Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Danes go cold on wind farms

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 November 2006
THE nation that leads the world in wind-farm development is going cool on the environmentally friendly source of power.
Since the boom year of 2000, when as many as 748 turbines were erected, the number being built in Denmark has steadily fallen. So far this year, only six new wind turbines have been put up.

While many countries around the world are clamouring to
buy Danish wind turbines, Denmark's government is finding it difficult to convince its own population to accept an increase in the domestic use of the green technology.

Describing turbines as "poorly located, noisy and unsightly", a number of local authorities, backed by grass-roots campaigners, are rejecting plans for new wind farms.

The situation has not been helped by a 2004 decision - the architect of which was Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister - to remove state subsidies for wind power, leaving it to market forces.

Two years on, the ruling Social Liberal-Conservative coalition appears ready to accept its mistake but, despite intense government efforts to promote clean technology, local opposition to a new wave of wind-power construction has reached fever pitch. Leading politicians say that is potentially catastrophic for the Danish energy sector.

The situation has resonance in Scotland, because Denmark is about a decade ahead in terms of wind-farm usage and the current dispute is indicative of what may transpire here.

After an about-turn on the issue in the summer, Mr Fogh Rasmussen says he is committed to reducing Denmark's dependence on traditional fossil fuels. According to a forthcoming initiative, the government plans to meet 30 per cent of the country's fuel needs with alternative forms of energy by 2025.

According to both councillors and local residents, the government's decision to launch a new generation of 150m "super windmills" is as firmly rooted in economics as ideology.

Citing environment ministry figures, which confirm that offshore windmills cost nine times as much land-based ones, opponents have vehemently criticised the government for its willingness to ignore strict local authority planning guidelines in order to save money.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the government seems unrepentant about its plans to target rural areas for intensified energy development. Defending this decision, environment ministry officials have been at pains to underline the fact that many Danish wind farms are no longer energy-efficient and are in need of replacement if the government is to live up to its commitments.

Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister, is ready to overrule attempts by councillors to delay new-generation technology.

"We simply cannot continue to lead the world in the field of wind-power technology if we don't even make room for wind parks in our own country," she said. "The local authorities have a gigantic responsibility for the development of sustainable energy and the success of wind turbines. If they can't find a solution in the near future, we [the Danish government] will pass a directive on the matter."

Ms Hedegaard is awaiting the findings of a special wind energy committee, which will report later this month.

LEADING LIGHTS


THERE are 5,276 land-based wind turbines in Denmark - one for every 8sq km. In addition, it has 210 turbines in offshore farms.

Scotland, by contrast, has 643 land-based turbines, meaning one for every 122sq km - although many more wind farms are in the planning stage.

The Danish wind-turbine industry is the world's largest, employing 30,000 people and supplying 40 per cent of the world's turbines. Only Germany comes close to this.

Worldwide, installed wind- power capacity has now reached 59,322 megawatts, an increase of 25 per cent over 2004.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Mallory,

Edinburgh 01/11/2006 04:41:52

The Danes have 'got it'. Why don't we use wave and tidal power and banish these monstrosities from the countryside.

Should be easy enough for Government to switch the subsidies.

2

John M.,

01/11/2006 05:50:31

Wind, waves and tidal power cannot supply the sort of base load required to drive a first world economy because they inherently fluctuate from hour to hour and day to day. The answer that is required to eliminate unsustainable over-dependence on fossil fuels is to go back to nuclear power.

It is borderline insane that Europe opted to rapidly burn off valuable finite resources like Russian and North Sea gas just to stay warm in the winter in order to keep environmentalists from kicking up a fuss and using scare tactics to create mass hysteria.

Now the beardie weirdies are doing the same with fossil fuels and global warming no doubt in the hope that the proles will all leave the cities and go back to living off the land by subsistence farming where they can commune with Mother Nature and worship Mother Earth or whatever. I'm only two generations away from people who had to clamber up seacliffs on a rope just to get meat to eat and my answer to that is "No way José".

3

Jim,

01/11/2006 06:48:42

# John

Shove your nuclear power until the waste it produces can safely be dealt with

4

Cadgers,

Perth 01/11/2006 08:02:17

#3 Well said Jim.
#2 John, I presume you have no children? It would seem not with your "I'm all right Jack" attitude.

5

Dave,

Western Isles 01/11/2006 08:27:04

Will Scotland learn from the Danes?? Will we??

6

Max F,

01/11/2006 08:48:31

yup - more renewables please (including wave and tidal) . And don't for get to save energy too.

btw - this is cute

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/elephant

7

Charles M,

01/11/2006 08:54:32

David #1

Wave
No wave powered system has ever survived a winter. Despite the efforts of companies like Ocean Power Delivery this is still very experimental.

Tide
There is only one major system in the world which the French have been running since 1967. There hasn't been a rush to copy this system due to a variety of problems a) they only produce power for 6-12 hours a day b) they have significant environmental impact c) there are only a few suitable sites d) the largest system in the world is 200Mw so it's quite small.

Wind
Have a look at the following document:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.htm

it's a couple of years old but it gives a summary of the Danish situation.

8

maestra,

01/11/2006 09:10:05

I think it's great (not to mention inevitable) that we in Scotland are taking measures away from fossil fuels and expensive, inefficient, and dangerous nuclear towards renewable and sustainable.

If people want to continue with irresponsible, wasteful, thoughtless energy consumption, they could always move to the US...

9

Dave,

Western Isles 01/11/2006 09:22:34

Yes mum.

By the way, what's for tea?

10

Charles M,

01/11/2006 09:38:27

Mum 8#

If nuclear is expensive how come the French , who generate 80% of there electricty from nuclear, have the cheapest electricty in Western Europe. See the second table in :

http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_P...

11

Harbinger,

01/11/2006 10:28:17

Like in the Gold Rush, the people making the money are the ones who sell the shovels. Can't wait to see the scramble for scrap when the bubble bursts, trouble is, the concrete stays there.

I seem to recall we had something like 200 years of coal reserves when Maggie killed the coal industry. I expect it's still there.

12

bill-alba,

01/11/2006 10:29:21

I don't care what the £ cost of nuclear is...until they can get rid of the waste safely it should be used..
(and safeley doesnt mean burying waste underground).

13

Dave,

Western Isles 01/11/2006 11:09:33

What about blasting it out to space? Say toward the edge of the universe? Or toward the sun?

14

Charles M,

01/11/2006 11:13:35

11# I believe 10M tons are dug up every year in Scotland. 70% is shipped to England. Longannet goes through 10,000 tons a day. But what do you do with the waste, you can't bury can you!

15

Charles M,

01/11/2006 11:41:38

This all gets away from the point that the Danes have got to 14% of their electricity coming from windpower and they are having major problems with cost and the environmental damage it costs.
Where does this leave the Scottish Executives plan to have 40% of electrcity coming from renewables?

16

John M.,

01/11/2006 11:57:21

40% is a pipe dream Charles designed by the political elite to set back the evil day when they have to make unpalatable and unpopular choices. Fossil fuel supposedly means global warming and nuclear waste supposedly can't be disposed of according to the environmentalists so what exactly are we supposed to do to maintain our standard of living?

17

Pespiholic,

USA 01/11/2006 13:04:22

Idiots like #3, 4 and 8 don't know what they are talking about.

Nuclear waste can be stored safely and long term. Nintey+ percent of the radioactivity decays within the first 10 years and almost 95% after a hundred years.

How many people have died from accidents involving spent fuel??? None that I know of.

I work at a nuclear plant. We give off no greenhouse gasses, release less radioactivity to the environment than a coal plant, and I recieve more radiation from chest x-rays than I do from work.

18

Pespiholic,

USA 01/11/2006 13:08:48

Sorry, my numbers were wrong it should be:

Forty years after removal from the reactor less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains, and it is much easier to handle.

[http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm]

19

Mark Konrad,

america 01/11/2006 14:04:20

Continue to build wind turbines offshore. That will eliminate or at least greatly reduce complaints about noise and unsightly appearance. I'd like to see an itemised breakdown explaining the "nine times [cost] of land-based ones." That likely applies to initial construction only. Once the platforms and support equipment are in place it's doubtful the offshore costs would continue to be "nine times" as high as land based units. BP and Shell etc. build offshore oil rigs with hardly a second thought. Put the generators offshore and continue the process of reducing fossil fuel consumption particularly in the industrialised countries. Europe, particularly northern Europe is far far far ahead of the usa in this regard. The usa has hundreds, maybe thousands of miles of suitable coastline on the Atlantic and Pacific yet the wind power generation effort here is minimal.

20

Charles M,

01/11/2006 15:40:15

Mark,
it's obviously going to be a lot more expensive. If you have a breakdown onshore you send two guys in a Landrover. If you have a breakdown offshore you need the same two guys plus a boat plus crew or a helicopter.

If you have a break in the power connection to land it gets even more complex. Then you have salt water corrosion, damage from storms etc.

21

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 01/11/2006 16:25:08

The only reason the Danes can have so many windmills is that they know that when ever the wind stops blowing (Running at about 8 weeks a year) they can import electricity form German nuclear power stations. That way they can keep their obnoxious holier than though attitude but keep on having their lights lit.

As we don't have that facility ours will just go out.

22

Dod fae Orkney,

Orkney 01/11/2006 16:48:09

Nuclear is the sensible, reliable way to go. The existing Scottish nuclear power stations have served us all very well for decades. Build some new ones soon.

23

Mark Konrad,

america 01/11/2006 16:59:13

Charles,

I agree that offshore facilities would be somewhat more expensive to operate but I do question the "nine times" more expensive quote. Presumably an offshore wind facility would include a full-time maintenance and operating crew just as the offshore oil rigs do. I would think that the problems occurring on oil rigs due to the elements would not be greatly dissimilar to what would be faced on a wind turbine platform. Undersea cable technology (trans-ocean in fact) has been in existence for well over one hundred years so I would again presume that a three or five or twenty kilometre power cable from a platform to shore would not be extraordinarily complex to lay and maintain. As far as making repairs that are beyond the capability of the full-time platform crew, an extra day or week's pay to a helicopter pilot and (say) a crew of ten very highly paid technicians would still be a drop in the proverbial bucket to the power company. The oil companies occasionally have to make underwater and other heavy repairs to their offshore rigs which often involves bringing in highly paid outside contractors. To do that is a real cost, to be sure, but when taken into consideration with what a major corporation spends on mundane items such as office supplies contractor/repair fees aren't an especially large percentage of the overall budget. The oil companies continue to operate offshore rigs and they consider the odd expensive repair to be part of the cost of doing business. I would think that same principle would apply to wind generating platforms -- yes, there may be an occasional major mechanical or electrical etc. failure that would require the attention of expensive specialists, but I would hope that practical design and construction would enable a wind platform to spend the majority of its time functioning as designed and operating with a regular crew of full-time technicians. Like an offshore oil-drilling rig.

24

ThePeter,

01/11/2006 19:00:57

Can all the people who are wanting to go green and save electricty and not go nuclear (Jim#2 & Pat #3 for example) please switch off their PC's, switch off their lights, heating, TV's etc, disconnect themselves from the electricty grid, stop using cars or public transport or planes, not go to hospitals etc and then you can feel smug about saving energy?
In the real world, we need energy - no matter how efficent it is wind turbines are not the answer and no "green" resource so far is. Hopefully one solution is Bio-fuels but all solutions are partial. Unfortunately the only solution is to go nuclear. Oh, minor detail, even despite chernobyl, nucleart power has killed less people then coal fired power station pollution has...

