Title: My Al Gore story
ALGOREismylife - January 12, 2008 02:05 AM (GMT)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/11/102248/330
My Al Gore story
Gore's impromptu humor at a recent small climate summit
Posted by Joseph Romm at 4:50 PM on 11 Jan 2008
I'm not normally given to shameless name-dropping, but what else are blogs really for (other than making bets with readers)?
Over the last three days I attended a small climate solutions summit hosted by the former vice president and current Nobel laureate. It was off-the-record, so I can't report on presentations directly, but they have made me a lot smarter about the latest technologies and strategies for clean energy, which will inform my blogging this year on climate solutions. I will say now as an aside that I have become much more bullish on the potential for large-scale solar photovoltaics as a result of attending these meetings.
The VP asked me to speak for seven minutes on hydrogen at dinner Wednesday. Before dinner, I gave him a copy of the brand-new paperback edition of -- warning, shameless product placement -- Hell and High Water. He looked it over for a few minutes and said, deadpan:
I have only one problem with this book -- this blurb on the back here that says, "If you buy only one book about global warming, make it Hell and High Water. I just can't agree with that.
When he introduced me that night, he repeated the line to great laughter.
BTW, in case it wasn't obvious from his movie, the VP has a terrific sense of humor -- and not just in his delivery timing of canned jokes, but in quick, impromptu one-liners, like the one above, many of them self-deprecating. (One of the speakers from a web-based company thanked him for his work accelerating the Internet, and he said something like, "You heard I had something to do with the internet?")
And in case this wasn't obvious from his movie, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things related to climate, energy, science, and technology.
He has only one character flaw that I could see. He emceed all the panels and every single one of them ran late (including my remarks, hard to believe as that may be). Too many questions, too much curiosity. I'm guessing this is one thing George W. has on him -- probably runs a really tight meeting, with very few questions.
Gore is now working on a sequel to his bestseller, An Inconvenient Truth, which will focus on solutions, apparently not dissuaded from his task by the new subtitle on my paperback, "The Global Warming Solution" (I think I have this product placement thing figured out). Hopefully it will come out this year. It could really help move the debate.
My Al Gore story
Gore's impromptu humor at a recent small climate summit
Posted by Joseph Romm at 4:50 PM on 11 Jan 2008
I'm not normally given to shameless name-dropping, but what else are blogs really for (other than making bets with readers)?
Over the last three days I attended a small climate solutions summit hosted by the former vice president and current Nobel laureate. It was off-the-record, so I can't report on presentations directly, but they have made me a lot smarter about the latest technologies and strategies for clean energy, which will inform my blogging this year on climate solutions. I will say now as an aside that I have become much more bullish on the potential for large-scale solar photovoltaics as a result of attending these meetings.
The VP asked me to speak for seven minutes on hydrogen at dinner Wednesday. Before dinner, I gave him a copy of the brand-new paperback edition of -- warning, shameless product placement -- Hell and High Water. He looked it over for a few minutes and said, deadpan:
I have only one problem with this book -- this blurb on the back here that says, "If you buy only one book about global warming, make it Hell and High Water. I just can't agree with that.
When he introduced me that night, he repeated the line to great laughter.
BTW, in case it wasn't obvious from his movie, the VP has a terrific sense of humor -- and not just in his delivery timing of canned jokes, but in quick, impromptu one-liners, like the one above, many of them self-deprecating. (One of the speakers from a web-based company thanked him for his work accelerating the Internet, and he said something like, "You heard I had something to do with the internet?")
And in case this wasn't obvious from his movie, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things related to climate, energy, science, and technology.
He has only one character flaw that I could see. He emceed all the panels and every single one of them ran late (including my remarks, hard to believe as that may be). Too many questions, too much curiosity. I'm guessing this is one thing George W. has on him -- probably runs a really tight meeting, with very few questions.
Gore is now working on a sequel to his bestseller, An Inconvenient Truth, which will focus on solutions, apparently not dissuaded from his task by the new subtitle on my paperback, "The Global Warming Solution" (I think I have this product placement thing figured out). Hopefully it will come out this year. It could really help move the debate.
TNblue - January 12, 2008 02:33 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ALGOREismylife @ Jan 11 2008, 08:05 PM) |
He has only one character flaw that I could see. He emceed all the panels and every single one of them ran late (including my remarks, hard to believe as that may be). Too many questions, too much curiosity. I'm guessing this is one thing George W. has on him -- probably runs a really tight meeting, with very few questions. |
While I don't consider that a character flaw, I have to say that he indeed does run over on time often. (First hand experience.)
Who CARES!!! Got something better to do? :rolleyes:
scalbers - January 12, 2008 03:53 PM (GMT)
Nice Al Gore story AGIML. And interesting to hear of your book with writings about global warming solutions. With regards to solar power, have you heard about companies like NanoSolar with their solar panels competing pricewise with coal? I'm also interested in solutions such as concentrated solar power, nuclear fusion, biochar, and addressing the Earth's population.
There's a good article you may have seen recently in Scientific American on the concentrated solar power part.
There's a good article you may have seen recently in Scientific American on the concentrated solar power part.
Wayne in WA State - January 13, 2008 06:57 AM (GMT)
Here's page one from an article on solar power in the current January 2008 issue Scientific American magazine
A Solar Grand Plan
* SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Scientific American Magazine - January, 2008
A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions
By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis
Schott AG/Commercial Handout/EPA/Corbis
Graphic - Key Concepts
* A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
* A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
* Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
* A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
* But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
—The Editors
igh prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.
Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.
Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.
To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.
The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.
Also in the article
* Infographic Photovoltaics
* Infographic Underground Storage
* Infographic Concentrated Solar
* Infographic Plentiful Resource
* Sidebar US Plan for 2050
* Infographic Chart: U.S. Annual Fuel Consumption
The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Photovoltaic Farms
In the past few years the cost to produce photovoltaic cells and modules has dropped significantly, opening the way for large-scale deployment. Various cell types exist, but the least expensive modules today are thin films made of cadmium telluride. To provide electricity at six cents per kWh by 2020, cadmium telluride modules would have to convert electricity with 14 percent efficiency, and systems would have to be installed at $1.20 per watt of capacity. Current modules have 10 percent efficiency and an installed system cost of about $4 per watt. Progress is clearly needed, but the technology is advancing quickly; commercial efficiencies have risen from 9 to 10 percent in the past 12 months. It is worth noting, too, that as modules improve, rooftop photovoltaics will become more cost-competitive for homeowners, reducing daytime electricity demand.
PAGE 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next»
Discuss this Article
NOTE: You will be asked to sign in or register as a SciAm.com Community member upon submission of this article comment.
Enter Your Comment Here.
1000 characters remaining
346 Comments | VIEW ALL
*
"I hope and pray this will be come a reality."
Posted 2 hours ago by trogers1976
*
"The article got mentioned in today's episode of "Forecast Earth" on TWC. (But they got some numbers/units wrong - switched 30,000 acres for 30,000...[More]"
Posted 3 hours ago by Patrick 027
*
"It seems to me that the authors of this article have made a conclusive case - for nuclear power.<br>The article is by the supporters of solar, not...[More]"
Posted 6 hours ago by DaveMart
*
"The most significant contribution of the Solar Grand Plan is it may lay to rest the contention that moving to a renewable energy economy is not...[More]"
Posted 7 hours ago by CraigSeverance
*
"Compressed air energy storage ,the method you propose for bridging the dusk-to dawn gap, is of course inherently inefficient mostly as a result of...[More]"
Posted 7 hours ago by Wessel
*
"This is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four...[More]"
Posted 11 hours ago by agt4208
*
"This is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four...[More]"
Posted 12 hours ago by agt4208
*
"In practice this article is unreadable for Europeans, due to the use of archaic 19th-century units like BTU's, cubic feet, pounds-per-square-inch,...[More]"
Posted 19 hours ago by F.F.M. de Mul
*
"Ken, James, Vasilis,<br><br>Well done!<br><br>I've been waiting for Scientific American to publish a paper like this for years. Having had a...[More]"
Posted 1/11/08 by gliderguy
*
"What size (MW) are the gas turbines that you show in underground storage facility?"
