Al Gore's Inconvenient Plan
One hundred percent renewable energy won't come as easily as he thinks.
Kevin Bullis 07/18/2008
- 50 Comments
Yesterday, Al Gore said that the United States should produce all of its electricity from carbon-free, renewable energy within 10 years. Although he didn't lay out specifics, he seems to want to do it with wind, solar, and geothermal, although it's not clear from his speech whether nuclear would be acceptable. Can it be done? It isn't likely.
To get a sense of the scale of the problem, consider: last year, wind, solar, and geothermal power accounted for an impressive-sounding 48 million megawatt-hours of electricity. (I rounded up. If I had rounded down, it would have obliterated the contribution from solar, since it is such a small part of the total.)
But in 2006, the most recent year with complete figures, four billion megawatt-hours of electricity were produced in the United States. Eventually, wind, solar, and geothermal power could cover this. But right now, they account for a little more than 1 percent of the total. Going from 1 to 100 percent will require not only building the wind turbines and solar panels and steam turbines for harvesting geothermal energy: it will also require massive new transmission infrastructure for distributing this power, from the deserts or windy plains, where much of this energy can be found, to the coasts, where people actually live. And it will require massive amounts of energy storage, since solar power doesn't work well at night, and wind power is erratic.
In light of this scale, even some truly ambitious schemes seem like a drop in the bucket. Over the past couple of weeks, T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon, has been using some of his billions to run television ads supporting his personal energy plan for the United States. Part of that plan is his project to build what seems to be the biggest wind farm in the country. It would nearly double the amount of wind produced in the state of Texas, the state with by far the most wind power. But that project will only produce 4,000 megawatts of power. (Total electricity generating capacity in the United States is about 1 million megawatts.) And it won't be cheap. To cover transmission-line costs alone for that and other proposed wind projects, the state of Texas plans to spend about $5 billion.
Al Gore is right, of course, that the country needs to turn to renewable energy. And it's frustrating how slowly the change is coming. But as we've recently seen with biofuels and food prices, scaling up a new source of energy can bring unanticipated consequences. Careful planning is required. We need some realistic plans for making the switch to renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
surfgrrl54
1 Comment
Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
Why the negativity? Has this nation forgotten that setting a high goal encourages meeting the challenge?
Have we forgotten that each journey begins with a single step? Are we so busy justifying our old thinking/behavior patterns we cannot envision a viable solution anymore?
To suggest that new renewable electricity generation will require huge infrastructure to transport the power from a remote location is simplistic and incorrect.
Population centers are growing in the sunbelt. Sunbelt = available solar. Vast expanses of commercial rooftops are available already ON transmission lines, within populated areas. SCE is already beginning a project of scale in this area.
To assume solar will not be a player in the future is shortsighted, to say the least.
To avoid needing huge transmission-line improvements, local, small-scale power-generation instead of centralized, large-scale generation is the solution. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.
Geothermal resources are located all over the Western States- part of the rapidly growing area-Geothermal generation plants are non-polluting and could be located very near population centers if the resource were present without creating a health hazard to residents. They also produce power 24/7.
To assume that a coal-fired plant would be located in a populated area, or a Nuclear plant, is unlikely. They, too, will be located in areas that are not likely served by transmission lines due to the health hazards associated with them. Additionally, these plants historically take many years to come online.
The idea that we shouldn't set high goals because we cannot achieve ALL of them is like suggesting we lower the standards for educational tests so all students will pass. (Oh- I think we already did that...Hmmmm. )
Reply
javs
97 Comments
Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
Your comment is in accord with expert advise. To make the electricity revolution possible, please read the EnergyBlogs.com EWPC article Is Gore's Revolutionary Leadership Challenge Feasible?
For more comments on EWPC on M.I.T. TR, please hit my 'javs' hyperlink.
Reply
RichMLM
1 Comment
Our future energy picture is surprisingly bright
A major reason for negativity regarding energy solutions is people don't realize the good news that is relatively close to realization. Innovation is likely to allow for distributed power nodes ... down to the house level. This obviates the concern for having to upgrade the power distribution network.
Solar is coming on strong because of advances in solar panel manufacturing technology. Nanosolar has established a factory with huge capacity in CA (1 Gwatt/year). Last I read, their production is sold out for the next 18 months. The cost for electricity generated will be competitive with coal! Regarding the 10 year time issue, other companies are HOT on their trail trying to grab THEIR share of the market.
An obvious challenge with solar-generated electricity is that the sun is not always shining. A company called Eestor in TX is coming out with a super capacitor which should help to resolve that problem. Their product has much greater storage density and a cheaper cost than traditional batteries. Eestor already has two significant contracts for their product - one with a Canadian company which produces small cars and the other for military applications.
With what's described above we have an answer for affordable solar-generated electricity and a way to save it up for gradual release.
I expect that people reading this blog are very competent to be able to search for news about Nanosolar and Eestor. I like to use the powerful Google News Alert service to keep up to date.
It's significant to me that a number of people around the World are pursuing a similar approach to creating totally clean energy, and it appears that the "state of the art" is getting close to "proof of concept". A consequence is that I expect that within 5 years we will see a totally clean energy production device that is being produced in large quantities and is scalable. That will spell the end of expensive oil. I have NO financial interest in this area, so I can be quite objective. Here's a link to one example of recent news in this type of innovation:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2898
A big challenge with this type of device is that it appears to violate the law of the conservation of energy, and that understandably causes great upset for most physicists. I suspect how that difficulty will ultimately be resolved is when the _source_ of that "extra" energy is finally understood.
As an analogy, think about the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Think about how tiny that range is, compared to the whole electromagnetic spectrum that we now understand exists. It took mankind a LONG time to understand just how much more there was beyond what we can see with our eyes. It was always there. Mankind just didn't understand it yet. THAT is how I think of the mysterious "extra energy" that appears to exist in the device described in the link above.
One beautiful thing about both energy production innovations described above is that they allow for energy independence at the home or building level. Presently, when an area electrical grid goes down hundreds of thousands of people can be impacted, sometimes for many days. If/when each house has its own electrical power generation capability that will eliminate such mass disruptions. It also makes the availability of electric power more SECURE.
What I see as a big challenge to the good news described above is mankind's reluctance to seek to understand and embrace new paradigms.
Rich Putman in MN
PS: I should note that my 1963 college major in physics is very dated. My other majors were math, Spanish, and Russian.
Reply
chadwickmeyer
6 Comments
Re: Our future energy picture is surprisingly bright
"I suspect how that difficulty will ultimately be resolved is when the _source_ of that "extra" energy is finally understood."
We would all like free energy, but the problem that people have with these claims, is not that they violate existing laws of physics (although that should be a cause for pause), it's that they are never demonstrated. There are thousands of people claiming to have produced over-unity devices, but nobody can reproduce the experiment. If it's not a hoax, it should be easy to reproduce. Until then, people are right to be skeptical. If the laws of physics need to be revised, so be it, but there must be adequate reason to do so.
Reply
Shubnell
1 Comment
Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
Al Gore should know about energy, his home and lifestyle show him to be a major consumer. Of course he also created the internet. . . remember. For all of his attention grabbing, he does make a few good points as usual by checking which way the pack is running and getting out in front, like the politician he is.
He conveniently neglects the time between now and ten years from now. Gas is over four dollars a gallon and rising. How do we get from here to there is missing in all of his comments. he just rehashes other folks ideas with no plan, just a vision, and that vision is not even his own. He is part of the Washington crowd that already produces enough hot air and wind to supply our whole country for the next hundred years.
A national or regional energy grid is a single point of failure in times of upheaval. We have all seen the deleterious effects of brownouts and blackouts on whole cities and towns. Energy at the source is the only correct independent future for any country.
True energy independence must be attacked at multiple levels.
First, usage must be moderated by manufacturers of lighting, energy miserly appliances including TVs and computers, alternative types and modes of transportation, elimination of natural gas piped to individual homes, etc. Devices should be zero usage when switched off.
Second, energy must be captured by many sources, such as fision, fusion, solar, wind, wave, coal, oil (USA produced), geothermal, etc. One size does not fit all and regional variations do matter.
Third, power must be generated at the source, such as houses and community power generation. It can be shared back, but must be capable of originating at the source.
Fourth, battery power or alternative energy storage devices must be enhanced at least tenfold to capably store energy more efficiently.
