E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'Energy Independence: How Denmark Kicked Its Foreign Oil Habit' to a friend
Loading ...
40 Comments to "Energy Independence: How Denmark Kicked Its Foreign Oil Habit"
-
NK
January 1st, 2008 at
5:26 pm
“Today they produce enough energy to cover all their own needs and sell the extra to other countries, the only European nation to do so.”
Denmark is not the only one, Estonia is another such country.
-
Leonard Nash
January 1st, 2008 at
5:37 pm
Brazil too is nearly energy independent, thanks to sugar cane being converted into cellulosic ethanol (alcohol made from cellulose). Sugar cane is second only to hemp in terms of cellulose production.
Hemp however, is illegal despite not being able to be smoked as a drug. In fact, you can’t even grow high-THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) marijuana amongst field hemp, because the plants cross-pollinate, and high-grade marijuana is ruined once it is pollinated. It is in fact illegal to even research marijuana.
The result is that we have a plant recognized in 1938 as the world’s first billion dollar cash crop (a billion dollars back then is equivalent to over a trillion today), a plant that built and fueled a biodegradable plastic car back in 1941, and a plant designed to run the diesel engine; a naturally-growing, soil-replenishing possible solution to America’s energy independence as illegal.
Lovely. -
biltmore
January 1st, 2008 at
6:15 pm
I feel you Leonard, it’s freaking rediculous. I think that the main reason why the US won’t make it legal is because they couldn’t control it … and everyone could easily grow it, which is a bad thing for corporations.
It stuns me how many alcohol related deaths there are here, and how many violent acts are commited by drunk people … yet marijuana still remains illegal.
It would be amazing if every country produced massive amounts of hemp, then we could possibly wing ourselves off of some fossil fuels, amongst other things (clothing, oils, paper, ect…).
-
Alex
January 1st, 2008 at
11:24 pm
Although I agree with you that industrial hemp is harmless (and useless as a psychoactive drug), its role as a “savior crop” is highly overblown.
Before it was outlawed, hemp played little part in the US agriculture. Even now, industrial hemp is legal to import (just not to grow) - this posed little to no economic barrier to using hemp: the stuff is cheaper to import than to grow anyhow.
I’m not convinced that deriving ethanol from hemp is economically feasible. The problem with biologically derived ethanol remains their extensive use of water, which is an increasingly valuable commodity itself.
Brazil’s use of sugarcane deserves kudos - but this solution was made possible because of its tropical geography (lots of rain there to grow sugarcane).
-
Lasse
January 2nd, 2008 at
6:19 am
Actually, the high taxes on cars here in Denmark leads to the danish cars being older (and therefore less fuel economic, less environmental friendly and less safe) than in other contries. Thereby having quite the opposite effect on the environment.
-
Pol x
January 2nd, 2008 at
9:01 am
The US is moving to ethanol as a fuel, but there being a cabal of arseholes in the White house they’ve decided to use maize/corn.
Using food to make fuel….genius.
Why not use the stalk and husk to make methanol?
Better stil why not use brush sage? it grows wild, is great for the enviroment and makes great amounts of methanol.
Oh yeah, Halliburton(etc) can’t own it,that’s why it’s being done in the worst possible way.
Denmark is incidentally a really great place.
Not as good as Sweden, but still really great.
-
johnnie
January 2nd, 2008 at
10:53 am
Brazil does NOT use a cellulosic ethanol process. The sugar is converted to ethanol and the leftover plant material is burned to produce electricity to run the plant and sell the excess. Cellulosic ethanol means also converting the waste plant material (cellulose) into ethanol.
-
to NK
January 2nd, 2008 at
11:18 am
Are you shure about Estonia?
-
blairmacdonald14
January 2nd, 2008 at
11:51 am
As Lasse notes the use of older automobiles means less fuel economic models.
But there are two other points to look at. Firstly European emission standards as usually more stringent than North American ones, meaning their older cars are not as fuel inefficient as NA older cars. Secondly the longer usage of automobiles ensures that cars are used for their natural lifetimes rather than consumers continually replacing still decent cars for newer models. While older cars are less fuel efficient continual usage ensures that they are less cars imported into the country and less cars being scrapped (as they are replaced). A fairly reasonable off set in my opinion.
-
projectmanagement
January 2nd, 2008 at
11:54 am
way to go! lets start this project worldwide!
-
Madsen
January 2nd, 2008 at
11:54 am
@Lasse: Your conclusion is not neccessarily correct…If the taxes were lowered, people would probably buy bigger cars with poor fuel effiency…What they should do is to drastically lower the tax on hybrids and fuel efficient cars. By the way…despite the taxes 19% more cars were sold in Denmark in 2007 than in 2006…
-
Mr. 306
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:10 pm
I thought that France produced energy to also sell to neighboring countries.
-
Lasse
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:16 pm
Madsen >> I totally agree with you.
-
johnk
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:20 pm
ahhhh, the possibilities of what could have been done with the money that got flushed down the drain of Bush’s war….
-
Sid Morrison
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:21 pm
@blairmacdonald14 writes:
“Firstly European emission standards as usually more stringent than North American ones”Ugh… That is ridiculous! Quote real standards and compare current Euro III/IV standards to Tier II US Federal standards. The test standards are roughly comparable, but the drive cycles are different (the US cycle is more difficult in fact) so it is difficult to make apples:apples comparisons. California and Northeast States (which mirror CA) LEV II (which incorporate ULEV and SULEV levels as well) are tougher than the toughest current Euro standards, especially in regad to smog-causing NOx. Note also that the US standards include a very high load sub-test (US-06) which is more demanding than the high load portion of the Euro test (the EUDC).
-
shadedmagus
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:26 pm
It’s surprising to me that any country would tolerate a valuable part of their infrastructure such as energy to be subject to outside influence. Denmark’s solution seems to be the only intelligent response to such a threat.
I would love to see the US and the rest of Europe adopt a similar strategy. It would mean sacrifices by the populace, but such sacrifice needs to happen in some way or soon we’ll face an insurmountable problem as opposed to a difficult one.
-
Alex
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:33 pm
Jatropha, a plant which seeds have a very high oil content and which oil can be used on standard diesel engines, have been touted as the next biofuel crop. Still, it’s unclear whether this plant can be harvested in an industrial scale.
France has gone for the nuclear option - it lacked natural resources like gas and coal. But it’s still not energy independent: it imports roughly 50% of its energy.
-
Alex
January 2nd, 2008 at
1:36 pm
From what I can gather, Estonia is a net electricity producer and is energy independent from Russia (Estonia was a part of the now defunct USSR). The country has a lot of oil shale.
-
GUNNY HARTMAN
January 2nd, 2008 at
2:46 pm
It would be nice to see us make some strides in this area in 2008.
Baby steps … Baby steps …
-
Buggermin Oilil
January 2nd, 2008 at
3:28 pm
. . . America with the world’s best technology, and American boys still are murdered for middle eastern interests, so very very sad.
-
Tim
January 2nd, 2008 at
4:07 pm
@Lasse you wrote
“Actually, the high taxes on cars here in Denmark leads to the danish cars being older…”Being a person living in Denmark I’m sorry to tell you that your point is not what I see in the streets. Even though we have high taxes on the cars it’s not old cars that drive in the street. Denmark is a very wealthy country and in these years those how choose to have a car most often also has the money to buy a newer car.
Furthermore the Danish government recently changed the law regarding taxing of new cars. Today the Danish government favours the cars that are more fuel economic by lowering the tax and “punishing” those who doesn’t.
All in all I think we are doing great but I can’t wait until the day where I can change my gas eating engine out with a more environment friendly one. I know there are several alternatives but none that at the moment could satisfy my needs. -
Karl
January 2nd, 2008 at
8:38 pm
Well, several things in the article aren’t exactly correct:
The “standards” aren’t standards, but recommandations. And today they realise that it’s not all about insulation of homes at all cost. Too much insulation will create poor indoor climates, favour fungus that leads to allergies and other respiratory problems.
