1. 1
Global Examples of Renewable Energy
and
Their Futures in the United States
by
Christian Haig
Kirk Williamson
Schuyler Cornell
Amy Lee
Environment and Society
Spring 2014
ABSTRACT
This paper examines global examples of successful renewable energy implementation and
opportunities for their integration in the United States landscape. With examples of geothermal
energy in Iceland, hydroelectric power in Canada, wind energy in Denmark, and solar energy in
China, some issues that proved necessary for success of renewables included government
funding, profitability, and technological advancements. With these issues in mind, the paper
explores the future for renewable energy in the United States.
Global Examples of Renewable Energy and their Futures in the United States
In the midst of global climate change, increasing fuel costs as global petroleum reserves
become depleted, and a desire to decrease dependence on fossil fuel imports, it will be necessary
for the United States to shift energy dependence from hydrocarbon sources to more renewable

2. 2
sources of energy. Where the United States has fallen short, various countries across the globe
have began shifting their energy sources from fossil fuels to more clean, sustainable, and
limitless forms of renewable energies. Seeing as an optimistic estimate for global peak oil is
20201, oil reserves are quickly depleting, requiring drastic and rapid implementation of various
forms of renewable energies to power the American people into the coming centuries.
Valuable lessons can be learned from the successful implementation of renewable energy
abroad that can be implemented domestically. By studying the trials and tribulations of
geothermal power in Iceland, hydroelectric power in Canada, wind power in Denmark, and solar
power in China and comparing these success stories to areas in the United States, the United
States can tailor its energy and development policies to create the most efficient systems. Using
these lessons, down the road, the United States could become a leading example for other nations
to learn from.
Geothermal Power
The United States of America has a huge potential for the harnessing and utilization of
renewable energy of different varieties in many areas. Geothermal energy, a source that has
been used by humans for millenia, is one such variety. It was used for cooking and heating and,
famously, to create heated baths in the Roman Empire2. Today, geothermal energy is used in the
creation of electricity.
Geothermal energy is power that is generated in the earth. It's a form of heat coming
from the planet's interior that is the result of the planet's original creation as well as a result of
minerals' radioactive decay. This heat, or thermal energy, gets trapped in liquid water and rock,
which it turns molten. This heat can filter up towards the surface and be relatively easily
accessed. Reservoirs of steam and hot water can be used to generate electricity as well as for
other applications. For instance, geothermal pump can pump warm water into a building to heat
it during the winter. It can also cool a building by pumping cooler groundwater through the
building to extract heat. It can keep greenhouses warm and pumping hot water under roads helps
to melt snow.
To harness geothermal energy for electricity, wells sometimes over a mile deep are
drilled into reservoirs of superheated water that escapes upwards and drives energy turbines.
There are various methods through which this steam is created and utilized. Dry steam plants,
for instance, funnel steam through fractures in the ground to directly spin turbine rotors. Flash
1
Miller, Richard and Steven Sorrell, “The Future of Oil Supply.” (2013, Dec 2)
2
“What is Geothermal Energy,” Colorado University at Boulder (Feb 2014)

3. 3
plants pour cool water onto superheated water to release steam to spin rotors, and binary plants
pour a liquid with a lower boiling point than water for the same purpose3.
There are some issues with geothermal energy. Obvious problems include its historical
limitation to areas of tectonic activity, though recent advances have expanded the range and size
of usable geothermal sites. Similarly, these sites aren't necessarily stable and geothermal activity
in areas can decrease over time. Another issue is that it releases small amounts of greenhouse
gasses as well as small amounts of toxins from geothermal fluids from deep in the earth. Finally,
geothermal plants require a high upfront investment.
Outside of that, thermal energy production has a multitude of benefits. One large
advantage is that it does not require the use of any form of fossil fuel to extract power. They
produce very little pollution, emitting just a sixth of what natural gas plants, promoted as
relatively “clean,” produce. Unlike other forms of renewable energy such as solar and wind
power, geothermal energy is constantly available. Using geothermal energy is also
comparatively inexpensive; according to National Geographic, savings from direct use is as
much as 80% of fossil fuels. If widely deployed in the place of fossil fuels, geothermal energy
plants can help to slow global warming while producing cheap energy as, though the upfront
investment is large, continual running of the plant requires little energy4.
Geothermal plants are proliferating quickly. According to the International Geothermal
Association, in 2010 geothermal power wass online in 24 countries and grew 20% in 5 years.
Energy production will also greatly increase in 2015 due to multiple new projects coming
online5. According to National Geographic, geothermal energy has the theoretical power to
adequately supply all energy needs, but plants are not currently very profitable6. Exploration and
drilling is expensive, and plans have to be made on assumptions of technology, energy prices,
interest rates, and subsidies. Regardless, the cost of generating power has decreased by 25% in
the past decades due to investment in research and industry experience according to Helen
Cothran, author of Energy Alternatives7.
Today, the United States, home to the largest geothermal plant in the world (north of San
Francisco, California), is the world's largest producer. The States only satiates .3% of its
electricity appetite through geothermal sources, though8. Elsewhere, geothermal energy has a
more prominent role. Iceland is an excellent example that the United States can emulate.
3
Union of Concerned Scientists, “How Geothermal Energy Works” (revised 2009, Dec 9)
4
Maehlum, “Geothermal Energy Pros and Cons” (2013, June 1)
5
“Geothermal Energy: International Market Update,” Geothermal Energy Association (2010)
6
“Geothermal Energy Profile,” National Geographic
7
Cothran, “Energy Alternatives” (2002, Mar 1)
8
“Annual US Geothermal Power Production and Development Report,” Geothermal Energy
Association (2013, April)

