Al Gore's personal electricity consumption 'up 10%'...

[MBX]

What a hypocrite: http://digg.com/environment/Al_Gore_s_personal_electricity_consumption_up_10

"Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month... By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year!"

[leekohler]

Running that complex is expensive! :)

[notsofatjames]

great, but who cares? My house probably uses more electricity than my neighbours, but we all pay our fair share.

[PlaceofDis]

What a hypocrite: http://digg.com/environment/Al_Gore_s_personal_electricity_consumption_up_10

"Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month... By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year!"

so?

he does pay extra on his bill to make sure it comes from a 'green' source or at least to help offset the cost of getting more green energy etc.

[MacNut]

so?

he does pay extra on his bill to make sure it comes from a 'green' source or at least to help offset the cost of getting more green energy etc.Why not just use less energy in the first place?

[MBX]

Running that complex is expensive! :)

And 3 30' Cinema displays (AND a big flatscreen TV running)

Classic

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~jimmylin/blog/files-2008-01-11/gore.jpg

[NT1440]

Why not just use less energy in the first place?

im sure he has a massive house with alot of goodies inside, u try using less when ur house is at least 5x the size of the average americans

[PlaceofDis]

Why not just use less energy in the first place?

what if he is using the least possible? i mean if you need to use it you need to use it. its all about your habits and what needs to be done. now if he were running lights 24/7 and just wasting energy to waste it, sure come down on him. but if hes using and keeping it to the minimum amount possible, then thats that. its a big place, and it all depends on his management of whats being use and whats not. which we'll never know because we don't live there.

[hulugu]

Another ad hominem argument about Al Gore.

Yay!

We haven't had one of those in what? A month?

EDIT: Three cinema displays too! OMFGBBQ!

[glocke12]

Why not just use less energy in the first place?

Novel idea.

This just reeks of hypocrisy. In other threads on this board people are saying that people who live in rural areas are greedy and selfish for wanting that lifestyle, that people who drive SUV's are selfish, greedy, wasteful etc...Here is a guy that is wasting tons of resources to live a lavish lifestyle while telling others that they should do with less or do without.

When it comes to Al Gore, seems like everyone wants to give him a freepass.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Even in the worst-case scenario, who the **** cares?

I just don't get it. "Do as I say, not as I do" is an awful way to raise your children, but when it comes to adults presenting hard facts, I couldn't care less if the president of Exxon lit a barrel of crude oil on fire onstage while telling us all to reduce our energy usage. I would STILL say, "Hey, reducing energy usage is a good idea." I fail to see how the "fact" that Al Gore uses more electricity than the rest of us serves to undo the fact that we need to use our resources more wisely.

And we don't even know whether this is true. A quick look at Wikipedia includes sourced comments that Al Gore uses more electricity than he used to, and it also includes sourced comments saying that he uses LESS electricity than he used to. Either way, somebody give me ONE GOOD ****ING REASON why the idea that Al Gore uses too much electricity obviates his message that we need to quit consuming so much of our natural resources. His message was presented based on FACTS and RESEARCH, not based on saying that "Oil executives are wasteful ninnies", so you can't destroy his message by saying "Al Gore is a wasteful ninny."

[atszyman]

Novel idea.

This just reeks of hypocrisy. In other threads on this board people are saying that people who live in rural areas are greedy and selfish for wanting that lifestyle, that people who drive SUV's are selfish, greedy, wasteful etc...Here is a guy that is wasting tons of resources to live a lavish lifestyle while telling others that they should do with less or do without.

When it comes to Al Gore, seems like everyone wants to give him a freepass.

And yet he could just pay the same rates for the polluting energy the rest of us use, but chooses to spend extra money to get power from green sources.

Do you think the energy companies are selling the green energy at a loss? Or might they be making profit on this energy that can be invested into more green sources so that the price can eventually come down for the rest of us to use green sources without it killing our pocketbooks. By using green energy he's subsidizing it's development for the rest of us.

By all means, he should be using more electricity...

Why is it so bad to be using vast amounts of renewable energy? Is there a shortage?

[stagi]

that is a sweet setup though, wish I had 3 30" cinema displays :)

[wordmunger]

Hmmm.. Very strange:

In 2008, they report (http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764) 213K kWh, and say his consumption is "up 10 percent".

In 2007, They reported (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367) 221K kWh.

Last I checked, 213K is less than 221K.

Also, there's a very good reason his consumption didn't go down more -- he was in the middle of a renovation to conserve energy. All those power tools consume a lot of power. I've seen estimates that his consumption should decrease by close to 50 percent when renovations are complete.

[LethalWolfe]

Link (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080618/NEWS0201/806180403/1009/news01)
The Gores' utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit, she said, thanks largely to their new geothermal heating and cooling system, which cut their natural gas bills by 90 percent.

Geothermal systems rely on the stable temperatures of the earth or groundwater beneath a home to power its heating and cooling systems. The Gores' system heats and cools the home and its hot water heater, Kreider said.

As for the increase in the electric bill, Kreider said that the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison. In addition, the Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service's Green Power Switch program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas.

"When they do use power, it's green power," she said, adding that 33 solar panels also supply about 4 percent of the household's power needs.

AFAIK Gore's home isn't just a private residence it's also his base of operations so of course it's going to have higher energy costs than an average home 'cause, as a place of business as well, it has energy requirements higher than an average home.


Lethal

[Mord]

Given his lifestyle that doesn't sound high at all, this household's electricity bill is far higher and we're just a bunch of nerds.

[danny_w]

Maybe he does pay more for 'green' energy, but that is not what this article is about. Why, after all of the well publicized renovations, does he now use 10% more energy than before. Seems like he is using the renovations as an excuse to use more than ever. Al Gore has to be the truest form of hypocrite ever.

[it5five]

Can we just merge/wasteland these awful threads?

I don't see the point in discussing Al Gore's energy use. Just because he uses more energy (and renewable energy, which has already been pointed out numerous times in this thread) doesn't invalidate the entire science of climate change.

The people creating these threads don't care about that though. The only thing they have left is to attack the messenger since they can't attack the message. It isn't serious debate or discussion, and I don't see how it has a place in PRSI at all.

[wordmunger]

Why, after all of the well publicized renovations, does he now use 10% more energy than before.

Why, after we answer the questions 2 and 3 posts up, do you still ask them?

