[snehk]

Has this benefitted the regular/average consumer?

Nope. They pay more than they were with the "old" energy mix of more gas and nuclear.

Telling people it could be worse isn't really something to be proud of.

I personally now have solar panels on the roof and a heat pump so we only use electricity and don't rely on gas. Germany's strategy is really beneficial to households like my own. Unless you're relatively well off or on benefits, you're losing big time. The costs are constantly increasing with people telling others to just take money (you don't have) to install some solar panels on the house (you don't own) or buy an electric car (you can't afford).

[konschubert]

The whole point of this website is to show that the price of electricity is year-to-date 22% cheaper than it would be in a gas-dominated grid without renewables.

So I don't know where you're getting the "No" from?

You could argue that maybe investing all those subsidies into nuclear would have been cheaper, but that would have had a lot of path dependencies that simply did not pan out in Europe.

[mono442]

Electricity generation from natural gas is intentionally made more expensive by the EU ETS. It could be cheaper if politicians wanted it to be.

Tbh coal definitely should be restarted and used more, there's more reliable supply for coal than for lng.

[ZeroGravitas]

And economists agree that schemes similar to ETS is the most economically efficient way to achieve carbon targets.

So, if you want to say: "I don't think governments should have agreed to the Paris agreement" then you should just say that, rather than attack various highly efficient ways of achieving those goals.

[mono442]

I don't support it because it doesn't work (at least for me, I guess there's some middleman in the grand scheme of things who is profiting off of this). E.g. Texas has a high share of renewables too without carbon taxes and with much cheaper electricity.

[ZeroGravitas]

Texas has many federal and state incentives for building renewables.

[mono442]

Then why the EU is hell bent on the ETS since it's clearly not working the best?

[erispoe]

I have dynamic pricing in Germany and the cost of electricity when to literally zero for a few hours today.

[mullingitover]

Seems like the regular consumers you refer to would be paying even higher rates for gas and petrol if others weren’t electrifying.

[onli]

If my electricity prices are no longer linked to gas prices, I can have cheaper electricity - my provider only produces green energy. But in the past raising gas prices would have also raised my prices, regardless. So yes, regular consumers can profit from this.

[snehk]

> my provider only produces green energy. But in the past raising gas prices would have also raised my prices, regardless. So yes, regular consumers can profit from this.

It's one single grid. You get coal, nuclear, wind, solar, and everything else. If you buy from a provider, you get that mix.

[fundatus]

Well, the electrons arriving in your home will the same as your neighbours, regardless of which supplier you choose. But by choosing a different supplier you can steer which energy sources will be used to feed that grid, so it still makes a difference, just not exactly where you live.

[vrganj]

What if the whole point of the strategy was to incentivize households to become more like yours?

An energy transition isn't just some big centralized state planned enterprise. It's also the sum of people putting up their own solar (on the balcony if they're renters!) etc.

An 800W plug-in solar system for your balcony can be had for 200 euros these days, breakeven is super quick.

[adjejmxbdjdn]

Clearly it has relative to what prices would have been if it was gas powered only.

Do you have any reason to believe the methodology in the linked page is wrong?