Gore says 10 years to transition to solar/wind and other renewables.

[dkf]

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now," Gore told The Associated Press in an interview previewing a speech on global warming he was to deliver Thursday in Washington.

Gore said he fully understands the magnitude of the challenge.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and so-called clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080717/D91VH6B00.html

[cobalt1999]

1. Think where we would be if we had listened to Jimmy Carter in 1980

When he proposed something similiar. It boggles the mind to think what our country would be like if we had channeled the money from Reagan's military build up into alternative energy development.

Gore has the right idea, just as Carter did when it was unfashionable.

[Serial Mom]

5. sigh....

you are so right about Carter and Gore...

If only...

[malaise]

44. Bingo n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

59. He was ridiculed for his forward thinking. Stupid, greedy repubs only saw $$ in big oil.

[lonestarnot]

2. Solar panel prices need to come down so every home can have one.

[NightWatcher]

4. check rebates and grants from your state. Florida gives up to 20k (avg system 25K. your cost 5K)

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/

Many states have rebate programs and grants on a first come first served basis. Even Georgia will give you up to 10,500$ towards puting up photovoltaic collectors on your house.

Question for Gore: Did he put the solar cells back on the white house that reagan removed after Carter left office?

[lonestarnot]

6. I will check again. Thanks!

[NNN0LHI]

22. It would take 25 years to get my money back

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/illinois/

EXAMPLE RESIDENTIAL SOLAR INSTALLATION

While Chicago is known as “the windy city”, that moniker ain’t attributed to the strong breezes emanating from Lake Michigan. Chicago earned its windy reputation in the 1800’s from politicians who couldn’t seem to keep their mouths shut. Nevertheless, both wind and sunshine prevail in Chicago and surrounding Cook County. A solar rating of “Good”, and several state and federal incentives make solar installations quite attractive here. An example of a Chicago solar installation is described below.

The average residential use of electrical power in Illinois is 9,708 kwh/year. The installation of a solar power system to produce 50% of that electrical demand would require a roof space of 400 square feet and an estimated mid-range system and installation cost of approximately $36,000. Here’s what you get in return:


A $2000 federal tax credit
A $10,000 state rebate
An estimated $7,920 in increased property value
25 years of utility savings projected to be $16,617
100 fewer tons of greenhouse gases

[Prophet 451]

38. The price will come down

It's the nature of technology. As it becomes more widespread, the price drops. I appreciate that in the current economy, that's no great help though.

[Tesha]

8. Actually, amortized over their 25+ year lifetime, they're pretty reasonably priced today.

But without easy access to appropriate financing, the "cost
of entry" is too high for most of us. When the cost of a system
gets below $10,000, things will really take off.

Tesha

[madokie]

16. With the increase in production the price will drop

today I can't afford any but in a couple years I may be able to. The companies have to make some profit now so as to continue. As technology and manufacturing technics improve the price will come down. For a reminder I remember when a two transister radio cost half a weeks wages. :hi: LSN

[lonestarnot]

23. And that I look forward to in that it will give many jobs!

[awoke_in_2003]

40. With T. Boone Pickens

talking about getting into air and solar power, I am sure the prices will go nowhere but up.

[lonestarnot]

48. He looks like he's about dead, so maybe he won't have much affect.

[awoke_in_2003]

53. Nah, old rich republicans don't die

they just run for president :)

[predfan]

3. Al can talk about this all he wants, but it's got to be White House driven.

If only the War Criminals hadn't spent a Trillion in Iraq.

[trof]

7. 10 years from...whenever we finally get started.

Hopefully Jan. 2009.

[NightWatcher]

9. Did Gore put the solar cells back on the White House after Reagan removed Carter's collectors?

Did he, or id he wait until he was running a "green" venture capital group? Gore's a good guy, but I dont trust him completely when it comes to power. I trust him about as much as the "T-Boone Pickens" guy. I dont know about Gore, but many who appear to be "green" when it comes to power are in favor of "clean coal" and nuclear.

[Mr. Blonde]

12. Why is T Boone Pickens in quotes?

That is his given name. And he is putting his money where his mouth is. Will he benefit from it? Certainly. Although at 80 years old the time he will have to enjoy it probably won't be long. And clean coal and nuclear are not in his plan as far as I know.

For any faults he may have (many) he is at least doing something positive that will potentially benefit everyone.

[wtmusic]

20. The Pickens Plan will benefit primarily T Boone Pickens, and his heirs

There is a good reason nuclear isn't part of his picture -- it will deprive him of profits from his huge natural gas portfolio.

He sees a nation built on natural gas-powered transportation. And guess what's going to back up his windmills when the wind isn't blowing?

The plan is about greenwashing a major shift from petroleum to natural gas.

[LSK]

39. Al Gore testified to the Senate last year that he sees no future in Nuclear plants

[wtmusic]

45. Got a link? nt

[Liberal In Texas]

10. Congress needs to get off the dime and

get the energy credits going again.

We just replaced our inefficient water heater with a tankless system and our AC with a high efficiency 2 stage 16.5 SEER unit. Earlier this year, we finished replacing every window with double glazed thermal ones. This was not cheap, we could have opted to have spent less and replaced the old units with much less efficient ones. Luckily, we were able to afford the better options. More people around the country could do things like this if there were some serious tax credits in place. This also goes for replacing cars with higher mileage models and electrics.

My goal is to get solar panels on the roof with an inverter and battery back-up system and install a thermal barrier under the roof. But we're not made of money, and tax breaks would go a long way to getting this done sooner.

The tax credits could go a long way to energizing (pun intended) the businesses that supply these products and put people in this country to work.

I suppose the problem is it wouldn't put any money in the pockets of the big corporate oil.

[predfan]

11. all the technology is out there...............not to say it can't, and won't, be improved upon......

what we don't have is leadership.........that's what makes this election so important.

We've had too many years of "leaders" whose sole idea was "all fossil fuels, all the time"

[Liberal In Texas]

32. The more people start buying things in volume, like solar panels, the cheaper and better

they will get. Tax credits would give a boost to that end.

[wtmusic]

13. Your title is misleading.

Included are other "Earth-friendly"sources, like nuclear.

[madinmaryland]

14. Nuclear power is earth-friendly? What about the spent nuclear rods

that last for tens of thousands of years emitting radiation??

[wtmusic]

17. You bet.

The nuclear waste from the power needs of a family of four for twenty years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter.

Glass takes 1+ million years to decompose.

Compare that to thousands of tons of CO2.

If we don't address climate change immediately, the earth will be uninhabitable in under 1,000 years. There will be no one around to worry about the radiation.

[MadHound]

33. You are full of it, sorry, but you are.

Where ever you got that little factoid, don't ever go there again. Having worked in a nuclear plant for several years, and having dealt with all the waste output of said plant, let me tell you that the waste for said family would be significantly greater than a cigarette lighter. For example, in addition to the depleted fuel rods, your average reactor also produces tons of other radioactive waste each and every year. This includes things like hot swipes, dirty gloves, activated host cans, tools, and oh, let's not forget the containment building itself when the plant is decommissioned. And all that waste is lethal.

Rather than pursuing such outmoded energy models like nuclear or coal, we should go with clean, renewable alternatives. They have the capability to power our country, all we have to do is put them in place.

[wtmusic]

42. Excuse me for not believing everything I read online

but you're not differentiating between high and low level waste. Big difference, and tons of dirty gloves seems a bit unbelievable.

