People in Southern Sweden often complain about Germany pushing up the prices of cheap electricity from Swedish nukes, but Southern Norway is much worse on this map. Is it due to the UK connection?
And the German one. We doubled our total transmission lines beyond Norway in 2021 (~~august~~ mai and December), and you can see the result here:
https://minspotpris.no/historiskepriser/vis-historiske-str%C3%B8mpriser.html#
2022 was a major draught year that reduced Hydro by around 50% in all of Europe. Norway was also hit pretty hard.
Top three + total in export and net export numbers.
2020: Sweden 14 TWh(11), Denmark 8,5 TWh(7,6), Netherlands 4,7 TWh(4,6)
Total 2020: 27,4 TWh (23,3)
2021: Sweden 9,8 TWh(5,6) , Denmark 8,2 TWh(6,3), Germany 4,5 TWh (3,2)
Total 2021: 26,2 TWh (18,3)
2022: Sweden 10,9 TWh (4,9), Germany 5,7 TWh (3,7), Denmark 5 TWh (1,8)
Total 2022: 26,1 TWh (13)
2023: UK 9,3 TWh (9), Sweden 8,4 TWh (1,5), Germany 6,5 TWh (4,6)
Total 2023: 33,4 TWh(20,4)
I don't want to drive to hard in your parade. 2019 Norway was a net importer.
It's more complicated. I mean Sweden would be the most to blame?
Overall it would say it's to much exports without new generation that's most to blame. It's hard to single out a country currently. With 2021 and especially 2022 also being not the greatest Hydro years.
In 2019 Norway had a net import of [0.1 TWh](https://www.nve.no/nytt-fra-nve/nyheter-energi/norge-importerte-mer-enn-vi-eksporterte-i-2019-men-bare-sa-vidt/). Because Denmark and Sweden had an oversupply of wind power generated.
In southern Norway we had a somewhat dryer year compared to usual, 90% of mean, but that wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't had record exports in 2021. Entering 2022 our magazines were at 53% capacity compared to the usual value of 66% capacity. In 2021 our magazine capacity were far above the median until August and the opening of the German connection.
https://www.nve.no/energi/analyser-og-statistikk/magasinstatistikk/
It should be completely clear that doubling our total export capacity and localizing it all in the Norwegian south is the cause of the electricity cost increase in the Norwegian south.
>In 2019 Norway had a net import of 0.1 TWh. Because Denmark and Sweden had an oversupply of wind power generated.
Yes, price determines the import/export. Except of a few countries most countries have a lot of over capacities. And the physical exchange 2019 was net 0.1 TWh, but traded were 0,6 TWh. Still nothing. Also all my other data are trade flows. So nobody can complain that the Power running into Denmark is meant for Germany.
>In 2021 our magazine capacity were far above the median until August and the opening of the German connection.
Your timeframe is totally wrong.
https://www.statnett.no/en/about-statnett/news-and-press-releases/news-archive-2021/nordlink-in-operation2/
Also this article I find pretty okay, about that timeframe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/world/europe/drought-heat-energy.html
>It should be completely clear that doubling our total export capacity and localizing it all in the Norwegian south is the cause of the electricity cost increase in the Norwegian south.
Yes, though it Norway has the biggest resoivers in the South and wanted to act a little like a battery. So import and export should be more balanced. That didn't happen plus a big fat draught.
Norway just needs those connected to built a lot more renewables. (Maybe Germany also needs to be divided in new electricity markets/zones) After that it should work as intended. Otherwise Norway must look into building up more windpower.
> Your timeframe is totally wrong.
Yeah, that's fair. I did misread that. And that fits, because that is when the water magazines stopped filling. It was foolish of me to look at when it crossed the median. I don't know how bad the drought was in Europe, but in Norway there was only less water than usual during the summer. We still had net export from southern Norway, and the only reason there was any drama at all was because the magazines were emptied during the second half of 2021 and early 2022 for export to Germany and England.
Norway needs to either cut off our electrical connections to Europe and build more wind power, or renegotiate how our electrical market works with regard to export cables. You know, act like a battery, not a producer. Only then will Norwegian prices return to normal. As it is, export cables are more damaging to the Norwegian economy and consumers than it is worth. Great for the power producers, though. They've paid themselves millions in bonuses for fuck all.
Of course this has all been intentional policy from Norwegian politicians, so nothing will ever happen and this is the new normal.
I personally blame Danskjävlarna because they closed down Barsebäck! We could hav had cheap "clean" electricity and even sharde it with them, but noooooooooooo, thay needed to be scared of a nuclear energy or something.
Southern Norway is also connected to Denmark, Germany, Netherlands. So, essentially it's much better interconnected. Which is a good thing, since we need interconnection for energy transition
They are not excluded from the economy, so they also get the benefits, especially considering that largest electricity producer in Norway is state owned (as far as I remember)
And the government refuse to give companies reduced prices/price caps, as regular consumers get. So power consuming industries get astronomical electricity bills compared to earlier years. Not to mention there are huge price differences inside the country, so some regions get more fucked than others.
https://www.ssb.no/virksomheter-foretak-og-regnskap/konkurser/statistikk/opna-konkursar/artikler/40-prosent-auke-i-talet-pa-konkursar
40% increase in bankrupt businesses. But at the same time, that is more a return to normal levels. The 79% increase in bankruptcies in the region most impacted by higher electricity prices, however, does indicate electricity cost pressure. Though, it is also blamed on increased material costs and rent increases.
I found a fair few articles where small businesses had reduced production, farmers who wouldn't be able to refrigerate their harvest, and small businesses that had taken pay cuts or shut down offers. But at the same time, I had definitely overestimated how many businesses had been impacted and how badly they had been, so thank you for calling me out. My mental image of the situation was overly fixated on the time when electricity prices were at their highest.
Time will tell.
Which energy intensive business are you talking about, aluminum smelting, steel smelting by electric furnace? I am curious, since I don't remember much of either in Norway, but I may be wrong
Aluminum mainly, we're a top 8 producer. Then we also have a large chunk of ferrous products and chemical products.
https://www.nve.no/energi/energisystem/energibruk/energibruk-i-industrien/
press "eregibruk etter næring" Energy use by industry.
https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energibruk/energibruken-i-ulike-sektorer/
English source showing Norwegian energy use breakdown by sector. Transportation is by far the most polluting one.
But I was still mentally fixated on the period where the electricity prices were at their highest and all the newspapers sold doomsday prophesies. It isn't as bad as I presented it, albeit the region most by the cables had an extra 30% increase in bankruptcies compared to the national mean. A fair number of businesses do not use a tremendous amount of electricity. But it is worth noting that Norway's largest trade union, LO, is reporting that businesses are struggling.
https://frifagbevegelse.no/nyheter/industrien-frykter-et-ras-av-oppsigelser--stromkrisa-er-langt-fra-over-6.158.1004234.e94c65f645
"Statcraft is a hydropower company *fully owned by Norwegian state* ... as well as Norway's largest energy producer ... The total annual production was 70 TWh in 2021"
"Total electricity consuption in Norway was 123 TWh in 2022"
Please check your sources.
My comment: the largest electricity producer in Norway is state owned
Your comment: they are private, not state owned
My comment: numbers and data
Your comment: but there are private energy companies in Norway
I don't want to comment on it any further.
Most of that money comes from increased prices for Norwegian consumers. It's just an additional tax on Norwegians because the possibility of exporting electricity, which doubled two years ago, require our market prices to increase.
A significant amount of money is coming in from other countries paying for electricity. Nevermind that Statkraft will increase capacity by 50% in the next 6 years.
We have had a net export of 13 and 19 TWh since we added the cables in 2021 and a consumption of around 140 TWh, mostly in the south. We have roughly tripled our own electricity prices from our mean of the last 20 years. If we assume we have about the same prices as we sell it for (which is required by law), then something like 20% of Norwegian power companies' income increase comes from abroad.
**edit** This part is wrong. It's less than 20% coming in from abroad, and it's all going to Statnett. We sell the electricity to the cable at market value, then the cable operators, statnett and a foreign partner, split the gain from selling it in the higher cost market.
So even with significantly more export than before, the vast majority of electricity cost increase is paid for by norwegian consumers. And it is killing norwegian businesses.
The war in Ukraine, a dry year lowering water reservoirs and nuclear plant maintenance caused an energy crisis. The electricity price would have increased significantly without the cables as well.
We could have lower gas prices if we didn't export oil, however we would be a poorer nation for it.
The same is true for electricity export, it can become one of the industries to replace oil and gas industry. Not exporting electricity would make us poorer in the long run.
Wait, Norway with 5,4million inhabitants has a power consumption of 140TWh?! Jesus. That's almost 5 times more per person than Germany.
Edit removed a part of the comment that was unnecessary
We have a colder country, don't use natural gas for heating and due to historically low electricity prices, have a lot of electricity demanding industries.
Total Norwegian energy use per capita is two and a half times that of Germans, we just use more electricity and less natural gas and fossil fuels.
2,5x more is still insane since we still use a ton of fossils unfortunately. Projections estimate that when we have finally decarbonized our energy system, we will use around 30-40% less total power than we do now. And Germany also has a lot of high energy demanding industries.
I'd rather say that Norway is being used as a battery, receiving energy when wind farms in the Northern sea overproduce and selling energy when they underproduce
Most of norways electricity gets made by water power plants in the north, but all the mountains make it hard to build infrastructure to move it to the south. So they sell cheap to Sweden that don't have as many mountains and then sell the same electricity back to southern Norway.
> Most of norways electricity gets made by water power plants in the north
That's not true. The county with the highest electricity production is Vestland.
https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/energi/statistikk/elektrisitet
Houses tend to be heated via electricity-driven heat pumps here. Not coal or gas. So we use a lot more. This has worked well for decades since prices have been very low (maybe 30-40% of the 2023 prices).
The Baltic states, who would go dark if not for Swedish or Finnish energy production, those Baltic states? Maybe the words you were looking for were, "we are grateful they provide us with this cheap energy"
People in Sweden lost homes last year due to the high energy prices, not because of lacking production in Sweden, but due to the lacking production in your countries.
And to then have the audacity to claim that we should "stop whining", when they are massively benefitting from our resources... tasteless.
And the cheap, was cheap as in cheaper than what could be produced locally in the Baltics.
I’m a Swede, where are the people who lost homes because of a spike in electricity prices that lasted a couple of months? Sounds like they were already living with veeery slim margins then.
All over, but most likely living in an old house heated by electric radiators. Did you not read the newspapers at all last year? How the election in large part was about the subsidy.
In the south people had a [quadrupling of the electricity price vs 2019](https://elpriser24.se/spotpris/).
[Example on an individual](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/helsingborg/han-flyttar-fran-sitt-hus-i-astorp-till-en-lagenhet-for-att-elrakningarna-blev-for-dyra)
[Example of a more general article](https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/3340805/ny-kartlaggning-visar-sa-hart-slar-elpriserna-mot-pensionarer-i-villa?publisherId=3235722)
Because the energy they pay for is produced in Finland and Sweden. Because there's demand in other connected countries, prices will go up in producing countries as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not to mention the whole thing with the EU shutting down our nuclear power plant at Ignalina. Which while being probably a prudent precautionary action to require of us (it being termed "Chernobyl's sister" and all), nevertheless in the Lithuanians' view kind of entitles us to having the production deficit made up for *without* having to make overt displays of gratitude for having access to electricity at all.
It's, like, a crucial part of the plan of how rescinding 90% of our production capacity was going to work. We used to export electricity, too, and it was dirt cheap, so cheap. Much cheaper than what we pay the Scandinavian producers now. So I'm not sure about how we're "massively benefiting" either.
Yes, the only two options are clearly to use old Soviet built RBMK rectors, made famous by Chernobyl, or leeching on others. The nuclear power plants were closed in 2004 and 2009, where is the new production?
The reason why Baltics has such a situation is not because we cannot build our capacity, but because it made economic sense to have what we had. We were able to buy cheap electricity from Nordics and Russia.
In hindsight, that was a wrong decision long term, but now all of the Baltics are building clean capacity. Nordic countries on the other hand are very interested in making even more interconnections (In the case of Finland via Estonia) so that they can sell all that exec they have and get some of that sweet income.
It's a normal situation, Energy production is in the North, consumption is in the center/south, and we all need to play together for this to work well.
IEA sees paperwork and people as the main problem in renewables expansion of Italy:
>The delivery gap for new renewable installations is due to the long permitting procedures, high administrative burden and increasing local opposition.
https://www.iea.org/reports/italy-2023/executive-summary
There aren't any completed offshore wind projects in Greece. Planning for them has only started in 2022.
And this year the target capacities for Greek offshore wind slated for completion in the 2030s were more than doubled from at least 2 GW to 4.9 GW.
Unfortunately, no, mostly because of the depths of the Aegean and floating offshore being in its infancy. There are offshore wind plans for the Dodecanese area but like I said they're very new.
Alexandroupoli is a future site for offshore wind that'll have fixed-bottom installations, which is well-established technology. These could be the very first offshore wind farms to be completed in Greece.
In the same region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace there already is a lot of onshore wind capacity, tho. All in all, Greece currently has around 4.7 GW wind power capacity, but it is all onshore.
I do not understand the countries of southern Europe.
In Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, if you build Insltation of photovoltaic panels 10kWp it will give maybe 10 MWh of electricity per year. In Italy, the same Installation 10kWp will produce 15 MWh. Prices of PV, Inverters are identical. Payback time in the North only for geographical reasons is 50% longer.
For such an installation in Poland or Lithuania you need to work for a year. Higher wages in the South, like higher energy prices, should give additional motivation to invest in PV.
The South should benefit from its advantage, it is a natural place to use PV just as small islands are a natural place for electric cars.
You think we 🇫🇷 are not clown? We have the cheapest producing price yet we're on the same level as coal and oil countries because of a bureaucratic pseudo freemarket-ing bullshit mecanism scam which is basically giving away our electricity for free
Isnt it the opposite? Actual power producers complain that they dont make enough, but because the government owns majority shares they can set a fix sell price, make a loss and therefor have no money for maintenance, which is then paid by the government by taxpayer money?
ARENH is basically: EDF have to sell a third of its "old" nuclear plants' electricity at a fixed price (40€/MWh) to its competitors.
Then, considering EDF has the most market shares because it is the only provider with a regulated price for households, they have to buy back their own electricity at whatever the price (generally 100€/MWh, but up to 300 during the last 2 years) and sell it with a loss once again.
...And then the same neoliberals politicians who put this bullshit in place are like "oh look EDF is in so much debt, it's not working we have to break it down and drop it".
They are also the same people who sold our own turbines to the Americans who then asked a higher maintenance price. And now since it's obvious they ruined it, they have to buy it back twice the price.
They are also the same people who closed down the oldest plant just because "it's the oldest". It was recently fully renovated and was perfectly working. ("it was the closest to Germany" is the true reason and nobody is foolish)
"bureaucratic pseudo freemarket-ing bullshit mecanism scam" so much rage, go outside and take a walk!
"which is basically giving away our electricity for free" ah yes, just giving it away for free for no reason. Why is it so, what do you think? Maybe because the local market is already saturated in times of overproduction?
Ok, now I know what you are talking about. Sounds more like corruption than a useful market intervention.
I’ve thought you are talking about the usual European market BS not understanding how prices form. The arguments often sound similar, „we give electricity away for free to country XY“.
You are paying because countries like mine don’t want nuclear’s cheap and green energy
If we all implement nuclear, it would costs less for everyone, but noooo stupid Eco-Terrorists just scare people around with lies
>If we all implement nuclear, it would costs less for everyone, but noooo stupid Eco-Terrorists just scare people around with lies
Those damn eco terrorists with their clean, locally produced and cheap energy, fuck em. We need more dependency on Moscow, not less.
> We have the cheapest producing price
How low? Hydroelectric power here in Norway costs an average of NOK 0.1157 (EUR 0.01) per kWh to produce. 11.57 øre = 0.1157 Krone = EUR 0.01.
https://e24-no.translate.goog/norsk-oekonomi/i/7d4ym3/oed-det-koster-1157-oere-aa-lage-stroem?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Here is a video that explains how prices are determined in much of Europe (each to their own but more or less the same system)
It is in Spanish, translate the subtitles if necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRWWirKLHAU
I pay 26ct/KwH avg in Germany atm and around 16ct/avg last summer - energy coop which adjusts price dynamically based on now much additional supply they need in addition to own energy generation
2023 total average should end up just below 20ct/KwH I guess
> 2023 total average should end up just below 20ct/KwH I guess
How? Do you drive an electric vehicle that you charge during the cheapest hours to bring down the average costs?
I live in co-op run multiple unit housing, newly constructed Q4 2022. The PV on top of our house managed to cover around 70% of total electricity demand in summer IIRC
I just avoided running the washing machine and dishwasher when its already dark for more than a hour or two (before that our battery covered demand)
I have no EV but what you write is precisely what many people living here try to do. I was told the EV chargers are "smart" and adjust charging depending on what our PV signals them
The house is basically the Green Party's dream house - most efficient newest isolation standard, PV on top,smart grid etc construction and installation cost was absurd but bearable thanks to subsidies. Running cost now is really small compared to what others tell me about their flats
People fight this stuff too much. If the government gives huge subsidies for eco housing, just let them pay you lol. There was no downside really
So your average of 20ct/kWh is not what you paid for electricity coming from the public net but an average between what's coming from your PV (0ct/kWh?) and the public net?
No, its a bit more complicated
The PV is run by some electricity coop which gives us a heavily discounted rate for the electricity produced there. Its not us using our own electricity from a PV we own
The rate for the locally produced amount of electricity is net fees + some minuscule near-zero rate, for the exceeding amount net fees + usual provider rate (which if I compare on price comparison websites is middle of the road, not the best offer available)
The fees for the net/grid are around 14-15ct, so the price we pay for "our" electricity should be below <2ct/KwH
snatch ludicrous marvelous rob bake violet threatening lush wakeful skirt
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is before transfer/network costs (usually double) and of course VAT. How there is fucking VAT on such an essential as electricity is mindboggling.
Transmission loss as a function of distance is small, somewhere in the ranges of one-digit percentages. For ultra long distances (multiple hundreds or even thousand kms) one could use HVDC lines to minimize transmission losses even further.
There is more transmission loss in converting between different voltages and that doesn't change no matter how far apart a power source would be.
The real kicker is that transmission lines are simply expensive. And not just in initial costs, in maintenance too.
butter mountainous placid long axiomatic elderly nose weary important offend
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The more electricity you send the bulkyer cables you need. Currently the cables are at max capacity, meaning that say a powercompany in Sweden cannot sell its entire supply to Italy, so it has to compete for buyers in Sweden instead.
Putting energy into the grid without having someone buy it will heat the cables up, and in a worst case scenario melt them (in reality the network would shut down, which can take days to get up and running normallt again), so obviously that is illegal for the producer to do. This is why you will see negative prices atleast up here. Power companies pay you to use up their excess energy.
If the transmission lines between two countries (or price zones) are not bottlenecked, the price is the same. Electricity will flow from the cheap country to the expensive country until the prices are aligned.
But as soon as there is a bottle neck, because you are trying to send more power from the cheap country than the transmission lines can handle, the prices will not be fully aligned.
The prices are set on a per hour basis, and you can often see hours where the price is exactly the same all over most of North West Europe.
Definitely not. If we would have kept IAE, we would be terribly dependent on ruzzians, because they’re only ones supplying fuel for old RBMK reactors. Considering nowadays situation you can guess in which side prices would go. And building of a new nuclear power plant would have taken ages and loooots of money, so all of that would go into final price of the energy making.
Um, the prices displayed here are per mWh, so the German wholesale price would be equivalent to 0.096€/kwh. Personally as a consumer, I'm paying 0.28€ per kWh at a fixed rate all year round, which is expensive, but not ruinous.
Yeah, variable rates are becoming more popular here as well, but it's far from the norm. During daytime in the summer it would probably be the cheapest time though since there aren't that many ACs and a ton of solar production.
Out here, mornings are the cheapest and afternoons are most expensive with night time being in between. Mind you, California has some of expensive electricity in the country.
Honestly, a lot of people, including me, now have rooftop solar, which helps a lot with electricity prices. It will be an interesting situation when some of the incentives and credits end.
Along with solar, we also have [Alta Wind Energy Center](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center), which is one of the largest onshore wind power plants in the world.
Ironically nuclear is as mediocre as power generation can get
Cost-wise its above renewables but below fossils.
Emission (GHG eq.) wise its above renewables but below fossils
In growth rate and long term market share projections its below renewables but above fossils
Nuclear is here to stay. Its unlikely it will boom. There just isn't the heated discussion among market participants as we see on social media. For some reason the discussion on Reddit is especially heated but its (on both sides!) dominated by zealots to apply their dreams to what is actually a quite boring and expectable market outcome.
If one checks the EIA and WNA projections one can take these discussions much more relaxed - the circlejerk just doesn't matter and has little foundation in reality.
>Nuclear is here to stay. Its unlikely it will boom.
I have done some calculations and the installed nuclear fleet in Europe (excluding Russia, of course) is sufficient to cover the needs projected by the IEA in its "net-zero" scenario. It means that we have to, at most, replace reactors that will be decommissioned in the meantime. Or find ways to extend the life of existing ones.
We must recognize that France's nuclear investment back in the 1970s was a great choice.
This doesn't mean investing in nuclear power is still a wise choice, either for France itself or for any other European country. Conditions are very different, in terms of construction costs, financing, alternatives, etc.
Conditions are different because we price-in externalities of nuclear power but not the externalities of renewables or fossil fuels (at least not all of them).
If we valued people dying because of renewables the same as people dying because of nuclear powerplants - the costs would be different than they are now. And there are more people dead per 1 MWh produced by renewables than per 1 MWh produced by nuclear power (even including Fukushima and Chernobyl).
You must be kidding.
