8 ms·

Alas, as the wind soars, so do our energy costs. Danish electricity prices have only gone up, up, up, and through the roof during the last thirty years or so, c

Alas, as the wind soars, so do our energy costs. Danish electricity prices have only gone up, up, up, and through the roof during the last thirty years or so, concurrent with the massive, statesponsored introduction of wind turbines. Or, to be precise, the pricetag of electricity itself hasn't really changed much since the 1930s, but has been completely buried under an avalanche of taxation, which in various guises makes up nearly nine tenths of my electricity bill. A lot of this is "green" tax, earmarked for sponsoring - you guessed it - more governmentally mandated wind turbines. To the best of my knowledge, our Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe.

static_noise 11y ago
In Germany, the private consumer pays for all the additional cost imposed by renewables while the industry still gets the old tariffs. Naturally, because a small fraction of consumers need to cover the whole cost, normal people see a much higher bill.
radmuzom 11y ago
These are the costs you are paying for having a better and cleaner future not only for yourselves but also the next generation. Nothing wrong with that.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  Absolutely true, but it's not being promoted right. While Denmark is building wind farms, we're have also been told to save on electricity continuously for the past 10+ years. Again there's nothing wrong with that, BUT if you save on electricity every year and still see your bill go up, due to additional taxes, and tariffs, your motivation is broken. Saved 10% on your electricity and having your bill stay the same doesn't make you particular susceptible to future electricity saving campaigns. If you don't do anything, then sure you bill goes up, but at least it does feel like wasted effort. The majority of an electricity bill in Denmark isn't the power you used, that's actually fairly cheap, it's the myriad of different taxes that raise your bill. It makes it almost impossible to read you bill or reduce your cost by any significant amount. It really isn't a system that promotes energy savings.
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    But surely it is pretty simple to see the two separately - you pay X for electricity used (a falling amount) and Y for mandatory green tax (which everyone moans about but at least sees some social utility for)
  - lyschoening 11y ago
    What you're saying is that you saved 10% electricity and helped the environment at no cost to you. (You might have bought some expensive LED lights, but at least they'll last a number of years.) I also got a little annoyed this year when my energy provider informed me that the electricity costs would sink (pegged to actual marked prices) and the fixed costs would rise. That change made my electricity more expensive only because I use very little electricity. Regardless of that change though, using more electricity would still cost me more — so there is no reason to leave the lights on for good measure. The change just reflects the nature of utilities. The utility has to maintain the grid no matter how much electricity you use. If the fixed costs increase that just means the pricing is more realistic.
    - mrweasel 11y ago
      > What you're saying is that you saved 10% electricity and helped the environment at no cost to you. That's not what I'm saying. We're aren't talking about just changing light bulbs, most people I know did that years ago. All the easy stuff was done years ago, it's trying to eliminate standby power consumption, turning of the oven early cooking on the residual heat, buying a new fridge and so on. Expensive and cumbersome things. Sure people want to help the environment, but it would be more motivating if all your investments and vigilance was reflected on your electric bill. A typical Danish electric bill is: 10% transport, paying for the grid. 45% electric tax (Just a tax, not really clear what it's for). 20% sales tax 10% PSO tax, for securing electrical supply, support for green energy production and research. 15% Actual energy usage. I'm concerned that people will stop trying to save energy, if it's not reflected on their bill. Most people will say that they want to help the environment, but honestly I don't think it's a motivating factor for remembering to turn of the light, the direct impact is simply to small.
  - 11y ago
mrbabbage 11y ago
Make sure you qualify what "most expensive" means. Here in California, we have some of the highest electric rates in the United States but also some of the lowest electric bills [1]. Saying we have "expensive" energy requires defining what that metric is; sure, CA loses on energy rates but I'll argue the rate is a questionable metric at best. I have no idea what the situation is in Denmark, of course, but there's more than the per-kilowatt-hour figure. For the curious, California achieves this by a regulatory measure called "decoupling": a utility's profits are not connected to how much raw energy it sells. In particular, CPUC (the statewide utility regulator) lets electric utilities, both municipal (e.g. SMUD) and investor-owned (e.g. PG&E), charge higher rates if they implement energy efficiency or demand-side management measure to reduce total demand, allowing the utility to maintain about the same level of profitability but at reduced energy consumption. It's pretty cool. [1] in 2012, from EIA data, CA paid $0.15/kWh rate and $88 average monthly bill mo whereas the national average was $0.12/kWh and $107/mo. Slides from Jane Woodward.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  Haha, I pay $.30AUD/kWh, and that's with some discounts. I'll be looking into solar panels for next year, but alas the government prefers coal and has cut the solar rebates.
- interfixus 11y ago
  Yes, there is more than the per-kilowatt-hour figure. There is a fixed charge for being connected to the public grid. That connection, here in Denmark, is mandatory, by the way. But apart from that, there's nothing more. That's the cost I see, that's the price I have to pay. And I do mean HAVE to pay. Going off the grid, producing my own electricity, will only get me into taxational hot water and possibly fines.
  - rsync 11y ago
    Wait, what ? If you have a rural vacation house (for instance) in Denmark, and you are off the grid and ... perhaps have some solar arrays ... you would have to pay tax on the power generated ? And possibly fines ? Am I misunderstanding what you wrote ?
_delirium 11y ago
That's the actual intended policy, though, not some undesired side effect. The public policy has been that electricity should be highly taxed, both to encourage conservation and to raise funds for making it cleaner. It's also, like many things in Denmark, tied in with national industrial policy. Greentech in general, and wind turbines in particular, are seen as an important export sector. So Denmark has an interest in "modeling" the benefits of this technology at home, with the expectation that between Vestas, smart-grid technology, etc., the whole endeavor of associating Denmark with wind energy will not only be "green", but also net-profitable for the country.
- halviti 11y ago
  serious question: Why focus on conservation if you're generating more than can be consumed, and it being relatively unharmful to the environment?
  - melling 11y ago
    Just a guess but I'm going to go with a common sense answer. Because usage can quickly outstrip supply. Look at how Saudi domestic oil consumption has greatly increased, for example. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/energy-environment/18iht-ren-saudi18.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/energy-environmen... Update Let me add another common sense answer. Because any excess electricity can be sold to other countries for a profit.
  - BaryonBundle 11y ago
    As with most renewables (e.g., wind, solar, wave), I would imagine that just because production of energy outpaced its consumption on a given day, the same may not be true on any other given day.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - taf2 11y ago
      It was not clear if energy capacity has recently increased but the article did state that last year on average it produced 39% from wind. That being the case, focusing on conservation seems like a good idea still...
bjelkeman-again 11y ago
> To the best of my knowledge, our Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe. It is, when you count in taxes and VAT, which go to produce other useful outcomes. However, Ireland together with the UK has the highest energy prices excluding taxes, closely followed by Cyprus and Spain. Interestingly enough, three of these are islands. It would be interesting to see these prices without subsidies, as the enery market is pretty global and these big differences must come from something else, I think. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2014_(¹)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB15.png http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Sounds very sensible. Most economists seem to favour a revenue-neutral carbon (or GHG) tax, as that let's the market work a little better, but the end result would be similar, people paying more for electricity and there being an incentive to build towards a 100% renewable/carbon free energy grid.

