Peter Bjerregaard

Påstand om nedgang i fiskeriet på grund af klimaafgift savner dokumentation Ifølge fiskeriminister Jacob Jensen har CO₂-afgiften på fiskeriet ført til »en markant nedgang i landinger af fisk i danske havne«, men statistikken fortæller en anden historie. Ministeren vil ikke…

Ifølge fiskeriminister Jacob Jensen har CO₂-afgiften på fiskeriet ført til »en markant nedgang i landinger af fisk i danske havne«, men statistikken fortæller en anden historie. Ministeren vil ikke svare på spørgsmål om sit udsagn.

Kloge og rigtige betragtninger. Utroligt at det i øvrigt er nyhedsværdigt efter >10 års analyser, rapporter og politiske udspil, der underbygger pointerne

Som Peter Birch Sørensen siger, så er det “svært at se begrundelsen for at udstede oprindelsesgarantier til VE-anlæg, der i forvejen har modtaget statsstøtte”. Ja, det er ikke hensigtsmæssigt at underminere efterspørgslen efter ny grøn strøm og de bagvedliggende VE-projekter #dkpol #dkgreen

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.

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

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

Kæmpe udbud af havvind kan ende med en "katastrofe", advarer energiselskaber Det historisk store havvindsudbud kommer til at floppe massivt, forudser flere energiselskaber nu. De frygter og advarer derfor nu mod, at politikerne begynder at give statsstøtte til havvind. Det vil...

This might also have your interest www.altinget.dk/forsyning/ar...

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

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…

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

Onshore projects.

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

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

FIDs have already been made for most projects on this side of 2030

Production is expected to increase faster than demand so I would recommend expecting a higher frequency of negative/zero prices

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

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

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.

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...

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...

“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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Jeg har i øvrigt uddybet pointen her djoefforlag.dk/products/kli... og her politiken.dk/debat/debati...

som viser, hvor store udledninger Danmark samlet set kan have frem mod 2050”, lød beslutningsforslaget. Det blev dog aldrig fulgt op på. Hverken politisk eller i Klimaloven.

Et kvalificeret gæt på årsagen herfor: embedsværket havde svært ved at kvantificere et CO2-budget

Et folketingsflertal (med 92 stemmer for og fire imod) 14. maj 2020 stemte for et borgerforslag om en klimalov, der netop indeholdt dette element: ”Fastsættelsen af disse mål skal baseres på et CO₂-budget, …

Det kan man ligeså godt indstille sig på. Det ligger både i den europæiske klimalov, og for de historieinteresserede, så var det faktisk også en del af det oprindelige b-forslag, der blev vedtaget forud for klimaloven

Ja. Det er en meget fin opsummering af kritikken.

Jeg talte med Stig i går. Hans udlægning var ikke entydig pæn, snarere tværtimod. Han mente vist, at indsatsen var utilstrækkelig. Men jeg kan også have fanget ham på et dårligt tidspunkt