Discover your moment on Lufthansa.
Chevy, gas-friendly to gas-freeIs Al Gore nuts?
In his speech in Constitution Hall this week, former Vice President and renewable energy investor Al Gore extolled a stretch goal challenging America to achieve 100% renewable power within 10 years.
The quote: "Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." And my favorite part: "When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon."
That statement is about like challenging your 2 year old to finish college by the time she is 12. Not exactly practical, more than a little crazy, and likely to be either ignored, or if you push it, to cause lots of therapy sessions by the time she is 8. I will, however, credit him with getting almost every renewable energy platitude I've ever heard into one succinct speech.
He does raise lots of good points about the need for a new energy policy not built around shipping dollars to the MidEast for oil (a definite must), for long term support for renewables (it is critical for us to get off our fits and starts mish mash idea of renewable energy policy), and for moving faster and larger to fight climate change (a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that is only partially helped by making broad statements about how fast the sky is falling, I mean, the glaciers are melting). In fact, there is no better way to give anti renewable energy and climate change naysayers fuel and ammunition than to make statements like these. Any path we go down, I'd still rather challenge that two year old to do something they can achieve, not try and make it through college by age 12 - especially if I'm asking her to pay for it. Slow and steady wins the race.
The core of Al Gore's argument in his speech on the practicality of a 10 year all renewable energy goal boils down to this quote from his speech on fuels:
"What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America."
And this one on costs and technology:
"To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down."
These quotations, while partially true and very seductive, are highly misleading in this context. The effective conversion rates of that energy to usable electric power or liquid fuel is still horrendously low, and requires lots and lots of capital expenditures, and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to implement. And that's not taking into account the state of technology - as an industry we really are the two year old in my analogy.
So given those conversion rates and the current high capital expenditures per unit of energy, the cost is still 5-20x (depending on what you count) the cost of conventional electric power generation (yes I know, unless you add in the carbon price and environmental externalities, but that's still extra cost any way you slice it . . . unless you'd like to subsidize mine). Frankly no serious analyst is suggesting that within 10 years, given the state of technology and the best case forecast capacity, that solar can make up more than a small single digit fraction of even electricity needs or that wind can make up more than a meaningful minority share (let alone after doubling the global power demand by replacing liquid fuels in cars with electricity, which Al Gore also suggests), especially given lead times on power plants and transmission lines.
Most likely even if the technologies were already cost comparative, which they are not - if you need evidence, just look at our wind and solar industries in their current tizzy because their biggest subsidy programs are up for renewal this year - most analysts wouldn't project a fabled grid parity on cost for renewables for at least the next decade, and certainly not at scale. So Mr. Gore's statements on cost and technology are in part true, but imply a maturity level in these industries that just doesn't exist yet. Given manufacturing scale up issues on the technology, transmission infrastructure requirements at least as large as the new generation requirements, and long lead times on building projects of this size (industry executives point to seven year time frames just to build a single transmission line), probably reaching even significant low double digit percentages of carbon free power within ten years is a stretch (excluding large hydro and nuclear which we already have but are hesitating to expand) across the whole nation. Notwithstanding that California has managed to come close to its target 20% number over the last decade, that's one state leaning on the resources of many states, using the best available sites, federal subsidies paid for from all of our pockets, and that took a decade. When it comes to carbon capture and storage for coal fired generation, a concept with lots of legs - if it works - 10 years just isn't enough time to achieve scale. The first big pilots are scheduled over the next several years, and there are too many unknowns to bet the farm on, without the lead time and capital cost issue. Though still definitely worth trying.
And as far as paying for it, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today calculating our Federal government long term liabilities at $450,000 per American already mainly for Medicare and Social Security. Actually trying to replace our entire fossil fuel infrastructure within 10 years would push that to how much? Somebody please do the math before we launch a government funded mission to the moon, or legislate that our citizens pay for it instead. On costs, Mr. Gore made the statement in his speech "Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases." I agree, but Mr. Gore, your 10 year, hell for leather, man to moon race for 100% renewable energy would guarantee just that.
So while extolling stretch goals for a two year old is probably a good idea, let's keep it within the realm of possibility, and not just make grandiose statements for media effect. Now if Al Gore's silly challenge on renewable energy was simply a trojan horse to get people talking about how to move forward on fighting climate change and addressing our long standing energy policy issues, I'm all for that and am happy to help. After all, the words Al Gore and climate change make for very searchble blog articles! But personally when I make outlandish statements, I do like to bring an modicum of practicality to the discussion.
I will leave you with one final note, and please remember, I am actually a proponent of the ideals in Al Gore's speech, I just prefer to get there in one piece. One theory on the effect of the history of the man on the moon driven space race that Mr. Gore challenges us to copy basically says that we pushed for a single high profile goal so fast and furious that we effectively skipped ahead and outran our infrastructure and capabilities to get a nonscalable shot at the moon in the target time frame. The theory goes on to suggest that's why after reaching the moon so fast we haven't progressed at the same rate in space since, and had we taken it slower, we would have gotten there a few years behind, but might be on Mars by know. Akin in a military campaign to outrunning your supply chain, and then getting your army surrounded and destroyed - or perhaps invading a country half way around the world, winning the war in weeks and forgetting to prepare for the peace. And just to show that I can deliver as many platitudes in one article as Mr. Gore, that's why you never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Energy and environment are the two pillars of everything in our lives. Mr. Gore and I want the same thing, but he thinks we can't afford not to swing for the fences - I think we can't afford to mess it up.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is the founding CEO of Carbonflow, founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Green Tech blog.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners, advising the technology and venture arms of multinational energy companies in clean technology. He also edits and writes the Cleantech Blog. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET.
- Topics:
-
Wind,
-
Global warming,
-
Environment,
-
Policy,
-
Solar
- Tags:
-
solar,
-
cleantech,
-
greentech,
-
Al Gore,
-
climate change,
-
global warming,
-
wind,
-
renewable energy
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
My take is:
Use all ways and means to become independent of foreign oil. Except nuclear, unless it can meet high standards for plant safety and long term storage of radioactive waste. Insured by the companies for full liability.
We should:
1. Drill wherever we can safely, but remove all subsidies from the oil companies.
2. Conserve energy as much as possible, in all ways feasible.
3. Demand 50 mpg. minimum for sedans and small trucks.
4. Open all public lands , except national parks to green energy development such as solar, wind, and algae farms. Take a percentage of profits when they are profitable, and use it for recreational development and maintenance. These lands are in great need of funding. Also open them up to harvesting of cellulosic materials that promote forest and brush fires. This can be gasified or turned into cellulosic ethanol.
5. Tax the pollution of coal plants. They are lobbying to stop clean coal, so they won't have to be bothered with it.
6. Open the coasts to wind and wave energy plants.
7. Tax all incandescent lights heavily.
8. Encourage the development of fuel stations that will sell electric recharges, hydrogen, ethanol, methanol, etc. Electric chargers could be placed along highways with power lines also.
9. Allow new vehicles to be used on all roads, without normal safety regulations. We allow motorcycles now. Why not more substantial vehicles.
10. Produce hydrogen at windmill sites. This can be used in generators to supply energy when there is no wind.
11. Encourage commercial and residential buildings to use solar roofs, and geothermal heatilng and cooling.
I am sure that I have left out some great ideas, but there is every reason for optimism. We have all these technologies NOW. We just need to use them. There is no energy shortage. There is a shortage of leadership and will. Now is the time.
The writer obviously do not know what is happening in the industry.
Cheap solar energy comparable to coal energy price is possible right now,
using simple concentrator and thermal technology.
100mpg vehicle is also possible now for slightly more than the cost of current hybrid, and will price can only fall. (Forget fuel cell, just focus on battery technology and lower vehicle weight)
I read through the whole article, though I think it was unfair and destructive, to give my hope a chance that it provides alternative solutions. But unfortunately it met my expectation that it is just about destroying the motivation.
I think if the 2 year old could be motivated and could finish college after 12 years, it would be much better than killing the motivation, smoking the weed and try to live with the lung cancer after 8 years...
I think using the funds that has been spent to kill people, the US could have sent man to the Mars.
The stack is high.
Not only will independence from oil will save US from middle east nations grip,
green energy and transport will be big global export industry.
G.Bush only know how to blow trumpet on the oil industry
without providing any long term solution.
I think most engineers and scientist tend to be somewhat "green" by the nature of our training, but guys like Gore give legitimate environmentalism a bad name when you look at the difference between his rhetoric and his actiona as well as his profit motive. Not only does he own a carbon credit company (which many hard science types essentially believe to be a nothing but an expensive placebo), he is heavilly involved in multiple large investment banks which all hopie to make hundreds of billions of dollars off of the panic. If they can get guaranteed public financing for their activities, they stand to make many billions of dollars even if none of the panic projects ever work out.
There is nothing wrong with doing well by doing good (actually, it is a good thing), but Gore's personal life style and his focus on asking others to sacrifice so that he can become a multi-billionare is a real issue. If you want a "sustainable" world ruled by an elite, permanent, royalty-like oligarchy, by all means follow Al to that end and help make him one of the kings. If you would like a sustainable world with some options for socioeconomic mobility, you might want to take a more reasoned approach. Asking people to THINK about how they spend public money is never a bad idea. The engineers who made the moonshot happen did NOT do the impossible, they simply rose to the challenge (and without massive economic incentives).
Public money is often required to make good things happen when the risks outway the rewards for privte investment, but beware of those who collect there fees on the front end of a "snake oil" sales campaign. Many "exciting and new" options to change the world with respect to energy production have been "just around the corner" for 25 years. Without some sort of unplanned, serendipitous breakthrough in the basic sciences (which does not historicaly get driven by public investment), practical engineering with a mission will take us down a path that is longer than any of us would like, but is also more predictabl successful. Hope is NOT a plan and it is NOT what drove NASA during their most succesfull years. Hard, sustained pragmatic work may not be sexy, but it is what gets the job done and that seems to be what the writer of this story is recommending.
So, lets have a moonshot for sustainable and safe energy, but lets do it with pragamatism and hard work. This probably means doing things that will not make any particular group of investors thrilled, because we need to be doing some of everything rather than putting all of our eggs in a basket that may NEVER be workable or one that we know is not sustainable.
The first objective needs to be energy independance before we totally collapse our economy and become a wholly owned subsidiary of both the middle eastern states and the PRC. THIS shoud be our 10 year emperative and even it will take massive effort, but it does not require luck, just solid engineering and hard work. If we get lucky and the unplanable BIG breakthrough takes place and we can shift much more production to sustainable/renewables, that will be terrific. I just do not want our entire future to be bet on that taking place in the next 10 years.
We have to let the solar industry to develop more. Solar cells are still not as efficient as they could be. I heavily believe that solar is the way to go, though. Solar is the starting point in everything. Oil is the remains of plants and animals millions of years old, right? Where do plants get THEIR food? The SUN. And, in turn, the animals eat the plants and that's how animals obtain energy. It's basic biology. The trophic levels, energy pyramid, etc. Obviously solar is the way to go. We, as I said earlier, we need to develop the solar industry a bit more. It makes no sense to use inefficient solar cells when we could wait a few more years until they have produced more efficient solar cells to capture the sun's rays. As far as I'm concerned, 10 years is a bit of a stretch to accomplish all this. I say about 15-20 years for this to be fully ready.
-
by vsp12351
July 18, 2008 1:45 AM PDT
- Please ask Mr. Gore if he uses Solar Power - I read a while back that one of his mansions uses more electricity in one month than most of us use in a year & I don't think it was Solar Energy he was using! I challenge all the wealthy folks in this country to be the first to turn their homes into Solar Generators ... that would bring down the price for the rest of us. How about it Oprah ... maybe you already have.
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 99 Comments >>