42 ms·

This website doesn't provide much context if you're not familiar with the situation. I found this article helpful: https://www.the-independent.com/climate-chan

This website doesn't provide much context if you're not familiar with the situation. I found this article helpful: https://www.the-independent.com/climate-change/octopus-energy-greg-jackson-wind-farms-climate-b2828421.html https://www.the-independent.com/climate-change/octopus-energ...

misiek08 1y ago
Thanks. This make it even more crazy. Paying for not produced energy (probably some great deals secured there - with guarantees from both sides no matter the reality) and also same owners of both types of production sites. Funny how such deals get done, probably only to meet the magic "2030" rules, without taking into account situations like the one happening right now.
eigart 1y ago
Thanks! It would be interesting to see how this looks on a map. Electricity exports (/prices) is a MASSIVE controversy in Norwegian politics, so it would be pretty funny if Norwegian power is replacing the curtailed wind power.
- ragebol 1y ago
  I've only heard about this, but do I understand correctly that: - Norwegian hydro-electricity is normally quite cheap - 'They' built a cable from Norway to the rest of Europe to couple the markets - Since the markets are coupled, mainland Europe buys the hydro-electricity from Norway, driving up prices in Norway. - People are pissed, understandably I guess. Correct?
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    Correct. One additional problem beyond the price hike was also the fact that the price came to be wildly unstable. One day it was bascially free and the next day it was approaching 1 euro per kwh, where as before, the price usually came to about 1 NOK (10-12 eurocent) per kwh after taxes and such, and hadn't moved significantly from that in over 10 years. See Fig 2 here[1] for just how spiky the market became after the price hike. Also bear in mind that Norway does most of its residential heating with resitive heating, precisely because electricity has historically been so cheap. Heat pumps are getting more popular, and burning firewood got very popular during the price hike, but basically no-one heats with gas, as there's no infrastructure to support it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666955223000357 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
  - eigart 1y ago
    That is correct. The historical price for consumers is by my guesstimate $0.03-0.05 USD, now it’s at least double. Grid fees come on top of that. The anger is completely out of proportion, IMO, as the net effect is probably very positive. 1. Hydro is typically state owned and taxed at a very high rate 2. 50% of the price difference between markets is pocketed by the public grid operator (reducing grid fees) 3. We also import power when needed and typically at a net profit.
ErikCorry 1y ago
The problem is they are treating it as a free market issue with hourly auctions, but the 'free market' system ignores transmission. So the windmills can sell cheap electricity in the auctions that can't be delivered to anybody who needs it. Then after the auction you have to pay the windmill operators to switch off the excess production. The OP linked site lists one of the solutions as "Make energy cheaper where supply is strong." This sounds obvious, but UK (and German) politicians don't want to do it, so we continue to get this dysfunctional system.
- veltas 1y ago
  Not that obvious when some tax payers will pay for new energy infrastructure and then also watch their prices go up because it wasn't built near them.
  - ErikCorry 1y ago
    You mess with the markets at your peril. If you pay people to produce electricity that can't be consumed then you will waste a lot of money. If the transmission capacity is limited you need to expose that signal to the market, not attempt to hide it.
crazygringo 1y ago
Thank you! This needs to be the top comment because I had no idea what this site was about, and I'm sure most people outside the UK don't either.

misiek08 1y ago

Thanks. This make it even more crazy. Paying for not produced energy (probably some great deals secured there - with guarantees from both sides no matter the reality) and also same owners of both types of production sites. Funny how such deals get done, probably only to meet the magic "2030" rules, without taking into account situations like the one happening right now.

eigart 1y ago

Thanks! It would be interesting to see how this looks on a map. Electricity exports (/prices) is a MASSIVE controversy in Norwegian politics, so it would be pretty funny if Norwegian power is replacing the curtailed wind power.

ragebol 1y ago
I've only heard about this, but do I understand correctly that: - Norwegian hydro-electricity is normally quite cheap - 'They' built a cable from Norway to the rest of Europe to couple the markets - Since the markets are coupled, mainland Europe buys the hydro-electricity from Norway, driving up prices in Norway. - People are pissed, understandably I guess. Correct?
- Telaneo 1y ago
  Correct. One additional problem beyond the price hike was also the fact that the price came to be wildly unstable. One day it was bascially free and the next day it was approaching 1 euro per kwh, where as before, the price usually came to about 1 NOK (10-12 eurocent) per kwh after taxes and such, and hadn't moved significantly from that in over 10 years. See Fig 2 here[1] for just how spiky the market became after the price hike. Also bear in mind that Norway does most of its residential heating with resitive heating, precisely because electricity has historically been so cheap. Heat pumps are getting more popular, and burning firewood got very popular during the price hike, but basically no-one heats with gas, as there's no infrastructure to support it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666955223000357 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
- eigart 1y ago
  That is correct. The historical price for consumers is by my guesstimate $0.03-0.05 USD, now it’s at least double. Grid fees come on top of that. The anger is completely out of proportion, IMO, as the net effect is probably very positive. 1. Hydro is typically state owned and taxed at a very high rate 2. 50% of the price difference between markets is pocketed by the public grid operator (reducing grid fees) 3. We also import power when needed and typically at a net profit.

ErikCorry 1y ago

The problem is they are treating it as a free market issue with hourly auctions, but the 'free market' system ignores transmission. So the windmills can sell cheap electricity in the auctions that can't be delivered to anybody who needs it. Then after the auction you have to pay the windmill operators to switch off the excess production. The OP linked site lists one of the solutions as "Make energy cheaper where supply is strong." This sounds obvious, but UK (and German) politicians don't want to do it, so we continue to get this dysfunctional system.

veltas 1y ago
Not that obvious when some tax payers will pay for new energy infrastructure and then also watch their prices go up because it wasn't built near them.
- ErikCorry 1y ago
  You mess with the markets at your peril. If you pay people to produce electricity that can't be consumed then you will waste a lot of money. If the transmission capacity is limited you need to expose that signal to the market, not attempt to hide it.

crazygringo 1y ago

Thank you! This needs to be the top comment because I had no idea what this site was about, and I'm sure most people outside the UK don't either.