The taxes on cars are 180%… 105% is just the beginning… buy one, pay for three. I recently bought an imported car from Germany. Price in Germany: Euros 3,999, roughly $ US 5,900. After it had been registred in Denmark (including a fee for the importer/dealer) the price was $ US 23,650, most of it registration tax (license plates) - we’re talking a 12 year old Audi stationcar. Here that price is a bargain, and I honestly felt I made a good deal…
There are some wind farms and they are growing, but the majority of the wind energy comes from independant, private wind mills. The coverage with respect to Denmark is not 21 %, but more like 10 % - the difference being that much of the wind energy is being sent abroad (Germany, Norway, Sweden) as overproduction. But they pay nothing near the actual costs in those countries, as the wind energy is subsidized by the Danish State - so abroad they get cheap energy paid for by the DK taxpayers. It’s a hotly debated theme in DK…
A lot of the country is outright plastered with windmills. There are a lot of places where you see windmills, no matter where you stand and which direction you look - not a pretty sight, if you ask many Danes. Lots of people have problems caused by this, living close to these huge monsters - like f.ex. constant reflecting light (from the rotating wings) blinking in through their windows, to the point where they have to install Venetian blinds and use them a lot of the day to avoid going insane from the blinking, constant humming noise from the rotating wings… a life in darkness for them.
The idea that 75% of the energy consumption should be covered by wind energy is outright idiotic - people don’t just use energy when the wind is blowing. And there’s no technology available that will allow them to stock up energy on a scale sufficient to cover the needed energy when the wind is not blowing. Wind energy is a good supplement, but should never become the prime source. Considering the amount of windmills we have today (and the mills they think about for the future are 500+ ft. monsters..!), I fear for how the landscape will look, if these plans are allowed to be carried out, considering how it’s looking now.
The only reason btw why we are as advanced with wind energy, is because it’s insanely subsidized and the consumers pay an extremely high price for the electricity - you’d faint if you saw a Danish electrical bill - roughly 80-85% of the price is taxes and fees…. And this subsidizing is still going on even 25 years after the industry kicked into gear. If it wasn’t for the subsidizing, the industry would collapse because noone would pay the real price.DK is self-supplying with North Sea oil - that’s true. And we will be still for the next 20-25 years, perhaps. Depending on the price development on oil, perhaps for longer - it’s quite expensive to pump up, but the soaring prices on oil in the 70’s made it feasible, and we thank the Arabs for that.
As for the gas - there’s a lot of it, to last 20-30 years still. But the government back then decided to invest around 20 bil. Crowns (which is a whole lot - roughly $US 4,500,000,000 ) in putting pipes into the ground, to distribute it to private homes. They made people jump that wagon promissing them cheaper heating. A few years later they then started tightening the tax screw on gas, now that they’d got people hooked, and today it is no cheaper than other forms of heating. More sensible would probably have been to pump it ashore, and then have used it to fuel electrical plants instead… we already had the distribution net for electricity in place. Now, in 20 years, we’ll have a lot of useless pipes in the ground, that cost a lot of money to put there…. and people will have to swap once again to some other form of heating. Or perhaps rely on Russian gas supplies… hmmmm….
Yet despite all these conservation programs, the government still wants people to reduce energy consumption (so other people in other countries can spend even more energy?) - one target is that every person in DK should use only 1,000 kWh on average per year. And the imagination they display when telling people how to achieve this is significant - would be quite funny, if the issue wasn’t that serious. And they try to lure people with the money they will save. In the end it’s a very good bet people will save nothing, because the government will miss the taxes they don’t get caused by the lower energy consumption, and will thus crank up the taxes a notch or two.
