Hacker News Reader

>> So the solution is really that simple. Do not build power plants that burn fuels. The economics will push the next cheapest solution to the top.

That's not strictly accurate. It'll push the next most profitable solution to the top. If there's no solution that offers the desired rate of return, at acceptable risk levels, then private capital simple doesn't bother to arrive at all.

Govts don't need a reasonable rate of return, so they can fill that gap, assuming that it doesn't cost too much political capital. Yes we need base load, but that message gets lost when the opposition are complaining about high govt spending etc.

Storage is the holy grail here. That allows for more provision of wind and solar.

Governments have always intervened into energy markets to implement policy goals.

German Coal penny

The coal levy was a surcharge on electricity prices levied by energy suppliers in the Federal Republic of Germany to finance hard coal mining . Consumers in the former West Germany paid the coal levy from 1974 to 1995, and it was abolished after the Federal Constitutional Court ruled it an unconstitutional special levy (electricity generation levy).

The Federal Constitutional Court argued that the coal levy was unjustifiable because it burdened the general public of electricity customers who had no particular financial responsibility for hard coal from Germany. The coal levy was therefore abolished at the end of 1995. Since then, hard coal mining has been subsidized from the state budget. Between 1975 and 2002, the total amount of subsidies was approximately 80 to 100 billion euros (in 2003 prices).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlepfennig

German Renewable Energy Sources Act

"The Renewable Energy Sources Act or EEG (German: Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz) is a series of German laws that originally provided a feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme to encourage the generation of renewable electricity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...

German coalition agrees to subsidised power price for industry

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-coalition-agr...

Storage could be a solution, but it is not what politicians are right now putting their weight behind (remember, election here is ongoing and will finish in a few weeks. They are very open about their politics). For example, the platform of the green party writes that thermal power plants are a critical part of the Swedish energy grid in order to enable wind and solar. In debates they said that the oil power plant is a natural part of the energy grid and essential for keeping prices low and the grid stable.

That is the left side of the debate. The other side pushes for nuclear, but there is no actually ongoing construction for that. What is actually being constructed and supported by both side is more thermal power plants.

When you need multiple months worth of capacity to cover the winter, rather than hours to cover a day-night cycle, storage is a very expensive strategy. There are experimental tests, like the one in Finland that will heat a small number of buildings in a small town, but there is no political party that is going to the election on a platform with storage as the solution. The closest you will get is the far future plans in the green party platform that current oil and other plants could (in theory) be switched to burning green hydrogen, but the political capital in that area has been significant decreased in the last decade when cost of infrastructure and production has shown to be prohibitively expensive. The biggest project, intended to produce green steel, has been significantly delayed and costs increased, and is continuously demanding more and more subsidizes. To burn green hydrogen for electricity is about as close to becoming economical as fusion is.

You are indeed right that if we were to ban the construction of new thermal power plants, the result will likely be that private capital will simple not bother to do anything unless significant government capital is put on the table. Everything is simply too expensive and if you allow the market price to spike without limit, citizens will go and vote for government to step in. When electricity market spikes by 100x for a single month, the outcome is not that the market steps in and invest in more expensive power plants. Citizen instead goes to the government and elect one that will provide a stable energy market. That was the outcome of the 2020 energy crisis. That is how the economics of nuclear could become viable, or storage, but it is also why thermal power plants is the thing being built right now.

> Storage is the holy grail here. That allows for more provision of wind and solar.

Storage makes the already expensive intermittent renewables even more expensive.

Germany has the highest electricity costs among the G20.

https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2026-08/strompreise-g20-deuts...

And that's with still quite a lot of coal and ever more gas in the grid, both for the plenty of times the intermittent don't deliver and for grid stability (see also: Spainout), which means we have the 3rd worst specific emissions in the EU (down from 4th worst last year), and the highest total CO₂ emissions in the EU.

After about €1 trillion spent on our "Energiewende", our "green" energy transition.

> Ban construction (...) and let the economy and market forces compete to find the cheapest alternative

This sounds nice and unbiased on paper, but often this means that rather than expanding alternatives, the poor are simply made to go without and then they will scream at politicians for relief until they get it and you are right back at square one.

As a fellow Swede you will know how the price of gasoline has become a hot topic and how politicians campaigned on bringing the price down again by reversing climate policies.

Personally I think the solution is to make a commie-style 5 year plan and then work backwards to what kind of incentives would be needed for that plan, probably involving industry leaders in that discussion. Then you can make sure that the incentives are technology neutral. This ensures that if nothing better comes along the "free" market will execute 5 year plan but they do have the option of gambling on alternatives if they so choose or if some wonder technology emerges out of a secret lab.

A commie-style 5 year plan or even 10 year plan would be kind of great. Electricity is one of those products that we know what we want long term and should be willing to budget for it in a reasonable way. We need to double the production while eliminating emissions, while at the same time restore rivers and prepare for more extreme weather. We also need a stable energy market without shortages, as week/month long shortages makes citizens and businesses go to the government for solutions. As the last energy crisis illustrated, people can't just stop going to work because the market price for electricity is too high. People need to eat and pay rent, and those needs is why they go and scream at politicians to fix it.

The price of gasoline is a actually a good example of an fairly open debate over what the costs should be on a national level for a global product. We are currently paying one of the highest electricity prices in EU, not because the energy is expensive to produce at the wind farms, but because construction of new transmission from the place of production to the place of consumption is carried by the consumer. There is very little political discussion on what a fair price is for electricity, and how the cost of the grid should be fairly paid.

> We are not building any new nuclear.

?

I mean, not building yet, but a lot of new nuclear is in the pipeline.

"The Swedish government has presented a roadmap for new nuclear, stipulating that, by 2035, nuclear reactors with the capacity to produce 2500 MW should have been built, with further increases to 10 000 MW by the year 2045."

https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/the-case-for-new-nucle...

"A flurry of nuclear developments in Sweden—state aid, SMR selections, legislation"

https://www.ans.org/news/2026-06-18/article-8133/new-sweden-...

There appear to be new developments almost every other week.

Legislation, permits and offers of loans/state aid can result in new plants if the private actors starts to invest, but there is a large difference between that and actually building new plants. With the election going on, it is also very questionable if anything will happen if the flips from right to left, as the new government can easily just withdraw those offers of state aid and change the legislation to make it unprofitable to invest into new nuclear power plants.

The proof is as always in what get actually get constructed, and right now what we do know is that new thermal power plants is currently being constructed in the south that is expected to finish and starting to burn fuel in 2028.

> can result in new plants if the private actors starts to invest

It is the private investors seeking approvals. Why would they do this if they didn't want to build? After all, these types of approvals and application processes also cost money. Are they doing this just for fun?

> but there is a large difference between that and actually building new plants.

Well yes: what is happening now are the required prerequisites to actually building. Can't really start building without having done these things first.

Not sure what you're trying to say here? They can only be taken seriously if they skip the necessary first steps?

> the new government can easily just withdraw those offers of state aid and change the legislation to make it unprofitable to invest into new nuclear power plants.

That was one of the changes: there is now an insurance mechanism that compensates investors if the state pulls the plug on them.

Which goes back to the point of the state being the biggest risk factor for nuclear projects.

> The proof is as always in what get actually get constructed

The proof for construction. The proof for intent and investor interests is now.

Next step happened just today:

Studsvik, GE Vernova Hitachi and Samsung C&T commit to advancing 1.2 GW nuclear power project in Sweden

https://news.cision.com/studsvik-ab/r/studsvik--ge-vernova-h...

Again, these news are coming out almost on a weekly basis. Yes, not a finished power plant, yet, but also very very far from nothing.