Slashdot Mirror
Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover
daem0n1x writes "It appears that some countries in oil-poor Europe are making a successful transition to renewable energy at a fast and steady pace. This article talks about the small country of Portugal on the West Coast of Europe, known for its white sand beaches, oranges, fish, and wines. Portugal has no oil, but lots of sun and wind. Five years ago, the government decided, against many dissenting voices, to invest massively in taking advantage of the country's natural resources in clean energy. The results are here. It used to be a heavy energy importer, but now it exports it."
"The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind..." Drill baby, drill.
Well, the hydros in the new energetic plan were made and are being made to store the solar and wind energy by pumping the water. Because during the night you cannot use solar power and the wind power reduces a lot.
The hydros are not being made to produce energy by themselves.
Mind you, I'm against hydros, but unless we embrace nuclear or someone comes up with huge and efficient energy storing methods, hydros are unavoidable in this scenario. And between burning oil and hydros ... we choose the less of the 2 evils.
Well, no, this is not the problem. The public spending in these projects, even when it fails is not the problem here.
Portugal's problem, and you can check in the wikipedia by seeing our awful gini index (the worst of all European union), is the very bad distribution of wealth. Most company owners see people as a source of cheap labour ... so of course, if people doesn't earn enough, they also tend not to work very hard. And mind you, the bosses don't pay low wages because they don't have money (like I said they have a LOT OF MONEY), they pay low wages because, well, they all do, and unless you have a very specialized job, if you don't want to do it for what they pay, they find another one to do it.
Another problem, is that, there is a very big tax fraud in here. The proletariat pays taxes because they have a steady income ... the rich don't because the system is made so that it's very difficult to control what they really earn. Portugal it's a great country in some aspects ... but a very shitty one in some others :S
And it's probably still going to be talk 20 years from now.
A couple of years ago, voters passed a $10 billion bond measure to get it started. What many of them missed was that this was the first $10 billion of a $40 billion total cost, much of which is expected to be federally-funded even though nobody bothered to ask the federal government for the money. If the state has to cover the entire amount, it will cost $80 billion once the bonds are paid off.
Sure, it's planned to go from San Diego to San Francisco, but it's running into enormous political problems. City after city in Orange County alone are saying that they don't want it running through their land because of the financial and political costs that go with it. That means a longer run through Riverside County -- if cities in that county let it happen -- making it more expensive. San Francisco goes back and forth on whether they'll let it actually end in the city, or force it over to Oakland.
Then there's the time it's expected to take to get from San Diego to San Francisco, a trip of about 500 miles. The low end times are quoted at about four hours, which might be acceptable, but that's for an express train, which are rare to non-existent in most plans that have been made public. Every plan I've seen has the train making numerous stops along the way -- as many as a dozen along the 45 mile-path through Orange County, let alone San Diego and Los Angeles Counties and the Bay Area -- and some reports have suggested that it would take eight to ten hours for the train to make the trip, with it spending as much time accelerating and decelerating as it does in a cruise speed -- which wouldn't be that high in the urban areas to begin with.
It's also not expected to be up and running until 2030 at the earliest. Most of the realistic estimates put it at 2040. It's a total fiasco. We can't even get a simple light rail project that runs 30 miles in place in part because the costs ballooned to more than $1 billion despite plans to run most of the line running down the center medians of the streets (hence its name, CenterLine).
Absent a minor revolution, California will never be governable enough to get something like a high-speed-rail line in place.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
In Europe as a whole, transportation only takes about a third of their energy usage as of 2009. Much of that is electric since they have a lot of rail, but I couldn't find any better breakdowns.
In the US, transport takes about %28 of total energy use. In Europe, less than %10-%19 percent of all transport is public, and since they have a lot of buses, some fraction of that is rail. I could not find the numbers on percentage breakdown. All the rest is cars. In the USA, public transport is less than %3 of the total. All the rest is cars. Public transport is only as efficient as cars of the same type. For example, a diesel car is the same as a diesel train (in real operating scenarios).
The point is, there's no use in putting off transitioning to direct sun energy consumption.
Yep. I used to think the sun was not a good source of power. I then looked at the data. Most solar panels suck but the sun does not.
We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Natures inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. - Thomas Edison
All known quantities of fossil fuels and U-235 will be exhausted by 2150 at current rates and predicted growth patterns. We might need it for something else we can't foresee, so the smart move would be to conserve every bit of easy to use energy, and use the resources we have now to make progress in sustainable technologies.
Actually, the oceans can last at least 500 years, and the Japanese are already working on technology to extract the uranium in the seawater. Of course, with crappy reactors burning only 0.7 percent of the energy in the uranium and dumping the rest, we have some major efficiency issues. If we fix it, we could look forward to 10,000 years plus. By that time, I'm sure will all by dead or cruising the galaxy. I think it is important to understand the paradoxes involved in energy conservation, as well as the actually effects of conservation measures. For example, public transport looks to be only a modest gain for a lot of investment, while say, upgrading your house's insulation is a much better idea with real, measurable (positive) economic consequences.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
Maybe we have low wages because we have one of the lowest productivity rates in Europe. Compared to the productivity of a German, a medium Portuguese "earns" more. And what about the "11-months worked/14-months payed"? That makes all the sense too. Or maybe the fact that we have such a heavy tax burden too helps explain that (an employer must set aside about 1.500€ to pay you 1.000€). Or the fact that half of the economy is in the State's hands. Guess only the "greedy neoliberals" are to blame, not our benevolent (our should I say corrupt?) government...And don't start with the "TVI/FoxNews" comparison, because I pass on watch RTP/SIC/TVI altogether. And by the way, our public debt should reach 110% by next year and our total external debt exceeds 350% of GDP (far worse than Greece's). Too bad the article says absolutely nothing about our energy efficiency, which is one of the worst in Europe. Of course enhancing this doesn't "sell" anything and doesn't make Mexia's (EDP's CEO) account balance grow by another couple a million per year. But if we were as efficient as say, Finland, we'd need significant less energy to start with and maybe we could ditch the whole wind-energy scheme, that's going to burden us for years to come. Don't forget we are NOT paying for most of this "brave new world" of renewables since electricity prices have been set by government to a lower value than actual production costs (the deficits just keep on pilling up, and sooner or later must be payed...with interests). That's why subsidies are then pulled off in Spain and Germany: because it's a huge burden for the economy.
Maybe we have low wages because we have one of the lowest productivity rates in Europe. Compared to the productivity of a German
No, that's wrong, very very wrong. That's a completely far right-wing view of the problem. The all North of Portugal relies on cheap labour. QUITE HARD cheap labour. Or do you think an employee from the shoes/textile industry working 40h a week for a measly €450 a month is not breaking his back for the boss? The productivity rate doesn't measure how are people work, it measures how much that work gives. The education levels in Germany are far higher than in Portugal, so they have many more people doing high paying, high level jobs and that's the real reason they are more productive.
What do you think it makes more money per hour to their boss, a civil Engineer in Germany or 10 shoemakers in Portugal? And now, which job would you rather do? Because from your point of view, it looks like you would like to be making shoes, since after all, that people don't do anything ... their productivity rates are too low.