An Inconvenient Truth

[Roxanne Appleby]

A change in who we imagine ourselves to be sounds very abstract and vague, I know.

Not all that vague. Your entire position is essentially a "green" version of "we need to create a New Socialist Man." As with that goal, any project that depends on changing basic human nature is not only doomed to fail, if seriously attempted it is certain to spill oceans of blood.

You are filled with Old Testament-prophet like finger wagging and warnings of doom, but you have not answered the question I asked yesterday, which is: Which benefits of industrial civilization are you giving up this year: A house that is warm in winter and cool in winter? Having an abundance of material goods that make our lives more interesting and comfortable (like the work station and computer on which you're writing your jeremiads)? Having plenty of good food of all sorts 12 months a year? Having convenient transportation for short and medium distance (cars) and long distance (airplanes)? Having work that is more interesting and less dangerous than our ancestors?

Note that minor nibbling around the edges - giving up kiwis in winter, say, or buying a Honda Pious instead of a Ford Taurus, or turning the thermostat up/down, etc - will not come close to realizing your vision, which really is really the dismantling of industrial civilization. I'm all in favor or being reasonably frugal, but even if we cut energy use in half, the magnitudes used by industrial civ are such that huge sources of concentrated energy are needed - if not fossils, then nukes.

So let's get real here. You propose a "New Socialist/Green Man" model that ain't gonna happen - period. Therefore, what is your primary goal: To bring that about, or to "save the planet" from what you say is an imminent threat of catastrophe. If the latter, and you are sincere in that choice, then you will embrace the kinds of things I have suggested: a revenue neutral carbon tax, and cutting away the regulatory undergrowth that all-but prohibits new nukes in the U.S. If you impose the carbon tax the demand for fossil fuels will diminish and the demand for non-greenhouse emitting nukes will boom, so the two policies are complimentary. But - you have to figure out where your priorities really lie.

If you are sincere in your belief about the magnitude of the threat, my advice would be to go for the incentive-changing policies I suggest first, which work just fine with the basic Being, Human, Mark I, and don't require a New Socialist/Green Man to be created before you can "save the planet." Once you've done that, you can pursue your other mission, essentially a religious one, at your leisure. Who knows - maybe in a few thousand years, perhaps with a little gene-splicing, you can create your "Homo Verdis."

 

[The_Fool]

Wonders if Homo Verdis is another form of sexuality....

 

[oggbashan]

I think that householders in the UK are aware of the possibilities of generating power by means other than fossil fuels but we have a long way to go.

The financial incentive to install solar heating or wind-powered electricity generation is problematic at present. The capital cost is relatively high and the savings would need to extend for years to recoup the outlay.

Enlightened self-interest is more likely to change our energy use than government interference. Most ways of insulating houses repay in reduced energy bills in a couple of years, particularly adding loft insulation and draught-proofing. Modern central heating boilers are more efficient than those installed 20 or 30 years ago but the repayment time is long.

"White Goods" - domestic electrical appliances - are now sold with energy ratings from A to G. An A-rated refrigerator might cost more but would repay the extra cost in a year or so. Manufacturers are trying to improve the energy efficiency of White Goods. Our electricity bills are expensive but my energy usage has dropped because few of our appliances use anything like the energy they used to. Our washing machine takes hot and cold water and only heats the water to the temperature necessary, instead of taking cold water, heating it and mixing it with more cold.

A 1970s television used far more power than a modern TV even with DVD and satellite connection. A valve radio used more electricity than a modern CD/radio except when full earth-shattering volume is required.

Change is coming slowly to the UK but families' energy use is decreasing. Whether it will make a difference? I doubt it. If the UK stopped using any energy at all, the worldwide reduction in greenhouse gases would be wiped out by China's increase for a couple of months.

Og

 

[sophia jane]

If the data furnished by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is wrong, then give the correct information, citing sources. The idea of just dismissing the data by attacking the source is not an acceptable form of argument.

Yesterday I posted an article which attempted to look at both sides of the numbers, which, in my opinion, is a good start in analyzing any argument. Knowing context and knowing more than one piece of a puzzle makes it much easier to make an informed decision. Is your article or the one I posted the whole puzzle- no.