"In the UK for example, ~120,000,000 m3 of waste is generated per year - the equivalent of just over 20 dustbins full for every man, woman and child. The amount of nuclear waste produced per member of the UK populations is 840 cm3 or a volume less than that of two video cassettes. Of this waste, 90% of the volume is only slightly radioactive and is categorised as low-level waste (has only 1% of the total radioactivity of all radioactive wastes). Intermediate level waste makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity. The most radioactive form of waste is categorised as high-level waste and whilst accounting for only 3% of the volume of all the radioactive waste produced, it contains 95% of the radioactivity. Considering the amount of high-level waste produced from a typical large reactor (1000 MWe), light water type over a year: Where countries have adopted the reprocessing option, three cubic metres of vitrified waste (glass) are produced.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

[MadHound]

52. You're right, you shouldn't trust everything you read online

I'm well acquainted with the WNA, and frankly their motto says it all: "Representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession." They are indeed the Chamber of Commerece of the nuclear industry. They speak of low level, intermediate levels of exposure without telling you that virtually any level of exposure is dangerous. <http://www.livescience.com/health/050629_ap_cancer.html>
Oh, and due the math, multiply that 840cm3 times sixty five million people. Oh, yeah, that's a small mountain of either video cassettes, or worse yet, nuclear waste. This is each and every year.

And no, it's not just gloves, it's paper waste, wiring, pigs, rabbits, scrap metals, tools, cables, hot boxes, remote manipulaters, on and on, a plethora of interesting items that are past their usefulness. Hell, if not for binding agreements, I could give you the complete breakdown of the tonnage going out the door. And please do remember, it is tonnage. A lot of this material is dense, heavy. A little over one cubic foot of DU weighs a ton, much of the other material is only somewhat less dense, lead and steel.

As I've said before, there is no need for exposing us to anymore nuclear risks. We have the technology and capability to put in a clean, renewable energy infrastructure. All that we lack is the national leadership and will.

[wtmusic]

54. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

We agree that low and intermediate exposures to radiation are dangerous. How dangerous?

"Humans are exposed every day to radioactive elements that occur naturally in the environment.

Gamma and alpha radiation emitted by radioactive elements in rocks and soils, especially those that decay quickly (such as radon), pose a health risk. This radiation is implicated in cancers of the lung, bone, and of other organs. The health threat posed by uranium alone primarily as a heavy-metal chemical poison similar to arsenic. This is known as chemotoxicity and is implicated in kidney disease. Radon is especially dangerous because it is a gas and can easily enter the lungs. Although natural concentrations of these radioactive materials are usually less than established threshold health values, human activity often inadvertently exposes us to radionuclides at dangerous levels. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that as much as 30 percent of the public drinking-water supply in the United States exceeds their recently-established maximum contaminant levels for radon. An even greater percentage of private water supplies, unregulated by EPA, may contain elevated levels of radioactive materials.

<>

Dissolved uranium complexes in water with dissolved fluorides, phosphates, and carbonates. When phosphate precipitates from water uranium goes with it. As a result, for example, uranium is a serious contaminant in phosphate fertilizers that are ubiquitous in crop farming. As irrigation water containing uranium is used, fertilizers that also contain uranium serve to compound the potential toxicity. Although most crops resist uptake of radioactive materials in their leafy (above-ground) components, those crops whose roots are consumed (such as potatoes, peanuts, carrots), are susceptible to contamination by uranium. Geochemical sampling and detailed geological mapping are essential early steps to knowing where irrigation water, contaminated by underlying rocks or by fertilizers may be a problem.

http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Radioactivity/radioact.html

As I have pointed out elsewhere, we can hide in our homes and weep uncontrollably, or we can perform an accurate assessment of risk and get on with our lives.

How much does radiation created from nuclear power and its related processes contribute to "natural" background radiation? Hard to tell.

"Perspectives on Radiation Risks
The recommended standards for Yucca Mountain are illustrative of the unusual attention and concern surrounding risks from man-made ionizing radiation. Many reasons have been advanced for this concern, including the connection between radiation and nuclear weapons and the fact that human senses cannot detect radiation.

