Remix.run Logo
PaulKeeble 12 hours ago

The past few years has also had Solar continuing to decrease in price so its increasingly going to be the primary choice. On top of that battery prices have been plummeting too so that now Solar + battery is cheaper than other options like Nuclear and especially Gas. Most of the EU will be running on Wind and Solar in the coming years, its a change that is now rapidly occuring based entirely on the rare economics. Solar and Wind are half the price of anything else.

gregorygoc 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t underestimate the corrupt politics of some countries, especially Germany. There are individuals actively working against the global cost curve and trying to misallocate the capital to gas at the large scale. Katherine Reiche is the primary example. She’s pushing for building as much capacity for gas plants as possible, instead of choosing battery storage as the cheapest option.

zejn 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ha, yes, a lot of deniers/delayers are going on about how Germany "wasted" billion on renewables, when in fact they had a booming solar industry, which got nuked by politicians, who changed the policies, as can be seen in 39C3 video "Recharge your batteries with us".

Was the subsidy system which was in effect in 2010's unsustainable? I think so, yeah. But the changed policies resulted in companies producing solar going bust, and the Chinese firms, which were doing fine, were able to buy out the patents and know how.

So, did Germany waste billions? Yes, but by letting the solar producers go bust.

happosai 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not most of EU but geographically large and diverse and low-latitude countries will. Spain has winds from three different sea areas and is known sunny, so they are in a good position.

joe_mamba 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Well that' doesn't always scan. Austria has a lot of wind, sun and hydro so its energy prices should be in line with Sweden, Norway, Denmark amongst the cheapest in Europe, and yet it's routinely amongst the more expensive in the EU.

ZeroGravitas 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Trading across borders seems to be a part of this story.

If your local price is high you can import, if it's low you can export.

If you're at the end of a grid and/or your transmission capacity is limited your price has the possibility to go higher or lower without that damping mechanism.

Electricitymaps has a pricing layer which seems to show central Europe moving in sync when I randomly check it:

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes?sig...

tonfa 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And the counter intuitive thing is that people in countries with lots of renewables and not so many external links (e.g. Scandinavia with hydro) might be against adding more links since it will increase electricity prices.

joe_mamba 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So energy in Spain is cheap because they produce a lot but can't sell a lot easily, and Austria/Central Europe is expensive because they sell their domestic energy too easily?

If this is what you meant, then it sounds like an argument against free trade, if it means you keep ending up with the short stick.

HPsquared 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Free trade doesn't always benefit everyone equally, only a net benefit overall. It's a bit like how people often misinterpret the second law of thermodynamics "but the entropy decreased when the ice froze!"

ZeroGravitas 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Economists would say that the money coming in outweighs the higher costs and therefore you could redistribute that money and everyone comes out ahead.

Whether that happens in real life is a different question.

joe_mamba 11 hours ago | parent [-]

>Economists would say that the money coming in

Does that money go directly into my pocket so I can afford the more expensive energy? Or does it go into the pocket of private energy companies?

Because I feel like there's some faults with this "free market", which is mostly just socializing losses and privatizing profits.

HPsquared 11 hours ago | parent [-]

And what if the energy companies are owned by foreign investors?

joe_mamba 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That would be economic colonialism with extra steps.

But for the end user, whether you're being ripped off by a local or a foreign energy oligarch, it doesn't really matter, people just want to pay less.

ViewTrick1002 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Electricity is expensive in Central Europe because the ETS system (carbon trading) has made fossil based production expensive.

We’re right in the middle of the transition with maximum volatility swinging between extremely cheap renewables and expensive fossil plants.

mhh__ 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You have to think about these things as a portfolio rather than just by minimum price.

If you have a steel mill for example you need to be able to basically guarantee a certain level of energy production to run it viably because the risk of there not being any power during adverse weather is enough to make it unviable (you can't just turn these things off). This is the reason why gas and nuclear probably aren't going away (or at least shouldn't).

ViewTrick1002 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you need predictable price buy futures.

If they increase in price then firm production is stimulated to build to meet the gap.

https://www.next-kraftwerke.com/knowledge/futures-market

mhh__ 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If the grid balance is dominated by bursty renewables then you can potentially price the stable / on-demand generation out of the market (or lead to a massive contango to incentivise said producers)

pydry 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1/5th the price of nuclear.

Probably when combined with batteries it is half the price.

There are some colder areas in northern europe especially where solar doesnt work as well but they also tend to be better served for hydro (which can also store power).

distances 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Solar works also in the north, except in the winter of course, and it complements wind pretty well. So solar does make economic sense and is actively built in the north too.

laurencerowe 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The UK hit a record of 42% peak solar generation around midday one day last month.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/24/uk-solar-generation-h...

hn_throwaway_99 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Northern locales though have a much greater energy need for heating in the winter. So the "battery" solutions can often just be cheap heat batteries because there is not so much a thing as "waste heat" - that heat can be used directly without worrying as much about efficiency losses in conversion.

There are already a bunch of examples of Northern locales using these heat batteries - just heat up a big block of something when energy is cheap and solar/wind are overproducing, then use a network of insulated pipes to distribute that heated water.

empiricus 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So sad we could not apply economy of scale for nuclear... The main reason solar and batteries are so cheap is economy of scale.

tonyedgecombe 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think we have really tried. At least not in the last couple of decades.

laurencerowe 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that nuclear reactors are huge so you're never going to build that many of them compared to wind turbines (thousands) or solar panels (millions).

France plans to build a series of six reactors for its EPR2 programme with each reactor scheduled for completion 1-2 years apart, but that is only expected to reduce costs by 30% compared to the (hugely expensive) EPR.

Small modular reactors hope to improve things but it's far from clear they will end up any cheaper. Historically making reactors bigger makes them more efficient. The Rolls Royce SMR is just under 1/3rd of the size of the EPR so even if successful any cost reductions are not likely to be dramatic.

empiricus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Europe was spending 200 billions / year on gas from russia. I imagine they could try to build 100 reactors for that price, but it would take a couple of years I imagine...

badpun 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How much would it cost to build out batteries which cover entire continent's electricy needs for say three weeks (as there can be 2-3 week lulls of no wind and no sun in Europe in the winter)? Cause that sounds like a lot of batteries. Not to mention, if a freak 4 week lull occurs, we'll go back to Middle Ages for a week.

energy123 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Australia's CSIRO studied this for Australia, renewables were half the cost of nuclear, factoring in storage and transmission for both renewables and nuclear (yes, nuclear also needs storage because energy demand varies with time). Australia is uniquely endowed with sun and land, so other countries/regions may arrive at different results.

blitzar 11 hours ago | parent [-]

If you live in Australia, have a house and roof, you're a bloody idiot if you didnt install solar.

bot403 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't even need a roof. If you have enough land then a ground mount system is more convenient and easier to maintain.

pibaker 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think by having a roof GP meant lives in a house instead of an apartment. If you don't have your own roof you probably don't have land either.

ricardobayes 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Solar still produces even in overcast conditions, during the day. If it's light/medium overcast, most of which Germany usually is it still produces 50-80% of nominal. It only really doesn't produce anything at night or when it snows.

bot403 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes this is one thing that surprised me owning solar. Some days its pretty cloudy and I can still get 2kw or so from my 7kw max.

crote 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"But what if thing thing that never happens were to happen?"

We'd probably go deep into hydro, fire up every gas peaker plant, and through skyrocketing prices incentivize everyone to switch to emergency diesel generators where possible.

You're talking about a once-in-100+-years event. We'll deal with it the same way we dealt with the various oil crises.

XorNot 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You can't fire up capacity you don't have. Your scenario implies a massive idle stock of power plants.

Who's going to build and run them? They'd be enormously expensive because they'd almost never sell power.

(Of course the answer is if you build 3 weeks of battery storage you can pretty obviously build 4).

oezi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But what do we do when the sun isn't shining?

Well what are we doing if the straight of hormuz isn't hormuzing?

Demand will adapt via price signals. Same story as in every market.

pydry 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You would likely get to 97% green energy first with 5-8 hours of storage: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

(for Australia it is 5, for other countries it might be 8)

Once you get to that "nice to have" problem of what to do about the remaining 3% of power needs it would probably make most sense to synthesize and store gas (methane/hydrogen) from electricity when solar and wind is overproducing. Gas can be stored cheaply for long durations. The roundtrip efficiency is poor but it's still cheaper than nuclear power on the windiest sunniest day.

The nuclear + carbon lobbies would of course prefer to model green energy transitions by pretending that the wind and sun simultaneously turn off for 2 weeks at a time every year and that electricity can only be stored in very expensive batteries. This is not realistic.

laurencerowe 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It might not be quite that good in less sunny countries. Similar modest overbuilding of wind and solar in Denmark is simulated to get to about 90% with 12h of storage. This is still good enough though.

https://xcancel.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1565923581246091264

gpm 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> (as there can be 2-3 week lulls of no wind and no sun in Europe in the winter)

This is simply entirely untrue. Europe's a big place, there's not a single day ever where there is no sun in it.

scythe 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>On top of that battery prices have been plummeting too so that now Solar + battery is cheaper than other options like Nuclear and especially Gas.

I'm a little bit sad that pumped hydro doesn't get more attention in the discussion. It might be too late for it to matter, with improvements in battery prices and ongoing lithium discoveries. But that only underscores the fact that it should have been allowed to matter twenty years ago. Utilities have slow-walked solar all around the world because of concerns about the grid stability, which has been well within the reach of pumped hydropower to fix since many years ago. In fact major pumped hydropower projects were mostly carried out in the United States during the nuclear power optimism era.

It is a little destructive to construct pumped hydro reservoirs. But it generally isn't as damaging as a conventional hydroelectric dam. The reason lies in the source of the water. In a conventional dam, you need a lot of water flowing in from up high, so you dam a major river near its lower cataracts. This disrupts the migration of fish and animals along the river and impacts the whole ecosystem of the rather large drainage basin upstream, and disrupts the migration of fish. But when a closed-loop pumped storage reservoir is created above an existing lake, usually a much less important stream is selected. Its immediate valley is still inundated, but the area of effect is much less. It does tend to prolong the use of the existing dam, but we are already preserving basically all existing dams.

It might still be appropriate in some places where imports are less affordable like Latin America or it might appeal to protectionists in the West. In general, hydro is usually cheap.

XorNot 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Pumped hydro is objectively worse then batteries.

Anyone can install batteries anywhere at a fairly minimal local fire risk.

A dam is a major mechanical structure which if it fails will straight up obliterate downstream towns, and as such requires a numerous specialized engineering designs and on going maintenance to retain basic safety.

jcrben 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The depreciation of a dam versus batteries can can weigh the benefits towards dams.