Gore: Electrifying redemption, thanks to the Web
Former Vice President Al Gore onstage at the Web 2.0 Summit.
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET News)SAN FRANCISCO--The central theme of former Vice President Al Gore's speech, concluding the Web 2.0 Summit on Friday afternoon, was electricity.
He spoke of "the electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are created equal," as emphasized through Barack Obama's election victory on Tuesday, and how it "would not have been possible without the additional empowerment of individuals to use knowledge as a source of power that has come with the Internet."
Gore reiterated what so many people have said before--that the Obama campaign was a vindication for how the new tools of the Internet can be used toward legitimate change.
"What happened in the election opens up a full new range of possibilities, and now is the time to really move swiftly to use these new possibilities," he said. "I made a talk earlier today about how the early uses of electricity 100 years ago were aimed at sort of specialized applications and gimmicks and do-dads and whiz-bangs that demonstrated the special qualities of this new conveyor of power."
He meant, essentially, throwing an electric sheep. (Apologies to Philip K. Dick.)
"Now we just take electricity for granted as everywhere, and it has empowered a whole civilization," he said. Gore said the analogy stands for Web 2.0 as well. "When people are displaying interactivity or user-generated content or social networking, that's kind of the gee-whiz stuff...We need to move past that."
Electricity, too, is key to Gore's urgent call to action, which he detailed with an immediacy that was needed at a conference where some panels drifted a little too far into the speculative future. America needs a "unified national smart grid" distributing renewable solar energy across the country, something he estimates would cost $400 billion in a decade. But it would create thousands of jobs, Gore said, and it would pay for itself within three years.
When Obama takes office in January, Gore said the new president ought to set "a national goal of getting 100 percent of America's electricity from renewable and noncarbon sources within 10 years. We can do that."
He continued: "The declaration from President Kennedy that we would land a man on the moon and bring him back safely was thought by many to be impossible."
Gore had come onstage at the conference to a standing ovation and so much applause that he had to tell the audience to quiet down. His story is familiar: he famously won the popular vote for the presidency in 2000 but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush, and he went on to win both an Academy Award for his environmental-awareness documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
In 2005, Gore founded Current TV, a cable news network that he created with Joel Hyatt in response to his dissatisfaction with the television industry. "One of the main reasons why our political system has not been operating very well until this election is the deadening influence of the television medium as it has been operated," he said.
Gore encouraged the digerati in the audience to keep pushing forward as they face what he says is the most pressing struggle of our time, climate change--the subject matter of An Inconvenient Truth. The fact that the Web's candidate of choice won this time is no reason to rest easy, he said. Media democratization needs to continue evolving.
"Just as Barack Obama's election would've been impossible without the new dialogue and new ways of interacting--the Web--the only way (climate change) is going to be solved is by addressing the democracy crisis, and the country hit a great blow for victory this week, but we have to take this issue and raise it in the awareness of everyone," Gore said. "I think that it is very much in its infancy, barely beginning, and I think that we are not many years away from television sort of sinking into the digital world and becoming a part of it."
Cynics might say Gore, who calls himself a "recovering politician," is still bitter at a sterilized news media that didn't sufficiently back his calling in the 2000 presidential election. Needless to say, his views remain controversial. But onstage, Gore seemed plenty comfortable in his new role as a thought leader rather than an elected official.
"Who knew that you were the guru of Web 2.0, as well as global warming?" conference organizer Tim O'Reilly asked Gore jokingly after the former vice president had illustrated an analogy involving "crowdsourced" information and cloud computing, two of the decade's most buzzworthy digital talking points.
If the audience was any indication, Gore has gained resounding acceptance as an information-age guru, a bit of an irony, considering that 10 years ago, erroneous reports circulated that he had once claimed to have invented the Internet.
"When we have really had these great leaps forward has been when new information ecoystems have made it possible for individuals who are thinking and processing information, and who have aspirations and hopes...to connect easily with lots of voters around core ideas," Gore explained. His preferred analogy was the invention of the printing press five centuries ago, in which he connected general historical events to the rise of literacy and eventually the creation of democratic governments.
