Ausubel should take a tour of the great plains. If they filled up eastern Wyoming, eastern Colorado and the Dakotas with wind farms - it would be a big improvement in the scenery.

Unemployment on Indian reservations in South Dakota is 90%. Building a clean industrial base in the region would help out a lot of people.

On the other hand, what exactly is he planning on doing with a 20X increase in high level nuclear waste? And has he considered how toxic and environmentally damaging the uranium mining industry is? People who think nuclear energy is clean, are simply not aware of the facts.

just think, this guy gets paid to come up with the idea that he could have learned from all us deniers here on this blog...where's my royalty check?...are any of you doomsday sayers figuring out that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are a good thing yet?...have a nice warm sunny day, its a good thing, and so is co2...AGW, what a joke!!!

I am a supporter of renewable energy,but I don't want to turn the whole planet into a wind farm.
So much water wind tidal & solar energy energy is easily available why not use it, biogas should be made from manure sewage and crop residue.Then make up most of the short fall by energy efficiency, cutting wastage.Gas and Oil will soon be in short supply.If Nuclear is so safe why don't the stations get built in the big cities? where the electricity demand is, instead of the countryside. are wind turbines uglier than pylons? would you rather look at a wind turbine or be without electricity.? If you buy a new gas guzzler, how much will it be worth when you cant get the fuel? Now think about climate change as well,this could make you hungry, thirsty,homeless,or all 3.

Great article about Global Warming alarmism:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=270256634686203

How is the cluttering of open space such as the Great Plains with wind turbines and solar panels an improvement? All the facetiousness and sarcasm in these blog responses has diminished the quality of debate. Brett what are you going to do about this?

And these people are also very concerned about global warming.... or at least hoping for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6916717.stm

Brian:

I would be willing to wager that the children of the people on this site will never have to deal with a shortage of oil and gas in their lifetimes. In fact, I would probably go out several generations with the bet. It simply amazes me how little of this planet we have explored with reference to energy reserves.

Renewable energy will be a factor in the future just not now. The guy is right. Besides, can you just imagine Greenpeace's reaction to loading up some remote area with wind turbines or solar panels. And don't even consider using a river to drive a turbine. Funny how the same people bent out of shape about GW are those who won't allow any sort of energy production that may even remotely affect the environment.

There is an odd notion in some people's minds that there has to be ONE correct solution. If renewable energy will not solve everything by itself, does this mean that we should abandon it entirely?

In fact, global warming will be slowed or halted by applying a wide range of solutions simultaneously. Perhaps nuclear power could be one of these, although the huge up-front investments as well as the waste problem makes it a poor short-term solution. Better to invest in improved renewables, energy efficiency, conservation, AND carbon sequestration. And many of these solutions will actually improve the economy by making us more efficient.

Liberals killed nuclear power in the 1970s. They are killing fossil fuels now. They can't stand wind, water or solar on a large scale because it ruins the scenery.

The other solution is to go back to living in caves - but I doubt they would be happy about that either.

Oil won't run out anytime soon, but it doesn't have to -- the growth of demand is outpacing the growth of supply, thus the price per barrel will continue to rise.

Much of these so-called open spaces are either 1) being torn up for development or 2) will be torn up for development in the future.

Why do solar and wind power need to be centralized? Why can't "we the people" put small scale solar and wind in local areas and tie them to the power grid? Eventually, we could develop a decentralized power grid where the power company was reduced to infrastructure maintenance. We would all get our power cheap and we wouldn't need to worry about using the state of Arizona for solar panels.

My husband and I worked at a company in the mid-late 1970's that was heavily involved in nuclear power research and development, i.e., fusion, nuclear waste R&D, etc., through DOE contracts. My husband is a chemical engineer (Ph.D) so he has a lot of nuclear power experience plus petroleum engineering knowledge. Anyway, when all the contracts started being cancelled and layouts spread due to the demise of nuclear power, all the scientists and engineers and R&D types said, "just wait, in about 30 or so years, when the world realizes they need nuclear power, it isn't going to be there." The current scenario was totally predicted back then. The problem now is a lot of the experience is no longer there due to old age, retirement and death, of the players from the 70's. And it takes a long, long time to ramp back up especially now with such strict environmental regulations about building plants. NIMBY. As Patrick Henry mentioned, the liberals killed nuclear power. If we had had 30 years of R&D spending on how to handle nuclear waste and other nuclear power areas that the public is ignorant and afraid of, maybe... well, too late now. Actually, Patrick, the liberals want US to live in caves therefore they want US to sacrifice so they can continue to live in the style they have become accustomed to. They want the POWER over us.
BTW, regarding wind power, I have a question. On a small scale, renewable energy such as wind and solar can help. But is there a break-even point, that on a Massive scale, such as wind turbines on millions and millions of acres, it could have negative influence, i.e., the law of unintended consequences. Isn't climate and weather influenced by wind? Based on the the first law of thermodynamics, the energy out of a wind turbine has to equal the energy in. And since the wind turbine converts and takes energy from the wind, the wind velocity leaving the wind turbine is less. So could you get such a hugh amount of wind turbines all together on millions of acres, that a substantial reduction of wind velocity occurs and influences the climate/weather. (I think due to physics each turbine can only get UP to about 50% of the power of the wind.) What if they put bazillions of these babies in the ocean? Would they have any impact on wind which influences weather and climate?

I'm planning on taking a visit to the Springfield nuclear power plant with my kids this afternoon. I hear that the plant operator doesn't know how to read.

>> Why can't "we the people" put small scale solar and wind in local areas and tie them to the power grid?

Solar and Wind are ok as energy supplements, but are just not enough. For example, a wind generator that produces 60 watts of power (one light bulb) stops about 1 cubic meter (or 32 cubic feet) of air moving at 36 km/h (or 21 mph) each second. Most places don't have sustained winds of 21 mph. These technologies are really only good for charging batteries, which is great for us sailors. A wind turbine cannot produce enough energy to construct a wind turbine.

Another problem is that wind generators that connect to the AC power grid work most efficiently when they turn at a steady rate--the generator itself must remain in synch with the grid. Winds are too sporadic for this to work.

We already have the ideal fuel: endless petroleum

A bipartisan group - three Republicans, four Democrats - are putting together a bill to increase the CAFE standards to 35 mpg and the renewable electricity standard. It's nice to see bipartisanship, however rare it is, show up from time to time.

Why does everything have to be on a massive scale? Why do wind and solar have to be the only means of salvation? Why does it just have to be "crazy liberals" who care about conservation and energy efficiency?

I consider myself fairly moderate, and yet I support breaking ourselves free of fossil fuels. I think it's simply our most practical course of action, global warming or not. And I don't think we'll even have to return to the caves to do so. But it will take more than one easy fix. As I see it, reducing our reliance on oil and coal must be approached from three directions: energy sources, energy sinks, and people.

Sources:
Yes, wind and solar energy are a big part of the equation when it comes to future energy production. But it's not practical everywhere. Seattle would probably not be the optimal place for a solar farm. Nor is a bazillion-acre wind farm exactly practical. But smaller wind farms scattered in places that get steady wind, like Eastern Washington or the Mojave Desert (which is consequently also a good place for solar farms) have already proven feasible and useful. It's a matter of discussing power resources at a regional level and deciding what will work best where.

(A side-note to Mary--I'd imagine that there is a point where wind farms can reach a point of diminishing returns. I think of the turbines like trees, slowing the flow of an air mass by way of friction. Essentially, too large or too dense a wind farm would act as a wind break, with the turbines farthest from the prevailing winds being more or less useless).

Tidal, hydro, and geothermal energy also have their places and can be integrated where practical. Will these alone solve our current and future energy needs? No. Read on.

Sinks (including the one in the kitchen):
Energy efficiency and conservation can play a huge role in cutting our energy needs. And no, I'm not suggesting you use half a square of toilet paper, flush once a day, and swelter in the 100 degree heat all summer. If you'd like to do that then feel free, but please repress the desire to whine about it.

Improving the windows and insulation on older homes and buildings will also make a sizable difference in how much energy we use. Seal cracks around windows and doors. The better maintained a building is, the less energy you need to keep the air inside comfortable.

When practical, new buildings can incorporate geothermal energy to help keep the air temperature inside more stable. New buildings can also be designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight in warm areas or increase it in cool areas. They can also make use of indirect sunlight to decrease the amount of lighting necessary during the daytime (especially in large office buildings).

If you have your own home with a yard, think about ways to plan your yard that will reduce the need for water. Get a cistern or some rain barrels to collect the runoff from your patio or roof. If you have a 1000 square foot roof, over 600 gallons of water runs through your rain gutter for each inch of rain that falls. In most suburban homes, that water goes straight into the storm drain instead of into the water table beneath your community. Then you have to pay some local water district to pump it back to you so you can water your lawn and garden.

Naturally, cars also account for a big chunk of our energy consumption. Increasing the fuel efficiency (for all fuels, not just gasoline) would go a long way toward reducing our energy needs. More on cars in a minute.

