I totally agree that we all need to think about the natural resources that we use. In my personal life I try to recycle as much as I can. My argument ( and yes I live in the US) is that yes the US can do a lot of things to reduce its overall use of natural resources. But to try and make the US to be Denmark, it just is not gonna happen! That goes for India, China and the Russia too! The population of and size of Denmark is smaller than probably those of at least 50 individual cities in the US (I do not know that for a fact, but I do not I am that far oof-- sorry Denmark). Lets look at some human related issues. When there is a tsunami in Asia, earthquake in South America, AIDs in Africa, how much does Denmark send to help compared to the US? If we are all going to be like Denmark, maybe when there is a Tsunami disaster in Asia, we should all send them a windmill or two.
KnowNothing,
The United States can start this change by implementing changes that can
help in alleviating the problem of status quo. Within the Northwestern Region of the United States as well as in the coastal zones of California, Washington and parts of the Eastern coasts of the United States, there is a rich potential in placing wind turbines, for example there have been construction of wind turbines in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as well as parts of Northwestern Pennsylvania, (which powers 30% of my college, Allegheny College). The United States, with its given geographical location and proximity of the wind current, can adequately generate power through wind turbines, which would decrease our dependence on non-renewable natural resources such as natural gas. If we provide say 40 billion megawatts of energy through wind turbines that would be used for commercial and industrial use, then that would mean an inverse reduction of 40 billion megawatts of energy that would have been taken from natural gas. Considering the massive energy consumption rates of the United States, every change that can alleviate this dependence is good. Considering that most of the natural resources that the United States acquires are foreign based, an introduction of home-grown energy fuel would be a positive implementation to the local economy and reduce the dependency of this nation, to a degree, from foreign powers' resources. The case study of Denmark shows that the country was able to generate over 3,129 MW capacitors, which provide 1/5th of all the energy in the country. Another country that is making positive implementations to reduce their dependence on non-renewable resource is Germany. Germany is the leading producer of wind power, with 28% of the total world capacity in 2006 and a total output of 38.5 TWh in 2007 (6.3% of German electricity); the official target is for renewable energy to meet 12.5% of German electricity needs by 2010 — this target may be reached ahead of schedule. Germany has 18,600 wind turbines, mostly in the north of the country — including three of the biggest in the world. In 2005, the government of Spain approved a new national goal for installed wind power capacity of 20,000 MW in 2010. With installation of 3515 MW in 2007 (for a total figure of 15,145 MW), this target will probably be reached ahead of schedule. A significant acceleration of the bureaucratic proceedings and connections to grid, and the legislative change occurred during 2007 (with Royal Decree 661/2007), have accelerated the developing of many wind parks, so that they could still run under the previous more favourable conditions.
Even the United States itself is also invigorating its own wind-turbine industry; U.S. wind power capacity grew by 45% to 16.8 gigawatts in 2007. The average output of one megawatt of wind power is equivalent to the average electricity consumption of about 250 American households. According to the American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power just over 1% (4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999. U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind harvested in just three of the fifty U.S. states could provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do the same job. There has indeed been positive changes, and I applaud this changing shift towards wind energy, however we need more. This country has the capacity, to generate 30 fold more energy than what it does now. There is always room for modification,
Contrary to your opinion, the United States is moving towards a greater emphasis on renewable resources.
That goes for India, China and the Russia too!
Actually, that is not true. The Indian and Chinese governments are large proponents of wind energy resources. It is pivotal for these nations, as China and India are modernizing and industrializing in double digit numbers, energy is key to maintain their march to modernization. These nations spend billions of dollars to maintain importation of natural gas, petroleum, however, recently their governments have seen the positive gains in investing in wind power.
Doing so will not only decrease foreign dependence on resources, but will also tap into the local resource and provide jobs. Remember, Denmark alone employs over 20,000 of its citizens to run its turbine-industry. Imagine the benefits if large nations such as CHina, India and the United States taps into this in larger volume.
