EU electricity production by country and source
transparency.entsoe.eu
transparency.entsoe.eu
The post-first-oil-crash nuclear buildout might have continued if it hadn't been for the combination of fossil fuel becoming cheap again and Chernobyl fallout covering the entirety of northern Europe. The symbolism of Reagan taking Carter's solar panels off the White House made it clear that wasn't going to be the path.
Notably, GHWBush's mansion in Texas, shortly after, had solar water heating.
Where did the Carter White House Solar Panels go?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...
Unfortunately, renewables cause similar issues. If solar tanks wholesale prices for 8 hours a day nuclear needs to make that up on the other 16. Meanwhile Solar hits the same wall once it needs energy storage.
Hydro ran out of ideal locations in most countries etc which is why we have so many different energy sources. The only way things hangs is if the underlying economics does. Nuclear with an 80% reduction in operating and decommissioned costs would largely take over the world.
It never broke even anywhere. It's the most subsidy addicted form of power.
>Unfortunately, renewables cause similar issues. If solar tanks wholesale prices for 8 hours a day nuclear needs to make that up on the other 16.
Wind can make a lot of that up. Solar and wind anti-correlate. Those dark, cold winters also tend to be the windiest and vice versa.
Apparently we'd need 5 hours of storage to get to a 97% carbon free grid under current usage patterns: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...
Australia is already on track to have half of that already with snowy 2 (350Gwh).
This also doesn't take into account stuff like https://octopus.energy/agile/ that can use pricing to adjust demand to supply. Heating, car battery charging, industrial processes like aluminum smelting - lots of demand can be time shifted easily.
I am specifically referring to a nuclear power plant’s income here. If they averaged 10c per kWh over a year that’s X$/year. To make that same X$/year when wholesale prices are 2c/kWh for 8 hours a day they would need to be average 14c/kWh for 16 hours to average 10c/kWh over a full day. Aka (8 * 2c + 16 * 14c)/24 = 10c
The above is of course a simplification of a complex market, but illustrates a real effect related to the “duck curve.”
The underlying issue is nobody wants a PPA that lasts for the full 40+ year lifespan of a new nuclear reactor and battery prices are still falling. Enough subsides can make anything viable, but western governments have largely lost interest in doing so.
I don't understand this line of argument - that's a high capacity factor! And it's not a dirunal or annual one either, it's a predictable "we need to shut down to refuel" one. It sounds like it wouldn't have broken even, even at 100% capacity factor? At which point it's no longer "too cheap to meter" but "nuclear power is too expensive". And that's before we even dig into capex vs opex vs decommissioning vs disaster insurance.
Hinkley point C is guaranteed a price of £92 per megawatt hour (or 9.2p/kWh), when it finally comes online.
What is completely different from solar, that is outcompeting everything with ~20% utilization, and making the alternatives more expensive on the process... What is a problem because it can't provide more than ~20% utilization.
In the electrical industry a base load generation has historically been the least valuable electricity and it’s the only way Nuclear can operate.
It’s actually £92.50 in 2012 money, inflation adjusted.
Given current inflation, the strike price is likely to be well over £160/MWh when it comes online, now estimated to be 2027.
(Fun fact: Hinkley Point C is the most expensive power plant ever built, anywhere in the world)
For making nuclear viable, "ultra cheap" here would have to be a negative price.
The similarity of the problems with renewables is only that they benefit from storage. Without any similarity on the economics.
Even ignoring global warming smog and acid rain have been known issues for a very long time. On top of this many countries lacked domestic supplies of fossil fuels.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened.
This summer our local Hydro dam was full. But instead of generating electricity at full capacity they had to open the overflow valves because it was windy and the local wind farm was producing at full capacity and the transmission lines does not have capacity to handle both wind and hydro at full capacity.
Our price was hovering around 0 all summer.
Wind production varies year on year, but only maybe 10% where the variation day to day is almost 100%. So wind + hydro should pair nicely because the hydro plant can ramp up or down production as appropriate.
In the UK, wind will overtake natural gas as the largest source of electricity in the next few years. It’s already producing more than 2.5x as much as all the UK’s nuclear plants combined.
