Refuting Gore Doctrine
Jim Heim's "Disappointing Views" (The Pilot, July 25) refers to John Owen's July 20 article on energy and the environment. I take full responsibility for that article. Heim questions a number of points.
Many well-intentioned people in our society wish to be a part of something worthwhile -- and the concept of combating human-caused global warming strikes such a chord.
Various key elements of the Al Gore doctrine are being methodically discredited by responsible scientific research as opposed to political science.
Regarding energy, here are some facts that fly in the face of the Gore prescription for achieving renewable energy entirely by 2018:
Fossil fuels generate 71 percent of all U.S. electricity. Nuclear generates 20 percent.
The electricity generated by all renewable sources (except hydro) is about 2 percent. No economic geothermal resources are left to develop in the U.S. Hydro generates 7 percent, but there are no more rivers to dam. Electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to increase by 50 percent between now and 2050.
"If we do as Gore suggests, how will we generate electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Most people don't understand that electricity cannot be stored, but is only generated on demand" (M.J. Mikulich, Ph.D., Buena Vista, Colo.).
How do we get the message across that we are wasting time and resources politically fighting Al Gore and his disciples while the price of gasoline keeps going up? Solar and wind sources of energy are fundamentally impractical and uneconomic, except with massive infusions of money from taxpayers that benefits the developers.
The only solutions are to develop our own fossil and nuclear resources, or watch helplessly as the price of gasoline continues to go up.
Charles Holbrook, Pinehurst
More like this story