I’m not an AGW proponent and I’m not being snarky, I arrived here looking for documentation to support the idea of Antarctic cooling, but from what I am seeing it appears to the opposite.

Can someone explain in fairly simple terms what I am missing? TIA.

Yes it’s the energy for manufacturing industries, which is not taxed to maintain the competitivity as explained in the link I sent you before. Please note how (in your reported document, figure 18) only 29% of the total consumption is represented by the manufacturing industries. In the same figure you can also see how Denmark is not so industrialized as the other nordic countries.
Except for the manufacturing industries, all the other users must pay the taxes due to the wind power subsidies, as per the graphic at page 18 of the link I sent you in a former message. There you can see how they are the high-payers in EU because of the taxes needed to make the wind power sustainable.

you wrote:
“The Danish electricity consumers experience a high level of security of supply. The consumers were disconnected for 22 minutes on average in 2008. In 2007 the figure was 27 minutes.”
Yes, of course. But that doesn’t means they have less failure, it does mean that their system is highly reactive. It means that the great engineered system grid works very well, but at which cost?
Have a nice day

Yes, of course. Here in Italy we say that way to imply that it is the “minor damage”. I put “must” between the quotes just to evidence that I was writing something not really “to do” but “better to do”. Excuse me, but my English is not so good :-)
Anyways what you wrote about is exactly what I mean.

you wrote also:
“As I read the report, they get it back at the same price as they sell it [subject to availability]. Perhaps I missed the ‘very high cost’ bit. Could you show me where?”
Maybe I misunderstood the writing on page 22 and followings. As far I understand the exported energy price includes the subsidies paid by the Danish to support the wind power production, so Danish people exports these subsidies (their paid taxes) when exports energy to the “energy storage countries”.

Figure 17 – Denmark has lower electricity prices than Germany, Poland, Italy, and is tied with Spain.

Table 8: Exchange of Electricity with Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden, other)
10,478 GWh exported to, 11,428 GWh imported from.
Is it your contention that Denmark consistently buys high and sells low ?

Figure 21: Denmark has more than tripled exports of energy technology and equipment from 1998.

As for those “frequent grid failures”:
The Danish electricity consumers experience a high level of security of supply. The consumers were disconnected for 22 minutes on average in 2008. In 2007 the figure was 27 minutes. Compared to international figures the
security of supply in Denmark is the highest registered in EU. – Page 45

The more complex is the grid, the more frequent are the failures. It’s just statistics. The Danish power grid is a good example of engineering, but I’m not so sure that it is a good example of efficiency too.

That’s exactly what the report said. Danish pay the world highest cost for their electric energy because they “must” sell “overproduced” energy at very low prices, and buy the “missed” one during the low windy days at very high costs.

Maybe you’ll change your point of view.
———-
Thanks for the link, interesting.
I had read “unable to make use of” as “wasted”, shunted to ground, like nuclear power plants excess power at night, hence my disbelief.

Selling windpower to Germany, the Netherlands, Norway or Sweden is not exactly “unable to make use of” – I like the word “exported” better, as used in your link.
Yes it’s true, the more interconnected intermittent power sources are, the better. Wind is not constant, but over large areas, it is blowing somewhere. Denmark is a rather small country of 5.5 million people.

I would call Saudi Arabia a large oil exporter, not someone “unable to make use of” their oil:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/OilExports.html

Read here:
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

Maybe you’ll change your point of view.

So, you’re saying you’ve never heard of the Johnson Space Center ?
You refuse to acknowledge where Cheney earned his two degrees – the University of Wyoming ? You refuse to acknowledge where he retired to ?
Technical types are often politically clueless – no shame there, DP.

Are you saying 8 MW is a unique requirement that can only be supplied by siting it with the University of Wyoming ?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1374175/server_farms_becoming_a_cash_crop_in_the_midwest/
Oh look – server farms and data centers in Oklahoma and Iowa – I wonder why those states didn’t want a high tech research center…

Ever hear of URL’s DP ?
Try backing up your claims that Denmark is unable to actually make use of 45% to 57% of their windpower, for starters.

No, having served at Nellis AFB, what I think is that you have demonstrated yourself to be a dingbat who needs to teach your own grandmother how to to chew tobacco.
You were drunk when you wrote that, right ?

You certainly don’t understand the very information you are citing. First, the PV (Photo-Voltaic) system began operation as a 14MW facility in a first phase 15MW project. The 30MW capacity is only a future plan.
I said it produced 30 million kilowatt-hours of solar energy per year. 30 MW is power, not energy. Kilowatt-hour is a measure of energy.
Did you serve food at Nellis AFB ?

the capital and O&M costs for the lifetime of the project are greater than the avoided electric utility costs. In other words, the U.S. Governement spent a ton of money to procure a power system which could support mission critical warfighting capability when the grid is unavailable.
Nice try, DP.
Again, try using citations on the Web.
Something like this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9829328-54.html
The deal is financed by MMA Renewables, which includes equity investments from Citi and Allstate and debt provided by John Hancock Financial Services.
It is a purchase power agreement, or PPA, where Nellis will purchase electricity that the panels generate at fixed rates. The panels themselves are owned by the financiers.

Or this:
http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090501-098.pdf
Saves AF over $1M a year
Developer: Designs, finances, builds and operates the PV array
Lessons Learned:
A REPP (Renewable Energy Purchase Process) like the Nellis model can be used at other DoD installations to purchase the use of on-site renewable energy

Seriously, learn to research on the Internet.
Don’t just make stuff up.

Reply: I’m not censoring this to avoid appearing partisan, but this bickering ends now. If it appears partisan later is is simply a coincidence because of multiple moderators. It’s 50/50 that each one of you will feel oppressed. ~ ctm

D. Patterson (18:31:58) :
Anu (14:59:00) :
You might want to reread my comment, and see that I was talking about Cheney, not Bush. Welcome to American Politics – ever hear of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas ?

Although it may suit your purpose to pretend that I and others who dispute you are for some reason incapable of reading and understanding what you actually wrote, the fact remains you directly linked the Bush Administration and its Vice President to the policy decision regarding the supercomputer project and its “coal power” or fossil fueled power supply.

Anu (14:59:00) :
I’m not really shocked that this large construction project, approved during the Bush/Cheney Administration, using federal funds, and run by Cheney’s alma mater, is using so much coal power initially.

You are quite obviously trying to use innuendo and invoke a knee jerk BDS response from the public by implying there just had to be something about the choice of Wyoming and coal fired power generation plants for support of the supercomputer project which necessarily entailed political corruption, a reckless disregard for the environmen,t and dismissal of the capabilities of wind power on the part of VP Cheney and the Bush Administration. Your remarks make no attempt whatsoever to honestly and fairly acknowledge the multitude of reasons why the Wyoming region is uniquely advantageous versus nearly any other location in the United States to support a project of this kind.

Also, ever hear of peaking power plants ? Wind and solar replace part of the load, not the baseload.

Wind power is generally used as an intermediate load power supply, because it is generally unsuitable to displace base load facilities or peak load facilities. The National Reneweable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has studied and experimented with the optimal methods of integrating the wind power facilities into the utilities dispatch schedules. Wind power facilities were found to complicate the dispatch of the more expensive peak load facilities. Although wind power facilities are less expensive with respect to marginal capital and minimal O&M (Operation and Maintenance) costs, their use in the power distribution network results in overall higher costs for the grid because the more expensive intermediate load and peak load facilities must still be deployed, maintained, and operated at even higher costs per unit of power generated when wind power is unable to displace their power loads. The NREL found the load balancing issues presented by the integration of wind power facilities into a utility’s network canceled the other economi benefits and made such wind power facilities unable to achieve an economic breakeven point on its own merits, meaning without the 30% governement interventions and taxpayer subsidies.

So, it appears you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Wind power provided 19.7 percent of electricity production and 24.1% of capacity in Denmark in 2007, a significantly higher proportion than in any other country. Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind
power during the 1970s, and today almost half of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Do you think Denmark is more technologically advanced than the U.S. ?

Your comments are deceptive, because they omit any mention of the facts about Denmark’s inability to actually make use of 45% to 57% of the power, because of its highly intermittant nature. If you had been honest about it, you would have also reported how the wind power facilities in Denmark provided as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual requirements for electrical power and averages less than about 9.8% in most recent years. You also fail to mention that Denmark’s taxpayers have had to very heavily subsidize the wind power industry, because it’s earnings versus costs made it unable to breakeven much less earn a profit.

How about solar power – do you think the Air Force doesn’t understand how to replace fossil fuel power when the sun shines, and how to draw upon it when it doesn’t ?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/obama-shines-light-on-air-forces-super-solar-array/
30 million kilowatt-hours of solar energy per year at Nellis Air Force Base just displaces fossil fuel generated power – yes, electrical grids can do that now.
Arguing that this stuff is just not technically feasible is the wrong approach.

No, having served at Nellis AFB, what I think is that you have demonstrated yourself to be a dingbat who needs to teach your own grandmother how to to chew tobacco. You certainly don’t understand the very information you are citing. First, the PV (Photo-Voltaic) system began operation as a 14MW facility in a first phase 15MW project. The 30MW capacity is only a future plan. Secondly, the solar PV system is designed to provide an off-grid military mission survivability capability, rather than an economic alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Although the PV system discontinues about 33% of the prior electric utility bills, the capital and O&M costs for the lifetime of the project are greater than the avoided electric utility costs. In other words, the U.S. Governement spent a ton of money to procure a power system which could support mission critical warfighting capability when the grid is unavailable. It is certainly not in any way a model for how to deliver economically affordable power to the national power grid.

The main reason the supercomputer is in Wyoming is because it uses huge amounts of electricity, which is much cheaper up there. They save millions of dollars.