5 ms·

> And so the coal power plants needed more money to stay afloat, Green energy is great. Going really well in the uk. Super cheap with all those subsidies……………

> And so the coal power plants needed more money to stay afloat, Green energy is great. Going really well in the uk. Super cheap with all those subsidies……………… I mean contracts for difference we pay for it.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
It's an investment in the future, just like the coal power plants and grid received for as long as electricity has been a thing.
pjc50 2y ago
CFDs are a "collar trade". They pay the difference between the market price and a "strike price". If the market price is above the strike price, the CFD is a refund. So the CFDs have been returning money to the taxpayer lately. https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a-year-to-consumers-by-2027/ https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a... Unlike natural gas, which has been made much more expensive by the war.
Propelloni 2y ago
It may surprise you, but all energy production is or was heavily subsidized at one point or the other in virtually all states. I'm sure I don't have to spell out where nuclear power would be today if not for the billions of subsidies. Just visit the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point [1], read the section on economics, and weep. That's your money at work. And it has been the same for coal, oil, gas, and now solar and wind energy, all over Europe and the US. On a level playing field without subsidies, where we can build solar and wind power generators at scale like today, they would pummel all the other energy sources on costs alone (just think of all the raw material you don't need to burn to make your turbines turn). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
- pyrale 2y ago
  > On a level playing field without subsidies On a level playing field without subsidies, we'd be in underdevelopped shitholes. The idea that a modern economy can grow without some agency being brought in somehow is utopia. > where we can build solar and wind power generators at scale How do you build those, without the decades of subsidies to ramp up production and decrease costs? > they would pummel all the other energy sources on costs alone They would collapse the existing grid. There's a reason why Germany is investing €450bn in its grid to support continued growth [1]. Batteries could make up for it, but scaling batteries won't happen without subsidies. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-spread-costs-adding-more-renewable-power-energy-grid-2024-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...
  - Kerb_ 2y ago
    On a level playing field where both are equally subsidized, solar and wind would still outcompete coal. Their point seems to be applicable to the degree to which harmful power generation is subsidized relative to regular power generation, not just the subsidies themselves.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      I wouldn't bet on it. If your accounting model is "build some production, plug it to the grid and let someone else worry about the details", sure, you're right. But if you factor in grid development costs, the picture is different. For instance, you lften hear about Germany importing lots of energy, and usually there's always someone to say "But they export a lot, too". Well, these imports & exports require lines to happen, and these lines aren't cheap. The EU mandates that countries should develop interconnexion to facilitate the market, but this ruling mostly helps intermittent energy sources. Another example in France, where the south-western region has a lot of solar, and not many industrial consumers. To make things worse, that region is close to an interconnexion with Spain, which has a lot of solar production. In order to move all that power to places where it can be used, new lines have to be built. These costs are not factored in if you only price new production, but they're also significant.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

It's an investment in the future, just like the coal power plants and grid received for as long as electricity has been a thing.

pjc50 2y ago

CFDs are a "collar trade". They pay the difference between the market price and a "strike price". If the market price is above the strike price, the CFD is a refund. So the CFDs have been returning money to the taxpayer lately. https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a-year-to-consumers-by-2027/ https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a... Unlike natural gas, which has been made much more expensive by the war.

Propelloni 2y ago

It may surprise you, but all energy production is or was heavily subsidized at one point or the other in virtually all states. I'm sure I don't have to spell out where nuclear power would be today if not for the billions of subsidies. Just visit the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point [1], read the section on economics, and weep. That's your money at work. And it has been the same for coal, oil, gas, and now solar and wind energy, all over Europe and the US. On a level playing field without subsidies, where we can build solar and wind power generators at scale like today, they would pummel all the other energy sources on costs alone (just think of all the raw material you don't need to burn to make your turbines turn). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

pyrale 2y ago
> On a level playing field without subsidies On a level playing field without subsidies, we'd be in underdevelopped shitholes. The idea that a modern economy can grow without some agency being brought in somehow is utopia. > where we can build solar and wind power generators at scale How do you build those, without the decades of subsidies to ramp up production and decrease costs? > they would pummel all the other energy sources on costs alone They would collapse the existing grid. There's a reason why Germany is investing €450bn in its grid to support continued growth [1]. Batteries could make up for it, but scaling batteries won't happen without subsidies. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-spread-costs-adding-more-renewable-power-energy-grid-2024-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...
- Kerb_ 2y ago
  On a level playing field where both are equally subsidized, solar and wind would still outcompete coal. Their point seems to be applicable to the degree to which harmful power generation is subsidized relative to regular power generation, not just the subsidies themselves.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    I wouldn't bet on it. If your accounting model is "build some production, plug it to the grid and let someone else worry about the details", sure, you're right. But if you factor in grid development costs, the picture is different. For instance, you lften hear about Germany importing lots of energy, and usually there's always someone to say "But they export a lot, too". Well, these imports & exports require lines to happen, and these lines aren't cheap. The EU mandates that countries should develop interconnexion to facilitate the market, but this ruling mostly helps intermittent energy sources. Another example in France, where the south-western region has a lot of solar, and not many industrial consumers. To make things worse, that region is close to an interconnexion with Spain, which has a lot of solar production. In order to move all that power to places where it can be used, new lines have to be built. These costs are not factored in if you only price new production, but they're also significant.