Denmark's "power right now" is showing 174 g CO2/kWh

Impetus

http://www.energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx

At this moment, 2016.02.06/22h36 CET Denmark is exporting 1.5 GW to Norway and 1.4 GW to Sweden
Meanwhile it is trading energy with Germany

Connectivity spread/span is a vital component in renewable energy viability.

Ireland, which is geographically placed in one of the wind capitals of the planet, is exporting just 37 MW to GB, while generating 1.527 GW of wind energy. And exporting 0 GW to France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc....

Ireland's CO intensity is showing 326 g/kWh, while Denmark is 174 g/kWh

ted1

Impetus wrote: »

http://www.energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx

At this moment, 2016.02.06/22h36 CET Denmark is exporting 1.5 GW to Norway and 1.4 GW to Sweden
Meanwhile it is trading energy with Germany

Connectivity spread/span is a vital component in renewable energy viability.

Ireland, which is geographically placed in one of the wind capitals of the planet, is exporting just 37 MW to GB, while generating 1.527 GW of wind energy. And exporting 0 GW to France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc....

Ireland's CO intensity is showing 326 g/kWh, while Denmark is 174 g/kWh

Look it Ireland and Denmark can't be compared to each other , Denmark has several GW of interconnectors. So what if we are windy we can't have to much wind on the grid. Denmark relies heavily on foreign energy

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

Look it Ireland and Denmark can't be compared to each other , Denmark has several GW of interconnectors.

Ireland can't increase interconnection capacity?

ted1 wrote: »

So what if we are windy we can't have to much wind on the grid. Denmark relies heavily on foreign energy

So does Ireland, in the form of fossil fuel imports.

I mean, way to miss the point of a post.

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland can't increase interconnection capacity?
So does Ireland, in the form of fossil fuel imports.

I mean, way to miss the point of a post.

Denmark is surrounded by different countries . We have the UK and possibly a Celtic interlink with France coming in to the picture.

We recently lost 7000MW of wind due to High Speed shutdown , that very nearly caused the grid to trip. Being an island at the edge of Europe we are much more limited than a country or Denmark,


You missed the point, we generate our own using imported fossil fuel because we are at the edge of Europe. Denmark is so well connected that they don't need to generate their own and can import from a different country if one link goes down

newacc2015

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland can't increase interconnection capacity?
So does Ireland, in the form of fossil fuel imports.

I mean, way to miss the point of a post.

We have recently. We built a brand new 500 MW to the UK a few years ago ( I think it enters the sea at Rush or Lusk). Interconnectors are so expensive here,as the distance is so long. Where as Denmark is connected to Germany and right beside Norway/Sweden.

The likes of the Tesla storage(when it is a fraction of the price) could be a great compromise for Ireland. Wind and electricity fluctuates, but a tens of thousands of household storing cheap electricity when demand is low at night. Then using it at peak could smooth out demand here and reduce the need for "peaker plants".

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

Denmark is surrounded by different countries .

Eh? Denmark shares one small border with Germany? The distances to Norway and Sweden are comparable to those between the islands of Britain and Ireland.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh? Denmark shares one small border with Germany? The distances to Norway and Sweden are comparable to those between the islands of Britain and Ireland.

Enough said.

Copenhagen has a bridge to Malmo that's shorter than the M50

See here for interconnections

https://www.energinet.dk/EN/ANLAEG-OG-PROJEKTER/Generelt-om-elanlaeg/Sider/Elforbindelser-til-udlandet.aspx

djpbarry

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If anything, that just reinforces my point?

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

Copenhagen has a bridge to Malmo that's shorter than the M50

I know. I’ve been on it. It’s a marvel of engineering.

Of course, none of this explains why Ireland can’t have more interconnection with Britain?

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

I know. I’ve been on it. It’s a marvel of engineering.

Of course, none of this explains why Ireland can’t have more interconnection with Britain?

Diversity , security of supply..
What happens if we are pulling 50% if our demand and they suddenly need it back and cut us off. Or they jack up the price.

At least we can buy coal in Columbia, USA , Russia etc

djpbarry

ted1 wrote: »

Diversity , security of supply..
What happens if we are pulling 50% if our demand and they suddenly need it back and cut us off. Or they jack up the price.

Common market.

Problem solved.

Cue excuses as to why the Nordic countries can have a common market, but the UK & Ireland cannot.

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

Common market.

Problem solved.

Cue excuses as to why the Nordic countries can have a common market, but the UK & Ireland cannot.

Like the I-SEM?? It still doesn't remove the problems.

