The proposed energy plan would have four central deadlines. Under the new plan the government wants to see Denmark generate 52% of its energy from renewable sources, such as wind power, as early as 2020. This target alone would cut Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions with 35% based on 1990 levels. By 2030 all coal-fired power plants in Denmark will be phased out and replaced by biomass and other renewable energy sources. And in 2035 the Danish government expects that all of the country’s power and heat will come from renewable energy sources. And if their plan is followed, the country’s entire energy supply could come from renewables in 2050.

Denmark’s climate minister, Martin Lidegaard, said that the new energy plan is designed to combat the climate crisis, the country’s current economic crisis and future resource crisis at the same time.

“We want to address all three crises at once. It doesn’t make any sense to solve the economic crisis if that affects the climate crisis and vice versa.”

According to estimates the energy plan will cost Denmark 5.6 billion crowns, or about $1 billion, in additional spending in 2020.

“The conclusion being it has a cost to make a green transformation, but it also has a cost not to do it. I think this will work out to be the best insurance Denmark has ever (bought),” Lidegaard said.

Denmark may already be a world leader when it comes to wind energy, which supplies the country with around 20% of its energy, but these targets will still be difficult to reach. Fossil fuels remain a large part of the country’s energy portfolio, accounting for approximately two thirds of the total production. Last year 44% of the energy generated in Denmark came from coal-powered plants.

But still faced with this I am confident that Denmark’s energy plan is very much achievable. Truthfully, it must be a success. And since neighboring country Sweden has lost the will to lead, Europe badly needs a new climate leader. And hopefully the new socialistic government in Denmark wants to take that on that role. Next year Denmark will take over the presidency of the European Union. It will be during these six months that we will see if Denmark is serious about promoting ambitious climate policies and targets for all of Europe.

The particular environmental requirements necessary to produce substantial outputs of energy are difficult to come by outside of tourist-popular coastal areas. While wind turbines are cleaner and make much better neighbors than coal and nuclear power plants, that does not mean that sight-seeing tourist attractions want 350 ft wind turbines popping up along misty mountain ridges where locals make their income from beautiful sunsets and the sights of colorful fall leaves and bursting spring buds. That’s why locations like Pasquotank County and Perquimans County in North Carolina are becoming prime real estate for wind energy investors like Atlantic Wind LLC. These rural locations are close enough to the coastal winds to produce 2 megawatts of electricity per tower, yet still rural and undeveloped enough to ask crops and grazing cattle to be neighborly to the huge towers instead of beach-going tourists or commuters in major cities.

Atlantic Wind LLC will pay farmers and other landowners $6,000 each year per turbine erected on their property, and they can still farm around the concrete bases of the turbines. There isn’t a crop that can match that return per acre, and in this case, they can still produce their crops in addition to their wind-generated income. The huge project planned for these rural/coastal areas could potentially produce 300 megawatts of clean, renewable electricity, increase landowner income, and power 50,000-60,000 homes.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the United States produces about 2 percent of our total energy with 850 utility-scale wind farms much like the one proposed for NC. The turbines in the utility-scale wind farms produce enough electricity to power 10 million American homes, and Atlantic Wind LLC intends to contribute to that number in the near future.

Virginia has approved a 19 windmill farm for the beautiful mountains of Highland County, but construction has not yet begun. To entice the wind farmers to their areas, counties and states offer tax breaks, subsidies, and other financial “carrots” to bring attention to the wind potential of their areas. Atlantic Wind LLC will recoup one third of its $600 million dollar investment through the federal government. The company has already had its local tax bill reduced on a permanent basis from $25,000 per windmill down to $5,000 per turbine. The incentives turn out to be good for everyone though, and even with a 75% local tax reduction, Atlantic Wind will still be the county’s largest taxpayer by 300%. That’s 3x more tax revenue for the county, a boost in income for the landowners, and a reliable source of clean energy for the state.

With dollar signs in their eyes and clean energy in their hearts other states are lining up to invite the wind developers to check out their locations.

Kelly Rigg, from the global climate change alliance (GCCA), writes on the Huffington Post:

“Colleagues and I have been directly corresponding with Yoshinori Ueda leader of the International Committee of the Japan Wind Power Association & Japan Wind Energy Association, and according to Ueda there has been no wind facility damage reported by any association members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami.”

She reports that the Kamisu wind farm, which is located 300km from the epicenter of the earthquake, managed to survive without any damages. Mostly thanks to its “anti-earthquake battle proof design”. According to Yoshinori Ueda most of the wind farms in Japan are now operational. The remaining ones are offline due to grid failures caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

So while the awful nuclear crisis continues, with experts warning that the Fukushima disaster could become worse than Chernobyl and that the deconstruction of the plant could take decades, this story really should give a boost of confidence to the renewable energy sector. And it seems that the stock markets agree on this. The stock price of Japan Wind Development Co. Ltd. has risen from 31,500 yen on 11 March to 74,700 yen today. And the Guardian reports that the Japanese nuclear crisis has made shares in renewable energy sources rocket as public and investors recoil from the nuclear energy industry.

Fukushima really does makes the case for renewable energy, as Antony Froggatt writes on BBC.

Another article worth reading is this one by Leuren Moret on “Japan’s deadly game of nuclear roulette“. It was published seven years ago and warned about the potential consequences of investing heavily in nuclear energy near such a dangerous earthquake zone as Japan:

“Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list.”

It’s like Naomi Klein says. Our societies have become addicted to extreme and reckless risk-taking.

Photo credit: jesse.millan

Sweden might be the host for Europe’s largest wind farm if the Swedish government approves the proposed plans. The wind farm will be located in Markbygden near Piteå in northern Sweden and will have a total of 1,101 wind turbines.

“This would be Europe’s, if not the world’s, biggest wind farm,” Caj Noren, a spokesman for the board, told AFP. Construction could begin in two-and-a-half years and would be completed after about a decade, Noren said.

Once constructed the wind farm will produce between 8 to 12 terawatt hours per year and would alone meet Sweden’s national wind power target to reach 10 terawatt hours by 2015. The wind farm is expected to cost about 55 billion Swedish Kronor (around $6.9 billion or €4.5 billion) to construct.

The Swedish right-wing government recently announced that they will reverse a nearly 30-year-old ban on building nuclear power plants. Its madness when we can get cheap, clean renewable energy and at the same time create thousands of new jobs from wind farms like this one.

Photo credit: Blyzz

New research from the Helsinki University of Technology’s Advanced Energy Systems in Espoo, Finland, shows that with the help from global cooperation and investment renewable energy will “exceed all previous estimates.”

According to the new findings renewable energy technologies like wind and photovoltaics could supply 40% of the world’s electricity by 2050. But this could only become a reality if the renewable technology is backed up by adequate financial and political support. If not, the renewable share is likely to hover somewhere below 15 percent.

“Our findings demonstrate that with global political support and financial investment, previous notions that the potential for renewables was in some way limited to a negligible fraction of world demand were wrong,” Peter Lund from the Helsinki University of Technology’s Advanced Energy Systems said. “If we prioritize and recognize the value of renewable energy technologies, their potential to supply us with the energy we need is tremendous.”

Previous projections have put the renewable share at only 12% by 2030.

Also read: 10% of U.S. Energy Now Comes From Renewable Energy Sources

Greenpeace activists protests against nuclear energy in Sweden.

The Swedish right-wing government seems hell-bent on continue its climate wrecking journey. After calling for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries the government now want to scrap a 30-year-old ban on the building of nuclear power plants.

“The Swedish plan was agreed by the center-right coalition government and foresees the building of new reactors at the 10 sites where reactors still are operating. Under the plan, which still needs approval from the country’s parliament, Sweden would replace existing reactors gradually.”

While ignoring the 1980 referendum when a majority of the Swedish people voted to end expansion and completely phase out nuclear energy they also seem to take no notice of the facts that nuclear energy is still dangerous, not cost-effective, and too expensive and will even worsen climate change.

The Guardian reports that public support for nuclear energy in Sweden has grown since 1980:

“But public support has grown since nuclear power has been repositioned as a low carbon energy source and a weapon in the fight against climate change. The decision by Sweden to back nuclear power contrasts with the nation’s careful cultivation of its green image. In 2006, Sweden pledged to replace the use of all fossil fuels by 2020, but nuclear was not part of that plan.”

While I agree that nuclear energy has gained support over the years due to lobbying from the nuclear industry I firmly believe that when people have to choose between nuclear energy and renewable energy sources they choose the later. And public polls help me to back up my claim. An SOM-poll conducted in 2007 shows that a large majority in Sweden, around 80%, wants to see expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar compared to around 20% who wants to see an expansion of nuclear energy. Other polls show that a majority of the younger generation in Sweden is against nuclear energy (maybe it’s because they are the ones that will have to live with and pay for the nuclear waste generated?).

In Sweden, and no doubt in the rest of the world, I see seven main reasons why only people who lack good judgment would back up nuclear energy:

1. We don’t need more electricity and we can’t sell the surplus
Advocators for nuclear energy often claim that we need more electricity or we will get energy shortages in the future. But this is far from true. Sweden has a surplus of electricity and has had ever since 1980. In 2007-2008 the energy usage dropped by 2%. And according to reports from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) and the Swedish Energy Agency our energy surplus will increase considerably in the next 10-15 years without any new nuclear reactors or political actions needed. They expect that by 2020 Sweden will have a 60% energy surplus (40 TWh) of what today’s nuclear energy plants contributes. And this is mainly because of the construction of new wind farms, biomass plants and energy efficiency efforts.

And Sweden can’t sell the energy surplus because a majority of the countries in Europe also have a surplus of electricity. Denmark, a neighbouring country to Sweden, even has considered donating away its energy surplus to other countries.

2. Nuclear energy won’t save our climate
If we are to stop the devastating effects of man-made climate change we have to act fast. The conservative estimates of UN’s IPCC shows that greenhouse gases must peak and decline by 2015 for us to be able to stop deadly runaway climate change. So if we ignore the toxic nuclear waste generated by nuclear plants, the potential terrorism threats and the high costs involved in the construction, deconstruction and maintaining of nuclear plants there is one thing that speaks against nuclear energy: time.

Building nuclear plants takes several years and is often delayed. A good example of this is the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) reactor (the only nuclear reactor being built in the West since many years back) as an example here. The construction of the Olkiluoto reactor started in 2003 and was expected to be finished by 2009. But the reactor is now three years behind schedule, have had several severe security incidents and malfunctions during construction and probably won’t be finished until around 2012. The ill-fated Olkiluoto 3 project is massively over-budget and accounts for over 85% energy investment for 2006-2010. Just imagine the money and time wasted which could have been better spent on creating a clean renewable energy future in Finland.

Around the world we today have nearly 450 nuclear plants. If we were to replace all our CO2-polluting energy sources we would need over 1500 nuclear reactors by 2020 and over 3500 reactors by 2050. And as the majority of today’s nuclear reactors are using the rare uranium U-235 as fuel we would, according to reports, run out of U-235 within 60-80 years with today’s consumption. That means we would need to construct (and retrofit the existing nuclear reactors) breeder reactors that uses the more widely spread U-238 as fuel. These breeder reactors are even more expansive and take even longer to build than the “ordinary” nuclear reactors.

According to a new report released by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh nuclear energy will worsen climate change:

“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.”

We simply don’t have the time needed for nuclear energy, and the money needed would be better and more productively spent on renewable energy.

3. Sweden already get nearly half of its energy from renewable energy sources, and the potential for more is huge
According to nuclear advocators Sweden can’t only rely on renewable energy and that it needs nuclear energy. But already today Sweden has the highest proportion of renewable energy in the EU. 43.3% of all energy and electricity generated already comes from renewable energy sources. That is nearly the same amount as nuclear energy generates in Sweden. According to reports from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) Sweden can decrease its energy usage with up to 40% by 2030. This would save us more energy than today’s nuclear plants actually generates. Besides energy efficiency the Swedish Energy Agency expects Sweden to generate another 30 TWh from wind power by 2020 and another 9 TWh from district heating by 2015. And even with these investments Sweden has the potential to invest even more in renewable energy as for example the total wind production would in 2020 still be much lower than in Germany.

A plutonium convoy passing through a small village. Even if you don't live near a nuclear plant, dangerous nuclear material could be passing your door. © Greenpeace

4. Nuclear energy is dangerous
Just because nuclear energy might be a low carbon energy source doesn’t mean it’s environmentally friendly, renewable or safe.

In Sweden there has never happened any severe nuclear waste spill or a nuclear reactor disaster as the one in Chernobyl in 1986. But just last winter one of the reactors in Forsmark, one of Sweden’s nuclear power plants, was close to a severe radioactive disaster like the one in Chernobyl. And during the fall of 2008 three of Sweden’s 10 reactors were closed down due to security reasons which resulted in a cost of billions of Swedish Kronor.

New reports from around the world show that children living close to nuclear plants have a much higher chance of being killed in leukaemia than other children. In a German study in 2007 they found 77 cases of deadly leukaemia during a five years period among children living near a nuclear plant. That was more than 50% of what the scientists first expected to discover. So far the Swedish government, as well as the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, has refused to perform similar investigations near Swedish nuclear plants.

The toxic and highly dangerous nuclear waste generated by nuclear power will stay radioactive for over 100 000 years, which is ten times longer than what the human civilisation have existed. And so far there exists not a single safe and temporary solution to the nuclear waste problem. Instead the nuclear waste problems are being laid upon our children and future generations to deal with. It seems it’s not enough for the older generation to wreck the climate; they also want to create another huge and toxic environmental problem for the younger generation.