As to your comment that attacking the source is not an acceptable form of argument, I disagree. One of the first thing you learn in research for academia is that the reliability of a source makes all the different. The National Enquirer, for example, is not a reliable source. An organization with a clear bias in one direction or another needs to be taken with reservation. If a liberal magazine write a piece slamming a conservative, should everyone take the article as "truth"? Not without doing further research to get objective information.
In this case, you quote an article by a biased source, and while the numbers may be true, the bias is still there, and that bias means that no context is given for those numbers. In my opinion, removing context and disregarding bias is the absolute worst thing you can do in an argument because it can so easily lead to faulty conclusions.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You know, Roxanne, I read 'utopia is not an option' in your posts on every political subject that comes up, and I can never find where someone has advocated for something even vaguely resembling utopia other than you. You argue for these libertarian/capitalism delusions that hold no more weight outside a textbook than Marxism. Both Marxist and unfettered-capitalist utopian visions have left an awful lot to be desired in practice.

Sincerity and motives?! I'm not the idealogue in this discussion, Roxanne. You set up the conditions of your argument as if there is no elasticity on the consumption side, and that if one brings up the idea of lowering consumption they are advocating a return to cave-dwelling.

As for the economic upheaval that seems to be the fear of Kyoto (at least by RR), isn't that the process of 'creative destruction'? Shouldn't oil companies be left by the wayside like buggy-whip makers?

While I believe (and have lots of evidence to show) that public transportation in the U.S. is a monstrous boondoggle, it is wrong of me to imply that your advocacy of it means you are not sincere in your beliefs about the threat of global warming.

With regards to ideologuism, "elasticity of demand," "delusions that hold no weight outside a textbook," etc - excuse me? I'm saying that if you want to reduce the use of "greenhouse gas" generating fossil fuels, then raise their price with a consumption tax. Um - higher prices lead to less consumption is hardly a "textbook delusion." (How many Rolls Royces are garaged on your street?)

On the other hand, advocating policies like mandates and subsidies that put tremendous power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats don't lower consumption, but do deliver just the kind of outcome you're seeing today in the hilarious ethanol scramble - special interests like agribusiness getting rich, pols getting fat, land about to get degraded by overuse, more chemicals, more fertilizers, leading to more regulations, subsidies and mandates, yadda yadda yadda , round and round we go - and you are no closer to a "solution" on what you contend is a "catastrophic" environmental threat.

I spoke in another thread recently about the "statist faith" that believes it makes sense to look to government as a source of "hope" for meeting complex human needs, and how that faith is still held by most of the population despite 100 years of evidence regarding the incapacity of governments and bureaucracies to meet complex human needs. Now you are in fear of "environmental catastrophe" and where to you turn? To that same flawed model and those same bureaucratic institutions of command and control. Who's the real ideologue here?

To bring this back to specifics, you said "if one brings up the idea of lowering consumption they are advocating a return to cave-dwelling." Your policy proposals might lower consumption of fossil fuels by a few percent - or might just shift those consumption patterns around. Or they might lead to using up a lot farmland to grow ethanol, which won't do a damned thing to address your looming "catastrophe," but may cause a lot of starvation by raising world food prices. My carbon tax/nuke combo would lower demand by 25, 50,75 percent in a couple decades. Who is truly talking about lowering consumption here?

So again I ask, how sincere are you about this "threat?" So far, all your proposed 'solutions' - like Kyoto, fuel economy mandates, ethanol subsidies and mandates, etc - will do nothing to bring about changes of the magnitude that you say are needed. They will do a tremendous amount to empower the political class - to feed the religion of statism. That is where the threat to the world economy comes from, BTW - and there's nothing "creative" about the destruction and real hardship it will generate. Interestingly, the ones pounding the table hardest about "global warming" are the primary beneficiaries of that expansion of government power, and the true believers in the statist faith. Coincidence?

Puh-lease.

You want to reduce consumption of fossil fuels? Fine - I've shown you how. You want to do something other than that instead? Then be honest about it, which requires getting your own purposes and priorities straight before beating the "global catastrophe" drum.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

All the power in my house is provided by an off-shore wind farm that I can see from most rooms in my house.

The wind is blowing today, as it does most days.

. . . It's a start.

Og

Where does the power come from when the wind is not blowing?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Where does the power come from when the wind is not blowing?

The energy is stored, Roxanne. Gathered and stored, like squirrels store nuts. Solar works that way, too. A great deal of energy can be stored, so that you can have power at night when the sun isn't shining.

The advances in green technology have been huge in recent years, and if they were funded better, we'd have growth like you wouldn't believe... similar to the tech explosion, I'd gather.

It just hasn't been on enough people's radar. It will be. Soon, I hope.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The energy is stored, Roxanne. Gathered and stored, like squirrels store nuts. Solar works that way, too. A great deal of energy can be stored, so that you can have power at night when the sun isn't shining.

Umm... it doesn't work that way here. When solar or wind power is generating electricity, it heats your home, lights you lites, etc, and any excess is sold to the utility grid. When the system isn't working (night or still days), you are still hooked to the utility grid and draw your power from there.

Solar panels produce a trickle of direct current, which is stored in batteries and can be used at night or on cloudy days, Wind power turns a turbine which produces Alternating Current that cannot be stored easily. To store AC you have to convert it to DC. The additional cost in equipment so far has made this kind of storage sytem economically unfeisable for wind power.

That does not mean that both technologies don't have value. However, thus far they cannot work entirely on their own as a sole source of power.

Another factor is location. In the northern regions of Europe and the US solar barely pays for itself. In the south it is a plus. It has to do with the amount of sunlite available to solar panels.

For wind to work you need an unobstructed area with a pervailing wind. That means it's not really suitable for private use in cities.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Umm... it doesn't work that way here. When solar or wind power is generating electricity, it heats your home, lights you lites, etc, and any excess is sold to the utility grid. When the system isn't working (night or still days), you are still hooked to the utility grid and draw your power from there.

Solar panels produce a trickle of direct current, which is stored in batteries and can be used at night or on cloudy days, Wind power turns a turbine which produces Alternating Current that cannot be stored easily. To store AC you have to convert it to DC. The additional cost in equipment so far has made this kind of storage sytem economically unfeisable for wind power.

That does not mean that both technologies don't have value. However, thus far they cannot work entirely on their own as a sole source of power.

Another factor is location. In the northern regions of Europe and the US solar barely pays for itself. In the south it is a plus. It has to do with the amount of sunlite available to solar panels.

For wind to work you need an unobstructed area with a pervailing wind. That means it's not really suitable for private use in cities.

It depends on if you're self-sufficient (off the grid) or not. Off the grid, you can store energy. Including wind. You CAN sell it back to the power company, if you want to be on the grid. But I was speaking off the grid. For being on the grid, you are correct.

Actually, any of these technologies CAN work as a sole source of power... off the grid. It's when you try to power a huge amount of homes that are NOT green-built (that makes HUGE difference) when you run into problems.

But no one's willing to tear it all down and rebuild.....

 

[oggbashan]

Where does the power come from when the wind is not blowing?

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear and imports from France, mainly nuclear.

Wind power cannot replace other sources of power, only reduce its use.

Wind power is a help, not a complete solution. Locally, our wind farm produces 75% of the electricity for a population of 120,000. That compares with none about three years ago.

Og

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear and imports from France, mainly nuclear.

Wind power cannot replace other sources of power, only reduce its use.

Wind power is a help, not a complete solution. Locally, our wind farm produces 75% of the electricity for a population of 120,000. That compares with none about three years ago.

Og

That so totally rocks. I bet if the houses were green-built you wouldn't have to rely on fossil fuels at all!

 

[S-Des]

All the power in my house is provided by an off-shore wind farm that I can see from most rooms in my house.

The wind is blowing today, as it does most days.

Whether that wind farm is cost effective or carbon neutral is open to debate. The manufacture, installation and maintenance of the wind farm involve the use of fossil fuels.

However, wind will continue to blow and more wind farms will be built, this time out of sight of land. When the wind blows, the new wind farms will power about half of London's electricity needs.

It's a start.

Og

There was a big flap about that not too long ago. It seems that there was a proposal to put up a big windmill farm just off the Eastern coast. Was it shot down by big business? Neocons who don't care? The rich???Well kind of. Ted Kennedy was against it (purportedly because it interfered with the view from his summer home). You can always count on one thing from politicians, they'll look after their own self-interests before anything else, despite all their speeches and position papers.