SeanW

Impetus wrote: »

http://www.energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx

At this moment, 2016.02.06/22h36 CET Denmark is exporting 1.5 GW to Norway and 1.4 GW to Sweden
Meanwhile it is trading energy with Germany

Connectivity spread/span is a vital component in renewable energy viability.

Ireland, which is geographically placed in one of the wind capitals of the planet, is exporting just 37 MW to GB, while generating 1.527 GW of wind energy. And exporting 0 GW to France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc....

Ireland's CO intensity is showing 326 g/kWh, while Denmark is 174 g/kWh

1. Denmark is in the heart of Europe. Ireland is a lonely island on the perophery.
2. Norway provides massive storage in the form of hyrdoelectricity.
3. Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe and is in the top 10 globally. Only miniscule remote island chains hundreds/thousands of miles into the oceans have worse energy costs.
4. 174g/kwh is nothing to write home about: France at this moment in time has <50g/kWh. (French electricity also costs about half what Danish power costs to the end user.)

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh? Denmark shares one small border with Germany? The distances to Norway and Sweden are comparable to those between the islands of Britain and Ireland.

Denmark has a land connection with the rest of Continental Europe (of which it is part) and a short crossing to Norway and Sweden. Including Norway with its massive hydroelectric storage.

Despite its advantageous position between supposidly uber-Green Germany (who as of last year were still commissioning coal fired power plants) and hydropowered Norway, and having a population that doesn't mind being fleeced for electricity i.e. having the most expensive energy in Europe and in the Top 10 globally, they still can't manage best-practice CO2/kWh statistics.

Carawaystick

Denmark is also Grid connected to Germany, so no need to convert ac-dc-ac like we have to do here to connect to britain or mainland Europe.

Capt'n Midnight

Carawaystick wrote: »

Denmark is also Grid connected to Germany, so no need to convert ac-dc-ac like we have to do here to connect to britain or mainland Europe.

This is a biggie.

At the bottom of this link is the overview live import/export for the North Sea Countries. With prices. Lots of interconnectors but still missing Norway-Neatherlands http://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/


Here's the one for Denmark , with spinning wind turbines
http://energinet.dk/flash/Forside/uk/index.html

Germany - click all sources or import/export to see that not so much from Denmark
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Denmark is in the heart of Europe.

Hardly, although the land border with Germany is an obvious advantage.

SeanW wrote: »

Norway provides massive storage in the form of hyrdoelectricity.

So does France, which Ireland could theoretically connect to.

SeanW wrote: »

Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe and is in the top 10 globally.

Bit of a contradiction there, no?

djpbarry

Carawaystick wrote: »

Denmark is also Grid connected to Germany, so no need to convert ac-dc-ac like we have to do here to connect to britain or mainland Europe.

Fair point. None-the-less, quite a few more HVDC links have been proposed in Northern Europe, despite such disadvantages. Britain are looking at links to Norway and Iceland for example – similar distances to that between Ireland and France.

ted1

djpbarry wrote: »

Fair point. None-the-less, quite a few more HVDC links have been proposed in Northern Europe, despite such disadvantages. Britain are looking at links to Norway and Iceland for example – similar distances to that between Ireland and France.

And there's currently a survey ship exploring the feasibility of a Celtic interconnector with France.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is a biggie.

At the bottom of this link is the overview live import/export for the North Sea Countries. With prices. Lots of interconnectors but still missing Norway-Neatherlands http://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/

You have a way of proving my points, thanks again for this:

I've been reviewing the Swedish/Northern European data, especially for Denmark and it is both troubling and bizarre. In particular, I've observed the following trends:

1. Estonia is almost exclusively reliant on Thermal power. 95%+ consistently.
2. The other Baltic states have significant, but not massive, volumes of hydroelectricity, which they use as peaking plantsm though Lithuania does sometimes get a lot of juice from wind.
3. Sweden, Norway and Finland all acheive good (Sweden < 10% thermal, Norway <1% thermal, Finland considerably worse but still respectable and consistently < 40% thermal.
4. Denmark is the outlier of this group. It has no hydro and no nuclear, as such it is the most heavily reliant on thermal power bar Estonia in your Northern European grid monitor. They get periods of extreme productivity, but on the whole their grid is predominently fossil fuelled.

This backs up absolutely everything I've been saying which is that the only way to have low carbon electricity - especially at a reasonable cost - is to either be blessed with hydro/geothermal resources, or go nuclear. Or both. As inthe case of Sweden which has consistently <10% thermal fuel reliance because of a mix of nuclear electricity and renewables led by hydro.

djpbarry wrote: »

Hardly, although the land border with Germany is an obvious advantage.

Tell that to the Czechs and the Poles? If Germany is so great, Denmark should be benefitting. Yet it has the most expensive electricity in Europe (11th worst in the world) and its grid is the most carbon instensive of any of the Nordic countries (bar Estonia, if you include the Baltic states in the definition of "Nordic").

So does France, which Ireland could theoretically connect to.
Bit of a contradiction there, no?

The distance between France and Ireland is enormous made worse by the fact that a direct link could not go "the way the crow flies" and would have to circumnaviate Lands End in the UK, and France's largely CO2 free electricity grid is down more to its nuclear (75% of supply, ~10% hydro, ~10% other renewables) than its hydroelectricity, which is quite small compared to the hydroelectric capacities of the Nordic states. Even those of course, don't help Denmark very much.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that nuclear power is currently a lot less flexible than hydro ... so the idea of using French nuclear plants as batteries for our windmills can only be considered ridiculous and bizarre in the extreme.

Bit of a contradiction there, no?

How so? Denmark is #1 in Europe for electricity costs, and #11 in the world. Only very small island chains, most of which most people have never heard of, are more expensive, with some of them, like Kiribati, being cheaper and more efficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing. But as the Captain's own data clearly demonstrates far better than I could in a million years, that not only is Danish electricity insanely expensive, but it's also heavily reliant on thermal power much of the time.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

You have a way of proving my points, thanks again for this:
...

This backs up absolutely everything I've been saying which is that the only way to have low carbon electricity - especially at a reasonable cost - is to either be blessed with hydro/geothermal resources, or go nuclear. Or both.

I think you'll find that it confirms what I've been saying about nuclear, that it can only be used as a small part of an overall mix. And it doesn't displace any peaking plant.

Nuclear appears to be used a lot to allow more cheap coal to be used instead of expensive gas and still stay within carbon limits, a complete fudge.

It's not low carbon, Finland's EPR has been under construction since 2005 and won't be producing power for years. Not only has it taken a lot of carbon to build you also have to factor in the cost. Billions that could have been spent on renewables. Wind farms would have been carbon neutral in months. Probably have broke even on cost by now.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I think you'll find that it confirms what I've been saying about nuclear, that it can only be used as a small part of an overall mix. And it doesn't displace any peaking plant.

That's not true - with a nuclear baseload you only have to use peaking plant to cover the daily peak. With renewables, you have to factor in changeable weather as well. Egro you need more peaking/flexible plant.

Nuclear appears to be used a lot to allow more cheap coal to be used instead of expensive gas and still stay within carbon limits, a complete fudge.

The French and the Swedes don't seem to think so, their grids are in majority powered by nuclear and hydro. And they're cheaper to run than Denmark.

I'm the last person who is going to cheerlead for "cheap" coal, plus for the sake of argument if I were to advocate a "fudge" (to be clear I am not) there would be much better uses of the CO2 savings, like letting people drive more or turn up their thermostats. Or farm/eat more meat.

But as it happens we're being told that we need to cut CO2 figures by something like 90% while becoming carbon neutral by the end of the century. The situation is aparently so bad that the UN even wants us to eat insects instead of meat. You couldn't make this up! The Danish experience (as well as our own) shows that 90% reductions are impossible with windmills/solar no matter how much cost or environmental destruction you are willing to endure.

It's not low carbon, Finland's EPR has been under construction since 2005 and won't be producing power for years. Not only has it taken a lot of carbon to build you also have to factor in the cost.

I've already conceded there may be something up with the EPR design. What I want to know is how the French managed to deploy dozens of 2nd gen high-capacity reactors in and around the 70s without all the problems you are alluding to with the EPRs? If you can't answer that question (believably) you are not adding anything to the debate.

Billions that could have been spent on renewables.

Which would be draining the Finns bank accounts with subsidy demands, and only giving them low CO2 electricity when the wind was blowing. And keeping them tied to specific plant types for the remainder of their power needs. And competing with White Nose Syndrome as a mass killer of endangered bats. And killing birds. And causing enormous levels of visual pollution.

For reference, right now, Denmarks CO2 intensity is 403g/kwh, while in France it's 30g/kwh. And at half the cost. Yet, so called environmentalists are raving about the former like it were some kind of model to aspire to, while bashing the latter for reasons that can only be described as bizarre?

You couldn't make this stuff up!

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

This backs up absolutely everything I've been saying which is that the only way to have low carbon electricity - especially at a reasonable cost - is to either be blessed with hydro/geothermal resources, or go nuclear.

Well, no. If anything, it supports that argument that high levels of interconnection are a key component of a low carbon supergrid.

