Al Gore's Plan

[molson_golden2002]

Ambitious! Bold! Even obturationist!

 

No, not obturationist.

 

But, it is pretty big. Price tag don't bother me at all. But what will the coal industry say about this? Byrd and Rockefeller sure won't be jumping to get on board this.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/...t=cse&scp=2

 

 

Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.

 

What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.

 

First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

 

Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

[Chef Jim]

Here's the problem with getting all this done the Al Gore way. Doing it in the name of global warming is not going to work. There are too many people (including me) who feel that the planet heats and cools over time on it's own. There has been proof that the planet has cycled several times since it formed. But if you put the whole emphasis on a big f-you to the middle east I feel it gets done. Many of us feel that if we focus on global warming there is a possibility that the planet will cycle on its own regardless of what we do thereby making the outlay of money a waste. But I think everyone can agree that if we can power this country 100% on our own it would make the middle east irrelevant which in my mind would be a wonderful thing.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Here's the problem with getting all this done the Al Gore way. Doing it in the name of global warming is not going to work. There are too many people (including me) who feel that the planet heats and cools over time on it's own. There has been proof that the planet has cycled several times since it formed. But if you put the whole emphasis on a big f-you to the middle east I feel it gets done. Many of us feel that if we focus on global warming there is a possibility that the planet will cycle on its own regardless of what we do thereby making the outlay of money a waste. But I think everyone can agree that if we can power this country 100% on our own it would make the middle east irrelevant which in my mind would be a wonderful thing.

Correct we need to create an environment that the unfriendly OPEC nations can drown on their valuable crude however we do need to address issues around CO2 emissions and overall cleaner air.

[ieatcrayonz]

Ambitious! Bold! Even obturationist!

 

No, not obturationist.

 

But, it is pretty big. Price tag don't bother me at all. But what will the coal industry say about this? Byrd and Rockefeller sure won't be jumping to get on board this.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/...t=cse&scp=2

Your thread title is misleading. The article you linked described Al Gore's ruse. Al Gore's plan is to separate you from your money while producing nothing of value and yet running his mouth the entire time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a brilliant plan, and will almost certainly work on you, but don't confuse the ruse and the plan. The ruse is ALWAYS just a part of the plan.

[DC Tom]

Ambitious! Bold! Even obturationist!

 

No, not obturationist.

 

But, it is pretty big. Price tag don't bother me at all. But what will the coal industry say about this? Byrd and Rockefeller sure won't be jumping to get on board this.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/...t=cse&scp=2

 

Gore's an idiot. "Carbon-free" is a fiction, and isn't the same as "renewable". Gore doesn't even know what argument he's trying to make.

 

Not to mention his price tag is ridiculously low. Forty billion a year for ten years to completely replace about four billion kilowatt-hours of annual power capacity? And the distribution grid?

[RkFast]

Here's another thing about completely carbon free. It basically rules OUT the BEST, most efficient source of energy pound for pound......OIL. Youre taking the BEST option for energy completely right off the table, all while ignoring that over time, we have mastered using this resource in a more and more efficient manner.

 

Getting energy from wind, from plants and other "alternative" sources sounds really nice but when put into reality are not very practical (like most lib talking points).

[IDBillzFan]

Not to mention his price tag is ridiculously low. Forty billion a year for ten years to completely replace about four billion kilowatt-hours of annual power capacity? And the distribution grid?

It's called "Obamanomics."

[Gene Frenkle]

Holy !@#$ing sh--! Put Al Gore's name on anything and the usual suspects come out and shoot it down without any !@#$ing thought.

 

Here's the problem with getting all this done the Al Gore way. Doing it in the name of global warming is not going to work. There are too many people (including me) who feel that the planet heats and cools over time on it's own. There has been proof that the planet has cycled several times since it formed. But if you put the whole emphasis on a big f-you to the middle east I feel it gets done. Many of us feel that if we focus on global warming there is a possibility that the planet will cycle on its own regardless of what we do thereby making the outlay of money a waste. But I think everyone can agree that if we can power this country 100% on our own it would make the middle east irrelevant which in my mind would be a wonderful thing.

There are many reasons to get off of oil even if you don't "believe" in global warming. Do it for whatever reason you like.

 

 

Your thread title is misleading. The article you linked described Al Gore's ruse. Al Gore's plan is to separate you from your money while producing nothing of value and yet running his mouth the entire time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a brilliant plan, and will almost certainly work on you, but don't confuse the ruse and the plan. The ruse is ALWAYS just a part of the plan.

Wow, never thought of it that way. Great points.

 

Try harder - you're better than that.

