Under the EU proposal, around 25% of Sweden’s congestion revenues from cross-border electricity trading could be earmarked for EU-backed cross-border energy infrastructure projects instead of being fully controlled by Sweden.
Sweden will put on hold plans for a new power cable to Denmark, Energy Minister Ebba Busch said on Friday, adding that the country disagreed with a European Commission proposal on the use of revenues from electricity congestion charges.
This year Sweden threatened to restrict electricity exports to neighbours unless disagreements with the European Commission over the use of national funds for EU energy projects were resolved.
Sweden exports excess power from its fleet of nuclear, hydropower and renewable energy generators via cable to countries including Denmark, Finland and Germany, for which it expects to charge 130 billion Swedish crowns ($14.11 billion) over the coming decade.
Busch said it wants to able to use the revenue from Swedish congestion charges to build electricity production capacity, but the Commission's current proposal indicated it would have to use the money for the energy grid specifically.
"We are now moving from words to action and will not invest in new cables to continental Europe," she said, calling the Commission proposal "unacceptable".
Congestion revenues arise when grid constraints prevent electricity from flowing to high-demand areas, resulting in substantial earnings for network operators.
Busch said Sweden would pause the Konti-Skan Connect cable between southwestern Sweden and Denmark, which is designed to replace two ageing power cables.
The centre-right government is trying to secure funding for four large-scale nuclear reactors, with installed capacity of around 5,000 MW, or the equivalent in small, modular reactors. Half of those should be onstream by 2035.
376
ntsp003 days ago
+202
I don't understand the problem, wouldn't Sweden need to improve the grid regardless after building new reactors since it's already constrained under current demand? Is it just that they want to build the generators first so they can collect the extra congestion revenues all the while until they eventually have to upgrade the grid? Meanwhile the EU is trying to get rid of the congestion pricing now?
Edit: Thanks for all the comments giving context, Sweden's stance makes a lot more sense now
202
UrDadMyDaddy2 days ago
+381
The conflict has its origins in a fundemental disagreements between Sweden and Denmark/Germany that goes back 20 years . It boils down to Sweden being divided into several bidding zones after being forced by the EU (Denmark brought it to court) while Germany has remained one zone. Germanys own interest in protecting its industry in the south makes Germany disinterested in this prospect.
Meanwhile Swedens interest in protecting its industry and growing green projects in the north (lower prices on electricity there) makes Sweden unwilling to improve upon links internally. It also makes it unwilling to expand externally if it risks continental energy prices in the south of Sweden where 90% of the population live.
381
ntsp002 days ago
+71
Thanks, you and the other commenter have given me a lot to read about
71
[deleted]2 days ago
-27
[removed]
-27
Distinct_Piccolo_6542 days ago
+16
Source for that?
16
ntsp001 day ago
+5
> because they're misappropriating EU money
How so? The article implies Sweden isn't doing anything until the dispute over how the money should be spent is resolved. And to be clear, the article also states it's Sweden national funds that the EU is proposing should be used for the grid.
5
spiderpai23 hr ago
+1
Isn't Germany breaking the law by not implementing the zones?
1
PipsqueakManlet2 days ago
+15
I think the exporting is done at a loss at the moment, making it a very sour point. There have been numerous exploits of this highlighted in recent years, foreign companies taking advantage in legal loopholes to make the Swedish government/municipalities taking a loss to export power.
15
IdiotRhurbarb1 day ago
+6
And we the Swedish citizens pay exorbitant energy prices during periods when energy exports are high
6
UppsalaHenrik2 days ago
+39
"The grid" here is not the Swedish grid, it is only the European grid for transfer between countries.
39
ntsp002 days ago
+9
Thank you
9
Ran42 days ago
+132
The point is to not be dependant on others so the price does not skyrocket again. Sweden is getting fucked by Germany all the time.
132
ntsp002 days ago
+30
There seems to be a lot of history there, is Sweden required to sell to partner countries? How can it be dependent on others for energy but also have enough to sell? Sorry if these are basic questions, how inner EU politics work is interesting to me as a nosey American.
30
ArtificialPandaBomb2 days ago
+164
As I've had it explained to me, Sweden has a surplus of energy, Germany a deficit. Sweden is divided into several energy price zones, each with their own supply & demand. The zone furthest north has the largest surplus of energy and thus the cheapest price, and the opposite is true for the southern most zone.
The southern most zone is connected with Germany, which only has one zone for the entire country. This means that the german deficit aggressively raises the price on energy for southern Sweden. However, when the transfer capacity hits its limit, the two zones are disconnected price wise, meaning southern Sweden no longer has prices affected by german consumers.
Thus, increasing the capacity will make german prices more common in southern Sweden.
164
ntsp002 days ago
+23
Thanks, you and the other commenter have given me a lot to read about
23
Intrepid_Walk_51502 days ago
+21
Took me a while but I finally got it...
21
goldrunout2 days ago
+2
Would it be unthinkable to force Swedish operators to sell at different prices to Germany and Southern Sweden?
2
Odd_Ad_94432 days ago
+36
Yes, it is against the rules of EU. You cannot discriminate other EU states when you sell goods
36
JohnRoads882 days ago
+14
Unless it is not possible to sell to them. Like in this case where the connection is at its limits.
14
goldrunout2 days ago
+6
So instead of improving infrastructure, we intentionally limit it to protect prices. Is the invisible hand of the free market working as intended?
6
DasGutYa2 days ago
+5
Obviously not. But the EU ruling does also take this away from being free market lunacy and makes it more legislated idiocy.
As always, the answer is that no EU country is on an equal footing and legislating as if they are is pure madness.
5
spiderpai23 hr ago
+2
I mean what about the invisible hand of the market been doing in Germany all this time since shutting down their own infrastructure and letting other countries have the risk of nuclear power plants. Not fair.
2
progrethth2 days ago
+4
Which incentives to not build cables to Germany and Denmark and instead we consider cutting the existing ones.
4
JohnRoads882 days ago
+7
Yes. Or Germany could simply split into different price areas. Germany have one price area, Denmark have two, Sweden have four and Norway have five.
7
Sakiri19552 days ago
-9
My energy price in the morth tripled after ringhals decommissioned so im calling bullshit on some of it.
-9
YuusukeKlein2 days ago
+10
Ringhals doesn’t provide energy to the north of Sweden, that would be insanely inefficient.
10
Sakiri195515 hr ago
+1
No, it doesn't, but they decided it was unfair our electricity was c****.
1
Ranborn2 days ago
-11
Germany does not have a deficit in energy production, but due to using more expensive means of production like gas and coal frequently imports cheaper reneweable (mostly water) power from scandivia. (Hopefully) this problem will fade away as more and more renewables and battery storage comes online in Germany. Current electricity price developments already point in that direction judging how gas prices spiked while electricity did not, even going down seasonally. Compared to a country like Italy which is using much more gas and has seen rising electricity costs.
-11
YuusukeKlein2 days ago
+15
This has been ongoing for 25 years and have just gotten worse and worse. ”Hopefully” ended about 10 years ago for Sweden and now withholding to Germany is the only move left for them to stop Acting like they’re above the EU legislation they force on other member countries.
15
adamtheskill2 days ago
+34
Sweden produces more than enough energy for it's own needs. It does not produce enough energy to consistently supply itself and max out the transmission capacity to denmark/germany. Germany has done a bad job handling it's own energy situation and has become reliant on surrounding countries for electricity which means they are willing to do a lot on an EU level to make sure France and Sweden don't restrict electricity exports. Swedish consumers are harmed from this because Sweden's electricity prices were really c**** historically but now southern Sweden competes against Germany significantly increasing prices.
Doesn't feel fair to most swedes because we don't think we should be punished for Germany's questionable energy policies in the last couple decades. If Germany didn't shut down their nuclear power or tried to find alternatives to Russian gas after the 2014 invasion of Krim everything would be fine but now their entire energy sector is fucked which obviously affects countrues around them.
34
Groogy2 days ago
+43
Not dependent on others for energy needs but as the energy gets exported the price rise for us living in Sweden which needless to say, is very unpopular. So the government wants the funds to build up more capacity to get domestic prices down, and it's election year...
43
ntsp002 days ago
+6
Makes sense, thanks for the answer 👍
6
Skaeggbasen2 days ago
+61
Sweden used to restrict exports during high load (winter). Denmark sued and got EU to essentially force Sweden to export. This in turn makes electricity ridiculous expensive in southern Sweden while in northern it is almost free.
Sweden together with Norway also gets fucked over by being divided in multiple electricity markets, this also makes Sweden generate a lot of so called congestion charges, way more than they can invest in their grid. So far about 8 billion € are saved up compared to the 250 million € that were invested in their grid last year. EU now wants to take 25% and invest into continental Europe grid in a massive wealth transfer that yet again punishes Swedish energy consumers.
Swedish politicians obviously are not to keen on this idea as the setup already is quite unfavorable for Sweden. So now they are blocking any new cables to continental Europe. This one is actually the second one in a short time as they decided to not invest in a new subsea cable to Germany last year.
61
UrDadMyDaddy2 days ago
+19
Sweden is not dependent on others for energy. Nuclear/hydro and wind supply the nation with more than enough energy.
19
Big-Wrangler20782 days ago
+1
Then why are our electricity prices at a historical high?
In the winters, when we need electricity for heating, people have lost thousands of euros just to keep the pipes from freezing. Every winter we get news reports about companies that can not stay alive due to energy costs. How is this 'more than enough energy'?
1
repocin2 days ago
+12
>Then why are our electricity prices at a historical high?
Because the EU forces us to sell electricity to Germany, who had the brilliant idea to shut down all their nuclear in favor or burning low-quality coal after Angela Merkel got spooked by the Fukushima disaster, while also having a single power zone for the entire country.
And that brings us back to why they refused to have the new cable built. Because it would just f*** over Swedish electricity pricing even more, while Germany keeps burning coal like there's no tomorrow.
12
dronten_bertil1 day ago
+3
The high prices is due to the interconnectors to other countries with higher prices. Due to the marginal pricing model, the most expensive power production sets the price. Both electricity flows and the pricing model is massively complex, but you can basically boil it down to this:
When Swedish production is higher than we can supply through the international interconnectors we have surplus production that Germany, Denmark and Poland et al. cannot bid on (because we can't transfer it). This basically causes a protective price bubble where the c**** Swedish electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind) gets locked to Sweden. As soon as we don't max out the interconnectors the prices in these countries spill into SE3 and SE4.
