Gore: Future is in decentralized energy production.

[John Q. Citizen]

This is a huge paradigm shift for this country.

This was Thomas Edison's vision. It's much more efficient for many reasons, transmission loss being but one.

It was derailed by the corporatist who saw that centralized production would centralize profits.

That Gore is in the US Congress, right now advocating this concept, is revolutionary.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Yes , indeed. Decentralize just about everything else, too, please.

[Rydz777]

6. You are so right

If we don't begin decentralization in a rational and systematic way, the future crash of the complex systems on which we depend will do the decentralization for us - and in a painful way. Once again Gore is on top of a major issue that gets too little attention.

[Mass]

2. Yes! I have waited so long to hear a major figure in this country say that!

Most of what has been done until now is to give money to the same big companies and conglomerates so that they can create big wind, solar, or ethanol empires.

Kudos to Gore to have stated that.

[bookman]

3. This may be..

... the main reason the repugs hate global warming advocates.

[Mass]

4. Not all of them. Some global warming advocates have no problems with big empires that

revolve around alternative energies.

That Gore is actually advocating that is really revolutionary.

[Apollo11]

5. In Gore We Trust

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[Greyhound]

7. IIRC, It was Nikola Tesla's vision and Edison later adopted it.

But the real point is that, while it is the best way, it won't be allowed because as you diversify the distribution, the energy companies lose control. Loss of corporate control, and therefore corporate profitability, is the reason we don't have electric cars and the development of solar energy is quashed, ridiculed, and penalized at every turn.

[TheWraith]

11. Tesla's vision was a bit different.

He didn't care much about the idea of small local generation of electricity--in fact, he invented the polyphase AC system that allowed power to be sent much longer distances with fewer losses. But his major interest for a large portion of his life was the ability to broadcast energy without wires, to be recieved and used anywhere within range. He actually succeeded at this in certain early experiments, including reportedly powering an array of 200 light bulbs at a distance of, I believe, 2 miles.

And truthfully, Edison's ideas about local power generation were somewhat forced on him by the range limitations of his DC power systems, which suffered severe voltage drops at more than a mile's distance from the transmission station.

There are also strong efficiency arguments to be made in favor of centralized production: it's not all an evil conspiracy. The larger a production center is, the more it tends to take advantage of efficiencies of scale. A car is more fuel-efficient than a small lawn mower. A large power plant is more efficient than a small one. A large wind turbine makes more power than a small one. There are arguments in favor of small production too, but it's a fallacy to think that you can just get rid of centralized production, or that you won't ever have to have long-range power transmission.

[The2ndWheel]

8. The future is in it?

That's where the money will be?

If we want a decentralized energy future, that means no more large scale economics. I'm all for that, but that is what that would mean. Far less specialization, far less choice, far less travel, far less of everything. That's what actual decentralization would mean. If that's what Gore is saying, outstanding. If not, then he's not talking about decentralization.

[Zenlitened]

9. .... Cats and dogs living together!

:rofl:

[Ron Green]

10. Far less of everything is what we need,

except of course for human development and understanding, both of which would flourish in a more localized world. International transportation would (and should) diminish, but the Internet doesn't require such massive energy and would continue to spread cultural awareness around the world.

[TheWraith]

12. No, that's exactly what we don't need.

"If we want a decentralized energy future, that means no more large scale economics. I'm all for that, but that is what that would mean. Far less specialization, far less choice, far less travel, far less of everything. That's what actual decentralization would mean. If that's what Gore is saying, outstanding. If not, then he's not talking about decentralization."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: some people won't be happy until we're living on log cabins and eating bark.

I won't even bother wasting my time by explaining how incredibly bad and wrong everything that you just described is, since it should be faily apparent that the reversal of human civilization is a bad thing. I'll simply point out that you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about with regard to what Gore said and the topic at hand, and leave it there.

[GliderGuider]

13. You don't know what's about to happen, do you?

It's not a question of wanting people to live in cabins and eat bark. It's that you can't bluff Mother Nature and humanity is pretty much out of chips.

Decentralized societies are much more resilient, and highly integrated ones are not. Our civilization is incredibly integrated - it has to be to achieve the levels of efficiency and consumption we have. In the process, our consumption has massively eroded the underlying resource base and filled the planet's waste sinks to overflowing. We are ripe for a major system shock, and I doubt our civilization is robust enough to withstand it. I even have a pretty good idea what the shock will be - declining global oil production.

We could cushion the effect of the shock if we started to decentralize power, food and material goods production right now. This would give us many smaller points of failure that would be less prone to failure cascades. In addition it would reduce the amount of oil we need for the transportation that integrates our civilization. Reducing transportation of goods and people also limits the cascade of such things as pandemics, which might not be such a a bad idea.

If Gore is promoting decentralization he's obviously looked into the same future as I have, and is worried as hell. Good on him for his clarity of vision and purpose, and the courage he shows in saying it. Unfortunately, too many people will echo your version of the non-negotiable lifestyle ("the reversal of human civilization is a bad thing") and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. This will only have the effect of maximizing our eventual destruction.

For a glimpse of what I'm talking about, visit my web site: http://www.paulchefurka.ca

[The2ndWheel]

16. I know that we're not going to reverse anything voluntarily

That would be murder on a scale that puts Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest of the 20th century dictators, combined, to shame.

It's come to the point where it's humans vs. the rest of life. If we have to destroy everything to save ourselves, we will. Our civilization doesn't like nature, it doesn't like evolution, it doesn't like diversity. The more of each that we can control, the more control we will need. If we have the energy required to do it(and we will use whatever we have to, to save ourselves), we will do it. Our goal is complete control of every aspect of life, and if we can do it, we will.

Again, you don't have to worry about what some jackass on a message board says. I'm not taking civilization down. I don't have that kind of power, and I wouldn't want that kind of power.

We will grow until we can't. If we find some way to grow and where every desire, want, and need is met for the billions of people, and the additional billions yet to come, on this planet, so that everyone can live in luxury, that'll be great. That is what we want, a perfect state of existence. When we reach that perfect state, we still won't be able to stop, because to do so would be a lack of growth. As soon as you stop pumping energy into the machine, it stops working.

I may not know what I'm talking about, that's quite possible. What I'm sure of though is that we're not stopping, not voluntarily anyway. We can't, at least not on a global scale. You don't even have to tell me why you disagree with me, even if you wanted to.

[lostnfound]

15. Not an absolute.

To say that "the future is in" doesn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be ANY large-scale energy production.

If rapid growth in decentralized solutions is going to occur,then it's correct to say "the future is in it".

I love Gore for linking these concepts in front of congress.

[StefanX]

14. This is so true

And I came in here to say "Everything else should be decentralized too" (eg, media, reporting) -- and the first response said the same thing!