NOV 10

I know many people love Al, but honestly if anyone else proposed this list would it be news?

The list looks like it came from the CliffNotes of this site (or any other green sites/articles for that matter).

Don't get me wrong, the ideas are great, but they're no different than comments made every day on sites like this.

Actually making it happen, now that's news (and good new at that!). :)

I agree with Hanks, these ideas have been around for a while, but usually the people who talk about it aren't actually prepared to do anything themselves.
If Al Gore actually layed out a detailed project (of how to actually achieve the goals, and not just what they are, and having reasearched the ideas fully, to see if they really are beneficial), and invested a lot of his own money in to the project, then I'd be impressed, and think it'll work, but as it is now, it's as effective as some crazy nut off the street going up to the president, and telling the president the changes he thinks the government need to take.

Going 'completely carbon neutral', by which take I guess he means electricity generated solely by non-carbon processes, would be difficult in 10 years. 71.3%, by kwh, comes from carbon producing sources. An additional 19.4% comes from Nuclear Power. It would be very difficult, expensive and foolhardy to replace that in only 10 years. Part of the foolhardyness comes from two things. First, we would not really have a chance to learn from early prototypes how best to mass produce these plants. Currently, most renewables are still learning how to build them the most efficiently. However, most importantly, they would all meet their end of lifecycle at about the same time, causing a boom and bust cycle for the building of these plants.

One thing related to this. Steel Production is a very carbon intensive process. There really is no substitute for coke for turning iron ore into iron/steel Do we really want to forbid steel production?

#
# Put a price on carbon and lead world efforts to come up with a more effective replacement to the Kyoto treaty.

As to a replacement for Kyoto, if you are going to do it, you do not tax countries by 'production' of CO2, but by 'consumption' of CO2 producing products. Currently, under Kyoto, if a country produced 10 Billion tons of carbon and cut their own production to 9 Billion tons, they are fine. But lets say they did that by exporting their factories to a country that has no requirements to reduce CO2 under Kyoto. China, for instance, has much less efficient factories and essentially non existent environmental laws. Lets say that country now imports products that require 2 Billion tons to produce. The country has actually increased their carbon footprint by 10%, not decreased it by 10%. This was the major flaw in Kyoto that effectively neutered the entire idea and, in fact, probably made Kyoto worse than no Kyoto at all.

Why does anyone still listen to this pathetic loser?

400 billion?

Why on earth would we want to spend 400 billion at home when we can just spend 3 trillion on Iraq and have oil instead?

Dangerous dreamer that guy is.

He seems to have left out the part about how the new grid should be straight DC to avoid all the conversion loss associated with AC current. I really think it makes more sense now, especially considering the low efficiencies of solar, wind, etc. We can't afford to lose more power to lossy conversion methods. Thoughts?

I thought the fact that there are such high losses when transferring DC over long distances was the (only good) reason to convert to high voltage AC in the first place. You are saying the opposite is true?

Karsten

Conversion losses associated with AC amount to less than 2% (and closer to 1%) of the power generated. This is not per conversion, but for the entire grid as a whole from start to finish.

Long distance DC transmission involves raising the voltage (a conversion) to several hundred thousand volts. It is generally worthwhile to do this only in area where you have long 'straight' runs. The capacitance in the lines would cause a sufficiently large decrease in the power in an AC system so DC is used in it's place. So far, this is the only time that DC has been found to be more efficient than AC.

The 'high loss' in DC came from using low voltage DC transmission. This required massive amounts of current that had large losses in the power lines. A power plant would have been required every few miles to run the grid at 120VDC. AC, on the other hand, was easily converted to higher voltage. Higher voltage=lower current=lower losses=higher efficiency. However, today we have the capability of performing fairly efficient high voltage AC/DC and DC/DC conversion that did not exist 120 years ago. However, the DC/DC conversions are still less efficient than the AC/AC conversions.

There are only two reasons why DC transmission should be use, efficiency is not one of them. The first is that the grid will be more stable with a DC grid. The 2003 blackout was caused by the voltage sin wave getting out of sync in Ohio. Going to a DC grid will eliminate that problem and reduce large scale blackouts. The second reason is for very long distance transmission where the line loss due to capacitance would be prohibitive as mentioned above. Either way, a DC grid would still have to convert to AC at the household as just about every appliance is designed to run on AC from the outlet.

Obama has already talked about all this in prior interviews (overhauling national energy grid, tax credits for solar and wind power, cap and trade, getting Detroit to produce more green vehicles). Gore's gonna try and take the credit when these things are actually done. Sheesh.

In our rush to be high tech we should not forget that a number of widely available low tech solutions are available, like passive and active solar water heatershttp://www.withmrlee.com/green...aterheater, which need appropriate incentive structures in place.

The problems we face are not technological. They are social and they are political.

Folks:

I am a bit disappointed in Al Gore. Yes, he has studied energy and for the most part understands the issues. That said, he still misses one of the most powerful strategies.

We must diversify in an overwhelming fashion. The energy battle will not be won without Oil, Clean Coal, or more Nuclear Energy.

We need it all. If it can produce energy, then we need it. Natural Gas, More Oil, Solar, Wind, Geo, Bio, Nuke, Clean Coal, Algae, Hydro, Hydrogen, etc. Nothing should be taken off of the table. Additionally, our elected leaders need to force Detroit to market products relevant to 2008.

Just one Man's thoughts in a sea of many.

Thanks,
Nick

All the talk for the last couple of days is whether or not part of the 700 Billion is going to bail out Detroit. I say bail them out, but only if they agree to use the money to change the kinds of cars they are building!

i just don't like him ...

Julie Where do you get your information that Gore is going to try to take credit? That's nonsense. He is only trying to educate.
And we are woefully in need of educating the public with real science instead of the deliberate disinformation being fed to us by the main stream media, fossil fuel and nuclear industries.

Nick
No we don't need everything in the mix. Sure we can continue to use existing coal and nuclear plants but building new ones is not smart. Nuclear is completely unsustainable.
A must read article on nuclear:
http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear
Peak uranium will come about ten years after peak oil. Haven't heard about that in the mass media have we?

Read the energy plan at:
http://www.repoweramerica.org/
There is quite a mix of sources.

Solar thermal power plants can replace the power we now get from coal. They are the best current technology souce of energy we have, to meet the needs of the future. They store heat in water, oils or molten salt. They don't fade when clouds pass over, and they will continue to generate electricity into the night. They are idealy suited to the peak demand timing of the day.
They put out the most juice when demand is highest and continue on past sunset.

A must read article on solar thermal:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html

Nuclear needs billions of gallons of water to cool each reactor. That is not sustainable.
Water will be at a premium in the future.

Solar and wind are much faster to get up and running than coal or nuclear.
And the point is, they can power most of the country.

Karston
the idea that AC loses less power is not true. Over anything exceeding 30 miles, HVDC has far less line loss.

Julie Where do you get your information that Gore is going to try to take credit? That's nonsense. He is only trying to educate.
And we are woefully in need of educating the public with real science instead of the deliberate disinformation being fed to us by the main stream media, fossil fuel and nuclear industries.
It's the scientists who are asking us to do something about the problem. Gore is a messenger.

Nick
No, we don't need everything in the mix, not down the road anyway . Sure we can continue to use existing coal and nuclear plants but building new ones is not smart. Nuclear is completely unsustainable.
A must read article on nuclear:
http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear
Peak uranium will come about ten years after peak oil. Haven't heard about that in the mass media have we?

Read the energy plan at:
http://www.repoweramerica.org/
There is quite a mix of sources.

Solar thermal power plants can replace the power we now get from coal. They are the best current technology souce of energy we have, to meet the needs of the future.

A must read article on solar thermal:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html

Nuclear needs billions of gallons of water to cool each reactor. That is not sustainable.
Water will be at a premium in the future.

Solar and wind are much faster to get up and running than coal or nuclear.

I believe that Detroit would be a great place to disassemble old cars. Why not simply reverse the assembly line! Coal must be replaced with water derived hydrogen fuel cells. Solar energy must be harnessed to use the hydrogen which is safely stored in water.
Genetically modified Organisms must be banned. Plastic Bags and Plastics must be replaced in the consumer market place. The desert is the only expanding ecosystem on the planet. Sand is a major component in glass and whole bottle recycling must replace plastic again. Glass is inert to the natural world.With our oceans being transformed into toxic pools of garbage INDUSTRY must be the solution to this problem. I believe that we have a bathtub of water overflowing and we are simply trying to sop up the water spilling on to the floor. The time has come for us to turn off the faucet. That faucet is industry's toxic production line.
We must take away dams that hinder salmon migration. We must conserve wetlands for migratory birds. We must ban many chemical surfactants in laundry detergents which can cause extreme cases of Eutrification in lakes and coastlines. We need international laws to protect marine mammals and other critical species.

Organic farming needs to be subsidized and land made affordable for anyone interested in becoming a farmer.
We need to imagine a world without advanced ways of water purification.
Waste water treatment plants remove us from the realities of our toxic life. Garbage removal should stop for a month or so. Maybe we would start to address issues of post consumer waste if we had to live in it.
(watch the film Recycled Life)

We need to work with China to keep bicycles on their streets, to discourage cars, to promote farming.
Zero population growth is also a major way to minimize our global footprint.
We need to hire city planners to plan cities around pedestrian traffic and not around automobiles. Bicycles should be given the majority of the road.
Liqui Lawn, Aspertame, NutriSweet, Roundup Ready, True Green, etc. need to be legally banned.

So many chemicals need to be removed from our food supply and from our water.

High fructose corn syrup should be heavily taxed if not banned.

Externalities need to have a price.
Green educational films should be widely circulated.
Support the arts. Reinstate public works projects.
Make an organization that will pay people to recieve a higher education rather than sending our young men and women to war. $$$$$$
Make peace patriotic.

Invest in early childhood education for those who live in the ghettos. America needs safe neighborhoods, well cared for and well educated children.a way out of drug abuse, a way to boost the self esteem of young people of color.

Let children play outside longer on recess.
Ban styrofoam plates in schools.

Give out organic food for snacks in grade schools, middle schools and high schools.

Save the planet!
Calculate our Footprint,.

Some of the comments on here are critical of Al Gore's plan stating that the points in his plan are nothing new. They are right. But he is not talking to the people that are "in the know" and that read EcoGeek. He is talking to the general public and they are NOT in the know. It really does not matter who gets the credit. Al Gore, Barack Obama or even...George Bush. We have known what we needed to do since the early 70's. We have not chosen the right path mainly because the general public was not educated and did not support it. The time is now and as long as we reach our Climate Change, Foreign Oil, Security and Economic goals as a country, it really does not matter who gets the credit. I believe our new President-Elect has taken recent steps that exemplify this and has stated this in so many words many times. Let's hope he can lead us to achieving our goals.

DC transmission is the most efficient way to transmit electricity. It just costs more to do it for short distances. Long distance transmission costs less after a certain distance.

Actually I'm surprised at the green cynicism of
Al Gore. Ohhhh he's not origonal enough? Hmmmmm.
The repetition of the same ideas by several groups is the most powerful voice to get us where we need to go politically.

Energy Efficiency buildings and transportation

Clean Generation

Transmission from the renewable production areas

Biofuels



These should be our mantra for the next several decades. The more people saying it, the better.

Al is an influential leader, he has outlined what he has been promoting for years. It's time America stepped up to the plate. Instead of being a den of oil corruption, the U.S. should be proudly leading the evolution of technology. Do you really wish to continue to lag behind Europe and Asia?
Al is also right when he says Large Government Projects will lead the way out of our impending depression. Do you think large companies will, out of the goodness of their hearts, bail out America? Or will they simply bail out of America, like Halliburton?
I'm afraid my scared, little fellow whities in the conservative parts are just going to have to live with all the peace and prosperity that an honest government can provide.
Don't worry we'll have another right winged government the next time people feel racist, greedy and divided.
Till then peace out Big Brother.
With love from Little Brother, Australia.
;D

Al Gore is absolutely right, I don't understand all the negative comments. We all wanted solar, wind, geothermal, organic, good sustainable living ever since the 1960's. We just got side-tracked by gross over materialism. This is all right on track and now is the time! The power is you, and me and all of us moving forward in these directions.

Does anybody know where he got the $400 billion number from?

One of the biggest environmental problems right now is suburban sprawl, which has been very much fueled since the fifties by the automobile industry. This industry should not be helped, cause hybrid cars are not going to keep this nation from sprawling. We should invest in sustainable urbanism instead. I wonder why Al Gore never talks about that...