Peter Bjerregaard
peterbjerregaard.bsky.social
Peter Bjerregaard
@peterbjerregaard.bsky.social
Kloge og rigtige betragtninger. Utroligt at det i øvrigt er nyhedsværdigt efter >10 års analyser, rapporter og politiske udspil, der underbygger pointerne
February 3, 2025 at 3:44 PM
Tak for den. Rart med lidt kølig fornuft i mediebilledet herom. Vi skal i øvrigt mentalt forberede os på endnu større variation i elpriserne fremadrettet. Og det er i øvrigt en god ting, da det fremmer (og er forudsætningen for) batterier og andre lagringsteknologier.
January 4, 2025 at 3:58 PM
Ved du egentlig hvad gennemsnitsdanskeren bruger på hhv. mad til kæledyr og elforbrug? Jeg har en mistanke om at sidstnævnte kun udgør en brøkdel af førstnævnte
December 23, 2024 at 1:50 PM
Agree. My only point is just that you should be aware of the long term market effects and if you assume significant increases in electrification and/or significant state aid for many decades, you probably shouldn’t worry about the above points
December 18, 2024 at 7:39 PM
My preferred solution is to address the causes (lack of incentives to electrify + flexible demand) and avoid addressing the symptoms (lack of production). I foresee devastating effects if we foxes on the wrong things. I published a special report in 2017 on the topic. You can read it here…
In search of a cure for cannibalisation
As the wind blows, the sun shines, and green generation rises, demand is saturated. Market prices fall, but renewables are caught cannibilasing their own investment case. Special report part 1/3
foresightmedia.com
December 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by marginal and manageable risks. We are postponing >3 GW due to these risks. I find the situation rather serious. To the extent that electrification in needed to reach our climate targets, it makes sense to turn attention to these barriers
December 18, 2024 at 2:25 PM
Onshore projects.
December 18, 2024 at 2:18 PM
Er det mig, der overser noget, eller undlader analysen at forholde sig til de konkrete udbudsvilkår og den manglende sikkerhed for brintinfrastruktur? Helt grundlæggende står vi jo med et selvskabt efterspørgselsproblem
December 18, 2024 at 2:16 PM
What should I think about the likeliness of governments having the same willingness to pay as private companies and investors? I’m particularly thinking about the direct aid through CfDs and the indirect effects following the the derived collapse in electricity prices. The later cost is significant
December 18, 2024 at 9:32 AM
FIDs have already been made for most projects on this side of 2030
December 18, 2024 at 9:23 AM
Production is expected to increase faster than demand so I would recommend expecting a higher frequency of negative/zero prices
December 17, 2024 at 5:57 PM
Well, I’m not a huge proponent of CfDs as I see them as a byproduct of a defunct demand curve and I really think the lack of electrification and flexible consumption merits much more attention. However, in a suboptimal world, I do of course prefer non-production based CfDs than production-based CfDs
December 16, 2024 at 8:23 PM
Other solutions to this problem exist, e.g. if CfD recipients were
required to ensure an equal amount of flexible electricity consumption. Regardless of ones preferred solutions, these potential negative effects merits attention as they as could jeopardise reaching our 2040 targets
December 14, 2024 at 6:14 PM
which includes the total cost of producing a unit of electricity, including capital costs associated with construction. construction. A non-distortive price could also align with the LCOE perspective for a fixed time period, e.g. a 10-year
period.
December 14, 2024 at 6:12 PM
both in the decade in which the investment is made and over the project’s lifetime Therefore, it seems prudent to require CfD recipients to adopt a bidding strategy in the day-
ahead market that incorporates a non-distortive price, reflecting long-run marginal costs...
December 14, 2024 at 6:11 PM
As the Commission has previously noted, producers will continue to add capacity as long as it is profitable to do so, in terms of covering the average Levelised Cost of Electricity and generating a return on investment equal to its Weighted Average Cost of Capital...
December 14, 2024 at 6:10 PM
“With higher shares of CfDs in the future distortive effects such as producing electricity when prices are negative (i.e. below marginal costs) would proliferate in a high-RES
system impacting significantly the price formation and thus, system operations,” warns ENTSO-E. I share ENTSO-E’s concern.
December 14, 2024 at 6:07 PM
ENTSO-E recently noted that production-based ”CfD designs are not scalable to preserve efficient market functioning with high amounts of RES subject to CfD in the system”. This obviously poses a challenge as support schemes are typically based on production.
December 14, 2024 at 6:06 PM
My main concern is that future CfDs might not be designed to prevent any distortive effects, including bidding behaviour in day-ahead markets, and avoid hindering the development of commercial contracts such as PPAs, which ensures additional renewable energy to be deployed.
December 14, 2024 at 6:05 PM
Det er dog ikke kun fordi udbuddet var skruet uheldigt sammen. Hovedproblemet er, at elektrificeringen går for langsomt. Efterspørgselskurven er for ufleksibel ift. udbudskurven. Det er i det lys, man skal se det seneste års beslutninger i branchen. Det er ikke raketvidenskab
December 6, 2024 at 8:44 PM
Det er vel ikke helt urimeligt, at vores folkevalgte føre kontrol med at nye statsborgere rent faktisk også bakker op om den samfundskontrakt de gerne vil være en del af?
November 30, 2024 at 12:32 PM
Jeg har i øvrigt uddybet pointen her djoefforlag.dk/products/kli... og her politiken.dk/debat/debati...
November 30, 2024 at 8:02 AM