Renewable energy: Do you think that we should learn what's happening in other countries before it's too late?

Question

It's all a scam and the U.S. is next!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/consumer/bills/article.html?in_article_id=430009&in_page_id=510

Answer 1

This is a somewhat skewed question although interesting...

First, an answer to the question itself: Of course! We should always be looking for places from which we can learn and looking for ways to improve.

But I'm not sure what your underlying argument is. Is it:

a) Because some businesses have taken advantage of a laissez-faire deregulated free market system to make money as capitalism demands?

If so, the answer lies in more regulation and government control which I would guess you are against?

Or is it:

b) That countries trying to become more environmentally friendly lose their right to claim such because they still have high oil use?

I don't follow the logic on this...

Why oil and not all non-renewables/fossil fuels? Is there something special about oil, as opposed to gas or coal, that I am missing?

In your addendum you don't make the difference - you say "countries that supposedly have more renewable energy are the ones depending more on fossil fuels".

You suddenly switch from "oil" to "fossil fuel" but don't switch the percentages. Using your examples and using fossil fuel %s instead of oil we get:

Denmark: 16.2% and 83.1%

UK: 1.7% and 88.6%

Which is the opposite of your point.

But even so, I am still unclear what the point is:

Is it a scam, or has Denmark done something wrong from moving from 99.3% fossil fuel use down to 83.1% (assuming the renewables substituted for non-renewables)?

The only lesson for the US that I can draw from your links and statements is not to leave energy and environmental policy in the hands of the market or industries - it requires strong, and overreaching, government control.

And somehow, I don't think many people in this forum would like that to be the answer!

Edit to Mikira:

I know we often don't agree on issues but your answer made me laugh out loud... thanks!

Answer 2

The worst thing for me is that I agree with a lot of what Adam C is saying, but on my defense I think I'm coming down with a cold. The  thing that concerned me while reading this is if a small Country like Denmark and an Island nation like England is having a problem putting up enough wind turbines to move significantly away from fossil fuels how we could think wind turbines would work for larger countries. I realize we'd be using other sources too, like hydroelectric and solar, but I still think to get completely away from fossil fuels we need to build nuclear power plants.

Answer 3

We must!

People need to seriously take the time to do so, we need to know any pros or cons and compare information. After we all live on this planet and everyone needs to work together!

Answer 4

Sure.  Here's the problem:

"However, because of a loophole in the system - and the vocal opposition to new turbines in the countryside - the scheme has failed to produce the expected surge in wind power. Instead, most of the money has lined the pockets of energy companies."

Don't put that loophole in the US system (and don't oppose turbines in the countryside).  Problem solved.

Answer 5

There is only one practical answer to future energy needs and that is space based solar. There are about 10 practical types of solar generating plants that can be built in orbit and we need to start now to do something serious about it. If it had not been for Jimmy Carter and the democrats in congress at the time we would have had space based solar by 1992 and the worlds energy crisis never would have happened. But the oil companies paid him well to kill it and now they are reaping the profits from that act while the little people of the world are paying for it.

We need space based solar with supplement from nuclear and other low impact sources so coal and oil can be used for other more practical things than fuels!

Answer 6

We need a Comprehensive energy plan that includes nuclear, solar, wind, and coal converted to natural gas and oil. We need to be attacking this on multiple fronts-- this includes opening up all on shore and off shore resources to exploration and drilling.

Denmark's issue is wind energy must be sold to neighboring countries on the grid when it cannot be used in Denmark-- they have kept their conventional power plants running-- we will need to do the same-- except that nuclear could provide a clean energy source as backup power. Nuclear already provides about 20% of the USA's electrical needs.

Answer 7

Umm...you would rather use an energy source until there's no more of it? Eventually fossil fuels won't be economical. I don't know when it will happen, but it will happen. Eventually we will need to switch to renewable energy.

If you want to talk about money, I've taken college classes in economics. Because fossil fuels are non-renewable, they are limited resorces. As they are consumed, less is available. The less there is, the more expensive it becomes. Eventually there will be a point where renewable sources become cheaper than fossil fuels. So If you want people to keep their money, the people will need to switch, and that will be very costly to reconstruct the energy infrastructure. I also understand that you don't want population control, right? Well if we start to make the switch to renewable energy, we will only have to reconstruct a 7-billion person energy infrastructure. If we switch later, we will have to reconstruct something like a 10-billion person energy infrastructure. That's the idea in China right now. There aren't very many gas stations there, and many suggest that stations for cars using renewable energy should be built instead of regular gas stations.

If you want to talk about learning from other nations, look at Iceland. Do you have any idea how much renewable energy they use?

But I suppose you would rather allow the economy to be dependent on the price of oil, let your children deal with global warming, see thousands die fighing over oil, breath smog and vehicle emissions, and risk oil spills just to have some temporarally cheap energy.

Answer 8

Definetly! Although, Europe is years ahead of us in renewable energy. The U.S. will most likely have plans for renewable energy sources in the not- so- distant future.

Answer 9

Higher prices of what?   Wind is cheaper than using oil to produce electricity in that area of the world.   England has more coal than Denmark, so uses it instead of oil to produce electricity.   You seem to have bought into the government scam that fossil fuels are the only alternative and everything else is unworkable.