Al Gore's Speech  

Posted by Big Gav in , , , , , ,

Al Gore's speech yesterday was a masterpiece from my point of view - outlining most of the solutions to our energy issues (fixing and expanding the grids, energy efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars etc etc etc) and many of the political factors involved (especially Iraq and the defenders of the status quo who took us there, and the culture war that has paralysed America).

Best of all (unlike "An Inconvenient Truth") he set an ambitious target for implementing the solutions - a switch to 100% renewable energy by 2020 for the United States (none of this 20% by 2020 nonsense that the weak-kneed keep offering up as a way forward) - something we should be attempting globally.

The speech is online now.



It was interesting that one of the people he thanked for attending was the Libertarian candidate for President - hopefully the libertarians are all starting to get on board with the idea of market based solutions to global warming and peak oil.

From The New York Times' review - Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power.
Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts. “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. “The future of human civilization is at stake.”

Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in his remarks at the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

Although Mr. Gore has made global warming and energy conservation his signature issues, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts, his speech on Thursday argued that the reasons for renouncing fossil fuels go far beyond concern for the climate.

In it, he cited military-intelligence studies warning of “dangerous national security implications” tied to climate change, including the possibility of “hundreds of millions of climate refugees” causing instability around the world, and said the United States is dangerously vulnerable because of its reliance on foreign oil. ...

Mr. Gore said the most important policy change in the transformation would be taxes on carbon dioxide production, with an accompanying reduction in payroll taxes. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.

The former vice president said in his speech that he could not recall a worse confluence of problems facing the country: higher gasoline prices, jobs being “outsourced,” the home mortgage industry in turmoil. “Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse,” he said.

By calling for new political leadership and speaking disdainfully of “defenders of the status quo,” Mr. Gore was hurling a dart at the man who defeated him for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush. Critics of Mr. Bush say that his policies are too often colored by his background in the oil business.

A crucial shortcoming in the country’s political leadership is a failure to view interlocking problems as basically one problem that is “deeply ironic in its simplicity,” Mr. Gore said, namely “our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels.”

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Mr. Gore said. “Every bit of that’s got to change.”

And it can change, he said, citing some scientists’ estimates that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the world’s energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every day could meet the country’s daily electricity needs.

More at the FT - Gore seeks 100% green energy.

Energy Bulletin has a transcript of the speech.

Jerome Guillet has a run down of how the solution could be implemented at TOD, focussing primarily on wind power, which is his area of expertise (I think he greatly understates the potential for solar in the time frame available) - Gore sets goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.
Al Gore has made a major speech in Washington this morning, setting out an ambitious goal for the USA to produce all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2020. I thought I'd comment on the technical feasibility of the plan, and the underlying economics of such an endeavour.

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically. ...

For the simplicity of this discussion, I will focus on wind, given that it presents a bigger challenge on the intermittency front (which the inclusion of solar can only help improve), and that it would drive the ecohnomics of such a plan given its larger scale deployment.

The main questions, of course are as follows:
1) is it technically feasible to build the requisite capacity within 12 years?
2) what will it cost, and what will it mean for power prices?
3) how can the intermittency issue be dealt with?

Technical feasibility

To get 2,000 TWh of electricity from wind, roughly 800GW of wind power capacity would be needed, considering that windfarms would get an annual production equivalent to 2,500 full hours (a pretty conservative estimate, given that the existing wind farms are closer to 3,000 hours today). 800GW is roughly equal to 30 times the currently installed capacity (which should reach about 23GW at the end of this year) and 100 times the capacity installed in 2008 (expected to be close to 8,000MW, after 5,000MW were installed in 2007).

To build 800 GW in 12 years would require a significant increase in annual installations - but actually not an unrealistic one. ...

Altogether, the plan would require boosting investment in wind production capacity to about $100-150 billion per year, a significant number but hardly one that would require a complete retooling of the US economy. With a stable regulatory framework (presumably provided if this were made a national priority) and guaranteed demand (which could come via very simple mechanisms, like a feed-in tariffs, ie mandatory purchases by local utilities at regulated rates), there is absolutely no reason to doubt that this could be done.

I'll address the requirement to boost the grid separately below.

Wind power economics are quite simple: most of the levelised production cost per MWh comes from the initial investment. It is thus naturally sensitive to investment costs, and even more so to financing costs, both of which are determined at the time of construction. Once a windfarm is built, its production costs are essentially set for the rest of its operating life, ie 20-25 years. The fixed nature of its cost base makes it a difficult bet in a deregulated universe, where prices can swing wildy (including to low prices that can be insufficient for the windfarm to service its debt burden, thus the requirement for feed-in tariffs or similar mechanisms to guarantee a floor to wind electricity). But such fixed prices make wind a great proposition at times of increasing oil&gas costs: wind power prices will NOT increase even if oil & gas or coal prices continue to go up, as is quite possible.

