Inconvenient Facts About Denmark's Wind Power

[ozonb]

May 26 2009



Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
gases just as it does:



Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.



In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
But then Terry McCrann checked the facts behind Denmark's wind-powered fairy tale:



First,

Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.



The second inconvenient truth

is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?



Well, actually, it hasn't.



The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.



Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.



And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/windy_stories_from_denmark/





Warmest Regards



Bonzo

[Peter Muehlbauer]

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.

Business as usual.
What exactly is the reason for the Mr. Minister to visit Australia?
Shamed be he who thinks evil of it, but Denmark is the biggest wind power
generator manufacturer.
Isn't it logic to present an, otherwise dead, vending idea with such a big
promotion flagship up their sleeve?
"Look what we have! (We don't know how it whould help, but we have it)"
Be that as it will, all is turning on money, money and more money.
None of them is interested in effectivity to nature or climate change.

[Fran]

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.

Here's a link to a "carbon-neutral" Danish island story:

http://www.nordicenergysolutions.org/inspirational/the-carbon-compensating-island

Fran

[ozonb]

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.

Here's a link to a "carbon-neutral" Danish island story:

======================================



So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?
Sounds a bit like Californian hyocrisy where they call themselves green but draw "dirty"
energy from other states.


California's Dirty Little Secrets

California Proves It's No Fun Being Loonie Green

ROTFLMAO Who would want to live in California - any takers?

July 13, 2008



Glenn Milne meant this to sound hopeful !!!!!!

The great thing about visiting California is that it gives you a sense of where Australia
is probably headed. In the context of the climate change debate, this assertion stands,
only more so. Remember, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is something of an
environmental pin-up boy for Rudd.



Max Schulz explains why it's actually a threat:

A dirty secret about California's energy economy is that it imports lots of energy from
neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants. Up
to 20 percent of the state's power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, Colorado, and Montana, and another significant portion comes from large-scale
hydropower in Oregon, Washington State, and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas.



Another secret: California's proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat
while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the
highest energy prices in the country-nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken
Institute study found-largely because of regulations and government mandates to use
expensive renewable sources of power.



As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing
the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales. Twenty years ago or so, you could count
eight automobile factories in California; today, there's just one, and it's the same story
with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace.



Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries-driving cars
built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics
produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett,
Washington.



California can pretend to have controlled energy consumption, but it has just displaced
it.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/california_dreaming_its_potemkin_greens/






Warmest Regards

Bonzo

[Mauried]

Post by Fran

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked
greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it,
too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power
from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base
year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.
======================================
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?
Sounds a bit like Californian hyocrisy where they call themselves green but draw "dirty"
energy from other states.
California's Dirty Little Secrets
California Proves It's No Fun Being Loonie Green
ROTFLMAO Who would want to live in California - any takers?
July 13, 2008
Glenn Milne meant this to sound hopeful !!!!!!
The great thing about visiting California is that it gives you a sense of where Australia
is probably headed. In the context of the climate change debate, this assertion stands,
only more so. Remember, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is something of an
environmental pin-up boy for Rudd.
A dirty secret about California's energy economy is that it imports lots of energy from
neighboring states to make up for the shortfall caused by having too few power plants. Up
to 20 percent of the state's power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, Colorado, and Montana, and another significant portion comes from large-scale
hydropower in Oregon, Washington State, and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas.
Another secret: California's proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat
while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the
highest energy prices in the country-nearly twice the national average, a 2002 Milken
Institute study found-largely because of regulations and government mandates to use
expensive renewable sources of power.
As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing
the Golden State in droves for lower-cost locales. Twenty years ago or so, you could count
eight automobile factories in California; today, there's just one, and it's the same story
with other industries, from chemicals to aerospace.
Yet Californians still enjoy the fruits of those manufacturing industries-driving cars
built in the Midwest and the South, importing chemicals and resins and paints and plastics
produced elsewhere, and flying on jumbo jets manufactured in places like Everett,
Washington.
California can pretend to have controlled energy consumption, but it has just displaced
it.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/california_dreaming_its_potemkin_greens/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo

Its pretty easy to provide wind power for a small island when some one
else , namely the Danish taxpayers have to pay for the wind turbines.
If you read the fine print of the article, which conveniently totally
glosses over how the project was financed,you find the wind turbines
were built using Govt grants.
Unfortunately, its not possible to provide Govt grants to everyone in
the world.

Id be happy to be solely reliant on wind power too if someone else
would pay for it.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by ozonb
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?

Sweden produces >50% of its power from renewable sources and >75% from
non-fossil-fuel sources.

Germany has Europe's largest installed capacity of wind-power
generation.

So, why does Bozo ask about ""dirty" Sweden and Germany" then?

ANSWER: Bozo is a fact-free idiot who will never willingly post
anything with even a passing resemblance to the truth.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by ozonb
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?

Sweden produces >50% of its power from renewable sources and >75% from
non-fossil-fuel sources.

Germany has Europe's largest installed capacity of wind-power
generation.

So, why does Bozo ask about ""dirty" Sweden and Germany" then?

ANSWER: Bozo is a fact-free idiot who will never willingly post
anything with even a passing resemblance to the truth.

[Mauried]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by ozonb
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?

Sweden produces >50% of its power from renewable sources and >75% from
non-fossil-fuel sources.
Germany has Europe's largest installed capacity of wind-power
generation.
So, why does Bozo ask about ""dirty" Sweden and Germany" then?
ANSWER: Bozo is a fact-free idiot who will never willingly post
anything with even a passing resemblance to the truth.

You may wish to explain then why this is happening.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.html

[Surfer]

Post by Mauried

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by ozonb
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?

Sweden produces >50% of its power from renewable sources and >75% from
non-fossil-fuel sources.
Germany has Europe's largest installed capacity of wind-power
generation.
So, why does Bozo ask about ""dirty" Sweden and Germany" then?
ANSWER: Bozo is a fact-free idiot who will never willingly post
anything with even a passing resemblance to the truth.

You may wish to explain then why this is happening.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.html

That article was published back 2007.

Here is something more recent.

Merkel launches building of revolutionary hybrid power plant
21.04.2009
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4195840,00.html

Chancellor Angela Merkel laid the foundation stone on Tuesday for a
revolutionary new type of hybrid power station to be built in the
eastern German town of Prenzlau.

The plant will harness wind to produce electricity as per conventional
wind turbines. But when there is too much wind for the grid to handle,
that excess energy will be converted via electrolysis - the separation
of chemical compounds by electric current - into hydrogen for storage.
This hydrogen can then be mixed with biogas at a later stage and
converted back into energy that can be used to power homes.

The renewable energies company responsible for the project, Enertrag,
says the process is carbon free and comes at no cost to the
environment. Merkel said the first-of-its-kind project offers a
glimpse into the future of clean energy production.

"I am glad that an enterprise from the Uckermark (region) has
developed this trendsetting project. The combination of renewable
energy and energy storage will be a determining factor in a steady and
climate-acceptable energy supply," she said at the foundation
stone-laying ceremony.

"Enertrag has found an innovative solution to the challenges of
meeting demand for renewable energy."

Brandenburg Prime Minister Matthias Platzeck labeled the planned
hybrid power station "great progress for the energy industry."

The Enertrag project will cost around 21 million euros ($27.2 million)
and take around a year to build. It is expected to be able to provide
enough power for around 2,000 homes.

Banking on hydrogen

Critics of the technology say that hydrogen may not be the best medium
for storing energy, but Lutz Metz of the Environmental Policy Research
Unit at the Free University in Berlin said hydrogen is as good an
option as any.

"The conversion of wind power to hydrogen is not so bad," he said.
"It's via electrolysis and the efficiency is in the range of 70 to 85
percent, so that's not bad. If you look at a car engine the efficiency
is 15 percent, so there's a much more efficient conversion of wind
power to hydrogen."

Claudia Kemfert, head of the Department of Energy, Transportation and
Environment at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin,
said the Enertrag plant is a breakthrough for the renewables sector.

"I think it's a technological innovation. On the one hand it uses a
renewable energy, which is biogas in this case, and also it produces
hydrogen at the same stage.