4. 4
For centuries, Icelanders have been using the thermal energy. The island is positioned
along a very active tectonic region and has several volcanoes, an excellent location for this type
of energy harnessing. They've used hot springs for bathing and washing clothes and began using
steam for heating in the early 1900s. Large-scale thermal heating began in the 1930s and quickly
evolved into the leading heat source in Iceland9. Today, geothermal power is used to heat
approximately 90% of homes in the capital of Reykjavik and keeps its pavements ice-free. In
Iceland, 4% of the energy is used for heating, about 16% for electricity, and the rest for various
uses like swimming pools and greenhouses. To clarify, approximately 70% of Iceland's
electricity is met by hydroelectric energy, and the remaining 30% is met by geothermal energy.
Geothermal power is primarily used for heating, an energy-intensive activity in this Arctic
nation, and the 30% of electricity needs met by geothermal sources represents just 16% of the
total geothermal energy collected. This indicates that Iceland may have geothermal energy
potential that greatly exceeds its energy demands.
The government was originally a large player in advancing geothermal energy. It began
research in the 1940s and has been very successful in making geothermal economically viable
over time. Today, geothermal energy is so successful that the government no longer needs to
lead research in the field as the geothermal industry is self sufficient.
This success has allowed Iceland to escape the large-scale usage of fossil fuels.
According to Sveinbjorn Bjornsson, Iceland's shift from oil-based heating to geothermal heating
saved the nation $8.2 billion from 1970 to 2000 and lowered CO2 emissions by 37%. The
government also believes that there are more sources for geothermal power throughout the
country, and its researchers are already experimenting using exposed magma to generate
electricity. This surplus of energy makes Iceland ideal to produce hydrogen fuel as well as to run
on electric vehicles. Iceland hopes to become the world's first entirely sustainable hydrogen-
powered, fossil-fuel-free society by 2050. Not only is this feasible, but Iceland is also
considering exporting energy to the rest of Europe at a high price10.
Iceland's advantageous location is not unique. The state of Hawaii has very similar
geography. Both are volcanic hot spots with seemingly obvious opportunities for geothermal
energy usage; indeed, Hawaii's islands are essentially volcanoes whose magma has built up over
time so as to emerge from the ocean. However, while Iceland has been taking advantage of its
energy opportunities for many years, Hawaii has not, and there is much room for expansion in
geothermal energy.
In 2009, Icelandic scientists stumbled upon a very shallow chamber of magma. They left
it open for research, a decision that has allowed them to build a prototype of an open-magma
geothermal power plant. In 2007–Hawaiins stumbled upon the same thing. Rather than research
9
Runyon, “Geothermal Energy in Iceland: Too Much of a Good Thing?” (2013, Mar)
10
Bjornsson, “Geothermal Research and Development in Iceland” (2006, Apr)

5. 5
its energy potential, scientists plugged their find with concrete11. These events serve to illustrate
a fundamental difference in Hawaiian thinking that may be preventing growth of the renewable
energy market there.
In Hawaii, human harnessing of geothermal energy is a controversial topic for indigenous
Hawaiians. Puna is the area with the most potential for geothermal power plants and is also
home to Mauna Loa–one of the world's most active volcanoes–that is said to be home to the
volcano goddess Pele. Native Hawaiians are divided on the issue of geothermal drilling on Puna.
Some believe that free energy is a gift that could help with Hawaii's energy needs. Others don't
take such a view. They believe that drilling would be sacrilege, that tapping into geothermal
steam violates Pele, injuring her, and that this will result in devastating retaliation. This cultural
belief has spawned anti-geothermal groups such as Pele Defense Fund that have been resisting
efforts to introduce geothermal energy. Another factor that stigmatizes geothermal energy to
Hawaiians is an eruption of toxic fumes that occurred with a mis-bored steam vent12.
Despite this, there are still some geothermal projects on the island. Multiple parties are
exploring the island chain for suitable locations, and it turns out that islands other than Oahu are
also suitable for geothermal energy production. Ventures that currently exist make Hawaii the
third ranking U.S. state in geothermal energy production. On top of this, Hawaii's main
geothermal electricity source, the Puna Geothermal Venture plant, is expanding and has permits
to expand capacity by over 40%13.
Though Hawaii's population, much larger than Iceland's, makes the island unlikely to be
so reliant on geothermal energy, the island has a much greater potential for geothermal power
than it currently pursues. Iceland and Hawaii were created in geologically similar processes and
have comparable levels of volcanic activity. Despite this similarity, Puna Geothermal Venture
produces less than 5% of the power than Iceland's plants create14.
Hawaii can benefit greatly from geothermal energy. It has the most expensive energy
prices in the United States, being thrice the cost of electricity on the mainland, and imports tons
of fossil fuels to fulfill 90% of its energy needs15. Shifting to geothermal energy has saved
Iceland billions of dollars and would likely save Hawaii even more due to rising oil prices.
While some may argue that this infringes on the rights of those indigenous Hawaiians who stand
against geothermal energy (now a minority), many indigenous Hawaiians are pro-thermal
energy. Politically, the rights of a large majority of Hawaiians to cheap, renewable energy that
11
Elders and Friðleifsson, “Geologists Get Unique and Unexpected Opportunity to Study
Magma.” Iceland (2011, Feb 16).
12
Kreisberg, “Geothermal Energy in Hawaii 101”. (2013, Nov 20)
13
“Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV),” Maui Electric
14
“Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV),” Maui Electric
15
“Renewable Energy Basics,” Maui Electric

6. 6
will help combat climate change, a phenomeon that may have devastating effects on Hawaii in
the future, may overrule the arguments of a small minority.
Due to Hawaii's and Iceland's close geological resemblance, the two have very similar
opportunities for geothermal energy; however, Iceland has been far more proactive in
establishing a large geothermal power industry. This has been an economic and environmental
boon for the island, and Hawaii can follow a similar path.
To pursue renewable geothermal energy, Hawaii must tackle cultural issues while
simultaneously increasing research and government support in order to gain industrial expertise
and create infrastructure that could carry out large geothermal projects. Hawaii can save a lot of
money from reducing the amount of fossil fuels that it imports, while simultaneously lowering
energy prices. Both of these will be an economic boon with positive environmental side effects.
While only Hawaii was examined, various locations in the United States also show great
energy potential. In order to capitalize on this potential, the United States should extend the
same support that it has for the petroleum industry to geothermal energy which requires similar
exploratory drilling.
Hydroelectric Power
Hydroelectricity is a form of renewable energy that is considerably more cost-effective
than many other renewable sources such as photovoltaic solar energy16. When water flows
downstream, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. A hydroelectric power plant
uses this kinetic energy to operate turbines that are connected to large generators to produce
electricity. Hydroelectric power is currently providing about twenty-five percent of the world’s
electricity. Representatives from more than one hundred and seventy countries reached a
consensus on hydroelectricity as a possible energy source at the Top World Conference on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and at the Third World Forum on Water in Kyoto.
This source of energy is promising for of many reasons. Firstly, hydroelectricity is renewable. It
uses the concept of running water and gravity, and the natural continuous cycle of water17, 18.
Also beneficial, a hydroelectric power plant can adjust to the changing demand of electricity by
controlling the volumes of water. This would allow the price of electricity made by
hydroelectric power to remain relatively stable. Another benefit of hydroelectric energy is that it
does not produce toxic waste19.
16
“Energy Policies of IEA Countries -- Canada," OECD/IEA (2004)
17
“Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” United Nations (2002, Aug 26-
Sep 4)
18
“Final Report of the 3d World Water Forum,” The World Water Council (2003)
19
“Waste between the United States and Canada,” EPA

7. 7
With all the benefits of hydroelectricity, many countries have already moved toward
growing hydroelectric power systems. Some of the top countries producing energy using
hydroelectric power plants are Canada, China, United States and Brazil20. Most of these
countries have many water sources and advanced technology. Many countries in Africa and
Southeast Asia are not as able to develop hydroelectricity, most likely due to a lack of funding,
technology, and viable water sources. Canadians have long been using hydroelectricity. The
“hydroelectricity megaplan” is known to have started around 1970s (Waldram, 1993). During
this time, the Canadian government spent a large amount of money developing hydroelectricity
plans, which included purchasing land from the Native Communities and negotiating treaties.
Ever since, Canadians have been converting many of their white-water rivers to dams or diverted
the rivers in order to generate electricity for Canadian industry and exports21. Currently in
Canada, there are five major hydroelectric projects: Niagara Falls in Ontario, Churchill Falls in
Labrador, James Bay in Quebec, the Nelson River in Manitoba and the Peace River in British
Columbia. Over ninety percent of electricity in these areas is generated by hydroelectricity22.
Throughout the projects, the Canadian government experienced both political and economical
challenges.
Niagara Falls power plants were being constructed during 188223. They have been
providing electricity for both Canada and United States, primarily in Province of Ontario and in
New York, USA. The first known hydroelectric power plant in the Niagara Falls was built in
1895 when Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse. This power plant started the electrification
of many places. Many more power plants followed this construction to increase the electricity
supply as demand grew. The Niagara Fall’s Hydro Control Dam assists these power plants in
producing electricity. At night, approximately eighteen of the Hydro Control Dam gates are
lifted for the Niagara River’s water to divert into the hydro tunnels. The flow speed of water is
at least 15,240 cubic metres of water per second8. Due to the large amount of water needed, an
International Agreement between Canadian and American power stations had to be drawn to
divide how many cubic feet of water each country could draw per second, resulting in 56,500
and 32,500 cubic metres respectfully24.
Within Canada, as the number of power plants increased, Canadians also had to make
agreements on water usage to ensure the maximum benefits to the citizens and companies. A
controversial issue surrounding this topic is the division of profit. Labrador is close to Quebec
20
“Renewables 2013 Global Status Report,” World Resources Institute
21
Froschauer, Karl, “White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada” (2011)
22
“BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012,” British Petroleum (2012, Jun)
23
“Detail of Existing and Future Generating Stations,” Manitoba Wildlands (2005, Jan)
24
Muzej Nikole Tesle, Nikola Tesla Museum. (2014)

