Danish Approaches to Renewable Energy: Lessons for Minnesota
Arne Kildegaard Associate Professor of Economics University of Minnesota, Morris -andGuest Researcher 2007-08 Energy Systems Analysis Risø National Laboratory Roskilde, Denmark
Risø/DTU National Laboratory
Niels Bohr
Nuclear Physicist 1885-1962
Niels Bohr
Nuclear Physicist 1885-1962
“Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true”
“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress!”
The Order of the Elephant: “Contraria Sunt Complementa”
(From the Risø/DTU website)
Basic Energy-Related Challenges
1. GHGs 2. Security of Supply
Risø’s Approach:
Risø’s Approach: 1. Renewable Energy Generation Technology - Fuel cells - Wind energy - Biomass/biofuels - Solar energy
Risø’s Approach: 1. Renewable Energy Generation Technology - Fuel cells - Wind energy - Biomass/biofuels - Solar energy
2. Energy Systems Analysis - Power (electricity) - Heat - Transportation
The Danish approach 1. Infrastructure investment - R&D funding - Transmission (and distribution) to support wind power - District Heating
The Danish approach 1. Infrastructure investment - R&D funding - Transmission (and distribution) to support wind power - District Heating
2. Laws of access - Feed-in tariffs - “Must-take” CHP provisions
Wind power
Wind power production as a % of total electricity consumption 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
U.S.
Germany
Denmark
Wind power Percent of Wind Power Locally Owned 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Germany
Denmark
Minnesota
CHP/district heating: Why it matters
- Efficiency - A sink for low-density renewable energy flows
CHP/district heating: Efficiency
(Aggregate E.U. Data, 2007)
CHP/district heating: Fuels used
CHP/district heating: Dispersion of plants in DK
CHP/district heating: % supply of heating and power
CHP/district heating: Selected European countries
Compare & contrast: Minnesota vs. DK
MN DG Tariff (2001-2004) - Tariffs are trade secrets!
Compare & contrast: Minnesota vs. DK
MN DG Tariff (2001-2004) - Tariffs are trade secrets!
C-BED Initiative - Utility cooperation “urged” - C-BED to count against REO (not RES) - Maximum (not minimum) tariff 1. - “Nothing in this statute shall be construed to obligate a utility to enter into a C-BED tariff”
Compare & contrast: Minnesota vs. DK
New MN Legislation: “25 by 2025” - Quantitative mandate...w/ teeth? - No priority granted to local projects
Question:
Who will support “25 by 2025” when it starts to bind?
Future developments in DK?
Future developments in DK?
“It's very difficult to make an accurate prediction -particularly about the future.”
Future developments in DK?
Electrification of the transport sector? (A Better Place) - a “storage medium” for wind - displacement of fossil fuel combustion - convert “non-point” to “point-source” emissions
Key elements of Denmark’s approach: An opinionated conclusion
1. Systems thinking 2. Access rules that enable popular participation 3. A practical agenda that encompasses security of supply and environmental ideals
Key elements of Denmark’s approach: An opinionated conclusion
1. Systems thinking 2. Access rules that enable popular participation 3. A practical agenda that encompasses security of supply and environmental ideals
Key elements of Denmark’s approach: An opinionated conclusion
1. Systems thinking 2. Access rules that enable popular participation 3. A practical agenda that encompasses security of supply and environmental ideals
Tusind tak!
Tusind tak! ...Spørgsmål?...
About GHGs:
25
20
15
10
5
0
Canada U.S.
Japan Belgium
France Brazil Denmark World Average
About GHGs:
CO2 Emissions per $1000 GDP 0.45
0.4
Annual Tons Emitted
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
U.S.
Canada
Belgium
Japan
Denmark
France
Brazil
