Gone With the Wind: Denmark’s Stalled Energy Transition 

Nice episode. Johan is a major driving force in the pro nuclear movement in Denmark. Very good to see him here.

What is also frightening is the young Danish man keeps using the word future. The future is happening right now. As of 2020 there were 34000 wind turbines older than 15 years. Can anyone do math? German is paying 5 million dollars per megawatt capacity for offshore wind. The operation and maintenance cost are 90 dollars per megawatthour in the first year and it increases every year after that. Blade degradation reduces nameplate capacity by 4.5 percent every year. This does not work! We are going to face the greatest economic destruction ever .trillions of dollars and every bit of it malinvestment. Greatest misallocated of resources in history. Even if we made a complete u turn right now. The damage has been done. Think of all the bad debt from this. Not to mention the debt that will never be paid because of rising energy prices. The human imagination cannot begin to understand how bad this will be.

Very encouraging to hear the thinking of the Danish people is changing to a more pro nuclear mind set. As Johan says - If that turn around can happen in Denmark, it can happen anywhere.

The form of energy that needs government priority is nuclear. I feel bad that I was part of a movement fifty years ago that stopped nuclear in its tracks. That’s now responsible for today’s virtually unstoppable momentum to climate catastrophe’s that have barely even started.

Thank you so much for this conversation. In the UK, we look up and look to Denmark in the hope of building an extensive heat network as a major strategy for getting to net zero. Many energy researchers are captured by 100% electrification, some even 100% renewables without understanding the constraints. Johan has revealed, what I have suspected since 2017, that relying on SOLWIN and District heat to take us through the transition is a ‘pipe-dream’ but I did not have enough evidence to suggest that. It is because data from Denmark are hard to come by. We are only fed bias information (lets be charitable not to call it a lie), and happy stories. Therefore, we need Johan to point us to some solid evidence in relation to this revelation e.g. government subsidies, pricing, % of fossil fuelling heat networks, and energy efficiency of networks connecting to heat pumps, and the perilous consequences of the market design to promote renewables at all cost. How can we find you Johan?

Chris have you thought of interviewing Rory O’Sullivan, the CEO of Moltex energy in Canada? Moltex produces (or will produce) the stable salt reactor waste burner, a molten salt reactor that consumes fuel recycled from nuclear waste. But the most innovative thing about it is it does not pump highly radioactive fuel through pipes, heat exchangers, valves, and a chemical processing unit. Instead, the liquid nuclear fuel simply stays in vertical pipes heating a coolant around them by convection only. This reduces the cost enormously, both the capital and operating costs.

I'm glad this channel is still around. I learned a lot about energy from it. Keep up the good work.

Sweden has build a lot of windpower. To many. And 90 procent are own by foreign companies, mostly China. Sweden do not get any taxes, we do not get the electricity and just a few jobs. Crazy, crazy. Politicians do not care that the windpower destroy our natur, destroy our beautiful forrests, kill birds, kill insects, force wild animals to leave, many farmers and people in the countryside leave, many suffer but have to stay. Sweden had a perfect powersystem and now they have made it unsecure and expensive. Sad and crazy. Now maybe they will alowe nuclear power again.

Slight exaggeration about the Swedish law, although the statement was correct in a broader sense - the Swedish law "tankeförbudslagen" made it illegal to make plans for building new nuclear power plants. The law went into effect in 1987 and was abolished in 2006.

Excellent interview with interesting information about the Danish renewables illusion and new nuclear initiatives. Thanks!!

There is no way for wind and solar to not be subsidized in some fashion. They do not provide a marketable product. I dont think people can grasp the enormity of what not being a marketable product means.

The problem is, the people who need to listen to this podcast never will.

I confidently predict a giant "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO" in the near future.

Moral of the story is NEVER ban any technoligy completely . Development should always be allowed .

Nice to listen to, especially as anti-nuke absolutism over here in Japan idolizes Denmark.

Eye opening conversation, the Danish energy transition is build upon a biomass lie.

Informative! Thank you both.

Johan , very good interview , very knowledgeable have you visited Copenhagen Atomics ? It’s great to see what they already have accomplished They plan to sell energy for 2 cents per kWh and with a very fast buildup of their 100MW reactor , building one every day on an assembly line. Have 100 times less nuclear waste than old LWR technology. Go Denmark ! go ahead Johan with your friends of nuclear

Fascinating discussion, impatient to learn more about energy production in northern Europe !

