Comments on: Is Al Gore nuts?

Former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech calling for a mission to the moon for renewable energy. This article disagrees.

[Stalyun]

Reposted so as not to be buried in a reply: This is based on ronwagn's early post, and meant to bring up the challenges of the technologies/changes he proposes.

This is all well and good, there are many reasons why ronwagn's points just aren't plausible at the moment.

50 mpg? Fuel burn=power. If you want to haul even moderate loads in your "small truck" this is not feasable. I agree with that number for cars, plug in hybrids are the way to go.

On the public lands part, no self respecting environmental proponent would allow the destruction of habitats on public lands for solar and wind farms, folks are already up in arms about all the birds windfarms kill.

Taxing coal to much extent will cause electricity to be prohibitively expensive to anyone below the middle class.

Pick your poison, incandescant lights use much more electricity, but new bulbs when disposed release mercury and other toxic chemicals into the air. The new bulbs are a viable alternative until a safer technology is revealed.

It will be a long time before electric vehicles can charge an the go. Currently it takes the quickest vehicle chargers 8 hours or so to charge a vehicle for 100 miles (guestimates).

Any comments on how to create/store hydrogen? this is one of the conundrums of the "hydrogen economy" energy intensive to create, energy/space intensive to store.

Geothermal energy can be sketchy at best until new, more reliable tech exists.

Whats wrong with Nuclear Plants? Right now, fewer people have died because of nuclear plants than any other type of power generation. Hydroelectric dams are more dangerous (collapses and floods can kill thousands and destroy thousands of acres). With current on-site fuel storage, we can still run existing plants for another 40 years without running out of room.

My last point is that many people do not realize the main drawbacks of solar and wind energy:

1. These technologies are not available everywhere, and are currently extremely inefficient. The southeast for example has too much cloud cover for efficient solar (excluding some areas in florida), and too little wind to even turn most wind turbines.

2. Offshore wind is currently to costly in upfront capital to be viable to any company wishing to avoid bankrupcy.

3. You cannot currently store large amounts of electrical energy in a cost effective/efficient way. This means that while solar looks good on paper in some places during the day, what happens when I want to turn a light on/ run my A/C at night (hint, a fossil fuel or nuclear plant will have to run)? Wind is also very unreliable and intermittent requiring extensive, and expensive backup/plant startup plans to make up the difference in the loads.

All this being said, I am a proponent of actions to create a more sustainable human existence on this planet, but I am also a realist, this dream can only be met with big sacrifices, big research, and big money. I am not optimistic that a 100% carbon neutral United states will happen in the next 100 years, but I believe we can get very close in the next 50.

FYI, I work on environmental controls engineering for one of the largest energy producers in the United States. Most people don't realize how many people at power companies want the world to be a better place as well. Remember, we live here too, and our kids and grandkids will reap the consequences of our actions. But my extensive experience in this field has given me valuable insights into the realities of current alternative energies.

There will be a brighter more efficient/sustainable future, but it will not come as soon and without great cost to us (monetarily, and socially) as Al Gore and some other headline grabbing, power mongering media/politicians may want you to believe.

Thanks for your time.

[fsbr]

I read this guys blog article the other day. Besides being a little angry at the Dem lead Congress...he is right on:
http://davespiess.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!54D06A4DDFFEC51B!1894.entry#comment

Government Control of Our Oil



I haven't blogged in a long while but a series of articles I have read today or news pieces I have heard have prompted me to write as they are all related to the price of oil. (Be prepared for math).



As I filled up my Volkswagen TDI Jetta with B20 Bio-Diesel at $4.45 per gallon (for those of you who don't know B20 stands for 20% Bio-Diesel, 80% Dino-Diesel) I thought about the promise of the Democratic Party in 2006 to lower the price of gas. In November 2006 I was paying somewhere between $2.39 and $2.69 for either regular diesel or Bio-D. So right now I am paying $1.80 or so more give or take per gallon.



Over the last couple days I have been paying attention to the show trial grilling Congress has been giving to the Oil Execs. This is the second time this year they have dragged the oil Execs up to Congress to grandstand about the price of oil. For those of you who do not know, Oil companies like Shell, Chevron, Exxon, etc, make approximately $0.08-0.10/gallon. Your federal government makes 18 cents per gallon and your state government takes 18-61 cents per gallon depending on the state you live in.



For years I have been saying in conversations with friends that the reason Oil Prices have risen is not b/c the Oil Companies are evil, but b/c we can't drill, we can't refine, and we can't control the use of oil in other countries like India and China whose consumption is growing astronomically. In a nutshell the government, in usual fashion, is stuck in a 1930s era tax our American companies and restrict our American companies? mode with ZERO concept of how economics work in order to appease their constituents and garner uneducated votes. But with this thought in mind, Maxine Waters (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/571003/congresswoman_maxine_waters_endorses.html) completely blew my mind with her admission of the DNC's policy which until now was only a speculation of conspiracy theorists...



While lashing T. Bone Pickens (yes his real name) and Ken Hofmeister CEO of Shell, she said if ?Liberals like me had our way, we would Socializ....um....Soc....The government would take over all of your companies."(Pardon the slight variation as I was too shocked to type it all out) YES, that is right....Google the audio. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/23/maxine-waters-socialize-the-oil-companies. Lets face it, the DNC has for 35 years been limiting the ability to drill oil and refine oil in this country to demonize and try to take over, Nationalize, Socialize a huge cash cow in this country. Lenin and Stalin did this, Hugo Chavez did this, ever thug running African and Middle Eastern Countries have done this...why not here???



Well lets Socialize and Nationalize our Oil industry...we see doesn't work out so well for other countries like Mexico. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90402097. NPR ran a story this morning and 2 days ago talking about Mexico's Oil Company Pemex (last I checked NPR, not a Conservative source) and how the Mexican Government has raped its profits to the point they have ZERO profit. The Government of Mexico's budget is so dependent on Pemex's taxes, that 40% of their budget comes from PEMEX. 40%!!!!. Their ability to produce oil is dropping as their equipment has been neglected, no new wells have been drilled all b/c Mexico's government has taken all profits so nothing could be re-invested. Apparently, Maxine Waters want to use this broken model for the US...incidentally she has endorsed Al Gore leaning Barak Obama. This Al Gore/DNC, OIL is EVIL; mentality is killing my pocketbook and yours.



In 1970, US production of OIL peeked at 10 Million Barrels of Oil per day. After Government regulation (thanks DNC controlled congress and Jimmy Carter) in 1977 US Oil production has fallen to today?s output of 5 Million Barrels? per day. The entire world supply is 85 million barrels per day yet the demand is 86.4 million. While most Oil Companies in the world are Government run (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, newly Argentina, newly Venezuela, Mexico, etc) they are all in the same situation as Mexico....pillaging of oil profits for Government use while the ability to produce oil is falling. Rising demand from China and India and falling production equals, pissed off voters with no cash and a propensity to vote DEM when conditions get bad...



Democrats blamed Bush for 6 years on rising gas prices while refusing to pass an energy policy. Liberals, mostly in the Northeast demand Heating Oil subsidies for their homes in the cold winters while complaining about me driving a truck and not allowing us to drill in ANWAR, off the coasts of Florida, the Gulf Coast and California. No Oil refinery has been built since 1973 (three years before I was born). Conspiracy be damned, Maxine Waters has given up the Socialist's playbook in the DNC....THEY WANT TO DRIVE UP THE PRICE OF GAS SO YOU VOTE FOR THEM AND THEY CAN TAKE OVER OUR OIL COMPANIES.... I bet they will drill then to drive the price down to say they did a good job too!!!



Here is a plan by T. Bone Pickens while being interviewed on CNN.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/22/gb.01.html



While that is great and good, most of you would say it?s an OIL guy giving a plan...but that oil guy is building a $10 BILLION (yes with a B) Wind Farm....



So here is my plan when I run in 2024, or maybe 2016 as there is not time like the present:



My plan has 3 parts (temporary, short-term, and long-term)

1. Tomorrow start planting crops which can be turned into Bio-Fuel in all highway and expressway medians. This is land which is not used today and takes resources to mow. Lease out the space in each State so they can grow Soybeans, Wheat, Sugarcane, Corn...whatever to make Bio-Fuels. States could gain a revenue source from leasing, and new plants would pop up all over the country to process the fuel.

2. Stop emphasizing Ethanol. Ethanol sucks! Ethanol gets 30% less fuel power than gas and it takes as more power to produce than it creates. So it is only viable if gas is 30% more and they make it for free... Bio-Diesel is the way to go. Diesel gets 40% more fuel power than gas...and yes Bush put EPA rules in place so our diesel fuel and engines are cleaner than Europe?s and release less NO2 than gas now (that is acid rain material).

3. Build Clean Coal plants, and Fischer Trospch Diesel plants. For those of you who don't know (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html) Diesel can be made from coal and be made a lot more cleanly than from oil. Minnesota?s Democrat Governor (apparently the only smart DEM on fuel) promotes it too http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp (hey not all DEMS are morons). We have the coal, its cheap and available, us it cleanly!

4. Temporarily stop allowing public works to build out any more capacity. This means, no more public water and no more public sewer to any developments. Why Dave that is not a capitalist view and quite Liberal you might say.....NOPE, government entities and their tax payers are subsidizing developers to build on "cheap land" away from the city core. This in-turn drives up the cost of land in rural areas, hence driving up the costs of taxes on land. Farmers who wouldn't sell out to these developers will and do when their land is assessed higher and they have to PAY FOR WATER AND SEWER THEY DID WITHOUT FOR GENERATIONS. By putting a moratorium on Public works you will allow farmers to have bigger profits or hopefully allow lowering the price of food stock and keeping us growing our own food and GROWING OUR FUEL. This will not only keep the farmers happy, but will drive more people into Browns fields and driving shorter distances (also will be a boon for existing house prices and remodel work).

5. Follow FRANCE and Germany! (Pick yourself off the floor, I'll explain). France produces over 80% of its power from Nuclear Power. Germany imports no Fuel as they generate power from Fischer Trospch plants and Wind Farms. We can have complete independents on Foreign Oil if we put up wind farms for Texas to Canada, on the Great Lakes and on each coast (if Ted Kennedy doesn't stop it http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/) and if we use the coal to make our own GAS and Diesel fuel.

6. REALLY LONG TERM - HYDROGEN. We spend $750 Billion Dollars a year on FOREIGN OIL!!! That is $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. Spend the money here and work on long-term with the savings. We have spent almost $1 Trillion on the IRAQ WAR.



For those of you who are against the war in Iraq, which we have taken no Oil from, and those of you who believe the only reason we have a troop presence in the Middle East is to protect our Oil Companies....WAKE UP! The only people our Oil Companies need protection from are morons in Congress. The exact opposite of PROGRESS is CONGRESS! Enact a sane Energy Policy!



Just simply do the 6 steps above and we would be energy independent in 3 years and everyone would stop complaining about the then $0.88 per gallon we would spend. But what do I know? I am only a Computer Guy...

[bgnm]

Gore's training is in law. His experience is in politics. He was a failure at both. Why would anyone give credence to his views on scientific issues where he has neither training nor experience? We could (and probably should) stop burning oil and gas for electric generation, but to to that, we need to build a lot of nuclear plants. I'd like to continue to have reliable electric power 24/7. No current or proposed wind or solar generation capacity is anything more than supplemental.

Gore and his ilk have no scientific credibility, although the liberal press and Hollywood no-nothigs adore him. If he wants credibility, his first step should be to give up his private jet. Then, how about converting his mansion to the same unreliable supply system he wants to force on the country?

[ptcruiser1]

I think all of us including Al Gore should lose 10 pounds. Our SUVs will carry lighter loads to get better mileage in the next 10 years. No kidding, look at Al Gore, he looks overweight.

[CBWolf]

"Aim for the moon. If you miss, you'll land among the stars."

We need to move away from non-renewable, carbon emitting energy as quickly as possible. Is it possible in the next ten years? Probably not. Do we need a real fire under our ***** get it done before there is serious harm done? Absolutely.

[JCG0001]

With one significant exception, Al Gore is not crazy. As an engineer, I simply don't subscribe to the economics that solar/wind/wave power critics suggest. When you look at economics, you must look at the entire lifecycle of the energy generation project. Traditional fossil fuel plants have high capital costs also. They have high waste and pollution control capital costs. They have high resource acquisition costs. They have high maintenance costs. They have high pollution control recurring costs. They have high human costs and are subsidized by our military, foreign policy, and our national treasures (Anwar, offshore drilling, etc.).