Posted 1/11/08 by Fish Bowl
A Solar Grand Plan
* SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Scientific American Magazine - January, 2008
A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions
By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis
Schott AG/Commercial Handout/EPA/Corbis
Graphic - Key Concepts
* A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
* A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
* Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
* A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
* But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
—The Editors
igh prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.
Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.
Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.
To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.
The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.
Also in the article
* Infographic Photovoltaics
* Infographic Underground Storage
* Infographic Concentrated Solar
* Infographic Plentiful Resource
* Sidebar US Plan for 2050
* Infographic Chart: U.S. Annual Fuel Consumption
The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Photovoltaic Farms
In the past few years the cost to produce photovoltaic cells and modules has dropped significantly, opening the way for large-scale deployment. Various cell types exist, but the least expensive modules today are thin films made of cadmium telluride. To provide electricity at six cents per kWh by 2020, cadmium telluride modules would have to convert electricity with 14 percent efficiency, and systems would have to be installed at $1.20 per watt of capacity. Current modules have 10 percent efficiency and an installed system cost of about $4 per watt. Progress is clearly needed, but the technology is advancing quickly; commercial efficiencies have risen from 9 to 10 percent in the past 12 months. It is worth noting, too, that as modules improve, rooftop photovoltaics will become more cost-competitive for homeowners, reducing daytime electricity demand.
PAGE 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next»
Discuss this Article
NOTE: You will be asked to sign in or register as a SciAm.com Community member upon submission of this article comment.
Enter Your Comment Here.
1000 characters remaining
346 Comments | VIEW ALL
*
"I hope and pray this will be come a reality."
Posted 2 hours ago by trogers1976
*
"The article got mentioned in today's episode of "Forecast Earth" on TWC. (But they got some numbers/units wrong - switched 30,000 acres for 30,000...[More]"
Posted 3 hours ago by Patrick 027
*
"It seems to me that the authors of this article have made a conclusive case - for nuclear power.<br>The article is by the supporters of solar, not...[More]"
Posted 6 hours ago by DaveMart
*
"The most significant contribution of the Solar Grand Plan is it may lay to rest the contention that moving to a renewable energy economy is not...[More]"
Posted 7 hours ago by CraigSeverance
*
"Compressed air energy storage ,the method you propose for bridging the dusk-to dawn gap, is of course inherently inefficient mostly as a result of...[More]"
Posted 7 hours ago by Wessel
*
"This is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four...[More]"
Posted 11 hours ago by agt4208
*
"This is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four...[More]"
Posted 12 hours ago by agt4208
*
"In practice this article is unreadable for Europeans, due to the use of archaic 19th-century units like BTU's, cubic feet, pounds-per-square-inch,...[More]"
Posted 19 hours ago by F.F.M. de Mul
*
"Ken, James, Vasilis,<br><br>Well done!<br><br>I've been waiting for Scientific American to publish a paper like this for years. Having had a...[More]"
Posted 1/11/08 by gliderguy
*
"What size (MW) are the gas turbines that you show in underground storage facility?"
Posted 1/11/08 by Fish Bowl
AlGoreFan - January 13, 2008 07:11 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (scalbers @ Jan 12 2008, 09:53 AM) |
| Nice Al Gore story AGIML. |
Is AGIML the writer, Joseph Romm?
ALGOREismylife - January 13, 2008 07:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (AlGoreFan @ Jan 13 2008, 01:11 PM) | ||
Is AGIML the writer, Joseph Romm? |
No, I'm not Joseph Romm. :D
I just thought it was a decent article, so I posted it. :unsure:
scalbers - January 13, 2008 07:35 PM (GMT)
Thanks for the clarification - thought for a minute you were lifting your cover ;)