I'm from Denmark, and have worked on offshore windfarms in Denmark, and Germany (and to a lesser extent the Netherlands, and Belgium), and in terms of impact on wildlife, I can tell that it was feared that these windfarms would scare away fish, and such (these turbines do vibrate a fair bit when producing), and be bad for the ocean, but it turns out that the foundations ends up working as an artificial reef, and at the same time there are rules against vessels that has no business in the parks, so they're absolutely teeming with fish, and seals and birds, and so on - so I've not personally seen any negative impact on sealife (but I'm not ruling out that there could be negatives that I'm unaware of). I assume that these islands will also serve as housing and shelter for technicians. We used to have arooound 30% of days that we couldn't work, due to wind, currents, and waves, on average (obviously a lot fewer of those days during the summer, than during the winter, depending on where in the North sea you're looking. Unfortunately, the better the wind conditions, the more days with adverse weather). During these days, we'd either bob around on a hotel vessel on the ocean, or sail back to shelter, which would typically be 5-8 hours of sailing each direction. No matter the case, it's a fair bit of unnecessary fossil fuel (though hybrid vessels are gaining traction, and still *nothing* compared to how much a windfarm offsets). Anyway... the ability to stay out there, on "land" will surely make for less wasted time, and more rested and efficient technicians, and there will be muuch more space for a proper warehouse of spare parts, than there are on the various vessels, and a proper workshop, meaning less downtime on the turbines, when they do break down - which of course does happen from time to time.
I believe one has to also bring into the equation what it takes to sustain this type of energy. Saying this is zero emissons is a rabbit hole. All costs and co2 emissions for disposal, replacement and service of wind turbines should be considered. Also building the batteries for storing this energy are not co2 emission free. It's a little deceptive to say it's zero emissions. Just saying there is much more to consider....
@@drumsticks2751 You're absolutely right, and for the same reason there has been a lot of effort to make sure to recycle as much as possible (all the metal is a given, but even the glass fibre that the wings are made of, is being recycled). I imagine, that if they're talking about storing energy as H2, that they would have crew transfer vessels (CTV's) made, that runs on H2. But regardless, more metal is needed, and mining and transporting, producing, manufacturing, and installing all the things needed, certainly requires a lot of energy, that still primarily comes from fossil fuels, yet - if memory serves - all of that is offset, typically in the first 5 years of the time that the park is producing energy (this is an old number, and it's likely, and hopefully, better today), and they're made to last for 20 years (as far as I know, but they can likely last longer, but there likely comes a time where it's more efficient to replace them). That number is bound to decrease, as the focus shifts towards using more green energy, and the bigger the turbines, the more energy per unit material it took to manufacture and install the park. And while windfarms are not entirely green to run (in addition to vessels mostly burning fossil fuels still, sometimes there are issues on sea cables to shore, and during such times, often the turbines will be powered by diesel generators, and all the dehumidifiers and hydraulics (the nacelles and wings are so big and heavy today, that at least the hub has to turn a bit, to not wear out the hub-nacelle bearing, so they have to be able to idle and yaw/slew into the wind, while there are issues), do consume some power), they offset much more CO2 than they require run. And yeah - regarding batteries, I have no idea how long it takes to offset what they take to manufacture, but out there - I think that it makes a lot of sense to store energy as H2, or maybe, if desalination can be done efficiently, *maybe* something like desalinating water, storing it, and then making power through osmosis, could make sense, for storing energy. Regardless... an artificial island will definitely make for a lot of options and infrastructure, that will definitely mean that the windfarms that are around such an island, can be run with much less fossil fuels, and ensure less downtime, reducing the time it takes for the windfarms to offset their manufacture and installation energy cost - but such an island will certainly cost a lot of energy to create. Still... it will most likely serve an entire cluster, and not just a single windfarm, which would offset the need for constantly having quite a few larger support vessels in a cluster. Yeah... I have no idea about the maths here 😅
Regarding wild life, the no negative impact is not true. The wind mills by Copenhagen has resulted in several deaths of travelling eagles and other birds, which travel to and from Sweden, flying over Denmark. They simply fly into the wings of the wind mills, because they are located on their route. (I am from Denmark too)
@@Milldirt They do unfortunately kill some birds, yeah, but if you ever find yourself working on offshore turbines near shore, you'll find that they likely make for more birds than they kill. At least I can say that I've worked on wind farms east of Århus, and south of Lolland, that has foundations that are rarely yellow, or gray, as they would normally be, but white from bird droppings (a lung-full of dried aerosolised droppings everytime you touch something on the foundation, is not my definition of a good time 😂). In fairness - this is likely mostly from birds that preys on fish. The birds you're refering to, might not prey on fish, so the turbines might not be more beneficial to the numbers of those birds. If the turbines are right in migratory patterns, are you aware of how many birds they kill? I have no idea, and have never seen or heard a turbine hit any birds, and I've spent quite a lot of time around turbines
I work for Ørsted who participated in proposing this idea - and is from Denmark... this video made me proud! even if the islands haven't been approved yet.
I was following along until the very end when you suggest one single place for power generation. I'd like to see some think tank's opinion on which would be better for the nation: one power generation facility or multiple power facilities. One facility presents a target for terrorists. Multiple facilities might take striking at our power grid off the table. In my younger years I was a research and development engineer. Redundancy in critical systems was viewed as a good idea back then.
Redundancy is still a good idea we could couple the grid with some nuclear power stations on mainland. You have friendly countries all around and they have a stake in it.
I also remember some years ago, where Trump asked somone in the military to back him up in his opinion that central power generation is best, to which he was told that decentralised is less vulnerable, so they were better off with a small turbine, solar panels, and batteries in their bases
Good point. There are redundancies in the systems. The grids haven't broken down since 2006,.......... We do need small microsystems, however. Water turbines and the like. As Danish municipalities are busy adressing 'water issues',.....
@@nathanlewis42 A weakened NATO, for one thing. Russian cyber attacks, for seconds, they have taken place, in the power sector too, and generally a hostile environment. The russians occupied parts of Denmark after ww2, mind you. And the gas pipe lines, the new ones, runs through Danish waters,.....
Forgot the "terrorism" concerns... Centralized systems tend to be more fragile in every way. Also quite important, decentralized systems can evolve and incorporate new technology more quickly and easily.
@@thehealthpolicychannel1229 money is function of supply and demand, electrochemical battery making cost has reduced by 1/260 times over the last 40 odd years
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
In regards the environmental impact, yes the construction will be disruptive, but the reality is that around wind turbines it's usually banned to do harmful fishing practices because of the risks to the infrastructure. So those areas become environmental sanctuaries in the sea.
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
@@crapisnice it's undeniable that construction work is disruptive, but in the long term the environmental benefits of having those marine reefs are proven. Studies have shown improved marine life around turbines, protected from harmful fishing practices and that vibrations from operation, while detectable, don't appear to be disturbing and mammals don't avoid turbines. All in all, it's a better solution than unsustainable alternatives while we continue to use energy.
@@BobHannent underwater noise disturbs underwater fish and mammals as cetaceans at kilometres of distance, you are copying and pasting answer without checking facts. and the idea of big scale renewable grid is unnecessary and wrong from the beginning
@@crapisnice no, I went off and read a scientific report in response. There's clear evidence of the issues around construction, but no evidence of harm in life while plenty of evidence of the improvement in the marine ecosystem from reefing and lack of scouring from fishing.
I hate birds and the environment too, maybe we could put it another 100km so we'd have absolutely no transmission at that point. What other government propaganda can we ignorantly support?
And chemistry!,..... Five years from know transporting dangerous chemicals may be on its way out. They will be produced on sites where they are needed!
@@lukesutton4135 Nordic studies all concluded the same; the harm to wildlife is bigger at fish's being sucked into the cooling wents at powerplants, over the few birdstrikes there is a year. I recall latest study from Denmark said about 1.1 birdstrike a year pr windmill...
There are also a few wavepower projects that will be tested and producing on that energy island. Sharing the foundations and very expensive cables with offshore windmills it has great potential.
There have been a few dozen wave power projects built and funded by gov or NGO grants over the last couple decades. Last I looked, not a single one of them remains operational. They have well known problems that make them expensive, marine bio fouling and intermittency meaning a firm backup somewhere is part of the grid cost. Given the high electric rates already paid by Danes, why do you know believe this particular pending system has "great potential"?
@@Nill757 The "potential" is estimated to be about 15 % of the supply for electricity IF or when one or more of the ten upscaled experiments should turn out to be success full. Even though many different experiments have been tested and failed we still don't KNOW that a wavepower mechanism is impossible to devellop. Of course it takes some funding to reach that but then compare with the billions that still flow into research on nuclear power and fossil industry.
@@nielspeterborgennielsen1386 investment money, esp tax money needs a better justification than ‘Maybe it will work, never mind the problems, try it’. Otherwise every scam artist like Theranos shows up at the door, and electric rates go higher. Nuclear and fossil are long known to work, affordably.
Denmark already have multiple huge offshore wind farms. They know exactly how much energy every single one of those produced in the last ten years. They know the cost of building those and the cost of maintenance. There are no unknown parameters in this project.
He wasn't very clear about that but he assumed a capacity factor of 50% (3:18 "If the plant produce energy 12 hours/day") which is about right for large modern offshore North Sea turbines, so those are realistic annual numbers.
The larger the number of receivers are of the sustainable energy the easier it are to correct calculate usage. Since Denmark have increasingly done this over last 3-4 decades they have good number insight. The North Sea summit will provide 230 million (!) high energy using Europeans with green electricity. Largest energy transition project in the world, by far. On top they will have a hydrogen production flow and storage of same that besides levelling out dips on non windy days and winter, can be used for hydrogen engines driving trains, cars, jet engines. Hydrogen are a very flexible fuel that CAN replace gasoline and diesel. So numbers are based in reality from current production and consumer behaviour. Since the North Sea summit agreement were signed. Denmark have added an additional own project than can deliver electricity for 20-25 million people and the countries around the Baltic Sea have contacted Denmark for an own project, in the Baltics, that now are being speed investigated. The nations in question on that project are Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, maybe Finland and more. Lets hope ALL coastal nations will make a fast copy(paste of this project.
Just fyi to you and the author, anytime anyone says "end of oil" is full of it and is most likely backed by big oil. Imagine supporting something that takes coal, burns it and then cries about burning coal?(aka making less efficient product) Man the drugs kids are on these days but hey, let me know when we stop using roads which also require crude oil. Americans brilliant plan is to be lazy and buy from other people until the poor of our country can't afford it, then they'll pretend they're heros by covertly lifting restrictions and drilling again. Nothing new under the sun. Oh let's forget to mention that you're not going to get $H|+ after transmission loss which will probably equate to half of it gone. Didnt bother with the video, not that stupid to waste my time. Im sick of youtubers pandering to government agendas to rob their people. You're disgusting and you should be ashamed and the chance you didn't bother doing any research, furthers my point. This is pure highway robbery and I'm surprised their people aren't killing these open terrorists. Build an island for private purposes with public money to give contracts to bad companies, good job dude, real people who work for a living are feed up.
2 month ago Denmark in cooperation with Belgium/Germany/Netherlands agreed and signed the "North Sea Summit agreement". It are the worlds largest energy transition deal from fossil fuels to green sustainable energy. It will cover the transition of 230 million high energy using Europeans away from fossil fuels AND make the consumers laugh all the way to the bank. On top it will contain the worlds largest hydrogen/"power to X" production. Hydrogen are made of electricity and water and when burned it only emits...water! The future care for the masses will be based on 4 stroke direct hydrogen injection because such engines, just like windmill engines, are simpler, easier to recycle than batteries and fits perfect in a circular economy where the same materials are used again and again, it are the current technology you add to the end product that makes the difference. No more POOtin´s or oil sheikh´s killing journalists and undermining democracies profiting from the current global narco like dependency of fossil fuels while we kill the planets atmosphere that pawed the way for our very existence. Instead cheap green energy that also allow us to laugh all the way to the bank! The North Sea summit agreement will hold several energy islands each in the North Sea, from Belgium to Denmark. A similar project are being speed investigated now in the Baltic Sea as well and could include cooperation between Denmark, and countries like Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland++ ALL coastal nations should make a copy/paste of this project NOW and we might have a chance of surviving ourselves. Danes got it right. It are not a matter of radically changing our lifestyle. It are simply a matter of changing the way we produce and use energy. Denmark as a nation are themselves on the road to achieve carbon neutrality before the demands in the Paris climate agreement. If a nation like USA simply took the North Sea summit agreement and did the same times 1,5 they in one single project could gain windmill electricity to cover the entire nations needs AND make it cheaper and CO2 free! I have privately scuba dived all over the world . I would like to point to the fact that off shore windmill foundations in a very few years after established will contribute to both a more clean and healthy ocean and provide great sanctuaries for the bottom of the aqua based food chain. Let me explain. When a physical body like those foundations are placed in the water it will fast attract sea weed and mussels. Sea weed and mussels eats CO2 and add oxygen to the water. The combination of sea weed and mussels also provide shelter and food for the bottom of the aquatic based food chain. The worlds coral reefs are estimated to function as sanctuary/nursery for over 20% of the bottom of the aquatic food chain. Many predict global warming of our oceans and periodic extreme bleaching events could kill of most of global coral reefs. Windmill foundations placed off shore around the world could counter the effect of loosing some of the planets coral reefs. Globally doing this would thus in a matter of a decades times after implemented provide us with a healthier, cleaner ocean with more fish in it. THESE news, the North Sea summit agreement and now maybe a Baltic project similar, represents the most solution oriented and positive news I have seen in my lifetime when it comes to combatting the REAL issues and the REAL solutions!
@@bobshagit9503 Already are. These new projects are basically just upscaled existing ones. I personally live less than 5 KM from several off shore windmill parks as well as on shore ones and 2 hydrogen extraction factories are being built inside same radius from where I live. It is a matter of responding to facts! Darwin said "survival of the fittest". Many in USA seem to interpret this as "survival of the strongest". It are not so! Darwin meant: Survival of the most adaptable (to change). USA´s problem seem to be that they are stuck in some kind of 1950 vacuum that prevents them from relating to reality and the very real dangers our CO2 emissions have caused and accelerating are causing to our atmosphere and global water circulation. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Makes me curious if there's any battery chemistry that could use that highly concentrated brine. Even if it's not energy/power dense enough to use in a car or smart phone, perhaps it could be used for grid scale where space/weight isn't so much a factor.
That’s my thought as well.. or even use some other mechanism to concentrate it down further if it still has too much water.. solar distillation, evaporating pools.. gotta be some way to use it you’d think?
Well there are sodium ion batteries, but I don't think you can just pour salt water into them. Maybe it could be used as an electrolyte for producing hydrogen, but you'd have to deal with chlorine gas. I think they just need to create a discharge structure that fans out the waste brine enough to lower the concentration to safe levels. You don't just dump it from one pipe along the shoreline, you take it out to sea, dilute it with normal sea water, and spread it out. You can have evaporation pools for salt production as well, and possibly other minerals, but I don't think those are enough for the entire water needs of California, you'd need an insane amount of land to hold all that discharge
As a green energy and green tech oriented channel I think you should choose your sponsors carefully and also work with them as they work with you. I'm sure Factor make great meals and you wouldn't be promoting them otherwise, however, I just saw a big pile of single use plastic microwave trays. Maybe you should ask them if this is on their agenda and what else they are doing to cut down on waste. Rant aside, go Denmark. The world's largest offshore wind farm is here in the U.K. at Hornsea and managed by Ørsted a Danish company. They are planning to double its size. We are not short of wind in the North Sea. Let's hope storage solutions ramp up at the same speed.
This video greatly simplifies a few things about Denmark. Denmark "FINALLY ends Oil & Gas *when the wind blows". The next thing is that Denmark does not, electrically speaking, have their own power grid. They are 50%, for practical purpose, goverend by Sweden and the other 50% by Germany. Sweden and Germany provides frequency stability for Denmark, ensuring that the power output on the grid is always 50 Hz. This is something major wind power areas, like California, is struggling with - grid stability. When it comes to Hydrogene efficiency if you want to store wind electrical power into hydrogen, and then output it into electricity again the calculated value is 30% electricity-hydrogen-electricity. (This is coming from the independent royal science academy in Sweden, who are pro wind and hydrogen). Videos like this GREATLY simplifies the incredibliy complex technical feat of producing electricity, synchronizing the grid down to a milli second, pushing power in the right direction from various sources and instantly matching production with demand.
power grids and stabilizing power has been done for 100 years all around the world, Denmark can figure this out. that's hardly a "challenge" if there is incentive financially to do this they will
@@TwoBitDaVinci the point was that grid stabilization is a service provided by Sweden and Denmark. As you say, stabilization of grid frequency has been done for 100 years but these 100 years of service has been done by large generators. Basically we are talking about a synchronous net of large generators, like coal plants or nuclear reactors. These turbines provide the inertia needed, small wind power generators can't push or pull these out of frequency and thus the grid is more stable. Denmark, which is 75% ish consistent of small wind power turbines is a very unstable grid - and like I mentioned, Sweden and Germany is providing this stability for them. This is a technical hurdle not so often discussed in YT videos, because YT'ers are very focused on effect output thinking this is the only thing that matters. Far from the truth.
