From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Others are surging ahead - Hopefully we won't find ourselves just a
purchaser of alternative energy devices

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203293,00.html

In the realm of alternative energy, there is an inconspicuous European
nation that could stand to teach the U.S. a few lessons - Denmark.

Besides being home to the world's happiest people, according to a study
this year by a social psychologist at England's University of Leicester,
this small country, badly battered by oil shocks in decades past, has
become a leader in the field of renewable energy.

As a nation with few energy resources of its own, Denmark had to consider
its needs and rethink its policies in the face of an almost complete
withdrawal of its oil supply.
In the 30 years since, Denmark has worked tirelessly to develop new
technology and new policies.

The result is that today, renewable sources account for a greater share of
the nation's energy consumption with each passing year, according to the
Energistyrelsen, the Danish Energy Authority.

Twenty percent of Denmark's energy needs are now met by electricity
generated by wind turbines, and the proportion is steadily increasing.
Thanks to advances in technology and turbine design, the cost of wind power
has been reduced by 75 percent since 1970, when the programs began.

Wind-power technology has also been a driving force in the Danish economy,
according to Chuck Kleekamp, president of Clean Power Now , an American
nonprofit organization that informs citizens about renewable energy
projects and studies Danish energy programs.

"Danish companies manufacture 40 percent of the world's supply of wind
turbines, as well as having had extensive research programs for
decades," Kleekamp said. "The technology also provides employment
for a segment of the population in Denmark."

But wind power is not the only renewable resource Denmark has explored.

Other Danish alternative-energy sources include the burning of waste
products, or biomass, in combined heat and power plants; electricity
generated by photovoltaic, or solar-energy, cells; and geothermal turbines
powered by the escape of underground steam.



"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:45b8f74b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> I'm not sure the animosity will lessen,
>
> I am, that's nature.
>
>>we've been fighting that ideology since our founding.
>
> I disagree.  We have to fight it for ourselves here of course, but being
> interventionist hasn't been the primary focus of the nation except for a
> few periods in our history.
>
>> Just to clarify, I don't mean to sound completely against ethanol, I
>> think it can play a small part, but I'm more interested in other
>> possibilities that may arise from continuing research in that arena, than
>> in actual large scale production. I suppose they're going forward no
>> matter what, so I can hope for both.
>
> I don't really think ethanol is the answer, at least with our current
> tech, but like you say, research is the key.
>
>> I'm sure too that in the future they'll look back at this era and ask
>> themselves why the hell we didn't build more nuclear plants, explore for
>> and exploit our own oil, and throw a lot more assets at rapidly
>> developing more efficient solar panels and storage mechanisms, as well as
>> wind and wave power.
>
> That's what I say now. 
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:45b8e711$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> I'm not sure the animosity will lessen, we've been fighting that ideology
>> since our founding. But you're right that we could pay less attention to
>> them if we didn't need the oil from that region. 100 years ago we used
>> almost no oil and I believe that 100 years from now we also will use
>> little oil.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I don't mean to sound completely against ethanol, I
>> think it can play a small part, but I'm more interested in other
>> possibilities that may arise from continuing research in that arena, than
>> in actual large scale production. I suppose they're going forward no
>> matter what, so I can hope for both.
>>
>> I'm sure too that in the future they'll look back at this era and ask
>> themselves why the hell we didn't build more nuclear plants, explore for
>> and exploit our own oil, and throw a lot more assets at rapidly
>> developing more efficient solar panels and storage mechanisms, as well as
>> wind and wave power.
>>
>> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>> news:45b8bbc8{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> We have to cut down oil usage somehow, that's the real terrorist threat
>>> that you seem to be so concerned about.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying ethanol is the correct way to go, but *something* has to
>>> be done to cut down on our reliance of foreign oil.  The less oil we
>>> need, the less meddling we have to do, and the less meddling, the less
>>> animosity towards us.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:45b82df5{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I think I recall a few intellectual arguments against my disdain for
>>>>using "corn for fuel."
>>>>
>>>> If I recall correctly those arguments were along the lines
of "global
>>>> energy generation transcends the minutia of food vs.
fuel," because
>>>> it's all the same thing in the end and taking corn off the
food market
>>>> to satisfy the transportation market was no big deal
because lower oil
>>>> prices would offset any effects...
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps those arguments were misplaced:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0701130049jan13,0,5505881.story
>>>> "Ethanol's effect: Expensive tortillas"
>>>>
>>>> I guess starving out the Mexicans is an acceptable trade-off for
>>>> enriching the ethanol producers in the US?
>>>>
>>>> For me, I like Exxon/Mobil over ADM 8 days a week.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5