All this and more can make a difference, but it's not all that can be done. That brings me to...

People:
I used to live in Southern California, where every family has three cars, all of which are either a pickup, SUV, or minivan. It's not for me to say that no one should drive an SUV, though it does kind of seem like overkill when it's the car you use to commute to work all by yourself. If you want to drive a seven-passenger car to work, then at least bring along a few other passengers. Carpooling takes cars off the roads (saving gas), and reduces traffic, and therefore commute times (also saving gas). If you feel you may not have to drive your SUV to work every day, drive a smaller car that gets better mileage. A Ford Focus gets more than twice the mileage per gallon than a Chevy Tahoe does (nothing against Chevys).

Cities and regions can improve their transportation systems. Expand bus lines, build light rail, expand bike and pedestrian trails so that there is an efficient and reliable non-automotive transportation network. People won't use mass transit if it isn't convenient.

Finally, people can try to live closer to where they work. Going back to my SoCal example, hundreds of thousands of commuters drive more than 60 miles to work every day. Not only is that a waste of gas, but it is also a waste of time and money. Those commuters spend two to four hours driving to and from work every day, time they could have used exercising, exploring other interests, or simply enjoying more quality time with their families. I realize it's not possible for everyone, but when feasible, it can make a difference.

I've gone on much longer than I had planned, but in all, I just wanted to make a simple point. Suggesting that all of our troubles must be solved by monumental, painful changes or by a couple technologies multiplied far beyond their practical use trivializes and devalues this entire debate. For some of you, maybe that's why you're here.

Global warming or not, our growing demand for energy is a serious issue. I'd rather be part of the solution than laugh at the problem.

Great writeup, Travis. The problem here is that many people are inherently lazy. It's easier for them to throw the plastic bottle in the nearest trash can, rather than holding onto it until they find the nearest recycle bin that's one block up the street, for example. People are also inherently resistant to change. They've done things a certain way their whole life and they refuse to change it, even if those changes are easy to make. You're dealing with the flaws of human nature. Slowly but surely, however, we will transform our way of life into one that's more efficient and sustainable.

This is really just nonsense. We can all save energy!? Of course we can and live happily ever after. However even if some people can save energy, we will not all be able to drop energy demand below present levels.
Populations in developed nations have begun to decrease in established trends leaving an ageing population, single or childless couples, as home owners in the main.
Even in cities that have shown no population increase over years have an accommodation crises demanding governments increase available land for development
Today homes are bigger but accommodate fewer people meaning that power usage to make living comfortable for these smaller households will always increase.
In the developing world an increase in wealth will kick start consumer economies inevitably leading to greater global energy consumption.
There is good reason to believe any savings in energy will be swallowed up by the changing demography of world populations, developing nations will alsways emit greater plumes of pollution as they follow the same behaviour of western nations by increased energy usage and therefore an increase in current co2 levels will occur despite Al Goreitites best intentions.

"There is good reason to believe any savings in energy will be swallowed up by the changing demography of world populations, developing nations will alsways emit greater plumes of pollution as they follow the same behaviour of western nations by increased energy usage and therefore an increase in current co2 levels will occur despite Al Goreitites best intentions."

The biggest challenge isn't overcoming the increase of consumers in developing nations. It's getting beyond the naysayers and their self-defeatist attitude, perfectly displayed by the comment above.

Your pessimism is 'un-American', simon.

Simon,

Is it nonsense, or is it a case of you only seeing what you wanted to see? No offense intended.

I didn't write about CO2. I didn't write about pollution. I wrote about America's domestic energy use. It doesn't matter what developing countries do. There aren't power transmission lines from San Francisco to China or from Florida to Africa. What we produce, we keep. What we save, we keep.

If we as a nation can take steps toward energy efficiency, reduced energy usage, and alternative energy sources, we can remove ourselves from the global energy market that depends so heavily on things like oil, coal, and natural gas.

All we have to do is focus on our own energy usage habits (including things like single people living in 2000 square foot homes). Changing our habits has the potential to make biggest difference--far greater than new technology or improved efficiency. I didn't say it would be easy. I only said that it was a solution.

We can't change what the rest of the world does. In an ideal world, our efforts would set an example that inspires the world to follow. Granted, the world is not a perfect place, but if we can slowly make adjustments to our own lives, what other countries do won't matter.

If you have any other comments or ideas, please feel free to share them. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm not always sure I'm asking all the right questions. But any step forward is a step in the right direction.