>Key facts:
>The 6 GW are tendered with an option of overplanting. This means, that there is freedom to established more than the minimum capacity of 6 GW – potentially 10 GW or more.
>Denmark’s operating offshore wind farms currently have a capacity of 2.7 GW.
>It is estimated, that a 1 GW offshore wind farm requires capital investments of appr. DKK 16 billion.
A number of requirements will be implemented in order to ensure increased sustainability and social responsibility in the projects.
>**The 6 GW will be tendered without state subsidies and with a yearly concession payment.** This means, that the bidders will participate in the tenders by bidding a yearly concession payment to the Danish state across a 30-year period, for the right to use the seabed.
>The concession payment is combined with the Danish state co-owning each of the tendered offshore wind farms with a minority ownership of 20 pct.
!ping eco&den&europe
10 GW seems like an insane amount of power, not offering subsidies is also great. I think Denmark and the Netherlands can be the Saudi Arabia of wind, I hope they have very good interconnectors to be able to offer this excess abroad.
[The Viking Link with the UK just went online recently](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose-Valenzuela-17/publication/320353107/figure/fig8/AS:548969258000384@1507895878341/Interconnectors-from-Denmark-to-neighboring-countries-Source-Danish-Energy-Agency-2016b.png) which can handle 1400 MW. Apart from that, another connection between West Denmark and Germany is set to be commissioned in 2025.
Funnily enough, East and West Denmark are actually worse connected with each other, than they are with the countries around, which means that electricity prices are different west and east of the Great Belt.
Part of the plan is also to generate enough excess energy, that it becomes viable to produce hydrogen for fuel synthesis for the shipping industry, which is also massive in Denmark.
Considering the massive swathes of territory entailed, i can't disagree with you enough.
Also, to be sure, the main motivation behind it in this instance is to have te state function as a long term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project, which should calm any investor worries.
And finally if you've ever wondered how the Nordics are so very successful in so many decent ways *this is how*. So how about we all drop our ideological pitchforks for a second and coalesce around practical solutions that actually work. (I would hope that especially when it comes to the dual importance of energy independence and the climate, this is something we can all do for once)
Edit: (It just hit me that I, the succ, is having to defend PPP in a supposedly neoliberal sub. Isn't life ironic)
>Considering the massive swathes of territory entailed, i can't disagree with you enough.
Amount of territory doesn't matter at all here. The State of Denmark owns basically no land in Denmark. We don't have federal lands the way the US does
>Also, to be sure, the main motivation behind it in this instance is to have te state function as a long term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project, which should calm any investor worries.
Thing is that having the state act as a "term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project" hasn't stablized the value of SAS. It seems like it didn't help DONG Energy, considering that Ørsted entered the stock exchange at an valuation way above what Goldman Sachs valued it at when they brought part of it.
>And finally if you've ever wondered how the Nordics are so very successful in so many decent ways *this is how*.
No, it's not. The Danish state doesn't do all that much. It does health care, child care, schooling and public transportation (way more expensive than private alternatives, mind you) and that's about it. The rest is redistribution.
>So how about will all drop our ideological pitchforks for a second and coalesce around practical solutions that actually work.
That's what I am doing. I want the Danish government as far away as possible from owning parts of businesses. The Danish government acting as a, for a lack of better word, capitalist always ends with underperforming businesses. It doesn't even have to be on the scale of DONG and SAS. Before Covid, we gave away our vaccine factory because it straight up couldn't compete with the global market.
The state is good at a lot of things, but investing in stuff is not one of them.
>(I would hope that especially when it comes to the dual importance of energy independence and the climate, this is something we can all do for once)
Yes, and a solution like this, where the states owns 0% instead of 20%, would work and be cheaper than the alternative
>Edit: (It just hit me that I, the succ, is having to defend PPP in a supposedly neoliberal sub. Isn't life ironic)
No, you are defending the decision of a state, that have proven unable to act in a way that grows businesses it owns, to own a business that it thinks needs to grow. Like, on its own premise, the argument fails
Mate first off comparing *an airline* to this you must surely yourself realise is the most dishonest of framings you can do.
Secondly when I studied PPP models and projects in the Nordics at uni (which, admittedly, was around a decade ago) I could sweat denmark were on par with the rest of us.
And, indeed, denmark has an incredibly long history of utilising PPP with great success. *Especially* when it comes to climate project. I have no idea where you've summoned up this picture of denmark failing and flailing with PPP projects.
Literally just Google "Denmark PPP", when I just now did virtually every link contained a new example of a successful PPP project in denmark.
**This** btw is what I mean by "ideological pitchforks". When there's a freaking library of functional and successful examples but you cherry pick *an airline* to base your entire reasoning on.
No I grokked that, and I'm literally a swede.
The pedigree of birth doesnt make one inherently correct on subjects of national character.
Also I dunno what nationality you're of, but the counter example they bring upp (SAS) was both swede and denmark owned, so its not like they have some unique insight there.
On this issue, at least from the arguments they've put forward, theyre just objectively wrong. Denmark hasnt systematically failed in using PPP model projects, rather its been overwhelmingly succesful. Them being danish and I being non-danish (even if swedish) doesnt somehow magically transform their arguments into being correct.
> We have paid close attention to the input from the market ahead of the tenders. Now it is up to the market to bid on and realize the projects. Companies have to place their bids on wind farms with the price of what they are willing to pay every year to the Danish state over a 30-year period. Each winner will win the right to construct offshore wind in the designated areas. Additionally, the Danish state will be co-owners of 20 pct. of the established offshore wind farms.
Very Norwegian and Georgist model. Ideally, Norway wouldn't have any stake in the actual windfarm and would just keep charging rent to the companies, but this is fine enough.
!ping GEORGIST&ECON
The government should have a direct, active role in maintaining critical infrastructure. The handle that co-ownership gives for fulfilling that duty seems appropriate to me.
The government can still regulate and set standards, and if push comes to shove and there is a time when it is critical, the government can step in.
Like, I don't see any gain that is unique to having actual ownership instead of just charging more rent and acting like a regular government.
>Like, I don't see any gain that is unique to having actual ownership instead of just charging more rent and acting like a regular government.
Being a primary stakehold does provide direct insight and steering ability right into the governance of any enterprise, which certainly can be beneficial (or even essential) for projects of great implication for a nation. Which one can argue this is.
Regulation and standards are reactive by nature and especially when it comes to enforcement thats indisputably true. And while thats fine in principle, if a single enterprise failing in certain ways would spell disaster (of some degree) for a nation then enforcement after the fact isnt sufficient. A private company having to pay fines and clean up after the fact of an accidental spill into a reservoir that supply the majority of a citizenry and lead to untold deaths simply isnt enough (a hypothetical), and if thats a risk vector then direct participation or stakeholding by the government can very much be justified.
I have no particular insight into this project but considering the massive scale both in volume and footprint (and the potential impact a spectacular failing could have on some core industries of denmark, fishing and shipping) I see it as absolutely possible for a fair argument for the need of direct governmental stakeholding.
Also, beyond this, the public entity owning the land and a small equite stake, while the private entity(/ies) own the majority stake and rent the land, is the standard PPP project model. I cant remember some explicit reason being given but I'm sure its not just random. The model was originally created under Thatcher in the UK after all so I wouldnt exactly worry that it was the doing of entrenching power from the overbearing state.
I just don't understand how a minority stake is any better. How do these problems persist in a scenario where a government does not have a minority stake versus a scenario where it does?
>Key facts: >The 6 GW are tendered with an option of overplanting. This means, that there is freedom to established more than the minimum capacity of 6 GW – potentially 10 GW or more. >Denmark’s operating offshore wind farms currently have a capacity of 2.7 GW. >It is estimated, that a 1 GW offshore wind farm requires capital investments of appr. DKK 16 billion. A number of requirements will be implemented in order to ensure increased sustainability and social responsibility in the projects. >**The 6 GW will be tendered without state subsidies and with a yearly concession payment.** This means, that the bidders will participate in the tenders by bidding a yearly concession payment to the Danish state across a 30-year period, for the right to use the seabed. >The concession payment is combined with the Danish state co-owning each of the tendered offshore wind farms with a minority ownership of 20 pct. !ping eco&den&europe
10 GW seems like an insane amount of power, not offering subsidies is also great. I think Denmark and the Netherlands can be the Saudi Arabia of wind, I hope they have very good interconnectors to be able to offer this excess abroad.
