geothermal are not going to run out, and we don’t have to export them from the Persian Gulf, and they are not increasing in price.
“And since the only factor that controls the price is the efficiency and innovation that goes into the equipment that transforms it into electricity, once you start getting the scales that we’re anticipating, those systems come down in cost.”
The correct response to Mr. Gore’s proposal would be a rush to figure out ways to make it happen. Don’t hold your breath.
When exactly was it that the U.S. became a can’t-do society? It wasn’t at the very beginning when 13 ragamuffin colonies went to war against the world’s mightiest empire. It wasn’t during World War II when Japan and Nazi Germany had to be fought simultaneously. It wasn’t in the postwar period that gave us the Marshall Plan and a robust G.I. Bill and the interstate highway system and the space program and the civil rights movement and the women’s movement and the greatest society the world had ever known.
When was it?
Now we can’t even lift New Orleans off its knees.
In his speech, delivered in Washington, Mr. Gore said: “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet.”
He described carbon-based fuel as the thread running through the global climate crisis, America’s economic woes and its most serious national security threats. He then asked: “What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don’t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?”
Americans are extremely anxious at the moment, and I think part of it has to do with a deeply unsettling feeling that the nation may not be up to the tremendous challenges it is facing. A recent poll by the Rockefeller Foundation and Time magazine that focused on economic issues found a deep pessimism running through respondents.
According to Margot Brandenburg, an official with the foundation, nearly half of 18- to 29-year-olds “feel that America’s best days are in the past.”
The moment is ripe for exactly the kind of challenge issued by Mr. Gore on Thursday. It doesn’t matter if his proposal is less than perfect, or can’t be realized within 10 years, or even it if is found to be deeply flawed. The goal is the thing.
The fetish for drilling for ever more oil is the perfect metaphor these days. The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 1:06 PM<5) open up ethanol production to imports. buy Brazilian ethanol.>
Absolutely agree on it for a shorter term fix.
"Just you wait till the better car makers (BMW , Audi, Benz) have affordable electric cars that can go the distance."
It would almost seem that the major auto makers are more invested in Oil then car making. Tesla motors is supposed to have a mass produced fully electric car coming out.
In all reality this should not be a harder challenge then previous generations have had to handle. The economy is so bad, yet most of the county still can afford cell phones, cable TV, the internet, going out to dinner, ect... The resources are there, the solutions are there, all we need is a plan implemented from the federal level. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 2:33 PM<It would almost seem that the major auto makers are more invested in Oil then car making. Tesla motors is supposed to have a mass produced fully electric car coming out. >\
gm is a year into an emergency all out no red tape engineers balls tthe walls effort to develop a hybrid electric car, thechevrolet volt. the biggest obstacle by far is battery technology.
the tesla is a sports car niche product, very expensive, very lightweight and streamlined and uses very expensive lithium batteries. gm could turn them out all day long but it's a very small market.
engineering a car that can sell in volume and meet the needs of a family ... altogether different proposition.
they were way late gettting serious about this though, and it's a toss-up wheter they can overcome what are proving to be massive engineering challenges to get to a producable product before they run out of cash which is good for about another 18 months. if they don't have something workable ready to go by then, they will likely cease to exist in their present form.
it's all about short term profit and managing the stock price at the expense of long term planning and r & d that takes into account potential non-optimal scenarios. like the price of oil increasing as it just did.
fucking morons, really, to ASSUME, to BET THE COMPANY, that the economy and price of oil will stay favorable.
well, really RICH morons.
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:04 PM<5) open up ethanol production to imports. buy Brazilian ethanol.>
Ethanol from Sugar
What are the prospects for U.S. sugar co-ops?
By James Jacobs, Ag Economist
USDA Rural Development
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/...hanol.htm
More than half of world ethanol production is produced from sugar and sugar byproducts, with Brazil being by far the world leader. Currently, there is no commercial production of ethanol from sugarcane or sugar beets in the United States, where 97 percent of ethanol is produced from corn.
