Denmark's $34BN Energy Islands Could Solve Europe's Power Problem

These artificial islands off the coast of Denmark could hold the key to the future of Europe's power grids. For more by Tomorrow’s Build subscribe now - bit.ly/3vOOJ98
Executive Producer and Narrator - Fred Mills
Producer - Adam Savage
Video Editing and Graphics - Thomas Canton
Additional footage and images courtesy of COWI/Arkitema, Danish Energy Agency, Energinet, Royal HaskoningDHV, TenneT, Cameron Brow/CC BY-SA 4.0 and OpenStreetMap Contributers (www.openstreet....
Follow us on Twitter - / tomorrowsbuild
Like us on Facebook - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on LinkedIn - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on Instagram - / tomorrowsbuild
#construction​ #architecture​ #energy
Tomorrow's Build is owned and operated by The B1M Limited. We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules: www.theb1m.com/...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact [e-mail].
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2021 The B1M Limited

[@manius1222]

Those islands are a really cool idea! You can generate a lot of energy, without people complaining about it "ruining the landscape" or being "noisy".

[@unvergebeneid]

Or causing cancer ;)

[@3atFr35h]

@@unvergebeneid cancer?

[@unvergebeneid]

@@3atFr35h Donald Trump claimed windmills cause cancer.

[@Leooel9]

@@unvergebeneid They definitely do not cause cancer. There is nothing carcinogenic about wind turbines.

[@Coolzlps]

They aren't only "ruining the landscape". They are ruining nature and have horrible impact on the ecosystem. I rather have a nuclear power plant then thousands of windmills that are destroying the oceans or forests.

[@reirei_tk]

My mind was blown when you said Denmark was the largest oil producer in the EU, but then I remember that the UK and Norway aren't in the EU.

[@TheBooban]

I thought maybe Holland; Shell. What is Denmarks oil company...?

[@DIProgan]

@@TheBooban A.P. Moller-Maersk is one, "Dong" is another. Both have sold off all of their oil production to, among others, France

[@sariost1757]

Arent we great (:

[@Yaratoma]

Hihi, my exact thought

[@zt2019]

@@DIProgan is dong now known as orsted?

[@NewMoneyYouTube]

Man this channel is off to a flying start... Awesome work guys! Have watched the B1M for a long time and love that we're getting even more high quality videos here!

[@stopsallmelb]

Didn't think I'd see you here 😂

[@NewMoneyYouTube]

@@stopsallmelb hehe I'm everywhere... :P

[@darioadrianz]

Quite literally more high quality, they upload up to 2160p, not 1080p like on the B1M

[@MyKharli]

Yes , but did you see the B1M on hyperloop.?.it makes you doubt the rest .

[@midorixi]

And the video editing also, so good!

[@viktorkongskov5692]

As someone who lives on Bornholm, i can confirm that the plans for these islands change faster than i can keep track of

[@vstrom9586]

they are a blow'n in the wind

[@jeffharmed1616]

It takes time for the politicians to present acceptable fudged figures.

[@australien6611]

Are there no natural islands in the whole region to use instead of building them?

[@viktorkongskov5692]

@@australien6611 Not in the open ocean areas where they would be most efficient. Denmark has a few uninhabited islands but they're located in between the larger islands and close to land.

[@Juuk-D]

Yes it's all about location...

[@Niebuhrdk]

As an update for this. Denmark, Germany, Holland and Belgium just signed an agreement for upscaling this energy island by 10 times aiming for a total produce of 150 gigawatt (equals 230.000.000 households) Which is half of what the EU aim for as a total. :) The project is set at a pricelabel around 134.363.000.000 Euro / 142.442.000.000 USD :)

[@gulgaio]

With current Russia crisis i wonder if one hub will leave us vounerable

[@ML_____]

Just leave oil infrastructure in usable condition

[@Max_von_Mustermann_ll]

May I take a guess on how much percent of the overall price Germany will have to pay? 🙈 Cause it will be a lot

[@faceybrian404]

@@Max_von_Mustermann_ll germany by far has the biggest economy in the agreement, so makes plenty of sense

[@kennethhudson8013]

That's a very expensive project, you won't get out what you put in

[@Doug7RM]

I often imagine how farther ahead we’d be if we spent all our money on solving these kind of problems rather than spending it on war and destruction

[@markmeade2937]

Just imagine how far we could be if mankind learnt to live with one another and concentrated on sorting out our problems. The sun and say 20 solar power stations in orbit and the power transferred down to ground substations using microwaves The whole world working as one , and living on Mars and terriforming the planet would happen in our lifetime…..

[@bite-my-shinny-metal-ass]

Or iphones

[@geoffoakland]

Let the Danes run the world, always at the cutting edge of so many things

[@TheAbdominalSnowman]

preposterous!

[@blitzroute66]

You get feats like world beating vaccines in less than a year.... Defense levels of money spent on healthcare because it was inconvenient enough...

[@JeroenMul]

As an inhabitant of Gouda, the Netherlands, I was quite surprised to see aerial footage of my city in a video about Denmark 😅

[@jonasjascha]

Oh no. Not the Dutch/Danish confusion again. 😉

[@krashd]

Trust the Dutch to name a city after a cheese. j/k

[@RFGfotografie]

Hihi I wasn't the only one seeying my city xD

[@asdf3568]

@@jonasjascha Like Swedish / Swiss

[@rorychivers8769]

@@asdf3568 I know right, I love me some good Swedish Cheese

[@redpandamand8294]

Building artificial islands? Somebody call the Netherlands ASAP

[@Semtx552]

Van Oord springs to mind, they made the Dubai palm island, but also have a wind division. I'm sure they take part on the tender process :)

[@thijsdeweerd96]

One of the main engineering firms involved, Royal HaskoningDHV, is a Dutch firm. A lot of the video material is made by them, and they are credited in the description

[@benedettobruno1669]

Quick thinking Tim! And a very appropriate suggestion!

[@gangleweed]

LOL.....one day a country with almost nil resources will realise they are sitting on a gold mine and it's the ground under their feet that is worth more than all the gold in the World ever mined.....that is, they can mine their dirt and sell it to countries that want to change their topography by raising their ground level or changing their coastline etc........doing it with sand like Dubai is not all that productive for vegetation due to the salt content, but above sea level earth is almost salt free.

[@andrew1717xx]

Or China

[@dholt21771]

Five minutes of words without being able to state what these magical islands will do.

[@soufianadam8964]

amazing kind of art. Beautiful and practical. So thumbs up for this project

[@PrimoStracciatella]

This would also be a good chance to look into energy produced by tidal forces. They don't rely on wind or sun but run like clockwork day and night.

[@SioGG]

A combination of all three would be amazing if possible, imagine having solar, tidal and wind forces all producing energy from the same island. Solar wherever there is space available and wind turbines which sit on top of the tidal turbines. Someone who is actually knowledgeable within these areas (cause I'm definitely not) might prove it impossible but one can dream

[@adriensimon4652]

When you say tidal, you mean taking the energy of the wave or the current? The problem with wave is that you have to be perpendicular of it to take the more energy from it (in the atlantic cost the wave has an power between 30 and 60kW par meter). Putting this in a floatting wind turbine might be counter productive because it is not large enough. Also it is complicated to transform this energy because it is a mix of cinetic and potential (speed of the wave and height of the wave). A lot of research have stopped because it has been considerate not really interesting despite the potential (1400TWh in the world). For the current, not stupid. Good idea to have but the problem is, if you put a floating wind + water turbine, if the flow of the wind and the flow of the water are not align it is a mess I think. It the two are opposite you basically have a spinning top. Not saying impossible, just really complicated and also not sure it would be interesting because you then have more masse (two motors, two turbine...) so the floating system must be way bigger which mean more material... Impossible to know if it would be interesting without a study of several years ^^

[@blanco7726]

@@SioGG well the solar part is a bit useless. First of all, it’s a small surface. The amount of solar panels you can fit on there is gonna maybe power the lights on the island lol. Second, it’s in the middle of the ocean, which is most of the time (I’m nearly sure) very cloudy and stormy. So putting funds into solar panels where they will produce like 70% of what they would produce on land, is a waste of money.

[@Ladosligese]

@@blanco7726 you DO know that clouds have little effect on solar panels right ?

[@blanco7726]

@@Ladosligese yes you go ahead and convince me that solar panels in the middle of an ocean, the Northern Sea nonetheless, can produce more than 70% of what they would produce on land far away of the sea and the constant clouds..

[@v0ort]

I didn't know you guys had this channel, instant subscribe. Also know that the Netherlands has plans for such energy islands. Really interesting stuff

[@Skies133]

It's a project between Denmark, UK, Germany, Netherlands & Belgium. Not sure if Norway is in on it too. So it's the same one.

[@Trazynn]

Seems like a cool place to work. More comfortable than an oil rig certainly.

[@sharegreats2157]

Projects like these give me much more "European Identity" than all well-meant politician talks combined.

[@edoardobizzotto1877]

That with Verhofstadt destroying Zuckerberg

[@twotone3070]

I'm not against your sentiment in any way, but this is about money, as everything always is. If they could make more money by not selling the electricity, they will.

[@limbodog]

I'd love to see one of Boston Harbor's islands converted this way. Maybe Shag Rock island or the Outer Brewster. We used to put forts on these islands, putting a power farm would be an even better use.

[@MarkLeel]

Incredible content again.

[@TomorrowsBuild]

Thank you so much!!

[@john_smith_john]

As an inhabitant of Earth, I can confirm we do have a climate.

[@bramza8853]

Ah I was not entirely sure, but now I am! Thank you for this informative comment. SPREAD THE WORD

[@goatface6602]

……and it’s constantly changing. Always has, always will.

[@rowanbixler4700]

Wouldn’t it just make more sense to build an “energy rig” like an oil rig rather than a static island both in terms of sea level rise issues and in case it would make sense elsewhere in the future?

[@Juuk-D]

Why would that make more sense? And what is a "energy rig" it's wind energy how do you make a "rig" wind turbines are noise too you don't want to live near one

[@rowanbixler4700]

@@Juuk-D what I mean is I feel like it would make more sense to put the storage such as batteries on a floating platform rather than an island built into the seabed. That was you cut out a bunch of problems like sea level rise, erosion and probably a lot of environmental damage like sedimentation.

[@edukid1984]

@@rowanbixler4700 From what I understand it becomes extremely difficult to keep a platform stable and in position once the size gets too big. The massive inertia can pose a lot of danger to the infrastructure that connects it to the mainland.

[@victorwurtz9388]

M

[@ilfisarmonicistapazz]

@@rowanbixler4700 there is no storage on these islands

[@boredgrass]

HEY! Congratulations to this channel! 💐 My best wishes! What ever the future holds for this project, it will be reported with expertise, excellent footage and visuals and a superb narration, one can't stop listening to! :-)

[@Adam-pd7it]

Will be working on this project later this year 👌🏼

[@DestinAU]

So awesome to see such huge developments of clean energy! Especially being an investor in the area :)

[@francesco5254]

Expecially being a wind energy student too :)

[@MrPrush-ji4gs]

No you aren’t you are just a child

[@chadleach6009]

"Clean"

[@gambanteinodal1246]

Clean energy... Think again!

[@123tinhat123]

What happens when there is no wind?

[@alienamzal477]

B1M stans

[@TheB1M]

We see you 🙌

[@thomasthemarstrain2141]

@@TheB1M do you see me? 🥺

[@Overvaag]

It would most likely be moored super vessels rather than building entire islands in the future. There are already plans for vessels of 500x200 meter that are moored and tethered together. It makes it far more flexible and able to withstand errosion problems which islands would be susectible for in the north sea. The oil and gas industry already has extensive knowledge within this field, there's no need to look further than to an FPSO which may be stationary for 30+ years.

[@nikosvithoulkas180]

Makes a lot of sense to use them in the Aegean sea. Vast amount of energy capacity from a region that wll connect the electric grid of Europe and Middle east through Euro Asia Interconnector

[@hedgehog3180]

Vessels like that aren't built to be easily expandable and to provide facilities for industrial production so they wouldn't be suited for this task. Building an artificial isn't isn't that expensive either, especially if you're using sand that has been dredged up from some of the projects that are currently underway to expand navigable lanes.

[@blanco7726]

@@nikosvithoulkas180 are there already wind turbines in the Aegan? Because if there isn’t theres a good chance the wind is just shit around there.

[@victorwurtz9388]

L

[@dankspain]

Nah, most of the ideas right now are based around building up an island. Lack of sand is an issue.

[@micnolmadtube]

What's most worth to notice is that NOONE in Denmark has even heard of this! I am danish and have lived here all my life, so I should know.

[@wiiten]

I’ve learned last year that in France we have a research center pioneering nuclear fusion research and It has existed for many years. This is the kind of information you sadly have to look for by yourself.

[@jajjjamensan]

Problem with windpower is that you cant control the production, you will always need nuclear, water or fossilpower to be able to turn up the production by the press of a button and restrict it when needed. Waterpower can store the energy effectivly since you pump up water when the electric is at low cost and releasing it at high. If you make hydrogen when low and burn it when high you can also store but you only get 1/3 of the energy you put in, so its far from effective

[@igni_ferroque]

shhhh, stop annoying other ppl with facts.

[@k0zzu21]

It's more like you get 1/20th of the electricity you put in back as electricity with hydrogen.

[@igni_ferroque]

@@k0zzu21 A fair price to pay, thus its imperative to devastate a few 100 square kilometers of marine wildlife.

[@No2Guy]

For the first 10 seconds I thought that it didn’t really sound like you 😂 I’m glad it is though. I prefer your voice overs compared to a cover

[@ej732]

Renewable energy that will result in tripling energy bills.

[@JoeGarde]

brilliant thinking, progressive and responsible.

[@ExploringCabinsandMines]

If it sounds good lemmings love it !!

[@mymoomin0952]

@A Z if this pilot project works, then surely we should try a bigger follow-up

[@mymoomin0952]

@A Z nuclear is cool but it's expensive and takes ages to build. It has its own advantages - consistent, baseline power in all weather conditions and times of year - and there's no need to pretend that much cheaper things like wind or solar are a waste of money just to try push nuclear

[@hedgehog3180]

@A Z You're a gullible idiot. Nuclear is not the magic bullet you think it is and it can't even compete with wind and solar on a cost per megawatt basis and certainly not when it comes to how quickly it takes to build. Finland has spent almost two decades building one reactor which ended up costing 8.5 billion Euro and which only provides 1.6 GW, meanwhile this project will provide 10 GW at the end. If you were to provide an equal amount of power with nuclear at this cost it'd cost 51.8 billion Euro and that's not even getting into the time issue. Something which we do not have a lot of so even if nuclear was cost efficient it still wouldn't make sense to build because it'd take 20 years before we just get a few power plants done, meanwhile Horns Rev 3 was finished 5 years after the first tender went out and only took 3 years to build. You've been conned by people who want to sell an impractical and expensive energy solution but you're not gonna ever acknowledge that because it makes you feel superior to the people who actually know their shit. This whole attempt at a nuclear revival is just lead by people who don't know shit about the green transition and is frankly the most effective disinformation campaign since climate change denialism.

[@marshallfischer3667]

I wonder where you're going to put all those wind turbines when they come to the end of their life cycle.....

[@simon_sweden1778]

This is why nordic countries is the best

[@malypavel25]

How about they just build an average nuclear power plant?

[@Space_cowboy000]

Lol

[@mobile8873]

That's one thing about the Scandinavians, they are very creative when it comes to solving problems. My country, Singapore, is also embarking on a major project with Australia. We are going to pipe green energy (solar farms) from Australia all the way to Singapore. It's going to supply some 20% of our electricity once it is fully operational

[@johanneswestman935]

We are creative with coming up with non-solutions. This project is nonsense. The amount of rare earth minerals needed to make this scaleable and realistic would require thousands if not tens of thousands of new mines. The average lead time for a mine from discovery to mining is 30 years. A significant portion of those rare-earth metals are found in Russia. We need oil and gas.

[@kristianl7117]

@@johanneswestman935 I dunno man. China has built out 300+GW of wind power in the later years. It's definitely possible. The main problem is that wind power isn't that stable (but I imagine it's pretty stable in the north sea). To say we need fossil fuels is just wrong though. We have perfectly viable power solutions such as: Hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass etc.

[@johanneswestman935]

@@kristianl7117 You don't know because you haven't done the math. The amount of commodities going in and out of storage on the markets is information that is openly available. Go look at the supply, go look at what the inputs are and do the math. The conclusion is pretty simple. It's not possible. It might be possible for Hamburg to be "100 % renewable" if only Hamburg does it. But if everyone is going to do it - at the same time - there aren't enough minerals and open mines in the world to produce that supply. Fossil fuels are absolutely critical. Wind doesn't even account for 5 % while coal accounts for over 60 % of Chinese electricity generation.

[@kristianl7117]

@@johanneswestman935 28% of Chinese energy comes from renewable sources. This is an increase of 10pp in 10 years. Sure, fossil fuels are needed in the short term, but it is very possible (almost certain) that we will transition away from fossils entirely in a few decades.

[@johanneswestman935]

@@kristianl7117 Sorry Kristian, it is evident to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. You are clearly not an energy investor or anything of the sort. Fossil fuels are not going anywhere. There aren't enough metals to create your utopia. The vast majority of Chinese renewables is hydropower - which is not an option everywhere. We are moving from coal to natural gas.

[@nathanseago]

Great video! I can't imagine the efforts required to maintain all of those wind turbines in a salty ocean environment.

[@martinrotvig]

Doesn’t require that much maintenance, much less than other energy forms beside solar.

