Jens Martin Skibsted Quotes

I don't see a sea change by 2020, but I see migration in the direction of modernization and more flexibility in the generating system going forward.

Energy consumption has to be managed by an intelligent grid when it comes to highly populated areas. Smart-grid technologies allow for the integration of renewable energy into the grid as well as energy from distributed sources.

This [hydrogen] is the only technology we know of that can change the game

One of the things that we have to realize is we cannot get off gas, we cannot get off oil, fossil fuels tomorrow - it's going to take a few decades. Maybe we can shorten it, but there's going to have to be a transition time.

Energy independence and energy security are really two different things.

In terms of the energy-banking concept, what we'd love to be able to do is to act in a way where customers could deposit excess energy when they didn't need it and withdraw it when they did need it.

Large conventional power plants will continue to be built, but their significance for energy supply is diminishing.

All options to produce, transmit, and store electricity should be considered, driven by clear price signals and constructive government policy.

Our nation's power plant fleet must include a mix of solar, wind, hydro, natural gas and nuclear plants.

Intermittency [in availability for wind and solar] changes the economics, particularly this requirement that the power company at all times be able to require power. That's large.

Natural gas is a bridge fuel. But it's not a bridge - it's a gangplank. It's either a bridge in space or a bridge in time. The bridge in time we don't need. We have renewable technology right now.

We have to transform our energy system.

Replacing traditional sources of energy completely with renewable energy is going to be a challenging task. However, by adding renewable energy to the grid and gradually increasing its contribution, we can realistically expect a future that is powered completely by green energy.

Exceptional circumstances can accelerate the gradual process of energy transitions: France's decision to develop nuclear energy on a grand scale is perhaps the best example of how that can be done by government fiat. In contrast, America's accelerated shift from coal has been driven by an inevitable embrace of cheaper natural gas.

It takes energy to get energy.

If we're going to be serious about decarbonizing the bulk-power system, nuclear has to be part of the conversation.

Fossil fuels powered the U.S. into the industrial age and replaced windmills and wood burning, which were inefficient, as the primary sources of electricity.

There is no plan today to fully give up on coal. Experts point out that our supplies run for another 200 years, and it would be hard not to use them.

We must transition away from the dirtiest fossil fuels toward renewable sources of energy for the sake of our economy and our planet.

Like the UAE, we have been thinking of the time after hydrocarbons for a very long time.

We have seen the Democrat solution to an energy crisis; it's called California.

I'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

Obviously the world is moving away from high carbon energy to low carbon energy, and eventually moving away toward renewable energy. So it is in the interest of Africa to move towards that, because that's where the world is moving.

The fuel in the earth will be exhausted in a thousand or more years, and its mineral wealth, but man will find substitutes for these in the winds, the waves, the sun's heat, and so forth.