It's been clear for quite a number of years that renewables in Europe no longer need any sort of government support.
In any case, most of these support contracts have a "contract for difference" structure with a price established by competitive auction. In the early years, the prices were high as there were fewer bidders and large (unjustified) profits were made. But as time has gone on, increasing competition has pushed the prices lower and lower. On a net project-lifetime basis, it's probably now a wash whether you operate a wind farm under a CFD regime/contract or you just compete in the regular market. CFDs require you to reimburse the state when you get paid more than the strike price and so many (particularly wind) producers in the west/north of Europe were hit with large rebate bills in 2022 and 2023 as wholesale prices often exceeded the strike prices after the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine.
At least in the UK and Ireland, some renewable energy companies are opting out of the renewables-subsidy scheme completely. For example, the owners/promotors of the large Oriel off-shore wind project in Ireland are skipping all the bureaucracy and delays associated with the renewable auction process and will build the wind farm to compete directly in the day-ahead wholesale markets.
Of course there is a large benefit to being protected from the volatility of wholesale electricity markets but it seems like we've passed the point where the financial value of such a contract is required to make a renewables project viable.
Long overdue: I'm all for subsidizing renewables, let's down them in money. But the way it's currently done in Germany erases all incentive to tap low hanging fruit in dispatchability. Which has lead to the ubiquitous biogas setups (capture methane that's created in the agricultural refuse>fertilizer cycle anyways and burn it for heat and electricity) all getting designed for continuously burning exactly the amount produced, instead of adding a little overcapacity in conversion throughput and the little short term gas storage that would be required to follow the intraday cycle. This would be easy enough, but the reality is that those biogas systems in Germany now run baseload with even less dispatchability than nuclear.
Adding to my old post, I suspect that those broken incentives were the result of mixing "how" and "how much" in political decisionmaking. That's a process problem I see repeated over and over again: the "how much" is not isolated from the "how" and then you get compromises that are too generous in some parts and too frugal in other parts. It's as if compromises in salary negotiation went "yeah, we could agree on 10% more each month, if in turn we skip payment in December".
I believe that politics could get much better results if compromises about the particularities of distribution were always discussed with an open scale factor shared across the entire range of a particular kind of spending (e.g. renewables subsidy), and then the scale factor was decided upon in a separate discussion/compromise.
For non-household consumers, prices are more in line with the rest of the EU: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/a/... - and I suspect that statistic mixes small commercial consumers that pay residential rates and industrial ones, because to my knowledge, this subsidy is paid mostly by small consumers while industry and export are exempt...
That could explain it if prices were high in general (i.e. also for industry).
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/152973/umfrag... shows that 2014-2021 over six cents per kWh were going to the renewable energy subsidy scheme, and this is directly attributable, not some kind of hand-waving. I believe this was more than the wholesale cost of the electricity (without grid fees and taxes) in many of these years, and I think you also have to add another 19% of VAT on top of that.
In 2022 the subsidy started to be paid from taxes instead, and it was lower because market-based electricity prices went up (reducing the amount of subsidy necessary to reach the guaranteed prices).
Germanay's CO2 emissions from electricity have also been on the high side compared with most of Europe due to coal so it having higher prices is not necessarily a bad thing, as it incentives efficiency.
It's not ideal if it slows adoption of EVs and Heat pumps because politics prevents you properly pricing the fossil alternatives to thise, but the ideal solution would be for those to be taxed based on their emissions too.
> She stressed that the difficulties in funding did not alter the fact that power generation costs for renewables are cheaper than fossil or nuclear energy. “Many projects nevertheless need financial safeguards for the banks to make investments available,” Peter argued
Well that's a fun little quote. If renewables are already a cheaper alternative to power generation, why would you need government funding and safeguards to convince banks to invest in a project?
If the numbers work and a bank can see a clear psth to being paid back they will invest. There's clearly information being glossed over here that would explain why banks aren't willing to invest without government safeguards.
Banks don't care if it's "cheaper than" some other form of power generation, they care that profitability is safe over a very long time span. If power prices crash 5 or 10 years from now because of renewables overcapacity (which is already happening regionally on sunny days with solar), profitability is gone.
If its not a sustainable, profitable business why should a bank invest in it? Banks aren't meant to promote the moral or ethical good. They exist to take money from depositors, replace it with IOUs, and invest the money in ways that are the most likely to be paid back with interest.
That's obviously not to say we can only have industries that work as an open market, but I'd argue that if they don't then the government might as well run the industry rather than fund these half-in half-out companies that appear to be private corporations but only actually exist because the government blessed them.
I'm not sure the two articles are about the exact same thing, or that either actually explains the upside and downsides of the proposed changes.
