How to make energy independence happen - an example

[billvon 2,400]

A lot of people have been talking about energy independence, how to become more reliant on ourselves rather than relying on outside sources of energy. I don't think we should do this via the drill-and-burn approach; we should instead use the free energy (solar, wind, wave, tide, geothermal and hydro) that we will never run out of. It's the only sane long term strategy.

The most common oppositions to this are:
1) That will never be enough
2) It will bankrupt us
3) It's impossible.

All three are answerable pretty simply - just look at Denmark.

Denmark now exports more energy than it imports. But how is it different than we are? We have limited offshore drilling; they have limited offshore drilling. We are exploring and opening new areas; they are exploring and opening new areas. We have 2000 active offshore drilling platforms, they have 50. (roughly the same per capita.) We both talk a good game about conservation; even the drill-and-burn proponents always end with "of course, I'm for conservation and alternatives too."

The big difference is that for Denmark, it's not just words. After the oil embargo in 1973, Denmark realized that they were 99% dependent on foreign oil for their energy - and they wanted to change that. So they started some very aggressive conservation programs, and they didn't end once oil got cheap again. Some of them included:

- Very strict energy efficiency requirements on buildings.
- Heavy taxes on inefficient cars. Today some cars are taxed at 105% of their cost.
- Massive use of cogeneration; the condensate from power plants was piped around the city for heating purposes.
- Local cogeneration. Small gas turbines generate power which is fed back, and the waste heat heats the building.
- Heavy investment in alternative energy. Today 21% of Denmark's energy comes from alternate sources.
- Rebates for efficient appliances. Today 95% of appliances in Denmark are the highest efficiency class you can get.
- A distributed energy grid that allows you to put energy on the power grid whenever you like and get paid 85% of the cost of power for doing so.

And they're not stopping there. Right now almost half their electricity comes from distributed sources (solar power, microturbines, wind) and they are upgrading to a more intelligent grid that will make it possible for most of the country's power to come from those small sources. They are pushing for 75% of all their energy to come from wind by 2025. That's 75% of their _energy_, not 75% of their electricity. And they are on track to make it - even as their population increased by 7% over the past decade, their energy demand did not go up.

Comment from their PM on all of this - "We aim to make Denmark independent of oil, gas, and coal in the long term. It need not be dull, it need not be boring, and we don’t have to give up our lifestyle. We just have to be a little bit smarter about how we live."

We could do the same, if we only had the foresight that the Danes do.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/08/06/denmark-energy-electricity-biz-energy-cx_wp_0807power.html
[url]

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Excellant post. I am sure that you already know this but here goes:

It's worth noting that people will invest in alternative sources a lot more when the are financially attractive. For example, I will continue to drive my SUV until gas prices get so high that it the cost of my gas is exactly equal the cost of a new hybrid car payment plus the equivalent amout of gas to get the same miles. I have a spread sheet that shows my total cost of driving for different situations of gas prices, new car payments, insurance, monthly mileage and fuel efficiences. I'm not gonna buy a new car (and my next will almost certainly be a hybrid) until is makes my bottom line less expensive. With all other factors staying the same, gas would have to cost about $7.50/ gal for it to be worth it for me to buy a hybrid (I currently have a paid off SUV). I'm sure that time will come sooner rather than later

Same with powering my house. I'm not gonna put a big solar panel on the roof until it is better for my bottom line.

So yes... raise prices
Then I will buy this stuff but I'm not gonna due it until its worth it. Obviously, I would rather see the cost of alternatives come down than see the cost of conventionals rise. Probably both will happen, but the real question is if that will be before or after it causes me significant financial hardship.

[jcd11235 0]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see real world evidence that it can be done.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see that their alternate energy (and cogeneration) industry caused a net increase of jobs, offering additional benefits to their national economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see that their alternate energy
>(and cogeneration) industry caused a net increase of jobs, offering
>additional benefits to their national economy.

Their wind industry alone created 20,000 jobs (increase of .4% employment) and they now export windmills all over the world.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Then I will buy this stuff but I'm not gonna due[sic] it until its worth it.

This is why we can't be like Denmark. This attitude right here. Sorry, i hate to pick on someone but you summed it up nicely.

Denmark decided that a sustainable future was "worth it". They thought long term and stuck with it, no matter that it cost more in the short term.

The day more Americans decide that a sustainable future (energy-wise) is more "worth it" than lining their wallets today, THAT'S the day when we will see true change.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

They are pushing for 75% of all their energy to come from wind by 2025. That's 75% of their _energy_, not 75% of their electricity.

I was just reading an article about wind energy, and it said that the U.S. Dept. of Energy has set a "goal of producing five percent of the nation's electricity from wind by 2020." Definitely not as ambitious as Denmark. (But the article was from around 2000, so their goal may have changed since then.)

I'm looking into it because my grandmother owns a small farm in West Texas, and I'm thinking it might be a good investment for her to use the property as a wind farm, so I'm trying to learn some more about it for her.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Yup, you are right. It would be nice if I could afford to buy all the newest technology, but that is not reality. If I had some spare cash laying around, I probably would buy the latest and great energy efficient products, but that is not my situation.

Of course, I could make some adjustments to my lifestyle, but that is highly undiserable. I could quit skydiving, stop drinking beer and ride the bus to work (actually, I can't because it doesn't go near there) but I enjoy these things so I will continue to do them until I can no longer afford it.

Fact is, for now, sustainability costs more. Economic forces will correct for this, either by lowering the cost of sustainables or raising the cost of conventionals. You have to make this stuff attractive if you want people to do it. People have never really bought anything just because it is the right thing to do.

[billvon 2,400]

>I'm looking into it because my grandmother owns a small farm in West
>Texas, and I'm thinking it might be a good investment for her to use the
>property as a wind farm, so I'm trying to learn some more about it for her.

One of the advantages there is that windmills have a fairly small footprint, so you still have use of the land beneath them.

[billvon 2,400]

>If I had some spare cash laying around, I probably would buy the
>latest and great energy efficient products, but that is not my situation.

But what your situation _will_ be is that you will eventually have to replace your A/C, your refrigerator and your SUV. You can decide to replace them with the largest, cheapest, least efficient versions available or you can decide to replace them with more efficient versions (which in many cases are the same price or cheaper.)

>Fact is, for now, sustainability costs more. Economic forces will correct for
>this . . .

Not necessarily. One method the economy has of regulating itself is to self-destruct, thus greatly reducing anyone's ability to buy anything. Gas prices will go down (because no one can afford it) and energy prices will tank. It is worthwhile to try to prevent that from happening by ensuring alternatives exist _before_ we get to that point.

>You have to make this stuff attractive if you want people to do it.

Why? Military service isn't all that attractive financially, yet some people do it "because it's the right thing to do." Some people can think beyond their wallet.

>People have never really bought anything just because it is the right thing to do.

Well, some do. And the day we decide to make it a national priority, more will.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

... and they now export windmills all over the world.

I thought that was an important point to highlight. They took a leadership role and now they EXPORT their product. At our current rate of acceptance and development we're destined to remain "consumers" of foreign energy products/technology unless we change the mindset.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

>>But what your situation _will_ be is that you will eventually have to replace your A/C, your refrigerator and your SUV...

Fair enough. Just as I have done an economic analysis of my transportation costs, I will also evaluate these costs. Overall, long term cheapest will still win though. I would pay more for an efficient fridge, etc only if it would pay for itself within it's lifetime.


>>Not necessarily. One method the economy has of regulating itself is to self-destruct...

Agreed. I guess the real question is "what is the mimimum amout of undiserables that I can put up with now to prevent this from happening in the future." It is a very interesting engineering economics question!


>>Some people can think beyond their wallet.

True, but we know from history that the most feasable way to get people to do something is to make it financially viable. This is why we give tax breaks on charity donations, but heavily tax tobacco purchases.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

A lot of people have been talking about energy independence, how to become more reliant on ourselves rather than relying on outside sources of energy. I don't think we should do this via the drill-and-burn approach; we should instead use the free energy (solar, wind, wave, tide, geothermal and hydro) that we will never run out of. It's the only sane long term strategy.

