Gore: Remove carbon from electricity in 10 years 21 replies

Please wait...

Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Yesterday Al Gore gave a speech that outlines his idea to have %100 of US electrical generation become carbon free in 10 years. The guy has had success in the past with the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". His movie brought more attention to the issue of global warming and energy polices.

The cost of Gore 10 year plan is said to be between 1.5 and 5 trillion dollars. The cost has been compared to fighting WWII all over again. Gore's plan would call for the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs to build wind turbines and solar cells.

Al Gore's plan in similar to Pickens' plan. Pickens is using his own fortune of several billion dollars to build a wind farm and is going on TV to get support for his ideas.

I have some minor problems with their plans. It cannot be done in 10 years without incurring an even more massive national debt. Next solar cells are made from materials that are not very common on earth. If I remember correctly, the reserves for the materials are less than 10,000 tons. A solution would be to develop a solar cell that uses more common materials. Wind turbine manufacturers have a long waiting list as it is now. Production would have to be doubled every year to keep up with the demand.

I think the idea is good, but the time table is close to impossible. I can see 15 or 20 years, but not 10.

Al Gore's 10 year plan: Dissecting Al Gore's $5 Trillion Energy Plan - Capital Commerce (usnews.com) Gore's Bold, Unrealistic Plan to Save the Planet - TIME

Pickens' Plan: PickensPlan: The Plan




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago
The cost of Gore 10 year plan is said to be between 1.5 and 5 trillion dollars.

Interesting that Picken puts the cost of oil as 10 trillion over the next 10 years, so even if you go a couple of trillion over budget, you'll still be saving another couple of trillion.

A solution would be to develop a solar cell that uses more common materials.

Absolutely! On the plus side, wind turbines can be ramped up - meaning job growth, not just in production, but design and testing.

In addition, there's also an incredible amount of work needed in simple energy efficiency, and in all manner of localised projects to not just make electricity, but to solve other problems like suburban sprawl, resource depletion, water pollution and shortages - and Gore needs to sort out his power usage, which is unbelievably wasteful.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago
Interesting that Picken puts the cost of oil as 10 trillion over the next 10 years, so even if you go a couple of trillion over budget, you'll still be saving another couple of trillion.

That is true. An investment of 500 million a year over 10 years does not seem as bad a 5 trillion in one go. The only problem is that the US government is not the best people to hand any amount of money to. A removal of all business taxes from alternative energy companies could spur building and not involve handing 500 billion a year to the government.

Absolutely! On the plus side, wind turbines can be ramped up - meaning job growth, not just in production, but design and testing.

I like that idea. Knowing that I have a job waiting when I get out of college with an engineering degree would be nice.

Gore needs to sort out his power usage, which is unbelievably wasteful.

Conservative talk shows hammer gore and many other prominent environmentalists on this issue. The man can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk.

In addition, there's also an incredible amount of work needed in simple energy efficiency, and in all manner of localised projects to not just make electricity,

Conversation is the best solution for the short term, but many Americans do not feel like conserving. Americans don't want to give up the 3 ton SUV, McMansion, and other wasteful posessions. Recent poll have shown that Americans don't want to conserve, they want cheap energy.

Framing Science : Carville & Greenberg: McCain is Dominating on Energy Policy




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago
Conservative talk shows hammer gore and many other prominent environmentalists on this issue. The man can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk.

I can't bring myself to call Gore an environmentalist, he's just reusing material that's been around for decades, presenting it with a celebrity-face, and passing it on. There a millions of people and communities making real changes every day, and Gore gets the headlines.

Conversation is the best solution for the short term, but many Americans do not feel like conserving. Americans don't want to give up the 3 ton SUV, McMansion, and other wasteful posessions. Recent poll have shown that Americans don't want to conserve, they want cheap energy.

Waste taxes in exchange for income taxes!




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago
Waste taxes in exchange for income taxes!

A waste tax would push the development of more efficient cars and other energy using devices forward. To push such a tax through congress would be impossible. People would argue that the tax would hurt people who have to have a 3 ton SUV and a 5000 square foot house. There are uses for SUV's and large houses, but %99 of the population does not need them.

I looked up the US gas guzzler tax. All SUV's get out of the tax since they are classified as light duty trucks. The tax could be changed to be based on weight. The tax may not need to be changed if fuel prices keep killing the SUVs off.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago
A waste tax would push the development of more efficient cars and other energy using devices forward. To push such a tax through congress would be impossible.

Exactly.

So political reform is needed (which we already knew anyway), and probably collapsing the Democrats as well.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago
Absolutely! On the plus side, wind turbines can be ramped up - meaning job growth, not just in production, but design and testing. In addition, there's also an incredible amount of work needed in simple energy efficiency, and in all manner of localised projects to not just make electricity, but to solve other problems like suburban sprawl, resource depletion, water pollution and shortages - and Gore needs to sort out his power usage, which is unbelievably wasteful.

The Rubber Snake That Generates Electric Power From Waves

It's probably not the best description of this thing that I've seen, but it's a good idea; there's all that space under the ocean, and this would be relatively easy to implement on a large scale if this plan got funding and support.

People would argue that the tax would hurt people who have to have a 3 ton SUV and a 5000 square foot house. There are uses for SUV's and large houses, but %99 of the population does not need them.

Reimburse them, like a benefit. If you really need it, go through all this red tape, and sure, we'll give you some money to ease the cost of this tax.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

"""I looked up the US gas guzzler tax. All SUV's get out of the tax since they are classified as light duty trucks. The tax could be changed to be based on weight. The tax may not need to be changed if fuel prices keep killing the SUVs off""" EXACTLY correct, they suck i in, which then covered stupid vans so soccer moms can sit up high, but roll them as well.and waste gas. I am sooo against any talk of global waming, but even at 3 bucks agallon people drive right behind you and the they rush ahead, while I see them at the same next red light as me.While wasting gas. Bout time this forum has a common sense person, your spot on @ Pethegreat




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
I am sooo against any talk of global waming, but even at 3 bucks agallon people drive right behind you and the they rush ahead, while I see them at the same next red light as me.While wasting gas.

Dude, that's cheap. Here petrol's twice as much, US$6.18 a gallon




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
Mr. Pedantic;4444635Dude, that's cheap. Here petrol's twice as much, US$6.18 a gallon

And here it's almost nine dollars.

Anyway, given the projected costs of oil over the next years it seems massive investments in the energy sector will be necessary either way, so it seems sensible to conjure up a broad investment plan for the near future based on renewable, carbon-free energy forms.