25

Cecily,

Lethbridge 01/11/2006 21:49:38

I would suggest that the fossil fuels (with their inevitable emissions), required, to mine and crush the rock, extract the uranium,(with the accompanying chemical air and water pollution), concentrate it, and transport the yellowcake, then transport it in trains, trucks or ships to the other side of the world: then to build the nuclear power stations, then to drill the burial holes or tunnels in geologically stable sites, (not lots of those),then to transport the waste to where it is to be buried, then to decommission the nuclear power stations at the end of their lives, makes nuclear power ANYTHING BUT emissions-free. In addition. even low-level radiation, over a long period of time(many thousands of years)is damaging. How do you propose to do all this when the oil runs out? What are you going to do with the waste, leave it lying around?What are you going to do when sea levels rise, when nuclear stations on the coast, needing seawater for cooling, are inundated?Pick them up and move them, or run out of power anyway? It is possible that the energy produced AT THE POWER STATIONS IS more than the fossil energy expended to obtain it, but the (non-renewable) fossil fuel use, and emissions, are specifically to produce the nuclear power.They wouldn't BE added to the atmosphere, if we didn't go nuclear. As an afterthought, uranium is a non-renewabl resource. It can only be a stopgap anyway. As the French philosopher said, Mankind will never persue a rational, sensible course of action until they have tried all other alternatives. We are still trying.

26

John M.,

01/11/2006 22:14:12

Nice try Cecily but the reality is that there is a vast reduction in emissions with nuclear relative to coal and gas and the irony is that the environmentalists helped fuel the growth in the CO2 atmospheric concentration by halting the growth of the nuclear industry in most of the western world. Worth noting that there are also emissions involved in setting up renewables such as wind power.

27

Homer,

02/11/2006 06:45:44

Another article about wind becomes a debate on nuclear. Oh well.

Nuclear Chemist#17: "How many people have died from accidents involving spent fuel??? None that I know of."

2 workers died after a criticality incident in the Tokai nuclear reprocessing plant in Japan in 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokai%2C_Ibaraki

These might be the only 2 fatalities in history, and the incident doesn't make a strong case against nuclear power, given the number of fatalities associated with the fossil fuel industry.

However, if I were a nuclear chemist, I like to think I would have known about this kind of thing.

28

Homer,

02/11/2006 07:10:01

Charles#10: Thanks for the link.

Actually, the table you point to shows that electricity in Finland is cheaper than in France, and the previous table shows that domestic prices are cheaper in the UK, but these are moot points. Your argument is that nuclear power cannot be prohibitively expensive, since French electricity is at present relatively cheap.

However, as I'm sure you'll agree, an economic argument has to consider the lifetime costs of the technology. Although I don't know of any reliable figures, there's no doubt that the French nuclear programme has relied on significant subsidies from the French taxpayer (historically transparent accounts for nuclear energy are rarer than hen's teeth).

Without these figures it's difficult to construct an economic case for or against nuclear power from the French example. But using current power prices as the sole basis for comparison is disingenuous.

29

GP,

03/11/2006 13:40:31

More nuclear power please I want a high standard of living.
Get rid of all wind farms they are a complete joke.
Go total Nuclear and free ourselves from enewrgy threats.
We already have the problem of waste so let's fix it on our own doorstep. The carbon cost of wind farms is extremely high when you take in all the manufacturing costs, materials, disposal etc.
More highly paid jobs in NP stations and disposal site than imported wind turbines et al.

30

GP,

03/11/2006 13:41:28

King Coal - we have 300 - x years of coal available.

31

Colin, Glasgow,

07/11/2006 19:43:05

Well said John (#16).

The CO2 emissions from the nuclear power cycle are in many cases less than 1% of a coal power station, and they are generally less than the lifecycle emissions of any renewable source. The Danes burn a lot of coal, so despite their wind turbines they still have about the highest emissions per capita in Europe.

Ironically, because the Danes use (nuclear) electricity from Sweden, the Environmental Product Declaration for their wind turbines actually includes a certain amount of high level radioactive waste. It's about 1% of the radioactive waste produced by a nuclear plant for the same amount of electricity.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.