Talk:Wind power in Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Material which suddenly appeared at the start of this article[edit]

We need to discuss some new material which has appeared as it seems to contradict some existing material...

New material: "Denmark generates 18 per cent of its electricity from renewables, including geothermal, solar, wind and biomass.[1] Wind accounts for 65 per cent of this, [2] which gives wind 12 per cent of the total electricity generation."

Existing material: "Wind power in Denmark provides some 20% of the nation's domestic electricity generation..."[3]

Comment: The 20% figure is from a 2007 source, and is often seen in the recent literature. Reference 1 presents data up till 2003, and ref 2 presents 2004 data, so these data are not up to date. Also, the calculation of the 12% figure could be classed as original research. -- Johnfos 04:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect (as noted below) - the correct figures (for 2005) is that renewables are 28% (36809 TJ) of the total danish electricity generation (130640TJ), and windenergy is 65% (23810TJ) of this (both figures rounded) - or 18% of the total production.[1] (note renewable == "Vedvarende energi", windpower == "Vindkraft"). --Kim D. Petersen 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope it is correct to add comments here. With respect to the currency of data, remember that Denmark has not added any appreciable amount of wind power since 2003 (see table) so the percentages will not have changed substantially to date. The 20% number does occur frequently but is a misconception, based on I do not know what. Ontariowind 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is what another 2007 source says:
Since 2003, Denmark has generated 20 per cent of its electricity from wind power, allowing some coal-fired power stations to be retired. There have been no major problems from wind variablility, although there is a temporary problem resulting from the connection of a large bloc of wind power from offshore wind farms to a single point on a weak section of the transmission network...
-- Mark Diesendorf (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, pp. 121-122.
Ontariowind, does the 12% figure come from your own calculation, or are there verifiable sources which actually quote this figure? -- Johnfos 14:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not change any of the above considerations. Ontariowind 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. The 12% figure comes from my own calculations, but they are very basic ones from verifiable data. From the DOE/EIA the electricity generated from all new renewables for 2003 is 8.35 TWh versus a total of 43.58 TWh giving 19% for all new renewables. From the International Energy Agency for 2004, wind provides 6.583 TWh versus a total for all new renewables of 10.157 TWh, giving wind 65% of this total. Although the latter data is from 2004, the amount of installed wind is essentially the same, so the ratio should be valid, assuming that other new renewables do not changing very much. As further discussed below, your 2007 source says that the percentage of generation from wind has remained the same since 2003.

With respect to the currency of information, I note that your 2007 reference states that since 2003, Denmark has generated 20% of its electricity from wind power. So, to repeat, the 20% is said by this source to be valid for 2003 and for the subsequent years. The table provided in my initial edit shows that substantially no additional capacity has been added, as does the Danish Energy Authority.

Now where did the 20% come from? There must be some basis for this claim. I believe that it is calculated from the installed capacity. Here are the numbers for Denmark for 2003. For new renewables there are 3.760 GW installed versus a total of 13.315 GW, giving a ratio of 28% for new renewables. Installed wind capacity is 3.116 GW giving wind a 23% share. However this does not represent electricity generated but only the faceplate value, and wind has a very low capacity factor. The electricity generated is measured in TWh, which brings us back to my calculations.

In summary, it is perfectly acceptable to quote the installed capacity numbers as long as you make it clear that is the measure you are using. Further, this should be qualified by stating the electricity delivered in TWh. 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in. The above is my edit. Ontariowind 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New material which is also questionable: "However according to Incoteco (Denmark) ApS, a Danish energy consulting firm, Denmark exports most of its wind power to Norway and Sweden.[4] These countries have relatively large hydro-electric generation capacities that can respond to the fluctuating wind output. Consequently, most of Denmark’s domestic electricity consumption is met by fossil-fuel generation."

Again, some info from a 2007 source:
Denmark is connected by transmission line to other European countries and therefore it does not need to install additional peak-load plant to balance its wind power. Instead, it purchases additional power from its neighbours when necessary. With some strengthening of the grid, Denmark plans to increase wind's share even further.
-- Mark Diesendorf (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, pp. 121-122.
-- Johnfos 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if it is correct for me to add comments here or not. In any event I strongly recommend that the basic data behind the 20% claim be checked. It most likely is a measure of the installed nameplate capacity (megawatts)which is not a measure of the energy (electricity) delivered (megawatt-hours) and is a very misleading statistic given wind's capacity factor. Ontariowind 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

20% is incorrect, the real number for 2005 is 18.5% of total produced electricity (which is i guess - some 20%) - not the nominal capacity (3129 MW).[2] (unfortunatly in danish) - more information on energy production (which includes heating etc) can be found here [3]. (unfortunatly also danish - i'll translate if someone wants background info). Illustration picture: [4] (green is windcapacity - solid line is percentage of electricity supplied). --Kim D. Petersen 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Total electricity produced 2005: 130640 TJ (tera-joules) - wind produced: 23810 TJ [5] (numbers (shows electricity production by fuel type): [6] - "Vindkraft" is windpower). --Kim D. Petersen 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Added note - these statistics are all from the danish energy department (ENS = Energi styrelsen) --Kim D. Petersen 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ontariowind, it is quite correct for you to comment here. You will find that some debate about article contributions is normal on WP, so don't be discouraged. But on the basis of what's been said so far I'm inclined to go with Petersen's 18% figure for 2005. I think this is the figure we should use in the article. -- Johnfos 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position. I checked his references and found that in 2003 wind was in fact 12%, but in 2004 and 2005 because of year over year 10% decreases in demand wind went to 16% in 2004 and 18% in 2005. There was an increase in wind output between 2003 and 2004. The questions to be answered are (1) why did demand fall and (2)what is happening to demand in 2006 and 2007. This could reverse the trend. In addition according to Incotec Denmark exports most of the wind power. You questioned this. Do you question Incoteco or something else? Often the Danish wind output is said to meet domestic demand, which according to Incotec is not the case. My understanding is that the interconnections to Sweden/Norway were put into place to connect through to Germany. Without this capability Incoteco says that Denmark could not have implemented the amount of wind power that they have. I suggest that this information should not be ignored. Finally I will follow the events in Denmark and get back later. In the meantime you may want to visit the other Wikipedia site on Wind Power in Denmark which I have changed and coordinate the two. See Ontariowind 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The official figures from the DEA say that in 2005 wind power accounted 18.5% of electricity supply. There is no aofficial figures about 2006. So, the correct figure is 18.5%, not 20%.Beagel 08:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I have reviewed the electricity production information on the Danish Energy Authority’s (DEA) website and find that its calculation of wind’s percentage of Danish domestic supply looks reasonable on the surface, but on closer inspection is very questionable. Simply put, in 2003 and 2004, the DEA subtracts net imports (more on this later) and own use in production from total gross electricity production, the result termed domestic supply. The DEA then takes wind’s gross production as a percent of this number. A gross number as a percent of a net number produces artificially high results.

In this calculation the DEA ignores the substantial amount of wind energy that Demark exports (some 80% - see references 1, 2 and 3) and own use in production by wind. Taking just the wind exports into account reduces the percent of wind’s contribution to supply for domestic use to about 4%.

In 2005 there was a net import of electricity and the DEA adds this to gross production to obtain domestic supply (that is the supply to meet domestic demand). This should not be taken to indicate that there was no export of wind production, or even a decreased amount, because examination of exports and imports separately shows no reduction in exports but a significant increase in imports. The use of net imports in the DEA calculations conceals this important fact. So, the same considerations apply for the calculation of wind’s contribution to the supply of domestic demand for 2005 as for 2003 and 2004.

Higher percentages of wind’s contribution can be realized by calculating wind’s share of gross production plus total imports. To calculate this properly requires the specific imports and exports by country (Sweden, Norway and Germany). The only numbers I have at present are the net of the imports and exports by country. This is an equally valid approach and yields percentages in the low “teens”. To be fair, any use of this statistic should be accompanied by the statement that Denmark exports most of its wind generated electricity.

