But it is too late now and insofar as there may be a problem, it is one for the Germans.
The Germans pay but it is most internally circulating money.
The Afd vote is mostly a vote discoupled from reality (xenophobic to begin with).
The thing about the economies of scale is that usually there is a sort of burning front where there is some niche that an expensive technology makes sense in (like solar in remote sites) followed by slow drawing down of the cost curve and the niches that get filled moving ever more mainstream.
Forcing the issue just resulted in them phasing out a bunch of perfectly serviceable nuclear plants. It hasn't pushed solar along much compared to economic applications of the tech. I mean, maybe China have been doing something stupid to push the market along but it'd be them not Germany.
> The Afd vote is mostly a vote discoupled from reality (xenophobic to begin with).
I am agape at the sloppy thinking people use for their political enemies. Are AfD voters like mushrooms in that it rained a few years ago and they suddenly pop up? People cope with migration if times are good; but they're going to get unhappy when the economy isn't expanding in real terms.
This is the same dynamics as Trump and Brexit. You have these countries with 20%, 30% per capita energy draw downs [1] and then it turns out there is a big local populations who are rather perturbed by the fact that they are being squeezed by the hand of the market and want something to change.
It continues to amaze me how people never try to link the most obvious things that would be upsetting people to the large number of upset people. I promise to stop talking about the AfD now.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?c...
[1] EDIT I'm just going to jump back in and add this graph of income v. per capita energy. Some might suspect there is a link of some sort... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-person-vs-...
As you pointed out the reliable energy failed, but it was all due to bad regulation and lack of enforcement. IE if Texas had never put up a single windmill they'd still have
Texas, last time I lived there, windmills and all, didn't have high energy prices. Many Texas energy experts do claim windmills do help prices more than hurt them (not an expert myself but living in Houston and working with energy companies this came up a lot).
Nevertheless I learned, much to my surprise, that most of the state's natural gas system (which supplies the majority of energy for electrical generation and lots of home heating) had frozen. I (naively) thought that would be impossible since methane doesn't even turn into a liquid at any temperature ever to occur on Earth, but it turns out there's plenty of water mixed in hydrocarbon deposits.
I suspect the governor knew (or could easily have been told) all this, he just thinks he leads a state full of fools, and after a lifetime of observation, I'm inclined to concur.
Nope. With actual market forces you end up with Texas-like situations.
The fundamental problem with the electricity market is that as soon as you're not using fossils fuel to produce it, there's a disconnect between what you pay for(energy, in kWh) and what you actually need the supply side to provide (power, in Watt).
When using fossil fuel it's all good because the costs for the producer come from the fuel cost, which is cost for energy. But with whatever else (be it nuclear, solar, hydro, wind…) the producer costs aren't related to energy production but to power installation, hence the market is fundamentally unable to reconcile the two sides.
The Texas situation was low costs leading to low prices.
But the reliability of renewables isn't to a high enough standard so it'll do odd things to the profits of the remaining suppliers. They probably won't drop by as much as a naive prediction would estimate.
Yes, see the sibling comment: it was low (marginal) cost leading to low price, leading to insufficient investment in anything else that would have been more reliable, leading to crash.
That's because you don't pay for available power, you pay for energy and then there exist situations where the market equilibrium is blackout. Oops, too bad.
And when marginal cost is zero price goes to zero as well (unless there is scarcity or artificial scarcity thanks to a sort of monopoly or cartel)
This easy to understand: imagine that A and B have invested in capacity production. If A sells at x dollars, B will sells at x-0.1 dollars stealing the market to A. Etc... there is no bottom since the marginal cost is zero.
What do you mean? Showcased when in Germany? What prices are you referring to and in what period of time?
There was nothing said about Germany in the article, I'm trying to understand what you're suggesting here.
The major issue we've seen was showcased in Germany [0] where renewable sources simultaneously destroyed profits and drove record high prices for consumers, because they were bought in by a program of subsidies that decoupled retail and wholesale prices. As long as solar demand is driven by actual market forces, then it'll follow the usual market dynamic of more entrants with lower costs leading to lower prices. The only way that can't happen is if legislators roll in to do something stupid, like a special subsidy.
There are also the secondary reliability issues; things like the Texas cold snap a few years ago where wind was so unreliable the contingency plans just assumed it wasn't there from what I recall. But then the reliable generation didn't work either and it was a double whammy into major crisis. That will do weird things to profits, I won't attempt to forecast that one.
[0] I don't speak German so if someone wants to challenge this go ahead, but the prices seemed to speak for themselves.