"The innovation here is that you can also store the electricity which
is produced by this plant and new energy is also being produced. I
think it's a real breakthrough and will be … used on a global scale in
the future."

Kemfert said that although the energy produced at the Prenzlau plant
will be significantly less than that produced at a coal power plant -
which can cost billions of euros to build - it is still a valuable
asset for Germany in its efforts to curb its greenhouse gas emissions.

"It brings new technology to Germany, which is also an important issue
because we can sell it on the global scale and get a comparative
advantage to other countries. On the other hand, we can of course also
supply it in order to reach our own climate agreement … it's one step
out of many, which is really important."

Author: Darren Mara
Editor: Trinity Hartman

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Mauried

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by ozonb
So why are they still hooked up to "dirty" Sweden and Germany then?

Sweden produces >50% of its power from renewable sources and >75% from
non-fossil-fuel sources.
Germany has Europe's largest installed capacity of wind-power
generation.
So, why does Bozo ask about ""dirty" Sweden and Germany" then?
ANSWER: Bozo is a fact-free idiot who will never willingly post
anything with even a passing resemblance to the truth.

You may wish to explain then why this is happening.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2396828,00.html

"RWE Power -- Germany's largest electricity-generating company --
wants to build three of these new power stations as it takes older,
less efficient ones off the grid."

What's to explain?

[Don H]

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.

Here's a link to a "carbon-neutral" Danish island story:

http://www.nordicenergysolutions.org/inspirational/the-carbon-compensating-island

Fran

# "Clean coal" technology is possible, if, by that, we mean
totally-recycling chimney smoke - by biosequestration, not its geo-
equivalent.
If Australia could go to Copenhagen saying it had invented a method of
fully-recycling chimney smoke, it would have done more for the human race
than a mere promise of a 25% cut (dependent on what Rest of the World are
doing).
Carbon Trading and Carbon Tax are excuses for inaction, and the Big
Polluters want lots of govt funds too, in compensation. Let them clean up
their act, and at their own expense.
As for Renewables: dependence on Nature does have the disadvantage of
erratic energy source, eg. winds, tides, solar - and a means of storage
(batteries) may be possible, to even-out delivery.
Or, you can draw on so many sources at once, that slump in one (solar,
at night) is supplemented by others.
Nuclear power might cut atmospheric pollution, but has a waste problem
of its own.
Geo-thermal is a constant source, and more research and development re
this may be useful.
Tides may seem variable, but tides are constant, in aggregate, along a
continent's coastline, and especially if power is generated irrespective of
ebb or flow.
However, delay in tackling these matters is likely to be fatal, if the
alleged "window of opportunity" re global warming is closing. Adapt, or
perish.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Fran

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.

•• Bullshit, child!!

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

[Fran]

Post by l***@gmail.com

Post by Fran

Post by ozonb
May 26 2009
Greens leader Bob Brown says we should learn from Denmark and slash our wicked greenhouses
Denmark's wind generation industry already employs 9000 people, will nicet (sic) 10% of
electricity demand by 2000, and is growing at 20% per annum. It's a major export earner.
In fact, Denmark's climate minister was in Australia last week, urging us to copy it, too.
First,
Denmark is only able to get as much as 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable
sources, mostly wind, because it is hooked up to the grids of Sweden, Germany and Norway.
Because when the wind don't blow, it's got to get power from somewhere. But the power from
Sweden and Germany comes from nuclear and coal.
The second inconvenient truth
is that with all its energy purity - for all that power from wind - Denmark has cut its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by all of . . .?
Well, actually, it hasn't.
The latest data from the European Energy Agency (EEA) - no evil right-wing climate
sceptic - shows that in 2006 Denmark's GHG emissions were 1.7 per cent above its base year
emissions.
Denmark has some work to do to get to the 21 per cent reduction over the 2008-12 period,
it committed to under Kyoto.
And, of course, Danish householders must now pay the highest prices for power in Europe.

Of course, if they hadn't had all that windpower, emissions would have
been much greater. They still emit way too much in transport and
agriculture.

•• Bullshit, child!!

You call "bullshit" but point to nothing specific. Translation" "I'm
offended by the conclusion but I can't say why."

And that is what is "bullshit"

Fran.