New York Times on Energy Independence

I thought these quotes were also very interesting:

"Denmark today gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind. America? About 1 percent."

"Because it was smart taxes and incentives that spurred Danish energy companies to innovate, Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas — Denmark’s and the world’s biggest wind turbine company — told me that he simply can’t understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.

Why should you care?

“We’ve had 35 new competitors coming out of China in the last 18 months,” said Engel, “and not one out of the U.S.” "

If america doesn't change it policies and the politicians don't start talking about real facts, not just tell people what they want to hear, America will risk becoming an energy dinosaur, irrelevant on the global stage.

Nor did the switch happen by pushing the least cost effective types of alternate energy replacements.

To me, one of the most appealing things about switching off oil is, of course after the environmental aspects, the de-centralization of energy supply. I've got my fingers & toes crossed that all these new "breakthroughs" in solar, and especially in Hydrogen storage, will come to the market in the next years – necessarily before any oil extraction has begun.

Oil supply is actually kind of inefficient. I would think that decentralization of energy sources would provide a huge cost savings through time saving. The ability to re-charge or refuel your car while doing other activities or while being someplace you’d normally be – such as, plugging in your car when parked at the office, or refuelling with hydrogen when at your home – would free up lots of our time, which I would hope would increase individual (and worker) productivity. In other words, I don’t have to waste X hours every few weeks driving to the gas station, filling up my car, getting back on the road....

I don’t think alternate energy sources would create havoc in the oil industry if they got into that business – i.e., manufacturing of panels and electrolysers, maintenance, consulting, etc. Granted, of course, it would be a fundamental change in their business model, but isn’t the capitalism that we champion ‘adopt or become extinct’? As a side note, I also wonder what % of revenue the credit card companies make from purchases at the gas pump, and what strategies they have if gas refuelling stations become less common because of change in energy supply.....

The only downside of the Friedman column is that he perpetuates the myth that bike lanes make bicyclists safer: "... Danes who use two-wheelers to go to and from work or school every day here. If I lived in a city that had dedicated bike lanes everywhere, including one to the airport, I’d go to work that way, too."

The problem is, bike lanes have not been shown to make cyclists safer. Vehicular cycling techniques make cyclists safer. Perpetuating this myth just gives people another reason not to cycle.

Unlike Denmark, we are hellbent on oil and cars and its not all politicians. Unions and just as guilty as oil companies. The whole country is invested in big cars and big oil and that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Friedman is an odd bird, showing great understanding of a serious global problem (global warming and resource scarcity) on one hand, but rejecting thoughtful analysis in favor of thoughtless, destructive, emotional responses to equally serious issues on the other (the war in Iraq).

Having a blunt, ill-considered opinion on one issue certainly does not invalidate an educated, thoughtful and nuanced opinion on another, but it certainly makes this reader wonder how these positions are reconciled.

All the comparissions between countries are a bit stupid. Every country has his own possibilities, problems and infrastructure. The only countries that will have a real problem switching to alternative fuels are the countries that have "exploded in population" since the introduction of fossil fuels as a form of energy.

Countries that have a mild climate, enough fresh water (rivers/lakes) and sufficient fertil soil will always have the advantage over dessert like or frozen tundra countries. Everybody knows that this is the reason why homes/cities were always founded on strategic locations near a river in a mild climate (next to the shore) with fertil lands to farm

As all renewable/alternative energy is a sort of man made copy of a piece of our climate/nature. Fosil fuel energy is used to survive in climates that weren't meant to be inhabited or inhabited by less people.

So if you want to compare countries on their use of alternative energy, you will always have to take these factors (mildness of the climate, availability of fresh water and fertil soil) into account.

Therefore I think it is better to compare Denmark with Massachusetts or another state with similair climate as Denmark with more or less the same population denisity. And compare California with Spain or Italy. It might be a little difficult to compare these with each other, but I think it makes much more sense.

Furthermore we should not be racing for energy independence per country, it should be on personal/household level. If we do it per country we will change our dependency of big oil to big wind or big electric. Which doesn't solve anything regarding indepence since 99.9% of the people don't own stocks in big oil, big wind and big electricity.

This will also give us a better indication of our own energy consumption. You wouldn't only be looking at the lowest price for the biggest size flatscreen TV, but also its energy consumption.

Why wouldn't it be possible for the people who live in a McMansion to buy enough solar panels to power there complete home? They probably have 2 cars, a swimming pool and enough electronic appliances and gadgets (which probably will be replace every 5 years for a newer, better, bigger one) worth 5x more of such an installation.

Why not require everybody to invest 5% of their income into their own alternative energy system. Or the other way around, require them to invest in system that supplies 5% of the energy consumption. Of course each year add 5% so in 20 years it's a 100%.

This might be hard for people with low incomes, but the their energy consumption is also much lower anyway. We could of course exclude people who earn less the $50k or something a year.

If a country such as the USA makes such a bold move they might become the worlds leader again. Since they will be energy independent and will have created the biggest market for alternative energy.

Of course their would be at least 100,000 soldiers out of a job, but I guess they can start installing the solar panels. I don't think killing people in foreign countries adds anything to the GDP of the USA anyway. And don't forget the 200,000 jobless people who used to work in those companies making weapons, munition, tanks and fighter jets. Lets hope their companies can transform themselves into high tech solar power panels and wind mill producers. Just like allmost all normal companies who changed into weapons industry at the beginning of the WW2.