"The installation of a new sovereign, the rule of reason, and the emergence of a marketplace of ideas that was accessible to individuals--that really empowered this kind of collective intelligence," Gore said. "And the American constitution could be, by analogy, a brilliant piece of software that regularly harvested the results of that."
An audience member asked Gore how much he thought governments should regulate Internet use, and Gore fired back, "As little as possible." There was more applause, and as he left the stage, there was yet another standing ovation.
Gore might not have invented the Internet (or even claimed to do so). But if the Web 2.0 Summit was any indication, plenty of Silicon Valley's most loyal are more than happy to have him help reinvent it.
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline.
"Gore said that the new president ought to set "a national goal of getting 100 percent of America's electricity from renewable and non-carbon sources within 10 years. We can do that.""
that is just absolutely, pure ********. there is zero chance we can do that. let me repeat... zero. development costs, funding, logistics, converting existing infrastructure... absolutely ridiculous. to print this without calling out any challenge to that ludicrous statement is embarrassing.
So, how long would it take to build such a wind farm in the Dakota and tie it into the existing electrical distribution? 3 years. T. Bone Pickens is less than 2 has built a wind farm that will power 1/3 of Texas, and 2 more years his electrical plants running on alternative and renewable production could power 1/2-2/3 of Texas including some of its major cities in whole or part.
Thanks ex-vice president Gore. Can you start by maybe converting Rhode Island...like you said, it would pay for itself in three years. If you start today, you would be all paid up before the end of President Obama's term! You can use iBeetle's proposal, it seems like the planning and logistics are all done for Mr. Gore...and certainly iBeetle's post has more details than anything Mr. Gore has put out.
Back in reality land...renewable energy is nice, but nothing available now or in the future has any chance of providing more than 10% of national power needs. You can bring that up to 20%...but would need to create insane incentives which quadruple electricity prices for everyone. Germany's electricity costs double that of neighboring countries and their renewable use hovers around 10%. It's hilarious that you would cite the T.Boone Pickens plan. Even the most ambitious of his plans (i.e. covering the entire middle of the country with wind mills) promises no more than 25% of the nation's power needs. So he may be older, but at least still has access to a calculator...although to someone of his means that probably means a *person* to check facts.
So, let me repeat, in short, technology is developed, no need to change infrastructure, generate energy at source, think small scale, maximize efficiency. Add 10K to cost of building a home. I drive past a home that uses only solar for energy in MI. It is a good size house as well. High initial cost payed over time, cheaper than monthly utility bill in the long run. Also, building our national highway roads was a much more ambitious and costly project.
see original statement.
I can safely assume that one one here, nor Gore, has ever tried to actually build a powerplant. It takes roughly 10 years just to get past the required local, state, and federal paperwork, zoning, protests ("not in my backyard!"), and getting the financing lined up. It's not like you can simply show up, buy a plot of land, and start knocking together buildings and turbines.
Also, I can safely assume that no one here knows jack about electrical power distribution. Those electrons don't get to your house by way of telepathy or fairy dust... it requires planning, zoning (again), and the actual task of constructing the infrastructure that not only reaches the grid, but modifying the grid itself so it is capable of handling the the new loads gracefully. This means high-tension wires, stations and substations, coordination with existing controllers, etc.
...and I haven't even touched on the equipment. No matter how the power is generated, you're going to need a lot of transformers - not the little ones in your PC power supply, but some rather large ones that are made by only a few vendors, who in turn already have a backlog of orders.
Disclosure time: I work for and with a solar cell production facility. We eat more electricity to make them than half the town around us uses. The local power company has to install multiple T1 data lines to your plant just to help them meter our usage, and install controls to cover brownout conditions. OTOH, we're using it to produce 500MW worth of solar cells each year by year five, and have tentative plans to produce a gigawatt's worth of 'em per annum by the 10-year mark.
Now I may not be a grid engineer, but I can and do appreciate the difference between pie-in-the-sky promises like Gore's, and the real world.
I'm no fan of W. but when I hear what Gore has to say I never have doubt that eight years of W. were worth keeping Gore out of the White House. I'm even willing to accept the ultimate legacy of W.'s terms- Obama's presidency.
