Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand - Polidicks

[QUOTE][IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c2/e4/3c/c2e43c260108ffa558cac7b019eccd42.jpg[/IMG] So much power was produced by Denmark’s windfarms on Thursday that the country was able to meet its domestic electricity demand and export power to Norway, Germany and Sweden. On an unusually windy day, Denmark found itself producing 116% of its national electricity needs from wind turbines yesterday evening. By 3am on Friday, when electricity demand dropped, that figure had risen to 140%. Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, which can store it in hydropower systems for use later. Sweden took the remaining fifth of excess power. “It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for trade body the European Wind Energy Association. “Wind energy and renewables can be a solution to decarbonisation – and also security of supply at times of high demand.” Source: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand[/url][/QUOTE] Wow... so I guess wind power really is awesome

140% is quite sensationalist considering it happened during an unusually windy day, and at 3AM nonetheless when no one is using electricity. You shouldn't have the title imply this is the norm.

It's the title of the source

[QUOTE]Interconnectors allowed 80% of the power surplus to be shared equally between Germany and Norway, [B]which can store it in hydropower systems for use later.[/B][/QUOTE] How the heck does that work?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48200894]140% is quite sensationalist considering it happened during an unusually windy day, and at 3AM nonetheless when no one is using electricity. You shouldn't have the title imply this is the norm.[/QUOTE] regardless, supporting every single home and business at night time, with additional 40% potential for energy [I]profit[/I] that can be exported or saved for daytime, is a phenomenal achievement and testament to the validity of clean energy as the sensible choice of the future

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48200894]140% is quite sensationalist considering it happened during an unusually windy day, and at 3AM nonetheless when no one is using electricity. You shouldn't have the title imply this is the norm.[/QUOTE] It managed to supply 116% over the evening, which is when peak load usually occurs.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48200933]How the heck does that work?[/QUOTE] Mechanical batteries in the turbines I think.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48200933]How the heck does that work?[/QUOTE] You pump water uphill with the surplus power, then it runs through dams and generates power later. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] seriously.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48200933]How the heck does that work?[/QUOTE] Use the surplus energy to pump water into a reservoir that you can release later. It's usually used to meet peak energy demands by pumping the water up during off peak hours

[QUOTE=joshjet;48201016]You pump water uphill with the surplus power, then it runs through dams and generates power later. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] seriously.[/QUOTE] That's pretty damn ingenious actually

[QUOTE=bitches;48200950]regardless, supporting every single home and business at night time, with additional 40% potential for energy [I]profit[/I] that can be exported or saved for daytime, is a phenomenal achievement and testament to the validity of clean energy as the sensible choice of the future[/QUOTE] b-but, muh OIL [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme reply" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Jojje;48201056]That's pretty damn ingenious actually[/QUOTE] Problem with it is that it's crazy inefficient. So much power is wasted. It takes a lot more energy to pump up some water than you'll get back from running it through a turbine. We need better batteries before renewables will really be viable

That's pretty cool actually, imagine if it eletricity cars becomes the norm and the wind energy becomes sustainable in itself. It would be the closest thing to an enviro friendly country.

[QUOTE=bitches;48200950]regardless, supporting every single home and business at night time, with additional 40% potential for energy [I]profit[/I] that can be exported or saved for daytime, is a phenomenal achievement and testament to the validity of clean energy as the sensible choice of the future[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that Denmark is a small country with a small population of only 5.7 million people (for reference, you could fit the entire population of Denmark into NYC with room for another 2.3 million people). This really doesn't mean much in determining how good wind energy is/can be.

[QUOTE=zombini;48201203]Keep in mind that Denmark is a small country with a small population of only 5.7 million people (for reference, you could fit the entire population of Denmark into NYC with room for another 2.3 million people). This really doesn't mean much in determining how good wind energy is/can be.[/QUOTE] also keep in mind that wind power is not mutually exclusive to any other form of power generation

I wonder how many wind turbines it would take to generate that much power.

just wait too weak winds aka 0% too strong winds aka 0% too hot weather or freezing winter ... all of sudden you get 0% generated and 25% needed to run weather stations and heating on those windmills 'IT' hearts ... in short ... next time run at least ONE nuclear plant with 4-6x 500MW reactors 25/7/360 (5 days checksups) as backup ...

[QUOTE=Dwarden;48201342] in short ... next time run at least ONE nuclear plant with 4-6x 500MW reactors 25/7/360 (5 days checksups) as backup ...[/QUOTE] Denmark doesn't use nuclear reactors. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] Norway relies mainly on hydroelectric and wind powerplants, the entire country is essentially powered with no carbon emissions.

[QUOTE=Dwarden;48201342]just wait too weak winds aka 0% too strong winds aka 0% too hot weather or freezing winter ... all of sudden you get 0% generated and 25% needed to run weather stations and heating on those windmills 'IT' hearts ... in short ... next time run at least ONE nuclear plant with 4-6x 500MW reactors 25/7/360 (5 days checksups) as backup ...[/QUOTE] Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] just do research before spewing that ignorant shit, seriously

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] I'd rather have nuclear plants than coal plant here in Denmark to be honest.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] Quick! Somebody get Snowmew in here! Still, regardless of the population size this is a pretty impressive feat. We really need more renewable power sources in the world.

Backup plants are usually gas because they can be turned off and on most easily and cheap. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] But Denmark doesn't need those, they buy power from surrounding nations in the one or two days where they can't generate their own.

As some people have pointed out, this is horribly sensationalist. Yes, the instant generation was 140% of Denmark's power consumption, but on average over a year a wind turbine produces about 25% of it's nameplate capacity where sometimes the instant generation is zero. [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48200933]How the heck does that work?[/QUOTE] As some have said they pump water up into a hydrodam. It's horribly inefficient at about 20% or so. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;48201391]Denmark doesn't use nuclear reactors. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] Norway relies mainly on hydroelectric and wind powerplants, the entire country is essentially powered with no carbon emissions.[/QUOTE] A quick Google tells shows me that most of your electricity still comes from coal. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark[/url] [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Faunze;48201482]Just wait. Just wait before throwing out ridiculous figures from out your ass, why on earth would they want to put a nuclear plant for backup power? Jesus just use coal or something, it would be better for the planet in the longrun as you wouldn't be using it that often and there's not a world destroying time bomb sitting in a field[/QUOTE] You can't throttle coal in any realistic manner. Nuclear can be throttled slowly (15% or so per hour). Gas turbines are the only generation system in common use that can be throttled rapidly. The rest of what you said shows quite a bit of ignorance on the topic of nuclear power.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48201117]Problem with it is that it's crazy inefficient. So much power is wasted. It takes a lot more energy to pump up some water than you'll get back from running it through a turbine. We need better batteries before renewables will really be viable[/QUOTE] Modern pumped storage hydroelectricity is between 70-80% efficient. Lithium ion batteries are between 85-98% efficient. Efficiency is not the problem.

