Skip to main content

The Unsquared Circle in Denmark

windmill

A Danish windmill - in Iowa

Denmark’s current energy goal is much more easy to achieve than it would be for many other countries:
The share of renewable energy sources in Danish power supply is set to rise from 40 percent in 2011 to 69 percent by 2020, Denmark’s Energy Agency said on Sept. 28.
Why easier? Well, Denmark has about 5.5 million people, with 20 percent of them in or near Copenhagen, the capital. Still, given that hydro is tapped out, that leaves intermittent wind and solar energy to take up the cause. And really, they can’t. So what to do?
Denmark is planning to link its electricity market to other countries as it prepares for the growing role of intermittent renewable sources of power.
I suppose you could ding Denmark for taking the “green” route domestically while still getting the electricity it needs from its neighbors. It certainly makes the positive, feel-good profile of the plan murkier.
The loss of coal generation will make Denmark particularly dependent on power imports during peak load periods, such as cold and dark winter afternoons, [Peter] Meirbom [of the Danish Energy Association] said. To counter that, Denmark needs more cross-border cables…
To nuclear facilities operating in Sweden and Finland, perhaps? That’s not even a major point, much less major snark. The issue here is that Denmark is abandoning its self-contained electricity grid to achieve a goal that should enhance energy independence.

The drive to renewable energy in Denmark depresses electricity prices and makes coal-fired generation unprofitable. (Natural gas isn’t as inexpensive in Europe as here.) One might find that a desirable outcome all around, but coal can operate all the time and most renewable energy sources cannot – if Denmark doesn’t want to go dark, it needs to look outside its borders for electricity.

Let’s call this the unsquared circle, as the production of more electricity technically leads to less electricity practically. Obviously, Denmark’s neighbors are not rogue nations, but going from self-sufficient to a net importer of electricity is not a net economic plus, however benign. Sweden and Finland have nuclear energy plants that will allow them to avoid this issue – but Denmark does not.

Comments

Anonymous said…
One thing to remember is that Denmark is essentially an interconnection between Norwegian and Swedish hydrpower and the southern European market. This is really the only thing that makes Danish windpower viable. They simply hitch a ride on the power flows to the south from hydropower in Scanadavia. There are interconnects to allow northward flow of power from generators in southern Europe to the Nordic countries in dry years, if hydropower should lack.

Denmark's electricity system is tiny compared to its trading partners. If necessary, essentially all demand in Denmark could be met by power exports from Norway and Sweden. Such is not the case with almost all other countries in Europe, except for maybe places like Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.
SteveK9 said…
Good point by anonymous. If Denmark's neighbors had the same policy as Denmark, it wouldn't work, although Denmark is continuously held out as an example. Also, they have the most expensive electricity in Europe, I believe.
Don Kosloff said…
When the Swedes shut down the Barsebäck nuclear power plant, Sweden went from a net energy exporter to a net energy importer. Some of their import sources were coal plants in Denmark.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…