Ironically, however, it has also been very difficult to detect adverse effects from low-level radiation. The search for radiation effects among populations exposed to moderately elevated radiation levels—inhabitants of regions with high natural levels of radiation, nuclear industry workers (excluding miners), and residents of houses with high radon levels—has not provided any conclusive evidence of excess cancer rates. In a push of the pendulum far to the skeptical side, this creates a temptation to dismiss entirely the hazards of low doses. It is difficult to find a firmly based middle ground. The available information, taken as a whole, provides no conclusive evidence as to the nature of the consequences at low doses and low dose rates. However, proponents of the linearity hypothesis and of hormesis —as well as believers in a near-zero effect—can find support from individual studies (see Appendix F). Under these circumstances, adopting the linearity hypothesis for purposes of setting radiation limits may be a prudent regulatory expedient. However, it should be recognized that the scientific validity of the hypothesis is not well established."

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/teachersguide/pdf/Chap15.pdf

Much more thoroughly-documented are the deaths attributable to airborne coal soot:

Coal Power Soot Kills 24,000 Americans Annually

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10-10.asp

I don't need to point out that the deaths from Chernobyl represent a miniscule percentage of the annual casualties from the coal industry. Where is the anti-coal hysteria? We can hold a lump of coal in our hands, but very few have actually seen uranium. Could it be that unfamiliarity and ignorance are disproportinately inflating uranium's danger? Do you remember (I do) the UFO hysteria of the 1950s-1960s, a direct result of government propaganda warning us of Russian ICBMs dropping out of the sky?

Now on to how to solve our energy problems. You claim that "We have the technology and capability to put in a clean, renewable energy infrastructure. All that we lack is the national leadership and will." Do you believe we can find 500 km2 of land each week and build windmills on it? Based on what?

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128

And finally, what we're up against.

"Global Warming Catastrophe - New Evidence

Posted 26 June 2003 by Jason Judge

Global warming over the next hundred years could trigger a catastrophe which rivals the worst mass extinction in the planet's entire history, according to new evidence unearthed by scientists at Bristol University.

The researchers have discovered that a mere six degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95% of the species which were alive on Earth at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. Up to six degrees of warming is now predicted for the next century by UN scientists from the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if nothing is done about emissions of the greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, which cause global warming.

The end-Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions, which triggered a runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth. Conditions in what geologists have termed this 'post-apocalyptic greenhouse' were so severe that only one large land animal was left alive, and it took 100 million years for species diversity to return to former levels.

This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's Head of Earth Sciences, Professor Michael Benton, which chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and its potential implications."

http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=4056

The earth is being destroyed, and fast. In the interest of trying to shed light I have resisted getting ornery like nNadir, but I am starting to understand where his orneriness comes from. The truth is that wind and solar will provide a tiny, tiny fraction of the energy required to save the planet in the coming centuries, and are like quack cancer cures taken by those suspicious of the medical profession. Taking one's health into one's own hands is everyone's right of course, but when they take my health into their hands out of ignorance and fear, I'm going to fight it every step of the way.

[MadHound]

55. You really should do better with your resources

You are presenting me with material from a wall chart producer whose funding comes a large list of pro nuclear people. Hmmm, no bias there. Thanks, but I prefer more unbiased sources, like the National Academy of Science that I referenced earlier.

And the funny thing about both wind and solar is that the site that they sit on can be dual use. Since the actual footprint of a wind turbine is a quarter acre, you can put aprox. forty turbines on farm land, have the turbines and access road take up aprox. ten acres, and the rest of that land is open for grazing cattle and growing crops just like they already do with high tension power lines, which are aprox. the same size And with thin film photovoltaics, you can roll out solar panels on roofs just like they were shingles, no extra land space needed.

And I'm sorry but your claim that a nuclear plant can be built in a week is ludicrous on the face of it. After TMI, the time period you're talking about, the average length of time for a nuclear plant to be built was 12 years Got that, twelve years.<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo02/nuclear.html> How in your right mind can you believe that we can build a nuke plant in a week? Again, your sources are turning out to be pretty much shit.

Yes, the earth is being destroyed quickly, which is why we need to desist from taking actions that will hurt it further, like dotting the landscape with nuclear plants. Yes, wind, solar, geothermal and other clean renewables can power our energy infrastructure. There is no need to resurrect a disproven and dangerous technology like nuclear power.

I would have to say that it is you who are acting out of ignorance. Your sources are tainted at best, and thus your conclusions are quite suspect. Rather than going with pro nuke material, trying using non-biased sources for your research. Gee, your perspective might just change. Oh, and it also helps to believe those who've been in the field, who are knowledgeable about it, like myself. I've worked in the industry, I know whereof I speak. What are your credentials in this matter, other than being an online pundit:shrug:

[wtmusic]

56. More paranoia, ignorance. This is getting laughable.

The USGS is also pro-nuclear now? And IEMA? And PhysicsWorld, which presents a pro/con debate? Careful, those kneejerks could be more dangerous than radiation.

Where did I claim a nuclear plant can be built in a week? I claim that new nuclear plants can come online one per week worldwide. Some plants will be built concurrently. Do you know what "concurrent" means, or do I have to talk baby-talk? Goo goo gah gah? :eyes:

You may have worked in the industry, although I operate under the assumption that anyone who posts here is full of shit. That's why I provide copious references for my assertions (I understand that you assume I'm full of shit). What's missing are your references -- one link and a lot of blather. So excuse, again, if I not only doubt your experience in the nuclear industry but would add that that experience makes you little qualified to judge the overall dangers of nuclear power.

How many died from radiation from your nuclear plant? Just curious.

[MadHound]

57. Actually I'm questioning your sources concerning the CPEP and WNA

The two that I specifically pointed out, but hey, it you want to over generalize, go for it, you seem to anyway.

As far as the claim that a nuke plant can be built in a week, this is a direct quote from your earlier post: "At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable." Not bringing them online, but construction rate It's there in black and white, so please don't act like you were trying to state something else.

As far as your doubt about my credentials, fine, doubt away. However there are a couple of posters around here that actually do know me in real life, and can vouch both for my expertise and the fact that I worked in a nuke plant. As far as your expertise, I think that your above comment in parentheses sums it up much better than I can.

So I suppose that this conversation should come to an end. Your unwillingness to listen to reason, your laughable sources, your erroneous claims all lead me to believe that you won't accept the notion that nuclear is dangerous even if God came down and told you so.

But one last thought for you. If nuclear is so damn safe, why in the hell hasn't one single nuke plant been able to get insured privately? Why will nobody other than the government, the insurer of last resort, ever stepped up to the plate? Perhaps because they know the risk better than you do, after all, that is the business they're in. Tell you what, I'll accept more nuclear plants when they start being privately insured, until then, forget it.

[NNN0LHI]

24. No new nukes in his plan

He knows they are not feasible.

Don

[wtmusic]

25. There are feasibility problems due to public misconceptions

but that will change too. Otherwise he would simply replace them.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Misconceptions or not no one is going to let one be built near them without a costly court fight

Too costly. We have already been through this before.

Don

[wtmusic]

No doubt

but we have yet to see what kind of court fight is involved when the feds start using eminent domain to grab corridors for wind/solar power transmission lines.

How much extra land will be required to build the infrastructure Gore envisions, and who will pay for it? No one seems willing to address this topic.

Though transmission lines don't have the boogeyman status of a nuke plant, plants have a tiny fraction of the physical footprint.

[MadHound]

35. The feasiblity problems are real

What to do with the waste, how to eliminate human error. Until these two problems are eliminated, nuclear energy is playing Russian roulette.

[wtmusic]

43. How to eliminate human error is a tough one, I'll grant you that.

No one expects it. Otherwise they would never get on an airplane, drive a car, step out their front door.

Worse than taking risks is an unrealistic risk assessment based on fear.

[MadHound]

49. Nuclear risk assessments aren't unreasonable

It isn't the big Chernobyls and TMIs that worry me so much as the ongoing "small stuff". Tritium leaks here, radioactive steam vents there, it all adds up. These incidents and accidents are much more common than most people know, but they're happening none the less.

Waste is a tough one too. It is the gift that keeps on giving, to our children's children's children. Can't bury the stuff, you've got seismic problems, material decay problems, leakage problems. Can't shoot it off to the sun, two words, Challenger, Columbia. Sink it, been there, done that, some washed back to shore in France. So what do you do?

In light of the fact that wind, solar, and a combination of other clean renewables can provide for our electrical needs, there is no need to take the nuclear risk.

[madrchsod]

15. we would be into the 8th year by now..........

oh well... better late than never

[dysfunctional press]

18. if the investment is going to be made by the taxpayers, they should OWN the utilities.

no more of this socialize the risk privatize the profits BULLSHIT.

[Greyhound]

21. Excellent point. n/t

[The2ndWheel]

19. Species are to the planet what corporations are to the government

We bitch and moan on and on and on and on and on about how corporations are privatizing the profits and socializing the costs, and how there is too much money and power in too few hands. On, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, endlessly complaining about it. Then we as a species do the exact same thing, and it's a glorious goal to work toward.

The more energy we take for ourselves, the larger our enviromnetal impact will be. It doesn't matter if it's coal, oil, or solar and wind. It may even be worse if we mine the sky because we can tell ourselves that the energy is clean and renewable. At least with coal and oil, we know it's killing us. We can see it. We can see it when we mine it from the ground. We can see it going into the air. We can see it on the energy bill every month, or every trip to the gas station, or any other way we calculate the cost.

It works the same way with the corporations. The more money they take for themselves, the more power they have to write the laws in their own interest. That is horrible, but to do the same as a species, in relation to other species and the planet, is called a crime if we don't do it. We privatize the profits as a species, and socialize the costs to every other form of life. We act just like Exxon, or Wal-Mart, or Monsanto.

[Kazak]

34. Bravo!

Thank goodness at lease someone else in the world acknowledges this!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. So I was walking through a hot parking lot yesterday...

Just getting blasted by the heat, and I had a thought. They should put up scaffolding in parking lots and put solar panels on the scaffolding, and have the cars park underneath it, like a covered parking spot. You'd use a lot of wasted space and energy, make a lot of electricity, and it'd keep your car cool.

[cobalt1999]

28. That's a great idea.

Parking lots are wasted space right now and using them as solar energy farms is a great idea. You need to start up a company offering to do that and piping the electricity back into the stores/malls/etc.

[Thothmes]

46. And without satisfactory public transportation

how are the customers suppose to get to stores/malls/etc.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. In their cars?

:shrug:

[Thothmes]

60. Once they convert the parking lots to

Solar or wind farms, where do you park the cars.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Underneath the panels.

Try reading next time.

[dkf]

29. That is what one of our mayoral candidates was proposing.

I thought it was quite ingenious myself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. I'm wondering if you could make it a building requirement.

Like, for example, handicap accessibility.

[dkf]

31. Hawaii required that all new homes have solar water heaters.

Of course, solar water heaters are quite a bit less expensive than solar cells, etc.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

36. Obama should make him Energy Secretary n/t

[Jersey Devil]

37. Link to full text of Al Gore's speech on energy

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/17/85925/8270/364/552902

See the update at the bottom of the post

[autorank]

41. Lets get the heck in gear! K*R

[Uncle Joe]

47. An outstanding speech!

Thanks for the thread, dkf:thumbsup:

[Fleshdancer]

50. if we start now, my daughter will be 18 yrs old when we reach our goal

Count me in. :)

[Fire Walk With Me]

51. Bush and friends have already pocketed that much of our money in the last seven years

:/

Recommending; Godspeed Al Gore.