[QUOTE=download;48201585]A quick Google tells shows me that most of your electricity still comes from coal. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark[/url] [/QUOTE] Paul lives in Norway though: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway[/url] You should've honestly been able to tell just from the fact that he said "hydroelectric" - okay you're from New Zealand but still, Denmark's flat as a pancake. [QUOTE=download;48201668]I'm from Australia :rolleyes: and I assumed he was talking about Denmark because that's what we were discussing in this thread.[/QUOTE] Sorry, mind fart, I suppose I look like a bit of a hypocrite now. He did explicitly state Norway in his post, though.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48201657]Paul lives in Norway though: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway[/url] You should've honestly been able to tell just from the fact that he said "hydroelectric" - okay you're from New Zealand but still, Denmark's flat as a pancake.[/QUOTE] I'm from Australia :rolleyes: and I assumed he was talking about Denmark because that's what we were discussing in this thread. [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Solo Wing;48201550]Quick! Somebody get Snowmew in here! Still, regardless of the population size this is a pretty impressive feat. We really need more renewable power sources in the world.[/QUOTE] In lieu of Snowmew: [QUOTE=Snowmew;43252922][b][i]haha oh boy here we go again[/i][/b] There were, as you say, 3 "worldwide implicating nuclear accidents". First of all, Chernobyl was considered dangerous and outdated [i]while it was being built[/i]. It was condemned by both Russian and American nuclear scientists alike. They literally said "this will explode and kill thousands of people why are you doing this" but nobody listened. The design of the reactor was extremely unsafe and no reactor in the world would experience a similar disaster, ever. The reason that Chernobyl turned into such a massive disaster was the emergency management. No evacuation or public notification was done for 2 days after the incident. Had a proper evacuation taken place at the correct time, there would have been little or no deaths. That said, the main radioactive elements distributed in the Chernobyl accident - iodine, strontium, and caesium, with half-lives of 8 days, 29 years, and 30 years, respectively - decayed too quickly to have any significant ecological impact outside the exclusion zone. The second "worldwide implicating nuclear accident" was Three Mile Island. Oh, wait, nobody died. [i]Nobody.[/i] There were no deaths as a direct result of the TMI accident. Let me just say that a fourth time - zero people died from radiation poisoning in the TMI accident. Now, that said, the main reason it was a disaster in the first place was repeated operator error, which is extremely unlikely with today's training and safety protocols. Regardless, studies have repeatedly shown no significant effects to humans or the environment. It was a non-disaster. That leaves us with the third "worldwide implicating nuclear accident" - Fukushima. Now, the reason Fukushima blew up was because TEPCO (the owner) failed to protect it against tsunamis. It SCRAMed properly during the earthquake, but the following tsunami flooded the underground backup generators which powered the coolant pumps while the plant was down. Since the reaction still generates some heat after being stopped, the cores overheated, hydrogen gas was formed, and it exploded. TEPCO was warned 3 years earlier that such a chain of events could happen and yet they failed to install any protective measures. In fact, reactors closer to the epicenter (owned by other companies, I might add) experienced insignificant to no damage. Oh, and by the way - no direct deaths. (It is not currently possible to estimate the number of cancer cases caused by Fukushima; it released several orders of magnitude less radiation than Chernobyl, which is the only accident with measurable impacts in worldwide history.) So out of the three "worldwide implicating nuclear accidents", only one actually caused any deaths, and the causes are practically impossible today without breaking the laws of physics. No other serious incident has occurred in a commercial plant in history. A grand total of zero people have died in the US (and most of the rest of the world) from nuclear accidents. To avoid quoting the rest of your misinformed, scaremonger replies, let me just knock these myths out right off the bat: The ALFRED project is a lead-cooled fast reactor, one of the few Gen IV reactor designs. It is designed to far more efficiently utilize the energy stored in uranium fuel - current reactors use 0.4%, Gen IV reactors generally use 90% or more. So we're already looking at 200x the efficiency. Because of this, they only need to be fueled once in their entire lifetime, with a block of uranium fuel about the size of a car. Nuclear waste is not some magic unknown thing. It is literally just unused fuel that can't be used in current reactor designs. The timeframe of dangerous radioactive decay in current waste is several million years - to compare, Gen IV reactors leave us with fuel that's only dangerous for around 300 years. An added bonus is that Gen IV reactors can use current "waste" directly as fuel, and doing so on our current reserves will be able to supply the worldwide energy needs entirely (eliminating all other generation methods and fuels) for several centuries without needing to mine any new uranium fuel and with no carbon output whatsoever. (By the way, nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal and natural gas plants.) Because of their design, Gen IV reactors are also extremely difficult to melt down (doing so would require a deliberate, malicious, coordinated attack and immense knowledge of the control systems, something which is extremely difficult to accomplish without getting caught). Even if they did melt down, it would be contained entirely, far more efficiently than TMI, which would naturally result in less than zero deaths. Fukushima's fuel sinking into the ocean is not as big of a disaster as you make it out to be. You make up this vague assumption that it will suddenly irradiate the entire world and we'll all die. In fact, putting it in the water would likely make it [i]less[/i] dangerous, since water "insulates" the radioactivity far better than air. By the way, the fuel rods from Chernobyl are kept in a pool of water because of this. In fact, swimming in the water is safer than being in the open air due to the latent radioactive substances outside, as long as you stay about a meter away from the rods themselves. The risks of transporting nuclear waste (which is actually not even performed yet - all waste is currently stored on-site) is less than it is to actually use the stuff. Be as paranoid as you want about the transportation methods, but the fact is, you being 3 states away makes you completely unharmed from whatever might happen. The only danger you would face is being maybe 15-30 miles away, and at that point it would be negligible. (Believe it or not, it is actually possible to research this stuff, which you clearly haven't bothered doing.) Your misinformed edit of Saber15's reply was also unwarranted and totally false. In terms of death per kWh generated, nuclear energy is literally the safest source of power (yes, even safer than solar and wind - keep in mind we are talking in relation to the energy produced, and solar/wind produce very little energy in comparison). In fact, here's the numbers: - Coal: >1000x more dangerous - Natural gas: 44x more dangerous - Solar: 5x more dangerous - Wind: 2x more dangerous (mostly from maintenance workers falling off turbines) This is taking into account the 30 radiation deaths from Chernobyl, the few thousand cancer deaths from Chernobyl and (unreliably) projected Fukushima, and the deaths from largely unrelated issues along the nuclear chain, such as uranium mining. Hundreds of thousands of people die from coal-fired plants and coal mining every year. Yeah, that's safer for everyone. Your totally incorrect comparison of nuclear containers to chlorine containers is exemplary of typical nuclear scaremongering. Chlorine gas is stored in a tank car, which is not as reinforced. Why they still use standard tank cars for chlorine is beyond me, but the structure of the container is entirely different and says absolutely nothing about the safety of nuclear containers. So, after all of that, let's recap with a simple analogy: As a whole, if all Facepunch users were to use coal-powered energy, we would kill around 1 person a week on average. If we were to all use nuclear energy, even if Chernobyl happened every 50 years, we would still statistically never kill a single person. Want to try again?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=download;48201668]I'm from Australia :rolleyes: and I assumed he was talking about Denmark because that's what we were discussing in this thread.[/QUOTE] I explicitly stated Norway in my post. Just mentioning it to show that it is viable to consistently power certain countries entirely through renewable energy sources. Obviously this is more challenging the more people you have. Uranium and other nuclear fuels contain by far the best energy density and WOULD be the absolute best solution for energy generation if it wasn't for the waste it produces, which is annoying to deal with. It's far better than coal though, but ideally we'd use energy sources that are entirely renewable. [IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png[/IMG] I am hyped for fusion reactors though.

But if we keep using up all of our wind then it will run out, unlike our infinite supplies of oil! :eng101s:

And where do we put al the used wind? Think of the children!