[LethalWolfe]

The people creating these threads don't care about that though. The only thing they have left is to attack the messenger since they can't attack the message. It isn't serious debate or discussion, and I don't see how it has a place in PRSI at all.
I thought mindless bickering was always a cornerstone of the PRSI experience.:p


Lethal

[it5five]

Ah, touché. You are right. I suppose it wouldn't bother me as much if these people didn't try to use Al Gore's energy consumption as a launching pad for climate change denial. It hasn't happened yet, but once this threads hits 2 or 3 pages I'm sure we'll see it start.

[danny_w]

Why, after we answer the questions 2 and 3 posts up, do you still ask them?
Because you never answered the question, and only noted that 'green' power is more expensive. So? Power is power, I'm talking quantity, not cost. All you seem to want to talk about is cost.

[it5five]

Power is power, I'm talking quantity, not cost. All you seem to want to talk about is cost.

Because power is not power. Al Gore could use ten billion kWh per month if he wants and as long as it's renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal) it wouldn't matter at all. His energy consumption isn't harming anybody or anything except his wallet.

[wordmunger]

Because you never answered the question, and only noted that 'green' power is more expensive. So? Power is power, I'm talking quantity, not cost. All you seem to want to talk about is cost.

In small words:

Renovation = more power, temporarily

Figures don't yet reflect renovation

Actual use is down, not up

[atszyman]

Because power is not power. Al Gore could use ten billion kWh per month if he wants and as long as it's renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal) it wouldn't matter at all. His energy consumption isn't harming anybody or anything except his wallet.

We have a winner!

Does complaining about high gas prices and environmental damage while driving a Hummer make me a hypocrite? What if I spent a considerable amount of money to convert the Hummer over to solar/water power so that it uses zero fossil fuels and has zero emissions?

Renewable power does not deprive others of the fuel for power and by using it Gore pays extra money that will eventually lead to research and developments that drive renewable energy to more use as the price goes down.

I don't care if he leaves his lights on 24/7 and runs space heaters next to his thermostat while his central air cranks away. The energy he's paying for isn't removing any of our limited supply of fossil fuels, nor is it contributing to pollution or climate change.

Does it sound hypocritical to tell the rest of us to conserve while using all that power? Yes. Is it? No. The reason he tells the rest of us to conserve is that most of us aren't spending the extra money to use renewable energy and conservation would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce pollution. Neither of which he contributes to.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080618/NEWS0201/806180403/1009/news01)


AFAIK Gore's home isn't just a private residence it's also his base of operations so of course it's going to have higher energy costs than an average home 'cause, as a place of business as well, it has energy requirements higher than an average home.


Lethal
Oh come on, are you going to let such trivial things as FACTS get in the way of yet another "I hate Al Gore" rant? :p

[MacNut]

I don't care if he leaves his lights on 24/7 and runs space heaters next to his thermostat while his central air cranks away. The energy he's paying for isn't removing any of our limited supply of fossil fuels, nor is it contributing to pollution or climate change.Why waste power for the hell of it. Even if he is not using the grid he is still puting stress on the equipment that is running and will eventually need to be replaced. That means eventually more raw materials will be needed to make new equipment. By cutting back he would be saving in the long run.

[iShater]

Because you never answered the question, and only noted that 'green' power is more expensive. So? Power is power, I'm talking quantity, not cost. All you seem to want to talk about is cost.

It is not about quantity, but quality. If I use twice as much power as you do and the only downside is $$ that I am paying out of my pocket, while you end up with other side-effects (pollution, whatever), would it matter?

Conservation is about using power efficiently to reduce the impact you have on everything.

[mactastic]

Why waste power for the hell of it. Even if he is not using the grid he is still puting stress on the equipment that is running and will eventually need to be replaced. That means eventually more raw materials will be needed to make new equipment. By cutting back he would be saving in the long run.
Ah where's Badandy when you need him to tell you that all it takes is for Al Gore to derive some form of pleasure from his indulgence in energy usage for that usage to be totally and completely justified.

It's funny that conservatives are always harping about how Americans have a right to spend as they wish and consume as they wish... but then get into a frenetic tizzy over the cost of a haircut or become power usage nazis.

[TimJim]

Al Gore invented the internet.

[iTeen]

Wow who really cares?

Considering the size of his home, and considering the national average includes trailer parks and what-not, i think he is not actually using that much.

Lay-off people.

[wordmunger]

The larger point is this: Gore isn't saying people can't have nice houses and cars. He's saying we need to invest in the technology to create renewable energy sources and become more efficient in the way we use energy.

He's doing both of those things.

[NT1440]

Al Gore invented the internet.

and THANK GOD for that!:eek:

[.Andy]

Al Gore invented the internet.
Not true: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

[Prof.]

when you use green, renewable energy, you can use as much as you want!:cool::D

[TimJim]

Not true: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

I was joking ;)

[MacNut]

I was joking ;)Most people in here don't have a sense of humor.

[NT1440]

Most people in here don't have a sense of humor.

i think he was just trying to get that snippet out there to clarify for anyone that really beleived Gore said that.

[Beric]

I don't get Al Gore. If he actually believes in global warming, he should go live primitively and get millions of environmentalists to do the same. If the temperature of the earth then dropped as a result, I would believe in global warming and go join him. It's called living by example. People would believe him if he took actions to show he believed it himself, instead of apparently being in it just for the fame, power, and money.

I'm not making any type of argument here. I'm just making a suggestion to Al Gore.

[PlaceofDis]

I don't get Al Gore. If he actually believes in global warming, he should go live primitively and get millions of environmentalists to do the same. If the temperature of the earth then dropped as a result, I would believe in global warming and go join him. It's called living by example. People would believe him if he took actions to show he believed it himself, instead of apparently being in it just for the fame, power, and money.

I'm not making any type of argument here. I'm just making a suggestion to Al Gore.

you don't understand the climate change/global warming thing then. its not that technology or big houses/cars or whatever is the problem. its the resources that are being used to power those items, and the emissions that the leave behind thats the problem. not them in and of themselves. by using only renewable energy he is NOT being a hypocrite since those resources are infinite.

so yes, he is living by example. you're not reading the facts and informing yourself, just a suggestion.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Come on, now, let's cut poor Al some slack. It takes a lot of juice to run his compound and fly around the planet telling people to do as he says and not as he does. Just look at all that paper on his desk. How many trees had to die for that?

[Beric]

you don't understand the climate change/global warming thing then. its not that technology or big houses/cars or whatever is the problem. its the resources that are being used to power those items, and the emissions that the leave behind thats the problem. not them in and of themselves. by using only renewable energy he is NOT being a hypocrite since those resources are infinite.

so yes, he is living by example. you're not reading the facts and informing yourself, just a suggestion.

So then wouldn't lessening the demand for the use of those resources then cause there to be less of those polluting resources, thus resulting in the same effect? Or are you saying that the typical environmentalist statement of using less energy and fuel doesn't really work?

[it5five]

you don't understand the climate change/global warming thing then. its not that technology or big houses/cars or whatever is the problem. its the resources that are being used to power those items, and the emissions that the leave behind thats the problem. not them in and of themselves. by using only renewable energy he is NOT being a hypocrite since those resources are infinite.

so yes, he is living by example. you're not reading the facts and informing yourself, just a suggestion.

I posted something similar on the first page. These types of people don't want to know the truth or facts. They want to continue to try and find any way possible to discredit climate change. You know they're getting desperate when they can only attack Al Gore and not the science itself.

I suppose I can say it again for those last few posters on this page that I'm assuming didn't read any previous posts before making their own uninformed ones:

Al Gore uses renewable energy to power his home/office. It doesn't matter how much energy he is using since it is all renewable. He isn't polluting the earth or wasting finite resources when he uses power in his home/office. Should he try and use less energy? Of course. Is he being hypocritical by using the amount of energy he does? Not at all. He is using renewable energy.

[Beric]

I posted something similar on the first page. These types of people don't want to know the truth or facts. They want to continue to try and find any way possible to discredit climate change. You know they're getting desperate when they can only attack Al Gore and not the science itself.

I have not attacked Al Gore in any way. I simply said more people (like me) would believe him if he actually lived (or appeared to live) by what he said. It's easier to visualize, you know? ;)

[PlaceofDis]

Come on, now, let's cut poor Al some slack. It takes a lot of juice to run his compound and fly around the planet telling people to do as he says and not as he does. Just look at all that paper on his desk. How many trees had to die for that?

what does it matter how much paper he has so long as he recycles it?

and try and read the rest of the thread. :rolleyes:

So then wouldn't lessening the demand for the use of those resources then cause there to be less of those polluting resources, thus resulting in the same effect? Or are you saying that the typical environmentalist statement of using less energy and fuel doesn't really work?

yes using less of them is good, and if you've read the thread you'll see how everything else has been covered already. what i was getting at, its not about living like a cave man, its about alternate, cleaner, renewable energy.

I posted something similar on the first page. These types of people don't want to know the truth or facts. They want to continue to try and find any way possible to discredit climate change. You know they're getting desperate when they can only attack Al Gore and not the science itself.

and don't bother to read the thread.

[it5five]

I have not attacked Al Gore in any way. I simply said more people (like me) would believe him if he actually lived (or appeared to live) by what he said. It's easier to visualize, you know? ;)

Well, good thing he is living by what he says. His home is powered by renewable energy sources. He isn't using finite fossil fuels.

So by your own admission, it's time to believe him.

[wordmunger]

more people (like me) would believe him if he actually lived (or appeared to live) by what he said. It's easier to visualize, you know? ;)

I disagree. People would decide he was a kook/hermit and say "normal people don't live that way." As I said before, his point is that technology and policy can solve the problem. We don't all have to live in tents and eat organic granola.

[it5five]

Hey now, don't drag granola into this.

[Beric]

Well, good thing he is living by what he says. His home is powered by renewable energy sources. He isn't using finite fossil fuels.

So by your own admission, it's time to believe him.

He isn't using less energy though. That is what would make it obvious. If he would move down to a shack, others might do the same. And his renewable energy sources were built my non-renewable energy equipment, using material that was also non-renewable, I'll bet.

[it5five]

He isn't using less energy though. That is what would make it obvious. If he would move down to a shack, others might do the same.

So are you incapable of seeing the difference between finite resources, such as coal and oil and renewable sources, like the sun and wind? I don't know how many times it's been said in this thread, but he could use billions of kwh per year/month/day and it wouldn't have a negative impact on the world because all of the energy he is using comes from renewable sources. He doesn't need to move to a shack. Because all of the power he is using doesn't come from polluting finite resources. One more time? His home is powered by resources that don't pollute and are renewable.

And his renewable energy sources were built my non-renewable energy equipment, using material that was also non-renewable, I'll bet.

This is getting pathetic. First you criticized the amount of energy being used. When pointed out that all of his energy is renewable, you try and use this argument. Admit you were wrong, and admit that this thread is nothing else than an excuse to hate on Al Gore.

[hulugu]

I don't get Al Gore. If he actually believes in global warming, he should go live primitively and get millions of environmentalists to do the same. If the temperature of the earth then dropped as a result, I would believe in global warming and go join him. It's called living by example. People would believe him if he took actions to show he believed it himself, instead of apparently being in it just for the fame, power, and money.

I'm not making any type of argument here. I'm just making a suggestion to Al Gore.

Somehow, I think you may not be the first to make such thoughtful suggestion.

Secondly, living primitively is surprisingly resource intensive. Our technology has allowed us to expand and use land that would previously have supported a tiny population of human beings. Suggesting that everyone go primitive, or flock to the countryside as you suggested in another thread, would result in less arable land and the utter decimation of the human population. Furthermore, the burning of wood and other materials would just inject more carbon into the atmosphere further acerbating the problem.

So, you have any other suggestions?

It's easy to work the ad hominem needle to the stop and Al Gore's particular situation makes it easy (although if he lived in a house made of solar panels and recycled jeans and powered his way to work on a bicycle you'd just attack him as a nut instead), but the simple fact is Al Gore is just one of many messengers. Flinging arrows at him is not going to change anything.

Investing in green technologies and then demanding that Al use it would actually effect some change, but somehow I doubt many of the people posting the "Al Gore uses more energy than god!" stories are interested in that.

[MBX]

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18598#more-18598

[it5five]

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18598#more-18598

I suppose it wouldn't bother me as much if these people didn't try to use Al Gore's energy consumption as a launching pad for climate change denial. It hasn't happened yet, but once this threads hits 2 or 3 pages I'm sure we'll see it start.

I was right! And now this thread will go even further downhill.

[mactastic]

I don't get Al Gore. If he actually believes in global warming, he should go live primitively and get millions of environmentalists to do the same. If the temperature of the earth then dropped as a result, I would believe in global warming and go join him. It's called living by example. People would believe him if he took actions to show he believed it himself, instead of apparently being in it just for the fame, power, and money.

