Rough numbers, but numbers nonetheless, from Ron Bailey.
As a very rough low estimate, Gore's 10-year no-carbon energy plan would cost about $300 billion per year for the next ten years. According to the Brattle Group consultancy, "new and replacement generating plants will cost about $560 billon through 2030, absent a significant expansion of energy efficiency programs or new climate initiatives." That comes to an average of about $25 billion per year over the next 22 years. Gore's proposal is a "new climate initiative" that aims to spend twelve times more than the utility industry would otherwise annually invest in new and replacement generating capacity. Gore explicitly likens his scheme to NASA's Apollo program, but reaching the moon cost only $150 billion (in current dollars) spent over eight years. In other words, getting to the moon cost half of what Gore wants to spend annually to realize his no-carbon energy vision.
That's without counting the cost of compensating the owners of the power plants that would have to be scrapped, and some other odds and ends that might add a few trillions to the cost of Gore's plan.
Bailey does not discuss whether we could build those plants in ten years — assuming our current laws and regulations. While looking around for information on this subject, I learned that it currently takes two to six years to build a power plant in the United States — after all the permits have been issued. If it takes that long to build a single power plant — after all the permits are issued — it is hard to believe that we could replace almost all of our power plants in just ten years.
Nor does he consider what other nations might do. If we go carbon free, and the Chinese don't, then carbon dioxide will continue to build up in the atmosphere. (Maybe almost as fast as it is currently, because the Chinese would be able to buy more oil and coal for the same amount of money, if we stop using those fossil fuels.)
Although Bailey has some rough numbers on costs, he has no numbers on benefits. I don't read Bailey often enough to guess why he left the benefit numbers out, though they are much more difficult to estimate, even roughly. In fact, Bailey doesn't even mention the benefits to Gore's plan, whatever they might be. In thinking about those benefits, you should remember that Gore's plan will not stop the build up of carbon dioxide, because other nations will not follow our lead. It hasn't gotten much attention in this country, but the Europeans are, right now, planning to build more coal-burning power plants. (The Germans and, if I recall correctly, the Swedes, are even committed to getting rid of their nuclear power plants, which will require them to build, you guessed it, even more coal-burning power plants. Or to turn off most of the lights in those two countries.) And the Chinese and Indians are planning to build many more coal-burning power plants. So Gore's plan might slow the build up of carbon dioxide. There may be benefits to a slowdown. It would be nice to know what those benefits are, and what they are worth, before we spend three trillion dollars.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(One ironic point: Gore's plan would require us to produce a lot of concrete and steel. Producing those materials will require burning fossil fuels, more fossil fuels than we would have burned otherwise. So, in the short term, his plan would add to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
Here's my earlier post on Gore's plan, and here's my disclaimer on global warming.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 30, 2008 09:02 AM | Email This
BTW, setting a date for something is not a plan.
And if I recall, aren't the Chinese and the Indians and Europeans (and every other civilization) supposedly building their infrastructures to mimic the heralded American quality of life? What makes anyone think they won't want clean air, water, and land like the Americans have as much as they do a pair of Levis or a Hollywood blockbuster? Why NOT dazzle them with brilliance instead of baffling them with b.s.? The US has been unmatched at exporting ideas for several generations now.
Posted by: Acid Brain on July 30, 2008 10:54 AMIf this is part of Gore's ten year "plan", then add into the costs the fact that everyone with gas heat or gas hot water will have to pay to convert to an electric form of heat,hot water, and other gas appliances.
How will these costs help the lower income people?
What will we do with the piles of discarded hot water tanks, gas furnaces, gas ranges, and gas dryers?
The same would apply to homes heated by oil. How many billions of dollars would be sucked from the public to replace oil furnaces?
How much would the average gas or oil household have to pay to change their electrical boxes to add the circuits to change over to electricity?
New power plants are just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 30, 2008 11:45 AMWe need to get down on our "Collective" knees and pray for forgiveness and guidance from our lord protector Al Bore... Creator of the "Bible of Carbon Credits and How to make a Fortune Selling Hemp Products from Home."
Don't you want to save Mother Earth...Don't You!!!
Do not forget to have your non-human companions spayed or neutered.
Al Gore couldn't save a pet rock let alone the earth.
Posted by: PC on July 30, 2008 12:17 PMThey want to save it while killing the humans.
I enumerated many ways they are going about this under For Barry, the chrissy queen and WVH on the Public Blog.... and I forgot the great job socialized medicine is doing on eradicating Canadians (among others)!
I know you all can add to my list.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 30, 2008 01:46 PMOnly someone with Stalin-like powers would attempt to do such a thing - which means to me that Gore anticipates this to be pushed as such a crash-absolute-national-necessity that Congress would snap to and salute and grant "any powers necessary" to the Czar appointed to direct the hijacking.
I suppose it would be declared counterrevolutionary to oppose or hinder this command performance, and laws would provide for trial of 'resistance' members for crimes against humanity, with the death penalty suddenly supported by the political left as it was in the days of the Cheka.
At any rate, if Gore had any scientific curiosity mixed in with that vacuous confidence in his 'right thinking', he'd do what a scientist does and make some direct observations. He won't, because he's anything but a scientist.
But if he were, he'd recall from Soviet history the Belomor Canal, upon which uncounted thousands of slave laborers (well, Stalin's political opposition) suffered and died in ghastly winter conditions. He'd go visit it, and witness that its shallow weed-choked channel contributes nearly zero to the Russian economy, and reflect that hijacking an economy by fiat may be fun for the leaders but does very little, short- or long-term, to better the lives of such citizens unlucky enough to live within five thousand miles of the Grand Scheme.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 30, 2008 02:01 PMOnly for the next 35-40 years. After that, I'll be dead and won't give a crap. And, call me an optimist - but short of a mad scientist with a doomsday weapon, I don't think "global warming" or "oil depeletion" or any of the other crap Igore complains about is going to render our world uninhabitable inside of two score. So, screw the Earth. I'm going to continue enjoying my gas guzzling luxury car and my 40min showers - and for every oppressive environmentalist law that gets passed, I will personally burn a rubber tire or a styrofoam block - just out of spite. For every "carbon footprint" they remove, I'll add two. And I'll continue doing so until these environmentalists start minding their own business and stop meddling in other people's lives.
Why? Because screw 'em, that's why.
Posted by: Rorschach on July 30, 2008 02:25 PMAnd so on...diverting any capital away from these new technologies towards the kind of bloated programs that are based on the idea that we will still be using 1970s technology in 2030 is wasteful and unnecessary. The only beneficiaries will be Gore & Company...
Just a few of many fascinating (and sobering) details I learned during a recent visit to INL:
1. The percent-per-year escalation in costs for cement and iron/steel from 1986-2003 were:
Cement....: 2.7 percent per year.
Iron/Steel: 1.2 percent per year.
2. By comparison, percent-per-year escalation in costs for cement and iron/steel from 1986-2003 were:
Cement....: 11.6 percent per year.
Iron/Steel: 19.6 percent per year.
3. NOW: Here's a REAL kicker; for all those starry-eyed moonbats out there in deep-space orbit; who think (like Al Gore, apparently) that all you have to do to make impossible things like ''carbon free in 10 years'' happen is to click your heels 3 times while wearing the red ruby slippers and wish REAL hard:
The future Short Tons per MegaWatt of EFFECTIVE generating capacity (ST/MW-EGC) for various power generation sources are estimated as follows (this data from a Congressional Research Service Nov 2007 study). Note I say ''about'' in the following because all I have access to right now is the graph, and not the numerical data on which it was based:
CONCRETE:
Coal...: Between about 200- 400 ST/MW-EGC
Nuclear: Between about 250- 750 ST/MW-EGC
Wind...: Between about 750-3050 ST/MW-EGC
STEEL:
Coal...: Between about 25- 75 ST/MW-EGC
Nuclear: Between about 30- 85 ST/MW-EGC
Wind...: Between about 320-690 ST/MW-EGC
The above astounding proportions are worth looking twice:
Averaging the above numbers shows that WIND uses nearly FIVE TIMES the mean average concrete per effective MW as the average of coal and nuclear; and WIND uses nearly NINETEEN TIMES the mean average steel per effective MW as the average of coal and nuclear.
For those whose immediate reaction without looking further is on the order of ''no way: wind is competitive'':
Remember that wind power is very low density, compared to coal and nuclear. And those huge steel pedestals sticking way up in the air to mount those huge 150-or-whatever foot long steel wind turbind blades are REALLY big; and the concrete bases to mount them on have to be very heavy to keep them from getting pushed over (unless the location happens to be on solid bedrock).
SUMMARY: The more expensive steel and concrete get, the less attractive wind power gets; and fast.
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 30, 2008 02:38 PMAnd pray where will the power come from to generate hydrogen, when say half the cars in California are commanded by imperial decree to be H2 powered? This is not free. That H2 is merely a storage medium, and you put as much energy INTO the system as each car consumes.
Since California shudders with horror at every thought of a new hydroelectric plant (the fishies!), and falls to pieces at the thought of nuclear (those nasty neutrons! they all vote Republican), and ceases breathing when coal- or oil-fired plants are proposed, there won't be any new plants for decades to free the hydrogen.