@@TwoBitDaVinci To mention something about financial hurdle - what I'm talking about is a technical and physical limit of inertia that might not be possible to overcome.... there's a limit to how much wind power we can have. Throwing more money at it might not really solve it, unless someone comes up with some physics breaking innovation. Personally I like tide water power so much more, because as bill o'riley say, the tides come in and the tides come out and we've known for a thousand years when it happens. It's as close to plannable energy as we will get while being CO2 free.
@@TwoBitDaVinci Another point that makes my case, due to the severe lack of stability in the souther swedish powergrid (where Denmark is included) .. Sweden cannot deliver full throttle water power from the northern regions down to the souther part. We just recently (1y ago) opened a main power grid line from mid sweden down to south sweden that's been on the drawingboard for almost 20 years. Due to instability in the power grid it's never been run with more than 2/3's of the power. The instability comes from four nuclear power plants has since been taken off the groid and replaced with smaller wind turbins, and we're lacking proper push in certain choke points in our power grid.
@@PeterKocic grid stability is very important. unloaded synchrounous motors connected to flywheels can be used to add stability. if the danes build the wind turbines in denmark then that money is invested inside the country and those same windmills can be recycled at the end of like. the return on the 35 billion or 50 billion is inside denmark and produces electricity which can be sold for profit. additional excess electricity can be stored in sand batteries for winter district heating. also excess eletricity can be used to make hydrogen for fertilizer manufacturing. They will have much more energy independence than other countries.
A major part of Denmark's strategy has to do with getting shipping to switch to hydrogen. They are a major player in shipping globally and can't meet targets if you include their merchant navy.
Maersk have, as only large global player in the shipping industry, more than a year ago, announced they are deep in planning a future where their entire fleet runs on sustainable fuels like hydrogen and methanol. This is one of the reasons Maersk right now are making agreements around the world to ensure that they eventually can get these fuels worldwide. Maersk are way ahead of the rest of the maritime world in this context.
@@pliashmuldba You are allowed to your opinion. In my opinion switching the future fleet to hydrogen and/or methanol will be great business, not a real cost but a real investment. The question are why airplane engine manufacturers have not yet made a jet engine running on hydrogen (gas or liquid). THAT simply makes NO sense to me. As the weather goes more and more nuts, it will only be a matter of time before a global demand of scaling down flying massively will happen. We globally, all nations, should agree on each one of us snap build a hyperloop through our nation, preferably via existing larger airports since they already often provide infrastructure to bring people to/from their end destination locally Either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem. The global aviation industry are in a very high degree part of the problem and nothing they do at this time indicates they can be part of the solution. Maersk are, with their ongoing plans, proving they are part of the solution. Last time I chekked the French/German/UK owned Airbus just opened a airplane factory in China. So right now we are giving the Chinese that, just as Russia, have NO respect for others territorial integrity /Tibet/HK/artificial islands in S C Sea/recent unprovoked border guard attacks against India), human rights (massacre at Tianemen Square against own peaceful demonstrators/incacerating 1,3 million Uighurs withput trial for "reeducation") and climate change (China opens more coal powered plants than rest of world closes+++) Germany made them selves completely dependent on an instable Russian dictator and now they apparently have learned SO much they in Airbus thinks deepened technological transfer to China are a good idea. Maersk investment will not cost taxpayers, if anything they will profit because Maersk will get more business because the demand from consumers that the entire consumer tree do not harm our planet increases by the hour and by the local weather catastrophes/crops failures, draught, floods, typhoons/hurricanes etc etc.
@@pliashmuldba If you know that then you should recognise that Maersk´s public announcement of their plans to make their future fleet running on green fuels are what we need the entire world to do. I note you did not relate to the hyperloop concept. If all nations choose to sign up to such an agreement we could have a completely hyperloop connected world in 15ish years. Denmark, as well as most industrialised countries have a energy consumption Per Captia that are well above global average. So basically all the industrialized world today uses energy on a level that demands many more earths to cope. That is our very issue! The difference are that the Danes, that do not have access to water power (no mountains) , have used the last 40 years to begin their transfer away from fossil fuels to green energy making and usage by investing in windpower technology. They have now proven that they can make energy this way at a lower cost than any fossil fuel. The thing the Danes and rest of the world have needed for a long time are something that can balance out the needs when the wind does not blow or when demands are highest, winter! It is that "something" hydrogen and other "power to X" fuels like methanol provide us with. We thus now have a full working circular concept that CAN provide us with whatever amount of energy we need AND make sure there can be enough energy on storage to level out dips in wind and for winter. Danes and many places around the world have parts of their rails non electrified BUT instead of investing in that they now instead just can buy engines for their trains running on hydrogen and/or Methanol. Again proving that switching to renewable s provides us with lots of areas where we can make huge savings along the way. Going green are not an expense but an INVESTMENT. As you know there are a big difference between an expense and an investment. I am sorry but your statement of "very little" of Danish tracks are electrified do not hold in an international comparison. Denmark are doing better than UK that have 37% electrified and better than Germany that have 61% electrified. On top Denmark have, as a clear stated part of their transition of energy usage to renewable s speed built a modern driverless electrified Metro in their capital. It did not exist 15 years ago at all and now they have one of the most modern and efficient systems in the world, basically running on the wind they harvest. With the off shore parks already signed and agreed on in Denmark at this point, today, Denmark very soon will go from 52% to way over 100 and very soon will become net exporters of both green electricity and green fuels. Considering the excellent crisis management the Danish government (this should not be seen as a party political statement) have done during the Covid crisis I feel confident that the current strategy the Danish government have stated in regard to the POOtin decided energy crisis should de facto be seen as a "we will push the bill for the Danes until we have a clear picture of the consequences before suggesting the solution best for Danes. Right now Ukrainians are dying to protect their land that so vicious were unprovoked attacked and attempted invaded. Denmark have given unprecedented support to Ukraine and the currently host international donor conferences focusing not only on aid right now in the fight but also focus on a fast rebuild strategy when Russia have been thrown out. I am sure most Danes understand that pushing the bill right now until a clearer answer to the problem can be formulated are an acceptable sacrifice to support Ukraine. Let us never forget how thin a thread Europe were in when Hitler began attacking and invading European nations and the sacrifices our allies made to come to our aid. Personally I can promise you that I am willing to take A LOT more sacrifices on my shoulder, here and now, to counter POOtin´s idiotic and dangerous behaviour in 2022. The POOtin induced energy crisis are a symptom. The 40% dependency the German´s allowed their nation to have on POOtin´s fossil fuels are part of the core reason and the entire Western world warned them about it. IF you feel the need to point fingers, point it where it makes sense, Russia and Germany. Pointing fingers at Denmark, that actually have acted on climate change and energy politics by transferring to renewable s makes no sense. Denmark are not part of the problem but part of the solution and rest of the world have begun to see that. The recent signed "North Sea Agreement" where Denmark have agreed with Belgium/Netherlands/Germany upon building offshore windmill parks and energy islands (making green fuels) will transition 230 million high energy using Europeans away from fossil fuels and into energy from windmills and fuels derived hereoff represents the most positive answer to out climate and energy crisis I have seen in my lifetime. 230 million in one single deal! THAT are the REAL answer to our very real problems. You should be proud of Denmark both when it comes to handling the climate crisis but also when it comes to aiding Ukraine and the struggle they basically do for all of us. Read about WW2 and get some perspective. We will aid Ukraine to beat POOtin and we will get through any financial crisis he short term can induce. In a few years we, and Ukrainians, will live as normal or better while Russia will be an international isolated paria forced to eat beet soup 5 times a week. Wait and see, a solution will be found, even to your energy bill.
@@Mike-zx1kx The weather goes more and more nuts? You've been watching too much TV. I'm 64 years old and the weather is about the same as it's always been.
What we truly need is a worldwide investment into power storage. Which is happening, but too slow and too inefficient. We need layered power storage as well. A little like oldschool water towers. We need bulky storage that can provide a town or neighborhood/block of a full night of power, we also need in-house storage so we can store our own solar power and fill it up with excess power we need from the main storage bank nearby. We then need a method that stores MASSIVE amounts of power near green power sources. I'm from the Netherlands and I sometimes ask people how much power they think we can store in our country. "If the power goes out at night, how much power do you think we have stored to provide the country with?" And most answer pretty positively. I've heard answers reaching from two days (48+ hours) up till 8-10 hours on average. In reality my country can store 30 minutes of power. Which is absolutely trivial, and a severe weakness if you want green energy to supply during the night-hours as well. And we are calculating a whole lot, but there is only one simulator that we need to look at really. We have so many games that provide the option to use green energy. And in those games you equally need to invest in power storage. In those games you will have zero power issues if you store twice the amount of power you need during the night. So a safe storage buffer is around 16 hours. Which means we need to increase our current storage with 3000+% to make it viable. Or we are bound to use fossil sources to cover the night, or start burning up hydrogen that is created during peak power production hours when the wind is strong and the sun is bright. The biggest problem we are facing right now is that power storage includes power loss. There is no 100% transfer of power. Hell even steam generators are ~30% efficient. Meaning we need methods that create power we can store (hydrogen being one of them), making it portable. We equally need solid storage to cover civilian area's. We need to force companies with large roofs to use that surface to generate solar power, they equally need to have storage that can buffer their own power spikes to keep the net stable. We can build as many solar and wind generators as we wish. If we can't store the power, we can't cut off from fossil powersources. To take a game which simulates the logic of this process quite well: Oxygen Not Included (Klei Entertainment), the second your "space base" becomes self sufficient is when all your power comes from renewable sources and you only use coal generators and petroleum burners as a backup system. A backup system that only kicks in when your main battery planet is below 10%. Once you get good enough at that game, you will never have those batteries dip below 50%. Which is just a game, but a good example of where we have to build towards. Fossil as pure backup, pure green sources with enough storage to keep the net stable.
To add in one last line that makes you rethink how green energy works, compared to how we behave right now: If you turn a lamp and you keep it on all the time. Are you wasting energy? If you buy a big battery and a solar panel, and you keep the lamp on all the time? Are you wasting energy?
In water desalination, the leftover salt brine could be used for extracting lithium. Is there new tech to change how we extract lithium from salt brine? A ton of lithium, has rapidly increased in price as of late. Perhaps a topic for a new video.
All salt brine has to eventually be put back into the oceans, otherwise, in a stupid sci-fi future, all land will be covered in mountains of salt brine and the oceans will be fresh water!
If you deep investigate lithium from SEAWATER, you find articles from 2021 saying a company said they can do it at cost effective price. The waste is gold, clorine and fresh water, so not sure how we could dispose of all that waste. After that, the trail goes quiet. No more discussion. If you find that company, you find them mining salt brines, not seawater. If you email them you get no answer. So you tell me.
I can relate. Here in Maine, we have community solar farms dotting the pristine landscape eveywhere and people are angry that once fertile farmland, is being compromised to generate electricity. I might also add, that last month my power bill hit $400 for the first time ever..
As a Dane I think the very best locations for energy islands are 50-60 miles of the coasts of major cities and build up areas (Which the west coast of Denmark is notoriously NOT....),....... Might I be permitted to propose that you, and a group of 'concerned citizens' in Maine get together. And work towards building Maine Island,..... You can 'copy'and'paste' from these Danish Engineers. And add a bit of creativity. (The Danish Government or the danish people or even I can facilitate lines of credit, too.... If need be.) Should this ring a bell with you then I'll be happy to supply you with details, contacts, personal info etc....
@@johngeier8692 it depends where you live in the world. Canada is winter 8 months a year. Coast reigns have more wind , Mexico has more sun.. "One shoe size doesn't fit everyone "
One of the most developed progressive Nations on earth that has done and is doing great strides in investing for Energy and effective water utilization and provisions for is Israel. We could do well to follow suite and follow there lead!! I am more than impressed wave motion power generation, Israel is working on that as well.
I wanna see big wind turbines in my back yard... That crap is really cool, two durp da Vinci, we need closure on the petrochemical industry we survive on!
Being a child of Denmark. It seems far better to build islands, that utterlizing the seas vast power in windturbines. Thereby supporting energy not just for Denmark but for all mankind. Reaching into the future, with our fantasy and skills. This is the battle we all have to endure, and empower in thruth. May the prosperity be with you.
the main point of the energy island is that much of the gearing and tech in the wind turbine hub can bee removed. Instead, the gearing and tech will be on the island. That will make the wind turbines much cheaper.
Yes and so will Belgium, it is great. In the Baltics a new group of countries are currently in speed dialogue with Denmark regarding another large international project in the Baltic Sea besides the one Denmark already are planning.
The off shore windmill foundations functions as reefs, reality have shown. A better solution are to not fish there but make them become nurseries for the bottom of the aquatic food chain thus supporting life everywhere else. These parks thus could replace some of the effect the dangerous decline and decay in global coral reefs we see.
I recently heard about some companies attempting to create Sodium (rather then Lithium) Batteries. If they can pair with Desalination progress, they can reduce or eliminate the toxicity of the Brine by-product.
I hear in the future they expect ships to run on hydrogen. That there may be spots for ships to stop close to the energy islands and refuel. There is a lot of shipping that goes around Denmark into the Baltic. I have been to Bornholm. It is an absolutely beautiful place.
Won't happen. Hydrogen takes too much energy to produce. Unless there are some massive unseen breakthroughs in the near future, we won't be using hydrogen in any practical way. I'm sure a better alternative will be around before anyone uses Hydrogen powered anything in a non gimmick vehicle. Even old Lithium battery tech that's in cars today are much, much more efficient than hydrogen. Toyota and Nissan already have Solid state battery cars ready to release in 2025.
Yes cargo ships, trains and cargo trucks, and airplanes too in time - they will all benefit massively from using Hydrogen as a fuel source. All we need is proper grid scale production and storage facilities, and this energy island will be a massive stepping stone towards that direction and serve as an incredible pilot project. Hopefully other countries will realize the benefits and make their own investments sooner rather than later. As pointed out, we have had wind energy for over 30 years here in Denmark and still it's only recently that other countries have invested significantly into wind in a similar fashion. There is no benefit in being late to the party.
@@shperax The entire point of Hydrogen here is that excess energy production from renewables NEED a way to be stored, and hydrogen production is a good way to do so. There has also recently been a scientific breakthrough by a Danish phd student that allows for easier grid-scale hydrogen production - which is actively being brought onto the latest green energy projects that are funded right now.
Paying for this project using current oil revenues makes sense. The other option is to spend oil revenues on other projects and have to import energy once the oil runs dry. I'm not surprised California rejected building a desalination plant because it doesn't return quick short turn profit for investors who aren't prepared to wait 25 years for a return
The Nordic countries are cold for most of the year. Their inhabitants are severely afflicted with the Climate Delusion. The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous.
@@johngeier8692 Except, they aren't? Also, increase in GHG, deforestation and monocultures can and do affect the climate by a large extent, so idk how you say it isn't human caused for the most part
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Just pick up the phone Portugal. Nothing prevents you from doing the same! On top it will guarantee good solid local jobs instead of external jobs in the damaging fossil fuel industry far away from Portugal. It will not be a cost, but an investment that would benefit not only Portugal´s CO2 emissions positively but also be a benefit to your economy!
Wonder if Orsted is handling this? Just checked, yes, Orsted is bidding for this project. Interesting co. it used to be fossil fuel focused & over 10 yrs ago, they rotated completely to wind & renewables.
Getting approval to do anything in California is like mission impossible. Everyone thinks they're saving the planet by sitting on their butts. Even Elon had to leave, and he has done more to clean up our energy than the entire state and Washington DC.
I really hope USA would make a copy paste of this project times 1,5. That would be enough in itself to cover the entire electricity need of USA. Not only would it solve the increasing issue that USA have highest CO2 emission on earth Per Capita (together with Australians), but would also politically stop you from buying fossil fuels from oppressive journalist killing dictators like POOtin, Bin Salman and Xi. USA recently opened up for the largest oil exploration auction in US history. This auction will ensure that USA´s signature on the Paris climate accord are a joke. USA will not be dealing with its core issues....again and will...again prove USA are politically and environmentally stuck in some kind of weird 1950/1960´s vacuum. The most subsidised sector in USA today are not the agricultural sector but the fossil fuel industry. At least make the energy market a free one. Maybe fixing your democracy would be the fastest way to real change. Seem to me USA have been stuck, in some ares downright declined, since the officially unresolved killing of J.F.K! A coincidence or.....
This is a fantastic project. In particular I like the focus on wind turbines. There is no simpler direct transfer of energy from kinetic to electric in the world, so the components need not be heavy on rare earth components like lithium, and being simple, can be made to last longer than more complex devices like solar panels that lose efficiency over time. This is out of the way and the energy storage is the perfect co-development. We don't have to wait for miracle technologies like fusion. If countries simply invest in projects like these we can eliminate the need for coal and oil from being used for power.
Solar panels concern me firstly because they all seem to be made in the far East which is strategically risky, and secondly, there does not seem to be a recycling route for them.
Actually, Undersea Wave Generation is not only simpler but much more efficient, working 24/7 without the need for an island and with much less maintenance.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant has an output of 7.9 GW, takes up a fraction of the space, requires far less civil engineering and material, and has a steady and reliable output.
After Fukushima, the costs of running a nuclear power plant skyrocket, due to extra safety requirements. If we look at Hinkley or Olkiluoto, then both of them produces power of either 12 eurocents, or 11 eurocents a KWh. Sea-based windmills is about 6eurocents, windmills on land about 5 eurocents, and solarcells about 4 eurocents a KWh; In addition to that, a windmill can be up in 5 years, and solarcell 3 months. A Nuclear powerplant takes 20 years. Not to mention Denmark has no nuclear plants, so that would prolly more be 50 years, just to bring education and operating up to speed. Space is not the issue here, unless you talk about the space for the nuclear waste.
If you’re thinking of a conventional light water fission reactor you should forget it because you have to factor in the costs in dollars and carbon of mining, waste storage for many thousands of years, potential accidents and risks of war and nuclear weapons proliferation- a real can of worms. However if we shifted to Thorium or Fusion reactors many of those costs and risks could be reduced and or eliminated. Conventional nuclear reactors aren’t as efficient or economical or as safe as renewables and the ancillary costs above are conveniently never mentioned by their proponents.
@@martinrasmussen6634 A compelling argument for for LCOE for wind and solar except that doesn't account for the storage requirements needed to make up for the unreliability of the grid. Not to mention most solar costs have been kept low thanks the production being in China. If you think the maintenance costs for those wind turbines and solar panels will be low, while sitting in the sea, you got another thing coming. The argument for time goes out the window when you consider the civil engineering and structural engineering required to make and artificial island as well as lay piers on the sea floor to support the weight of a wind turbine 5 statue of liberties tall. This is the problem with the thinking in some European states, the short term always comes first, and you end up in the same place. As for the "space for Nuclear waste", Finland already has a deep geological repository. Not to mention, nuclear waste is solid and extremely compact. All of the waste that the US has ever created could fit in a football field 30 ft deep (10ish meters for you Euro types). Europe needs reliable power, and switching from gas from a hostile state, to unreliable Wind and Solar is just jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
@@billbaldwin8074 Advanced reactors, Such as liquid lead-gallium cooled fast reactors, or helium cooled reactors, which can be used for hydrogen production and desalination. Should and can be used. As for nuclear proliferation, over the past 60 years, no link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons has been established. Countries that want nuclear weapons will try and get them, regardless of the state of their nuclear power industry. North Korea and Iran are prime examples of this. I would love to have thorium reactors, but as of right now, no designs have been approved for construction, and no mining, refining, or fuel fabrication infrastructure has been build for it. Fusion hasn't been cracked just yet. We need solutions now, not in 25 years. The best time to start building nuclear reactors was 20 years ago, the second best time is today.
If, if, if, if, likely, potentially, almost, etc. These wind turbines require a high level of maintenance and have a very short life span. Looks to me it will end up in tears. Unless a new viable technology appears all this is a dream.
Denmark have proven with existing projects that they are more than competitive against fossil fuel based solution. Germany right now PAYS Danish windmill producers to not send their cheap energy into the German market because then they make a smaller profit on taxes and distribution because base price of the energy are lower. This is a fact! Germany have done this for years but POOtin´s actions and the catastrophic situation German politicians have placed, not only Germany in, but entire Europe, by making themselves hugely dependent on energy from an oppressive undemocratic journalist killing dictator, are now changing Germany´s ways. They also have limited the amount of green energy they could receive by not enlarging its electricity cables to Denmark. This seem to be about to change now and Germany seem to plan for larger cables....late are better than never. Large countries and journalist killing dictators have had to much power to stop the solutions the world needs and that actually have the power to safe us. Ask Germany what are behind their obstruction of sustainable solutions and I am sure you soon will meet incidents of corruption. That are how the fossil fuel producers have operated from day 1.
Going off of current events there is currently a pretty darn huge power vacuum in the international power market. With the lack of russian oil for the indefinite future yet growing energy demands of Europe it isn't too much of a stretch to assume they want to become the new energy supplier before other countries get too efficient with their own energy
I think that's a rather cynical approach that puts this ongoing development in Denmark entirely into the perspective of recent developments regarding Russia and current energy problems in Europe. The Danes have steadily expanded their durable energy programs for *decades* and have been willing to share their knowledge and learned lessons with other countries. They did so long before Gazprom got a foothold in Europe and this is simply a continuation of the path they've walked on for a long time already.
The energy issue has very little to do with "Russian oil". Russian NATURAL GAS is the issue. Europe decided to go woke over the last 22 years and only produces 8% of the volume that was produced in the year 2000. Natural gas is clean burning and requires far less mechanical maintenance. Wind farms are notoriously high maintenance... and in the sea, far more dangerous.
@@thanekewtoo Windfarms are high maintenance? How so? A small crew can look after an entire wind farm here. Everything is automated when it comes to running them so just what are you referring to?
@@thanekewtoo GERMANY decided to go woke! Entire Europe warned them hard against making their nation dependent on a journalist killing oppressive dictator. You can hardly blame Denmark, that very actively warned Germany and were ignored that Germany pursued a unsustainable, both environmentally and politically future. At least now Germany have sobered up and joined the North Sea Summit agreement and will get their own energy island. This project serve ALL but journalist killing fossil fuel exporting dictators like POOtin, Bin Salman, Xi.
Not convinced by your theory that Denmark suffers so much from nimbys that they have to build an offshre island to get permission for more turbines. They have been world leaders in the tech for 40 years and the populace is (generally) fine with the idea. The actual reason for this is cost and efficiency. Putting the transformers and grid copnnections out at sea is very expensive and being able to share a large 'land' facility like this more or less pays for the island which then also allows for maintenance crews to stay there and do _way_ less travelling back and forth, and for storage facilities to be installed and thus use 'average' sized cables back to land, not 'peak' size. There are lots of potential efficiencies.
People in Denmark are in favour of wind turbines ON SHORE. Generally. And not in favour of developers reaping the profits whilst their neighbours are only gaining the losses, stemming from seeing their property values dwindle.......... Next to a massive wind turbine....... The argument for offshore windmills is a double one. Denmark has a lot of coast line,..... it's only a three hour drive from the east coast to the west coast, compare that to the US, and there's more wind to be 'harvested' offshore....
7:10 N=1 here, that find windturbines majestic and doesn't mind seeing them when at the beach. I even avoid visiting beach towns that have voted against them, on principal. They don't get my money. Seeing windturbines beats seeing oil rigs, which I do remember seeing on clear days, probably when there was still oil close to shore.
Not all of us agree with big oil who is using this to rob the Danish people to support their companies they are privately invested in. Do you even realize the transmission loss that would occur? This is a plan thats only designed and supported by children who couldn't pass middle school because clearly they don't know anything, probably not even their own sex, unfortunately. Lmao someone said wind, I couldn't bother to waste my time of this scam video but if wind is mention oh God what a laugh. Lets murder birds, create an inefficient source of energy that doesn't even product regularly. Brain dead little kids who should stay at home and never attempt to rob the public. The working class is getting feed up with those who don't and only rob others through government intimidation and propaganda. I guess it would be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR for the author to admit he's not only supported by big oil but also government backed terrorism and thinks they're slick about it.
its a massive waste of money, life threatening of the wild life and a death sentence to our ppl economicly... allready as it stands all our so called "green energy" 80% ish of it is SOLD OF and not being utilized by danish citizens which basicly make our energy bills more then 10 times higher then it needs to be and now we have energy shortages thx to the fucking terroristic politicians so we may have to shut of heating of our homes in the winter and may experience blackouts etc..... so awsome it is not... and many ppl have allready lost their homes and businesses thanks to extreme energy bills.... (16,200$) for a month of energy, and that is for a very small grocery store....
"just?" LOL, this tech has been around for decades with little implementation, so don't expect it to take off anytime soon or ever. Humans will likely run the Earth and themselves into extinction before they'll coordinate anything meaningfully effective to slow the effects of the growing overpopulation crisis. First and foremost humans need to not only control population growth but get the world human population down to under 2 billion and preferably 1.5 billion which is what population scientists have determined to be the sustainable population of humans on Earth.
Denmark is just getting ahead of the zombie apocalypse that will be a fantastic base of operations for them it'll have a Seaport Limitless amounts of power. Great idea.
The reason for 2 separate plot's is multifold.. one is redundancy.. 2. is the transport of electricity from East to West in Denmark is small 3. is cheaper than just build one.. 4. export..
great question! I figure they'll build that into the design... but ambitious is an understatement right? others have pointed out... the issue of being a target in a conflict... urgh... lol why we can't have nice things
@@TwoBitDaVinci At least in this particular case, the island(s) would be surrounded by 4 NATO countries. Also, at least in other windfarms, each windfarm in a cluster, will typically have its own substation, each with its own sea cable to shore. I don't know if it's the plan to have a single major substation for all the farms in a cluster around such an island. It would certainly make maintenance on the substations easier, and be cheaper in terms of cables, but it would be a pretty critical single point of failure. Typically each farm is also divided into strings, so a farm of e.g. 80 turbines, might have 8 strings of 10 turbines, or so, connecting to the substation in the middle of the farm. I'm not entirely sure if it has to do with cable length, flexibility, or what, but I imagine that they's a reason that they don't make big substations that can accommodate several parks. The subdivision into strings is definitely used at times if they need to work on switchgear, or the sea cable of a string. That way they can switch off a single string, in stead of the whole park, but I don't know if there are more reasons than this.
@@TwoBitDaVinci From a safety risk pov, the Island is well situated between Denmark, UK, Germany, and France - and there's no direct water way from countries like Russia that could pose a threat. They would have to fight their way through a wall of NATO allied countries. And Denmark is no stranger to rising sea levels and ambitious projects (look up the Fehmarn tunnel that is being constructed between Denmark and Germany, or the Oresund bridge that connects Denmark and Sweden). It's a nation born at sea, and we are no strangers when it comes to sea-based planning and construction, as we're already in the process of building an artificial island in extension of Copenhagen - which will house more than 35.000 people :)
Windmills take tons of carbon to produce of course. If you get rid of the oil that produces the windmills and solar panels, how do you make them? Most people don't seem to be aware of this problem. Also every product in the store has oil in the product itself as well as the wrapping.
And please remember that all 4 nations in the "North Sea summit" agreement each will have minimum 1 energy island each to connect the huge off shore windmill farms to. The already agreed and signed deal will provide sustainable electricity to 230 million high energy using Europeans households. On top a significant, the worlds largest, hydrogen production. This are BY FAR the worlds largest energy transition project away from fossil fuels! THIS gives the answer to those seeking a future we can believe in.
Norway's following in the slipstream. The Norwegian prime minister came to copenhagen in april 2022. To discuss this. And collaboration on carbon storage...
Nice. Hopefully collaboration between Scandinavian countries can help bring down energy costs. I do wish Norway was more forward-looking in terms of planning for a future without oil and gas.
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
Yes, it is a bit weird you have so many discussions about mega windmills on land when you just could make a copy/paste on these projects. You certainly have the water and the wind for it. One good current income should not prevent you from getting another.
need a tad more than one. :3 but give up already, it would take 500 years before you would ever agree to do this. especially if Trump gets reelected again. Guy hates windmills.
@@-Big_Big Oh yeah point taken! It's just time to relocate outside the US to be on the safe side for everyone really at least that's I'm going to do God bless the rest. Just saying!
They always compare the output to the number of homes because homes per capita use the least amount of energy thereby making the output seem larger. How about describing the size of a city it could power, which includes the industry there?
Good for Denmark. They have expertise in doing construction at sea and artificial islands as shown by the tunnel to Sweden. Also they have been building wind turbines for decades. I hope the become a major exporter of clean energy.
Thanks. Denmark forgot about waveenergi, biogas and solar back in the day, the 1970ties - and accelerated the development of modern wind turbines. When shipbuilding in Europe became unviable. At considerable cost to the taxpayers and consumers. Thus every Dane has a 'share' of sorts in all the wind turbines build around the world. Not bad for a tiny country. I think. After all.
I believe they are building the new island instead of starting on the existing one because most of the power generation capability is out in the North Sea due to the consistent high winds so that one is their priority.
plus the ability to offer easy access to excess power supply to multiple countries; Germany, UK, Netherlands, and potentially even Belgium and France if cables are driven far enough. Strong winds are certainly much more consistent in the North Sea compared to the Eastern Sea where the other island is located. Sure there are a lot of eastern European countries there as well as Sweden and Germany, but centralizing the power supply to the major powerhouses (no pun intended) of Europe it would seem like the better pilot project to get the biggest players onboard early.
+@@Real_MisterSir Yes, plus the creation of hydrogen and the conversion of it to liquid hydrogen likely can become cheaper than if done on land. Aid of pressure from the sea could bring down running conversion costs. For each 4 meter you go down in water the pressure increases 1 atmosphere. Since pressure are part of converting hydrogen gas to liquid hydrogen, hydrogen storage on the sea bottom are likely to make this process more energy efficient. Lets hope all coastal nations take note and make a fast copy/paste of this well thought out solution project. It makes SO much sense environmentally and politically. Come on USA/Canada/Australia/Japan + + +. It is a given! What are you waiting for? Pick up the phone and make it happen, NOW! Not only are it not a cost but an investment but many nations car industries, where such projects would be nationally announced, would immediately begin to design and plan for hydrogen car production. Same are a given for the airline industry! Lets us all join a future where consumption and economic growth are not linked to unsustainable energy production and usage.
@@Mike-zx1kx I agree with every single point. The main reason the project is easily feasible in the specific locations in the North Sea, is because the depth to the sea floor is quite shallow compared to open oceans which makes it ideal to set up both the island and the offshore windmills. But it's just a matter of scouting similar locations off the coast of other countries, and even make use of existing islands like Denmark will also do on the eastern side on the natural island of Bornholm. And in solar-rich countries it should be an equal procedure to create near-shore solar farms that use excess energy to convert hydrogen from ocean water (thinking coasts of Africa, South America, Australia, etc). The world should globally go all in on these dual solution plants that offer green Hydrogen instead of relying on blue and grey hydrogen production methods that are both costly, unstable, and potentially harmful to the environment.
@@Real_MisterSir Yes. But no "thumbs up" to my comment? I would appreciate a response to our dialogue elsewhere where I suggested an unconditional get together. A simple "no thanks" are also fine if you are not interested, but please respond.
Makes NO sense. UK should make a copy/paste of the North Sea summit agreement themselves. And it makes no sense they do not do it. UK too have had a great investment in the off shore windmill parks they already have raised. If you prefer fracking that causes earthquakes, emits CO2 from gas and methane AND pose a real risk for a mix of the very strong chemical acid they pump down (Chemical acid, that in itself have to be made and produce CO2) can get into ground water and destroy peoples drinking water. Imagine the cost if a larger area suddenly loses it access to drinking water overnight? Denmark have instead pointed to a future we can believe in! UK voted for Brexit to be able to act more independently politically. And THIS is what you want to use your "freedom" for? Good grief! Seem to me you are victim of the same undemocratic top down politics as in USA and Australia. Is that project REALLY what the UK population want OR do they want a profitable CO2 free energy production and usage!? Murdoch's media power are diluting your democracy. Some nations seem to need a democracy overhaul.
In terms of "why two places instead of one" there is also the strategic value of it, one place makes it vulnerable to hostile forces. The incident at Northstream 1 and 2 is a clear shot across the bow in that regard.
The security risk for this project jumps out at anyone with an open mind and in particular now, after what we have seen with Nord Stream 1 and 2. The saying " Placing all one's eggs in one basket" comes to mind here - not a good idea as it invites an enemy to use an untraceable WMD to take it out with major consequences.
I think the game changer will be "blowhole" technology: Wave Swell Energy's remarkable UniWave 200 is a sea platform that uses an artificial blowhole formation to create air pressure changes that drive a turbine and feed energy back to shore. After a year of testing, the company reports excellent results. As we've discussed before, the UniWave system is a floatable device that can be towed to any coastal location and connected to the local energy grid. It's designed so that wave swells force water into a specially designed concrete chamber, pressurizing the air in the chamber and forcing it through an outlet valve. Then as the water recedes, it generates a powerful vacuum, which sucks air in through a turbine at the top and generates electricity that's fed into the grid via a cable. As a result, it draws energy from the entire column of water that enters its chamber, a fact the team says makes it more efficient than wave energy devices that only harvest energy from the surface or the sea floor. WSE's key innovation here is that one-way generation; other devices that harvest the same effect use bi-directional turbines, requiring the ability to reverse blade pitch or redirect the airflow. WSE says its design allows for far cheaper and simpler turbines, that should also last longer since they're not getting as much salt water splashed through them when a big wave hits. Indeed, all this device's moving parts are above the waterline, a fact that should help extend its service life as well as making it completely harmless to marine life. Interestingly, the UniWave's design also makes it easy to incorporate into breakwaters and seawalls, where it can take a coastal erosion protection project and turn it into a clean energy source.