Blame the journalists who spead the rumors and lies surrounding nuckear and the craven politicians who went along with them.

CO2 from biomass is different from CO2 from fossile fuels. The biomass has extracted its C from the athmospheric CO2. Then the same amount of CO2 is returned to the athmosphere when the biomass is burned and the total amount of CO2 in the athmosphere does not increase.

I am a Nuclear Engineer specializing in Core Fuel Development. I would love to join you in Denmark...how can I apply?

Fantastic talk.

Off shore wind has the same problem as anything else off shore. Costs are invariably 3 times higher than on shore facilities.

Loved the shoutout to Sunniva Rose! Also, it would have been nice to say some words on how Denmark basically forced Sweden to close Barsebäck many years sooner than necessary

"Energy is EVERYTHING". Love these. Thanks!

Think of all the houses that could have be built using lumber that was turned in to wood pellets.

It is good to say things as they are! Thanks!

There's a nice nuclear power station (Barsebæck) not 20 miles from Kobenhavn, but in Sweden, so the Danes insisted it was decommissioned...

Atomkraft Ja Tak 👍

Interesting. What about inviting Jean-Marc Jancovici...He would rock your show!

Nuclear energy is dangerous!! Reply with: Chernobyl reactor 4 blew its top in 1986. The other 3 reactors at Chernobyl just continued operating. The thousands of staff just kept going to work and were unaffected by the radiation. Even though a few hundred yards away was the worst accident ever..... Also I dont know about your schooling but I definitely was given radiation samples to play with at age 17 in physics class. The most radioactive of which was a watch which was painted using radioactive paint back when that was allowed. That watch made the gigar counter go nuts. Your kids are allowed to play with nuclear materials while you keyboard warriors sing the dangers of nuclear power...

This was an eye opener...

Just because biomass is imported doesn't make it non-renewable. Uranium would be imported but still low carbon.

The premise of this whole interview is baloney, because the energy transition has not stalled in Denmark. Between 2012 and 2022, the percentage of wind+solar electricity in Denmark increased from 30% to 60%. Between 2021 and 2022, solar generation increased from 1309 to 2188 MWh and solar from 16059 to 19008 MWh. The argument that biomass can have higher emissions than coal is not true according to any scientific study that I have seen. The basic argument of Johan Sollid is that Denmark should switch to nuclear, because wind energy can't survive without subsidies, but nuclear energy requires far more subsidies than wind energy. Anyone who looks at the economics of building new nuclear energy plants can see that it is totally unviable, which is why 88% of the new electricity generation worldwide was renewable in 2022. With the way that the cost of solar and grid batteries are falling, I can't see how anyone can argue that nuclear can compete with wind/solar+grid batteries. Sollid makes a big deal that heat pump technology is developing technology and thus risky, but he doesn't consider what economic benefits can come from getting the first mover advantage in heat pumps, similar to all the jobs that were created in Denmark in the wind industry. Yes, the subsidies for RE are still needed, but anyone who looks at the cost of fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies can see that renewable energy subsidies are far smaller.

Well spoken.

Would be nice to have timestamp tags in the video.

District heating would work 20 times better with molten salt reactors.

Love the Danes and the Scandinavians and their willingness to try to attack these big issues first. Wind +Solar+Nuclear needs to be tried, much like wind+hydro, etc.

Damned if we do damned if we don't. Man's time on this planet is almost up, no matter how we power our lives. Guy McPherson is right.

25:15 well they were not the only ones but nonetheless here we are and you just can't slap up a nuclear power plant overnight !

So if I've been following Decouple messaging correctly, the usual suspects have been doing their usual things of lying about the seriousness of pollution and corruption, making a web of false trails away from facts in such a way as to protect the Gas Industry in particular. Sciencing Actuality is the first and last resort, always available, always a basic requirement for natural existence.

In your podcasts it's always amazing to see how you're able to circumvent the cause of all so called crises; Politics. Politics driven by non-politics having much too much money, to be able to buy anyone or anything and thus making us believe anything. It wasn't be that sad, if it wouldn't affect us, the average Joe that much. It must be obvious for all of us by now, that what we've seen for decades, but in particular since the plandemic, that we've seen the largest transfer of wealth to the wealthiest on this planet on your behalf, meaning your taxpayer dollars and your human rights and liberties. It's all out there. "Climate change" is the best example of this being true, sucking us into even more unpayable debt, to eventually be confronted by things like their tools of maximum enslavement like digital IDs (ID2020) and CBDCs. Again, it's all out there written down in their Agenda 21/2030. It's their global monetary debt enslavement system that collapsed in 2008 and became "unrepairable" in 2019 (repocrash), for which they're right now building a new system to be able to gain full control. Cut the crap and don't comply - there's no prosperity, wellbeing, welfare or a good standard of living without oil, gas, coal and/or nuclear. Prosperity grew directly proportional with the consumption of oil and gas. It's time to educate ourselves for the future of our children.

When you study this is what you'll find! This further reinforces the argument that attributing significant climate warming forcing to human activities over the span of a few centuries “is unsupported,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the oceans. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural emissions of CO2 eq are 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. I have a serious question, does the annual increments considers 2.5 ppmv include all sources? Since manmade or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, this results from Net Zero CO2 are wrong or at least confusing, since the stupid absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will only refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic emission combined. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system, and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

To address the basic false premise that carbon dioxide is somehow a dangerous gas: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3q-M_uYkpT0.html it is tragic that so few people understand the essential nature of carbon dioxide, and swallow such a demonstrably false notion.

Just use 66% less energy!

Why would you have on such a biased person to talk about wind energy? I have been watching your videos with fantastic interest as a good place for high quality information. It just put all your videos in a bad light?

Great! They burn biomass from Romania specific Natura 2000 and we have to take care of the bears that come in the cities because of loss of habitat! It would be good if along biomass you would import some of the bears. Now I understand why Romania have these numbers in emissions.

This guest starts off at 5:00 with an utterly whopping lie. Denmark is not 10% Wind and Solar and 90% Fossil Fuel. It is the reverse, 90% renewable and 10% fossil fuels. If your this stunningly wrong about the basics how can I belive a thing you say and consider your 'educating' people on Nuclear not to simply be gross misinforming of the public.

So why isn't the government in Denmark looking at technology that can reduce pollution on coal powered power stations to zero !For a lot less than these nukler power stations .

On the subject of journalistic qualifications - perhaps anyone wanting to be a journalist should be required to take two years of engineering or science as prerequisits.

Denmark: I want to reduce my CO2 emissions very quickly, now let me think, it has to provide dispatchable energy on demand, be reasonably cheap, well tried and tested, and be on line in 2 or 3 years, and we have to have sovereign control of it, hmm, anyone heard of Equinor ASA (formerly Statoil and StatoilHydro) a major contributor to Denmark’s finances and pensions, and NATURAL GAS, now why weren’t they mentioned in the conversation especially in relation to an integrated system🤔

"Climate crisis"

If the true cost of going green factored in human exploitation we'd all living pre 1850 style. More in step with nature. Just because you can, does not mean you should. Morals have been superseded by greed and we will reap what we have sown since the industrial revolution. Be that in environmental demise and human life either withering away or sadly being exploited. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

Laudable points, certainly reasonable to factor in nuclear to the Danish grid. I do hope that sea level is taken into account with their construction though & they are built at least at 5m elevation as a precaution

New technology might make district heating practical with wind and compressed CO2. CO2 goes to liquid with little effort; it just requires much compression. The compression process produces lots of dispatchable heat from wind. C02 gas requires a large volume for storage. Pipelines can serve both as storage and for transit or transmission of energy. Furthermore, the liquid CO2 can provide cooling services where used and absorb low-level heat to concentrate it into higher-quality energy. I already talked about my book Pluvicopia as a complete solution for fossil fuels. We can do it if we don't give up. We don't need the danger of Nuclear although I like salt and thorium reactors, they are unnecessary.

I get it ,but how do you tackle nuclear waste

He is directly lying or are in a state of complete misunderstanding!

21:10 And pretending nuclear wasn't and won't be subsidized? Would be hypocrisy at it's best. 35:15 He obviously don't know, that a heat pump generate triple, sometimes 7 fold the amount of energy you put into with electricity. Conserve the heat is simple and long lasting. You can have reservoir at high temperature for weeks with minimal losses. 35:35 We have 100% renewable system in some places in Germany, if wants to take a look? Jühnde was the first village in 2006 to run 100% on renewables. Denmark even has an island running 100% on renewables 36:20 I really thought this would be an open discussion, but he obviously don't know his matter regarding renewables. 37:28 I feel i know the answer in advance... And here we go. He is just another nuclear fanboy. What does he believe? Nuclear plants will pop up for free? They will cost even more, just look to Finlannd, France and Great Britain. Btw. SMRs won't be technically viable before 2030. Choose what you want to do now, not in 10 years - maybe. 41:12 Yeah, just don't subsidize unviable energysources, like nuclear. Btw. renewables are not the reason for most of the energy bill, nor for most of the energy cost jump. But if you are a nuclear fanboy, you have to stick to your narrative, no matter what. 50:00 Quick fact check. Not true, there is no deal amounting billions of euros. Copenhagen Atomics wants to build 1MW prototype reactors. Seaborg Technologies plan the first commercial plant in 2028. So the won't be any plant before 2030 or even later. These are the fantasies he project into renewables earlier in the video. What a truely ideological guest. First hiding behind ambiguity, later the full barrage of the typical nuclear fanboy nonsense. I don't know how often he said "Dunkelflaute". But way too often. And "Big Shift". Another "mishap" or better spin to the narrativ: He tells about Denmarks nuclear companies and then states at 53:10 "Norway... they are ahead of us! They have made their own company! ... Billionaires!" And again he doesn't know what he is talking about or just don't want to tell about reality: "Norway... where there is an actually need for a lot of power like tens of gigawatts." Surely not. Norway doesn't need additional 10 of GW powerplants, but if they want to become the battery or supplier of electricity to Denmark and Europe in general, as he lamented in the first part of the video, they certainly need it. But that would run counter to his argument before... He really thinks heating will be switched to nuclear energy. Nuclear produces about 70% to 65% waste heat for a reason. It is not econimically viable in Europe to recover it and use it for district heating. And he certainly don't want to use these pesky heat pumps, will he? Former Coal Power Plants in the US shall be converted into Nuclear Plants for district heating... yeah, building a heat pipeline 20km+ long is certainly viable - not. Japan isn't Europe or the US. Eclectic shallow information doesn't get anyone forward. Comparing apples to apples will. 54:00 Exactly only feasability studies, no new plants on the horizon until at least 2030. 55:11 The last bastion in Scandnavia, maybe. But certainly not beyond. Another pipedream. What a Bonmot and Freudian Slip: "Denmark the country, we have so much wind, we don't need anything, but windmills." Ok, Biomass is the real lie and wind is good again? Holistic approach, where? "France, Sweden, Switzerland ....." Austria and Norway are missing on the list, but that would be inconvinient, because they use hydro? Oh, i nearly forgot Costa Rica. Also 5 Million inhabitants and only 7% thermal/ 0,25% Biomass. In 2009! Maybe, just maybe, Denmark isn't the forerunner in renewable energy. Why do they build heat pumps for district heating? Because it can be build now and it is econimically viable. The biggest was recently installed in Cologne, rated at 150 MW. Exactly for district heating. Nothing will be dublicated, but old unnecessary pipelines will be abandoned because of maintanance costs. What he essentially wants is to fire biomass and coal until 2030 and beyond to wait for SMRs to become viable. PS: There are a lot more spinned opinions throughout the video, but i don't have the time for all the nitty gritty stuff. I am really disappointed. This channel is not about fact based discussions. It is just about feeding a nuclear and anti renewables narrative. Just not decent to discuss the future energy world.

Johann, I support your drive to build nuclear generation of electricity, but only as a supplement to coal, natural gas, and biomass energy production. While Denmark thinks about "climbing out of the (hysterical) nuclear shell" why not also think about reexamining the absurd premise that the climate change "thing" is the greatest threat to man's survival on the planet? It is the breathtaking height of narcissistic egotism for Danes and other Western peoples to think that satisfying mankind's energy needs through carbon fuels is evil or life threatening. Continuing to make life better on this planet is dependent on exploitation of abundant carbon based fuel. If you abolish that, you will selfishly deprive vast populations in the developing economies of the Southern Hemisphere of the same flourishing that we have enjoyed for the past hundred and fifty years. If the move to deprive them of abundant sources of carbon fuels, millions will starve or at the very least be condemned to gut wrenching poverty in the name of fighting climate change. That is immoral!

LPP Fusion...

Does anyone else think this dude looks exactly like the girl from the Goonies?

Heat pumps to substitute thermal district heating plants in Denmark can be a good a idea no matter the electricity source you have due to how efficient are. The source for that electricity can be wind, solar or nuclear.

📍44:30 2📍20:05

The host talks too much,very annoying. Next.

Johan is a big dreamer and his numbers are fantasy, 😂😢 yes Kern Kraft is seeing a positive trend, but no where the numbers Johan are giving on behalf Denmark 🎉FUD