India ranks 4th in the world with a total wind power capacity of 6,270 MW in 2006, or 3% of all electricity produced in India. The World Wind Energy Conference in New Delhi in November 2006 has given additional impetus to the Indian wind industry.The windfarm near Muppandal, Tamil Nadu, India, provides an impoverished village with energy. India-based Suzlon Energy is one of the world's largest wind turbine manufacturers.
Heres a link:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=45465As for China, in 2005, China announced it would build a 1000-megawatt wind farm in Hebei for completion in 2020. China reportedly has set a generating target of 20,000 MW by 2020 from renewable energy sources — it says indigenous wind power could generate up to 253,000 MW. Following the World Wind Energy Conference in November 2004, organised by the Chinese and the World Wind Energy Association, a Chinese renewable energy law was adopted. In late 2005, the Chinese government increased the official wind energy target for the year 2020 from 20 GW to 30 GW.
Heres a link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4NC5T5N-1&_user=642064&_coverDate=03%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=7&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235713%239999%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23display%23Articles)&_cdi=5713&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=83&_acct=C000034558&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=642064&md5=ea3806a5e05a7c0146a34eb06e8aa142 When there is a tsunami in Asia, earthquake in South America, AIDs in Africa, how much does Denmark send to help compared to the US? If we are all going to be like Denmark, maybe when there is a Tsunami disaster in Asia, we should all send them a windmill or two.
This is besides the point. We are discussing wind turbine energy to reduce dependency, not humanitarian aid. These mechanisms you mentioned has nothing to do in reducing green house gases nor reducing dependency on non-renewable resources. This is material for a totally different topic and is outside the sphere of the subject matter.
The population of and size of Denmark is smaller than probably those of at least 50 individual cities in the US
And your point is?
Denmark, a nation of 5.4 million people can successfully install 3,100+ MW capacity. Around 90% of the national output is exported, and Danish companies accounted for 38% of the world turbine market in 2003, when the industry employed some 20,000 people and had a turnover of around 3 billion euro. That is a giant progressive leap and success for such a small nation. The success of Denmark's industry has been so manifested that their government has adopted a target of cutting carbon emissions by 22% from 1988 levels by 2005. Impeccable!
If a small nation such as Denmark can do this, a Giant like the United States with a massive economic budget and man power, can easily do its part, per se not as large as Denmark, but nonetheless increase standard operational limits.
Why Should the United States invest in non-renewable energy?
A: Economical, strategic, environmentally friendly
Just some realities we all need to digest:
(taken from:
http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/804.html)
Growth RatesBetween 1973 and 2002, total energy consumption grew at an average annual rate of 0.9%. Growth was slow during the first half of the period and has been more rapid recently: the annual average growth between 1987 and 2002 was 1.4%. Average annual rates of growth by end use are shown below for the two periods.
End Use 1973-2002 1987-2002
Residential 1.2% 1.7%
Commercial 2.1% 2.5%
Industrial 0.0% 0.7%
Transportation 1.2% 1.4%
Prices MatterAn important lesson from history is that energy prices matter a lot. Before 1973, US energy consumption appeared to be growing exponentially at a rate of 3.2% per year. An exponential growth curve fit the data superbly well: in statistical terms, the R2 was 0.976 and the standard error of the estimated growth rate was 0.1%. Together those statistics imply that energy growth should have been between 3% and 3.4% for many years to come. However, that turned out to be very, very wrong. The graph below compares the exponential forecast (based on data from 1947-1973) with what actually happened. The exponential model predicted 88 quads more energy consumption in 2003 than there actually was, an error of 89% (186 quads predicted vs. 98 quads of actual consumption).
Dependency Trends:
US energy consumption, by source, 1850-2000. Vertical axis is in quadrillion BTU
U.S. Energy Flow - 2002. Note that the breakdown of useful and waste energy in each sector (yellow vs. grey) is estimated arbitrarily and is not based on data.
The breakdown of energy consumption by source is given here:Fuel type 2004 US consumption in TW 2004 World consumption in TW
Oil 1.34 5.6
Gas 0.77 3.5
Coal 0.77 3.8
Hydroelectric 0.09 0.9
Nuclear 0.27 0.9
Geothermal, wind,
solar, wood 0.11 0.13
Total 3.35 15
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=9933.0
