So much power was produced by Denmark’s windfarms on Thursday that the country was able to meet its domestic electricity demand and export power to Norway, Germany and Sweden.
On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, when electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%.
Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. Sweden took the remaining fifth of excess power.
“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for trade body the European Wind Energy Association. “Wind energy and renewables can be a solution to decarbonisation – and also security of supply at times of high demand.”
The figures emerged on the website of the Danish transmission systems operator, energinet.dk, which provides a minute-by-minute account of renewable power in the national grid. The site shows that Denmark’s windfarms were not even operating at their full 4.8GW capacity at the time of yesterday’s peaks.
A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020, according to Kees van der Leun, the chief commercial officer of the Ecofys energy consultancy.
“They have a strong new builds programme with a net gain of 0.5GW in new onshore windfarms due before the end of the decade,” he said. “Some 1.5GW from new offshore windfarms will also be built, more than doubling the present capacity. We’re seeing a year-on-year 18% growth in wind electricity, so there really is a lot of momentum.”
The British wind industry may view the Danish achievement with envy, after David Cameron’s government announced a withdrawal of support for onshore windfarms from next year, and planning obstacles for onshore wind builds.
Joy said: “If we want to see this happening on a European scale, it is essential that we upgrade the continent’s ageing grid infrastructure, ensure that countries open up borders, increase interconnection and trade electricity on a single market.”
Around three-quarters of Denmark’s wind capacity comes from onshore windfarms, which have strong government backing.
View all comments >
comments (560)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
“It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy”
This has been true for decades. As examples such as Denmark are growing, there is less and less room for climate change deniers to argue in favor of fossil fuels.
But wait - there is going to that idiotic comment asking that wind power is bad because what to do if wind stops... or transmission losses... or noise pollution... or that Jesus likes coal. Just wait - it's coming.
"Jesus likes coal" - priceless.
Just because it was windy yesterday doesn't mean there will be enough wind to generate Denmark's power throughout the year.
Focussing on daily maximums to prove a point is illogical. It is the average output of renewables over the year that is important. The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that more focus is needed on developing large scale storage.
It's really about money. Renewable energy has at a guess always been possible. Windmills have been around for a very long time. You can't ignore the monetary cost of renewables and you can't expect the world's poor to stump up the cash.
In June, Scotland's wind turbines produced a third of Scotland's entire electricity needs for the month, or enough for 70% of Scotland's households. Not bad for summertime.
IIf Thatcher had not sabotaged the nascent industry three decades ago, the UK would be leading the world in a mature wind-turbine & tidal-power engineering industry by now. And of course, offshore wind -- and tide/wave -- production would be massively higher.
Sad to see another Tory government eager to pull the rug out .
When wind production is high in one country it is also high in others. Wind does not just stop in Denmark or Scotland. The trade prices for electricity go down as excess electricity is produced. You are hoping no other country produces electricity at that time to get a high price to export.
And to generate this energy they would have needed engineering experience and expertise that could have been provided by a strong, relevant engineering industry in Scotland. That, I think, is the point being made.
In practice other countries take up the surplus which is sold at very low cost... because it gets priority over fossil fuel power, which is then switched off.
Which is why conventional baseload plant can't make a profit any more, why EON has dumped it.
And why we need a different model for the electricity market - e.g. govt pays for standby plant to cover when renewables not online.
I would rather look at a wind farm than a dead planet!
You could very well be looking at both unless reality sets in, the ideology is dumped and engineering rather than politics is the guide to deep decarbonization of energy production.
Here's an article about high winds in Denmark resulting in a high rate of energy production, some of which has been exported via interconnectors - nothing more, nothing less. Meanwhile the anti-wind mob take to their keyboards to try to convince us that wind is unviable as a contributor to the energy mix using every illogical and irrelevant argument they can think of.
What's the point folks? What can you achieve by constant knocking? What sort of world would you like to see?
Spot on. Nobody is even claiming that wind would be the major source of power, but it could be a far far more significant contributor if only we had the forsight of Denmark and Germany.
Brilliant.
Come on UK, you're doing pretty good with offshore wind, but can do much better
Excellent.
An example of how renewables are supposed to work to deliver close to 100% power:
- A mixture of sources: Wave, wind, tide, geothermal, solar, and hydro plus some biomass.
Optimised per location.
- A trans-national distribution grid as in this Nordic example to help generation match demand.
This is at the heart of 100% renewable energy plans developed
- In the USA
- In Europe.
- In Germany
- In the UK.
It really works - it's beginning to be put in place: All we need to do is take decisive action at the political level and change energy generation in this direction as fast as possible.
"A trans-national distribution grid"
It is impossible, by definition, to have a a trans-national DISTRIBUTION grid.
Please at least make some effort to use the correct terms. It's a transmission grid, not that it would make the slightest difference what you call it as when the wind stops blowing with a blocking high then the whole of northern Europes wind generation effectively stops, Ireland, UK, Denmark and Germany.
No one is suggesting just relying on wind power. So annoying to see the same strawman arguments from the deniers. Couldn't you come up with something original?
And when was there last such a blocking high and how long did it last for?
Yes but it's OK because then Spain and Italy, papered in solar panels, or the Atlantic littoral with tidal barrages take over. Why act ignorant of this, is there any need to be quite so obstinate?
I expect the real reason you don't like it is it implies European integration.
Seriously how many more people intended to comment that wind isn't the answer because it's not reliable? No one said it was the only answer even the article says "100% renewable energy", not 100% wind energy, 100% renewable.
What this means is if we have enough renewable methods, solar, thermal, hydro, Wind and whatever else we may think of or have already thought of then as a combination effect we should never be without the power we need even if suddenly we have a day with a lack of wind.
Yes, but isn't the point that this happened just on one day when it was very windy? A country can't bank on it always being windy.
There is a place for renewable energy, but something reliant on the weather can't be relied upon entirely.
Denmark aims to install enough wind power that on average/over lower output days its needs are met... plus it can plan on importing from Germany/Norway.
Even on supposedly calm days power is still generated.
Wind is one of the solutions we need to ensure coal, oil and gas are left in the ground.
http://winderful.diascreative.net/
(1) It was windy for a summer month. This means that winter production can be of the same order of magnitude or the same ballpark figure as consumption in the very near future, if not already.
(2) The excess was transported to places quite far away, over national borders. The point there is that in future, places with huge wind-energy potential and smaller populations (like Norway, say) using HVAC transmission or whatever, can export excess power to more densely populated & industrialised areas like Germany, when it isn't windy/sunny enough there.
Despite recent events at the polls, Denmark remains, by and large, a progressive country while the UK becomes more regressive...
By comparison, here in Australia we have a prime minister who has declared wind turbines ugly, but loves open-cut coal mines.
With a blizzard in the Southern Highlands the ones near Lake George that his loyal treasurer found so utterly offensive are spinning like tops.
Kudos to the forward-thinking Danish. Time to upgrade grids around the world and embrace the future of cleaner, renewable power of all stripes. We're all capable of taking steps to leave the fossil and (petro-) plastic world behind.
Fantastic. Just goes to show that a world powered by renewable energy is possible if we go for it.
Finally a purpose for Donald Trump. The 'Idiot Wind' from his gob could provide power for the whole of the USA.
The figures on this look great and I've never been down with the 'eyesore' argument either. Sorry but wind farms look aesthetically pleasing to me.
Doesn't trump mean the wind from another orifice?
"Around three quarters of Denmark´s wind capacity comes from onshore windfarms, which have strong government backing."
That willingness on the part of elected power to do things sanely. News that allows me to imagine a more lovely world. Thankyou !
Many Danish children visited wind power plants when they were young and when they grew up some decided to become involved:
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/21/oldest-operating-wind-turbine-world-turning-40/
Many UK children visited atomic power plants. But weren't interested in a career there.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/channels/skills-and-careers/uk-faces-36800-shortfall-in-qualified-engineers-by-2050/1015304.article
or in the USA
http://www.power-eng.com/blogs/power-points/2014/12/who_will_replacepow.html
Silver tsunami:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/29/us-nuclear-ageing-idUSTRE6AS1PQ20101129
Last week accidentally I met several young chaps working for Dong, the Danish utility. None older than 35 and none with silver on the head. Plastic helmets, yes.
......maybe they ought to visit the toxic lakes in China , caused by the production of Neodymium magnets ?
Ah Neodymium magnets - they're used in high efficiency dc motors as in power tools, disc drives, fridges etc. But only the ones in wind turbines are poisonous.
Now I'm fairly sure some of our regular cynics here used to say that big thermal base load power was absolutely essential to regulate grid frequency. And that distributed renewables would only screw up the system with their dirty Hz.
What say you now? Full wind power (for a time), with lots to spare, and as far as I can tell, nothing broke at all.
So even though we clearly have a ways to go, with the renewables thing, I think we can at least put one myth to rest.
So Denmark was able to produce 140% of it's power needs on Friday and 116% of it's power on Thursday while still connected to the German, Norwegian and Swedish electricity grids . Denmark is still relying on the Nuclear power stations in Sweden for base load power and stability of their system and to fill any shortages when the wind does not blow. Your argument is superfluous until Denmark is a stand alone system and not connected to it's neighbours. (What say you now)
Ignorance combined with ideology is a toxic brew. Here are the findings of AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) that deal with exactly this issue in South Australia which has nearly as high a percentage of wind power as Denmark:
It concludes that the SA power system can operate securely and reliably with a high percentage of wind and PV generation, including in situations where wind generation comprises more than 100% of SA demand, as long as one of the following two key factors apply:
a) The Heywood Interconnector linking SA and Victoria is operational.
b) Sufficient synchronous generation is connected and operating on the SA power system.
Renewable Energy Integration in South Australia - Joint AEMO & Electranet Report
Synchronous generation by hydro or thermal is mandatory.
With the new battery technologies well under way, they will solve the problem of shortage of wind. Its just around the corner.
No matter how loud & hard the renewable haters kick & scream, renewables are here to stay, & they will improve every day with new technologies are discovered.
It will happen DESPITE the critics & scaremongers.
My local council and the Planning Inspectorate rejected a local wind turbine because of adverse impacts on the view from my village and Cannock Chase.
We have a great view of a big coal burner at Rugeley.
The irrationality of such decisions is mind boggling - what do they think will happen to the views with 4C plus of warming this century?
Well, some of these views will be gone then ....and some viewers as well.
What idiocy!
Build a 1GW nuke
With all the wind, of both types, that comes out of Westminster we should be able to generate enough for the whole of Europe.
Wind power: 1
Climate change deniers: minus 2
Once again, we have a headline about renewables that is visually impressive, but technically meaningless (or at least woefully lacking in context). So wind power generates 140% of demand in Denmark for a specific length of time on a specific date. That's not important. What is important is how much demand is met on average over the year, and how much that costs compared to other clean energy sources, including the money received from selling any excess.
Denmark got 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from wind in 2014.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/07/3608898/denmark-sets-world-record-for-wind-power/
I assume you mean a narrow definition of costs (eg as in £ per MWh). What about looking at the broader cost picture of pollution, ill health and climate change from carbon-based power generation ? Changes the equation a bit. That's why so many people derive hope and encouragement from seeing improvements and gains made in generation from renewables.
Yes, still a long, long way to go, but at least it's the right direction.
I believe the point is that it shows that renewable energy can generate enough electricity to largely replace conventional systems.
With energy storage, smart grids and better interconnectivity, the excess can be stored/transported for when the wind doesn't blow/sun shine etc.
Problem is, currently that interconnectivity and storage capacity is not available.
The miserabilist tendency are out in force today- some of whom would no doubt love to live in a converted water or windmill in the Tory shires.
As I write this, wind is now generating only 3% of Denmark's electricity and they are importing more than 60%.
right now, danish wind turbines are only generating a measly 76 mw out of 3000+ mw total demand
http://i57.tinypic.com/156q22w.png
source of the screenshot
http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elsystemet-lige-nu.aspx
Interesting, but what's your point ?
Annually, Demnark generates 30 to 40%, I believe, of it's power from wind.
That tells us something. A momentary high / low doesn't tell us much more than "OOoh! It's really windy!" or "Ooooh! It's really calm !"
The weather service is more useful if you want to discuss the weather.
Which incidentally is pretty predictable, such that renewables such as wind and solar are pretty predictable too, these days.
Flot klarede !!
Keep it in the ground indeed, clean renewables must take the place of dirty fossil fuels.
So on a usual non windy day, what then?
Other energy sources would kick in to make up the shortfall. No one is suggesting dependency on one technology.
On a usual non-windy day where you are, it is always windy somewhere else.
Somewhere not to far away, in these days of HVAC transmission lines - such as the ones already linking Ireland, the UK, Netherlands etc.
Thats a very flawed viewpoint - not only would all countries need to waste money installing excess capacity to prop up their neighbours but you would need massive & expenisve connection capacity to shift such massive loads. It not 'always' windy somewhere else... Europe largely shares similar weather patterns.
Again, like the figure touted for Germany, it is somewhat misleading and taken out of context. Denmark has a small population (4.5 million) and is sparsely populated. It is relatively easy for Denmark to produce enough of its electricity needs with renewables (a somewhat misnomer term) and export a surplus to its neighbours.
Your figures are, I am afraid, more misleading :( The population of Denmark is 5,669,000, and it is not particularly sparsely populated. It is more sparsely populated than about half of EU countries, but about the same as France and Spain - and Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Greece and many others are more sparsely populated.
Well corrected!
Even more sparsely populated if you include
their property in Greenland.
The critical passage is " Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. "
Unless and until there is a cheap way to store gigawatt hours of electric power windmills will remain expensive toys.
Right. Although....
"A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020"
Occasionally they can export a little, to pay for the other half, as well as for the days when it's not windy. Yet presumably you think they should have just built another coal-fired station or two? Or perhaps a nuclear plant?
I'd say good luck to them - at least they're trying.
Hence the UK wants to connect to Norway where the cheapest power in the world can be purchased.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/26/uk-and-norway-to-build-worlds-longest-undersea-energy-interconnector
Norway can't store wind power with pumped hydro b.t.w., there is no pumped hydro-power in Norway.
All that is done is using wind power directly if cheap and closing the valves at the hydro power stations for the time being.
The same already happens in the Alps where I lived for a time. In the summer river flows off the glaciers vary during the day anyway, and holding some back for morning and evening peaks is a routine arrangement. On a daily basis not too much storage is required. I imagine in Norway due to the topography and lower population storage would be easier to achieve.
Denmark has nine coal fired power stations.........................Why ? Because they need them. Clearly they do not produce more green energy than they use.
How many of those remaining coal plants are combined heat and power?
They have a lot of those, and can not turn them off without cutting hot water and heat to a district. They are being replaced.
Clearly your argument is not as clear cut as you imagined.
@Larurence Johnson
The nine coal fired power stations you mention, are not coal powered, but garbage recycle stations, converting non-recyclable garbage into energy.
From what I see on other sites on the internet, Denmark produced about 34.7% of it's electricity from coal in 2012.
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment