Denmark 1970: 99% energy from the Middle East. 2000: 0%. 100% energy independent.(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Denmark 1970: 99% energy from the Middle East. 2000: 0%. 100% energy independent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html
13 comments
I think the Danish oil production in the North Sea at least covers our own consumption, so the 0% probably isn't far off. Not that the oil in the North Sea will last, of course.
Norway has larger oil-fields in the North Sea and export quite a lot.
The 99% from the Middle East in 1973 is probably a journalistic exaggeration - 99% from outside the country would probably be correct (the oil in the North Sea was found in the 70s).
Oh, and we burn a lot of coal in Denmark. It is not all rosy.
Norway has larger oil-fields in the North Sea and export quite a lot.
The 99% from the Middle East in 1973 is probably a journalistic exaggeration - 99% from outside the country would probably be correct (the oil in the North Sea was found in the 70s).
Oh, and we burn a lot of coal in Denmark. It is not all rosy.
Actually, the coal was one thing I was wondering about. The statement was 99% of energy, not 99% of oil. That can't possibly be true with coal in the picture. Note that in this case the exaggeration comes not from a journalist but from the Minister of Energy.
It sounds as if the kernel of truth here is maybe that Denmark produces more oil than it consumes. But I would be shocked to hear that Danish oil is produced by Danish rigs and transported via Danish pipelines to Danish refineries. Rather, oil from Danish territory goes into the same global market as all the other oil, and the Danes buy oil the same way (and at the same price) that everybody else does. So the Middle East bit is a red herring.
It sounds as if the kernel of truth here is maybe that Denmark produces more oil than it consumes. But I would be shocked to hear that Danish oil is produced by Danish rigs and transported via Danish pipelines to Danish refineries. Rather, oil from Danish territory goes into the same global market as all the other oil, and the Danes buy oil the same way (and at the same price) that everybody else does. So the Middle East bit is a red herring.
Denmark is a net exporter of oil and natural gas. We import coal because its a cheaper source of energy than oil, so it makes sense to use coal rather than oil in power plants. But I believe that Denmark is a net exporter of energy at this time. Our oil is running out, though, this is why we invest in other forms of energy like wind.
"The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil."
It is interesting that the prime minister's comment was sensational enough for several Danish news outlets to pick up on the NYT story. This indicates that his comment is far from established policy in Denmark.
When our current government was elected, it introduced a stop on new taxes which has been in place since. Having the prime minister talk about introducing an extra tax on already expensive gas is quite newsworthy. Some critics argue that rather than raising the price on gas, the government should consider removing the taxes that are put on environmentally friendly cars and hybrids.
It is interesting that the prime minister's comment was sensational enough for several Danish news outlets to pick up on the NYT story. This indicates that his comment is far from established policy in Denmark.
When our current government was elected, it introduced a stop on new taxes which has been in place since. Having the prime minister talk about introducing an extra tax on already expensive gas is quite newsworthy. Some critics argue that rather than raising the price on gas, the government should consider removing the taxes that are put on environmentally friendly cars and hybrids.
What's so bad about foreign oil?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8-2008aug08,0...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8-2008aug08,0...
The problem with oil isn't that it comes from foreign sources -- the problem is that supply is running out.
> the problem is that supply is running out.
...eventually. In the 19th and early 20th century there was a lot of people scared that coal was going to run out and torpedo the early industrial economy. Quite a few prominent intellectuals were worried about Peak Coal. It didn't happen. It COULD theoretically happen, granted. But technology grew to use different inputs and the price system gave people incentive to explore new deposits. We still have tons of coal.
...eventually. In the 19th and early 20th century there was a lot of people scared that coal was going to run out and torpedo the early industrial economy. Quite a few prominent intellectuals were worried about Peak Coal. It didn't happen. It COULD theoretically happen, granted. But technology grew to use different inputs and the price system gave people incentive to explore new deposits. We still have tons of coal.
Exactly. The problem is not so much with foreign oil, as with oil itself. Higher taxes to reduce consumption(Economists call these Pigovian taxes) seem to be a good choice to reduce emissions in the short term, but technological advances provide the long-term hope.
As opposed to here in Australia, where we our higher petrol tax goes back into building more roads and thus driving demand higher.
Well it's the opposite in the U.S. Mileage decreased for the first time ever last quarter, which is leading to less tax revenue to repair the roads. The most efficient tax would be tolls, but the implementation is a nightmare.
Is it me, or has there been a plethora of poorly-reported NYTimes articles on HN lately?
I won't tear into this one save this: oil is fungible. To say no energy from the Middle East is misleading. They buy their oil on the open market like everybody else. (Now they may produce more than they consume, but heck, its not like that supports the headline.)
I won't tear into this one save this: oil is fungible. To say no energy from the Middle East is misleading. They buy their oil on the open market like everybody else. (Now they may produce more than they consume, but heck, its not like that supports the headline.)
Oil is fungible, but maybe that's missing the point. It's semantic nit-picking that misses the spirit of what the author is trying to convey (perhaps with some exaggeration).
I buy "green" electricity. That is, all the electricity I pay for is sustainably generated and carbon neutral, from wind, solar, tide or hydro. However, the actually electricity that powers my lights is probably from a coal or nuclear power station. The point is that I pay to put electricity from "green" sources into the grid. The fact that the actual electricity that arrives at my house is not the same I paid to generate doesn't matter.
If Denmark puts more energy/coal/oil into the market than it uses then it is energy neutral or positive even if people are actually using oil from Saudi or wherever.
I buy "green" electricity. That is, all the electricity I pay for is sustainably generated and carbon neutral, from wind, solar, tide or hydro. However, the actually electricity that powers my lights is probably from a coal or nuclear power station. The point is that I pay to put electricity from "green" sources into the grid. The fact that the actual electricity that arrives at my house is not the same I paid to generate doesn't matter.
If Denmark puts more energy/coal/oil into the market than it uses then it is energy neutral or positive even if people are actually using oil from Saudi or wherever.
Some of us would rather just avoid the 'politics' thing altogether.
10 dollar gasoline will result in more efforts towards alternative energy. Yes. It will do so if the 10 dollar gasoline is a result of taxation. It will also do so if the 10 dollar gasoline is a result of supply and demand. If you want expensive gasoline, you'll get it eventually.
I'm not sure why people don't understand that.
I'm not sure why people don't understand that.
The only problem with taxing energy is that it has a disproportionate effect on the lower classes.
Why is that a problem? The planet doesn't care about the socioeconomic status of polluters, does it?
No, but I do.
The danish theory seems to be that if you do it now via tax, you can apply the taxes to make advances in technology for energy efficiency and alternative sources.
Yes, that works if you ringfence the taxes, but almost no-one does - we certainly don't here in England (IMHO we should, indeed we are insane not to).
Tax oil -> Create demand for alternative energy -> Avoid political and economic problems associated with a diminishing supply of energy.
Simple.
Simple.
The problem with that approach is that it assumes everyone is foolish. A rational actor presented with information that oil supplies will decrease in the near future would adjust his behavior as he sees fit. Moreover, the market will price in the costs of continuing to rely on oil.
Sure, price in the externalities of oil use, but I don't think we should raise prices beyond that just to reduce demand.
Sure, price in the externalities of oil use, but I don't think we should raise prices beyond that just to reduce demand.
Better (but less simple) idea
Get an MPG benchmark, say 25. Give a tax credit for cars that overperform and a tax debit for cars that underperform. This creates a revenue-neutral incentive structure that would help cycle in more efficient cars into the market. Every so often, raise the benchmark.
Of course you have the problem with fleet vehicles which are always going to be below the benchmark, but they could rotate into natty as a source.
Get an MPG benchmark, say 25. Give a tax credit for cars that overperform and a tax debit for cars that underperform. This creates a revenue-neutral incentive structure that would help cycle in more efficient cars into the market. Every so often, raise the benchmark.
Of course you have the problem with fleet vehicles which are always going to be below the benchmark, but they could rotate into natty as a source.
Denmark uses oil for cars. Coal for electricity. Denmark now gets a lot of offshore oil relative to the size of the country, that's why Denmark is a net exporter.
Denmark is a tiny country, its 1/10th the size of california, they don't need much oil. Yet look at it, it took them close to 40 years to kick the habit. This is why its so disingenuous when candidates focus so much on offshore drilling like it's a solution to all our problems.
What blather. Two points:
(a) oil is fungible. Fungible, FUNGIBLE.
(b) offshore drilling, will help, and nobody is proposing that it is a solution. Nuclear and solar electricity and better batteries are the solution. Drilling our own oil resources will help us while we get there.
(a) oil is fungible. Fungible, FUNGIBLE.
(b) offshore drilling, will help, and nobody is proposing that it is a solution. Nuclear and solar electricity and better batteries are the solution. Drilling our own oil resources will help us while we get there.
I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become energy independent.
I read a recent estimation that America has enough oil for 3 years at it's current rate of consumption. Unless consumption is dramatically reduced drilling is just going to tap out a resource that would be best saved for a real emergency.
Europe has been coping with smaller more efficient cars, and driving habits for decades. American can too.
I read a recent estimation that America has enough oil for 3 years at it's current rate of consumption. Unless consumption is dramatically reduced drilling is just going to tap out a resource that would be best saved for a real emergency.
Europe has been coping with smaller more efficient cars, and driving habits for decades. American can too.
Your comment has the feeling of a moral judgment or a best-guess seat-of-pants decision, ie, that since Europe has been coping with smaller and more efficient cars, we can too.
I've always found myself too ill-equipped to make decisions on how markets can or should operate (that is, unless the market is obviously broken, in which case somebody must do something)
So I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s? That we continue to _not_ reprocess spent nuclear fuel? That due to these policies our oil output now is the same as it was in the 1940s?
I'm trying not to badger you, but are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark?
Couldn't you just picket or something? Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking. And please don't argue that the culture must change because energy is so scarce -- it's a circular argument.
I've always found myself too ill-equipped to make decisions on how markets can or should operate (that is, unless the market is obviously broken, in which case somebody must do something)
So I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s? That we continue to _not_ reprocess spent nuclear fuel? That due to these policies our oil output now is the same as it was in the 1940s?
I'm trying not to badger you, but are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark?
Couldn't you just picket or something? Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking. And please don't argue that the culture must change because energy is so scarce -- it's a circular argument.
Look at the trends in electricity consumption per capita in California since the '70s versus the rest of the country. California has been about flat, the rest of the country has increased substantially. Energy efficiency is a hell of a lot cheaper than drilling or nuclear, and there's still a hell of a lot of low-hanging fruit.
"Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking."
He clearly said that the goal was energy independence, not a change in culture. The change in culture is a means to that end.
Drilling offshore now isn't worth the potential environmental damage or the sacrifice of the future value of that oil when it becomes more scarce. I don't think that oil is enough to tide us over until we don't need oil anymore, especially since the oil will be sold on the global market. It will barely lower oil prices in a decade. Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so.
With or without new offshore drilling, we will lower our energy consumption by necessity from now until we're off of oil. It will be too expensive to continue on our current course. The current focus should be on solutions that will make that transition period less painful, not on solutions that will make us use more oil and further our dependency on it.
I agree with you on all the nuclear stuff.
He clearly said that the goal was energy independence, not a change in culture. The change in culture is a means to that end.
Drilling offshore now isn't worth the potential environmental damage or the sacrifice of the future value of that oil when it becomes more scarce. I don't think that oil is enough to tide us over until we don't need oil anymore, especially since the oil will be sold on the global market. It will barely lower oil prices in a decade. Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so.
With or without new offshore drilling, we will lower our energy consumption by necessity from now until we're off of oil. It will be too expensive to continue on our current course. The current focus should be on solutions that will make that transition period less painful, not on solutions that will make us use more oil and further our dependency on it.
I agree with you on all the nuclear stuff.
"Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so."
What sacrifices? I won't use the term "straw man" but I'd at least like to humbly suggest you've made a whole slew of assumptions about what might or might not happen. Most of these I take issue with.
I'm not crazy about oil. Personally, I'll be happy when we're off it. But, like I said, I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them. Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away.
Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of.
Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where the limits of your argument lie. Would you agree with the statement above? Or would we immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion?
What sacrifices? I won't use the term "straw man" but I'd at least like to humbly suggest you've made a whole slew of assumptions about what might or might not happen. Most of these I take issue with.
I'm not crazy about oil. Personally, I'll be happy when we're off it. But, like I said, I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them. Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away.
Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of.
Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where the limits of your argument lie. Would you agree with the statement above? Or would we immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion?
> Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of possible dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away.
The environmental dangers of oil drilling are more than possibilities, and your dismissive tone doesn’t aid your argument. The current supporters of increased off-shore drilling are spinning up its positives and spinning down its negatives as a craven political ploy in an election year which coincides with oil prices higher than they were a few years ago, and general economic instability.
Off-shore drilling is not going to solve our current economic crisis, nor is it going to bring down oil prices to any substantial degree—maybe the price will dip a few percent in 10 years when the oil starts flowing.
> Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor.
Your implication is that off-shore oil-drilling in America is the best way to help the third-world poor. That is absurd. (And hyperbolically casting natrius as some kind of heartless first-world imperialist doesn’t help your argument either. It makes your comments seem like trolling.)
The environmental dangers of oil drilling are more than possibilities, and your dismissive tone doesn’t aid your argument. The current supporters of increased off-shore drilling are spinning up its positives and spinning down its negatives as a craven political ploy in an election year which coincides with oil prices higher than they were a few years ago, and general economic instability.
Off-shore drilling is not going to solve our current economic crisis, nor is it going to bring down oil prices to any substantial degree—maybe the price will dip a few percent in 10 years when the oil starts flowing.
> Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor.
Your implication is that off-shore oil-drilling in America is the best way to help the third-world poor. That is absurd. (And hyperbolically casting natrius as some kind of heartless first-world imperialist doesn’t help your argument either. It makes your comments seem like trolling.)
First, I did not dismiss the environmental impact of drilling offshore. We did not discuss it at length. There were some sweeping statements made about my position and I pointed out I do not support those statements. Glad to have that discussion.
Second, I made no comment about helping the poor. My comment was about the use of personal opinion to control markets. I used the poor as an example of those who could be impacted by our policies.
I made no personal attack and posited no question that was supposed to inflame or outrage. I tried to the best of my ability to ask simple questions and make simple statements that I honestly support. As far as the poor comment, I used the statement as a way of advancing the conversation without it having to take another 50 posts. I obviously do not believe he would support that, and am interested in his reply as to where he thinks the limits of market control should be.
You're welcome to join in, by the way. I don't mind the critique of my style, but discussing the substance of the matter might be more interesting for all concerned.
Second, I made no comment about helping the poor. My comment was about the use of personal opinion to control markets. I used the poor as an example of those who could be impacted by our policies.
I made no personal attack and posited no question that was supposed to inflame or outrage. I tried to the best of my ability to ask simple questions and make simple statements that I honestly support. As far as the poor comment, I used the statement as a way of advancing the conversation without it having to take another 50 posts. I obviously do not believe he would support that, and am interested in his reply as to where he thinks the limits of market control should be.
You're welcome to join in, by the way. I don't mind the critique of my style, but discussing the substance of the matter might be more interesting for all concerned.
The substance of the matter is that America has relatively small reserves of off-shore oil, which if fully tapped today would only make a minor difference in global oil prices, but has massive demand for oil (25% of global demand). Off-shore drilling is not remotely a solution to the coming oil crisis (crises?), and is being used as an emotional appeal in the current political climate purely for partisan advantage, rather than for concrete benefits (not that it doesn't potentially have some benefit, but its current supporters don't particularly care about them).
Current US energy policy, far from restricting fossil fuel companies, is hugely beneficial to them (even though it is highly regulatory), with a large array of subsidies and special breaks, not to mention political support.
It is unreasonable to demand that energy policy always bow to the “free market,” as that has repeatedly led to bad outcomes all over the world, by providing opportunities for manipulation, and ignoring substantial negative externalities (dead villagers, air pollution, oil spills, etc.).
A much more positive change would be to decouple the political system from financial dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and biofuels/agriculture conglomerates, so that we can have a less tainted national debate on the subject.
Current US energy policy, far from restricting fossil fuel companies, is hugely beneficial to them (even though it is highly regulatory), with a large array of subsidies and special breaks, not to mention political support.
It is unreasonable to demand that energy policy always bow to the “free market,” as that has repeatedly led to bad outcomes all over the world, by providing opportunities for manipulation, and ignoring substantial negative externalities (dead villagers, air pollution, oil spills, etc.).
A much more positive change would be to decouple the political system from financial dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and biofuels/agriculture conglomerates, so that we can have a less tainted national debate on the subject.
"Current US energy policy, far from restricting fossil fuel companies, is hugely beneficial to them " Did I miss the part where you pointed out oil production in the U.S. has dropped to 1940s levels?
"The substance of the matter is that America has relatively small reserves of off-shore oil" Which 30 years of partisan bickering in Congress has failed to release to the market, along with the additional north shore finds. Along with more nuclear. Along with reprocessing spent fuel. I could go on. Did you point out that with the reduced elasticity of supply, those extra barrels could have had a major effect on world price stability?
The substance of the matter is that we have been shooting ourselves in the foot for over 30 years because poor countries are doing all the dirty work for us. We don't have to worry about environmental issues as long as it's the Saudis doing the pumping. Everybody can point fingers at each other and we can continue on our way. No energy bill was passed during all those administrations because both parties would rather have an issue than have a solution.
Our demand is about to get overtaken by China and India in the next twenty years, really no matter what we do. We are sitting in a bubble, arguing about what the world should be like. Meanwhile, the real world continues on. People continue to trade living in a dirty world for money, education, and prosperity. For every thousand dead from oil spills, another ten million live better lives (it's hyperbole, yes.). I wonder how foolish we look to them?
"The substance of the matter is that America has relatively small reserves of off-shore oil" Which 30 years of partisan bickering in Congress has failed to release to the market, along with the additional north shore finds. Along with more nuclear. Along with reprocessing spent fuel. I could go on. Did you point out that with the reduced elasticity of supply, those extra barrels could have had a major effect on world price stability?
The substance of the matter is that we have been shooting ourselves in the foot for over 30 years because poor countries are doing all the dirty work for us. We don't have to worry about environmental issues as long as it's the Saudis doing the pumping. Everybody can point fingers at each other and we can continue on our way. No energy bill was passed during all those administrations because both parties would rather have an issue than have a solution.
Our demand is about to get overtaken by China and India in the next twenty years, really no matter what we do. We are sitting in a bubble, arguing about what the world should be like. Meanwhile, the real world continues on. People continue to trade living in a dirty world for money, education, and prosperity. For every thousand dead from oil spills, another ten million live better lives (it's hyperbole, yes.). I wonder how foolish we look to them?
[deleted]
"What sacrifices?"
The potential environmental damage and future value of that oil that I mentioned. Oil is becoming increasingly scarce. The areas of the planet that currently have a lot of it aren't exactly our friends. Saving that oil for when we actually need it as opposed to dropping the price of a gallon of gas by a couple of cents sounds like a prudent course of action to me.
"I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them."
The markets for natural resources are heavily influenced by people's personal feelings, so you should probably join the club. More people have a claim of ownership to a barrel of oil than a given widget, so those people will use their position to maximize their self-interest. I think you're trying to trivialize my concerns by referring to them as "personal feelings", but I don't think there's anything trivial about wanting to avoid environmental damage and minimize the damage to the American economy that will occur if the transition away from oil is too difficult.
"There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away."
I don't see how that has any effect on the situation. Yes, everybody wants cheaper oil, but that doesn't mean more offshore drilling makes us all better off in the end. It will increase our current dependency on oil, making the transition harder when the effects of the new oil wear off. It has the potential to damage the environment. If we need oil for something more important than lowering the price of gas by a few cents in the future, we will have less of it.
"The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of."
Ok... so what happens to the poor when we're out of cheap oil? It's incredibly myopic to suggest that we should drill more oil now for the sake of the impoverished.
If this were a discussion about Pigovian taxation of oil instead of managing the supply of oil, then yes, we would immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion. However, this has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Poor people can afford fewer scarce goods. Oh no.
The potential environmental damage and future value of that oil that I mentioned. Oil is becoming increasingly scarce. The areas of the planet that currently have a lot of it aren't exactly our friends. Saving that oil for when we actually need it as opposed to dropping the price of a gallon of gas by a couple of cents sounds like a prudent course of action to me.
"I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them."
The markets for natural resources are heavily influenced by people's personal feelings, so you should probably join the club. More people have a claim of ownership to a barrel of oil than a given widget, so those people will use their position to maximize their self-interest. I think you're trying to trivialize my concerns by referring to them as "personal feelings", but I don't think there's anything trivial about wanting to avoid environmental damage and minimize the damage to the American economy that will occur if the transition away from oil is too difficult.
"There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away."
I don't see how that has any effect on the situation. Yes, everybody wants cheaper oil, but that doesn't mean more offshore drilling makes us all better off in the end. It will increase our current dependency on oil, making the transition harder when the effects of the new oil wear off. It has the potential to damage the environment. If we need oil for something more important than lowering the price of gas by a few cents in the future, we will have less of it.
"The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of."
Ok... so what happens to the poor when we're out of cheap oil? It's incredibly myopic to suggest that we should drill more oil now for the sake of the impoverished.
If this were a discussion about Pigovian taxation of oil instead of managing the supply of oil, then yes, we would immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion. However, this has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Poor people can afford fewer scarce goods. Oh no.
I guess I need to be more clear.
When we get into "potential environmental damages", unless you're prepared to make a risk-reward argument with hard statistics we're treading on personal opinion ground. The Chinese seem to have a fairly high tolerance for air pollution, for instance. Other people don't. The Chinese are going to start drilling off our coast. We are not.
I also take issue with your statement we are running out of oil. Not to be pedantic, but it depends on what you mean by "oil". There's shale, sweet, sour, crude, light, etc. And that's not even getting into biofuels (which I know you don't imply, but "oil' could cover those) Look -- I don't know where the market is headed. I guess that makes me unique, because everybody else seems to think they know exactly what's going on. I've heard dozens of experts announce we were at 'peak oil' over the last month, which I personally think is BS. I've read at least one article by an expert that makes the case that oil prices will drop, not rise, over the next 50 years.
So I am by no means trying to trivialize your opinions. But I would point out that we certainly have a LOT of opinions about the topic. I've got mine. You've got yours. As a voter, we get to go slug it out at the polls, as it should be.
I get the fact that you feel you have a good grip on where the markets are, what the risks are, and what's the best way to manage our transition. To me, that seems presumptuous. No hard feelings. Not trying to label you or somehow put you down or anything. As we both know, you have lots of company. Just doesn't seem right to me.
"Ok... so what happens to the poor when we're out of cheap oil?" -- doesn't the market provide the most goods at the lowest prices, thereby helping the poor much more optimally than a government policy would? When you start fiddling with the markets, you're taking responsibility for the delivery of goods in that market -- like it or not.
Guess what? I'm happy being an idiot. I don't presume to know how to deliver the most energy the cheapest way to the world's consumers, and I don't think it's moral for me to hurt or help one group or another based on risks that are not scientifically verified. At least not to this huge degree. If we were talking about something easy like the death penalty, sure, the standard of proof would be much lower. But you're talking about potentially billons of people who will have a harder time reaching their potential for decades while we re-tool.
Don't count me in for that.
When we get into "potential environmental damages", unless you're prepared to make a risk-reward argument with hard statistics we're treading on personal opinion ground. The Chinese seem to have a fairly high tolerance for air pollution, for instance. Other people don't. The Chinese are going to start drilling off our coast. We are not.
I also take issue with your statement we are running out of oil. Not to be pedantic, but it depends on what you mean by "oil". There's shale, sweet, sour, crude, light, etc. And that's not even getting into biofuels (which I know you don't imply, but "oil' could cover those) Look -- I don't know where the market is headed. I guess that makes me unique, because everybody else seems to think they know exactly what's going on. I've heard dozens of experts announce we were at 'peak oil' over the last month, which I personally think is BS. I've read at least one article by an expert that makes the case that oil prices will drop, not rise, over the next 50 years.
So I am by no means trying to trivialize your opinions. But I would point out that we certainly have a LOT of opinions about the topic. I've got mine. You've got yours. As a voter, we get to go slug it out at the polls, as it should be.
I get the fact that you feel you have a good grip on where the markets are, what the risks are, and what's the best way to manage our transition. To me, that seems presumptuous. No hard feelings. Not trying to label you or somehow put you down or anything. As we both know, you have lots of company. Just doesn't seem right to me.
"Ok... so what happens to the poor when we're out of cheap oil?" -- doesn't the market provide the most goods at the lowest prices, thereby helping the poor much more optimally than a government policy would? When you start fiddling with the markets, you're taking responsibility for the delivery of goods in that market -- like it or not.
Guess what? I'm happy being an idiot. I don't presume to know how to deliver the most energy the cheapest way to the world's consumers, and I don't think it's moral for me to hurt or help one group or another based on risks that are not scientifically verified. At least not to this huge degree. If we were talking about something easy like the death penalty, sure, the standard of proof would be much lower. But you're talking about potentially billons of people who will have a harder time reaching their potential for decades while we re-tool.
Don't count me in for that.
When I say we're running out of oil, I mean we're running out of cheap, easily accessible oil. We'll have oil for quite some time; it will just get more expensive. Maybe I'm wrong and the peak of global oil supply is still a ways off. In that case, we'll have made a less painful transition than we would have otherwise. The longer we continue to use energy as we currently do, the more infrastructure will be built based on that consumption, and the more new infrastructure we will need to build in the future to accommodate lower energy use.
"When we get into "potential environmental damages", unless you're prepared to make a risk-reward argument with hard statistics we're treading on personal opinion ground."
It is personal opinion. I don't see the problem with that. I like my shorelines sans oil spills. I don't think the risk is worth a couple of cents a gallon off of gas. Any quantification of the risks and rewards of offshore drilling will be equally subjective as my assertion that it isn't worth it. If the rest of the country agrees (which looks unlikely at this point), then more offshore drilling won't happen.
"doesn't the market provide the most goods at the lowest prices, thereby helping the poor much more optimally than a government policy would?"
Yes. Cheap energy for the poor would be nice, but the decrease in price of energy caused by offshore drilling isn't worth the potential environmental damage in my opinion.
"But you're talking about potentially billons of people who will have a harder time reaching their potential for decades while we re-tool."
It sounds like you're talking about more than just offshore drilling here, as that would have a tiny effect on people reaching their potential. As far as broader governmental efforts that will raise the price of oil, I don't think we should go any further than pricing in the externalities of oil usage. Paying for the damage you cause isn't that radical of a notion.
"When we get into "potential environmental damages", unless you're prepared to make a risk-reward argument with hard statistics we're treading on personal opinion ground."
It is personal opinion. I don't see the problem with that. I like my shorelines sans oil spills. I don't think the risk is worth a couple of cents a gallon off of gas. Any quantification of the risks and rewards of offshore drilling will be equally subjective as my assertion that it isn't worth it. If the rest of the country agrees (which looks unlikely at this point), then more offshore drilling won't happen.
"doesn't the market provide the most goods at the lowest prices, thereby helping the poor much more optimally than a government policy would?"
Yes. Cheap energy for the poor would be nice, but the decrease in price of energy caused by offshore drilling isn't worth the potential environmental damage in my opinion.
"But you're talking about potentially billons of people who will have a harder time reaching their potential for decades while we re-tool."
It sounds like you're talking about more than just offshore drilling here, as that would have a tiny effect on people reaching their potential. As far as broader governmental efforts that will raise the price of oil, I don't think we should go any further than pricing in the externalities of oil usage. Paying for the damage you cause isn't that radical of a notion.
Ok. I'm happy that at least we're discussing opinions here.
Looks like the Chinese are going to develop off Cuba and the Russians have plans for the North Pole. You must feel we're in a pretty strong position to give up the cheap energy close-by and plan on a transition of unknown qualities and length. I mean, I'm all for the transition too, as I've pointed out, but to _manage_ the transition? Wow. It's a breathtaking position. As an example, our behavior over the last 30 years sounds like: hey look -- the world energy market isn't to our liking. Let's stop local energy production and transmission and then it'll transition to something better!
This "what is a pretty beach" or "what is a pretty sky' question is going to continue haunting us, and it's quite frankly the reason we've screwed the pooch so long by not building anything. For that reason, I am dubious that we can ever come to a national consensus. It's something the politicians have figured out that they can keep us fighting about.
I'd like to see several hundred nuclear power plants built over the next 30 years. I'd also like a pony. I'd like to see the fuel re-processed, like France does. If entrepreneurs want to continue work with wind and solar let's encourage them by offering prizes for measurable goals.
Looks like the Chinese are going to develop off Cuba and the Russians have plans for the North Pole. You must feel we're in a pretty strong position to give up the cheap energy close-by and plan on a transition of unknown qualities and length. I mean, I'm all for the transition too, as I've pointed out, but to _manage_ the transition? Wow. It's a breathtaking position. As an example, our behavior over the last 30 years sounds like: hey look -- the world energy market isn't to our liking. Let's stop local energy production and transmission and then it'll transition to something better!
This "what is a pretty beach" or "what is a pretty sky' question is going to continue haunting us, and it's quite frankly the reason we've screwed the pooch so long by not building anything. For that reason, I am dubious that we can ever come to a national consensus. It's something the politicians have figured out that they can keep us fighting about.
I'd like to see several hundred nuclear power plants built over the next 30 years. I'd also like a pony. I'd like to see the fuel re-processed, like France does. If entrepreneurs want to continue work with wind and solar let's encourage them by offering prizes for measurable goals.
Your whole line of reasoning rests upon the faulty premise that there's a "free market" for oil in this country, and that encouraging alternate forms of energy is somehow "tampering" with the unfathomably complicated mechanisms behind that market. All of which is utter nonsense.
We subsidize the hell out of oil consumption in this country, and we've done it for as long as we've been consuming. Once we stop doing things like funding highway construction, suburban infrastructure and corporate oil exploration with our taxes (no, not just gas taxes!), maybe then we can start to talk about the "free market" with a straight face.
We subsidize the hell out of oil consumption in this country, and we've done it for as long as we've been consuming. Once we stop doing things like funding highway construction, suburban infrastructure and corporate oil exploration with our taxes (no, not just gas taxes!), maybe then we can start to talk about the "free market" with a straight face.
My line of reasoning says that the free market provides the best solution for energy production and delivery. Yes, the market is already subsidized. No, there's no such thing as a pure free market. No, trying to rationalize markets one way or another is a fool's game, but we still try (as any commodities trader will tell you)
No, I did not say encouraging other forms of energy was tampering. Yes, my argument against tampering was our recent history of not providing energy for our own country, including nuclear, oil, and refining capacity for the past three decades. I made the extension that the offshore drilling now in question has been on the table for a long time. We should drill. (And in ANWR) Not because it solves the world's problem but because getting out of the way is sometimes better than continuing to be part of the problem.
No I do not think that solar, wind, or any number of a dozen other areas are somehow tampering, at least not when compared to the other shenanigans we've been doing. And no, I don't think anything we do this year is going to stack up to shooting ourselves in the collective foot for that long. I'm all for them.
It's best to correct the premise once you actually understand it.
No, I did not say encouraging other forms of energy was tampering. Yes, my argument against tampering was our recent history of not providing energy for our own country, including nuclear, oil, and refining capacity for the past three decades. I made the extension that the offshore drilling now in question has been on the table for a long time. We should drill. (And in ANWR) Not because it solves the world's problem but because getting out of the way is sometimes better than continuing to be part of the problem.
No I do not think that solar, wind, or any number of a dozen other areas are somehow tampering, at least not when compared to the other shenanigans we've been doing. And no, I don't think anything we do this year is going to stack up to shooting ourselves in the collective foot for that long. I'm all for them.
It's best to correct the premise once you actually understand it.
Don't be snarky. This thread started with a single, reasonable comment:
"I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become energy independent."
To which you replied with something simultaneously vague (do you pose all of your arguments as questions? Are you practicing for Jeopardy?), and a straw-man misrepresentation of the original comment:
"I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s...are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark?"
...which you followed with several long expositions about the virtues of the free market, and your inability to adequately predict the complexities thereof.
So based on my reading, to the extent that you're making any argument at all, it seems to be that regulation is the primary cause of energy price increases, and therefore we should lower production regulations (...and also drill more...) to lower prices. This argument has little to do with the OP (that we need to use less energy), and as I pointed out, it teeters on the (faulty) premise that if only we could de-regulate energy production, we'd somehow be moving closer to the Efficient Free Market Utopia That Will Solve All of Our Energy Problems (tm), while ignoring the fact that we heavily subsidize wasteful energy consumption.
So, at the end of the day, I'm led to the same conclusion as the OP: in a "free market" where we subsidize the hell out of wasteful consumption, and do little (or nothing) to promote systemic energy efficiency, the obvious first policy step involves reducing our wastefulness -- not drilling for more oil.
"I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become energy independent."
To which you replied with something simultaneously vague (do you pose all of your arguments as questions? Are you practicing for Jeopardy?), and a straw-man misrepresentation of the original comment:
"I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s...are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark?"
...which you followed with several long expositions about the virtues of the free market, and your inability to adequately predict the complexities thereof.
So based on my reading, to the extent that you're making any argument at all, it seems to be that regulation is the primary cause of energy price increases, and therefore we should lower production regulations (...and also drill more...) to lower prices. This argument has little to do with the OP (that we need to use less energy), and as I pointed out, it teeters on the (faulty) premise that if only we could de-regulate energy production, we'd somehow be moving closer to the Efficient Free Market Utopia That Will Solve All of Our Energy Problems (tm), while ignoring the fact that we heavily subsidize wasteful energy consumption.
So, at the end of the day, I'm led to the same conclusion as the OP: in a "free market" where we subsidize the hell out of wasteful consumption, and do little (or nothing) to promote systemic energy efficiency, the obvious first policy step involves reducing our wastefulness -- not drilling for more oil.
I see you're not responding to any of my criticisms of your argument. In addition, you seem to both state the subject as mucking around with markets in order to change the culture (which it was) and the role of regulation as being the primary cause of energy price increases (which it wasn't)
My thesis was for this thread that it is not a good societal trade to cripple our own energy market for 30 years for some larger cause of cultural change. I saw this attitude in the original post and was wondering if that was what we were talking about. If that were the case, as I felt the OP was, its both ludicrous and presumptuous.
Thanks for the Jeopardy plug. One usually asks questions to learn where somebody else is coming from. I forgot about the Jeopardy angle. Could be in to make some big bucks down the road.
And BTW, I tried to make double-sure there was no straw-man argument involved in my posts. Each time I made the case for what I thought the other person was saying I tried to do so in a question, as in "Do you mean..." If I forgot to flag a couple of these, it was an oversight. I've got better things to do than to make up positions for other people and then argue them. But I will ask questions and make presumptions about where the discussion is going in an effort to move things along. But heck, when I use a question, then it seems to get you all bothered. What can I say? One does the best that one can.
I'm honestly interested in the other person's opinion, not in critiquing their debating style or sticking their argument in a box somewhere. In the last day I've been called trollish, snarky, voted down without explanation, my commenting style has come under withering attack. Everything but honest discussion. Heck. If I had all day I'd be glad to go after every post here, including the one about per-capita California consumption going down (ever think that manufacturing being driven overseas has something to do with this?) but I don't have the time. I joined in here, quite frankly, because I was bored with the code I was cranking out yesterday and wanted a bit of a diversion.
Hey. However the community works, fine with me. But I'm still curious. The only thing I've heard in response to my question is a bunch of hand-waving. Has there been a discussion of offshore drilling likely impacts? Nope. Has anybody commented on my question about 30 years of no new nuclear plants? One person. Anybody take up the issue of no new refineries, or the fact that each state has it's own fuel standards now? Or spent fuel reprocessing? Or the impact on ANWR of drilling? How about the limits of consumption reduction in a world market? Anybody care to talk issues? I know that wasn't the purpose of this thread, but gee, seems like we're doing anything but really having a discussion.
All I hear is "reduce consumption". Fine with me. I'm all for it. But you don't make the production problems go away by jumping up and down and waving your arms about consumption. Especially when consumption reduction is both a relative and fickle thing to measure. It's feel-good ideology: we consume therefore we're bad, and we should do the right thing and take a bike to work or something.
Bah humbug.
My thesis was for this thread that it is not a good societal trade to cripple our own energy market for 30 years for some larger cause of cultural change. I saw this attitude in the original post and was wondering if that was what we were talking about. If that were the case, as I felt the OP was, its both ludicrous and presumptuous.
Thanks for the Jeopardy plug. One usually asks questions to learn where somebody else is coming from. I forgot about the Jeopardy angle. Could be in to make some big bucks down the road.
And BTW, I tried to make double-sure there was no straw-man argument involved in my posts. Each time I made the case for what I thought the other person was saying I tried to do so in a question, as in "Do you mean..." If I forgot to flag a couple of these, it was an oversight. I've got better things to do than to make up positions for other people and then argue them. But I will ask questions and make presumptions about where the discussion is going in an effort to move things along. But heck, when I use a question, then it seems to get you all bothered. What can I say? One does the best that one can.
I'm honestly interested in the other person's opinion, not in critiquing their debating style or sticking their argument in a box somewhere. In the last day I've been called trollish, snarky, voted down without explanation, my commenting style has come under withering attack. Everything but honest discussion. Heck. If I had all day I'd be glad to go after every post here, including the one about per-capita California consumption going down (ever think that manufacturing being driven overseas has something to do with this?) but I don't have the time. I joined in here, quite frankly, because I was bored with the code I was cranking out yesterday and wanted a bit of a diversion.
Hey. However the community works, fine with me. But I'm still curious. The only thing I've heard in response to my question is a bunch of hand-waving. Has there been a discussion of offshore drilling likely impacts? Nope. Has anybody commented on my question about 30 years of no new nuclear plants? One person. Anybody take up the issue of no new refineries, or the fact that each state has it's own fuel standards now? Or spent fuel reprocessing? Or the impact on ANWR of drilling? How about the limits of consumption reduction in a world market? Anybody care to talk issues? I know that wasn't the purpose of this thread, but gee, seems like we're doing anything but really having a discussion.
All I hear is "reduce consumption". Fine with me. I'm all for it. But you don't make the production problems go away by jumping up and down and waving your arms about consumption. Especially when consumption reduction is both a relative and fickle thing to measure. It's feel-good ideology: we consume therefore we're bad, and we should do the right thing and take a bike to work or something.
Bah humbug.
Energy is still cheep even as oil is increasing in price. If we where to pay 100% of the cost of the US highway system though gas prices we would need to add ~3$/gallon to the price of gas. As a society we are already paying this even if you don't see 7$ at the pump. When you work out the real costs to drive a mile oil is still less than 40% on average and it's not going up all that fast.
PS: Offshore oil is going to make some companies a lot of money at some point but it's not going to change the price at the pump enough to notice. Which IMO makes it a straw man argument. For around 60$/barrel we can manufacture oil but you can pump it out of the ground for less than 10 so it's more a question of when to start manufacturing it than it is a question of when we need to start drilling.
PS: Offshore oil is going to make some companies a lot of money at some point but it's not going to change the price at the pump enough to notice. Which IMO makes it a straw man argument. For around 60$/barrel we can manufacture oil but you can pump it out of the ground for less than 10 so it's more a question of when to start manufacturing it than it is a question of when we need to start drilling.
"In the last day I've been called trollish, snarky, voted down without explanation, my commenting style has come under withering attack."
From past experiences with you, your "style" seems to be to mis-characterize the initial argument, hijack the thread with long, vague, tangential rants, and then to complain that people don't address the substance of your posts.
Perhaps your comments are being voted down for a related reason.
From past experiences with you, your "style" seems to be to mis-characterize the initial argument, hijack the thread with long, vague, tangential rants, and then to complain that people don't address the substance of your posts.
Perhaps your comments are being voted down for a related reason.
subsidized consumption? or subsidized production. the article specifically points out that higher consumption taxes are offsetting income taxes.
the question is not taxing consumption but rather what exactly we do with those taxes. personally i think those funds should go towards funding and expanding renewables.
the question is not taxing consumption but rather what exactly we do with those taxes. personally i think those funds should go towards funding and expanding renewables.
Offshore drilling won't really help. It'll take nearly a decade to get operations running, and our best estimates suggest that it will supply ~1% of our daily oil demand.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
So your position, and I see you have a doe report, is that "drilling for oil does not help oil prices"
The nice part about this is, once you accept the logic (or lack thereof) it makes total sense why we haven't drilled in the last 30 years. You see? Drilling for oil doesn't help supply any. Why if we had drilled 30 years ago we'd still be in the same situation we are today.
I wonder if the doe could make some estimates on other commodity prices 30 years into the future. I'd like to get in on some of that action.
The nice part about this is, once you accept the logic (or lack thereof) it makes total sense why we haven't drilled in the last 30 years. You see? Drilling for oil doesn't help supply any. Why if we had drilled 30 years ago we'd still be in the same situation we are today.
I wonder if the doe could make some estimates on other commodity prices 30 years into the future. I'd like to get in on some of that action.
I'm saying that even if we could magically get at all that offshore oil tomorrow, it wouldn't make a difference.
It's only going to provide an extra 200,000 barrels a day. America currently uses over 20,000,000 barrels a day - and current world production is on the order of a 100,000,000 barrels a day.
Increasing production by 0.2% isn't going to change anything. Hell, remember about a year ago when when OPEC increased production quotas by 300K/day? Oil prices held steady for about a week, and then started increasing again. It did practically nothing at all.
I'm saying that the minuscule benefit off shore drilling will provide is more than outweighed by negative impact.