SeanW wrote: »

Tell that to the Czechs and the Poles? If Germany is so great, Denmark should be benefitting.

You argued in a previous post that being “in the heart of Europe” was an advantage for Denmark, but now you’re arguing that sharing a border with Germany is in fact a disadvantage? Which is it?

SeanW wrote: »

The distance between France and Ireland is enormous…

So is the distance between Britain and Iceland.

SeanW wrote: »

…the idea of using French nuclear plants as batteries for our windmills can only be considered ridiculous and bizarre in the extreme.

I don’t recall proposing such an idea.

SeanW wrote: »

How so?

As I alluded to above, you are simultaneously arguing that Denmark’s geographic location is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

SeanW wrote: »

But as the Captain's own data clearly demonstrates far better than I could in a million years, that not only is Danish electricity insanely expensive, but it's also heavily reliant on thermal power much of the time.

Doesn't look all that expensive to me?

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

That's not true - with a nuclear baseload you only have to use peaking plant to cover the daily peak. With renewables, you have to factor in changeable weather as well. Egro you need more peaking/flexible plant.

Here our base load is just 1GW out of a peak of 5GW because we can use wind when it's available.

If we had nuclear our base load would be 2GW. And we'd need fossil fuel for ever single watt after that. And oddles of spinning reserve in case we lost a reactor. At least wind fall off is fairly predictable days ahead.

I've already conceded there may be something up with the EPR design. What I want to know is how the French managed to deploy dozens of 2nd gen high-capacity reactors in and around the 70s without all the problems you are alluding to with the EPRs? If you can't answer that question (believably) you are not adding anything to the debate.

EDF faces €100bn bill for upgrading ageing nuclear power stations

So you are saying that nuclear should be given a chance based on it's performance two generations ago ?

I've pointed out before that France is cutting back on Nuclear , even with the UK needing imports. Also those nukes had some major design flaws.

A lot has changed in the renewable world since then. Wind predictions have extended by four days since then, plenty of time for coal or even nuclear to ramp up. Wind turbine prices have dropped in cost way more than nuclear and solar is less than 1% of the cost back then.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no. If anything, it supports that argument that high levels of interconnection are a key component of a low carbon supergrid.

We are still talking about Denmark, right? "Low carbon?" Denmark may qualify as "Reduced carbon" but to call it "low carbon" is to my mind deeply questionable, given that such a label more correctly belongs to countries whose CO2/kwh figures are 4-10+ times better (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, France) while even Finland and some of the Baltic states are less reliant on thermal power than the Danes. As the Captain's links prove.

You argued in a previous post that being “in the heart of Europe” was an advantage for Denmark, but now you’re arguing that sharing a border with Germany is in fact a disadvantage? Which is it?

It most certainly is not an advantage if the experience of Germany's Eastern neighbors is anything to go by. And it hasn't helped the Danes, seeing as their power costs are the worst in Europe, 11th worst in the world and with a CO2/kwh rate that is really nothing special, compared to those of countries with nuclear and/or hydroelectric power.

So is the distance between Britain and Iceland.

So?

I don’t recall proposing such an idea.

France has a genuinely low power grid, but that is due to their large scale use of nuclear electricity. They probably have just enough flexible hydro for their own needs, let alone the mess that is Germany next door, to say nothing of other European nations further afield such as Ireland. Ergo, if you take away the nuclear, there's nothing special about France's electricity arrangement whatsoever. If there's nothing special over there, then there's no point in building such a long interconnector at what would likely be an enormous cost. Remember Ireland already has the 4th highest energy costs in Europe in some part because of Green policy, this interconnector would most surely add to those costs.

Doesn't look all that expensive to me?

What do Danes pay in their electricity bills? How does this compare to other countries in Europe, esp. Norway, France etc? I've provided evidence that the bottom-line cost tells a different story. And if you're a bill payer, all that matters to your bank account is the bottom-line.

Going back to our comparison, the French grid right now is emitting 51g per kwh of electricity. In Denmark it's 239. Which makes the Danish system 4.5-odd times more carbon intensive at this moment (when I checked a few hours ago it was over 6 times more carbon intensive). The French system never goes over 100g (likely never anywhere near it) the Danish system rarely goes under 200g.

So what am I missing? The French people have access to electricity that costs half of what it does in Denmark, and its 4-12 times less carbon intensive. By my reckoning, given those facts, the French approach (and the Swedes, having similar non-fossil usages most likely) is 8-24 times better, objectively, based on the empirical evidence and provable facts of both power cost and carbon intensity. Each of which are a fraction in the French system vs. the supposidly superior Danish system that generates such excitement. All of this of course is excluding the many other very serious problems with weather based renewables that have been repeated and mostly ignored ad-infinitum elsewhere. Yet the problems to be supposidly solved with this approach are so severe that the UN wants humans to eat insects instead of meat, no doubt this being one of a long list of extreme measures to stop us all cooking the planet or something.