The Sierra Club has more free lawyers than PG&E has employees, and will use them to stop new power plants - even for generating H2. So where's the power going to come from to run those wonderful cars?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 30, 2008 02:50 PMIn my last above post, paragraph 2 SHOULD have read 2004-2007 instead of 1986-2003; i.e.:
------------------------------------------
''2. By comparison, percent-per-year escalation in costs for cement and iron/steel from 2004-2007 were:
Cement....: 11.6 percent per year.
Iron/Steel: 19.6 percent per year.''
-------------------------------------
.... and last part of ''looking twice'' paragraph should have read NINE times instead of NINETEEN; i.e.:
-------------------------------------
''; and WIND uses about NINE TIMES the mean average steel per effective MW as the average of coal and nuclear.''
-------------------------------------
Moral: Proofread, proofread; prior hit POST.
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 30, 2008 02:50 PMAnd then there is the bird and bat deaths. From: www.responsiblewind.org/reality.php "The whirling blades of the 44 wind turbines atop Backbone Mountain in Tucker County killed more than 2,000 bats and nearly 200 birds last year, according to estimates from researchers hired to study bird and bat deaths at the site.
While many say the bird deaths are relatively insignificant, the bats are something else, something totally unexpected, and something totally unexplained."
Bat deaths is bad. Bats are already having a tough time of it because of habitat destruction and having bats around is a good thing. The dead bird pix I saw the was an owl. A bird already losing habitat everywhere. Bird deaths on this scale are not insignificant in the long term.
That said, grab Google Earth and head for Tehachapi Pass in southern California just west of the Mojave Space Port (-118.2646484, 35.0674133,0). The wind farm there has hundreds (500+?) of wind turbines that generate power to half a million Californians (their numbers which I doubt a little). One reference said 5000 turbines for half a million people. The place is 2 mile x 5 miles on the hills there (I've driven past it) and filled with generators. Huge. California is talking about another 50 square miles of wind parks like those in the Tehachapi region, which is triple the size of any existing U.S. wind farm. The shear size of replaceing carbon facilites with these huge things is crazy. And they can only go where the wind blows almost constantly. Where are we going to put all of them? National parks?
Has anybody thought about what it takes to maintain thousands of these turbines like they are proposing for Tehachapi Pass? Seems like an endless job to me. Things I have read in the past lead me to believe that they aren't very robust. 'Bout the time yoou finish with the last one you'd have to start on the first.
Liberals have never dealt with reality very well and Al is just being true to form. He's a child in a man's body.
That isn't to say that they shouldn't try. It's their money and they can spend it however they like. Maybe they will prove nay sayers wrong. Maybe they won't. At least Al Gore or any other enviro-phony isn't mandating that it be done.
You are right that Gore is pushing last century's technology for this century's problem solving but that is where he's at. Once he invented the Internet, he just ran out of good ideas.
Rorschach @ 15; I'm with you. Sounds to me like were are both about the same age so our outlook on this is about the same. If they aren't going to leave me alone I'll find some way to strike back. Scroom.
Meanwhile, An Obama gaffe or bullpucky..(from Powerline blog)
(In Springfield, MO today, he suggested that properly inflated tires can make just as much of a savings in gasoline as drilling offshore - too the amazement of many)
"The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.
Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let's be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that's a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?"
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."
Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates."
Nah, She's just another MILF in my view.
Posted by: swassociates on July 31, 2008 06:32 AMhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10002704-54.html
"Nocera and his MIT colleague, Matthew Kanan, on Thursday will publish a technical paper that describes what they claim is a breakthrough in solar energy storage.
The key to MIT's discovery is a catalyst made from abundant materials that can make oxygen gas by passing an electrical current through water more effectively than previous methods.
The idea is to use the energy from solar photovoltaic panels (or another electricity source) to crack water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Those gases would be stored and used later in a fuel cell to make electricity when the sun is not shining.
The concept is a closed-loop system: running the hydrogen and water through the fuel cell creates water, which can be captured and used again.
The hope is that within 10 years, a cost-effective system that combines clean energy generation with storage can be engineered and available cheaply to people around the world."
Posted by: John Bailo on July 31, 2008 01:52 PMThey're just fishing for dollars. Anyone who works in electronics knows that cobalt is one of the most rare and unstable metals to get. Congo and Zambia dominate (about 60%) the world's supply of cobalt, and the supply from those countries has always been shaky.
Any new technology based on cobalt is guaranteed to not be cheap or stable in supply; this is interesting, but has no real-world application.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2008 02:18 PMhttp://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/mcs-2008-cobal.pdf
Posted by: John Bailo on July 31, 2008 05:05 PM