That's a really cool twist on wave power. Thanks for sharing. Thing looks ugly as sin, but it's a neat idea. I hope they're successful, but seriously do something about that concrete abomination lol.
It would be interesting if "Battery" Ships would be viable. Maybe the ship could be charged and then be used to provide power for northern settlements with poor energy resources.
It would be easy enough, if absolutely no better storage can be found, to turn water and CO2 back into gasoline, store it, then burn in generators while fumes are captured for reprocessing later. I'm sure something closer to flywheel storage or maybe solid-state batteries could work, but in general, it might be better to produce energy on the ship. For example, our nuclear-powered carriers are, I believe, capable of hooking up to on-shore power grids to power vital infrastructure in a disaster like hospitals, police, and whatnot.
Ørsted has had special Hybrid support-vessels for maintaining their wind farms made. I don't know what kind of fuel they're using, though, but it would be good if it was H2
These windmills farms - and some small scale nuclear projects - will be used to create 'liquid WIND',.... i.e. fuel for megaships. Indeed one can power all those big Mærsk ships on liquid wind without resort to building new motors,.... Batteries are not viable between San Francisco and Shanghai,......... but liquid fuels are...
Ships are one place where hydrogen fuel cells actually make sense. But you're not talking about powering the ship, but rather shipping battery banks to remote areas, right? That might be a better option than a huge expensive cable in some cases. It's not a bad idea. You'd have less transmission losses, but you'd introduce battery self discharge losses. I'm not sure it would be any better than just parking the ship and using its own power source to deliver power to the shore. Haven't tried to run the numbers on that.
An "energy platform" would be better than the energy island. 1- it would be mobile instead of stationary. 2- it would take up less space on the ocean surface. 3- it could allow for subsurface production to go on underneath it. (under water mobil Nuclear-- Power plants, subsurface farming of ethanal-crops, ect...) 4- if it's big enough and design right, would be resistant to hurricanes. 5- if built small enough, could be submersible, to escape potential storm damage. 6- building a giant underwater hollow-beam structure, vs moving all that dirt for a man-made island is more reasonable. 7- a giant hollow-beam structure would provide better marine habit for lifeforms vs an island.
The video should have used the oppertunity to tell bit more about how north-sea countries have said they would do 100GW windmill production in the north sea. There is some misconfusion said by alot in the commentary fields. This is not a Chinease move, to get more land; land has already been divided in the north sea; a artificial island will not change these already made out maps. And here is the first problem, for some of the countries; eg. Germany, that has run out of seabed to place windfarms. There simply is no more undeveloped land, when they have to respect the shipping lanes and nature resevations in the area. Denmark has more undeveloped sea area, which is part of the reason why Germany recently wanted to co-invest in the energy island 2 (Bornholm), which has gone from the in video stated 2GW to now 3.2GW. But, don't underestimate the reasons to build these windfarms, because some of them are not so obviously to the unknown person. There has been numeours studies that showd the fishing population actual rose around these offshore windmills. Small fishlife, again remember that north sea is about 50meters deep~, thrives to the windfarms because of their "artificial" mini reaf properties. Since north sea is so shallow, we dont see alot of wales, so its primarly small fish species; So from a clear environmental, there is nothng that points to this would hurt or damage any life existing in the areas, rather the opperside. Next is the Energy part, where alot nations have realised that they need backup power lines; these often needs to be HVDC(due to length between countries), and it gets costly to make them too long. Krigers flak (another smallish windfarm of 800MW), that is located between Denmark and Germany, dual functions as a powerdistribution and power generating facility at once. It's because of the Krigers flak success, that the danes, and prolly alot others, have shown that the symbiose of powergenerating and powerdistrubution, can be really helpfull to transmit power between countries. Finaly, is the "what do we do with all that power"; and yes, that is technical a problem atm, which haven't quite been figured fully. There is multitude of reasons for this, including that the countries around the North sea, general haven't build up their infrastructure to accept such huge amount of power distribution, as these projects will deliver. Upwards 10GW is alot to distribute, on a network that maybe at max is suited for 1GW at certain crosspoints. This is part of the reason why its still open "onsite" fuel generating; It could be H2, it could be CH4, but it simply haven't been decided which part it should be, yet. One thing is for sure, a lot has seen potential in being able to fuel the ships and even airplanes with "cheap" renewable made fuel. This is the reason why these island will scale slowly, and in my oppinion, prolly will see the "Bornholm" island, be completed at first; There is more future demand for energy in this part of the north sea, the park is smaller, but can easely be connected to DK, DE and in future SE (which btw, has a also a giant park comming soon, north west of Bornholm.), but also maybe PL in future. Nothing is set 100% in stone yet, but the important part, is there is a really strong political will, in most North sea countries, to follow this path. The Economics may at first seen daunting at first, but as described in the video; there is some really big potential money to be generated in this field. So stay tuned, is the best i can end with.
The Scandinavian Countries just seem to “get it”. I think it’s a testament to the people of these countries and the ability of their governments to make excellent decisions to benefit their citizens and the world at large👍Denmark/ Sweden/ Norway. You all are rock stars. 😍
I'm from Denmark and I can tell you we get zero benefits from our wind and oil. All money get's channelled to EU and the pockets of our corrupt politicians
I think one of the great things here is that politicians aren't celebrities. They're (in general) professionals doing a job. Some outliers of course always exist, but it helps create trust between citizen and government, when the people working in the government are seen as citizens too, and valued as "one of us"
Reading all of the numerous and very well informed comments here so far the arguments are beginning to diverge into two main groups: one group appears to be seeking cheaper energy solutions and the other seems to be seeking greener energy solutions. If they ever do converge, (which I don’t think they will) - then the energy crisis will be solved!
Not very long. If it gets build on recycled oil rigs that have outlived their usefulness and warrenties in the oil industry. (....) However some mayor Danish companies think the entire island,.... shall be build by them. And paid for by the consumers and the government....... at a cost of 5-7 billlion dollars,.....
All 4 nations in the North Sea summit agreement will, as part of the already signed and agreed project, build nationally placed energy islands. The 4 nations are: Denmark, Germany, Belgium AND Netherlands. So congratulations, your nation are part of a solution that actually CAN solve our global energy needs in a sustainable way where economic growth are detached from an increase in ruining our habitat.
BS, you just wait till the whole thing goes to end of life, nuclear is safer per Mega Watt and the waste is amount is very small. Ev cars are a environmental nightmare as you have to drive them 200000km or more to offset the build emissions from a gas car. Battery is still shit.
As a Dane I’m so sorry to se my government set plans for a project like this… The amount of CO2 emissions from the construction will have a huge impact on the environment and there is a large possibility of the project destroying a large area of the seabed… Beside this the project has a total price that’s equivalent to 3-4 nuclear plants with each a capacity of approx 12 GWe and with a much smaller area impact… SO… for the same amount of money Denmark could get 4 times the amount of electricity… AND electricity that’s NOT dependent on wind… This project is one of the absolute dumbest ideas our danish government ever got 😞
@@martinrasmussen6634 You’re also mentioning the 2 most delayed nuclear power plants, witch is now were near the average builds in cost and time… For example the Brokdorf Nuclear power plant would i present day money only cost 1/5 of the price of Kriegers Flak… Brokdorf had a output of 11,4 GWe while Kriegers Flak only delivers around 4 GWe - At optimal wind situations… 😒 Second… the windmills only have a lifespan of approximately 20 year where a Nuclear power plant have a lifespan of 60-70 years… hence the cost will be even better with Nuclear power.
@@jahen65 I mentioned the two LATEST build nuclear plants in EU. Blame tsunamis for making the nuclear industry aware of that you cannot build backup generators at sea level, like it was done at Fukushima. Since that episode, nuclear power prices has skyrocket due to extra safety requirements. NB: Krigers flack does 800MW, not 4GW
They are taking that into account. It's easier to build a small island a little bit higher than rising the ground of an entire country. The global sea level as risen about 21-24 cm (8-9 inches) since the 1880. It is rising faster however and the problem becomes a reality during heaver storms which we can already see in tropical countries in Asia but also the east coast in US. A smaller island can handle that easier as it's not meant for permanent residents and can be built to deal with temporary floods.
for over 15 years ago, we learned that by now esbjerg and rømø should have problems with high water rising, but now the water is still at the same level, and greenland should lose its snow and ice, get here we are over 15 years later, stil nothing new under the sun, climate crisis is a hoax, like so many other things right now.
Also they build something on the side, so it should help keep some of the water away from the coast on mainland, they do this to many of their projects.
Seems like building islands don't take into account rising sea levels from climate change and the natural sinking of man made islands. Floating platforms might be better.
The sugested platform, is either concreate made or jacked up, like an oil rig. Sea rising doesn't happen uniformly around the globe, but mostly near equator. Denmark is far from Equator. Our own worst case scanario, talks about 1,2 meters rising; nothing unfeaseable to protect against.
tbf the fact that they're "not big offenders" and still are working towards better solutions instead of doing like alot of other countries pushing the bad stuff to its limits til theyre forced to change without any real replacement solutions ready. thats what makes this the most impressive really.
Denmark has the third highest electricity prices in the world (only Germany and Bermuda are higher) at US $0.34 per kWh (see IEA). The US average is $0.13 per kWh. If Denmark hates the poor and middle class and wants to destroy the lives of most of its people, Denmark has a great idea with this ridiculous island. If they want to improve the standard of living of the poor and middle class, Denmark would drop this stupid idea and drill of oil and gas.
Yes because of taxes, not because of the way the energy is made. Climate changes demands this transition and if people use oil and gas in 2050, they are idiots.
@@ronw76 Still, our raw energy prices are amoung the lowest. Our income is overall also gigantium, but we pay a hefty tax on that. It's not apples to apples your comparing.
California got a lot of those. Just 1 cost $80k back in the late 80s. All of those that invested on those wind farms lost money due to maintenane... it's nothing but an eye sore. hey, at least stooping down to that half wit gretas level makes for good optics
Regarding the impact on wild life, there are unfortunately, plenty of dead zones where these things could probably have a minimal impact, not sure on the depth of these areas but they are numerous and getting bigger
@@Sweenus987 Won't be a problem. It will only be a temporary problem. The large pillars on the Øresund Bridge, Storebælt Bridge and the artificial island Peberholm we already have build, are marine life havens and it is booming with life on these artificial reefs.
Why not on the existing ground (island)? That possibly has to do with their rights to the seabed, the economic zone. With that island the Danes will enlarge their claim with many times the surface of the island.
I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean by that. The seabed between Denmark, Norway, Germany, and UK is well defined. It won't change any claims of everything. We already have a fair few windfarms that spans the Danish/German seaborder. I'm actually a bit surprised by the location shown on this video, because when I was still working in offshore wind, I'm pretty sure that this was supposed to be a giant island, made in cooporation with Germany, and maybe the Netherlands, and potentially the UK.
We might get around 50% of our energy from “renewable” resources but more than half of that is from wood that we import. Not so green after all. This project will wean us off imported energy. Besides, the infrastructure part of the project is really, really important. Look up “Dunkelflaute”, it’s a bit scary. Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video on it.
No, it doesn't make any sense. They could build a couple of nuclear reactors for a fraction of the cost and pay it off in a couple of years selling electricity to Germany.
yet most aren't.... nuclear isn't the obvious answer... i think it has a place, but you're not following the news if you think nuclear is cheap... its gotten totally out of control
Windfarms are wastly less expensive pr KWh produced, than nuclear, specialy given prices of Hinkley and Olkiluoto. Germany's biggest disadvantage in this 'race', is they have used up all their aviable space in their EZZ zones, for windfarms, that aint used for shipping and natural resevations.
Also adds a huge amount of sea ‘real-estate’ to the territorial waters of Denmark - they get to claim a larger share of the North Sea with a 12 mile zone from the shoreline of their ‘Energy Island’.
I think the U.N. needs to make a rule about artificial islands and the 12 mile EEZ. You shouldn't just be able to build an artificial island and then claim the area around it. The artificial islands shouldn't have an EEZ in my opinion.
@Alfred L.B. That would completely disincentivize these projects. South China Sea island building is also a critical part of China's Civilian space program, which hopefully will lead us farther into space in the next era.
@Alfred L.B. I mean obviously it is also a move to cement their position as guarantor of maritime order in their "home seas". But having launch complexes on islands isolated from inhabited centres is an important step for them to increase traffic and goods flow into space. Ultimately there is nothing we could possibly do to stop them from doing it is to also make use of it.
I'm from Denmark, and have worked on offshore windfarms in Denmark, and Germany (and to a lesser extent the Netherlands, and Belgium), and in terms of impact on wildlife, I can tell that it was feared that these windfarms would scare away fish, and such (these turbines do vibrate a fair bit when producing), and be bad for the ocean, but it turns out that the foundations ends up working as an artificial reef, and at the same time there are rules against vessels that has no business in the parks, so they're absolutely teeming with fish, and seals and birds, and so on - so I've not personally seen any negative impact on sealife (but I'm not ruling out that there could be negatives that I'm unaware of).
I assume that these islands will also serve as housing and shelter for technicians. We used to have arooound 30% of days that we couldn't work, due to wind, currents, and waves, on average (obviously a lot fewer of those days during the summer, than during the winter, depending on where in the North sea you're looking. Unfortunately, the better the wind conditions, the more days with adverse weather). During these days, we'd either bob around on a hotel vessel on the ocean, or sail back to shelter, which would typically be 5-8 hours of sailing each direction. No matter the case, it's a fair bit of unnecessary fossil fuel (though hybrid vessels are gaining traction, and still *nothing* compared to how much a windfarm offsets). Anyway... the ability to stay out there, on "land" will surely make for less wasted time, and more rested and efficient technicians, and there will be muuch more space for a proper warehouse of spare parts, than there are on the various vessels, and a proper workshop, meaning less downtime on the turbines, when they do break down - which of course does happen from time to time.
I believe one has to also bring into the equation what it takes to sustain this type of energy. Saying this is zero emissons is a rabbit hole. All costs and co2 emissions for disposal, replacement and service of wind turbines should be considered. Also building the batteries for storing this energy are not co2 emission free. It's a little deceptive to say it's zero emissions. Just saying there is much more to consider....
@@drumsticks2751 Humans breathing emits CO2...
@@drumsticks2751 You're absolutely right, and for the same reason there has been a lot of effort to make sure to recycle as much as possible (all the metal is a given, but even the glass fibre that the wings are made of, is being recycled).
I imagine, that if they're talking about storing energy as H2, that they would have crew transfer vessels (CTV's) made, that runs on H2.
But regardless, more metal is needed, and mining and transporting, producing, manufacturing, and installing all the things needed, certainly requires a lot of energy, that still primarily comes from fossil fuels, yet - if memory serves - all of that is offset, typically in the first 5 years of the time that the park is producing energy (this is an old number, and it's likely, and hopefully, better today), and they're made to last for 20 years (as far as I know, but they can likely last longer, but there likely comes a time where it's more efficient to replace them). That number is bound to decrease, as the focus shifts towards using more green energy, and the bigger the turbines, the more energy per unit material it took to manufacture and install the park.
And while windfarms are not entirely green to run (in addition to vessels mostly burning fossil fuels still, sometimes there are issues on sea cables to shore, and during such times, often the turbines will be powered by diesel generators, and all the dehumidifiers and hydraulics (the nacelles and wings are so big and heavy today, that at least the hub has to turn a bit, to not wear out the hub-nacelle bearing, so they have to be able to idle and yaw/slew into the wind, while there are issues), do consume some power), they offset much more CO2 than they require run.
And yeah - regarding batteries, I have no idea how long it takes to offset what they take to manufacture, but out there - I think that it makes a lot of sense to store energy as H2, or maybe, if desalination can be done efficiently, *maybe* something like desalinating water, storing it, and then making power through osmosis, could make sense, for storing energy.
Regardless... an artificial island will definitely make for a lot of options and infrastructure, that will definitely mean that the windfarms that are around such an island, can be run with much less fossil fuels, and ensure less downtime, reducing the time it takes for the windfarms to offset their manufacture and installation energy cost - but such an island will certainly cost a lot of energy to create. Still... it will most likely serve an entire cluster, and not just a single windfarm, which would offset the need for constantly having quite a few larger support vessels in a cluster. Yeah... I have no idea about the maths here 😅
Regarding wild life, the no negative impact is not true. The wind mills by Copenhagen has resulted in several deaths of travelling eagles and other birds, which travel to and from Sweden, flying over Denmark. They simply fly into the wings of the wind mills, because they are located on their route. (I am from Denmark too)
@@Milldirt They do unfortunately kill some birds, yeah, but if you ever find yourself working on offshore turbines near shore, you'll find that they likely make for more birds than they kill. At least I can say that I've worked on wind farms east of Århus, and south of Lolland, that has foundations that are rarely yellow, or gray, as they would normally be, but white from bird droppings (a lung-full of dried aerosolised droppings everytime you touch something on the foundation, is not my definition of a good time 😂).
