[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?