Wind Power in Denmark

Interesting feature from World Focus describing how some ordinary Danes are profiting from wind power.

Time magazine had a glowing feature on “Denmark’s Wind of Change” earlier this year, but whether it really makes economic or environmental sense is debatable. Not to mention the health risks! Be afraid! Be very afraid!



Filed under Energy, Environmental Policy

7 responses to “Wind Power in Denmark

  1. Dean

    They make it seem like Wind Power is win win for everybody in Denmark. What they fail to mention is that the Danes pay some of the highest rates for electricity in Europe. Fact is Nuclear is still has the best bundle of cost, reliability and stack emissions.

  2. Jim

    My issue with windfarms is simply the size of their footprint and cost vs. wattage delivered.

    Tidal power would be cool, but again, cost prohibitive.

    I do agree with Dean, nuclear energy is the hands down winner in almost every comparison.

  3. Ti-Guy

    I do agree with Dean, nuclear energy is the hands down winner in almost every comparison.

    The Iranians will be happy to hear that. 😉

    Energy-efficiency and reduced consumption are my preferred options. The unintended consequences of that (more innovative technology, reduced consumerism) would be net positives in so many ways.

  4. sapphireandsteel

    Is Jim selling uranium to Iran?

  5. crf

    Why would Flaherty sell Uranium to Iran, sapphireandsteel? I don’t get your point. They don’t need it.

    Ti-Guy, how do you reduce consumption? Personally, I think it’s a laudable goal, but a solution which requires everyone to agree on reducing consumption is generally going to be a total failure, particularly if you try to implement it worldwide. Reducing consumption is only going to work if it is the side effect of other policies which increase the wealth and productivity of people (likely greatly energy-intensive processes). Long term, we have to reduce some consumption, of course, due to limitations in basic things (limits like clean water, available land, or, longer term, many mined elements). But this needs to be carefully planned. The pressing present problem is not to reduce the use of energy, or even most scarce elements, but to reduce emissions of CO2.

    How are you going to replace Canada’s coal burning plants with technology and efficiency? If your technology is wind, solar and hydro, the numbers (cost-wise and scale-wise) won’t work (you read BraveNewClimate blog?). (That’s not to say we shouldn’t do some of those things, necessarily. Just don’t think you’ve gone any appreciable distance in solving the emissions problem.) We will also have to replace, and likely by several multiples, the energy content contained in fossil fuels with electric energy if we wish to decarbonize transportation, industrial heat processes, and space heating. Longer term, we will have to use even more energy to more efficiently use finite elemental resources. Energy efficiency will not go a long way to reducing carbon emissions, and, it needs to be carefully thought out (for example, and energy efficient process may be more labour intensive, or use more of some other resource).

  6. sapphireandsteel

    it was a question, not a point. Do I need to explain the difference or do you comprehend?

  7. sapphireandsteel

    sigh.. snipe must not be your thing crf… oh well

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s