Al Gore has flaked out. Previously he has been fairly cautious, and he still advocates a sound carbon-tax policy. But his 100%-renewable electricity challenge makes no sense to anyone who understands the power systems. It would cost—literally—over $10 trillion, or it would be as unreliable as a third-world power system. If you want climate stability, there are vastly better ways to spend the money.
But here's what's got me stumped. Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist who kicked off the global warming debate in 1988 with his Congressional testimony and is still the most respected and staunch advocate of climate stability in the world, does not make such mistakes. His proposed policy is strong, cost-effective and not the least bit flaky. Why won't Al talk to Jim and and get himself straightened out? Jim is much better informed on technical matters, and we all trust him.
Second question. Doesn't Gore realize his proposal to replace the whole electric system without doing any kind of an engineering study will seem arrogant to many professionals? Not even the best power-system engineer, and I know quite a few, would think they could pull that off. And, Gore's never had a course in power engineering—which, I'm sure, is why he didn't bother checking his claims. (See my book
Power System Economics
.)
So in plain English, what's wrong with Gore's big idea? Two problems stand out, and the effects compound. First wind and solar are very expensive to install. They sort of pay off after 40 years, but basically you have to pay for all that electricity the day you install the wind turbine. After that, the wind is free. So we are going to have to buy all our electricity for the next 40 years in the next ten. Wind turbines are about three times as expensive as nuclear power plants (not cheap) per unit of power produced.
Solar is about twice as expensive as wind. That's why you see wind turbines going up all over the place, but not solar -- except for the ultra-subsidized roof-top panels.
Next problem. We like our electricity reliable, and the wind and sun are not reliable. With only a little wind and solar, their on-again-off-again (intermittent) nature doesn't matter. The fossil generators take up the slack. But once you have more than 20% wind and solar, you start running into problems. And when you get near 100%, you have to over-build like crazy to get reliability. (See my paper on
wind farms.)
Over-building with wind and solar is a nightmare. With fossil, they have to overbuild some to get reliability, but they over-build with very cheap "peaker" plants, not with expensive coal plants. With wind and solar, you have to overbuild with the most expensive plants -- an incredible waste of money.
