Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

That would be great if we were talking about pouring that money out over a 50 year timeline. We aren't.

I understand that this will pay dividends over time. If our economy were rock strong and our dollar weren't so weak on the market with inflation being a worry, I'd feel very differently about this. At this point, I believe that any further substantial borrowing or just printing of money could be hazardous in our current economic state.

I think this is what we need to strive for, I just believe that we need to do the full economic impact analysis before committing to a $3 trillion dollar plan. We have made one $3 trillion mistake already...we can ill afford to make another.

 

10 years until a climate catastrophe via global warming. 10 years to get the US to 100% renewable energy. 10 years 'till Al Gore retires and basks in his retirement.

Seriously, nuclear power is what I'd like to see more of. Wind and solar can only do so much.
If scare tactics is what it takes, to each his own.

 

Gore's plan wouldn't cost $3 billion if he and other environmental hotshots like Robert Kennedy Jr. would follow their own conservation advice. Look at Gore running three limos while he gave a "you should cut back" speech or RFKjr flying all over the place in his private jet. In their eyes, conservation is only for those not rich enough to have a 20,000 square foot house. Right, John Edwards, et al?

I believe in conservation but I'm sick to death of those hypocrites.

 

I don't think it's even physically possible to build that much renewable generation in 10 years. Renewable generation as a percentage of total electricity supply is under 10% right now. Not to mention electricity demand is growing rapidly. Plus, you have to build the transmission to support new generation. It's not really feasible. He should have made a 25% goal or something.

 

I knew somebody would stumble into this chestnut of ignorance at some point.

As has been detailed on this very BBS numerous times, his house gets most/all of its energy from renewable sources.

Accordingly your criticism is now of the EPIC FAIL variety.

 

It's hard enough to keep up with demand with conventional generation as it is. But he wants to actually retired existing nuclear, natual gas, and coal plants which are running perfectly fine? It is impossible.

It is impossible enough as it is just to cover increasing demand with renewables.

Different utitlities are constantly issuing requests for power, for which anyone can submit bids. Guess what, I dont see many people bidding with renewable generation.

 

You know, switching to renewable energy would be a lot easier if Americans would actually SAVE energy usage. I don't think this gets promoted enough.

At the very least, don't have the air conditioner on 24/7 365 days a year. Open some windows.

 

Right, have you lived in Austin?

We can open windows in October-November and March April.....the rest of the year......not so much.



DD

 

Nahh, Dick Cheney 8 years ago sneeringly dismissed conservation as an obnoxious, self-satisfying form of "personal virtue" and insufficiently important enough to be a part of any energy policy - regardless of the fact that it results in BILLIONS in annual savings to both corporate america and ordinary citizens.

I've personally tried to jump on the train a lot more this year. Running my AC a LOT less (sweating a lot more at home ) and turning on maybe one light at a time. Also I should probably shut my computer down too, which I guess I'm going to do now.

 

Conserving would be a good idea, and would be better if people had smart meters so they knew when it was most expensive to run their a/c. Lots of generation is built to meet peak demand, and some of those plants don't run very much. If, instead, customers cut their peak usage, that would help a lot.

Smart meters are starting to be used in California, I think.

 

I know, especially in the south, that the time-frame for opening windows is brief. But even so, people should make a more effort to do so when the weather allows. I know a lot of people who don't even bother to care.

I think usually turning the A/C a little higher in temperature isn't going to hurt much. I can easily withstand around 80 degrees in the summer for my air conditioner, and wear a long-sleeved shirt in the winter at home and have the A/C around 70. Turn off the a/c while not at home. A lot less drain on the system.

Didn't know about this. If this is true, then we really need it in Texas, which is a lot hotter.

I've made a lot more concerted effort in cutting down water/electricity/gas over the past couple of years. It actually affects me minimally in terms of daily life, while really cut down on the bills, as well as helping the environment. I honestly don't think it would affect one's lifestyle that much, if we just make an effort.

 

Why didn't Gore come up with these great ideas when he had more power and Clinton's ear?

 

If the US would be willing to fall into a third world lifestyle, energy usage would go way down, but it won't happen. Our economy demands the bulk of our energy.

Put your computer in "stand-by" when leaving it for any length of time.

 

I don't open windows, due to allergy problems, but it may not be advantageous to some homes anyway, at least in the summer.
If you have an energy efficient house, meaning insulated well, then opening your windows in the "cool" morning or evenings can actually heat it up. My ac doesn't come on much in those times, since the cool air is kept well due to the build of the house.
I keep it at 77 when home, and 82 when I'm out. Turning it completely off will take it running non-stop for a long time to cool it back down. Is it more costly to do that? Not sure.
I only use lights when I'm in the room, and I've unscrewed 3 of the 6 bulbs from the kitchen light fixture.
Now, if only I can keep my power hungry PC off a bit more.

2000 sq/ft house, and the electric bills are about $175 this time of year. Not bad?

 

And Kennedy wanted to get a man on the moon in under 10 years too....sometimes impossible can become possible with a committment to it.

DD

 

How about money is less important than the planet's health so maybe you buckle up and live a little tighter?

 

gore would likely become a billionaire if this plan was enacted. he has done a hell of a job making money since he has got out of office. props to him if america does something like this.

 

an easy statement to make if you have it.

 

You...and I...may not like the pollution of wealthy non-environmentalists (who are not necessarily members of the GOP or conservatives). However, they are honest about it. Since Gore, RJKjr et al worship at the shrine of the carbon footprint, they should adhere to their religion.

If you want me (and I'm pretty typical) to support a policy, don't give me a leader who says "do as I say, not as I do."