The picture this paints for me is something I find so troubling and bizarre as to be beyond my comprehension. The only explanation that I can find for this is that the (I'm not disputing anthrophogenic climate change per-se) alleged problem of global warming is so extreme that we all have to start eating cockroaches, halt road/motorway construction, give up our cars, move into crappy apartment blocks, pay stupid prices for electricity, carpet bomb our environment with windmills and solar panels, tell factories to plan their production around the weather and God only knows what else. But the same problem really isn't that bad because it is not severe enough to make the mainstream environmental movements give up their ideologically based opposition to nuclear electricity? I cannot put into words how little sense this makes to me on any level.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

We are still talking about Denmark, right? "Low carbon?" Denmark may qualify as "Reduced carbon" but to call it "low carbon" is to my mind deeply questionable…

Call it whatever you want.

My point still stands.

SeanW wrote: »

It most certainly is not an advantage….

Right, so you’re distancing yourself from the very first point you made on this thread?

SeanW wrote: »

So?

The feasibility of such a link is being investigated. In 2012, the British and Icelandic governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding on sharing energy.

SeanW wrote: »

France has a genuinely low power grid, but that is due to their large scale use of nuclear electricity. They probably have just enough flexible hydro for their own need…

You make an awful lot of meaningless “technical” statements such as the above.

SeanW wrote: »

If there's nothing special over there, then there's no point in building such a long interconnector at what would likely be an enormous cost.

So now France is “nothing special”? You’ve been bleating on about the wonder that is the French energy sector for years, but now it’s “nothing special”?

Ignoring the above for just a moment, a link to France is not just a link to France, it’s a link to mainland Europe. Or you could argue, it’s another link to mainland Europe, if you consider that Ireland is already linked through Britain. Not only that, it’s a link from mainland Europe to one of the windiest locations on the continent.

SeanW wrote: »

Remember Ireland already has the 4th highest energy costs in Europe in some part because of Green policy, this interconnector would most surely add to those costs.

So you’ve finally made the link between investment in infrastructure and costs to consumers?

SeanW wrote: »

What do Danes pay in their electricity bills?

The retail price of their electricity? Which, as has been pointed out to you several times across multiple threads, is very, very different to the wholesale price.

SeanW wrote: »

Going back to our comparison, the French grid right now is emitting 51g per kwh of electricity. In Denmark it's 239. Which makes the Danish system 4.5-odd times more carbon intensive at this moment (when I checked a few hours ago it was over 6 times more carbon intensive). The French system never goes over 100g (likely never anywhere near it) the Danish system rarely goes under 200g.

So how does the Danish system now compare to the Danish system ten years ago? How about twenty years ago? How carbon intensive will Danish electricity be in ten or twenty years’ time?

SeanW wrote: »

So what am I missing?

You’re considering national grids in isolation, when we should really be considering how carbon intensive electricity generation is in Europe as a whole.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

…I'm not disputing anthrophogenic climate change per-se…

[MOD] You very obviously are – save it for the relevant thread please. [/MOD]

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Right, so you’re distancing yourself from the very first point you made on this thread?

No, I'm being consistent. Being part of an interconnected grid hasn't done much good in Europe, at least where Green energy policies are concerned. The Poles and the Czechs are routinely facing blackouts because their grids are being overwhelmed by the utter shambles of Green energy policy in Germany, and Denmark has the most expensive power in Europe and they don't have a lot to show for it. If these interconnectors were such great ideas, the Czechs, the Poles and the Danes would be benefitting, with an abundance of cheap, clean energy, where and when they want or need it. But it's just not happening, and it's not hard to determine why.

The feasibility of such a link is being investigated. In 2012, the British and Icelandic governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding on sharing energy.

That may actually make sense - Iceland has vast untapped potentials for hydroelectricity and geothermal power. But beware of two things:

1. The distance between the UK and Iceland is enormous, and so will be the cost of any such interconnector.
2. You can be sure that if such an interconnector is ever constructed, the power flow will be predominently if not exclusively in one direction - from Iceland to the UK. Iceland would have no reason to import electricity from the UK given its abundance of cheap, clean energy that it can make from its geothermal and hyroelectric resources. It would however have plenty of reason to expand its untapped geo/hydro resources to sell them to the British.

