digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at ngpowereu.com

Solar Power Plans: Europe's Renewable Energy Future (Graphic

ngpowereu.com — As the world emerges from a financial crisis, a new order in the region is in motion as companies are being increasingly encouraged to invest heavily in clean energy technology.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 14, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

33 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • StigNordas, on 10/14/2009, -4/+18Europe gets it.
  • pwarnock, on 10/14/2009, -3/+13I really like how solar panels are being incorporated into new architecture.
  • dsmx, on 10/14/2009, -2/+11Because europe unlike the US likes clean air.
  • backwardscompat, on 10/14/2009, -3/+10Let's hope green energy like this catches on! Goodness knows we need it.
  • captininsanity, on 10/15/2009, -2/+9And they somehow get it done rather cheaply. The us could easily afford $75 billion (dollar equivalent) for a long term goal.
  • reckonbeats, on 10/14/2009, -1/+7That's a lot of toes.
  • captininsanity, on 10/15/2009, -1/+5I get dugg down for stating this?
  • crcurran, on 10/15/2009, -0/+3Turkey? Am I the only one surprised?
  • Langford, on 10/14/2009, -2/+4Because clean air is a good thing.

    I + you because I assume that is sarcasm.
  • anthropodeus, on 10/14/2009, -1/+3solar is more distributed. you cant put a nuclear plant on every roof.
  • ocean17, on 10/15/2009, -0/+2Or as fossil fuels become increasingly expensive, Europe remains competitive while other nations struggle to pay their energy bills
  • Taiyoryu, on 10/14/2009, -1/+3I hear they have a great health care system too.
  • Rockkybox, on 10/15/2009, -0/+2Because this isn't running out and won't make our planet inhospitable to life
  • supn9, on 10/14/2009, -1/+2pic pic
    http://www.ngpowereu.com/media/media-news/infograp ...
  • DOCNM, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1my mistake, i meant fission
  • DOCNM, on 10/14/2009, -2/+3Is probably because the nuclear fusion technology is mature and designs already exist for the next development phase. Plus there is a time issue: 10 years is about the minimal time one needs to set up a nuclear plant (from proposal to production).
  • DrNemo, on 10/14/2009, -7/+8Why would you want this when we have coal?
  • Zenicius, on 10/14/2009, -1/+1http://rorr.im
  • futureagenda, on 10/17/2009, -0/+0You may be interested in the new future of energy debate just launched on futureagenda.org - Expert opinions being challenged globally
  • Rockkybox, on 10/15/2009, -1/+1Well i wouldn't say no; but with the amount of reasearch going into renewable power, its going to look really stupid if a cheap and easy solution is found out soon (e.g cold fusion but real)
  • jman583, on 10/15/2009, -5/+5Penis.
  • AntoniusMaximus, on 10/15/2009, -2/+2To clarify, ITER expects first plasma on 2018, and a first Fusion station in 2030. Commercially available fusion power should be available between 2040 and 2050, according to project ITER.

    http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx

    Still, this would be a mere beginning, and building those monster plants will take lots of time, red tape, and protests - people are still misinformed and tend to think "more powerful than nuclear fusion == even more dangerous and hazardous for the environment". So in the meantime, green energy FTW.
  • anthropodeus, on 10/14/2009, -2/+1i have a garden in my basement. my basement has no windows. i put coal dust my garden every few days.
  • HalsMyPal, on 10/15/2009, -5/+1in soviet russia you power sun!
  • gaymathman, on 10/14/2009, -7/+3Wait, they are going to spend more on solar than on nuclear!? France might actually have the most common sense in energy policy in Europe... my god.
  • inactive, on 10/14/2009, -6/+1Plans rarely ever work out in reality. The key is to use logic and reason not....I FEEL we should use solar, bio fuel and so on.
  • Barackalypse, on 10/14/2009, -13/+8Fantastic, they can pay billions to develop and implement the technology before it is cost effective, while I use cheaper coal and oil and natural gas, and then in 5 or 10 years when its actually ready for prime time, I'll buy it for pennies on research dollar!
  • internetisscary, on 10/14/2009, -7/+2That was some pretty interesting info.
  • sturmgiest, on 10/14/2009, -8/+2Or it never becomes cost effective and they waste their money on it and its not our problem!
  • DOCNM, on 10/14/2009, -7/+1I can't believe you got it right. Or where you being sarcastic?
  • Turkman182, on 10/14/2009, -7/+1Nice story. Thanks.
  • poitsplace, on 10/15/2009, -6/+0Solar in southern europe is somewhat reasonable. Solar in northern europe is likely a complete waste of time..especially considering their peak power usage is at a time when there will be little sunlight and a lot of snow covering everything. Northern Europe's only REAL option for the amount of power they need is to build lots of the newer reactors (molten salt reactors CANNOT melt down) fueled with abundant Thorium. There's enough readily available Thorium on earth to last 8 billion people 100 years at per capita energy consumption of the US.
  • RudeTurnip, on 10/14/2009, -10/+3Sounds fair...the US effectively subsidized Europe's defense from the Soviets during most of the Cold War.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.