I submit that you should review your publication of wind’s share in Denmark’s electricity use. By all means show the DEA’s version, pointing out the questionable logic, but I suggest that you go on to show wind’s share of gross production, properly taking into account the effect of exports and imports separately. You should also include the caveat that some sources state that Denmark exports most of the wind generated electricity.

I have a document that I am working on that provides detailed calculations. Let me know if you want to see it and how I should communicate it to you.


1. ABS Energy Research, “The Wind Power Report Ed 3 2006”. 2. White David J., “Danish Wind: Too Good to be True?”, The Utilities Journal, July 2004, page 37 3. Sharman, Hugh, Incoteco (Denmark) ApS, “Why wind power works for Denmark”, Civil Engineering 158, May 2005, pages 66-72, and “Why UK wind

Ontariowind 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ontariowind, you are getting into some serious original research here. But WP:OR explains that Wikipedia is not the place for original research and WP Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. Perhaps you could publish your analysis in a research journal? -- Johnfos 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you appreciate the relatively simple math involved. Ontariowind 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ontariowind, ignoring for a moment the WP:OR issues. You have to take both imports and exports into account - for instance you say "exports ... some 80%", thats correct for one particular year - And it was exported to Norway, which in this case didn't use its Hydro capacity to generate that amount - Hydro is excellent as a power storage (with 100% efficiency when the energy is just gotten from another source) - when Denmark is importing - it is doing this from .... Norway (and Sweden), where the energy comes from ... (wait for it)... The storaged hydro. The reason that Denmark isn't doing this itself - is because the available sites for hydro is virtually nil (Denmark is a relatively flat country - with no rocks (except for Bornholm)). The sources that you are quoting are mostly partisan, and are looking at the picture from a single POV.
When taking into accounts both exports and imports - The Danish percentage of total electricity production and demand - is the afore mentioned 18.5% - which is what Energistyrelsen (what you call DEA) is reporting. --Kim D. Petersen 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The exports of wind are not for just one year. I do not know where you got your information from that it is only true for one year. I do not know why you claim that the sources are partisan and have only one point of view. Is ABS Energy Research partisan? Is Incoteco, a Danish energy consulting company partisan? I can you show another reference, Tallin Technical University in Estonia that speak to this. You cannot net exports and imports as the DEA does, and as I believe you are saying to arrive at a true picture. You must separate them because the occur at separate times. Your other comments about the wind energy being stored is true in a sense but not relevant to the discussion at hand, for this reason. The lack of hydro sites in Denmark means that Denmark cannot use the wind power but must export it. The imports are required to meet demand when other production, including wind, is not available, otherwise why the need. There is also a difference in price between the exports (low) and imports (high). The imported energy is from hydro (Sweden and Norway) and other generation means (Germany) and not wind. Without these other generation means Denmark could not support the wind installed wind capacity they have. Therefore it is not valid that they really are obtaining their electricity from wind. They could eliminate the wind power and just import electricity when they needed it without the complication of exports it as well, with energy losses both ways. The matter is not as simple as you are implying. Ontariowind 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ontariowind - 1. importing and exporting when there is over or under-production is part of managing a grid. This is the standard way to calculate things. 2. Yes Denmark could just import all energy and not produce anything itself - so what? Thats not relevant - since Denmark has chosen wind+conventional. 3. Import and Export balances, in fact in most years Denmark exports more than it imports. 4. Economy is not part of the discussion - whether Denmark wants to pay a premium for its energy is a policy issue - and not a wind issue. (Countries that choose nuclear are also paying a premium as compared to coal). 5. The 80% (88% iirc) is from one of your quoted papers - and is only for one specific year (and one where the wind actually overproduced significantly). --Kim D. Petersen 02:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course trade in electricity is part of managing a grid, but not normally to the extent that Denmark has to do it. Of course I am not suggesting the extreme of importing all electricity. Netting or balancing of imports and exports does not provide an accurate picture of what is going on, as I have already said. I pointed out the difference in pricing to illustrate another characteristic of the Danish need to export wind production. Of course Denmark can adopt whatever policy it chooses. We are not discussing whether this is good policy or not, but the realistic calculation of wind as a percentage of supply to meet domestic demand. You should provide sources of your own to back up your comments. Here is the Estonian one which provides a graph of exports and wind production for another year Ontariowind 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Middelgrunden Wind Farm[edit]

I think that an article about the Middelgrunden Wind Farm is needed.Beagel 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance? 13:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to sign in - it's been a while. The above edit is mine Ontariowind 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the biggest wind farm in the world and still the biggest in Denmark.Beagel 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not change any of the above considerations. Ontariowind 16:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Variability management[edit]

Although I'd rather avoid involvement in wrangling over what percentage of Denmark power "really" comes from wind, I think some aspects of the details deserve much more inclusion in the article. The variability of wind is a major impediment to global implementation, integration into grid systems. Since Denmark uses such a large percentage, we would like to learn about how they manage this integration. And we would also like to learn how the issue may be addressed if their usage of wind power increases in the future. - 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about how much of its wind power that Denmark actually uses is very important because Denmark is used as example of success in this area, but undeservedly so. Denmark has a major share of the world market for wind power products, so you have to consider how important this perception is to them. Further, not mentioned in the same context, is the fact that although Denmark has implemented a large amount of wind power, its record of emissions reduction is amongst the worst in the European Union.

You asked for an explanation of how Denmark can handle this amount of wind production. The answer is that they don’t within their own electricity system, because of the very high amount of wind power to total generation capacity. They export over 80% of wind production to Norway, Sweden and Germany. The main reason that these other countries can absorb it is that they individually have larger electricity generation systems than Denmark, and Norway and Sweden together have about 65% hydro power. Hydro is very good for balancing and backing up wind, because it can be more easily varied than fossil fuel plants to follow wind’s random and frequent fluctuations. The other important point to note is that there are no displaced greenhouse gas emissions, because hydro does not emit any in the production of electricity, and is itself a renewable energy source. With respect to the future expansion of wind power in Denmark, look at the statistics in recent years. They have virtually stopped implementing new capacity.

Denmark has escaped some of the costs associated with backup/shadowing generation capacity because of the existence of this foreign capability, largely in Sweden and Norway, and because of properly sized connectors with these countries and Germany. These connections have been put into place to facilitate sharing electricity production among these countries. However, Denmark pays a price because the exported electricity is sold at bargain rates and the imported electricity is bought at higher prices. Denmark has amongst the highest electricity rates in Europe.

For published analyses of the Denmark situation see the Incoteco (Denmark) ApS website at Incoteco is an international energy consulting company based in Denmark. View their articles “How Wind Works for Denmark”, “Why UK wind power should not exceed 10 GW”, which are available on their website and published in the Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Ontariowind (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

History Rewrite[edit]

I rewrote the history section to correct the ambiguous sentence that seemed to imply that wind power in Denmark launched in the 1970s (rather than the 1980s). TimTL (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to say that the rewrite takes away a crucial part of the history of wind power in Denmark. It wasn´t worries over the environment in the 80s, but the energy crisis in the 70s that started the research and implementation of wind turbines into the danish energy production. And the worry over environmental impacts of fossile fuels didn´t really accelerate the implementation of ind turbines until the start of the 90s. The 80s were mostly used for maturing the technology.