In fairness - this is likely mostly from birds that preys on fish. The birds you're refering to, might not prey on fish, so the turbines might not be more beneficial to the numbers of those birds.
If the turbines are right in migratory patterns, are you aware of how many birds they kill? I have no idea, and have never seen or heard a turbine hit any birds, and I've spent quite a lot of time around turbines
I work for Ørsted who participated in proposing this idea - and is from Denmark... this video made me proud! even if the islands haven't been approved yet.
I was following along until the very end when you suggest one single place for power generation. I'd like to see some think tank's opinion on which would be better for the nation: one power generation facility or multiple power facilities. One facility presents a target for terrorists. Multiple facilities might take striking at our power grid off the table. In my younger years I was a research and development engineer. Redundancy in critical systems was viewed as a good idea back then.
Redundancy is still a good idea we could couple the grid with some nuclear power stations on mainland. You have friendly countries all around and they have a stake in it.
I also remember some years ago, where Trump asked somone in the military to back him up in his opinion that central power generation is best, to which he was told that decentralised is less vulnerable, so they were better off with a small turbine, solar panels, and batteries in their bases
Good point. There are redundancies in the systems. The grids haven't broken down since 2006,.......... We do need small microsystems, however. Water turbines and the like. As Danish municipalities are busy adressing 'water issues',.....
@@nathanlewis42 A weakened NATO, for one thing. Russian cyber attacks, for seconds, they have taken place, in the power sector too, and generally a hostile environment. The russians occupied parts of Denmark after ww2, mind you. And the gas pipe lines, the new ones, runs through Danish waters,.....
Forgot the "terrorism" concerns... Centralized systems tend to be more fragile in every way.
Also quite important, decentralized systems can evolve and incorporate new technology more quickly and easily.
Slowly but surely the world is catching on that these projects which reduce CO2 emissions can also make us tons of money! It’s a win-win!
Yeh, because its all free energy!!!
I doubt it will make money. This is just entertainment for us at this stage.
@@manoo422 Nothing is free.
Yes, but remember the insane building and upkeep costs of a megaproject like this.
@@thehealthpolicychannel1229 money is function of supply and demand, electrochemical battery making cost has reduced by 1/260 times over the last 40 odd years
9:51 "The island is a giant renewable energy playground". Well put.
i appreciate that!
@@TwoBitDaVinci You forgot to incle the existing energy infrastructure in your calculations
honestly, just helping to avoid the NIMBYs makes this brilliant and worth its weight in gold
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
Great information and as always clearly explained and well organized.
Thanks!
Could brine from desalinization be used to directly create batteries or used as a medium for storing heat to generate electricity during downtimes?
The could use the brine for fertilizer salt and other elements instead of dumping it back into the ocean.
Storing heat in sand is viable.
Another fact for you. In Soviet Denmark the goverment gives out loan to the people so they can affort to pay the taxes on energy.
In regards the environmental impact, yes the construction will be disruptive, but the reality is that around wind turbines it's usually banned to do harmful fishing practices because of the risks to the infrastructure. So those areas become environmental sanctuaries in the sea.
Indeed, and they function as artificial reefs too, so there's much more life in those areas, than there used to be
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
@@crapisnice it's undeniable that construction work is disruptive, but in the long term the environmental benefits of having those marine reefs are proven. Studies have shown improved marine life around turbines, protected from harmful fishing practices and that vibrations from operation, while detectable, don't appear to be disturbing and mammals don't avoid turbines.
All in all, it's a better solution than unsustainable alternatives while we continue to use energy.
@@BobHannent underwater noise disturbs underwater fish and mammals as cetaceans at kilometres of distance, you are copying and pasting answer without checking facts. and the idea of big scale renewable grid is unnecessary and wrong from the beginning
@@crapisnice no, I went off and read a scientific report in response. There's clear evidence of the issues around construction, but no evidence of harm in life while plenty of evidence of the improvement in the marine ecosystem from reefing and lack of scouring from fishing.
It minute 9:12 you said six cents per kilowatt hour, but did the calculation with $.60.
‘’Courage taught me no matter how bad a crisis gets ... any sound investment will eventually pay off."
Sounds like plan, how do you put money to work?
@Casino Şimşek Thanks for replying me, I've heard so many people talk about investment but none had said how to do it right.
Am hoping on you can explain more on how you make extra income from investments
Financial freedom is absolutely the perfect freedom
This is awesome, please can you be of an assistance to me how can I connect with your broker?
This is one of my favorite forward thinking projects! Denmark is making wind the new oil
I hate birds and the environment too, maybe we could put it another 100km so we'd have absolutely no transmission at that point. What other government propaganda can we ignorantly support?
@@lukesutton4135 what is the alternative then?
@@ulrichraymond8372 Nuclear
And chemistry!,..... Five years from know transporting dangerous chemicals may be on its way out. They will be produced on sites where they are needed!
@@lukesutton4135 Nordic studies all concluded the same; the harm to wildlife is bigger at fish's being sucked into the cooling wents at powerplants, over the few birdstrikes there is a year. I recall latest study from Denmark said about 1.1 birdstrike a year pr windmill...
There are also a few wavepower projects that will be tested and producing on that energy island. Sharing the foundations and very expensive cables with offshore windmills it has great potential.
There have been a few dozen wave power projects built and funded by gov or NGO grants over the last couple decades. Last I looked, not a single one of them remains operational. They have well known problems that make them expensive, marine bio fouling and intermittency meaning a firm backup somewhere is part of the grid cost. Given the high electric rates already paid by Danes, why do you know believe this particular pending system has "great potential"?
@@Nill757 The "potential" is estimated to be about 15 % of the supply for electricity IF or when one or more of the ten upscaled experiments should turn out to be success full. Even though many different experiments have been tested and failed we still don't KNOW that a wavepower mechanism is impossible to devellop.
Of course it takes some funding to reach that but then compare with the billions that still flow into research on nuclear power and fossil industry.
@@nielspeterborgennielsen1386 investment money, esp tax money needs a better justification than ‘Maybe it will work, never mind the problems, try it’. Otherwise every scam artist like Theranos shows up at the door, and electric rates go higher.
Nuclear and fossil are long known to work, affordably.
The North Sea location has a lot more wind so that makes it a better project compared to Bornholm.
The question is are the numbers based on the name plate ratings of the turbines or based on estimated production based on wind studies.
Denmark already have multiple huge offshore wind farms. They know exactly how much energy every single one of those produced in the last ten years. They know the cost of building those and the cost of maintenance. There are no unknown parameters in this project.
He wasn't very clear about that but he assumed a capacity factor of 50% (3:18 "If the plant produce energy 12 hours/day") which is about right for large modern offshore North Sea turbines, so those are realistic annual numbers.
The larger the number of receivers are of the sustainable energy the easier it are to correct calculate usage. Since Denmark have increasingly done this over last 3-4 decades they have good number insight. The North Sea summit will provide 230 million (!) high energy using Europeans with green electricity. Largest energy transition project in the world, by far. On top they will have a hydrogen production flow and storage of same that besides levelling out dips on non windy days and winter, can be used for hydrogen engines driving trains, cars, jet engines. Hydrogen are a very flexible fuel that CAN replace gasoline and diesel. So numbers are based in reality from current production and consumer behaviour. Since the North Sea summit agreement were signed. Denmark have added an additional own project than can deliver electricity for 20-25 million people and the countries around the Baltic Sea have contacted Denmark for an own project, in the Baltics, that now are being speed investigated. The nations in question on that project are Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, maybe Finland and more. Lets hope ALL coastal nations will make a fast copy(paste of this project.
This project is truly intriguing! I hope that it can come to fruition as envisioned. I love this idea. Cheers to the Danes!
here here!
Just fyi to you and the author, anytime anyone says "end of oil" is full of it and is most likely backed by big oil. Imagine supporting something that takes coal, burns it and then cries about burning coal?(aka making less efficient product) Man the drugs kids are on these days but hey, let me know when we stop using roads which also require crude oil. Americans brilliant plan is to be lazy and buy from other people until the poor of our country can't afford it, then they'll pretend they're heros by covertly lifting restrictions and drilling again. Nothing new under the sun. Oh let's forget to mention that you're not going to get $H|+ after transmission loss which will probably equate to half of it gone. Didnt bother with the video, not that stupid to waste my time. Im sick of youtubers pandering to government agendas to rob their people. You're disgusting and you should be ashamed and the chance you didn't bother doing any research, furthers my point. This is pure highway robbery and I'm surprised their people aren't killing these open terrorists. Build an island for private purposes with public money to give contracts to bad companies, good job dude, real people who work for a living are feed up.
2 month ago Denmark in cooperation with Belgium/Germany/Netherlands agreed and signed the "North Sea Summit agreement". It are the worlds largest energy transition deal from fossil fuels to green sustainable energy. It will cover the transition of 230 million high energy using Europeans away from fossil fuels AND make the consumers laugh all the way to the bank. On top it will contain the worlds largest hydrogen/"power to X" production. Hydrogen are made of electricity and water and when burned it only emits...water! The future care for the masses will be based on 4 stroke direct hydrogen injection because such engines, just like windmill engines, are simpler, easier to recycle than batteries and fits perfect in a circular economy where the same materials are used again and again, it are the current technology you add to the end product that makes the difference. No more POOtin´s or oil sheikh´s killing journalists and undermining democracies profiting from the current global narco like dependency of fossil fuels while we kill the planets atmosphere that pawed the way for our very existence. Instead cheap green energy that also allow us to laugh all the way to the bank!
The North Sea summit agreement will hold several energy islands each in the North Sea, from Belgium to Denmark. A similar project are being speed investigated now in the Baltic Sea as well and could include cooperation between Denmark, and countries like Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland++
ALL coastal nations should make a copy/paste of this project NOW and we might have a chance of surviving ourselves. Danes got it right. It are not a matter of radically changing our lifestyle. It are simply a matter of changing the way we produce and use energy.
Denmark as a nation are themselves on the road to achieve carbon neutrality before the demands in the Paris climate agreement.
If a nation like USA simply took the North Sea summit agreement and did the same times 1,5 they in one single project could gain windmill electricity to cover the entire nations needs AND make it cheaper and CO2 free!
I have privately scuba dived all over the world . I would like to point to the fact that off shore windmill foundations in a very few years after established will contribute to both a more clean and healthy ocean and provide great sanctuaries for the bottom of the aqua based food chain. Let me explain. When a physical body like those foundations are placed in the water it will fast attract sea weed and mussels. Sea weed and mussels eats CO2 and add oxygen to the water. The combination of sea weed and mussels also provide shelter and food for the bottom of the aquatic based food chain. The worlds coral reefs are estimated to function as sanctuary/nursery for over 20% of the bottom of the aquatic food chain. Many predict global warming of our oceans and periodic extreme bleaching events could kill of most of global coral reefs. Windmill foundations placed off shore around the world could counter the effect of loosing some of the planets coral reefs. Globally doing this would thus in a matter of a decades times after implemented provide us with a healthier, cleaner ocean with more fish in it.
THESE news, the North Sea summit agreement and now maybe a Baltic project similar, represents the most solution oriented and positive news I have seen in my lifetime when it comes to combatting the REAL issues and the REAL solutions!
it wont work
@@bobshagit9503 Already are. These new projects are basically just upscaled existing ones. I personally live less than 5 KM from several off shore windmill parks as well as on shore ones and 2 hydrogen extraction factories are being built inside same radius from where I live.
It is a matter of responding to facts!
Darwin said "survival of the fittest". Many in USA seem to interpret this as "survival of the strongest". It are not so! Darwin meant: Survival of the most adaptable (to change). USA´s problem seem to be that they are stuck in some kind of 1950 vacuum that prevents them from relating to reality and the very real dangers our CO2 emissions have caused and accelerating are causing to our atmosphere and global water circulation.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Great video and Great idea
A desalination plant would have been a great thing. We need 3-4 on the CA coast. Israel made it work. We could too.
Makes me curious if there's any battery chemistry that could use that highly concentrated brine. Even if it's not energy/power dense enough to use in a car or smart phone, perhaps it could be used for grid scale where space/weight isn't so much a factor.
That’s my thought as well.. or even use some other mechanism to concentrate it down further if it still has too much water.. solar distillation, evaporating pools.. gotta be some way to use it you’d think?
@@Tylerj08 Might be a potentially cheap(ish) source of sea salt for the grocery store near you!
Well there are sodium ion batteries, but I don't think you can just pour salt water into them. Maybe it could be used as an electrolyte for producing hydrogen, but you'd have to deal with chlorine gas. I think they just need to create a discharge structure that fans out the waste brine enough to lower the concentration to safe levels. You don't just dump it from one pipe along the shoreline, you take it out to sea, dilute it with normal sea water, and spread it out. You can have evaporation pools for salt production as well, and possibly other minerals, but I don't think those are enough for the entire water needs of California, you'd need an insane amount of land to hold all that discharge
@@DFPercush hard to transport brine far. and it needs to be spread out far, and it still impacts the sea very heavily ecologically
As a green energy and green tech oriented channel I think you should choose your sponsors carefully and also work with them as they work with you.
I'm sure Factor make great meals and you wouldn't be promoting them otherwise, however, I just saw a big pile of single use plastic microwave trays.
Maybe you should ask them if this is on their agenda and what else they are doing to cut down on waste.
Rant aside, go Denmark. The world's largest offshore wind farm is here in the U.K. at Hornsea and managed by Ørsted a Danish company.
They are planning to double its size. We are not short of wind in the North Sea. Let's hope storage solutions ramp up at the same speed.
This video greatly simplifies a few things about Denmark. Denmark "FINALLY ends Oil & Gas *when the wind blows".
The next thing is that Denmark does not, electrically speaking, have their own power grid. They are 50%, for practical purpose, goverend by Sweden and the other 50% by Germany. Sweden and Germany provides frequency stability for Denmark, ensuring that the power output on the grid is always 50 Hz. This is something major wind power areas, like California, is struggling with - grid stability.
When it comes to Hydrogene efficiency if you want to store wind electrical power into hydrogen, and then output it into electricity again the calculated value is 30% electricity-hydrogen-electricity. (This is coming from the independent royal science academy in Sweden, who are pro wind and hydrogen).
Videos like this GREATLY simplifies the incredibliy complex technical feat of producing electricity, synchronizing the grid down to a milli second, pushing power in the right direction from various sources and instantly matching production with demand.
power grids and stabilizing power has been done for 100 years all around the world, Denmark can figure this out. that's hardly a "challenge" if there is incentive financially to do this they will
@@TwoBitDaVinci the point was that grid stabilization is a service provided by Sweden and Denmark.
As you say, stabilization of grid frequency has been done for 100 years but these 100 years of service has been done by large generators. Basically we are talking about a synchronous net of large generators, like coal plants or nuclear reactors. These turbines provide the inertia needed, small wind power generators can't push or pull these out of frequency and thus the grid is more stable.
Denmark, which is 75% ish consistent of small wind power turbines is a very unstable grid - and like I mentioned, Sweden and Germany is providing this stability for them.
This is a technical hurdle not so often discussed in YT videos, because YT'ers are very focused on effect output thinking this is the only thing that matters. Far from the truth.
@@TwoBitDaVinci To mention something about financial hurdle - what I'm talking about is a technical and physical limit of inertia that might not be possible to overcome.... there's a limit to how much wind power we can have. Throwing more money at it might not really solve it, unless someone comes up with some physics breaking innovation.
Personally I like tide water power so much more, because as bill o'riley say, the tides come in and the tides come out and we've known for a thousand years when it happens. It's as close to plannable energy as we will get while being CO2 free.
@@TwoBitDaVinci Another point that makes my case, due to the severe lack of stability in the souther swedish powergrid (where Denmark is included) .. Sweden cannot deliver full throttle water power from the northern regions down to the souther part.
We just recently (1y ago) opened a main power grid line from mid sweden down to south sweden that's been on the drawingboard for almost 20 years. Due to instability in the power grid it's never been run with more than 2/3's of the power.
The instability comes from four nuclear power plants has since been taken off the groid and replaced with smaller wind turbins, and we're lacking proper push in certain choke points in our power grid.
@@PeterKocic grid stability is very important. unloaded synchrounous motors connected to flywheels can be used to add stability. if the danes build the wind turbines in denmark then that money is invested inside the country and those same windmills can be recycled at the end of like. the return on the 35 billion or 50 billion is inside denmark and produces electricity which can be sold for profit. additional excess electricity can be stored in sand batteries for winter district heating. also excess eletricity can be used to make hydrogen for fertilizer manufacturing. They will have much more energy independence than other countries.
Amazing video! Thank you and greetings from Denmark.
A major part of Denmark's strategy has to do with getting shipping to switch to hydrogen. They are a major player in shipping globally and can't meet targets if you include their merchant navy.
Maersk have, as only large global player in the shipping industry, more than a year ago, announced they are deep in planning a future where their entire fleet runs on sustainable fuels like hydrogen and methanol. This is one of the reasons Maersk right now are making agreements around the world to ensure that they eventually can get these fuels worldwide.