Moving away from per kWh production subsidies/guaranteed minimum prices/contract for difference is considered good by energy wonks because it means the renewables developer needs to think about how to sell into a market with lots of renewables. A solar project that only producing during the day at will at some point earn very little in midsummer due to price competition from all the other solar, so guaranteeing them a minimum price is sub optimal. Though already contracts usually have clauses about not paying out if there are hours of zero prices.
The second article is about a mis-estimate of how much money they needed to put aside from government budgets this year because they assumed the Ukraine situation would keep gas prices higher for longer.
So good news for everyone that it's lower, except the government that had to top up renewables developers not getting the agreed rate on electricity sales. If they pay out an extra 9 Billion then the German economy has saved a multiple of that in lower electricity prices, and probably a larger multiple again on gas for non electrical needs.
They are really about the exact same thing from different angles. The second article explains the why: they underestimated how much it would cost them. What they planned for was already used in the H1 of 2024. If you expect the same energy production (which apparently is a record of 58%) then you'll have to get another $9B from somewhere and they won't be able to do 1) additional debts, 2) use emergency covid money like they tried to do last year.
This means the budget has to be good this time, before they have holes left and right.
The feed in tarrifs have been falling every year and now the feed in tarrifs are barely a cent or two higher per kWh than the average spot price on the electricity exchange. Meanwhile there are weird edge cases such as negative prices where the feed in tarrif is paid anyway. The government is forced to pay the difference. The current subsidies unfairly disadvantage investments into energy storage so the simplest solution is to just get rid of them.
However, this doesn't get rid of the need for subsidizing energy storage, which is starting to take off thanks to sodium batteries.
Germany currently pays 20 billion Euros per year for subsidizing renewables.
Yet, after doing this so-called energy transition for almost 25 years now and spending hundreds of billions of Euros on it, the country still has more than 130 coal-fired power plants while France has only two with one actually being decommissioned.
Despite these facts, there are still plenty of people here on HN and other platforms that are convinced that wind and solar are the way to go instead of nuclear.
I'll never understand how people can have easy access to the latest price metrics [0], which clearly shows that renewables are miles ahead of nuclear, and still largue against them.
20 billion Euros would only give you a SINGLE nuclear power plant at best [1].
If the conservative government we had for the 10 years prior hadn't sabotaged the Energiewende we could have hit 100% renewables by now, instead we had the "Altmaier-Delle" [3][4].
France build Nuclear instead of Coal from the get go, if we could turn back time and do the same in Germany too, great. But unless we invent a time machine, the next best thing is investing into the cheapest CO2-Free technology we have right now, and that's renewables.
Germany has actively shut down nuclear plants and as a result burns more fossil fuel, no?
As a percentage of total generation nuclear in Germany was never as high as France, but couldn’t they skip the 20 billion euro cost of a new plant and simply restart an existing one?
The current _green_ minister of the economy actually had them running longer than the previous conservative government had planned them to, due to the russian gas crisis. Due to them being phased out there are essentially no spare parts, personell, and fuel, at this point they are being shut down for technical, economical, and organisatory reasons[0] instead of political ones.
Also to put things into perspective, Germany deployed as much solar in the last 3 years[1] as it had in total combined nuclear capacity ever (if you sum up every reactor ever build)[2].
> Also to put things into perspective, Germany deployed as much solar in the last 3 years[1] as it had in total combined nuclear capacity ever
This is clearly not true. Perhaps you a confusing the nominal capacity of solar plants to real electricity production?
Your source says "The total output of all solar plants rose to 82.2GW" / "Die Gesamtleistung aller Solaranlagen stieg auf 82,2 GW". Whereas in year 2000, Germany produced 170 TWh of electricity with nuclear power.
This output is a bit less than the PV capacity installed in Germany over the last 3 years, which is something like 27 GW depending on how accurate the estimates are for 2023.
However, the capacity factor of German PV is about 10%, so the energy produced in 2022 by PV in Germany from 67 GW of capacity was just under 60 TWh delivered. It's probably going to have been around 85 TWh by the end of this year, based on forecasts for installation.
Theoretically possible != economically feasible.
It wasn't habeck that said it can't be done, it was the energy companies a.k.a. nuclear reactor operators [0].
Nobody in the german government, except for the Pro-Russian bootlickers of AFD and BSW would buy new Uranium from Russia.
If you actually watch the interview you'll also notice that Merz of the conservatives also doesn't want to restart the nuclear reactors[1].
The minister of the economy (greens) was the one who had them running longer than planned due to the Ukraine War [0], they were also the ones commisioning a study from the energy companies to see if they could extend their operations for years [1].
It was the konservative CDU/CSU that set the final decommission date after Fukushima [2].
It's partially true, considering the other two parties were pushing for it too. They had to agree. Plus, we should not mix Habeck with the Greens. Habeck is an individual that sometimes is not supported at all by his own party.
I still remember the discussions - they were literally the only ones not wanting to do it - they set hard conditions, red lines etc. Obviously this went against their political program - thus the resistance.
