
Denmark 1970: 99% energy from the Middle East. 2000: 0%. 100% energy independent. - ovi256
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html
======
gruseom
Saying you get 0% of your energy from the Middle East implies that you don't
buy any oil at all, since the market isn't partitioned by where oil comes
from. Is that really the case?

Edit: the "99% in 1973" claim is even stranger. Even if that is how much they
depended on oil (the number sounds a little dodgy), the Middle East part can't
be true.

~~~
asjo
I think the Danish oil production in the North Sea at least covers our own
consumption, so the 0% probably isn't far off. Not that the oil in the North
Sea will last, of course.

Norway has larger oil-fields in the North Sea and export quite a lot.

The 99% from the Middle East in 1973 is probably a journalistic exaggeration -
99% from outside the country would probably be correct (the oil in the North
Sea was found in the 70s).

Oh, and we burn a lot of coal in Denmark. It is not all rosy.

~~~
gruseom
Actually, the coal was one thing I was wondering about. The statement was 99%
of _energy_ , not 99% of oil. That can't possibly be true with coal in the
picture. Note that in this case the exaggeration comes not from a journalist
but from the Minister of Energy.

It sounds as if the kernel of truth here is maybe that Denmark produces more
oil than it consumes. But I would be shocked to hear that Danish oil is
produced by Danish rigs and transported via Danish pipelines to Danish
refineries. Rather, oil from Danish territory goes into the same global market
as all the other oil, and the Danes buy oil the same way (and at the same
price) that everybody else does. So the Middle East bit is a red herring.

~~~
olavk
Denmark is a net exporter of oil and natural gas. We import coal because its a
cheaper source of energy than oil, so it makes sense to use coal rather than
oil in power plants. But I believe that Denmark is a net exporter of energy at
this time. Our oil is running out, though, this is why we invest in other
forms of energy like wind.

------
haasted
"The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even
higher to break our addiction to oil."

It is interesting that the prime minister's comment was sensational enough for
several Danish news outlets to pick up on the NYT story. This indicates that
his comment is far from established policy in Denmark.

When our current government was elected, it introduced a stop on new taxes
which has been in place since. Having the prime minister talk about
introducing an extra tax on already expensive gas is quite newsworthy. Some
critics argue that rather than raising the price on gas, the government should
consider removing the taxes that are put on environmentally friendly cars and
hybrids.

------
Prrometheus
What's so bad about foreign oil?

[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
stein8-2008aug08,0...](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
stein8-2008aug08,0,2887025.column)

~~~
JesseAldridge
The problem with oil isn't that it comes from foreign sources -- the problem
is that supply is running out.

~~~
aneesh
Exactly. The problem is not so much with foreign oil, as with oil itself.
Higher taxes to reduce consumption(Economists call these Pigovian taxes) seem
to be a good choice to reduce emissions in the short term, but technological
advances provide the long-term hope.

~~~
Andys
As opposed to here in Australia, where we our higher petrol tax goes back into
building more roads and thus driving demand higher.

~~~
steveplace
Well it's the opposite in the U.S. Mileage decreased for the first time ever
last quarter, which is leading to less tax revenue to repair the roads. The
most efficient tax would be tolls, but the implementation is a nightmare.

------
DanielBMarkham
Is it me, or has there been a plethora of poorly-reported NYTimes articles on
HN lately?

I won't tear into this one save this: oil is fungible. To say no energy from
the Middle East is misleading. They buy their oil on the open market like
everybody else. (Now they may produce more than they consume, but heck, its
not like that supports the headline.)

~~~
sh1mmer
Oil is fungible, but maybe that's missing the point. It's semantic nit-picking
that misses the spirit of what the author is trying to convey (perhaps with
some exaggeration).

I buy "green" electricity. That is, all the electricity I pay for is
sustainably generated and carbon neutral, from wind, solar, tide or hydro.
However, the actually electricity that powers my lights is probably from a
coal or nuclear power station. The point is that I pay to put electricity from
"green" sources into the grid. The fact that the actual electricity that
arrives at my house is not the same I paid to generate doesn't matter.

If Denmark puts more energy/coal/oil into the market than it uses then it is
energy neutral or positive even if people are actually using oil from Saudi or
wherever.

------
mynameishere
10 dollar gasoline will result in more efforts towards alternative energy.
Yes. It will do so if the 10 dollar gasoline is a result of taxation. It will
_also_ do so if the 10 dollar gasoline is a result of supply and demand. If
you want expensive gasoline, you'll get it eventually.

I'm not sure why people don't understand that.

~~~
steveplace
The only problem with taxing energy is that it has a disproportionate effect
on the lower classes.

~~~
gaius
Why is that a problem? The planet doesn't care about the socioeconomic status
of polluters, does it?

~~~
steveplace
No, but I do.

------
JesseAldridge
Tax oil -> Create demand for alternative energy -> Avoid political and
economic problems associated with a diminishing supply of energy.

Simple.

~~~
natrius
The problem with that approach is that it assumes everyone is foolish. A
rational actor presented with information that oil supplies will decrease in
the near future would adjust his behavior as he sees fit. Moreover, the market
will price in the costs of continuing to rely on oil.

Sure, price in the externalities of oil use, but I don't think we should raise
prices beyond that just to reduce demand.

------
vaksel
Denmark is a tiny country, its 1/10th the size of california, they don't need
much oil. Yet look at it, it took them close to 40 years to kick the habit.
This is why its so disingenuous when candidates focus so much on offshore
drilling like it's a solution to all our problems.

------
aggieben
What blather. Two points:

(a) oil is fungible. Fungible, FUNGIBLE.

(b) offshore drilling, _will_ help, and nobody is proposing that it is a
solution. Nuclear and solar electricity and better batteries are the solution.
Drilling our own oil resources will help us while we get there.

~~~
sh1mmer
I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it
was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become
energy independent.

I read a recent estimation that America has enough oil for 3 years at it's
current rate of consumption. Unless consumption is dramatically reduced
drilling is just going to tap out a resource that would be best saved for a
real emergency.

Europe has been coping with smaller more efficient cars, and driving habits
for decades. American can too.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Your comment has the feeling of a moral judgment or a best-guess seat-of-pants
decision, ie, that since Europe has been coping with smaller and more
efficient cars, we can too.

I've always found myself too ill-equipped to make decisions on how markets can
or should operate (that is, unless the market is obviously broken, in which
case somebody must do something)

So I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't
built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the
1970s? That we continue to _not_ reprocess spent nuclear fuel? That due to
these policies our oil output now is the same as it was in the 1940s?

I'm trying not to badger you, but are you saying that because we've basically
forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy
prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will
shift like Denmark?

Couldn't you just picket or something? Seems like a terrible waste of
American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking. And
please don't argue that the culture must change because energy is so scarce --
it's a circular argument.

~~~
natrius
"Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the
culture more to your liking."

He clearly said that the goal was energy independence, not a change in
culture. The change in culture is a means to that end.

Drilling offshore now isn't worth the potential environmental damage or the
sacrifice of the future value of that oil when it becomes more scarce. I don't
think that oil is enough to tide us over until we don't need oil anymore,
especially since the oil will be sold on the global market. It will barely
lower oil prices in a decade. Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so.

With or without new offshore drilling, we will lower our energy consumption by
necessity from now until we're off of oil. It will be too expensive to
continue on our current course. The current focus should be on solutions that
will make that transition period less painful, not on solutions that will make
us use more oil and further our dependency on it.

I agree with you on all the nuclear stuff.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so."

What sacrifices? I won't use the term "straw man" but I'd at least like to
humbly suggest you've made a whole slew of assumptions about what might or
might not happen. Most of these I take issue with.

I'm not crazy about oil. Personally, I'll be happy when we're off it. But,
like I said, I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control
world markets with them. Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill
for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are
all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that
there is a real, tangible need that's not going away.

Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not
letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries
-- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a
more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of.

Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out
where the limits of your argument lie. Would you agree with the statement
above? Or would we immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion?

~~~
jacobolus
> _Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and
> it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of_
> possible _dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a
> real, tangible need that's not going away._

The environmental dangers of oil drilling are more than possibilities, and
your dismissive tone doesn’t aid your argument. The current supporters of
increased off-shore drilling are spinning up its positives and spinning down
its negatives as a craven political ploy in an election year which coincides
with oil prices higher than they were a few years ago, and general economic
instability.

Off-shore drilling is not going to solve our current economic crisis, nor is
it going to bring down oil prices to any substantial degree—maybe the price
will dip a few percent in 10 years when the oil starts flowing.

> _Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm
> not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world
> countries -- mostly the poor._

Your implication is that off-shore oil-drilling in America is the best way to
help the third-world poor. That is absurd. (And hyperbolically casting natrius
as some kind of heartless first-world imperialist doesn’t help your argument
either. It makes your comments seem like trolling.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
First, I did not dismiss the environmental impact of drilling offshore. We did
not discuss it at length. There were some sweeping statements made about my
position and I pointed out I do not support those statements. Glad to have
that discussion.

Second, I made no comment about helping the poor. My comment was about the use
of personal opinion to control markets. I used the poor as an example of those
who could be impacted by our policies.

I made no personal attack and posited no question that was supposed to inflame
or outrage. I tried to the best of my ability to ask simple questions and make
simple statements that I honestly support. As far as the poor comment, I used
the statement as a way of advancing the conversation without it having to take
another 50 posts. I obviously do not believe he would support that, and am
interested in his reply as to where he thinks the limits of market control
should be.

You're welcome to join in, by the way. I don't mind the critique of my style,
but discussing the substance of the matter might be more interesting for all
concerned.

~~~
jacobolus
The substance of the matter is that America has relatively small reserves of
off-shore oil, which if fully tapped today would only make a minor difference
in global oil prices, but has massive demand for oil (25% of global demand).
Off-shore drilling is not remotely a solution to the coming oil crisis
(crises?), and is being used as an emotional appeal in the current political
climate purely for partisan advantage, rather than for concrete benefits (not
that it doesn't potentially have some benefit, but its current supporters
don't particularly care about them).

Current US energy policy, far from restricting fossil fuel companies, is
hugely beneficial to them (even though it is highly regulatory), with a large
array of subsidies and special breaks, not to mention political support.

It is unreasonable to demand that energy policy always bow to the “free
market,” as that has repeatedly led to bad outcomes all over the world, by
providing opportunities for manipulation, and ignoring substantial negative
externalities (dead villagers, air pollution, oil spills, etc.).

A much more positive change would be to decouple the political system from
financial dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and biofuels/agriculture
conglomerates, so that we can have a less tainted national debate on the
subject.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"Current US energy policy, far from restricting fossil fuel companies, is
hugely beneficial to them " Did I miss the part where you pointed out oil
production in the U.S. has dropped to 1940s levels?

"The substance of the matter is that America has relatively small reserves of
off-shore oil" Which 30 years of partisan bickering in Congress has failed to
release to the market, along with the additional north shore finds. Along with
more nuclear. Along with reprocessing spent fuel. I could go on. Did you point
out that with the reduced elasticity of supply, those extra barrels could have
had a major effect on world price stability?

The substance of the matter is that we have been shooting ourselves in the
foot for over 30 years because poor countries are doing all the dirty work for
us. We don't have to worry about environmental issues as long as it's the
Saudis doing the pumping. Everybody can point fingers at each other and we can
continue on our way. No energy bill was passed during all those
administrations because both parties would rather have an issue than have a
solution.

Our demand is about to get overtaken by China and India in the next twenty
years, really no matter what we do. We are sitting in a bubble, arguing about
what the world should be like. Meanwhile, the real world continues on. People
continue to trade living in a dirty world for money, education, and
prosperity. For every thousand dead from oil spills, another ten million live
better lives (it's hyperbole, yes.). I wonder how foolish we look to them?

------
patrickg-zill
Denmark has a population of 5.45 million people; or, about the size of half of
New York City plus one of the burbs.

~~~
dabeeeenster
So what?

~~~
patrickg-zill
So what works for 5 million people who all live within a few hundred miles of
each other, may not work for a huge country with over 300 million.

Of course, the answer for Denmark was offshore drilling, so maybe the USA
should be looking at that as well.

~~~
jgamman
or you may have to replicate it 60 times

------
michaelneale
It seems a bit strange to compare the energy consumption of a nation which has
a smaller population then Long Island. I am sure there are equivalent chunks
of population in the US that could be described as energy independent, if they
were to be a country ;)

Not saying that its not great, its just that it would be a challenge to scale
something like that (Denmark is much much smaller then people realise).

Now if they went totally off oil altogether into renewable sources, that would
be a spectacular achievement for a nationstate.

------
gaius
Interesting facts about Denmark: Percentage of their energy requirement that
can be met by wind power: 18%. Percentage of conventional power stations
replaced by wind farms: 0%.

~~~
maximilian
What are you trying to say with the 0% stat. If I were going to use more wind
energy, I wouldn't just shut down a coal plant and throw up a million wind
turbines. I would just add more wind turbines as our energy needs grew. So
ideally you add a lot of wind turbines to mitigate building a new coal burning
plant.

You will probably always need things like coal plants because they are very
efficient and always work. You probably build a hybrid of wind turbines and
gas powered turbines that are very adjustable. On a good wind day you you use
less of the gas turbines and on a bad wind day you use more of the gas
turbines to meet demand. The coal (or nuclear) plants are the base upon which
you build your solar or wind system.

~~~
gaius
I'm trying to say that it's not as simple as the article makes out.

When there are wind-powered factories making wind turbines, transported to
their destinations and installed by electrically powered vehicles charged by
wind power, then it will be real. Until then, wind power requires massive
energy subsidies from fossil fuels to the extent that it doesn't actually help
much.

------
sprachspiel
If you are interested in the topic, check out the book "Sustainable Energy -
Without the Hot Air" (available at <http://www.withouthotair.com/> ).
Unfortunately it's pretty disillusioning.

~~~
wwalker3
Great reference. It's got tons of hard numbers about subjects that I generally
only see unsupported assertions about.

------
ckinnan
America is a continental power that has 7 or 8 cities with a larger population
than all of Denmark...

That's not to say we can't learn from their model, but its more of an urban
planning context.

