The people with spare mountains are doing best. They have reliable hydro power. Places like Denmark are making lots of wind power but they don't use it all because they can't. An electricity grid using just wind energy cannot be made to work. The glib "The wind is always blowing somewhere" is no help. It needs to be blowing at a rate that will just satisfy demand all the time, too.
Germany used to toe the Green line. Then it decided, following Fukushima, to shut its nuclear power stations. Surprisingly(!), that left them short of power so they are making coal-fired plants as fast as they can. Why are they not installing wind turbines, I ask. The answer is that they know that wind turbines will not cut it in the real world. So lots of back-pedalling going on there.
France sometimes produces over 100% of its electricity needs from nuclear (in fact it is doing so right now - see link) but even they are threatening to reduce that capability.
The UK used to have a 17% safety margin approaching winter. This is now down to about 4%. Some bad weather could tip us over the parapet. We have lots of extra wind turbines both on land and at sea plus some solar energy available. The trouble seems to be that greenies don't do numbers. Replacing a coal-fired power station with a wind turbine sounds like a good plan to them. They can seemingly ignore the fact that a power station could be equivalent to 50 or more wind turbines. They also ignore the fact that when the wind drops we still need the electricity so we have to keep the fossil-fueled power stations anyway!
So all their policy has achieved is to add much concrete and carbon fibre to the environment while keeping in place all the existing fossil-fueled plants which now run less efficiently because they have to shadow the "sustainable" energy for the times when the sustainable energy is not being sustained. It has also increased the amount of CO2 produced for a given amount of energy. What is not to like?
Basically, the politicians have caved in to pressure from lobbyists to "go green" and are now that reality is biting they are in a predicament.
Historically European nations have kept energy prices high. Denmark has had windmills well before it was called renewable energy and have had great success with the program. They not only benefit for the energy standpoint but the research and development has turned into a nice little industry that they export goods and provide jobs.
Renewable energy needs to be part of the conversation in my view. It is not a save all because it at this point fails to keep up with demand at all times as evidenced in Germany and Denmark with their coal fire power plants and aggressive renewable energy programs.
Clean energy investment is not a waste of resources. The environmental impacts and the fact that fossil fuel is a finite resource means we must look elsewhere for power for modern civilization. By investing in it now or in Denmark's case in the 70's the cost is cheaper. You are able to develop jobs in your country to support it and long term benefits will be had as fossil fuels become more costly.
I'm just doing a job pertaining to deforestation, plus I actually appeared to be just simply pondering in case the "cut a person hardwood, flower two" apply is certainly performing. I actually appeared to be types of doubtful for the reason that out of just what exactly I acquired, if flowers will be reduced, a top soil results in being risky, hence won't this discourage innovative saplings to nurture? Come to feel free to disagree, and also, with any luck addition as to what I actually assumed. May well as well enable if you ever may possibly report methods if you can, thus is capable of doing quite a few further more homework.
Europe has made a big mistake with their financial policies in general. Since the Great Recession they've followed austerity policies more in line with what Tea Party members advocate, that has prolonged the recession and high unemployment there. If they had taken a more aggressive approach like we did in the U.S., they would also be having strong growth.
No, the biggest mistake that can be made is to stay reliant on fossil fuels. Countless recessions have started as a result of price price increases in oil, every time oil goes up it causes a recession. That will be a thing of the past for any country that moves beyond petroleum. Dependence on foreign oil also makes it necessary to start wars around the world to keep that oil flowing. Lastly, oil is a dwindling resource, with world supply close to dwindling, at the same time that globalization is bringing millions of new cars onto the roads in the developing world, oil is going to be so expensive in the future that even a Prius will cost a lot to drive.
Yes. There are more blackouts, along with higher prices. Google studied the issue and shut down their renewable energy research as they found it wasn't feasible.
Just let the Russians copy the Mitch McConnell
vision of making Europe and USA into something
nobody wants to emigrate to.
Ontario Canada is trying to be green. They have chased many jobs away and have about massive debt and deficit. It used to be the strongest province in canada with lots of manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs use lots of electricity.
No.
The US has made the mistake.
Allowing the coal and oil industries to write our energy policies.
no..and americans wonder why detroit and a lot of manufacturing is dead..keep making them horseshoes while the rest of the world moves ahead.
you really should read 'The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World
Book by Jeremy Rifkin ...who is btw american.
Oil and gas prices are falling along with electricity prices in some places, but Europes electricity prices are high and they have no new investments in industry that requires big energy
yes
G
I'm an American Jew. Brother Jews PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE watch this before it's to late...Please...