You make an awful lot of meaningless “technical” statements such as the above.

I'm going on the facts. France's grid is largely free of CO2, but that is predominently because of nuclear power which makes up the vast majority of its supply, hydro plays a much smaller role in France than it does in the Nordic countries. In addition, according to the monitoring site I linked to above:

Hydroelectric power: France has a significant number of hydro-electric stations (mainly in the Alpine foothills) which are used to deliver a considerable amount of electricity, and also balance the grid against fluctuations in European renewable sources

So not only are the hydro plants only a small part of the French mix, with plenty of customers much closer than us (again, this is fact), but they're mostly on the wrong side of France to be of any real relevance to Ireland.

So now France is “nothing special”? You’ve been bleating on about the wonder that is the French energy sector for years, but now it’s “nothing special”?

1. Please re-read what I actually said:

   SeanW wrote:

   Ergo, if you take away the nuclear, there's nothing special about France's electricity arrangement whatsoever.

   Bash my position all you like, but please do so based on in-context quotes.
2. It is not just my claim that the French grid is something special, it's a provable fact. Just over half the cost of power in Denmark. That is a fact. Dramatically less carbon intensive than Denmark. That is also a fact. My so-called "bleating" is backed by empirical evidence. The other positions seem to be based more on ideology, group-think and cognitive dissonance.

Ignoring the above for just a moment, a link to France is not just a link to France, it’s a link to mainland Europe. Or you could argue, it’s another link to mainland Europe, if you consider that Ireland is already linked through Britain.

Your European supergrid is largely theoretical, and I can't see how it makes sense to trade power up to 1000 miles or even more when there will be larger markets between somewhere like Germany or the French Riviera and Ireland that will be consuming electricity in between.

Not only that, it’s a link from mainland Europe to one of the windiest locations on the continent.

Denmark has all of that (plentiful grid connections over short distances, windmills in a wind area) yet their stats are still verifiably pathetic. What's going on? Remember, Denmarks has more nearby neighbors, has multiple links to all of them, and is much closer to all of them.

So you’ve finally made the link between investment in infrastructure and costs to consumers?

Huh? Yes, the cost of stuff gets passed on to consumers, whether that is the capital cost to build something or the cost to subsidise/run something already in existance. I don't think I ever disputed that.

The retail price of their electricity? Which, as has been pointed out to you several times across multiple threads, is very, very different to the wholesale price.

And also totally irrelevant to the end user. When you go into a shop, do you ask for the wholesale price of a loaf of bread or a tin of beans? No, because that would be pointless. The only relevant metric is "What is it going to cost me?" i.e. the bottom line. It's either cost-effective on this basis or it is not.

You’re considering national grids in isolation, when we should really be considering how carbon intensive electricity generation is in Europe as a whole.

Few problems with this. "National grids in isolation" exist today and have facts associated with them that can be verified today. Besides the entire basis for this thread was for one poster, who I believe shares the mainstream environmental consensus, was doing precisely that by talking about CO2/kwh figures for Denmark. So you'd need to direct this criticism towards the OP as well as myself. Finally, supergrids aren't often all that helpful, Denmark is a joke and I'm sure some Poles would love to dismantle their links with Germany.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

The Poles and the Czechs are routinely facing blackouts because their grids are being overwhelmed by the utter shambles of Green energy policy in Germany…

The Czechs and Poles are being “overwhelmed” by one of the most reliable electricity supplies in Europe? Sure.

SeanW wrote: »

…Denmark has the most expensive power in Europe and they don't have a lot to show for it.

They have one of the most reliable supplies in Europe and their emissions intensity is dropping quite dramatically, so I wouldn’t say they have nothing to show for it.

SeanW wrote: »

It is not just my claim that the French grid is something special, it's a provable fact. Just over half the cost of power in Denmark. That is a fact. Dramatically less carbon intensive than Denmark. That is also a fact. My so-called "bleating" is backed by empirical evidence.

Well, no, it’s not. Because we both know full well that the cost of rolling-out a nuclear-heavy grid today, such as the France’s, would be astronomical. This should be obvious from the fiasco that is Hinckley Point here in the UK, which will be operated by the French.

We also both know that, in the case of France, the cost was largely nationalised, as will be the cost of decommissioning and, of course, the great big white elephant, dealing with the waste. So it is highly disingenuous of you to repeatedly compare everywhere and anywhere to France, telling us how gloriously cheap their electricity is.

This has all been pointed out to you countless times before, so I have absolutely no doubt that you will ignore it all once again.

SeanW wrote: »

Your European supergrid is largely theoretical…

So all those interconnectors don’t actually exist?