"Shoot for the stars, you might not get there but you will land on the moon."
For all those that simply want to deride, sit back and do nothing ... shame on you.
Maybe they are being cynical, but when publications that are favorable towards renewable energy don't think energy independence is a realistic goal I tend to think Gore's statement is just a little pie in the sky. I am not advocating to sit back and do nothing, but I do expect the media to not play favorites and point out inaccuracies in statements by public figures.
Do Something!
Discovery is part of the process. It is during this process by which you find other alternatives. No, it's not the most efficient process of getting into something, but by attempting to accomplish your goals, you may find better ways to achieve your goals.
You have to start something before you can achieve anything. Just do not focus on that something as the end-all-be-all solution.
What's with CNet's love affair with Gore anyway? Last I checked global warming hasn't been solved yet, much less fully proven. Imagine all the carbon emmisions he would have saved the Earth in the last 8 years if he just stayed home and rode his bike around. And don't get me started on Tim O'reilly. This guy is supposed to be some open minded liberal yet he trademarks "web 2.0" then starts threatening lawsuits to anyone who uses it.
Solving the country's energy problems - YES
Pompous liberals who like to hear themselves talk - NO
Another bloated drunken Democrat got away with drowning his GF and was never punished ...until he came down with brain cancer. Payback is a BIOTCH , Teddy.
Got any legitimate statistics to back up your sound bite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
They consider it a success...and it may reach its goal of 15% renewable power by 2010
However, the fun part is the price of power...it's 25 US cents per kWH. In Chicago, I pay 8 cents per kWh. Their program is supposedly a success and the result is quadrupling of energy costs. It's great for the renewable industry which is propped up by the government in this way, both through high taxes and ridiculously expensive power...oh and also every manufacturer of renewable energy supplies has jacked up prices. Silicon used to make the solar panels went from 25 EUR to 400 EUR.
See http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10961890
It's a good article...it shows you what happens when the government "picks the winner" by selecting one technology over another.
Comparing power prices between such different two countries is pretty much pointless. European power prices are typically higher than the US (and fuel prices hugely more) anyway. European countries typically have fewer natural resources from which to generate power than the US, so much more power station fuel is imported. You don't say how much electricity would have cost in Germany without the renewable investment.
In any case, it's not a matter of whether alternative sources of power will be needed, or even when (right now, is the answer in many places).
The US has consumed more than its fair share of energy over the last 100 years (and done more than its share of polluting at the same time), and it's time you faced the fact that it can't continue.
Looks like Al was right. The truth is inconvenient.
Nuclear power is slower to come on line, though it could be faster if the the engineering companies would use a standard, pre-approved plant design (France does this), so that the only approvals needed would be site suitability (water and site surveys to make sure water would be available, and that the plant doesn't sit near an active fault).
I guess it's a good time to invest in alternative energy companies, as they will be a the next government created bubble.
2) Ten years doesn't seem like a very long time but we did put a man on the moon in less than ten years and for much smaller more ephemeral goals than energy independence. Do I personally think its possible to change the fundamental power structure of the US in ten years? No. However, I think its a very worthwhile goal and it will serve multiple purposes. Not only will it be good for the US domestically but it will greatly enhance and further our foreign policy. Lets say you want to cut Iran and Russia off at the knees. The best way to do that is to undercut their economy. Both Iran and Russia are primarily oil based economies so if we significantly reduce demand the price per barrel drops and their revenues plummet (assuming we've also moved to mostly hybrid or fully electric transportation and heating). Their economies stagnate and their ability to project their power is constrained. So forget the 'green' thing and focus on how much this bolsters our foreign policy.
- actually, no it isn't, unless you're prepared to say that Gore did all of this in 1969, when ARPANet was first brought online.
"Ten years doesn't seem like a very long time but we did put a man on the moon in less than ten years and for much smaller more ephemeral goals than energy independence."
- There's a vast difference between a single, specific, definable goal (paraphrasing JFK: "To land men on the surface of the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth"), and an ill-defined, generalized goal ("energy independence").
Not that the goal isn't noble, but the means by which Gore would have us reach it is both painful and potentially catastrophic on the economic scale, given the time constraint. 20 years maybe... 10 years? Good luck with that.
You (and Gore) are also assuming too much - for example, poor people can't afford to simply ditch their old cars and go buy a Prius. Wealthy folk cease to care about the environment when it's their backyard that will get wind generators erected in it (see also New England), and every greenie goes ballistic when it comes to handling the byproducts of nuclear power (see also Yucca Mountain). And lots, lots more...
In short - maybe you and Gore need to think this through?
/P
I am sitting out on my deck in the backyard looking at the turbine roof ventilators spinning in the wind and wondering if they could produce enough to power the computers, AirPort, and DSL modem in my home office. Sure the wind doesn't blow all the time, but I can add some of Penguinisto's solar panels. Can I use the combination charge a bank of off-the-shelf auto batteries and use them all day to run my Macs? If I need to go on the grid, I can have a bus transfer or something to safely switch between sources.
I am not engineer, just a dreamer and an artist, but I think that it is time to think outside of the grid.
Of course, we're talking about more than a little bit of money here, but it is already more than possible.
No troll. I want the private sector to install it and then be indentured to them the rest of my life so that I can pay off.
Tax credits abound, which help ease the pain in the wallet greatly (in Oregon, it totals to a 30% discount on the price - on top of the federal tax kick which knocks the price down even more). Home equity loans can also ease things a bit.
But... unlike new kitchen appliances or some other remodeling project (which can often cost much more), renewable energy kits actually work to pay themselves off, then to start saving money overall. Look at it this way - the typical cost of switching from a gas furnace to a heat pump is around $13-20k. You can almost paper your roof in solar panels and have a couple of miniature windmills besides for that much dough.
Before you do anything, do a bit of research - projects and kits already abound to help you ease to being only part-time on the grid (if not go off of it full-time). For example, solar panels don't work as well in my neck of the Pacific Northwest, because for 8 months of the year it rains all the time. That said, we have options up here too...
While solar isn't very powerful in my neighborhood, hydro and wind work very well out here. This is evidenced by the fact that my power company (PGE) offers folks here an option to get all of their juice from renewables (downside: it's about a 20-25% jump in the power bill). While yes electricity is fungible, the extra dough goes straight into building more renewable energy sources, and maintaining the ones at work now. PGE in turn has to account for that extra money to the gov'ts of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
It also gives the green crowd a perfect chance to put their money where their mouths are - and to my (somewhat mild) surprise, a large number of them actually do.
Sure - I'm biased as hell about it, I'll admit that. OTOH, I like what I see, and not just because I make a living in the renewables sector. It makes perfect sense to 'decentralize' power generation... it builds redundancy into the overall system, and gives individuals more freedom overall. There's something good in there for both left and right-leaning ideologies... and if it means paying money up-front to get it, why not?
/P
20% here, 15% there, 15% more energy efficient devices, and pretty soon we are half way there.
"cover" is a relative term... and no, Boone doesn't mean literally wall-papering the entire middle of the United States. He means putting otherwise unused surfaces to work: rooftops, highway and rail easements, places like that.
Mind you, Gore is still a hypocritical and reactionary idiot, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?
/P
Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion.
So yep, his plan is to build facilities over the entire middle of the country and then generate as little as 20% of the country's power needs.
Yeah, I see your point now. we would have to relocate the population of the Midwest.
Da Worfster
-
by splungekid
November 10, 2008 6:02 PM PST
- Funny that even here in Canada I have heard 2 of the 3 speeches in which Gore stated firmly that he invented the internet.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (50 Comments)My guess is that Gore is still bucking for Presidency. After all, he "won" the election on popular vote, but lost in reality. Any comment President Kennedy?
I am all for alternative energies. Unfortunately, it will only come with the end of lobby groups preventing it. This, however, would mean that a lot of money would have stop changing hands.
Instead maintaining the status quo why not 'persuade' the energy companies to produce things such as the artificial fuel used in the race car industry for years for the entire market. Not feasible Only because "it can't be doine". Too expensive!!? They said the same things regarding radial tires, but we all use them today on our vehicles at a reasonable price.
Kind of sounds like other excuses used against other alternatives, too.