Slashdot Mirror
Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
merbs writes "Earlier this year, Denmark's leadership announced that the nation would run entirely on renewable power by 2050. Wind, solar, and biomass would be ramped up while coal and gas are phased out. Now Denmark has gone even further, and plans to end coal by 2025.
Russia has demonstrated that it is unwilling to engage in above-board transactions for their fuel exports. It is in every country's national interest to reduce dependency on imports when they can neither control the supply nor rely on the supplier to operate as a business rather than as a belligerent nation. If anything, Russia's recent behavior has reinforced this for Europe, and given the Europeans incentive to get off of Russia's exports.
It's a shame that Denmark can't get off of natural gas sooner than coal.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Sorry I must have misread something. I saw no part that mentioned being more efficient or lowering energy usage.
Its just more morally acceptable to waste the same amount of power if it is 'green' power.
Our governments, and, oops, those who elected them.
The kind of target they are going for (especially the 2050 one) is in the ballpark of the kind of target we would all have to hit to avoid a complete screw-up on this file.
Are you a betting person?
I think it's great what Denmark's doing, but it saddens me to realize that political will in the rest of the world is so far far off the mark.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You didn't bother to provide a source but I will: New wind and solar plants generate cheaper low-carbon electricity than the latest nuclear reactors, a study shows, indicating they will lead a global push for green energy. There are lot of different factors that make this claim debatable, but even if wind is still somewhat more than nuclear, it's not "very expensive" which was the point.
And yes, at least a good chunk of that is actual, honest-to-god lifestyle differences, not just situational.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
Denmark pays a whopping 41 cents per kilowatt hour.
OUCH !!!!!!!
3.5 times the avg cost in the U.S.
It really doesn't take much for other energy sources to beat that. Going out on a limb here I suspect renewables could be cheaper by just not being subject to whatever it is they do that makes their current energy sources ridiculously expensive.
Ah no. I have to say citation needed. Coal demand is increasing not decreasing.
1990 coal production - 4677mt
2013 Coal production - 7823mt.
Coal mines are only shutting if they were borderline operations. Do not confuse closing a mine that is uneconomical at the current price, a price that is the result of a world wide economic down turn, with a longer term move away from coal.
ref - http://www.smh.com.au/environm...
You know that it is those miners that allow you to have the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed? Like it or hate it without mining the Australian economy is in trouble in a big way. We have always been a primary industry economy, we either farm it or we dig it up. That is not going to change any time soon, we are in a shitty location to be a manufacturer, too far from anywhere. We do not have the capital or employment structures to be an effective IT startup area (see employee share scheme laws). Our population is too small to be the critical mass needed for some other type of business that I can't think of.
We are however very very good at mining, oil & gas extraction and processing. You may disagree with doing it. You may think it is raping the planet. But you reap the rewards of that industry living here.
You know that it is those miners that allow you to have the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed?
I'm an Australian miner, and even I can recognise that coal mining needs to go. We have plenty of other things that we can dig out of the ground that are less damaging. Our dependence on coal is a disaster in the making, financially as well as environmentally.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/201...
That said, I'm fully willing to believe that wind power is cheaper than nuclear on a per-megawatt basis. What I don't believe is that wind power can reliably provide baseload power. All the studies in the world don't change one simple and indisputable fact: present-day production of wind power is miniscule compared to present-day electricity usage. Wind power has not yet proved that it can supply large quantities of power. Nobody except the most blind zealot would deny this plain fact.
Nuclear power supplies one sixth of present-day electricity usage worldwide. This is a very large amount of power compared to any other carbon-free technology. Nuclear power is not directly subject to vagaries of the weather. Even including Fukishima and Chernobyl, nuclear power is by far the safest energy source (wind power comes in a very respectable second). Available supplies of nuclear fuel will outlast the lifetime of the sun. Nuclear power is proven and it works. Wind may work, and I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it is without question an unproven technology at large scale.
Denmark pays a whopping 41 cents per kilowatt hour.....3.5 times the avg cost in the U.S.
Do you even care about the size of your electricity bill... Mine is mainly an annoyance, it's like 10-15 USD / month.
Also note, very few people in Denmark uses electric heating as you can get hot water from centralized production into your home (not clean only for use in radiators). My parents gets their heating from a power plant 20km away.
Also buildings have strict isolation requirements, and incandescent bulbs have been banned through out EU (presumably you can still get them, but not through regular retail; I'm not sure).
Wind power has not yet proved that it can supply large quantities of power. Nobody except the most blind zealot would deny this plain fact. .
Wind power supplies 41% of Denmark's electricity consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Canada (35m) has a larger population than Australia (23m)
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
Denmark pays a whopping 41 cents per kilowatt hour.