10 years ago it was the norm that we capped the interconnector capacity and we had a a rather consistent "price shield" towards the European continent and consistent prices across our 4 price zones. Then we foolishly decommissioned 4 nuclear reactors prematurely for political reasons, and we've since built more interconnectors due to the old goal of 100% renewable grid. You can see it quite clearly in the pricing charts. The oscarshamn decomissions didn't affect it too much, but Ringhals 1 and Ringhals 2 each opened the floodgates more: https://ibb.co/7Cf13B7
(NB: the end of that chart is the start of the Ukraine war price hike. The massive price increase is heavily exacerbated by that. The point of the graph is to show that pre reactor closures Swedish price was consistent in all price zones, and the reactor closures connected SE3 and SE4 to continental prices. It just happened to coincide with the energy crisis. Had we not decommissioned our reactors we would have enjoyed a much higher degree of protection from the gas crisis price crisis).
The only time we obtain this price shield now is when wind power is in very high production mode, which is when it matters the least since wind power North of the Alps has high correlation in production patterns. When Swedish wind power is churning out loads of power, typically Germany and Denmark does as well and prices drop anyway.
It's also worth noting that SE4 has a huge power deficit and is import dependent, mostly domestic import but SE4 needs international imports in short periods most years. So even if Sweden on a yearly basis has massive overproduction we're still import dependant at times.
3
arthurno12 days ago
+6
We are not dependent on them, it is the other way around. That is why they don't want to build that link, so we don't have to export as much as they would like to them.
6
Personal_Breakfast492 days ago
+16
France would like a word about getting fcked by Germany about electricity...
16
mutantraniE2 days ago
+51
France and Sweden are by far the largest electricity exporters in Europe, France is number one (and Sweden number 2) by pure GWh exported while Sweden is number 1 (and France number 2) by percentage of electricity exported. And we’re both being forced to prop up a Germany that decided to get rid of its nuclear power without enough completed alternative power generation and still hasn’t fixed this problem and remains the second largest power importer (after Italy) in the EU.
51
adamtheskill2 days ago
+7
I'm a fan of nuclear power and I don't think they made a good choice shutting them down but I can understand that it was a political decision. What I don't understand is why Germany decided that being entirely reliant on russian energy was a good idea after the 2014 invasion of Crimea. Like at that point I feel like they should have started ensuring they had other reliable ways to supply their energy needs but nope they just said f*** it.
7
Open-Outcome-66022 hr ago
+3
Yup. And also, it’s fine if they make political decisions, but then they have to be the ones to suffer the consequences. If I decide to burn up my house tomorrow… guess what? I’ll have to live with the consequences of my own actions. I can’t all of a sudden go to my neighbors and make demands that they should be giving me a roof over my head because I suddenly burned mine!
3
NorseShieldmaiden1 day ago
+1
I thought Norway was up there as well?
1
mutantraniE21 hr ago
+1
Norway is the number three exporter in pure GWh, number four in percentage of power generated.
1
NorseShieldmaiden21 hr ago
+1
So pissing off Sweden and Norway in one go is a pretty bad idea?
1
mutantraniE21 hr ago
+1
It’s certainly not smart.
1
NorseShieldmaiden1 day ago
+1
So is Norway. Our only competitive advantage was c**** electricity for our industry. Then Germany decides to base their power needs on Russian, and closes their power plants, and suddenly they can’t buy from Russia anyway so they need our electricity. The result is electricity prices in Norway sky rocket and the EU makes demands on us that we should destroy even more of our nature to satisfy German needs. In large periods of time power Isaac cheaper in Germany than in Norway.
The only place where power is still c**** in Norway is in the North. We sell some to Sweden and if they’d opened up to sell it on to Europe, prices would have gone up in the north of Norway as well.
I’m all for helping Europe get rid of coal based electricity and changing to renewable energy, but the EU and Germany can’t treat us like the way they’ve been treated us lately.
1
SelfPsychological2142 days ago
+12
If we build new NPPs at the same locations as current and decommissioned NPPs, we basically wouldn't need to improve the grid at all as the grid is already built to receive large amounts of power from those locations specifically. This was done decades ago when Sweden built our first NPPs. The grid was built around hydropower from the north and nuclear in the south, which is why the decommissioning of reactors was so incredibly stupid and has caused problems. Luckily we haven't closed down all of them like Germany.
12
aitorbk2 days ago
+38
If you are sovereign fmyou decide what to do. If another government decides for you, you aren't sovereign. This.is what I think they find unacceptable.
38
ThrowFar_Far_Away2 days ago
+50
No the problem is that they want to take 25% of bottleneck taxes out of the country and use it to build infrastructure in other countries. Sweden has split the country in multiple zones at EUs behest, and between these parts there is a tax. EU wants to take this money and use it on countries that have ignored their own infrastructure. Essentially punishing Sweden for having their shit together. Germany for example just straight out refuses to split their country into zones and have neglected their infrastructure leading to Swedes having to pay much higher electricity prices and now also have to fund building infrastructure in Germany which will make the price Swedes pay even higher.
50
LordOfDorkness422 days ago
+21
>Essentially punishing Sweden for having their shit together.
Speaking as a Swede, yeah, this is one of THE sticking points.
Togetherness is good. Preparedness is great. Green energy is awesome.
Being forced by big brother to lend your fancy fire fighting equipment for the neighbors that keep smoking in bed after a day in the turpentine factory is *infuriating.* And that's before they somehow get to charge rent to *you* for not having fire trucks and extinguishers, despite having had those troubles with waking up on fire for years and years.
Also, Germany especially are basically ass-clowns themselves about the state of their energy grid that's long since needed top-down reform. That grid is such an infamous mess of exploitation, bad infrastructure and frankly corruption, that there's a freakin' board game satirizing it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power\_Grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Grid)
The Germans even made that board game themselves! Twenty-two years ago!
21
NomineAbAstris2 days ago
+29
Membership in the EU involves an [explicit agreement to delegate certain state functions](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/division-of-competences-within-the-european-union.html) partially or completely to the EU; most prominently customs and trade policy are completely under EU control and individual states have to play ball (though of course they are ultimately the ones creating the strategic direction of this policy). Energy policy is what is known as a "shared" competence, meaning basically "the EU controls some things and members control others", but admittedly this is way outside my wheelhouse so I have no clue about specifics or how it works in this particular dispute.
29
Capable_Kiwi25142 days ago
+2
That's wrong.
Sovereign states can delegate responsibilities to third-party entities. Sovereignty in this context merely requires the ability of the state to sever the agreement that creates that delegation.
The WTO system involves counties states ceding their ability to judge trade disputes to a third-party panel, for example.
2
trisanachandler2 days ago
+6
Well that's the issue with the EU. Are they like the states of the US, or like countries in the UN? It's not always clear.
6
Sotwob2 days ago
+5
They're more like US states 200 years ago, before centuries of increasing federal power.
5
BinaryDecimal2 days ago
+1
Lukewarm take: they're a collection of constituent polities, each with a considerable degree of autonomy, much like the Holy Roman Empire.
1
onespiker2 days ago
+5
The eu fund would be to improve eu grids not the Swedish spefically.
5
gammalsvenska2 days ago
+13
The EU funding would definitely _not_ benefit the Swedish grid because it is in better shape. Hence the Swedish objection.
13
onespiker2 days ago
+3
I know.
3
Ogge891 day ago
+2
Sweden already has some power plant style grid connection in southern Sweden where the old closed reactors where so you dont have to create a complete new grid for new power plants. Germanys solution does require basically a complete new grid.
2
anonteje3 days ago
+562
Honestly f german energy politics. They are screwing all of Europe over based on their utter incompetence.
562
helgetun2 days ago
+174
This has been true about Germany all through the 2000s. The 2008 Euro crisis was due to Deutchebank, not Greece, Ireland etc. but the Germans cant f****** accept they now suck and resort to stereotypes and threats/bully tackling due to their size to get their way. EU wont survive unless Germany changes
174
idonteven932 days ago
+77
As a German I just wanna say: Young people - and frankly a lot of middle aged millennials - understand this issue. We know the solutions as well. But our country is 70% old people and retirees vote CDU and SPD - so nothing will ever change as long as those are all still alive.
The current CDU/SPD government is great at only one thing and that is pretending to do anything. We’re getting choked even harder in the middle class, health care is declining, they’re reneging on the comittments towards green sources that our last government pushed… Honestly I’m not surprised that - I think - half of us want to leave the country.
Nothing will change as long as the retirees control who is in government.
77
vide22 days ago
+34
Sadly, that's not entirely true. It's not 70% old people. It's rather 40%. But there are very many rural areas that is still vote conservatives with a logic of "what the peasant doesn't know he won't eat.". Or literal nazis.
34
NoResponsibility70312 days ago
+17
I hear you. Trying to compromise with older Germans is like trying to talk sense into maga Americans. You younger generation Germans are much easier to actually cooperate with. It's not that we (Swedes) don't want to sell energy, but we don't want to get fucked over by German internal politics.
17
idonteven931 day ago
+7
Completely understand where you’re coming from tho. Our government basically didn’t give a f*** about any other EU country for the last 30 years.
7
NoResponsibility70311 day ago
+2
Indeed. Negotiating with Germany (and older Germans) is like talking to a wall. Very much "my way or nothing".
2
Educational-Ant-51722 days ago
+2
That's strange to hear. People from my country run away TO Germany and you're saying young people want to leave. If middle easterners want to go to Germany then where do Germans want to go?
2
horselover_fat2 days ago
+58
Most of the EU problems can be traced back to Germany trying to protect their declining industrial base.
58
SyriseUnseen2 days ago
-7
And most of the EUs wealth can also be traced back to said industrial base.
-7
helgetun2 days ago
+14
Thats the German rewriting of history that completely ignores the historical industries of Italy and France from Fiat to Airbus, not to mention the Belgian pharmaceuticals, Swedish steel, Danish and Norwegian fish/oil, and so on. Germans tend to rewrite history to their linking
14
pjc502 days ago
+4
The Euro crisis was ultimately kicked off in America, but Ireland had a massive fraud problem in AIB.
German obsession with fiscal discipline is very bad, though.
4
helgetun2 days ago
+7
Deutchebank was very central to the crisis in America too, its how it went bust and needed massive bailouts. We somehow chose to ignore the German bank’s irresponsibility and instead blame what they named the PIIGS
7
Snobben902 days ago
+117
As far as I know as a swede.
We build the cable, we export more power to europe, we raise our own price in the country and 25% of what we sell goes to EUs pocket for power?
How about no and the other EU countries F****** BUILD POWERPLANTS INSTEAD?
117
IntenselySwedish2 days ago
+21
For what its worth, were building/commissioning small nuclear power plants now, and they should give us enough energy to negate the forced offset to Germany. But were def gonna have to renegotiate that energy deal with the EU at some point. Were getting shafted.
21
wasmic2 days ago
+15
Correction: Swedish people are getting shafted. Swedish energy companies are rolling in money.
15
quarter_cask3 days ago
+757
German stupid anti-nuclear sentiment with zero reason beyond populistic politics after Fukushima is source of 70% eu energy issues since...
757
mr_jigglypuff3 days ago
+373
Don't forget their total refusal to adopt energy regions making swedes pay for the Rhine valley's horrible energy infrastructure.
373
minimalniemand2 days ago
+104
This is the actual problem, not nuclear. The latter provided a measly 6% of electricity the years before the final showdown.
104
Accurate_Package2 days ago
+41
After they closed most of it already, which of course is obvious. They could’ve been coal free by now. But no, “nuclear power has to go”, to then end up buying nuclear power from France, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Czechia, Netherlands… They don’t seem to have any moral objections to that, bunch of NIMBYs.
41
minimalniemand2 days ago
+1
The switch to coal is a moot point. But Germany at least has it themselves instead of having to import it. The plants are there and it was always meant as a transitional solution.
If you look at the European electricity market you will find that Germany was a net exporter of electricity until 2024 while the last reactors were turned off in 2023.
Cross border electricity supply is simply the European market working as designed. Nobody complains when they buy c**** wind and solar from Germany. 🫂
1
adamtheskill2 days ago
+10
>Nobody complains when they buy c**** wind and solar from Germany
Actually we definitely do. Some of the largest political parties in sweden have turned against wind power largely because of intermittent imports causing issues. For Germany the intermittency problems are definitely worth it because they're in acute need of energy but Sweden already had enough energy and a stable grid. A slow implementation of wind power and finding affordable solutions to intermittency would have been far better for sweden.
10
PalpitationSingle4893 days ago
+114
They shut down nuclear reactors, and now want cables to Sweden to get power from our current, and hopefully soon built future nuclear reactors, we don't have many reactors running since we also has shut down reactors based on politics since Tjernobyl.
114
Nunuman13 days ago
+54
It was crazy dumb.
Like there are arguments against building a new nuclear plant.
But damm there are zero good arguments for closing down an already functioning plant.
54
fignew2 days ago
+6
What about the argument that the plant is end of life?
6
Nunuman12 days ago
+31
A phased out shutdown makes sense of course.
31
I_Push_Buttonz2 days ago
+3
> What about the argument that the plant is end of life?
The final three reactors they decommissioned in 2023 had their then currently operational reactors brought online between 1988 and 1989 with minimum 40-year service lives.
3
fignew2 days ago
-3
Why do you think they were the *final* three? Should they have shut down the newest first? Are you really this gullible? Do you know how badly nuclear waste is stored in Germany? (Granted, there’s lots of medical waste)
-3
I_Push_Buttonz2 days ago
+8
> Why do you think they were the final three? Should they have shut down the newest first? Are you really this gullible?
You were the one that just argued they were end of life.
> Do you know how badly nuclear waste is stored in Germany?
I thought they were shut down because they were end of life? Now its because of nuclear waste? Where will you move the goalpost to next?
8
GoldenMew1 day ago
+3
And the waste from your coal power is stored in the atmosphere, do you think that's better?
3
qtx2 days ago
+19
> German stupid anti-nuclear sentiment with zero reason beyond populistic politics after Fukushima is source of 70% eu energy issues since...
You lot are too young to remember but this is what the German population wanted. They held huge protests in the 80s to stop all nuclear power. The government listened to its people and stopped the nuclear program.
All this whitewashing of facts is starting to get annoying. The government did what it's population wanted, that's democracy.
You guys think that Fukushima is the reason behind everything. Fukushima only happened like 15 years ago.
19
NorseShieldmaiden1 day ago
+1
But then Germany should have built an alternative and not based everything on us coming to save you. Why should we ruin even more of our nature, and suffer high energy prices, when you haven’t done anything to produce energy yourselves?
1
Propellerrakete3 days ago
+13
How, if nuclear never even supplied 20% of Germany's energy demand?
13
dragon_irl2 days ago
+10
Germanys electricity system went from a country of very steadily priced coal and nuclear power to one of the most variable renewable dominated systems worldwide with crazy price swings (i.e. easter weekend: -500Eur/Mwh to +300Eur/Mwh in a few hours).
Neighbouring countries are pissed that they get exposed to this too due to electricity trading. They don't want to end up with the same fucked up and very expensive electricity market, especially when they don't even have a political say in it.
Germany somehow has both prohibitively high prices for consumers and industry despite putting in an additional insane 30B a year in generator subsidies paid by taxes. Neighbors don't want to catch that.
10
_CZakalwe_3 days ago
+46
Marginal pricing of kWh. Those missing 20% are driving up prices.
46
Propellerrakete2 days ago
+4
I mean why this would cause 70% of EU energy issues. I don't get how that would impact most of European energy issues if it never even provided for half of Germany's energy demand.
4
UnitSmall22003 days ago
-36
no they are not. the price has nothing to do with the shut down of the nuclear reactors. nuclear energy is the most expensive energy only worthwhile with heavy government subsidies.
-36
MagicalSkyMan2 days ago
+22
WTF? You serious?
Losing capacity has a huge impact on prices. Why would it not?
Also, old nuclear is not anywhere the most expensive energy. Where did you even get that idea?
22
PoopSockMonster2 days ago
-1
The Prices are dictated by the gas peaker plants for variable load not the missing capacity. Germany has enough energy capacity via the coal plants, but burning coal is not good so they import if they can.
-1
MagicalSkyMan2 days ago
+3
Those peaker plants would have way less production if nuclear was still around. How do you not understand this?
3
minimalniemand2 days ago
-20
But it is. Where do YOU get that idea. Oh I know, you take the price AFTER subsidies
-20
MagicalSkyMan2 days ago
+1
My country doesn't have subsidies and old nuclear makes electricity under 20 €/MWh.
1
Euneek2 days ago
+5
New nuclear is the most expensive. Existing nuclear plants are among the cheapest forms of marginal energy.
And yes...price is, in fact, affected by a drastic decrease in supply.
This was truly an all-time dumb comment.
5
Pitiful-Bet60592 days ago
+9
What do you mean? This is a sunk cost fallacy. The nuclear plants were already built so the capex only increased by dismantling them.
9
prs12 days ago
+1
I guess because coal and natural gas also need to be phased out.
1
oviforconnsmythe2 days ago
+3
Can I ask an honest question? I'm from Alberta where (fossil fuel based) energy is quite c**** and plentiful relative to most of the world. I've never once experienced a situation where the energy grid is in crisis mode and I had to limit my electricity usage. But I recently moved to the south of France where energy is expensive af and has more restrictions (e.g. If I understand correctly, there's a national mandate restricting how much you heat up/cool down your room). While I haven't experienced it yet (and honestly dread), I've heard theres more severe restrictions implemented and or grid crisises during the hot summers.
I've read that nuclear energy powers ~75% of Frances energy demands. I'm 100% in favor of nuclear energy but if this is true, what is the bottleneck here? Do the demands just outweigh the supply? Is it infrastructure? Or am I just misinformed across the board?
3
oberwolfach2 days ago
+18
France generates more electricity than it needs and in most years is the biggest net electricity exporter worldwide. High costs come from being connected to the rest of Europe (so natural gas, for which Europe has to import LNG, is often the marginal fuel) and from high taxes. The regulations on usage are because most of Europe, and France in particular, has far more meddlesome and paternalistic government than Alberta does.
18
vide22 days ago
+3
If nuclear was the solution, france would have solved energy long ago.
3
progrethth2 days ago
+6
They would have if they had not been forced by the EU to export to Italy and Germany.
6
vide22 days ago
What's the logic behind this? If nuclear was the solution, France could just build more and sustain europe with nuclear. Yet, they don't. And they exported to germany, when their demand was low, not when germany demand was high.
0
tobiaspwn3221 day ago
+4
tell me how you plan to get elected as a politician if you run with the promise of building more nuclear reactors even though you produce more than your country needs.
Nobody wants to spend money to cover for germany failing to maintain basic infrastructural needs.
4
vide21 day ago
-1
"hey, we can sell nuclear to Germany and Poland. Our air will be better and we make money."
If nuclear would be as good as you claim, that would be the easiest campaign ever.
-1
minimalniemand2 days ago
-30
Simply wrong. All of it.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity. It’s the highest subsidized form of energy. It provided merely 6% of Germans electricity. The reactors where EOL and building new ones costs billions and takes decades, after which the kWh will be way to expensive without crazy subsidies.
Lack of price regions and power links south are the main problem.
-30
Qules_LP2 days ago
+20
It was still idiotic to shut down the already running power plants.
20
minimalniemand2 days ago
-10
Do you understand what EOL means?
-10
Qules_LP2 days ago
+13
Yes, end-of-life. Still, many countries were able to prolong the life of their power plants. Additionally, let us say nuclear power needed to go, the smart thing to do would have been to invest in other renewable sources of energy; but alas no, the government didn't achieve it fast enough, needing to again use coal, destroying many towns. Germany right now regrets their decision.
13
GlitteringAd212 days ago
+75
Swedish people won’t suffer to lower german prices is the gist.
75
Major-Investigator262 days ago
+48
This is exactly the reason why Norway will never join the EU. They already tried this with Norway as well and even suggested doing the same with our oil and gas. Its rediculous and Norway should have never adopted the EU's (Germany's) energy packages as it has risen our energy costs in the south as well, due to stupid decisions to close down nuclear and underfunding of the German grid.
48
Due-Sentence-12192 days ago
+12
We swedes should really opt out and try to build a grid with serious nation like Norway and Finland (hopefully they would see the benefits that we do)
12
IntenselySwedish2 days ago
+10
Opt out of the energy deal or the EU?
The EU is a net positive for Sweden. We should renegotiate this terrible trade deal, though.
10
34BoringT_1 day ago
+2
Well, the EU is defo positive for Sweden, so opting fully out would not be smart. Look at the UK, didn't work out there. It's just energy. Norway is already connected to the EU with energy, so we need to build out more because Germany is screwing our prices over
2
NorseShieldmaiden1 day ago
I think it was sad that Denmark joined the EU. We should have made a Nordic union instead.
I’m positive to a lot of things in the EU, but EU treating the Nordic countries like a piggy bank makes me happy that one of the countries I’m a citizen of—Norway—will never join.
0
gammalsvenska2 days ago
+5
There's also the minor issue of whaling. Norways refuses to ban it, the EU has.
And the fact that the Norwegian sourvereign wealth fund is managed in a way incompatible with EU regulations.
So even if they wanted to join, they can't. Which, given the second reason, is probably better for them.
5
Forward-Hunt-20392 days ago
+18
I can confidently say that whaling will never in a million years have any effect on whether Norway wants to join EU or not.
There are barely 10 boats still operating and 99% of the population couldn't care less.
People care a lot more about stuff like the energy cable to EU skyrocketing our own prices for no good reason, despite the promises that wouldn't happen.
18
gammalsvenska2 days ago
+3
That's why I called it a minor issue. Nonetheless, it is a _blocking_ issue. The EU won't give in, Norway has to.
3
Major-Investigator262 days ago
+4
As stated by someone else, theres less than 10 boats still operating and theres strict quotas and only one species hunted that isnt endangered at all. Its a non issue.
How is it managed in a way thats incompatible with the EU? Is it because the EU politicians cant get their dirty fingers in it? It seems to be just fine as soon as the EU needs some quick cash🤷
The EU is literally begging us to join lmao. Theyll roll over.
4
kinisonkhan2 days ago
+60
So because Germany relies on oil/gas for most of its power production, nations with a lot of nuclear power like Sweden export more and more power to Germany, which creates a higher demand for power driving up the cost for Swedish citizens. The Ukraine/Russian war only made it worse.
60
Hyadeos2 days ago
+18
Same for France. We are the biggest power exporter in the EU and the liberal energy market completely fucked us. We had to "privatise" a bit of our energy sector, which only fucks our national company EDF and our local prices are super high because of Germany.
18
sf-keto2 days ago
+10
The Swedish energy companies make tons of money though. But instead of hoarding the cash, they should invest & expand energy sources to benefit Sweden overall.
10
adamtheskill2 days ago
+6
I mean they do but a lot of the money has to be spent on energy transmission to supply ever increasing amounts of power from north of sweden southwards since there's an ever increasing transmission capacity between sweden and germany. Also has to be built the other direction for the situations when german wind power is overproducing causing an oversupply of electricity in south sweden. Yet another issue caused by german energy politics.
6
captainmycaptn2 days ago
+2
That would risk lowering prices
2
sf-keto2 days ago
+1
And by encouraging productive energy use, make even more money in the future.
When useful stuff gets cheaper, people buy & use more, right? Investments in green renewable energy lower costs, spur demand & improve the economy.
1
spicygayunicorn1 day ago
Energy production isn't even the issue in Sweden we just need to increase the power transfer from the north to the south if would lower prices alotn
0
OSRS_Garmr2 days ago
+22
The EUs energy policy has failed. There's no two ways about it. Countries that has sacrificed theirs rivers and country sides to build hydropower and wind farms, has to pay the price for other countries stupidity.
22
IWasNotMeISwear2 days ago
+10
Ill tell you a little secret Sweden can ignore the EU and nothing will happen.
10
_larsr1 day ago
+6
So nice to have some news that not in any way involves the United States.
6
Hipcatjack1 day ago
-1
go to [r/anime](r/animetitties)[\_](r/animetitties)[titties](r/animetitties)
(the name once upon a time was used to filter bots and shills from being able to go to it (NSFW and all that) but it is a news aggregate of non-american and non-chinese news from around the world.
-1
AcatnamedHamilton1 day ago
+3
Of all the times the EU could fight over energy like this.
3
alxmolin1 day ago
+2
It is time for our useless Swedish politicians to understand the fact that a deal is a deal. Until it’s not. To force Swedes to pay such high price on electricity that the government must step in and retroactively give money back to its citizens after a period of very high prices is not sustainable. And this is now obvious for everyone. Making Swedes pay for the useless infrastructure south of us is not reasonable. For the government it’s a double edged sword since it gets good revenue from exporting electricity. But this will come to an end, one way or another. It must.
2
Hyperwerk1 day ago
+2
They’re following Norway’s lead. We built new cables to export power to England and Germany (via Denmark). After Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, our local electricity prices soared. No thanks. The EU can fix their own shit, without us paying for it. The Scandinavian power market was working quite well before.
2
TauCabalander2 days ago
+2
Seems like: someone gets more money for a bad grid, so improving the grid would remove that money, so instead they want that money to go towards improving the grid ... but there is some EU rule against such a move?
It doesn't seem advantageous to pay more unless more power is received as a result.
2
Gazer751 day ago
+2
How these congestion revenues are used is regulated. All grid operation is regulated.
Because some countries like Sweden and Norway have several price regions the [TSO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_system_operator)s get internal revenues from flow across these boundaries.
The TSOs and [DSO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_network_operator)s are required by law to provide electricity to consumers. If they can't due to capacity constraints they have to build more. If they don't they get penalized when their income limits are calculated.
2
VelchroHeart14 hr ago
+1
That sounds kinda stressful, hope they figure it out soon! (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ
1
greihund3 days ago
-166
Okay. So Europe is in an energy crunch because they are industrialized and import most of their energy from non-EU countries. Now Russia is being a bloodthirsty little b**** and Hormuz is effectively closed, so energy from those places doesn't work. Sweden has a lot of green energy that they sell into the EU, but whenever there's a bottleneck on the grid their energy producers charge whatever they want, basically holding people hostage. The EU has said "okay, we'll pay your billions, but the money has to go to fixing the grid," and Sweden is saying "no, we like it like this, we're going to spend the money to create even more power that gets bottlenecked so we can charge whatever we want," which makes the problem worse.
Sweden's being a little shit.
-166
UppsalaHenrik3 days ago
+124
Lol, that's a very uninformed take. The money is earmarked for more transfer, not for more production, which means even higher exports from Sweden to Germany (mainly). Germany refuses to invest in production and just wants to buy from Sweden. And they buy Sweden's electricity at artificially reduced prices by bullying the EU into letting Germany remain a single electricity market. By contrast EU has forced Sweden to divide into four separate electricity markets.
Germany is basically the sole source of the problem, and as usual they are cheating their way to lowering their own costs.
124
Caspica2 days ago
+9
Congratulations on having the least informed comment of the thread!
9
fevered_visions2 days ago
+8
> Sweden has a lot of green energy that they sell into the EU, but whenever there's a bottleneck on the grid their energy producers charge whatever they want, basically holding people hostage. The EU has said "okay, we'll pay your billions, but the money has to go to fixing the grid," and Sweden is saying "no, we like it like this, we're going to spend the money to create even more power that gets bottlenecked so we can charge whatever we want," which makes the problem worse.
Even assuming all this is true, couldn't you also fix the problem by having the EU stop buying energy from Sweden, producing it themselves instead? It takes two people to dance.
8
gammalsvenska2 days ago
+7
Germany refuses to fix their side of the problem. Not enough production, not enough transfer capacity, inability to improve.
7
TheThebanProphet3 days ago
+47
europe is free to take those billions and instead of giving it to sweden they can build their own nuclear plants to make energy available and affordable. i dont think dictating to a nation what they can spend money on makes them a little shit - certainly a take of all time
47
tentimes52 days ago
+5
The fees are mandated by eu, the rules on pricing are mandated by eu, the prices get insanely high in Sweden due to rules mandated by eu. The only one profiting from this is power companies and Germany that doesn't have to fix their problems and gets c**** energy for their industry. Some of these rules Germany forced on us through the eu Germany refuses to implement in their own country like pricing zones. If they did the price effects in Sweden would lessen.
Pretty much everything in your comment is wrong.
5
PalpitationSingle4893 days ago
+13
Well, considering we are running oil based power plants when it’s cold I wouldn’t say we ( Sweden) have a lot of green energy to spare, and we have been close to needing rolling blackouts a couple of times.
13
onespiker2 days ago
+2
We do have quite a bit in all other part of the season. Winter spefically is quite bad for our green energy production plus the massive energy demands for heating.
2
greihund3 days ago
-2
My understanding was that you sold roughly 20% of your power generation to the EU. And about 'close' to rolling blackouts... have you actually had any rolling blackouts, or is that just "we were using most of our capacity"?
-2
PalpitationSingle4893 days ago
+17
We never got to the point that we needed rolling blackouts, but the main reason for that was that the prices for electricity got so high a lot of people simply couldn't afford to keep their houses warm, and companies shut down for periods to.
During some months I had 14c in my house and the power bills was still 5-600% higher than previous years.
Edit: I'd say that when we had to start up oil power plants, that's when we "ran out of capacity", so I guess we do that several times each winter now.
17
Emikzen3 days ago
+18
We haven't had rolling blackouts, because we invest a lot into our infrastructure. We sure as hell don't want to start because Germany can't sort their shit out.
18
Mayor__Defacto3 days ago
-1
Essentially the argument boils down to, if Sweden can’t use this money to shore up its own supply, then the prices of electricity truly do unify, and they don’t want that. The EU (well, Germany specifically) wants everyone paying the same price for electricity, and Sweden wants to preserve the competitive advantages it has.
-1
UppsalaHenrik2 days ago
+14
Sweden was forced to divide into four price zones while Germany just cruises along as a single zone. Germany wants everyone in Germany to pay the same.
14
ntsp002 days ago
-4
Is the competitive advantage you're referring to the fact they have the energy to sell and keeping the grid connection limited allows them to charge a premium? So Sweden wants to use that money to generate more energy for its people (and therefore have more to sell at a premium), but other countries in the EU want the connection upgraded so the premium prices will decrease?
I'm not educated enough to have an opinion, just trying to learn more. One other question, what do you mean Germany specifically? I only ask because the article named Denmark.
-4
Mayor__Defacto2 days ago
+2
The competitive advantage is c**** electricity.
2
IdiotRhurbarb1 day ago
+1
Holy shit you got almost everything wrong. It’s honestly impressive
1
Hyperwerk1 day ago
+1
Replace the costs of upgrading the grid with continental Europe, and I might agree to some extent. The Scandinavian power market worked quite well until Germany scaled back its own energy production. Now countries like Norway, Sweden, and France are paying the price for what I see as a misguided policy. I’d rather invest in developing our own infrastructure than keep subsidizing countries with little intention of fixing their own mess. Germany and the EU can pound sand.
162 Comments