5 ms·

Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices. So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist

Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices. So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist. The facilitator is not someone in the free market trying to offer the service for a low price either. It's a government essentially forcing profit to be given to a middleman and anther country.

gspr 14d ago
> Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices. So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist. As a Norwegian (very similar situation to the Swedes wrt power export): hard disagree. Most of our electrical power production is publicly owned, so we do indeed get something for the export. More cables, please! > The facilitator is not someone in the free market trying to offer the service for a low price either. It's a government essentially forcing profit to be given to a middleman and anther country. No, it's a mechanism to encourage interconnection.
- modo_mario 14d ago
  >so we do indeed get something for the export It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman. Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically?
  - gspr 13d ago
    > It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman. Could you elaborate on this disproportionality? > Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically? By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically.
    - modo_mario 13d ago
      >Could you elaborate on this disproportionality? It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices). >By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically. It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low.
      - gspr 12d ago
        > It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices). So what's stopping them from investing the energy locally without paying the middlemen for export? > It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low. Who's saying that they have to "give away" money?

gspr 14d ago

> Because those of high supply get barely anything for it and retain their high consumer prices. So if you're a swede you don't want this connection to even exist. As a Norwegian (very similar situation to the Swedes wrt power export): hard disagree. Most of our electrical power production is publicly owned, so we do indeed get something for the export. More cables, please! > The facilitator is not someone in the free market trying to offer the service for a low price either. It's a government essentially forcing profit to be given to a middleman and anther country. No, it's a mechanism to encourage interconnection.

modo_mario 14d ago
>so we do indeed get something for the export It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman. Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically?
- gspr 13d ago
  > It appears to be higher electricity prices whilst the compensation given doesn't adequately match and goes disproportionally to what's essentially a middleman. Could you elaborate on this disproportionality? > Is it then not better for the population to essentially reward it's investment in energy production and keep prices low domestically? By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically.
  - modo_mario 13d ago
    >Could you elaborate on this disproportionality? It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices). >By the same token, we should stop exporting fish and oil – that'd be sure to lower the price of both commodities domestically. It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low.
    - gspr 12d ago
      > It's disproportional in that it's more than the swedish would want to give since they'd rather invest it domestically (in energy production and those prices). So what's stopping them from investing the energy locally without paying the middlemen for export? > It would and I suspect you might take issue if your consumer prices were relatively higher and you were told you could not build a sovereign wealth fund to the same extent and should instead give much of that money so the eu can build bigger pipelines so germanies prices can remain relatively low. Who's saying that they have to "give away" money?