Image: Author Mikael Colville-Andersen
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- This city plans to invest in wind farms, electric cars, bike paths and energy-efficient buildings in an effort to become the world's first carbon-neutral capital by 2025.
The Danish capital, its inhabitants and its businesses will spend as much as $4.7 billion in the next 13 years to reach this goal, city officials explained as they rolled out their climate plan.
"Copenhageners' daily lives will become better in a greener and healthier city," said Frank Jensen, the city's mayor. "The investments will ensure jobs now, and the new solutions will provide the foundation for a strong green sector."
Extensive retrofitting of buildings, more wind turbines and changing transport habits will lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of around 1.2 million tons per year while creating economic growth and improving quality of life, city planners said.
"The goal is realistic and economically viable, but it also needs support and investment from the citizens of Copenhagen and the private sector," said Rikke Houkjær, a spokeswoman for the city.
The plan will require municipal investment of around 2.7 billion Danish crowns, or $450 million, up to 2025. In addition, new private investment of 20 billion to 25 billion crowns will be needed, resulting in employment of about 35,000 man-years until 2025, according to the city. Once the plan's goals are achieved, city dwellers will save 350 crowns per month on their power and heating bills, the municipality estimates.
The plan is scheduled to be discussed and approved in several city committees starting this week before final approval in the City Council on Aug. 23.
The council unanimously decided in 2009 that the city would cut its CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2015 compared with 2005 levels and become carbon neutral in 2025. Current statistics show the city would meet its 2015 goal, and Copenhagen for the first time presented its plan for how to move forward to the 2025 target.
Building on existing policies
Copenhagen emitted 1.9 million tons of CO2 last year. Even without any new initiatives, this is projected to fall to 1.16 million tons by 2025 because of steps already set in place, such as tighter E.U. emissions standards for cars, an increase in production of renewable energy and replacement of some coal power plants with ones that burn biomass.
Energy efficiency will account for 7 percent of the CO2 reductions needed to get from 1.16 million tons to net zero in 2025, the city said. Renovation of existing buildings and stricter efficiency requirements for new buildings will lead to a 20 percent reduction in heating demand, 20 percent reduction in commercial electricity consumption and 10 percent reduction in residential electricity consumption.
In addition, roof-mounted solar panels, now virtually nonexistent in the city, will produce 1 percent of electricity used locally.
An additional 74 percent of the reduction will come from more use of onshore and offshore wind power, a new biomass power plant, a new geothermal plant, and better sorting of plastic trash so that it doesn't end up in the garbage that's being burned in plants that produce district heating.
More bike paths, the introduction of hybrid and biogas buses, and wider use of electric cars will contribute an additional 11 percent of the reduction, according to the plan. By 2025, 75 percent of all city transportation will take place on foot, by bike or by public transit. Fifty percent of commuting to work will happen by bike, up from 33 percent now. Public transit will have 20 percent more passengers and will be by itself CO2 neutral.
"We will only achieve a carbon-neutral capital with the support and commitment of Copenhageners," said Ayfer Baykal, who heads technical and environmental affairs at Copenhagen City Hall. "We must choose our bikes instead of our cars, sort and recycle more of our waste, and invest in retrofitting our houses and flats. The reward will be clean air, less noise and better quality of life."
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentYa sure....when you start refining the bauxite to make the aluminum for your bicycles...and putting up greenhouses to grow your tropical bananas, oranges, etc....then you may be carbon neutral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to take the load off your knees when carrying a heavy load?...let someone else carry the load for you.
Funny how people in China are all trying to switch to cars from bikes while Denmark wants to put everyone back on bikes. In the end the people with the greatest transportation system, cars, will come out the leader in all systems from science to technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore BS, from despicable Greenie Cultist Spin Doctors. Most of the so-called (75%) energy savings are from whacky Wind Turbines that rely on Norway's much larger Hydro power to absorb the Wind Power, transmitting it long distances and often paying Norway to accept the Wind Power that nobody wants. It is easy to claim "net energy zero" when you use such phoney accounting. The power Grid is expensive, and Denmark is abusing it and misusing it as a giant battery paid for by others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be much cheaper for Copenhagen to simply Nix the Wind Turbines and import clean, low-CO2 hydro from Norway, which is effectively what they are doing anyway.