And don’t forget about the fact that nuclear reactors can be potential targets for terrorists, as well as:

“Every state that has a nuclear power capability, has the means to obtain nuclear material usable in a nuclear weapon. Basically this means that the 44 nuclear power states could become 44 nuclear weapons states. Many nations that have active commercial nuclear power programs, began their research with two objectives – electricity generation and the option to develop nuclear weapons. Also nuclear programs based on reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel have dramatically increased the risk of proliferation as the creation of more plutonium, means more nuclear waste which in turn means more materials available for the creation of dirty bombs.”

5. Nuclear energy is expensive
The high costs involved in the construction, maintaining and deconstruction of nuclear plants is another reason why nuclear energy shouldn’t be an option among sane people. The advocators of nuclear energy claim that compared to renewable energy nuclear energy is a much cheaper energy source. But that is not the whole truth.

Often this cost is based on nuclear energy from already existing reactors. Meaning they don’t have to take account the extremely high initial construction costs or deconstruction costs. If you account these two costs as well as the high maintaining cost for nuclear energy the claim that nuclear energy is a much cheaper energy source falls.

“The Bush-ite Coalition had an unerring knack of being resolutely incorrect or in denial about so many crucial matters – anthropogenic climate change, the reasons for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist threat to Australia, and the cost of meeting the climate change crisis. They are also incorrect in relation to the nuclear option. As summarized in #16 above the nuclear option is more expensive than current renewable wind and geothermal technologies and as expensive as current concentrated solar technology. Further, the FULL nuclear cycle (from uranium mining and processing to waste disposal and plant de-commissioning) can be as expensive in terms of CO2 emissions as a gas-fired power station – and we still have the intractable security and waste disposal problems.”

Compared to nuclear energy the costs of renewable energy are falling. They already cost much les than nuclear to maintain once constructed. And calculations shows that the total costs of all renewable energy sources are, compared to nuclear energy, falling as the renewable energy sector becomes more and more developed.

The nuclear industry also doesn’t have to pay for any kind of insurance if an accident happens. This is because there is not a single insurance company in the world that wants to have a nuclear plant as its customer. In other words it means that the Government and you have to pay for everything if some accident were to happen. This also shows that nuclear energy can never be financed by private companies and needs government funding to survive, something that the renewable energy sector has no problem to live without.

“During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one.”

A great example of the cost for nuclear energy versus renewable energy in terms of costs is the proposed nuclear reactor in Turkey:

“Today, the bidding consortium announced how much the electricity produced by the new plant would cost: 21 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s three times the current average price of electricity in Turkey. Electricity would have to triple in price before the reactor became economically viable.

This would make Turkey’s reactor the most expensive electricity generating power plant in the world.. Wind power by comparison is currently generating electricity at one third of this offer.”

And don’t forget that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source. As the nuclear consumption increases the nuclear fuel will become more and more expensive, just like the case is with oil today.

6. Nuclear energy won’t give us more jobs
Another argument against nuclear energy, especially now when we are in a global financial crisis, is that it won’t give us any more new jobs.

The heavy industry in Sweden which uses large amounts of energy often say that without nuclear energy they would get higher energy costs which would force them leave the country. But as I showed above nuclear energy is actually quite expensive, and it doesn’t help that the energy price in Sweden is based on the current market-price in Europe. So it doesn’t really matter how many energy sources we develop, we will still need to pay the same market-price as the rest of Europe.

If you compare how many jobs renewable and nuclear energy creates, well then the safe and renewable energy sector clearly wins. The industry organisation Swedish Wind Energy says that wind power alone could create over 12000 new jobs in Sweden. Other statistics also show that the maintaining of wind farms and other renewable energy sources creates more jobs compared to nuclear energy. A great example of this is Germany where the nuclear industry only supplies 35000 people with jobs while the renewable energy sector employs over 120000 people. The wind sector alone employs over 53000 people, and yet it’s just a small portion of the energy market in Germany.

Al Gore is so correct when he says that “the solution to the climate crisis will also help us solve the economic crisis“:

“The challenges we face are immense – a global economy in crisis, and two ongoing wars. However, the solution to the climate crisis will also help us solve the economic crisis by putting people to work in green jobs and stimulating the economy with the large investment necessary to convert our energy infrastructure to renewable energy.”