SeanW wrote: »

Denmark has all of that (plentiful grid connections over short distances, windmills in a wind area) yet their stats are still verifiably pathetic.

In your opinion. However, any reasonably objective analysis would show that they have decarbonised their energy production quite substantially.

SeanW wrote: »

Huh? Yes, the cost of stuff gets passed on to consumers, whether that is the capital cost to build something or the cost to subsidise/run something already in existance. I don't think I ever disputed that.

You implicitly deny it every time you compare retail prices of electricity when many European countries are in the midst of major infrastructural investment.

SeanW wrote: »

And also totally irrelevant to the end user. When you go into a shop, do you ask for the wholesale price of a loaf of bread or a tin of beans? No, because that would be pointless. The only relevant metric is "What is it going to cost me?" i.e. the bottom line. It's either cost-effective on this basis or it is not.

You know, I bet Heinz beans are available in virtually every country in Europe. You know what else? I bet the retail cost of those beans is different in every single country. Different retail prices for the exact same product. Crazy world, isn’t it?

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

The Czechs and Poles are being “overwhelmed” by one of the most reliable electricity supplies in Europe? Sure.

I've posted about this extensively, it's been ignored each time. I'll do so again. According to this report, the Polish grid is routinely in danger of collapse, with Germany being a major contributory factor, with serious incidents in August and September of last year. I don't understand all the technicalities and I suspect English is not the first language of this author, but the stuff I did get, it's kind of thing you just couldn't make up. According to this, the Polish grid operator Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne (PSE) places considerable blame on Germany and its Green madness.

In the opinion of the Polish operator, a significant part of the blame for the August capacities shortage should be attributed to the “well known issue of loop flows between Germany and Poland”.
For those of our readers who do not follow on a daily basis the subjects which get energy sector insiders worked up: at issue are the unplanned energy flows from Germany to Austria. The two countries are regarded as a single power market. But the state of the grid in the south of Germany does not allow to transmit all energy through the connections at the German-Austrian border and another way has to be found. This other way goes via Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. The situation is made even worse by the fact that power from the east of Germany stems mostly from renewable sources – wind and sun. Hence, the production cannot be planned.
According to PSE explanation, in order to prevent system de-stabilization, one should launch all domestic power plants, especially those close to Poland's western border. To put it in simple terms, it is about “pushing away” the unwanted German electricity.

Emphasis mine. I'm not even sure I get why this happens but it reads like the Poles get an unwanted surplus of power from Germany that they cant use or redirect, then they have ramp up their own power plants to the max to "push it back". What the heck?

They have one of the most reliable supplies in Europe and their emissions intensity is dropping quite dramatically, so I wouldn’t say they have nothing to show for it.

Their power right now is reading 421g/kwh, see attached pic for permanent record, though I don't know why I bother because it's like that very often. In France, right now, it's 35g/kwh, more than 1 full order of magnitude less. But we're supposed to believe the former is better? Greener? Better for the climate? More cost effective? And this is with multiple neighboring countries a very short distance away, all pursuing similar policies, and Denmark having multiple links with each of them. I keep having to say this because it just seems to get more bizarre - you couldn't make this stuff up!

Well, no, it’s not. Because we both know full well that the cost of rolling-out a nuclear-heavy grid today, such as the France’s, would be astronomical. This should be obvious from the fiasco that is Hinckley Point here in the UK, which will be operated by the French.

So you claim, but without explaining why. I want to know how it was so much more cost-effective in the 70s and 80s than today?

We also both know that, in the case of France, the cost was largely nationalised, as will be the cost of decommissioning and, of course, the great big white elephant, dealing with the waste. So it is highly disingenuous of you to repeatedly compare everywhere and anywhere to France, telling us how gloriously cheap their electricity is.

Not sure if you've ever shown this nor given figures.

But even it were so, it would simply make French nuclear like every other power source - with costs that are not reflected in the electricity price. Fossil fuels get to dump their wastes into the air, particularly in the case of coal it ends up with more CO2 in the atmosphere, acid rain forming compounds, mercury emissions that have made our oceans so toxic that pregnant women are advised to avoid eating some seafood. The "invisible" subsidies to fossil fuels in environmental costs and human health are extreme. Renewables are the same, they require vast quantities of filthy "rare earth" elements, they require enormous amounts of land. Wind in particular is super-nasty, windmills must totally suck to live around (being multiple times the size of the Dublin Spire), they require the country hosting them to carpet-bomb the country's most scenic areas (high elevations, mountain tops etc), oh and wind turbine operators seem to be in competition with White Nose Syndrome as to which can drive bats to extinction faster. To say nothing of their effect on large, soaring birds as outlined by other posters.

