Comments on: Gore vs. Pickens: who’s got the right plan? Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rick Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:31:50 +0000 Let’s face it, these people are spending billions trying to convience us that global warming is man-made and that’s its in a “crisis” stage. They are not doing it out of concern for us or our planet. They are doing it to get rich or should I say richer? Gore and Pickens would not fly private jets and use 10 times the carbons an average person uses if concern were the issue. Carbons are carbons whether you buy a larger foot-print or not. L.A. has brown-outs when the temp rises a few degrees because of the lack of electricity. These guys oppose new nuclear power and yet they claim we can plug in over 250 million cars for charging every night when we give up evil gas powered cars??? Wind power will never meet that demand! Let’s stop putting money in their pockets. This is not a crisis!!!

By: Stefan Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:50:46 +0000 Man, this Gore guy is a crook. Remember, Clinton administration? He’s refused to fly his private jets, and won’t tell his celebrity friends to do the same. His home alone consumes double the electricity in a month than all American households do in a year, according to the Nashville Electric Service. If global warming is real, then why is it that there are so many freak blizzards? Why is it that Mars, Neptune, and even Pluto are experiencing global warming? Look at the science behind global warming here.  /04/18/they-blinded-us-with-pseudoscien ce-the-global-warming-con/

By: adam Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:42:06 +0000 Personally I think Gore’s plan is the better one as it has both environmental AND economic concerns. Pickens, while focusing on wind for electricity, really boils down to reducing the need for imported oil. Neither plan will be easy though since it could take 20+ years for the majority of americans to own an alternately powered car (unless the government and/or manufacturers offer some kind of trade-in incentive).
I say lets aim high, it worked to get us to the moon.

By: schemer Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:19:31 +0000 ………but what is the root cause of our environmental concerns? are we trying to patch up a gunshot wound with a bandaid? -affairs/2008/03/17/a-sacred-environment -part-2-%e2%80%93-the-situation/

By: Ed Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:33:47 +0000 The key to the Hydrogen Economy is presented below.
Water is broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen when it comes into
contact with an alloy of Aluminum and Gallium. Thus Hydrogen
can be made on demand by pumping water into a reaction chamber
containing the alloy. An automobile can use a tank of water
rather than a tank of gasoline.
Here is the equation: 2Al + 3H2O –> 3H2 + Al2O3 + heat.
For more information, go to
mirror site:

From the Purdue site, download these two files:

Presentation slides: 1-Woodall.pdf

Presentation audio: 1-Woodall.mp4

By: Dave L Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:20:11 +0000 Catherine B. Its great that you have an electric car but depending on where you live those volts are likely created by a coal fired power plant. Natural gas is much cleaner than gasoline and doesnt put additional burden on our power grid that runs mostly on non-renewables. Put money into better electricity generating modes and THEN plug in your car.

By: Igor L Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:03:54 +0000 sounds far fetched but water is a fuel .. to be exact the hydrogen that is separated and then compressed to 50-60 psi and then combusted. here’s the problem-try and tax water or even air and see what happens.
al gore has a more realistic plan of electricity that is produced by nature/wind power etc– and then taxed thus driving our economy still. yet again on the other hand pickens is cheaper faster and natural gas can be mined from friendly country’s that are poor, also this fuel can be created from landfills that naturally decompose releasing this invisible gold and taxed.
in the end I chose gore, he has a long and proven track record.
and im very glad to see a debate on the subject!! trust me you should be to.

By: anubis Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:49:47 +0000 Extreme paths of action should be avoided. Both plans should be considered as different geographical locations are better served by different energy sources. There are many green solutions ie… passive solar,photo voltaics, low voltage electrical wiring to reduce power grid dependency. New design nuclear reactors are burning waste plutonium. Not all technologies will be feasible but deserve a good hard look. It is my sense that conservation and learning to live with less will be essential for humanity to mitigate the effects of fossil emmissions since the begining of the industrial revolution.

By: Catherine B. Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:10:41 +0000 I have to agree with Al Gore’s position that cars should be electric. My partner and I have an electric car we plug in each evening. It’s a commuter car used for local trips and errands. The technology is there for electric cars.

Why depend again on another fuel source such as natural gas?

I applaud them both for bringing such ambitous plans forward. There’s no question we need to move swiftly and decisively if we want to avert an all out crisis.

By: G.K.Patel Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:53:30 +0000 Al Gore’s challenge is accepted by both great candidates,
however he can be candidate in 2012 & finish his milestone
in last 6 years of next 10 years.He can be elected for sure in 2012.