The most common oppositions to this are:
1) That will never be enough
2) It will bankrupt us
3) It's impossible.

All three are answerable pretty simply - just look at Denmark.

Denmark now exports more energy than it imports. But how is it different than we are? We have limited offshore drilling; they have limited offshore drilling. We are exploring and opening new areas; they are exploring and opening new areas. We have 2000 active offshore drilling platforms, they have 50. (roughly the same per capita.) We both talk a good game about conservation; even the drill-and-burn proponents always end with "of course, I'm for conservation and alternatives too."

The big difference is that for Denmark, it's not just words. After the oil embargo in 1973, Denmark realized that they were 99% dependent on foreign oil for their energy - and they wanted to change that. So they started some very aggressive conservation programs, and they didn't end once oil got cheap again. Some of them included:

- Very strict energy efficiency requirements on buildings.
- Heavy taxes on inefficient cars. Today some cars are taxed at 105% of their cost.
- Massive use of cogeneration; the condensate from power plants was piped around the city for heating purposes.
- Local cogeneration. Small gas turbines generate power which is fed back, and the waste heat heats the building.
- Heavy investment in alternative energy. Today 21% of Denmark's energy comes from alternate sources.
- Rebates for efficient appliances. Today 95% of appliances in Denmark are the highest efficiency class you can get.
- A distributed energy grid that allows you to put energy on the power grid whenever you like and get paid 85% of the cost of power for doing so.

And they're not stopping there. Right now almost half their electricity comes from distributed sources (solar power, microturbines, wind) and they are upgrading to a more intelligent grid that will make it possible for most of the country's power to come from those small sources. They are pushing for 75% of all their energy to come from wind by 2025. That's 75% of their _energy_, not 75% of their electricity. And they are on track to make it - even as their population increased by 7% over the past decade, their energy demand did not go up.

Comment from their PM on all of this - "We aim to make Denmark independent of oil, gas, and coal in the long term. It need not be dull, it need not be boring, and we don’t have to give up our lifestyle. We just have to be a little bit smarter about how we live."

We could do the same, if we only had the foresight that the Danes do.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/08/06/denmark-energy-electricity-biz-energy-cx_wp_0807power.html
[url]

This is great. One large difference between a country like Denmark and the US is that there is a different kind of "cultural inertia" (for lack of a better term) for a country this large compared to a smaller one. That is, I think that it is easier to rally a country that has a smaller population into change than it is to get it going in a country this size. There's less resistance to the idea and I think the average person in the smaller country will see more of a direct benefit to him/herself faster. The other side of this is that in a large country - once the movement gets started and has legs on its own, the momentum of the movement is likely to carry progress farther than that of the smaller country.

No evidence to back this up, of course. Just a thought of mine.

[billvon 2,400]

> Just as I have done an economic analysis of my transportation costs,
>I will also evaluate these costs. Overall, long term cheapest will still win
>though.

Since you have an SUV, I'm not sure I believe that. No matter when you bought the car, a Yaris/Yugo/Civic would have been cheaper overall, new or used. If you are like most people, there are other considerations.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Yup, it was "inherited" from a family member when he no longer wanted it. Free is always a good deal.
Note that I did say my next one will be a lot more efficient.

[nathaniel 0]

Great.

Now we'll just "conserve" the distances between our cities and coasts until our country is the size of Denmark and let the transportation savings begin!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Great.

Now we'll just "conserve" the distances between our cities and coasts until our country is the size of Denmark and let the transportation savings begin!

That reminds me, I'm quite impressed with the maglev technology that I saw on TV last night, in China.......the "developing" nation.

[billvon 2,400]

>Now we'll just "conserve" the distances between our cities and coasts until
>our country is the size of Denmark and let the transportation savings
>begin!

Or just make efficient cars and trucks. One works, one doesn't.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That reminds me, I'm quite impressed with the maglev technology that I saw on TV last night, in China.......the "developing" nation.

were you equally impressed by the pollution levels last week in Beijing?