OUCH !!!!!!!
3.5 times the avg cost in the U.S.
It really doesn't take much for other energy sources to beat that. Going out on a limb here I suspect renewables could be cheaper by just not being subject to whatever it is they do that makes their current energy sources ridiculously expensive.
As with many things i Denmark, most of this is taxes (approx. 75%). The rest is the actual cost of producing the energy.
The coal-based plants in Denmark are very efficient and they produce many tons of acid and all sorts of chemicals from the emissions from the plants, before letting it out into the atmosphere.
As a side-story, the government recently cancelled a very popular funding-arrangment that made it very popular to install a local (6KW) solar plan on your roof. The ones who installed it in time, now have free electricity.
Also you share a really big land border with the biggest consumer nation in the world. If you build something good in Canada you can be selling it in the US for the price of a truck shipment.
If you build something good in Australia it has a really really really long way to go before it can be consumed in the US.
There is a reason why we produce large quantities or iron ore, copper, bauxite, coal, uranium, lead, zinc, and gold. It is because the primary consumers of those are close by (China and India). Brazil is Australia's biggest competitor in the floating traded iron space and Australia wins a lot of the time because we are physically closer to China.
A lot of the Scandinavian housing stock is highly insulated so less energy is used to heat it, keep it warm or cool it and keep it cool. If all houses where built to or close to the Passivhaus specification , energy use would drop and people would spend less on energy.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Ocean no, shoreline yes. Especially shoreline where no one influental enough to block development happens to live. Windmills suffer considerably from NIMBY. All renewables do, due to the vast areas required by them.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Wind does not really take up space nor is it unreliable.
It is not dispatch able, that is something different!
Hint: look at some photos of wind farms and you realize: they are on farm lands and the crops just grow fine underneath them!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It is. But it has been incredibly subsidised by feed in tarrifs. My parents have a feed in system that pays 50c / kwh. That is more than double what they pay for electricity.
Solar is great. I want it but would have to cut down lots of old growth trees so I don't have it. It isn't however currently suitable for base load generation. It is once factor of a larger energy grid.
The NIMBY response to Nuclear in Australia is HUGE. Also while we have coal power plants we are a major exporter. Even if we stopped using coal for power it would just mean more goes to the port.
The only nuclear plan in Australia is a research plant in Sydney. QLD has blanket rules against even mining Uranium due to the fear around it.
Cats don't kill eagles and hawks; particularly endangered ones.
Also note, very few people in Denmark uses electric heating as you can get hot water from centralized production into your home (not clean only for use in radiators). My parents gets their heating from a power plant 20km away.
Not to nitpick, but danes refer to that centralized production as "surplus heat". The "surplus" heat is heat generated as a bi-effect from producing electricity.... - from coal. So, when the electricity all comes from wind, the danes need to find some other way to heat their houses during winter.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
The Danes are probably looking to Sweden who has been doing this for years. Though in Sweden it only works because they buy coal-fueled power from Denmark during the peak hours.
Not sure who is planning this nonsense in Denmark now. We already have 33% wind power, but due to the issues with peak-power it will be hard to get above 66% and even that will require massive extra capacity.
No we are paying 36 Ãre/kwh, which is around 6 cents, the rest is taxes, transmission and other fucking bullshit stuff. (Which basically means, you can save close to 0 by switching providers, as the main part of your electricity bill is fixed).
Ok. 60 USD/month is insignificant.
This Danish goal, getting rid of coal plants by 2025, may not be hard to achieve, as they can import electricity, using sub-sea HVDC, from Norway, which has plenty of hydro, or by importing it from Sweden, which has plenty of nuclear and hydro. Running all of the country on wind power is a mirage. Where does the power come from when the wind doesn't blow, which may happen from time to time ?
It's mainstream now with real advantages and disadvantages, has been for years. Live with the reality instead of attacking it as a political symbol.
Show me a country that runs on 100% gasoline, 100% hydro, 100% whatever - oh wait, such a request is incredibly fucking stupid and ignores the problems of monocultures. How about a sensible discussion instead of the political wank of being a useful idiot attacking what you see as "green" political symbols?
Who the fuck fed you that bullshit? The peaking power is not nuclear for a start, there's base load coal at places like Cordemais, there's hydro and there's even tidal hydro at Le Havre that's been running since the 1960s! What an utterly stupid and pathetic bluff - I'm really insulted that you have some much contempt for the people who read your comments that you tried it.
I really don't get why people decide they want to shed 100 points of IQ if there is a political barrow to push.
That's Norway. This story's about Denmark.
http://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik...