Smart Energy Systems: 100% Renewable Energy at a National Level (Full Version)
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 11. 2014
- Get more info here about the research conducted in the Sustainable Energy Planning Group at Aalborg University:
www.EnergyPLAN.eu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Energy Systems: 100% Renewable Energy at a National Level (Full Version)
Denmark has decided to become independent from fossil fuels. For the sake of the climate, the economy, and in order to ensure security of energy supply. This film shows how this will happen based on research conducted at Aalborg University (www.smartenergysystems.eu).
At present wind and solar energy already delivers a good share of Denmark's energy, but renewable energy is a major challenge for an energy system that is built upon fossil fuels. Energy production from wind and solar fluctuates - it fluctuates as the wind blows. So what renewables are reliable when there is no sun or wind energy available?
Another challenge is the transport sector. How do we create an energy system of renewable energy, where also cars, ships and planes can operate on fossil-free energy? A great example of an energy system that will ensure Denmark a 100% renewable energy system is called: Smart Energy Systems - a coherent, fossil-free energy system that will create lots of new jobs and green energy for the Danes, both in terms of electricity, heat and transport.
Production courtesy of:
www.webwall.tv/blueplanetinnov...
www.blueplanetinnovation.dk - Věda a technologie
Denmark is looking to the future in a scientific way ....We all need to follow their advanced planning systems ...
How nice for once to hear intelligent people carefully getting the complete picture and actually having the numbers check out as opposed to Danish politicians that either think getting EVs without any other energy infrastructure investments will solve global warming or small changes to lifestyle will makes us fulfil the Paris agreement. If Danish politicians were smart they would pass a law stating that no politician is allowed to make decisions about energy without consulting engineers or at least someone that understands thermodynamics.
Go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid.
Thank god for creating this human being.
problem is those consulting engineers turn everything into a 10 year report.. and nothing gets done
The approaches presented here are doable, make sense, and are good for everyone. So much so that I'm confident that as much as 5% of the U.S. Congress will support it!
?op
@@ekgurung8515 I was sarcastically expressing my view that the U.S. has been slow to pursue clean energy. In addition to not pursuing clean energy quickly enough, we still have climate change deniers in our govt.
Thank-you for this enlightened piece. appreciate T Samuel's comments too.
It is amazing that Denmark could achieve all this. It is a leading country in solar and wind power yet Denmark does not have too much wind and sun. Also it has a population of less than 6 million. It takes a lot of planning and commitment! Congratulation!
Yet, the Danish average CO2 footprint per person is 14 tonnes yearly, higher than Germany and not far behind the Americans. CO2 doesn't care how it is made and Danes Fly a lot and buy a lot of consumer goods. Also commuting by car is rewarded by tax deduction (60 cents/mile). So having the Greenest energy production infrastructure, does not give Denmark a free pass to gloat.
To each their own.
Stop saying solar or nuclear or whatever is the future. It depends on where you are. Middle east can't go biomass but they are suited for solar. some countries have wind others don't. Iceland can benefit from geothermal others not so much. No single energy source is "the future".
There is no magic bullet. To each their own.
The whole point of this video is to show the diversity of green options. I don't understand how you missed this point.
Omnipitous All the so called green options fall to zero output at times except hydro and biomass, and developed countries are not building much more of those, nor should they. Thus ‘green’ is not really a full scale clean option for a modern power grid. Granted, green is quite good at generating subsidies, sign waving parades and silly promotional videos.
@@Nill757 I'm on my second house with solar in two countries and all I need is a battery to go off grid. Panels are ridiculously cheap now thanks to subsides and subsides will soon be eliminated. If it didn't make economic sense, countries wouldn't be going green. And I don't see any of thes parades you are referring to. What I do see, is governments spending trillions to fight wars in part for oil security.
Because wind can only go to windy places, solar on sunny places, and nuclear only on radioactive places XD
"nuclear only on radioactive places" haha
A bit of a heads up info for everyone or some ammo for your gun so to speak - Where I work we just installed $900Ks worth of solar panels. I worked closely with the project manager. I asked him how they work out how many panels and how to space them to achieve the required output. He answered that there is a world industry wide/universal set of calculations. So we worked out how many panels and how much area would be required to replace a standard 4 x 2000 megawatt generator power station. The answer is 20 million panels which will need 14,800+ square acres of land or wildlife habitat or farmland ( The aquisition of farmland which is currently happening in North Victoria and Southern NSW in Australia. Places like Corowa or Jindera for example).
As for those bloody hideous windfarms, 24 were recently installed in a forest in Germany (yep thats right, a forest). 28,000 acres of trees were mowed down. When these things come to the end of their 10 year lives they are so incredibly expensive to pull down they leave them there instead. Oh dear what to do? Oh ok I know lets bulldoze more trees/farmland/wildlife habitat.
About those solar panels, the VAST majority are made in China. If you buy the Tier 1 panels they may often last their 10 years of life. If you buy the Tier 2 and 3 you can expect around 2 years. However if you are smart you'll purchase the 10 year warranty. But wait - the chinese government which owns most of the companies making them are refusing to honour the warranties. Theres one minor (minor?) problem with the old solar panels - there are literally hundreds of thousands of them that they simply dont know how to dispose of.
On another note - a question or two for the Extinction Rebellion people. If you're so concerned about animals being killed, why do we NEVER EVER see you lot protesting outside an halal slaughterhouse? AND..... whats your solution to introduced species like foxes and ESPECIALLY, cats killing of our native animals?
Hey kids if you really care about the planet - protest on a weekend or holiday.
Thank you from 'H2 Innovation Lab' H2IL - technology for a green sustainable hydrogen future.
Really cool technologies for replacing fossil based fuel. But they might be too costly in country like Nepal to implement with geographical difficulty. But there is great surge of solar panel in Nepal too,
Very nice vedio. By which software you make this vedio
Bro have u made a project or a model on this topic??
3 useful additions. 1) Batteries, Liquid Metal & Tesla's upcoming solid state batteries. The Liquid Metal batteries are a battery that works hot, without cooling, an ideal grid scale battery (cars are too small and too intermittent to keep a battery hot). Tesla's upcoming solid state batteries are their next EV car batteries. 2) The load following power is biomass based and will vanish along with solar vanishing months or years under the stratospheric dust cloud from either an asteroid impact or a major volcano. You need something that won't fail with a 2 year loss of sunlight, like MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors), a type of nuclear reactor. I like MSRs for their near absence of nuclear waste. 3) The US Navy has a tech on the shelf to make jet fuel from CO2 & Hydrogen that can make synfuels similar to both diesel and jet fuel. This could become useful in the future but synfuel is more expensive than fossil fuel.
Great and interesting, welcome to support Krung Angkor
The concept of energy integration is indeed important and truly an efficient way to harness ALL of the energy produced. It must be extremely challenging and exciting to be a part of such a change!
This is very inspiring stuff! Denmark is leading the way with renewable energy and will reap the benefits of having clean energy but also being able to export technology and expertise to the rest of the world. Great job!
A bit better than Australia and our quest for coal.
Using battery storage is now something that they will likely include. The technology wasn't available when this video was made.
Australia already saved a lot in utility cost because of their Tesla MEGA-Pack.
This would necessitate building equivalent of (over the following 30 years):
• 3 nuclear power plants every 2 days OR
• 1500 wind turbines (300 square miles area) every day
Link: (www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#33d59f4235f7)
Furthermore, solar and wind energy requires impractical storage systems (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292117300995), and even Germany could not reduce its Greenhouse gas emissions (Eurostat). Rare earth metals used in solar and wind power might not be enough for the transition (www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29/htm).
Agreed - storage is at the early stages of a strong upward trajectory, which we'll see grow exponentially within the next few years. Attaching batteries to wind turbines is just good sense, and economies of scale means the costs should come down significantly as did solar.
@@matt.baller Have you read my above comment? Research the facts, don't live in propaganda induced future utopia to keep the exploitative system as it is.
Kjør på!
Dette gir meg håp for fremtiden! :D
Very good approach taken by Denmark hope many countries can take action, I come from Zambia and biomass use is a new thing though in one sense not new because people ignored it for a while because we had lots of H2O therefore, we could produce hydro electrical power, now that we have low water levels every where the stakeholders are seriously considering PV for solar and biomass for methane in which a solar farm has been installed at LSMFEZ Lusaka and over 4000 domestic biogas plants. The biomass project was undertaken by SNV in which am a contractor. Much need to done this side of the world in terms of management of forests and agro land.
I'm glad to hear they are doing something in places like Zambia. We all need to do more. Denmark can show the way somewhat- they have the money and the political will for subsidies to get it moving, and will help others once they find out what work well, but I'm sure places like Zambia will find some solutions too, if we are prepared to listen and learn.
When we calculate effectiveness /efficiency we have to account for resources, efforts and environmental issues during various process of manufacturing and implementation. Only oceans and wood are fullfilling requirements of efficiency.
What about tomorrow after Earth axis changing because poles melting wind directions are also changing?
Little adjustement in my opinion: LED lighting instead of fluorescent, More EV and Hybrid solutions for transports, Chemical Batteries for storage, next gen batteries will be more energy capable; in the future next solar generation include cheap and flexible Perovskite high performance thin film and module, so great solar improvement also for transports integration and PV windows for energy efficiency buildings too!!
Mauro,
all expensive pie in the sky ideas, If and maybe just is not good enough, renwable generation is but a small fraction of our requiremenmt and the times that their output exceeds demand is insufficient for all the batteries you can muster to make up the shortfall. And it's at a large cost.
Mauro Scimone you do know that everything you just mentioned is made by fossil fuels and can only be made by fossil fuels there is no other way to make it.. and everything made by fossil fuels has a 25 year carbon neutral cycle which means it doesn't start paying back to the climate until after the 25 years. The electric car for example uses so much fossil fuels to manufacture that it is still releasing carbon into the atmosphere 20 years later even if it's parked in a garage and never used. In fact a vegan who drives a normal car to work releases the same amount of carbon that a meat eater uses when riding a bike... if you are serious about reducing your impact go vegan if you can't do this then don't worry about anything else you are just throwing money away. Don't get me wrong I save money with having solar while the payback for my pocket is 5 years, the payback to the climate is 25 years and what's the point of spending money to save money if it doesn't matter I'll still kill the planet...
+ George LFC what a amount of unfunden fantasy numbers whoa!
First off all you know the opposite direction is being taken? They now use solar to extract oil that would be to expencive to get to otherwise?
qz.com/618391/the-oil-industry-has-invented-an-ironic-new-use-for-solar-power/
Those things Mauro listed can perfectly be made without oil in the future, biggest source of energy is the grid and its a flatout lie to claim a ICE car is better for the envoirement as a EV.
You can make up a lot of bogus science and post ridiculous claims on some youtube forum but for what? Get a life.
at a national level governments can still charge the public for energy. why not do it on an individual household basis? people could build their own systems that are tailored to fit their household. i think this is a great idea but doing it a national level keeps people dependent on government.
+Bruce B Yep it's just like my local city having ordinances on not allowing persons to have water wells or to collect rain water for use in our homes. It's all about the almighty dollar. As the city owns it's own city hydroelectric plant as well as owns entrusts in several other coal burning plants in the area. so we are not allowed to provide for our selves even if we might want to.
+Th Linn gill you can't even collect rainwater ???
***** no it is not. Thats about maintaining a monopoly.
+Th Linn gill why people don't revolt?
If every one produced their own energy there would be huge waste, because in the way described in the video, everything gets fed out to the electric net where the sharing happens
PLEASE ... no GEOTHERMAL heat ... the earth needs that ... to protect future generations from the sun ...
+J-N-H-M I don't think you realize just how little heat we extract from the earth compared to how much there is. Also, why do the future generations need protection from the sun. In the future, when the sun is expanding and earth is in its path, we need to flee the planet. Having a warm core will not help our planet.
Tyler Peterson XD ... i wish i could tell you more , ok ill try a little...
even humanity leaves earth most of the 7 billion on the planet will stay with earth ...
so the people who stay will try to make it survivable for as long as possible ....
you may think its impossible to outlast the ever growing sun , but we are working on ways to do this ...
besides that humans over time do have an effect ...
but everything is perfect the way it is ... but we cant mess up ... its complicated
The gas they speak of is still organic-aka a hydrocarbon. It looks like they can offset some of their heating grid with these methods. Transportation-i don't know.
The concept is great... financial analisis ?
Costs? A carefully avoided subject.
Africa has SOO much potential to produce food for the world!!
What about modern electrical storage? I think it would be more efficient than thermal storage with heat produced through an heat pump.
And electricity is the most useful form of energy. Heat is the lowest grade.
The stacked graphic showing the variability of wind, solar, and wave is misleading, and not slightly so. It shows solar output expanding and contracting, when in fact it goes all the way to zero everyday at the onset of peak evening load. In winter, solar output can become insignificant for six weeks. So too wind and wave in the off season.
(A comment for Hitman fans)
Sorry for the offtopic comment, but the voiceover really sounds like Agent 47's voice from the video game Hitman. The voice actor is Dave Bateson. Correct me if I am wrong :D
desalination plants from sea water or from sewage... under ground water pumping
no idea .. if the math is realistic but its by far the most thought trough solution i've seen .. yet. (even if i have to add a .. sadly)
A new alternative energy is born .
More efficient than current alternative energies !!!
@
Hi, please let me take a moment to say a word about thorium fission, for him is a nuclear energy source that was first developed at the Oak Ridge national laboratory in the 1960s and is a completely safe non-carbon producing non-nuclear waste producing Energy source with in estimated easily obtainable natural reserve of 10,000 years, Let me repeat it again, there is enough thorium ore lying around to last the entire world economy 10,000 years. The molten salt thorium fission process, Furthermore is operated at one atmosphere, So when I say molten salt thorium fission is completely safe That is to say get is not capable of exploding, As pressure on both sides of the reactor containment wall are the same. Thorium fission is also as stated in incredibly clean producing no long-lasting nuclear waste whatsoever, in fact waste plutonium 232 from Standard light water reactors and atomic bombs can be incorporated into the molten salt Core and the remains of its potential energy can be extracted, furthermore with close to a 75% efficiency Capture oppose to the .7% of the standard light water reactor we can afford to not only make this a Carbon neutral but a carbon negative virtually closed loop energy system. Thorium fission beads out nearly every other conceivable energy source except for Fusion which as always is 50 years away from possible viability. So in other words we could in a cost efficient manner using the well-known, Haber-Bosch, Process extract carbon out of the atmosphere. Let me finally just say, that most of the wars being fought in the middle east and Central Asia, can be regarded in general, as resource wars, a massive transfer to a thorium based economy would not only make everyone Energy independent overnight but would help to obfuscate the need for such self-destructive behavior. Thank you for taking the time to read this and please feel free to research any of this that you care to, peace.