I'm not making any type of argument here. I'm just making a suggestion to Al Gore.
Funny that those who criticize Al Gore this way don't often say the same thing about GWB and his religious faith...

[iJohnHenry]

This thread is totally disgusting.

He has to use energy to get his message across.

He is only one man, so his carbon footprint is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

Some of you people need to find a better hobby.

[MBX]

This thread is totally disgusting.

He has to use energy to get his message across.

He is only one man, so his carbon footprint is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

Some of you people need to find a better hobby.

Yes i'm sure you need 3 30' Cinema Displays running simultaneously and a tv to combat global warming.

[NC MacGuy]

After seeing that pic of his office, I like him much more!;)

[iJohnHenry]

Yes i'm sure you need 3 30' Cinema Displays running simultaneously and a tv to combat global warming.

Sure, like that is anything like the old CRT days.

Push a few more buttons, those ones aren't working.

[63dot]

What a hypocrite: http://digg.com/environment/Al_Gore_s_personal_electricity_consumption_up_10

"Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month... By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year!"

judging from his more recent appearances, i think it's probably due to a few appliances being used more :)

the stove: gotta have more fried chicken
the fridge: gotta have more beer to wash that chicken down with
the blender: gotta make sauces to spice things up
the ice cream maker: gotta stay cool with a nice gallon or five of chocolate ice cream

[ham_man]

He is only one man, so his carbon footprint is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
For your sake, I hope that this was a joke.

[solvs]

Why waste power for the hell of it.
He isn't. :confused: That was a hypothetical. It's an office, not just a home. One he, and many others, use quite a bit. Let's go over this again:

Office with lots of employees
Pays more for non-polluting renewable energy
Energy consumption actually went DOWN by this site's own records
Global Climate Change is real
The only legitimate disputes are over how much humans are causing
Global Climate Change is partially natural, but not all (there is no dispute over it not existing at all, merely some people claiming it isn't humans, despite all evidence to the contrary... and how obvious it is that if we dump this much pollution into the atmosphere, there's going to be some effect)
Al Gore being a hypocrite (and he is, but not about this as much as some of you think) doesn't change anything about GCC
I can't believe someone can just throw out a figure, and even it's a complete fabrication against all actual evidence (even that of the site itself) everyone just believes it and takes it as it is.

You know what they say, a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting it's pants on

judging from his more recent appearances, i think it's probably due to a few appliances being used more :)
A fat joke. Nice.

[hulugu]

....
Energy consumption actually went DOWN by this site's own records...

This is the one thing I really don't understand. According to the TCPR (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367), Al Gore used 221,000kwh in February 2007. And, yet this (http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764) article states he used 213,210kwh.

To MDX, am I missing something or is that a 4% decrease in just over a year?

[cycocelica]

great, but who cares? My house probably uses more electricity than my neighbours, but we all pay our fair share.

so?

Even in the worst-case scenario, who the **** cares?

Wow who really cares?

The people have spoken.

[solvs]

This is the one thing I really don't understand. According to the TCPR (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367), Al Gore used 221,000kwh in February 2007. And, yet this (http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764) article states he used 213,210kwh.

To MDX, am I missing something or is that a 4% decrease in just over a year?
That's fuzzy math, because you obviously don't hate Gore enough to see that going down 11kwh is actually a 10% increase.

Anyone else notice he endorsed Obama recently? Coincidence? Ok, maybe it isn't, but still I figured I should mention it because I didn't see anyone else mentioning it. Maybe we should just start making up figures just for fun. We can make a game of it.

[és:]

Because power is not power. Al Gore could use ten billion kWh per month if he wants and as long as it's renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal) it wouldn't matter at all. His energy consumption isn't harming anybody or anything except his wallet.

Very good post. People also forget that this guy isn't just 'an average American'.

[Iscariot]

John McCain's power consumption has gone up 142kwh since 2002.

[és:]

John McCain's power consumption has gone up 142kwh since 2002.

Energy he gets from burning puppies.

[Abstract]

so?

he does pay extra on his bill to make sure it comes from a 'green' source or at least to help offset the cost of getting more green energy etc.

That's true.....if you're not Al Gore. If you're the preacher of "Green"-this, and "Climate Change"-that, then yes, he's just being a hypocrite, as it shows how little he cares about energy consumption. It definitely cheapens his rhetoric, although it's still true. It's just that the flag-bearer really should lead by example.

[PlaceofDis]

That's true.....if you're not Al Gore. If you're the preacher of "Green"-this, and "Climate Change"-that, then yes, he's just being a hypocrite, as it shows how little he cares about energy consumption. It definitely cheapens his rhetoric.

how? read the thread. his energy consumption does not matter if its not polluting or coming from a source that is renewable and infinite in supply.

/headdesk.

[atszyman]

That's true.....if you're not Al Gore. If you're the preacher of "Green"-this, and "Climate Change"-that, then yes, he's just being a hypocrite, as it shows how little he cares about energy consumption. It definitely cheapens his rhetoric, although it's still true. It's just that the flag-bearer really should lead by example.

Not only is it not hypocritical, he's putting his money where his mouth is.

By paying a premium for vast amounts of renewable energy he's sending the message to the energy companies that there is a demand for renewable power which gives them incentive to invest money in increasing production of renewable energy. As the supply increases, price goes down and more people can afford to use it, increasing demand for renewable while moving them off of fossil fuels. By using a lot of energy he's helping move the rest of us to non-polluting renewable energy, which is the ultimate goal. If the capacity is there and it's from renewable sources he could use a billion kWh per day and his effect on global climate change is less than me turning on the lights in my bathroom for 15 minutes to get ready in the morning.

He cares enough about energy consumption to spend more of his money on renewable, non-polluting energy which, as long as capacity is there, does not reduce our finite resources or contribute to climate change.

[63dot]

A fat joke. Nice.

actually, al gore is really not a fat human....he's really a polar bear in disguise ;)

but seriously, al gore has been instrumental in making people all over the world, and in making liberals and conservatives join in on an issue together

i can't remember a time when both sides of the aisle have been in such agreement as to the need to reduce our carbon emissions

[zap2]

im sure he has a massive house with alot of goodies inside, u try using less when ur house is at least 5x the size of the average americans

well that math doesn't work out!

Here is an idea, get a small house! He uses more in one month then most do in a whole year.

