Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Originally Posted by Brexx
History of natural gas in DenmarkPrior to this, an agreement on sale of surplus gas to Danish power plants had been entered into in 1984, and in 1990 it was decided that the majority of the district heating plants and the block heating stations were to be converted to natural gas.
Most danish power plants run on gas by now.
Germany, Benelux and France will follow suit.
We donīt have the land mass of the USA, our population is dense and we can not dig giant holes in the ground as is done in the states.
It was done for brown coal, but thereīs only one major site left for that product now. And itīs a very inefficient fuel.
Enough damage has been done to nature in the Ruhr area and we just donīt want more of it.
perhaps, when most parts of the USA look like this...
...Folks will start thinking.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse
of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.
The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner
as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig von Mises
Speaker of the House
Except we donīt really have any coal plants, we run on natural gas.
As for no profit in the wind industry, you have to look at the big picture. Lots of people employed, who pay taxes. So yes, the country does make money on wind power overall, due to increased tax revenue and the export of technology to other countries, who are starting to get interested in wind power.
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
History of natural gas in Denmark
Most danish power plants run on gas by now.
Germany, Benelux and France will follow suit.
We donīt have the land mass of the USA, our population is dense and we can not dig giant holes in the ground as is done in the states.
It was done for brown coal, but thereīs only one major site left for that product now. And itīs a very inefficient fuel.
Enough damage has been done to nature in the Ruhr area and we just donīt want more of it.
perhaps, when most parts of the USA look like this...
...Folks will start thinking.
If most Danish power plants run on gas now, what did you mean when you said this:
"You forgot to mention:
For less than it costs to produce it with coal-, oil-, or nuclear plants.
Taking into account only the wind and solar produced electricity thereīs even profit in it.
The loss, as you have stated yourself above is caused by having to run coal, oil and nuclear plants despite there being no need for their product."
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Yes, Denmark is making money selling wind turbines to other countries, so it is understandable they would want to promote the benefits of wind power.
But there are questions as to how well it is working for them let alone how well it might work for other countries.
This whole wind thing is not driven by economics. It is driven by government subsidies, which are driven by public opinion, which is driven by global warming scaremongering.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
No one "has to run" coal oil and nuclear.
Danes have one last coal plant and it will be shut down in 2012.
They go more for block-power plants, small units which can be run with variable output.
All of those run on Gas.
So if thereīs a lot of wind, blocks run at minimum.
As the wind reduces theyīre accelerated.
By 2020 you will not find a single coal or oil plant in all of Northern Europe (exception = Britain).
Most nuclear plants will be obsolete too.
Wanna buy them ?
Youīre welcome.
We sold three to the Chinese already.
But even they are changing to gas.
Once the pipe from the Caspian is finished they will run coal and oil only in emergencies.
Re your question above:
You quoted figures of 2005.
Since 2008 Danes did not have to sell electricity under value.
OK, they might have been lucky.
Their surpluses did occur just at the times when the Vattenfall nuclear plants in Germanys north were defunct due to accidents.
That btw is another plus.
A windmill might topple, but thatīs it.
If a nuclear plant goes haywire itīs goddam dangerous. See Chernobyl.
If a coal plant spouts, a lot of people will have to visit hospitals.
The real problem youīre having in the States with wind farms is that all providers are tryeing to make maximum profit out of minimum investment.
They give a shit about bad side effects of their plants as long as they make a lot of profit.
Balance wrote about a wind farm in Illinois with 200 to 300 mills.
Youīll not find anything the like in Europe.
Perhaps itīs simply because we care for people.
In Germany, a maximium of eight mills per two square miles is allowed and a height of 100 feet per mill on land.
This is to keep the noise level low.
Also, mills are allowed only at a minimum distance of 1 km from settlements and main roads in open country.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse
of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.
The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner
as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig von Mises
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks