The cost of electricity across the EU

SeanW

Heroditas wrote: »

Sorry but that is just wrong. If you're referring to frequency fluctuations due to renewables on the system, that is all handled and dealt with - it does not affect industrial facilities.

WADR, it is this that is flat out wrong. Industrial processes are often sensitive to the most minor fluctuations in the power grid, and renewables (solar and wind) introduce fluctuations like crazy, in Germany it has lead to widespread industrial damage, ranging from €10,000 to hundreds of thousands per incident, i.e. per factory per fluctuation.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

explain?

Renewables, such as solar and wind, have been behind a large scale expansion in the mining of "rare earth" metals, such as Neodymium. Problem is that the only country willing to trash its environment as needed to suply the Neodymium for bone headed Western renewables programmes is China.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

nesf wrote: »

You're saying the environmental left are behind a coal plant building spree?

It has been proven throughout history that one makes the choice either to use fossil fuels or nuclear power, for a considerable portion of a nations power supply. We made our choice back in the '70s thanks to the hippies at Carnsore Point, which is why we now have Moneypoint power station and are almost totally reliant on fossil fuels. Same thing that's happening in Germany.

France on the other hand made the opposite choice - they went hell for leather down the nuclear road and as a result, their energy supply is 90+% non fossil. Something the environmental left doesn't like to talk about.

Victor wrote: »

But other types of generation also kill wildlife - see Scandanavian and Canadian lakes and forests.

I'm quite familiar with the side effects of using coal power (it produces SO2 and NOX that cause acid rain) and I am implacably opposed to it. That's why I favour nuclear: as a drop-in replacement for coal fire power. Something I doubt faffing about with windmills or solar panels will ever do.

What is wrong with thermal, hydro or bio-fuels?

With the exception of Iceland and parts of Scandinavia, geothermal and hydro cannot scale up to the levels required. As for bio-fuels, growing these uses the most precious resource we have: land. Land is used for residences, recreation, commerce, forestry, growing all different sorts of crops, raising livestock and also nature reserves. These are all competing uses for a commodity we cannot make more of.

To illustrate the problem I have with biofuels for electricity generation, consider a binary choice, that, hypothetically speaking, a government might choose to generate 125MW from a new power plant: but it could be either a Pebble Bed nuclear power plant, or a biofuel pp. Considering, for a moment, that the main consideration is land use, go down the biofuels route and you have to press X,000 acres of land into bioenergy crop production. Go down the nuclear route and you could leave that land to a nature reserve.

In that scenario, it would take me about 2 seconds to suggest what to do.

Heroditas

Fluctuations like that can happen even with a grid powered solely with fossil fuelled plants. It has little to do with the amount of renewables on the grid.
What that article indicates is that Germany has an issue balancing its grid and needs to invest in dong so.
That does not happen in Ireland.

SeanW

Heroditas wrote: »

What that article indicates is that Germany has an issue balancing its grid and needs to invest in dong so.
That does not happen in Ireland.

"An issue" that wasn't an issue before they started decommissioning nukes and building windmills ... gee I wonder why?

Thank goodness, it's not happening in Ireland yet.
How long do you think Intel would stick around if it was losing wafers of silicon by the truckload through power supply interruptions? Or what remains of the rest of our industrial base?

hfallada

A man who was fairly high up in the ESB said that the prices are artificially high to get competition into the market. This true as ESB cant have more than 60% of the electricity market. Also ESB generates a majority its electricity from Gas which is extremely expensive in Europe and there was an article in the economist saying Coal is far cheap to use. However Coal is very dirty and produces twice as much Co2 as coal.

It doesnt happy either that ESB staff get twice the industry wage.

Cody Pomeray

SeanW wrote: »

Renewables, such as solar and wind, have been behind a large scale expansion in the mining of "rare earth" metals, such as Neodymium.

As your own Daily Mail article points out, "rare" does not simply refer to the element's abundance in the environment.

It's also interesting that the article you posted included the diagram I have reproduced below, which shows wind to have a lower carbon footprint than any fossil fuel based system, and its footprint is comparable or lower than the non-fossil power generation technologies.



Similar positive findings have been found in relation to toxicity [Vestas wind systems A/S. Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/LCA/LCAV90_juni_2006.pdf]

o presumably your only concern relates to heavy metals and mining activity.

I have searched extensively, and have been unable to find any scientific evidence for the extent and magnitude of damage caused by the mining of Nd on soil.

Since you have raised this issue as being "filthy" in the context of this debate, I assume you mean it is filthier than the fossil fuel and non-fossil alternatives? In which case, you must have some some reason to have arrived at that understanding, which you might share.

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

Thank goodness, it's not happening yet.
How long do you think Intel would stick around if it was losing wafers of silicon by the truckload through power supply interruptions? Or what remains of the rest of our industrial base.

The likes of Intel have back-up emergency generators that are synchronised with the grid in the event of power failures.
Also, the grid has enough back-up that can kick in instantly in the event of a generator or wind farm dropping off suddenly.
That's my point - the grid is balanced correctly here, hence why we don't have the issues that Germany has. That'll still be the case even if more renewables are placed in the generation mix.

Heroditas

hfallada wrote: »

A man who was fairly high up in the ESB said that the prices are artificially high to get competition into the market. This true as ESB cant have more than 60% of the electricity market. Also ESB generates a majority its electricity from Gas which is extremely expensive in Europe and there was an article in the economist saying Coal is far cheap to use. However Coal is very dirty and produces twice as much Co2 as coal.

It doesnt happy either that ESB staff get twice the industry wage.

That statement is no longer true because the market is now fully deregulated.
Coal is currently very cheap and due to the collapse in the ETS market, it is much cheaper to generate electricity here using coal than with gas, also due to the sharp increases recently in gas prices.
However, coal plants are not as flexible as gas plants, hence why gas plants make up the majority of the generatin mix here.

SeanW

Heroditas wrote: »

The likes of Intel have back-up emergency generators that are synchronised with the grid in the event of power failures.
Also, the grid has enough back-up that can kick in instantly in the event of a generator or wind farm dropping off suddenly.
That's my point - the grid is balanced correctly here, hence why we don't have the issues that Germany has. That'll still be the case even if more renewables are placed in the generation mix.

It only takes a millisecond or two ...

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

It only takes a millisecond or two ...

Hence why back-up generators are synchronised.

Victor

Dob74 wrote: »

3. We let the energy companies rip us off. Why wont the regulator make them keep there prices the same like nearly every other company has in this recession.

The cost of fuels have gone up hugely.

ESB and Bord Gais are still making profits. It would be no harm for them to be breaking even or make a loss. Why should the consumer have to bail them out.

The consumer can't afford for them to be making a loss. Making a loss would mean there would be no investment. No investment on a dilapidated system means no investment by big business, which means no economic recovery.

They awarded there staff a pay rise, since the economic collaspe.

There has also been restructuring.

oppenheimer1

Macha wrote: »

No objections from my side. And of course let's not forget Germany has committed to phasing out nuclear and really going for renewables. In case anyone thinks nuclear is a solution for high Irish energy prices, nuclear energy is by far the most expensive energy source you can possibly imagine. And that's not including all the freebies the industry enjoys.

The removal of nuclear from the energy mix in Germany is a huge mistake. Without nuclear, what is going to produce the electrical energy baseload?

Or what happens when a high pressure system settles itself on central Europe for two to three weeks?

AlmightyCushion

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The removal of nuclear from the energy mix in Germany is a huge mistake. Without nuclear, what is going to produce the electrical energy baseload?

Or what happens when a high pressure system settles itself on central Europe for two to three weeks?

They're building a load of coal plants as well.

Macha

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The removal of nuclear from the energy mix in Germany is a huge mistake. Without nuclear, what is going to produce the electrical energy baseload?

Or what happens when a high pressure system settles itself on central Europe for two to three weeks?

What makes you think we need baseload? There are plenty of ways of balancing renewables in the grid that don't involve any baseload, including new market designs for better flexibility, expanded diversity of resources within a geographic grid, coordination of balancing areas, fostering balancing response times through market mechanisms, system optimization, power dispatch models that incorporate day-ahead markets, yes some controlled curtailment of renewables, demand side management, storage, flexible balancing generation like CCGT, etc.

Modelling of extreme weather conditions even for extended periods of time has demonstrated that it isn't an issue. What is not understood is that it is nuclear's lack of flexibility that can cause problems in the network - not to mention the impact that a large nuclear plant has on competition in the electricity market.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

They're building a load of coal plants as well.

