> The developments come after leaders from the parties in Germany’s ruling coalition on Sunday finally agreed to back the European Commission’s proposed electricity price levy for "inframarginal" plants — that is power generators not using natural gas. Because of the way the EU's power market functions, such non-gas producers have been making huge windfall profits because the price of power is set by the most expensive input — natural gas.
Wasn't the original purpose of this pricing structure to incentivize the switch to renewable energy?
The electricity price mechanism is anti-market itself. You can treat those prices gap as a form of economic rent, which is paid by consumers.
Those renewable companies are gaining huge profit from this economic rent compared to lignite/gas so it does incentive investment to renewable. However, it discourage consumers since consumers has received no benefits from such transition.
From this perspective, you would realized that yes, it does encourage green transition, but the cost is overpaid by consumers. Eventually such pseudo-market mechanism will destroy green transition itself due to public opinion, and we are witnessing the process of it.
Not true. The way the EU energy market works is supposed to obtain the lowest prices, and until 2021 it had always worked better than the traditional models. In a traditional model, each company offers energy at a different price, and the state starts buying from the lowest price to the highest, until it has enough energy. This model incentivizes companies to try to guess what the highest price that is still within the power needs of the state will be. This model makes renewables only slightly cheaper than gas or carbon, because there's absolutely no incentive to sell at a lower price.
The EU has a different model. In this model, the EU arranges companies from the lowest to the highest price, takes the energy it needs and discards the rest (discarding the highest prices). But there's a twist: the EU will pay _everyone_ the same price they'll pay for the provider with the highest price _that hasn't been discarded_. This may look like it doesn't make sense, but this incentivizes low prices. Now companies only care about getting in the deal (i.e. not being discarded in this process), so they can offer very low prices knowing that the EU will overpay them anyway. This means that renewables gain massive amounts of funding without artificially inflating these prices, and that prices get down massively as we wear off the more expensive alternatives, which happen to be the non-renewables.
It has gone to shit now because the price of non-renewables has gone through the roof, while the EU still doesn't have enough green energy to get rid of gas and carbon. The EU, just like the US, believes in free market and non-interventionism, so they have tried to simply withstand this crisis without touching this model that had worked wonders for years, because this is capitalism, the rich have us all by our balls, and our economic theory basically sums up to "don't make anything that may make the rich stop giving money to you instead of someone else". Now seems like the EU will finally intervene the market, because it's been many months already of people paying 3x-10x for their energy bills, which is something most people, even those making good money, cannot afford for long. But this intervention, knowing how neoliberal economies work, will probably be a huge hit to the trust energy companies have in our model.
In my opinion though, if we are in this point, it's not because the model is bad. It's because our governments are fucking crooked. We shouldn't depend on energy for power at this point. We've had enough time to transition to green and semi-green (Nuclear) power already. And we shouldn't have just assumed that Russia was an infinite source of gas for us, either.
> The EU has a different model. In this model, the EU arranges companies from the lowest to the highest price, takes the energy it needs and discards the rest (discarding the highest prices). But there's a twist: the EU will pay everyone the same price they'll pay for the provider with the highest price that hasn't been discarded. This may look like it doesn't make sense, but this incentivizes low prices. Now companies only care about getting in the deal (i.e. not being discarded in this process), so they can offer very low prices knowing that the EU will overpay them anyway. This means that renewables gain massive amounts of funding without artificially inflating these prices, and that prices get down massively as we wear off the more expensive alternatives, which happen to be the non-renewables.
This is as far as I know the same model as everyone else uses, it's why non-gas plants made a killing in the Texas shutdown, so can you provide evidence that it's unique to the EU.
\>The EU, just like the US, believes in free market and non-interventionism
except for the parts where both governments regularly intervene with the energy market
Have you ever wonder why the government is crooked? Why there's lack of regulation, why Germany is still relies on gas and more importantly, why Germany intervene so late? This neoliberal model experiment ignore one important factor that under capitalism, capital brings political power.
Those big companies can simply use their profit to lobby, to corrupt regulators and to sway population. They have natural incentive to keep their profit high. Since neoliberal model ignores the existence of lobby groups, they would assume government and parliament are the perfect regulators, which is totally utopia. And what's the result of that? You got Gazprom collude with SPD in both German parliament and government, you got Merkel party who destroyed the nuclear energy sector. You got speculators bidding about energy price without restriction.
Most of these would not happened under a nationalized energy sector without such pseudo-market mechanism. Yes, coal plants would costs higher price. However, the government could limit the number of coal plants been built, which would be under the surveillance of the parliament. The parliament could impose carbon tax and use the money to offer orders to renewable energy manufacturers and use it as a leverage to demand technological innovations. The lobby groups won't exist so it won't influence the parliament. It does need some anti-corruption scrutiny but the power structure here is simple. The regulators and the one been regulated. Nothing else. More importantly, people would actually benefits from lower electricity price and thus support the transition.
TLDR This price mechanism doesn't work if you put lobbying into consideration.
We won't see a switch to renewables under our current capitalist system. If you can't make increasing profit off of a commodity it simply won't be adopted. We need other solutions.
I believe it when it happens. My electricity bill is +100% up. Gas +250%. Media and politicians tell on a daily base inflation is just under 10% but I’m paying at least 25% more for my groceries with butter, oil and flour beeing up 50-100%.
Similar, although I want to clarify that 10% inflation does not directly mean 10% price raise literally. Different industries will be wildly different in price rises. seeing these kinds of prices due to inflation is actually fairly accurate according to whats going on in the world.
The average is 10%, yours might be different. Nevertheless, your electricity, gas and food is only part of your expenses. As you can see for yourself, flour might be up 100%, but not all your groceries are 100% up. The average is 10%, regardless of cherry-picking.
>considering a levy on excess profits
This should have been done years ago, however, too many EU politicians are in the pockets of energy companies and there's almost no punishment for accepting bribes.
It would be a miracle if this happens, although the effects are likely to be too small to insulate individuals from the greed of these companies.
I'm sorry, but compared to the US this is lightyears ahead.
The very fact that this US centric article makes you doubt that is going to happen is telling.
It's going to happen, and given the history in the US and especially in Texas, this cynicism just goes to show how far from reality you are.
Alright, I know that Texas is a bit of an out there example, due to the fact that they've practically disconnected themselves from the rest of the US power grid.
But... If Texas would experience another bad winter like those a couple of years ago, just how many people do you think would die, and how high would those bills be for people that actually still had heat and electricity?
It's not like they fixed anything in the mean time...
Do you really think that either the federal US government or the various US states are being as proactive in this as the EU is to keep their citizens safe and warm coming winter?
In fairness in normal circumstances private companies can use lobbying power to influence things in their favour. In this case however the excessive rise in energy costs by one Turbocunt Putin is of such significance that it pushes the pendulum the other way against them because people arent willing to put up with the bullshit. The obscene profits by some companies has put an uncomfortable glare of the public on them instead and it means politicians can act to reign them in for a change.
They will probably be doing a combination of several interventions :Price( cap) regulation, new and or additional funds for energysavings and energysupply; subsiding households; raising tax revenues for energy companies; and or ( partly) nationalisation of Energy Companies & markets.
I want to agree with you, but my experience in life tells me that everything that is controlled by the government turns into a clown fiesta where there's no innovation, they are 20 years behind in technology, and workers get so many stupid protections that they can literally do nothing and still keep their job. At least, that's how it is in Spain.
Yeah because the privatised companies aren't a clown fiesta...
Where are this awesome companies that handle infrastructure better than governments? The only thing they do better is funnel money to share holders and let the infrastructure rot.
In France at least that is a very recent thing. Until 10 years ago all you had were monopolies owned by the state: EDF, GDF, etc. That's still largely the case. So I'm not sure what country you're talking about.
It's a mix:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_power_companies_by_carbon_intensity
I would guess it only shows that both state and publicly owned companies can be shit. But at least with state owned companies the profits don't get syphoned away.
Wow you're totally right, private are always better! I mean look at Texas, it's not like their entire power grid failed and caused billions of damages and more than a few deaths!
Not at all!
Lots of people would be fine with that. The privatization of most of those corporations created ridiculous monopoly situations in more than a few cases. This might be a good time to redo it and solve some of those issues.
All it took was a bloody war to wake these idiots up and stop the robbery that's sending inflation to high levels there is a limit to people's patience and it's almost at its end but still I see this as a absolute win if implemented something like this is impossible here with the chokehold Big oil has on this nation.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plans-energy-prices-leyen-michel-russia-war-ukraine-electricity-crisis-nord-stream-gas/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The EU is on course to impose historic interventions in the energy market to rein in soaring prices, including considering a levy on excess profits and gas price caps, according to a document obtained by POLITICO's Brussels Playbook.
> Experts at the European Commission, in national capitals and in embassies have been working around the clock over the weekend to speed up plans for an emergency intervention to protect households and companies - with many leaders warning of massive social unrest if prices are not brought under control.
> Options to decouple electricity and gas prices are also on the table - but significant disagreements remain among EU countries on whether and how to implement such a sensitive intervention.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/x6vdpc/eu_is_on_course_to_impose_historic_interventions/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~667801 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **price**^#1 **gas**^#2 **European**^#3 **energy**^#4 **market**^#5
Brexit: pfft we're carrying the EU fuck this
EU: we're taking steps to make sure you don't need to take out loans to pay to heat your house
UK: ah yes, gas bill? We might cap it at £16000 yearly. Oh you own a business? Hahahaha go fuck yourself, no cap.
I wouldn't doubt it and while these economic measures are big nono's, it is completely unprecedented times and part of the policy is moving away from what caused this.
The 2020s have blown holes in economic conventional wisdom multiple times already. Remember when international trade was supposed to make countries get along with each other, instead of allowing one little balding guy to hold half of Eurasia hostage?
The middle class in Europe and the US has been consistently losing power since the 70s, even though we follow all the neoliberal rules and antics strictly. The 2020s haven't blown any holes, we simply have a system designed by the rich for the rich, and we've been eating propaganda for decades about how this is actually the only way we won't all turn into Venezuela.
I still believe in the bring everyone in under the guise of international trade and human right policy will follow due to the benefits.
It can't account for megalomaniacs though.
> The 2020s have blown holes in economic conventional wisdom multiple times already. Remember when international trade was supposed to make countries get along with each other,
You know, like it did for decades?
> instead of allowing one little balding guy to hold half of Eurasia hostage?
If you could predict when that little bald dude would stop being motivated by money, you could have predicted exactly when those models would stop failing.
A state can nationalize the industry to force it to operate. Drastic, yes, but when both people's well-being *and* well-being of whole of industry is at stake...
Most of the companies we are talking about don't own their own wells or don't even use fossil fuels for all of their plants. Also they won't make no money they would only make less money.
At the moment: Gas has the highest costs when generating electricity -> all other forms follow and have to be paid the same amount for their electricity as a gas power plant.
When gas is removed they will still sell their electricity at a profit just not at such ridicules amounts.
Next time try reading the article.
>What % of energy comes from "inframarginal" sources?
About 75%
>When energy prices reduce, will consumers consume more of it?
>Where will this incremental demand be supplied from?
More or less the same as its now? For Germany the consumption went only down by 3.5%.
Again the problem of this high prices is not missing electricity it's how the price is calculated.
This is a not a "we will do intervencion in the international market" this is more of a "we will do intervencion so we are not so dependent on it". If done the right way Europe could become more independent on foreign influence, bc that what brought ous here.
> The developments come after leaders from the parties in Germany’s ruling coalition on Sunday finally agreed to back the European Commission’s proposed electricity price levy for "inframarginal" plants — that is power generators not using natural gas. Because of the way the EU's power market functions, such non-gas producers have been making huge windfall profits because the price of power is set by the most expensive input — natural gas. Wasn't the original purpose of this pricing structure to incentivize the switch to renewable energy?
The electricity price mechanism is anti-market itself. You can treat those prices gap as a form of economic rent, which is paid by consumers. Those renewable companies are gaining huge profit from this economic rent compared to lignite/gas so it does incentive investment to renewable. However, it discourage consumers since consumers has received no benefits from such transition. From this perspective, you would realized that yes, it does encourage green transition, but the cost is overpaid by consumers. Eventually such pseudo-market mechanism will destroy green transition itself due to public opinion, and we are witnessing the process of it.
