Al Gore's fantasy energy challenge

[4dsc]

Gore's speech was not well received in many quarters because knowledgeable people don't believe his 100% goal is even remotely achievable. The former vice-president no longer holds office, so he is not accountable to voters. Gore is more like Moses, who has gone to the mountaintop to receive God's 11th commandment that thou shalt not burn fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our civilization was founded on the abundant energy fossil fuels offer. We can not simply undo that dependency in a decade as we near the top of a growth curve that was made possible by burning coal, oil and natural gas.

Gore is motivated by the dangers of anthropogenic climate change. Some of these dangers are real, but unlike some who have started to realize that IPCC doomsday carbon emissions scenarios are built upon unrealistically high estimates for remaining recoverable fossil fuels (perhaps including coal) and future economic growth, Gore does not acknowledge any limit to the disaster that humankind faces as the Earth warms. Gore's unassailable assumption is that we will experience the Cretaceous "hot house" all over again. In energy matters, the former Vice President does not feel obliged to understand the issues. He just knows that burning fossil fuels is a bad thing.

The recent Nobel Prize winner has painted us all into a corner. Those of us who say "this can't be done" are naysayers, or to use a quaint phrase of an earlier era, nattering nabobs of negativism. I think setting an ambitious goal of a 15% conversion of the grid to wind, solar, and the rest by 2020 would have spurred us all to action. The feasibility of a 20% wind powered grid was vouched for in the Department of Energy's 20% Wind Energy By 2030.

http://energybulletin.net/node/46015

After Gore's speech, suggesting a more modest goal will be regarded as timid or worse—defending reality will be portrayed as cynical corporate self-interest by climate extremists. And it is self-interest, for almost every single one of us is invested in an electricity grid that meets our demands, not just coal or natural gas companies. Those few who say otherwise must enjoy living in the dark or off the grid in solar/wood powered houses. Well-compensated climate change activists drive their cars and live on the grid, so there is a large element of hypocrisy at work here which is justified by elaborate fantasies about replacing fossil fuels in unrealistic time frames.

[zeemike]

1. That is the same criticize that Robert Goddart received

From the New York Times about his rockets in space.. they said his ideas were just a fantasy because rocket would not work in space because there was no air to push against.
And again when Kennedy wanted to go to the moon...but this was the president and he had the power to encourage those where not afraid to be called dreamers.

Don't say why say why not.

[east texas lib]

2. Like the Bible, some of Al's scripture shouldn't be interpreted literally...

I guess we could do it if we eliminated all oil powered transportation, industry, electricity, all
oil based products such as asphalt, roofing materials, siding, chemicals, plastics, computers and
so on. IMHO most of America simply could not accept the lifestyle this would entail.

[Mabus]

3. There are alternatives

Hemp is a good example. See Hempcar.org (for discussion on the Hemp Car that Henry Ford built) and http://www.hempplastic.com/newSite/index.htm (for the latest hemp plastic items like jewel cases for DVDs and CDs).

[stuntcat]

4. what if

what if the consequences of not making the changes in that time are disastrous for the entire world?

I guess we should have made the changes back when the wacky 60's and 70's environmentalists were being laughed at.

I guess it's a fantasy to think humans won't completely rape the planet no matter what we do or don't do :cry:

[GliderGuider]

5. Speaking as a nattering nabob of negativism

I put a lot more faith in Dave Cohen's pessimism-tinged realism than in Al's resolutely rose-tinged fantasies. I also find it deliciously ironic that Gore's breathless optimism seems rooted in the very apocalyptic visions his supporters so love to decry.

[4dsc]

7. I 2nd that emotion

Isn't it amazing how a little realism fails to go along way here.. People want to believe that we can continue with the American way of life and transition to an all electric society and that it will be easy with no ramifications.. Denial runs deep in our soceity..

[kristopher]

6. So we have a campaign to discredit Gore?

There is nothing in Gore's plan that is impossible. Nothing.

The technologies are here - and ready to deploy.

The funds are already being spent on conventional energy - they simply need to be redirected.

As for whether or not we can mobilize and produce the turbines, solar panels, batteries and transmission infrastructure in only ten years; the answer is an unequivocal "Yes".

I offer proof:
http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml

And that was on the heels of a decade long depression; for those who say our economy is in too bad a shape to take on the challenge.

The people criticizing Gore for this effort aren't being "realists", they are simply ignorant.

[tinrobot]

8. The bottom line is that his goals are mandatory for us to survive.

We absolutely have to get off of oil. No argument about that.

Either we do it now and spend a lot of money, or we do it later and pay the price in terms of planetary destruction, societal disruption, and various other catastrophes.