Al Gore's 10 year challenge to the USA

[basjoos]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I thought the big reason DC lost was because of transmission line losses :

If you generate the electricity locally, i.e. your roof, then DC is fine. The problem, of course, is we live in an AC world, so you need the DC-to-AC inverter to "work with" the legacy infrastructure.

CarloSW2

The reason AC won out over DC was because the DC transformer hadn't been invented back in Thomas Edison's day, and he had no way to step up DC voltages the way that Westinghouse could with his AC power for long distance transmission. When the voltage goes up, then the current goes down, and you want a as low a current as possible to avoid resistance losses when sending electricity a long way down a wire. By the time that the DC transformer was invented in the 1960's, AC transmission had long been the dominant technology. But now that we have DC transformers that can step up the voltages needed for long distance transmission, DC has become the most efficient way to transmit electrical power long distance since it isn't forming and collapsing an Electro-Magnetic Field 120X a sec (@60HZ). This EMF induces electical currents in any nearby metal objects. Just try grabbing onto a unpowered wire that runs for several hundred feet parallel next to a high tension line, I had fun with induced currents when stringing electric fence wire in my field next to a high tension power line. You would think the fence had already been connected to a weak charger. This stray EMF can also light up a fluorescent tube carried under the power line. All of this represents line losses from AC that don't occur with DC.

[cfg83]

basjoos -

Thanks for the clarification. Soooooo, if you were building an electricity infrastructure from scratch, then DC would be superior.

CarloSW2

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Soooooo, if you were building an electricity infrastructure from scratch, then DC would be superior.

Not really. DC is good for long intertie lines carrying lots of power from point A to point B, but A/C works better when you have an interconnected web of transmission & distribution, with power being generated & used at many points along the way.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Here's a level-headed and realistic appraisal of Al Gore's proposal, on ArsTechnica:

Originally Posted by John Timmer

Last Thursday, former presidential candidate and Nobel Laureate Al Gore gave a speech in which he called for a national effort to get the entire US electric grid operating on a carbon-neutral basis within a decade. In its aftermath, much of the attention has been focused on whether the idea is actually achievable—Gore says it is; many say otherwise. To a large extent, however, this may not be the most important question. Even if the plan is destined for failure, it's worth considering where it would leave the country if we actually tried it.

(click on quote for link to entire article)

[Doofus McFancypants]

Personally - i think it has to be a phased plan .. Each one is to last until the other infrastructure is inplace to replace it...

1 - Clean up what we have (Efficiancy and Emissions wise) There are products what can improve the performance and clean up the emissions of every power plant out there
2 - use what we have ( oil reserved) to curb the dependance on Foreign Oil
3 - Continue to install Wind Turbines ( we have production capacity today)
4 - Start to build a "FEW" Nukes - you cannot beat the power density they produce

these 3 items can impact the oil consumption in the "near" term ( next 20 years)

Meanwhile we are updating CARS to be Electric and Developing True Green power - (Tidal genorators - Solar - Geothermal - Kids on treadmills connected to Genorators - The Matrix - or what ever we can think of)

There are those who are concerned about NUKE safety and the byproducts - I have them on here only as a STEP to get us off of oil while we develop the future technology.
THere are those who DO NOT want to drill more - and i understand - but again this is just a step to curb the demand of foreign Oil.
There are those who do not like the look of Wind turbines.. I am sorry - I have to say to those you cannot have your cake and eat it too. It is clean energy - but it has to be somewhere - "Not in my back yard" is what screwed CA a few years ago - they had no new power genoration for YEARS - but everyone wanted energy - so they had to pay.

Whether Al Gore is a conduit for the creater good- or a political shark playing on our fears to keep himself in the spot light.... if people are thinking about the right things ... maybe we can ACTUALLY DO something this time..

Just my thoughts....
Steve

[regor]

I tend to get turned off when Gore and his rich elitist friends talk. Here’s a group that waste much more energy than the typical American, but then tries to justify their waste by stating that they are buying “Carbon Credits” to offset their excessive waste/usage. Give me a BREAK.
If they really cared, they would be fighting to make it so the average American would qualify for the tax credits/incentives for alternative energy sources for their residences (solar panels, wind turbines for example) and hybrid vehicles. As it is now, you have 2 groups that will go for the alternative energy sources and hybrid vehicles-The rich and the elite that qualifies for the credits and incentives and the hardcore environmentalist that, while they don’t qualify for the credit and incentive, they want to make a difference.
I’d like to consider myself to be a environmentalist, but sadly, I don’t make enough to pay for solar panels or a hybrid.

So while I have deviated slightly, let me get back to my Gore bashing. Gore is such a hypocrite. As long as he and the rich elitist group that worships him can justify their wasteful energy consumption by buying “carbon credits” and they try telling us what we must do, I will continue to ignore him and do what I can to make a difference on my own. He and his elitist group needs to gets off their elitist behinds and actually start practicing what they preach. They also need to lower the cost of alternative energy so ALL of us, not just the elite, can AFFORD it.

[dcb]

I wouldn't care if it was David Koresh giving the challenge, it has nothing to do with the messenger.

[cfg83]

NeilBlanchard -

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Hi,

Here's a level-headed and realistic appraisal of Al Gore's proposal, on ArsTechnica:


(click on quote for link to entire article)

This reminds me of the first generation of wind power designs. They were terrible. Carter's energy incentives created the wind power market. When the incentives expired, the poor reliability of the designs contributed to the collapse of the market. However, that effort became a "lessons learned" that led to a new generation of reliable wind power designs.

At this stage in time, we are in a better position to succeed.

CarloSW2

[i_am_socket]

I'll skip the Gore bashing. I think he's a @$$, but at least he has the right idea. It's not quite achievable in 10 years, but if we never try...

Wind and solar are awesome things, but I wouldn't bet on those for base generation in most areas. There are places that they would work really well, but it's not a total solution.

Nuclear is not the bad guy. Our current nuclear infrastructure is old and not as efficient as it could be. New plants would be far more efficient. New methods of recycling spent fuel into new fuel have been developed to skip the whole issue of a radioactive legacy. We could certainly do worse than using France as a model.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by i_am_socket

I'll skip the Gore bashing. I think he's a @$$...

He's a politician, so I think that's an oxymoron :-)

As for the rest of the Gore-bashing... Well, anyone want to try arguing that Bush & company aren't a bunch of rich elitists? Or that Obama, Clinton, or whoever you care to name doesn't have a bunch of rich, elitist friends?