I won´t edit the section since I am not knowledged enough (and my english isn´t up to the task) to be the one to do so and I agree the previous revision wasn´t exactly clear in its wording. So I encourage someone else to do so. Melisen (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


From the article: Under the liberal cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen the wind power expansion has been nearly stopped... With some strengthening of the grid, Denmark plans to increase wind's share even further.[9]

Is this really true? Please elaborate! -Laikalynx (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just made an edit which I hope clarifies things... Johnfos (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Future growth?[edit]

Since 2003, the generating capacity has only grown from 3,117 to 3,136 MW. Is Denmark's wind-power resource essentially built out?
—WWoods (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking out of interest or for addition in the article? I think its not up to us to speculate about it. But yes, it seems to be stagnant. I have just added the 2007 capacity to the table and it has actually decreased. Splette :) How's my driving? 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of both. The changes in capacity don't seem to match the changes in percentage of supply; do you also have figures for annual power generated, in GW-hr/yr, or whatever?
The article needs something about the relationship between Danish wind- and Scandinavian hydro-power. Maybe that's putting a limit on increasing the wind farms?
—WWoods (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the numbers in detail, but generally fluctuations in the percentage are normal because the intensity of the wind per year varies to a significant extent. If the hydro-power plays a role, then yes it belongs here, I guess... Splette :) How's my driving? 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Has nothing much to do with being built out, and more to do with political will and legislation. There are several projects underway which will increase the capacity (many of them started by a political will to have something to show at COP15) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of recent changes[edit]

Forgetting that I'm not logged on, I did a few more changes to the article on 23 July, part of which were undone by Trafford09. I re-implemented those, here is a justification.

Deleted links: those links weren't subject to linkrot, they are obsolete because I inserted better links when I updated the table earlier. The deleted references link to secondary sources (European/global summaries and a status summary) for data on wind power in Denmark in specific years. The new references (in the row headers) link to the primary, official and above all up-to date source, the stats maintained by ENS (the Danish energy agency), for all years from 2000. (I shall soon add earlier years too in the first two data rows.)

Table now extended. Also added a sentence with the most current installed capacity data. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Consumed instead of produced: yes, this is a substantial change. But, had you checked the source of the original text, you'd see that my re-wording of the entire sentence corrected the mis-statement of the argument, including a replacement of consumption with generation. It's the very first paragraph of the source:

It is often said that wind power covers ca. 20% of Danish electricity consumption. It is more correct to say that the production of power by Danish wind turbines corresponds to about 20% of electricity demand. But a considerable part of wind energy produced is exported to neighbouring countries and thus does not cover any part of Danish electricity consumption.

I hope this suffices. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that wind represents 19-20% of generation seems uncontroversial, as it's the result of the division of two uncontested numbers: total wind generation, and total generation across Denmark. The issue of what percentage of Danish consumption this represents, is the contested one. In the table, it refers to wind generation as a percentage of supply (i.e. generation), not of demand (i.e. consumption), so I thought that the use of "generation" here would be consistent, and allows the controversy to be set out in the next clause. Thanks for restoring the CEESA argument about the 1% - deleting it was my error, and I apologise. ErnestfaxTalk 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not a division of total wind power and total generation, but the division of total generation and total consumption...
First, "Supply" doesn't equal generation: import is supply, too. In effect, net supply (domestic production less exports plus imports) and gross consumption (end-user consumption plus grid losses) are equal. But if that term is confusing, we could change that, the figures (which I checked and partly put there myself) are the percentage of demand (to be precise, gross demand, including losses).
Second, the issue is emphatically not what percentage of consumption the produced power represents: as the quote clearly states, they claim that not all wind power produced in Denmark is consumed there. The argument is that Denmark's cross-border flows are typically Danish wind power exported in times of high wind and Swedish/Norwegian hydro imported in return in times of low wind.
Third, one could calculate wind power as percentage of generation, but let's stay within the constraints of the argument, which are again set by the paragraph I quoted.
I note that having checked the source, your 50% figure was not a correct interpretation, either; and regarding Swedish/Norwegian hydropower imports, I just noticed that that sentence got lost, too. Will soon re-insert. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"Second, the issue is emphatically not what percentage of consumption the produced power represents: as the quote clearly states, they claim that not all wind power produced in Denmark is consumed there." I think we agree here - these are two sides of the same coin, aren't they - it's an issue of avoiding tangling up consumption, total supply, and wind generation. Incoteco, Techconsult and others are arguing that wind generation isn't 20% of consumption, precisely because some amount of wind is exported. That's equivalent to saying that not all wind contributes to Danish consumption: it corresponds to (i.e. is mathematically equivalent to) that percentage of consumption, but does not meet that consumption. So the proportion of wind that is exported, affects the proportion of wind that meets Danish consumption. For the sake of simplicity, let's take wind to be 20% of total supply (noting your comment that it's total supply, i.e. total generation + net imports). Now, if 40% of wind gets exported, then wind meets 12%(=20% x (100%-40%)) of consumption. If 1% of wind gets exported, then wind meets 20% of consumption (=20% x (100%-1%) = 19.8% = 20% to 2 s.f.). I think this has helped me untangle it in my mind, a bit. By the way, is my chart up to scratch? First time I've done an image for here. Is it the right sort of thing? ErnestfaxTalk 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
To be pedantic, you also have to subtract exports and add power plant own consumption to get total supply, but you got the gist of it :-) Regarding your diagram, was a good idea to add it. Regarding its appearance, I'm no pro on WikiGraphs either, so this is just my own impression: the share of total generationconsumption as a third data series without axis seems confusing. I'd leave it off, but maybe someone with more graphics talent than me knows a good way to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rontombontom (talkcontribs) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Is there anything we can draw from this, to improve the page? I'd like connect the text in 3.1 to the table a bit better, so it's more integrated, and so that a reader will see how they're related. The last row in the table is headed Wind power share in the electricity supply. And in the next sentence, at the start of 3.1, we talk about 19-20% of electricity consumed in Denmark. And the debate being set out in that section 3.1. is concerned with the relationship between those two things. How can we tweak the wording so that the reader can easily link up the subject matter and percentages in the last row of the table, with the discussion in 3.1?

