Danish Island Becomes One of the First Energy-Self-Sufficient Places On Earth

And when the wind doesn't blow the electricity is brought from the mainland. But that doesn't sound nearly as cool as saying that they are self sufficient on energy.

Where is the energy storage? Virtual storage doesn't count.

Some success. Someboy is totally right - where's the energy storage. You ain't self sufficient without the energy storage.

Sounds like a SCAM to me. Each of those Green Jobs cost two more productive jobs in other sectors of the economy. And burning biomass for energy isn't Green. You are raping the soil for quick GHG belching energy. The biomass should be returned to the soil to store Carbon.

One 25 Mwe Hyperion Nuclear Reactor would power the entire Island - no need for energy storage - and at less than 1/10th the cost of the nutty Wind Turbines.

Pure Stupidity!

Very nice, but it doesn't scale up very well to large municipalities that already have access to cheap energy. I'm curious how much electricity costs per KwH for Samso.

BTW, the solution to the fruitless climate talks in Copenhagen is to stop having them. Maybe change the topic to something more useful like Increasing Access To Clean Drinking Water In Developing Countries or Helping The Poor Help Themselves Through Micro-Loans or perhaps Improving The "Greenest" Viable Energy: Nuclear Fission. Not fancy topics, but it would sure improve the planet.

Hrmmm, nuclear reactor on a small island, that might evoke too much imagery to fly.

In all seriousness, I do think some of the questions above are valid. Little blurb articles like this raise more questions than provide answers. For example, when you refer to gallons of oil offset there needs be a unit of time associated. And how often are these turbines producing energy. The answer might be 100% of the time, but without any information you inevitably end up with comments and questions like the two above.

My take on storage is this though. Hydrogen! Not only would this be useable by the cities transportation energy needs (another vague point), but all it requires is a basic infrastructure for which the technology already exists (go go electrolysis). This will spur the refinement of existing technologies, which desperately need a reason to be updated. I say go go development. Someone needs to go first, and I applaud this small island for being stage 1 diffuser of innovation...

Addendum...what is up with the nuclear cheerleaders. I know that it seems nice right now, but plutonium is a limited resource as well, and although I can't remember the exact numbers our currently nuclear processes are super inefficient, and certainly leave behind VERY VERY GREEN waste. Start building today for what you will need tomorrow. Wind has some downsides, but solar has a LOT of untapped potential.

Yeah it sounds like a green fantasy island. And then you start to read the details like cost or how many tons a year of straw that they burn. How many people live on this island anyway, 4,300ish? What is the cost going to be using this system to provide power and heating for say 304 million Americans, or 1 billion 148 million Indians, or 1 billion 330 million Chinese? Let's say it takes 1 ton of straw per person per year. Where are you going to get all that straw?

www.energiakademiet.dk/flashmap_uk.asp

Some interesting omissions at the website. If the 0.8 Mw Onsbjerg plant burns 600 tons of staw annually, and the 1.6 Mw Norby plant burns 1,250 tons of woodchips annually, and the 1.6 Mw Ballen/Brundy plant burns 1,200 tons of straw a year then how many tons of wheat and rye straw does the 3.0 Mw Tranebjerg facility burn annually? Does 2,300 tons sound about right?

Where are they growing all that straw? Granted, it is agricultural residue, but you can get about 1 ton of wheat straw per acre in dry land and 3 tons per acre in irrigated land. Secondly, this agricultural residue is used to make pulp and paper. So as the demand for straw as fuel goes up so does the price of paper.

How much CO2 do the plants burning straw and wood chips expel? How much CO2 is expelled in the process of growing, harvesting, and transporting this biomass to the plant? Does this method release less CO2 than other methods and is it sustainable on a large scale? For example, did you read the initial cost to buy into this islands power grid and the annual fees for use?

Another example. In California they used to burn rice straw every Autumn. They may still do so. It was about 500,000 acres or about 1 million tons of rice straw per year. This yearly ritual (done to prepare fields and stop rice disease) released about 56,000 tons of CO2 each year.

www.woodconsumption.org/alts/meghanhayes.html#types

The Samso islanders paid U.S. $11 million to build 10 wind turbines on land. How much did the 11 offshore wind turbines cost? You know offshore turbines are going to cost a lot more to build and to maintenance.