8. 8
and the two governments have been arguing for division of profit and sharing of power for since
the power plants begin operating25. The next two power plant projects conflicted with the
Canadian native communities. James Bay Project by La Grande River hydroelectricity source
was first constructed in 1974. The construction of this power plant also had an impact on the
native communities. With these issues, in February of 2002, the Bernard Landry government
and the Grand Council of Crees signed two agreements, the Peace of the Braves and the
Boumhounan Agreement26. Both of these agreements set environmental rules for the next three
constructions of hydroelectric power plants. An assessment was done prior to the phase one
construction, it hypothesized some possible environmental impacts: some of the negative
externalities of this construction were possible mercury pollution, local climate change, change
in biological migration routes. However, at the time, it is believed that these environmental
issues could be fixed with improving technologies. Another major power plant that faced similar
conflict is the Churchill Falls Generating Station in Labrador, this was first planned by Joey
Smallwood in 194927. This plant was built without an agreement with the Aboriginal Innu
people, and had negative consequences such as flooding in these communities. The government
of Newfoundland and Labrador gave these Innu hunting rights and two million dollars annual
compensation. A major difference of the Churchill Falls power plant is instead of using dams
like most other hydroelectric plants, it relies only on dikes. It was later discovered that dams still
have more benefits due to its ability to retain water28. From the construction of this power plant,
the Canadians learned that sacrifices to the Natives were a small price to pay compared to the
benefits of a new plant in the area that promoted increased population, and new infrastructures
that lead to increasing regional profits and tourism.
Next is the Nelson River Hydroelectric Project, this project began in late 1950s. This
project started off with Kelsey dam and then later expanded into the Nelson River and
transformed Lake Winnipeg, the nation’s 11th largest freshwater lake, into a hydroelectric
reservoir29. However, this construction disturbed homeowners near Lake Winnipeg, who
complained that the high water levels flooded their property. Canadians were responsive, and
Manitoba Hydro soon built in regulations that prevent property damage. The construction of this
project also had a minor conflict with the native communities, more specifically, the Cree and
Métis. But as evidenced from previous power plant building experiences, plans and agreements
were soon placed to lessen the mitigation of the communities30.
25
“Part Ⅱ2005: Official Regulations,” Canada (2005)
26
Waldran, “As Long as the Rivers Run: Hydroelectric Development and Native Communities in
Western Canada.” (1993, Nov)
27
“Supreme Court Judgments,” JCC Cases (Lexum). (1982, May)
28
Petroski, Henry, “Levees and Other Raised Ground 94.” (2006)
29
“Detail of Existing and Future Generating Stations,” Manitoba Wildlands (2005, Jan)
30
Froschauer, Karl, “White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada” (2011)

9. 9
Lastly, Peace River in British Columbia has the W. A. C. Bennett Dam, one of the
world’s highest earth fill dams. This was the most costly project in British Columbia, the
government helped with the project by clearing the reservoir, called the Trench. With previous
success stories of hydroelectricity in Canada, the initial investment cost is outweighed by the
benefits of the operating plants. The building of this hydroelectric power plant was also
controversial, in the creation of Williston Lake, 350,000 acres of forested land was flooded,
causing loss of plant and wildlife biodiversity, along with loss of minerals and timber rights31.
This led to increased advocacy and consideration for the negative environmental externalities.
Now, in the United States, hydroelectric power is already in use in some places.
Hydroelectric power plants in the United States are currently the largest producer of renewable
power in the U.S. It produced around 66.8% of the total renewable power in the U.S. in 200832.
This is equal to producing 6.4 percent of the nation’s total electricity. United States is currently
one of the top five global hydroelectricity power producers. However, electricity production in
the United States by hydroelectricity is still unstable because it depends on the changes in
precipitation and surface runoff. Hydroelectric plants exist in about thirty-four states already.
Hydroelectricity projects such as Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority are some of the more iconic construction projects33.
Grand Coulee is currently the largest hydroelectricity power plant in the United States. It
is located on the Columbia River in the U.S. state of Washington, and was built to produce
hydroelectric power along with providing irrigation. After World War II, a reservoir called
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Lake, named after the United States President who presided over the
authorization and completion of the dam, was built. As seen in many cases in Canada’s
construction of hydroelectric plants, creation of some reservoirs forced relocation of thousands
of people, including Native Americans whose ancestral lands were partially flooded. The dam
has also blocked the migration of salmon and other fish upstream to spawn, therefore disrupting
the biodiversity34. These negative externalities, especially the environmental externalities,
caused great debates in further construction of hydroelectric power plants.
Bath County Pumped Storage Station is also well known, it is most famously known for
being the “largest battery in the world,” and is located in Virginia15. To gain back public support
planning of this power plant took in environmental consideration. As seen in Canada, mercury
was leaked, damaging the aqua habitat. To prevent these issues, a fishing habitat was created
downstream of the facility, controlling the water quality during droughts. This ensured the
31
“Detail of Existing and Future Generating Stations,” Manitoba Wildlands (2005, Jan)
32
“World Energy Outlook 2008,” U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2008)
33
“Hydroelectric Power,” U.S. Department of the Interior. (2005)
34
“United States Bureau of Reclamation Five-Year Water Management Plan,” U.S. Department
of the Interior. (2010)

