Denmark recently introduced an agreement with broad backing between all but one party. The agreement sets a strategic goal to produce one hundred percent of Denmark's electrical grid power from renewable sources. Generation from wind will play a central part in this vision of the future, but solar, bio-fuel incineration and some geothermal sources will be featured in Denmark's energy strategy. Mark that word, because it is central to understanding what is happening in Denmark right now.
The agreement is yet to pass into law, but with such wide backing, it is but a formality in the parliament to pass this strategy into law, secure financing for up to 2020. Following the bill passing into law, ministers will write policy to enact the law. This will take a few years to complete. The policies must be precise and each must have minimal effect on all other areas, so they are exceptionally long winded. While this is happening, counter arguments for natural gas will be heard. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, a highly criticized book, argues Denmark should instead invest in natural gas and close down heavily polluting coal burning power plants. His criticism (PDF) first notes why Denmark's strategy is ineffective in reducing Europe's CO2 emissions, stating other countries will be allowed to take Denmark's CO2 reduction and produce energy from cheaper coal and oil sources. He says this with the cavet, that the agreements over EU's CO2 reduction strategy doesn't encompass bio-mass and in this one area, Denmark will see a positive CO2 reduction. His second criticism makes use of economic models to calculate the true price of the project, calculating it to 10,000kr per family per year, significantly higher than the price tag the parties have so far stated.
However, these criticisms slip by the central point to this new strategy; Denmark desires to be completely independent of fluctuating oil prices. It is the prime motive to this new strategy, so CO2 reductions are not a big deal to those pushing the new plan. Shale gas, said to be the new bounty of energy, is also discounted as it is too unreliable. Martin Lidegaard thinks its price can fluctuate just as wildly as oil and is of unknown quantity. Poland is referenced, having paraded shale gas as a new major source of energy for the country, only to reduce its estimates and ambitions when the extent of shale gas held in the country were downgraded.
Predicting the future of energy in Denmark is a wild guessing game at this point. Until laws are passed, policies written and projects funded, this strategy can envoke many tactics and the outcomes can be drastically different from each other. Mr.Lomborg may yet convince the government about the benefits of natural gas before wind energy.
The agreement is yet to pass into law, but with such wide backing, it is but a formality in the parliament to pass this strategy into law, secure financing for up to 2020. Following the bill passing into law, ministers will write policy to enact the law. This will take a few years to complete. The policies must be precise and each must have minimal effect on all other areas, so they are exceptionally long winded. While this is happening, counter arguments for natural gas will be heard. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, a highly criticized book, argues Denmark should instead invest in natural gas and close down heavily polluting coal burning power plants. His criticism (PDF) first notes why Denmark's strategy is ineffective in reducing Europe's CO2 emissions, stating other countries will be allowed to take Denmark's CO2 reduction and produce energy from cheaper coal and oil sources. He says this with the cavet, that the agreements over EU's CO2 reduction strategy doesn't encompass bio-mass and in this one area, Denmark will see a positive CO2 reduction. His second criticism makes use of economic models to calculate the true price of the project, calculating it to 10,000kr per family per year, significantly higher than the price tag the parties have so far stated.
However, these criticisms slip by the central point to this new strategy; Denmark desires to be completely independent of fluctuating oil prices. It is the prime motive to this new strategy, so CO2 reductions are not a big deal to those pushing the new plan. Shale gas, said to be the new bounty of energy, is also discounted as it is too unreliable. Martin Lidegaard thinks its price can fluctuate just as wildly as oil and is of unknown quantity. Poland is referenced, having paraded shale gas as a new major source of energy for the country, only to reduce its estimates and ambitions when the extent of shale gas held in the country were downgraded.
Predicting the future of energy in Denmark is a wild guessing game at this point. Until laws are passed, policies written and projects funded, this strategy can envoke many tactics and the outcomes can be drastically different from each other. Mr.Lomborg may yet convince the government about the benefits of natural gas before wind energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment