Al Gore’s Impossible Plan For 100% Renewable Energy
Summary
Gore has challenged the nation to rely on 100% renewable energy sources within 10 years. Not only would this be one of the most capital-intensive construction projects in human history, but the plan is logistically unachievable and would not have any effect on global climate.
Word count: 726
Al Gore’s speech July 17th in Washington, D.C. challenged the nation to switch to 100% renewable energy sources within 10 years. He stated that it is entirely possible to overhaul our current electricity system to use only solar and wind energy to meet the nation’s growing energy demand. A vital factor Al Gore overlooked is the logistics of the country running on solar and wind power alone. Gore’s dream of 100% renewable energy for America is unrealistic and illogical.
It should be easy to see that relying on solar and wind power cannot provide America with reliable power. Solar power is not able to provide a base power load because of its intermittent fuel source, due to the daily rotation of the earth and cloud cover. Wind power is also highly intermittent due to the natural variability of wind. Fossil fuel power plants have always backed up solar and wind generation by operating in spinning standby mode. The use of these renewable sources has yet to put a fossil fuel power plant out of operation. In fact, the use of more renewable energy spawns the use of more fossil fuel plants to balance the power load.
Neither the sun nor the wind can carry the base load demand unless American consumers and businesses are willing to put up with lack of power for hours or days at a time. Many major businesses like Google and Microsoft rely on affordable and reliable power and have located near hydroelectric plants (such as those on the Columbia River) in order to ensure a consistent (not to mention clean) power source.
Setting aside the feasibility of renewable sources to provide reliable power, the land area that would be needed to provide the 126 million homes in the United States with sun or wind power would be astronomical. Solar panels would have to cover every square foot of over 10 million acres to meet residential energy demand. This is roughly the total land area of Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island and Delaware combined. For wind power to meet demand, turbines would have to cover over 23 million acres which equal every square mile in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland. These figures do not include the large land area needed for transmission lines to bring this power to every American home.
The land use would be so large that it would be visible from space. It would be one of the largest construction projects in human history, on par with the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt. In his speech, Gore calls for this challenge to be met within ten years. This is obviously not realistic, even assuming economies of scale for large commercial-scale production. The construction of a solar or wind facility that would intermittently power the United States would take approximately 350 years or 250 years, respectively.
The construction cost of Al Gore’s challenge would be excessive. In order to power the United States on wind power alone, more than 262,000 turbines would need to be constructed at a price tag of a little over $1.3 trillion dollars. The cost of construction of enough solar panels to power the U.S. carries a price tag of about $1 trillion dollars. Gore does not deny these figures. In fact, he thinks it may cost even more, up to 3 trillion dollars. This would be the equivalent to asking every man, woman and child for $9,800 dollars; and if you are one of the many Americans with a family of two kids, Al Gore would want over $39,000 from your family to finance his solution to global warming.
Al Gore has challenged the nation to begin one of the costliest, largest, most capital-intensive construction projects in human history. Not only is the plan unachievable, but succeeding in his challenge would not have any discernable effect on global climate since China is producing two new coal fire power plants every week.
Instead of ruining America’s prosperity, Americans should be leaders in wealth-creating activities. With development and wealth, Americans will be able to adjust and adapt to almost any change in climate that might occur in the near or distant future. Advocating pipe dreams like powering a country solely on solar and wind is counterproductive to producing a viable solution to handling any possible negative effects associated with global warming.
Attention editors and producers:
Cascade Commentaries are provided for reprint in newspapers and other publications, with credit given to author(s) and Cascade. Contact Cascade to arrange print or broadcast interviews on this commentary topic.
Electronic text files are available online at www.cascadepolicy.org.
Please contact:
Nancy Wheaton
Cascade Policy Institute
4850 SW Scholls Ferry Rd.
Suite 103
Portland, Oregon 97225
Phone: (503) 242-0900
Fax: (503) 242-3822
www.cascadepolicy.org
info@cascadepolicy.org
Cascade Policy Institute is a tax-exempt educational organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Nothing appearing in this Cascade Commentary is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of Cascade or its donors, or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before any legislative body. The views expressed herein are the author’s own.
Mr. Winn’s letter is a classic example of a policy analyst who gets paid to think inside the box. He does not mention solar’s true application: space based solar power (SBSP). There is no weather or day/night cycle to interfere with solar reception at geo orbit. There is no weather or atmospheric condition that can inhibit safe beamed transfer of that power to the ground. The existing power grid can deliver that power to wherever it’s needed. This will require the new President to align his space and energy policies to allow for ground based feeder strategies along with cis-lunar infrastructure to get SBSP done. See National Security Space Offices’s interim report: “Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” published 10/10/07.
Comment by Robert Sugg — 8/28/2008 @
Interesting point, Robert. Perhaps you are thinking way way out of the box however.
SBSP is far from being technologically viable or anywhere near cost effective.Current estimates believe that it would cost more energy to develop and maintain a space based solar energy facility than it would produce. You may forget that shuttles to and from space use a significant amount of fuel and a solar facility in space would cost an exorbitant amount of money. It would have to be significantly larger(100 times or more) than the current space station to add any significant power to the United States.
It would be great if one day this technology will be ready for mainstream. My guess is that it won’t make it in Al Gore’s deadline of ten years.
Comment by Todd — 8/28/2008 @
This article is a classic example of an author purposely being obtuse to conclude the answer he wanted in the first place. You’re facts are based assuming we would be using 1980’s technology to transform our energy infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that we have progressed very far since then and there are many technologies, currently in practice, that have solved the issue of base power for renewable energy. Whether it be battery technology, or the storage of energy through salt rock, pumping water up dams, or pressurized air, there are practical applications to store energy for times when wind and solar are not in use. Geothermal is another proven renewable energy source that provides a baseload, which the author conveniently forgot to mention. The problem with these technologies is they haven’t gotten the funding or the attention they need to solve the US’s energy needs. Al Gore’s message was to focus our attention on funding these technologies, putting money into a modern transmission system that can bring wind from the Mid-West to the coasts, and to stop subsidizing the coal and gas industries.
Comment by dave — 8/28/2008 @
Very sorry for misspelling your name, Mr. Wynn. SBSP is rapidly approaching a business case, due both to declining costs in solar cell and other pertinent technologies, and to the rising costs of traditional energy. You are right that heavy lift costs need to come down, and folks like Buzz Aldrin and his engineering team are working on these lifters. The shuttle, which never was a brilliant idea, has seen its day. Aldrin, by the way, is bringing T. Boone Pickens up to speed on SBSP at this time. Ground-based interim feeder technologies, like wind, geo-thermal, ground solar, etc. (the whole mix that we are hearing about), are needed even as SBSP is announced. Costs will be high at the beginning stages, but they will come down as lunar mining and infrastructure are understood and emplaced. Reagans’ science advisor said: “the lunar infrastructure (as proposed by the late Gerard K. O’Neill) is well thought out”. Lunar regolith is rich in oxygen, silicon, metals, and glass, and packets of this material can be lifted economically in half-second intervals by electromagnetic devices called mass drivers, prototypes of which are tested and proven. We need an Apollo-like vision on the part of the next President to marshall industry, government, and partners to get the program done. The $3 trillion price tag (or whatever figure you may want to insert) may be the best investment ever made for an activity that will expand species into space permanently while answering large and permanent needs here at home. In the world of 2100 and beyond, people may ask themselves, “remember energy wars and global warming?”
Comment by Robert Sugg — 8/28/2008 @
Your article is ridiculous.
The United States does not presently have one enormous coal fired plant, one enormous nuclear plant, and one gigantic hydroelectric plant servicing the entire US demand. The load is generated by hundreds of plants distributed throughout the United States. Why, then, would you assume we would build a giant solar facility taking up the land of three small states, taking hundreds of years to build, and would be visible from space. Are you completely unfamiliar with this subject? Each of the 50 states in our Union could easily bring one or two wind farms and one or two solar trench facilities on line in the next 10 years. (and it would only take 10 years due to municipal zoning, establishing right of ways and other “red tape” type issues, they could easily go up more quickly). Certainly not all areas are suited for large scale solar facilities, and I am not advocating that we should necessarily build one in every state, I am simply pointing out that this would be a national effort, with many facilities coming on line all over the country.
