Gore's Goals

Al Gore's WE Campaign has set an aggressive goal of replacing 100% of our electricity generation with clean energy sources. The goal has been widely criticized as too aggressive, impossible to meet, and unrealistic.

Is it?

It is certainly aggressive. It is more ambitious than any other widely supported plan, and would require a massive effort, massive capital expenditures and the subsequent rate increases, and create its own set of environmental, economic and social problems.

But I believe it is possible, and not that unrealistic.

From a technical standpoint, it's much less of a challenge than putting a man on the moon was when proposed by Kennedy. It will require more dollars, even in real terms, but we know how to do it, the technology is proven (although improvements would help), and it doesn't necessarily require any scientific breakthroughs.

It's mostly just a matter of priorities and funding.

I also believe we won't meet that goal.

I saw a phrase once that politics is the art of deciding who's ox gets gored, and there are too many oxen that will need to be gored to meet the goal. And those oxen are owned by powerful people and corporations that will fight hard to make sure we don't even try to meet it. Right now I believe they control enough of the political apparatus to win this battle, but I'm hoping that is changing, at least some.

I'm not sure where I stand on whether we should meet that goal. If climate change is happening as fast as some fear, then, yes. The damage of climate change will be far more costly and destructive than the disruption and cost of converting electric system to clean generation.

If climate change is coming a little slower than the alarmists fear, then I'm not so sure the disruption of changing to clean generation so quickly is worth it.

However, I strongly believe we need to make that change. The question is not whether to move to clean generation, but how quickly.

For now, I believe the best course of action is to make sure all new or replacement generation is clean - no new or replacement fossil fueled generation allowed, unless carbon capture and sequestration is proven and also used.

This won't replace the existing generation, most of which which will probably remain in the system for about 40 or more years unless we decide to retire it early.

The incremental cost of clean generation over carbon-laden generation is not that significant. The most costly elements required to meet the WE goals is the early retirement of functional existing generation. New clean generation facilities are significantly more expensive than the existing facilities, most of which have considerable life expectancy remaining. Retiring these facilities early forces society to not only incur the costs of the significantly more expensive clean generation facilities, but also the costs of retiring the capital expended to build the existing facilities before their useful lifetime is over. (and I expect consumers to bear most if not all of that cost)

If the timing of climate change provides the time, this additional cost, the cost of retiring existing facilities, might be avoidable, and meeting the WE goal not that critical.

Right now, especially with the worldwide economic downturn slowing the development of new carbon emitting facilities, I'd probably accept taking the time.

But that is a gamble, and I would only find it acceptable if there was clear progress on the new/replacement front.