not buying that this isn't anti renewable propaganda for the US
the images in the article looks bad
until you take a short look at satellite images and realize:
- it's not the norm but the exception
- the photos are made to make it look maximally bad in a deceptive/manipulative way,
and that is even in context, that Denmark is a special case in that it both quite small and has little "dead" (not agriculturally efficiently usable land). And many old "culturally" protected houses where fitting solar on top of it is far more complicated/inefficient. Don't get me wrong it isn't the only special case, but there are very many countries which don't really have such issues.
Also quite interestingly this "iron fields" can be "not bad" from a nature perspective, at least compared to mono-culture with pesticide usage. Due to the plant and animal live below them. Through that is assuming people do extra steps to prevent that live.
There is an art to taking pictures of solar farms from exactly the right angle so that the panels seem continuous, often making use of deep shadows to cover the gaps.
It's similar to the telephoto shots of wind farms taken from far away that make them seem really close together.
_Something_ motivates them, though. They have been on a wild anti-solar bend the last year or more. Dozens of articles, all with the same anti-solar NIMBY bent
The satellite photos of Hjolderup look worse than the photos in the article to me... the photos in the article seem like a fair representation of the consequences of installing solar fields like this--your house and town end up surrounded by solar panels.
I can't even read it because you either have to accept all tracking or pay a subscription fee. Pretty sure that's against the GDPR? Anyway, not a good look.
Denmark is a poor location for solar. They are pretty far north and don't have a lot of sunny days that are good for solar generation. When they do, those peaks drive energy prices negative. From the article: Over the next 10 years, the official expectation is a very large rise in the amount of solar produced. But that kind of clashes with the reality on the ground – they can’t make money
Far north places have long summer days. This doesn't align well with the winter heating needs but it does balance really well with wind generation which peaks in winter.
from the article which uses intentionally deceptive photography angles to paint a very different picture, yes
more interesting is, if that is actually true. Or only true because idk. the investors also bought the land and they profits are used to amortize the land buying cost etc.
That's a terrible argument on the face of it. "They can't make any energy, but also they make so much energy they can't use it all".
I actually live in Denmark, and we can produce solar energy just fine. My dad installed rooftop solar 10 years ago, and that thing has 90% of his electricity usage since then. It's still producing at around 85% capacity too.
The Nordic grid was designed to work as an interconnected system though - Danish wind exports and Norwegian/Swedish hydro imports balance each other out. Calling it a "dirty secret" makes it sound like a failure when it's actually the intended architecture. Denmark is frequently a net electricity exporter.
The only dirty secret is that humans are happy to kill future generations as the effects of the oil economy will only minimally affect the people alive today.
This would’ve been a non issue if human beings worked together as a species, but we don’t. There is plenty of space on the planet where no one lives and nothing thrives that could be converted massive solar farms that power the planet.
> Transmitting that energy from where nobody lives to where people do live becomes the problem with that.
That’s kind of what we do today for pretty much everything. Most of the population on the planet doesn’t live near oil rigs, refineries, solar farms, power plants or wind. In fact most of the population doesn’t live near where we produce our food or most of the things we need for survival.
It could possibly be combined with a solution to the storage problem: store the energy in some transportable chemical form like hydrogen, methane or the electrolyte of a redox flow battery.
EU has enough areas with sparse population and not that much nature which also are south enough to have it work out well with solar panels of the current generations.
And besides that even most EU countries have enough places in them to still put a lot of solar panels without much issues and/or replacing fields.
going as far as North Africa is a bit too far to be convenient for power transport
in the distances we speak about we do so all the time with more centralized energy sources (like e.g. nuklear) due to their centralized nature
the issue is less the transport distances but changes in "from where to where" sometimes needing some extensions/improvements to the power grid. Through commonly in ways which anyway make sense and all pretty much "standard" solutions well understood. Through there are some more complicated exceptions to that.
Buckmister Fuller envisioned a worldwide high-voltage transmission network implemented with 1980’s technology, there just isn’t the worldwide political will or cooperation to build it.
We work together pretty well. From a 20,000 foot level maybe it looks like chaos and like a central guiding hand would make everything better. But, two people working together is easier to direct than 100,000 people (or more!). Unpacking this gives us the wonders of the economics and behavioral psychology. I’d say, all things considered, we could be doing a hell of a lot worse on cooperation with each other.
look at satellite images of Denmark or the village in question
- that village is the exception, not the norm at all
- that village is in a "small" (on agricultural scale) strip of solar panels, around which there are green fields over green fields over green field ....
- the photos are deceptive, the first is from the start of the strip to the end and contains the huge majority of all solar panels in like a 50km? 100km? radius. The second photo does not show the village but a separate house up the street, if the photo where in a bit more flat angle you would see a normal filed behind the solar panels. The village itself has a "strip" of (small) green fields around it which should make it less bad to live there.
I mean don't get me wrong it probably sucks for the home owners in Hjolderup. But it's not representative for the situation in Denmark at all.
One interesting detail about Denmark's renewable energy infrastructure mix is that Vestas, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, is a cornerstone of Danish industry. Note in the article that wind supplies about 40% of Denmark's electrical needs, and that the populist right party mentioned in the article doesn't attack wind turbines, despite the antipathy that other (supposedly populist) rightwing figures do in other countries.
We currently use vast amounts of land growing corn and other crops specifically for biodiesel. Solar panels produce over 100x more energy per hectare than corn ethanol, even in countries like Denmark with limited sunlight. It makes perfect sense to repurpose some biofuel farmland for solar panels. That's just efficient land use, not an attack on agriculture.
Denmark has undergone the same sort of right wing populism that has gone through most of the west. Including rhetorical tricks like this.
Though the recent election is slight swing to the left, and the newly created right wing parties are already undergoing various forms of internal meltdowns, making a center left government friendly green energy projects most likely.
everything that goes into real life is an aesthetic experience. it's not complicated. imo, you can either literally hide things from the public, or aesthetic concerns, like whether or not a piece of infrastructure's exterior is physically beautiful & attractive, becomes the #1 priority.
Regardless of your political beliefs I would hope you could agree that using arable land for solar power is dumb. Denmark is almost entirely arable land and relatively small to boot so they should be using more compact power sources.
not buying that this isn't anti renewable propaganda for the US
the images in the article looks bad
until you take a short look at satellite images and realize:
- it's not the norm but the exception
- the photos are made to make it look maximally bad in a deceptive/manipulative way,
and that is even in context, that Denmark is a special case in that it both quite small and has little "dead" (not agriculturally efficiently usable land). And many old "culturally" protected houses where fitting solar on top of it is far more complicated/inefficient. Don't get me wrong it isn't the only special case, but there are very many countries which don't really have such issues.
Also quite interestingly this "iron fields" can be "not bad" from a nature perspective, at least compared to mono-culture with pesticide usage. Due to the plant and animal live below them. Through that is assuming people do extra steps to prevent that live.
There is an art to taking pictures of solar farms from exactly the right angle so that the panels seem continuous, often making use of deep shadows to cover the gaps.
It's similar to the telephoto shots of wind farms taken from far away that make them seem really close together.
"not buying that this isn't anti renewable propaganda for the US"
Its the Guardian so that is a very unlikely motivation.
_Something_ motivates them, though. They have been on a wild anti-solar bend the last year or more. Dozens of articles, all with the same anti-solar NIMBY bent
The satellite photos of Hjolderup look worse than the photos in the article to me... the photos in the article seem like a fair representation of the consequences of installing solar fields like this--your house and town end up surrounded by solar panels.
I can't even read it because you either have to accept all tracking or pay a subscription fee. Pretty sure that's against the GDPR? Anyway, not a good look.
Isn't GDPR an EU thing?
Well an EU/EEA thing. And I'm in the EEA, so it applies when I visit The Guardian.
100%
It also presents the draw man that solar can only go in huge fields that would otherwise grow food.
There are plenty of rooftops and car parks that can be covered in solar to excellent benefit.
Ie https://www.eventplanner.net/news/10582_largest-solar-carpor...
> It also presents the draw man that solar can only go in huge fields that would otherwise grow food.
> There are plenty of rooftops and car parks that can be covered in solar to excellent benefit.
It's worth calling this approach out too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics
Denmark is a poor location for solar. They are pretty far north and don't have a lot of sunny days that are good for solar generation. When they do, those peaks drive energy prices negative. From the article: Over the next 10 years, the official expectation is a very large rise in the amount of solar produced. But that kind of clashes with the reality on the ground – they can’t make money
Far north places have long summer days. This doesn't align well with the winter heating needs but it does balance really well with wind generation which peaks in winter.
from the article which uses intentionally deceptive photography angles to paint a very different picture, yes
more interesting is, if that is actually true. Or only true because idk. the investors also bought the land and they profits are used to amortize the land buying cost etc.
That's a terrible argument on the face of it. "They can't make any energy, but also they make so much energy they can't use it all".
I actually live in Denmark, and we can produce solar energy just fine. My dad installed rooftop solar 10 years ago, and that thing has 90% of his electricity usage since then. It's still producing at around 85% capacity too.
The dirty secret is of course that the Danish power grid would be totally unusable without the base power provided from Sweden and Norway.
They almost suffered a catastrophic shutdown a year or two ago and the situation has not improved
The Nordic grid was designed to work as an interconnected system though - Danish wind exports and Norwegian/Swedish hydro imports balance each other out. Calling it a "dirty secret" makes it sound like a failure when it's actually the intended architecture. Denmark is frequently a net electricity exporter.
The only dirty secret is that humans are happy to kill future generations as the effects of the oil economy will only minimally affect the people alive today.
[flagged]
That's like pointing out that Rhode Island isn't designed to be a self-sufficient grid.
Is that really a "dirty secret"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Europe_Synchronous... exists for good reason.
The power grids of US states are similarly linked. Very dirty.
Except for Texas, which decided as a state that avoiding federal regulation was worth people dying every winter from power outages.
I'm not a fan of Texan electrical isolationism, but "people dying every winter from power outages" is stretching it a bit...
Every winter is a stretch, yes.
But they did get a big warning shot in 1989 and 2011, and ignored those lessons for cost reasons. A couple hundred people died.
Lived there. Baltic weather, not too sunny. Must be a great place for wind generation though.
The world's largest wind power company, Vestas, is from Denmark.
This would’ve been a non issue if human beings worked together as a species, but we don’t. There is plenty of space on the planet where no one lives and nothing thrives that could be converted massive solar farms that power the planet.
Transmitting that energy from where nobody lives to where people do live becomes the problem with that.
> Transmitting that energy from where nobody lives to where people do live becomes the problem with that.
That’s kind of what we do today for pretty much everything. Most of the population on the planet doesn’t live near oil rigs, refineries, solar farms, power plants or wind. In fact most of the population doesn’t live near where we produce our food or most of the things we need for survival.
It could possibly be combined with a solution to the storage problem: store the energy in some transportable chemical form like hydrogen, methane or the electrolyte of a redox flow battery.
Yeah possibly. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel that's already compatible with transportation infrastructure and energy consumers might be the best bet.
Building HVDC lines from North Africa to Europe, for example, wouldn't be a huge feat of civil engineering. Rather standard stuff, really.
we don't need something that long distance at all
EU has enough areas with sparse population and not that much nature which also are south enough to have it work out well with solar panels of the current generations.
And besides that even most EU countries have enough places in them to still put a lot of solar panels without much issues and/or replacing fields.
going as far as North Africa is a bit too far to be convenient for power transport
in the distances we speak about we do so all the time with more centralized energy sources (like e.g. nuklear) due to their centralized nature
the issue is less the transport distances but changes in "from where to where" sometimes needing some extensions/improvements to the power grid. Through commonly in ways which anyway make sense and all pretty much "standard" solutions well understood. Through there are some more complicated exceptions to that.
Buckmister Fuller envisioned a worldwide high-voltage transmission network implemented with 1980’s technology, there just isn’t the worldwide political will or cooperation to build it.
We work together pretty well. From a 20,000 foot level maybe it looks like chaos and like a central guiding hand would make everything better. But, two people working together is easier to direct than 100,000 people (or more!). Unpacking this gives us the wonders of the economics and behavioral psychology. I’d say, all things considered, we could be doing a hell of a lot worse on cooperation with each other.
look at satellite images of Denmark or the village in question
- that village is the exception, not the norm at all
- that village is in a "small" (on agricultural scale) strip of solar panels, around which there are green fields over green fields over green field ....
- the photos are deceptive, the first is from the start of the strip to the end and contains the huge majority of all solar panels in like a 50km? 100km? radius. The second photo does not show the village but a separate house up the street, if the photo where in a bit more flat angle you would see a normal filed behind the solar panels. The village itself has a "strip" of (small) green fields around it which should make it less bad to live there.
I mean don't get me wrong it probably sucks for the home owners in Hjolderup. But it's not representative for the situation in Denmark at all.
One interesting detail about Denmark's renewable energy infrastructure mix is that Vestas, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, is a cornerstone of Danish industry. Note in the article that wind supplies about 40% of Denmark's electrical needs, and that the populist right party mentioned in the article doesn't attack wind turbines, despite the antipathy that other (supposedly populist) rightwing figures do in other countries.
The Guardian continues its anti-solar crusade. For some inexplicable reason
We currently use vast amounts of land growing corn and other crops specifically for biodiesel. Solar panels produce over 100x more energy per hectare than corn ethanol, even in countries like Denmark with limited sunlight. It makes perfect sense to repurpose some biofuel farmland for solar panels. That's just efficient land use, not an attack on agriculture.
> corn and other crops specifically for biodiesel.
honestly that always sounded very misguided to me
fields are not perfectly renewable, biomas gets removed from them and fertilizers can only help so much in any given time frame
mostly corn/raps mono-culture can make that easily far worse
and not needing to import food can safe a lot of energy too
also as you mentioned, modern solar panels seem overall more efficient
in difference to solar or wind, biodiesel just seem a very bad choice
Northern Europe really is the energy armpit of the post-fossil world, although more so away from coasts.
Denmark has undergone the same sort of right wing populism that has gone through most of the west. Including rhetorical tricks like this.
Though the recent election is slight swing to the left, and the newly created right wing parties are already undergoing various forms of internal meltdowns, making a center left government friendly green energy projects most likely.
Yes to progress, no to cheap right-wing populism with no real solutions to any problem. How about that?
Denmark could use floating sea solar. It will fix both problems.
everything that goes into real life is an aesthetic experience. it's not complicated. imo, you can either literally hide things from the public, or aesthetic concerns, like whether or not a piece of infrastructure's exterior is physically beautiful & attractive, becomes the #1 priority.
Regardless of your political beliefs I would hope you could agree that using arable land for solar power is dumb. Denmark is almost entirely arable land and relatively small to boot so they should be using more compact power sources.