4 ms·

We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emis

We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... You are missing the time factor. Supplying 90% means that a vast majority of time they fulfill 100% and the expensive storage is not required. All based on the marginal price market Europe employs. The storage would still be needed, but it is not the marginal cost and maybe storage is not the right path? Maybe it is sector coupling? Maybe it is demand response from hydrogen production for industrial use? Maybe it is not charging most cars for a couple of days? As with all capitalistic systems a holistic organic approach will emerge. If it is not good enough adjust the market conditions. Sweden is already putting most stabilization services on an open market, with the goal to trade all day-ahead like power. Pulling out a five-year plan of having nuclear solve it in 20 years will only lead to pain.

belorn 4y ago
If that were true then we wouldn't see large wind/solar regions where the average cost during this winter were at $0.3/kWh or above. Wind and solar did contribute a lot, but it was quite rare that they hit 100%. Instead it was gas prices that controlled what the energy prices was. It was this fact that resulted in many country implementing a roof of how much profits those renewables could earn, redirecting those profits in order to pay the bill for more fossil fuels. Sweden is a prime example of a country that is paying the cost of stabilizing the grid for the rest of the continent. They could have had one of the cheapest energy grid in EU thanks the the large stable production from nuclear and hydro, but because of how the EU system is setup the opposite occurred. The result is the highest inflation rate in EU coupled with a significant hit to the economy. Germany in contrast is using the profits they historically gained by using cheap natural gas from Russia and injected billions to their industry in the form of energy subsidizes, sheltering their economy from the same fate. Who cares if the energy prices reaches well above $1/kWh if the government foot the bill? Massive subsidizes and huge difference between marginal cost and actually price is not a free market. There is nothing free about it.

belorn 4y ago

If that were true then we wouldn't see large wind/solar regions where the average cost during this winter were at $0.3/kWh or above. Wind and solar did contribute a lot, but it was quite rare that they hit 100%. Instead it was gas prices that controlled what the energy prices was. It was this fact that resulted in many country implementing a roof of how much profits those renewables could earn, redirecting those profits in order to pay the bill for more fossil fuels. Sweden is a prime example of a country that is paying the cost of stabilizing the grid for the rest of the continent. They could have had one of the cheapest energy grid in EU thanks the the large stable production from nuclear and hydro, but because of how the EU system is setup the opposite occurred. The result is the highest inflation rate in EU coupled with a significant hit to the economy. Germany in contrast is using the profits they historically gained by using cheap natural gas from Russia and injected billions to their industry in the form of energy subsidizes, sheltering their economy from the same fate. Who cares if the energy prices reaches well above $1/kWh if the government foot the bill? Massive subsidizes and huge difference between marginal cost and actually price is not a free market. There is nothing free about it.