Maybe it might help.

"The only downside of the Friedman column is that he perpetuates the myth that bike lanes make bicyclists safer: "... Danes who use two-wheelers to go to and from work or school every day here. If I lived in a city that had dedicated bike lanes everywhere, including one to the airport, I’d go to work that way, too.""

It isn't just about safety...it is about making riding FEEL safe and enjoyable. Without a dedicated bike lane, riding a bike is stressful. You are literally putting your life in the hands of every yokel who passes you. Riding a bike along a narrow shoulder is stressful...you are constantly looking over your shoulder, constantly trying to interrupt automobile traffic as much as possible, etc.

Hop on a well-made bike lane (or better yet, a completely off-road bike path) and to a much larger degree, you can cruise along with much less worry and stress.

You are right. You are actually very safe on a bike if you "take the lane" and clog up traffic. People aren't going to hit you...they are just going to hate you.

I wish you would stop inserting your ignorant, unfounded editorial comments, e.g., offshore drilling. Nobody said that offshore drilling was the only solution; it is part of a larger solution that includes natural gas, wind, solar and tidal. Yet here you are perpetuating the myth that McCain is just for offshore drilling and nothing else. The fact is that you can't get from point A to point E without reaching points B, C and D. First you create the economic basis for energy independence, i.e., stop importing foreign oil. Then you will have the financial means to invest in the R&D as well as infrastructure for alternatives, and the technology could then be exported to other countries, which provides further funding for alternatives. Your myopic, shamelessly/transparently pro-Obama stance (consistent with your alliance with the Huff 'n' Puff Post) only serves to undermine your credibility.

Ed said;
"I wish you would stop inserting your ignorant, unfounded editorial comments, e.g., offshore drilling..."

Right back at ya Ed

Calm down, Ed. the column writer only expressed opposition to offshore drilling. It's not like McCain is the only politician who supports it. Maybe that dig was directed at the current White House occupants? Or perhaps the writer's house or senate representative. Whatever the case, you read into things and made some serious assertive leaps in logic to say the columnist was touting obama or slamming mccain because of hating on offshore drilling...where were points b, c, and d on that logic train?

Two things:

First:
I am astonished that the writer(s) of the NYT editorial, with its emphasis on "a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources", was or were still incapable of grasping that conservation and less profligacy might even be a part of the solution, let alone perhaps the most important part. Anything, it seems, to hang on to an infrastructure revolving around The Sacred Car. Kunstler again this week points out the cluelessness of the mainstream media and even "Green" types in getting down to the essentials of the crisis we face.

Second:
Robert Anderson repeats the often heard claim that only "Vehicular Cycling" and not separated infrastructure make cyclists safer. This is an oversimplification, and the claim that bike lanes have not been shown to make cyclists safer seems to be massively contradicted by the research of John Pucher at Rutgers, who has shown the massive effect of separate infrastructure coupled with cycling education and policies overall geared to providing a cycling-centric environment in increasing cycling safety in several European countries. One might as well claim that sidewalks don't make pedestrians safer, only "vehicular walking" on single integrated throughways does -- and the arguments would not be logically different.

Obama was asked:
Wenner: Is there a marker you would lay down at the end of your first term where you say, "If this has happened or not happened, I would consider it a negative mark on my governance"?

Obama: If I haven't gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat. Those are three big jobs, so it's going to require a lot of attention and imagination, and it's going to require the American people feeling inspired enough that they're prepared to take on these big challenges.

So energy is one of his big three. Here's the link.

@Robert Anderson
Can you please provide some data/links backing up your assertion that bike lanes don't make bikers safer?

@curalex
Comparisons between countries are not stupid. Given a similar problem, they can show the diversity of approaches that different governments will take according to various factors including size, resources, and infrastructure. In 1970 both countries were at about the same level of technology. America decided to import oil and produce SUVs. Denmark decided to tax gasoline and invest in public transport, bicycles, and windmills. Result? Denmark is sitting pretty, while we in the US suffer.

The only countries that will have problems are those whose population has exploded since the introduction of fossil fuels? Tell me what country has the same population as in 1850 when fossil fuels came into general use? None. Every country has dramatically increased its population in the past 150 years. That's actually a huge part of the problem.

As for energy independence on a personal level ever happening? What is wrong with treehuggers so enamored with personal microgeneration? It's a pipe dream. It will never happen beyond hobbiest\niche applications. There was 20GW of wind installed last year. How much of that was personal wind? Much less than 1%. The vast majority were huge industrial wind turbines with their ease of maintenance and much higher efficiencies. As for solar, how many people can afford to put PV on their homes? And even if they do, what will they do on cloudy days? Baseload power can only come from concentrated solar power, geothermal, tidal, or some other large-scale industrial installation. So, like it or not, in the future the vast majority of the world will get its electricity from large centralized power stations just like today, not from windmills and solar cells in the yard or on the roof.

What Friedman fails to mention is that Denmark gets 65% of its energy from offshore drilling. And that it gets 20% from coal, which is the dirtiest of energy sources.