It may be vacation time, but I find I am not far away from the world of climate policy – in fact a trip with my son up to Norway by ship gives an excellent perspective on policy measures that are delivering real results.
We started out in Copenhagen, with the main convention centre near the airport already sporting a Vestas wind turbine out the front, presumably in readiness for COP 15 in just a few months time. This turned out to be the first of many that can be seen around Copenhagen and in the near vicinity. Although Denmark still relies on both coal and natural gas for electricity generation, it now also generates more than 6000 GWhrs per annum from 5212 wind turbines (2007), making up nearly 20 % of domestic electricity supply.

Wind, coal and gas are all used in Denmark
A spectacular array of turbines can be seen in Copenhagen harbour and the main shipping channel serving the city. Oddly, the actual number of wind turbines in Denmark is expected to decline in the near term as older small units (< 500 MW) are decommissioned and new large units are built (now up to 4+ GW).

Copenhagen harbour
This transformation in the energy mix comes through the application of a focussed policy agenda which supports wind energy through a fixed tariff approach. In the process Denmark has built a significant wind industry, employing nearly 30,000 people and delivering export earnings of €5.7 billion per annum.
Norway has led the way in carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and some 8 million tonnes of CO2 has been successfully sequestered within the Utsira formation by Statoil Hydro. The CO2 comes from the Sleipner natural gas field where it is removed from the natural gas by amine treatment. Importantly, 12 years of storage experience now exists in this location and there has been no trace of any leakage despite extensive monitoring. The CO2 sits in the formation about 1000 metres below the sea bed, protected by some 800 metres of cap rock. Today, the north-south extension of the Utsira / Sleipner carbon dioxide plume is about three kilometres long. Over time the CO2 will dissolve in the formation water and sink to the reservoir bottom.

Oil, gas (and now CO2) rigs can be seen in the Norwegian North Sea
Getting back to the policy aspect of this, this pioneering CCS project has been underpinned by a long standing CO2 price in the Norwegian offshore sector, delivered by a ~$50 per tonne CO2 tax. Similarly, the EU-ETS and other nascent trading systems are beginning to deliver a CO2 price into the broader developed country markets.
The experience in Scandinavia supports a number of points:
- That big changes can be made in the energy system over a number of years, provided policy is focussed, long term and that the government stays with it.
- That CCS is a viable technology that can be delivered on commercial terms provided a suitable CO2 price exists in the market.
- That CCS is a safe technology, backup up by experience and monitoring for over 10 years.
Both Norway and Britain have their eyes on a large-scale CO2 storage industry. One of the Norwegian maritime schools has even proposed a design for a multi-purpose vessel which could be used for backhaul transport of CO2 to suitable storage locations. In such a service, CO2 transport costs from other Northern European ports to the North Sea could be less than €10 per tonne.
Replicating the achievements of Denmark and Norway is now a priority for many countries. But results will take time and successive governments will need to persist with and build on the foundations put down by their predecessors. On this issue at least, bipartisan politics will need to be the name of the game in the years to come.

Our ship in Geiranger Fjiord at the norther end of the Utsira formation
Firstly may I use your picture of the Copenhagen turbines with the coal plant and gas store backdrop in my essay?
I am writing about the suitability of gas as a partner to renewable energy what is your view?
The Danes laugh at us by the way! Farmers, families and friends gather together in coops, get a loan from the bank for a few turbines and within a few years see healthy returns on their investment. They even had to be limited by law on how many turbines a person can own to make it fair! We have a vast wind resource, far greater than Denmark, yet still we sit here fighting off any hint of a tower or the faintest swoosh of a blade, whilst throwing billions of pounds at nuclear energy which has around 100 years of practical Uranium resource and generously returns to us abhorent waste that we must plan to manage for hundreds of thousands of years.
I would love to imagine that every day is a draining battle for you at work David, fighting to protect our planet with your valuable position as the thorn in shell’s side. Yet after 11+ years in your cosy position I think posting updates on ice caps and the like makes you a well titled PR man.
Please reply and prove me wrong with your view of how renewables should progress in partnership with conventional fossil fuels (not shell’s view).
Thank you for your time
You are welcome to use the image.
I am not so sure you will agree with my view (and it is my view) on renewables. There is no doubt that renewable energy development will continue, but the pace continues to be set by the development of fossil resources. I have written about this a few times, but the thought piece that best explains my thinking is this post -http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2011/11/emissions/
Sorry to disappoint you.
David