A very informative, well-done article; great use of maps and other graphics to make the point. i also concur with the argument that a lot renewable energy conversions don't require new technology.

This is important information that the public needs to know. There are some errors in the article, but all in all I can recommend it. I made comments to address the errors and unfounded assertions.

The author reads the EIA site without understanding anything. Gore's proposal is just stupid unless you subscribe to the global warming religion. He wants to replace reliable coal with unreliable wind for generating electricity. Wind is very expensive and unreliable. Wind and solar are at best marginal supplements that require subsidies. Geothermal is pie in the sky except for a few special places. Biomass - I think we've had enough of ethanol another version of biomass. Nuclear is practical and does not emit CO2 but the global warming religionists rarely mention it. Do we need to ask why?

Lifted almost intact from a blog, but important nonetheless. Norman Rogers is an idiot.

I think this is a tremendous entry-level article on renewable energy. It touches too briefly, however, on one critical point: transmission losses for electrical energy. More than a third of the electrical energy that we generate in this country is lost in transmission. Gore argues that we need to upgrade our electrical grid to reduce these losses. But clearly, a large part of our transmission losses are determined by our centralized power generation and the distances that energy must be transmitted. While it is gratifying to look at a map of the United States and see the potential for tapping renewal energy, we will also have to optimize the distribution of power generation.