10. 10
biodiversity of fishes in the area. Overall, since the United States begin building hydroelectric
power plants later than the Canadians, the controversial issues were taken into consideration
when planning the power plants; therefore, United States believed itself to have relatively higher
support leading to the believe that the potential of this form of renewable energy is great.
However, in recent proposals of further hydroelectric plant constructions, the environmental
groups in the United States have a strong opposition to further projects, preventing hydroelectric
plants from gaining public support.
The Hydropower Association believes that the United States can still benefit from the
hydroelectricity by focusing on established infrastructures and research and development. If
public support is regained, according to the National Hydropower Association, “U.S.
hydropower industry could potentially install 60,000 MW of new capacity by 2025”35.That only
15% of the total untapped hydropower resource potential in the U.S., meaning hydropower can
remain a growing energy source for decades to come, if the current environmental issues are
resolved. However, as evidenced by the environmental catastrophes in Canada, research and
development may prove to be a good option for hydroelectric growth in light of negative
environmental effects. Increased efficiency may be more beneficial and safer for the
environment than building new plants. Some researches the United States should focus on are
hydrokinetic, tidal and wave hydroelectric plants. These energy sources could potentially serve
10 percent of the United States’ electricity needs. Also, 52 percent of hydropower generation is
owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers and other federal entities, built
not only for power generation but also for other benefits such as water supply, flood control and
navigation. The activation of these entities can increase electric generation without further
expansions. Most coastal regions and regions with large water flow have great potential for
hydroelectricity. Overall, if the United States continues to consider its hydroelectricity
expansions base on the well established Canadian examples, the United States has a chance for
further success with hydroelectric power with fewer failures in between.
Wind Power
Wind power has gained a lot of attraction in the past decade as an alternative to fossil
fuels. Denmark has been widely recognized for the use of “the most productive wind turbines in
the world”36 largely due to the fact that legislative initiatives are in place to make the country’s
energy source 50% wind power by 2020, doubling its current wind power provisions of 25%.
Additionally, Denmark is on a trajectory to be completely fossil-fuel free by 2050. Although
quite expensive to install, wind power is incredibly advantageous due in part that it is renewable,
clean, inexhaustible, and free-of-charge!
35
“FAQ Comments,” National Hydropower Association.
36
“Capacity factors at Danish Offshore Wind Farms,” Energynumbers. (2014, Mar)

11. 11
Denmark’s industries began pioneering advanced wind energy technology following the
growing concerns of global warming in the 1980s37, and are responsible today for the installation
of over 90%38 of the world’s offshore wind turbines. The Danish economy has seen incredible
fortune in exporting reserve wind power, while opening a new sector for employment country-
wide. Today, Denmark’s industries are still developing new production, installation, and design
improvements to increase wind energy yields in hopes of one day relying on wind as their main
energy source. The advancements in wind farm technology made by Denmark help wind farms
worldwide increase their wind power sectors and lower nuclear gas emissions, making for a
greener atmosphere.
Wind energy is converted into electrical power via wind turbines that are typically
grouped together in wind farms. Wind farms can either be onshore or offshore, each with their
own advantages and disadvantages. Onshore wind farms consist of several hundred wind
turbines that span over a large, extended area. The land between these turbines can be used for
multiple purposes, but most commonly the area is used for agriculture. Offshore wind farms, on
the other hand, are considerably expensive to construct and maintain, but provide a steady flow
of energy and have less of a visual impact than onshore wind farms. Denmark currently has 13
offshore wind farms with the capacity of 1,277 MW and a capacity factor of 42.7%39. The
offshore wind farms have significantly higher wind speeds than onshore wind farms, with
onshore wind speeds ranging from 4.9-5.6 m/s and 10 m in height40 and offshore wind speeds
ranging from 8.5-9.0 m/s and 50 m in height41. Despite being nearly 3 times as expensive to
install, offshore wind farms harness much faster wind speeds that exist with minor fluctuations.
In regard to offshore wind farms in the United States that have, until very recently, remained an
untapped resource, the U.S. Energy Department in a new report noted that offshore wind has the
“potential to generate 4,000 gigawatts of clean electricity, support up to 200,000 manufacturing,
construction, operation, and supply chain jobs across the country and drive over $70 billion in
annual investments by 203042.”
Apart from high capacity factors, what then has made Denmark so successful in its
integration of renewable energy, primarily wind power? Beginning in the 1980’s, following the
OPEC oil embargo and oil crisis of the 1970’s, Denmark’s newly elected government instituted a
30% subsidy on wind energy projects. Since the creation of this subsidy, over 100,000
households own and/or share a wind turbine. This success story is due to a three-part wind
initiative that combines a guaranteed fair price, a legal requirement that utilities purchase the
electricity generated by wind power, and laws that facilitate wind power developers to connect to
an electric grid43. As of 2005, Denmark nationalized its power grids both intercontinental and
within its own Nordic system. This has allowed Denmark to transition from feed in tariffs to a
market price for wind power that is combined with an “environmental premium” of 0.013
37
“Wind Power in Denmark,” Denmark. (modified 2014, Feb)
38
“Wind Power in Denmark,” Denmark. (modified 2014, Feb)
39
Danko, “Offshore Wind Power’s Eye-Popping Capacity Factors.” (2014, Feb 25)
40
“Wind Power in Denmark,” Denmark. (modified 2014, Feb)
41
“Wind Power in Denmark,” Denmark. (modified 2014, Feb)
42
“Accelerating Offshore Wind Development,” U.S. Department of Energy (2012 Dec 12)
43
Morris, “Why Denmark is So Successful with Renewables.” (2012, Oct 4)