Technologically, the process of producing ethanol from sugar is simpler than converting corn into ethanol. Converting corn into ethanol requires additional cooking and the application of enzymes, whereas the conversion of sugar requires only a yeast fermentation process. The energy requirement for converting sugar into ethanol is about half that for corn.
However, the technology and direct energy costs are but one of several factors that determine the feasibility of ethanol production. Other factors include relative production costs (including feedstocks), conversion rates, proximity to processing facilities, alternative prices and government policies, facility construction and processing costs. As other countries have shown that it can be economically feasible to produce ethanol from sugar and other new feedstocks are researched, interest in the United States in ethanol production fr om sugar has increased.
In response to the growing interest around sugar and ethanol, USDA released a study in July 2006 titled: “The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from Sugar in the United States” (on the internet at: www.usda.gov/oce/). The report found that at the current market prices for ethanol, converting sugarcane, sugar beets and molasses to ethanol would be profitable. “At this summer’s unusually high price, I can conclude that it’s economically feasible to produce ethanol from sugarcane and sugar beets,” USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins said. However, there is not a clear-cut case that U.S. sugar will be commercially converted to ethanol anytime soon. This article will explore some of the economic and technological factors for the potential of sugar-based ethanol production for farmer-owned cooperatives.
Continues:
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/...hanol.htm -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:19 PM
sadly, the american farm lobby ain't going to let it happen. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:50 PM<<sadly, the american farm lobby ain't going to let it happen. >>
We'll see. It really will depend upon the price of oil. If it drops again, much of the impotence will go away. If it remains high, there's a change that thing could move - a chance. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 6:04 PMJesus, *impetus* not impotence. Dyslexia. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 6:48 PMAny official comment or policy changes (or scuttlebutt around the watercooler/outcrop) over at your branch of the Dept. of the Interior, Nolen? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 6:56 PMThat is: has there been any 'greening' of the USGS?
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 9:04 AM<<Any official comment or policy changes (or scuttlebutt around the watercooler/outcrop) over at your branch of the Dept. of the Interior>>
I don't work for the government, though they did fund my paleoclimate study of Iran this year. As far as greening goes, the hard rock geochemists are having a difficult time getting funding for typical geochemical studies. Most of the geochemical grant money is going toward climate related studies. That's a mixed bag, imo. No reason we can't keep the discipline moving on all fronts.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 4:44 PM>> The moment is ripe for exactly the kind of challenge issued by Mr. Gore on Thursday. <<
yep. the moment's right for a rainmaker. he can pull together his juju, bones and powerpoint slides and do his little dance. and if nothing happens he can blame big business and the republicans. and if by magic, the money goes to the right places and a few politicians throw themselves on their swords and make the tough decisions then he can claim credit.
same old crap and it seems to work every time.
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 2:52 PMNow if only that worthless sack of snake feces would follow his own advice. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 4:50 PM>> Now if only that worthless sack of snake feces would follow his own advice. <<
the funny thing is despite the grandstanding, the democrats haven't done a thing to improve anything. their only claim to fame is to prevent offshore drilling and to make sure we don't build any more nuclear plants.
other than that. all the changes are market driven. the price of gas went up and people started chucking their SUVs and buying compact cars.
but the state of a significant portion of the nation's intelligence being what it is means the gore-whores will give all of the credit to a windbag that is only riding this wave of inevitability to resurrect his political career. and of course to point out this inconvenient truth is as good as driving an Escalade to an arctic preserve to club baby seals with a baseball bat made from an amazon rainforest tree as far as these nitwits are concerned. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:31 PM>>and of course to point out this inconvenient truth is as good as driving an Escalade to an arctic preserve to club baby seals with a baseball bat made from an amazon rainforest tree as far as these nitwits are concerned. <<
Regardless if you believe in global warm, would'nt it advantages for a country thats is importing over 70% of its oil, drumming up trouble around the world to get at the resource to get at oil. With expanding populations starting to suckle at the petro tit, you'd think it would be a wise chioce to ditch oil as the main source of energy for a nation...
Green energy is the future, and it can drive an economy at the grass roots level.... but they don't really want that now do they?
Yoni, your better off wrapping your brain around the suffering in Zimbabwe, than troubling yourself with things like the politics of energy... -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:41 PM>> Regardless if you believe in global warm, would'nt it advantages for a country thats is importing over 70% of its oil, drumming up trouble around the world to get at the resource to get at oil. <<
compile your "thoughts" into something coherent and then re-post. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:51 PM>>compile your "thoughts" into something coherent and then re-post. <<
Warming/advantagious... Better?
Please excuse my many grammatical errors. Maybe I could paint you a picture? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 10:00 PM<...Please excuse my many grammatical errors. Maybe I could paint you a picture?...>
He _still_ wouldn't get it.
Now if we could harness all the hot air from the Tribe monkey mob and turn it into electricity, we _just might_ become energy self-sufficient.
As it stands, though, all that hot air escaping into the ionosphere is just contributing to man-made global warming.
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 5:48 PM<<Regardless if you believe in global warm, wouldn't it advantages for a country that is importing over 70% of its oil, drumming up trouble around the world to get at the resource to get at oil>>
Pickens has a practical step that dovetails nicely with Gore's challenge. Build the wind farms and use the natural gas as a transportation fuel. It would lower an equivalent of 7 million barrels a day from our imports. Zoner's right though. The plug in hybrid is the real solution. Lots of car makers are talking about 2010, though cheap lithium ion batteries are beginning to gain the reputation akin to commercial fusion power. A flex fuel plug in hybrid with either imported Brazilian ethanol or home grown ethanol is the holy grail for the next 20 years in my opinion. Pickens is dead right about one thing. The time for talk is over. We can't drill our way out of this and both his and Gore's plan point us in the right direction. We need to just do it. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 6:53 PM
>> Pickens has a practical step that dovetails nicely with Gore's challenge. <<
Pickens actually made real suggestions. Gore's just grandstanding.
>> We can't drill our way out of this and both his and Gore's plan point us in the right direction. We need to just do it. <<
great! what is gore's plan? not this bullshit strategic goal crap. what specific steps did he enumerate? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 8:56 PM"thechevrolet volt. the biggest obstacle by far is battery technology"
The volt is crap in comparison to what Tesla Motors is putting out. This first car is like working backwards in a sense. They are putting out a speedy elegant car that goes 0 to 60 in less then 6 seconds on an all battery powered engine, and it also gets 220 miles per fill verses the Volts expected 40. The new affordable versions should be coming out in the near future. How affordable i don't know, i would guess still at least 40k. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 9:31 AM<"thechevrolet volt. the biggest obstacle by far is battery technology"
The volt is crap in comparison to what Tesla Motors is putting out. This first car is like working backwards in a sense. They are putting out a speedy elegant car that goes 0 to 60 in less then 6 seconds on an all battery powered engine, and it also gets 220 miles per fill verses the Volts expected 40. The new affordable versions should be coming out in the near future. How affordable i don't know, i would guess still at least 40k. >
how's that tesla at taking mom and th kids to soccer practice or on the monthly trip to costco?
how about taking the kids to see grandma and grandpa 400 miles away?
or a vacation trip to disneyland or yellowstone park?
how about when you're 20 miles down the freeway at 5:30 am and your starbucks just woke you up to the fact you forgot to plug in the tesla the night before and you now have 25 miles left on your charge and it's 35 miles to your office and the traffic indicates an accident somewhere up ahead? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 9:38 AMthere is no reason why you could not integrate the battery technology of the tesla into any standard hybrid
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 8:54 AM<<Pickens actually made real suggestions. Gore's just grandstanding.>>
I'm not going to get into an argument about personalities here, though I'll note that Pickens plan is not what you'd call a detailed policy proposal either. He simply states that we should replace our gas fired plants with wind plants so we can free up the energy. Gore's challenge is much more sweeping, though not incompatible. It's easy to write it off as grandstanding I suppose. It's clearly meant to be a Kennedyesque challenge not a nuts and bolts technical document. If I were McCain or Obama, I'd commit to a blue ribbon Presidential commission, with Gore and Pickens as co-chairs, to develop a national policy to 1) get the US off of foreign oil and 2) develop a multi year plan to move toward carbon free electricity production. I did note that Gore was careful not to rule out nuclear energy. There's a grand bargain to be had here. Spur domestic oil production, make permanent and expand the tax incentives for solar and wind, implement a national strategy for transmission line modernization, drop restrictions on Brazilian and domestic sugar ethanol and fast tract 4th generation nuclear plants. This is doable, imo. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 8:59 AM"I did note that Gore was careful not to rule out nuclear energy. There's a grand bargain to be had here. Spur domestic oil production, make permanent and expand the tax incentives for solar and wind, implement a national strategy for transmission line modernization, drop restrictions on Brazilian and domestic sugar ethanol and fast tract 4th generation nuclear plants. This is doable, imo."
People seem to ignore the fact that we are going to have to tackle the problem for a number of angles, and that there is no "magic bullet".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 9:02 PMvery high tower and expensive wind turbine
very expensive solar panels
switchers, inverters, battery, maintenance
the price of electricity will be in 20 times up
the must economical is the nuclear energy or hydroelectric -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 9:03 PMI forget to say
I have wind generator and solar panels on my yacht ! -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 9:08 PMHad me, then lost me, C.
Your sloop's down at Pier 27, right? What's that slip # again? -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sat, July 19, 2008 - 10:18 PMI have 5 boats in 3 marina (I am a dealer)
Pier 27 is not for private boats ! -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 11:25 AM"there is no reason why you could not integrate the battery technology of the tesla into any standard hybrid ."
My feeling is that its not necessary. We should just go fully electric. Make our power grid the central focus on switching to renewable energy sources. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 1:44 PM<"there is no reason why you could not integrate the battery technology of the tesla into any standard hybrid ."
My feeling is that its not necessary. We should just go fully electric. Make our power grid the central focus on switching to renewable energy sources>
and then there's reality.
www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19...nocera.html
"David Cole, the chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, is another Tesla skeptic. For one thing, he says, the battery solution in the Roadster probably won’t work in a heavier car. “Lithium batteries are going to change the world,” he said, “but they are not ready for prime time.” Tesla’s solution in the Roadster — tying together thousands of small batteries into one giant one — is “suboptimal.” He added, “On a degree of difficulty scale, building a sports car is a 2. Building a high-volume affordable car is a 10.”
Tesla, of course, insists that it is well aware of the difficulty, but remains confident it can succeed. Darryl Siry, the Tesla marketing chief, argues that the company has access to all the capital it needs, that it has just hired a manufacturing expert from Chrysler and that it has a hard-headed chief executive, named Ze’ev Drori, who has a reputation for getting things done. The more I prodded, though, the more skeptical I became. For instance, what Tesla doesn’t say, unless you really push, is that the sedan it hopes to sell for $60,000 will not get 200 miles per charge but closer to 160. It will cost considerably more to get 200 miles per charge — which of course makes it an awfully costly car even for the moderately wealthy. And that kind of petty dissembling on Tesla’s part doesn’t exactly inspire confidence."
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 2:25 PMTropical Biofuels Getting Less and Less Green
By Eli Kintisch
ScienceNOW Daily News
9 July 2008
sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/c.../709/1
A new analysis suggests that biofuels grown in the tropics are not a much greener source of energy than drilling for oil--at least in the short term. The research paints an even gloomier picture of biofuels than previous studies, which have begun to cast doubts on the greenhouse gas benefits that these alternatives to petroleum might provide.
Proponents see plant-based biofuels as a carbon-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. That's because plants that produce, say, palm oil or corn ethanol recycle carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. In contrast, petroleum production introduces new carbon into the air that was previously sequestered deep within Earth.
Two studies published earlier this year in Science, however, suggest that the carbon benefits from biofuels are delayed for centuries when farmers knock down carbon-absorbing forests in order to grow the plants. One paper, for example, estimated that cutting down Brazilian rainforest to grow soybeans for diesel fuel would result in a so-called carbon debt that would take 319 years to repay--essentially rendering the fuel as carbon-unfriendly as gasoline in the short term.
But critics, including the U.S. Department of Energy, have charged that such analyses underestimate the yield of biofuel crops, especially those grown in the tropics.
