We already have 95 percent of the technologies needed to transition the whole of Denmark away from the fossil energy system. They are far cheaper to operate, far more energy efficient and can strengthen Denmark's long-term competitiveness.

It has never been more urgent to invest in the green and clean technologies that can free us from fossil fuels. Because climate change is strongly exacerbated during 2023 with global average temperatures of 1,48 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

It should be a no-brainer to invest in green technologies, which can also create many new jobs and lower the energy bills of companies and Danes for many years to come.

On lifetime costs, solar and wind energy are already cheaper than fossil fuels. The past ten years the price per megawatt-hour of onshore wind has fallen by 57 percent, offshore wind by 73 percent and solar cells and batteries have fallen by 80 percent. There are only bad arguments for postponing the green transformation of the energy sector.

The mystery just is, why do we have a majority government and a parliament that does not put everything into scaling these technologies up quickly?

There are indications that there have been many other distractions, such as talk of a hydrogen pipeline to Germany, a new CO2 capture infrastructure or CO2 capture facilities at biomass plants and cement factories.

This is what the government spends the vast majority of money, administrative resources and energy on putting into the lake. More than DKK 2 billion has been set aside for CO38 capture alone, and before Christmas the majority of the Danish Parliament set aside a billion DKK to provide state industrial support, which may very well be used for Power-to-X or to co-finance the hydrogen pipeline to Germany, which the climate minister and industry lobbyists dream of.

In the Green Transition Denmark, we are warm supporters of new, green technologies, but the state and companies should invest wisely and focus on promoting technologies that can be quickly scaled and deliver major climate effects in the next few years.
Instead of throwing state aid at CO2 capture, CO2 pipelines or hydrogen pipes to Germany, a significant change of course is needed in Danish climate and energy policy here in 2024. Put all political power into creating the right incentives for energy-efficient technologies, much faster expansion of solar and wind energy and massive expansion of the electricity grid.

Why? If we make an effort, it is actually possible to build a 100 percent renewable supply for all of Denmark's energy consumption in 2035-2040, and in the next five years we could increase sevenfold with solar and onshore wind if the government didn't snort so much and cut all the tripwires over.

For example, let the municipalities earn ten cents per kilowatt-hour of solar and wind energy produced, as Vestas' CEO, Henrik Andersen, have suggested, then it will turbocharge development and provide strong local incentives to move.

At the same time, give the Danes greater freedom to produce solar and wind energy into the grid without expensive extra bills, so that we can accelerate the green transition and get enough green power for the electric cars, heat pumps and stoves and preferably in local energy communities.

My New Year's appeal to the government is this: You should get the whole country ready for the green electrical revolution, which will be the backbone of production Denmark in the future, and which will enable a 100 percent electrification of the heat supply, of industry, of road transport, of ferry traffic and, in not too many years, also domestic aviation .

In terms of purely energy economics, it is three to five times more efficient to produce green electrons and let them do the work directly in all machines than to throw fossil energy or wood biomass into power plants or combustion engines, where enormous amounts of energy are wasted in the conversion from firewood to work.

Free the market from the bureaucratic stumbling blocks, so that we can turbocharge the large offshore wind projects that must produce enough green power for the power-to-x plants that are planned along the coasts.

The market players must be obliged to deliver on biodiversity and environmental considerations, and society must have its share in the gains of a simple profit-sharing model. Just call it an open-door 2.0 system, where the best and fastest must be allowed to compete on the highest common denominator.

The state must not be greedy for revenue, but set strict environmental requirements in the renewable energy zones, and then the market must scale quickly.

The government should also make it cheaper and easier to install heat pumps, connect solar cells to the grid and support more energy renovations. And stop harmful government subsidies for biomass plants that burn wood and emit millions of tons of CO2 every year.

The support for the biogas plants should be reduced and instead go to energy renovations, so that we can save energy rather than creating an artificial oversizing of green gas and of Danish agriculture.

There are so many solutions that can accelerate the green transition away from fossil fuels. The state can play an important role in business policy via better framework conditions and targeted support schemes that promote rapid scaling.

Which brings me back to the hydrogen tube. Here, the state should leave it to the market players to cover the entire bill. In purely financial terms, it is doubtful that it will be a profitable investment for the next several years – despite many hyped forecasts from industry lobbyists.

It is uncertain whether there will be an increasing demand for hydrogen in the future. On a global level, up to 120 million tonnes of hydrogen or hydrogen in connection with other gases are produced today. 42 percent of it is used in refineries to remove sulfur from gasoline and diesel (limiting acid rain), 37 percent is used to make fertilizers, and the rest is used to make methanol, chemicals, plastics and in industrial processes.

But fossil road transport will be phased out in the next 15-20 years, because the mobility of the future will be powered by electricity. In terms of climate and environment, there are good reasons to reduce the consumption of chemicals and plastics, and here new biosolutions can be developed. Today, there is less than a million tonnes of green hydrogen, and it is expensive and difficult to scale as quickly as supporters hope.

The green hydrogen must over time replace fossil hydrogen, but it is better to introduce extra high CO2 taxes or fossil taxes than to give direct state support to PtX factories. It is also hardly wise to spend the state's money on hydrogen pipes, because it is quite uncertain whether there is an economy in transporting Danish green hydrogen to Germany. It will be cheaper to produce green hydrogen in Spain and North Africa than in Denmark.

Green hydrogen may play a role as an energy store in the renewable energy sector of the future, but its use must be dosed for the most profitable purposes, such as e-ammonia and e-fuels for ships and aviation, as there are large energy losses both in production and transportation. So Danish PtX factories have plenty to do with delivering on it.

On the other hand, many can of the heavy industries – also in the Ruhr area – are electrified and manage without hydrogen. Even within steel and cement, a new generation of innovative companies is on its way to disrupt the fossil processes, so that they will probably only demand hydrogen to a limited extent.

It is not simple and cheap to transport hydrogen over long distances. It cannot simply be sent via existing natural gas pipes without significant extra investment.

Hydrogen is an extremely small and volatile molecule that is difficult to store. It is also very corrosive, so it can penetrate even steel pipes. The risk of leakage is greater than when transporting natural gas, and if the hydrogen flows out, it is not only highly explosive, but also harmful to the climate.

A study published in Nature estimates the warming to be more than 11 times as harmful to the climate as CO2 seen over 100 years. Other studies have shown that hydrogen over 20 years can be between 19-38 times more harmful than CO2. The need for strict safety measures is obvious, but it will also increase the risk profile and the costs of building long hydrogen pipes.

Seen from a socio-economic perspective, it would be wiser to invest in much faster expansion of the electricity transmission network, so that we can send the electrons across regions and national borders more quickly.

A hydrogen pipeline to Germany is a distraction from what should be the first priority for Denmark. In terms of climate, it would be better to invest in energy efficiency improvements, solar and wind energy, batteries and a rapid expansion of the electricity grid.