And district heating has advantages and disadvantages, they are way overblowing the dubious success of their district heating. And Denmark has the highest Electricity rates in the EU, of 30.5 eurocents per kwh or 38 cents per kwh along with the highest CO2 emissions of 660 gms CO2 output per kwh of Electricity generated. Some success that is. Nuclear France has one of the lowest Electricity prices in the EU, so low they often use Electric Heat, and 83 gms CO2 output per kwh.
And their burning Biomass is one of the most polluting industries in Europe, and it depletes the soil of nutrients, and is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Mention anything that offers a solution to energy use overkill and all the naysayers come out of the wood work. Meanwhile by 2025 they will all be pushing their 2 ton cars uphill instead of a 20 lb bike. I got a real belly laugh out of that first comment when jellyroll mentioned refining bauxite to build bicycles. Apparently it never occurred to him or her how much aluminum goes into a modern car or truck; and we won't even mention the steel and plastic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since 1990, Copenhagen has reduced its CO2 output by 40 percent while its economy has grown by 50 percent. A large part of the reduction was due to the fact that 98 percent of the city uses district heating. When heat and electricity are produced simultaneously, energy is used almost twice as efficiently while cutting city inhabitants' heating bills."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat say ye naysayers about that?
"More BS, from despicable Greenie Cultist Spin Doctors. Most of the so-called (75%) energy savings are from whacky Wind Turbines that rely on Norway's much larger Hydro power to absorb the Wind Power, transmitting it long distances and often paying Norway to accept the Wind Power that nobody wants. It is easy to claim "net energy zero" when you use such phoney accounting. The power Grid is expensive, and Denmark is abusing it and misusing it as a giant battery paid for by others."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe transfer of energy goes both ways you know. Norway saves money by buying energy from Denmark sometimes, and vice-versa. Why why Norway and Sweden have agreed to a ommon smart-grid if it didn't serve their interests?
2It would be much cheaper for Copenhagen to simply Nix the Wind Turbines and import clean, low-CO2 hydro from Norway, which is effectively what they are doing anyway."
Any source to back that up?
"And district heating has advantages and disadvantages, they are way overblowing the dubious success of their district heating. And Denmark has the highest Electricity rates in the EU, of 30.5 eurocents per kwh or 38 cents per kwh along with the highest CO2 emissions of 660 gms CO2 output per kwh of Electricity generated. Some success that is. Nuclear France has one of the lowest Electricity prices in the EU, so low they often use Electric Heat, and 83 gms CO2 output per kwh."
I can hear you don't live in Denmark. The high energy prices are due to high taxation, which also gives us free healthcare, University education, and lots of other great stuff. And calling the success of district warming "dubious" is ridiculous, and clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Pretty much every single Danish city has a warming grid, because the people living here want it, and because it's ultimately cheaaper.
"And their burning Biomass is one of the most polluting industries in Europe, and it depletes the soil of nutrients, and is UNSUSTAINABLE."
Depends on what the biomass is that you're burning. If it's procesed corn or wheat, ssure, but if it's just waste which wouldn't otherwise have been used for anything, as it increasingly is in Denmark, it's perfectly sustainable.
For short-distance transportation, bicycles are uperior ti cars. You can fit more people in les space, which is especially important in congested places like central Copenhagen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUtter Crap! is what I say. Denmark has been offloading CO2 emissions onto other jurisdictions. It's just a bookkeeping guimmick that you eco-looney idiots fall for every time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The export of fossil fuel generation, and associated CO2 emissions, will not likely be taken as an upward adjustment by the receiving country, so the CO2 emissions that occurred on the production side will be “lost” in the total accounting."
From: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iv-co2-emissions/
Took me about 30 seconds top de-bunk your BS.
Furthermore, EU emissions are expected to be flat in 2012 so this supports the above statement.
www.reuters.com/.../us-carbon-emissions-europe-idUSBRE82P0QF20120326
The funniest, most hilarious part is that any real drop in emissions came from switching to natural gas fired generation. In the U.S. CO2 emissions are down by 7%, due in large part to NG fired generation. The rest is due to the cratering economy.
Yet idiotic and self serving NGO's like the Sierra Club are on a tirade about natural gas now. First they campaigned for "Beyond Coal", then they added "Beyond Oil" now they're campaigning for "Beyond Natural Gas".
Their real campaign slogans should be "Beyond Belief", Beyond Comprehension" or "Beyond Ignorance".