By 2025, more than half of all UK electricity will be renewable, and by 2030, 95% will be from low-carbon sources (including nuclear).
Many smaller generators, including all(?) UK solar farms, smaller wind farms, W2E plants, etc, are connected to the distribution networks (DSOs), not directly to the National Grid. These can account for a significant percentage of UK generation at times!
Most of the other websites displaying UK generation include additional data sources so that things like solar are accounted for.
Wind has other issues. There is no silver bullet here.
https://www.csiro.au/-/media/News-releases/2022/GenCost-2022...
They just had a government that wanted to funnel money to their backers in coal industry.
That solar is cheaper at noon doesn't mean much. It's a bit like saying that coal is free underground.
Renewable power is cheap in the same way someone whose head is dipped in liquid nitrogen and whose feet are in molten lead in over all pretty comfortable.
Plus, Australia has hydro, which can be varied to fill the gaps.
> Greater confidence in role of wind and solar PV: GenCost previously included a Diverse technology scenario which explored the case where deployment of variable renewables was more limited and other technologies played a larger role. Stakeholder feedback received during AEMO’s 2020-21 Australian scenario development process found that it was unlikely that alternative technologies will be able to compete in a significant way with renewables. This reflects relatively uncompetitive gas prices, a lack of confidence in the future cost competitiveness of CCS technologies and abundant low-cost renewable resources.
Their 2030 forcasts also include costs for grid integration for different percentages of variable renewable.
That's a bit like saying that there is no point in growing crops in Europe, because of the winter.
In fact, when it comes to food production (which is really just a form of energy), there are 3 major strategies how we deal with winter: storage (e.g. granary), shifting production (e.g. eating a pig you raised during the year), and trade (e.g. buying oranges from a tropical country).
We can apply all these to electricity as well.
Which grid can store enough energy to run for a week if all renewables are offline?
Hint: there aren't any.
But the technology does exist, and it's gonna be deployed eventually.
[[citation needed]]
https://helioscsp.com/the-cost-of-concentrated-solar-power-f...
But as you say, Australia has no such excuse, having both the geography and the cost of capital to be a world leader in this, way beyond what they are now, which is okay but could have been much, much better.
Also points to an easy way to provide assistance to any country that is trapped into this financial dead-end.
Best time to invest heavily in fusion was 20 years ago, second best time is now.
We should definitely continue the pace on fusion but it's not strictly necessary. We should prioritize deploying proven technology ASAP.
Each dollar diverted to fusion or fission from build-out of wind and solar brings climate catastrophe nearer.
For example, the nuclear plants are forced to sell their energy to energy traders at unprofitable low rates but those traders are never required to buy the energy and if the price of energy drops below this rate (AFTER it was bought) then the traders can just "return" the energy and the operators have to eat it. This happened during covid when energy prices collapsed due to lack of demand. These middlemen profit off of cheap nuclear energy instead of rate payers.
In addition, the nuclear plants must pay a 23 euro per MWh tax that subsidizes the operation of renewable energy. Since the plants are forced to sell their energy below cost and subsidize renewable generation, they are not profitable and aren't given the proper funds to maintain/improve these plants. So then these plants look bad/expensive and the ministers in charge demand that these plants are closed down before the end of their life. Even though the upfront costs have already been paid and the electricity they make are far cheaper than renewable generation if you don't force these crazy disadvantages on them.
Mark Nelson talks about theses problems in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgu-VrD0oM
Is this just nuclear or does it apply to other generation?
> In addition, the nuclear plants must pay a 23 euro per MWh tax that subsidizes the operation of renewable energy.
Source? One that isn't an hour long video and actually has a primary source.
So nuclear plants are forced to sell energy below cost and they must buy a certain amount of renewable energy at inflated rates. This has forced them into debt. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-budget-carbon/fran...
I was technically mistaken about the 23 eu/MWh tax. The amount seems to be correct but it is charged to the ratepayer (not EDF) and is meant to help EDF cover the cost of the renewable energy they are forced to buy. But it does not actually cover the amount of renewable energy they are forced to buy, hence the debt.
CSPE tax: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...
https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/contribution-servic...
And the feed in tarriff acumulated a quarter of a nuclear reactor's worth of extra liability which they are now being paid?
You seem to be really reaching to claim this is somehow unfair. Especially considering the other side of the deal where taxpayers or utility customers who are victims of new nuclear plants are just told 'fuck you, you're paying the price we made up even if we don't generate any power' or 'we made one in another country and failed really bad so you get to pay half' or 'whoops, we only put aside 1/4th of the money needed to decomission...have fun paying another billionperGWbyeeee' or 'we racked up a quarter trillion dollar cleanup bill but we made you sign a treaty saying we only have to pay 0.5%, have fun'.
Nuclear infrastructure that is already paid for is being neglected and paracitized to pay for new solar/wind generation. The government has mandated that they will shut down perfectly good plants, taking nuclear from 75% of generation to 50%. The grid was already largely decarbonized! They are throwing away reliable cheap energy in order to pay for new intermittent energy. The result is increased cost, decreased reliability, and more emissions when the renewables aren't available. Fossil fuel use has stayed the same or even increased since renewables started being added: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France#/media/File:F...
> Especially considering the other side of the deal where taxpayers or utility customers who are victims of new nuclear plants are just told 'fuck you, you're paying the price we made up even if we don't generate any power' or 'we made one in another country and failed really bad so you get to pay half' or 'whoops, we only put aside 1/4th of the money needed to decomission...have fun paying another billionperGWbyeeee' or 'we racked up a quarter trillion dollar cleanup bill but we made you sign a treaty saying we only have to pay 0.5%, have fun'.
Hmm, maybe they'd have more money to fund things properly if they were allowed to charge the true rate for electricity (instead of letting other companies arbitrage for free), and weren't forced to buy renewable electricity at high prices?
A plant that is aging out or reaching the stage in its lifetime when it needs a $1.5/W refurb isn't 'perfectly good'. Nor is a much newer one that is corroding due to major design faults and is off half of the time.
Replacing them with energy sources where total costs are lower than running costs is just financial sanity. At least until there is a large enough renewables fraction that storage is a concern.
> Hmm, maybe they'd have more money to fund things properly if they were allowed to charge the true rate for electricity (instead of letting other companies arbitrage for free), and weren't forced to buy renewable electricity at high prices?
You misspelled 'fully exploit their monopoly rather than have a price cap at their claimed true cost of generation for 25% of it'. If €48/MWh isn't enough to pay for the upkeep then maybe don't claim it's cheap?
Obviously not good for the long-term, nor good for the planet, but this is the same driver for coal power also (which we indirectly contribute to due to the sheer amount of goods they export to the advanced economies).
The net result was the grid being taken over by the government after a series of rolling blackouts in a number of states and letting everything rip. All this is was directly attributed to _one_ coal station going offline unexpectedly and losing the baseload it generated.
I can write a book on how fucked the market here is.
A couple of highlights from Australia's energy transition story in the last few days, which show some of the work being done at state level in spite of a largely renewables-hostile federal government over the last several years:
> the Western Australia grid ... reached 82 per cent renewables for a half-hour period on October 30 ... and it is likely that new peak is the highest for any gigawatt-scale grid in the world.
> South Australia ... has established the world’s highest share of renewables – as a percentage of demand – in any gigawatt scale grid in the world, when it reached 146 per cent on September 14. The excess is, of course, exported to the neighbouring state, in this case Victoria.
-- https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-stunning-wind-and-solar-leap... [2022-11-04]
> [NSW is seeking] solutions on replacing 10GW of coal capacity that is likely to leave the grid within the next decade.
> Those plans are being accelerated by fast-tracked closures of the main coal generators, including Liddell early next year, Eraring in 2025, and Bayswater as early as 2030. Vales Point is expected to close by 2029, leaving Mt Piper with the only uncertain closure time.
-- https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-formally-declares-its-third-... [2022-11-04]
With a new government and increased market pressures, the tides are turning, quite erratically though, because of time/market pressure, mismanagement, incompetence, opportunistic capitalists, and whatever else.
