The ongoing meetings remind Hermansen of the Copenhagen climate conference. There, a mere 40,000 people representing some 6.7 billion humans on the planet tried in December to hammer out a deal on both how much greenhouse gases must be restrained and who should pay for that change. Perhaps predictably, that process has delivered mixed results compared with the meetings on Samso. "We can sit down and talk with a few people and gain more common ground than we can in big meetings," Hermansen argues. "It's very complicated and difficult for the climate meeting in Copenhagen to come up with something useful because they don't know each other…It's only gone downhill since we started these COP [conference of the parties] meetings."
Nevertheless, this year the world will use more than 400 quadrillion British thermal units of energy from fossil fuels, adding to the bulk of human emissions of carbon dioxide that now total roughly 30 billion metric tons per year. Energy consumption is growing by roughly 2 percent a year, although the great recession has changed that outlook. "You've bought yourself some savings by having a recession," says Richard Jones, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency. "But recessions are not a good way to solve climate change."
As a result of all this growth, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are rising by roughly 2 parts per million per year, reaching 387 ppm and still climbing. Samso no longer adds as much of that. The renewable energy island's example may not be all of the solution, but it is certainly far less of the problem.
View Slide Show of Samso, the Renewable Energy Island
See what we're tweeting about
52 Comments
Add CommentBefore you get too excited about this, take a read of this article http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/when-the-wind-doesnt-blow-power-doesnt-flow-even-in-denmark/story-e6frg9k6-1111114580943
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you invest in wind, you need to maintain your investment in conventional sources of power to provide electricity when the wind doesn't blow. Therefore, wind investment is on top of conventional power investment, not a replacement. Wind works in Denmark only because it is a small country with large neighbors (Norway, Sweden and Germany) who are able and willing to supply Denmark's needs when the wind doesn't blow.
Actually, we have a surplus of energy when the wind blows, which allows Norway and Sweden to use less hydro-electricity. So the flow of energy goes both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually we have a surplus of energy in Denmark when the wind blows, which allows Norway and Sweden to use less hydro-electricity. So the flow of energy goes both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat story. This is a small community, but what it has accomplished is impressive, both environmentally and socially. If there is any dissent on the island to this renewable drive, it has failed to show up in any of the stories on its renewable energy projects. At the same time, it has unique resources, including wind and sea and a tradition of cooperatives. How many other communities can go 100% renewable?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual Soccerdad spread misinformation. While true wind doesn''t blow all the time, when it does you don't burn fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven with fossil fuels you need 3x's + the average output to cover peak power needs. And you already have the back up when you put in wind, solar, etc. They only thing is you use them a whole lot less saving a bunch of money.
He also doesn't bother to mention that fossil fuel costs are rising fast, making RE the low cost energy source as RE drops in price.
It's not hard to make all your own power, only about $10k or less to use RE from solar, wind, biomass CHP, etc, payback in 3-10 yrs for a lifetime of energy for an eff home, EV once they are in real mass production. They really are simple machines, not expensive at all to make..
Per,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is that it's not going to work most places without a huge excess of generating capacity.
The other issue not touched on is population density. 22 villages and 4,000 people on the island. Without knowing the size of the island, I'd expect that the population density of this island is much lower than that of most western democracies. That has a huge impact upon the island being sustainable (and it isn't truly sustainable if it has to rely on the outside world when the win is not blowing).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe one item not discussed is population density. 22 villages and 4,000 people seems like a very low population density. Without knowing the size of the island, I'd bet that the population density is well below that of any of the western democracies - who today consume by far the largest portion of the worlds energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, while they are selling their extra energy when the wind blows, they are not in a fully sustainable environment if they must go elsewhere to meet their energy needs when the wind is NOT blowing. Apparently, they are not selling enough excess when the wind blows to make up for what they must buy whent he wind does not blow.
The big question is: How much does this power cost per watt? Nowhere in the article does it say how much the power costs to generate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs mentioned above alternative power does have problems with reliability, ie what if the sun doesn't shine or the wind blow. Those problems can be engineered around by building excess capacity in a variety of locations. The wind is always blowing somewhere. The bigger problem is how much does the power actually cost to generate, until the cost is comparable to coal, it will NEVER be a true solution.
Further, the article also laments the fact that power consumption hasn't been going down. This underscores the TRUE motivation of most environmentalists. They really want us to consume less, simply for the sake of consuming less. I would go so far as to argue, that they would rather have us consume 1/2 as much dirty power as they would 100% clean power. That is their real motivation is simply to lower the standard of living of all people.
The cost of wind generated power in Denmark is high. The Tree Hugger Magazine reports the cost of a megawatt hour in Big Macs. Of 16 countries listed in the report, Denmark had the highest cost of 60 Big Macs. Canada's cost was only 20 Big Macs. Sweden and Finland had even lower price power than Canada. Wind in most places can not compete with nuclear without a large subsidy. I recall reading that Finland has a 14 Euro cent tax on a kWh. I aslo recall that while Finland produces wind power equal to 20% of their power needs, they are only able to utilize not quite 10% on their grid. They sell the remainder at bargain basement prices. Some recent years their wind utilization on the grid has been as low as 5% according to reports. I have read that Norway is exploring a grid extension to Germany. That would further impact the price for excess wind generated power in Finland. For those looking to wind power, experiences of Finland and Germany certainly leave cause for concern. It is not reasonable to expect that an intermittent diffuse power source can compete with nuclear power which has an energy density 2 million to 4 million times greater than fossil fuel. Wind is a good supplement to nuclear in locations where adequate wind is present. We need energy diversity and we should encourage its use even if a subsidy is needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee German experience with renewables:
www.rwi-essen.de
(Rheinisch-Westf�lisches Institut f�r Wirtschaftsforschung Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience Final report October 2009)
" While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly mpressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These im-pacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment...."
network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/21/germany-s-renewable-myth.aspx
www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
Danish experiences:
www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5494-a-mighty-danish-wind www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Denmark has high priced power. I have seen a report that a 14 Euro cent tax/kWh is charged in Denmark. The Treehugger Magazine reports on the cost of a megawatt hour in 16 countries. They use the novel "Big Mac" as the common currency unit. A megawatt hour cost in Denmark is the highest of the 16 countries at 60 Big Macs, while in Canada the cost is only 20 Big Macs. Electricity in Sweden and Finland costs even fewer Big Macs than Canada. Published reports show that Denmark produces wind power equal 20% of its electricity needs, but in recent years it have been able to put just under 10% on the grid. The remainder is sold a bargain basement prices. Reports are that Norway is exploring a grid coupling with Germany. If that occurs Finland will be competing with Germany for the market of excess wind generated power. It is not reasonable to expect a diffuse intermittent energy source such a wind can compete with nuclear power which has a fuel density 2 million to 4 million times that of fossil fuels. Wind is the second best emission free energy source next nuclear. In the interest of energy diversity supplemental wind energy in those regions with adequate wind should be encouraged. Government subsidies for wind are justified to achieve a diversity of clean energy sources. The experiences of Denmark and Germany are not very encouraging for those looking to wind as a replacement for fossil fuel. Denmark is on record of seeking 50% of electric power from wind. They have held fast at 20% for recent years. It appears that the dream of 50 % is unrealistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burning of anything; straw, hay, wood chips or even coal is something we shouldn't be doing. If you argue that burning straw is "bio-neutral" then burning coal is also. It just takes a little longer. Where I live, farmers that burn or otherwise remove the straw from the field following harvest, are losing a valuable resource. What the Danes are doing may "Work" but that doesn't make it "Right." We need to concentrate on getting it "Right."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a fundamental truth that most Americans seem to be unaware of. In general, Europe has higher taxes, both direct and indirect. It is considered the norm in most european countries to be paying relatively high prices for electricity (especially when taxation is included), and it is even argued that it is socially responsible for the system to work so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore even conventional fossil fuel-generated electricity is expensive when compared to the price in the US. On the other hand, renewable sources are being subsidised, bringing their cost down and making the price of each kilowatt-hour quite attractive to the end user. In a sense, fossil fuel users are also paying for part of the cost of the renewables. In the US, this may be immoral or whatever, in Europe it is considered a very reasonable way to promote cleaner electricity generation.
Being able to produce power from such sources also has the benefit that it reduces european dependence on imported oil and natural gas. Since both of these are bought in dollars and not euros, the process is both economically inefficient and strategically undesirable.
Great project, lot of information to analyze.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne problem arises from so called "modern applied sciences", there huge resources of ideas and money should be used to built energy efficent machines.
This as example opens way to "zero-growth economy", there every member is limited to have profit.
Did they build these wind turbines on the island? no then how can it be sustainable? this actually my way of commenting on the Sustainable idea not the power source go ahead and do it but don't claim it as sustainable for the law of thermodynamics says it won't work. you always have to use resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOut of curiosity, do the wood chips for the wood-burning district on the island come from the island? Or are they imported from the mainland?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's called Base Load. It equals Nuclear in a country 3,500 miles wide and 2,000 north to south with 300 million people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear.
Get over it.
Nay saying this does not recognize the use of off peak storage facilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice these people always fight shy of saying what it actually Does do, they prefer to say what it "can do".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for "money in the bank" - it's in fact money sat in a bad wind rotating aimlessly - but picking-up lots of nice "green" subsidy, from all the disgusting polluters. Talk about Laundery !
This is just bilge. The determining factor for whether any supposed "energy gathering" system "Works" or not, will always be how many times as much energy does it return over its working life, as is required to replace it". The fact that it supplies energy when it "feels like it" is a total diversion from the actual reality. Storage to smooth-out supply-Demand conflicts must really be added to its cost. This will increase the payback-period", of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent (80mhigh) "Windfarms" have a payback period about 40 times the best that is achievable. There are two simple reasons for this, plus what Mr. Betz showed to be inevitable (way back in C1920) for an unducted rotor stood facing a wind..
It seems that people assume that these things are quite simple and matter of fact, but, IN fact, they are a load of tosh. They are no more than window dressing, which "launders" income from other energy sources. Show me where I am wrong.
"Renewable" is the word. So long as other energy sources are available, yes, the things can be "renewed" - i.e. replaced. It's only a little carbon footprint and they look great - and the subsidies from the dirty polluters are terrific. But the purpose of "Wind energy" is to have a Negative "foorprint" !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd indeed a sensible design will have a negative print in a reasonable site, certainly in the sites enjoyed by these appauling jokes. Current "technology" reurns about 1/40 the % p.a. of its (carbon footprint) cost, that a serious design does.
Everything is currently made with energy from fossil fuels, and so prices are inevitably linked to it. It does not alter the economics of an energy gathering system. By definition, these things Don't Involve OIL !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe economics will always be "How long must it run for, in order to gather and supply enough energy to make a second "
You point out some real stuff - Big Macs etc. - but then you get into cuckooland with "diffuseness" and "energy densities", neither of which bear any relavance to the pursuit of gathering energy - in this case from the wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might interest you to see - what it appears few have seen - that the cost of facing any given area of wind is a necklace-shaped function of (log) Size - diameter - of the T-A devices
(TADs ?) deployed.This is because the T and the A have opposite economy of size. The lowest cost is of course when the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around One metre diameter - not 40 !!. Taking this major simplicity into account - among with one other, plus (vey careful and considerate "ducting" either side of the rotor reduces the "Payback period" from the 700-odd years of current "technology" to around 10 or 20 years.
If half of the output is re-invested in building further, a "doubling-time of around 28 years is achieved from a 5% p.a. return of cost.
Boloney, tell me how I can get 15KW of RE power for <$10K. PV systems go for $12K per KW. Payback is >20 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't shop well. Panels $2/wt from sunelec.com and windgens from magnets4less.com for $1.5k/kw including inverter.
The solar CSP is just a 5hp heat engine, a 3 kw alt, a 200sq' collector, easily built for under $6k, produce 15kwhr/day plus 45kwhr of heat. So yes you can have both wind and PV or wind and CSP for under $10k, enough power in fact that one should get a check back from the utility instead of paying them with that check going up over the yrs..
So as you can see RE costs are dropping below what fossil fuels are, especially if you don't get it with a utility's mark up. If you overpay, that is your fault. If you can't set up solar panels you're in trouble anyway.
bertwindon...nice responses...I question the last one on the 700-odd year payback time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can buy an 8 gigawatt per year wind mill(assuming it actually puts out that much) for 1 million dollars and the USA current cost is 10 cents a kilowatt(or higher...gone up recently) I think the payback time comes out to....
( 8gw/10kw(1 dollar)=800k dollars per year...or ) 1.25 years.
please...anyone correct me if I got this wrong...
bertwindon...please disreguard the 700 year payback in my previous post...just reread your post..my bad...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRFencl: yes indeed the wood chips and hay do come from the island, just so you know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments here and the tenor of the text show how utterly impractical is wind power and even more so the futile attempts at " decarbonizing" the lifestyle of a small, affluent and well educated island by running electric cars, solar panels, etc. Can you imagine how would you entice the poorer populations of Africa or some parts of Latin America to follow this very unsuccessful example?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am rather worried at the lack of serious analysis by Scientific American in presenting such an article. This is just pious wishful thinking, that will never translate into reality. The recent debacle of the Copenhagen Conference showed teach in no uncertain way what are the constraints of the problem, and until something as practical and of comparable cost as fossil fuel and nuclear power generation is invented and developed, attempts at "renewables" will meet a resounding failure, people will refuse to be taxed or pay higher prices for energy when they perceive no benefits from this alternative. On top, recent revelations about the uncertainties of the AGW hypothesis throw even more doubts on the basis of all this wasted effort. Why continue in that direction?