Furthermore, your point that the sun shines only in the day time is as laughable as it is obvious. Certainly other renewable generation technologies could carry some load, when it was dark outside. Geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass generation could be used at night time. (yes rivers flow even at night) Energy can also be stored in the daytime, and used at night. (this amazing technology is called a battery)
The concept of energy storage brings up another point that you fail to mention in your article, on site generation of energy. The amazing promise of solar technology, is that you can create abundant power on site in any location in the United States. True, there is more sunshine energy to harness in Florida than in Northern Wisconsin, but even Wisconsinites can generate solar hot water year round and enough electricity to power their own homes with a few panels on the roof of their homes. The heat energy is stored in a hot water tank, and is available for use any time. Solar electric current can be stored on site in batteries (for use at night-time) or if you are producing more energy than you need, and don’t want to use batteries, you can sell your extra day-time energy onto the power grid, then buy some back at night-time.
All of the technologies I mention are presently in use today. Economies of scale will certainly decrease the cost of distributed solar production as it is more widely adopted.
Lastly, 1 trillion 2 trillion 3 trillion dollars? OK, lets say 3 trillion and we are 100% energy independent. In the last 5 years the United States “spent” over 1 trillion dollars, the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, and the lives of over 1 million Iraqi people, just so we could have a foot hold on the largest oil field on the planet. Maybe that will give us the upper hand in jockeying for the last available oil for the next few decades. Our current administration spent this trillion dollars while CUTTING TAXES (not raising them). It is clear that we can afford to invest 3 trillion in a permanent solution. China, India and the rest of the world would happily follow our lead.
Comment by pj — 8/28/2008 @
PJ,
I appreciate your convictions but there are so many things wrong with your response.
You state: “The United States does not presently have one enormous coal fired plant, one enormous nuclear plant, and one gigantic hydroelectric plant servicing the entire US demand.”
You are correct there is no one large coal plant or one large nuclear plant. The visualization was obviously to emphasize the point that the amount of panels/turbines needed would be excessive. If it was one big power plant, it would be so excessive that it could easily be seen from space.
You state: “Each of the 50 states in our Union could easily bring one or two wind farms and one or two solar trench facilities on line in the next 10 years.”
One or two wind plants or one or two solar plants per state are not going to be able to sufficiently meet power demand now and certainly not in the future.
You state: “Geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass generation could be used at night time”
If you had read or listened to Al Gore’s speech, he evidently does not count hydroelectric or biomass generation as renewable energy.
You state: “…but even Wisconsinites can generate solar hot water year round and enough electricity to power their own homes with a few panels on the roof of their homes…..The heat energy is stored in a hot water tank, and is available for use any time”
Even if the entire roof of an average house would be covered in solar panels, the electricity generated while the sun is shining might reach a mere 40% of the total energy needed to power our t.v,s, computers, lights, and other appliances. Solar hot water heaters only add supplemental heat so that the electric or gas hot water heater does not have to work as hard. It does not provide 100% of the heating required for hot water usage.
You state: “In the last 5 years the United States “spent” over 1 trillion dollars, the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, and the lives of over 1 million Iraqi people, just so we could have a foot hold on the largest oil field on the planet.”
We have spent a large amount of money in Iraq, probably over a trillion as you have stated. If it was to gain a foothold on all the oil, I certainly would think that gasoline prices might be a bit cheaper than they are currently. Maybe instead we should have invested in offshore oil fields. Al Gore and you are most likely against this.
Finally you state: “China, India, and the rest of the world would happily follow our lead.”
I would like to see anyone go to India or China and convince them they can’t use coal or natural gas fired power plants. I find it quite hard to tell some of the poorest nations in the world that they can not have access to cheap affordable power that helps them live a fuller and longer life.
