3 ms·

Why would you consider averages prices more relevant than the Neukundenpreise? If customers don't switch energy providers and are stuck with high prices why is

by oezi 2y ago

Why would you consider averages prices more relevant than the Neukundenpreise? If customers don't switch energy providers and are stuck with high prices why is this the EEGs fault? Also the EEG is not equivalent to the cost of the net zero transition. We need to approach net zero (I am not convinced we need to get really to zero) and it will cost on the order of 100%-200% of GDP. Which isn't too much considering the time scale of roughly 30 years by which we want to achieve this.

mpweiher 2y ago
> Why would you consider averages prices more relevant than the Neukundenpreise? The answer is contained in the question: because it is the average price. As in the actual average price that is paid. It's pretty much tautological. Just like the revenue of a company is the income from actual goods sold, not hypothetical income from the published catalog. And GDP for a country is measured with goods/services actually bought/sold/delivered, not hypothetical products and services that could be sold. (That should be sufficient, but it also turns out that prices for new customers pretty much invariably are not sustainable prices, but prices made to entice customers from other companies. They tend to be unsustainable, more a marketing cost than a real price, and if all customers took advantage of them they would disappear. Just like new customers get much higher interest rates from banks than existing customers. Again: it's a customer acquisition cost, not an actual price). > EEGs fault? Prices are not a "fault". They just are. Prices, that is. And the EEG is only a small part of the overall price increase we've seen for electricity in Germany. Since the start of the Atomausstieg, prices more than doubled. Before the Atomausstieg, prices were decreasing for years. And the correlation between percentage of intermittent renewables and higher electricity prices is pretty consistent throughout Europe. > Also the EEG is not equivalent to the cost of the net zero transition. This is true. The true cost is much, much higher, though specifics are not known, as was recently criticized by the auditors, the Bundesrechnungshof. Cost up to now are somewhere between €300 - €700 billion, and we have achieved little to nothing. Replaced a reliable, cheap CO₂-free electricity source with an unreliable, expensive, CO₂-free electricity source. And of course the future costs have been estimated to be somewhere between € 1.5 trillion and € 5 trillion. Insane. Compared to the German Energiewende, Brexit was a smart move. And Brexit was one of the dumbest moves a country ever made. > We need to approach net zero And shutting off nuclear power did not bring us any closer to that goal. In fact, it moved us away from that goal and also made it much, much harder to ever achieve that goal. Because there is no feasible way of achieving net zero based on just intermittent renewables. France has around 1/10th of our CO₂ emissions for electricity. Has had them for decades. With nuclear. For a fraction of the cost. With lower electricity prices.

by oezi 2y ago

mpweiher 2y ago

> Why would you consider averages prices more relevant than the Neukundenpreise? The answer is contained in the question: because it is the average price. As in the actual average price that is paid. It's pretty much tautological. Just like the revenue of a company is the income from actual goods sold, not hypothetical income from the published catalog. And GDP for a country is measured with goods/services actually bought/sold/delivered, not hypothetical products and services that could be sold. (That should be sufficient, but it also turns out that prices for new customers pretty much invariably are not sustainable prices, but prices made to entice customers from other companies. They tend to be unsustainable, more a marketing cost than a real price, and if all customers took advantage of them they would disappear. Just like new customers get much higher interest rates from banks than existing customers. Again: it's a customer acquisition cost, not an actual price). > EEGs fault? Prices are not a "fault". They just are. Prices, that is. And the EEG is only a small part of the overall price increase we've seen for electricity in Germany. Since the start of the Atomausstieg, prices more than doubled. Before the Atomausstieg, prices were decreasing for years. And the correlation between percentage of intermittent renewables and higher electricity prices is pretty consistent throughout Europe. > Also the EEG is not equivalent to the cost of the net zero transition. This is true. The true cost is much, much higher, though specifics are not known, as was recently criticized by the auditors, the Bundesrechnungshof. Cost up to now are somewhere between €300 - €700 billion, and we have achieved little to nothing. Replaced a reliable, cheap CO₂-free electricity source with an unreliable, expensive, CO₂-free electricity source. And of course the future costs have been estimated to be somewhere between € 1.5 trillion and € 5 trillion. Insane. Compared to the German Energiewende, Brexit was a smart move. And Brexit was one of the dumbest moves a country ever made. > We need to approach net zero And shutting off nuclear power did not bring us any closer to that goal. In fact, it moved us away from that goal and also made it much, much harder to ever achieve that goal. Because there is no feasible way of achieving net zero based on just intermittent renewables. France has around 1/10th of our CO₂ emissions for electricity. Has had them for decades. With nuclear. For a fraction of the cost. With lower electricity prices.