Surging Energy Prices in Europe in the Aftermath of the War
imf.org
imf.org
Even so, our power prices are through the roof because the price is set by the high export prices. We're paying approximately 5X-10X what we're used to because of the extremely poor energy policies in other countries. Nevermind being dependent on Russia, which has been a terror state killing politicians and journalists for decades, they should have invested heavily in energy efficiency and switching from fossil fuels years ago. Now we're paying the price for their idiocy.
Not that our government is perfect either, they've given large US companies like Microsoft and Amazon tax cuts on power to get them to build datacenters.
I don’t think that in the EU we’ve fully exhausted the benefits of virtue and moral grandstanding, it’s too early to give up or be upset. And Sweden always had a claim at being a moral super-power.
Edit: I forgot an important point. I don't have anything against exporting power to our neighbors. My issue is that we have to pay the expensive power prices set by the expensive export. Our power hasn't suddenly become 5X-10X more expensive to produce, if we could keep our usual price and sell the surplus to other countries at the prices they want to pay I wouldn't mind it.
Thanks again Angie!
This.
I am guilty too. I know there really isn't much I can do to "help" except to accelerate my home energy efficiency plans, which will free up some small amount of gas for export this winter.
But why do I need to accelerate my plans? I made them last year. Why did it take an invasion halfway around the world to get me moving?
Germany did end up getting a rather bad rap though, which is why I think Russia decided to help out by cutting gas deliveries.
[0] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/helsingborg/han-flyttar-fr...
And that it's fair that businesses have to shut down? [1][2][3]
[1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/helsingborg/klippans-bruk-...
[2] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/pizzan-kostar-300-kronor-...
[3] https://www.smp.se/lessebo/lessebo-paper-stoppar-produktione...
This is just the beginning by the way and 4 out of 5 jobs are created by small-medium businesses in Sweden. [4]
https://www.di.se/pressreleaser/2022/06/10/foretagarforbunde...
Socialism is nice until you run out of other peoples money.
The link numbered 2 starts with this in Google translate: "Already in February, the Granholm couple from Öland noticed that electricity prices were skyrocketing. Even though they were only open for a few days that month, they received an electricity bill of SEK 30,000." What kind of successful pizza business is open only for a few days a month? Doesn't this make you suspicious about electricity being the biggest cause of the closure, and not just the final kick to the already dying business?
They where open during times when electricity cost was at the lowest and yes, of course such hours would never work, it just drives in the point even more, restaurants are unsustainable at high energy costs. Keep in mind that low-pay jobs are non-existent in Sweden due to high lowest-salary regulations, a huge difference from US.
Of course that's nonsense, but that's been the response of central banks to crises over the past decade (see Nomi Prins, Collusion). The problem is that there isn't enough physical gas to go around, and conjuring money out of a hat won't fix that problem.
The most obvious solution to Europe's energy woes is to build out energy systems that don't rely on any imports (uranium ore from Niger to feed French nuclear reactors is as much of a long-term supply problem as gas and oil from Russia or LNG tankers from the USA). That means solar/wind/storage has to become the dominant energy system, and that's the general trend:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/focus-renewable-energy-europe...
> "Solar panels and wind turbines are now a common sight across the EU, which in large part is due to increased market activity. The cost of solar power production has for instance decreased by 75% between 2009 and 2018, and in 2014, onshore wind became cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear. In 2019, EU power production from wind and solar power overtook coal for the first time – meaning that they have become as competitive, or even cheaper, than fossil fuels in most places."
Note that central banks could put their efforts towards renewable investment instead of private banking deals, which would speed this transition up...
Solar and batteries require mining rare earth elements which also present similar supply chain and ecological concerns. Without storage wind and solar simply cannot meet reliability and demand expectations.
The problem has many more complicating factors then most people are willing to discuss.
For more accurate information on renewables, I'd recommend:
>Of course that's nonsense
Setting aside the inflationary and other side effects of doing so, this is not a case of "government can cap the bills" or "government can provide subsidies to help pay for higher bills" or, even, "government can ration electricity". *SUBSIDIES DON'T MATTER IF THERE IS NO SUPPLY*.
So many people in /r/europe (and their sycophants elsewhere) are in denial. Check out this /r/ireland thread. <https://np.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/x1mbq9/small_busine...> Normally this sort of post—image with accompanying story of person/small business required to pay huge costs to giant company—is the closest thing to karma bait. There would be an endless stream of replies blaming big business/greedy companies/capitalism/etc., etc.
But not this time. Yes, there are some such comments, but also a striking number coming up with all sorts of "explanations" (all wrong, as far as I can tell) for why the bill is actually the restaurant's fault.
Why they are in so much denial, I don't know. Do they really think that if they don't acknowledge that energy bills across Ireland, the UK, and the continent are skyrocketing, maybe it will all go away? Or do they (given the Ukraine flag in the posted tweet's profile) think that if they publicly acknowledge that it's happening, doing so will contribute to Putin's victory and Ukraine's defeat?
Edit: And the rich are more likely to be able to afford electric vehicles and appliances
_and_ they of course are more likely to be able to take a hit to their finances and an upsurge in costs.
The difference between going to the movies less and having to weigh getting all the food you need or all the toiletries you need is obviously quite large.
The question is whether there exist alternative solutions that help the poor a lot more by not wasting so much helping the rich (or especially in this case - those buying and selling fossil fuels, industries we'd prefer to be slowing down rather than encouraging with tax breaks).
Eg if the same money "spent" on this tax break had instead been a invested in raising the minimum income tax ceiling, benefits, and pensions (by equivalent amounts), it would presumably have gotten more money into the pockets of those most hurt by fuel inflation, which was the claimed goal of the change, but done less to benefit the fossil fuel industry and those who don't really need tax breaks.
Or to go more extreme you could add an untaxed fuel ration (there is a shortage after all), paid for by higher taxes on extreme usage, thus reducing overuse and increasing affordability at the same time. But that's practically communism, so can't possibly be done (to be fair, it'd be very expensive to implement, so not sure it's a serious suggestion).
> Policymakers have mostly responded to the shock with broad-based price-suppressing measures, including subsidies, tax reductions, and price controls.
> Going forward, the policy emphasis should shift rapidly towards allowing price signals to operate more freely and providing income relief to the vulnerable.
I'm all for using fuel taxes to subsidize clean energy and electrical cars though
A ton of other reasons where added transport costs add to increased life expenditures. It's not about the private car
The neoliberal coalition partner blocked its extension though, so now ppl are back to paying 60-150€ per month for transit.
I use very, very little gas. Currently my standing charge is about 4 times the cost of the (tiny amount of) gas I use, at least.
To avoid the gas standing charge I'd have to remove the meter, physically. Not my property, can't do it. So I have to pay. Funny system.
If you are renting, you are perfectly entitled to change energy suppliers and/or have meters removed or upgraded. Your landlord has no say in it. (For one thing, the meter belongs to the energy company!).
The only exception to this is if you are renting a room in a HMO that uses a common energy supply for all rooms, or if you landlord pays your energy bills.
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_rentin...
I can see a lot of financial problems ahead but equally(?) a lot of people not just sitting on their arses doing sfa. Shopping centres will benefit from extra traffic, but may not necessarily get the cash. People may just wander...
I'm working on my W22 strategies now. More home (low key 90/10) exercise, more outside walks, family get togethers (share a house), stodgy energy-food, more blankets, bed early.....
Geothermal?
Why would that go up (significantly)? Seems like geothermal would be pretty resistant? IE, the cost to run things like pumps should still be a fraction of the cost to heat using gas.
Update: He drilled 160 meters into mountain.
As opposed to heat pumps, which you described.
If prices rise 5x as is expected, we're looking at ~8000€ for a single month. (1€/KwH x 5)
This house is > 70s, doesn't have a chimney, but we're considering installing a cast-iron wood burner in the house center for this winter.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/minekonomi/a/66p5LQ/ved-rusning-l...
