247

Wind Power Produced 140% Of Electricity Demand in Denmark (cleantechnica.com)

submitted 1 day ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/energy@slrpnk.net

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

CleanTechnica is doing shoddy reporting.

They talk about Denmark hitting 140% peak production "last Friday" in an article from 2026-09-09, so presumably that would mean 2026-09-04. Then they link an 11 year old Guardian article from 2015-07-10.

The rest of the article is also barely about Denmark at all, it is just bait.

[-] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

CleanTechnica is a garbage source. It consists entirely of reposts scraped from elsewhere on the internet, except summarized poorly by people (or possibly LLMs) who have barely more than a surface level understanding of the topic at hand. I don't understand why it has the popularity it does.

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago

What does this mean? The 100% all for Denmark and they could now sell the 40% to other countries? That is fantastic! (Have rates come down at all for the citizenry?).

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It was one peak moment during a time of low usage at night with simultaneous strong winds. Assuming this is about the July 2015 moment (which CleanTechnica seems to be hiding

or even completely ignorant of).

So yes those 40% surplus were automatically exported (the European power market is integrated), but no that didn't move the needle on consumer prices.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Exported only if the grid needs it.

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 points 10 hours ago

I almost don't care, so long as fossil CEOs starve.

Also, no oil wars.

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

If suddenly without fossils, 95% of the population will starve.

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago

Old and outdated story. I was there too when it started. Collapseniks missed the point that doing nothing will make nothing better.

[-] eleitl@lemmy.zip 1 points 39 minutes ago

It's basic biophysics. And it will happen anyway naturally, just over a longer period. Way less excess mortality.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 10 points 1 day ago

WOKE NONSENSE! HELP!

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This was a peak situation, but long term with even more renewable energy, that's when Hydrogen becomes relevant.
And when we have enough surplus production of electricity to produce cheap hydrogen the sky is the limit. Because cheap hydrogen can replace oil and gas everywhere.

We are not there yet, but I think it's not too far away.

the Danish Energy Agency is spearheading an ambitious plan to produce even more wind power for both export and domestic use.

And we are far from alone in this, all European countries are working towards more renewables. Which is why I think the above will become reality soon. Hydrogen is wasteful and cost a lot of electricity to make, but when electricity becomes plentiful enough that renewable production goes to waste, that's when hydrogen becomes really really relevant, and can replace everything that can't be replaced with electricity and batteries.

[-] lime@feddit.nu 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

doesn't hydrogen have way worse round-trip efficiency than batteries, even before things like embrittlement? i've heard as low as 45%, with the rest just becoming heat.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Yes but how will the oil companies take their unnecessary cut if you use batteries?

[-] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 day ago

why do you think lego is so expensive now

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Because it has strong marketing and a cult-like fan base.

[-] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Not quite. I mean, partially that is the case, but the good Chinese competition costs on many sets at least 50% of Lego if not more, so the extra margin is there but not astronomically high. Turns out, Lego is one of the most challenging toys to produce (hence it took China so long to catch up in quality, even though they have fully caught up by now), it needs ridiculously high injection molding precision and each product consists of hundreds if not thousand individual parts that need to be correctly sorted.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, but it can be stored where batteries lose power over time. And a lot of the infrastructure doesn't need to be build but can be converted from natural gas use.

In the end batteries and hydrogen fill two very different gaps. You can use batteries to shift the renewable production peak at noon (thanks solar) to the demand peak in the evening, maybe even flatten fluctuation (in production and demand) over a few days. But they are entirely useless as seasonal long-term storage.

Also plans to produce green hydrogen exist independently. It's a requirement to decarbonise a lot of industry processes where direct use of electricity doesn't work. It's also a raw material in chemical industry.

So if decarbonisation of more than just electricity production is the goal, large scale hydrogen production is a given. As is large scale storage as production from renewable energy will always have seasonal fluctuations. From there having it also double as long-term on-demand stored energy means just scaling up what is already there.

[-] lime@feddit.nu 5 points 1 day ago

i don't remember if you and i spoke about this before but i did talk to someone on here about the fact that hydrogen can't really be stored for long periods either. whoever it was linked a statement from a german gas company claiming that their existing infrastructure could handle hydrogen without modification, and i remember coming away from that entirely unconvinced.

i'd be happy to be proved wrong but i don't believe green hydrogen is going to play a big part of the grid. i'm personally hoping for pumped hydro and thermal storage.

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sounds indeed like bullshit. More so as here in Germany there are indeed a lot of projects using natural gas infrastructure for the planned hydrogen transport network. But definitely not without modifications.

but i don’t believe green hydrogen is going to play a big part of the grid

Europe seems to disagree, with projects worth more than ten times of those in North America and Asia combined.

Edit:

Here's the already approved part of Germany's planned hydrogen core network (new lines, converted lines, opened by 2025):

And an article about one of the earliest segments of 55km opened 1½ years ago, based on 95% pre-existing lines.

And an article (but only available in German) claiming that the planned capacity for 2025 (converted or newly build) is met with new ~525km out of ~9000km by 2032. Of which ~60% will be converted pipelines, 40% new construction.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] Skasi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Before using hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, you need to ensure that no fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity. Otherwise you would increase carbon emissions, not reduce them. I don't see the whole worlds energy consumption going purely green within the next 100 years.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago

The world is currently at 42.6% green electricity. Also 100years are a very long time.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026

247 points (97.7% liked)

Green Energy

4587 readers

183 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net