Lastly, I wanted to say that these figures are based on current residential demand only which is just a fraction of total electricity demand required by the United States. We must not forget the many businesses and industries across the nation that need access to reliable power as well.
Comment by Todd — 8/28/2008 @
Todd,
It sounds like you may now be on the right track with some of your thinking, now you need some facts to back up your story. Your last comment “Lastly, I wanted to say that these figures are based on current residential demand… ”
What figures? Any information stated with the ‘certainty of fact’ in your first post was (as I stated earlier) ridiculous. How was that 250 to 350 year construction timeline figure for our mega solar facility obtained? Is that the figure that is based on present residential demand?
As you start looking into some of these issues, please post your findings here so we can all benefit. Here are some questions for your quest: If not four new facilities per state (200 new facilities total) how many REAL facilities would you estimate we will need? In your first post you were going for just one plant that we could see from space. Certainly possible, but not how we will really get there. Before you just guffaw and dismiss 200 facilities to replace our current demand, give me some numbers. How many MegaWatts do you think we need to replace nationally. Will we be building 60MW wind farms? 300MW wind farms? How much electricity could we generate if we covered just 10% of the desert in the US with solar? (not new space age technology, the same stuff that we have used since the Carter Administration). Regarding your 40% figure: I live in Wisconsin, and can provide 100% of my household demand for electricity without covering my own average sized roof. This would not be true if I heated my home with electricity, or heated my hot water with electricity. Lets just use your 40% number as a starting point. If 50% of the homes in the US dropped their demand for electricity by 40% (with solar panels), now how many facilities do we need? What percentage of demand can we eliminate from industry if they use their rooftops? (hint: can you find any Companies or Universities already doing this?)
Lastly Todd, these are not trick questions. There are quite a few real people who have already started to get the ball rolling. There is an abundance of real technology in place, and real information available about not only feasibility, but infrastructure requirements and construction costs and time lines. Instead of attempting to imply that this is impossible with your colorful examples, go ahead and educate us. A 10 year time line to revolutionize the grid really is an ambitious goal. What do we need to do to get there?
Comment by pj — 8/29/2008 @
David Blume, author of Alcohol Can Be a Gas, has said we have enough weedy species such as mesquite in the southwest and kudzu in the south to make enough alcohol to fuel a significant percentage of our activities. The Rockefellers gave huge amounts of money to promote Prohibition because allowing farmers to make their own alcohol was a threat to the oil industry. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms sends agents to county fairs to see who wins ribbons. The winners of livestock competitions are often feeding mash left over from alcohol production to the winning animals. BATF pays visits to the farmers. Some years ago, a neighbor in Portland won a blue ribbon from the wine he made from grapes grown in his own back yard. Guess who came to visit?
An article in the Economist titled Heat from the Street outlines a solar water storage scheme that heats in the winter and cools in the summer with pipes that run under an asphalt road.
We have not had to be practical or efficient in our energy use. Now, with outrageous corruption and wars of aggression, a run-up in fossil fuel prices has been quicker than would otherwise have happened.
With tax policies still subsidizing an industry notoriously vulnerable to weather and sabotage, great minds are working furiously to devise ways to keep us warm should weather and sabotage occur at the same time.
The federal government is a burden on this process, but thinking people like to brainstorm solutions to challenges. Under the radar, preparations are being made that will help our communities in case of emergency.
I work with various groups who come together to encourage water-, energy-, and food- stewardship. Should an earthquake hit and break roads, water, sewer, and power lines in Portland, there are people in most neighborhoods who will be able to help their neighbors cope. We will not be as unprepared as one might think.
There are those who promote big power projects with long supply lines to the places of use. Then there are the distributed-power advocates. Over the long haul, I’m throwing my energy in with the distributed-power folks. It’s not that I fear aliens and off-shore persons cutting the lines. It’s homegrown bullies who worry me.
Comment by Mary Saunders — 9/1/2008 @