Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful failure

Last Thursday, former presidential candidate and Nobel Laureate Al Gore gave a speech in which he called for a national effort to get the entire US electric grid operating on a carbon-neutral basis within a decade. In its aftermath, much of the attention has been focused on whether the idea is actually achievable—Gore says it is; many say otherwise. To a large extent, however, this may not be the most important question. Even if the plan is destined for failure, it's worth considering where it would leave the country if we actually tried it.

Going green is inevitable

A grid based on a combination of renewable and nuclear energy is pretty much inevitable. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the world will ultimately run short on them; demand may make their price prohibitive well before that happens. Supplies of coal, which provide roughly half of the US electrical generating capacity, will last a bit longer than other fuels, suggesting we may wind up increasing our reliance on it.

But coal has several disadvantages, starting with the fact that it produces the most pollutants per unit of energy. Domestic coal is now relatively inexpensive, but that's partly a function of eased mine safety enforcement and environmental standards that allow it to be obtained by mountaintop removal. Changes to these policies could greatly increase its cost, as could any carbon tax; there will also be increased competition for the supply as global energy demand increases. The net result is that even coal doesn't look appealing in the long term.