4 ms·

That contract you mention is basically that you transmit electricity from where it's cheaper until the price balances out at both ends. That's when you stop (un

by Tor3 4y ago

That contract you mention is basically that you transmit electricity from where it's cheaper until the price balances out at both ends. That's when you stop (unless capacity limits you before that happens). It's a horrible contract, there's no consideration for rational planning of e.g. seasonal availability (which is enormously different in Norway compared to the continent). Ref. a link in my other comment (nrk.no) which explained this (in Norwegian. Translate can probably handle it). The sad thing is that politicians, including the former prime minister, seems to not understand the nature of the contract they signed. They still thinks it's about exporting surplus and importing from surplus, which it's not at all about.

verisimi 4y ago
How is the country, or the EU serving the people, when they are contractually bound to increase the prices, even when there is no necessity?
- Tor3 4y ago
  I don't want to go into that much politics, but if you look at it from high above there's a little more energy coming into the pool (by using that pricing method to squeeze more export out of Norway), and as a result the net total for all of EUs citizens will be a tiny bit lower. Even though it creates havoc in Norway (prices going up maybe 1500% or, some days, an order of magnitude more). Obviously there's an energy crisis in Europe so I'm not sure EU can be blamed for how it affects Norway, the fault is on Norwegian politicians alone for signing a deal which was such a misfit for how the Norwegian power production works. Unbelievably naive, not even realizing that the already existing methods did everything they wanted - sell surplus when it was safe to do, buy when you could, optimize how hydro resources were used (a lot of the rivers and lakes, the majority in fact, also have fish - and the unwanted high output at the bad time creates havoc - not enough water). The Acer setup, as such, is probably fine for the majority of the continent, but I don't know enough about power production in most of EUs member states.

by Tor3 4y ago

verisimi 4y ago

How is the country, or the EU serving the people, when they are contractually bound to increase the prices, even when there is no necessity?

Tor3 4y ago
I don't want to go into that much politics, but if you look at it from high above there's a little more energy coming into the pool (by using that pricing method to squeeze more export out of Norway), and as a result the net total for all of EUs citizens will be a tiny bit lower. Even though it creates havoc in Norway (prices going up maybe 1500% or, some days, an order of magnitude more). Obviously there's an energy crisis in Europe so I'm not sure EU can be blamed for how it affects Norway, the fault is on Norwegian politicians alone for signing a deal which was such a misfit for how the Norwegian power production works. Unbelievably naive, not even realizing that the already existing methods did everything they wanted - sell surplus when it was safe to do, buy when you could, optimize how hydro resources were used (a lot of the rivers and lakes, the majority in fact, also have fish - and the unwanted high output at the bad time creates havoc - not enough water). The Acer setup, as such, is probably fine for the majority of the continent, but I don't know enough about power production in most of EUs member states.