Turning the sun on at midnight is somewhat more difficult.
My silly point was mostly that solar has its limits. Here we have polar day in summer - so the sun does not set (at midnight or otherwise).
If you look at the snapshot at the current time (of this posting), the sun has gone down and there's less solar power.
They started behind the curve, but they're moving quickly, relatively at least
The PNW is dismantling dams, most of which never produced anywhere near the value of the fishery they destroyed.
To my knowledge, outside of Europe, there is no data reporting requirement, so this is all best effort (but it’s pretty good for best effort imho).
https://www.electricitymaps.com/
Recently they added a feature enabling the users to see production data per country on a monthly basis.
From that you can see that France still hasn't recovered in terms of nuclear power generation capacity and that, along with high natural gas prices was the perfect storm that caused electricity prices to skyrocket.
They're restarting as we speak and the effect on prices is already visible.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...
Huge progress has been made over not that long a timeline, if nothing more than diversifying the sources of power. More can be done but it is impressive all the same.
This has been pretty well known in my country at least.
However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account.
But I agree with you that generally too much panic is being created.
Of course, however, is there anything where the conversion has been from electic to petrol / gas / coal? My car is going electic, my bolier is going electric. This isnt new, it has been the path of travel for a while now.
Unless Nvidia has really f'd up their calculations my 5090 graphics card isnt going to be coal powered.
“Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station
The counter factual; if the 60% of electricity coming form wind or sunshine at this instant was from coal, then 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year becomes 20/30/40/50 Gt of carbon dioxide each year and global emmisions are significantly more than what they are now.
Purely hypothetical, but it is where we were.
Unfortunately without the panic we wouldn't have even gotten where we are. The last decade's progress has been excellent, but there was 20 years of stagnation before that. The latest nuclear plant that was opened in the UK was in 1995, and we've not successfully built another since. Meanwhile gas plants have served their entire lifecycle and been decommissioned in that time frame, and are still actively being built (but thankfully no longer planned).
> However, the full picture isn't so glamorous once you take all energy types into account
Why not? Electricity is one of the biggest of energy, and is growing as transport (which is the second largest source of energy usage) is electrifying. Cleaning our electricity sources and moving our largest polluters to electricity is a great path forward. Theres no silver bullet here but what we're doing is pretty much the biggest impact we can make. We should have done it 20 years ago, and we should be doing it quicker now though.
The next biggest source of emissions is from agriculture, mostly from deforestation and oversimplifying for the sake of an internet comment, if the EU, China and the US just ate less beef, that problem would mostly solve itself.
They look bad, but certainly the rate of badness is nowhere close to what it once was - if post pandemic emissions are not horrific, then you can make the case that the upward trend is broken.
And then it's everything which isn't electricity. For a more clear picture, look for sankey diagrams like this one [1], which shows how electricity is actually a small part of the equation.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/sankey/energy/sankey.htm...
Thats what the activist blockading my commuter train was hysterically screaming too.
When you are packed 3 deep and 3 high on an electic train being screamed at that you are personally destroying the planet (by taking this train to work?) it brings the climate wars home.
Had the displeasure of meeting some of those activists as well. While I don't support their means of protest (in Germany the constantly glue themselves onto the street) I understand their message. However, considering the activists blocked a packed tram line that is powered exclusively by renewables, I'm not sure if they themselves understand the issues completely.
The offshore wind farm opening in 2023 is not a product of that activist gluing themselves to something, and the one planned for 10 years from now is not either. The train, towards clean electricity and near zero oil is in motion, has been for quite some time, and the only question is how fast it is travelling.
I would love to see it move faster, and certainly anyone actually pulling the strings of investment are looking at a coventional power plant vs renewables and throwing their money at renewables faster than people can take it. It is only amongst the chattering masses and everyone having their voice heard on twitter that there is much debate.
Existence of "extremists" usually helps "moderates" make things change. Without the "extremists", the "moderates" ARE the "extremists" and will not be taken seriously. It reminds me of how without the Black Panther Party, some white moderates would have not accepted propositions from Martin Luther King.
I think that wind farms and renewables would not be there if there was no pressure from extremists that helped deciders realize that wind farms and renewables are not just a whim from few ecologists.
They were swiming against the tide - today they are swiming with a pretty rapidly moving current.
> wind farms and renewables would not be there if there was no pressure from extremists
Wind farms and renewables that exist today because someone in June 2022 glued their hand to a road. They are the product of research and development and planning under corporations and governments 3/4/5 leaders ago. In the context of the UK - 2014 for consent to build Hornsea which started delivering power in 2020. With each successful phase they keep asking to build more, it is the success of the project that had them proposing part 2 and now in 2022 part 3. The person glued to the pavement can claim Hornsea 3 is their doing but personally I dont think they are moving the needle at all.
If you could build a wind farm, and sell off 50% of the interest in the project for what it cost to build - you would be planning the next one as well.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/03/28/orsted-divesting-hal...
You take Hornsea, it is a good example: projects from industry in UK existed for a long time, but were unlocked only due to European Union promotion and subsidies for renewable energy, which itself would not have existed without the need for Germany to boost renewable because they decided to go out of nuclear, because of the ecologist protests in 1980-1990. Hornsea is the result of the 2010 European Union push for 20% renewable, and would not have existed (at least not as early) otherwise, because EU funding was, obviously, a really good incentive. Before that, there were wind power industry pushing for projects in UK (such wind power industry groups exists since 1970), but they were not very often taken on board by the UK government. Also, Hornsea has deemed economically profitable because it used efficient technology created due to the push for renewable that was in general a political move due to pressure of ecologist protests.
We are facing an existential threat to civilization itself, but some kids have thrown some soup at a painting so I guess our hands are tied now...
Plus, how do you even blockade a train?
"A poll on the Extinction Rebellion Telegram chat showed 86 per cent of members were against action targeting the London Underground. Just 4 per cent approved of the action, while 7 per cent approved if they could be sure trains wouldn't get blocked underground."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-angry-commute...
These ones actually managed to get the glue on... https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47946205
They’re not in favor of communism either by the way, they want the global economic system reformed to become sustainable and they consider the job of doing that a responsibility of the powers that be.
People opinions on what actions are probably similar to Gaussian curves, with two consequences: 1) you may be situated on the mean value, but you may not, and you have almost no way to know (personal assessments are so biased they are worth nothing) 2) it is unrealistic to expect that no one will exist on the left or on the right of you. There will always be annoying people that will go too far. As long as those are agreeing on the climate emergency problem, considering that they are a problem that need to be solved is just a waste of time. Just live with it.
If it makes you feel better, you may even consider that the existence of those annoying activists is the consequence of the lack of action of people who are downplaying the climate change emergency. If the second ones don't exist, the first ones would not exist too.
So if fossil fuels get converted to electricity it shows the roughly 50% loss, but if they're used in cars it doesn't show the 80% loss.
Electrifying everything makes a big difference, so much so that people quoting primary energy figures rather than final energy (the stuff we actually use to do stuff) are liars.
And this diagram, which is misrepresenting transport fuel as if it was final energy is also misleading for similar reasons.
“Coal-fired power stations emit over 10 Gt of carbon dioxide each year,[4] about one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions, so are the single largest cause of climate change”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal-fired_power_station
Half of them were built in the past 20 years?
And we subsidize the industry.
“In 2020 the coal industry was subsidized $US18 billion”
I’m always surprised that we haven’t replaced all of them with green energy.
100Gt of emissions every decade. Coal is also quite polluting and no one wants to live near a coal energy plant.
Those 8500 plants actually move the needle and accelerate climate change by a significant amount.
The obvious solution is not having so much demand, but we all want to have that cake and eat it.
How about some better answers?
It appears we’ve completely missed the initial goals and will experience a larger temperature increase.
100 million barrels of oil a day. Fossil fuels producing 84% of our energy needs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-ne...
