ADVERTISING campaigns are not often celebrated for their honesty. But the Gillard government’s media campaign to “illustrate a vision for Australia’s clean energy future” has a refreshing candour. The advertisements parade various beneficiaries of the government’s energy policies. With surprising authenticity, most of these ventures are small, parochial and inconsequential… writes Thomas Barlow in The Weekend Australian.
ONE of the more remarkable examples of the government’s vision for our future, however, is the wind energy company, Infigen. Infigen is an Australian Securities Exchange-listed company. Its assets include the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere and, judging by the government’s advertisements, it has some pretty happy employees.
But it is also a company that recently reported a $34 million loss during the six months to last December and looks likely from its financial statements to report another loss this year. Equally telling, its very name (a conflation of infinite and energy generation) gives the finger to reality.
There is no surprise in any of that; it is a renewable energy company after all. But think about the symbolism. Everybody knows this government’s vision for a clean energy future involves running Australia at a loss. But normally in advertising you put your best foot forward.
To choose Infigen as a pin-up for this government’s vision of our energy future is effectively an admission that profits, or even balanced budgets, don’t matter.
There is another, deeper truth, however, that emerges from these commercials. Ironically, the only scientist quoted is also the one person to make an overtly misleading statement.
Alex Wonhas leads CSIRO’s Energy Transformed Flagship. At the end of one of the carbon tax advertisements, he observes that “the transformation that we are about to undergo is a similar transformation to the industrial revolution”. Now scientists are renowned for hyperbole. The standards of proof they use when talking about the impact of their work are never the same as the standards they use in doing their work.
But this claim takes the established double standard to an unprecedented level.
The industrial revolution replaced wind power with coal power, it led to a dramatic increase in energy consumption and it enabled industry to produce manufactured goods at massively higher volumes and at drastically lower prices than was previously the case.
Contrast this with the outcomes from Australia’s proposed clean energy future. Our little revolution here seeks to replace coal power with wind power, its overt intention is to decrease energy consumption and it can only increase the cost of manufactured goods. The debate today is entirely about who should pay for it.
There is another important difference too. The industrial revolution was a commercial phenomenon. Practical people in private employment made the great inventions of the 18th and 19th centuries, and their ideas were implemented by businessmen who realised the potential for providing human wants on a mass scale.
By comparison, Australia’s new clean energy future is a political phenomenon. The transformation promoted in the government’s advertisements is entirely a creation of policy-makers and intellectuals: in other words, of impractical people for the most part working in pubic employment.
Furthermore, in sharp contrast to what happened in the industrial revolution, this particular transformation can be implemented only where governments act to control and constrain the choices consumers are able to make. Whereas the industrial revolution dramatically increased freedom of choice in human society, this government’s revolution is likely to reduce it.
The inclusion of such a hyperbolic claim within these advertisements and its association with an authoritative scientific organisation such as the CSIRO is disturbing. But it also befits our times.
It seems we have a government whose members are altogether too eager to hear only what they want to hear and too ready to place their blind, unquestioning belief in the authority of experts.
It is this, coupled with the reciprocal readiness of scientists to blur the distinction between fact and assertion, their willingness to equate computer models with empirical data and their propensity to confuse present technological realities with future possibilities that got us into this mess in relation to climate change policy.
There are a great many criticisms that can be made about these extraordinary government advertisements. They have been justified on the basis that we need more information yet they contain little information. They have used taxpayer funds to provide free publicity for a very small group of companies, presumably to the disadvantage of their competitors – something for the government’s Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office to chew over.
But the real sadness lies in what these advertisements tell us about the failed and excessively cosy relationship between this government and its scientific advisers. In its blind acceptance of the scientific promise, this government tragically has succumbed to the triumph of wishful thinking over common sense.
Republished from The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/ads-show-cosy-cocoon-of-advisers-and-the-advised/story-e6frgd0x-1226100053289
Thomas Barlow was formerly a fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and a science adviser to the Howard government and is the author of ‘The Australian Miracle: An Innovative Nation Revisited’
http://www.barlowadvisory.com/publications.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Very well said, Thomas. I hope many of us pass the article round.
Relevant to your article is the part of Eisenhower’s Farewell Address which is not quoted nearly so often as his warning about the “military-industrial complex” in the same speech. These were his words, January 1961.
“In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Notice how ‘carbon tax’ and ‘tackling climate change’ has morphed into ‘clean energy future’. This has been done to eliminate nuclear power from the solution, on the premise that nuclear energy is ‘dirty’. Anyone who is seriously believes the threat of imminent climate catastrophe would be putting all efforts into developing nuclear power. The smart thing would be a program to replace old Generation 1 reactors e.g. Fukushima with safe efficient Gen III and IV/ Thorium Reactors.
The Greens loathe these not because they are ‘dirty’, but because they work.
They have to put spin on their Wind Power.
I smile every time I see that ad.
I mean, can you imagine one of the front men coming on and saying how proud they are that they can supply power for around 6 to 7 hours a day.
I just wait for the day someone actually mentions this to one of those Government talking heads.
Tony.
Thankfully a new ad will start screening tonight telling us the facts and the truth about this mad co2 tax.
This mad tax will raise fourteen times more revenue in the first six years than the entire European ETS.
Unbelievably the cost per person of this mad tax will be 255 more than the cost for every European.
BTW Gillard has suffered an 18% swing against her in her own electorate, gee I wonder why?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/trade-and-industry-alliance-latest-opponent-of-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226100503849
Neville
“BTW Gillard has suffered an 18% swing against her in her own electorate”
Neville, I know the area and the kind of people who live there well, she could start eating babies and it would not make a difference.
Re. going back to wind power it’s the craziest idea ever, if it had been that good and reliable we would still be using it.
The CSIRO might be good at (some) science but their English language skills are messy. What the hell is an “Energy Transformed Flagship”?
Nicely said.
In world history political revolutions not based on realistic economics always fail – unless repression is used to keep the unstable status quo. Examples include the USSR and Napoleon’s Continental System. People just vote with their feet if allowed to do so.
I have no prejudice against renewable energy except that it doesn’t work. It can be made to work (eg dam storage coupled to wind generation) but that only makes the bad economics worse.
When (if) it improves enough to be practical and economically sensible we can renew the discussion.
Bruce
When (if) it improves enough to be practical and economically sensible
”””””””””””””””””””””’
Bruce, we lived with “renewables” at some time in the past, but the situation was a mirror image of the greater real world situation.
That is, we had a generator for when the sun didn’t shine or we needed more power than the solar provided.
At the time it was economically sensible because the power lines were too far away, but as soon as subdivision was allowed in the area and power became available at $10 K/connection we jumped at it.
I’m thinking along the same lines as you, nothing against renewables, one would have to be really obnoxious to oppose it but it has to make economic and practical sense.
If it is not available 24/7/365 and still have to use some standby power then it’s not an option.
At the current price, it’s not even an option for additional supply, if you read TonyfromOz’s posts you can see how misleading all the proposals for solar and wind are.
The reason that nuclear energy will never be accepted by the Greens especially and the Labor party is that it is an abundant source of clean cheap power. They don’t want us to have that as it underpins a growing prosperous free market capitalist society. Socialists don’t like that sort of thing.
You can just see it coming. When the country is broke but as yet more funds are needed to feed the RE monster, our super savings will be ploughed into these schemes and we will be told what a fantastic win/win it is for us all.
Until early one morning….
Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted.
Wasn’t it?
I see a different future spangles, one where Yabot without a backbone still manages to become PM in a landslide.
In his usual style he will just say I knew AGW was crap anyway and I’m bringing a stop to this renewable nonsense, then we can have a serious debate about ‘baseload’ options.
Johnathan Wilkes at July 24th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Johnathan – thanks for your experience ($10k, youch!). Two things I’ve noticed already are:
Generator advertisements in the papers
A rise in illegal firewood cutting
I walk & ride in the bush – the tracks are cut up more now and I sometimes see guys in utes with chainsaws looking slightly guilty. Although they have to dodge the dumped tyres – another example of people voting with their feet due to government (high fees at tips) action.
These are two more reasons why I think Ms Gillard’s New Enlightenment or whatever it is won’t last more than a few electricity bill cycles.
I lived off-grid on renewables such as the old Dunlite wind generators and 32v DC battery systems which supplied lecky light but it was always backed up by kero fridges and fire wood but if you wanted to use the washing machine you started the Moffatt-Virtue generator. It was worth all that 10k to connect to the grid.
When our brightest and smartest [?] won’t come right out and declare that renewables [as proposed with current technology] are a fraud, then you know that these people are also frauds with a different agenda they also don’t wish to declare.
Bruce,
you say,
quote:
These are two more reasons why I think Ms Gillard’s New Enlightenment or whatever it is won’t last more than a few electricity bill cycles.
end quote.
Have you ever noticed with respect to this subject, those from the side of politics who are pushing this either never answer the question, or change the subject to stay on their agenda.
Picture a long hot Summer, or a freezing cold Winter.
Older Australians, not able to afford the now inflated costs of electricity either die in their homes from heat exhaustion or from freezing.
If mentioned, then the reply will be how sad it is that people can die in their homes and no one knows.
Classic diversionary tactics.
Tony.
Tony – I wouldn’t say it is one side of politics, since the policies of the UK government is probably caused exactly this last UK winter.
I would say it is shallow understanding of how people actually behave on the one hand and ideology on the other. The ideology is not the monopoly of any side of politics (ie UK) but does seem to lean in one direction more than the other. However I cite ethanol as a bad example of the cost of poor analysis together with a then consensus between the progressive side and agribusiness, although the deaths that policy seems to be causing are not direct and are not in the countries where the policy is implemented.
It is easy to meet people with a commitment to “clean” (but non-hydro, non-nuke) energy, but impossible to find anyone who believes it can work. Perhaps they are out there, but I can’t find them. It’s very strange: a deep commitment, with zero belief.
Is the Maginot line a good historical parallel? As the young De Gaulle predicted, the ruinously expensive Line not only proved instantly useless to the French, but also to the invading Germans who took possession of it. This is only a weak parallel, since there were people who trusted that the Wehrmacht would not just go around it, and that the Luftwaffe would not simply fly over it. In the case of our proposed alternative energy, people are certain it won’t work…they are simply committed!
It’s like getting even money on the Kempsey Heights Bowling club to beat the Melbourne Storm in a game of Rugby League…and putting your house on the bowlers!
Or am I missing something?
Mark,
i was born and raised in Julia Gillard’s electorate, my best mate’s father was a Federal Union Secretary and one of the “faceless men” who decided policy and candidates for the Labor party – let me tell you it’s not the same any more Willamstown was always a bit more gentrified now with million dollar houses in Newport, Spotswood, Seddon, Footscray and Altona – not to mention Point Cook and all the other new MacMansion developements – mean that it’s a totally different population to the one I grew up with.
Going to Footscray High meant that I went through school with migrants from every country and watched different nationalities predominate in the area before moving on to “better themselves”, but none of us ever foresaw a “Yuppie” migration to alter the demographics.
She may turn Labor’s safest seat into another swinging one quicker than you think.
Bulldog44
““Yuppie” migration to alter the demographics.
She may turn Labor’s safest seat into another swinging one quicker than you think.”
Yuppie is the word Bull, it won’t mean liberal it means green and therefore labor.
It’s a mistake to think that only poor people vote labor.
Easy to be a socialist or even communist like G Soros when you are filthy rich.
I visit the suburbs you mentioned almost daily on business, and I have to mind my tongue when talking politics I tell you, if I want to retain custom.
Of course there are still some streets I wouldn’t go to after dark in Laverton, Point Cook etc. despite some “gentrification”.
Most of Yarraville, Footscray yes, Williamstown definitely a posh area now.
eg, I just saw this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/23/the-bbc-endeavours-to-provide-more-biased-coverage-on-climate-change/
Anton says:
July 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The BBC has five billion in retirement funds invested in carbon trading. If they and others can’t keep the AGW scare going, their stock, already worth muss less than it cost, will become worthless. That’s five billion reasons to do what they’re doing.
Could it happen to more deserving people?
The beeb has invested five billion in carbon trading? That’s a hoot. I wonder if the Guardian has made similar investments.
A question. I know that Malcolm Turnbull’s main goal is to insure that government of the Doctors’ Wives, by the Doctors’ Wives, for the Doctors’ Wives shall not perish from the earth. But he’s also quite the investor. Would anyone know if he has hefty investments, direct or indirect, in carbon trading, Timmy’s Geothermia, that sort of thing? And can such pious investments create legal conflicts of interest, or are there exemptions, flexible arrangements? Anybody know if the Goldman Sachs relationship continues in any way?
I’m always happy to see people get rich, since I’ve never been given a job by a poor man. I’d be happy if my worst enemy got rich. But if someone had a lot of money invested in, for example, wind turbines, they might be a little shy of referring to them as the medieval heaps of crap which they are. I’m just saying.
Yes Robert, I’ll bet Turnbull, like Gore, is heavily invested in “our future”.
The would-be Enrons laying the foundations and that, combined with the hockey teams giving sage govt advice, are making this huge omlette that we are going to be hard-pressed to unscramble.
As Viv Forbes says this morning:
“Climate will still change no matter how many wind temples we build to the Global Warming god.”
This is the sort of stuff that the Murdoch press loves. Coal replaced wind before electricity was invented. So the rubbish about the idustrial revolution is just that but the facts never bother the neo-conservatives and other science haters.
The article is as revealing about the authors intellectual capacity as Abbot’s “carbon dioxide is weightless” comment.
“The article is as revealing about the authors intellectual capacity as Abbot’s “carbon dioxide is weightless” comment.”
Interesting that some still seem to have confidence in this govt and their self-serving advisers.
Care to expand on that logic, Darby?
Why is it unreasonable for governments to accept the opinion of expert scientists exactly? I would trust the opinion of someone speaking about their field of expertise much more than a coal company exec with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Why is it ‘blind faith’ to accept the opinion of someone who has the authority of knowledge gained by study and experience?
Even if global warming isn’t dependent on carbon levels, coal is a finite resource. Moving investment towards renewable sources of energy is wise, and raising revenue to support such a change is completely acceptable to me as a taxpayer.
Even before the introduction of the carbon (dioxide) tax, electricity prices are going through the roof. I have recently received the new rates in SA from AGL, effective 29th July 2011, and the figures for just this year are frightening.
Since 9th Feb 2011 the rate changes include (ex-GST in c/KWh):
Summer peak
1st 1,200KWh/annum – 17.93 to 25.3 – up 41.1%
next 2,800KWh/annum – 20.15 to 27.97 – up 38.8%
next 6,000KWh/annum – 23.32 to 30.76 – up 31.9%
all additional KWh/annum – 23.68 to 31.34 – up 32.4%
AVERAGE RISE 36%
Winter peak
1st 1,200KWh/annum – 19.43 to 24.82 – up 27.74%
next 2,800KWh/annum – 19.79 to 25.08 – up 26.73%
next 6,000KWh/annum – 23.34 to 27.83 – up 19.24%
all additional KWh/annum – 23.62 to 28.41 – up 20.3%
AVERAGE RISE 23.5%
NOTE: these increases are only since 9th Feb 2011, 6 months. Who knows what the increases will be once the effects of the carbon tax are added?
SA is the most wind-powered state in Oz and, if this is the effect of ‘green’ power, there will be no point on generating it as none of us will be able to afford to use it.
It would also be interesting for someone with the knowledge and data to calculate the increased GST on these increases. 25% or more GST from all power used in Oz has to be a significant windfall to the government – where is this being used?
Interesting figures, John. What we are looking at:
*vastly higher energy prices
*continued dependence on aging coal facilities, whose performance could be improved by up to 30% by modernisation
*all monies available for establishment of sound alternatives, hydro and nuke, frittered on old fashioned solar and medieval wind, which, like creaky old geothermal, are already known to be too expensive for light demand, completely ineffective for baseload
*continued mismanagement of bushland, leading to catastrophic hot burns, making a year’s CO2 “savings” futile in the space of days
*more intensive mining of prime agricultural land for coal and gas, and increased consumption of Australian coal by anyone except Australians…
I’ve probably left out a few things.
One hopes that it is about the money, world government etc. Otherwise, the educated stupidity and demented self-loathing are too hard to contemplate
Jennifer, Thanks for posting this. Here’s a link to Infigen’s interim report to ASX
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110225/pdf/41x1mb5lgsg97h.pdf
When a company presents actual results the opportinities for spin are greatly reduced because of exclosure rules (and penalties for confusing facts and optimistic projections). Some highlights:
* EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation;1st half 2011)) $72.9m
* Net loss $34.4m
Presumably the difference here is mainly interest on borrowings; if so, that’s about $107m on earnings of $72m. People who think wind is “free” should contemplate these figures.
* Unscheduled mainenance costs post warranty about 50% of scheduled maintenance costs, so expect EBITDA to decrease over time.
* Dividend paid 1c/share is from borrowings
Market capitalisation $274m (tradingroom.com.au). Actual value based on current earnings/costs about $0. Doubling revenue (ie electricity prices) with no change in maintenance costs would give a return typical of utilities (about 10% of market cap).
“raising revenue to support such a change is completely acceptable to me as a taxpayer.”
Cellowoman,
Govts should get a wide range of expert opinions and there is a huge range on this subject readily available.
From that they should proceed to a cost/benefit and due diligence study which they haven’t done but which, I suspect, would show that with our present technology, unless we include nuclear power, only fossil fuels will do the job at anything like a realistic, affordable cost.
It is pointless to bankrupt the country to achieve nothing.
This is the most cost effective alternative power source at present:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3278004.htm
And another green idea goes belly-up at taxpayer’s cost:
“Yet in the name of environmental activism, and most particularly global warming, government is squandering billions of dollars each year giving taxpayer money to companies that have no hope of producing a marketable product. Companies like Green Vehicles pocket the money and then go bankrupt. Other companies, like wind and solar power companies, perpetually maintain their station at the government pork trough, yet never produce products at a remotely competitive price. As a result, money that could have and would have been invested in goods and services that actually improve people’s lives is instead flushed down the big green toilet.”
Australians should recall that about 100 years ago the experts were touting eugenics as the latest greatest scientific offering for government policy.
Australian political leaders, along with the leaders of most progressive countries in the world, passed eugenics based laws.
Not only did those laws not accomplish what the eugenics social movement claimed, they had terrible impacts on the lives of individual people.
Just because scientists and intellectuals push something does not mean it is a valid idea.
Think on that as you experience the debacle of AGW policies like the carbon tax inch closer to reality.
Here’s an interesting game for skeptics. Pretend CAGW is real, or that you believe it to be so. What will you do? Any of the things that Gillard and Brown are doing?
Of course not! You will want to act.
Modernising coal power generation and revolutionising bush maintenance would cost many billions, but would cost far, far less than the plans of our Green Betters and bring human benefits and massive reductions of emissions within a decade. (It’s no good saying that we would be extending our reliance on coal, because we know that coal will continue to burn domestically anyway, at needlessly inflated cost, but will mostly go offshore to be burnt in the same atmosphere as the one one I’m breathing now.)
While all that’s going on, you will build nukes and hydro, will you not?
But relax. CAGW is not real, and the proof is in the sheer folly of the proposed remedies, and the fact that every single proponent of CAGW believes in computer models. Most of us know, by age two, that Mickey is just a drawing. He is not a real mouse.
Robert,
Good points. If there really was a crisis from CO2, we would see huge commitments to nuclear power, and a full bore effort to decrease the amount of energy required per unit of GDP.
Instead we see Germany and Australia *increasing* their commitments to coal and walking away from nuke power. These ‘leaders’ can talk green and AGW all they want, but their actions speak much more loudly.
Even the beleivers should understand that the mitigation strategies offered or implemented do absolutely nothing to actually lower CO2 or manage the climate in any meaningful way.
When the realisation that renewable power provides only tiny amounts of electrical power on a limited time basis of around 7 hours a day at the theoretical best case, and random hours at that, then watch for the backpedalling.
It’s started to happen in other places already.
And now, to change the subject, our Government gives this new tax the soft and fluffy name of a ‘Clean Energy Future’.
These people are crazy if they think that we’re so stupid as to not ask questions.
Julia is absolutely clueless, and in their mindless support of the Leader, ‘clueless’ then becomes Government Policy.
