Display:
1) the balancing is rather easy technically as there is a lot of hydro in the Nordpool. Denmark selling power at low prices and buying it a higher prices from Norway or Sweden does not negate the benefits of wind, it's just a question of who gets that benefit. Thereality is that wind brings down prices, on average (via the merit order effect), with an overall benefit to consumers (ans a loss to traditional power generators) which is larger than the cost of the feed-in tariff for wind.

So, irrespective of the cost to Danish generators (and you should be happy about coal-plants oweners losing money, right?); it's a positive to Danish consumers and taxpayers.

3) that's an argument not to do anything.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The energy debate in Denmark post the 70s oil crisis was explicitly between a bet on nuclear and a bet on renewables. Looking at the actual consequences of the choice made, when compared to the people who came down on the other side of the fence, IE: Sweden, France, the wrong side won in Denmark.
You could make this the topic of your first diary.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but it is a reason to expect that if a plan for  future energy supply includes "and then electricty demand drops by 20%" at any stage, its probably not going to work out well.
by Thomas on Fri Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series