Subscription Center
Jul 17, 2008 06:44 PM | 29
Former vice president Al Gore today challenged the U.S. to go from getting more than half its electrical power from greenhouse gas-spewing coal-fired power plants to getting all of it from 100 percent carbon neutral sources in a decade. In other words: eliminate fossil fuels for electricity, until the greenhouse gases can be captured and buried, in favor of nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal.
In a plan he explicitly likened to President John F. Kennedy's “moon shot,” Gore called in a speech (transcript) for a national grid to link wind power in the Dakotas with cities to the east and west, improved energy efficiency, taxes on carbon dioxide, and even plug-in electric cars, though there were few details on how to pay for this ambitious transformation.
Gore is not the first to express this kind of ambition. The Apollo Alliance of business, labor and environmental groups was founded in 2004 for the same purpose, and leading scientists, such as Stephen Chu of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have made similar arguments. It is, however, the first time it has been advocated by such a prominent figure as the former politician, climate campaigner and Nobel laureate.
Gore explicitly called on "every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge" and "move beyond empty rhetoric." Otherwise, he said, "the survival of the United States of America as we know it" and even "the future of human civilization" is at risk.
Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama said in reaction to the speech that he strongly agreed and would invest in "solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels" but did not pledge his commitment to the plan. Nor did Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain though, according to the AP, he said he believes it's "doable."
But the challenge isn't just aimed at politicians. What do you think?
Tags:
wind,
climate change,
Solar energy,
nuclear,
gore,
geothermal power,
global warming,
moon,
renewable resource
More News Blog:
Next: Grunting, humming fish joins ancient chorus
Previous: Cancer tempting Tasmanian devils to have teenage sex
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
29 Comments
Add CommentThe politicians obviously have not a clue how ridiculously impossible it would be to provide all of the electric power needs of the US from renewable sources. Even with nuclear as part of the mix. Nor do they have a clue of how long it would take to build enough nuclear to fill the huge gaps that a dismissal of coal fired power plants would leave. Unless we are all prepared to live with large scale brown-outs and black-outs in the peak electrical usage periods, there is NO plan that works without a substantial number of coal fired plants in service! Wake up people! Talk to the experts in the industry instead of the clueless politicians!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unless we are all prepared to live with large scale brown-outs and black-outs in the peak electrical usage periods, there is NO plan that works without a substantial number of coal fired plants in service! Wake up people!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis message is brought to you by the Coal Mining Association.
The key point is that he has set the bar high and made the time line aggressive. Incremental changes to the status quo are not going to get us where we need to be. The speech seems is more inspirational/motivational than achievable. But, what if this challenge helps drive us to 80% provision from renewable energy in 15 years. That would be an amazing accomplishment. Somebody has to step up and provide leadership...more power to him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a conservative. I think Gore is a fool in a lot of ways. But there is SOOOO MUCH MONEY to be made by doing this in a big way that it's not funny. T. Boone Pickens is advocating wind farms in Texas. Social conscience? Maybe. Capitalism? You bet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can't be done, so don't try," is a loser's argument. Kennedy's speech got us to the moon in less than a decade. We had to invent essentially the entire technology to get there. The technology exists here. It is only inertia and politics in the way. And trillions of dollars to be made.
Oh, and it's probably also good for the environment. And sustainable. And expandable.
My only fear is that Gore would claim he invented it. That's a joke. Sort of.
When I count the number of planets we inhabit, I get the same number every time. Challenges and calls upon the American "Can-Do" spirit have met with great success in many generations. If we are to change our country's insatiable appetite for non-renewable energy, we must first engage the will of the common man. I applaud anyone forthright enough to throw the gauntlet down. We will never meet a goal, or advance toward it, if we are not spurred.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouldn't agree with you more, Paradisian, and I'm not a conservative. I wrote a lot of people an email last night essentially saying that I think reasonable people can still disagree about whether our money, time and energy are best spent fighting climate change, AND that I don't - and I don't think any of us - need to believe in the "climate crisis" to feel inspired by Al Gore's challenge. The benefits seem so blatant, pervasive and massive, and the cost of NOT taking this challenge to heart seem so high that I will gladly devote my energy to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think that anyone can disagree with the fact that a major concern for for our participaction in Iraq is for oil. Consider this: if we took all the money thatwe spent on the war since 2003, we could have build enough solar and wind power to accomplish the same goal (energy) and saved 4,00 lives in the process. It would take only 100 sq miles of solar plants to supply the entire nations electricity ( thats miniscule), and could be done in 3 to 5 yrs. Between wind and solar power we could meet the nations needs easily. Look at what Germany is doing and they only have 1/3 the sunlight that we have. WAKE up AMERICA!! It's called Evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that Mr. Gore should start with his own natural gas dependent home and emulate the home of president Bush which uses no carbon based fuel for heat or electricity. He is just sprouting more liberal rhetoric and global warming lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWake up John. We went to Iraq and Afghanistan to stop the spread of terrorism. This war for oil lie is getting old. We have plenty of reserves right here in this country if the Democrats in Congress would only let us drill for it. Check your facts open your eyes and mind and think for yourself for a while and you’ll see the truth. Myopia is the curse of liberal Democrats everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDisregarding the science of climate change, if this is what people want then so be it. The goal is ambitious and costly even over a longer time frame. What Mr. Gore proposes can't be done in such a short time without the risk of brown and black outs and those in the electric industry are concerned about this. With the current technology more than about 20% wind generation in the mix creates instability in the electric grid due to the variability of wind resources. Given a longer window of fifty years the transition can be made and clean coal plants be developed. Until then non-emitting nuclear has to be an option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it ironic when people talk about plug in hybrids, when the source for the plug in is likely going to be base load coal fired plants which are base load plants that run at night. How does that reduce green house gases and you increase electric sales at night?
The more critcal question for the United States and Europe becomes what happens to their economies when electricity costs twice as much. Heavy industry that is reliant on energy will leave to go to China and India where power and labor is cheaper.
Climate change comes with a cost and it is a disservice to everyone to call for a change, but not talk about the costs associated with it. Mr. Gore will always be able to afford electricy, but as electric prices increase, there will be those on fixed and lower incomes who will have to do without. Will they have to do withou?
As of now, solar power is cheaper than oil. Actually it's been that way for a while. So bring on the plug-in hybrids, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs of now, solar power is cheaper than oil. Actually it's been that way for a while now. So bring on the plug-in hybrids, etc!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEdon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou check your facts, too. Go ahead and give us the source. How big are the oil reserves in the United States (including all of Alaska and everything off-shore) and how long would those reserves last at current US energy usage rates. Give us your sources and give us the info before telling people to check their facts. What are your facts? We're all waiting to be educated.
Edon, you say "check your facts." I'm curious about your facts. Give us sources and numbers for the following question: How large are US oil reserves (including all of Alaska and all offshore) and how long what those reserves supply the US with oil at current rates of energy usage (without any foreign imports)? I'll think for myself after I see your facts and sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGore has presented a reasonable challenge to the United States. It is obvious the conservatives will blame anyone but themselves for the current mess and are least likely to take sensible action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting observation. That's a pretty broad brush you are painting everyone with. I agree that Gore presented a challenge, but it still comes down to the effect on those who can least afford it. High gas prices are forcing people to find different means of transportation. People can still choose to walk or ride a bike, what will they do when they can't afford refrigeration? Estimates are that a 25 to 30 year program will double the price of electricity - what would happen with a ten year program? I don't care who takes the blame, but I do care about people having a basic need for electricity. So what is a sensible course of action?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo politicize the reduction of green house gas is one thing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto make it really work will be a totally different thing. I am not sure what Al Gore has actually in mind.
To get a 100% renewable power in a decade is a noble goal, yet it may not be that easily achievable even in a super hi-tech nation like the US, let alone in other nations, especially the developing and under-developed ones.
One thing for sure, if the world were to cut down their colossal expenses in military defense and re-channel the available fund to enhance as well as collaborate scientific/technological research/experimentation in climate change, then there stands a good chance the goal will be reached in the not so distant future. (Tan Boon Tee)
To politicize the reduction of green house gas is one thing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto make it really work will be a totally different thing. I am not sure what Al Gore has actually in mind.
To get a 100% renewable power in a decade is a noble goal, yet it may not be that easily achievable even in a super hi-tech nation like the US, let alone in other nations, especially the developing and under-developed ones.
One thing for sure, if the world were to cut down their colossal expenses in military defense and re-channel the available fund to enhance as well as collaborate scientific/technological research/experimentation in climate change, then there stands a good chance the goal will be reached in the not so distant future.
Al-Gore's plan is entirely do-able. Combination of solar, wind, tidal, bio and geo-thermal power coupled with proven designs for energy storage and reuced consumtion in houses and in buildings can be executed within the time frame. I am talking of existing technologies and not improved processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoltical direction is required. We should have politicians who are not elected on the oil, coal, nuclear and defence industry lobby. This is the most difficult part of the plan. It requires voters who demand results.
