Energy in Greenland, Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Greenland

Energy in Greenland

By investing heavily in hydropower, Greenland is finding it far easier than Denmark to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.

"For environmental, economic and social reasons, future development within the energy sector should be based on sustainability principles without impairing the conditions of life of future generations." The vision on which Greenland's energy plan for the period up to the year 2020 is based could not have been formulated more elegantly. And Greenland's ambitions go further still: "In an energy planning context, this means that as much energy production as possible must be based on renewable forms of energy."

What that means in Greenland can be put very briefly: oil consumption must be reduced, mainly by means of hydropower.

No wind turbines in Greenland

But first a few words about other potential forms of energy. From the start of modern energy planning in Greenland it was investigated whether wind turbines were an option. The consulting firm NIRAS, in cooperation with RAMBØLL, PA Energy, Risø National Laboratory, and P.A. Pedersen, took on the task of staking out the basis for future energy planning in Greenland. The project was financed by Dancea. On the face of it, it seemed obvious to transfer the Danish experience with wind power and establish wind farms in Greenland. There are some fundamental advantages to erecting wind turbines in Greenland, compared with Denmark. One of the most costly items when erecting a wind turbine in Denmark is the foundation. That costs almost nothing in Greenland if the turbine can be bolted into the bedrock. There are other advantages as well - for example, the physical difference that the density of cold air is greater than that of warmer air, so, in principle, more energy can be obtained from the wind in the Arctic.

However, wind turbines are only used in certain parts of the world, largely in areas with prevailing westerly winds, i.e. around the middlemost latitudes. Wind turbine trials carried out outside that zone have not been successful. For that reason alone, it is difficult to imagine that wind power could be a viable solution in Greenland.

Another factor is that the wind in Greenland varies greatly locally, depending on fjord systems and mountains. For that reason, it can be very difficult in practice to calculate where a wind turbine should be sited. Purely for this reason, studies to determine the siting are very costly.

A third factor is the construction itself.

Here, as with all other construction works in Greenland, the cost of transport is important.

A fourth factor is that it is technically difficult to get a wind turbine to operate in tandem with the rest of the electricity supply system in a very small community.

Despite all this, the consultants have investigated the possibilities for introducing wind power in Greenland's energy system extremely thoroughly, even contacting the test station for small wind turbines at the Risø laboratory. The test station has carried out some wind turbine tests on the Cape Verde Islands off the west coast of Africa. The documentation for these tests shows that only half of the wind turbines are working. Henrik Mai, NIRAS's project manager on the task of mapping the renewable energy sources for the Home Rule Government of Greenland, says, "It is therefore my recommendation to the Home Rule Government that we do not carry out any tests on introducing wind power in Greenland. Interconnecting wind power plants and other energy sources in isolated communities must be shown to work in other places before they are considered in Greenland."

This conclusion has shocked people who thought that it was a sensible idea, but as Henrik Mai says, why should wind turbines be viable in Greenland when they are not always financially viable elsewhere in the world? By financially viable, Henrik Mai means in comparison with what society otherwise has to pay for the energy.

According to Henrik Mai, Denmark has an entirely different reason for investing so heavily in wind power. In connection with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, Denmark does not have many other options. But Greenland does because it has some far more effective renewable energy sources.

Solar Energy

Henrik Mai also gives the thumbs down to the use of solar energy - at least for heating utility water. Greenland has the same number of hours of sunshine as Denmark, and solar heat is a simple technology, so on the face of it, this form of energy might appear very promising. However, as in the case of all other low technologies, transport costs are a weighty consideration.

As far as concerns using the sun to supply energy to solar cells, i.e. for production of electricity, Greenland, like the rest of the world, is waiting for the development of financially viable production of solar cells.

Solar cells are high technology but have the advantage that they do not weigh very much. So transport costs are not such a weighty consideration in connection with the establishment of solar cell installations. This is one reason why, strange as it may sound, Greenland today has the highest per capita use of solar cells in the world. Even so, however, total production from these solar cells is minimal.

From precipitation to electricity

Denmark, like many other western European countries, has a big problem in fulfilling its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. To reduce its CO₂ emissions, Denmark is investing heavily in wind power. While Denmark has difficulty in fulfilling the CO₂ quotas allocated to it, Greenland can reduce its CO₂ emissions far more easily by introducing hydropower.

So far, only one hydroelectric plant has been built there - Buksefjord Power Station. This hydroelectric plant supplies electricity to Nuuk. A decision has also been made to build a hydroelectric plant to supply Tasiilaq with light and power, and similar projects are being studied in connection with the towns Narsaq, Sisimiut and Qaqortoq.

Hydropower offers many advantages. It is a very old, very well tested energy technology. Hydroelectric plants can be designed for all sizes of community in Greenland. Unfortunately, however, the biggest possibilities for using hydropower lie far from inhabited areas.

Compared with present-day diesel power plants, hydroelectric power stations are far more costly to build, but far less costly to operate and maintain.

Since there are usually big fluctuations in electricity consumption throughout the year, it must be possible to tap the water behind the power station dam in step with consumption. However, since it is anyway necessary to have diesel power plants for emergency supply purposes, the plants can also be used during periods of extreme drought.

The determining fact is, of course, the trend in electricity consumption. Consumption is rising in Greenland, just as it is in Denmark. If that continues, every hydroelectric power station will at some point become too small unless there is a possibility of enlarging it.

Saving Energy

It is, of course, wrong to start with the supply side. It would be far better, and more sensible, to start by finding out how the demand for energy can be reduced. The lower the demand for energy, the easier it is to meet it.

Both electricity consumption and heat consumption can be greatly reduced without affecting people's comfort in their homes. In 1993 a number of energy-saving measures were carried out in Block 10 in Nuuk. Many of the measures were very simple - they included replacing weather stripping, repairing joints, installing thermostats on radiators, and adjusting the heating system. This resulted in a reduction of no less than 25% in heat consumption in the block.

In addition to this, there are savings in households and - perhaps most profitable - changes in behaviour. There has never been an energy-saving campaign in Greenland. In the report to the Home Rule Government, RAMBØLL recommends looking into the effect on heat consumption of introducing heat meters in different types of property.

New building regulations are at present being prepared for Greenland. If they follow the Danish regulations, they will include a requirement concerning thicker insulation.

This would reduce the need for heating, but the insulating material itself costs twice as much in Greenland as in Denmark because of the transport costs.

However, there is one place where energy savings can be achieved: Greenland's factories. For example, it has been calculated that the company Royal Greenland could reduce its energy consumption by 10% at little cost. But it does not do so because it has no incentive for saving energy since it gets its electricity at a special price.

The very best solution would be to adapt the building envelope to the local conditions. That would really save energy. Up to the present time, Danish modular building has simply been transferred uncritically to Greenland.