Plus it makes desalination plants more vialble.
Renewable Energy is the 'Disruptor' that has the potential to end the need for destructive 'Resource Wars' in accordance with what is available locally as mentioned already in these comments.
The LFTR concept was first investigated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment in the 1960s, though the MSRE did not use thorium. The LFTR has recently been the subject of a renewed interest worldwide.[3] Japan, China, the UK and private US, Czech, Canadian[4] and Australian companies have expressed the intent to develop, and commercialize the technology. (quote taken from Wikipedia)
The waste involved is the liquid Thorium salt itself and if you were to include 'Weapons Grade materials' in the mix? Countries with Nuclear capabilities Worldwide have to agree amongst themselves or 'Unilaterally' that they are ditching Nuclear Weapons in the first place which is tragically a long way of.
I've been watching the same push for thorium, LFTR reactors. Too much ignorance and push back against nuclear. Nuclear of any type. Statistics don't matter. Safety doesn't matter. The truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that a vocal minority is scared.
Every country in Europe could do this following the brilliant Danish plan. The UK could use more wave and wind power whereas Spain would use sun, wave and wind. We could eliminate the need for oil completely and reduce CO2 emissions drastically.
Having sustainable energy sources wont just save us from losing all our natural resources it also save us from our monthly bills..
Really? You must not live in reality. Nothing is free, there is always a cost.
I'm pro-choice on energy
Unless of course they want to put one of those hideous towers and their constant noise near your house????
super
very informative :) (Y)
Why not LENR?
Denmark should be using LNP gas ... there are so many different ways to generate electricity from natural gas... this allows for the crops to be used to feed people .. and also grow for Pharmacia companies
Saltwater Batteries or Energy Storage
It seems a lot of trees would be cut to provide land to produce the biomass. That would increase CO2 as trees are our best scrubbers. What am I missing?
Plant many more trees than you cut down. Duh!
@@rickycampbell9105 LOL That sounds good but they cut the trees so they have land to grow more corn because we are using 30% of our corn for ethanol. They are not replanting trees on that land. How about we not use our food to power our cars?
It would also be nice if you were a little more polite in your answer...but that is ok. I wish you well.
@@mcconn746 They can plant the trees elsewhere. Does not have to be on that land.
And I agree that we should not use our food resources to power our vehicles or anything else.
There are better ways.
@@rickycampbell9105 Good point. The problem with ethanol is that it is great for dirt farmers but it is a nightmare for milk and meat farmers who have to buy grain at higher prices. I also don't mind the ethanol producers. I do resent our subsidizing every gallon of ethanol. I think we should give them maybe 3 years notice and begin phasing it out. If they survive, so be it. If not, that gives them time to do something else.
People who are concerned about CO2 should also want them to plant trees on some of our crop land in addition to other land as we reduce corn for ethanol.
I'm Loving the general ideas of this plan but there is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration. I.E. Food production for the larger populations mentioned. Not that I don't like the idea of Bio Gas, but to dedicate land to the production of bio fuels exclusively will take away from food production, which is becoming as big a potential problem as power production. Why don't you add natural compressed air to both power engines to produce power, transportation and also gain the additional benefit of cooling and refridgeration.
As well as loose the explosive nature of other gases.
If not at least supplement it. And you will still have regularly produced garbage to use to fuel bio gas production.
2:36
I disagree with them. Sure renewable energy fluctuates over time, but only integration is not enough to solve this problem. Specially at night that is common to have not wind neither wave movements beyond the obvious lack of solar light (in despite their midnight sun) as I believe some weather expert would better explain.
Even during a day, the sunlight may not be enough to activate the solar panels, because there is an operational range I think there is a connection between the clouds that would block sun beams and the winds I mean the warmming soil process generate winds.
+brazilianniceguy Deep Cycle Batteries could solve the lack of energy at nights. About the required energy to activate a solar cell, there is radiaton data and models that allow us to calculate how much energy we would be able to produce basing on the weather of the geographical location and the type of cell, so the ammount of energy it's a known fact when it comes to installing solar panels.- (I don't speak english very well but it's understable)
How about the use of bananas for energy?
psound sytem ~ Sorry, you FAIL...I AM funny...no getting around it.
Bananas grow very quickly...if we are going to use Corn to make ethanol...why not Bananas?
@@gphilipc2031 I agree, let's go bananas.
I'm his exterminator i like this system except for the ideal of using wood. Fascinating.
What is wrong with using wood as long as you grow more than you burn?
In USA/Canada, they grow more trees then they chop down.
CO2 emission?? also watch "Before the flood"
Damor Vaibhav there is a net loss of CO2 emissions.
When tree grows: CO2 -> O2 + sugars
When you burn tree: O2 + sugars -> CO2
As long as you burn less than what grows, atmospheric CO2 levels go down.
Smart cities can be one the most important plans of goverments for the future.
Our cities aren't 'smart'. Cheap slogans don't solve anything.
smart cities means smart control of the masses
This would necessitate building equivalent of (over the following 30 years):
• 3 nuclear power plants every 2 days OR
• 1500 wind turbines (300 square miles area) every day
Link: (www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#33d59f4235f7)
Furthermore, solar and wind energy requires impractical storage systems (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292117300995), and even Germany could not reduce its Greenhouse gas emissions (Eurostat). Rare earth metals used in solar and wind power might not be enough for the transition (www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29/htm).
is mayonaise an instrument?
lol
Mayonaise is Satan's condiment.
Horse Radish isn't an instrument either.
I noticed the first part showed offshore wind turbines which in my opinion ruined the view. I also don't see how burning biomass will lower CO2.
such a nice project
Build reservoirs capable of generating projected local power needs. Use the renewable energy plus rain to fill the 'water battery'. Repeat. Call Archimedes a for a quote.
A sea water model is entirely feasible.
Use the unemployed to power pumps for slow and start up periods; and so everyone can enjoy the full semi-wasteful blast, a species enjoying its power.
More money for energy producers. They get it for free or less and sell it to us at ever higher prices.
Gas has so much potential into the green new future!! it can transform Africa and so much more... for clean production and manufacturing...
Nuclear power is the missing link here & everywhere for the base load until the technology is good enough--60 years? Perhaps.
This renewable energy technology is suitable for a cold climate environment.
Yes, i would like to conceptualise such a system for a tropical climate
+Citizen052 maybe a way to harness heat or humidity in a tropical or arid region? Converting heat energy into electrical energy
The only way to convert heat into electricity is to have a cold place to move that heat to.
Roger Reimer
1 second ago
No such thing as renewable energy it takes 240.000 tons of C02 to build a 3 million dollar wind mill because of all the coal you have to burn to make the 32,000 tons of cement 12,000 tons of re-bar for an 80 meter wind turbine plus all the coal needed to make the steel transmission and bearings plus the oil needed to make the carbon propeller. Then all the lubricant for the $250,000 transmission and bearings which may last 10 or 15 year at most. The new cement wind mill may last 35 or more years over water a lot less. At the end of 35 year the decommissioning of the bird killer may take as much C02 as the construction. One massive farm is now being decommissioned in Alberta the cost and the dangers are very high.
The biggest waster of energy and biomass is the home and public buildings. By improving how homes and public buildings are constructed you can reduce the energy needs of the home and public buildings. And it would benefit all for homes to provide biomass to their local biogas plants too. Also all supermarkets produce food waste (like fish guts, scales, vegetable roots, fruit peels etc etc) and they should also provide biomass. Integration is the way to go.
Where is tidal power in this integration?
It's hard to extract power from, tech hasn't been fully developed yet so it's very expensive
Again it is a low density form of energy and either weak or intermittent if using a tidal lagoon.
Wave energy is more relevant in Denmark, but attempts in this field has not been successful so far.
Where is the energy saving in this integration ? Who will calculate the cost of all those pipes and devices and the communication systems and alarm systems, etc. Isn't it easier, just to improve the processing of oil and get less dirty gases?
Val Boyanov because we have a water and peak energy resources global major crisis
water problem can be solved with desalination. energy problem can be solved with deep processing of oil and coal and very strong energysaving program.
Desalination plants are expensive to operate.
Plus pollution from fossil fuels causes millions of deaths every year due to disease (www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/).
Even with subsidies renewable energy is cheaper, easier and less stress than subsidised fossil fuels.
(www.iena.org/News/Description.aspx%3FNType%3DA%26mnu%3Dcat%26PriMenuID%3D16%26CatID%3D84%26News_ID%3D386&ved=0CCkQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNETVEzrXgxJO_N-NRvof9-bX77ydg&sig2=DeaLmXNCpvUmebUwFGl3VQ)
There is now no excuse not to update to clean renewable energy.
luminouslights
I like the feeling on the top of wind tower, I like also the humming of the propeller. But:
- it is against the law of the market, to subsidies one technology, on the expense of another
- it is against the common logic, that any European country is subsidizing a producer from China, India or other outside Europe. Same for US. Subsidies must go to the producers of the same country or group of countries.