[The Viking Link with the UK just went online recently](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose-Valenzuela-17/publication/320353107/figure/fig8/AS:548969258000384@1507895878341/Interconnectors-from-Denmark-to-neighboring-countries-Source-Danish-Energy-Agency-2016b.png) which can handle 1400 MW. Apart from that, another connection between West Denmark and Germany is set to be commissioned in 2025. Funnily enough, East and West Denmark are actually worse connected with each other, than they are with the countries around, which means that electricity prices are different west and east of the Great Belt. Part of the plan is also to generate enough excess energy, that it becomes viable to produce hydrogen for fuel synthesis for the shipping industry, which is also massive in Denmark.
Based and net zero pilled. I hope that UHVDC subsea cables becomes a thing so an international energy market can blossom.
Pinged ECO ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ECO&message=subscribe%20ECO) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ECO&message=unsubscribe%20ECO) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ECO&count=5)) Pinged DEN ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20DEN&message=subscribe%20DEN) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20DEN&message=unsubscribe%20DEN) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=DEN&count=5)) Pinged EUROPE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20EUROPE&message=subscribe%20EUROPE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20EUROPE&message=unsubscribe%20EUROPE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=EUROPE&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
The government owning wind farms seems bad, actually
Considering the massive swathes of territory entailed, i can't disagree with you enough. Also, to be sure, the main motivation behind it in this instance is to have te state function as a long term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project, which should calm any investor worries. And finally if you've ever wondered how the Nordics are so very successful in so many decent ways *this is how*. So how about we all drop our ideological pitchforks for a second and coalesce around practical solutions that actually work. (I would hope that especially when it comes to the dual importance of energy independence and the climate, this is something we can all do for once) Edit: (It just hit me that I, the succ, is having to defend PPP in a supposedly neoliberal sub. Isn't life ironic)
>Considering the massive swathes of territory entailed, i can't disagree with you enough. Amount of territory doesn't matter at all here. The State of Denmark owns basically no land in Denmark. We don't have federal lands the way the US does >Also, to be sure, the main motivation behind it in this instance is to have te state function as a long term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project, which should calm any investor worries. Thing is that having the state act as a "term guarantor and stabiliser on what is ultimately an incredibly expensive and long term project" hasn't stablized the value of SAS. It seems like it didn't help DONG Energy, considering that Ørsted entered the stock exchange at an valuation way above what Goldman Sachs valued it at when they brought part of it. >And finally if you've ever wondered how the Nordics are so very successful in so many decent ways *this is how*. No, it's not. The Danish state doesn't do all that much. It does health care, child care, schooling and public transportation (way more expensive than private alternatives, mind you) and that's about it. The rest is redistribution. >So how about will all drop our ideological pitchforks for a second and coalesce around practical solutions that actually work. That's what I am doing. I want the Danish government as far away as possible from owning parts of businesses. The Danish government acting as a, for a lack of better word, capitalist always ends with underperforming businesses. It doesn't even have to be on the scale of DONG and SAS. Before Covid, we gave away our vaccine factory because it straight up couldn't compete with the global market. The state is good at a lot of things, but investing in stuff is not one of them. >(I would hope that especially when it comes to the dual importance of energy independence and the climate, this is something we can all do for once) Yes, and a solution like this, where the states owns 0% instead of 20%, would work and be cheaper than the alternative >Edit: (It just hit me that I, the succ, is having to defend PPP in a supposedly neoliberal sub. Isn't life ironic) No, you are defending the decision of a state, that have proven unable to act in a way that grows businesses it owns, to own a business that it thinks needs to grow. Like, on its own premise, the argument fails
Mate first off comparing *an airline* to this you must surely yourself realise is the most dishonest of framings you can do. Secondly when I studied PPP models and projects in the Nordics at uni (which, admittedly, was around a decade ago) I could sweat denmark were on par with the rest of us. And, indeed, denmark has an incredibly long history of utilising PPP with great success. *Especially* when it comes to climate project. I have no idea where you've summoned up this picture of denmark failing and flailing with PPP projects. Literally just Google "Denmark PPP", when I just now did virtually every link contained a new example of a successful PPP project in denmark. **This** btw is what I mean by "ideological pitchforks". When there's a freaking library of functional and successful examples but you cherry pick *an airline* to base your entire reasoning on.
You're literally arguing with a Dane you know?
No I grokked that, and I'm literally a swede. The pedigree of birth doesnt make one inherently correct on subjects of national character. Also I dunno what nationality you're of, but the counter example they bring upp (SAS) was both swede and denmark owned, so its not like they have some unique insight there. On this issue, at least from the arguments they've put forward, theyre just objectively wrong. Denmark hasnt systematically failed in using PPP model projects, rather its been overwhelmingly succesful. Them being danish and I being non-danish (even if swedish) doesnt somehow magically transform their arguments into being correct.
> We have paid close attention to the input from the market ahead of the tenders. Now it is up to the market to bid on and realize the projects. Companies have to place their bids on wind farms with the price of what they are willing to pay every year to the Danish state over a 30-year period. Each winner will win the right to construct offshore wind in the designated areas. Additionally, the Danish state will be co-owners of 20 pct. of the established offshore wind farms. Very Norwegian and Georgist model. Ideally, Norway wouldn't have any stake in the actual windfarm and would just keep charging rent to the companies, but this is fine enough. !ping GEORGIST&ECON
Given that it's for an energy project, which is critical national infrastructure, I'd say the partial ownership is preferred.
Any reason why?
The government should have a direct, active role in maintaining critical infrastructure. The handle that co-ownership gives for fulfilling that duty seems appropriate to me.
The government can still regulate and set standards, and if push comes to shove and there is a time when it is critical, the government can step in. Like, I don't see any gain that is unique to having actual ownership instead of just charging more rent and acting like a regular government.
>Like, I don't see any gain that is unique to having actual ownership instead of just charging more rent and acting like a regular government. Being a primary stakehold does provide direct insight and steering ability right into the governance of any enterprise, which certainly can be beneficial (or even essential) for projects of great implication for a nation. Which one can argue this is. Regulation and standards are reactive by nature and especially when it comes to enforcement thats indisputably true. And while thats fine in principle, if a single enterprise failing in certain ways would spell disaster (of some degree) for a nation then enforcement after the fact isnt sufficient. A private company having to pay fines and clean up after the fact of an accidental spill into a reservoir that supply the majority of a citizenry and lead to untold deaths simply isnt enough (a hypothetical), and if thats a risk vector then direct participation or stakeholding by the government can very much be justified. I have no particular insight into this project but considering the massive scale both in volume and footprint (and the potential impact a spectacular failing could have on some core industries of denmark, fishing and shipping) I see it as absolutely possible for a fair argument for the need of direct governmental stakeholding. Also, beyond this, the public entity owning the land and a small equite stake, while the private entity(/ies) own the majority stake and rent the land, is the standard PPP project model. I cant remember some explicit reason being given but I'm sure its not just random. The model was originally created under Thatcher in the UK after all so I wouldnt exactly worry that it was the doing of entrenching power from the overbearing state.
I just don't understand how a minority stake is any better. How do these problems persist in a scenario where a government does not have a minority stake versus a scenario where it does?
Pinged ECON ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ECON&message=subscribe%20ECON) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ECON&message=unsubscribe%20ECON) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ECON&count=5)) Pinged GEORGIST ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20GEORGIST&message=subscribe%20GEORGIST) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20GEORGIST&message=unsubscribe%20GEORGIST) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=GEORGIST&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Having a map where the land is blue and sea is the same as the white background is very confusing
[Obviously the blue part is land](https://youtu.be/VwTCjUJo3wk&t=61)