Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Denmark's "power right now" is showing 174 g CO2/kWh
Options
-
06-02-2016 10:53pmhttp://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/kWh5
Comments
-
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 energy0 -
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
I mean, way to miss the point of a post.0 -
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 down0 -
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".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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.aspx0 -
-
-
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 etc0 -
Advertisement
-
0
-
-
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- Denmark is in the heart of Europe. Ireland is a lonely island on the perophery.
- Norway provides massive storage in the form of hyrdoelectricity.
- 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.
- 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.)
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,843 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89083
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.
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.htm0 -
Denmark is in the heart of Europe.Norway provides massive storage in the form of hyrdoelectricity.Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe and is in the top 10 globally.0
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
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:- Estonia is almost exclusively reliant on Thermal power. 95%+ consistently.
- 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.
- Sweden, Norway and Finland all acheive good (Sweden < 10% thermal, Norway <1% thermal, Finland considerably worse but still respectable and consistently < 40% thermal.
- 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.
Hardly, although the land border with Germany is an obvious advantage.So does France, which Ireland could theoretically connect to.
Bit of a contradiction there, no?
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?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,843 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89083
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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.
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.Billions that could have been spent on renewables.
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!0 -
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.Tell that to the Czechs and the Poles? If Germany is so great, Denmark should be benefitting.The distance between France and Ireland is enormous……the idea of using French nuclear plants as batteries for our windmills can only be considered ridiculous and bizarre in the extreme.How so?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.
0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,843 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 89083
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.
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.
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.0 -
Well, no. If anything, it supports that argument that high levels of interconnection are a key component of a low carbon supergrid.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?So is the distance between Britain and Iceland.I don’t recall proposing such an idea.Doesn't look all that expensive to me?
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.0 -
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…
My point still stands.It most certainly is not an advantage….So?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…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.
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.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.What do Danes pay in their electricity bills?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?0 -
…I'm not disputing anthrophogenic climate change per-se…0
-
Right, so you’re distancing yourself from the very first point you made on this thread?The feasibility of such a link is being investigated. In 2012, the British and Icelandic governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding on sharing energy.
- The distance between the UK and Iceland is enormous, and so will be the cost of any such interconnector.
- 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.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 sourcesSo 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”?- 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.
- 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.Not only that, it’s a link from mainland Europe to one of the windiest locations on the continent.So you’ve finally made the link between investment in infrastructure and costs to consumers?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.You’re considering national grids in isolation, when we should really be considering how carbon intensive electricity generation is in Europe as a whole.0 -
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……Denmark has the most expensive power in Europe and they don't have a lot to show for it.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.
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.Your European supergrid is largely theoretical…Denmark has all of that (plentiful grid connections over short distances, windmills in a wind area) yet their stats are still verifiably pathetic.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.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.0 -
The Czechs and Poles are being “overwhelmed” by one of the most reliable electricity supplies in Europe? Sure.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.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.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.
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?In your opinion. However, any reasonably objective analysis would show that they have decarbonised their energy production quite substantially.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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Secondly, there are several countries bordering Germany – why is only Poland supposedly suffering? Most of Germany’s neighbours have reliable grids.Their power right now is reading 421g/kwh…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?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?
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/030142159290006NBut 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.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?If 421g/kwh is great, their figures must have been even crappier in the past.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?"0
Advertisement