Svend Auken is really not the right person to ask. He’s an idealistic moron, who loves the media attention and hearing his own voice, who’s completely lost any ground connection and any sense of reality, and who’s cost the Danish taxpayers a lot - A LOT - of money, with his insane decisions while he was secretary of energy. He f.ex. decreed that a lot of socalled “bare-field power plants” be set up, financed by the local populations. We have one here locally, that roughly cost the municipality (population: 30,000) $ 40 million extra compared to the alternative they suggested to him, which would have achieved the same. He refused and insisted on building the new power plant, paid by the local taxpayers. Today there are people in such ares who are forced to pay $ US 5,000 - 10,0000 a year for heating and electricity, which makes it pretty impossible for them to ever sell their homes, if they want to. By this Mr. Auken effectively reinstated adscription, tying people to their homes - something that was abolished here 200+ years ago with the demise of the feudal system. Few Danes have anything to thank him for.
As for the issue about old/new cars… the Danish car pool is still old when compared to other comparable countries - probably 7 - 10 years on average. People tend to take better care of their cars here, though, because of the horrendous price they pay for it. It’s true that a lot of people buy new cars these year when the economy is rapidly growing. But this will very quickly change once the growth starts braking, and they realise they have to pay back all the loans they took out.
All is not gold that glitters…
-
a2
January 3rd, 2008 at
12:17 am
Thanks for the input, Karl, but consider the alternative of foreign oil dependence. Like constantly having to deal with the volatility of the Middle East playing havoc with your economy/energy cost.
-
Vagn (dane)
January 3rd, 2008 at
4:06 am
“Today they produce enough energy to cover all their own needs and sell the extra to other countries, the only European nation to do so.”
…NORWAY!!! Norway is the worlds 3rd largest exporter of oil!http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm -
Karl
January 3rd, 2008 at
5:36 am
“Thanks for the input, Karl, but consider the alternative of foreign oil dependence. Like constantly having to deal with the volatility of the Middle East playing havoc with your economy/energy cost.”
Well, yes - of course relying on wind power will ensure much more stability/less volatility… ;o)
I’m not voicing foreign oil dependency, but I’m not seeing a development towards unstable/unreliable energy sources as a viable and better alternative. And certainly not when the population has to pay 2-3 times the actual market price for that kind of energy, mainly because certain politicians feel the need to set themselves a monument for for their activities for future generations. A balance between realism and idealism would work nicely, thank you…
-
Kakubei
January 3rd, 2008 at
7:21 am
Leonard, it’s obvious you have never been to Brazil. It is nowhere near energy independent, much less oil independent. It has some of the most polluted cities in South America (look at Sao Paulo for example, a jungle of cars and pollution). Now with Lula and Chavez best friends Brazil gets a lot of oil from Venezuela (the fourth oil exporter in the world though a country with a poverty of 70% in the population).
Things in Denkmark might not be perfect, but they sound a hell of a lot better than in many other countries around the world, even ones with lots of natural resources to exploit.
-
Sid Morrison
January 3rd, 2008 at
9:07 am
@Karl-
Great input from somebody with first hand information! Any time governments start screwing with markets to favor one energy source over another (via either subsidies or taxes), imbalances occur. A lot of the problems you mention occur when less efficient (economically as well as thermodynamically) sources of energy are favored in government tinkering.Too bad the article ignores them and only presents the rosy side of everything going on in Denmark. Such sided reporting is also typical of journals like Scientific American (which is why I gave up on it). It’s very difficult to find anyone who treats energy issues fairly and writes about both “sides of the coin” without an agenda.
As far as the varied bio-fuel options go, a couple of comments:
1. Brazil does NOT produce cellulosic ethanol. They get their booze fuel from sugar fermentation/distillation, the old fashioned way. It can be economic IF oil prices are high AND you have the climate to grow LOTS of sugarcane AND you have really cheap labor. The U.S. doesn’t have any of those things, so get off that kick. FWIW, we prop up our own sugar industry via tariffs on imported sugar or it would totally crumble.
2. Growing corn for fuel is a foolish way to establish energy independence — it’s wasteful, inefficient and only happens in the US because the corn lobby (farmers & agribusiness giants like ADM) back it with well-paid politicians.
3. Cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass and the like) *may* have potential, but the enzymnes needed to produce it in volume aren’t there yet. Further research is underway, so stay tuned. If this is a smart way to do it, the free market will develop it. Gov’t please stay out of the way.