Maersk are way ahead of the rest of the maritime world in this context.
@@Mike-zx1kx Maersk are deep in planning for the Danish tax payer to lift their burden,,,,,, as they have done so many times before.
@@pliashmuldba You are allowed to your opinion. In my opinion switching the future fleet to hydrogen and/or methanol will be great business, not a real cost but a real investment.
The question are why airplane engine manufacturers have not yet made a jet engine running on hydrogen (gas or liquid). THAT simply makes NO sense to me. As the weather goes more and more nuts, it will only be a matter of time before a global demand of scaling down flying massively will happen.
We globally, all nations, should agree on each one of us snap build a hyperloop through our nation, preferably via existing larger airports since they already often provide infrastructure to bring people to/from their end destination locally
Either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem. The global aviation industry are in a very high degree part of the problem and nothing they do at this time indicates they can be part of the solution.
Maersk are, with their ongoing plans, proving they are part of the solution.
Last time I chekked the French/German/UK owned Airbus just opened a airplane factory in China. So right now we are giving the Chinese that, just as Russia, have NO respect for others territorial integrity /Tibet/HK/artificial islands in S C Sea/recent unprovoked border guard attacks against India), human rights (massacre at Tianemen Square against own peaceful demonstrators/incacerating 1,3 million Uighurs withput trial for "reeducation") and climate change (China opens more coal powered plants than rest of world closes+++)
Germany made them selves completely dependent on an instable Russian dictator and now they apparently have learned SO much they in Airbus thinks deepened technological transfer to China are a good idea.
Maersk investment will not cost taxpayers, if anything they will profit because Maersk will get more business because the demand from consumers that the entire consumer tree do not harm our planet increases by the hour and by the local weather catastrophes/crops failures, draught, floods, typhoons/hurricanes etc etc.
@@pliashmuldba If you know that then you should recognise that Maersk´s public announcement of their plans to make their future fleet running on green fuels are what we need the entire world to do. I note you did not relate to the hyperloop concept. If all nations choose to sign up to such an agreement we could have a completely hyperloop connected world in 15ish years.
Denmark, as well as most industrialised countries have a energy consumption Per Captia that are well above global average. So basically all the industrialized world today uses energy on a level that demands many more earths to cope. That is our very issue! The difference are that the Danes, that do not have access to water power (no mountains) , have used the last 40 years to begin their transfer away from fossil fuels to green energy making and usage by investing in windpower technology. They have now proven that they can make energy this way at a lower cost than any fossil fuel. The thing the Danes and rest of the world have needed for a long time are something that can balance out the needs when the wind does not blow or when demands are highest, winter! It is that "something" hydrogen and other "power to X" fuels like methanol provide us with. We thus now have a full working circular concept that CAN provide us with whatever amount of energy we need AND make sure there can be enough energy on storage to level out dips in wind and for winter.
Danes and many places around the world have parts of their rails non electrified BUT instead of investing in that they now instead just can buy engines for their trains running on hydrogen and/or Methanol. Again proving that switching to renewable s provides us with lots of areas where we can make huge savings along the way. Going green are not an expense but an INVESTMENT. As you know there are a big difference between an expense and an investment. I am sorry but your statement of "very little" of Danish tracks are electrified do not hold in an international comparison. Denmark are doing better than UK that have 37% electrified and better than Germany that have 61% electrified. On top Denmark have, as a clear stated part of their transition of energy usage to renewable s speed built a modern driverless electrified Metro in their capital. It did not exist 15 years ago at all and now they have one of the most modern and efficient systems in the world, basically running on the wind they harvest.
With the off shore parks already signed and agreed on in Denmark at this point, today, Denmark very soon will go from 52% to way over 100 and very soon will become net exporters of both green electricity and green fuels.
Considering the excellent crisis management the Danish government (this should not be seen as a party political statement) have done during the Covid crisis I feel confident that the current strategy the Danish government have stated in regard to the POOtin decided energy crisis should de facto be seen as a "we will push the bill for the Danes until we have a clear picture of the consequences before suggesting the solution best for Danes. Right now Ukrainians are dying to protect their land that so vicious were unprovoked attacked and attempted invaded. Denmark have given unprecedented support to Ukraine and the currently host international donor conferences focusing not only on aid right now in the fight but also focus on a fast rebuild strategy when Russia have been thrown out. I am sure most Danes understand that pushing the bill right now until a clearer answer to the problem can be formulated are an acceptable sacrifice to support Ukraine. Let us never forget how thin a thread Europe were in when Hitler began attacking and invading European nations and the sacrifices our allies made to come to our aid. Personally I can promise you that I am willing to take A LOT more sacrifices on my shoulder, here and now, to counter POOtin´s idiotic and dangerous behaviour in 2022. The POOtin induced energy crisis are a symptom. The 40% dependency the German´s allowed their nation to have on POOtin´s fossil fuels are part of the core reason and the entire Western world warned them about it. IF you feel the need to point fingers, point it where it makes sense, Russia and Germany. Pointing fingers at Denmark, that actually have acted on climate change and energy politics by transferring to renewable s makes no sense. Denmark are not part of the problem but part of the solution and rest of the world have begun to see that. The recent signed "North Sea Agreement" where Denmark have agreed with Belgium/Netherlands/Germany upon building offshore windmill parks and energy islands (making green fuels) will transition 230 million high energy using Europeans away from fossil fuels and into energy from windmills and fuels derived hereoff represents the most positive answer to out climate and energy crisis I have seen in my lifetime. 230 million in one single deal! THAT are the REAL answer to our very real problems. You should be proud of Denmark both when it comes to handling the climate crisis but also when it comes to aiding Ukraine and the struggle they basically do for all of us. Read about WW2 and get some perspective. We will aid Ukraine to beat POOtin and we will get through any financial crisis he short term can induce. In a few years we, and Ukrainians, will live as normal or better while Russia will be an international isolated paria forced to eat beet soup 5 times a week. Wait and see, a solution will be found, even to your energy bill.
@@Mike-zx1kx The weather goes more and more nuts?
You've been watching too much TV.
I'm 64 years old and the weather is about the same as it's always been.
What we truly need is a worldwide investment into power storage. Which is happening, but too slow and too inefficient. We need layered power storage as well. A little like oldschool water towers. We need bulky storage that can provide a town or neighborhood/block of a full night of power, we also need in-house storage so we can store our own solar power and fill it up with excess power we need from the main storage bank nearby. We then need a method that stores MASSIVE amounts of power near green power sources.
I'm from the Netherlands and I sometimes ask people how much power they think we can store in our country. "If the power goes out at night, how much power do you think we have stored to provide the country with?" And most answer pretty positively. I've heard answers reaching from two days (48+ hours) up till 8-10 hours on average.
In reality my country can store 30 minutes of power. Which is absolutely trivial, and a severe weakness if you want green energy to supply during the night-hours as well.
And we are calculating a whole lot, but there is only one simulator that we need to look at really. We have so many games that provide the option to use green energy. And in those games you equally need to invest in power storage. In those games you will have zero power issues if you store twice the amount of power you need during the night. So a safe storage buffer is around 16 hours. Which means we need to increase our current storage with 3000+% to make it viable. Or we are bound to use fossil sources to cover the night, or start burning up hydrogen that is created during peak power production hours when the wind is strong and the sun is bright.
The biggest problem we are facing right now is that power storage includes power loss. There is no 100% transfer of power. Hell even steam generators are ~30% efficient. Meaning we need methods that create power we can store (hydrogen being one of them), making it portable. We equally need solid storage to cover civilian area's. We need to force companies with large roofs to use that surface to generate solar power, they equally need to have storage that can buffer their own power spikes to keep the net stable.
We can build as many solar and wind generators as we wish. If we can't store the power, we can't cut off from fossil powersources.
To take a game which simulates the logic of this process quite well: Oxygen Not Included (Klei Entertainment), the second your "space base" becomes self sufficient is when all your power comes from renewable sources and you only use coal generators and petroleum burners as a backup system. A backup system that only kicks in when your main battery planet is below 10%. Once you get good enough at that game, you will never have those batteries dip below 50%. Which is just a game, but a good example of where we have to build towards. Fossil as pure backup, pure green sources with enough storage to keep the net stable.
To add in one last line that makes you rethink how green energy works, compared to how we behave right now:
If you turn a lamp and you keep it on all the time. Are you wasting energy?
If you buy a big battery and a solar panel, and you keep the lamp on all the time? Are you wasting energy?
In water desalination, the leftover salt brine could be used for extracting lithium. Is there new tech to change how we extract lithium from salt brine? A ton of lithium, has rapidly increased in price as of late. Perhaps a topic for a new video.
absolutely!
All salt brine has to eventually be put back into the oceans, otherwise, in a stupid sci-fi future, all land will be covered in mountains of salt brine and the oceans will be fresh water!
Ok! You extract the 0.5%Lithium in the brine and maybe even the other valuable trace materials. What do you do now with the 97% leftover sodium?
If you deep investigate lithium from SEAWATER, you find articles from 2021 saying a company said they can do it at cost effective price.
The waste is gold, clorine and fresh water, so not sure how we could dispose of all that waste.
After that, the trail goes quiet. No more discussion. If you find that company, you find them mining salt brines, not seawater. If you email them you get no answer.
So you tell me.
@@rashakor Ever heard of sodium batteries ?
One big Island on the doggerbank between England, The Netherlands and Denmark would also make sense.
I can relate. Here in Maine, we have community solar farms dotting the pristine landscape eveywhere and people are angry that once fertile farmland, is being compromised to generate electricity. I might also add, that last month my power bill hit $400 for the first time ever..
But unlikely for the last time ever, alas.
As a Dane I think the very best locations for energy islands are 50-60 miles of the coasts of major cities and build up areas (Which the west coast of Denmark is notoriously NOT....),....... Might I be permitted to propose that you, and a group of 'concerned citizens' in Maine get together. And work towards building Maine Island,..... You can 'copy'and'paste' from these Danish Engineers. And add a bit of creativity. (The Danish Government or the danish people or even I can facilitate lines of credit, too.... If need be.) Should this ring a bell with you then I'll be happy to supply you with details, contacts, personal info etc....
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. It is intermittent and unreliable. Effective storage is extremely expensive.
@@johngeier8692 it depends where you live in the world. Canada is winter 8 months a year. Coast reigns have more wind , Mexico has more sun.. "One shoe size doesn't fit everyone "
@@johngeier8692 Oh look an employee of the oil and gas industry, Energy storage does not NEED to be expensive, but it WILL take up room in that case.
One of the most developed progressive Nations on earth that has done and is doing great strides in investing for Energy and effective water utilization and provisions for is Israel. We could do well to follow suite and follow there lead!! I am more than impressed wave motion power generation, Israel is working on that as well.
I wanna see big wind turbines in my back yard... That crap is really cool, two durp da Vinci, we need closure on the petrochemical industry we survive on!
Being a child of Denmark. It seems far better to build islands, that utterlizing the seas vast power in windturbines. Thereby supporting energy not just for Denmark but for all mankind. Reaching into the future, with our fantasy and skills. This is the battle we all have to endure, and empower in thruth. May the prosperity be with you.
the main point of the energy island is that much of the gearing and tech in the wind turbine hub can bee removed. Instead, the gearing and tech will be on the island. That will make the wind turbines much cheaper.
And not only cheaper but hopefully much less dangerous
There will actually be multiple of these islands, the Netherlands will also build one together with Denmark and Germany.
Yes and so will Belgium, it is great. In the Baltics a new group of countries are currently in speed dialogue with Denmark regarding another large international project in the Baltic Sea besides the one Denmark already are planning.
They should build artificial reaf between windmills to allow fish farming
The off shore windmill foundations functions as reefs, reality have shown. A better solution are to not fish there but make them become nurseries for the bottom of the aquatic food chain thus supporting life everywhere else. These parks thus could replace some of the effect the dangerous decline and decay in global coral reefs we see.
I recently heard about some companies attempting to create Sodium (rather then Lithium) Batteries. If they can pair with Desalination progress, they can reduce or eliminate the toxicity of the Brine by-product.
Tesla has a new patent where they use salt to produce lithium instead of dangerous chemicals.
I hear in the future they expect ships to run on hydrogen. That there may be spots for ships to stop close to the energy islands and refuel. There is a lot of shipping that goes around Denmark into the Baltic. I have been to Bornholm. It is an absolutely beautiful place.
Won't happen. Hydrogen takes too much energy to produce. Unless there are some massive unseen breakthroughs in the near future, we won't be using hydrogen in any practical way. I'm sure a better alternative will be around before anyone uses Hydrogen powered anything in a non gimmick vehicle. Even old Lithium battery tech that's in cars today are much, much more efficient than hydrogen. Toyota and Nissan already have Solid state battery cars ready to release in 2025.
Yes cargo ships, trains and cargo trucks, and airplanes too in time - they will all benefit massively from using Hydrogen as a fuel source. All we need is proper grid scale production and storage facilities, and this energy island will be a massive stepping stone towards that direction and serve as an incredible pilot project. Hopefully other countries will realize the benefits and make their own investments sooner rather than later. As pointed out, we have had wind energy for over 30 years here in Denmark and still it's only recently that other countries have invested significantly into wind in a similar fashion. There is no benefit in being late to the party.
@@shperax The entire point of Hydrogen here is that excess energy production from renewables NEED a way to be stored, and hydrogen production is a good way to do so. There has also recently been a scientific breakthrough by a Danish phd student that allows for easier grid-scale hydrogen production - which is actively being brought onto the latest green energy projects that are funded right now.
Paying for this project using current oil revenues makes sense. The other option is to spend oil revenues on other projects and have to import energy once the oil runs dry. I'm not surprised California rejected building a desalination plant because it doesn't return quick short turn profit for investors who aren't prepared to wait 25 years for a return
We have much to learn from the Nordic countries! Please keep going guys, maybe the rest of Europe will finally start being braver
Niels is a Danish name!!!,....... Lots of people of Danish decent in the US,.... Care to elaborate?
I agree! I sometimes imagine if Portugal used its full wind potencial with its large cost and mountinous terrains
The Nordic countries are cold for most of the year. Their inhabitants are severely afflicted with the Climate Delusion. The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous.
@@johngeier8692 Except, they aren't?
Also, increase in GHG, deforestation and monocultures can and do affect the climate by a large extent, so idk how you say it isn't human caused for the most part
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Just pick up the phone Portugal. Nothing prevents you from doing the same! On top it will guarantee good solid local jobs instead of external jobs in the damaging fossil fuel industry far away from Portugal. It will not be a cost, but an investment that would benefit not only Portugal´s CO2 emissions positively but also be a benefit to your economy!
the battery storage system will be unreal. It might be the most cosly of the entire project.
try impossible by current standards try not to fall for the hippity whoblah
@@b72ant agreed
Wonder if Orsted is handling this?
Just checked, yes, Orsted is bidding for this project. Interesting co. it used to be fossil fuel focused & over 10 yrs ago, they rotated completely to wind & renewables.
They're starting up their oil and gas powered power stations again under orders from Government
Wave technology? Have they considered this? It provides 24/7 power
Getting approval to do anything in California is like mission impossible. Everyone thinks they're saving the planet by sitting on their butts.
Even Elon had to leave, and he has done more to clean up our energy than the entire state and Washington DC.
I really hope USA would make a copy paste of this project times 1,5. That would be enough in itself to cover the entire electricity need of USA. Not only would it solve the increasing issue that USA have highest CO2 emission on earth Per Capita (together with Australians), but would also politically stop you from buying fossil fuels from oppressive journalist killing dictators like POOtin, Bin Salman and Xi.
USA recently opened up for the largest oil exploration auction in US history. This auction will ensure that USA´s signature on the Paris climate accord are a joke. USA will not be dealing with its core issues....again and will...again prove USA are politically and environmentally stuck in some kind of weird 1950/1960´s vacuum.
The most subsidised sector in USA today are not the agricultural sector but the fossil fuel industry. At least make the energy market a free one.
Maybe fixing your democracy would be the fastest way to real change. Seem to me USA have been stuck, in some ares downright declined, since the officially unresolved killing of J.F.K! A coincidence or.....
Ørsed has just anoused a double up on windergy 😉
This is a fantastic project. In particular I like the focus on wind turbines. There is no simpler direct transfer of energy from kinetic to electric in the world, so the components need not be heavy on rare earth components like lithium, and being simple, can be made to last longer than more complex devices like solar panels that lose efficiency over time. This is out of the way and the energy storage is the perfect co-development. We don't have to wait for miracle technologies like fusion. If countries simply invest in projects like these we can eliminate the need for coal and oil from being used for power.
Solar panels concern me firstly because they all seem to be made in the far East which is strategically risky, and secondly, there does not seem to be a recycling route for them.
Actually, Undersea Wave Generation is not only simpler but much more efficient, working 24/7 without the need for an island and with much less maintenance.