With modern filters and high enough smokestacks, the effect on air quality doesn't seem to be that bad. In my region, every city has its own coal plant (mostly used to provide heat for the city in the winter) and I don't notice the effects on air quality. It's definitely a small fraction of the pollution brought by people burning coal at home (in old boilers, obviously without any filters and with low chimneys).
Look at what happened in last ~20-30 years during which time the "green" movement was insisting that nuclear is too late, too costly, and renewables are the better solution to climate change, and that coal can not possibly compete with renewables and coal is dead and coal infrastructure are stranded assets.
The reality of the situation is that renewables can't even keep up, let alone reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, that coal is still one of the cheapest ways to generate power. And after China we still have half the world's population hasn't even started its energy consumption S-curve.
The people who thought fossil fuels were done for and renewables would just magically kill them and solve the problem -- with no need to look at serious investment in nuclear and hydro and real carbon pricing -- were lied to by fossil-fuel backed "green" propaganda.
I find it stunning that Germany, a country that according to Wikipedia has about the same solar potential as Alaska, produced 16,4GW ! from Solar, this last 2 November.
- DE: electricity generation by source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&...
- FR: Electricity production and spot prices https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_spot_market/chart.ht...
- NL: Annual electricity spot market prices https://energy-charts.info/charts/price_average/chart.htm?l=...
They have a great visualization for generation by fuel type, including interconnectors - https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/generation-by-fuel-type
This will replace Elexon's Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service (https://www.bmreports.com/) in 2023.
The key updates are
- better API support including XML, JSON and CSV, along with better docs
- more data viz to really pull out the story behind what's going on
- their new IRIS data push service will be delivered in early 2023
It seems Tony Seba is right. With batteries and EV they will displace everything else.
Not that nuclear is evil on anything, but I don’t see how it will compete on price.
(I understand the need for baseload, stability, keep what works, etc)
What's the timeframe until we get 100% renewable? until then, nuclear will be needed and won't have to compete on price.
Extrapolate out renewable and battery storage uptake rates. You won’t get the first kWh from a nuclear plant you start building today for at least a decade. Nuclear will have to compete on price so long as someone has to pay for it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17998672
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
Would be interested to see how production (and demand) and weather overlap.
On the demand side, it depends on how people heat (or cool) their home. In France, there is a lot of electrical heating and the partial dependency between temperature and demand is very well understood (and visible in the data). In countries where they rely more on gas story is different.
A good way to study these dependencies is to do load forecasting with white box models such as General Additive Models [1][2], you get the full picture of partial dependencies between your input variables and target variable.
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/cornec/adaptive-gam-12058258 [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260448958_Short-Ter...
This will replace the older BMRS next year. That also has an API - https://bscdocs.elexon.co.uk/guidance-notes/bmrs-api-and-dat...
Fortunately trusty ol' element zapper gets rid of this and one can still look at the actual content one came for.
Rates for feed electricity into the grid vary widely within the EU, for example in Germany it's around 6-7ct/kWh for home rooftop solar, in Belgium it depends on the energy company, but goes up to 40ct.
* connect your solar to the grid, sell off the excess (default for larger installations)
* connect your solar to the grid, donate the excess to the grid (easier from the paperwork perspective, doable for very small installations)
* have an "island" installation that's not connected to the main grid, move some devices to that island (you need two separate circuits, need to manage which device to put on which circuit)
* go fully island / off-grid (you only need one circuit, but need battery and enough power generation to go through the winter all by yourself)
The first two are definitively easier, the latter two only for real tinkerers / enthusiasts. So unless you count the latter two, the alternative to selling to the grid is donating the excess to the grid.
This has really started to become a viable option with solar panel prices being so low and battery prices (particularly lithium iron phosphate) dropping significantly in the last few years.
Unless this isn't a legal method anywhere in the EU, but I highly doubt that.
i own this solar inverter and i get to use on-grid mode when the grid is live during the day and if grid goes dark for any reason, i cut off supply outside and use the solar for home use WITHOUT BATTERIES. Been running this at home for 2 years now, 5 KWH inverter, 5.3 (i think) panels
This is from Germany, I hear prices differ a bit between EU countries.