4 ms·
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
by _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 agoserious question: Why focus on conservation if you're generating more than can be consumed, and it being relatively unharmful to the environment?
- melling 11y agoJust 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 agoAs 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 agoIt 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...