 

[oggbashan]

There was a big flap about that not too long ago. It seems that there was a proposal to put up a big windmill farm just off the Eastern coast. Was it shot down by big business? Neocons who don't care? The rich???Well kind of. Ted Kennedy was against it (purportedly because it interfered with the view from his summer home). You can always count on one thing from politicians, they'll look after their own self-interests before anything else, despite all their speeches and position papers.

There was some local opposition to the wind farm on the grounds that it would spoil the view. At its closest it is 5.5 miles offshore and occupies about 8% of the horizon.

Now it is a tourist attraction and two local boatmen run tours out to it. It has even been visited by Tony Blair...

The much larger proposal for the London Array will be 40 miles offshore. It will be visible in very clear conditions IF you look carefully. That will have 300 wind turbines. Our one has 30.

Og

 

[S-Des]

That so totally rocks. I bet if the houses were green-built you wouldn't have to rely on fossil fuels at all!

There are some amazing designs of houses that conserve electricity on an incredible scale. Unfortunately, cost is the issue at the moment. I looked into solar panels for our house. Turns out with maximum benefits (and virtually no problems), it still would take 50 or 60 years to break even. Somehow I doubt I'd be around to see that (or that their wouldn't be a single problem in that time). We'll get there eventually, but it's going to be a while.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That so totally rocks. I bet if the houses were green-built you wouldn't have to rely on fossil fuels at all!

Not so fast, Selena. When the wind doesn't blow those other sources provide 100 percent of the power used in that community. In other words, to a certain extent they are "free riding" on the existance of those other sources.

TANSTAAFL.

 

[oggbashan]

Not so fast, Selena. When the wind doesn't blow those other sources provide 100 percent of the power used in that community. In other words, to a certain extent they are "free riding" on the existance of those other sources.

TANSTAAFL.

The other sources existed BEFORE wind power. As I have said above, wind power is not a complete answer.

When our community is not using the total output of the wind farm, that electricity is exported through the National Grid to other communities and so reduces their use of fossil fuels.

The cost of electricity produced by our wind farm is higher per unit than fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, but lower than nuclear power. There are fiscal advantages that make it economic to produce electricity by windpower when market economics would rule it out. Wind turbine technology is improving so that it is hoped that windpower will eventually be competitive with other sources of power. When our wind farm was proposed it was intended to produce one third of our community's needs. Between conception and installation the turbines became better designed and now produce three quarters of our need from the same 30 turbines. That is a massive improvement in efficiency in a few years.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Addendum to my previous post:

Here's the more important point: All those nifty-keen alternatives can fill various niches and reduce by a modest amount the overall use of fossil fuels, or of nukes in my proposed electric economy of the future, but they cannot supply most of the energy requirements of industrial civilization. Mainly because the magnitude of energy required is just too great, but also due to examples like this one, where at certain times the 24/7/365 concentrated energy source is still needed to supply the same amount of power it would need to in the absence of the keen-o windmills.

Note too that Og is describing the energy needs of a residential community; throw in a medium-size manufacturing plant or two and the picture changes dramatically: "Sorry folks, no work today - the wind's not blowing." The inefficiencies upon inefficiencies pyramid in a hurry, and before you know it the entire population is enjoying much lower living standards. In places where they have never had the opportunity to enjoy higher standards, that opportunity never comes.

And all for no good reason, except a bourgeois preference for "alternatives" vs nukes that essentially boils down to nothing more than aesthetics and fashion. In my preferred alternative of an electric economy powered by nukes, the entire population of the planet can enjoy the same high living standards as the west does today, sustainably, for tens of thousands of years. With current technology (even though it will get better anyway.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The other sources existed BEFORE wind power. As I have said above, wind power is not a complete answer.

When our community is not using the total output of the wind farm, that electricity is exported through the National Grid to other communities and so reduces their use of fossil fuels.

The cost of electricity produced by our wind farm is higher per unit than fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, but lower than nuclear power. There are fiscal advantages that make it economic to produce electricity by windpower when market economics would rule it out. Wind turbine technology is improving so that it is hoped that windpower will eventually be competitive with other sources of power. When our wind farm was proposed it was intended to produce one third of our community's needs. Between conception and installation the turbines became better designed and now produce three quarters of our need from the same 30 turbines. That is a massive improvement in efficiency in a few years.

Og

What if you did not have the fallback of the conventional grid, however? The costs would skyrocket, and almost certainly exceed nukes by a wide margin. As I said, to a certain extent you are free riding on the presence of the conventional grid.

 

[oggbashan]

What if you did not have the fallback of the conventional grid, however? The costs would skyrocket, and almost certainly exceed nukes by a wide margin. As I said, to a certain extent you are free riding on the presence of the conventional grid.

If we didn't have a National Grid then nuclear power would also be useless to us. We wouldn't have built or even considered nuclear power stations, let alone wind farms, without the ability to transfer energy from where it is generated to where it is used.

Without the National Grid, all power would have to be generated and used locally. Given the small size of the UK, that would be nonsensical.

As I said before, we have an INTERnational Grid. We can transfer power between the UK and France in either direction.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

The cost of electricity produced by our wind farm is higher per unit than fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, but lower than nuclear power. There are fiscal advantages that make it economic to produce electricity by windpower when market economics would rule it out. Wind turbine technology is improving so that it is hoped that windpower will eventually be competitive with other sources of power. When our wind farm was proposed it was intended to produce one third of our community's needs. Between conception and installation the turbines became better designed and now produce three quarters of our need from the same 30 turbines. That is a massive improvement in efficiency in a few years.

Og

This is a key item, overlooked by many of the 'green power' advocates. It costs a lot of money to build a wind farm. The wind is free. The maintenance on the wind farm is NOT free. Yes, the technology is improving and will undoubtedly continue to improve. However, as you point out, free electricity from wind power currently costs more than electricity from conventional sources.

If a wind tower goes out in a full gale, you wait on the weather to go and fix it. You don't have to wait on the weather to fix a conventional diesel/natural gas generator. Also, once you have the electricity, you also have to move it either locally or via the network. So, you still need a power plant to handle the distribution.

I don;t mean to say that wind power is not an answer. However, wind power has its limitations and is not a magic solution.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If we didn't have a National Grid then nuclear power would also be useless to us. We wouldn't have built or even considered nuclear power stations, let alone wind farms, without the ability to transfer energy from where it is generated to where it is used.

Without the National Grid, all power would have to be generated and used locally. Given the small size of the UK, that would be nonsensical.

As I said before, we have an INTERnational Grid. We can transfer power between the UK and France in either direction.

Og

I wasn't clear: Without the presense of a backup power source capable of providing 100 percent of your community's demands on a 24/7/365 basis, the windmills would not be practical. Currently, this backup source for you is the INTERnational power grid - including the nukes that are a part of it. So in a certain sense you are "free-riding" on the existance of that system. Alternatively, the backup might be a conventional source located right there, like a natural gas-powered turbine, which also would be capable of providing 100 percent of the power needs of your community. Essentially, the windmills (or an any intermittently available "alternative" source, like solar), require a community to have the luxury of two parallel generation systems, one of which is idle (or not drawn upon) most of the time.

To rely exclusively on some blend of "alternatives" would be hugely expensive. You would need some really exotic forms of storage - like huge batteries or flywheels - at which point the definition of "alternative" starts to get stretched into meaninglessness.

Or, we could just power the conventional grid with nukes and junk the intermittent "boutique" alternatives and exotic storage systems altogether. For the most part, in the long run, it's just a matter of aesthetics, at least for wealthy societies. For poor ones it may be the difference between eventually enjoying first world living standards via a nuclear powered electric economy, vs. permanently retaining the much lower standards they currently suffer.

 

[Seattle Zack]

If the data furnished by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is wrong, then give the correct information, citing sources.

Well, I must have missed your sources, too then, dearie. Truth be told, RR, you just represented a biased press release as fact without doing any checking in order to generate some discussion.

It's unfortunate when you find out the facts themselves have a liberal bias, and must therefore be dismissed. Damn facts! Otherwise you would know that Gore pays 50% more per month to purchase 'green' electricity, which comes from enviromentally friendly sources such as solar power and wind farms.

Which leads me to wonder why, on this site where so many claim to be writers, do they just drag in another person's op-ed and present it as a topic of discussion? Are you merely stupid, or are you just too lazy to write your own op-ed? What gives?

--Zack

 

[cumallday]

Not all that vague. Your entire position is essentially a "green" version of "we need to create a New Socialist Man." As with that goal, any project that depends on changing basic human nature is not only doomed to fail, if seriously attempted it is certain to spill oceans of blood.

You are filled with Old Testament-prophet like finger wagging and warnings of doom, but you have not answered the question I asked yesterday, which is: Which benefits of industrial civilization are you giving up this year: A house that is warm in winter and cool in winter? Having an abundance of material goods that make our lives more interesting and comfortable (like the work station and computer on which you're writing your jeremiads)? Having plenty of good food of all sorts 12 months a year? Having convenient transportation for short and medium distance (cars) and long distance (airplanes)? Having work that is more interesting and less dangerous than our ancestors?

Note that minor nibbling around the edges - giving up kiwis in winter, say, or buying a Honda Pious instead of a Ford Taurus, or turning the thermostat up/down, etc - will not come close to realizing your vision, which really is really the dismantling of industrial civilization. I'm all in favor or being reasonably frugal, but even if we cut energy use in half, the magnitudes used by industrial civ are such that huge sources of concentrated energy are needed - if not fossils, then nukes.

So let's get real here. You propose a "New Socialist/Green Man" model that ain't gonna happen - period. Therefore, what is your primary goal: To bring that about, or to "save the planet" from what you say is an imminent threat of catastrophe. If the latter, and you are sincere in that choice, then you will embrace the kinds of things I have suggested: a revenue neutral carbon tax, and cutting away the regulatory undergrowth that all-but prohibits new nukes in the U.S. If you impose the carbon tax the demand for fossil fuels will diminish and the demand for non-greenhouse emitting nukes will boom, so the two policies are complimentary. But - you have to figure out where your priorities really lie.

If you are sincere in your belief about the magnitude of the threat, my advice would be to go for the incentive-changing policies I suggest first, which work just fine with the basic Being, Human, Mark I, and don't require a New Socialist/Green Man to be created before you can "save the planet." Once you've done that, you can pursue your other mission, essentially a religious one, at your leisure. Who knows - maybe in a few thousand years, perhaps with a little gene-splicing, you can create your "Homo Verdis."

You're an idiot!

 

[Huckleman2000]

You're an idiot!

Now there's a little sincerity!
Sometimes, you just gotta call'em as you see'em.

 

[R. Richard]

Well, I must have missed your sources, too then, dearie. Truth be told, RR, you just represented a biased press release as fact without doing any checking in order to generate some discussion.

It's unfortunate when you find out the facts themselves have a liberal bias, and must therefore be dismissed. Damn facts! Otherwise you would know that Gore pays 50% more per month to purchase 'green' electricity, which comes from enviromentally friendly sources such as solar power and wind farms.

Which leads me to wonder why, on this site where so many claim to be writers, do they just drag in another person's op-ed and present it as a topic of discussion? Are you merely stupid, or are you just too lazy to write your own op-ed? What gives?

--Zack

Seattle Zack, I cited my source. If you will check, it was in the quote you used. If my 'biased source' was inaccurate, why then cite the correct figures, with your source(es). TIA.

OK, let's check out your liberal bias 'facts. In 2006, Gore used an average: 18,414 kWh per month. Ub 2006, Gore paid an average $1359 per month for his electric bill. That works out to an average 7.38 cents per kWh. But since 'friend of the Earth' Al Gore pays '50% more' for his electricity, the normal Tennessee electric rate must be 4.92 cents per kWh. That last is indeed a very low electric rate. Perhaps you could cite your 'liberal facts' as to the Tennesse electric rate. TIA.

Now, let us try to determine how Gore is able to "purchase 'green' electricity, which comes from enviromentally friendly sources such as solar power and wind farms." Since Gore purchases electricity it comes from a source. That source is Nashville Electric Service's, the local power company, power lines. The Nashville Electric Service lines carry power which is almost certainly purchased from the US power grid. Now, since Gore is able to purchase green electricty, he obviously has Maxwell's demon who selects only the green electrons from the power steam. Seattle Zack, we will need an information source for all of that, or a logical counter argument. TIA.

Perhaps you would cite your sources for the fact that Gore pays 50% more for green electric power.

Also Gore uses large amounts of natural gas, from the Nashville Gas Company. Seattle Zack, exactly where is the Nashville Gas Comany getting 'green natural gas?' [If Gore purchases 'green electricity,' does it not follow that he also purchases green natural gas?]