- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So Busch is generally a pretty shit politician and wrong on most things that she says, but in the case of Germany needing to reform it’s electricity market, she’s not wrong.
She’s also not wrong that shutting down the nuclear capacity in Germany was a generally bad choice, but her opinion that we should go back to nuclear is hilariously bad.
Finally, there’s a clear need for a change in rules when it comes to electricity pricing in Sweden - the fact that we’re having to pay the rates that Germany offers for what electricity they import while most electricity in Sweden is still produced very cheaply is clearly an exploitative system.
Many arguments call countries’ names, but actually prices are dictated by companies (directly or indirectly by their behavior) that want to make a profit. Sweden’s electricity prices, as a rule of thumb, are always lower than prices in Germany, so from an economic p.o.v. it makes sense to buy as much electricity in Sweden as can be transported south. Of course, that drives prices up in Sweden to historic level (but still cheaper than in Germany). Why are prices so high in Germany? Several reasons have been discussed here, but one I would like to highlight is that operators of gas and coal power plants, which are meant as reserves in cases of high demand and low supply, do not produce sufficiently much electricity: they simply earn more by selling little electricity at high prices than by selling more electricity at lower prices. The politicians’ fault is that they have created a mostly unregulated market where under the right conditions some actors can make huge profits at the cost of everyone else. This is why more nuclear power plants won’t help: even their operators will have to pay back the huge debts left from construction and thus also will try to maximize profits from high prices via low supply.
they simply earn more by selling little electricity at high prices than by selling more electricity at lower prices.
If they were cheap they would be used more. You don’t want that. You want the dirty energy to be expensive.
they simply earn more by selling little electricity at high prices than by selling more electricity at lower prices
So, they have the perfect incentive system for a reserve provider?
This is also the government that cancelled 17 planned wind parks for no reason and then has the audacity to lecture other countries about energy security. I am pro nuclear power but Ebba Bush is so psychotically pro nuclear that it borders on kink territory.
More wind capacity wouldn’t solve these issues. They arise specifically when it is cold, dark and windless across Europe, due to a lack of dispatchable electricity production in Germany. Germany instead imports electricity from its neighbors, and Sweden (due to EU regulations) has to export. This in turn drives prices through the roof for Swedish consumers, despite a de facto electricity surplus.
Well, surplus renewable energy - which more wind capacity would bring - probably doesn’t hurt the economics of storage solutions, which ultimately would solve these issues.
Well, to be frank, Sweden is Europes second largest, or largest depending on the state of things in France, electricity exporter in Europe. Sweden do not necessarily need more large scale electricity production. Specially not given the drive towards micro production that is now ongoing.
The only reason to build large scale is to accommodate AI or some other extremely energy dependant technology. They can happily build and run their own electricity network and not include the ordinary consumers, nor the taxpayers.
This time, it seems, they found the golden nugget despite being blind.
Building energy production to export even more electricity is surely very profitable and also good for the environment.
I remember the winter 1 or 2 years ago when we exported a fuck ton electricity and apparently our clean electricity displaced enough foreign dirty electricity to reduce the carbon footprint by as much as Sweden annually carbon footprint from cars.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/ekonomi/svensk-elexport-minskar-utslappen-motsvarande-hela-biltrafiken
No denying that there are positives, but geopolitically we can’t have Berlin on it’s knees just because Kremlin had a Chinese cargo ship drag it’s anchor half way across the Baltic sea. That’s a no go for an independent Europe.
Yeah, but we should still build more renewable energy production and obviously more resilient and redundant energy infrastructure.
Agreed!
That’s very true. The rational thing is to invest in nuclear on the European continent. The Swedish pricing issue can be solved through politics.
Their stance is ‘this is everybody’s fault but us’
Yes, that sucks. And they for sure are religious when it comes to nuclear. There are more cautious and strategic ways than throwing hundreds of billions on private contractors on a dysfunctional market. The government should own and run all nuclear production.
(Tl;dr at the bottom)
Is this AI generated slob? Because it reads like AI generated slob. And the ‘picture’ of that lady looks like it’s AI generated as well.
Needless to say, what this lady is saying in regards to Germany has no basis in reality. She claims Germany’s unstable energy prices are a result of Germany shutting down it’s nuclear reactor. This is an oversimplification of the highest order.
For reference, the newest nuclear powerplant that went online in Germany, did so in 1989. The most recent plan to build even newer reactors was cancelled in 1999. 2002 a law was passed that prohibited the building of new nuclear reactors and limited the operational life of all nuclear reactors to at most 32 years. That would have meant that all reactors had to be shut down after 2021.
However in 2010, the operational life of a few select reactors was lengthened by 12 years.
2011 then, after Fukushima, the operational life was reduced to just two additional years; the last reactor was set to get shut down in April 2023. This all was decided by the conservative government led by the CDU.In 2022, the Green minister for energy and the economy, Robert Habeck, passed an emergency resolution, allowing the at that time 3 remaining nuclear reactors, which in total provided at most 6% of Germany’s energy needs, to run for half a year longer.
So let’s tally up: The last nuclear reactor was built 1989. Since 2002, by law, no new nuclear reactors were allowed to be built. In 2022, the operational life of the last 3 reactors was extended by the Green minister for energy and the economy. Those 3 reactors provided at most 6% of the German energy mix.
What happened to the rest of the nuclear output that had to be replaced? The conservative, CDU-led government, in their infinite wisdom, killed the incentives to build up renewable energy, which Germany was a world leader in at the time (keyword: “Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz”, “Solardeckel” if you’re interested to read about that whole saga). They then allowed Putin to basically capture the German energy market with cheap russian gas. We all know how that worked out.
Compounding is the issue that southern, conservative-led states in Germany (mainly Bavaria) are blocking both the expansion of renewable energy (keyword: “Windrad Abstandsregel”), as well as the expansion of the energy grid, so cheap energy created in the north through renewable sources can’t be transported to the south.
But surely we could just build new nuclear reactors, right? The conservative state-government in Bavaria certainly thinks so (after being in favor of the nuclear shutdown even as late as 2020). The simple answer is: No. Renewable energy is simply too cheap. Nuclear energy was always subsidized in Germany, both during construction and during operation. And the task of finding a suitable location for storing the nuclear waste also falls to the government. So unless you are ideologically captured, financing new reactors as the government doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense for the energy companies either, because nuclear power is way too long of a commitment for them, compared to simply throwing up more wind turbines or solar panels. “German efficiency” would complicate the matter of building new nuclear reactors further. Nuclear reactors going online in Europe in the past years did so with hefty delays, cost overruns and construction times ranging between 12 and 20 years. And if the BER airport is used as a comparison, it would be even worse in Germany.
Bonus: A timeline (in german) highlighting steps towards the shutdown of nuclear power in Germany: https://www.base.bund.de/de/nukleare-sicherheit/atomausstieg/ausstieg-atomkraft/ausstieg-atomkraft_inhalt.html#a449768
Tl;dr: So no, dear AI generated swedish person, nuclear energy is no viable path for Germany, and also no, neither the shutdown, nor the ban on new nuclear reactors is the fault of Robert Habeck.
Personal opinion: Robert Habeck is the closest we get in Germany to a politician that is both ‘electable’ in the eyes of the broad public and genuinely for the people. Smears like that AI lady’s have been all too common in an effort to discredit him, most of those have been lies or deliberate misconstructions. So a heartfelt “fuck you!” goes out from me to her.
I mean, I agree that at this point, building nuclear reactors probably won’t help with these problems. But shutting down already built reactors that could still have been safely used for years was incredibly stupid imo. They could have used these as backup for peaks instead of coal and gas.
That is that person’s face. Not AI generated.
I’m aware she’s a real person, the photo is credited with her instagram after all. I’m still going to call her AI lady though. She certainly has the same spotty reasoning skills as contemporary AI models.
That is a different narravite
I just want to chime in: “fuck you” to her from me as well.
The neoliberal has spoken. You know that politics can change circumstances?
Yeah sure, let’s listen to that totally real AI lady and build new nuclear reactors. Just ignore that a sizable portion of the German people is still against nuclear energy. Just ignore that it costs more than building up renewable energy. Just ignore that even the energy companies don’t want to start building new nuclear reactors based on how risky that endeavour is. Just ignore that Germany still has no long term storage for nuclear waste. Just ignore the 15-year construction time that would do nothing to help our energy needs now. Let’s just ignore all that. But sure, I’m neoliberal.
Politics is about changing exactly those circumstances. Nothing is eternal. If Germany really wants to, Germany can build nuclear within a decade (I mean Germany has previously done far more extreme things in less time, like energiewende, or inventing nuclear reactors while fighting a total war). It’s of course a big economic risk because of the possible high alternative cost. That’s why the government should do it. You have to compare that with the risk of not having a fossil free alternative to gas and coal within 15 years. Actually, the risk is not that great because you will get fossil free energy either way.
You sure write like a neoliberal. Maybe you’re just not aware of that. Not seeing politics as a viable tool is maybe the most neoliberal thing one can do. And it’s very damaging to society in all western countries right now. Unless you weren’t ironic…
Germany is already changing circumstances - towards truly renewable energy. Nuclear energy only has support from politicians that change their views like flags in the wind. Nuclear energy in Germany is dead. Current attempts to revive it are done to detract from getting the transition to renewable energy done. You can claim otherwise, but as a German speaker I can tell you that only politican frauds and charlatans are asking for nuclear energy.
Aye, I agree. And given the fit-for-55 directive, that push will continue, further reducing the economic viability of nuclear. Nuclear is dead.
However, regardless of the state of nuclear in Europe, the big problem is that Germany does not produce enough energy, which spikes the energy prices in neighbouring countries. Here, electricity suddenly becomes 8 times more costly when Germany imports electricity. That is something Germany needs to address or face constant demands of building nuclear.
However, regardless of the state of nuclear in Europe, the big problem is that Germany does not produce enough energy, which spikes the energy prices in neighbouring countries.
That is only half true. Northern Germany has an energy production surplus and frequently exports energy to Belgium and the Netherlands. However Denmark has even cheaper energy production, which is why northern Germany is importing energy from there despite having an energy production surplus. The real issue lies with southern Germany, mainly Bavaria. The conservative Bavarian government has effectively strangled renewable energy production capacity with obstructive legislation over the past decade, which, coupled with their block on strengthening the energy grid, has led to southern Germany being a net importer of energy.
Germany burns coal and imports electricity rather than use nuclear.
Renewables are great but they aren’t enough. Germany has proved this. Nuclear fills the gaps that renewables can’t. Both should be options.
But Germany decided “nuclear is bad” so while that won’t change it doesn’t change the fact that it was a bad idea.
Misguided takes like this is exactly why I hate the CDU, the conservative party. Germany’s energy policy did NOT prove that renewables aren’t enough to fulfill the energy needs of a country. The ONLY thing the conservative German government did prove is that replacing nuclear energy and coal with cheap imported russian gas will bite you. The expansion of renewables was smothered by the conservative government at the time. That is the only take-away: Conservatives will fuck your country, if it means they don’t have to make harder choices. They will always choose the path of least resistance, no matter how moronic that path may be. Vote left or see your country be driven into ruin. That is the only valid take-away that came from Germany’s nuclear energy exit.
We both know that Germany isn’t even close going fossil free with or without nuclear.
And as long as the current EU situation benefits Germany, things probably will stay the same. But fit for 55 plus a reformed energy market could lead to quite high German inflation which will boost the populist parties even more. And when they have the majority, if it doesn’t mean more Russian gas, then it probably mean nuclear. And if they don’t get a majority, there is at least no longer a strong Russian actor which can plant anti-nuclear disinformation among the population. At least not as easy as they could before.
Anyway, public opinion can change rather quickly. The anti-nuclear movement is mainly a boomer movement and they are getting old. Prepare for change.
If the anti-nuclear movement will die out with boomers getting old, surely you can explain why in this statistic, younger people are actually preferring the nuclear phase-out whereas the older generations were largely opposing it?
However, regional price disparities persist due to weak transmission links between Sweden’s north – home to its vast hydropower resources – and the more industrialised south.
Blaming Germany for their own inaptitude, as you would expect from far right Morons
(To be fair we have the Same Problem in Germany with NIMBYs and Powerlines)
I mean, at WORST they’re hypocrites making an otherwise excellent point.
At best they’re already aware of and dealing with their own grid problems, meaning that there’s no hypocrisy 🤷
NIMBYs and Powerlines
That’s like half-true. Plenty of NIMBYs who said “bury that shit we’re a vacation spot”, commence companies whining about cost and misrepresenting the position of opponents to deflect blame.
Germany’s planning law does seem to be designed specifically to piss off the maximum amount of people. You need to inform early, before you’ve even decided on e.g. the route, so that you’re aware about conflict points so you can plan around them. Also figures that telling people “we’ve considered these 10 alternatives and don’t see any way around this particular nasty point, sorry” gets you a different reaction than “we’ve considered nothing and are out of alternatives”.
Every Village thinks it’s a wonderful Holiday destination, burying the lines IS costly and inefficient and we pay all for it with interest through the Network Fees.
We have Transmission lines Here too, and it’s still a very liveable Environment.
Yes it’s NIMBYism
Plenty of villages with economies which right-out rely on tourism, and plenty of space around those villages. As said: Many of those conflicts could have been avoided by collecting feedback before deciding on a route.
Also: Would you rather pay more network fees or more for your electricity because insufficient interconnections cause price spikes on the local spot market? Burying a cable is a one-time investment, paying premium prices for electricity is a recurring cost.
All I’m saying is that “Oh those evil NIMBYs” is a cop-out, if you plan and execute things properly you get YIMBYs. A master carpenter doesn’t blame their tools, a master planner doesn’t blame the population.
Bush is a fucktard, but so is the German energy policy.
What if Sweden built transmission between its north and south? Then it wouldn’t have to point fingers against a party the Swedish ruling party doesn’t like.
Edit: Yeah, there might be truth to the pricing scheme, but pointing at nuclear power phaseout is not ok.
So you want Sweden to suboptimize it’s energy grid so that Germany doesn’t have to take responsibility for their own electricity needs? It’s not the solution to this problem.
And, as others are saying: there are other projects in the north of Sweden aiming to use that energy.
No, you are right. I want Europe to have a resilient grid. I assume Germany would even pay for most of the costs of the transmission infrastructure, given that they consume a lot. I think in a mixture of storage and grid expansion, optimising for grid stability is important. Sweden might want to have a plan for dark, dry, coldrums as well.
Had it only been Sweden, as before the eu-directive changed the order of things, the grid would have been more sufficient.
There are no lack of issues in the Swedish grid, but they are compounded by the fact that right now it tries to solve the problem of insufficient grid infrastructure in Norway, Finland and lack of power production and electricity areas in Germany. Last year when the oil power plant had to be fired for 3 days, it was because of insufficiencoes in the polish network…
In fact, by the look of it, the Swedish grid is the only grid in the area that actually works as it says on the can.
There are already planned industrial projects in Northern Sweden that’ll wipe out the surplus. Hence transition lines won’t solve the problem, and neither will variable renewable sources (solar, wind) since the problems arise when it’s cold, dark and windless.
Fact is that Sweden carries its weight and more when it comes to clean electricity generation. We are one of the largest per-capita exporters of electricity, despite the disastrous energy policies of the former left-wing government. Germany has to get their shit together and stop bullying the smaller european economies with their incompetence.
Sweden, unlike Germany, is highly electrified, and vulnerable people are literally being run out of their homes by these power prices.
That’s what’s happening. But it takes time. And it won’t really change anything unless the Swedish and/or the EU energy market or pricing model is reformed.
If the system isn’t changed the demand for Swedish fossil free electricity will just go up in Germany and Denmark, since their energy is much more expensive. Swedish households will pay for lower energy prices in Germany and in Denmark, plus greater margins for private and public Swedish energy producers. And the households only get more expensive energy in return. It’s just a really bad deal for Swedish households at the moment.
The only good thing with the current situation is that Germany uses less fossil fuels and that it might become slightly cheaper to import German goods, because of the larger energy supply.
Sweden needs a better domestic pricing model for sure. One that doesn’t punish households (who has historically voted for responsible energy policies and therfore created a great surplus) so that energy producers can have super high margins.
Also, Germany really needs to get their shit together when it comes to fossil free energy. Not just rely on countries like France and Sweden to solve energy for them. However, German industry will probably be nuked as tariffs enter the world scene, so maybe the demand will go down.
You mean net exporting Energy to France because their shitty Nuclear Plants didn’t Work Last Winter because of Maintenance and Last Summer because it was too hot for them?
Net export does not matter here. What matters is that you have a stable system which does not rely on fossil fuels (which is the case for Germany). Germany has the shittiest energy system in western Europe. Destroying the country and the planet because some weed smoking fucktard had “intuitions” about nuclear.
Yes the French Electric System would have collapsed without German Exports Last year (the French Heat with Electricity). It does matter
It does not matter because the German production, grid and export is completely dependent on coal, gas, and even cheaper imports. And there is no serious plan to get rid of that dependence. Sure, French nuclear was down so they had to import. But that is a consequence of too few reactors. One should have enough nuclear so that one have redundancy for unplanned shutdowns and maintenance. They for sure understood that back in the day. Also, the French exception is German normal. It really isn’t a fair comparison. And that’s pretty much my point.
The new Reactors in France surely produce a Lot of Cheap Energy. Sure the construction alone was only 6x more expensive than planned, but I’m sure it’s still a bargain at 20 Billion Euros
In the UK Hinkley Point C is also a great success with cost overruns amounting to now over 35 Billion Pounds
Why should electricity be treated like a special good in the EU? A major point to the EU is to facilitate trade across national borders. Why is electricity so special?
Why is electricity so special
I’m not sure how to answer your question but my Christmas tree looks fucking spectacular with it
Merry Christmas!
I don’t think there is any should. A bad deal is a bad deal. It’s not like there are ideal markets at play here (or anywhere anytime). What we’re seeing is pretty much a case of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits. With a touch of colonialism.
And then there is the little issue that Germany basically doesn’t give a shit about the climate if you look at their actions. Mostly because of general NIMBY and popular fantasies about how nuclear related physics works, among the general public. Which is annoying.
It depends on who owns the utilities. If the Swedish government owns the utilities, they would be able to offset the economic impacts of tying to the German grid with other ways.