Visit a city like Xian and you'll lose those quotation marks.

[billvon 2,400]

>Visit a city like Xian and you'll lose those quotation marks.

Looks like they're about 30 years behind us - but it sure looks like they are catching up fast.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Visit a city like Xian and you'll lose those quotation marks.

Looks like they're about 30 years behind us - but it sure looks like they are catching up fast.

LA was definitely bad in the 80s (and I can't speak to before, accurately), but I don't recall my eyes burning.

[billvon 2,400]

>LA was definitely bad in the 80s (and I can't speak to before,
>accurately), but I don't recall my eyes burning.

My wife's parents lived there in the late 70's. They were expecting kids, and they were advised by their doctor to move out of LA for the health of their children.

Go back another 30 years (Donora, 1948) and you had people dropping dead in the streets. We're definitely getting better, but we started off pretty bad.

[Gawain 0]

Bill, you're one of the smartest people I know. Denmark's example is certainly one worth noting.

For those that don't know, let's look at the foundations of our two countries:

Denmark:
Population - 5.5M
Size - About the size of Massachusetts
Govt - Constitutional Monarchy
Industrial Production Growth - 1.5%

USA:
Population - 304M
Size - Well, much bigger, twice the size of the EU
Govt - Federal Republic
Industrial Production Growth - .5%

A country about 1.8% in terms of population. Much fewer "special" interests to muddle the waters.

Am I saying the US could do it - absolutely, we have the ability to do so, and we could do it within 5 years (not just following the Denmark model either). However, to do so would require pretty much dismissing the legislative process, pushing aside the dirt people and stripping the "bid" process for the build out of the "transformation".

So, since neither your or I can be king, we must find a way to purge the politicians to get out of the way. You have Sen. Kennedy blocking wind farms off the coast of Massachusetts and environmentalists blocking wind and solar farms in Texas and Nevada.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,400]

>A country about 1.8% in terms of population.

Yep. And a country that gets about .5% of the sunlight we do and about .9% of the wind.

>So, since neither your or I can be king, we must find a way to purge
>the politicians to get out of the way.

Well, politicians often represent the interests of the people, so education is probably a needed first step. Even today, a majority of people think that drilling more is the answer to our energy problems.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Bill, you're one of the smartest people I know. Denmark's example is certainly one worth noting.

For those that don't know, let's look at the foundations of our two countries:

Denmark:
Population - 5.5M
Size - About the size of Massachusetts
Govt - Constitutional Monarchy
Industrial Production Growth - 1.5%

USA:
Population - 304M
Size - Well, much bigger, twice the size of the EU
Govt - Federal Republic
Industrial Production Growth - .5%

A country about 1.8% in terms of population. Much fewer "special" interests to muddle the waters.

Am I saying the US could do it - absolutely, we have the ability to do so, and we could do it within 5 years (not just following the Denmark model either). However, to do so would require pretty much dismissing the legislative process, pushing aside the dirt people and stripping the "bid" process for the build out of the "transformation".

So, since neither your or I can be king, we must find a way to purge the politicians to get out of the way. You have Sen. Kennedy blocking wind farms off the coast of Massachusetts and environmentalists blocking wind and solar farms in Texas and Nevada.

Since Massachusetts is more densely populated than Denmark it should be easier to accomplish there as well as a lot of the eastern seaboard. Many environmental solutions tend to be local in nature i.e. more trains will be more effective in Massachusetts than in Wyoming, wind farms probably better solution in Wyoming than Massachusetts.
I am pretty sure you have politicians protecting parochial interests and single issue environmentalists and other 'stakeholders' operating in Denmark the same as in US.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Or just make efficient cars and trucks. One works, one doesn't.

Both analogies are inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Denmark doesn't grow much corn. Planting, growing, and harvesting corn takes energy. Ergo we should stop growing corn to be like Denmark, amirite?

It's meaningless to extrapolate from Denmark's economy to United States' and it would be wasteful to adopt their strategies wholesale. "At what cost?" is half of the equation, though it seems to have eluded the discussion so far.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?