4. A lot of people talk about using those corn husks in ethanol production instead of just plowing them under as is done now. They have apparently never known a corn farmer… If you don’t plow them under, you will deplete the soil very rapidly and will need to rely on a lot more synthetic fertilizers and other amendments.
5. Bio-diesel sources like rapeseed oil *may* be a good solution. The diesel combustion cycle has significantly higher thermal efficiency than the Otto (gasoline) cycle to start with. But again, government just needs to stay out of the way — stop taxing, subsidizing, financing research, &c. Free of government intervention, smart scientific entrepreneurs will come up with the optimum fuel AT THE OPTIMIUM TIME. The oil supply will not run out overnight — as supplies restrict and demand increases, other fuel sources become more and more economically viable on their own. Gov’ts tinkering with the natural order only ensures that we waste time working on stupid things and propping up bad ideas. -
Rondo
January 3rd, 2008 at
9:57 am
OK, lets be serious this time. This article about Danish “energy independence” is bullshit. I was live there more than ten years so I know. Polluting in Denmark is higher than in Northern Germany, wind power central produced by Danish companies like Vestas are not profitable enough to made profit, even Denmark is country of the wind, where wind is powerfull on the winter and on summer. Government fonds are behind wind industry in Denmark, not profit.
Anywhere cars are too expensive so most Danes pays a fortune for car what usually in other parts of Europe cost max few thousands EUR so usually they are driving old car which polluting air in Denmark.
I don’t know, but this is advertisning article. Many who will visit country like Denmark will be very disappointed. On papers that country is one of the best in Europe, in reality it is not in the European top. So allways take with reserve stats from Skandinavia, becouase most of stats from that part of Europe is fake and it was created to advertise Skandinavian countries in the world. Reality is something much different. Germany, France or Italy are better all the way from any Skandi country?
Yes, wind production of the energy is OK, if that country have enough wind, even Denmark don’t have wind enough to made that industry profitable, and it is perhaps country with most wind in Europe.
So mister cut, the bullshit with this article, and stop advertise Denmark out of the nothing.
-
Rondo
January 3rd, 2008 at
10:05 am
So which energy Danes using in old VW or Toyota Starlet cars? Electricity or gasoline? Gasoline of course.
-
Alex
January 3rd, 2008 at
2:34 pm
@Rondo: the article was a reprint from Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader Triumphant #20, and is not a sponsored article. Neatorama is not being compensated for it.
Energy independence does not mean zero use of gasoline or fossil fuel. Denmark is a net energy producer and has gone from depending from foreign oil for its total energy use (including electricity, heating, and transportation fuel) to NOT depending on foreign oil.
This was/is an expensive undertaking (taxes are high). The question should be if Denmark continued to rely on foreign oil, would the country be in a better or worse position right now, as oil reaches $100 a barrel, with no end in sight?
I think Denmark made a right choice - kudos to the Danes for having the political will and commit to (then) a sacrifice for a tremendous gain in the future (now).
-
Alex
January 3rd, 2008 at
2:51 pm
@Sid Morrison: Free of government intervention, smart scientific entrepreneurs will come up with the optimum fuel AT THE OPTIMIUM TIME.
While I’m a big believer of market forces, it takes a tremendously long time for the private sector to develop alternative fuel. Typically, serious private research don’t go into high gear until the current economics make sense - but this still leaves a multi-year gap from the newly developed fuel to come into play.
Energy policy is the domain of the federal government in virtually all countries. What we need is a forward thinking energy policy, but unfortunately, our political system isn’t built for current trade-off for future gains (no matter how large).
-
Karl
January 3rd, 2008 at
4:22 pm
Dear Rondo,
You may have lived 10 years in Denmark, but it sure doesn’t make you an expert, as it appears you see yourself.
BTW, Vestas manufactures(!) windmills, but doesn’t operate them. Most of the production is exported to other countries, like UK and USA - much of the world, so some must be able to make a profit on them, eh?As for old VWs and Starlets - it must have been quite a while since you’ve been here since you’d have a hard time finding any of those around here.
