The Windy Denmark Question

by Iain Murray on April 23, 2008 · 2 comments

Yesterday, a listener on the Michael Medved show challenged me that (I paraphrase), “Denmark has adopted wind power at no cost.” I said that I was no expert on Denmark but that there were significant subsidies involved. As this Economist article makes clear, it is certainly not correct to say that Denmark has adopted wind power at no cost:

Researchers in Denmark have gone a step further and put a value on this effect. They believe that wind power shaved 1 billion kroner ($167m) off Danish electricity bills in 2005. On the other hand, Danish consumers also paid 1.4 billion kroner in subsidies for wind power.

The Danish government cut wind power subsidies that year. The result:

The building of wind turbines has virtually ground to a halt since subsidies were cut back. Meanwhile, compared with others in the European Union, Danes remain above-average emitters of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. For all its wind turbines, a large proportion of the rest of Denmark’s power is generated by plants that burn imported coal.

Moreover, because you cannot store any wind power that is generated when no-one wants to use it, Denmark has to sell excess wind-power to Sweden at a price of 0c per KWh. This has caused some trouble:

Much has been written about Denmark’s success as the world’s wind power pioneer. But the regularly repeated claim — that Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind sources — is highly misleading. That 20 percent of electricity is not supplied continuously from wind power. Denmark’s wind supply is so variable that it relies heavily on neighbors Norway and Sweden, taking their excess production. In 2003 its export figure for wind power electricity production was as high as 84 percent, as Denmark found it could not absorb its own highly variable wind output capacity into its domestic system. The scale of Denmark’s subsidies was such that in 2006-07 the government increasingly came under scrutiny from the Danish media, which claimed the subsidies were out of control.

Overall, Denmark, a small, flat, windy country of about 5.5 million souls cannot be a model for the US to follow, even if they had succeeded in making wind power work efficiently.

{ 1 comment }

TDK April 24, 2008 at 4:44 am

Two points.

First of all, wind power can only ever form part of a country's electric supply. Too much and it destabilises the grid.

Second, you have to maintain a substitute for the days when the wind is too high or too low. At all times the supply must match the demands.

Denmark solves both these problems by supplying power to and receiving power from Scandinavia, which has a large proportion of hydro electricity.

Hydro electricity is theoretically a good compliment because you can use the wind power to pump water up into the reservoirs. It then can be released on demand to match consumption.

However that option isn't always available elsewhere. Consequently alternate conventional sources must be maintained to fill the gaps. Conventional power stations work by heating water to make steam which drives the generators. That isn't an instant process. Consequently, when wind is blowing, the conventional systems have to be run in parallel so that they can step in at a moments notice. If such a station is coal or gas fired then it produces CO2 whilst the wind is blowing as well as when it stops. Consequently the achieved reduction in CO2 is very little.

To which we must add the CO2 cost of the windmill manufacture.

They are not a good deal except in a narrow range of applications.

http://www.absenergyresearch.com/energy-market-re…

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: