I'll advice you to get a Financial advisor who will offer you best strategies on making great returns and allows you self-manage your money. So far I've acquired over 450k working with Anna Kristine. Give this a try and get into success

You can look her up on the internet, where you can get necessary info about her and reach out to her. Do the check using her full name below

ANNA KRISTINE SERVICES

@@hermannweber2441 that's great! Thanks for sharing this opportunity, I will surely reach out to the financial advisor

You can thank me later, I'm only rendering help to you in need of it

As a Dane, I'd like to say that there are different opinions about Dan Jørgensen amongst Danes - just like with every politician in every country. Just because he has different visions from someone else - on how to transform Denmark into a carbon neutral country - does not make him stupid. But sure, I can agree that the over-reliance on the idea of 'technology will save the day' is problematic

@@michelleheegaard There are.. but the problem is not Dan's opinion, but his unwillingness to change it and to adapt to a changing situation

@@michelleheegaard i fully agree with you, but yea as Mikael Wendt said, the problem is that he is just unwilling to change his opinion based on facts.

Sadly most of these people just don't live in reality. It's great to deeply explore renewable energy sources and I am sure this focus on wind power will be thousands of times better than relying on coal power but I have doubts about exactly how great it'll be in the end. For one the carbon footprint of a GWh of electricity is larger on wind than nuclear power and I fear we'll have a larger issue with discarded turbine blade graveyards than plastic at the pace things are going. That knowing the danes and other countries try their best to recycle the blades too.

@@six081 Nuclear power: ~117g CO²/kWh Wind power onshore: ~7g CO²/kWh Wind power offshore: ~4g CO²/kWh

Not with such nature heavy and short term solutions such as wind turbines and solar panels.

Well, Denmark already has 40% of its energy generated by wind. It's a small country but 40% is impressive nevertheless.

@@monkeyinadrawer give or take, but... why has electricity in Denmark raised the second highest in EU, only beaten by Germany. When we have so many productive wind turbines that should keep the cost down to a low....

@@DMminion101 40% still means 60% isn't wind power, you understand that, right?

@@benjaminhenderson7059 ... but countries that has lower amount of wind turbines suffers less raised power prices than us. Weird, we're still the ones to pay the second highest in EU.

Wind turbines in general need so much maintenance its not even funny.

Our Community is embracing solar farms. With that I could make use of some. We have to take this personally and eliminate what isn't working for each individual. Natural gas and petroleum doesn't suit my needs ideally. My goal is to go off grid while making use of what is readily available and has reliable support from various avenues within the natural environment that works with me firstly and later in my life.

You should see how much constant maintenance and care the nuclear plant I used to work on required and it was decommissioned.

? Wind turbines connected to regular houses? Insanity...

@akatheking82 why not ?!? Just a small 1 kw

Or an oil refinery

they kill birds are you happy with that?

@@Davik72 > not in any significant way

Sure. Why wouldn't I?

LOL, I would personally live in Nuclear plant. I was in 3 nuclear plants in Czechia and Slovakia, and you can eat from ground there. You have no idea how safe and clean are modern nuclear plants. If you are not idiot like Soviets that build risky cheap unsafe types with high output. Or Japans, that build unsafe type reactor on shore.

Oof.... 😣😣😣😒

And now there are these new SAND BATTERIES that can store this intermittent energy for use when needed. Just a grain silo, some sand and build some stuff with already available things. Check it out. It's brilliant!

lol only 1.4 million... what are we waiting for? Just out of curiosity, how much does each of those 1.4 million 3 mw wind turbines cost to produce? In addition to design and manufacturing, also remember to include permitting, construction, transportation, insurance, installation, and maintenance. If each of those cost $1 million dollars (I am sure each would cost more), then that would be 1.4 trillion dollars just for the up front implementation and maintenance. Does your 1.4 million figure account for future population expansion and increase in demand? (every good engineer knows when to plan for expanding systems which will be likely to change in the future). How do you deal with areas of the country which are less prone to wind than high-wind areas? Some states get far less wind than others, does the 3 MW baseline account for the variability in wind due to geography? Also, is the 3 MW figure the rated output of the plant (at the transmission line?) or is that the ideal / nameplate output of the wind power generator? Lastly, how do you deal with periods of non-wind? We all know that wind turbines are going to use the principle of Faraday's Law, where voltage is generated when there is a conductor situated in a changing magnetic field (the magnetic field is changing due to the motion of the wind turbine blades). However if those blades are not moving (due to no wind), then zero power will be generated from that wind turbine. Does the 1.4 million figure account for this, and if so then how? Regrettably, although I wish these types of technologies were feasible, the more I learn about them the more it seems that the goal of supplanting our current energy system with 100% renewables is naïve and not certain to be possible at best, and at worst may be a strategic blunder which will ruin our energy system, leave everyone with less energy, and make us wish we had seen the bigger picture in continuing to utilize the systems we use today while focusing on a smooth, reasonable transition to these types of green technologies.

There are now offshore wind turbines with 15mw capacity....assuming us demand is 200gw...you would need about 10,000 offshore turbines and some solar, geothermal and nuclear alongside it....

Its strange that you have a German profile name... Du solltest außerdem correlation nicht mit causation verwechseln

Do you have solutions to share?

Through a simple chemical process, the hydrogen can be converted into methane gas by carbon dioxide. This is then equivalent to natural gas and can even be stored in the same tanks without any problems. There are enough studies that show that a complete supply of renewable energy is easily possible. Germany has only completed one fifth of the transition to renewables. It is nonsense to make a final assessment while a process is still in full swing. The old government did not really want this and almost brought it to a standstill. With the new government, this will hopefully happen faster. You say not to fall for salesmen, but do exactly that yourself with nuclear power. The reactors you mention are not operational anywhere in the world. In addition, they have their own problems such as highly radiotoxic tritium which easily diffuses through the walls of the reactor vessel. The resulting waste is also far from harmless.

Your credentials? Yea, that's what I thought!~

great comment also, hydrogen is an extremely poor energy vector

@@AlbertoM4A1 Hydrogen is a poor energy vector?? Where did you learn that? Clown school?

+ heavy clouds or the sun is hiding on the other side of the earth(especially in the winter time where me might have six hours of "light" a day.

Thats what batteries are for.

@@benjaminhenderson7059 we're not good at storing electrical energy, but I think there's enough wind anyway

@@natskii7026 a chunk of the video covers this. Battery storage is much improved, but more importantly hydrogen storage is an efficient solution available with current tech.

It always will be somewhere on the earth.

Whatever the cost...at least you have clean environment.

Downcycling is probably a better term to use at least with current recycling technology.

@@simplecomplicated1394 > not when that cost exactly makes the environment worse.

@@PLF... how so.. its just sweeden..

We need help.

We did but the impact was less than the hype made it seem like it would be.

If you do not know I am very happy to inform you that Denmark/Germany/Belgium/Holland just have agreed on the North Sea Summit agreement that are going to be the worlds largest fossil fuel to green energy transition in world history. 230 million high energy using Europeans are going to transition from fossil fuels to off shore wind power. On top of the 230 million people it transition the project also have the worlds largest hydrogen project. Hydrogen can be used as fuel similar to fossil fuels but only emits water when burned. The project have just been signed but already at the end of the decade, in 7 years, 40 % will be operational and rest the following 6 years, so 230 million transitioned in under 15 years. THIS project should immediately be copy/pasted by ALL coastal nations!

Even in developing countries, renewable energies are already cheaper than fossil and nuclear energy.

Uruguay can show you and Denmark how they do it, and you can ask them about it if you want to.

Absolutely, why should he make that feminist remark in the end.

@@boduholm8463 was it feminist? he just made the hypothetical Dane a woman, i don't understand how that is feminist. Maybe it's a Danish thing i am missing?

​@@tankerbruja His entire speech I agree with, except for the end. So now you and I are discussing the end and not the substance.

I thought the hub height of the Kreigers flak was a 107m with a rotor diameter of 167m. So ruffly giving a height when the rotor is at it's maximum height of 188m. But I'm not not n the industry so probably wrong.

Investing in stocks is a good idea, a good trading system would puts you through many days of success.

@@michaelscoffed1524 It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However, most of us tend to pay more attention to the shiniest position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.

@Queen David Interesting. I've a lump sum doing absolutely nothing at all in my bank account, i wanna gets something started with it. You seem to be doing excellent for yourself, how do you achieve this?

Exactly, the trick is to diversify your investment, don't panic when everyone else do and invest consistently.

@Queen David That's impressive. Are you giving her your money or it does stay in your trading account? What's really the idea behind copying trades.

@@hermannkreitmayer > just because wind power is sustainable doesnt mean harvesting it is. The only timetable you need is the lifespan of the equipment youre building. For the case of turbines, thats 30ish years - and they cannot be recycled.

@@hermannkreitmayer please keep personal insults out of the conversation. Thank you. Nuclear fuel turns out to be reusable actually. New generations of nuclear reactors can actually reuse the spent fuel from first generation facilities. Look it up yourself.

Careful with the fart smelling, you are destroying the climate!

They contribute more radioactivity to nature than nuclear power.

@@hermannkreitmayer I have to imagine you’re not from the US … our former disgrace of a president said that (& continues to say that, he even brought it up out of nowhere recently).

I hope you're being sarcastic and not a moron lmao

He (trump) continues to be such a national embarrassment! Spewing lies daily! He opens his mouth and lies fall out, everytime! Yet, he continues telling The Big Lie. Truth is, HE LOST.

Wind energy may not be the solution for every country, but countries with different climates can do what's best for their situation, like solar for countries that get a lot of sun, hydro for countries with mountains and rain, biomass for countries with a lot of dead vegetation like agricultural byproducts. Then exchange with their neighbors as needed.

I'm no expert but I thought that wind was the second cheapest energy after solar PV when you measure over the whole lifespan due to the fact that the fuel they run on is free.

Denmark has the highest energy prices in the World. And we are a leader in wind turbines. This guy is a professional hoax. He couldn’t care less about the consumer!

No, they are thermally recycled, i.e. incinerated. Which is perfectly fine, because it reduces the amount of oil and gas burned that was never a wind turbine. And the German Society is currently researching other ways of recycling.

@@hape3862 that's not what I've seen. What I saw was they cut then into pieces and bury them.

@@ghostfifth It's not a huge problem though, honestly, even if they do cut them up. There is plenty of landfill space and those situations in fully developed nations are handled really well.

They can be shredded and made in cement. And even if burried... I will always prefer burried turbines over burried radioactive waste which radiates for thousand of years.

How often do they need replacing?

It's a scientifically backed fact, and your comment is a few empty words. Have a good day!

@@iTzKneecap another hard fact is materials mined and formulated to make turbines, right down to those blades that use massive amounts of chemical agents to produce and don't have a long lifespan. Those chemicals are made with petroleum products. Then get into the political side where turbines are often shut off as part of contracting for power grid and their overseeing parties. I've worked next door to a turbine blade manufacturer and pass by these turbines every day. The tech isn't there yet and production / installation of these things has far more negative impact on the environment and wallet. Hydrogen is a thing here iny state along with carbon farming, all of which are in its infancy and not sustainable or good for environment. Just the native animal impact is bad enough from birdstrikes on blades to disruption of insect populations. It simply cannot scale yet and using Denmark as a example of a solution is just dumb.

@@SocialContractActual Nice fact!

I live in the same country. He's a potato, not liked by most people who're above being dumb...

I’m a huge advocate for clean energy, My only hope is that there isn’t disastrous unforeseen consequences of stopping/reducing natural wind flows of earth. What we did to the marshlands and rivers by straightening them and adding Dams was supposed to be “good” too, sadly most have no clue the negative impacts that has had on our global ecosystems.

​@@carsonhunt4642 Remember wind turbines lives only for 25-30+/- years before they need heavy replacement parts and such, so it's barely better than building a new one. And each counter it's production of co2 of its making by 6-8 months, but currently there are 341.000 turbines in the world making 227.333 years worth of co2. And does so every 25-30+/- years. :)

@@carsonhunt4642 I don't think it works the same way I mean The wind is not absorbed by the turbines, it just make them move and that rotation is actually what produces energy (electricity)

@@mara257 The wind is absorbed, it’s a direct energy transfer from the wind to the turbine. I can’t remember the loss rate, obviously it’s not insanely high. But it’s the same reason putting tons of underwater turbines didn’t work because it was affecting the water currents. Let’s hope wind currents don’t matter as much as water, water eco systems turned out to be more fragile than experts ever thought.

Batteries are not green when you consider what it takes to mine the materials to manufacture them. Hydrogen however is potentially far greener, even though it's less efficient - this is their aim

With batteries, however, you cannot cover the amount of energy that needs to be stored over seasons, for example. Here you need power-to-gas. It is not a problem that the efficiency is not so high because the excess energy used for this would be lost anyway.

@@jim_ginge Batteries are green enough. LiFePo4 batteries have a cycle life of 6000 cycles and do not need any rare earth metals. Storing is hydrogen is also not green as it cannot be stored at room temperature.

@@yasminesteinbauer8565 You can actually store the amount you need. Why should we store energy over a season if you have enough overproduction as you state that we can waste 60% of it? You also cannot store hydrogen as long as you might think. It leaks from any tank because of its atom size if storage as gas and if stored as liquid requires a ton of energy to keep it cool.

@@TschingisTube Through a simple chemical process, the hydrogen can be converted into methane gas by carbon dioxide. This is then equivalent to natural gas and can even be stored in the same tanks.

25 years and produce a lot of C02 to make and assemble.. aka he's telling a false lie and selling fake dreams. Also good luck with calm no-windy days. Sadly I got him as a politician...

yes

@@DMminion101 I 100% Agree

@@DMminion101 Dude you are turning the truth pretty badly. Out of all energy sources, wind turbines are creating one of the LEAST amount of emissions for productions. Only nuclear power is a little bit less, but compared to that, wind turbines aren't creating toxic waste which radiates for thousand of years.

@@circleinfo Because you've experienced lots of problems with nuclear waste radiation? No, it's easily stored safely. A real wind power country will need LOTS of batteries and today that's more mining that any nuclear plant would ever need.

Also, the conversion efficiency between the storage mediums and handling. Converting into hydrogen costs 30% at the very least, and converting back the same. And it will deteriorate over time. Those 10 GW will effectively be 2-3 actually delivered power once everything is said and done.

Electricity has an awful vice - it need to be consumed as produced and is very costly and difficult to be stored especially in distributed manner. Chemical fuels are unbeatable in this area.

The problem is the human made climate change. We are already at 1°C+ global warming and the real impact will hit us at 2°C. We just can't burn more öl and gas.

He discussed that with the ability to use excess power to generate hydrogen, which can then be stored and shipped. It's like a battery. I was going to say the same thing, but the ability to generate affordable hydrogen is a game changer. You are completely correct about the second part though. The wildlife impact is huge for windmills. Far bigger than people seem to think it is.

@@BaresarkSlayne "The wildlife impact is huge for windmills. Far bigger than people seem to think it is." - No, it isn't. There are studies made in Germany that disprove this fairy tale. And even if you were right: climate change would kill far more birds.

"impact of the turbines on the surrounding ecosystem" Like literally every energy source. But wind power doesn't create large emissions like coal and isn't creating toxic waste which radiates for thousand of years.

The UK is the world leader and we are doing okay

Old arguments. These "problems" are long solved, at least here in Europe.

Even RFK jr opposed Cape Wind. Of course he's not right in the head to begin with.

Thank for India going nuclear instead, way safer, less co2 and less trash every 25 years(the average life of a windmill)

Yep...

Birds kill themselves flying into windows too. Are you going to stop having windows? Oh and how does that compare the damage to wildlife from all those oil spills?

@@benjaminhenderson7059 this will make birds species go extinct a bird had never crashed too my window but I never said anything about oil I'm against oil also, people need to think before they do.

If we bring natural wilderness back instead of having orchards everywhere the wilderness would absorb a lot of that carbon

@@basedOI I have birds fly into my picture windows and die at least a few times a year, and thats just house windows.

No, don't say Wiking. This is a dane who can't pronounce Viking. :D

From what I understand the blades turn reducing the force on them.

EDIT: I forgot the electric cars you'll be charging. Your electric usage is going way up!

So you are telling us that you need 20kW*24h*365 per year? Electric cars need between 1200-3500kWh/10000km

@@brett4264 what capacity factor are you using in your assumption? The 10GW is the name plate capacity. multiply capacity factor X name plate capacity X 8760. This will give you generation in GWh. That's the number you should be comparing to avg home consumption. Your house consumption figure is in the wrong units and doesn't make sense...

You have never been to Europe, have you?

I live close to "these monstrosities". They look cool. I have nothing else to add.

The mess and the replacement costs+(more)... x_x rip our lives, while most here are too blind to realize it.

@@KrunoslavStifter you think fossil fuel companies aren't subsidized? Really?

@@monkeyinadrawer ditto

The danes had the biggest viking empire mate, we took over literally all of england, sweden had to expand eastward because the danes and norwegians pushed them out of the west. Go check your history

@@Linexxlol eh, we didn’t take more of Sweden than Skåne. Though prior to that Norway, Sweden and Denmark kinda living under one rule and we had one king family but Swedes, Norwegian and Danes saw themself being from different kinds of said kingdom. Yes England fell under Danish rule from year 895 for a little lifetime and then the Brit’s slaughtered most of them when it fell apart. But then at year between 1013 and 1042 England, Norway and Denmark became a union(Anglo-Scandinavian Empire) for a few years. But keep in mind, back then England was smaller and the Scottish rule and the Welsh took up about half of the north and west parts of England.

@@DMminion101 > we took all of sweden, and they took all of Denmark. The two countries effectively switched populations.

@@PLF... and then we fought 11 wars with Sweden(since 1523) and lost 7 of them. "Even though not all of these wars resulted in territorial changes and some ended in status quo, Sweden is considered victorious in many of these wars because they were triggered by Denmark."

No, they dont take more energy to make - BUT - they are stupid anyway and should in most cases not be built.

That was libertarianism, not wind tech, that caused that.

@@tankerbruja libertarians are about as far from liberal as it gets. As for where the word comes from, I believe french revolutionaries, but I could be wrong. It really doesn't matter. What matters is the group the word currently represents. Soulless hypercapitalists.

maybe watch the talk before you comment

Have you ever heard about an invention called "power grid"? It transports electric power wherever it is needed. Cool stuff!

@@tankerbruja I watched it and I agree. With current technology it’s just not a viable option. That’s not to say we shouldn’t investigate in the technology but relying on it now can lead to issues. Ask California and their rolling blackouts. For countries like Denmark going green is more realistic as they have a population of around 5.8 million people. But for counties like China, India, US that’s much harder.

@@JT-zy2ft FYI: China is #1 in renewables.

@@hape3862 China is the worlds leading emitter of green house gases and mercury.

Yet india on average gets 2 hours of blackout every DAY

Is that kinda like building a giant wall on the southern border?

@@benjaminhenderson7059 huh? How did u work that in to what i said?

@@Johnnyrocks34 both are obviously useless ideas