When Will Al Gore Take Global Warming Seriously?

I was not terribly surprised when Al Gore ignored me the other day. Yahoo was hosting a chat with the former vice president regarding his renewed interest in global warming. Quite predictably, the messiah was lambasting the Bush administration and Republicans in general for not doing enough to stop global warming, which he now insists will destroy all civilization in about 10 years.
My question was straightforward. “When will the left take global warming seriously enough to permit the construction of nuclear power plants?”
As this was a tightly moderated discussion intended only to promote Al Gore’s point of view, my question not only went unanswered and was never seen by other participants or observers of the discussion. It was meant as an honest question. Conservatives are caricaturized as tools of the oil industry willing to destroy the earth for a buck. But the left has its own issues that obstruct progress toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions, starting with its antipathy toward nuclear energy.
When asked how to make up the deficit between energy requirements and energy production without burning fossil fuels (or uranium), the environmental left relies upon two clichés – conservation and renewable energy. Here in the Northwest, renewable energy has come to mean two things, wind and/or waterpower. And waterpower is very politically incorrect these days. That leaves wind, something we have a surplus of.
I came across a news story regarding wind power earlier this week that gained my attention more than is usual. A company has proposed erecting 300 wind turbines in the Columbia Gorge that will supposedly generate 750 megawatts of electricity, enough for 188,000 homes. That’s about 60% of the total generating power of the lower Snake River dams, or about 3% of all the generating capacity in the Northwest – assuming that the wind blows all the time, which it does not.
One reason that this news captured my attention is because my energy bill each month asks me to donate to wind energy. That strikes me as the equivalent of standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign proclaiming a willingness to “work for food.” But it also points up a deficiency in these renewable energy resources. They are not economically self-sustainable. Wind farms don’t just wave their tin cups in front of ratepayers. They come to big government with wheel barrels to collect big bucks.
A wind farm makes for a great tax shelter. The accelerated depreciation given wind farms means that owners can recoup about 1/3 of the construction costs in the first two years of operation. Another 7 or 8 percent is recovered annually by federal subsidies for wind farm generated power. In Washington, wind farms are excused from sales and use taxes. This translates into tens of millions of dollars.
And what do we get for this? We get an unreliable power source. Nuclear and fossil fuel plants deliver as much energy as we demand from them. Heat waves frequently coincide with very still air – not a good combination for the electricity that is required by air conditioners. Typically, a wind farm averages about 30% of its capacity. This means that the proposed Columbia Gorge wind farm will only deliver about 1% of the northwest’s power needs. Considering the enormous expense, and the area required (nearly 50 square miles), wind energy as represented by the proposed wind farm doesn’t seem to be a very sensible option.
So it’s really too bad that Al Gore ignored my question, because as wind farm deficiencies demonstrate, the solution to reducing carbon emissions lies not in so-called renewable energy resources, but in more efficient exploitation of sources we’ve had at our disposable for decades. France generates most of its electricity from nuclear power. My gosh! If they can do it, we certainly can.
I would have liked to ask Al Gore another question, this one a bit more mischievous than the previous one.
“Why,” I would have asked, “do you not criticize Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for obstructing wind farm development off the Massachusetts shoreline?”
The reason is obvious. The Kennedy’s and Kerry’s of the world are exempt from criticism. Why should they have to endure the clutter? And besides, it would lower the property value of their enormous estates. Forestalling the end of the world isn’t worth that much sacrifice.