Tony.
Tony a question for you if i may pls? I watched a bit of 4 corners on monday night and they were spruiking wind power and suggesting 25 % of their energy is generated from wind. I did a bit of digging and found reports that they are export much of this wind generated energy at a very low price because they still need to be running all their base load stations due to problems of no wind! they also import hige amounts of nuclear energy to compensate for when the wind is not blowing to meet peak load….they also mentioned that in feb 2003 their wind generators produced zero power!
the reports i found were 5 or more years old and I wondered if you had any easy to access material on this topic?
many thx in advance
I have no recent figures that I can readily link to, so I’ll try and explain it another way.
A large scale Nuclear power plant produces immense amounts of electricity for consumption.
That nuclear power plant costs X dollars, and has a lifespan of 50 years, but can be extended out to 60 and then 75 years. Because they don’t know if the life of the plant will be extended, they base their costs on the original 50 years.
They calculate the up front construction cost for the plant, the cost of the fuel, the cost of maintenance, the cost of wages, and then add on what they perceive as profit. This gives them a total 50 year cost.
They have a good handle on how much electricity they will produce over that 50 years.
They then divide that total all up cost by the power and this gives them a cost per KiloWattHour (KWH) that they can sell that power to the grids in that area.
This can range as high as around 3 cents a KWH, and in some case, as in the case of one of the large Nukes in California, that cost is as low as 1.2 cents per KWH.
The same applies for Wind Plants. They have an upfront construction cost of one third to one half of a large scale Nuke. Their Nameplate Capacity, the upfront total power value of a large scale wind plant is barely around half that of the Nuke.
However, they produce considerably less power for consumption than that Nuke, and that total can be as low as 8 to 10% of that Nuke.
That wind plant also only has a life expectancy of barely 20 to 25 years.
So now you can see, they have a smaller Nameplate, considerably less power for consumption and barely a third to a half the life span at best.
The Wind plant extrapolates that all up cost over the power produced and that gives them a cost per KWH for the electricity they then sell to the grid.
Now you can see why Wind Power is so expensive.
That price is (conservatively) ten times higher than the price the Nuke can sell its power to the grid, and in most case even more than that again.
Now, the grid can only sell its power (retail) to consumers, and that total is around 20 cents per KWH for the residential sector, (38%) the most expensive and also to the Commerce (37%) and Industrial (24%) sectors, and those latter two are at a lower price than for the Residential sector, and usually contract based prices to those individual consumers from those two sectors, a set price, while the residential sector fluctuates, and always in an upwards direction.
So, you can see that the wind cost (wholesale) that they sell their power to the grid is greater than what they can sell it at retail to consumers.
That is the (second) source of huge Government subsidies to Wind Power.
So that the grids will actually buy the power from the wind producer, Governments are paying half the cost of that power production to the wind farms, so that the power wind produces can actually be cheaper (just) than what the grid sells it on at retail.
So, even though a whole Country says proudly it has 20% of its power from Wind, (and in many cases that is the Nameplate Capacity and not actual power that they generate for consumption, a clever play on something the public has no concept nor understanding of) that actual power is not being relied upon for those consumption purposes.
The grid has to buy its power as cheaply as it can, or that provider then runs the risk of economic failure.
So it has to cast around for the cheapest spot price they can find, and that will always be from the Nukes.
Wind still has to sell its power so it gets exported, and in fact the Countries it is exported to, well that then bumps up their total consumption from renewables.
I know this has been a long explanation, and I apologise for taking so much space here.
For Australia substitute coal for Nukes.
Tony.
Tony, Thankyou for taking the time to explain why so much of their wind power is exported and how the cost is derived.
Having seen the 4 corners show ( well part of it) and hearing the statement that denmark gets 25% of its power from wind i thought it would be worth checking on the veracity of the statement. One of the links I found said that Denmark has stopped subsidizing wind and imposed laws to prevent their further development on land.
Do you know if their electricity prices are very different to the rest of Europes( excluding the cost of any subsidies etc.) or including the “real cost” that incorporates these subsidies?
Apologies if i appear lazy, its just that you seem to be an expert and if you know the anwers they are more likely to be correct than something i just dig up from a search.