Island electrical consumers are paying between U.S. $110~$115 per Mwh. They also pay annual fees and start up fees. A 2004 University of Chicago study -

www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/uoc-study.pdf

estimated that a nuclear power plant would cost between U.S. $51~$83 per Mwh. U.S $37~$48 for coal, and U.S $56~$68 for a gas turbine generator.

I just wish that Popsci would look at the whole picture. These partial truths and omissions are so.... Fox newsy.

10 years from now we will still be having the same lame debate over what the best and most efficient method(s) are to ween us away from our oil and fossil fuel gluttony. Meanwhile, other countries are and have been moving forward and making changes to secure their future energy needs. This is why the US has fallen so far behind in technology, transportation and science. We are so focused on who is going to reap the rewards and so unwilling to make investments that do not return a quick buck that we are being left in the wake of many smaller nations. Its sickening!

lnwolf41 Everyone has made good points, how many people live on the island, and why don't they go electric car also?
With all this power being generated, why don't they use eletric heat for their homes? why burn straw and woodchips?
I agree with nikitaj , why not make hydrogen gas and pipe it in to homes to heat and cook.

this is cool lets all do this but the chinese wont they are dumb when comes to the enviroment lets nuke em
------------------
i am barrack obama

Seeker72:

Wrong. We are focused on finding VIABLE ways of producing the kind of energy that we need. Isolated islands and hippie communes making meager energy from biomass or other means might work for a few hundred or few thousand people who are willing to live with less. But they hardly compare to the kind of energy required to keep this economy moving forward.

If you're serious about "green" energy, then you need to be pro-nuclear. Solar and wind are fine where they're available, but they aren't nearly energy dense enough to provide the kind of energy we need to do what America does. We aren't shepherds living on an island; we're the largest economy in the world.

Inwolf:

The energy content of the hydrogen gas created from electrolysis is at best around 50% of the energy put in. Unless you have a relative cheap electricity source, it doesn't make sense to do this.

Nikita:

The amount of uranium available is a function not only of its abundance but of exploration. It is widely believed that there is enough recoverable uranium to power mankind for 1000 years. Your assertions about the efficiency of our current nuclear technology are correct. In standard reactors built thirty years ago, we only burn about 1% of the fuel. New designs can burn far more and reprocess what we call nuclear waste. If the same emphasis was given to nuclear that has been given to other energy sources, we could be building these reactors right now.

Kstauff:

Nuclear radiation. That is all.

thor0997:

How about Natural Gas radiation, radon that comes with NG, Coal radiation - releases 100X more radiation to the environment than a comparible sized Nuclear Power plant, except the Coal power plant has Zero regulation on its radation emissions. And radiation from phosphate mining. And don't forget Solar Radiation, Cosmic Radiation and Natural Background radiation which is not special "happy, good" radiation. And then there is the radiation from Medical Diagnostic Imaging, Cancer treatment, Dental X-rays and Airline travel. And the radiation used for Industrial Instrumentation, Agricultural Irradiation and Terrorist Weapons detection.

thor:

Right, hence energy. Thanks for your contribution here.

YCSTS:
Most of that is regulated or doesent react with us because of the atmosphere. True that the first three are released in greater quantities, but Nuclear reactors have much greater concentrations, and that is what kills you. Your argument fails miserably. You want to put these in evey neighborhood?!?! Besides I didnt say that other there are other sources of radiation I just said that it produces it.

Kstauff:

Hence cancer, defects, and what was it??? Oh yea DEATH!

Rmorti:
How much does it cost to build a nuclear facility? I'd imagine that the long term costs of using solar and wind power would not only be more cost effective, but more efficient(no waste?). This project is a huge step in the right direction.

thor:

Please show me the evidence supporting your conclusion.

thor:

More specifically, please show me the evidence that nuclear radiation leaked from nuclear energy plants is causing the problems you cite. I would like a list of those incidents in the US, Europe and Japan where hundreds modern reactors have been in operation for several decades now.

I wouldn't want to dismiss nuclear as a viable alternative, but there are some pretty serious safety issues to consider, even if we haven't had a major loss of life due to nuclear accident yet. One Chernobyl is enough to make you wary of what can go wrong (and I do realize our reactors have much better containment facilities, thank you very much). I'm probably more concerned about the safe storage of spent fuel rods, which present a hazard of meltdown if they aren't kept adequately cooled with circulating water -- a problem if there's ever a major disaster that shuts down emergency power at a plant. I know a few years back Popsci had an article about so-called pebble bed reactors, which had the uranium contained in graphite balls that self-regulated their temperature based on how closely they could be packed (thus ensuring no meltdown) and kept the radioctive material contained after use. But I think that design is considered pretty expensive, and hasn't been tested yet. If the safety and waste storage issues can be better addressed, I'd be fine with supporting an expansion of fission power. Of course, fusion would be even better, but it seems that keeps retreating over the horizon.

Chernobyl was a complete cluster f**k of incompetent Russian bureacrats and a poorly designed reactor without containment. Less than 100 people died as a result.

Why do you bring up Nuclear safety when Coal kills 30,000 Americans every year including thousands of children, due to its extraordinary toxic emissions? Quit being a hypocryte. Nuclear is the only viable alternative to Coal and the incredibly dangerous NG - which can and does kill thousands of people every year. A Nuclear Reactor is nowhere close to the danger of an LNG tanker. And we will need thousands of LNG tankers if we don't start a major Nuclear build soon.

YCSTS, less than 100 people died immediately after Chernobyl. Thousands more developed cancers at a rate much higher than the norm, so there aren't exact figures, and won't be for many years, on just how many victims Chernobyl had. I bring up nuclear safety because it is a valid point. If you have no problem with living downwind and downstream from a containment pool for spent fuel rods or on-site indefinite storage of nuclear waste, then that's fine. Most people might have a little concern, though. I don't think it's hypocritical to raise that point, especially when I didn't state that nuclear shouldn't be an option for sustainable energy production.

Anyway, you get no argument from me regarding coal. It's nasty with toxic emissions, dangerous and environmentally devastating to obtain, and contributes massively to carbon pollution and global warming. And yes, LNG is extremely explosive and one container vessel could easily destroy a port city if it ignited. There are, however, renewable alternatives like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and limited hydroelectric than can also provide some of the energy we need without such serious environmental or safety concerns.

Mike_R the Chernobyl area is now a Wildlife Paradise. The best information at present is that AT MOST 4000 people MAY POSSIBLY develop cancers, due to the incident - mostly highly treatable thyroid cancer. The 4000 number seems likely to be greatly exaggerated.

Nuclear Safety is indeed an important issue. Why? Because the Coal, NG & Oil lobbies have blown it out of proportion as a means to block what they know damn well is the only competition.

We have WAY CROSSED THE POINT that the FANATICISM on Nuclear Safety is COSTING MORE LIVES than it is saving, probably by a factor of over 1000 times.

Meanwhile Coal, Oil & NG gets COMPLETE IMMUNITY to the destruction it causes to the environment & the millions of deaths they have caused.

Read about the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) here:

depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/

depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/

depletedcranium.com/the-nrc-a-den-of-anti-nukes-theives-and-scoundrels/

Also Germany is even worse:

depletedcranium.com/what-the-german-government-says-about-nuclear-energy/

Most of the people effected by Chernobyl are already dead because of the massive amounts of radiation leaked. Thats why there is only 400 people getting cancer TODAY!

"Meanwhile Coal, Oil & NG gets COMPLETE IMMUNITY to the destruction it causes to the environment & the millions of deaths they have caused."

Have you ever heard of the EPA?

HAHA your source is a blog?

So you belive that "some guy" has all the answers?

He isnt a nuclear engineer or scientist or anything! He is just a maintence worker!

This will spur the refinement of existing technologies, which desperately need a reason to be updated. I say go go development.
www.eprostateproblems.com/

I don't find wind turbines, such as those pictured, to be the blight on landscaping that some people do. I think the sheer size is staggering though. Wind power will be very useful in parts of the world, but the major hurdle is the delivery to other markets.

Beecher Bowers
www.beecherbowers.com

Thor0997 i like what your getting at this idiot must deaf dumb or both i mean c,mon that damn oil spill is killing so many species of animals and this wise ass is complaining about nuclear fallout get a grip and get green.

Congrats to them! I just hope the US will finally stop relying on oil, and stop a gulf of mexico disaster!

http://wordpress.themes.im