JSMon37
The research mentioned by shoshin doesn't "blow a hole" in the climate change argument, it suggests that we have been underestimating the effect of certain greenhouse gasses and aerosols in combination with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48940/title/Aerosols_cloud_the_climate_picture
The comment by Joedoakes "environmentalists just want us to use less energy..." was made in a snarky way and was intended to be a pejorative comment, but is otherwise true. No "alternative energy" system is as cost effective as simply using less energy. The implication of Joe's comment, of course, is that using less energy necessarily leads to a lower standard of living. We know by looking at the rest of the rich world that this is not true. Western European's have a standard of living equal to (and many would say better) than that of the average resident of the US while using a fraction of the energy. Our wasteful energy practices and systems can easily be reformed to yield as much as a 75% reduction in energy use without suffering on our part (see "Factor Four", 1998, Lovins and Weizsacker).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce we have reduced the demand by that much, the remaining demand can be satisfied by a networked combination of renewable sources (wind, sun, tides, hydro, etc.)
First things first!
Should you include "Wind" in your list of "alternative"/"renewable" energy sources, without qualifying with "a sensible design of ..". I adk this in view of the certaing knowledge gained from 5 minutes (at the end of 15 years !) reflection upon the effect upon cost (The energy put into making the thing) versus Size, or diameter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you care to think about this, it soon becomes clear that Turbines have opposite "economy of size" to (dare we mention them ) - Alternators. Oh, alternators, remember them ? they went out way back , along with "digital computers" - remember them !. Well they are in fact both keeping our modern world rolling-along rowards whatever.
The cost of facing any given area of weather can therefore be seen to be a necklace-shaped function of (log) Size of the TADs (Turbine-Alternator Devices) deployed,
E.g., if the T is doubled in diameter (to replace 4) it will require 8 times the weight of materials to build.
Meanwhile the One A (of 4 times the thro'put) will cost only about Twice as much as one of the 4 it replaces. So the A-bill halves, while the T-bill doubles. Lowest cost occurs around sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around a metre diameter. (Not 40 !!) Just under this and the required gear coupling ratio becomes 1:1, i.e. the gearbox "disappears" !
This, plus the Constant revs mode of operation, (as opposed to constant pitch-angle) multiply to make the "time to re-coop the energy required to build a second" about 40 times what it would be from a design which took these simple facts (and one or two others) into account. This renders "modern windfarms" completely un sustainable without energy input from elsewhere. i.e. they have a net Positive "carbon footprint". The intention is that it should be Negative !!!
Joedokes wrote: "Further, the article also laments the fact that power consumption hasn't been going down. This underscores the TRUE motivation of most environmentalists. They really want us to consume less, simply for the sake of consuming less. I would go so far as to argue, that they would rather have us consume 1/2 as much dirty power as they would 100% clean power. That is their real motivation is simply to lower the standard of living of all people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you for real? Hell yeah I want you to consume less for the sake of consuming less but you are dead wrong if you think I would rather you use 1/2 as much dirty energy than 100% clean energy. Using 1/2 as much energy would certainly make it a lot easier to provide you with clean alternatives though.
As for your "standard" of living being lowered, I would love to hear just what you think your "standard" of living is.
Your television didn't stop working because someone made it estar compliant, your house didn't fall down around you because someone installed better insulation, and your lights didn't go out because some of the energy is being supplied by wind turbines.
I think what you really mean is that we want to change your mode of living, and we certainly do not want to lower it, it want to vastly improve it.
You need to qualify your sweeping assertions regarding wind and solar so as not to include "sensible designs placed in appropriate locations", because such actually can survive and grow without energy input from other sources. Read one of my other comments regarding Wind-energy. It is could avoid Hell on Earth, that's all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't do math so well $2/watt x 15000watts=$30k Therefore not <$10k. This doesnt include inverters, housing for the panels, misc hardware or labor. There is no free lunch with RE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how long can this wonderful "standard of living" (for who ?) you refer to, actually last ? Fossil fuel, as you may have gathered, is a finite resourse, and it's un-mitigated use has lead to the destruction of much of the biopsphere in which we attempt to live, through the greenhouse effect of products of combustion, and deforestation. (not leaving-out ocean acidification)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat when the party is over and the "standards of living" are few and far between - and the whole expanded-by-fossil-fuel world population of 8 ? 9 ? Giga persons, attempt to come in out of the cold/heat/drought/hurricanes / you name it.
You will own a cruise liner with an "organic farm" aboard ?
What is your solution "Nuke it" ? Sniff glue ?
Anyone can if they can find a big enough "sucker" to give them the money to do so. The question that suckers never seem to ask, is "will the "renewable" systems have put enuf back into the bank to replace them when the day arrives, or to expand the system if all is still functioning ?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Modern windfarms", for instance, take several hundred years to do so, but they last long enough to make the government look good at the next "Climate change" meeting - and that's what counts if you are a True Politician !
It is readily possible, by the way, to get several Whole percent of cost returned p.a. from a sensible wind-energy system in a decent site, but governments show no interest in this prospect, so far. Ask them yourself.
You had better start making them then !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that depends upon what you include in the "cost of coal" !! It looks set to cost the whole of Life on Earth - well, to be fair, along with it's co-horts, oil etc. Hasn't anyone told you about it ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey're doing a good thing. i hope that the rest of the world learns from this. If we figure that black holes exist, why can't say the same of a working renewable resource model?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOW A DAYS MOST OF THE EDUCATORS ARE STUDYING COMPUTER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBECAUSE THEY ARE VERY EASY
ENGINEERING SCIENCE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM CS&T
NO OF CS&T COLLEGES UNIVERSITIES ARE THERE BUT VERY LESS NO OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTES ARE THERE
AS THERE ARE NO GOOD ENGINEERS THE CITY CONSTRUCTION MAY NOT BE GOOD
EXAMPLE HYDERABAD
A GREAT CITY BUT CANNOTHAVE GOOD CITY PLANNING
MOST OF THE THINGS RANDOMLY
THOSE RANDOM THINGS ALWAYS LEADS TO FALL-DOWN
BANGOLORE IS THE CITY HAVING GOOD CITY PLANNING
WHICH MADE FROM GOOD ENGINEERS
You are confusing a physical and mathematical inevitability with something related to neither gravitation nor Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity" (which predicted that light would be affected by gravity, but by such a slight ammount that it would be very difficult to detect.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr would "a working renewable resource model" be likely to comprise gravity and A.E.'s "GTR" ?? Please let me know.
Go to Irish Times.com and search "Donabate Malahide railway viaduct" Sat 21 Aug '09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere the headline says .. the planet .. Maybe what it is meaning is "our current lifestyles". The Earth has always been, and must needs always be, powered by the star around which it orbits - The Sun
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa big thumbs up for Denmark.I am co- owner of a compony called wms technologies.We also are in the alternativ and renewabal energy business.Mother earth is in trouble and we intened to do something about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdragonslayr54@yahoo.com
Fact 1. Pollution kills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact 2. One million Iraq citizens and thousands of Americans have died to steal oil.
Fact 3. The trillion dollars the Iraq war cost could have paid for us to start switching to alternative energies. Lives would have been saved.
Fact 4. We save twice what we spend if we switch to alternative energy.
Poor soccerdad is way, way off base, not only in his calculations but more importantly, ignoring the fact that renewable energy sources are still in their infancy. When people like Warren Buffet and others start investing their dollars that represents the beginning of an impetus for more R&D dollar input. The world has been held hostage to oil and coal producers for far too long. Next step: find a way to eleminate the outdated internal combustion model and move on to something with greater effeciency that is also cleaner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoloney, [said in part] tell me how I can get 15KW of RE power for <$10K. PV systems go for $12K per KW. Payback is >20 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistomgarven@hotmail.com responds.
Current solar PV prices here in Arizona are as follows. The average price of a solar PV system including all permits, inspections, panels, inverters, wiring, and installation labor is currently running about $7.00 per watt before any utility or state rebates or federal tax credits.
After the rebates and credits are applied the cost of most roof or ground mounted solar PV systems between 5 and 15 kW is about $3.00/watt DC.
well, all of you are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut the expenses for energy is only one side of the coin.
if we spend the 250 billions a year for oil from not such a friendly guys, we have to spend 500 billions extra for weapons and still worry about the future.
let's spend 25 billion for wind turbines and accumulate the power in windy weather.this way those guys will be
poor enough to buy weapons...
The kattegat has a very strong predictable tide, why not put water turbines on the shafts of the seaborne wind towers, thus ensuring supply even when the wind is calm! It could be a retrofit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I see that this article hasn't received the warmest of receptions, but at least the Danes are actually trying things. These are very complex problems that are being addressed and we could way costs and benefits for as long as you want. The only way to really know what works is to try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs was already mentioned earlier in these posts, the price of any technology will come down over time, so we shouldn't pay too much attention to that when deciding what's best for the long term.