E-P,

Yes, by simple analysis. However, if/when wind and solar are to supply all of the primary energy, the average load will be 3-4 times the current electricity production. In other words, wind and solar will produce more than 'current, uninterruptible' power consumption.

Now, some hierarchy of P2X consumers will establish, based on their CAPEX/OPEX ratio.

Nobody believes this is possible in strict competition with fossil fuels any time soon, so getting Denmark off of fossil fuels and on to electricity + electrofuels will require either subsidies - like wind and solar has enjoyed until last year - or 'artificial markets', such as minimum requirement for drop-in fuel in jet-fuel and/or gasoline and diesel.

For Denmark:
Aviation fuel: 6,000 MW electrolysis capacity by the same metrics as in the article, assuming some conversion efficiency from hydrogen to jet fuel.
Gasoline: 9,000 MW
Diesel: 18,000 MW
Current average electricity consumption: approx 3,500 MW

I do not believe we can find the room for enough wind and solar to replace current gasoline and diesel with electrofuels, let alone find non-fossil carbon sources for it. Priority should be given to long distance flights.

The 'new' element in this project is to drive the electrolysers directly from wind turbines, rather than the grid. Generally, behind-the-meter power costs about one third than grid power - even less if you're a private consumer and also pay both electricity tax and VAT (on top of all the others).

Transporting as much wind and solar power through the electricity grid as I mentioned above would require very costly expansion of the power grid. Thus the consensus among the big players around the North Sea is that most of the electricity from all those extra wind turbines should not touch the grid before it gets used to produce hydrogen.

PS: New off-shore wind farms around Denmark operate at about 60% average capacity.

It should be possible to electrify nearly all land transport. You could have catenaries over motorways for trucks and wired / battery transport for cities.
You could mix in chemical fuels (chemical or fossil) as required.
Aircraft will be the big problem, but as TP says priority should be given to long distance flights.
You could also use planes differently; for instance, pack more people into them and increase the number of passengers at the expense of range.
Consider the A350-1000. It has a range of 8700 nmi, and can hold 370 passengers in 3 classes. Current state of the art.
Now imagine, you build a double decker version (same wing, same engines) that can hold 5-600 passengers and fly 5500 nmi (and less cargo). That is enough for London to Tokyo or London to LA.

The problem will be filling it; but you could get airlines to share flights (code sharing) as they do now, especially if there was a high tax on aviation fuel.

I do not believe we can find the room for enough wind and solar to replace current gasoline and diesel with electrofuels, let alone find non-fossil carbon sources for it.

Easy enough to do with nuclear power, though.  Figuring 190 MW(e) out of a Fermi 1-scale FBR using a supercritical CO2 turbine at ~45% efficiency, my breakdown is as follows:

• ~18 units to generate all the electricity.
• ~32 units to make all the aviation fuel.
• ~47 units to make all the gasoline.
• ~94 units to make all the diesel.

Of course you wouldn't actually do it that way, because it's so much easier and cheaper to replace the bulk of the gasoline and diesel with electricity and batteries.  A Fermi 1-scale reactor is a tiny little thing, only a few meters in diameter; you could easily stick 4-8 in a single building, so you'd only need 25-50 buildings total even if you did go the lossy route.  I'm sure Denmark can find space along its coastlines for another 50 buildings.

WTH is going on with Typepad???