 

 

Gore's an idiot. "Carbon-free" is a fiction, and isn't the same as "renewable". Gore doesn't even know what argument he's trying to make.

 

Not to mention his price tag is ridiculously low. Forty billion a year for ten years to completely replace about four billion kilowatt-hours of annual power capacity? And the distribution grid?

Well if you can't conceive of it, it must not be possible. Your facts certainly back up your point.

 

 

Here's another thing about completely carbon free. It basically rules OUT the BEST, most efficient source of energy pound for pound......OIL. Youre taking the BEST option for energy completely right off the table, all while ignoring that over time, we have mastered using this resource in a more and more efficient manner.

 

Getting energy from wind, from plants and other "alternative" sources sounds really nice but when put into reality are not very practical (like most lib talking points).

Actually, the best, most efficient accessible source of energy (pound for pound) is (debatably) nuclear (or nucular for the non-sciency types) fission or fusion. a.k.a. the Sun and nuclear power plants.

 

Now if only we could harness those things...

 

 

It's called "Obamanomics."

Yea, we get it - McCain lost and you're not happy about it. Time to let it go.

[/dev/null]

Correct we need to create an environment that the unfriendly OPEC nations can drown on their valuable crude however we do need to address issues around CO2 emissions and overall cleaner air.

 

How do you propose we counter the coming Solar Maximum?

[IDBillzFan]

Yea, we get it - McCain lost and you're not happy about it. Time to let it go.

Bad news, Frenkle. You've got four years of saying "time to let it go" cuz some of us are just getting warmed up, and it's not even January yet.

 

No Obamaday for you.

[Gene Frenkle]

Bad news, Frenkle. You've got four years of saying "time to let it go" cuz some of us are just getting warmed up, and it's not even January yet.

 

No Obamaday for you.

Personally, I don't give two ***** about what you have to say. It just seems a waste of everyone's time to read the same tired comments time after time after time. Perhaps I can create a bot for you that will scan PPP and insert random lame Obama quips of your design after any post entered by anyone you designate a libtard.

 

And trust me - being subjected to silly, irrelevant nonsense posts is WELL worth not having to put up with the people you would prefer to have in office. I'm sure you must be doing quite well if you're still supporting these failed political ideals, but most of the rest of us are at least indirectly glad that you're not happy at the moment.

 

I'd imagine that you voted for Bush twice and would be proud to tell anyone you meet. Thanks again for that.

 

Look, it's Obamaday!

[DC Tom]

Well if you can't conceive of it, it must not be possible. Your facts certainly back up your point.

 

Impressive. You actually think that an argument from incredulity against my incredulity is somehow valid.

 

Never mind that I happen to know that, as a rule of thumb, a traditional coal/oil plant's construction costs run about a buck a watt...which means that replacing the entire energy generating infrastructure in this country with like kind would cost, as a rule of thumb, roughly TEN TIMES Gore's estimate. I also happen to know that, as a rule of thumb, solar, wind, and geothermal are roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than traditional methods, so Gore's cost estimate covers AT BEST 5% of the country's power generation. Roughly.

 

But you'd know that, if you were more concerned about the issue, and less about the people discussing it. Keep feeling you're "enlightened", though.

[IDBillzFan]

Personally, I don't give two ***** about what you have to say. It just seems a waste of everyone's time to read the same tired comments time after time after time. Perhaps I can create a bot for you that will scan PPP and insert random lame Obama quips of your design after any post entered by anyone you designate a libtard.

 

And trust me - being subjected to silly, irrelevant nonsense posts is WELL worth not having to put up with the people you would prefer to have in office. I'm sure you must be doing quite well if you're still supporting these failed political ideals, but most of the rest of us are at least indirectly glad that you're not happy at the moment.

 

I'd imagine that you voted for Bush twice and would be proud to tell anyone you meet. Thanks again for that.

Ahhh, what would the day be without a juicy liberal generalization to get me through the day? Thanks for that. Just in time for the afternoon slump.

 

If you get a chance, can you come back in an hour and refer to me as a racist? That should get me through suppertime.

[DC Tom]

It's called "Obamanomics."

 

I wouldn't even begin to blame Gore's raving idiocy on Obama.

 

Fundamentally, too...I doubt Gore's making a serious suggestion. He's probably just trying to keep the topic current, particularly since energy costs have dropped 40-50% in the past four months, which tends to make "green" energy less of an issue in most people's minds.

 

But that won't stop me hammering him for his idiocy. He could at least try to stay grounded in something resembling reality. Confusing "renewable" with "carbon-free"? Lowballing costs by a factor of fifty? Even when you're "just trying to make a point", it's good to remember that making stupid points doesn't help your case.