Plug ins? Hybrids? Maybe. Depends on what kind of plug ins and hybrids. Most chemical batteries have a maximum useful life of several years. Then they can not be recharged and must be discarded and possibly recycled. Would you live near the recycling plant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about a shift to inertia powered electrical motors! Flywheels! The range may be more limited, but the efficiency is equal or greater and the pollution factor on disposal is far more beneficial than chemical batteries.
Plug ins? Hybrids? Not if they use chemical batteries! Those last a few years at most and are a source of severe environmental pollution at disposal or recycle. How about inertia driven electrical systems? Flywheels! Range may be limited but efficiency is equal or greater and disposal pollution is minimal. Technology is over 50 years old. Maybe the patents are expired and GM doesn't want to be bothered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople still listen to Al Gore?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is truly needed is a WWII type commitment to solve our energy needs once and for all through Space Based Solar Power. People always enjoy pointing out how much paper (money) it would cost to do such a thing. Well, if during the start of the war we had said it would cost too much to fight it the U.S. would not be here today. Today we face a far greater problem. If we do not develop a recycling civilization which uses solar system resources humankind will not exist in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGore has presented an unrealistic goal to the people of the United States. Ideals are great, as is inspiration, but how about a plan is is even remotely possible! Gore's "ideal" is riduculous.......Reducing emissions and working hard to reduce our carbon footprint is a worthy challenge, but don't just complain about it and throw out ridulous goals that are unattainable. We need to put our heads together and find real, attainable solutions that do not cause half or more of the population of the US to be without power from blackouts due to insufficient sources of electric generation, and that half or more cannot afford anymore after all the environmental regulatory requirements are paid for by the utilities (read rate payers). Someone, politician or scientist either one, needs to find real, attainable solutions. What Mr. Gore has presented may be inspirational to some, but it is way beyond a lofty goal, it is not remotely attainable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo-able at what cost? Doesn't help if no one can afford electricity.....If you mean do-able at a cost that makes it unaffordable for the masses, thereby impractical...then I would agree!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the doubting Thomases? Perhaps you from the status quo have too much to lose? The first step would be to reduce demand by using simple technologies like solar water heating, shallow geothermal heating, reducing daytime lighting simply by installing skylights, switching to diode lights, improved insulation in homes If Americans could use smaller cars let alone PHEVs petrol consumption could be halved. Using bicycles for short trips. How about living closer to work so less need for travel? Once the demand has be reduced, then it is not too much of a stretch to replace the remaining power demand with renewable energy of which only a minute fraction is currently exploited and much of which is not expensive. Biomass, Geothermal, solar thermal, solar electric, tidal, wave, wind, etc. You right wingers have certainly lost the moral ground on this one, by claiming environmentalism is left wing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReality pill, anyone? Right now the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that under current policies (i.e. a raft of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks), wind power will grow from 0.6 percent of total generation in 2006 to 2.4 percent in 2030, geothermal will grow from 0.4 percent to 0.6 percent, and solar powers contribution is projected to remain so miniscule by 2030 that EIA does not even assign a percentage. Why? Because "in general, renewable energy is expected to remain more expensive than the generation it would displace, that is, its avoided cost. But how heroic of Gore to compare his plan to putting a man on the moon! Cool! But how exactly did that incredibly expensive government project enhance our national wealth and welfare? Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. Thank god I wasn't a taxpayer then! Gore's is a goofy plan on every level. As for the morale high ground, "I AM GREENER THAN GORE!" and always will be. It's not difficult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoable or not, it would be much better for all of us is the US would try to change the world in this way and not by war!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, constructing the kind of infrastructure to accomplish this will require ENORMOUS amounts of raw material to build and equally large amounts of oil to move raw materials to where they are needed, and I'm not sure that the benefits outweigh the gains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, if China and India are not the biggest sources of greenhouse gasses yet, then they will be soon. Good luck getting them to go along with such ambitious plans in a timely manner.
Third, are we suppose to be naive (again) and think that engineering on this scale (thousands of square miles of solar panels) will not also affect the environment?
A capitalist world solves this when individuals and nations have incentive to do so. For example, there is more demand for alternative fuels with $4 gas than there was at $1 gas, and that drives innovation. Suppose the gov had taxed gas $2 a gallon a decade ago. They would have (besides becoming VERY unpopular) artificially generated consumer demand and the funds to develop more efficient technology.