Posted on 07/18/2008 12:47:32 PM PDT by The_Republican
In a speech yesterday here in Washington, Al Gore challenged the United States to "produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun, and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable, and transformative." (Well, the goal is at least one of those things.) Gore compared the zero-carbon effort to the Apollo program. And the comparison would be economically apt if, rather than putting a man on the moon—which costs about $100 billion in today's dollars—President Kennedy's goal had been to build a massive lunar colony, complete with a casino where the Rat Pack could perform.
Gore's fantastic—in the truest sense of the word—proposal is almost unfathomably pricey and makes sense only if you think that not doing so almost immediately would result in an uninhabitable planet.
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens recently came out with a plan to generate 20 percent of America's power through wind. His estimate was that it would cost $1 trillion to build that capacity and another $200 billion to update our electrical grid to transmit that energy around the country.
(And what would be the environmental impact of all those windmills dotting the countryside? Or solar panels covering our pristine deserts?)
By my math, using Pickens's numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget.
(Remember, the current U.S. gross domestic product is $12 trillion.) That would be like creating another Japan. Or fighting World War II all over again. The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity. Of course, there are many folks like Gore who view global warming as the moral equivalent of war. But Gore would extend the concept into the economic equivalent of war. Again, all this makes sense if you think we are doomed otherwise.
This isn't the first time Gore has made a proposal with jaw-dropping economic consequences. Environmental economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers on Gore's idea to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus found that while such a plan would indeed reduce the maximum increase in global temperatures to between 1.3 and 1.6 degrees Celsius, it did so "at very high cost" of between $17 trillion and $22 trillion over the long term, as opposed to doing nothing. (Again, just for comparative purposes, the entire global economy is about $50 trillion.)
You know, when she was running for president, Hillary Clinton gave a speech in which she stated that climate change would make a "great organizing principle" for the economy. What Clinton and Gore miss is the opportunity cost of doing something else—anything else—with all that dough.
Our resources should be diverted to two things - Flex Fuel Cars and Electric Cars.
Then finding or developing existing forms of energies to make those cars useable and affordable.
Essentially transitioning from Oil-based transportaion to other alternative means.
This JIHAD against hydro-carbons would kill us all.
Algore’s a nut.
Pickens is just looking a way to accure greater wealth for himself.
Just my opinions of course.
Easy!
It's a global redistribution of wealth that will make Al Gore a multi billionaire able to burn as much fuel as he wants, but we'll have to cut our use by 75%.
If it is so “achievabl” and “affordable” why doesn’t algore take his own house “off the grid”?
This is ridiculous! We’re being manipulated by people like Pickens and Gore to spend trillions on their pet projects. And the Democrats in Congress love it, because it placates the environmental lobby that they depend on.
The immediate problem is to get the price of gasoline down, so that the American public can afford to live. Anybody remember the American public? Congress certainly doesn’t.
All Al has to do is design a supply side load in the gigawatts of power used daily, summer and winter per locale, that meets the criteria of 99.9%+ uptime with the proper base and demand load as to keep our industry, hospitals, humans in general profitable and safe.
Please Al, show us your national layout for generating facilities with a feasibility plan and the corresponding business pro forma that we might critique it.
Atomic energy, of course, as the best alternative!!!
Atomic energy, of course, as the best alternative!!!
that’s the ticket.....doin’ the atom dance
They’ve never managed to produce a rapid transit system that anybody can afford to ride, out here in flyover country, but like Israeli-palestinian “piece” agreements, they just overlook that small detail and still demand that we stop driving. Hey a$$clowns — I stop driving, I stop working. That means I stop paying taxes.
His (Pickens) stupid commercials have been on the AM stations a lot recently and that was my exact response too.
Plans? We don’t need no stinking plans! We just and money and power.
Yet more proof that DemoSocialists are control freaks who want *us* all to live the ‘Life La Lowered Expectations’....
...except for them.
Not to worry! They’ll find ways to make it a *6* Trillion Dollar Scam, with over runs.
I think the answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE. In other words do it all: Nuculer, Wind, Solar, Tidal, etc, etc etc
At 5 Trillion I say we give it a try. About half way through I predict some very interesting things will happen.
The middle east will become very submissive and nuclear war will seem much less likely. The peace dividend will be enormous.
And by the way, our GDP is more like 14 Trillion
Her's are always gonna hang out there for all remaining time for everyone to see!!!
She wasn't young and stupid when she made the illegitimate "China Syndrome!"
Yikes. You need to “acquire” a dikshunary
accure = accrue
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