12. 12
euros44. Feed in tariffs only encourage emerging technologies, not advance their developments.
A market based price is essential to a liberal economy and allows Denmark to trade any excess
energy to neighboring countries and worldwide.
To further extend the reasonings of Denmark’s success story, it is important to
understand one of the “buzzwords” associated with these practices is “capacity factor.” This term
represents the “measure of how much energy a generator produces over a period of time as a
percentage of the maximum it could produce”. Typical wind power capacity factors lie within
the range of 30-35%, but for Denmark, their capacity factor was 42.7% spanning across all
offshore wind farms. This achievement is highly commendable, and proves that research and
development spending should be invested into offshore wind farms to reduce costs and improve
innovation45. According to Energy Numbers, the offshore wind farm turbines at Rønland I, in
Denmark, have been operating with a lifetime capacity factor of 44.4% for over 11 years now46.
In comparison with the states in the U.S. that currently have wind farms, Hawaii has the leading
average capacity factor of 46.1%; however, Texas generated the most wind energy in 2012 with
26,796,589 MWh, yet operates with a capacity factor of 33.8%47. It is important to note that
Hawaii’s wind farms are predominantly offshore, whereas Texas wind power is generated
onshore. It can be concluded that offshore wind farms operate with higher capacity factors, with
huge potential for the United States to invest in offshore wind farming in Hawaii to begin
transitioning to large-scale renewable energy production. Hawaii is said to have the capacity to
power its whole island by use of wind power, the only thing it needs is the funding and
development, nearly impossible without feed in tariffs and legal initiatives that are absent in the
U.S. governmental policies.
With advancements in energy production comes the issue of energy storage, a pivotal
facet of smart grid technology. Denmark’s wind power efficiency has produced an abundant
amount of energy, yet no sustainable innovation has been created to allow for efficient, long-
term storage. With this in mind, the Hydrogenics Corporation, a manager and developer of
hydrogen generation, has recently announced that it will take part in Power-to-Gas Biological
Catalysis (“BioCat”) Project that has recently begun in Denmark.
ForskEL, a Danish research pool, has pledged to give BioCat 27.6 million DKK to begin
the installation of a 1 MW water electrolysis plant that will be installed by Hydrogenics in
Spildevandscenter Avedore, one of Denmark’s largest wastewater treatment facilities. The
electrolysis plant will use excess energy from the grid to create hydrogen that will later be
combined with carbon dioxide produced from the raw biogas. This reaction will then yield pipe-
line grade methane from a renewable source. The gaseous product will be passed along into a
nearby gas distribution system, which will also separate the oxygen and heat byproducts to later
be recycled on site. This new potential for electrolysis to be used for grid management and
regulation will allow for a breakthrough in terms of switching from fossil fuels to renewable
energy sources. The gas will later be traded among various smart gas grids and distribution
centers to begin providing the country, and other countries implementing gas grids, with this
44
Morris, “Why Denmark is So Successful with Renewables.” (2012, Oct 4)
45
Danko, “Offshore Wind Power’s Eye-Popping Capacity Factors.” (2014, Feb 25)
46
“Capacity factors at Danish Offshore Wind Farms,” EnergyNumbers. (2014, Mar)
47
“U.S. Average Annual Capacity factors by Project and State,” WindAction (May 13)

13. 13
form of renewable gas. Kim Behnke, the Research and Environmental Manager at Energinedt.dk
noted “the link between Denmark’s abundant wind energy and the production of environmentally
friendly gas for the Danish people” has finally been made in terms of how “hot divert energy
systems and phase out coal, oil and natural gas in the long term.”48
Although the U.S. has not been regarded as a leader in clean energy, steps to integrate
more wind farms have been taken. Since 2009, the US has installed 9 wind farms49, invested
$2.5 million in four projects that are working to integrate offshore wind energy into the electrical
grid50, with the goal of improving energy efficiency by 25% over the next 10 years51. The
current belief among Americans is that wind power needs to be concentrated in wind farms and
then distributed through a grid. As I’ve touched on earlier, wind farms are only a part of the
answer to increased wind power reliance. Community involvement and household participation
is essential to the prevalence of wind turbines across the American landscape. Households,
farmers, and cities across Denmark began installing clusters of wind turbines called “windmill
guilds,”52 the equivalent of a “cooperation” as found in North America. Local turbines allow
members of the community to all chip in and pay for a wind turbine, decreasing the individual
price per household; thereby increasing communal energy usage awareness and proliferating the
phase-out of coal and other fossil fuels. Since American cities in their current state pose
countless difficulties to installing smart grids connected to individual and group wind turbines,
smaller cities have the ability to empower their citizens to begin their own transition to wind
power, initiating the transition to wind energy on a large-scale.
It is reassuring to see that American states have realized the gravity of the depleting
energy sources and have begun encouraging the use of wind power. Western states have begun
granting subsidies, low-interest loans, and production incentives to those developing wind power
technology and installation53. Moving forward, these policies need to be implemented in
conjunction with federal feed in tariffs to encourage the development of new wind power
technology if the nation is to ever advance in a similar nature as we have see in Denmark.
Solar Power
As global renewable energy production increases, solar energy is the second fastest
growing market. Every hour, the light from the sun provides enough energy to meet global
human energy needs for a year. Despite this staggering power, the sun fuels only one-tenth of
energy needs today54. Like plants, we are learning to harness energy from the sun rather than
rely on other finite resources like oil and natural gas. Technology is advancing rapidly, and
48
Morris, “Why Denmark is So Successful with Renewables.” (2012, Oct 4)
49
“Securing American Energy,” Whitehouse.
50
“Accelerating Offshore Wind Development,” U.S. Department of Energy (2012 Dec 12)
51
“Securing American Energy,” Whitehouse.
52
Pahl, “Community-Supported Wind Power.” (2008, June)
53
Black et al., “Fiscal and Economic Impacts of State Incentives for Wind Energy Development
in the Western United States.” (2013, June)
54
"Solar Energy," National Geographic

