SIJ Q&A
Energy minister says Danes ‘do well by doing good’
BY C ELESTE LE C OMPTE
Svend Auken, Danish Minister of Energy and
Environment, traveled to the Pacific Northwest in
March to speak with policy and industry leaders
about renewable energy opportunities.
It wasn’t Auken’s first trip — he attended the
University of Washington in Pullman for a year in
1961. With the help of a scholarship travel grant,
he purchased two 99-days-for-$99 Greyhound bus
tickets and traveled across North America, making
stops in 42 states on his way to and from Pullman
and New York. His travels introduced him to a
broad range of Americans, from small-town farm-
ers in Montana to President John F. Kennedy on
his campaign jaunt through California.
Auken took a moment from his latest Northwest
travel itinerary to talk with SIJ about Denmark’s
energy economy and his vision for the future.
SIJ: Denmark is getting a lot of attention
lately for its renewable energy industry. Here in
the Northwest, there seems to be a similar
momentum. Do you have experience to share?
SA: This policy of renewables is, in fact,
supported very strongly by the Danish public.
Today, close to 27 or 28 percent of all our power
supply comes from renewables, especially
biomass. And that is in addition to wind, which is
21 percent. For the rest we use CHP (combined
heat and power) and so we get more energy,
green energy, do something for the climate
change, something for our local employment.
And we make money out of it.
Normally, people say you have to choose: either
you get prosperous but polluting or you do
something about the environment, which you
have to pay a hefty price for. Our experience
proves that Denmark did not pay a high price for
this. Our slogan is, ‘Doing well by doing good.’
We have seen ourselves as pioneers here. Of
the world market more than 50 percent of
installed wind capacity is Danish technology.
And in North America I think we
have two-thirds of the North
American market. In
Canada for instance, it’s
close to 90 percent of the
market.
So it’s a big industry,
and it’s also playing a
great part in Danish
energy supply.
On average, 21
percent of our power
16 Sustainable Industries Journal
M AY 2 0 0 5
supply is wind, and we have a vision that we will projects sited?
double this share from 21 percent to 40 percent SA: There’s a huge potential offshore ... You
in 10 years, and that means that we will invest in avoid some of the conflicts that sometimes will
another 3,000 windmills. stop your project onshore — like neighbor
complaints, unwillingness and hesitancy on part
SIJ: Three thousand windmills seems like a of the public. So with offshore projects, say, five
lot for a small country. How will you get these miles out in the water, for instance. We believe
that will be a good idea.
We have a long coastline, we have shallow
“If I were in American waters, and we already have the two biggest
offshore wind farms. We’re building an extra two
government, I’d call the big wind farms offshore, and, all together, we will
oil companies and say, have like 800 MW offshore.
The other good idea we have is that we have so
‘You guys get fat now, the many turbines up in the Danish landscape — if
we could take them down, replace them by some
people get thin.We need more productive turbines, then we could allow for
your help.We need your people to get a quota three times the capacity they
scrap.
investments.We need your So we will get fewer but much more effective
ingenuity – not thinking only turbines, increasing total production, but with the
added benefit of having fewer turbines for people
of being an oil or coal to look at.
company, but being an SIJ: There is increasing interest in biofuels in
energy company.’” the Northwest. In Denmark’s experience, what do
you see as the future for this energy source?
SA: I believe it will come, but if you’re using
fossil fuels at the rate being done then it’s not
quite as promising as it would otherwise be.
What we’re trying to do is get down the use
of electricity in the refinery process and use
renewable energy, and then also to use not corn
or grain but straw or wood chips. If you do that,
I believe in biofuels.
And I think to connect between renewables
and biofuels is really the future.
But I was a little bit surprised that we actually
used 70 percent or 80 percent energy to produce
the new energy. That has gone down; the
technology is improving all the time. But I want
to combine renewables with biofuels. Then I
believe that’s part of the future.
SIJ: How do we encourage
these technologies’ growth?
SA: For oil companies, that’s
my vision: they should become
energy companies. We know that
their profits, with oil prices reach-
ing $55 to $56 — and nobody
believes it will come below $40
— most of their investments
were made on the basis of an
expected oil price of $20 to
M AY 2 0 0 5
$21 per barrel. Now they’re getting two-and-a-half
times that. That means that when all costs are
paid, they have a tremendous windfall. But their
reserves will be depleted in the future.
In addition to being more effective and better
in the search for new finds, they should be
enticed to, encouraged to, invest in new sources
of energy.
SIJ: Globally, have there been oil companies
that have taken the initiative on other forms of
energy development?
SA: We know that Shell is working together
with the Danish wind industry. They are working
on the research, the sites and so forth, together
with Vestas, the world’s biggest producer of wind
turbines. We know that BP is talking a lot on
doing something in solar. But if you ask me, I
think the progress has been too slow. I think that
governments have not been persuasive enough in
having them really divert or diversify their efforts.
SIJ: What do you think it would take to
implement that?
SA: It’s hard to say, but it’s a national dialogue.