Fifth, eliminate the counterproductive governmental controls, laws, and regulations that prevent independent thinking, promote the status quo, and stifle competition. Washington has always done better for the people by offering incentives rather than taxing and legislating.
Sixth and most difficult, we must learn to conserve at all levels and think of personal alternates at home, school, and work.
Bottom line, Gore makes for a great discussion starter, but so did George Carlin
Reply
ChuckInReno
20 Comments
Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
Have you got an ax to grind? Can you envision a politician with whom you disagree having ideas that might be plausible and sound?
I stopped reading after your second sentence gave you away.
Reply
chadwickmeyer
6 Comments
Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
Well so far there are not very many politicians spurring us to real action, so I don't think you can claim Al Gore is doing it just for political expediency, i.e. sensing the direction of what's popular and then getting ahead of the pack. Besides, he's the one who popularized global warming, he made converts of many people with his documentary. Although "green" is hip in popular culture, it's not translating into much action in the political world. Most politicians are still too timid to make a plan, and demand tough changes (because they don't want to upset their constituents). It's easier to give lip service to environmental issues and then do nothing. Gore is in a great position to make these sorts of plans because he doesn't have any constituents that will be angry at him because his plan could theoretically put some people out of work or upset the "lifestyle" that we have all come to believe we "deserve". He is a world leader, he has people's attention, and he can make these "crazy" ideas popular to a larger audience. He can say things that others know to be true but are too timid to say. He can set an agenda, and start a conversation. It's important that we start doing something now, and that we set radical goals like this. So what if it takes us 15 years instead of 10. It's better than the 30 year "realistic" plans proposed by oil companies who hope to suck every penny out of their existing investments before converting to alternatives.
We must do something now, with the technology we have, while we still have a strong economy (yes our economy is strong, compared to what it will be when we start running out of resources and prices triple). If we go in debt trillions of dollars to become energy independent, it will be a boon for our economy, and in the long term it will save us money, e.g. since 2001 we've spent 860 Billion on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars alone (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80), not to mention the losses this has contributed to in our economy, and more importantly the thousands of American lives it has cost, as well as upward of 100,000 Iraqi lives. We have the money to do this, and we have the technology to do it, we only lack the motivation. That's why we need good leaders, to challenge us, educate us, and mobilize us into action, for our own good.
Reply
professorrafiqulislam
1 Comment
Re: Kevin Bullis comment to Al Gore's energy plan
When someone comments: “Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.”
I find no word for comments.
Kelvin Bullis rightly said:"We need some realistic plans for making the switch to renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals."
Everybody should know that the most eminent challenge today is that expected demand for electricity would require during the coming two decades the installation of as much power generation capacity as was installed in the entire 20th century.
Because of its abundance in the most energy-consuming countries such as China, the USA, parts of Europe & India, and Australia, coal is likely to be increasingly the main basic fuel for these plants, and its use would increasingly have to be accompanied by CO2 separation and sequestration. Despite the unresolved problems of waste storage, and to some extent safety, nuclear power plants are likely to be constructed for special needs, such as countries that have better access to uranium than to fossil fuels. The amount of uranium in the world is insufficient for massive long-term deployment of nuclear power generation, which can only change if breeder reactors are used, but that technology is not safe and mature enough and is not likely to be in the next couple of decades.
Wind power progress is remarkably successful,with a capacity increase of about 15 GW electricity in 2006, forecasted to rise to an increase of 29 GW/year by the year 2014. “Wind Force 12” is a plan to globally reach by the year 2020: 12% of global electricity demand.
Wind power generation will be deployed massively, but will be limited to regions where wind is economically available.
PV power generation will continue increasing in efficiency and decreasing in price, but being still several times more expensive than other power generation methods and for other technical reasons, it may not reach priority in the coming decade.
Under ground coal gasification may be a suitable environ-mental friendly technology for obtaining valuable products from coal. Future progress of mankind will be impossible without a substantial and continuing energy supply ‘‘Energy is essential for mankind and always will be.’’
Our preliminary research work shows capture of CO2 from various emission points like power plants and its ultimate conversion to essential chemicals may be the most important way in future for CO2 reduction and its management.
Professor Dr-Ing.Rafiqul Islam
Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences
professorrafiqulislam@yahoo.co.uk
Reply