I can only speak for Sweden. We had for the longest time the most solid energy base with hydro power in the north and nuclear in the south.
Policy has since decades been anti-nuclear though but it really accelerated 2016. Basically nuclear power gets heavy tax and fee penalties while wind gets the reverse treatment.
If you check https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/ you can see the result.
Nuclear and hydro still supply all power - but we now have an erratic additional source of wind power that has such volatility that it can spike its production and reverse in just a day. It's completely uncontrollable and so can't provide a stable base for industry nor homes or offices.
Meanwhile, with nuclear plants now being taken offline, southern Sweden is paying a multiple of higher prices than Northern Sweden.
This is exacerbated by other countries in Europe making similar faulty decisions - notably Germany - meaning that even if Sweden produces energy to export on a good day, prices are high. Northern Sweden is for now safe because there is no bandwidth to transfer the energy produced in an efficient way.
I only hope that the election this year will see policy change to normal again, with a renewed focus on nuclear. Nuclear needs no subsidies, it just needs to not be penalized by inane policies, taxes and bureaucratic nonsense.
During the summer, when less energy is needed, Sweden even had to start its old oil based power plant. The solution is similar in Europe where reliance on natural gas from Russia is becoming normal, in particular for Germany.
In Sweden we have at least come far enough to recognize this as a crisis and the so called environmental party will probably be booted out of the Riksdag come September.