7. Do you want a uranium mine in your backyard?
Well would you? If the right-wing government gets what it wants the next broken promise to the Swedish people would be the ban on toxic uranium mines. Since 2005 many companies from around the world have been allowed into to Sweden to search for potential places to start up uranium mines. This is mainly due to the fact that Centerpartiet (Centre Party) and Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democrats), who are all part of the current government in Sweden, voted no to continue the ban on uranium mines in 2007. They’ve had previously promised to vote yes for a continuation of the ban. Today Centerpartiet (Centre Party) are the main pushers for more nuclear energy in Sweden, something they a few years ago would never support. So, as the fuel prices for nuclear plants keep rising and a potential investment in new nuclear reactors it seems it’s only a matter of time before toxic uranium mines will be opened in Sweden. Are you really sure you want to have a uranium mine in your backyard?

Photo credit: phault

Sölvesborg, a small village near the coast located in southern Sweden, was first in the world with sea-based wind power. And now it might become the place for Sweden’s and northern Europe’s largest offshore wind farm.

The renewable energy companies Vingkraft AB and Eolus Vind AB wants to construct 500 wind turbines in the sea outside of Sölvesborg by 2014-2019. Once completed the wind farm will supply 5-7 TWh of electricity every year. That is equal to the amount of electricity the now decommissioned Swedish nuclear plant Barsebäck generated every year.

Although the proposed wind farm have a long way to go and many different instances to pass, such as the military, before getting approved the local politicians and people in the region are excited. The politicians believe the wind farm will create thousands of new jobs in the region and even act as a way to attract more tourists.

The wind farm is expected to cost 50 billion Swedish kronor, equal to around €4.5 billion.

photo credit: James Bird

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration renewable energy now accounts for more than 10% of the domestically-produced energy in USA during the first half of 2008. Most of the energy comes from renewable energy sources such as biomass/biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind.

This number can be compared to the 11.98% of energy that nuclear energy contributes to in USA. According to the SUN DAY Campaign the total consumption of nuclear power dropped by 1% during the first half of 2008 while the renewable energy increased by 5%.

“The significant contribution being made by renewable energy sources to the nation’s energy supply documented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is far greater than most Americans realize,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. “Repeated statements by nuclear and fossil fuel interests that renewables contribute only a tiny fraction of the nation’s energy supply are not only misleading but flatly wrong.”

In these 10% biomass and biofuels accounts for the largest amounts of renewable energy shortly followed by hydropower. Wind power increased by almost 49% from the first half of 2007 compared to the first half of 2008. Solar and geothermal energy were at roughly the same levels in 2008 as they were in 2007. Although many predict that their share of the market will significantly increase in the near future.

The new international body will include 16 non-EU states from around the Mediterranean and all 27 EU member states. The union will focus on dealing with energy, security, counter-terrorism, immigration and trade. The union will include 756 million people from Western Europe to the Jordanian desert.

Some say that the Union was launched mainly because Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to “exchange” nuclear power expertise with North African gas reserves. Nicolas Sarkozy on the other hand says the union is supposed “to ensure the region’s people could love each other instead of making war.”

But some people are more positive and hope the union is the first steps towards large scale solar plants in northern Africa with focus of generating green and renewable electricity to Europe.

Scientists from the EU are planning for a new supergrid between the different EU member states. This new supergrid will be built using new DC (HVDC) lines which are perfect for transmissions of energy over long distances. The supergrid could allow Denmark and the UK to export wind energy and Iceland to export geothermal energy at times when production exceeds demand to other EU member states.

But the supergrids main purpose would be to transmit renewable solar energy from the Saharan desert to Europe. The scientists want to build a series of huge solar farms in the Saharan desert and connect them to the supergrid.

Arnulf Jaeger-Walden of the European commission’s Institute for Energy says “it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe’s energy needs.”

According to the scientists the sunlight in Sahara could “generate up to three times the electricity compared with similar panels in northern Europe” because the sunlight in this area is so intense.

The supergrid project has been met optimistically by both politicians, like Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, and environment organisations, such as Greenpeace.

“Assuming it’s cost-effective, a largescale renewable energy grid is just the kind of innovation we need if we’re going to beat climate change,” said Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist.

Arnulf Jaeger-Walden believes that the solar energy from the Saharan desert would be cheap and “below what the average consumer is paying:”

“The biggest PV system at the moment is installed in Leipzig and the price of the installation is €3.25 per watt. If we could realise that in the Mediterranean, for example in southern Italy, this would correspond to electricity prices in the range of 15 cents per kWh, something below what the average consumer is paying.”

The project would take many years to complete and huge investments at a total cost of around €450 billion would be needed. But the scientists expect that by 2050 solar energy from the Saharan desert could produce 100 GW. That is more than all the energy sources in the UK combined could ever generate.

The project would also help Europe to meet its own climate change commitments to generate 20% of all the energy from renewable energy sources, decrease energy consumption by 20% and reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020.

Found via Maple3.