But the consumption is only ~800KwH for August.
- some people will be mostly unaffected;
- others will not be able to heat their houses as much, e.g. they'll only be able to heat up a couple of rooms to a lower temperature than usual;
- a bunch of people will decide to live together (e.g. parents and kids) to save money;
- some will not be able to pay their bills - energy companies will have to decide how to handle this;
- DIY home insulation will become more popular;
- wearing more clothes in winter will become popular again.
The impact on businesses is much harder to predict - I could see a lot of trouble coming in that area too.
This is not a case of "government can cap the bills" or "government can provide subsidies to help pay for higher bills" or, even, "government can ration electricity". Setting aside the inflationary and other side effects of doing so, *SUBSIDIES DON'T MATTER IF THERE IS NO SUPPLY*.
Though not preparing a backup plan after the first invasion in 2014 was a bad decision. Little hindsight needed here.
At the end of the day all that matters is that a nation is self-sufficient in the essentials and participates in the global economy that augment that self-sufficiency without damaging it. Anything else is hubris because you're just doomed to repeat history, and it's outright greed because the people making the decisions aren't the ones going to bear the brunt when they inevitably fail.
So talking about this is interesting "huehuehuhue" farting, but not a very realistic political strategy.
You perhaps could generate some hypothetical interdependencies that would preclude war, but it may also argue for all-out "seize the other country" war, too.
For renewable energies in the U.S., would the U.S. be considered reliant on places like China for the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, etc?
We'd only be dependent on expanding energy if the manufacturing of key components was happening outside the US.
Expanding your energy supply is nowhere near as important as maintaining 50% of your total energy supply (EU fossil fuels).
US energy consumption has been close to flat for 20 years.
Gas, coal, wood pellets, etc. You buy them, you burn them, they're gone. You need new supplies tomorrow.
Moreover, turbine part transportation is such a logistical challenge that manufacturers are always trying to set up assembly facilities near their customers. All four of those companies are shopping for factory space in the American Midwest for that reason.
Batteries and solar panels are impossible to really monopolize. Yes, Lithium comes from a constrained list of places, but for grid-linked power storage you don't need lithium. Space and weight are not as big a concern for stationary installed facilities, so you have lots of other options.
Parts are assembled where you mentioned which crucial parts sourced.
Trump famously did and the Germans laughed at him for it.
Obama and Biden (both as VP and now as President) did.
Even as far back as George Bush: he warned them, although it was presented more as a trade matter since it would have been beneficial for the energy industry and this was pre-fracking revolution.
It has been a choir of warnings for decades, but the hubris of European technocrats wouldn't let them see reality.
And for Europe, it's not simply hubris though. There's multiple things at work. When the United States or Canada says to Europe: Don't buy energy from Russia, what Europeans legitimately heard was: Buy energy (at more cost and logistical challenge) from us instead.
Meanwhile Canada especially -- but likely the US as well -- was very much focused on building infrastructure for trade with the Pacific Rim, not Europe. So what other choice did Europe realistically have anyways?
I'm mad at hell at successive Canadian governments (what I'm most familiar with) who prioritized trade with China (or bulk exports to the US without value add). At the expense of the domestic market/infrastructure, at the expense of developing renewables, and at the expense of our European allies. Insanely short term thinking. An LNG facility on the St Lawrence would be real nice right now. Instead a massive LNG facility is being built for coastal British Columbia, and pipeline infrastructure being set up for that. Wrong coast it turns out because China will be perfectly happy to import from Russia instead. But again, all eyes on China, despite the risks that entailed, which are similar to the risks that western Europe had with Russia.
Those pipelines were shipping gas to Europe literally for decades. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus or Poland were making handsome money from the transit fees too.
It doesn't make it a wise choice to have no backup for Russian gas, but I'm sure the industry lobby to keep the cheap gas was very strong.