What source have you that documents that stats from Scandinavia are ‘faked’? And which “stats” are you referring to? I’m sure you’re not just making such a claim without any kind documentation, I hope?
Do yourself and others a favour and check your facts before you vent your spite…
-
angryratman
January 4th, 2008 at
6:56 am
interesting discussion, more so than the article :p
Its important for every country to become as independent from foreign oil as they can. Yes, oil wont run out over night, but the price of it will steadily rise when peak production occurs, causing real problems for all economies dependent on oil. Europe needs to combined energy system, utilizing the best technologies in the best places. off-shore wind in the atlantic, hydro in Russia etc etc. to become purely reliant on renewables.
-
Sid Morrison
January 4th, 2008 at
9:45 am
@Alex-
“it takes a tremendously long time for the private sector to develop alternative fuel. Typically, serious private research don’t go into high gear until the current economics make sense”The private sector develops the right products (including energy sources) at the most efficient pace. Future economics ARE current economics — you cannot separate them — that is where the time value of money comes in. When governments get involved, you wind up with all kinds of stupid diversions (like corn ethanol), that have negative energy production, gobble up lots of resources (fiscal & environmental), and have no potential to supply even a small fraction of the nation’s needs. All the ethanol mandates and subsidies only succeed in wasting a lot of tax dollars and driving up the prices of anything corn-based as well as other grains (becuase their supply has dropped when farmers switched to the more artificially profitable corn).
I’ve worked on large research projects financed by the US Dept of Energy. It is my experience that they don’t care what is worked on as long as the budget is big, the powerpoint slides are many, and there are press-conference worthy models to show (so that Congress can be impressed and further increase tehir budget). They continue research on things LONG after they are shown to be losers merely to keep their own budgets up. If researchers spend money too slowly, the DOE gets on their case and warns them that the appropriation may be cut. My expereince has shown me that Gov’t has no business being involved guiding the path of or financing research– the “help” is ultimately a deterrant to finding the best solutions.
You also said, “Energy policy is the domain of the federal government in virtually all countries.” DOAAH! The laws of economics are not open to a popularity vote. Efficient public policy is what it is and what one’s neighbor does wrong matters not in the least. The U.S.’s long slow spiral downward in the years post-WWII to the present resulted from government meddling in every area of the economy and our lives (thank you FDR and LBJ for taking the big steps, others ‘helped’ with smaller incremental ones). Free of government interference, people & corporations in aggregate act rationally and the best choices are ultimately made. Unfettered, entrepreneurs in science and engineering will make the right decisions — that is what happened here throughout the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the 20th century, both in Britain and the US. Britain went socialist before us and subsequently sank faster. We are just a few decades behind in our own descent. Following other countries on their misguided paths to socialism will not restore this country to leadership in innovation.
Straight talk from Sid.
-
Karl
January 5th, 2008 at
9:46 am
@Sid
You seem to mix socialdemocrats (who are, have been or will be governing many western european countries for periods, f.ex. the UK, Germany and Denmark) with socialists - a thing I’m afriad is often the case with people in US (as I’m assuming you are). F.ex. here in DK we have something like 7-10 parties represented in parliament, who span the whole spectrum from the ultimate left to the ultimate right, from die-hard socialists on the left wing over socialdemocrats, center-liberals and conservatives to die-hard nationalists on the right wing.
The soc.democrats tend to lean towards centralized governments, and sometimes some nationalization of a few essential and necessary key industries (transportation, postal services ect.), while the socialists often favour complete nationalization of the whole production apparatus without regards.
To me there’s a distinct difference. Not that I favour soc.democrats by a long shot, but I can well tell the difference between the two. But even many soc.democrats have realised a while ago, that the times of nationalization are over.
Many people here, though, are quite thankful for the welfare societies that amongst others the soc.democrats have provided to the broader masses up through the decades following WW II, that provides for them a steady and decent income or unemployment pay, so they don’t have to think about where the next meal will come from, nor how they’re gonna pay the rent, or pay for the medical bill that will allow them to survive beyond next month - also when their employer decided to cut back on the health care/plan insurance he was supposed to provide for them, to save a few bucks extra for his own already bulging pockets.