Compare that with Solar, Wind and Wave. These have admittedly high capital costs per unit of energy output, and relatively low efficiency. BUT, they have substantially lower operating costs, and not nearly as many of the necessary "subsidies" in political, military or national resource impacts (perhaps the exception being windmill visual pollution). Also, these "plants" don't have to pay for the resources (the coal and the oil) -- the resources are "free" after the capital costs.

The only way to analyze these two types of power is on a complete lifecycle "net present value" analysis, which looks at upfront capital costs, PLUS recurring costs, costs of resources, etc. I just can't believe that coal and oil plants are MORE economic when looked at apples to apples. I've tried to find objective numbers on this, but have been unable. Does anyone know WHERE to find these numbers?

Anyway, there is nothing technologically preventing Al Gores vision. We can, and should, embrace it. Further, if I'm not mistaken, the economics support it. It's right for our planet, our children, our economy, and our national security!

However, Al Gore I believe is wrong on one significant point. Even though we should move full bore to renewables, in 10 years we can't get to that end state without nuclear power. There's not enough space here to go into it, but, nuclear is and can be a safe, clean, renewable energy source that will help save the world, and our future. I WOULD have one in my back yard frankly, because I'd feel great that we weren't contributing greenhouse gasses. A different discussion but important, nonetheless.

[William Crow]

Though based in factless hysteria, and appealing only to those that live in that realm, Gore's global warming argument is an adequate proxy for the real need to become energy independent and how it can be done.
His end-of-the world scenario would more likely occur not in weather but in a strategic cut-off of foreign energy imports, or hyper demand squeeze, that could easily cause a catastrophic economic meltdown with international ramifications for a country that is essentially bankrupt and moving quickly toward peacenik/marxist influenced second tier status.
Though Gore, with his messiah complex, sounds kooky, as with most emotional religious arguments, his message can be translated into a real world scenario.

[xcopy]

To the author -

While derogatorily asking if Al Gore is "Nuts" lures many people to your article I have to ask, in the same vein of course, are you mentally feeble?

You have succeeded in arousing the nut job and low-grade moron crowd, all under the disingenuous guise that you support energy progress, so if that was your goal you succeeded. If, however, your goal was to sound intelligent, informed, or remotely in-tune, you've failed.

The "issues" you're using to support your position go right over your pointy little head. When Gore is talking about the amount of solar/wind energy in a day or area, he's illustrating how much energy is available, not how much we can immediately capture, or use. There's a lot of "potential" energy available from many sources, and the goal is to try and capture what we can, as soon as we can, as cost effectively as we can. In other words, strive for something greater than what we know about today. Regardless, the point is to do something now, not 10 years from now.

I suspect you - like the farm animal currently occupying the white house - are unable to calculate or understand the repercussions of ill-advised actions or the costs of inaction. The farm animal plan has and will cost trillions; I'd rather pay even $300-$500 billion and save lives, stop ecological damage, and with the money we save we can send your kind to another country with first-class, all expenses paid, one-way tickets. It's a great deal for the rest of us.

Perhaps next time you think about writing, and I fear there will be a next time, why not have an adult read and explain things to you first. It might help. (BTW -try checking for typos first next time).

[justwhynot]

You, sir/madam, are the moron - disrespectful and downright arrogant. At the front of any moron gathering, one would find you or someone like you; moreover, how lame it is to suggest a few typos separate others from your self-crowned but terribly misguided level of intelligence. I, for one, could take you with one brain tied behind my back. I have to go now and chop down a tree.

[tadror]

he's not a nut, but a visionary

[letsgetather]

What would be the worst possible result from investing in renewable energy sources? I honestly can't think of any. I'm sure that there are some, and they will be pointed out. But what about the positives? A cleaner environment. I fail to see how that could be a negative for anyone. For everybody living in a city I don't understand how having cleaner air isn't a priority. When governments have to issue air quality warnings that is truly a sign that things have gone horribly wrong. Why has the government allowed these companies to spew pollution into the environment? Is the government there for the people or the companies? Take control and tell your governor, senator, statesman, mayor, whoever, that pollution is a major concern. The global warming/climate change people do not seem to be pushing the biggest benefit of renewable energy and that is a cleaner environment. You may argue that global warming is, or is not happening, but you can't argue about pollution. Drive into any major city and watch the smog filled sky. This has to be rectified. Pollution is the problem, Clean Energy is the solution.

[justwhynot]

There's something that continues to bother me. How does that green man get his scrawny butt around the country or world? Does he take a battery powered airplane? Pedal a bicycle? Roller blade (I doubt that - just look at him).

He is a hypocrite, plain and simple. All he's after is Gore-exposure, nothing else. What a waste of the Nobel prize too.

Oh, and how does the man heat or cool his home, fuel his hot water, and mow his grass? What kind of car does he drive. Oh, wait. He has someone else drive him - I forget.

The man is a huge pile of contradiction crap. Wake up you green, tree-thumping idiots and wise up to what's happening in this country. Gore, and every other goof-ball democrat who thinks this planet is doomed by our actions is brain-dead.

For those of you who don't agree, I don't care. Don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise or write me nasty letters. I'm totally ticked off at how so many people, seemingly intelligent, college graduates, can be sucked into this farce. Common-sense is neither genetically passed on nor had it been honed, through example, in the homes of those buying into this garbage.

George Carlin said it best: "This planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

[gerardhsd]

Neal, somehow you missed the point. Al's message regards a change in policy which is necessary to alter our dependence on gas and oil and inspire us to envision a reality whereby we utilize renewable Energy Resources to meet our needs. Can it be done in 10 years? Time will tell won't it? Giving a million reasons why it can't does little more than prove your bias or lack of vision. A change is needed now and deserves every effort we can put into it because failure to invest in this change now will be catastrophic to billions of people.

[vsp12351]

Nicely put ... I wrote much earlier that I'd like to see Al Gore ... and all other wealthy Americans ... turn their homes into Solar Castles ... but even if they don't (even though they should!) ... you are right ... we ALL need to keep encouraging/supporting our inventors and engineers in their quest for renewable energy sources. We should be thinking long-term in regards to humanity ... many people that oppose like to point out that we have 60/70 years to go on oil ... but let's think about it ... what happens after that! My son is 11 and I hope someday he'll enjoy having a family of his own ... what about their future?

[ubrokemyxheart]

Al Gore is absolutely right! global warming should be our number one threat as of now. and using renewable energy will HELP reduce CO2. therefore, we should all switch to a new renewable power as soon as possible. 10 years is too damn long of a time! don't let the flood hits us before it's too late to make a difference.

[deloprator20000]

The biggest problem is that many Americans have a false idea of truth, simply because a man holds certain political beliefs does not make ideas true or false, simply because a man is imperfect and may not always practice what he preaches does not mean that his ideas are true or false, simply because a man is wealthy does not mean his ideas are true or false, simply because a man flies in a plane, owns a large house, and drives a car does not mean his ideas are true or false. No, truth or falsity is bigger than mortal humans, so before we judge make sure to separate the man from the idea and judge the idea not the man.

If Gore's goal is to cut fossil fuel consumption by 30% in 10 years then I think it would be best to commission a panel of scientists, engineers, and economists to determine the best way to achieve the goal. They can produce a paper that will show us in detail and with mathematical rigor how it will be done. This commission can allow people to critique the paper, and will accept input if their ideas are in error. In many ways this goal is like an operations research problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

Overall I think the idea is feasible though will require additional study.

[Ex-MislTech]

We could cut fossil fuel use by 30% by dropping the speed limit
to 55 mph, and mandating 4 day work weeks wherever it is possible.

Going from 70mph+ to 55mph saves 20-30% alone.

4 day work weeks like Utah has implemented saves 20%.

It could be done in less than a year.

[amazingdrx]

From cleantech.org: "We welcome new technologies across the cleantech sector: solar, photovoltaics, ethanol, biofuels, fuel cells, batteries, combustion, carbon, materials, IT, alternative energy, wind, geothermal, renewable power, water, environment, energy efficiency, or any other green technology."