As I explained in an earlier post in this thread, these coal plants were announced before the nuclear phase out. Germany is currently a net electricity exporter, demonstrating it has more than sufficient generation capacity.. These coal plants are being built for commercial purposes.

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

Modelling of extreme weather conditions even for extended periods of time has demonstrated that it isn't an issue.

Great, so when you have another Siberian anti-cyclone like what we had at Christmas 2010 (punishingly low temperatures, no sun, no wind, everything frozen, but lots of people needing to throw on everything electric to stay alive) there would be no problem even if the grid was hopelessly dependent on (stalled) windmills, (frozen) pumped hydro pools and (iced over) solar panels ...

What is not understood is that it is nuclear's lack of flexibility that can cause problems in the network - not to mention the impact that a large nuclear plant has on competition in the electricity market.

Your promoting technologies thare are not only unreliable and unstable, but that have subsidised to ridiculous extremes, and at the same time bashing nuclear for being "inflexible" and having an impact on competition? No offense, but to take that serioulsy really requires the suspension of disbelief.

As I explained in an earlier post in this thread, these coal plants were announced before the nuclear phase out. Germany is currently a net electricity exporter, demonstrating it has more than sufficient generation capacity.. These coal plants are being built for commercial purposes.

The environmental left had been pushing for a nuclear phase out for a long time and all these policies have been in place for many years.
Given that:

1. Nuclear power is being phased out (a key demand of Green parties, Greenpeace etc) AND:
2. Renewables are being subsidised to the hilt

It is safe to say that the environmental-left (i.e. people like you) are calling the shots on German energy policy. Yet these coal plants have backing from the highest levels of the German government, which as I said is being told what to do by the environmental-left.


So you can't blame "commercial purposes" when its your side that is laying down policy and calling the shots.



Much the same as how Moneypoint was built only after the plans for Carnsore Point were scuppered by the environmental left ... Moneypoint and a lot of the fossil fuel usage since those days can correctly be attributed to the environmental-left.

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

Great, so when you have another Siberian anti-cyclone like what we had at Christmas 2010 (punishingly low temperatures, no sun, no wind, everything frozen, but lots of people needing to throw on everything electric to stay alive) there would be no problem even if the grid was hopelessly dependent on (stalled) windmills, (frozen) pumped hydro pools and (iced over) solar panels ...

.

Yeah but Macha hasn't said any such thing. He's mentioned flexibility including using CCGT.

SeanW

Heroditas wrote: »

Yeah but Macha hasn't said any such thing. He's mentioned flexibility including using CCGT.

You'd need a very large amount of CCGT if that's the backup plan. A VERY large amount.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

Great, so when you have another Siberian anti-cyclone like what we had at Christmas 2010 (punishingly low temperatures, no sun, no wind, everything frozen, but lots of people needing to throw on everything electric to stay alive) there would be no problem even if the grid was hopelessly dependent on (stalled) windmills, (frozen) pumped hydro pools and (iced over) solar panels ...

You'll need to provide some a credible study to prove that demand couldn't be met with the system I described. So far, all you've done is claim it.

SeanW wrote: »

Your promoting technologies thare are not only unreliable and unstable, but that have subsidised to ridiculous extremes, and at the same time bashing nuclear for being "inflexible" and having an impact on competition? No offense, but to take that serioulsy really requires the suspension of disbelief.

In Q4 2010 there were unplanned outages of nuclear plants. Why don't you also mention them in your post? All energy technologies have an element of instability in them and you haven't offered any evidence that renewables cannot be fully integrated into an electricity grid.

As for subsidies, the nuclear industry is a mature industry yet is incapable of existing without state aid. In Germany alone between 1950 and 2008, nuclear received subsidies of more than (2008)€167 billion. That doesn't include future decommissioning costs, future waste disposal costs or insurance risk borne by the state.

On the other hand, many renewable energy technologies (because we are talking about about 10) have reached varying levels of maturity. Of course as they mature, they should be more exposed to market signals but some are still infant technologies and need support to reach the market. But the idea that renewables should be criticized because they receive subsidies ignores the history of subsidies to other technologies, legacy market rules and existing infrastructure that all favours incumbents. The level playing field many want renewables to compete on just doesn't exist.

If you're going to decide on energy technology on the basis of subsidies, it makes no sense to support nuclear.

SeanW wrote: »

It is safe to say that the environmental-left (i.e. people like you) are calling the shots on German energy policy. Yet these coal plants have backing from the highest levels of the German government, which as I said is being told what to do by the environmental-left.

So you can't blame "commercial purposes" when its your side that is laying down policy and calling the shots.

I'd like to know of any high-level backing of these projects since the announcement of the nuclear phase out. The reality on the ground is very different. This graph (in German) shows that since the announcement of the nuclear phase out, two German coal plants have gone into production and there are 8 under construction. The two plants that have just gone online received their permits in 2005. The other 8 projects were all underway by 2009 at the latest. Go further down the document and you'll see that 6 coal plant projects have actually been abandoned.

In summary, since announcing the nuclear phaseout, Germany has announced no new coal plant projects and has actually stepped away from 6 coal plant projects.

I might also add that Merkel has voiced her support for the backloading proposal of the EU Emissions Trading System, which would bring up the carbon price. The main function of a strong ETS price is a switch from coal to gas. So I'm not sure how you can claim the current German government is strongly supporting coal.

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

Yeah but Macha hasn't said any such thing. He's mentioned flexibility including using CCGT.

She (:)), but thanks and you're right. I'm talking about a very different system that would involve a mix of measures. Even the idea that we would need huge amounts of storage is no longer supported by many energy system models.

Heroditas

Macha wrote: »

She (:)), but thanks and you're right. I'm talking about a very different system that would involve a mix of measures. Even the idea that we would need huge amounts of storage is no longer supported by many energy system models.

The idea of large-scale storage was always far-fetched. Far too expensive and poor use of resources when, as you've already pointed out, a mix of measures can be highly effective.

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

You'd need a very large amount of CCGT if that's the backup plan. A VERY large amount.

It already exists here.

murphaph

I can see a (coal fired) power station from my balcony here in Berlin. It pumps out smoke and filth into the atmosphere 24/7. I am in favour of renewables wherever practicable and believe they have a bigger role to play. I however also believe that nuclear, while not clean, is a damn sight cleaner than coal and fossils in general.

The German decision to scrap nuclear was a knee jerk (over) reaction to Fukushima and nothing else. I would have expected better from Merkel but there you go.

Austria had a similar story to Ireland except it was even more stupid. They actually built a complete nuclear plant (and paid Siemens a lot of money for it) and then had a change of government and a very narrow anti-nuclear referendum was held and before it came on stream it was decommissioned and they paid Siemens again to take all their stuff back out! Crazy stuff... Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant

Biofuels to me should not play any role in energy generation as they rob land from more important tasks like food production and with a growing population, food and water will become scarcer.

Macha

murphaph wrote: »

I can see a (coal fired) power station from my balcony here in Berlin. It pumps out smoke and filth into the atmosphere 24/7. I am in favour of renewables wherever practicable and believe they have a bigger role to play. I however also believe that nuclear, while not clean, is a damn sight cleaner than coal and fossils in general.

The German decision to scrap nuclear was a knee jerk (over) reaction to Fukushima and nothing else. I would have expected better from Merkel but there you go.

Not at all. The original decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany by2022 was made during the chancellorship of Schröder in 2000. Merkel agreed to comply with this original decision by the events in Fukushima, and even speed up the phase out.

murphaph wrote: »

Biofuels to me should not play any role in energy generation as they rob land from more important tasks like food production and with a growing population, food and water will become scarcer.

Land based biofuels, of course. Advanced biofuels could deliver some renewables.

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

You'll need to provide some a credible study to prove that demand couldn't be met with the system I described. So far, all you've done is claim it.

I'm not sure I need to, really. For the last 40 years or more, the environmental left (Greenpeace and world Green parties) has been telling us that we don't need nuclear, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

All driven by an agenda. Most of it of deeply questionable veracity. Why should I believe that anything has changed?

All energy technologies have an element of instability in them

True, but renewables are literally as dependable as the weather. Yet they're subsidised like crazy.

and you haven't offered any evidence that renewables cannot be fully integrated into an electricity grid.

It isn't for me: my central claim has always been that a choice must be made between nuclear power and fossil fuels, with the exception of some Northern European countries like Iceland (blessed as they are with heaps of hydroelectricity and thermal). Including Germany where it is surely beyond dispute that the environmental left is calling the shots.

As for subsidies, the nuclear industry is a mature industry yet is incapable of existing without state aid. In Germany alone between 1950 and 2008, nuclear received subsidies of more than (2008)€167 billion. That doesn't include future decommissioning costs, future waste disposal costs or insurance risk borne by the state.

Ah yes, it's because of nuclear power that electricity costs €0.35 per k/wh :rolleyes:

I'd like to know of any high-level backing of these projects since the announcement of the nuclear phase out. The reality on the ground is very different.

That's funny: the Merkel-Schroeder administration was explicitly clear in its support for coal fired power as far back as 2007.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/caught-in-the-climate-conundrum-germany-plans-boom-in-coal-fired-power-plants-despite-high-emissions-a-472786.html

In particular pay attention to a speech, recent to that time, by the chancellor:

Angela Merkel wrote:

Germany has considerable natural resources in the form of brown coal which we shouldn't downplay

The government of Germany, starting with the SPD and SPD/CSU coalition and picked up by the CSU after Fukushima, have been absolutely crystal clear: The nuclear plants must go, and if coal is all there is to replace them with, so be it.

And all of this has been done with the environmental left clearly pulling the strings: sky high solar power subsidies, lots of windmills everywhere, and a nuclear phaseout are all core demands of the mainstream environmental movement and all are being implemented without resistance.

I find it really incredible that despite your side (the environmental left) clearly running Germany's energy policy, that you should try to disown the coal plant building programme despite it clearly being a consquence of your policies.

In summary, since announcing the nuclear phaseout, Germany has announced no new coal plant projects and has actually stepped away from 6 coal plant projects.

That doesn't seem to gel with what I've posted: You say that the nuclear phase out was announced in 2000 (and only accelerated in 2011 due to Fukushima), but I've posted clear evidence that the coal boom was planned at least as close back as 2007.

Curious.

I might also add that Merkel has voiced her support for the backloading proposal of the EU Emissions Trading System, which would bring up the carbon price. The main function of a strong ETS price is a switch from coal to gas. So I'm not sure how you can claim the current German government is strongly supporting coal.

Yes, because clearly electricity isn't expensive enough already. :rolleyes:

Heroditas

SeanW wrote: »

True, but renewables are literally as dependable as the weather. Yet they're subsidised like crazy.

PSO DECISION PAPER 2012-2013

In Ireland, the PSO levy for 2012-2013 is €131m.
€47.5m of that is for REFIT to support renewables.
The remainder of it goes to Aughinish, Tynagh and the peat burning stations.
Now, who would you say is getting "subsidised like crazy"? Renewables or the fossil-fueled plants.
Throw in approximately €500m in capacity payments to generators as well, the bulk of which goes to fossil-fueled plants and we see that your statement about subsidies doesn't quite ring true.

OssianSmyth

nesf wrote: »

This raises interesting questions about why it is so expensive for us to produce one kW of electricity.

Marginal cost of production of one kW of electricity in Ireland is average for the EU. Standing charges, however, are double the UK price. Our distribution system is necessarily longer due to our dispersed housing pattern.

nesf wrote: »

Yes, definitely economies of scale come in here to some extent, but is it our fuel mix combined with a high wage base that really kills us here?

that and our distribution costs

nesf wrote: »

are we really paying *that* much more in wages than the other countries in Europe or is not going the nuclear route *that* bad cost wise per unit?

Introduction of new nuclear now would increase prices (see the UK, Finland etc). Ireland already uses imported nuclear electricity without the safety or cost implications.

nesf wrote: »

Expensive electricity is both bad for business and bad for consumers, so really keeping the cost of electricity down should be a much bigger issue for Ireland than it is at present.

Are you sure that electricity costs should be a bigger issue for enterprise policy in Ireland?

SEAI's analysis in 2007 looked at the industrial sector and found that 94% of industrial companies spent less than 4% of their direct costs on electricity. At high consumption levels, Eurostat shows that Irish industry pays less for electricity than the EU average.

Outside of industry, electricity costs are an even less significant cost of doing business when compared to wages or property. If you run a medical devices, software or insurance company, then how worried are you about your electricity bill compared to your employee income taxes or public transport or broadband?

Ireland's climate puts us at an advantage to other countries for energy costs as heating and cooling costs are lower throughout the year in offices. Datacentres are cheaper to run here too.

nesf

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Are you sure that electricity costs should be a bigger issue for enterprise policy in Ireland?

SEAI's analysis in 2007 looked at the industrial sector and found that 94% of industrial companies spent less than 4% of their direct costs on electricity. At high consumption levels, Eurostat shows that Irish industry pays less for electricity than the EU average.

Outside of industry, electricity costs are an even less significant cost of doing business when compared to wages or property. If you run a medical devices, software or insurance company, then how worried are you about your electricity bill compared to your employee income taxes or public transport or broadband?

Ireland's climate puts us at an advantage to other countries for energy costs as heating and cooling costs are lower throughout the year in offices. Datacentres are cheaper to run here too.

High electricity's cost to business isn't just the direct cost to the business. High electricity costs usually are reflected in wage level to some extent and increase the cost of your domestic inputs. It'll vary hugely from sector to sector how big an issue this is.

OssianSmyth

nesf wrote: »

High electricity's cost to business isn't just the direct cost to the business. High electricity costs usually are reflected in wage level to some extent and increase the cost of your domestic inputs.

High employee electricity bills lead to higher wage demands. How significant do you think this factor is compared to income taxes, property prices, transport and food costs? Think of your own costs under those four headings.

It'll vary hugely from sector to sector how big an issue this is.

Yes and the SEI report found just 70 companies in Ireland with electricity costs above 10% of direct costs. Companies in sectors with high consumption are not at a competitive disadvantage as Eurostat finds Ireland below average price for electricity costs for this group.

There are more factors than unit price in determining the value of Ireland's electricity supply to commercial customers.

• Long term security of supply.
• Efficiency of building stock.
• Climate.

Security of supply is improving as we diversify into domestically produced renewables, reduce our fossil fuel use, and build interconnectors to other countries.
New building regulations are helping with efficiency but there is a historic problem following a long term policy of making costs low for builders during the boom.
Climate is changing and adding risk.

nesf

OssianSmyth wrote: »

High employee electricity bills lead to higher wage demands. How significant do you think this factor is compared to income taxes, property prices, transport and food costs? Think of your own costs under those four headings.

Yes and the SEI report found just 70 companies in Ireland with electricity costs above 10% of direct costs. Companies in sectors with high consumption are not at a competitive disadvantage as Eurostat finds Ireland below average price for electricity costs for this group.

And that was for direct costs. Maybe I'm unclear. I'm not worried about the actual electricity bill for a business. What concerns me is that electricity prices feed into the costs of an enormous amount of goods and services across the economy and a reduction in electricity prices, assuming it's passed on due to competition etc, would not just reduce the electricity bill for the company but have an effect across its range of inputs in terms of cost. I'm really failing to see why trying to have lower energy costs could possibly be a bad thing for our economy. As I said in my original post, I ask why it shouldn't be a bigger issue (we rarely discuss it politically, ever), not why it shouldn't be the biggest issue.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

And that was for direct costs. Maybe I'm unclear. I'm not worried about the actual electricity bill for a business. What concerns me is that electricity prices feed into the costs of an enormous amount of goods and services across the economy and a reduction in electricity prices, assuming it's passed on due to competition etc, would not just reduce the electricity bill for the company but have an effect across its range of inputs in terms of cost. I'm really failing to see why trying to have lower energy costs could possibly be a bad thing for our economy. As I said in my original post, I ask why it shouldn't be a bigger issue (we rarely discuss it politically, ever), not why it shouldn't be the biggest issue.

True, it is one of the more significant inputs into the economy, which makes the PPP comparison a bit tricky.

In reality, I don't think lower energy costs are an option in Europe in the near future. We'll have to compete with other regions but we're not going to win on energy prices.

OssianSmyth

nesf wrote: »

electricity prices feed into the costs of an enormous amount of goods and services across the economy

Yes, but is that not also the case for income taxes, property costs, transport and food costs - but on a far larger scale? We rarely hear calls for reductions in these more significant costs.

I'm really failing to see why trying to have lower energy costs could possibly be a bad thing for our economy.

Nobody suggested that. Everyone would welcome a reduction in electricity prices.