Al Gore: Dreamer or Visionary? The future of Renewable Energy in the USA

Ex Vice President Al Gore set a target last July: In a landmark Washington speech, he launched a project to "Repower America". (Abridged version here) His goal is to convert America's power supply to 100% renewable, non-carbon-based sources within ten years. I highly recommend a listen to the speech for the hard sell on "why" the USA should undertake what is nothing less than a revolutionary project. But what about the "how"? Is it feasible? Tell him he's dreaming?

Gore invokes Kennedy's 1961 announcement of the plan to send a man to the moon and back within ten years as a precedent. Kennedy's goal was brave and visionary in the sense that neither the USA, nor any one else, yet possessed the technology to accomplish his goal. To meet US energy demands from renewable sources, on the other hand, the scientific and engineering know-how and the required materials all exist and have been outlined by repoweramerica.org.

The obstacles in the path of Gore's Apollo Program are not technological. They are organizational, financial, and perhaps most seriously, political. Despite the fundamental knowledge being in place, there is no question that this is an enormous task, far greater in scope even than the moon landing.

One possible scenario by which the US energy requirements (in 2020) could be met carbon-free*

(sources: DOE; repoweramerica.org)

The project is actually three-pronged: Renewable electricity generation, a unified, national "Smart Grid", and plug-in electric cars.

A national "smart grid" is very important to facilitate the switch to renewable electricity generation: One of the most difficult problems for renewables is baseload power. Energy use varies, and the power supply must be able to cope with this – normally by burning more or less coal, and unfortunately the sun shines and wind blows only when they want, not when you want. The smart grid goes a long way to solving this: It is reversible (any user can consume and/or supply power), and long-distance capable (allowing e.g. wind, blowing in one region, to power another, distant region).

From any perspective, the smart grid makes sense and should be relatively easy to sell to the public – the cost is a hedge against future energy price increases, and can be considered a dollar investment. Indeed, there is already significant investment in this technology, including most recently from Google and the Obama Administration's financial stimulus package.

This massive project will need to be on a scale akin to the National Highways scheme. And the greater the scale, the more effective it will be: imagine a global smart grid, allowing, for example, 24/7 solar power generation even without storage facilities! Perhaps this won't always be diplomatically impossible, but in the interim, national smart grids (not only in the USA) would be a great start.

The plug-in electric car will be a more difficult sell – especially to the Hummer drivers – but perhaps US government, whose money is now propping up their long-complacent Auto industry, can influence some strategic decisions?

As for renewable electricity generation, missing from the Repower website is any financial analysis. So back to the first question: Is Al Gore dreaming?
Government lip service to renewables will not help much. The DOE estimates 143 years of recoverable world coal reserves, and economically, renewable energy for electricity generation simply cannot compete with coal or other fossil fuel sources.

That is not to say that renewables are not economic. Rather, under current conditions, we pay far too little for energy simply because emissions are externalized. This is the bitter pill that we must swallow to move forward; the only (increasingly problematic) alternative is to deny outright the threat posed by human-induced climate change.

But the pill will work: the true cost of energy, emissions included, can and will become progressively cheaper if a large scale switch is made. Many of the reasons for the currently high dollar cost of renewables are simply a question of scale and infrastructure.

The fact that so many renewable technologies are still in the fledgling stage leaves plenty of room for further cost reduction - I will be looking at some of these in future posts. Fossil fuel technology on the other hand is mature, and aside from possible carbon sequestration methods, reduction in real costs will be at best slow and decreasing.

The Gore proposal was endorsed in July by Obama, who now as President faces a serious test of resolve. Even with such high level support, for the project truly takes on the scale it demands, the President needs to come on board whole-heartedly and ignite once again a Grand Vision in the American imagination. And if only it could kick off another space race, this year's Copenhagen talks may take on a very different flavour.

Tell me I'm dreaming.

* Strictly speaking, nuclear is not carbon-free, due to the emissions generated in the mining and enriching of uranium.

PS: For an Australian perspective, have a look at Tim Flannery's Quarterly Essay #31, "Now or Never - A sustainable future for Australia?". An extract is available here.


Change 2 contributor Dr Miles Page is an Australian scientist who has been working at the international coalface of the emerging Energy Revolution. After receiving his PhD from Sydney University, Dr Page held senior research positions with the Atomic Energy Commission in Paris and the Max Planck Institute in Potsdam. He has spent the past 3 years in Israel researching Thin Film Solar Cells at the Weizmann Institute of Science and developing alternative Fuel Cells.