Without factoring in inflation and present value of money spent, it means that EACH person had was charged $20,000. Given that at any one time 1/2 of any population are under 18 - generally - that would mean each family (if 4) was given a bill for $80,000 to put up all the turbines etc?
The payback is 7 years so they were spending $12,000 a year for each family in electrical bills and now they spend $0 for electricty?
The math does not seem right.
Or did "government" spend all the money to do this - ie other people's taxes in other parts of the country - to make this island generate electricy.
If a turbine breaks and it costs a million dollars to repair / upgrade does each person on the island get a bill for $250?
Putting out only part of the (positive) facts is disengenious.
(click on the image for a larger version)
It took ten years and $80 million, but the Danish island of Samsoe now produces enough energy to satisfy all its needs and still export 40 percent of its energy to the mainland. Going 100 percent renewable wasn’t easy, but the results have paid off handsomely. Farmers on the island who are powering their facilities with wind turbines are seeing a 6 to 7 year payback on those investments. And of course it’s remarkable that wind, unlike other energy technologies, is entirely compatible with agriculture.
Here’s an interview with one of the island’s dairy farmers. His non-chalance about owning enough wind power to meet the needs of an entire village is priceless:
Samsoe only has 4,000 people living on it, giving it the highest per-capita concentration of nearly every kind of renewable on the planet. Its citizens have 11 onshore and 10 offshore turbines. The offshore wind alone produces 28,000 MWh of electricity per year, the equivalent of 690,000 gallons of oil.
The island also makes use of its renewable biomass resource for heating. Three straw-fired plants burn material not used in farming, alongside a 900kw wood chip boiler.
[via SmartCities]
Illustration: GDS Infographics
