I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
Latest Popular Most Bookmarked Most Emailed Top Rated My Favorites Random Chat
All Games Funny Entertainment Quizzes Weird Tech Lifestyle, Arts & Lit. News & Politics Science Sports Misc
T-Shirts   Submit Content  

Denmarks Wind Power Will Be Half The Cost [Pic]

In Two Years, Denmark's Wind Power Will Be Half the Cost of Fossil Fuels

Wind power is officiallythe cheapest source of energy inDenmark, according to the nation's governmentand by 2016, it claims the electricity whipped up by its newest turbineswill be half the price of fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.

Denmark's Energy Association (everything about Scandinavia is friendlier, even itsDEA) announced the news last week, and it's an achievement worth highlighting. Wind and solar are achieving grid parity with fossil fuels -that is, it'sjust as cheap-in many places around the world. Even without the tax breaks, declining manufacturing costs and growing scale have rendered wind power just as cheap as natural gas in many states right here in the gas-rich US. And at least one analyst determined that this isthe "beginning of the grid parity era" for solar, worldwide.

But Denmark is blowing past grid parity and towards a scenario in which clean energy is actually much, much cheaper: When its two massive offshore wind farms come online, they'll be the nation's most inexpensive energy source by a wide margin, analysts say.

"Electricity from two new onshore wind power facilities set to begin operating in 2016 will cost around 5 euro cents per kilowatt-hour," Yale 360 explains. "Wind power would remain the cheapest energy option even if interest rates on wind power projects were to increase by 10 percent, the report found."

That's good news for a nation that's hoping to get 50 percent of its power from wind turbines by 2050. Right now, the nation already boasts an impressive clean energy mix of 43 percent.

Wind power today is cheaper than other forms of energy, not least because of a big commitment and professionalism in the field, Rasmus Peterson, Denmark's energy minister, said at a press conference.This is true for researchers, companies and politicians. We need a long-term and stable energy policy to ensure that renewable energy, both today and in the future, is the obvious choice.

Importantly, the DEA's analysis"was not based on a full cost-benefit assessment of different technologies that included an assessment of environmental benefits, taxes or subsidies. That is, the agency did not factor in the health and environmental costs of burning fossil fuelswhich are considerableand instead looked directly at the market forces in the country.

Natural gas and coalare much more expensive in Denmark than it is in the US, which helps make wind such an economic bargain, and the nation has explicitly pursued wind power for decades. But improving technology, falling costs, and the strong, consistently blowing offshore winds that will turn the new turbines are making the case airtight.

Yesterday brought the good news that Germany was meeting a full 28.5 percent of its energy needs with clean sources. Now Denmark is proving that running your nation on clean energy can be cheaper than we possibly could have imagined, even ten years ago.

... Oof fossil fuels

submitted by: drawman61
< Back Next >
Denmarks Wind Power Will Be Half The Cost [Pic]. ... Oof fossil fuels
Credits: source
+ Add to Favs
Hits: 4314 | Favorites: 0 | Emailed: 0 | Rating: 2.4 | Category: Technology | Date: 08/03/2015
 popular today
The 2015 I-A-B Halloween Costume Contest [PINNED] It`s back, I-A-B. Same rules, same sorts of cash prizes, and you vote for the winners. Rules and details inside...
More Comments >

Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17367 Posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:30:58 AM
jops: You've taken a big `ol drink of the "green" kool aid haven`t you?

Solar and wind power are not going to bring about a "coom-bye-ya" energy miracle and utopia. There have been many many claims of such, since the 1970`s and it`s not going to happen unless there are several great leaps in technology, that we have yet to make.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12390 Posts
Monday, August 4, 2014 5:23:27 PM
its the same thing.

And there's some more. Reducing loss of efficiency is not the same as keeping peak efficiency.

You`re talking about theoretical maximums and technology that doesn`t even exist yet. That`s not something we can afford to gamble human civilisation on. We need to get it working first, then use it.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12390 Posts
Monday, August 4, 2014 5:20:52 PM
what you seem to leave out is that above a certain height, the wind does not stop.

Now you're adding in something else that can`t be done yet.

High altitude wind power can`t be done yet. I`ve read about several plans to use it, including one brilliantly simple plan to use kites. Attach a kite to a big reel of cable, put a dynamo on the cable and angle the kite to catch the wind. Up it goes, pulling the cable, turning the reel and thus running the dynamo. When it`s all the way out, tilt the kite and it drifts back down. An electric motor reels the cable back in slowly, which uses less power than was generated on the way out.

But it doesn`t work yet and nor do any of the other plans for high altitude wind power.

Yes, renewables have the potential to be used for a lot of generating capacity, even all of it. But potential is not reality. Not yet.

Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 687 Posts
Monday, August 4, 2014 8:40:49 AM
@angelon -
" It reduces the loss of efficiency."
its the same thing. yes it does cost to maintain but its cheaper than coal production with the added benefit of it never being depleted. coal is a finite resource meaning as it gets low the price goes up. on the other hand turbines/batteries get more efficient/cheaper.
the problem is people like you who try to convince people of "rationing" or how its impractical. what you seem to leave out is that above a certain height, the wind does not stop. that a maintenance plan consists of just one guy one a month cleaning it out. or that after the initial costs are recouped, the energy produced is near free.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 12390 Posts
Monday, August 4, 2014 7:21:32 AM
Ang, you talk and talk and talk about how impractical it is at every level yet this article is another example of yet another country proving how wrong you are.

No, it isn't.

It`s another example of how it`s possible to massage figures and ignore any that are too inconvenient in order to fit a desired conclusion.

You can even go as far as moving the reliable controllable generation to another country to hide it more easily, but you can`t remove the need for it. Not unless you can store huge amounts of electricity in a practical way.

More Comments >

Bored | Suggest a Link | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |