Discussion on:

Q&A: Europe's world-class innovation in sustainability (and why the U.S. is falling behind)

Canada is making some bad choices, though... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

"five hundred megawatts of power, which is equivalent in size to a nuclear power plant"

1. Modern nuclear reactors have 1500MW each, and plant usually have several reactors.
2. Nuclear power plants have availabitlity around 80%-90%, wind turbines around 20%-30%.

to sum it up:
Total power of nuclear plant (let's say 4 reactors), 6000MW x 80% (availability) = 4800MW
Total power for 100 5MW wind turbines = 500MW x 25% (availability) = 125MW.

Therefore, 1 nuclear power plant is equivalent to 4800/125 x 100 = 3840 5MW wind turbines (a little more than 100, don't you think?)

With the exception of Germany, Europe's economy continues to teeter on the brink of collapse. I would hardly call that "world-class" sustainability.

Mr. Park has offered up what he believes to be the "facts," which seem to be yet another set of "Inconvenient Truths." These "facts" would indicate nuclear power, despite its potential drawbacks, offers a superior level of efficiency, vs wind power.

I would like the author of this article to debate these facts. The only way to make sense of our options and forge a path forward is through HONEST debate!

A double dip recession hits the self proclaimed greenest economy in the EU.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/us-spain-economy-idUSBRE83T08520120430

Maybe we can start your debate with straightening out your own facts: There's no such thing as "Europe's economy" (it's debatable, I know), simply because there is no overall economic policy except for a common currency. The northern part of Europe is doing pretty well, in fact, all these economies are continuing an upward trend for the past few years.
All the countries that are mentioned in the article are in... northern Europe.

Just wanted to set your facts straight...

This is a very interesting article, and it's observations on scale up are interesting and informative. However, while Europe may have made a lot of progress toward a greener economy, the economics of that greener economy (actual costs) have not always been favorable, or competitive for it's citizens. Germany is a good example.

My wife is "from" Germany and her family are still there, so we have some insights at the citizenry level that a lot of "foreign journalist" don't don't. For example - even with Germany's rapidly expanding green economy, true unemployment (the gov. propaganda manipulates the hell out of the stats just like the US) is extremely high upwards of 30%, most 30 somethings that we know live with their parents, the middle class will never be able to afford to own a home, the often idolized German health care system is 30 years behind in both science and outcome wise compared to the states - especially at the social service ("free healthcare") level, and the comparable cost of living with that in the US is much higher. Which takes me to my point - just exactly what will the avg. European being paying per KVWH now and in their greener future? The EV/SG electrical system is very interesting and sounds like it might be a viable solution to the storage problems, but I note the usual and characteristic lack of economics so characteristically and sadly typical of alternative energy information.

... in governments going bankrupt... but we're catching them fast.

Nothing mentioned here about an unrelated story of win generators contributing to global warming...

In AZ sustainability is equal to one world government by the United Nations. We have a lot people who believe that if we go green, do more solar, recycle, etc. then the United Nations is going to take over the U.S. and we are all going to be slaves to them. If you don't believe me check out the legislation on this. I don't know, but it was a lot easier to believe that we were going to be taken over when the threat was nuclear bombs and not solar energy.