This is very neat. And also production of H2 is very neat. this is awesome as well.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant has an output of 7.9 GW, takes up a fraction of the space, requires far less civil engineering and material, and has a steady and reliable output.
After Fukushima, the costs of running a nuclear power plant skyrocket, due to extra safety requirements. If we look at Hinkley or Olkiluoto, then both of them produces power of either 12 eurocents, or 11 eurocents a KWh. Sea-based windmills is about 6eurocents, windmills on land about 5 eurocents, and solarcells about 4 eurocents a KWh; In addition to that, a windmill can be up in 5 years, and solarcell 3 months. A Nuclear powerplant takes 20 years. Not to mention Denmark has no nuclear plants, so that would prolly more be 50 years, just to bring education and operating up to speed.
Space is not the issue here, unless you talk about the space for the nuclear waste.
@@martinrasmussen6634 uptime for wind generation 55% solar45% nuclear 99%
If you’re thinking of a conventional light water fission reactor you should forget it because you have to factor in the costs in dollars and carbon of mining, waste storage for many thousands of years, potential accidents and risks of war and nuclear weapons proliferation- a real can of worms. However if we shifted to Thorium or Fusion reactors many of those costs and risks could be reduced and or eliminated. Conventional nuclear reactors aren’t as efficient or economical or as safe as renewables and the ancillary costs above are conveniently never mentioned by their proponents.
@@martinrasmussen6634 A compelling argument for for LCOE for wind and solar except that doesn't account for the storage requirements needed to make up for the unreliability of the grid. Not to mention most solar costs have been kept low thanks the production being in China.
If you think the maintenance costs for those wind turbines and solar panels will be low, while sitting in the sea, you got another thing coming.
The argument for time goes out the window when you consider the civil engineering and structural engineering required to make and artificial island as well as lay piers on the sea floor to support the weight of a wind turbine 5 statue of liberties tall.
This is the problem with the thinking in some European states, the short term always comes first, and you end up in the same place.
As for the "space for Nuclear waste", Finland already has a deep geological repository. Not to mention, nuclear waste is solid and extremely compact. All of the waste that the US has ever created could fit in a football field 30 ft deep (10ish meters for you Euro types).
Europe needs reliable power, and switching from gas from a hostile state, to unreliable Wind and Solar is just jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
@@billbaldwin8074 Advanced reactors, Such as liquid lead-gallium cooled fast reactors, or helium cooled reactors, which can be used for hydrogen production and desalination. Should and can be used.
As for nuclear proliferation, over the past 60 years, no link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons has been established. Countries that want nuclear weapons will try and get them, regardless of the state of their nuclear power industry. North Korea and Iran are prime examples of this.
I would love to have thorium reactors, but as of right now, no designs have been approved for construction, and no mining, refining, or fuel fabrication infrastructure has been build for it. Fusion hasn't been cracked just yet. We need solutions now, not in 25 years.
The best time to start building nuclear reactors was 20 years ago, the second best time is today.
If, if, if, if, likely, potentially, almost, etc. These wind turbines require a high level of maintenance and have a very short life span. Looks to me it will end up in tears. Unless a new viable technology appears all this is a dream.
Denmark have proven with existing projects that they are more than competitive against fossil fuel based solution. Germany right now PAYS Danish windmill producers to not send their cheap energy into the German market because then they make a smaller profit on taxes and distribution because base price of the energy are lower. This is a fact! Germany have done this for years but POOtin´s actions and the catastrophic situation German politicians have placed, not only Germany in, but entire Europe, by making themselves hugely dependent on energy from an oppressive undemocratic journalist killing dictator, are now changing Germany´s ways. They also have limited the amount of green energy they could receive by not enlarging its electricity cables to Denmark. This seem to be about to change now and Germany seem to plan for larger cables....late are better than never. Large countries and journalist killing dictators have had to much power to stop the solutions the world needs and that actually have the power to safe us. Ask Germany what are behind their obstruction of sustainable solutions and I am sure you soon will meet incidents of corruption. That are how the fossil fuel producers have operated from day 1.
Going off of current events there is currently a pretty darn huge power vacuum in the international power market.
With the lack of russian oil for the indefinite future yet growing energy demands of Europe it isn't too much of a stretch to assume they want to become the new energy supplier before other countries get too efficient with their own energy
I think that's a rather cynical approach that puts this ongoing development in Denmark entirely into the perspective of recent developments regarding Russia and current energy problems in Europe. The Danes have steadily expanded their durable energy programs for *decades* and have been willing to share their knowledge and learned lessons with other countries. They did so long before Gazprom got a foothold in Europe and this is simply a continuation of the path they've walked on for a long time already.
The energy issue has very little to do with "Russian oil". Russian NATURAL GAS is the issue. Europe decided to go woke over the last 22 years and only produces 8% of the volume that was produced in the year 2000.
Natural gas is clean burning and requires far less mechanical maintenance. Wind farms are notoriously high maintenance... and in the sea, far more dangerous.
@@thanekewtoo Windfarms are high maintenance? How so? A small crew can look after an entire wind farm here. Everything is automated when it comes to running them so just what are you referring to?
@@thanekewtoo GERMANY decided to go woke! Entire Europe warned them hard against making their nation dependent on a journalist killing oppressive dictator. You can hardly blame Denmark, that very actively warned Germany and were ignored that Germany pursued a unsustainable, both environmentally and politically future. At least now Germany have sobered up and joined the North Sea Summit agreement and will get their own energy island. This project serve ALL but journalist killing fossil fuel exporting dictators like POOtin, Bin Salman, Xi.
Not convinced by your theory that Denmark suffers so much from nimbys that they have to build an offshre island to get permission for more turbines. They have been world leaders in the tech for 40 years and the populace is (generally) fine with the idea.
The actual reason for this is cost and efficiency. Putting the transformers and grid copnnections out at sea is very expensive and being able to share a large 'land' facility like this more or less pays for the island which then also allows for maintenance crews to stay there and do _way_ less travelling back and forth, and for storage facilities to be installed and thus use 'average' sized cables back to land, not 'peak' size. There are lots of potential efficiencies.
People in Denmark are in favour of wind turbines ON SHORE. Generally. And not in favour of developers reaping the profits whilst their neighbours are only gaining the losses, stemming from seeing their property values dwindle.......... Next to a massive wind turbine....... The argument for offshore windmills is a double one. Denmark has a lot of coast line,..... it's only a three hour drive from the east coast to the west coast, compare that to the US, and there's more wind to be 'harvested' offshore....
"VindØ" Means "WindIsland" (Wind island):)
Or death to wine. VinDø / Wine Die.
Carlsberg is sponsering this project, probably.
Ricky,
Great report. Looks exciting especially in the relatively protected areas off the coast of Denmark.
Cheers, Eric
7:10 N=1 here, that find windturbines majestic and doesn't mind seeing them when at the beach. I even avoid visiting beach towns that have voted against them, on principal. They don't get my money. Seeing windturbines beats seeing oil rigs, which I do remember seeing on clear days, probably when there was still oil close to shore.
Useful update on Denmark’s energy island - thanks
So awesome, I wish we could all agree on great things like this. Excellent video Ricky 👌
Not all of us agree with big oil who is using this to rob the Danish people to support their companies they are privately invested in. Do you even realize the transmission loss that would occur? This is a plan thats only designed and supported by children who couldn't pass middle school because clearly they don't know anything, probably not even their own sex, unfortunately. Lmao someone said wind, I couldn't bother to waste my time of this scam video but if wind is mention oh God what a laugh. Lets murder birds, create an inefficient source of energy that doesn't even product regularly. Brain dead little kids who should stay at home and never attempt to rob the public. The working class is getting feed up with those who don't and only rob others through government intimidation and propaganda. I guess it would be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR for the author to admit he's not only supported by big oil but also government backed terrorism and thinks they're slick about it.
its a massive waste of money, life threatening of the wild life and a death sentence to our ppl economicly... allready as it stands all our so called "green energy" 80% ish of it is SOLD OF and not being utilized by danish citizens which basicly make our energy bills more then 10 times higher then it needs to be and now we have energy shortages thx to the fucking terroristic politicians so we may have to shut of heating of our homes in the winter and may experience blackouts etc..... so awsome it is not... and many ppl have allready lost their homes and businesses thanks to extreme energy bills.... (16,200$) for a month of energy, and that is for a very small grocery store....
And we still haven't figured out how to get rid of the failed blades. Plus the lubricating fluid in the gear boxes.
A planet of fluid dynamics, just have to harvest the energy contained on it. Your vids are always top notch, Rick.
"just?" LOL, this tech has been around for decades with little implementation, so don't expect it to take off anytime soon or ever. Humans will likely run the Earth and themselves into extinction before they'll coordinate anything meaningfully effective to slow the effects of the growing overpopulation crisis. First and foremost humans need to not only control population growth but get the world human population down to under 2 billion and preferably 1.5 billion which is what population scientists have determined to be the sustainable population of humans on Earth.
Dude. Your voice has gotten better. I bet you worked on it.
Denmark is just getting ahead of the zombie apocalypse that will be a fantastic base of operations for them it'll have a Seaport Limitless amounts of power. Great idea.
we just need to dig a large canal between us and germany then we are zombie proof
The reason for 2 separate plot's is multifold.. one is redundancy.. 2. is the transport of electricity from East to West in Denmark is small 3. is cheaper than just build one.. 4. export..
That look ambitious to say least. Is the Island going to be able to cope with rising sea levels?
great question! I figure they'll build that into the design... but ambitious is an understatement right? others have pointed out... the issue of being a target in a conflict... urgh... lol why we can't have nice things
@@TwoBitDaVinci At least in this particular case, the island(s) would be surrounded by 4 NATO countries. Also, at least in other windfarms, each windfarm in a cluster, will typically have its own substation, each with its own sea cable to shore. I don't know if it's the plan to have a single major substation for all the farms in a cluster around such an island. It would certainly make maintenance on the substations easier, and be cheaper in terms of cables, but it would be a pretty critical single point of failure.
Typically each farm is also divided into strings, so a farm of e.g. 80 turbines, might have 8 strings of 10 turbines, or so, connecting to the substation in the middle of the farm. I'm not entirely sure if it has to do with cable length, flexibility, or what, but I imagine that they's a reason that they don't make big substations that can accommodate several parks. The subdivision into strings is definitely used at times if they need to work on switchgear, or the sea cable of a string. That way they can switch off a single string, in stead of the whole park, but I don't know if there are more reasons than this.
Are the seas actually rising? Look at the statue of Liberty in the USA. 100 year old pictures show the water levels to be about the same.
@@TwoBitDaVinci From a safety risk pov, the Island is well situated between Denmark, UK, Germany, and France - and there's no direct water way from countries like Russia that could pose a threat. They would have to fight their way through a wall of NATO allied countries.
And Denmark is no stranger to rising sea levels and ambitious projects (look up the Fehmarn tunnel that is being constructed between Denmark and Germany, or the Oresund bridge that connects Denmark and Sweden). It's a nation born at sea, and we are no strangers when it comes to sea-based planning and construction, as we're already in the process of building an artificial island in extension of Copenhagen - which will house more than 35.000 people :)
Windmills take tons of carbon to produce of course. If you get rid of the oil that produces the windmills and solar panels, how do you make them? Most people don't seem to be aware of this problem. Also every product in the store has oil in the product itself as well as the wrapping.
Feel like the ".6" in the formula should be ".06"
Yea but it looks like the calculation still checks out
“That is as big as 22 football fields” “almost as high as 3 statues of liberty”. My man are you serious 😆😆😆
And please remember that all 4 nations in the "North Sea summit" agreement each will have minimum 1 energy island each to connect the huge off shore windmill farms to. The already agreed and signed deal will provide sustainable electricity to 230 million high energy using Europeans households. On top a significant, the worlds largest, hydrogen production. This are BY FAR the worlds largest energy transition project away from fossil fuels! THIS gives the answer to those seeking a future we can believe in.
Great step in the right direction, Denmark. I hope my country will do something similar, (Norway).
Norway's following in the slipstream. The Norwegian prime minister came to copenhagen in april 2022. To discuss this. And collaboration on carbon storage...
Nice. Hopefully collaboration between Scandinavian countries can help bring down energy costs. I do wish Norway was more forward-looking in terms of planning for a future without oil and gas.
noise disturb birds, fish and mostly whales across large distances were the loud sounds propagates underwater. THIS PROJECT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WASTE RESOURCES BECAUSE COPIES THE PETROCHEMICAL POWER STATION'S WASTEFUL CENTRALIZED GRID SCHEME CREATED 70 YEARS AGO
@@iseeu-fp9po cos Norway are smart, they know oil and gas still have an important role to play for decades
Yes, it is a bit weird you have so many discussions about mega windmills on land when you just could make a copy/paste on these projects. You certainly have the water and the wind for it. One good current income should not prevent you from getting another.
Bring huge Icebergs down from the artic and Alaska. or build pipelines from Alaska to the USA
This is a very nice energy system and yes we need one here in the USA I think thx.
need a tad more than one. :3 but give up already, it would take 500 years before you would ever agree to do this. especially if Trump gets reelected again. Guy hates windmills.
@@-Big_Big Oh yeah point taken! It's just time to relocate outside the US to be on the safe side for everyone really at least that's I'm going to do God bless the rest. Just saying!
They always compare the output to the number of homes because homes per capita use the least amount of energy thereby making the output seem larger. How about describing the size of a city it could power, which includes the industry there?
Good for Denmark. They have expertise in doing construction at sea and artificial islands as shown by the tunnel to Sweden. Also they have been building wind turbines for decades. I hope the become a major exporter of clean energy.
Thanks. Denmark forgot about waveenergi, biogas and solar back in the day, the 1970ties - and accelerated the development of modern wind turbines. When shipbuilding in Europe became unviable. At considerable cost to the taxpayers and consumers. Thus every Dane has a 'share' of sorts in all the wind turbines build around the world. Not bad for a tiny country. I think. After all.
do you count the cost of the wind turbines in your figures ? or just the cost of the island
It incls the cost of the wind turbines, the Island itself is in fact only an aftewrthought on the balance sheet
I believe they are building the new island instead of starting on the existing one because most of the power generation capability is out in the North Sea due to the consistent high winds so that one is their priority.
plus the ability to offer easy access to excess power supply to multiple countries; Germany, UK, Netherlands, and potentially even Belgium and France if cables are driven far enough.
Strong winds are certainly much more consistent in the North Sea compared to the Eastern Sea where the other island is located. Sure there are a lot of eastern European countries there as well as Sweden and Germany, but centralizing the power supply to the major powerhouses (no pun intended) of Europe it would seem like the better pilot project to get the biggest players onboard early.
+@@Real_MisterSir Yes, plus the creation of hydrogen and the conversion of it to liquid hydrogen likely can become cheaper than if done on land. Aid of pressure from the sea could bring down running conversion costs. For each 4 meter you go down in water the pressure increases 1 atmosphere. Since pressure are part of converting hydrogen gas to liquid hydrogen, hydrogen storage on the sea bottom are likely to make this process more energy efficient.
Lets hope all coastal nations take note and make a fast copy/paste of this well thought out solution project. It makes SO much sense environmentally and politically. Come on USA/Canada/Australia/Japan + + +. It is a given! What are you waiting for? Pick up the phone and make it happen, NOW! Not only are it not a cost but an investment but many nations car industries, where such projects would be nationally announced, would immediately begin to design and plan for hydrogen car production. Same are a given for the airline industry!
Lets us all join a future where consumption and economic growth are not linked to unsustainable energy production and usage.
@@Mike-zx1kx I agree with every single point. The main reason the project is easily feasible in the specific locations in the North Sea, is because the depth to the sea floor is quite shallow compared to open oceans which makes it ideal to set up both the island and the offshore windmills. But it's just a matter of scouting similar locations off the coast of other countries, and even make use of existing islands like Denmark will also do on the eastern side on the natural island of Bornholm.
And in solar-rich countries it should be an equal procedure to create near-shore solar farms that use excess energy to convert hydrogen from ocean water (thinking coasts of Africa, South America, Australia, etc). The world should globally go all in on these dual solution plants that offer green Hydrogen instead of relying on blue and grey hydrogen production methods that are both costly, unstable, and potentially harmful to the environment.
@@Real_MisterSir Yes. But no "thumbs up" to my comment? I would appreciate a response to our dialogue elsewhere where I suggested an unconditional get together. A simple "no thanks" are also fine if you are not interested, but please respond.
@@Mike-zx1kx not really interested, a matter of time and personal investment. But I appreciate the thought.
Liz trust has just approved 140 offshore fracking and oil contracts in the North sea makes sense with what Denmark is doing
Makes NO sense. UK should make a copy/paste of the North Sea summit agreement themselves. And it makes no sense they do not do it. UK too have had a great investment in the off shore windmill parks they already have raised.
If you prefer fracking that causes earthquakes, emits CO2 from gas and methane AND pose a real risk for a mix of the very strong chemical acid they pump down (Chemical acid, that in itself have to be made and produce CO2) can get into ground water and destroy peoples drinking water. Imagine the cost if a larger area suddenly loses it access to drinking water overnight? Denmark have instead pointed to a future we can believe in!
UK voted for Brexit to be able to act more independently politically. And THIS is what you want to use your "freedom" for? Good grief!
Seem to me you are victim of the same undemocratic top down politics as in USA and Australia. Is that project REALLY what the UK population want OR do they want a profitable CO2 free energy production and usage!? Murdoch's media power are diluting your democracy. Some nations seem to need a democracy overhaul.
In terms of "why two places instead of one" there is also the strategic value of it, one place makes it vulnerable to hostile forces. The incident at Northstream 1 and 2 is a clear shot across the bow in that regard.
The security risk for this project jumps out at anyone with an open mind and in particular now, after what we have seen with Nord Stream 1 and 2. The saying " Placing all one's eggs in one basket" comes to mind here - not a good idea as it invites an enemy to use an untraceable WMD to take it out with major consequences.
9:00 The math is correct for revenue but amount by kWh should be displayed as .06 not .6
you're right apologies
I think the game changer will be "blowhole" technology:
Wave Swell Energy's remarkable UniWave 200 is a sea platform that uses an artificial blowhole formation to create air pressure changes that drive a turbine and feed energy back to shore. After a year of testing, the company reports excellent results.
As we've discussed before, the UniWave system is a floatable device that can be towed to any coastal location and connected to the local energy grid. It's designed so that wave swells force water into a specially designed concrete chamber, pressurizing the air in the chamber and forcing it through an outlet valve. Then as the water recedes, it generates a powerful vacuum, which sucks air in through a turbine at the top and generates electricity that's fed into the grid via a cable.
As a result, it draws energy from the entire column of water that enters its chamber, a fact the team says makes it more efficient than wave energy devices that only harvest energy from the surface or the sea floor.
WSE's key innovation here is that one-way generation; other devices that harvest the same effect use bi-directional turbines, requiring the ability to reverse blade pitch or redirect the airflow. WSE says its design allows for far cheaper and simpler turbines, that should also last longer since they're not getting as much salt water splashed through them when a big wave hits. Indeed, all this device's moving parts are above the waterline, a fact that should help extend its service life as well as making it completely harmless to marine life.
Interestingly, the UniWave's design also makes it easy to incorporate into breakwaters and seawalls, where it can take a coastal erosion protection project and turn it into a clean energy source.
That's a really cool twist on wave power. Thanks for sharing. Thing looks ugly as sin, but it's a neat idea. I hope they're successful, but seriously do something about that concrete abomination lol.
I can’t see why this island would be in harder to defend then a pipeline, powerplant or the grid itself.
It would be interesting if "Battery" Ships would be viable. Maybe the ship could be charged and then be used to provide power for northern settlements with poor energy resources.
It would be easy enough, if absolutely no better storage can be found, to turn water and CO2 back into gasoline, store it, then burn in generators while fumes are captured for reprocessing later. I'm sure something closer to flywheel storage or maybe solid-state batteries could work, but in general, it might be better to produce energy on the ship.
For example, our nuclear-powered carriers are, I believe, capable of hooking up to on-shore power grids to power vital infrastructure in a disaster like hospitals, police, and whatnot.
Ørsted has had special Hybrid support-vessels for maintaining their wind farms made. I don't know what kind of fuel they're using, though, but it would be good if it was H2
These windmills farms - and some small scale nuclear projects - will be used to create 'liquid WIND',.... i.e. fuel for megaships. Indeed one can power all those big Mærsk ships on liquid wind without resort to building new motors,.... Batteries are not viable between San Francisco and Shanghai,......... but liquid fuels are...
Ships are one place where hydrogen fuel cells actually make sense. But you're not talking about powering the ship, but rather shipping battery banks to remote areas, right? That might be a better option than a huge expensive cable in some cases. It's not a bad idea. You'd have less transmission losses, but you'd introduce battery self discharge losses. I'm not sure it would be any better than just parking the ship and using its own power source to deliver power to the shore. Haven't tried to run the numbers on that.
More likely a combination of hydrogen and fixed sails ships.
An "energy platform" would be better than the energy island.
1- it would be mobile instead of stationary.
2- it would take up less space on the ocean surface.
3- it could allow for subsurface production to go on underneath it. (under water mobil Nuclear-- Power plants, subsurface farming of ethanal-crops, ect...)
4- if it's big enough and design right, would be resistant to hurricanes.
5- if built small enough, could be submersible, to escape potential storm damage.
6- building a giant underwater hollow-beam structure, vs moving all that dirt for a man-made island is more reasonable.
7- a giant hollow-beam structure would provide better marine habit for lifeforms vs an island.
CORRECTION: Denmark gets 80% of its energy from renewable sources
it gets 80% of it's electricity generation from renewable sources... not ENERGY in total.. electricity is a subset of total energy...
SOMEBODY get the details right, PLEASE!
The video should have used the oppertunity to tell bit more about how north-sea countries have said they would do 100GW windmill production in the north sea.
There is some misconfusion said by alot in the commentary fields. This is not a Chinease move, to get more land; land has already been divided in the north sea; a artificial island will not change these already made out maps.
And here is the first problem, for some of the countries; eg. Germany, that has run out of seabed to place windfarms. There simply is no more undeveloped land, when they have to respect the shipping lanes and nature resevations in the area. Denmark has more undeveloped sea area, which is part of the reason why Germany recently wanted to co-invest in the energy island 2 (Bornholm), which has gone from the in video stated 2GW to now 3.2GW.
But, don't underestimate the reasons to build these windfarms, because some of them are not so obviously to the unknown person.
There has been numeours studies that showd the fishing population actual rose around these offshore windmills. Small fishlife, again remember that north sea is about 50meters deep~, thrives to the windfarms because of their "artificial" mini reaf properties. Since north sea is so shallow, we dont see alot of wales, so its primarly small fish species; So from a clear environmental, there is nothng that points to this would hurt or damage any life existing in the areas, rather the opperside.
Next is the Energy part, where alot nations have realised that they need backup power lines; these often needs to be HVDC(due to length between countries), and it gets costly to make them too long. Krigers flak (another smallish windfarm of 800MW), that is located between Denmark and Germany, dual functions as a powerdistribution and power generating facility at once. It's because of the Krigers flak success, that the danes, and prolly alot others, have shown that the symbiose of powergenerating and powerdistrubution, can be really helpfull to transmit power between countries.
Finaly, is the "what do we do with all that power"; and yes, that is technical a problem atm, which haven't quite been figured fully. There is multitude of reasons for this, including that the countries around the North sea, general haven't build up their infrastructure to accept such huge amount of power distribution, as these projects will deliver. Upwards 10GW is alot to distribute, on a network that maybe at max is suited for 1GW at certain crosspoints. This is part of the reason why its still open "onsite" fuel generating; It could be H2, it could be CH4, but it simply haven't been decided which part it should be, yet. One thing is for sure, a lot has seen potential in being able to fuel the ships and even airplanes with "cheap" renewable made fuel. This is the reason why these island will scale slowly, and in my oppinion, prolly will see the "Bornholm" island, be completed at first; There is more future demand for energy in this part of the north sea, the park is smaller, but can easely be connected to DK, DE and in future SE (which btw, has a also a giant park comming soon, north west of Bornholm.), but also maybe PL in future.
Nothing is set 100% in stone yet, but the important part, is there is a really strong political will, in most North sea countries, to follow this path. The Economics may at first seen daunting at first, but as described in the video; there is some really big potential money to be generated in this field. So stay tuned, is the best i can end with.
The Scandinavian Countries just seem to “get it”. I think it’s a testament to the people of these countries and the ability of their governments to make excellent decisions to benefit their citizens and the world at large👍Denmark/ Sweden/ Norway. You all are rock stars. 😍
I'm from Denmark and I can tell you we get zero benefits from our wind and oil. All money get's channelled to EU and the pockets of our corrupt politicians
I think one of the great things here is that politicians aren't celebrities. They're (in general) professionals doing a job. Some outliers of course always exist, but it helps create trust between citizen and government, when the people working in the government are seen as citizens too, and valued as "one of us"
So this is why they make legos! It all makes sense now.
Russia: makes energy hard to get
Denmark: "I'll happily replace you with renewables"
Reading all of the numerous and very well informed comments here so far the arguments are beginning to diverge into two main groups: one group appears to be seeking cheaper energy solutions and the other seems to be seeking greener energy solutions. If they ever do converge, (which I don’t think they will) - then the energy crisis will be solved!
one of the most insightful comments I've ever seen! Phil tell me you're in our discord! I'd love to chat
I think it's great. How long does it take to offset the carbon produced in making the island?
Cheers
Not very long. If it gets build on recycled oil rigs that have outlived their usefulness and warrenties in the oil industry. (....) However some mayor Danish companies think the entire island,.... shall be build by them. And paid for by the consumers and the government....... at a cost of 5-7 billlion dollars,.....
don't you know it's just too awkward to even think about embodied energy. Most people don't understand it so it's easily ignored.
Island building and all its effects, the Dutch are the experts so i hope these two colaborate.
They will, the info is just not given in the video.
All 4 nations in the North Sea summit agreement will, as part of the already signed and agreed project, build nationally placed energy islands. The 4 nations are: Denmark, Germany, Belgium AND Netherlands. So congratulations, your nation are part of a solution that actually CAN solve our global energy needs in a sustainable way where economic growth are detached from an increase in ruining our habitat.
Completely carbon and nuclear free, mostly environmentally friendly, highly innovative, very forward thinking. I am speechless.
BS, you just wait till the whole thing goes to end of life, nuclear is safer per Mega Watt and the waste is amount is very small. Ev cars are a environmental nightmare as you have to drive them 200000km or more to offset the build emissions from a gas car. Battery is still shit.
So how much oil does the turbine require in order to function properly and be maintained properly?
not oil but.
Wind power has a 12 gram CO2 pr kWh, whereas coal has 820 grams
As a Dane I’m so sorry to se my government set plans for a project like this… The amount of CO2 emissions from the construction will have a huge impact on the environment and there is a large possibility of the project destroying a large area of the seabed…
Beside this the project has a total price that’s equivalent to 3-4 nuclear plants with each a capacity of approx 12 GWe and with a much smaller area impact… SO… for the same amount of money Denmark could get 4 times the amount of electricity… AND electricity that’s NOT dependent on wind…
This project is one of the absolute dumbest ideas our danish government ever got 😞
You need to update your information, or look at how prices are for Hinkley or Olkiluoto. Hint; they ain't cheap by any standards.
@@martinrasmussen6634 You’re also mentioning the 2 most delayed nuclear power plants, witch is now were near the average builds in cost and time…
For example the Brokdorf Nuclear power plant would i present day money only cost 1/5 of the price of Kriegers Flak… Brokdorf had a output of 11,4 GWe while Kriegers Flak only delivers around 4 GWe - At optimal wind situations… 😒
Second… the windmills only have a lifespan of approximately 20 year where a Nuclear power plant have a lifespan of 60-70 years… hence the cost will be even better with Nuclear power.
@@jahen65 I mentioned the two LATEST build nuclear plants in EU.
Blame tsunamis for making the nuclear industry aware of that you cannot build backup generators at sea level, like it was done at Fukushima.
Since that episode, nuclear power prices has skyrocket due to extra safety requirements.
NB: Krigers flack does 800MW, not 4GW
Was wondering what will happen to this island & the other offshore projects ‘when’ the sea level rises, as has been forecast by so many?
They are taking that into account. It's easier to build a small island a little bit higher than rising the ground of an entire country. The global sea level as risen about 21-24 cm (8-9 inches) since the 1880. It is rising faster however and the problem becomes a reality during heaver storms which we can already see in tropical countries in Asia but also the east coast in US. A smaller island can handle that easier as it's not meant for permanent residents and can be built to deal with temporary floods.
for over 15 years ago, we learned that by now esbjerg and rømø should have problems with high water rising, but now the water is still at the same level, and greenland should lose its snow and ice, get here we are over 15 years later, stil nothing new under the sun, climate crisis is a hoax, like so many other things right now.
Also they build something on the side, so it should help keep some of the water away from the coast on mainland, they do this to many of their projects.
Seems like building islands don't take into account rising sea levels from climate change and the natural sinking of man made islands.
Floating platforms might be better.
wow that's a good point.... hadn't thought of that... you guys think of everything!
The sugested platform, is either concreate made or jacked up, like an oil rig.
Sea rising doesn't happen uniformly around the globe, but mostly near equator. Denmark is far from Equator. Our own worst case scanario, talks about 1,2 meters rising; nothing unfeaseable to protect against.
@@TwoBitDaVinci Japan has an airport they built in the sea that is sinking.
tbf the fact that they're "not big offenders" and still are working towards better solutions instead of doing like alot of other countries pushing the bad stuff to its limits til theyre forced to change without any real replacement solutions ready. thats what makes this the most impressive really.
we are pretty energy intensive users per capita though.
Denmark has the third highest electricity prices in the world (only Germany and Bermuda are higher) at US $0.34 per kWh (see IEA). The US average is $0.13 per kWh. If Denmark hates the poor and middle class and wants to destroy the lives of most of its people, Denmark has a great idea with this ridiculous island. If they want to improve the standard of living of the poor and middle class, Denmark would drop this stupid idea and drill of oil and gas.
Yes because of taxes, not because of the way the energy is made.
Climate changes demands this transition and if people use oil and gas in 2050, they are idiots.
Your comparing prices after VAT, Taxes and Tarrifs. Remove those, and Denmark has amoung the cheapest (4-5 eurocents pre war pr KWh) powerprices.
@@martinrasmussen6634 All of the prices for all countries include taxes and tariffs.
@@ronw76 Still, our raw energy prices are amoung the lowest. Our income is overall also gigantium, but we pay a hefty tax on that. It's not apples to apples your comparing.
California got a lot of those. Just 1 cost $80k back in the late 80s. All of those that invested on those wind farms lost money due to maintenane... it's nothing but an eye sore. hey, at least stooping down to that half wit gretas level makes for good optics
Regarding the impact on wild life, there are unfortunately, plenty of dead zones where these things could probably have a minimal impact, not sure on the depth of these areas but they are numerous and getting bigger
How do you think wind turbines impact sea life? If anything it helps them by providing areas where fishing is effectively banned or impossible.
@@mrmayortheiv I was thinking more the artificial island, I should've specified
@@Sweenus987 Won't be a problem. It will only be a temporary problem. The large pillars on the Øresund Bridge, Storebælt Bridge and the artificial island Peberholm we already have build, are marine life havens and it is booming with life on these artificial reefs.
Why not on the existing ground (island)? That possibly has to do with their rights to the seabed, the economic zone. With that island the Danes will enlarge their claim with many times the surface of the island.
I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean by that. The seabed between Denmark, Norway, Germany, and UK is well defined. It won't change any claims of everything. We already have a fair few windfarms that spans the Danish/German seaborder.
I'm actually a bit surprised by the location shown on this video, because when I was still working in offshore wind, I'm pretty sure that this was supposed to be a giant island, made in cooporation with Germany, and maybe the Netherlands, and potentially the UK.
EZZ zones has already been divided in the nordic sea. So your claim is false.
Wind is faster and more reliable at sea.
Also "land" (or space) is much cheaper 50 km off shore
We might get around 50% of our energy from “renewable” resources but more than half of that is from wood that we import. Not so green after all. This project will wean us off imported energy. Besides, the infrastructure part of the project is really, really important. Look up “Dunkelflaute”, it’s a bit scary. Sabine Hossenfelder has a good video on it.
No, it doesn't make any sense. They could build a couple of nuclear reactors for a fraction of the cost and pay it off in a couple of years selling electricity to Germany.
yet most aren't.... nuclear isn't the obvious answer... i think it has a place, but you're not following the news if you think nuclear is cheap... its gotten totally out of control
Windfarms are wastly less expensive pr KWh produced, than nuclear, specialy given prices of Hinkley and Olkiluoto. Germany's biggest disadvantage in this 'race', is they have used up all their aviable space in their EZZ zones, for windfarms, that aint used for shipping and natural resevations.
Kind of cool. Can't wait to see in real
Also adds a huge amount of sea ‘real-estate’ to the territorial waters of Denmark - they get to claim a larger share of the North Sea with a 12 mile zone from the shoreline of their ‘Energy Island’.
I think the U.N. needs to make a rule about artificial islands and the 12 mile EEZ. You shouldn't just be able to build an artificial island and then claim the area around it. The artificial islands shouldn't have an EEZ in my opinion.
@Alfred L.B. That would completely disincentivize these projects. South China Sea island building is also a critical part of China's Civilian space program, which hopefully will lead us farther into space in the next era.
@Alfred L.B. I mean obviously it is also a move to cement their position as guarantor of maritime order in their "home seas". But having launch complexes on islands isolated from inhabited centres is an important step for them to increase traffic and goods flow into space. Ultimately there is nothing we could possibly do to stop them from doing it is to also make use of it.
All very cool stuff. Makes me proud to be Danish.
Why did you use the $ sign when specifically talking about the danish kroner?
Apologies!