How Wind Met All of Denmark’s Electricity Needs for 90 Hours

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/how-wind-met-all-denmark-s-electricity-needs-90-hours-1387207540

Renewable electricity records are being broken every day. In early October, Germany hit a 59 percent renewable peak, Colorado utility Xcel Energy peaked at 60 percent wind at the beginning of the year and Spain got its top power supply from wind for three months leading into 2013.

But that’s chump change compared with Denmark. According to data from Energinet, the national grid operator, wind power has produced 30 percent of gross power consumption to date in 2013. This includes more than 90 hours where wind produced more than all of Denmark’s electricity needs, peaking at 122 percent on Oct. 28, at 2 a.m.

And Denmark has plans to get to 50 percent more wind by 2020, creating even bigger hourly peaks. Energinet predicts the country may hit as many as 1,000 hours per year of power surplus.

To champions of renewables, this is validation that a clean energy future is possible and that the transition is already underway. These regions also give insight into what is to come in the U.S., and what needs to change to keep a reliable and affordable power system as clean energy grows.

[progressoid]

1. Rec!

[Starboard Tack]

2. Love those Danes! Smart people.

[kristopher]

3. You might like this if you haven't seen it.

"Power to the People - Energy Consumption in Denmark"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759472

[PamW]

4. Danes are smart - they are also using NUCLEAR!!

The Danes receive about 10% of their power from nuclear power by tapping into Sweden for both nuclear and hydro power. That tap in is very important to the utilization of wind power, since wind turbines are NOT dispatchable, and hence need to have a source of reliable dispatchable power to keep the grid stable.

About one-third of Denmark's power comes from filthy coal, about one-third from wind power, and about 10% is from nuclear power.

Although the Danes produce about one-third of the electric generation capacity from wind; they only consume about half of the wind generated power. The other half is exported, typically to Norway and Sweden.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Denmark/

Although about one third of electricity is produced by wind, the country's use of this electricity is much lower. A 2009 report by Danish policy think tank CEPOS estimates that Denmark consumes around half of its wind-generated electricity on average. Wind power is heavily subsidized by Denmark but, because this power is exported at the spot price, the subsidies are effectively exported. Moreover, the countries that the wind-generated power is exported to – mainly Norway and Sweden – are largely carbon neutral with regards to power generation, so Denmark's exported wind power does not save carbon dioxide emissions, instead displacing carbon neutral generation. On the other hand, wind power consumed within Denmark lowers fossil generation in the country.

PamW

[Starboard Tack]

6. I think most of us are USING nuclear and DIRTY COAL

Every wind turbine that gets put on line reduces carbon emissions. That's simple math. Who uses it, or how it is shared is unimportant.

[PamW]

8. It depends on what it is displacing.

Starboard_Tack,

If clean wind power displaces dirty power; then that reduces carbon emissions.

But if clean carbon-free wind power merely displaces another clean carbon free power source; it does NOT reduce emission.

Suppose you generate "X" amount of energy via wind power, and therefore the local hydro power dam reduces its output by "X".

You only traded clean hydro power for clean wind power.

In order for it to reduce emissions; it must DISPLACE emissions from a carbon polluter; your appeal to "simple math" ( simplistic math ) notwithstanding.

PamW

[Starboard Tack]

9. I thought that was obvious.

OTOH, if solar/wind can replace nuclear, then so much the better. Regarding hydro, it would be good for some to be replaced, especially in areas where the environmental impact is the greatest.

[kristopher]

11. It is obvious.

That doesn't matter though, to someone intent on making the forum a repellent place to visit.

[PamW]

12. Yes - it is obvious

kristopher,

However, that doesn't mean that people won't make mistakes!!!

For example, it's obvious to anyone who is educated in physics and knows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that the 2nd Law forbids a 100% efficient "perfect heat engine". Courtesy of the Physics Department at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.

The non-zero amount of heat QC that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says is absolutely necessary is known as "waste heat".

Unfortunately, there are still people who lack the mental horsepower to understand this and advocate for 100% efficient heat engines.

It's obvious; but one still can't count out those whose intellect is challenged by such elementary physics theory.

PamW

[Starboard Tack]

13. I'm getting that impression.

I wasn't familiar with her posts until I read her profile page and a few of her other posts. Sounds like she's peddling nuclear as a safe and clean technology, which it is, of course, until it isn't.

[kristopher]

14. It goes beyond simply promoting something

Given the slipshod nature of the postings, it's difficult to construe the intent is to persuade anyone; which begs the question of just what the desire to participate here is actually based on.

Samples:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759813
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112758716
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049

[PamW]

15. Please read...

Yes - please read.

I'm especially proud of the thread in the middle link.

The reader will take note of how totally out of their fields both kristopher and bananas were.

They slipped up on vocabulary, didn't know what part of DOE did what...

They got their posteriors kicked most soundly.

PamW

[Nihil]

5. Excellent! Only 8676 hours to go then!

(Seriously though, it's good news - the potential of PamW's caveat notwithstanding - and it
will only get better over time - thanks for posting.)

[PamW]

7. Keep plugging....

Nihil,

So it's 90 hours out of a total of ( 90 + 8676 ) hours.

So the percentage is 90 / ( 90 + 8676 ) = 90 / 8766 = 0.0103 or about 1.03%.

Denmarks wind turbines can do a continuous run that is 1% of what the grid requires.

Keep plugging there, Danes...keep plugging.

At this rate, wind power will be feasible when the Earth is a torrid cinder with a runaway greenhouse effect.

As the scientists keep saying; wind power will get there; TOO LATE to be of any use, unfortunately.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

10. Yep. 30% of gross power consumption met with wind in 2012 and to date 2013

And they plan to increase that to 45% by 2020.

Not too shabby.