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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin