Quite unnecessary nitpicking, as Norway has benefited enormously from high energy prices at the expense of the rest of Europe after Russia’s invasion.
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/
And Norway has benefited, and continues to benefit, enormously from the common market, as without grid connections, North Norway’s production could only be a fraction.
It’s no comfort if electricity consumers pay exorbitant prices because there’s an electricity shortage in neighboring countries, and this drives the price up as much as the transmission connections allow. Similarly, prices in Finland also fell when the transmission connection to Estonia was down.
At least in that Hesari article, it was mentioned that the consumer’s electricity costs will be almost fully compensated after a certain limit. I would imagine the financial benefit received for exceeding the limits for the electricity transfer would be at such a level that they could just as well pay the whole bill from the state’s pocket.
Dear forum members. Could you clarify if there is any other group in Finland, besides energy companies and their owners, that benefits from electricity transmission connections to Europe?
At first glance, it seems that building a transmission connection is merely a transfer of income from Finnish industry and consumers to Central Europe and Finnish energy companies. + At the same time, one of the few competitive advantages of Finnish industry is weakened.
I know the basic jargon, such as ‘balances electricity prices’ → Sure, but to my knowledge, to a higher average than without transmission connections. And next, one might assume that not enough would be invested in electricity production without transmission connections, because prices would fall. This should be investigated more closely, but I don’t think this would be a problem.
Finland is a net importer of electricity, and electricity flows in both directions through transmission connections. Due to net imports, all electricity consumers benefit from transmission connections. A large part of electricity production is not stable but dependent on, for example, weather conditions, so without transmission connections, there would need to be significant amounts of regulating power capacity.
Thanks. Good point that we are net importers. However, I don’t readily accept that this would automatically lead to a cheaper electricity price for us.
For example, if on a depressing Monday we buy electricity from abroad at a price of 70€/MWh, when with our own production the price would have been 69€/MWh, and on a windy Tuesday we export electricity at 70€/MWh when with our own consumption the price point would be, say, 30€/MWh. As I understand it, in this example, Finnish electricity consumers are precisely the ones paying, even if on Monday we imported more electricity than we exported on Tuesday.
I would gladly welcome justifications as to why such a strange example could not occur, or if there is any data available from which this could even remotely be assessed. (Especially what the price point for electricity would be without electricity transfers to/from abroad)
I completely agree about balancing power capacity.
Connectivity increases system stability, reducing the risk of electricity shortages. In the event of an electricity shortage, no one on the grid receives electricity, meaning a power outage occurs. Roughly speaking, Finland’s internal grid is also full of Estlinks and different grid areas; different prices have just not been defined between them. In principle, there could therefore be different prices in every city, and one could ask why cheap electricity is taken from Satakunta to Uusimaa. Or why doesn’t everyone acquire their own power plants for their plot?
Perhaps the way electricity is discussed makes the matter confusing. When buying electricity, quantities are always discussed, and hardly anything about quality. Who gets to buy what amount of watts at what price. Less is said about quality, that electricity is actually available from the socket in the agreed amount when desired. That’s what these cables are bought for.
Edit: As an addition, stronger transmission connections are in a way part of the devil’s bargain that has been made in Finland. We get cheap electricity from wind power, which on the other hand weakens grid stability (quality), which needs to be compensated by building a stronger grid.
In Sweden, Vattenfall intends to build small nuclear power plants of 5x300, or 3x500, depending on whether GE Vernova or Rolls Royce is chosen.
Local legislation has been put in place to support this; apparently, more stable production is needed in addition to more variable wind and solar power.
2035 would be the target…
Vattenfall surprised: Small nuclear power is indeed coming to Sweden Vattenfall yllätti: Ruotsiin tuleekin pienydinvoimaa | Kauppalehti
Well,
At a fitting moment, it’s being stated in Kemijärvi that you can shove your pumped-storage power plant up your ass…
EDIT: the idea of a pumped-storage power plant is to store energy like a battery when electricity is cheap, i.e., pump water back up to a higher reservoir. And let it flow back to generate electricity when prices are high. The advantage is staggering cost-effectiveness and capacity compared to actual batteries.