 

I call that the "BF in Indiana" rule...

[Wacka]

I wouldn't even begin to blame Gore's raving idiocy on Obama.

 

Fundamentally, too...I doubt Gore's making a serious suggestion. He's probably just trying to keep the topic current, particularly since energy costs have dropped 40-50% in the past four months, which tends to make "green" energy less of an issue in most people's minds.

 

But that won't stop me hammering him for his idiocy. He could at least try to stay grounded in something resembling reality. Confusing "renewable" with "carbon-free"? Lowballing costs by a factor of fifty? Even when you're "just trying to make a point", it's good to remember that making stupid points doesn't help your case.

 

I call that the "BF in Indiana" rule...

 

Lets find a way to use retatta as a power source!

[Gene Frenkle]

Impressive. You actually think that an argument from incredulity against my incredulity is somehow valid.

 

Never mind that I happen to know that, as a rule of thumb, a traditional coal/oil plant's construction costs run about a buck a watt...which means that replacing the entire energy generating infrastructure in this country with like kind would cost, as a rule of thumb, roughly TEN TIMES Gore's estimate. I also happen to know that, as a rule of thumb, solar, wind, and geothermal are roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than traditional methods, so Gore's cost estimate covers AT BEST 5% of the country's power generation. Roughly.

 

But you'd know that, if you were more concerned about the issue, and less about the people discussing it. Keep feeling you're "enlightened", though.

A buck a watt over what period of time? You're right it would be more expensive at first, but I'm sure you could imagine that the construction costs would lessen as the technologies are further developed and become more efficient. I'd also think you might be able to imagine that the cost of fueling these types of plants would be orders of magnitude less than coal plants, as there would be no need to mine the fuel source, transport it from wherever you're getting it or process it upon arrival. Once these types of plants are online, your only concern would be maintenance. Depending on development/construction costs and energy conversion efficiency, these types of plants would likely eventually pay for themselves.

 

I think your analogy is a bit off. There are many factors to consider here and we should not give up on striving towards these goals simply because it is hard.

[erynthered]

Ahhh, what would the day be without a juicy liberal generalization to get me through the day? Thanks for that. Just in time for the afternoon slump.

 

If you get a chance, can you come back in an hour and refer to me as a racist? That should get me through suppertime.

 

 

I thought for sure they'd like the shoe on the other foot, thingy. Guess not.

 

If you need me I'll be waiting for my check. I'm not leaving my house till I get one. So there.

[Gene Frenkle]

If you need me I'll be waiting for my check. I'm not leaving my house till I get one. So there.

Promise?

[DC Tom]

A buck a watt over what period of time? You're right it would be more expensive at first, but I'm sure you could imagine that the construction costs would lessen as the technologies are further developed and become more efficient. I'd also think you might be able to imagine that the cost of fueling these types of plants would be orders of magnitude less than coal plants, as there would be no need to mine the fuel source, transport it from wherever you're getting it or process it upon arrival. Once these types of plants are online, your only concern would be maintenance. Depending on development/construction costs and energy conversion efficiency, these types of plants would likely eventually pay for themselves.

 

I think your analogy is a bit off. There are many factors to consider here and we should not give up on striving towards these goals simply because it is hard.

 

It's not an analogy, you moron, it's MATH. And it's not operating costs, it's construction costs. One-time expense. Operating costs are above and beyond that. And "a buck a watt" already has economies of scale factored in - that's the cost for a traditional plant.

 

So Gore's still an order of magnitude off if you replace coal/oil plants with new coal/oil plants. If "green" technology came down in cost to be merely competitive with traditional methods, Gore's cost still off by a factor of about 12. I don't even have to go any farther than that to demonstrate he's talking out of his ass (again). To meet his cost estimates, solar/wind/geothermal would have to drop in price by a factor of about 90.

 

And construction of even non-traditional power plants isn't carbon neutral. Do you have any idea how much carbon dioxide is generated in concrete production? Or silicon refining? Or carbon fiber manufacture?

 

The argument here isn't if non-traditional energy sources aren't worth pursuing. Of course, pursue them. The argument is whether or not Al Gore is a complete bullshitter and charlatan. He is. He's selling snake oil to the masses, nothing more. (Which IS an analogy, by the way.)

[IDBillzFan]

I thought for sure they'd like the shoe on the other foot, thingy. Guess not.

 

It's funny how the left did nothing but B word and moan for eight straight years, and yet the minute anyone disparages their new toy, they're a bunch of whiners.