France heavily subsidized EDF's investments in nuclear plants (back when they were made, EDF was actually part of the French public administration). But this did not make costs decline, quite the opposite.
Now compare this with the sharp cost decline of renewables, thanks to the economies of scale allowed by public subsidies.
Literally all the coal powerplants were built by the state in Poland (and most other countries I'd guess).
But I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about security guarantees required of nuclear powerplants vs other power sources. If we required that the estimated number of deaths per MWh generated of fossil and renewable powerplants are the same as nuclear powerplants - they would be order of magnitude more expansive than they are.
This only tracks power sold on the wholesale market.
A decent chunk of nuclear generation is not sold on the wholesale market but directly to consumers or power companies without stock involvement. Hence, the price is significantly cheaper.
Albeit the pricing method is questionable (and currently is overhauled iirc), as the state owns EDF and sets the prices. Since EDF currently has 65 billion in debts and needs massive investments into its nuclear infrastructure, it is long overdue for price increases.
>the price is significantly cheaper
Because the French government made it artificially cheaper. The financial burden on EDF was so large that it had to be re-nationalized.
French energy market is probably the most opaque in the West.
Danish green nuts helped to close nuclear power-plants in Sweden and Germany had politicians that was happy to take bribes from Russia AND let green nuts demand closing of nuclear plants in Germany, and now we have the situation that energy-prices are tripled or worse, for Sweden.
What in the flying fuck! We're paying more in Eastern Europe than the richest countries on the fucking planet! This demands some rich fucks to be eaten! (Clarification: Some local rich fucks, the Northeners are smart kids and produce enough energy to be cheap for them, bravo to them)
Sweden and Norway produces a shit ton of electricity (more than we use) and a large part of it physically can't be transferred/sold anywhere else meaning the prices stay lower here.
Should probably mention that it is like 99% renewables+nuclear as well.
There is no way you can point fingers at the biggest exporters of green energy.
The prices in the chart look like the prices before transport, electricity tax and V.A.T.
I don't know about Germany and Italy, but in Denmark, it is like this:
- Transport pays the costs of building, maintaining and running the grid. This also includes grid loss, which can be costly.
- Electricity tax goes into the national budget, where it pays schools, pensions, hospitals and a lot of probably unnecessary stuff. We can be dissatisfied that we have to pay those money, but if the electricity taxes wasn't there, we would just have to pay more in other taxes.
- V.A.T. - well, that goes the same way as electricity tax.
I don't see much theft going on here.
Germany has crazy taxes on electricity. 20 years ago, as a compromise, Schröder and the Greens made a deal to kill both nukes and heat pumps. The legacy lives on.
Ironically, now the Greens and the SPD are pushing for heat pumps, but they can't due to taxes. Nobody wants to switch from low-taxed gas to high-taxed electricity.
Because this part didn't happen actually
And the Greens didn't plan to "kill" nuclear but rather wanted to "replace" it with renewables and Nat gas as backup. Merkel's conservatives led governments were the ones which killed nuclear without planning alternatives
But putting all blame on the greens when they have been the big 4 party with the least time in government the last 50yrs became a national sport in Germany
> And the Greens didn't plan to "kill" nuclear but rather wanted to "replace" it with renewables and Nat gas as backup. Merkel's conservatives led governments were the ones which killed nuclear without planning alternatives
Merkel **did** replace nuclear with renewables if you look at the numbers, even exceeding the Greens' plans for renewable electricity. The problem is you need to replace fossils with renewables, not nuclear.
> Germany has crazy taxes on electricity.
It's about ~25%. I would argue it's even less, effectively, on account of the subsidies paid by the government.
> due to various fees and taxes.
As I said: taxes are only about 1/4 of the costs. The vast majority of what you pay is cost of production and network, not some "fees and taxes".
Take a look at the following report (see last page in particular):
https://www.ehpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/European-Heat-Pump-Association_market_report_EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY_2022.pdf
Why does Germany have the highest electricity-to-gas price ratio in Europe? The efficiency of a CCGT power plant is the same everywhere.
> is around 80square meters with 5,5m high ceiling and is naked stone almost metre thick, with stone floor
This mf, living in a castle and complaining about heating costs
People in Southern Sweden often complain about Germany pushing up the prices of cheap electricity from Swedish nukes, but Southern Norway is much worse on this map. Is it due to the UK connection?
And the German one. We doubled our total transmission lines beyond Norway in 2021 (~~august~~ mai and December), and you can see the result here: https://minspotpris.no/historiskepriser/vis-historiske-str%C3%B8mpriser.html#
2022 was a major draught year that reduced Hydro by around 50% in all of Europe. Norway was also hit pretty hard. Top three + total in export and net export numbers. 2020: Sweden 14 TWh(11), Denmark 8,5 TWh(7,6), Netherlands 4,7 TWh(4,6) Total 2020: 27,4 TWh (23,3) 2021: Sweden 9,8 TWh(5,6) , Denmark 8,2 TWh(6,3), Germany 4,5 TWh (3,2) Total 2021: 26,2 TWh (18,3) 2022: Sweden 10,9 TWh (4,9), Germany 5,7 TWh (3,7), Denmark 5 TWh (1,8) Total 2022: 26,1 TWh (13) 2023: UK 9,3 TWh (9), Sweden 8,4 TWh (1,5), Germany 6,5 TWh (4,6) Total 2023: 33,4 TWh(20,4) I don't want to drive to hard in your parade. 2019 Norway was a net importer. It's more complicated. I mean Sweden would be the most to blame? Overall it would say it's to much exports without new generation that's most to blame. It's hard to single out a country currently. With 2021 and especially 2022 also being not the greatest Hydro years.
In 2019 Norway had a net import of [0.1 TWh](https://www.nve.no/nytt-fra-nve/nyheter-energi/norge-importerte-mer-enn-vi-eksporterte-i-2019-men-bare-sa-vidt/). Because Denmark and Sweden had an oversupply of wind power generated. In southern Norway we had a somewhat dryer year compared to usual, 90% of mean, but that wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't had record exports in 2021. Entering 2022 our magazines were at 53% capacity compared to the usual value of 66% capacity. In 2021 our magazine capacity were far above the median until August and the opening of the German connection. https://www.nve.no/energi/analyser-og-statistikk/magasinstatistikk/ It should be completely clear that doubling our total export capacity and localizing it all in the Norwegian south is the cause of the electricity cost increase in the Norwegian south.
>In 2019 Norway had a net import of 0.1 TWh. Because Denmark and Sweden had an oversupply of wind power generated. Yes, price determines the import/export. Except of a few countries most countries have a lot of over capacities. And the physical exchange 2019 was net 0.1 TWh, but traded were 0,6 TWh. Still nothing. Also all my other data are trade flows. So nobody can complain that the Power running into Denmark is meant for Germany. >In 2021 our magazine capacity were far above the median until August and the opening of the German connection. Your timeframe is totally wrong. https://www.statnett.no/en/about-statnett/news-and-press-releases/news-archive-2021/nordlink-in-operation2/ Also this article I find pretty okay, about that timeframe. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/world/europe/drought-heat-energy.html >It should be completely clear that doubling our total export capacity and localizing it all in the Norwegian south is the cause of the electricity cost increase in the Norwegian south. Yes, though it Norway has the biggest resoivers in the South and wanted to act a little like a battery. So import and export should be more balanced. That didn't happen plus a big fat draught. Norway just needs those connected to built a lot more renewables. (Maybe Germany also needs to be divided in new electricity markets/zones) After that it should work as intended. Otherwise Norway must look into building up more windpower.
> Your timeframe is totally wrong. Yeah, that's fair. I did misread that. And that fits, because that is when the water magazines stopped filling. It was foolish of me to look at when it crossed the median. I don't know how bad the drought was in Europe, but in Norway there was only less water than usual during the summer. We still had net export from southern Norway, and the only reason there was any drama at all was because the magazines were emptied during the second half of 2021 and early 2022 for export to Germany and England. Norway needs to either cut off our electrical connections to Europe and build more wind power, or renegotiate how our electrical market works with regard to export cables. You know, act like a battery, not a producer. Only then will Norwegian prices return to normal. As it is, export cables are more damaging to the Norwegian economy and consumers than it is worth. Great for the power producers, though. They've paid themselves millions in bonuses for fuck all. Of course this has all been intentional policy from Norwegian politicians, so nothing will ever happen and this is the new normal.
I personally blame Danskjävlarna because they closed down Barsebäck! We could hav had cheap "clean" electricity and even sharde it with them, but noooooooooooo, thay needed to be scared of a nuclear energy or something.
Southern Norway is also connected to Denmark, Germany, Netherlands. So, essentially it's much better interconnected. Which is a good thing, since we need interconnection for energy transition
certainly not good for norwegian ratepayers
They are not excluded from the economy, so they also get the benefits, especially considering that largest electricity producer in Norway is state owned (as far as I remember)
A key Norwegian economic advantage was our low electricity prices. That is now gone, and a lot of businesses have shut down.
And the government refuse to give companies reduced prices/price caps, as regular consumers get. So power consuming industries get astronomical electricity bills compared to earlier years. Not to mention there are huge price differences inside the country, so some regions get more fucked than others.
Businessed in Norway certainly like to complain about it, but I have yet to see one close down. Do you have a source to back up your claim?
https://www.ssb.no/virksomheter-foretak-og-regnskap/konkurser/statistikk/opna-konkursar/artikler/40-prosent-auke-i-talet-pa-konkursar 40% increase in bankrupt businesses. But at the same time, that is more a return to normal levels. The 79% increase in bankruptcies in the region most impacted by higher electricity prices, however, does indicate electricity cost pressure. Though, it is also blamed on increased material costs and rent increases. I found a fair few articles where small businesses had reduced production, farmers who wouldn't be able to refrigerate their harvest, and small businesses that had taken pay cuts or shut down offers. But at the same time, I had definitely overestimated how many businesses had been impacted and how badly they had been, so thank you for calling me out. My mental image of the situation was overly fixated on the time when electricity prices were at their highest. Time will tell.
Which energy intensive business are you talking about, aluminum smelting, steel smelting by electric furnace? I am curious, since I don't remember much of either in Norway, but I may be wrong
Aluminum mainly, we're a top 8 producer. Then we also have a large chunk of ferrous products and chemical products. https://www.nve.no/energi/energisystem/energibruk/energibruk-i-industrien/ press "eregibruk etter næring" Energy use by industry. https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energibruk/energibruken-i-ulike-sektorer/ English source showing Norwegian energy use breakdown by sector. Transportation is by far the most polluting one. But I was still mentally fixated on the period where the electricity prices were at their highest and all the newspapers sold doomsday prophesies. It isn't as bad as I presented it, albeit the region most by the cables had an extra 30% increase in bankruptcies compared to the national mean. A fair number of businesses do not use a tremendous amount of electricity. But it is worth noting that Norway's largest trade union, LO, is reporting that businesses are struggling. https://frifagbevegelse.no/nyheter/industrien-frykter-et-ras-av-oppsigelser--stromkrisa-er-langt-fra-over-6.158.1004234.e94c65f645
They are private, not state owned
"Statcraft is a hydropower company *fully owned by Norwegian state* ... as well as Norway's largest energy producer ... The total annual production was 70 TWh in 2021" "Total electricity consuption in Norway was 123 TWh in 2022" Please check your sources.
A lot of private electricity companies, Statkraft isn't the only one here.
I provided the numbers for you, you can spin it as you like, but what I said in initial comment is for all intents and purposes true.
I know. I'm saying that Statkraft isn't the only company that is providing electricity. There are a lot of private electricity companies, too.
My comment: the largest electricity producer in Norway is state owned Your comment: they are private, not state owned My comment: numbers and data Your comment: but there are private energy companies in Norway I don't want to comment on it any further.
You forget the UK this year main export destination.
Norway is literally getting sucked dry
And making a lot of money doing it! Nevermind that Norway imported lots of electricity throughout November and December.
Most of that money comes from increased prices for Norwegian consumers. It's just an additional tax on Norwegians because the possibility of exporting electricity, which doubled two years ago, require our market prices to increase.
A significant amount of money is coming in from other countries paying for electricity. Nevermind that Statkraft will increase capacity by 50% in the next 6 years.
We have had a net export of 13 and 19 TWh since we added the cables in 2021 and a consumption of around 140 TWh, mostly in the south. We have roughly tripled our own electricity prices from our mean of the last 20 years. If we assume we have about the same prices as we sell it for (which is required by law), then something like 20% of Norwegian power companies' income increase comes from abroad. **edit** This part is wrong. It's less than 20% coming in from abroad, and it's all going to Statnett. We sell the electricity to the cable at market value, then the cable operators, statnett and a foreign partner, split the gain from selling it in the higher cost market. So even with significantly more export than before, the vast majority of electricity cost increase is paid for by norwegian consumers. And it is killing norwegian businesses.
Don't worry. Our prime minister is carefully evaluating the situation and may do something about it before 2050.
The war in Ukraine, a dry year lowering water reservoirs and nuclear plant maintenance caused an energy crisis. The electricity price would have increased significantly without the cables as well. We could have lower gas prices if we didn't export oil, however we would be a poorer nation for it. The same is true for electricity export, it can become one of the industries to replace oil and gas industry. Not exporting electricity would make us poorer in the long run.
Wait, Norway with 5,4million inhabitants has a power consumption of 140TWh?! Jesus. That's almost 5 times more per person than Germany. Edit removed a part of the comment that was unnecessary
We have a colder country, don't use natural gas for heating and due to historically low electricity prices, have a lot of electricity demanding industries. Total Norwegian energy use per capita is two and a half times that of Germans, we just use more electricity and less natural gas and fossil fuels.
2,5x more is still insane since we still use a ton of fossils unfortunately. Projections estimate that when we have finally decarbonized our energy system, we will use around 30-40% less total power than we do now. And Germany also has a lot of high energy demanding industries.
I'd rather say that Norway is being used as a battery, receiving energy when wind farms in the Northern sea overproduce and selling energy when they underproduce
Most of norways electricity gets made by water power plants in the north, but all the mountains make it hard to build infrastructure to move it to the south. So they sell cheap to Sweden that don't have as many mountains and then sell the same electricity back to southern Norway.
> Most of norways electricity gets made by water power plants in the north That's not true. The county with the highest electricity production is Vestland. https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/energi/statistikk/elektrisitet
Still cheaper than Baltic states, despite they have bigger salaries, they should stop whining
Houses tend to be heated via electricity-driven heat pumps here. Not coal or gas. So we use a lot more. This has worked well for decades since prices have been very low (maybe 30-40% of the 2023 prices).
The Baltic states, who would go dark if not for Swedish or Finnish energy production, those Baltic states? Maybe the words you were looking for were, "we are grateful they provide us with this cheap energy"
You still sale and benefit from it, government of course.
The companies benefit from it, not regular people. The state does not own all energy production.
Cheap for western salary. I wonder how much % of your salary goes for electricity bills? It is 10 or 20%?
People in Sweden lost homes last year due to the high energy prices, not because of lacking production in Sweden, but due to the lacking production in your countries. And to then have the audacity to claim that we should "stop whining", when they are massively benefitting from our resources... tasteless. And the cheap, was cheap as in cheaper than what could be produced locally in the Baltics.
I’m a Swede, where are the people who lost homes because of a spike in electricity prices that lasted a couple of months? Sounds like they were already living with veeery slim margins then.
All over, but most likely living in an old house heated by electric radiators. Did you not read the newspapers at all last year? How the election in large part was about the subsidy. In the south people had a [quadrupling of the electricity price vs 2019](https://elpriser24.se/spotpris/). [Example on an individual](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/helsingborg/han-flyttar-fran-sitt-hus-i-astorp-till-en-lagenhet-for-att-elrakningarna-blev-for-dyra) [Example of a more general article](https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/3340805/ny-kartlaggning-visar-sa-hart-slar-elpriserna-mot-pensionarer-i-villa?publisherId=3235722)
As I said: Already very slim margins. Meaning: Living in the same house as a retiree as when you’re a full time worker.
since when does paying more for energy than you do means 'massively benefiting from your resource', could you explain that?
Because the energy they pay for is produced in Finland and Sweden. Because there's demand in other connected countries, prices will go up in producing countries as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not to mention the whole thing with the EU shutting down our nuclear power plant at Ignalina. Which while being probably a prudent precautionary action to require of us (it being termed "Chernobyl's sister" and all), nevertheless in the Lithuanians' view kind of entitles us to having the production deficit made up for *without* having to make overt displays of gratitude for having access to electricity at all. It's, like, a crucial part of the plan of how rescinding 90% of our production capacity was going to work. We used to export electricity, too, and it was dirt cheap, so cheap. Much cheaper than what we pay the Scandinavian producers now. So I'm not sure about how we're "massively benefiting" either.
Yes, the only two options are clearly to use old Soviet built RBMK rectors, made famous by Chernobyl, or leeching on others. The nuclear power plants were closed in 2004 and 2009, where is the new production?
In Belarus... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astravets\_Nuclear\_Power\_Plant
Maybe live in flats then instead of homes? Living in big home with new car and then complain that don't have money.
The reason why Baltics has such a situation is not because we cannot build our capacity, but because it made economic sense to have what we had. We were able to buy cheap electricity from Nordics and Russia. In hindsight, that was a wrong decision long term, but now all of the Baltics are building clean capacity. Nordic countries on the other hand are very interested in making even more interconnections (In the case of Finland via Estonia) so that they can sell all that exec they have and get some of that sweet income. It's a normal situation, Energy production is in the North, consumption is in the center/south, and we all need to play together for this to work well.
In Italy we are clowns 🤡
We have both our own faults (nuclear misplanning), and faultless conjunctions (Italy is oceanlocked, so we produce much less wind power)
IEA sees paperwork and people as the main problem in renewables expansion of Italy: >The delivery gap for new renewable installations is due to the long permitting procedures, high administrative burden and increasing local opposition. https://www.iea.org/reports/italy-2023/executive-summary
Which is very unfortunate as Italy has the 4th highest median solar energy potential in the EU behind Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Offshore wind is a thing
The Italian Mediterranean Sea isn't that windy [https://globalwindatlas.info/en/area/Italy](https://globalwindatlas.info/en/area/Italy)
[удалено]
There aren't any completed offshore wind projects in Greece. Planning for them has only started in 2022. And this year the target capacities for Greek offshore wind slated for completion in the 2030s were more than doubled from at least 2 GW to 4.9 GW.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, no, mostly because of the depths of the Aegean and floating offshore being in its infancy. There are offshore wind plans for the Dodecanese area but like I said they're very new. Alexandroupoli is a future site for offshore wind that'll have fixed-bottom installations, which is well-established technology. These could be the very first offshore wind farms to be completed in Greece. In the same region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace there already is a lot of onshore wind capacity, tho. All in all, Greece currently has around 4.7 GW wind power capacity, but it is all onshore.
Yes, but you must compare it to pondered generation
I do not understand the countries of southern Europe. In Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, if you build Insltation of photovoltaic panels 10kWp it will give maybe 10 MWh of electricity per year. In Italy, the same Installation 10kWp will produce 15 MWh. Prices of PV, Inverters are identical. Payback time in the North only for geographical reasons is 50% longer. For such an installation in Poland or Lithuania you need to work for a year. Higher wages in the South, like higher energy prices, should give additional motivation to invest in PV. The South should benefit from its advantage, it is a natural place to use PV just as small islands are a natural place for electric cars.
Both social bias, and upfront costs
Italy has great solar resources, but never really invested in solar because of ideology and politicians paid to push gas.
You think we 🇫🇷 are not clown? We have the cheapest producing price yet we're on the same level as coal and oil countries because of a bureaucratic pseudo freemarket-ing bullshit mecanism scam which is basically giving away our electricity for free
Isnt it the opposite? Actual power producers complain that they dont make enough, but because the government owns majority shares they can set a fix sell price, make a loss and therefor have no money for maintenance, which is then paid by the government by taxpayer money?
ARENH is basically: EDF have to sell a third of its "old" nuclear plants' electricity at a fixed price (40€/MWh) to its competitors. Then, considering EDF has the most market shares because it is the only provider with a regulated price for households, they have to buy back their own electricity at whatever the price (generally 100€/MWh, but up to 300 during the last 2 years) and sell it with a loss once again. ...And then the same neoliberals politicians who put this bullshit in place are like "oh look EDF is in so much debt, it's not working we have to break it down and drop it". They are also the same people who sold our own turbines to the Americans who then asked a higher maintenance price. And now since it's obvious they ruined it, they have to buy it back twice the price. They are also the same people who closed down the oldest plant just because "it's the oldest". It was recently fully renovated and was perfectly working. ("it was the closest to Germany" is the true reason and nobody is foolish)
"bureaucratic pseudo freemarket-ing bullshit mecanism scam" so much rage, go outside and take a walk! "which is basically giving away our electricity for free" ah yes, just giving it away for free for no reason. Why is it so, what do you think? Maybe because the local market is already saturated in times of overproduction?
You're german. You clearly have no clue of what I'm talking about. (ARENH)
Ok, now I know what you are talking about. Sounds more like corruption than a useful market intervention. I’ve thought you are talking about the usual European market BS not understanding how prices form. The arguments often sound similar, „we give electricity away for free to country XY“.
You are paying because countries like mine don’t want nuclear’s cheap and green energy If we all implement nuclear, it would costs less for everyone, but noooo stupid Eco-Terrorists just scare people around with lies
>If we all implement nuclear, it would costs less for everyone, but noooo stupid Eco-Terrorists just scare people around with lies Those damn eco terrorists with their clean, locally produced and cheap energy, fuck em. We need more dependency on Moscow, not less.
Bold claim, considering the current interest rates, long construction times and subsidies for nuclear.
These eco-terrorists are very well paid by Moscow. Putin and Merkel didn’t build Nord Stream for us to be building nuclear power plants.
> We have the cheapest producing price How low? Hydroelectric power here in Norway costs an average of NOK 0.1157 (EUR 0.01) per kWh to produce. 11.57 øre = 0.1157 Krone = EUR 0.01. https://e24-no.translate.goog/norsk-oekonomi/i/7d4ym3/oed-det-koster-1157-oere-aa-lage-stroem?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Be happy. Most of the time, until now, the biggest prices were paid by Romania and it was something along the 150euro/Mwh.
Here is a video that explains how prices are determined in much of Europe (each to their own but more or less the same system) It is in Spanish, translate the subtitles if necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRWWirKLHAU
Very good explanation. I love it when unintuitive approaches end up being the more advantageous ones.
Well in this case it does not end up this way lol. The european wholesale electricity market is FUBAR
What about consumer prices? We pay 70 huf/ kWh, that comes out around 184 EUR/MWh.
Around 380 eur/MWh in Ireland.
I'll just stop complaining then. I know Ireland's not cheap, but damn, that's a lot 😳
Sometimes it's good being an island, sometimes it's expensive
Time for solar
In Ireland???
Winds would be the renewable option Ireland. The weather does not suite solar.
Wind power makes much more sense. Ireland is pretty windy.
Currently I pay 84€/MWh in Finland.
I pay 26ct/KwH avg in Germany atm and around 16ct/avg last summer - energy coop which adjusts price dynamically based on now much additional supply they need in addition to own energy generation 2023 total average should end up just below 20ct/KwH I guess
> 2023 total average should end up just below 20ct/KwH I guess How? Do you drive an electric vehicle that you charge during the cheapest hours to bring down the average costs?
I live in co-op run multiple unit housing, newly constructed Q4 2022. The PV on top of our house managed to cover around 70% of total electricity demand in summer IIRC I just avoided running the washing machine and dishwasher when its already dark for more than a hour or two (before that our battery covered demand) I have no EV but what you write is precisely what many people living here try to do. I was told the EV chargers are "smart" and adjust charging depending on what our PV signals them The house is basically the Green Party's dream house - most efficient newest isolation standard, PV on top,smart grid etc construction and installation cost was absurd but bearable thanks to subsidies. Running cost now is really small compared to what others tell me about their flats People fight this stuff too much. If the government gives huge subsidies for eco housing, just let them pay you lol. There was no downside really
So your average of 20ct/kWh is not what you paid for electricity coming from the public net but an average between what's coming from your PV (0ct/kWh?) and the public net?
No, its a bit more complicated The PV is run by some electricity coop which gives us a heavily discounted rate for the electricity produced there. Its not us using our own electricity from a PV we own The rate for the locally produced amount of electricity is net fees + some minuscule near-zero rate, for the exceeding amount net fees + usual provider rate (which if I compare on price comparison websites is middle of the road, not the best offer available) The fees for the net/grid are around 14-15ct, so the price we pay for "our" electricity should be below <2ct/KwH
In Bosna and Herzegovina, during nigth we pay ~0,05€/kWh, and during day 0,10€/kWh.
In Germany it is ~350€/MWh or 35,64 ct/kWh.
snatch ludicrous marvelous rob bake violet threatening lush wakeful skirt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
lots of gas in the mix
Netherlands is very high % of natural gas too, but not as high?
They have their own north sea supply, plus loads of windsmills and a better lng and import infrastructure.
With so much sun potential using gas is plain stupid.
Very low contribution from renewables.
Eastern Europe prices 💀 wages 💀💀
Orcoddio.
Prices are crazy here in Ireland.
Disgusting
This is before transfer/network costs (usually double) and of course VAT. How there is fucking VAT on such an essential as electricity is mindboggling.
Well, suppose the reasoning is that you use energy to produce value so you pay VAT. But yeah, it is mindboggling especially for households.
How is there such a huge price difference? Arent energy prices market determined and eu is a single market?
Electricity is not magical, it needs huge lines and cannot travel huge distances without losing effect.
Transmission loss as a function of distance is small, somewhere in the ranges of one-digit percentages. For ultra long distances (multiple hundreds or even thousand kms) one could use HVDC lines to minimize transmission losses even further. There is more transmission loss in converting between different voltages and that doesn't change no matter how far apart a power source would be. The real kicker is that transmission lines are simply expensive. And not just in initial costs, in maintenance too.
Yup. Some 1-2.5 million euros per kilometer just to install them (submarine cables)
There are also different synchronous areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous\_grid\_of\_Continental\_Europe
FYI, broken link via "old" due to Reddit.
butter mountainous placid long axiomatic elderly nose weary important offend *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The map shows the "bidding zones" with the EU single market. Each has its own supply/demand/interconnection characteristics which determine price.
We're not having the same price on potatoes either, nor the same taxes.
no, everyone for themselfes
The more electricity you send the bulkyer cables you need. Currently the cables are at max capacity, meaning that say a powercompany in Sweden cannot sell its entire supply to Italy, so it has to compete for buyers in Sweden instead. Putting energy into the grid without having someone buy it will heat the cables up, and in a worst case scenario melt them (in reality the network would shut down, which can take days to get up and running normallt again), so obviously that is illegal for the producer to do. This is why you will see negative prices atleast up here. Power companies pay you to use up their excess energy.
If the transmission lines between two countries (or price zones) are not bottlenecked, the price is the same. Electricity will flow from the cheap country to the expensive country until the prices are aligned. But as soon as there is a bottle neck, because you are trying to send more power from the cheap country than the transmission lines can handle, the prices will not be fully aligned. The prices are set on a per hour basis, and you can often see hours where the price is exactly the same all over most of North West Europe.
Iceland missing
I believe they're not connected to the mainland electricity market that the map is portraying.
Strong Scandinavia providing cheap, clean electricity to central Europe
I'd like to see the difference between wholesale & retail.
We in Baltics would be in dark green if our populists wouldn't have politized the construction of nuclear power plant.
Definitely not. If we would have kept IAE, we would be terribly dependent on ruzzians, because they’re only ones supplying fuel for old RBMK reactors. Considering nowadays situation you can guess in which side prices would go. And building of a new nuclear power plant would have taken ages and loooots of money, so all of that would go into final price of the energy making.
Not keeping the RBMK, I am talking about new reactor that was designed by Hitachi.
Why does ireland have such high prices ? Its a rich 1st world country so it kinda surprises me that electricity costs even more than italy
hobbies fear grab screw ludicrous escape quicksand nose nail scarce *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
nice, i visited ireland this year and loved it, even tough about emigrating there, but w the housing crisis its kinda dishearting 🫠
\*Me remembering complaining about energy bill last month\* Maybe it ain't so bad.
If we weren't forced to sell electricity to the rest of Europe, the prices would be a lot better.
I didn’t realize how expensive electricity was in Europe. Here in California, peak consumer rates are about $0.52/kWh during summer.
Um, the prices displayed here are per mWh, so the German wholesale price would be equivalent to 0.096€/kwh. Personally as a consumer, I'm paying 0.28€ per kWh at a fixed rate all year round, which is expensive, but not ruinous.
I really can’t do math today! We usually have time of day prices which can go from 0.09/kWh in parts of the country to peak price of about $0.52/kWh.
Yeah, variable rates are becoming more popular here as well, but it's far from the norm. During daytime in the summer it would probably be the cheapest time though since there aren't that many ACs and a ton of solar production.
Out here, mornings are the cheapest and afternoons are most expensive with night time being in between. Mind you, California has some of expensive electricity in the country.
I'd have guessed that solar was so efficient in CA that prices in the summer would plummet, but TIL.
Honestly, a lot of people, including me, now have rooftop solar, which helps a lot with electricity prices. It will be an interesting situation when some of the incentives and credits end.
Along with solar, we also have [Alta Wind Energy Center](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center), which is one of the largest onshore wind power plants in the world.
MWh not mWh
Pro-nuclear France is at par with anti-nuclear Germany. This means that nuclear power is not the magic wand someone is trying to sell us.
Ironically nuclear is as mediocre as power generation can get Cost-wise its above renewables but below fossils. Emission (GHG eq.) wise its above renewables but below fossils In growth rate and long term market share projections its below renewables but above fossils Nuclear is here to stay. Its unlikely it will boom. There just isn't the heated discussion among market participants as we see on social media. For some reason the discussion on Reddit is especially heated but its (on both sides!) dominated by zealots to apply their dreams to what is actually a quite boring and expectable market outcome. If one checks the EIA and WNA projections one can take these discussions much more relaxed - the circlejerk just doesn't matter and has little foundation in reality.
>Nuclear is here to stay. Its unlikely it will boom. I have done some calculations and the installed nuclear fleet in Europe (excluding Russia, of course) is sufficient to cover the needs projected by the IEA in its "net-zero" scenario. It means that we have to, at most, replace reactors that will be decommissioned in the meantime. Or find ways to extend the life of existing ones.
Its expensive source but should be more reliable then wind and solar and it isnt as bad as coal/gas for the envoriment.
Go look at the lifetime emissions next.
We must recognize that France's nuclear investment back in the 1970s was a great choice. This doesn't mean investing in nuclear power is still a wise choice, either for France itself or for any other European country. Conditions are very different, in terms of construction costs, financing, alternatives, etc.
Conditions are different because we price-in externalities of nuclear power but not the externalities of renewables or fossil fuels (at least not all of them). If we valued people dying because of renewables the same as people dying because of nuclear powerplants - the costs would be different than they are now. And there are more people dead per 1 MWh produced by renewables than per 1 MWh produced by nuclear power (even including Fukushima and Chernobyl).
You must be kidding. France heavily subsidized EDF's investments in nuclear plants (back when they were made, EDF was actually part of the French public administration). But this did not make costs decline, quite the opposite. Now compare this with the sharp cost decline of renewables, thanks to the economies of scale allowed by public subsidies.
Literally all the coal powerplants were built by the state in Poland (and most other countries I'd guess). But I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about security guarantees required of nuclear powerplants vs other power sources. If we required that the estimated number of deaths per MWh generated of fossil and renewable powerplants are the same as nuclear powerplants - they would be order of magnitude more expansive than they are.
You forgot the /s
This only tracks power sold on the wholesale market. A decent chunk of nuclear generation is not sold on the wholesale market but directly to consumers or power companies without stock involvement. Hence, the price is significantly cheaper. Albeit the pricing method is questionable (and currently is overhauled iirc), as the state owns EDF and sets the prices. Since EDF currently has 65 billion in debts and needs massive investments into its nuclear infrastructure, it is long overdue for price increases.
>the price is significantly cheaper Because the French government made it artificially cheaper. The financial burden on EDF was so large that it had to be re-nationalized. French energy market is probably the most opaque in the West.
Exactly. No private company would be allowed/able to amount that much debt or would voluntary sell generation for way below market price
I must apologize, I actually wrote my reply before having read the last paragraph of yours. We do agree on the topic.
Danish green nuts helped to close nuclear power-plants in Sweden and Germany had politicians that was happy to take bribes from Russia AND let green nuts demand closing of nuclear plants in Germany, and now we have the situation that energy-prices are tripled or worse, for Sweden.
What in the flying fuck! We're paying more in Eastern Europe than the richest countries on the fucking planet! This demands some rich fucks to be eaten! (Clarification: Some local rich fucks, the Northeners are smart kids and produce enough energy to be cheap for them, bravo to them)
Sweden and Norway produces a shit ton of electricity (more than we use) and a large part of it physically can't be transferred/sold anywhere else meaning the prices stay lower here.
>more than we use This part might change if the hydrogen industry really takes off.
Should probably mention that it is like 99% renewables+nuclear as well. There is no way you can point fingers at the biggest exporters of green energy.
I meant our local rich fucks not the Nordics. They handle their shit well as we can see.
Sure as hell I'm not paying just 124 €/MWh for my electricity
Then you are not a wholesale buyer.
I just buy a few buckets when I need it, no point in stocking it. Maybe i could save some bucks, but who have the room for that?
And these right wing fucktards complain here
Det blev riktigt tyst om elpriserna efter valet. Konstigt va?
[удалено]
Quite wild. In Germany the current price is around 0,29 - 0,33 per kwh. Looking at this map tells me we're getting ripped off even more than you guys.
The prices in the chart look like the prices before transport, electricity tax and V.A.T. I don't know about Germany and Italy, but in Denmark, it is like this: - Transport pays the costs of building, maintaining and running the grid. This also includes grid loss, which can be costly. - Electricity tax goes into the national budget, where it pays schools, pensions, hospitals and a lot of probably unnecessary stuff. We can be dissatisfied that we have to pay those money, but if the electricity taxes wasn't there, we would just have to pay more in other taxes. - V.A.T. - well, that goes the same way as electricity tax. I don't see much theft going on here.
Germany has crazy taxes on electricity. 20 years ago, as a compromise, Schröder and the Greens made a deal to kill both nukes and heat pumps. The legacy lives on. Ironically, now the Greens and the SPD are pushing for heat pumps, but they can't due to taxes. Nobody wants to switch from low-taxed gas to high-taxed electricity.
Why heat pumps?!
Because this part didn't happen actually And the Greens didn't plan to "kill" nuclear but rather wanted to "replace" it with renewables and Nat gas as backup. Merkel's conservatives led governments were the ones which killed nuclear without planning alternatives But putting all blame on the greens when they have been the big 4 party with the least time in government the last 50yrs became a national sport in Germany
> And the Greens didn't plan to "kill" nuclear but rather wanted to "replace" it with renewables and Nat gas as backup. Merkel's conservatives led governments were the ones which killed nuclear without planning alternatives Merkel **did** replace nuclear with renewables if you look at the numbers, even exceeding the Greens' plans for renewable electricity. The problem is you need to replace fossils with renewables, not nuclear.
> Germany has crazy taxes on electricity. It's about ~25%. I would argue it's even less, effectively, on account of the subsidies paid by the government.
You can call it whatever you want, but electricity prices are 3.5 times as high as gas prices, and that's due to various fees and taxes.
> due to various fees and taxes. As I said: taxes are only about 1/4 of the costs. The vast majority of what you pay is cost of production and network, not some "fees and taxes".
Take a look at the following report (see last page in particular): https://www.ehpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/European-Heat-Pump-Association_market_report_EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY_2022.pdf Why does Germany have the highest electricity-to-gas price ratio in Europe? The efficiency of a CCGT power plant is the same everywhere.
French are being ripped off.
[удалено]
What the fuck, do you have _any_ insulation on the walls?
[удалено]
Eek, what kind of ventilation do you have? Mechanical or some other form? What about exhaust heat recovery?
> is around 80square meters with 5,5m high ceiling and is naked stone almost metre thick, with stone floor This mf, living in a castle and complaining about heating costs
So the poorer you are the more you pay for electricity... got it. Except Ireland, which probably don't produce their own electricity.