Thus wind power is a wonderful hedge against future energy prices. And given that today it already costs less than power from a ges-fired plant (the plants that typically drive the price of electricity on wholesale markets), it is both competitive and likely to remain so in the coming years.

And given the cost structure of wind, a very simple way for government to support wind at very little cost would be to provide funding for the sector at low interest rates. One big advantage of government is its ability to borrow at lower rates - indeed, government sets the lowest rates that are by the rest of the economy. By passing on its low cost of funding to wind developments, the final cost of wind power could be lowered significantly, and passed on to consumers (banks would still be required to hold onto operational and other risks linked to wind production, they would just get cheaper funding for that specific purpose, which the'd have to fully pass on to projects. Germany has successfully used such a mechanism for years).

Studies in Germany and Denmark show that wind power lowers wholesale prices by 30 to 70% when wind blows, and that the overall savings for consumers far outstrip the cost of guaranteeing to wind producers a regulated tariff. Ironically, the more wind power there is in the system, and the lower the wholesale marker price will be most of the time, which means that the regulated tariff remains a necessity to ensure that wind producers are able to pay off the debt linked to their initial investment. But that regulated tariff is known, is realtively low, and,again, will not need to increase over time, thus ensuring to consumers similarly stable retail prices. ...

Overall, network operators with actual wind experience seem confident that a combination of additional investment, smart grid management, and maintaining available (but not using much) a large gas-fired capacity can make it possible to cope with large amounts of wind power in the system.

While a goal of 100% of carbon-free electricity is probably unrealistic, it therefore seems possible to get pretty close to that, especially if nuclear and hydro are included in the mix. A plan that announced a specific goal of 40-50% of wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 10-20% of solar, with the appropriate feed-in mechanisms, demand guarantees for manufacturers and investment in the grid would therefore be realistic, make economic sense, and fulfill two major strategic goals: reduce carbon emissions, and lower fossil fuel demand.





4 comments

No offense to Mr. Gore Gav... but I would rather see you with his $300 Million "ad" campaign.

I am a HUGE optimist, but I have a family who needs a future... that forces me to be a realist.

I grew up in the 70's in America with solar houses, 30 mpg family cars in a "walkable community" hoping of "progress"...

Filling Americas head with "over optimistic hydrogen powered unicorn dreams" is not a realistic game plan.

I do not think Gore's main intentions are conservation, population control and "true" renewable energy... if I did I would emphatically endorse his plan. My gut tells me the "tools" are in it for the "trillion dollar carbon market".

Pickens plan gave me a little hope we were on track... gore derailed the train with impractical dreams from the Carter era.

GAV you and many others have far better realistic and "doable" ideas that I want to see happen in "my lifetime".

For the $300 million Gore has been given to "promote change" I expected and better plan.

My plan is easy... offer a billion dollar prize to the best plan for America to reach "Gore's Goals" that is realistic and shuts down fossil fuel use by 2030 (the rest of the world needs more time).


The plans rules are simple.

Plan must prove to have ROI (return on investment) within five years, thus we save what the technology cost to implement in less than five years (then the rest is profit)... even the nuclear industry has not done this after 30 years(they are still in federal debt).

Better yet, I think we will anonymously submit this plan to "the hill"

I don't have a dream.... I have a plan.


-just another blogger


P.S.
If you want a "sneak peak" at the plan to add your comments before we submit let me know (hoping for Sept08).

Thanks for your comments - and I'd love to see your plan before you send it in - always happy to provide my input.

I'd also love to have this $300 million budget you speak of :-)

Do you know where this money is coming from ?

As for Gore's plan, we seem to have read or heard different things.

He didn't mention hydrogen once in the speech, and I haven't seen him pushing that wheelbarrow in many years (though Bush has frequently raised the hydrogen mirage as a solution - one day far in the future).

Compared to Pickens' Plan of wind (good) and natural gas (which isn't really much of a long term solution at all), Gore's solar + wind + geothermal vision seemed much more ambitious and sustainable.

Gore was also pushing a national smart grid and plug in electric cars - again, a better long term option than Pickens' Plan which only goes part way (and tries to substitute natgas for oil).

Its true he didn't speak much about conservation and efficiency (the only reference I noticed was "a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy", so his plan obviously needs more work, as "negawatts" are as big a part of the solution as CSP, PV and wind are.

But all in all its the best proposal I've seen so far from a major player (especially given that it was basically a political speech).

Its true that he does seem to be heavily invested in carbon trading (at least according to conservative tinfoil sites) but he has often recommended carbon tax + compensating income tax reductions, so he doesn't really seem like a carbon exchange shill to me - just putting his money where its likely to have a positive long term impact.

His recent investments (using KPCB as a proxy) seem more oriented towards solar, electric vehicles etc, so he does have a vested interest in making the supply side of the solution go the right way now. Again - I don't have a problem with this.

SO why do you think his plan was impractical (other than the aggressive target date, which I view more as setting the goal as high as possible instead of starting with half measures and having them watered down).

Cheers,
Gav.

Gav,

You will have to excuse my lack of clarity for posting at 4am with lack of coffee...

Like our loved ones. We are often the most critical of people we have the most respect for (as we know they have the power to do the most good). In ideals I adore Gore in reality his personal, profit and political choices often confuse me.

Criticizing gores plan is like "doing a test drive review of a Ferrari" ... there is a WOW this is the best car in the world! Then reality sets in "how would I drive this to work or haul my family in it".

Yes it was the "10 year" thing and the capital cost goals that hung it out there... this approach killed the U.K.'s goals and will do the same to ours...
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49392/story.htm

"But, how can I be critical of the best thing out there?" Easy, I want it to succeed.

RE: "Compared Plan of wind (good) and natural gas (which isn't really much of a long term solution at all), Gore's solar + wind + geothermal vision seemed much more ambitious and sustainable." do I hear that...and our comments on "negawatts" I agree 1000%. But what I want doesn't matter. It is a fact and I am over it.

The definition of marriage is compromise. The definition of compromise is we both lose.

The plan has to work and I have agreed to disagree in the short term to make our long term goals.

Gav, like Gore we are on the same team. In the locker room we my not agree on the plays but our heart is in the game.

And come game day (Inauguration), we need to "bring it" - for the world to win.

Sorry, I have already polluted way to much of your post with my rant.

I'll submit the key issues with Gores plan to the millionbloggermarch.org post and see if they publish my continued rant.

Together our plans will bridge the "not doable" problems and highlights the strengths of Pickens, Gores, Carters and even our meek plans.


RE: I'd also love to have this $300 million budget you speak of :-)

"$300 Million Climate Change Initiative" - Ad campaign for "talking it up"


Cheers
-just another blogger

While I have been a past critic of Al Gore I think he is finally on the right track to a practical attack on Climate Change. The important things that we have a goal, 10 years, and realistic means of reaching that goal, solar, wind and geothermal. This isn't to say that at any particular site the actual mixture of methods applied won't vary greatly, they will. The important thing is that we have goals that can be met.

A requirement that an improvement to a house that should last 70 years pay off in under 10 years is crazy. Geoexchange HVAC has a payback under ten years but the payback would be better if we did whole blocks of houses at a time. A significant cost of any project (as a former project supervisor) is simply getting all the right equipment and men to the proper site at the right time. If the drill rig crew and the compressor/superheater crews are on the site at the same time with an engineer problems can be solved quickly and cheaply. If the drill crew has to stop and sit and wait for an engineer to show up costs go up radically.

Some changes could be simply dealt with by fiat changes in local building codes. Demand that all roof replacements by thermally reflective and of low thermal mass and we could close coal fired power plants simply due to reduced cooling load. Demand thermally efficient windows and doors be installed before a housing unit can be rented or sold. Flat roofed commercial building should host solar panels covering/shading 75% of the surface in order to license the business inside.

All of this work will employ large numbers of people and more importantly will immediately free up cash from peoples budgets that were being wasted on fossil fuels. The whole point of fossil fuels in the first place was that they were cheaper than labor. It was cheaper to burn oil rather than wrap a house in a foot of clay-straw insulation. That isn't true anymore and anyway we have masses of excess labor.

To demand that Al Gore detail each kind of energy saving or generating apparatus used is crazy. That work has been largely done by the blogosphere. What are needed are goals and commitments to facilitate regulatory and finance changes needed to meet those goals.

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (619) global warming (423) solar power (397) peak oil (355) renewable energy (302) electric vehicles (250) wind power (194) ocean energy (165) csp (159) solar thermal power (145) geothermal energy (144) energy storage (142) smart grids (140) oil (139) solar pv (138) tidal power (137) coal seam gas (131) nuclear power (129) china (120) lng (117) iraq (113) geothermal power (112) green buildings (110) natural gas (110) agriculture (91) oil price (80) biofuel (78) wave power (73) smart meters (72) coal (70) uk (69) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (64) google (58) internet (50) surveillance (50) bicycle (49) big brother (49) shale gas (49) food prices (48) tesla (46) thin film solar (42) biomimicry (40) canada (40) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) shale oil (37) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) arctic ice (33) concentrating solar power (33) saudi arabia (33) queensland (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) population (30) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) censorship (25) cleantech (25) bruce sterling (24) ctl (23) limits to growth (23) carbon tax (22) economics (22) exxon (22) lithium (22) buckminster fuller (21) distributed manufacturing (21) iraq oil law (21) coal to liquids (20) indonesia (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) collapse (17) electric bikes (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) iceland (16) lithium ion batteries (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) psychology (15) al gore (14) brazil (14) bucky fuller (14) carbon emissions (14) fertiliser (14) matthew simmons (14) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) investment (13) kenya (13) public transport (13) big oil (12) biochar (12) chile (12) cities (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) antarctica (11) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) tinfoil (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) methane hydrates (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) bolivia (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) scenario planning (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) relocalisation (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) local currencies (5) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)