14. 14
governments are catching on and moving away from their older energy models. Among the most
notable solar energy producers and consumers are the United States and China. It is difficult to
read about solar energy in one of these nations without hearing mention of the other. Though the
two are already linked politically for many reasons, in terms of the energy market, their actions
have a direct impact on one another and the global market. America is falling behind as leader
of energy production, and some speculate that we will one day depend on China for energy in the
same way we currently depend on the Middle East. What has allowed for China’s success in this
area and how will the US move forward? Due to China’s massive demand and sophisticated
supply chain, the United States must lead the way in innovation in order to compete with the
most populous country in the world.
Before exploring the global boom in solar energy production, what exactly is solar
energy? Solar energy is the conversion of light energy to electricity for human use. When the
sunlight hits certain materials, the light energy becomes an electric current. Silicon, a large
crystal, is currently the most efficient material for this conversion due to its electron behavior.
While silicon is efficient, the large crystals take more time to grow and are, therefore, more
expensive. Today, smaller, less efficient crystals are a cheaper material for solar energy panels.
This is the technology in solar panels, also known as photovoltaic installations. Scientific
American says the panels used in large-scale solar projects are about 22-23% efficient, with
home and satellite panels at 15-18% and 50% efficiency respectively55. As investment in solar
energy research grows, this efficiency will only increase. Other forms of solar energy are more
“passive.” Solar farms reflect mass quantities of sunlight at a tank to boil water. The steam
produced is then used to drive a turbine. Large windows can transmit sunlight onto absorbent
walls and floors in buildings to store energy to heat the room at night.
The benefits of solar energy are obvious: it is limitless, noiseless, and pollution-less. In
other words, the sun’s energy is, for human purposes, infinite. Generating energy from it with
panels on home rooftops, for example, is not offensive or noisy. It does not produce harmful
pollutants like carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Despite widely positive regards,
there are some drawbacks to solar power that have held back growth of the industry and market.
Firstly, using solar energy in the home is approximately five times more expensive than
traditional electricity56. This statistic can be explained by solar power’s newness as an industry.
In fact, as its popularity has increased, prices have dropped, making photovoltaic cells more
accessible for home installation. Nonetheless, its staggering price discrepancy is an obstacle for
growth. The technology is also thought to be unreliable during inclement weather and during
dark hours when sunlight is not strong. Scientists are currently working on energy storage, a
technology that would disable this argument. The solar market has presented market challenges
unlike other energy sources with the issue of net metering. Net metering is the ability of solar
55
Locke, "How does solar power work?" (2008, Oct 20)
56
Locke, "How does solar power work?" (2008, Oct 20)

15. 15
energy users to sell their unused energy by adding it into the grid. Some energy companies
understand this process to be robbing them of profits from an already expensive endeavor. On-
site energy generation also removes externalities like transportation and preparation costs.
Shifting to solar energy will require a paradigm shift for the business models of energy
companies. A final argument against solar energy is the vast area large solar projects such as the
Ivanpah Solar Farm, a 3,500 acre solar field that powers 140,000 homes in Southern California;
However, David Crane, co-owner of Ivanpah believes price decreases for photovoltaic
installments makes them the future of solar energy57.
While solar energy is the second fastest growing renewable energy, China is home to the
fastest growing solar energy market. With the largest population and home to 16 out of 20 of the
world’s most polluted cities, some wound say China’s move toward green energy came out of
necessity. In fact, air pollution there causes more than half a million premature deaths each
year58. They are the largest consumer of energy and greatest producer of green house gases.
Others claim that their opposition to climate conscious global policies while developing green
energies is part of a strategy to become the global leader in global energy59. Some predict that
the US will one day rely on China for energy the same way we rely on the Middle East for oil60.
The many conflicting theories make it difficult to say what prompted China’s launch toward
global leadership in green technology. A more fruitful question would look at how growth of
renewable energy markets has been facilitated.
This can be answered in two parts: high investment and low costs. Firstly, Chinese
government maintains a fervent commitment to green progress with a goal of 20% renewable
energy consumption by 202061. In 2010, the Net Energy Commission was created with cabinet
members to focus on energy policy. Such government backing has led to regulations for
companies and incentives for companies and households alike to use clean power. Government
steering toward renewable energy loans and an average saving rate of 40% from interest loans
are one example of these incentives. National, state, and local governments inside China
compete with one another to offer greater subsidies to solar companies to fuel competition. Still,
solar power remains two times more expensive than coal. There is a government-imposed fee on
use of renewable energy that increase household energy bills by 0.25-0.4% and industrial energy
bills by 0.8%. This fee goes toward the companies that operate the electric grid to lessen the
57
"Let the sun shine." The Economist (2014)
58
Fisher et al., "China's solar energy king." (2007)
59
Ong, "The Apparent 'Paradox' in China's Climate Policies: Weak International Commitment on
Emissions Reduction and Aggressive Renewable Energy Policy." (2012)
60
Bradsher, "China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy." New York Times (2010, Jan
30)
61
Perkowski, "China Leads the World in Renewable Energy Investment." Forbes. (2012, Jul 27)

16. 16
discrepancy between coal and renewable energy costs. Chinese officials say this increase is not
large enough to turn users away.
Secondly, China’s low solar energy costs have facilitated the industry’s boom. This is
primarily attributed a demand for product that only a population as large as China can produce.
The country’s energy demand is increasing at a rate of 15% per year. Compared to the United
States, China will need to add nine times more energy generation capacity. Further, in the US,
companies must decide to buy new renewable energy equipment or continue using fossil fuel
operated power. The massive demand in China means that Chinese power companies will have
to build new equipment anyway, and renewable energy is already incentivized62. A popular
belief is that drops in solar cell prices that have led to massive market growth come from low
Chinese labor costs. The “debunking” of this myth reveals the scale of Chinese demand and the
sophistication of the supply chain63. Thus, China’s title as the fastest growing solar energy
producer is true, though countries like Germany are extremely innovative in the industry.
For America’s solar energy future, there are two questions to ask. Firstly, is renewable
energy growth as feasible in America? Secondly, if so, can the United States compete with China
to attain renewable energy independence? America has been named the second fastest growing
solar energy producer. In 2013, renewable energy capacity increased 29%. Today, solar energy
accounts for only 1% of total energy consumption. Similar to China, the national goal is 27%
solar energy by 2050. In 2011, the government spent $16 billion on efficiency and renewable
energy. This allocation of money was historically unusually, as until 2008 the government
provided monetary support to the fossil fuel industry. The $16 billion is only part of much larger
sums of money that have gone toward energy as tax breaks and other incentives. Articles on
American policy regarding subsidies suggest less unanimous backing for this type of energy
support compared to China. Some argue that “technology is not cost competitive” while
advocates hope the support will “put them on an equal footing with oil and gas competitors that
received so much in past subsidies”64. There is pressure to compete with China as global energy
leader and gain energy independence. In his 2010 State of the Union Address declared “I do not
accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I
know you don’t either”65. With far less demand than China, increasing solar production on the
same trajectory will be extremely difficult. “Energy Matters” believes catching up is possible
through innovation and increased efficiency. The minimum sustainable price of solar panels in
62
Bradsher, "China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy." New York Times (2010, Jan
30)
63
"US Could Rival China In Solar Manufacturing." Energy Matters. (2013, Sep 8)
64
Hargreaves, "Energy subsidies total $24 billion, most to renewables." CNNMoney. (2012, Mar
7)
65
Bradsher, "China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy." New York Times (2010, Jan
30)

17. 17
the US is higher than market price, and only innovation can fill this void66. Studies at the
Massachusetts Institute for Technology, for example, are innovating the solar panels that play a
large role in solar energy growth.
In 2014, it is hard to deny that the energy market is changing. Countries like the United
States and China are leading the way for renewable energy growth. Though China’s
overwhelming demand from population growth makes it difficult for the United States to
compete, America must innovate along nations like Germany to fix the discrepancy between
minimum sustainable price and current price of solar cells in America. Though massive projects
like the Ivanpah Solar Farm advance the renewable energy market, most agree that the true
future for solar energy is in individual solar cell production. One day the view of Earth from
above may look entirely different, as the roofs of homes and businesses could be covered in solar
cells. This noiseless, emission-less energy source has the potential take over the energy market
if technology continues to advance, though certainly not without opposition from the well-
established and well-funded fossil fuel industry. Paul Alivisatos at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory of California, the deputy laboratory director, speculated about the potential of solar
energy. “One of the reasons we like to plant trees is because they take the CO2 out of the air. If
we could do that [with a solar cell], then we could actually deal with global warming problems
even more directly because we'd be pulling the CO2 out of the air to make our fuel”67. The future
is bright for solar energy, if we choose to harness the sunshine.
Through the examination of success cases in Iceland, Canada, Denmark, and China, it
can be seen that there are multiple potential regions within the United States for renewable
energy advancements. The United States has many opportune regions for various types of
renewable energies, yet governmental policies and a lack of urgency among the American people
hampers the ability of such successes in the United States. If these regions develop projects, then
the United States has the potential to become more sustainable and wean itself from dependence
on hydrocarbons imported from abroad. Subsequently, the United States can then become a
leading innovator in renewable energies, benefitting domestic and international shifts from fossil
fuels to clean energy.
*Bibliography exists in a separate document; however, all citations are included
66
"US Could Rival China In Solar Manufacturing." Energy Matters. (2013, Sep 8)
67
"Let the sun shine." The Economist (2014)

18. 18