Sure he buys green energy to make the number work out....but if he didn't use so much power, and still bought all that energy, it would offset someone else's energy use

[iJohnHenry]

For your sake, I hope that this was a joke.

For my sake?? Should I feel threatened??

But for arguments sake, I'll be dead and gone before most of you.

At least Al is using his 10% more to spread the word, not spewing words into the ether for no good purpose.

[mactastic]

That's true.....if you're not Al Gore. If you're the preacher of "Green"-this, and "Climate Change"-that, then yes, he's just being a hypocrite, as it shows how little he cares about energy consumption. It definitely cheapens his rhetoric, although it's still true. It's just that the flag-bearer really should lead by example.

well that math doesn't work out!

Here is an idea, get a small house! He uses more in one month then most do in a whole year.

Sure he buys green energy to make the number work out....but if he didn't use so much power, and still bought all that energy, it would offset someone else's energy use
He IS leading by example. You two just can't seem to fathom that because his home and workplace combined add up to more than what the "average American" uses that doesn't mean he's using more energy than an average person. First of all, that "average American" consumption figure doesn't take into account what the "average American" who owns a successful business uses. Many people who own a business do not conduct business from home. Thus there consumption isn't counted when they are at work. Gore's is.

Second, it's hardly fair to compare Al Gore to an "average American". They guy is an ex USVP. He has staff and security 24/7. A more fair comparison would be Gore's energy usage compared to other ex-USVPs. What does GHWBush consume? How's his carbon footprint compare to Gore's? Once again -- Gore is not an "average American". He has invested tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars making his house more energy efficient. Also, he's working with an old family estate. If you talk to anyone in the green building movement, they'll tell you that refurbishing an existing house is much less energy intensive than building a new house, such as Bush did at Crawford.

[themadchemist]

Sure he buys green energy to make the number work out....but if he didn't use so much power, and still bought all that energy, it would offset someone else's energy use

Yeah man, I can't believe that Al Gore doesn't subsidize my consumption, too. What a jerk.

[Kashchei]

After reading the posts in this thread, I was struck by the thought processes behind both sides of this argument. Below is a set of flowcharts that illustrate the level of proof required by evolution science and those trying to disprove it.

I think this set of flowcharts could be used to illustrate the thought process of the two political parties these days, most unfortunately. In other words, ANY inconsistency, large or small, real or imagined, will be used by the GOP to completely overturn the left's argument.


http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Image:Cr-vs-evo.gif
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Image:Cr-vs-evo.gif

[iShater]

^^^ wrong thread? :confused:

[63dot]

^^^ wrong thread? :confused:

he he, not really, al gore invented evolution through his intelligent design!

[iJohnHenry]

WRONG!!!!

Al invented the Internet.

God bless him.

:D

[stevento]

Running that complex is expensive! :)

i agree. he doesn't need to have a house of that size.

[iJohnHenry]

Then let's beat the **** out of Bill Gates.

Not for energy waste, just on general principles.

:D

[Ugg]

i agree. he doesn't need to have a house of that size.

Does anyone?

[NT1440]

well that math doesn't work out!

Here is an idea, get a small house! He uses more in one month then most do in a whole year.

Sure he buys green energy to make the number work out....but if he didn't use so much power, and still bought all that energy, it would offset someone else's energy use

im sure if you were a multi billion youd be living in an average house:rolleyes:

[solvs]

Does everyone get that not only did Al Gore's energy use not go up, on his newly renovated house, but that it's "green" energy now? Or are some still not getting it? How about the whole GCC thing itself? Maybe I should post this:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics)

Almost everything you ever needed to know about Climate Change but didn't want to actually look up.

[hulugu]

So, I decided to send an email to the Tennessee group asking how they could calculate a 10% increase in energy usage against their own previous article.

I'm still waiting for a response.

[solvs]

I'm still waiting for a response.
I, for one, will be patiently holding my breath in anticipation.

[jmadlena]

what does it matter how much paper he has so long as he recycles it?

Red flag.

That is the wrong attitude to have.

Main rules of environmentalism:

1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

In that order. It makes sense to reduce your consumption, then reuse what you have consumed, then recycle. If you follow that order it will cost the least amount of materials/energy. You do know that recycling uses energy, right?

It would be hypocritical for Al Gore to do whatever he wants, then call it good because he recycles. Big whoop. It still uses energy and materials to recycle things. Don't most recycling trucks use gas to pick up that recycling material? Doesn't the recycling factory use some form of fossil fuels, or any fuel, really, that produces some sort of bi-product that has to be dealt with?

Point being, there are repercussion for everything that we do. Al Gore is no different. If he still lives this lifestyle, while instructing people to consume less things and less energy, he has missed the point of environmentalism. Live simply.

Concerning the statement 'It doesn't matter how much energy you use because it is renewable,' that sentiment is also wrong. Even if it is renewable energy, there still is a finite amount. If Al Gore used all of the renewable energy in the world, no one else would have it available to them. And, to echo what MacNut said earlier, it puts more strain on the infrastructure, meaning components will have to be replaced sooner.

'Going green' is about living simply. We all can do better, including Al Gore, but as a figurehead of the movement, he needs to make sure that his actions are in line with his words. Whether people deny it or, not the comparison between the Crawford Ranch and Al Gore's mini-mansion is still great.

EDIT:
If Mr. Gore has renovated his house to include greener means of energy (part of that impetus belongs to this scrutiny, I believe) that is great. His house never should have been using that much in the first place, though.

[atszyman]

Concerning the statement 'It doesn't matter how much energy you use because it is renewable,' that sentiment is also wrong. Even if it is renewable energy, there still is a finite amount. If Al Gore used all of the renewable energy in the world, no one else would have it available to them. And, to echo what MacNut said earlier, it puts more strain on the infrastructure, meaning components will have to be replaced sooner.


I would agree with this point if renewable energy were cheaper than the alternatives, and we were anywhere close to tapping the full capacity of renewable energy we have available to us.

Right now renewable energy typically costs more than the non-renewable sources. If people don't buy it, the power companies won't see the demand and will not invest in more infrastructure and capacity that will lead to it becoming cheaper for everyone. Unfortunately at this point with rising prices everywhere most consumers aren't going to voluntarily increase their electric bill. People like Gore who have the money to afford it, are providing the demand and money to hopefully bring up capacity and bring down the cost of renewable energy. Until we reach the point where most of the people on earth are using renewable energy and we have tapped most of the sources available, Gore using more than an average person isn't causing any problems, and I don't find it hypocritical.