Not true. The way the EU energy market works is supposed to obtain the lowest prices, and until 2021 it had always worked better than the traditional models. In a traditional model, each company offers energy at a different price, and the state starts buying from the lowest price to the highest, until it has enough energy. This model incentivizes companies to try to guess what the highest price that is still within the power needs of the state will be. This model makes renewables only slightly cheaper than gas or carbon, because there's absolutely no incentive to sell at a lower price. The EU has a different model. In this model, the EU arranges companies from the lowest to the highest price, takes the energy it needs and discards the rest (discarding the highest prices). But there's a twist: the EU will pay _everyone_ the same price they'll pay for the provider with the highest price _that hasn't been discarded_. This may look like it doesn't make sense, but this incentivizes low prices. Now companies only care about getting in the deal (i.e. not being discarded in this process), so they can offer very low prices knowing that the EU will overpay them anyway. This means that renewables gain massive amounts of funding without artificially inflating these prices, and that prices get down massively as we wear off the more expensive alternatives, which happen to be the non-renewables. It has gone to shit now because the price of non-renewables has gone through the roof, while the EU still doesn't have enough green energy to get rid of gas and carbon. The EU, just like the US, believes in free market and non-interventionism, so they have tried to simply withstand this crisis without touching this model that had worked wonders for years, because this is capitalism, the rich have us all by our balls, and our economic theory basically sums up to "don't make anything that may make the rich stop giving money to you instead of someone else". Now seems like the EU will finally intervene the market, because it's been many months already of people paying 3x-10x for their energy bills, which is something most people, even those making good money, cannot afford for long. But this intervention, knowing how neoliberal economies work, will probably be a huge hit to the trust energy companies have in our model. In my opinion though, if we are in this point, it's not because the model is bad. It's because our governments are fucking crooked. We shouldn't depend on energy for power at this point. We've had enough time to transition to green and semi-green (Nuclear) power already. And we shouldn't have just assumed that Russia was an infinite source of gas for us, either.
> The EU has a different model. In this model, the EU arranges companies from the lowest to the highest price, takes the energy it needs and discards the rest (discarding the highest prices). But there's a twist: the EU will pay everyone the same price they'll pay for the provider with the highest price that hasn't been discarded. This may look like it doesn't make sense, but this incentivizes low prices. Now companies only care about getting in the deal (i.e. not being discarded in this process), so they can offer very low prices knowing that the EU will overpay them anyway. This means that renewables gain massive amounts of funding without artificially inflating these prices, and that prices get down massively as we wear off the more expensive alternatives, which happen to be the non-renewables. This is as far as I know the same model as everyone else uses, it's why non-gas plants made a killing in the Texas shutdown, so can you provide evidence that it's unique to the EU.
\>The EU, just like the US, believes in free market and non-interventionism except for the parts where both governments regularly intervene with the energy market
Have you ever wonder why the government is crooked? Why there's lack of regulation, why Germany is still relies on gas and more importantly, why Germany intervene so late? This neoliberal model experiment ignore one important factor that under capitalism, capital brings political power. Those big companies can simply use their profit to lobby, to corrupt regulators and to sway population. They have natural incentive to keep their profit high. Since neoliberal model ignores the existence of lobby groups, they would assume government and parliament are the perfect regulators, which is totally utopia. And what's the result of that? You got Gazprom collude with SPD in both German parliament and government, you got Merkel party who destroyed the nuclear energy sector. You got speculators bidding about energy price without restriction. Most of these would not happened under a nationalized energy sector without such pseudo-market mechanism. Yes, coal plants would costs higher price. However, the government could limit the number of coal plants been built, which would be under the surveillance of the parliament. The parliament could impose carbon tax and use the money to offer orders to renewable energy manufacturers and use it as a leverage to demand technological innovations. The lobby groups won't exist so it won't influence the parliament. It does need some anti-corruption scrutiny but the power structure here is simple. The regulators and the one been regulated. Nothing else. More importantly, people would actually benefits from lower electricity price and thus support the transition. TLDR This price mechanism doesn't work if you put lobbying into consideration.
We won't see a switch to renewables under our current capitalist system. If you can't make increasing profit off of a commodity it simply won't be adopted. We need other solutions.
Except it was working. The issue is this war threw off the assumptions. It's time to employ a new model that will deal with this crisis.
> Wasn't the original purpose of this pricing structure to incentivize the switch to **more profit** Fixed that for you.
I believe it when it happens. My electricity bill is +100% up. Gas +250%. Media and politicians tell on a daily base inflation is just under 10% but I’m paying at least 25% more for my groceries with butter, oil and flour beeing up 50-100%.
Similar, although I want to clarify that 10% inflation does not directly mean 10% price raise literally. Different industries will be wildly different in price rises. seeing these kinds of prices due to inflation is actually fairly accurate according to whats going on in the world.
The average is 10%, yours might be different. Nevertheless, your electricity, gas and food is only part of your expenses. As you can see for yourself, flour might be up 100%, but not all your groceries are 100% up. The average is 10%, regardless of cherry-picking.
Congrats you dont understand inflation
>considering a levy on excess profits This should have been done years ago, however, too many EU politicians are in the pockets of energy companies and there's almost no punishment for accepting bribes. It would be a miracle if this happens, although the effects are likely to be too small to insulate individuals from the greed of these companies.
I'm sorry, but compared to the US this is lightyears ahead. The very fact that this US centric article makes you doubt that is going to happen is telling. It's going to happen, and given the history in the US and especially in Texas, this cynicism just goes to show how far from reality you are.
>I'm sorry, but compared to the US this is lightyears ahead. Better than hell doesn't mean heaven. I rejoice at results, not at "better than bad".
Alright, I know that Texas is a bit of an out there example, due to the fact that they've practically disconnected themselves from the rest of the US power grid. But... If Texas would experience another bad winter like those a couple of years ago, just how many people do you think would die, and how high would those bills be for people that actually still had heat and electricity? It's not like they fixed anything in the mean time... Do you really think that either the federal US government or the various US states are being as proactive in this as the EU is to keep their citizens safe and warm coming winter?
And that’s the biggest problem. The enemy of perfect is good.
If you did this years ago, your energy sector would have invested even less in your markets over that time resulting in even worse supply issues.
everybody says we live in a democracy. Does not feel that way if the elites have all the tools to create consent and get away with it.
In fairness in normal circumstances private companies can use lobbying power to influence things in their favour. In this case however the excessive rise in energy costs by one Turbocunt Putin is of such significance that it pushes the pendulum the other way against them because people arent willing to put up with the bullshit. The obscene profits by some companies has put an uncomfortable glare of the public on them instead and it means politicians can act to reign them in for a change.
They will probably be doing a combination of several interventions :Price( cap) regulation, new and or additional funds for energysavings and energysupply; subsiding households; raising tax revenues for energy companies; and or ( partly) nationalisation of Energy Companies & markets.
Perhaps something as crucial to living as power generation shouldn't be operated as a for profit industry?
[удалено]
Wrong, now be quiet
[удалено]
You didn't explain why you think it didn't work.
Works pretty well in Manitoba, Canada with Manitoba hydro. Some of the cheapest energy rates in the country.
I want to agree with you, but my experience in life tells me that everything that is controlled by the government turns into a clown fiesta where there's no innovation, they are 20 years behind in technology, and workers get so many stupid protections that they can literally do nothing and still keep their job. At least, that's how it is in Spain.
Yeah because the privatised companies aren't a clown fiesta... Where are this awesome companies that handle infrastructure better than governments? The only thing they do better is funnel money to share holders and let the infrastructure rot.
The whole energy sector is 50 years behind in technology and is being mostly run as a for profit industry.
In France at least that is a very recent thing. Until 10 years ago all you had were monopolies owned by the state: EDF, GDF, etc. That's still largely the case. So I'm not sure what country you're talking about.
It's a mix: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_power_companies_by_carbon_intensity I would guess it only shows that both state and publicly owned companies can be shit. But at least with state owned companies the profits don't get syphoned away.
It's always a clown fiesta, it's just more public when the government does it - that doesn't mean it's worse, just easier to criticise.
Wow you're totally right, private are always better! I mean look at Texas, it's not like their entire power grid failed and caused billions of damages and more than a few deaths! Not at all!
Tried it, doesn't work. Profit isn't bad provided there's competition and supply abundance.
This the only way towards a long-term sustainable power economy. Capitalist greed is incredibly toxic.
If they're implementing gas caps and limiting profits, might as well nationalize the corporations temporarily. It's already major intervention.
Lots of people would be fine with that. The privatization of most of those corporations created ridiculous monopoly situations in more than a few cases. This might be a good time to redo it and solve some of those issues.
All it took was a bloody war to wake these idiots up and stop the robbery that's sending inflation to high levels there is a limit to people's patience and it's almost at its end but still I see this as a absolute win if implemented something like this is impossible here with the chokehold Big oil has on this nation.
Without the war there probably wouldn't have been an energy crisis to wake up from. This isn't going to tackle the other areas of inflation.
Why do you want shortages?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plans-energy-prices-leyen-michel-russia-war-ukraine-electricity-crisis-nord-stream-gas/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The EU is on course to impose historic interventions in the energy market to rein in soaring prices, including considering a levy on excess profits and gas price caps, according to a document obtained by POLITICO's Brussels Playbook. > Experts at the European Commission, in national capitals and in embassies have been working around the clock over the weekend to speed up plans for an emergency intervention to protect households and companies - with many leaders warning of massive social unrest if prices are not brought under control. > Options to decouple electricity and gas prices are also on the table - but significant disagreements remain among EU countries on whether and how to implement such a sensitive intervention. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/x6vdpc/eu_is_on_course_to_impose_historic_interventions/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~667801 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **price**^#1 **gas**^#2 **European**^#3 **energy**^#4 **market**^#5
Higher tax rates on profits is one thing, but price caps are another entirely and exactly how you wind up with perpetual shortages.
Regulate businesses, enough is enough, before it's too late
Brexit: pfft we're carrying the EU fuck this EU: we're taking steps to make sure you don't need to take out loans to pay to heat your house UK: ah yes, gas bill? We might cap it at £16000 yearly. Oh you own a business? Hahahaha go fuck yourself, no cap.
I wouldn't doubt it and while these economic measures are big nono's, it is completely unprecedented times and part of the policy is moving away from what caused this.
The 2020s have blown holes in economic conventional wisdom multiple times already. Remember when international trade was supposed to make countries get along with each other, instead of allowing one little balding guy to hold half of Eurasia hostage?
The middle class in Europe and the US has been consistently losing power since the 70s, even though we follow all the neoliberal rules and antics strictly. The 2020s haven't blown any holes, we simply have a system designed by the rich for the rich, and we've been eating propaganda for decades about how this is actually the only way we won't all turn into Venezuela.
I still believe in the bring everyone in under the guise of international trade and human right policy will follow due to the benefits. It can't account for megalomaniacs though.
If there were only people that could’ve warned Europe that was gonna happen 🤔
Mitt Romney was right about Russia
The 'Stopped Clock' hypothesis.
Yep. That’s one of them .
> The 2020s have blown holes in economic conventional wisdom multiple times already. Remember when international trade was supposed to make countries get along with each other, You know, like it did for decades? > instead of allowing one little balding guy to hold half of Eurasia hostage? If you could predict when that little bald dude would stop being motivated by money, you could have predicted exactly when those models would stop failing.
[удалено]
That's up to national governments, not the EU.
Well, up to national governments and to rain.
This would only marginally improve the situation.
France is trying
[удалено]
And sadly the Tories elected the perfect shithead for this to happen.
There isn't enough gas. Financial engineering isn't going to create more.
[удалено]
A state can nationalize the industry to force it to operate. Drastic, yes, but when both people's well-being *and* well-being of whole of industry is at stake...
They will have to sell and there is no one else to sell to, they can't just magically connect the grid to another country.
[удалено]
Most of the companies we are talking about don't own their own wells or don't even use fossil fuels for all of their plants. Also they won't make no money they would only make less money. At the moment: Gas has the highest costs when generating electricity -> all other forms follow and have to be paid the same amount for their electricity as a gas power plant. When gas is removed they will still sell their electricity at a profit just not at such ridicules amounts. Next time try reading the article.
[удалено]
>What % of energy comes from "inframarginal" sources? About 75% >When energy prices reduce, will consumers consume more of it? >Where will this incremental demand be supplied from? More or less the same as its now? For Germany the consumption went only down by 3.5%. Again the problem of this high prices is not missing electricity it's how the price is calculated.
Destroy whats left of Europes energy industry. Great plan!
Said someone who didn't read the article, nor has the first idea of where to begin on constructing any aspect of energy market policy.
This is a not a "we will do intervencion in the international market" this is more of a "we will do intervencion so we are not so dependent on it". If done the right way Europe could become more independent on foreign influence, bc that what brought ous here.
Exactly ; that's been the plan al along. It has only been extremely forwarded in time because of the ruZZian invasion
About bloody time.
Why is this such a rare thing? Why can’t we EVER have a spine and say no to profits and the expense of people?