Not only does this make no sense linguistically, but it touts ethanol (which doubles GHG over oil based fuel), fuel cells (hydrogen fuel cells? a ridiculous boondoggle) , and biofuels (which ones, biodiesel? another GHG increasing, gas guzzling, land destroying scheme).

No mention of plugin hybrids, biogas from waste/organic fertilizer, heat pump heating/cooling of buildings (capable of eliminating 36% of GHG powered by renewable electricity), smart grid supply/demand managment and storage, broadband wireless internet over the grid to enable the distributed smart grid.

It would be hard to imagine meeting the goal that Al is proposing if one had no knowledge of new technologies like this. maybe it would be good to do some reading before you rant on like you have here in this ill-conceived op/ed. Fell free to check out what is really happening on the leading edge. http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

[Ex-MislTech]

Your statement " 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"

The above is not correct, and here is why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal#High-temperature_collectors

It is cost competitive with fossil fuels.

A 350 Megawatt has been operating for several years, and a 553 Megawatt
is in the planning stages.

Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal are finite resources and the cost is only going to
rise due to this second energy crisis that is looming.

We have it in our power to phase it out, thou I think 10 years is not going to
happen in the molasses red tape monster that is the US government.

We'd be lucky to do it in 30 years.

[Dango517]

Is he crazy? Nope. Is he maybe, "of the mark" on the time it might take to do this? Yes.

What could be done in this time frame is:

Take, "off the shelf plans" for Ethanol plants and create 50,000+ of them within a ten year period to allow for the maximum amount of US Ethanol to be run in American cars.

Convert conventional gasoline engines in vehicles to hybrid technologies. Limit the size of American passenger cars by law.

Install as many wind turbine power plants as possible.

Provide for the improved insulation of homes and replace none energy star appliances with energy saving appliances.

Install existing clean technologies upgrades to existing coal fired electric plants. Begin the improvements needed to up grade the electric grid to expand solar and wind generated electricity.

Improve the research $$$ needed to create fibrous Ethanol production and the next level of Energy improvements.

Expand the use of practical Geothermal heating and cooling.

Encourage people to open there windows instead of air conditioning when possible.

Create a no tax and tax shelter environment for these developments.

Expect action from the President, Congress and the Senate. Monitor them for progress and pork barrel projects.

What we had better hope is that we do not see extended drought within the next ten years. This years increased food prices maybe a harbinger of things to come and are the direct result of last years drought and Global Warming.

These suggestions are not be enough.

[vsp12351]

I believe in doing everything we can to get America out of this Oil/Energy Jam ... full speed ahead on all alternative fuels, etc .. but in the mean time I believe we should tap our own fossile fuel resources (responsibly) ... can anybody tell me though why they say it takes 10 years to realize any oil/fuel from drilling or deciding to use shale or using coal to liquids ... is this another type of propaganda? 10 years is a long time to wait for anything ... I just don't get it ... throw in the resources and have AMERICAN-MADE fuel in a year or two ... What gives?

[md_scotty]

Discuss Energy Environment Issues :
Energy Environment Forum
Cheers

[bill.bodewig]

Perhaps he dreams, perhaps he is over optimistic.
But through the ages this world is driven forward by only a handful of people. All others - writer included are passengers - and we must convince those dreamers that something must be done. Urgently!
To hell with being sensible.

[TomMariner]

I like Gore's call for an all-out effort at energy generation.

The reason we didn't continue on to Mars was that we gave up! Our politicians decided that there were more voters who would keep them in office if they literally gave them money and would not wait 10 years to get an even better economy and lifestyle. As we used to know and China now knows, landing someone on a celestial body will gain technology, but the real benefits is that everyone else thinks you are the best techies and will give you their money.

15 years ago it was obvious that flat panel monitors and TV's would sweep the marketplace at high profits. The Asian investors could wait 12 years for their investments in billion dollar fabs to pay off while the US folks demanded double their money in 3 months.

Yes, we can meet Gore / JFK's timetable if we commit long term money, get the best innovative techies, and keep the politicians and teaching degree folks out of the way. Good luck on any of the three. Particularly when we are about to have a government that will get into office by promising stupendously massive spending to pull our poorest up by crushing those who earn by innovation.