None of this appears on any electric bill.

So all those interconnectors don’t actually exist?

Yes, they have loads of interconnectors to multiple countries a short distance away, all of which either have vast amounts of hydroelectricity, or have similar policies to Denmark, or both. And their people don't mind being fleeced. Yet they're still putting out 421g/kwh/CO2. What am I missing?

In your opinion. However, any reasonably objective analysis would show that they have decarbonised their energy production quite substantially.

If 421g/kwh is great, their figures must have been even crappier in the past. Meanwhile the Swedes and the French actually have low carbon intensity because of nuclear and hydro (along with the Norwegians and Icelanders who are just plain lucky) - and they've had it for decades. Which means not only is it working better now, but the French/Swedish models have a very long, proven, established track record of actually low CO2, whereas the Danish model is neither low in CO2 and the current plan is at best experimental, despite the fact that humanity has been using wind power in some form or another since the Middle Ages. Again, what am I missing?

You know, I bet Heinz beans are available in virtually every country in Europe. You know what else? I bet the retail cost of those beans is different in every single country. Different retail prices for the exact same product. Crazy world, isn’t it?

Yes, and if you're in a country where food costs an enormous amount of money, but it's nothing really special for the money, people are going to ask: "Why is this so expensive?" Crazy world indeed.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I've posted about this extensively, it's been ignored each time. I'll do so again. According to this report, the Polish grid is routinely in danger of collapse, with Germany being a major contributory factor, with serious incidents in August and September of last year.

First of all, that’s not a “report”, it’s an article.

Secondly, there are several countries bordering Germany – why is only Poland supposedly suffering? Most of Germany’s neighbours have reliable grids.

SeanW wrote: »

Their power right now is reading 421g/kwh…

It doesn’t matter what the carbon intensity is “right now”. What matters is the overall trend.

SeanW wrote: »

In France, right now, it's 35g/kwh, more than 1 full order of magnitude less. But we're supposed to believe the former is better? Greener? Better for the climate? More cost effective?

Denmark’s electricity supply is now less carbon intensive than it was two decades ago: yes or no?

SeanW wrote: »

So you claim, but without explaining why. I want to know how it was so much more cost-effective in the 70s and 80s than today?

Why are you assuming they were more cost-effective in the past? The economics of the French nuclear programme was a closely-guarded state secret for many years. Using what limited data was made available in 2000, this paper has put the total cost of the French PWR programme at €230 billion, as of 1998:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510003526

The above also notes that the capital costs associated with the French programme increased remarkably quickly – approximately 5% per annum – meaning the final cost far exceeded expectations. Another paper attributes the present day exorbitant costs of nuclear to the same high capital costs, largely owing to the fact that nuclear technology hasn't sufficiently advanced and tighter regulatory guidelines necessitate greater expense on design:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030142159290006N

SeanW wrote: »

But even it were so, it would simply make French nuclear like every other power source - with costs that are not reflected in the electricity price. Fossil fuels get to dump their wastes into the air, particularly in the case of coal it ends up with more CO2 in the atmosphere, acid rain forming compounds, mercury emissions that have made our oceans so toxic that pregnant women are advised to avoid eating some seafood. The "invisible" subsidies to fossil fuels in environmental costs and human health are extreme. Renewables are the same, they require vast quantities of filthy "rare earth" elements, they require enormous amounts of land. Wind in particular is super-nasty, windmills must totally suck to live around (being multiple times the size of the Dublin Spire), they require the country hosting them to carpet-bomb the country's most scenic areas (high elevations, mountain tops etc), oh and wind turbine operators seem to be in competition with White Nose Syndrome as to which can drive bats to extinction faster. To say nothing of their effect on large, soaring birds as outlined by other posters.

You also say nothing about the environmental impact of nuclear power? Every form of power generation has some sort of associated environmental cost.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, they have loads of interconnectors to multiple countries a short distance away, all of which either have vast amounts of hydroelectricity, or have similar policies to Denmark, or both.

So the supergrid does exist? Because you said in your last post it was largely theoretical?

SeanW wrote: »

And their people don't mind being fleeced. Yet they're still putting out 421g/kwh/CO2. What am I missing?

The long-term trend. You’re very obviously cherry-picking data points.

SeanW wrote: »

If 421g/kwh is great, their figures must have been even crappier in the past.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, and if you're in a country where food costs an enormous amount of money, but it's nothing really special for the money, people are going to ask: "Why is this so expensive?"

But what they’re probably not going to assume is that food is more expensive in some countries than others due to different production methods.