Denmark has a really good PR department.
They can only afford to have so many wind turbines because they also have a lot of dirty coal power plants, and when they produce too much electricity, they sell it at a loss to Sweden and Norway (who have many hydro power plants). Denmark has a pretty bad CO2/kWh electricity footprint.
This is a very inaccurate sketch of reality, and almost any statement in this sentence is untrue.
* Wind power turbines can be started and stopped with simple procedure, in contrary to a large gas, nuclear or coal plant. Wind energy is actually actively used to steer energy supply based on the demands.
The idea that you `need` coal plants to adjust for varying winds is more than a misconception. In reality, it's the other way around - large plants are monoliths that are not usually actively adjusted in output power based on the demand. Wind energy parks are capable of adapting output to demand in real-time.
* Hydro plants are are very nice solution, both for varying demands. When not used, they actively can store energy. There's nothing wrong with hydro plants. There's also nothing wrong with (high voltage / DC / bidirectional) undersea electricity cables that, once installed, help a continent create and distribute more electricity efficiently.
* Denmark produces about 50% of it's energy needs with wind power. That makes an excellent CO2 footprint per kWh.
Please stop your blatant lies and fud. Renewable energy exists, is flexible enough, greatly reduces carbon footprint, and is economically feasible.
The only reason to object renewables is if you have many stock interests in some oil-based company.
-- On-topic: I do agree that bitcoin in it's current form is mostly a waste of energy.