Al Gore's newly proposed energy plan, what does it mean?

Question

I have read that Al Gore proposed to have all our energy be renewable within 10 year. Is this doable? How much has this changed from previous plans proposed by Gore? How much would this reduce emissions over the next few decades? Gore said that this could solve the climate crisis?

Thank you ll for you help. . .

Answer 1

Al Gore the Bore is just another idiot liberal shtick bent on controlling the behavior of the masses, who by the way, he is personally convinced he is much smarter, better, and able to lead us out of this 'problem'...renewable energy is fine, however without nuclear energy, it is not doable...that is not his agenda, it is control that is his agenda...he is a politician for crying out loud, otherwise why would anyone spend 300 + million to win the whitehouse that pays less than 500 grand a year???.

Answer 2

Yes, it's doable.

I find that most who object to it don't accept the fact that severe impacts due to climate change are already upon us, and haven't read or listened to Gore's proposal.

He didn't draw out the specifics on this plan that I'm aware of, but it's generally agreed that decisive action, implemented quickly, as this is, would have a considerable, positive impact.

Read the speech with an open mind.  Think about what he's saying.  Then think about what kind of a world you want to live in in 10 years, and what kind of a world you want your children and their children to experience.

Answer 3

In case you havent noticed, Fossil Fuel is Solar Energy collected long ago under a master plan.

Answer 4

Hmmm, lets see. If Al has his way, along with all the other eco nuts out there, then we will continue to be dependent on oil coming from the most volatile region on earth because they've decided we shouldn't drill for our own domestic oil. Lets continue to choke the middle class with high gas prices along with food, utilities etc. On top of that lets embark on a delusional multi trillion dollar plan to reduce those frightening CO2 emissions and lower the earths temperature a tenth of a degree, while India and China keep pumping out CO2.

Yeah, sounds like a great plan. Lets stay hostage to middle east high priced oil and bankrupt the country all in the name of our Lord and Saviour Al Gore.

It'll be too bad if Barrack Obama endorses this ludicrous plan because that will cost him at least my vote.

Answer 5

If he isn't proposing building hundreds of nuclear power plants then all he is proposing is to continue to burn coal and release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mandating that all new coal power plants be truly clean coal though would be a good idea although I can't see it being followed through because clean coal is mostly just PR c**p.

Even switching to nuclear power which is the cheapest low emissions technology will probably take decades (it took France a few) and nuclear is a technology that actually can provide the power we need when we need it (which solar and wind aren't, they provide power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining which isn't necessarily when we need power).

As for how much you could lower emissions by building a lot of wind and solar, maybe 20% or so over what you'd emit with just fossil fuels (since you'll still need to have fossil fuels to back them up for when still nights) and the unreliability would really reek havoc with the grid (Europe is already reaching the point at which wind can't be added because the grid wouldn't be able to cope (and when the grid can't cope you get transformers exploding)).

Answer 6

Unless Al can spit out money like he does hot air no.  

Its a decent idea except for the 10 year part.  There is no money to build all these new plants especially all at once.  A better but long term plan would be to build these plants when old plants are replaced.

I really doubt it would solve the climate problems either.  The warming trend is natural.

Answer 7

Yes it is impossible-- according to the IEA we must build:

1. 30 nuclear power plants every year for 30 years.

2. 17,000 new wind turbines every year for 30 years

3. and mediate the old coal power plants-- by pumping the CO2 underground

at a cost of about 45 Trillion Dollars-- this would eliminate 50% of the CO2 emissions -- the smallest amount that would affect global temperatures(or so they say).

There is no possible scenario that would replace our energy needs 100% from totally renewable sources. Except anti-matter from a Star Trek episode.

Answer 8

My assessment is that it can be done, it's not a technological problem, it's more of a political and economic problem.

What can allow it to happen is something rather simple and involved with producing alternative fuels cheaply. To do that you must have a source of nutrition for the organisms used to produce the fuel, whether that's plant, algae or bacteria.

My solution is to use wastewater from every sewage treatment plant in America as the source of nutrition of algae or bacteria farms. Not only does this reduce the cost of sewage treatment and make a profit by selling the fuel, the source is not a food product yet. This resource grows with population as well, making the supply respond to growth in a direct way.

The other part of the problem is now with a volume supply of fuel to be practical it will likely need to be legislated to force the oil companies to have enough pumps to supply demand at their stations for biodiesel.

Also, conversion kits for newer engines will need to be widely available, although not necessary for many older cars and trucks to use biodiesel, these will improve mileage and power so need consideration.

Is this worth the trouble? From studies at MIT it is, reducing emissions by nearly 60% versus gas/ethanol for biodiesel (soy oil was used in that study). Since these studies were full cycle from extraction to use, the soy actually isn't as efficient as wastewater because it needs soil amendments, you have to run farm equipment and have some type of pesticide protection from outbreaks (can be organic or chemical).

Having hippie friends who converted their VW's in the 1970's after the first oil "crisis", and knowing they haven't paid a dime for fuel since then, you wonder what people are thinking?

The oil companies and our government stopped any and all significant tries at doing this type of thing and we all pay for their abundant profits and greed. Expect them and their cronies to reject any attempt at volume biodiesel production and distribution.

Coal plants can be constructed that don't pollute, it costs money to do that but the technology is available and not used. The coal powered plant near Laughlin, NV, was shut down because the power company didn't want to upgrade it.

Nuclear power plants put twice as much energy as they produce directly into the world, so if you have a 1,000 megawatt plant, it heats the planet directly with 2,000 megawatts cooling the steam down, so while nuclear looks good in some ways, it heats the planet directly so isn't a real good solution in terms of efficiency overall, let alone the $90 billion dollars we all get to pay for dealing with the nuclear waste for 10,000 years when every nuclear dump so far has leaked.

Answer 9

I don't think it is doable, but I like the idea of setting a dramatic goal like that. JFK did it with the space program, and America stepped up to the plate, and in WW2, American industry went from consumer goods to the most incredible war machine in the history of the planet in six months... and then back again when the war ended. Switching 100% to renewable energy sources would be harder because the infrastructure just isn't there to the same degree, but even if we didn't meet the goal, we'd still be a lot further along the way than we will be otherwise, and for that reason I like it.

Even if you don't believe in climate change, it makes sense, because we need to get out of the Middle East, our local fossil fuel reserves are inadequate to replace them, even if we did go into sensitive areas like ANWR and offshore, and America just happens to be the Saudi Arabia of Wind. Renewables have the potential to create thousands of new jobs and completely revitalize the failing economies of many Plains states and other high-wind regions.

Check out the Apollo Alliance and similar sites for more info on the economic possibilities for America: http://www.apolloalliance.org/

Answer 10

it compares to Al Gore's other plans in this way, it is stupid and it is going to be just another reason that our economy is going downhill and not seeming to stop. and no it is not doable.

Answer 11

There were 13 lies in his movie and now U quote him as a fix...

Answer 12

It means we better get moving!  Yes, I think that it was quite a bold statement and goal made by Gore but one we can and MUST achieve.  Gasoline is such a disgusting and dirty source of energy; you basically operate your cars on mud.  We, as a society, can and will do better.

Answer 13

Crazy rants like this are Al's way of exciting the alarmists so they'll send him more money.  He knows it's impossible.