It's only going to provide an extra 200,000 barrels a day. America currently uses over 20,000,000 barrels a day - and current world production is on the order of a 100,000,000 barrels a day.
Increasing production by 0.2% isn't going to change anything. Hell, remember about a year ago when when OPEC increased production quotas by 300K/day? Oil prices held steady for about a week, and then started increasing again. It did practically nothing at all.
I'm saying that the minuscule benefit off shore drilling will provide is more than outweighed by negative impact.
I'm saying we were idiots for not drilling for the oil thirty years ago, and we continue to be idiots by not drilling for it today. To do something not in your best interest is foolish and idiotic.
No. It is not the answer. I don't recall anybody saying it was. "We cannot drill our way out." Sounds good. But it's just a slogan. Get beyond it to realize that we have to use every tool in our arsenal, not give up on logic and common sense. 1 percent of something is something, not nothing. Little bits add up. I can probably find 10-1 percent differences that have been sitting on the table for decades. Easy.
No. It is not the answer. I don't recall anybody saying it was. "We cannot drill our way out." Sounds good. But it's just a slogan. Get beyond it to realize that we have to use every tool in our arsenal, not give up on logic and common sense. 1 percent of something is something, not nothing. Little bits add up. I can probably find 10-1 percent differences that have been sitting on the table for decades. Easy.
We should be able to save a heck of a lot more oil than we can drill through revolution in our ways of doing things. If we replaced almost all of the petroleum fueled commuter travel for trips under 25 miles, this would probably have a much bigger impact on retail gasoline prices than drilling. If we pushed for a shift from petroleum feedstocks for the chemical industry to methanol, this would also potentially have a bigger impact. Note that both of these are achievable with technology we already have.
So do it. Nobody is preventing you from putting your money where your mouth is and placing your ideas or technologies for energy efficiency on the market. I, for one, am sick of reading this noise of "we should X" or "if only we did Y" (I would posit that is the source of the general dislike for political threads on HN). If [any of] you really believe in what you are saying, do something about it. On the other hand, if you believe oil-less technologies will only work in conjunction with government intervention of the oil markets, maybe you should stop preaching about them until the market reaches a point where oil is more expensive than the alternatives.
Here's a [random] energy-saving idea. Internet businesses with a 12-hour business day. The downtime each day without drives, networks, CPUs, monitors, etc. running will save a bunch of power.
Here's a [random] energy-saving idea. Internet businesses with a 12-hour business day. The downtime each day without drives, networks, CPUs, monitors, etc. running will save a bunch of power.
I'm driving a fixed up old Mercedes 300 diesel and running it on biodiesel. (B-100 in warm weather, B-80 in the winter.) I'm also switching to an electric company that can sell me only electricity sourced from wind and hydroelectric. (Through the magic of fungibility, of couse.) So as far as being my own personal Denmark, I'm doing as much as I think I can be expected to at the moment.
awesome :)
Oil is not completely fungible. There are different grades of crude. Natural gas is a bit more fungible. Once it has been processed to whatever standards apply it is completely fungible. Power is even more fungible.
Denmark has a population of 5.45 million people; or, about the size of half of New York City plus one of the burbs.
So what?
So what works for 5 million people who all live within a few hundred miles of each other, may not work for a huge country with over 300 million.
Of course, the answer for Denmark was offshore drilling, so maybe the USA should be looking at that as well.
Of course, the answer for Denmark was offshore drilling, so maybe the USA should be looking at that as well.
or you may have to replicate it 60 times
It seems a bit strange to compare the energy consumption of a nation which has a smaller population then Long Island. I am sure there are equivalent chunks of population in the US that could be described as energy independent, if they were to be a country ;)
Not saying that its not great, its just that it would be a challenge to scale something like that (Denmark is much much smaller then people realise).
Now if they went totally off oil altogether into renewable sources, that would be a spectacular achievement for a nationstate.
Not saying that its not great, its just that it would be a challenge to scale something like that (Denmark is much much smaller then people realise).
Now if they went totally off oil altogether into renewable sources, that would be a spectacular achievement for a nationstate.
Interesting facts about Denmark: Percentage of their energy requirement that can be met by wind power: 18%. Percentage of conventional power stations replaced by wind farms: 0%.
What are you trying to say with the 0% stat. If I were going to use more wind energy, I wouldn't just shut down a coal plant and throw up a million wind turbines. I would just add more wind turbines as our energy needs grew. So ideally you add a lot of wind turbines to mitigate building a new coal burning plant.
You will probably always need things like coal plants because they are very efficient and always work. You probably build a hybrid of wind turbines and gas powered turbines that are very adjustable. On a good wind day you you use less of the gas turbines and on a bad wind day you use more of the gas turbines to meet demand. The coal (or nuclear) plants are the base upon which you build your solar or wind system.
You will probably always need things like coal plants because they are very efficient and always work. You probably build a hybrid of wind turbines and gas powered turbines that are very adjustable. On a good wind day you you use less of the gas turbines and on a bad wind day you use more of the gas turbines to meet demand. The coal (or nuclear) plants are the base upon which you build your solar or wind system.
I'm trying to say that it's not as simple as the article makes out.
When there are wind-powered factories making wind turbines, transported to their destinations and installed by electrically powered vehicles charged by wind power, then it will be real. Until then, wind power requires massive energy subsidies from fossil fuels to the extent that it doesn't actually help much.
When there are wind-powered factories making wind turbines, transported to their destinations and installed by electrically powered vehicles charged by wind power, then it will be real. Until then, wind power requires massive energy subsidies from fossil fuels to the extent that it doesn't actually help much.
If you are interested in the topic, check out the book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (available at http://www.withouthotair.com/ ). Unfortunately it's pretty disillusioning.
Great reference. It's got tons of hard numbers about subjects that I generally only see unsupported assertions about.
America is a continental power that has 7 or 8 cities with a larger population than all of Denmark...
That's not to say we can't learn from their model, but its more of an urban planning context.
That's not to say we can't learn from their model, but its more of an urban planning context.
Edit: the "99% in 1973" claim is even stranger. Even if that is how much they depended on oil (the number sounds a little dodgy), the Middle East part can't be true.