http://blog.algore.com/


"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. "


This is an ambitious plan to say this least. Estimated cost is between $1.5- 3trillion over 30 years. The strange part is that might be a deal compared to our current route (without even addressing CC).

I see to lines of debate forming around this

1. Is this doable and if so, is it a good investment?

2. Will this help avert MMGW?

I think we debate MMGW enough on here and would personally be more interested in the first question.

I dunno but Al has a sick set up! Is that 3 30" monitors! Ohh weee!

All true!

It could be done with nuclear energy, but I doubt it's possible within 10 years

Only with solar power, wind power and geothermal power it's highly unlikely

No hits for gore. Did he ignore nuculur power in his plan? Can he be that foolish?

I'm tempted to say that nuclear power isn't renewable, but isn't that what Breeder reactors are for?

Can't be done without a massive tax increase on gasoline. People are all too willing to pay $4/gal. $10+/gal would force 95% to buy an efficient car and live close to work.

It looks like it has to be cabon-free and renewable, which would include

water power and biofuels

Yeah I just watched the whole thing, he didnt mention it once!

It's really ****ing hard to find unbiased sources on this topic.

So, how is it even possible to go tru with this plan without Nuclear power?
Can we even afford to pay for the power coming from solar, wind and geo?

I'm not familiar with all the laws surrounding this, Al said in the end of the speech that we should help him change some laws, what laws?

Shrooms are the way to go btw
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/p...the_world.html

It all depends on what the definition of "commit" is.

My dad gives me this bogus Nuclear Is The Only Alternative To Oil line too.

Its just not true. Without goverment subsidies, Nuclear is a total flop.

See this. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/envir...maybe-not.aspx

Nuclear is actually more expensive than Wind right now, and will soon be more expensive than Solar.

How would it do without onerous government regulations?

Do you know why the government subsidies nuclear?

I mean nuclear development isn't exactly on the forefront right now, most countries have almost stopped upgrading their plants if I'm not mistaken and I guess solar/wind tech is getting cheaper but how much more efficient are they getting?

Probably not that much better. The upfront capital costs of nuclear are still very high (ROI, and hence private investor interest, are low).

I actually like the idea of a carbon tax offset by a cut in the income tax. This is the first time I think I have ever agreed with Gore on anything. And I do think we will see electric cars in a few years.

But we still need to drill offshore, if not for oil then for natural gas (to make the power to charge that car, since no one wants coal plants anymore.)

And no, 10 years won't be enough time for what he wants. But 20 should do it.

Well duh, Al Gore doesn't have shares and isn't on the board of companies that do nuclear.

Not without a ruthless dictator cracking the whip and/or major moves backwards in the standard of living

No. If it were, people would already be lining up to get in on it without Gore pushing the idea.

Maybe? Who knows.

old news imo

Yeah, because changing residences or jobs is just SO easy!

Please don't legislate your good ideas onto everyone else "for their own good".

I read an article this morning that indicated Gore was assuming that nuclear power would basically remain at the same level as it is now, under his plan.

By the way, I don't think it's fair to call this proposal a plan. Seems to me he was purposely announcing a goal that would appear so ambitious it would spur discussion and action, without any real pretense about laying out specifics.

Do you want unregulated nuclear construction? What could possibly go wrong?

Yo, I want someone regulating that ****.

Im not preperaed to gamble on the idea that the market would take care of it.

One meltdown can potentially kill millions.

Fine, you are making an argument about the market, otherwise your point has no context.

Therefore, do you agree that the best "plan" then is to let the market decide, through investors and entrepreneurs, the most economically efficient way to produce power, and the only consumer "regulation" needed is automatically provided via energy market prices?

Not really. Actually, in the very rare event of a meltdown, it wouldn't kill anywhere near the number of coal miners killed per year, if anyone at all. So much misconception of what modern day nuclear reactors and their risks.

OT, but stuff like this makes me happy Al Gore lost the 2000 Election - he's trying to do actual good things, instead of being a POTUS who may have been worse than Bush. I mean I have a huge hardon for Gore and always have (I'm from TN, saw Inconvenient Truth in theaters/own it, stayed up all night 2000 election night, chanted Gore in '04, nearly cried at Fahrenheit 9/11 opening, etc.), but I think his ideas being forced on the people via POTUS would have been bad, whereas his campaign to educate/change people's minds has been good; whether you agree with him or not, at least he can't force his ideas on you. Unless you agree that getting more of the population to agree with him and then vote his ideas in via legislation, in which case yes, he is forcing it on you.

Anyways, back to the Gore bashing, men!

Using this logic, if ACism were a good idea, people would already be lining up to get in on it without ACists pushing the idea.

He is educating, IMO - whether you agree with him or not, he's spreading his own gospel.

Also, I am way too lazy to watch the video, so if he's doing something other than his usual blabbering, I may be wrong.