Energy Book Do As the French Do

It may be irritating to admit it, but a number of other countries have plunged further ahead on changing their energy use than Americans have. In debates about what the United States could do, there are four countries that get mentioned frequently as examples to follow, or if you prefer, Gallants to our Goofus .¹

As we run through these possible role models, however, let’s remember that the United States still has some unique issues. We’re much bigger and more car-dependent than most other countries. But we may be able to learn from what other nations have done – and from the tradeoffs they've had to make.

Everyone Knows It's Windy: Denmark

Denmark is a showcase for wind power, spurred by the fact that the Baltic Sea provides a nice steady wind source, both offshore and on. Now Denmark gets 20 percent of its electrical capacity from wind. Other European countries, including Germany and Spain, have also invested big in wind power based on Denmark’s example.

Denmark is certainly proof that wind power can work, but the Danes also have a couple of advantages over the United States. One is that Denmark is small, so the electricity generated by wind turbines doesn’t have to go long distances.

The situation is quite different in the United States, where many of the best locations for wind power tend to be on the Great Plains, well away from the cities that need the electricity. To move that wind electricity to where it's needed, the United States will have to invest in an improved electric grid, to the tune of at least $20 billion. The Danes put government incentives behind wind as well.

Denmark also proves that wind power isn’t cheap. The Danes pay some of the highest electricity rates in Europe: about 32 cents a kilowatt-hour in 2006, compared to 22 cents in Germany, 14 cents in France, and 10 cents in the United States.

Sugar, Sugar: Brazil

In Brazil, biofuels are king. They’ve been using ethanol for decades, and that (combined with the fact that Brazil has made significant domestic oil discoveries) has helped make Brazil self-sufficient in energy, after importing 80 percent of its oil in the 1970s. Advocates of biofuels frequently cite Brazil as an example of what can be done.

So why can’t ethanol do the same thing here? For one thing, Brazil uses sugarcane to make ethanol, not corn as in the United States. Sugar ethanol just works better, since sugar has six times the energy value of corn; almost all experts agree on that.

Brazil devotes more than half its sugar crop to ethanol, but since the United States isn’t as big a sugar producer, the economics don’t work as well here, either. In 2007, the United States devoted 25 percent of its corn crop to ethanol, but that only accounted for 5 percent of all the liquid fuel used that year. In the long run, the American answer may be "cellulosic" ethanol made from inedible plants like switchgrass, but that technology is years away. So for now, either we import sugar ethanol (which doesn’t help our energy independence) or we stick with the less effective version.

The cooling towers of the Cattenom nuclear power plant anchor the background of this rural scene in the northern Lorraine region of France.

Nuclear Savoir Faire: France

In the early 1970s, France chose to do exactly the opposite of the United States (which, come to think of it, could be a defining French national characteristic, and vice versa). France committed to nuclear power, and they weren’t deterred by either Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

In 1980, the French got 24 percent of their electricity from nuclear power, compared to 27 percent from coal and 19 percent from oil. By 1990, French electricity was 75 percent nuclear, with coal and oil reduced to 10 percent combined.² That really makes a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

The downsides for France are much the same as for the United States. The French nuclear safety record is excellent, but they still have the problem of disposing of nuclear waste. Instead of burying it, they recycle or “reprocess” it so it can be used again. In fact, they often take in nuclear waste from other countries and reprocess it for them.

The United States decided against reprocessing back in the 1970s, worried that the reprocessed fuel would become a magnet for terrorists looking for potential bomb material. Whether you bury it or recycle it, however, dealing with nuclear waste is a long-term commitment that will still require attention decades or centuries from now.

Cooking With Gas: Great Britain

The British also historically relied heavily on coal, for both electricity and for home heating. That combination, along with natural fog, helped give London its dark and smoky reputation. In 1952, in fact, an estimated four thousand Londoners died from a smog bank that didn’t lift for days.

In the 1990s, Britain decided to shift away from coal to cleaner natural gas—and that was a big shift. Coal is abundant, it’s cheap, and it has a storied history in Britain (rent How Green Was My Valley sometime). In 1990, it provided 65 percent of the United Kingdom’s electricity, compared to 1 percent for natural gas. By 2000, coal was down to 33 percent and natural gas was up to 39 percent.

The downside? Britain had a thriving coal industry for more than a century, and it doesn’t anymore. The “dash for gas” is “one reason why the British mining industry, once the nation’s largest employer, has shriveled.

1. What, you never got Highlights for Children?

2. U.S. Department of Energy, “Fact Sheet: France’s Radioactive Waste Management Program,” accessed March 15, 2009; William Tucker, “There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste,” Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2009; Heritage Foundation, “Recycling Nuclear Waste: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui?” December 28, 2007; and Jon Palfreman, “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.”