When the country is using almost all renewable sources of energy and Gore starts causing brownouts by turning on his jacuzzi, I'll be the first to tell him to turn of the lights and raise the temperature on his thermostat in the summer but we're not there yet and have a long way to go.

[solvs]

You're still missing the point that actual consumption went DOWN 4%. Your point about "finite" energy also misses what you yourself stated. I don't see how using things like solar energy, especially 4% LESS , in an office after a big renovation to make things even more eco-friendly no less, is going to use up more resources than someone else using any nonrenewable energy. The parts are going to wear out when they wear out. The same could be said of any other means of collecting and distributing energy. Sure, we can all stand to use less of our resources, even him, but this is just grasping for something to knock this figurehead down as a hypocrite, even if he isn't, and therefor disprove what he stands for. Who says he isn't reducing? Especially since we know he recycles, and he reuses, and that his energy consumption, even of the renewable/non-destructive type, is actually going down. Even during a renovation. He is living by his own standards. Actually, if you really look at it, he's living above his standards. No one said he was perfect, and completely carbon neutral, but he's closer than any of us are.

Concerning the statement 'It doesn't matter how much energy you use because it is renewable,' that sentiment is also wrong. Even if it is renewable energy, there still is a finite amount. If Al Gore used all of the renewable energy in the world, no one else would have it available to them. And, to echo what MacNut said earlier, it puts more strain on the infrastructure, meaning components will have to be replaced sooner.
No offense, but I don't think you understand what "renewable" energy means if you believe this.

Some of that renewable energy comes from things like solar panels, which don't really break down as much with a little more use, and are, well, renewable and not using anyone else's energy for that matter, even if they do cost some resources to make (though still less than using regular energy over the lifetime of their usage).

[LethalWolfe]

No offense, but I don't think you understand what "renewable" energy means if you believe this.
I think the hyperbole he was floating was what if Gore used up all the green energy that can be produced each day. The resource itself is renewable, but the amount that can be produced in a given time period is finite.


Lethal

[jmadlena]

I would agree with this point if renewable energy were cheaper than the alternatives, and we were anywhere close to tapping the full capacity of renewable energy we have available to us.

Right now renewable energy typically costs more than the non-renewable sources. If people don't buy it, the power companies won't see the demand and will not invest in more infrastructure and capacity that will lead to it becoming cheaper for everyone. Unfortunately at this point with rising prices everywhere most consumers aren't going to voluntarily increase their electric bill. People like Gore who have the money to afford it, are providing the demand and money to hopefully bring up capacity and bring down the cost of renewable energy. Until we reach the point where most of the people on earth are using renewable energy and we have tapped most of the sources available, Gore using more than an average person isn't causing any problems, and I don't find it hypocritical.

When the country is using almost all renewable sources of energy and Gore starts causing brownouts by turning on his jacuzzi, I'll be the first to tell him to turn of the lights and raise the temperature on his thermostat in the summer but we're not there yet and have a long way to go.

You make a good point regarding the demand for renewable energy and Gore's energy use. I would still disagree though, because the first tenant of living 'green' (I hate that term, but it is so easy to use, haha) is to reduce your use. The utility companies will find out for themselves in time that consumers want it as it gets closer to their price range. It will happen, and until then, we should reduce our usage.

No offense, but I don't think you understand what "renewable" energy means if you believe this.

Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean we have an infinite supply available immediately. We have an 'unlimited' amount over a period of time (until the sun burns out, and the wind stops blowing, etc...) but that doesn't mean we should consume as much as we want because there is less environmental impact. We will never get to the point where our consumption has absolutely zero impact.

Ed Begley Jr. has solar panels and a wind-turbine at his house and purchases green energy I'm sure, yet he doesn't leave the lights on all of the time; because there is a limited supply, and it is the right thing to do to reduce your usage.

EDIT: LethalWolfe gave a much more succinct explanation of my point.

[solvs]

I think the hyperbole he was floating was what if Gore used up all the green energy that can be produced each day. The resource itself is renewable, but the amount that can be produced in a given time period is finite.
But it's not like anyone else is going to use the solar panels on his roof, for example. And as said, the more you buy of those, the more affordable they can become. The more that can be built and sold, marking a one time use of resource to build, but years of not needing much else. I suppose in theory other types can be used up, but that's no where near happening, so, as you said, hyperbole.

The facts stand that not only is he living up to his own standards otherwise, but again, he's still using less than he was anyway.

we should reduce our usage.
He is doing that anyway.

(until the sun burns out, and the wind stops blowing, etc...)
For one, I don't see that happening any time soon. For two, using solar panels and wind turbines doesn't actually use up any of those the way using something like oil would.

but that doesn't mean we should consume as much as we want because there is less environmental impact.
Then it's a good thing he's using less now.

Ed Begley Jr. has solar panels and a wind-turbine at his house and purchases green energy I'm sure, yet he doesn't leave the lights on all of the time; because there is a limited supply, and it is the right thing to do to reduce your usage.
I doubt Al Gore leaves the lights on all the time either. Who said he did? It's not like he's going to use 0 energy. No one expects him to, nor does he expect anyone else to. And again, there really isn't a limited supply of your own solar or wind, unless you go over the amount you yourself have stored, and I don't see where Gore has done that.

EDIT: LethalWolfe gave a much more succinct explanation of my point.
You do realize he called it hyperbole though, right?

[jmadlena]

But it's not like anyone else is going to use the solar panels on his roof, for example. And as said, the more you buy of those, the more affordable they can become. The more that can be built and sold, marking a one time use of resource to build, but years of not needing much else. I suppose in theory other types can be used up, but that's no where near happening, so, as you said, hyperbole.

The facts stand that not only is he living up to his own standards otherwise, but again, he's still using less than he was anyway.

I do agree that if they are his personal panels or turbines, his house is the only one using them. But still, using more means those panels will have to be replaced sooner, rather than later. Environmentalism is about efficiency and utilizing what you have as long as you can.

President Bush's house in Texas is far more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore's because he uses less, in combination with technologies to improve the energy he is using. That is the first line of defense for the environment.

[.Andy]

President Bush's house in Texas is far more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore's because he uses less, in combination with technologies to improve the energy he is using. That is the first line of defense for the environment.
I agree with your use less sentiment. But I'm not sure you can compare 'houses' like this. I'm not 100% sure but doesn't gore run all his business out of his home (along with all his staff) whereas bush's house in texas is just that, a house?