Ah, internal plant consumption, yes. Blast, forgot that. So many distinct little components. When I said "net imports" I did have "imports minus exports" in mind, but I was too terse in saying it. Sorry.

And I probably did over-crowd the graph a bit. I should have realised, when I started looking for a way to add a third y-axis ...
ErnestfaxTalk 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

CEPOS report flawed?[edit]

I am researching the wind energy subsidy regulations in Denmark. Naturally, I found the CEPOS report which drew some "sobering" conclusions about the cost and effects of wind energy in Denmark (partly mentioned in section "Critics of Danish wind economics"). However, the relatively poor style and argumentation structure of this report made me think, and indeed, the results of the CEPOS report are disputed. A group of researches of several Danish university puplished a report specifically addressing the flaws of the CEPOS report. This report draws a complete different conclusion, including (both quotes from the abstract):

"The cost of wind power is paid solely by the electricity consumers and the net influence on consumer prices was as low as 1-3 percent on average in the period 2004-2008. In 2008, the net influence even decreased the average consumer price, although only slightly."

"The cost of CO2 reduction by use of wind power in the period 2004-2008 was only 20 EUR/ton."


The section "Critics of Danish wind economcs" should not remain without another comment about this. I would write some text myself, but I am not native English speaker.Jamballa (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you write some text I will copyedit it so it reads okay. Johnfos (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the CEPOS report does appear to have been refuted by that paper. And there's another critique in a 2010 British Institute of Energy Economics conference paper linked to from here in this 800kb PDF: Danish_wind_exports ErnestfaxTalk 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Electric-vehicle charging[edit]

I do not see the point of a section (Electric-vehicle charging) over some dreamy futuristic projects. This is no factual information on energy or electricity in Denmark, but mere announcement. These announcements are quite outdated (2008 and 2010) and did not realise. The first company mentioned seems to be bankrupt ( I do delete this section. It can be reintroduced later if there is substantial information. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

peak records[edit]

i wrote a small section on denmarks recent peak exceeding 100%. I would invite commentary on if it needs improvement.

--Patbahn (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Denmark has mediocre electricity costs...

Is the word mediocre adequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Costs change over time due to changing conditions, but in general (average yearly price) Denmark has a cost level around the EU average, or maybe a bit less. Not high or low. Any suggestions for alternate wording? TGCP (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a better word would be 'average'. I modified the article. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)