[@hedgehog3180]

Since all of the critical components are housed in the top of the turbine it's actually not that difficult, the generator and gearing is housed about 150 meters above sea level and some of the turbines being tested right now are taller than the Eiffel tower.

[@rogerjamespaul5528]

@@hedgehog3180 Advice in Australia, if you live within 30Km of the coast line then you may need to monitor the amount of Salt consumed in food products.

[@kaspervestergaard2383]

@@rogerjamespaul5528 That is different. In Australia you can die of anything.

[@oraoinc2384]

One of the biggest challenges with this project will likely be designing and installing an effective ground grid. The grid will have to be installed beneath the seabed, but must be connected to the auxiliary ground grid within the artificial island itself. I’d definitely like to get details on this and see how this island can be effectively grounded. Interesting project, very innovative!

[@CyberWolf755]

I'm more skeptical on the wind turbine tech. Creation and maintenance of wind turbines and solar farms are still expensive and are not environmentally friendly with the materials they use.

[@horseradish843]

@@CyberWolf755 Oh ok, so what are you suggesting now? Should we use coal and gas then? Nuclear is a tiny bit better than wind, but nuclear power is alot more expensive. So what exactly would you want?

[@blanco7726]

@@horseradish843 a nuclear island obviously duh

[@ShatteredPlainsTransverser]

@@blanco7726 let's call nuclear plants on islands: artificial volcano island

[@OmmerSyssel]

No worries, almost entire Danish power grid is long replaced into the ground. A result of one of the few sensible decisions a former energy minister made some 25 years ago ...

[@hardrockminer-50]

Assuming a life of 25 years, $34Billion to build a 3 GW facility works out to about $0.05/ kWh. Assuming 2 MW output per windmill, that's 1,500 windmills. That's a huge footprint.

[@shogunhoneybear]

Wait, why an island? I thought all the islands were going to be underwater due to global warming and rising sea levels?

[@anders9646]

Its artificial and basically floating so wont be a problem

[@jefftomasello3258]

@@anders9646 A floating island, what could go wrong?

[@hypercomms2001]

Sounds like the perfect place for a Bond villain....

[@michaelinminn]

Another boondoggle for the do-gooders. Building unnatural things always invites natural consequences. Never pretty.

[@dandaintac388]

@@michaelinminn Everything human beings build is an "unnatural thing"!!! Is an oil rig a "natural thing"?

[@michaelinminn]

@@dandaintac388 No; and nature has been raising hell with them, also.

[@benjaminheindl1069]

Would absolutely watch an hour long version of this. Integrating renewables is such a huuuuge topic and really interesting too 😁🔥🔥

[@mcmarkmarkson7115]

Fill all the oceans with those wind turbines...nuclear power was the best thing we had and going away from it killed more animals and destroyed the environment much more, not to mention made more humans poorer.

[@candycanessongs]

Good to see that Sea levels rising is no longer a concern........

[@jtully87]

global warming centers around humans causing it, presumably their logic is creating "green" alternatives will stop that altogether, of course mother nature won't care in a few centuries.

[@panan7777]

@@jtully87 THERE in ABSOLUTELY NO logic in this crazy scheme only ruin.

[@mugin11223344]

@@panan7777 How did you come to that conclusion?

[@canavar1435]

@@panan7777 yes, indeed: HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?

[@panan7777]

@@canavar1435 By being literate. Reading German and English newspapers and having a degree in mechanical engineering. AND YOU?

[@filipepereira9155]

In Portugal will be a great place to put one this, they have a lot space on sea.

[@FenceThis]

But quite far away from mainland and surrounded by deeper water

[@Kangenpower7]

I would like to see a hotel with at least 150 rooms, and a 3-4 story high, with a penthouse restaurant. Then I could see a lot of tourists visiting to have lunch, spend the night, ect. Along with workers being able to spend the night, without the need to go back to the mainland each night. HVDC makes sense as many of the countries are not all on the same frequency, and it is easy to send DC power to anyone. What they really need is a more compact high frequency transformer, not the common copper transformers used today to make the 67,000 volts into the 350,000 volts used on the export cables.

[@zaarkeru3391]

I support the tourist idea. We need to show off our increadible energineering projects more, and i think alot of people would enjoy it.

[@sidekickmusic5936]

This could become a high priority military target. I hope they build anti-missile batteries on it.

[@JonasPolsky]

if you see a windpower island and an oil tanker next to each other, which would you attack first?

[@Alcani81]

You must be an American? You are always thinking weapons' first. And Denmark will not be attacked.

[@ponypruhest]

So could nuclear power. Those Islands are probably going to be an expensive flop, there are so many other methods to store excess power much closer to where it is needed.

[@REAL6]

Build something then then get back to us.

[@philipnielsen1170]

I think a big part of it is to try and do something. Most country see it as too big a risk to do stuff like this.

[@markzart33]

They'd also be great sites for nuclear power stations

[@heinedenmark]

Then you rely on another commodity. It's also about security.

[@coreyham3753]

@@markzart33 ?Agreed .... nuclear is a big part of the solution.

[@Loneman_OG]

10x more energy than is required to power a DMC time machine. :D

[@JvwL]

1.21 gigawatts!!.. Great Scot, what was i thinking of??.. ;)

[@Loneman_OG]

@@JvwL "What... What the hell is a gigawatts?!" :p

[@AlecMuller]

Looks cool, but $34B for 3 GW, or $11/installed watt is insanely expensive. You can build conventional nuclear for half that, and it's a reliable baseload. Scale-wise, $34B is also similar to what ITER will cost to help develop fusion. We need a future where sub-Saharan Africans enjoy higher living standards than Americans do today, and wind isn't up to that.

[@MrGman543]

Was looking for this comment. Seems like a stupid idea when compared to other options like Nuclear.

[@javanjackson6918]

Now would be a good time for this lol

[@williamlloyd3769]

Reminds me of the tiny offshore oil drilling islands just offshore in Long Beach harbor. There are 100s of oil wells. Most people don’t even know what they do. Eventually they will be retired. California is adding a lot of renewable power and hopefully in the near future we can figure out the pitfalls as we go along

[@blackwrench2291]

Here in Europe there are projects for converting old drilling stations into energy hubs powered by wind turbines. They can be converted to hydrogen gas generating plants. You can store the hydrogen in old gas fields or transport the gas to shore using pipelines. Hydrogen is nice because it can actually be used to store renewable energy :)

[@hedgehog3180]

@@blackwrench2291 Yeah the North Sea has an extensive network of pipelines and it'd be ideal if we could reuse those in some way.

[@thesecondorder6577]

Goddam, this always makes me feel so proud of being a Dane living on Bornholm

[@nuntana2]

Easy to please? Bet your wedding night was a blast.😋 Not a bad idea, but if you want serious energy without all that infrastructure and mess in the sea, pit your nation toward fusion. Energy of the stars is only way forwards for hooman.

[@geoffoakland]

As an American who has lived in Denmark ( ja jeg kan snakker Dansk) I wish Denmark could just govern and control the world, the Danes are always on the cutting edge of social, environnemental and humanitarian issues. Skal!

[@Dubnoreix]

The energy transition should be an and-and-and-story of investing in renewables and energy storage and smart grid and energy savings (because the less energy we waste, the less we have to produce). And the Danish plan is one part of that puzzle.

[@moosefactory133]

Any method of large scale energy production will have some environmental impact. Having said that, wind turbines at sea seems like a very good option as long as some form of energy storage that does not involve chemical batteries can be used to dispense out the electricity during times that the wind is not blowing.

[@grateful3341]

I didn´t even know about that energy Island... and I live right next to it. In Jutland, Denmark. Thanks for the information.

[@geoffreycoan]

Looks amazing, but I’m confused why go to all the expense of building an island, why not just connect all the wind turbines together and straight to the coast, what does the island do other than act as a very expensive concentrator point? Would have thought a tethered ship or an oil-rig type of installation would have been simpler, and Denmark is about to have a whole load of spare oil rigs? Be interesting to know how deep the water is 80km out because that’s a lot of piling to do for all those turbines.

[@Topsrek]

I wondered the same thing

[@leogronung3146]

Good question. I think it is lots about marketing. I mean would this video be same interesting if they would have talked about a „small“ land section instead of a new island? But still, i think it would be more efficient to just build by standard model. They would be finished faster and it would be cheaper.

[@Kvadraten376]

The island will house a transformer station that changes the current from AC to DC. With AC it is not practical to transmit electricity over great distances, which halts the idea of fully harnessing the great wind energy potential in the North Sea. Reducing loss from transmission before utilisation is also the idea behind, possibly, placing power-to-x and energy storage facilities at the islands. That said, the Danish energy company Ørsted did propose a plan to expand the capacity without needing to build islands. But this was rejected by the government. So you still have a point. Ørsted has now joined the tender process for the project regardless.

[@TheBooban]

@@Kvadraten376 The island is not so far from the coast as it, the distance is not so great. But I don't think the Danish govt. want all these ugly buildings along the coast. I would agree.

[@Kvadraten376]

@@TheBooban for submarine cables the cost-benefit for DC transmission already breaks even with AC transmission after 50 km. The energy island is placed 80 km out from the coast, and wind turbines much further out in the future will only enhance the benefit.

[@3atFr35h]

I didn‘t really understand what the exact purpose of those islands should be? Why build it in the sea instead of the coast? There still could be hubs on the coast and the cables could still run to other countries?

[@vasopel]

maybe to have room for future expansions, it says that on the video 1:47

[@3atFr35h]

@@vasopel true but it‘s not like there is no room for something comparable in Denmark. Sounds a bit too complicated to build it in the sea

[@vasopel]

@@3atFr35h if it is not too deep,there's no problem :-)

[@vasopel]

@Matias Heiberg Andersen hm..why the word "admitted" ?

[@vasopel]

@Matias Heiberg Andersen well ok but it's not like he lied or something... ;-)

[@_dmstudios_support]

I love your use of Cities Skylines to animate the island. Well l, very well done.

[@suddenly_radical4558]

They could use a floating island concept. Pros: it could be cheaper as it would include less material and less destructive than dumping sand and rock into the ocean. Cons: the turbulant north sea could cause dammage and or sink a floating device

[@kirellosawad]

You have an amazing brain.

[@blanco7726]

Just read that it’s more difficult with connecting to the land, since the floating rig is moving constantly.

[@eljanrimsa5843]

Islands tend to be temporary in this part of the North Sea. I guess they want to figure if it is possible to build something permanent with current technology, and what effect it will have on the coastline. The Bornholm location is the less ambitious choice.

[@elvenkind6072]

With our seasonal based hydro-power in Norway, that costs so much when there's little rain, I hope this is a project that will help bring down prices here, and keep up our 100% renewable electricity supply.

[@OmmerSyssel]

Not even spoiled Norwegians can have it all.. According to your extreme use and waste of energy, energy prices are often way too low in Norway.. Modernise your old romantic houses and quit powering every single luxurious mountain castle. Salmon, Reindeer and Sami needs living places too...

[@user-xl5kd6il6c]

>How do I make it look like "sustainable" >Just add grass on it

[@garry8390]

Instead of wasting €34B on crappy wind turbines for a measly 3-10GW you could spend it on 30+GW of nuclear power.

[@Maitch3000]

Finland just finished a new nuclear reactor. The price ended up above €10b for 1.6GW output

[@garry8390]

@@Maitch3000 one-off builds always cost more

[@Maitch3000]

@@garry8390 You can't get 30GW for €34b by going nuclear. At least not in Scandinavia.

[@Maitch3000]

@@garry8390 Hinkley nuclear in the UK is projected to a cost of £23bn for 3.26 GW

[@garry8390]

@@Maitch3000 you can't but you could if you got rid of all the politicians and just left it to engineers.

[@dzintarsozols6185]

From the technical point of view - this project is a challenge and will be full of lot of innovations and solutions to help us in the future. As for the energy generation - it will be interesting to see how they will deal with the deterioration of the propeller wings. But looking at the price tag - someone will get f.. rich :)

[@Andreassoegaard]

Well sure it will be challenging. But Denmark is not new to offshore windmill parks or the process of building artificial islands.

[@remymoron6079]

Thank you for marketing the idea. Do you have reading on it? Working in power industry, i have a lot of questions about it: capability, sustainbility, material limits, environmental

[@anthonybarker1843]

Great idea, I think Europe should also build a few deep geothermal plant's, they would be a good backup in case the wind didn't blow much at some point.

[@Alcani81]

We already have them, a lot of people even haven them, in small scale, for there own homes.

[@nindao3121]

It would be even greater if they have come up with a design for a biodegradable wind turbine, since unused turbines are creating so much pollution these after discarded. But this is a great start!

[@Timeruler80]

They alleready have reusable turbines now

[@alexander15551]

Is this a joke?

[@andrewboschmann9880]

"...appearing of a coastline near you." Not very probable here in Paraguay. But then again, our power is already 100% renewable thanks to hydroelectric.

[@IBradFrazer]

Stuff like this is proof we already have everything we need to be an energy-sufficient species, but because of politics and greed, projects like these always get axed.

[@LuaanTi]

Of course we do - this is _four times_ as expensive _in estimate_ as nuclear power plants per MW. And that's ignoring maintenance, which is _much_ cheaper for NPPs than for offshore wind parks. Heck, this thing costs more than ITER :) And that's just the estimate. Looking at similar projects, you can expect easily 3x overruns, and quite probably much higher maintenance costs than expected (it isn't very long ago that we figured out just how much damage water does to wind turbines). And then consider how poorly this can scale even in theory, and how tiny part of the energy mix of Europe it could ever supply, and how poor wind is for baseline power... Politics and greed is just about right. But it's not just about the oil barons, you see :)

[@johngeier8692]

@Luaan: The costly “renewable energy “ projects are the result of the Climate Delusion and the Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion. Popular delusions are determining energy policy in many parts of the world.

[@kalzonenu]

Or is it possibly because it doesnt work... You get huge ammount of power when you dont need it thus a frequenzy gets fuckd up and you have to shut it down or the other scenario where you get no power at all when you really need it and the frequenzy get fuckd up yet again so you have to shut down or like in most countrys you start THE ENVIROMENTALY FRIENDLY GASTURBINE............

[@braunzie2]

I am curious how they keep sea lanes open given all of these obstructions.

[@garryej]

When visiting Iceland, we learned about a proposal to distribute geothermal power via cable to the UK. Iceland is already producing far more clean electrical power than it can use.

[@martinkubicek5968]

The major question is, where will Europe store all the excess energy in the times of heavily energy producing spikes.

[@jamesgleeson6538]

If the network is large enough, storage is not necessary as energy requirements can be shared. Storage can be moved towards the aspects like pumping into dams etc. More countries cooperatively involved the better. It's up to them how far they want to take the Glasgow agreement, and why not possible? We are all human after all. Maybe a dreamer yet this could help peace as many nations have a common interest within as result.

[@flemmingubbesen917]

In addition to what James said, power-to-x will be a significant component to this project - and one of the main reasons an island design was chosen to make room for factory-scale power-to-x.

[@matti1595]

This will be a Tom Scott video in a few years

[@chapter4travels]

Or you could replace coal plant with advanced nuclear and be done with it for a fraction of the cost. This is the route Indonesia is taking.

[@Mike-zx1kx]

You mean Indonesia where there are some of the most active earthquake zones? OMG we are all gonna die in a nuclear holocaust. Do you nuclear freaks not take lessons from 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and the countless other issues hereunder the waste.

[@andreasmanique113]

today (18/5 2022) was a big day for this project with a handful of EU leaders meeting in Esbjerg and agreeing on a 150GW version (so more than 10 times the 12GW mentioned in the video)

[@lukethompson6375]

The Doggerlands are a prime location for this sort of thing also, as the seabed there is shallow and it's central to a lot of nordic and western european countries

[@pwaegemans]

In the video you can see around 3 of these isles. The one near the UK looks to me to be the location of the doggerbank. As a matter of fact, the whole north sea can be used. In Belgium coastline, we probably have the least wind friendly part of the north sea. Yet we haven't reached full capacity yet.

[@Jakeznk]

Transition to clean energy is so important but 34 billion for “just” 10 million houses seems… very very expensive

[@Nillerzen]

"The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050." The cost of not doing anything would be a lot higer in the long term.

[@johngeier8692]

@Nillerzen: You cannot make accurate economic forecasts 29 years into the future. Benefits of a warming climate are 1. Increased agricultural yields 2. Reduced winter heating costs 3. Reduced deaths from hypothermia 4. Postponement of the next glacial maximum Deleterious effects of warming climate are: 1. Increased summer cooling costs 2. More deaths from heat stroke 3. Higher maximum interglacial sea level with more coastal erosion and flooding. The balance between the beneficial and deleterious effects varies greatly by location, and also is highly dependent upon the magnitude of the warming. We have so called “expert international panels “ churning out a lot of costly and useless propaganda.

[@Nillerzen]

@@johngeier8692I agree that you can't make an accurate forecast that long into the future, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to foresee the dangers over the horizon. But i do know, that i will have a greater amount of trust in " expert international panels " the almost anyone else. Since it's literally their job.

[@openroomxyz]

(34000000000.0 / 10000000) = 3400 eur for energy for house, does not seem that much, for rich Nordic country's

[@timedowntube]

1. As an at scale alteration of the face of the planet it kind of looks like environmental vandalism to me 2. The islands are unnecessary for the undersea cable network 3. Nuclear power is a denser by many orders of magnitude, and ultimately cleaner energy source with a lower carbon footprint that will work just fine through a super- volcanic, asteroidal or ironically most likely,.. a nuclear winter Crazy I know but given the geological temperature record I am kind of worried about going back into the ice age. It has after all been most of our history and that graph and the ice sheet expanse during previous ice epochs both look freaky hard to engineer away WHEN they return. Thats right its when. I don't believe for a second that geological temperature graph is just going to miraculously stay flat forever now... kind of obvious when you think about it. As for the green credentials of that obscenity of metal in the ocean.. Making all that steel and glass and spreading it out over so much area takes a lot of DIESEL and there are never the cost of recycling them at the end of their useful lives built in. Those seas will look pretty fucked up in only 150 years. Graveyards of rusting metal wrecks. Great place to film dystopic movies though. and... Ever heard of persistent organic pollutants? (POP's) yeah I thought not. aldrin ¹ chlordane ¹ dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT)¹ dieldrin¹ endrin¹ heptachlor¹ hexachlorobenzene ¹,² mirex¹ toxaphene¹ polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ¹,² polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins²(dioxins) polychlorinated dibenzofurans² (furans) 1-Intentionally Produced. 2-Unintentionally Produced - Result from some industrial processes and combustion. So these are the things you are distracted from being horrified at by worrying about by not very dangerous non toxic bogey man gas Heretical.. I know.. sorry

[@CyberWolf755]

I'm still skeptical on the creation cost and used materials, energy production capacity, storage and maintenance cost of solar and wind farms, offshore or not.

[@NeonNion]

Denmark should just build sweet nuclear power instead. 34B in nuclear can power much more than 3 million+ homes. Nuclear has low maintenance cost meaning higher profit, it's a reliable source of energy, has long life expectancy, it's safe, very high effeciency rates and nuclear power plants have small impact on nature. 120 thousand m2 articial island is no good for marinelife.

[@peterzichau6994]

@@NeonNion Nuclear is part of the future. But giant mills delivering 12 Gw aren't that bad either. And it probably cost the same.

[@Nill757]

@@peterzichau6994 The problem is they don’t produce “12 GW “ all the time, nor even most if the time. Some of the time they produce nothing. After the EU windless 2021 doesn’t everyone know that by now? So along w that 12 GW of wind will come 12 GW of gas or coal. With nuclear, it never all switches off, and doesn’t need gas-coal. Stop screwing around.

[@nickrowse8824]

Brilliant. Let's build them everywhere.

[@Lachausis]

Sarcasm?

[@chrinarai]

What is this channel and how is it so good!

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

All current renewable energy plans: We're gonna do it, we don't know how, but it's going to happen. Absolute madness.

[@neeljavia2965]

Same was with cars until Henry Ford made ICE cars cheap.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

@@neeljavia2965 This isn't the early 1900s, we know how these technologies work now, and we also know that It's not going to magically get many orders of magnitude less expensive.

[@neeljavia2965]

@@PistonAvatarGuy Technology changes everyday.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

@@neeljavia2965 Not on the scale that would be necessary for renewables to be viable replacements for traditional baseload generators.

[@neeljavia2965]

@@PistonAvatarGuy That's why the technology is being developed.

[@FantasKanal]

As the north sea is quite shallow, all the countries bordering it can start such projects. Btw. "A coastline near you" just means where denmark is building them now for me. Schleswig-Holstein FTW!

[@glennwatson3313]

How shallow is it?

[@FantasKanal]

@@glennwatson3313 The north sea, in the last iceage, actually was above water. You can search for Doggerland if you want more information. The Doggerbank, how its now called, is ~30m deep and depth rarely reaches beyond 50m anywhere but in the Norwegian trench. To put it simple what happened, in the last iceage the ice on asia pressed it down, and like on a teeter tauter pushed europe up. the UK wasnt an island, and was connected to mainland EU by Doggerland, when the ice melted asia started rising, and europe started sinking.

[@gamarus0kragh]

@@FantasKanal I'll add that the global sea level was about 120m lower than today from the mass of ice covering land in the Northern parts of both Eurasia and North America. Locally, ice cover on the Scandinavian peninsula depressed the crust quite dramatically and that land is rising as of today. The line - your teeter-totter, goes diagonally through Denmark with land sinking South of the line and rising North.

[@fiskle]

Imagine how much more effective a nuclear power plant would have been at that size, or how much smaller and environmentally effective it would be at the same productivity.

[@77142957]

Exactly. Also the number of birds NOT killed. God knows what the harmonics do to sea life.

[@drdewott9154]

I mean if you wanna build yourself a nuclear plant then ok, Just keep it in your country. All I can say is that Denmark has consistantly been very anti nuclear. I mean heck those famous nuclear power no thanks stickers were designed here. We've only ever had one small reactor at a research facility and for training, and even then we've had serious issues for decades finding spaces to store the waste material from it.

[@adohmnail6445]

Yes the cleanest and greenest energy is uranium. It is also the safest despite tv.

[@johnh6245]

Absolutely right! Each wind turbine uses 1000 tons of steel to start with, and what do you do in an anticyclone?

[@johnh6245]

@@drdewott9154 Nuclear Energy was killed off in Denmark by the invented scaremongering stories pandering to the ignorant in the downmarket newspaper Ekstra Bladet in the late 70s, and not by logical thinking.

[@makesaveinvest1401]

Awsome!! We can do this!!👍

[@DRKrust492]

Better station an anti-sub naval vessel next to it to prevent Russia from damaging it.

[@mrow7598]

You talk in 3-10 GW ranges, when the EU uses nearly 3 TW or 3000GW. You'd have to build hundreds of these islands and as more people switch to electricity for heating and cars that number will only skyrocket.

[@bobincognito6239]

That's not how it works. You're confusing consumption with capacity. These 10GW isn't 0,33% (10/3000) of European electricity, but 2% in 2018

[@MadnessMotorcycle]

@@bobincognito6239 You are a bit confused yourself Bob, or perhaps you did not want to mention it. This wind farm will have 10GW of name plate capacity but will never produce 10GW. It will likely average only 25-30% of name plate capacity. Take a look at German wind infrastructure and installed capacity versus power generated. Unlike European politicians and bureaucrats, wind does not blow all the time.

[@tilbagetilspillet]

@@MadnessMotorcycle Wind dosnt blow all the time thats right, but out in the north sea it blows allmost all the time.

[@bobincognito6239]

@@MadnessMotorcycle You're the one confuse. In 2018 wind power produced 379,3 TWh in Europe for 204 GW installed. Europe production was 3 300 TWh in 2017

[@Poctyk]

​@@bobincognito6239 >You're the one confuse. In 2018 wind power produced 379,3 TWh in Europe for 204 GW installed. Great lets calculate. 204 GW x 24 (hours in day) x 365 (days) = 1 787 040 GWxh per year of "installed" or 1 787 TWxh. 379 TWxh is 21% of that number.

[@Saucisse_Praxis]

> Costs billions of $$ to build > Isn't as reliable source of electric energy > Makes gaz companies happy > Far superior and sustainable energy production could be achieved with a nuclear powerplant.

[@ewilgreen5148]

Its whole purpose is to store energy, the same wind energy Denmark has a surplus of on windy days, which they have a lot of, instead of selling the energy to Germany, Sweden, Netherland and Norway at a loss. Saying it isn't reliable when its purpose is to make wind energy more reliable is a rather grim mishap. Plus it's a step in the direction of making the shipping and air transportation industry green just like EV's.

[@lipokjamir2544]

Can you make a video on Thorinium?

[@stephenhall3515]

Consider revising this to include the added potential yield from the UK and Norway's massive wind farm areas plus their respective hydro, PV, SMR roll-out in the UK sooner than mooted and other relevant green initiatives including tidal and wave. Your video makes it seem as if Denmark is in the lead when it is not. Its islands ambitions could be greatly helped by the named neighbours. Remember, Europe is NOT just the EU.

[@Godwinpounds4333]

Hello dear how are you doing?

[@quagmire4412]

Everything looks cool and good in animation.

[@marshallfischer3667]

I wonder what they're going to do with all those windmills after their life cycle...

[@paullangford8179]

Recycle the steel and copper. Make new, bigger wind turbines form them. About the only thing to lose nowadays is the paint.

[@dmaverick9525]

@@paullangford8179 New wind turbine propellers are built with carbon fiber. Not recyclable. A lot of them will decay easily given the harsh environment of the sea due to humidity and salt content in the air, corrosive to metals and non-plastic material.

[@marshallfischer3667]

@@paullangford8179 and what exactly do they do with those gigantic carbon fiber blades?

[@solomonessix6909]

I hope there is a certified lifecycle management plan in place to handy windmills that are damaged or require service. Will there be viable process, technologies, methods and partners involved to eliminate landfill use domestically or foreign?

[@simonpinkerton4905]

Beats storing nuclear reactive waste for the next forever at c.£100m per annum currently.....??

[@suttonem48]

Someone forgot to mention the millions of tons of raw materials and energy it would take to build this ! And we will run out of copper etc before long . Mars , here we come .

[@primusro]

Interesting idea for sure. Will be nice to see it in development. Though I imagine there will be at least a 10% loss of energy due to the huge distances the electricity will be transported.

[@flemmingubbesen917]

No. Sea cables are quite common. Both the 760 km Viking Link between Denmark and the UK and the 730 km North Sea Link between Norway and the UK are designed with a 5% loss factor. And the distances for the energy island certainly won't be longer than those.

[@_o..o_1871]

@@flemmingubbesen917 We have so many undersea internet cables around the world. It’s quite a fascinating achievement for humanity.

[@Nill757]

@@flemmingubbesen917 Marine Power cables are expensive. They require more trenching than IT cables and a permanent continuous protective infrastructure where they land and surface. The landing site must be isolated from the public with large offsets, requiring a right of way purchase on often expensive coastal property, again, unlike IT cables. When the sea unburies a cable coming ashore as it does from time to time, a power cable requires an immediate response from large specialized crew. I suspect reduction in the number of power cables coming ashore is one the reasons behind this extravagant island concept.

[@danielmarko6307]

Hopefully they also plan these islands with the rising sea level in mind. I don’t know how much that afflicts island 80km ashore but you should build with a good safety margin

[@kaumpecintabatu]

12 Gigawatts! Great Scott!

[@JTL1776]

HELLO my eu brothers from America 🇺🇸 I hope we can partner up together the US EU CANZUK nations should work together for reliable and safe energy independence projects like this. THIS BE GOOD for ECONOMIC cooperation and for our ENERGY sectors to have stable and safe. Energy independence. If US and EU can work together and work with The three SEAS INITIATIVE as well as canzuk. We can show our energy potential politically and remind the world of western COOPERATION.

[@kalzonenu]

Got to be mighty enviromentaly friendly when theres a storm and those batteries end up in the ocean :D It will also mean that you will have to build equally many gasturbines or any other fast acting powersuppier coal for instance?

[@larsenbirger]

Why?

[@matta5498]

Without nuclear power as a big part of the solution, you are not serious.

[@Puskie796]

Awesome stuff

[@32Loveless50]

it might save EU, BUT we have the worlds highest energy prices here in Denmark and TBH we are sick of it, that our electrical firms are exploiting us like this.

[@lochnessmonster5149]

They could save a lot of time and money by just building a couple nuclear plants.

[@jch010]

That creates a lot more nuclear waste and a lot more risk.

[@hedgehog3180]

Ah yes because famously nuclear power is cheap and quick to build, y'know like that reactor in Finland that they've been spending two decades building and, which has had it's cost more than double. In the period that single reactor has been under construction Europe has added several times it's power output in wind energy. If Thorsminde follows schedule then it alone will provide as much power as that reactor. Not to mention the fact that developments in wind energy are happening so fast that turbines being installed today are more than twice as good as those that were installed just 5 years ago.

[@tampaguy35]

It sounds great in theory but in reality is it feasible only time will tell.

[@Cross-xm2fr]

When there's a storm all power lines start glowing

[@Daggi78]

Oker Energy provides the storage capasity needed to secure energy supply and security.

[@RR-us2kp]

👌🏼