I’m quite confident most people in Europe don’t see this as “misguided paths to socialism”… on the contrary. It’s focussing mainly on “the people” who voted them into office, instead of on the businesses - and this, I think, is - or at least ought to be - the prime concern of any government.I agree completely that private research mostly ensures a much more efficient use of the money spent. But one has to keep in mind, that private enterprises rarely see beyond their own noses (and bottom lines) when planning their reseach. And that much research requires a considerable time to do - sometimes decades. Private enterprises are in it for the profit, no doubt - they’re not filantropic associations… nor do I expect it to be otherwise.
Basic research is not something private enterprises are very inclined to do, because there’s often little or no profit in it, but a lot of investment - time and money, with no guarantee of any payoffs. They are more likely to step in once the basic work is done, and they can see possible business areas emerge. Basic work is thus often done at educational institutions like universities, privately or publicly sponsored… call it research for the sake of research. Often they don’t really know which direction they’re headed for, until they’ve gone done the road for a while - could well be it turns out to be a cul-de-sac… tough luck… start over.
As for new fuel/energy sources specifically… I think there’s little incentive for the big energy companies (oil, gas ect.) to sponsor reseach into new energy sources, as long as the can keep their figures on the bottom lines up. I’m more inclined to think that these companies’ efforts would more likely be counterproductive, to keep their own profit up (which I don’t blame them). And by the time their bottom lines start to dive, the new energy sources would have to be in place to take over.
I agree too that the idea of using food for energy production is plain silly - as is becoming quite apparent by now with the rapidly growing food prices. Clearly the idea was not thought through very well. So back to basic research and think up other solutions…
-
Rondo
January 7th, 2008 at
5:11 am
How I see here we have few question what we must answer so we will fill better.
1. Is it possible that any country be independent from oil? Now, NO, no chance.
2. What this article tell us? That Danish formula is good? No, it is not good. Windpower central technology is not profitable enough and not effective enough to use this kind of the energy production. Face it, wind power central is not profitable enough. Danish government build them becouase they don’t have rivers in Denmark, they don’t have chance to have electric thermo centrals. About oil in North Sea, I don’t see how can some other country take the same formula when they don’t have North Sea and especially not oil in sea. So much better job was made by “Oslo” about North Sea oil. But of course that Austria cannot use that formula when they don’t have sea, not to mention oil.
So what is point of this article? Wind power central are not profitable at all, every country don’t have a sea or oil, so what is point of this article?
About old Toyota and VW in Denmark? It is true.
About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many.
Also all of those countries on papers have almost highest living standards in world, in reality they don’t have that in Europe. Prices are in the sky, and everything is luxory for average Skandinavian.
-
Sid Morrison
January 7th, 2008 at
8:33 am
@Karl-
Thanks for the insight. I’m a bit familiar with the German SPD (Social Democratic Party) and its origins in Rosa Luxembourg & Karl Leibknecht (and what happened to them!). I do not know the specifics of the Social Democrat movement in Denmark.In any event though, as you describe their aims (welfare society, nationalization of certain industries, &c.), they ARE socialists, albeit with a small “s”. That is to say, they may not the Socialist (big “S”) Party, but they are socialists nonetheless. The only difference is that they are “less left” than the Socialist Party. Most Americans (myself included) would consider them on the same continuum of socialism, only the Socialists further down the road to perdition than the Social Democrats. You can bet that whatever the Socialists are advocating now, the Social Democrats will be pushing in 20 or 30 years, though.
As a longtime R&D engineer with fair experience in government misdirection of research, I hold by my assertion that even long term research belongs in the hands of the private sector. Very rare exceptions can be made in time of war or utter national emergency (we aren’t there yet), such as in the Manhattan Project of the early 1940s. That was not the most efficient way to make a bomb, but time was much more important than anything else, so the U.S. government spent gobs of money on it. The project succeeded because a) they had unlimited money and b) because of the nature of the War, they were able to attract the brightest minds in the field, many of whom would have never been involved during peacetime. It was a very rare need, though, and a time when normal market function was rather interupted by anomalous events. My spine always shivers when I hear people waxing poetic about the need for a “Manhattan Project” so solve X, Y, or Z. T’ain’t gonna happen.
Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. If there is huge profit in it, even way out into the future, the private sector will attack and conquer the problem in the most efficient manner. Loser ideas don’t get propped up for years sucking up talent & dollars (Euros, Yen, whatever).
-
Karl
January 10th, 2008 at
1:11 am
@Sid
Well, there you go - you fail to see the differences between the different parties, and anything to the left (of what btw?) are termed “socialists”. Are people advocating “welfare for all, and not just those who have” in a given society automatically socialists? If so, then I, for one, am a happy “socialist”. I certainly don’t see myself as one, but I have a strong hunch I am seen as such by you, no matter what I say. Politics in the greater part of Europe has a lot more nuances than just black and white (or red and blue, for that matter).As for the SPD - perhaps you might want to read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany (”Today the SPD advocates the modernization of the economy to meet the demands of globalization, but it also stresses the need to address the social needs of workers and society’s disadvantaged.”). They are today, btw, working nicely together with the conservatives CDU in a grand coalition, still fighting the aftereffects of re-unification with socialist East Germany. The Germans know well what the difference between social democrats and socialists are…
We’ve had social democrats in DK for almost 140 years, and while it’s true that they were based on Marxist ideology in the early part of their history, then they have little love left for those theories today… we have several other parties who swear to those. And we know the differences…
Sure, they favour that the state should run busses and trains, so not only people living in bigger towns are serviced by such transportation means, but also 78 year old Mrs. Jensen, who happens to live 15 miles outside of town, and who doesn’t own or even knows how to drive a car. No private company would run a bus route through her neighborhood, because it would not be profitable.
And they favour a public health system, so Mrs. Jensen can have her hip joint replaced, without having to take out a new mortgage in her house… or be told that she’ll just have to live with the pain, if she cannot pay for the operation.
They also favour that something like the postal service should be run by the public, and that libraries and schools are run by the public as well, making it possible for anyone to read books they cannot afford to buy, and get an education, even those who have the talent but who cannot otherwise afford to pay for the education.
If that’s socialism, then we’re all socialists here… I prefer that to a corporate state, where business comes first. No state is more than 3 meals away from a revolution…“Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. ”
All of these things could not have been made/invented without some basic research in physics and chemistry, which wasn’t done by private enterprises. Einstein, Fermi and Bohr and others did basic research - none of them worked for private businesses. Nor would any private business have let them do what they did if they had worked for them, or had built the equipment they used to make their findings.
@Rondo
“About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many.”
Please show where you get these figures from… you must have them from somewhere? Or are you just making them up as you go along?
In Denmark the normal work week is 5 days (Mo - Fr) - 7 1/2 hours a day - and has been so for many years. Saturdays and Sundays are off, unless you work in service areas like shops. But even then you still only work 37 hours per week.
Anyone working in DK has 6 weeks of (paid) vacation, which translates into 6 x 5 = 30 work days. 5 days are used around Xmas/New Year, and 2 or 3 weeks are usually used for Summer holidays. The remaining weeks can be held at people’s discretion, by agreement with the employer. Add to this the standard public holidays (Easter, Xmas ect.), probably 4-5 days extra per year. That’s facts and no fake.As for the cars… “It is true” is no working argument - anyone can fling that out. Cars are here by law required to be inspected every other year, and cars who do not live up to the standards at the inspection have the license plates cut, unless they are fixed and pass a renewed inspection 2 weeks later - period.
-
Sid Morrison
January 10th, 2008 at
9:17 am
@Karl-
“If that’s [a laundry list of nationalized industries & social entitlements] socialism, then we’re all socialists here… ”Yep, we are in agreement!
-
Karl
January 12th, 2008 at
12:03 am
TY… says a lot…
Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!