static_noise 11y ago

In Germany, the private consumer pays for all the additional cost imposed by renewables while the industry still gets the old tariffs. Naturally, because a small fraction of consumers need to cover the whole cost, normal people see a much higher bill.

radmuzom 11y ago

These are the costs you are paying for having a better and cleaner future not only for yourselves but also the next generation. Nothing wrong with that.

mrweasel 11y ago
Absolutely true, but it's not being promoted right. While Denmark is building wind farms, we're have also been told to save on electricity continuously for the past 10+ years. Again there's nothing wrong with that, BUT if you save on electricity every year and still see your bill go up, due to additional taxes, and tariffs, your motivation is broken. Saved 10% on your electricity and having your bill stay the same doesn't make you particular susceptible to future electricity saving campaigns. If you don't do anything, then sure you bill goes up, but at least it does feel like wasted effort. The majority of an electricity bill in Denmark isn't the power you used, that's actually fairly cheap, it's the myriad of different taxes that raise your bill. It makes it almost impossible to read you bill or reduce your cost by any significant amount. It really isn't a system that promotes energy savings.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  But surely it is pretty simple to see the two separately - you pay X for electricity used (a falling amount) and Y for mandatory green tax (which everyone moans about but at least sees some social utility for)
- lyschoening 11y ago
  What you're saying is that you saved 10% electricity and helped the environment at no cost to you. (You might have bought some expensive LED lights, but at least they'll last a number of years.) I also got a little annoyed this year when my energy provider informed me that the electricity costs would sink (pegged to actual marked prices) and the fixed costs would rise. That change made my electricity more expensive only because I use very little electricity. Regardless of that change though, using more electricity would still cost me more — so there is no reason to leave the lights on for good measure. The change just reflects the nature of utilities. The utility has to maintain the grid no matter how much electricity you use. If the fixed costs increase that just means the pricing is more realistic.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    > What you're saying is that you saved 10% electricity and helped the environment at no cost to you. That's not what I'm saying. We're aren't talking about just changing light bulbs, most people I know did that years ago. All the easy stuff was done years ago, it's trying to eliminate standby power consumption, turning of the oven early cooking on the residual heat, buying a new fridge and so on. Expensive and cumbersome things. Sure people want to help the environment, but it would be more motivating if all your investments and vigilance was reflected on your electric bill. A typical Danish electric bill is: 10% transport, paying for the grid. 45% electric tax (Just a tax, not really clear what it's for). 20% sales tax 10% PSO tax, for securing electrical supply, support for green energy production and research. 15% Actual energy usage. I'm concerned that people will stop trying to save energy, if it's not reflected on their bill. Most people will say that they want to help the environment, but honestly I don't think it's a motivating factor for remembering to turn of the light, the direct impact is simply to small.
- 11y ago