To get a better sense of just how green biofuels are, Holly Gibbs, a tropical land-use scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues used newly available data on the yields of 10 crops in various seasons and ecosystems within South American, African, and Asian rainforests. Even when Gibbs assumed that the plants would perform in the top 10% of all global varieties--with corn ethanol varieties, for example, producing more than seven times as much ethanol as current species in Africa--the picture remained gloomy. For example, corn grown with high yields in tropical forests (thanks to fertilizer, irrigation, and sophisticated farming) repaid its carbon debt in 100 years: five times faster than corn grown at normal yields. But the improvement is still a "losing proposition," Gibbs says, given the goal of stemming carbon emissions immediately. What's more, she notes, such yields would be hard to achieve throughout the developing world anyway given the cost of world-class agriculture.
To make biofuels more efficient, Gibbs suggests growing biofuel crops in places where trees wouldn't have to be cut down, such as in West African scrublands where cocoa plantations once grew. Otherwise, growing, say, oil palm trees on land that was previously carbon-rich peatland forests in Southeast Asia can create a nearly millennium-long carbon debt, the team reports online today in Environmental Research Letters. The paper highlights the short-term risk of ramping up production of tropical biofuels and cutting down carbon-rich forests to grow them, says Gibbs.
The new studies offer a set of estimates more precise than before for the carbon tradeoff that biofuels entail, says Princeton University agricultural expert Timothy Searchinger, an author of one of the Science papers. "Forests and grasslands have a lot of carbon, so there is really no way to transform those lands into biofuel crops that produce net benefits," he says. -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 6:49 PM>> Even when Gibbs assumed that the plants would perform in the top 10% of all global varieties--with corn ethanol varieties, for example, producing more than seven times as much ethanol as current species in Africa--the picture remained gloomy. <<
observations:
1) the article focuses on corn and palm oil for comparisons.
2) the article focuses on a trade-off between rainforests and growing bio-fuels.
3) it sets up a false dichotomy between the benefits of ethanol in tropical environments and knocking down rain-forests.
the take away point:
"To make biofuels more efficient, Gibbs suggests growing biofuel crops in places where trees wouldn't have to be cut down, such as in West African scrublands where cocoa plantations once grew"
fine. but the title of the article is misleading.
-
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 2:37 PMOnly tangentially related but interesting none the less.
______________
The Bubble Bursts
By Robert F. Service
ScienceNOW Daily News
18 July 2008
A Purdue University nuclear engineer who claimed to have carried out tabletop nuclear fusion is responsible for two instances of scientific misconduct, a report made public today concludes. Both cases centered on efforts by physicist Rusi Taleyarkhan to make experiments carried out by members of his lab appear as independent verification of his work. The charges mark the first time the university has formally faulted Taleyarkhan, yet the panel behind the report did not attempt to evaluate the original scientific claims of "bubble fusion."
The new report brings near closure to a case that has wracked the scientific community for 6 years. Taleyarkhan first gained notoriety after reporting in Science that sound waves can collapse bubbles in a liquid with enough force to generate fusion and liberate excess energy. The result raised the promise of limitless energy and spurred numerous early attempts to replicate the work, all of which failed (ScienceNOW, 11 May 2007).
Contiues:
sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/c.../718/1 -
-
Re: Gore: 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years
Sun, July 20, 2008 - 6:35 PM"The more I prodded, though, the more skeptical I became. For instance, what Tesla doesn’t say, unless you really push, is that the sedan it hopes to sell for $60,000 will not get 200 miles per charge but closer to 160."
That is not a confirmed number but very well might be the reality. Either way its not concrete.
"David Cole, the chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, is another Tesla skeptic. For one thing, he says, the battery solution in the Roadster probably won’t work in a heavier car."
David Cole has also worked pretty closely with the big 3 for years...thats just something to take into consideration. Tesla is not and will not be the only company to move forward with this solution. For now its a giant step in the right direction. Rather its 160 or 200 miles round trip, it would serve most peoples needs. As for heavier cars, i dont think this concept is designed for the whole "bigger is better" generation.
-