[solvs]

President Bush's house in Texas is far more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore's because he uses less, in combination with technologies to improve the energy he is using.
I answered most of the rest above in an edit, but again, Al Gore also uses "less". And unless the Crawford Ranch uses mostly renewable energy, even if Gore was using more overall, the environmental impact, only slightly increased by increased usage of things like solar paneling, would still be more. Because it's a different kind of energy. The bad kind that actually uses resources.

As noted above, it's better to have a lot of renewable, green energy than a little nonrenewable, non-green energy.

[Samarium]

A little input. He has spent millions on trying to get greener electricity, what on Earth makes you think that he will waste energy?

[solvs]

A little input. He has spent millions on trying to get greener electricity, what on Earth makes you think that he will waste energy?

Because an article said he was, even though he actually isn't? :confused:

[jmadlena]

I agree with your use less sentiment. But I'm not sure you can compare 'houses' like this. I'm not 100% sure but doesn't gore run all his business out of his home (along with all his staff) whereas bush's house in texas is just that, a house?

That is also a good point. I don't know how much of his staff works in his 'house,' or if it is mainly a residence. That would be something very useful to know for this kind of analysis.

I answered most of the rest above in an edit, but again, Al Gore also uses "less". And unless the Crawford Ranch uses mostly renewable energy, even if Gore was using more overall, the environmental impact, only slightly increased by increased usage of things like solar paneling, would still be more. Because it's a different kind of energy. The bad kind that actually uses resources.

As noted above, it's better to have a lot of renewable, green energy than a little nonrenewable, non-green energy.

I thought I had read that the Crawford Ranch uses environmentally-friendly technology for its energy, such as wind or solar. I might have mixed this up though.

I do agree with the using more renewable energy is better than using less of non-green energy to a halfway point, if that makes sense. Using lots of 'green' energy still affects other things, and you should reduce your usage as much as you can. Light bulbs, stress on the system, etc...

But I guess my comments came from the shock of how high the numbers were for his electricity use. But everyone here has raised great points to consider.

[solvs]

That is also a good point. I don't know how much of his staff works in his 'house,' or if it is mainly a residence. That would be something very useful to know for this kind of analysis.
It's mostly like a Summer home, and not even really a ranch.

I thought I had read that the Crawford Ranch uses environmentally-friendly technology for its energy, such as wind or solar. I might have mixed this up though.
Energy efficient, and some, but not all.

I do agree with the using more renewable energy is better than using less of non-green energy to a halfway point, if that makes sense. Using lots of 'green' energy still affects other things, and you should reduce your usage as much as you can. Light bulbs, stress on the system, etc...
He does.

But I guess my comments came from the shock of how high the numbers were for his electricity use. But everyone here has raised great points to consider.
Again, it's a primary residence and an office, probably in constant use, and again, his energy use went up during construction, but then actually went down.

Thank you for engaging in a polite discussion though. :)


For the record, Gore has done a lot of not so good things that could make him seem like a hypocrite, but this is not it.

[mactastic]

I do agree that if they are his personal panels or turbines, his house is the only one using them. But still, using more means those panels will have to be replaced sooner, rather than later. Environmentalism is about efficiency and utilizing what you have as long as you can.

President Bush's house in Texas is far more environmentally friendly than Mr. Gore's because he uses less, in combination with technologies to improve the energy he is using. That is the first line of defense for the environment.
One must also take into consideration the fact that Gore re-used his existing family house rather than building a brand-new state-of-the-art "green" facility. This is one area where I disagree with LEED goals. LEED goals are all about saving energy, but there is immense embodied energy in an existing facility. Saving and reusing that resource, even if it is less efficient than a comparable modern facility, is still a solid "green" tactic. LEED rewards reductions in energy consumption, and isn't so much focused on re-use. That will change as new LEED guidelines come out, supposedly in 2009.

By contrast, Bush's new "ranch" (a ranch has cattle, right?) was built to the newest energy standards, but used a vast amount of virgin material to get there. The embodied energy in the Crawford play-ranch is likely much higher than that in Gore's house for that reason, no matter how much less energy it uses.

[LethalWolfe]

By contrast, Bush's new "ranch" (a ranch has cattle, right?) was built to the newest energy standards, but used a vast amount of virgin material to get there. The embodied energy in the Crawford play-ranch is likely much higher than that in Gore's house for that reason, no matter how much less energy it uses.
1. Thanks for stealing what I was going to say.
2. Haven't you ever herd of a dude ranch?


Lethal

[mactastic]

1. Thanks for stealing what I was going to say.
2. Haven't you ever herd of a dude ranch?


Lethal
1. No problem. I like sneaking into people's brains, figuring out what they were about to say, then saying it before they even realize they thought it.
2. Herd of a dude ranch... Pun intended, I assume?

[hulugu]

...
Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean we have an infinite supply available immediately. We have an 'unlimited' amount over a period of time (until the sun burns out, and the wind stops blowing, etc...) but that doesn't mean we should consume as much as we want because there is less environmental impact. We will never get to the point where our consumption has absolutely zero impact.....

This is a good point. Ideally, solar is something on the order of 174 petawatts per hour, so capturing just a small amount of this means a ridiculous amount of energy. The main limitation would be land-mass for solar cells and the material to make them (oh and batteries), but there are fewer limitations than something like coal where once it's used it's gone.

[NT1440]

This is a good point. Ideally, solar is something on the order of 174 petawatts per hour, so capturing just a small amount of this means a ridiculous amount of energy. The main limitation would be land-mass for solar cells and the material to make them (oh and batteries), but there are fewer limitations than something like coal where once it's used it's gone.

i like the idea certain groups have been using in magnifying or focusing the light energy before exposing it to solar cells, it deffinatly holds promise for allowing the same energy to be produced while taking up much less space

[Ugg]

This is a good point. Ideally, solar is something on the order of 174 petawatts per hour, so capturing just a small amount of this means a ridiculous amount of energy. The main limitation would be land-mass for solar cells and the material to make them (oh and batteries), but there are fewer limitations than something like coal where once it's used it's gone.

The local brewery has put solar cells over its parking lot. Not only do they get lots of clean energy but the shade reduces the amount of heat generated by the asphalt.

Obviously, covering over all the parking lots in the US isn't the entire solution and small scale local generation is more expensive than large scale solar arrays. However, if solar offers us one thing, it's the ability to localize more of our energy production and reduce the need for more transmission lines.

[hulugu]

The local brewery has put solar cells over its parking lot. Not only do they get lots of clean energy but the shade reduces the amount of heat generated by the asphalt.

Obviously, covering over all the parking lots in the US isn't the entire solution and small scale local generation is more expensive than large scale solar arrays. However, if solar offers us one thing, it's the ability to localize more of our energy production and reduce the need for more transmission lines.

Totally. I worked with a group that calculated covering the roofs of several major buildings with solar panels.

For instance, a local mall has 1.3 million (estimated) square feet of roof space, much of it level and accessible. Covering this with a large amount of solar cells (and collecting rainfall as well) creates a huge amount of free energy that such a building could use during it's most typical hours of operation.
Similar kinds of operations would dramatically reduce the amount of energy needed from power-plants because of the efficiencies gain by not having to move the energy over power lines. The math was really pretty cool.

I finished my water-collection array, so the solar is next. Here in AZ, water is a major issue and when I figured out how much water I could collect for free, it seemed worth it.

Ultimately, I think we can design our way out of much of this problem. That may sound naive, but I remain convinced that through ingenuity and forward thought, we can build ecological cities.
Arguing about how much electricity Gore does or does not use is not going to get us there and it's quite simply a distraction thrown up by a group that has a clear political agenda that is running in opposition to what's necessary.

[LethalWolfe]

1. No problem. I like sneaking into people's brains, figuring out what they were about to say, then saying it before they even realize they thought it.
2. Herd of a dude ranch... Pun intended, I assume?
Just make sure you only user your powers for good and moost certainly the pun was intentional.


Lethal

[mactastic]

For instance, a local mall has 1.3 million (estimated) square feet of roof space, much of it level and accessible. Covering this with a large amount of solar cells (and collecting rainfall as well) creates a huge amount of free energy that such a building could use during it's most typical hours of operation.
Similar kinds of operations would dramatically reduce the amount of energy needed from power-plants because of the efficiencies gain by not having to move the energy over power lines. The math was really pretty cool.
Math is always cool. But did the math "pencil out"? IOW, at current electrical costs, what is the payback time for that size solar array? My guess is that it did not. Unless you throw in some kind of subsidy, decrease the cost of solar electricity, or increase the cost of traditional electricity, the payback time is longer than the typical tenant wants to wait. Plus you have to figure in the cost of interest on money spent on the solar array during the payback period.

[hulugu]

Math is always cool. But did the math "pencil out"? IOW, at current electrical costs, what is the payback time for that size solar array? My guess is that it did not. Unless you throw in some kind of subsidy, decrease the cost of solar electricity, or increase the cost of traditional electricity, the payback time is longer than the typical tenant wants to wait. Plus you have to figure in the cost of interest on money spent on the solar array during the payback period.

No, the reality didn't pencil out. The point was to think about roof square footage as a place for solar arrays. Government buildings, parking lots, and private homes have an incredible amount of square footage that's tipped towards the sun.

Part of this was to worry on the argument that solar arrays would have to occupy large tracts of public and private land.

As always, the reality of finance tends to take a neat idea and maul it.

[mactastic]

No, the reality didn't pencil out. The point was to think about roof square footage as a place for solar arrays. Government buildings, parking lots, and private homes have an incredible amount of square footage that's tipped towards the sun.

Part of this was to worry on the argument that solar arrays would have to occupy large tracts of public and private land.

As always, the reality of finance tends to take a neat idea and maul it.
I know it all to well. Clients only want to pay for expensive solar arrays if it can "pencil out".

However, there are promising technologies out there that will allow PV installations in windows (with transparent arrays), on the sides of buildings, and other areas. Space will not be the issue. Cost will be the driver. Once electrical costs get prohibitively high, solar technology will become competitive. Until then, it's gonna need a boost. Or some new technology. Nanosolar is promising with a non-silicon based PV system. The concentrating technologies, particularly IBM's look promising as well.

[hulugu]

I know it all to well. Clients only want to pay for expensive solar arrays if it can "pencil out".

However, there are promising technologies out there that will allow PV installations in windows (with transparent arrays), on the sides of buildings, and other areas. Space will not be the issue. Cost will be the driver. Once electrical costs get prohibitively high, solar technology will become competitive. Until then, it's gonna need a boost. Or some new technology. Nanosolar is promising with a non-silicon based PV system. The concentrating technologies, particularly IBM's look promising as well.

I just saw the new issue of The Economist and it discusses many of these issues, including the rapidly falling price of solar arrays (it's about 1/5 of the cost in the 1980s.)

[MacNut]

Lets say everyone puts a panel on the roof, what would the reflections do to air travel? I can see a bunch of pilots going blind from sun glare. And would all that sun reflection cause more heat to be pumped back into the atmosphere.

[hulugu]

Lets say everyone puts a panel on the roof, what would the reflections do to air travel? I can see a bunch of pilots going blind from sun glare.

You're kidding right?

[MacNut]

You're kidding right?Lets say a shopping mall fills the whole roof with solar panels, how much of that gets reflected. Add 500 more roofs in the area. Im sure it would reflect.

[mactastic]

Lets say a shopping mall fills the whole roof with solar panels, how much of that gets reflected. Add 500 more roofs in the area. Im sure it would reflect.
Why aren't planes crashing down from all the skylights out there then?

[MacNut]

Why aren't planes crashing down from all the skylights out there then?You mean you have see skylights as big as solar panels?

[mactastic]

You mean you have see skylights as big as solar panels?
Google "Norman Foster" and "Reichstag", then click on Images.

You'll see a fantastic skylight. So far, no planes have crashed into it. At least not that I've heard of.

[LethalWolfe]

Pilots regularly fly over water, snow, and above cloud level so I think some solar panels won't pose too much of a problem.


Lethal

[hulugu]

Or a car dealership or the long-term parking just outside your average airport. Lots of reflective glass.

AFAIK, solar panels don't reflect that much light, but I don't have anything to back that up. Also, many houses and buildings are topped with a white reflective roof coating, so the idea that an ambient amount of reflective light would blind or impair a pilot seems like hunting.

[.Andy]

Once on a plane the sun shone directly through the window I was sitting at. Luckily I escaped with my sight, although I was slightly warmed.

[solvs]

Uh, nut, I realize you're just playing devil's advocate, but the point of solar panels is to collect sunlight. Most of them are non-reflective. Far less than any of the other things mentioned. That, and most pilots are looking out across the sky, not down. I don't know of any solar panels that will be at 35,000 feet. ;)