Coal, oil and natural gas provide 91% of the U.S. energy supply. Want to know what life would be like if they got their eco-nutbar wild dreams? Turn off your fridge for 22 hours a day. How would that work out for you? The eco-corporoations are up to their eyeballs in the carbon trading industry which amounted to $180 billion last year. They will spin any tale or tell any lie needed to protect their investments.
And fools like Singing Flea and JamesDavis are so naive that they believe in the eco-propaganda.
Putzes
When folks in Copenhagen produce the metals in their own bicycles...produce the food to feed their hundreds of thousands...come back and I'll give then a round of applause. They are users of just about everything physical and contribute almost nothing physical. The environment is a 'real' physical phenomenon and not a digital transfer of bookkeeping columns to offset reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen folks in Copenhagen produce the metals in their own bicycles...produce the food to feed their hundreds of thousands...come back and I'll give then a round of applause. They are users of just about everything physical and contribute almost nothing physical. The environment is a 'real' physical phenomenon and not a digital transfer of bookkeeping columns to offset reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The funniest, most hilarious part is that any real drop in emissions came from switching to natural gas fired generation. In the U.S. CO2 emissions are down by 7%, due in large part to NG fired generation. The rest is due to the cratering economy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idiots who buy this line of garbage need to get their heads examined. Emissions are down in the US because many industries (the countries major contributor) were nearly all moved to China and other foreign countries, where CO2 emissions are skyrocketing. America is still China's biggest market, so indirectly our wasteful life style is still contributing to the global CO2 increase which is up by 45% over the last 20 years.
Meanwhile, Americans are still commuting from the suburbs in trucks and SUV's that would certainly increase emissions were it not for a self inflicted recession caused by the previous administration.
A further reduction in our countries emissions is due to a decreased demand for residential electricity due to reductions in waste in appliances as a result of greener technology and a huge savings from switching from incandescent lighting to florescent lighting by businesses and CFL lighting in our homes. This is in spite of a population increase in the same time period.
There is also another major factor in America's internal success and that is a substantial increase in non-polluting sources of electricity, like wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power production.
If there is one thing we will never see a change in is the attitude and lack of education of the right wing deadbeats who refuse to credit the Sierra Club, the EPA and the rest of the environmental movement for their tireless support of this positive change that we see here in America. All we will ever get from them is unfounded criticism.
Now if we could just do something about the rest of the world there is perhaps hope, but with comments like we are seeing here, that is highly unlikely.
NCLI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good city is actually a walkable city much like San Francisco. However to supply these cities, as in America, 50% of the population still lives outside of the cities in order to supply the supply chain with things like food and the equipment to produce the food and yes transport the food to the cities. For people like me who does not live in the city but lives in a small support town it takes me one hour to ride my bike to work, one direction and I have to climb 3 mountains in excess of 500 ft each. In order to do that I would consume more calories than I can pay for. Yes I could move closer to work but then my increase in rent would be far greater than the cost of gas for my truck which I need at work anyway.
"..goes both ways you know. Norway saves money by buying energy from Denmark sometimes.. Norway and Sweden have agreed to a ommon smart-grid.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo? Yep, Norway saves money by buying or BEING PAID to accept Danish Wind Power dirt cheap and then sells Hydro back to them at an enormous profit. Great for Norway, a total rip-off for Denmark. The same story is being played out in Ontario, Germany & NW USA. Ontarians are paying 13.5 cents per kwh for Wind and most of that is exported at an avg price of 1.7 cents per kwh, often paying as much as 14 cents per kwh for Ohio & Quebec to take the Wind Power nobody wants. And long distance transmission is very expensive, under-utilizing expensive transmission lines by intermittent Wind Loads is more wasted money & energy losses. There is no way Denmark can match Norway's Hydro prices with its expensive Wind Power, even if Wind was dispatcheable. So a total loss for Denmark. And Sweden & Norway grid coordination has ZIP to do with Wind Exports from Denmark.
"..calling the success of district warming "dubious" is ridiculous..you have no idea.."
Yeah, I do. There was a big fight in my community over installing a district heating system. The Greenies, of course, were all gung-ho, but people, including myself, who worked the numbers found the costs outrageous, far beyond much better alternatives like conventional hydro. Most areas have evaluated district heating, including next door Holland (3%)& UK(1%) and found it uneconomical. And David Mackay does a solid analysis of CHP in his "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air", pgs 145-154:
www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf
His conclusion, is that it is better to use the most efficient central Electricity Generation and Heat Pumps, instead. Myself, I believe District Heating to be economical in certain areas like Iceland with large, cheap Geothermal Heat and a cold climate, and Northern Areas with Diesel Power generation is a No-Brainer. But most cases - No - it just doesn't pay.
