5 ms·

But that will never happen in the USA due to the influence of the oil industry.

ubernostrum 9y ago
You may be interested in the Norwegian TV series "Occcupied": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert The premise is that Norway develops thorium reactor technology and ceases all fossil-fuel production. And then is clandestinely and later openly invaded by Russia, with the blessing of other countries, to seize oil and gas production facilities and forcibly re-open them.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Oil is always a liability. It would be better to claim you ran out. But the Russian subearth nuclear boring machines don't need to invade.
  - na85 9y ago
    >Russian subearth nuclear boring machines The what now?
- rlkf 9y ago
  Off-topic, but still: There are several frightening realistic aspects with that series, but the key premise - that the U.K. would willingly allow Russia to take control over one of its energy sources - is so utterly bonkers that it spoils the rest.
  - kwhitefoot 9y ago
    > so utterly bonkers You mean more bonkers than letting EDF and the Chinese do it?
paulddraper 9y ago
I doubt it. My observation is that if there is an enormous amount of money to be made disrupting an established industry with practical tech, it happens. Money trumps law in many cases. E.g. Uber
adventured 9y ago
US wind energy production has increased eight fold in 12 years. The US has greater wind energy production capacity per capita than Norway does for example. Hydro power is an impossible resource to perpetually manufacture more of. The US has heavily tapped out its potential in hydro. First it's difficult/undesirable to manufacture a new source of hydro once you reach saturation, and second it's arguably a terrible idea to do so when you have good alternatives to damming up a natural water flow. The US is the world's #2 nation in wind energy production and is adding more wind capacity per year than any other nation not named China. Let's put it into context with the parent's comment you're replying to: Norway had 1,162 MW of wind capacity in 2017. The US had 89,077. That's a 76 fold gap. However there is only a 63 fold gap in the population size between the two nations. Given Norway has a meaningfully higher GDP per capita than the US (~15-20% higher typically), it looks even worse when you consider the GDP per capita vs wind energy capacity per capita ratio. The US exceeds the vast majority of all countries on per capita wind energy capacity, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France, South Korea, Italy, Belgium, China, Greece, Turkey, Taiwan, Poland, Mexico, Brazil. Overall the US is doing OK with renewables and keeps getting better by the year. It's obviously important that that trend remain intact.
- vilmosi 9y ago
  Wouldn't a country with vast access to hydro power be inclined to not invest in wind? And why cherry pick wind power anyway?
  - jacoblambda 9y ago
    I believe they specifically mentioned wind because that was the specific form of renewable energy the grandparent was talking about. As for why a country with vast access to hydro would prefer wind energy, Hydro requires large investments, is excruciatingly difficult to upgrade, interferes with local water flow and ecosystems, and in the case that either it is improperly maintained or a major accident occurs, can be very dangerous and deadly.
  - Kimm0n0 8y ago
    It is not cost-effective to build much wind power in Norway, because of excessive cheap hydro power. Statoil and Statkraft build them in UK, where the price and subsidies are more favourable.

You may be interested in the Norwegian TV series "Occcupied": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert The premise is that Norway develops thorium reactor technology and ceases all fossil-fuel production. And then is clandestinely and later openly invaded by Russia, with the blessing of other countries, to seize oil and gas production facilities and forcibly re-open them.

sitkack 9y ago
Oil is always a liability. It would be better to claim you ran out. But the Russian subearth nuclear boring machines don't need to invade.
- na85 9y ago
  >Russian subearth nuclear boring machines The what now?
rlkf 9y ago
Off-topic, but still: There are several frightening realistic aspects with that series, but the key premise - that the U.K. would willingly allow Russia to take control over one of its energy sources - is so utterly bonkers that it spoils the rest.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  > so utterly bonkers You mean more bonkers than letting EDF and the Chinese do it?

paulddraper 9y ago

I doubt it. My observation is that if there is an enormous amount of money to be made disrupting an established industry with practical tech, it happens. Money trumps law in many cases. E.g. Uber

adventured 9y ago

US wind energy production has increased eight fold in 12 years. The US has greater wind energy production capacity per capita than Norway does for example. Hydro power is an impossible resource to perpetually manufacture more of. The US has heavily tapped out its potential in hydro. First it's difficult/undesirable to manufacture a new source of hydro once you reach saturation, and second it's arguably a terrible idea to do so when you have good alternatives to damming up a natural water flow. The US is the world's #2 nation in wind energy production and is adding more wind capacity per year than any other nation not named China. Let's put it into context with the parent's comment you're replying to: Norway had 1,162 MW of wind capacity in 2017. The US had 89,077. That's a 76 fold gap. However there is only a 63 fold gap in the population size between the two nations. Given Norway has a meaningfully higher GDP per capita than the US (~15-20% higher typically), it looks even worse when you consider the GDP per capita vs wind energy capacity per capita ratio. The US exceeds the vast majority of all countries on per capita wind energy capacity, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France, South Korea, Italy, Belgium, China, Greece, Turkey, Taiwan, Poland, Mexico, Brazil. Overall the US is doing OK with renewables and keeps getting better by the year. It's obviously important that that trend remain intact.

vilmosi 9y ago
Wouldn't a country with vast access to hydro power be inclined to not invest in wind? And why cherry pick wind power anyway?
- jacoblambda 9y ago
  I believe they specifically mentioned wind because that was the specific form of renewable energy the grandparent was talking about. As for why a country with vast access to hydro would prefer wind energy, Hydro requires large investments, is excruciatingly difficult to upgrade, interferes with local water flow and ecosystems, and in the case that either it is improperly maintained or a major accident occurs, can be very dangerous and deadly.
- Kimm0n0 8y ago
  It is not cost-effective to build much wind power in Norway, because of excessive cheap hydro power. Statoil and Statkraft build them in UK, where the price and subsidies are more favourable.