A "price signal" is artificial when the market is manipulated to set the price artificially as is done in Sweden where electricity prices in the south are tied to the European market while those in the north are not. This leads to extreme differences in price based exclusively on where you happen to live. In some cases people will pay 20-30 times more for the same electricity than their neighbours who happen to just live on the other side of the region.
Should I call this type of manipulation "left-wing" to counter your "right-wing" accusations? State-controlled markets are after all a "left-wing" phenomenon. But no, I won´t since I deem this type of polarised discussion counterproductive.
On the subject of building nuclear power plants it is clear to everyone and his dog that the reason why building new plants is expensive and takes a long time lies in the policies put in place by the same people who claim that building nuclear power plants is too expensive and takes too much time. The "wind farm" argument is just as hollow since it is not the lack of "wind farms" which has driven up the price of electricity but the fact that those same people closed down 6 fully operational nuclear plants, thereby creating an electricity shortage in the south of the country which has led to an enormous increase in the use of fossil fuel-powered plants - the same plants they accuse of causing "climate change". Top load plants which used to only be needed in extreme circumstances - severe cold snaps in the middle of winter - are now needed on a regular basis to keep the net frequency from sagging below 48.5 Hz.
There are literal physical reasons why the prices in different markets are different. The transmission capacity is the limiting factor.
Why do you think those are left-wing and artificial?
Wind has been the cheapest source of energy in Europe for over a decade, yet the Swedish right-wing are against it.
As long as the power plant has decent pollution controls and the carbon is taxed I don't really have an issue with it. That provides a clear price signal to build more cheap renewables, like wind. Unless you are against that, like the Swedish right-wing parties. Which doesn't really give me any confidence that they're doing the smart things to solve this 'problem' they've caused. And the local Swedish energy experts seem to agree with me.
The transmission capacity is only too small because the nuclear power plants were closed. The Swedish distribution network was designed for hydropower in the north, nuclear power in the south. The hydro plants in the north would feed heavy industry, the nuclear plants in the south would feed the needs of most of the population and industry there with the rest being filled in by the overcapacity from those hydro plants in the north.
Then the nuclear power plants were closed while simultaneously allowing the establishment of several data centres by the likes of Google in the south. Those data centres - which easily saturate the local transmission capacity which has already caused other industry to look elsewhere for expansion due to the lack of electricity - do not pay regular electricity rates, they pay far less than either other industries let alone regular consumers.
Who closed those nuclear power plants? Who called for the establishment of those data centres, knowing what problems this would cause? Who did not upgrade the transmission capacity in the full knowledge of its limits?
So, this is not a natural market, it has been manipulated with disastrous results for the majority of the Swedish population - most of whom live in the regions SE3 and SE4 where electricity prices have risen dramatically in the last years.
As to you defence of the use of those fossil fuel power plants due to the (intentional) failure of the policies of the "green" party I can only shake my head in disbelief. What does it take to get those who claim to support "green" policies to admit they were wrong on the issue of nuclear power? More than the environment and the economy can bear it seems.
Also... drop it with that senseless "right" moniker already. It is a tired old trope and as far from the truth as can be. Looking at Sweden the supposed "right-wing" party Sverigedemokraterna is a centrist party (their program is strongly reminiscent of that of the social democrats in the '60s) and the "right-wing" Moderaterna is in reality centre-right (they, like all other Swedish 'mainstream' parties support the welfare state to a large extent). Sverigedemokraterna actually has an "energy expert" on an electable position for the coming elections - Elsa Widding - who wrote a report [1] on the subject of the Swedish grid, if you read Swedish (or feed it to a translator) it gives some insight in what they have in mind if they were to gain power. Their short-term focus lies on the preservation of existing hydropower (which "the left" wants to wind down to a significant extent, up to 1.5 TWh is to be closed down), an increased focus on achieving 100% fossil-free power (to avoid the situation I described where the oil-fired top load power plant is running in the heart of summer) to be achieved by e.g. restarting some of the nuclear power plants which "the left" closed down, focusing on combined heat-power (which "the left" is in the process of regulating out of existence) and getting rid of those sweetheart deals I mentioned where Google/Facebook/Microsoft (et al) get power nearly for free due to contracts signed by "the left". Their longer-term focus lies on increasing the amount of nuclear power in the mix, focusing on 100% fossil-free instead of 100% "renewable" and re-focusing on "climate" effects of power generation instead of "nuclear-free" power generation.
[edit] I just noticed a new article being published in Dagens Nyheter on the subject of the establishment of new nuclear power plants in Sweden. The conclusion is that this is fully possible but requires the removal of barriers put in place by "the left". The most important changes are the removal of the decision to close all nuclear power plants by 2040, the restriction that nuclear power plants can only be established there where there already is a nuclear power plant and a change which makes it possible to establish small modular reactors [2].
I stand by my claim that the 'right-wing' are (for no obvious logical or politically coherent reason) against wind power. It's a weird global phenomenon.
They're also against solar, and efficiency, and EVs and believing in climate change etc. I personally would suggest they're getting paid by fossil fuel interests, not sure if that's generally considered a wacky out there conspiracy theory or not. At the very least they're taking advantage of conspiracy theories created by the fossil fuel lobby to gain votes for their unpopular ideas.
Meanwhile, the strange phenomenon of the 'left-wing' intentionally letting Google set up datacentres in places where they know that it will artificially drive up prices for consumers and selling them power at below market cost. That's not a stereotype I recognise. Sounds a bit right-wing if anything to be honest.
Combined Heat and Power, using carbon emitting fuels? I hope the 'left' is regulating that out of existance in a country with so much green electricity, heat pumps are almost certainly better, cheaper, cleaner.
And this is their energy expert? Their big focus is on 100% fossil-free power, but they also don't like wind power?
Wikipedia suggests that's not their only diametrically opposed policy goals:
> The party argues that other countries should reduce their emissions instead of Sweden which they believe is already doing enough on that front.[169][170] The party advocates keeping nuclear power plants as a prominent energy source in Sweden,[171] believing it to be an efficient way to combat climate change.
So nuclear is good for climate change, but Sweden shouldn't do more for climate change? That makes sense. Maybe the Swedish energy expert who said they were just lying about being pro nuclear is right.
> Nobody is calling them out on this,” he complains of the way the Swedish media has covered the issue. “If they want nuclear, how are they expecting to get it? What type of subsidy will they give? For Hinkley Point in the UK, there’s a 35-year contract where the government promises to pay £93.5 per megawatt hour — so about 1.1 krona per kilowatt hour for 35 years. That’s a heavy subsidy. So if the Moderates or the Liberals really want this, how are they going to set it up? They should explain that.”
> At the Hinkley Point price, Nilsson adds, it might actually be cheaper to generate hydrogen from wind power when power prices are low, store it, and burn it in gas turbines when prices are high, even though more than half of the electricity produced would be lost in the process.
Given what you state here and what is written in that report on the Swedish grid I assume you agree that the "right-wing" Sverigedemokraterna is not a "rigt-wing" party? They want more efficiency, they want 100% fossil-free power generation, they want to focus on "climate" impact of energy generation.
Realise that the only reason I use these senseless "left-wing" and "right-wing" labels is to show just how nonsensical they are. I do not think in these terms, I just responded to your use of the "right-wing" moniker.
By the way, where would you put the CEO of a company like Vestas or General Electric? Are they "right-wing" because they are greedy capitalists or are they "left-wing" because they want to build more wind turbines?
> Wikipedia suggests...
Wikipedia has become weaponised and is even less of a trustworthy source than it was before the weaponisation.
