221–230 of 583 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand it's also (mainly?) because the southern areas pricing is very connected to Danish and German markets.
Maybe someone should sabotage some energy infrastructure on the Baltic seabed to ensure better prices in Sweden…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of batteries is immaterial to anything being discussed here. As you already knew.
From the previous comment: > Batteries will probably be cheaper, The above commenter clearly thinks that batteries are going to provide cheap storage. If you have some alternative plan for storage at the scale of tens of terawatt hours, please do tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be expensive, but it's technically feasible. I'd also expect there's economies of scale involved; building a cable with twice the capacity doesn't cost twice as much; you might even just use the same cable and run it at a higher voltage.
Expensive but technically feasible, plus making Europe at the mercy of unstable regimes across the Mediterranean. That worked just fine with natural gas imports from Russia right?
There is a political risk that the governments of those countries change and they seize the energy-producing assets and sell surplus power to someone other than Europe. Perhaps a mutually-beneficial arrangement would be the best way to reduce the risk of it falling apart; for instance, if Morocco has the solar panels and Switzerland has the pumped-hydro storage facility to buffer out day/night cycles, both sides can trade power to their mutual benefit. Without both parts of the whole system, the other half is less useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the previous comment: > Batteries will probably be cheaper, The above commenter clearly thinks that batteries are going to provide cheap storage. If you have some alternative plan for storage at the scale of tens of terawatt hours, please do tell.
I'd imagine we'll probably continue to store power the same way the vast majority of power is stored now, using pumped hydroelectric storage.
It's great for countries that have it, but you're not going to be storing much hydroelectricity outside of mountainous regions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relying on coal on for 30%+ of their electricity
That's a small part of their sins. The big part is relying on gas for heating. When speaking with germans I've found that they think of gas as "clean" which sounds insane to me. Yeah, maybe locally, compared to coal, but it's their largest co2 emission source nevertheless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the previous comment: > Batteries will probably be cheaper, The above commenter clearly thinks that batteries are going to provide cheap storage. If you have some alternative plan for storage at the scale of tens of terawatt hours, please do tell.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there been, in recent memory, any grid scale generator, or roof-top solar for that matter, that didn't get significant subsidies? The argument should be about whether or not those subsidies would have been better spend elsewhere. I'd probably argue subsidising local wind / solar (plus storage), and local manufacturing of same, would be better, even though I tend to argue nuclear is a reason option some of the tim…
Subsidies for renewables are very reliably seen to drive prices down faster than would have happened without, producing always a very large net gain. Nukes have been heavily subsidized forever, but prices have only ever risen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe someone should sabotage some energy infrastructure on the Baltic seabed to ensure better prices in Sweden…
Sweden isn't exporting electricity for free. The money is there - it just needs to be redistributed from companies to the people.