I think that if I were in American government,
I’d call all the big oil companies and say, ‘You guys
get fat now, the people get thin. We need your
help. We need your investments. We need your
ingenuity — not thinking only of being an oil or
coal company, but being an energy company.’
The second thing I pointed out was for
consumers to be involved. Now, in my country,
the extra environment reward is paid for by the
consumers. If you did the same in the United
States, it would cost each household say like $40.
And then that takes it out of tax picture of the
government. It’s still such a small amount that I
think if people know this brings us new jobs, new
possibilities, here, new energy, and at the same
time benefits the climate, the environment, and it
will only cost me $40 per year? I think people will
accept it.
SIJ: One of the barriers that we seem to be
coming across in the United States is the cost of
transmission. Has this been an issue in Europe?
SA: It has not, because we have forced the
people to free access, non-discriminatory access,
and we have put it on the transmission companies
to make the necessary investments and then they
pass on the bill to the consumers. So in that way
also the consumers pay.
I think that transmission should be like your
freeways. If you want to have competition, the
freeways should be open to any transport
company, the same way that the grid should be
there and open up for competition between
nuclear energy, thermal energy, and wind energy.
SIJ: What about CHP?
Danes do it better,
but Finns do it best
ESI Rank Country
1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Uruguay
4 Sweden
5 Iceland
6 Canada
7 Switzerland
26 Denmark
33 Russia
45 United States
133 China
146 North Korea
SOURCE: 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index. www.yale.edu/esi
SA: CHP is a fantastic program.
It’s my view that if we just use the CHP poten-
tial of the European Union, for instance, we could
meet our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol
just by doing that. If you look at how much fuel
goes into producing heat and how much goes to
the same amount of power if you produce them
separately, compared to if you combine the
production, then you save 38 percent of the fuel.
In Denmark, we say that all central power sta-
tions should produce heat, and we say to the local
district heating projects that they shall also be pro-
ducing power. That has been carried on now for
more than 10 years, and that means today some-
thing like 60 percent of the house heating market
and industry heating market is done by CHP.
In the wintertime, we produce electricity as a
by-product. The heating needs are the most
important — and then you have the power.
SIJ: Did that kind of legislation require new
infrastructure development as well?
SA: Yes. To put the pipes in the ground, that’s
the upfront investment. In order to make a big
leap forward, we subsidized these new pipes by
using the revenue from our CO2 tax to finance
this project. Now in fact we are making money
out of it, but that’s what’s prohibitive about it —
it requires a big upfront investment in these big
pipes. If you plan it in new developments, it’s
advantageous.
SIJ: Denmark, despite its good track record,
is not one of the top countries in the international
sustainability index. Why is that?
SA: That’s a flaw with the sustainability thing.
Because [they] give a big premium to countries
with open spaces — and you can never achieve
that in a small country.
SIJ Q&A
Therefore, for instance, even though we have a
much more proactive environment policy than
Finland, the same size populations we have, but a
country 20 times as big, but if you look at the
criteria going into it, you have undisturbed nature.
Score We can never have undisturbed nature the
75.1 same way you have here. I mean all trees in
73.4 Denmark are planted, one way or another. On all
71.8 the other parameters we do very very well. But we
71.7 don’t do well on the undisturbed nature,
70.8 untouched nature.
64.4 It used to be that our life expectancy was not as
63.7
good, because women were much more active.
We have the same [workforce] participation rate as
58.2
men, and women on the labor market are subject-
56.1
ed to many of the same stress factors and so
52.9
forth. And therefore we have a lower life expectan-
38.6 cy for women than most other countries have. But
29.2 that has been corrected. It has increased two years
over the last eight or nine years.
SIJ: Are there areas where Denmark isn’t as
sustainable as you’d like?
SA: Agriculture, for instance. There’s a lot of
conflict between modern agriculture in a small
country like ours and our interest in preserving
our streams and lakes. Our nature is getting too
fat. It is being fertilized by nitrates and
phosphates and whatnot from modern ag.
How can we get the over-nourishment of
Danish soil down? For some of our most fascinat-
ing species are living in [habitats] that are, if not
undernourished, strained for nourishment.
This is another huge challenge we have: trans-
port. Not nearly as bad as here, but in terms of
sustainable living, transport is out of control.
We were supposed to reduce, for instance,
CO2 emissions. By 2020 we expected to reduce by
20 percent. In fact, it’s gone up by 15 percent. So
that’s a big challenge.
SIJ: Has your experience taught you ways to
meet these challenges?
SA: Because something is economically wise
and long-term beneficial and may even create
jobs, there will be pains.
So work with local communities is key —
especially to have local people explain to local
people. What I always said to my people in
Copenhagen is, talk to them as you would talk to
your own neighbors, to your family, and so forth.
And get them to share your vision, and you get to
share their problems with them. Then you can
move them.
But the second they feel that you talk down to
them, talk in simplistic terms and say that they
underestimate all this, you lose them.
It’s also important that you stand your ground,
that you’re not pushed around. And on top of
that, a little money always helps. G
Sustainable Industries Journal 17