mrbabbage 11y ago

Make sure you qualify what "most expensive" means. Here in California, we have some of the highest electric rates in the United States but also some of the lowest electric bills [1]. Saying we have "expensive" energy requires defining what that metric is; sure, CA loses on energy rates but I'll argue the rate is a questionable metric at best. I have no idea what the situation is in Denmark, of course, but there's more than the per-kilowatt-hour figure. For the curious, California achieves this by a regulatory measure called "decoupling": a utility's profits are not connected to how much raw energy it sells. In particular, CPUC (the statewide utility regulator) lets electric utilities, both municipal (e.g. SMUD) and investor-owned (e.g. PG&E), charge higher rates if they implement energy efficiency or demand-side management measure to reduce total demand, allowing the utility to maintain about the same level of profitability but at reduced energy consumption. It's pretty cool. [1] in 2012, from EIA data, CA paid $0.15/kWh rate and $88 average monthly bill mo whereas the national average was $0.12/kWh and $107/mo. Slides from Jane Woodward.

voltagex_ 11y ago
Haha, I pay $.30AUD/kWh, and that's with some discounts. I'll be looking into solar panels for next year, but alas the government prefers coal and has cut the solar rebates.
interfixus 11y ago
Yes, there is more than the per-kilowatt-hour figure. There is a fixed charge for being connected to the public grid. That connection, here in Denmark, is mandatory, by the way. But apart from that, there's nothing more. That's the cost I see, that's the price I have to pay. And I do mean HAVE to pay. Going off the grid, producing my own electricity, will only get me into taxational hot water and possibly fines.
- rsync 11y ago
  Wait, what ? If you have a rural vacation house (for instance) in Denmark, and you are off the grid and ... perhaps have some solar arrays ... you would have to pay tax on the power generated ? And possibly fines ? Am I misunderstanding what you wrote ?

_delirium 11y ago

That's the actual intended policy, though, not some undesired side effect. The public policy has been that electricity should be highly taxed, both to encourage conservation and to raise funds for making it cleaner. It's also, like many things in Denmark, tied in with national industrial policy. Greentech in general, and wind turbines in particular, are seen as an important export sector. So Denmark has an interest in "modeling" the benefits of this technology at home, with the expectation that between Vestas, smart-grid technology, etc., the whole endeavor of associating Denmark with wind energy will not only be "green", but also net-profitable for the country.

halviti 11y ago
serious question: Why focus on conservation if you're generating more than can be consumed, and it being relatively unharmful to the environment?
- melling 11y ago
  Just a guess but I'm going to go with a common sense answer. Because usage can quickly outstrip supply. Look at how Saudi domestic oil consumption has greatly increased, for example. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/energy-environment/18iht-ren-saudi18.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/energy-environmen... Update Let me add another common sense answer. Because any excess electricity can be sold to other countries for a profit.
- BaryonBundle 11y ago
  As with most renewables (e.g., wind, solar, wave), I would imagine that just because production of energy outpaced its consumption on a given day, the same may not be true on any other given day.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - taf2 11y ago
    It was not clear if energy capacity has recently increased but the article did state that last year on average it produced 39% from wind. That being the case, focusing on conservation seems like a good idea still...

bjelkeman-again 11y ago

> To the best of my knowledge, our Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe. It is, when you count in taxes and VAT, which go to produce other useful outcomes. However, Ireland together with the UK has the highest energy prices excluding taxes, closely followed by Cyprus and Spain. Interestingly enough, three of these are islands. It would be interesting to see these prices without subsidies, as the enery market is pretty global and these big differences must come from something else, I think. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2014_(¹)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB15.png http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Sounds very sensible. Most economists seem to favour a revenue-neutral carbon (or GHG) tax, as that let's the market work a little better, but the end result would be similar, people paying more for electricity and there being an incentive to build towards a 100% renewable/carbon free energy grid.