The Danish energy island in the North Sea has become very expensive – both energy and climate

On Fem på Friday you will find international news from the past week every week. These are the cases I chose:

The most prestigious Danish energy island is located in the North Sea

Denmark’s much-discussed prestige project – an energy island in the North Sea – has yet to come out to tender as planned. This is what the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Supply wrote in a press release this week, discussed in Ingeniøren’s website. The reason: costs. According to consulting firm Krakas, the island as planned now would cost around DKK 210 billion, with a risk of DKK 50 billion being covered by taxpayers.

Danish Minister for Climate, Energy and Supply Lars Egaard (Moderates) He comments on the decision as follows:

He added, “The original political agreement was based on a green ambition and an ambition to get rid of Putin’s gas. But there was only a clause in the agreement that it should not cost the Danes money. The numbers now show that we cannot meet that requirement.”

Now the project is going back to the drawing board with the hope that there are alternatives that can make it more profitable. The government in Denmark is committed to its plans to develop massive offshore wind capacity until 2030 “where 9 GW of offshore wind could become 14 GW or more, if the market wants it,” she says.

Also last year, the Danish government pulled the brakes on the emergency and scaled back plans from a fairly large power island to a smaller one with small platforms attached. Then also to reduce costs.

The engineer was too Case to follow, but it’s behind a paywall. It states that the demands of the state’s co-ownership, a very long foreign link and high material costs were among the reasons why the artificial energy island was – according to experts and sources close to the government – so expensive as it is now planned.

Climate Change Panel: The Brits are miles behind their climate targets

The UK is far behind in its efforts to reach the country’s statutory climate targets. The country previously had leading country status due to, among other things, a policy of phasing out coal from the energy mix and facilitating onshore and offshore wind. But now the government is grappling with the poor progress of the transition to ensure the country reaches net zero emissions in 2050. Independent Britain Climate Change Committee The CCC said in its latest progress report that the chances of the country being able to deliver on its climate promises have worsened since last year. What’s more: The country’s status as a climate leader is on the brink of collapse. The purpose of the CCC is, among other things, to advise the government on the status of climate targets. In a report last year, the CCC said the government had a credible policy of only cutting two-fifths of the emissions it needed to cut in the next decade. This year it only worsened to five. She says that only nine of the 50 so-called leading indicators are on track.

The Carbon Brief writes in its review of the report that, among other things, there is a lack of good planning, that there is a lack of support for decarbonization of heavy industry and that there is insufficient control over the expansion of the country’s airports. The government has also been criticized for misusing the oil and gas price crisis last year and failing to move quickly to reduce energy demand and increase renewable energy production.

The CCC also writes explicitly that “the expansion of fossil fuel production in the country is not in line with net zero” and that the fact that the British will still need some oil and gas in the coming years does not justify the Tory government’s plans for new development. fields in the North Sea. (Labor leader Keir Starmer He introduced a new policy two weeks ago to stop granting new licenses for oil and gas in the North Sea).

In March this year, the British government filed a dossier Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (CBDP) – Over 3,000 huge pages. It was then prepared The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier plan was illegal (illegal) because it wasn’t very detailed on how to reach the legally binding climate target.

You can read our in-depth review of the CCC report On Carbon Brief.

The Guardian writes about the case Britain is missing climate targets on almost all fronts.

European Union: – We need global conversations about the risks of climate reform

– European Commission climate chief Frans Timmermans said at a press conference this week: – No one should experiment with our shared planet alone. Timmermans points to the straw that more and more people are including when climate calculations don’t add up: climate stabilization – or climate manipulation – (geoengineering in English). Climate stabilization includes, among other things, the direct removal of carbon dioxide₂Emissions from the atmosphere. A more controversial proposal is solar radiation modulation (SRM). It involves reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface by, for example, spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more light back into space. In a document linked to the case, the European Commission wrote that SRM – as it stands now – carries an “unacceptable level of risk to people and the environment”. In an article in Euractiv This week, the aforementioned Timmermans cautions against individual nations going it alone on this contentious issue and suggests that the United Nations be a forum for further discussions.

If you’d like to learn more about the topic of climate reform, I recommend the Energy and Climate Podcast earlier this year – with NTNU researcher and co-author of the sixth major report of the UN Climate Commission, Helen Murray. She is an expert on the subject and says:

“I entered the research with skepticism, and I remain skeptical. I hope we can succeed in slowing the climate crisis without adopting technologies that manipulate climate systems.”

Please also read this week’s expert interview with Professor Christoph Heinz at the Perkins Center and the Geophysical Institute at the University of Bergen, titled: Skeptical of carbon dioxide removal as a climate strategy.

Potsdam: Are biofuels as bad as fossil energy?

Biofuels are an important climate solution necessary to reach the Paris targets. This means that the demand will increase in the coming years. But a new study by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) shows that biofuels are far from a climate-neutral alternative to petrol and diesel. AND: Under current district regulations, CO₂– Emission factors for even biofuels More than Those of fossil diesel – very simply, because biomass production can lead to massive deforestation. Nature Climate Change writes of the study:

“Before bioenergy can effectively contribute to achieving carbon neutrality, international agreements must ensure the effective protection of forests and other natural areas by setting carbon prices.”

The study findings underscore the need for a paradigm shift in spatial politics, say the lead authors. You can read it on the website of The nature of climate change. You will find the study description of the Potsdam Institute under the heading Worse than diesel and petrol?

Another news report this week about pressure on forest areas can be found in several places financial times. It is about the loss of primeval tropical forests, which increased by 10 percent in 2022 – an area roughly the size of Switzerland. Brazil has cleared most of the primeval forests, with trees being felled mainly to provide grazing areas for livestock. This is according to new research from the University of Maryland and the World Resources Institute’s Global Forest Watch.

Climate risks: Two-thirds of the United States risk energy shortages this summer

A full two-thirds of North America is at risk of experiencing a power shortage this summer – during periods of high electricity demand for air conditioning systems. Much higher-than-normal summer temperatures – and heat waves – can, among other things, prevent electricity transmission between regions because local demand can be very high. Some states have a lot of wind in their energy mix, which can pose operational challenges on hot summer days, when electricity is needed for cooling and wind is absent. Low winds and periods of high demand could lead to an energy crisis, says a report from the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC), Published on the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) website..

Editor’s note: Friday the 5th takes summer off. The column returned on 11 August.