Skip to content

We are keen to receive review comments for our new paper which is now available for open peer review (pdf)

Søren Hansen: The Danish Energy Transition

Denmark is a small country in the world; it has 6 million inhabitants and its yearly greenhouse gas emissions constitute roughly 0.1% of the global figure. Nevertheless, the government has set ambitious targets for the road towards “net zero” in emissions. By 2030 these should be reduced by 70% compared to 1990, and by 2045 or 2050 Denmark is to achieve so-called “climate neutrality”. Obviously, these measures will have negligible impact on the global situation, but the rationale is that Denmark wishes to play the role of frontrunner. The rest of the world is expected to see that achieving such ambitious targets is possible. They will thus follow the good example and planet Earth will be saved from the climate catastrophe. Reaching “net zero” requires action over a broad field of the economy: industry, agriculture, heating, transportation and of course the electricity supply. The following report focuses on the latter. This is also the area where we see most progress towards achieving the targets so far. However, electricity at present only accounts for around 20% of total energy consumption, but the climate ambitions entail converting a large part of the other energy use to electricity. Battery electric vehicles and heat pumps for housing are prime examples of this development.

Submitted comments and contributions will be subject to a moderation process and will be published, provided they are substantive and not abusive. (Closed review comments on GWPF publications can be found here).

Review comments should be emailed to:

The deadline for review comments is 5 July 2024.


Hugh Sharman

IMO, (page 4) is better described as Denmark’s State-owned “Transmission System Operator”

The x-axis of Figure 8 should be replaced by the 31 days of March, 2023

The x-axis of (the remarkable) Figure 9 should be replaced by the 30 days of June 2023

Pages 10 and 11

64% of Danish home receive hot water and space heating from locally situated combined heat and power stations. Danish Experiences on District Heating | The Danish Energy Agency (  District heating is deeply embedded in the Danish system, going back to Denmark’s earliest electric power roll-out over 100 years ago.  The contrast with the UK is immense.  UK’s reliance on district heating appears to be around 2%

Very often, the local district heating plant, powered by locally harvested straw and wood chips does not generate electricity.

I therefore believe that this immense contrast with UK tradition might be more emphasised for GWPF’s readers.

The deeply malign “rules” that the unelected EU Commission is imposing on a hitherto quite rational Danish energy system and waste disposal (incineration and local heating) system could receive more emphasis?  (Yes!  I despair of the EU’s malign influences 😂)

Page 11, the word “lead” should be replaced by “led”

Page 11, as far as I understand, no Danish waste incinerators generate electricity?

The very notion that replacing the combustion of fossil fuels by burning wood, especially imported wood-based fuels which are manufactured from clear-felled forests, is in any way whatever, reducing Global CO2 emissions and therefore “global boiling” ( ) is surely an outrageous lie that should be described as such?

But any way, thanks for figures 11 and 12, both I see, sourced from the Danish Energy Agency.  The UK’s reliance on the World’s largest, (imported) wood-fired, condensing (not CHP) power station at Drax to balance the UK’s increasingly precarious system might be worth a mention?

But of course, the myth that somehow or other Denmark’s enormous consumption of biomass is in any way “sustainable” IMHO needs stronger rubbishing?

Pages 12 – 14

Figures 13 and 14 x-axes should be replaced by dates (IMO)

Running Denmark’s dispatchable power stations like this must be hugely inefficient (high CO2-emitting) as well very wearing on all the components?

Paul-Frederik’s unique (???) immense and detailed data deserves a rather more special mention IMHO

Pages 15 – 22

On these pages, Søren does his best (I’m sure) not to be too hard on the Danish Governmental agencies “plans for a “net zero” future!  His figures 18 and 19 reveal what a complete nightmare scenario must plan for!  Of course, the inter-connected systems of Germany, Netherlands and UK/Ireland, all many times larger than Denmark are smitten by the same “net zero solution”!  The total lunacy of normally sensible Denmark to rely on “storing electricity as hydrogen” when there is clearly no magic way of improving the round trip efficiency of electricity – hydrogen-electricity over 40% (at best) needs to be spelled out for the (I suppose) mostly UK and US readers of GWPF readers?

Again, the x axis of Figures 19 and 20 would seem clearer to me as dates in 2035

Today’s story at needs to be contrasted (and verified?) with the apparent certainty of the Danish officials who seem to believe that Germany will truly, in real life, purchase all this ludicrously costly hydrogen!  Words fail…

Page 23

Søren writes “Denmark is very fortunate in having neighbours like Norway and Sweden who, thanks to their hydro power, are able to handle large transfers of power in either direction.”  This is, for the time being true!  However, it is very clear that the consumers and investors in Southern Norway are already becoming restive and simply will resist further inter-connection and may even resist renewing their now ageing inter-connectors with northern Denmark. Furthermore, all Sweden’s remaining nuclear power stations are very ancient and will soon be forced to be de-commissioned.  I have no “inside” knowledge of exactly when this will happen nor any “inside” knowledge of how soon new nukes can be ordered and delivered.  But all new nukes delivered into Europe of late are many times over budget and delivered many years late.  Søren’s views on SMRs replacing traditional large nukes would undoubtedly be interesting!


Jim Simpson
A most interesting (and I must admit, entertaining) read, what with all the problems now coming to light (unsurprisingly) relative to expanding influence of wind & Solar-PV’s upon the Danish energy market.  I’ll be brief with just two suggestions.  

Use of the words ‘renewables’ and/or ‘renewable energy’ throughout the document should be replaced with ‘unreliables and/or ‘unreliable energy’.  That’s easy!  And it’s far more accurate/honest than continued use of the marketing word ‘renewables’ – created by the marketing machine hiding behind the promoters of wind & solar-PV’s for its positive connotations.  Why in the world would anyone in their right mind continue to give the ‘renewables’ a free kick by using their ‘word(?), when a far more accurate word & associated negative connotations is the ‘unreliables’?

And my second suggestion – just invite the Danish Administration to implement a sensible Energy Policy, as below & leave it to market forces to ‘take the next steps’.  You could do no worse in the UK by adopting a similar sensible Energy Policy too.

Sensible Energy Policy for Denmark

Electricity is an essential service. Denmark cannot function without an affordable, dependable, available (24/7) easy to understand (sensible) market driven Energy Policy that works from the consumer’s interests back, rather than from the power generation industries interests forward.

In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2, the key elements of such a sensible Energy Policy would require that it;

  1. Is technology agnostic; (i.e., embraces both fossil fuels, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, biomass, wave, batteries & nuclear – all on the table),
  2. Eliminates all subsidies & discriminatory legislation that favours one, or operates against any other technology i.e., a level playing field that’s fair to all, with the choice of technology left entirely to the discretion of respective power generators.
  3. Requires contractual obligations via (record name of Danish Energy regulator?) auction to meet guaranteed 99.998% power outputs in accord with clearly defined Quality of Service (QOS) standards.
  4. Imposes substantial financial penalties upon power generators who fail to meet contractual obligations & associated QOS standards (force majeure permitting, in the event of natural disasters e.g., earthquakes, floods & bushfires). 
  5. Requires a substantial bond paid in advance to meet restoration of the environment(eg, decommissioning & removal of all infrastructure and/or disposal / recycling costs for solar-PV panels, wind turbine blades & associated infrastructure) as is currently required of the mining industry by way of land restoration following mining activity.
  6. Repeals any anti-competitive legislation.

If the Danish power generating industry finds the principles associated with this proposed energy policy proposal unpalatable, simply re-nationalise the industry & return it to whence it came i.e., the responsibility of the Danish Government.

Treve Geraty

For information, I worked in the UK Energy Industry for 44 years. 

Having read the report, the blindingly obvious observation is that no densely populated Country with a Commercial and Industrial base can rely on wind and Solar as it’s energy base. 

The intermittency of  Wind and Solar creates complete imbalance between the generated output curve  and the consumption curve. 

Even at 6 – 8 times greater installed Generation capacity than peak demand it still does not cover the Demand peaks at times. 

It does seem logical to use periods of sustained excess electricity production for Hydrogen production, providing the Hydrogen plant can cope with periods of inactivity. 
However the  requirement for imports at times when neighbouring Countries will almost certainly be experiencing the same weather conditions and have reduced output from their own renewable generation seems fraught with risk. 

No one is factoring in the shorter lifespan of Renewable Generation circa 20/25 years for wind and solar generators, compared to the 50 – 60 years for Conventional Generation. 

The obvious alternatives to the intermittency problems associated with Wind and Solar are Nuclear and Marine Current Turbines. The latter, using tidal streams, will produce a much higher output load factor than wind and solar. Tidal Streams are totally predictable hundreds of years in advance. 

The insistence on an arbitrary date in the future for net zero is driving a rush to impractical costly long term solutions. 

Long Term Energy Production requires well thought out integrated planning and not rushed solutions driven by artificial deadlines 


Donal O’Callaghan

General comments

I live in Ireland, a country of similar population and economic scale to Denmark and I found that this article describes a situation similar to the experience here as regards an overly ambitious and unrealistic Net Zero policy. The article says things that need to be said in order to draw attention to the hopelessly unrealistic policies that are being pursued in the absence of responsible design and economic analysis. I think that readers in many countries will identify with this article. I like the not-too-technical journalistic style.

Specific comments

Fig 1 and Fig 2. It is good to see both power and energy set out – many papers miss one or the other dimension. In this case they match up with a capacity factor of roughly 30-32% while installed capacity far exceeds average demand – a very significant fact.

Fig 5. Useful graph. By all means show hourly scale on time axis but it also needs to show months. (The same applies to Fig 8). The time resolution appears to be about 12 hours, so that on the blue graphs we observe the weekly cycle. I suggesting stating the time resolution. 

Fig 7 shows the volatility in wind energy pricing, which must create great uncertainty for investors. 

The Solar Cell Economy. The term “cannibalising each other” is very descriptive.

The output from solar and wind. 

“There is a widespread belief among politicians and decision makers in Denmark that the renewable energy sources will provide a steady supply of electricity. Of course, it is sometimes mentioned that the renewables are fluctuating, but there is no serious attempt to follow up on the issue. And yet, it is precisely this instability that eventually will sink the entire energy transition.”

This situation is very familiar. Very well said.

Fig. 8. Here we see the duration of low wind periods as up to 150 hours in the period shown. The low solar periods in Fig 9 appear longer. It would be very useful to analyse the extent and depth (% of demand) of low renewable (wind and solar) production over an entire year or more, for the purpose of determining the amount of energy storage capacity that would be needed to make renewable electricity reliable.

Other sources of electricity

This section spells out the idiocy of recent energy policies.

p10. I suggest replacing “with the increasing awareness of the climate”

with “with the increasing influence of climate policy”, or some such.

Balancing the electricity supply 

Obviously, they cannot help if the problem is too much production by solar and wind.” Why?

Figs 13 and 14 illustrate the “double capacity factor” problem with renewables – dispatchable plants are now forced to operate at low capacity factor as well, clearly reducing the return on investment of those plants as well. So we are replacing the old dispatchable system with its high capacity factor with two systems (renewable + dispatchable), where both operate with low capacity factor. This has obvious implications for return on investment on both systems, and ultimately on cost of energy. 

On p15-16 the volatility of prices and the exacerbating effect of varying fossil-fuel prices, are well summarised. Likewise, the serious risks of power failures. One fears that the entire country is being subjected to an experiment of some kind!

Fig 18. It would appear that the plan is to install capacity of around 6 times consumption! I don’t suppose that any cost analysis has been published by government!!!!

“expected consumption in 2035. Based on data from the Energy Agency” If you happen to know on what basis the 2035 profile is projected, a footnote would help.

p18. Hydrogen and data centres – the same issues arise here in Ireland!

Fig 19. “We see clearly that even with the massive expansion of wind and solar capacity, a serious deficit of power is to be expected on a number of nights.  During the days, the situation is of course the opposite, huge surpluses of up to 25,000 MW.” – excellent observation.

p19. “The Energy Agency plans to reduce the total capacity of the dispatchable power plants drastically, leaving the country with less than 3 GW by 2035. Hence, the power plants will not be able to cover the shortfalls during the nights. Denmark must then rely on imports.” 

This is crazy!

“The big surpluses are, as mentioned, according to the Agency to be used by the data centres, and (primarily) for hydrogen electrolysis. Whether data centres can operate on a fluctuating power supply must be regarded with some doubt. Being computer servers, they are much more likely to require a steady supply of power”

Absolutely true. 

Fig 20 is a very good use of a graph. “It will obviously be a major technological challenge to establish the hydrogen production based on such fluctuating conditions, and to the writer’s knowledge such a process has not been shown to work in practice. …. This of course will render the cost of the hydrogen much higher than what a stable production could have resulted in.” 

Absolutely true. I am delighted to see these points being spelled out clearly.

How to get there

Overplanting is a questionable approach. Possibly reducing the overall capacity factor and rate of return on investment. 

Hydrogen: “What is worse – the government also wants the producers to guarantee that the pipe will be utilised at least by 44%.” 


“The elephant in the room is of course the expected price of the hydrogen.”

[I agree – we are talking about hydrogen produced by electrolysis]. 

“It is rarely mentioned by the government agencies, but sober calculations indicate a cost per unit of energy which is between 4 and 8 times the cost of natural gas. This means that e.g. German industrial buyers must think twice. Can steelworks sell their products with energy prices that much higher than what the competitors in other parts of the World have to pay? Probably not. So, is there really a market for all the hydrogen to be produced?” 

It’s about time that someone pointed out his issue.

p22 “Cooler heads calculated the financial viability of the project, and expressed grave doubts as to the profitability. In 2023 the idea was abandoned – for now – but it is still to be found in the Energy Agency plans for the future.” 

Unfortunately it is necessary to point out such inconsistencies in policy. 

p22 “Another problem with the offshore wind turbines is the expected lifetime and maintenance costs of the equipment. Here we see very optimistic figures, 25-30 years with little cost along the way, whereas practical experience so far shows far shorter life spans and much more major maintenance required.” I agree. I’ve seen reports of 15-20 years being more realistic and maintenance issues increase with age. 

“And of course, everyone in the business is looking for government support. In the end it is the ordinary people who cover the cost, as taxpayers, rate payers or pensioners.” 

This is the sad reality. 


“The ambitious climate targets of Denmark have spurred the country far into the green energy transition. 45% of the country’s energy consumption is by now covered by renewable sources. Denmark sees itself as a frontrunner in this respect, setting an example for everyone else to follow.” 

Here in Ireland, we hear exactly the same propaganda. 

p23 “but there is no realistic solution on the table regarding how to handle the enormous fluctuations in the ensuing energy supply.”

It is the same here in Ireland. 

The main solution seems to be hydrogen production, which miraculously is expected to work on a highly variable power input.” 

This myth is very familiar.

“The economy of the entire energy scheme seems increasingly doubtful, the power costs fluctuate enormously and the hydrogen that might be produced will be very expensive, basically rendering any usage wildly uncompetitive with e.g. natural gas. Denmark is with the climate policies looking into huge costs, an unstable energy supply and most likely a financial downturn within a few years. This will make the country a frontrunner, but is it in a direction any other sensible government would like to follow? I think not.”

This is exactly the situation in Ireland too. I am very glad to see this pointed out so clearly. 


John Bullwinkel

As I am sure you know, if China, India, Russia, Indonesia, the US and other major economies ignore their emissions levels then the rest of the world is destroying itself for no benefit. If the Danes and anyone else think that China will take any notice of anyone at any time, then they are dreaming.

A good example of the above is when BASF closed down one of its major plants in Germany which had high emissions, they moved the manufacturing to Shanghai and South America, the result of which might have made Germany feel better (and their industrial output fell) but only transferred the emissions elsewhere. In case people do not realise the emissions are fungible and move around the world – they ignore country boundaries!!. This has the effect of de-industrialising Europe and giving China a huge trade and economic advantage which in fact then turns into a national security issue such as when Europe decided to rely on Russian gas until the Russians turned off the tap!!

Please ensure that these points are made clear in any communications rather than only focusing on the feel-good factors which in fact are quite useless for the reasons described above.


John Raw

This is a strange paper which initially describes the unbounded optimism that  Denmark has for its plans to reach Net Zero by 2045 no less, setting an example to the world, but freely admitting that it will have zero effect on the climate. (Nuclear is a non-starter!)

It then goes into great detail to show how the combination of its renewables, wind and solar, falls far short of being able to provide reliable energy. The renewables are hugely intermittent and have to be backed up by extensive use of biomass (which is not strictly renewable). The author of the paper himself is clearly sceptical about the prospects of success and even admits that their plans will not be achievable.

I happen to agree with him. More and more nations in the western world are slowly coming to the same conclusion,  regrettably after spending trillions!


Ronald Ainsbury

I have a few questions …

What are the plans for wind turbine blades at the end of their useful life or after damage – landfills as we see in the USA? Same question probably applies to the photo-voltaic cells.

Has there been a calculation of the amount of “exported” pollution in the creation of the renewable generators (mining of essential metals and minerals, child labour, pollution by extraction plants in other countries)?

If the Danish really want the world to follow their “good example” and save the earth from a “climate catastrophe” then they should show us how they do this without worsening the planet in remote parts of the world … 

Where are the investments in clean or green mining, ensuring that waste from the processing of mineral ores is recaptured and doesn’t pollute the local environment?

Where is the programme to ensure that child labour and other forms of coerced labour are eradicated?


Francis Menton

On page 22, second sentence of conclusion, now reads: “45% of the country’s energy consumption is by now covered by renewable sources.”

Should that instead be 45% of electricity consumption?I don’t believe that they could be anywhere close to 45% of total energy consumption from renewable sources.  Energy consumption includes transportation (cars, planes, trucks, trains, ships), agriculture, industry, building heat, and more.  The 45% must refer to only electricity, which is a minority of energy consumption.  45% of electricity consumption is probably 15% of energy consumption.

Other from that, if I had written the Report, I would have been far more scornful of the idiots who are driving Denmark into the ditch.  But that’s just a matter of style.

C. Michael Hogan PhD

Big mistake to abandon nuclear power in favour of offshore wind, which produces much more carbon in life cycle. Look at outcome in Germany


Howard Dewhirst

This is an excellent review but I’d like to see more detail on exactly how they can sustain the claim that burning wood pellets is ‘sustainable’ in any way? Cutting down trees takes diesel machinery, transport, drying and pelletising likewise. Then there is transport to a port, transshipment by sea/land and then by land to the electricity generator – and not forgetting the roots which stay behind, decompose and give off CO2 – and that it takes 30 years plus before the tree that was cut down, and which could have been storing CO2 during that time is replaced by a mature tree, which is then cut down …? Saying biomass is provides 60% of Denmark’s ‘renewables’ is gilding the lily?

Also it would be good to have a clearer explanation about the difference between capacity and production


Professor Peter Dobson

It is a very refreshing analysis because in the first part of the paper, we are given “Real Data” and it shows the huge fluctuations in output power from wind and solar sources. The power demand is frequently out of kilter with the generation because of this. Denmark is fortunate because of its location so it can uses export/import of electricity with neighbours, but the fact remains that there really has to be some form of large scale (electrical) energy storage if brownouts or blackouts are to be avoided.

For fossil fuel generation sources, energy is effectively stored before generation and when demand increases, provided sufficient storage of unburned fossil fuel is stored, the generation can be ramped up to meet demand. The article does not really address the electrical storage issue sufficiently. Given the well-publicised shortcomings of wind and solar energy, there really has to be some built-in insistence that energy storage is always included in the system. This will of course reduce the economic attractiveness of this option, but this has to be made clear. The use of hydrogen for energy storage is touched on, and perhaps could have been expanded a bit or have added references to point out the relatively inefficiency and high cost for power production.

The situation for Denmark can easily be extrapolated to the UK, but the variations will be even more significant because of the larger population and demand. This should be required reading for all who are associated with DESNZ.


Derek Birkett

An excellent paper that raises the question of a similar analysis for the GB system. It is clear to me as a retired grid control engineer that it is only a matter of time before 
a major incident occurs as indicated on page 16. Another consideration is the reliance on interconnection where Denmark is fortunate in having sources from neighbours having flexible hydro generation. Nevertheless the extent of volatility with wind and solar raises the question of how such volatility can be sustained over the longer term especially with rising intent for more wind and solar. I suspect their situation is a reflection of what we have in the UK with subsidy distorting market forces to override technical good sense. Any engineering perspective has security of supply as a paramount consideration, quite distinct from that of decisions made by politicians who are influenced by accountants and civil servants, in turn having to be compliant with increasing international edicts from the EU and UN.  All these players have little understanding of what energy security is about. To illustrate my point a perusal of the energy section within manifestos being produced for the forthcoming election, with one exception, are certain to raise consumer energy bills over the longer term.

The situation for the GB Grid System is of much more concern.  We are reliant upon interconnection to meet winter peak demands as well as mitigating daily fluctuations of supply to balance consumer needs. With rising international  tension, such subsea connections are highly vulnerable (to become a target before any nuclear response is made) as Germany experienced with their Baltic gas pipeline. Accommodation of consumer demand in the UK over this past decade has been greatly assisted by rising consumer bills reducing winter peak demands to 45GW from a peak of 60GW in 2010.

With government policy to promote space heating by heat pumps and electric transport, in the absence of  new dispatchable generation and both gas and nuclear plant being retired, continuation of suppressing demand and further interconnection remain the only options over this decade until nuclear investment can be commissioned. No wonder rising bills can be expected without drastic surgery to remove renewable subsidy. That is what Net Zero is about.


Dr Mike Simpson

This is an excellent study outlining how misguided politicians are in trying to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). It also shows how far politicians will go in trying to achieve the unachievable without thinking through the consequences. The fact that there are engineers available, and the author himself, to give advice to the Danish government and yet that advice has not been sought or acted upon is cause for concern.

The Danish model is not a model any country should follow and is indicative of the ruinous costs that will be incurred in other supposed frontrunners such as the UK.

The frontrunner argument is false. Usually, the first in the market is the one that loses the race as other technologically savvy companies/organisations with a lower cost base/government subsidy enter the market and undermines the frontrunners strategy with lower costs, faster responses to market changes and lower research and development cost – the first in the market has done the groundwork and the mistakes are clear to avoid. Later entrants can reverse engineer new products and make them better or cheaper. Later entrants can identify areas of improvement left by the frontrunner and take advantage of them. No one will follow the frontrunner in the race to the bottom – which is what the Net Zero project is; hopefully they will see the folly of such action.

The paper clearly shows that the Danish approach does not pass the cost-benefit test. The fact that all this effort results in no effect on the climate makes the whole project essentially useless, expensive, and futile. The enormous costs result in a worse (i.e. unstable, mismatched, expensive) energy supply which is more fragile and less secure than the fossil fuel original. In an increasingly geo-politically unstable world such a system renders Denmark rather vulnerable.

Comparisons might be made with California in the USA, where ‘brown outs’ and power cuts appear to be a regular occurrence.

The hydrogen and circular economy ideas have all been heavily criticised and technologically something of a pipedream. The paper explains this to some degree.

It is high time that claims about climate mitigation/ambition or ‘climate targets’ and these changes to the energy system are separated because they are not related in any way. The climate will do what it does naturally and changes to the energy system like the ones outlined in this paper cannot be based on climate change mitigation simply because carbon dioxide has reached a concentration where the infrared absorption bands are saturated, and no further significant warming can occur (Coe et al, 2021; Sheahen, 2021, Wijngaarden and Happer, 2019; 2020; 2021a; 2021b and 2022). This conclusion supersedes the analysis of Zhong and Haigh (2013).

Further, temperature change precedes changes in carbon dioxide concentrations which is the reverse of the story told to citizens (Hodzic, and Kennedy, 2019; Koutsoyiannis, 2023 and 2024). Yet Statistics Norway (2023) report, after looking at 200 years of temperature measurements, suggests that climate research operates with too short time intervals to be able to determine whether the influence of CO2 on temperatures has a statistical correlation. Other factors such as cloud formation, solar activity and ocean currents have a significant impact.

Perhaps the Danish government could have taken some advice just by reading about the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the consumer angle (Merlin-Jones, 2012):

It would be far better not to jeopardise the whole green agenda by rushing into renewable power and emission reduction, and instead to rethink how longterm goals can be met with the minimum cost to the domestic user.” (Merlin-Jones, 2012: 30)


The consumer angle is a serious one, not least because, as their EU ETS based costs continue to rise, public support for the scheme will decline. In time, this could reach the point at which public opinion values environmentalism below their ability to travel freely and keep warm. If this happens, and voters turn against the regulations, this could force politicians to unravel not just the EU ETS but the whole green agenda, undermining all efforts towards a low carbon future. The tipping point is not far ahead.” (Merlin-Jones, 2012: 30)

And for the UK:

From the viewpoint of the homeowner, Britain has seen the worst energy bill increases throughout Europe.” (Merlin-Jones, 2012: 29)

These points are pertinent to the work in this paper but the last comment is out of date and needs checking.


Carbon dioxide is a harmless highly beneficial rare trace gas essential for all life on Earth. That politicians wish to reduce emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide in air should raise concerns about the role of politicians in the energy transition and raise the question “is an energy transition needed at all?”. Controls on CO2 emissions and concentrations in air should be considered as very dangerous and very expensive policy indeed. This report shows clearly that the Net Zero/energy transition political goal comes at a price for the consumer and is likely to be unachievable in practice.

The fact that some very savvy organisations are making money off the various schemes shows the NET Zero/energy transition project for what it is – a confidence trick or a swindle.

My questions are:

Where does the biomass and wood pellets come from? In the UK they are imported from the destruction of pristine forests in north America.

How do the energy costs compare with the other European countries and the UK over the last, say, 10 or 20 years?

How are these costs projected to increase in the future in Denmark as the situation changes?

How is it that these politicians are not voted out of office in a similar way to those in the Netherlands and across other EU countries in recent elections?

I am more than happy to correspond with the author if I can be of any help.

Dr Mike Simpson; Email:; Tel: +44 (0)7716516475


CO2 Coalition, 2023. Challenging “Net Zero” with Science Richard Lindzen, William Happer, CO2 Coalition. Available from:; Published 28th February 2023. Accessed 2nd March 2023.

Coe, D., Fabinski, W. and Weigleb, G., 2021. The Impact of CO2, H2O and other ‘Greenhouse Gases’ on equilibrium earth temperatures, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 5 (2), pp. 29-40. Doi:10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12

Hodzic, M. and Kennedy, I.R, (2019) “Time and frequency analysis of Vostok ice core climate data”, Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, ISSN 2303-4521, Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2019, pp.907-923, Available online at:

Koutsoyiannis, D.; Onof, C.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Christofides, A. (2023) “On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere”. Sci 20235, 35.

Koutsoyiannis, D., (2024) “Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age”. Sci 20246, 17.

Merlin- Jones, D. (2012) “CO2.1: Beyond the EU’s Emissions Trading System”, Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London. ISBN 978-1-906837-34-1

Sheahen, T., (2021). Getting it Right: Scientifically ‘success’ means ‘agreement with observation’, 14th Conference on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, October 16, 2021, at Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada. <>

Statistics Norway (2023) “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” Report 1007 by John K. Dagsvik, Statistics Norway, PO Box 2633, St Hanshaugen, 0131 Oslo, Norway. Email: and Sigmund H. Moen, Retired Civil Engineer. Source:; (last accessed 1/7/2024).

Wijngaarden, W.A. van, and Happer, W., 2019. Infrared Forcing by Greenhouse Gases. Available from: (Accessed 19th January 2019).

Wijngaarden, W.A. van, and Happer, W., 2020. Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, arXiv:2006.03098v1 [] 4th June 2020.

Wijngaarden, W.A. van, and Happer, W., 2021a. Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules, arXiv:2103.16465v1 [] 30th March 2021.

Wijngaarden, W.A. van, and Happer, W., 2021b. Methane and Climate. Available from: (Accessed: 23 December 2022).

Wijngaarden, W.A. van, and Happer, W., 2022. 2n-Stream Radiative transfer. Available from:, (accessed: 19th January 2023).

Zhong, W., Haigh, J.D., 2013. The Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide, Weather, 68(4), pp. 100-105. DOI: 10.1002/wea.2072