- it is landscape polluting, both solar and wind. All becomes ugly. The small water power kills the fish in the rivers.
- it is expensive, because:
= subsidies
= it needs a lot of distributed energy measures
= it is vulnerable this distributed energy. We hear these days about hacker attacks against high level authorities in US. With distributed energy vulnerability goes to very high level. It cost money. It is much cheaper to protect one big nuclear power station, than thousand of wind stations.
= the vulnerability of the system also shows that renewable can not go more than 15-20% of the total energy mix. Nowadays everybody talks about renewable, pushing subsidies. What about the rest of 80% ? No subsidies, no investments, time is coming we pay great price for that.
= talking about talking, who can estimate the cost of this "renewable campaign" all over the world - yotta bites of information produced, trillion of paper wasted, conferences, congresses, flights, hotels, etc. - may be already more than billion USD ?
Coal is a very unclean and very non-renewable energy source. However, it does have a redeeming quality: it is comprised of many other minerals and metals that make up the leftover remains when coal is used. One of those metals: lithium. Lithium is the most important element of the distributed energy, because distributed energy needs batteries.
Water prices will rise. Learn to conserve water. Nation wise a country must lower it's water consumption.
Build clean, green molten salt reactors and desalinate all the water you want. No rationing needed.
Está bien el aprovechamiento de todos los recursos que nos permite la naturaleza. La dependencia de combustibles fósiles será sustituida, a pesar de la inercia existente.
En España, llevamos desde 1990 investigando y aplicando nuevas formas de aprovechamiento de la biomasa y energías limpias alternativas.
The more we utilize energy fully we will find less reasons to work and this will decrease demand. The whole economy is driven by energy but is the major reason why we work so by creating energy independence we will refine the reasons why we work and eliminate unnecessary processes that are nothing more then a drain on resources and that are a negative benefit to society. It will be much like the dissolving of the monopoly of AT&T. What will happen in a short time will be a complete shift in why people work. Cause 80 percent of every dollar is just to support the use of energy and is the driving force behind money so will utilizing energy better we will reduce the need to work and the justification of comforts to oil and energy companies who want to continue to be their slave to ignorance. Over half the world represents the interests and well being of a digital number so these people are really working against us instead of for us because every decision made in moneys interests goes against human and natures interests. Which is more important?
personally I love green energy resources, I admired Danish Government for caring people and for the saved of natures, my government which is opposite they care only for themselves how earned money and power greedy selfishness, I wish i could be a Danish..
Do you mean the us government
ajdiddie Philippines
Denmark ....World leader in respect for life....find ways to guilt trip the usa who has an inertial and economically motivated resistance to clean energy transformation will. Thanks from the webmaster of the internet in Redding, California
Hacer biogas calentar agua de mar y mover turbinas
I see the hitman agent 47 has taken up narrating documentaries.
now on the forest u still planting a tree back for everyone u take
Unfortunately the danish people elected a parliament in 2015 that delays these visions.
They also need to incorporate the tech called "Liquid Air". Air is renewable, reliable and free !!!
Are you suggesting that fresh air contains energy ?
Yes, simple physics - the characteristics of a fluid under pressure. Hydraulics, air under pressure can lift an entire building, if it can do that it can surely run a turbine which can run a generator, which can produce to scale any amount of electricity needed. Air is free, reliable and renewable. This process does not require combustion, in fact the waste gas is even cleaner than at intake. What can beat it, (zero point energy) - but which of those two paradigms do you think, us as a consumer, we'll have an easier access to. The U.K. Has already built three of these power plants since 2011 !!!
@@rikkoshop620 And how do you pressurise this aie ? What happens when you do so ?
Please tell me you are not a shell or you have absolutely no understanding of the basic laws that govern this universe. How does a car pressurize air breaks. Common on this is basic science !!!
@@rikkoshop620 OK, so you want science ? A car doesn't have air BRAKES btw, they're hydraulic, using an incompressible fluid. As for the gas laws, I suggest you LEARN !
The goal should not be to use less energy, it should be to emit less CO2. When the wind blows and the sun shines, energy use will have to increase, not decrease. I fear that Denmark is optimizing to the wrong solution because they're trying to solve the wrong problem.
+Ashley Zinyk This model is local but too little decentralized. I miss in the local energy supply the private and public share on solar roofs.
Why not use less energy when it is easily done? Better insulation in homes, LED lights, fuel efficient cars and so on.
Energy use is the wrong thing to measure. Is it better to use 1 kWh and emit 200 grams of CO2, or use 2 kWh and emit 30 grams of CO2? Clearly the second one is better, because it's CO2 that threatens the environment, not the amount of energy used.
Also, efficiency can counter-intuitively make consumption increase, because of Jevons Paradox.
what a lot of work
... and cost... and damage... and all for nothing. How long and how much damage & loss will it take for all those loons to wake up?
SayNOtoGreens In approximately 30 year's time, humans will have used up all our oil reserves. Then what? The time to find viable, low-cost alternatives is now, before it's too late. Henry Ford started with his Model T. Had he not bothered, you would still be walking to your 90-hours-a-week job.
John Benton We actually have more oil than we think, but we definitely shouldn't be touching it. I'm looking to go into this program after my military service #Aalborg
Good going, that person. We'll let the oil barons figure out a way of maintaining their lifestyles when they can no longer screw the world into the ground!
They should start digging underground, there is more energy underground. they can use heat pumps to collect underground energy
europe must share and create opportunities for Africa!!
Add những trạm năng lượng vào điện thoại của người sử dụng nó
LFTR is the bridge. Making synthetic carbon based fuels solves nothing.
ive seen a guy that has a catalist to cut energy consumption for electrolysis by 2/3rds at this rate i think the most universal free energy scorce is hydrogen.
Sadly Hydrogen gas is not an energy source. A popular miss conception. At best it is a poor storage medium.
It takes a huge amount of energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. You can use natural gas as a Hydrogen source it still takes a lot of energy to extract the hydrogen. Then to store / effectively transport Hydrogen it takes more energy to compress it to somewhere around 10,000 PSI.
Now you can burn Hydrogen in a Internal Combustion Engine which is at best 20% efficient. The other method is Fuel cell vehicle. The fuel Cell vehicle converts the compressed Hydrogen to electricity and stores that electricity in a battery which drives an electric motor.
A good reference artical with more data. electrek.co/2016/04/26/automakers-fuel-cell-hydrogen-electric-vehicles/
So after all those conversions the physics of hydrogen just does not work out. Unless you can store the energy from the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. Also known as Nuclear fusion. We are working on that. Not there yet.
It is far more efficient to store the electricity into a battery from your electric company then drive an electric motor.
Strangely enough it takes about 6 KW to refine 1 gallon of gasoline. A Nisan leaf's battery pack can hold 24 KW and gets around 96 miles. Thats about 24 miles per 6KW or 24 miles that you could get by not refining that gallon of gas. Thats only the refining cost. Dont forget the energy that it took to pump it out of the ground, Ship it from there it was pumped and shipping it from the refinery to your gas station.
Now there is the argument that coal is used to charge the electric car. They forget to tell you that coal is used to refine that gallon of gasoline. (That is a net / net) Gasoline has the additional pollution of Oil / coal is used to pump the oil out of the ground, shipping it around the world. Then finally the exhaust that comes out of the tail pipe.
Electricity doesnt need to be shipped via vehicles. It is shipped via pollution free wires.
I hope this helps to understand the really big picture of energy. Physics always tend to get in the way.
So many good points in one reply.. I, like probably many people who read about this stuff, have never stopped to think about the energy to produce the gasoline/diesel itself. Completely negates the argument of "where do you think that electricity in your electric car comes from?"
Bradley Huffstetler No, it is considered quite a bit. The difference is that it is easier to clean up a handful of smoke stacks than it is to clean up millions of tailpipes. Many power plants are moving to Natural gas. You have the solar and wind options. Where I live in the Northwet we have loads of hydro. Power walls for homes are being considered to lower the need for peak load power needs. Coal, oil and natural gas plants are used most often for peak load conditions because they are faster to turn on. So if you add a buffer you can better manage your base load.
Fuel delivery to a single power plant and propagation of that energy out to homes via wires is cheaper and more efficient than delivering the fuel to your local gas stations. If you didnt have to deliver to the local gas station you would also lower congestion on the roads.
The amount of electricity to manufacture a gallon of gasoline in electricity could conceivably power an electric car for about 60 miles... One caveat though. Most of that energy is heat to crack the oil to make gasoline so that energy doesnt directly transfer there are energy losses to convert to electricity. Physics getting in the way again.
I happen to be very close to someone who works for a electric company. There is a lot of work being done to reduce the need for peak load power generation. At least this power company seems to be concerned about its public perception and really tries to do the right thing. Like so many companies they dont always get it right but I would say they really try.
Something else more important than efficiency in some ways to me at least. If you believe in the capitalist system you should have choices and be able to vote with your pocket book. I have a Prius and Leaf. This means I have Cut my Koch Brothers taxes by 2/3. I send 2/3 less money to the middle east dictatorships. In the Northwet I keep most of my energy money right here in the Northwet.
think more than just Denmark... these investments can be done in Africa
Great system! Really smart and good video too! Thank you !
yeah we can do cow food production in middle africa...
My system does work so u don't use the water up rescurlate the same water
Once society learns to live in the renewable energy world this becomes simple. Stop being so spoiled and greedy. Learn to live with fluctuating energy, stop demanding energy any time you want. Live differently, consider working during dark hours, the energy for lighting would be more than offset by air conditioning costs.
It is technically impossible to get 100% of our electricity (never mind energy) from conventional renwables. (I exclude biomass, as it is used, as it emitts CO2 and destroys forests due to the volume required) As is known the sun doesn't shine all the time and solar output is variable due to the angle of incidence of the sun and the clarity of the atmoshere. Cloud, rain and snow seriously degrade solar output. There are times that the wind is very weak and as the output varies as a square law (A rough estimation, worse at lower speed and less at higher ones) power drops off quickly as wind speed drops. The other associated problem with wind speed and direction is in blustery conditions the output is unstable and adversely affects all devices connected to the grid.
The amount of storage to balance all the above very real problems is unsustainable. The thought that storage is the answer but neglects to factor in the extra power needed to re fill the storage devices from a very variable source. Simply put trusting the weather to perform. Would you want to bet on that?
You cannot beat the physics of the system and as all sources of energy have known energy density, it's obvious that renewables are a poor choice as they all have very low energy density.
Nuclear energy will be key to moving away from fossil fuels. Convert those nuclear warheads to reactor fuel. Space based electricity will create lots of JOBS. Hey we can get to work right NOW.
Don't know about space-based electricity, but MSR's are the real key to energy abundance world wide.
@@paulbradford6475 YES, NO MAGIC NEEDED, LMBs looking good to.
Biogas solutions is remarkable
I think that most of this looks like a fine plan to me but hydrogen production through electrolysis of water is not a good idea. It is far too inefficient at storing energy. The conversion losses are massive. Batteries and compressed air are much better options.
Also where is the hydro power in this? Hydro dams are excellent grid scale batteries
Tom Kelly in order to build hydro plants you need the water to have gravitational potential energy, Denmark is flatter than a pancake, so not a solution there. This system is supposed to be solution for areas with no natural resources.
If that lorry at 0:41 had been Canadian & he got to a roundabout with a cyclist just ahead, he'd have gone around that roundabout with the cyclist, no ifs ands or buts.
Batteries... add batteries to the system... Telsa battery grid is amazing!
Batteries are things of the past. Even though they advanced quite a lot, batteries are short-term solutions for about everything. Ther life-cycle assessment is a mess and they project to deliver the half of the hydrogen storage benefits from 1970's technology. They are popular among the public, but not among scholars.
Great Energy Plan for next generation! Denmark will be an example to other countries.
for electricity generatiwe use solar, wind, and pumped hydro
for transport we grow crude oil with algae...takes two weeks....check university of california san diego rofessor stephen mayfield
Denmark is a bit on the flat side for pumped storage
steel mills and aluminium
have an idea that does not require bio gas, wind solar, coal or any thing you know. you can give power to the world. the earth will go green in 5 years.
+Johnny Athanasiadis magnetite induced dynamos
so "the other 50%" of the energy is still being sourced from carbon based fuels. So, if I am reading this correctly the biomass has to be burned in order to generate the energy? How is that any better than coal or natural gas? Which by the way, are both FAR worse for the environment than nuclear. -_-
Uranium is now considered "renewable".
If you remove straws and manure from the agricultural fields, will the rate of soil depletion increase much beyond normal depletion from taking edibles from the land? It seems to me nuclear and photo voltaic or thermal solar are the only way to extend the life of civilization to a maximum. Here's one for the wind turbine experts. How long does it take for a wind turbine to generate the amount of power that it took to make and haul and raise the wind turbine at it's site? I hope it does not wear out first!
Congratulation Denmark for BioGas Project ;Saving Trees aswellas Ecology!
Forget polluting bio mass.
Instead use Liquid Thorium ion molten salt energy converters. Cheaper than coal an can produce jet fuel for aircraft.
Never heard of this
You need to take a really hard look at how a grid actually works. This does not provide for heavy industry.....
It's a simple case of scale. Few people appreciate the enormity of it. The same applies to aviation and shipping.
You need free energy this is too expensive ..there is plenty of oil .look up free energy Engine .
It is refreshing to see people working towards a fossil-energy-free future. However, the one sector that seems to be overlooked is the steel-making sector. All the other technologies rely on a stable supply of steel in all it's forms. So basically, no steel = no future. And the manufacture of steel is an extremely energy-hungry process.
+John Benton we dont make a lot or any steel in Denmark
You're dead good at butter and bacon though!
that we are. and we love it
In wind mill need 12,000 of re-bar(steel) 32000 tons of cement and steel for the transmission and bearings and to make steel product lots of coal and lots of C02 and the wind mill only last about 35 years.
⚡
NUCLEAR 😎👍