Denmark is "Energy Smart"? Think Again.

Though it beats the U.S. in per-capita energy usage, its emissions improvements have been unremarkable

December 17, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Robert Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His next book, Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, will be published in April.

Promoters of "green" energy love Denmark.

On Earth Day, President Barack Obama pointed out that the northern European country now "produces almost 20 percent" of its electricity with wind turbines. Last year, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman visited Copenhagen, where he marveled at the Danes, declaring, "Oh, if only we could be as energy smart as Denmark!" Given that world leaders are now meeting in Copenhagen to discuss drastic cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions, it's worth separating the hype about Denmark from the reality.

Here's the reality: When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, coal consumption, or energy prices, the Danes have no reason to brag.

First, carbon dioxide emissions. Denmark's embrace of wind power has repeatedly been lauded as a model for other countries. But according to data from the International Energy Agency, Denmark's overall carbon emissions have remained relatively unchanged over the past two decades. In 1990, Denmark emitted a total of 50.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. In 2007, the country's emissions totaled 50.6 million tons, a reduction of just 0.1 percent.

Indeed, while journalists and politicos are hyping Denmark's wind sector, the Danes themselves are not claiming that wind power cuts carbon dioxide emissions. Earlier this year, Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark's electricity and natural gas grids, published a report showing that in 2007, carbon dioxide levels from electricity generation totaled about 23 million tons, about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of wind turbines. The grid operator also made it clear that variations in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from Denmark's electricity generation sector varied from year to year due to changes in the amount of hydropower that the Danes import from Norway and Sweden.

Meanwhile, despite lavish government subsidies for wind power, coal use has remained remarkably stable. In 1999, Denmark's daily coal consumption was the equivalent of about 94,400 barrels of oil per day. By 2007, despite a 136 percent increase in the amount of electricity produced from wind power, Denmark's coal consumption was exactly the same as it was back in 1999. In fact, Denmark's coal consumption in 2007 was only about 4 percent lower than it was back in 1981. And while coal use dropped slightly over that period, natural gas consumption went from zero to over 400 million cubic feet per day.

As for energy prices, the Danes undoubtedly provide a model for those who believe that exorbitant energy taxes help control consumption. In 2008, Danish residential electricity customers were paying $0.38 per kilowatt-hour—or nearly four times as much as their counterparts in the United States. And Danish motorists are getting mugged. In late 2008, Danish drivers were paying $1.54 per liter for gasoline, while drivers in the UK were paying $1.44 and U.S. motorists were paying $0.56. Only a handful of countries have more expensive fuel than Denmark, a list that includes Italy, Norway, Turkey, and Germany.

The huge taxes on electricity and motor fuel appear to be robbing the Danes of their desire for procreation. In 2008, Denmark had a population of 5.5 million and its population growth rate was barely above zero. Indeed, Denmark has one of the slowest-growing populations in Europe. Between 1998 and 2008, the country's population grew by just 200,000 people. During that same time period, the United States added about 34 million people, raising America's population to about 304 million.

To be fair, the average Dane uses far less energy than the average American. Denmark's per-capita energy use is about 3.85 tons of oil equivalent per year, while the U.S. average is about 7.74 tons.

And while that reduced consumption may be laudable, the reality is that even amid all the praise for Denmark's energy programs, the United States is doing as well as—and in some cases, better than—Denmark in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and per-capita energy use. Between 1999 and 2006, the carbon intensity (the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP) of the U.S. economy decreased by nearly 13 percent—or about 2 percent better than the reduction seen in Denmark over that time period. Looking at a longer time frame—1980 through 2006—America's carbon intensity declined by 43.7 percent while Denmark managed a 47 percent decrease. Furthermore, between 1980 and 2006, per-capita energy use in the United States declined by 2.5 percent, nearly matching the 4.2 percent decline seen in Denmark.

Tags:
environment,
energy,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

This is cherry picking and half-truths.

When looking at carbon dioxide emissions, Denmark is a 'white raven' amongst its peers. Even though economic development and population growth did not differ from most other Western countries during that period, they kept their CO2 emissions flat, while nearly all others increased their CO2 emissions considerably between 1990 and 2007. The US by 20%. But since that doesn't fit the narrative, the author suddenly shifts to another metric: carbon intensity. Oh, and the goalposts are moved again: the reference period suddenly becomes 1999 to 2006. I thought we were talking about the period 1990-2007?

Let's look at the carbon intensity for the 1990-2007 period. Over that period the US decreased their carbon intensity by 21% and Denmark by .... 36%. Oops.

(GDP: US $8.5 trillion and $13 trillion vs Denmark $ 124 billion and 202 billion from CIA world factbook.

CO2: US 5445 Mt and 6524 Mt vs Denmark 55.8 Mt vs 58.1 Mt from BP statistical review of world energy 2011).

By subtly changing metrics and periods, the author can make you believe what he wants you to believe.

The CO2 emissions from electricity generation stayed flat from 1990 to 2007. But the author fails to note that Denmark generated 50% more electricity in 2007 than in 1990. Another half truth.

For coal the same goalpost shuffle: the period is now 1999-2007. We can see why when we lookup the data in BP's statistical review of world energy. In 1990, coal consumption was about 25% higher than in 2007. If you torture the data long enough, it will tell you everything you want to hear.

But there is a big truth hiding in the issue that the author raises, although he misses it completely. A shift to renewable energy (or another CO2-free/peak whatever resistant/self sufficient form of energy) is useless without a focus on energy conservation. You can install whatever super duper eco technology you like, if you don't keep your energy use in check, it is all in vain.

Anne of AL 2:21PM August 17, 2011

For hundreds of millions of years diatoms and corals and other shelled critters have been stripping CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in limestone and chalk. As a result, the productivity of the biosphere has been cut significantly.

It will be very hard to undo the depredations of these greedy critters, but we must do our best. Their byproducts like limestone etc. must be fed into cement plants or whatever will help cook the CO2 back out, and the plants should be powered by coal, where possible.

Maximize CO2 output! Save the planet's life forms from the carbon famine!

Brian H 8:41AM February 24, 2010

The recent CEPOS wind study, written mainly by Hugh Sharman, states that wind reduced carbon emissions in Denmark, somewhat. But let's examine this further. In fact, the study showed all that installed carpet of wind, which provides little energy within Denmark itself for grid security reasons, is effective only because the hydro imported from Scandinavia (which emits no carbon) regulates most of the wind flux. Over the last twenty years, the Danes have reduced their fossil fuel consumption vis a vis electricity by about 6%. But this is mostly accounted for by increased importation of Scandinavian hydro, not wind alone--typically at spot market prices. The little that wind itself saves in Denmark is likely miniscule; and, regionally, Danish wind saves no carbon emissions, as the report revealed. If Denmark, as Sharman pointed out, did not have the Scandinavian "sink" in which it could dump its considerable excess wind, and if that sink did not have hydro as its principle source of power, the inference is clear. Denmark would be awash in both carbon dioxide emissions and wind turbines in the production of electricity.

Jon Boone of MD 10:46PM December 23, 2009

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Barack Obama's $5.6 Billion Valentine's Day Tax

An Americans for Tax Reform report shows the federal tax burden on love.

It's Too Early to Write Off Either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney

Barack Obama and John McCain traveled unlikely paths to their nominations in 2008.

On Contraception Mandate, Obama Blunders Into the Culture Wars

Obama's contraception "compromise" is a gimmick that voters will see right through.

Why Mitt Romney Can't Sell Himself to Conservatives

Voters want to know if they can trust Mitt Romney.

Americans Deserve Political Freedom from the Catholic Church

Church leaders could not have been less gracious towards Obama's surrender on contraception.

What the Catholic Contraceptive Debate Is Really About

Today's debates about contraception and inequality are intertwined in that the bring up the question of morality.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

advertisement