4 ms·

Electricity prices in Sweden have gone up due to two factors: - the "green" party "Miljöpartiet" ("Party for the environment") has forced the premature closure

by Ourgon 5y ago

Electricity prices in Sweden have gone up due to two factors: - the "green" party "Miljöpartiet" ("Party for the environment") has forced the premature closure of half of the nuclear power plants, going so far as to replace the leadership of the state-owned power consortium "Vattenfall" when they refused to fall in line. They actually boast about closing those nuclear power plants, indicating the disconnect between their party's name and its goals. - Sweden has increased its exchange with other European power distribution networks which caused the higher prices on the European market to have a larger influence on local pricing. The country is divided into 4 pricing zones, the northernmost 2 of which have lower prices - closer to the price paid by all Swedes before deregulation and the introduction of the controlled market "Nord Pool" - than the rest. Have a look at the "control room" site for information on current pricing, electricity flows, power sources and more: https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/

cycomanic 5y ago
It's interesting when discussing nuclear safety, proponents always say that modern reactors are much better than old designs, but when we talk about shutdowns they complain that reactors which have been running much beyond there original design lifetime are being shut down. Moreover to blame the current price hikes on the nuclear shutdown is dishonest at best 8 of the 17 nuclear reactors in Germany were shut down in 2011 (and IIRC all of the were 40 years and older) without this causing a big price hike. Of the remaining only the last 3 were shut down in 2021 (the youngest being 31 year, with IIRC original permits being 40 years). It is also false to say that Germany replaced nuclear with coal, because coal reduced significantly as well during the same time, while renewables raised rapidly. One could just as well argue that it's Frances fault for not investing in renewables at all (growth of renewables is tiny in France compared to Germany). Also of note is that nuclear relies just as much on gas peakers as renewables. It's also funny that you blame the greens for the 12/2020 ringhals shutdown, because it was shut down by vattenfall due to low profitability[1]. This was one of two shutdowns the other was in 2019, so both also had very little to do with current prices. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nuclear-power-split/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nuclear-power-split/
- Ourgon 5y ago
  I did not mention nuclear safety anywhere, why do you bring this up? If you insist on discussing it I can bring up that US nuclear power ends up all the way at the bottom of the list over the mortality rate (direct deaths and epidemiological estimates) with 0.1 lives lost per trillion kWh. Global nuclear, that is including Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other known accidents in the last 40 years ends up higher at 90 deaths/trillion kWh. The list, in order from low to high mortality goes like this: Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kWh 0.1 - US nuclear 5 - US hydro 90 - nuclear 150 - wind 440 - solar 1400 - hydro 4000 - natural gas 10000 - US coal 24000 - biofuel and biomass 36000 - oil 100000 - coal 170000 - China coal source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/#7f6457085e19 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g... Another thing, I related to the shutdown of Swedish nuclear power, not German nuclear power so why did you bring up those numbers on Germany? It is very clear that the closure of those Swedish nuclear power plants - which could have run until 2036 without problems, by which time replacements would have been in place - has made the electricity supply in Sweden less reliable and the price swings more frequent and intense. The oil-fired peak power plant in Karlshamn would normally only be fired up in the cold of winter but last year it was used in the middle of summer to avoid a brown-out in Stockholm.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I brought Germany up, because the whole topic here was on Germany and you make the exact same argument for Sweden as was made for Germany. Regarding the plant shutdown, you nicely ignored the fact that contrary to your assertion it was just down for economic reasons. Sure Vattenfall could have kept it running and made losses and now that demand increased they would have stopped prices going up (likely not because the big winners of the price hikes are the nuclear power plant operators). They could have also build windfarms for that money that likely would have taken prices down.
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      No, this is an oft repeated statement which is simply not true. Had "Miljöpartiet" not pushed for the closure of those reactors they would still be running. If you'd rather take this from the horse's mouth here's Lorenz Tovatt, energy policy spokesman for that party [1]: Haha det är så kul med kärnkraftshögermän som låtsas att vi i MP motarbetat kärnkraft ”i smyg” för att sen skylla på marknaden. Löjligt. Jag tar hemskt gärna cred för nedlagd kärnkraft. Utan MP hade nog flera av de nedslängda reaktorerna rullat vidare. ...which translates to: Haha it's so much fun with nuclear right-wingers who pretend that we in the MP ("Miljöpartiet") opposed nuclear power "secretly" and then blame the market. Ridiculous. I'm terribly happy to take credit for discontinued nuclear power. Without MP, several of the closed ("nedslängda" means "dropped", I guess he meant to write "nedstängda" which means "closed") reactors would probably have rolled on. So, no. Not "the market" but politics pushing that market in a certain direction. [1] https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328 https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328

by Ourgon 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

It's interesting when discussing nuclear safety, proponents always say that modern reactors are much better than old designs, but when we talk about shutdowns they complain that reactors which have been running much beyond there original design lifetime are being shut down. Moreover to blame the current price hikes on the nuclear shutdown is dishonest at best 8 of the 17 nuclear reactors in Germany were shut down in 2011 (and IIRC all of the were 40 years and older) without this causing a big price hike. Of the remaining only the last 3 were shut down in 2021 (the youngest being 31 year, with IIRC original permits being 40 years). It is also false to say that Germany replaced nuclear with coal, because coal reduced significantly as well during the same time, while renewables raised rapidly. One could just as well argue that it's Frances fault for not investing in renewables at all (growth of renewables is tiny in France compared to Germany). Also of note is that nuclear relies just as much on gas peakers as renewables. It's also funny that you blame the greens for the 12/2020 ringhals shutdown, because it was shut down by vattenfall due to low profitability[1]. This was one of two shutdowns the other was in 2019, so both also had very little to do with current prices. [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nuclear-power-split/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nuclear-power-split/

Ourgon 5y ago
I did not mention nuclear safety anywhere, why do you bring this up? If you insist on discussing it I can bring up that US nuclear power ends up all the way at the bottom of the list over the mortality rate (direct deaths and epidemiological estimates) with 0.1 lives lost per trillion kWh. Global nuclear, that is including Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other known accidents in the last 40 years ends up higher at 90 deaths/trillion kWh. The list, in order from low to high mortality goes like this: Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kWh 0.1 - US nuclear 5 - US hydro 90 - nuclear 150 - wind 440 - solar 1400 - hydro 4000 - natural gas 10000 - US coal 24000 - biofuel and biomass 36000 - oil 100000 - coal 170000 - China coal source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/#7f6457085e19 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g... Another thing, I related to the shutdown of Swedish nuclear power, not German nuclear power so why did you bring up those numbers on Germany? It is very clear that the closure of those Swedish nuclear power plants - which could have run until 2036 without problems, by which time replacements would have been in place - has made the electricity supply in Sweden less reliable and the price swings more frequent and intense. The oil-fired peak power plant in Karlshamn would normally only be fired up in the cold of winter but last year it was used in the middle of summer to avoid a brown-out in Stockholm.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I brought Germany up, because the whole topic here was on Germany and you make the exact same argument for Sweden as was made for Germany. Regarding the plant shutdown, you nicely ignored the fact that contrary to your assertion it was just down for economic reasons. Sure Vattenfall could have kept it running and made losses and now that demand increased they would have stopped prices going up (likely not because the big winners of the price hikes are the nuclear power plant operators). They could have also build windfarms for that money that likely would have taken prices down.
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    No, this is an oft repeated statement which is simply not true. Had "Miljöpartiet" not pushed for the closure of those reactors they would still be running. If you'd rather take this from the horse's mouth here's Lorenz Tovatt, energy policy spokesman for that party [1]: Haha det är så kul med kärnkraftshögermän som låtsas att vi i MP motarbetat kärnkraft ”i smyg” för att sen skylla på marknaden. Löjligt. Jag tar hemskt gärna cred för nedlagd kärnkraft. Utan MP hade nog flera av de nedslängda reaktorerna rullat vidare. ...which translates to: Haha it's so much fun with nuclear right-wingers who pretend that we in the MP ("Miljöpartiet") opposed nuclear power "secretly" and then blame the market. Ridiculous. I'm terribly happy to take credit for discontinued nuclear power. Without MP, several of the closed ("nedslängda" means "dropped", I guess he meant to write "nedstängda" which means "closed") reactors would probably have rolled on. So, no. Not "the market" but politics pushing that market in a certain direction. [1] https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328 https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328