"..biomass is that you're burning.. waste ..it's perfectly sustainable.."
Uh, no it ain't. You are removing nutrients from the soil that have taken aeons to build. Eventually the soil will have to be rejuvenated. And you are sending Carbon & Pollution (Biomass burning kills ~2 million people every year) into the atmosphere, that could otherwise be stored in the soil, improving soil productivity and health, soil stores double the Carbon of what is in the atmosphere. Read up on the concept EXERGY, and your Soil Exergy is being depleted.
The whole "Climate neutrality" or "Net-Zero Energy" concept is a typical Greenie meaningless stunt, valuable for SPIN and HYPE and that's about all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole issue of Energy is supplying what energy is needed by a region, as it is needed, when it is needed and what type of energy is needed. Trying to lump all Energy together over a whole year, heavily relying on exports of low-value energy and imports of high-value energy, is just a silly game of playing with numbers.
As an example, hyped up Zero Net Energy Home, so they put wacks of expensive Solar Panels on the home, export lots of power, and then rely on outside sources, with massive amounts of embodied energy (not counted) to supply their negative balance. Now try the same with the Grid Disconnected, try Net-Zero with no expensive, paid-by-others grid to dump energy to, and receive energy back from, and then you will see just how difficult TRUE ZERO NET energy consumption is. And then add the embodied energy of all goods used by the household, and forget it - just another Greenie stunt trying to pretend they have solutions for the upcoming Energy/Climate Cataclysm, whereas in fact, they have done precisely ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH. These Denmark type Greenie specials are the PROBLEM, NOT the solution.
Meanwhile here in São Paulo, the poor fans-drunks if kill by football teams while their mothers are languishing on the doors of public hospitals without care, the Government facilitates the access to credit for purchase of automobiles and the ruling class, world renowned for being asshole says that bike is to be used only in parklands ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Geojellyroll and other deniers - it is often not mentioned that the current use of carbon-based fuels leads to a host of well documented environmental health issues for us humans. These result in billions of dollars of lost productivity not to mention the human health toll, especially on our most vulnerable populations (elderly, small children, etc). Let's also consider the savings in real dollars of a reduction in energy use (of any kind) realized by 20% + efficiency gains through better building design and retrofit. Over the life of a building - city - nation... Lastly, I for one am getting tired of subsidizing with my health and wallet the economic externalities of the fossil fuel economy. Here, here for Copenhagen!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As an example, hyped up Zero Net Energy Home, so they put wacks of expensive Solar Panels on the home, export lots of power, and then rely on outside sources, with massive amounts of embodied energy (not counted) to supply their negative balance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are missing the point entirely. Solar energy is not generated all the time like hydroelectric. When it is working there is a surplus. The system was designed to make both methods work more efficiently.
This article is all about efficiency, not an end all solution. We all know that carbon emissions can't be stopped tomorrow, but by utilizing conservation measures and developing greener methods we can eventually overcome the huge disaster that is looming for future generations when fossil fuels get scarce and pollution forces even the naysayers to admit their lack of foresight was a mistake.
Nobody is claiming that these policies are a total solution. What they are saying is both Norway and Denmark are using green technology to their advantage. America is doing the same thing, but to a lesser extent, so let's not knock the effort.
They claim: "..become the world's first carbon-neutral capital by 2025.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd: "..Copenhagen emitted 1.9 million tons of CO2 last year.."
And: "..74 percent of the reduction will come from more use of onshore and offshore wind power, a new biomass power plant, a new geothermal plant.."
By that standard, they are totally wrong. There are hundreds of Carbon Neutral cities in the World, that is any city that has a Nuclear Power plant, each standard 1.1Gw Nuclear Power plant displaces about 7 million tons of CO2 per yr, so a standard two-plex NPP will displace 14 million tons of CO2, 8X more than Copenhagen plans to do with all that fiddle-faddle.
Conclusion. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the simplest, most obvious and by far cheapest way for any City to become Carbon Neutral is to install a Nuclear Power plant - Job done. Keep-It-Simple-Stupid.
The Denialists, who are the real 'eco-nutbars', are like yeasts in a bottle who think that they can excrete alchohol perpetually and at ever increasing rates into their living container without killing themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I am sure that they know so much better than the Danes do what is good for them.
Honestly, I think I could have better conversations with a yeast.
You need to count the carbon footprint of building the nuclear plant and supplying the nuclear fuel. This is not as simple as some people make it out to be. There is also related carbon output from all the people necessary to run and regulate a nuclear plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
The idea here that was popularized by Mark Twain just about sums it all up when it comes to nuclear power.
".. count the carbon footprint of building the nuclear plant and supplying the nuclear fuel. This is not as simple.. carbon output from all the people .. a nuclear plant.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it isn't simple but it is a standard calculation, that has been done many times, its called full lifecycle analysis. And an excellent article, loaded with data on it is found here:
world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
In Canada:
cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/2009/CNA_Booklet_09.pdf
And Coal is 800-900 gms CO2/kwh produced, NG is 450-1100, Solar PV is 50-95, Wind is 5-30, Hydro is 3-11 and Nuclear is 3-26.
Nuclear of course is much less if Nuclear Electricity rather than Coal Electricity feeds the Uranium Enrichment/Processing. CANDU's in Ontario are 1.8 gms CO2/kwh, very low because they burn Natural Uranium and use 40% less fuel than LWRs, and can burn LWR spent fuel for a further 3x reduction in fuel consumption and nuclear waste production.
The carbon output of workers in the entire chain of supply & operation of an Energy Source, is usually not counted in LCA, but would in most cases be a fairly minor addition. i.e. 800 workers at a typical NPP would consume about 20 GWh per yr, vs the NPP producing 8000 GWh per yr.
So if you really wanted to do detailed LCA on all inputs to the Energy chain then Nuclear would even be more low in emissions than the Danish strategy. Especially when you properly account for Biomass emissions. Denmark ludicrously counts Biomass burning as Zero emissions, which of course is utter nonsense:
carbontradewatch.org/downloads/publications/NothingNeutralHere.pdf
Letter to Senators requesting proper accounting of Biomass emissions by environmental scientists:
stopspewingcarbon.com/stuff/KGL_letter_may25_final.pdf
burningissues.org/car-www/science/Climate/index.html
maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf
"..Overall, new wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal
plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new gas power plants.."
Biomass produces 0 net carbon emissions because it literally renews itself. Pretty much every carbon atom in a plant started out as a carbon atom in the atmosphere. So, zero net emissions. It's pretty simple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is only "pretty simple" to Greenie Cultist types, who consider BIOMASS to be one of their Religious Icons, so it can do no wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst there is the rate at which biomass regrows vs the much higher rate at which the Carbon is released to the atmosphere.
Then there is all the very polluting and Global Warming inducing Soot emitted to the atmosphere, from Biomass burning. Black Carbon is a very strong solar trapping substance.
Then there is a thing called Indirect Land Use Effects. Sugarcane is the Golden Boy of Biomass production. But the California Air Resources Board full lifecycle analysis for sugarcane ethanol calculates it emits 27.4 gms CO2 per MJ of produced Ethanol vs Gasoline @ 95.9. However, when you include Indirect Land Use effects the sugarcane ethanol number goes to 73.4, only 23% better than gasoline. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILUC
And then there is the fact that the Biomass that is being burned could by buried and store the Carbon, improving soil health. One method used by Amazonian natives for centuries was pyrolysis, whereby the biomass is converted into charcoal and buried in the soil, not only stores the carbon in the soil, rather then releasing into the atmosphere, but improves the health and productivity of the soil, trapping even more carbon, and encourages a natural, diverse and healthy ecosystem of varied plant & animal species NOT Denmark's monoculture ecologically dead Biomass plantations.
And an Alberta company has a method of taking Biomass or Waste and extracting Hydrogen from it, that is commonly used in Industry, i.e. Oil Refining, and produces a carbon waste that can be used for soil rejuvenation, trapping & storing the carbon, NOT dumping it into the atmosphere for us to breath.
Shame on you Denmark.
The article TOTALLY MISSED the expansion of Urban Rail in Copenhagen - as much a part of the solution as increased bicycle use (above it's current high use).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inner Metro ring will be completed by 2018 and a tram (Light Rail) outer ring in 2020. In addition, all of the commuter trains will be electrified. All powered by wind or Norwegian hydropower.