Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Al Gore on geothermal energy...
demonstrates how absolutely little he knows about science and technology. I guess I've been teaching my students incorrect information about the geothermal gradient.
Is there any doubt whatsoever that this guy is a blowhard and a charlatan? Sheesh.
UPDATE: Link to a history of geothermal energy development at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll grant you that he's shaky with his facts here - particularly being off by orders of magnitude on the temperatures - but how else is this substantively incorrect?
ReplyDeleteWell, golly gee, Ron, let's count the ways:
ReplyDelete1.) As you correctly point out, the temperature ranges he refers to are orders of magnitude incorrect. For someone who presents himself as an environmental expert this demonstrates to me his clear ignorance of the facts, and makes me suspect of everything else he says.
2.) He refers to geothermal as a relatively "new" technology but it's been exploited for decades in areas of the western US, and much longer elsewhere in the world.
3.) He slyly suggests its a widely available solution to our energy needs but then hedges by saying "in some places." You can't have it both ways.
4.) He cites a 35,000 year supply of energy from geothermal resources. Do you agree? Where does that number come from? Given his tendency to exaggerate, I remain highly skeptical.
5.) He refers to new drill bits "that don't melt" so we have better technology to access geothermal energy. Really? Do drill bits melt in the temperatures encountered in geothermal fields? I'm not aware of any technological issues.
Lastly, he doesn't address the environmental cost of developing geothermal resources. He'd be the first to call for protests involving the drilling and land use impacts associated with this type of energy development.
Hope this helps. All for now.
Geothermal is an energy source with a lot of potential for development as an alterntive source of energy - and at least in that respect I'm inclined to agree with Al Gore. He may not be its best spokesman, but there's no reason to reject the message just because the messenger is not the most qualified to make the case. My point would be that you seem to suggest that geothermal is bad simply because Al Gore can't get his facts straight. I think we can agree that Gore is not the best spokesman for geothermal energy, but I'd prefer that you address the facts rather than assassinate his character. But it's your blog - do as you wish.
ReplyDeleteWhere do I suggest that geothermal energy is bad? I am merely pointing out that it is highly problematic, and it is no panacea, as Gore wants us to believe.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that Al Gore is a controversial spokesperson. His recent popular film includes numerous factual errors and exaggerations about climate change that have been scientifically shown to be untrue. He is invested in a carbon-trading company, a position that many regard as a conflict of interest. He refuses to debate any of the issues related to global warming.
As a scientist my default position for anything I hear/read is skepticism. So factoring all of that, I stand by my criticism of Gore, and don't see this as an assassination of his character, but rather defining him based on his actions and his words.
You're right. My blog. My opinions. Thanks for reading, and for commenting!
Gotta prepare for class.
Just as you didn't say that geothermal energy is bad, Al Gore didn't say it was a panacea.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I appreciate your skepticism, and as a fellow scientist I share it and respect it. Although you didn't say you were opposed to geothermal energy outright, that was the impression that I got on reading your post initially. What I'm trying to get across is that I, as a reader of your blog, would have respected your argument a great deal more (and would have been more likely to share it with others) if you had taken Al Gore's statement to task point by point on its scientific merits initially, rather than painting it with such a broad brush. It's your prerogative to blog in any way you wish - I'm just telling you how your argument would have had a better chance of making a positive impression on me. Take it for what it's worth.
This is a great discussion and I agree with Buchanan, and am glad he isn't covering for Gore as Schott seems to be since he is unwilling to "share" this with others. Gore has spoken a lot of mistruths about science and can't be trusted. This only enforces it and its too bad that Schott seems all huffy about how someone else should write about it. Keep it up Buchanan and I will keep reading. AS
ReplyDeletedefinition of blowhard on the web: bragger; a very boastful and talkative person
ReplyDeletedefinition of charlatan on the web: a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes
Both terms seem appropriate to describe Gore.
So if we only have 35,000 years of energy available from this source...does that mean the Earth's interior is going to completely shut down in 35,000 years? I must have missed that day in Geol 120.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Geothermal energy is great, but it is rather problematic, The message that there are other sources of energy other than fossil fuels is great, that being said, if I wanted someone who is supposedly representing science, I would want them to have the facts right so they don't go and make an idiot of themselves and the science, so excuse me, but I think that there are a lot of better choices for a spokesman other than Al Gore, we just need to find them.... and FAST!
ReplyDelete-BB