It was FDP that pushed for additional extensions. [0]
They even proposed to buy new fuel (and further extend) but no, of course not.[1]
PS: CDU/CSU did what unfortunately was hyped on TV - fear of 3 headed monsters etc. Greens, on the other hand, don't understand that we have an energy issue right now and extending nuclear reactors for another 5 years would buy us some time. The ideology won. The sad irony is that because of this ideological choice, they had to burn more coal....!!!!
EDIT: just found this [2]. What's more to add. They are admitting they could have kept the reactors open for another 15 years.
EDIT: according to Habeck, it was the chancellor that pushed for the extension. [3] confirmed also here. [4]
> The chancellor’s decision came only two days after Habeck’s Green Party at a party convention officially accepted a runtime extension only for the two plants in southern Germany.
lol
Getting new fuel for them doesn't make any economic sense.
Your entire argument is an emotional appeal.
Show me the numbers that show that nuclear is cheaper than renewables and I'll change my mind, but until then it doesn't make economic sense, and would only be the "ideological descision making" that you accuse the green of.
That report is one year old, so the price calculations are completely off. It neglects that all reactors need to go into revision.
It completely ignores the political dimension which is extremely complicated even if you ignore the Greens. For example the fuel elements are sourced from Russia.
The US is still buying uranium from Russia. Keeping the reactors open for another 3-5-10 years wouldn't have been such a big deal in terms of fuel. Considering also we're still buying gas from them ...
Renewables are not truly CO2-free because sometimes the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. And then renewable fans have to rely on peaker natgas plants, that emit CO2 (though less of it on a kWh basis than oil or especially coal).
Dunkelflaute is extremely rare if you have a sufficiently large grid [0].
That's the beauty of european collaboration, you can have german and spanish renewable jump in for each other, norwegian pumped hydro in the super rare case that neither have wind or sun, and french nuclear, should that happen while the storage is empty and you don't feel like reducing steel production for the day (which is btw also a totally valid way to balance the grid).
Sure, the whole issue is that a reliable grid has to cope with "extremely rare" events too. So having nuclear plants to provide baseload power in such circumstances can be important.
Photovoltaics and batteries have been on a multi-decade exponential decline in cost. The world is installing about twice as much PV capacity every day in 2024 as it did in all of 2004. (1)
The dynamics are so crazy, anything you've read or learnt about this 2 years ago is already outdated.
Extrapolating this another 2 decades into the future, all of the world's primary energy consumption will be covered by PV.
Those subsidies, in particular those in Germany, have had an important role in enabling this.
Now, what Germany did with nuclear is still insane, and it's not all smooth sailing to a carbon free 2045, but I think that should pretty clearly help you understand why people think that way.
Solar and wind were too expensive twenty years ago. Nuclear was the only option back then. Everyone should have done nuclear but they didn't. But it's not twenty years ago right now. France is the way France is because of decisions they made decades ago. Given none of us have access to a time machine, the best decision is to pursue the most cost effective and fastest to deploy technology today, which is solar and wind.
Renewables are competitive with just running a nuclear plant in some places.
Lazard is US focused but they put running a nuclear plant at 32 dollars and the cheapest wind at $27 and cheapest solar at $29.
That's not including any refurbishment costs. I think France publishes some numbers recently for the cost of their refurbishment program and I don't remember them being particularly great for nuclear, even if they met their cost projections.
Not doing nonessential maintenance for twenty years because you know that your plant will be shut down is really not good if you want to eventually restart it.
Early closure of nuclear plants is climate arson. There's no reason for it aside from ideology and hysteria. I'm not in favour of new nuclear for most countries (excepting those that have a track record of building plants quickly and cheaply, or due to seasonal instability of solar) because the capex makes it uncompetitive with solar and wind, but existing nuclear should be kept online for as long as possible.
Disclaimer I haven't researched the two points I'm going to make, they are just things I've heard from people around me.
1. Nuclear power also never produced a profit in Germany / had to be subsidized the entire time.
2. France has some weird agreements with their former colonies in africa allowing them to basically steal the resources needed to make atomic energy at their scale viable.
Booth points might be partly wrong, but could be worth looking into
It seems that you haven't checked out the reference, because during the same time renewables became 2x cheaper than Nuclear at it's best, and 4x cheaper than Nuclear is right now.
If you still buy the same brand of 4$ bread made from exotic imported ingredients and a non-bio-degradable packaging that needs to be stored for thousands of years and can only be bought in 2 Ton Loafs from a government-owned centralized bakery that hasn't baked bread in years, and requires a nuclear physics degree to be sliced.
Instead of buying the 1$ Bread that is currently produced in high quantities, can be bought from your lokal bakery, has bio-degradable packaging, mostly local incredients, can be baked by any engineer and bought and cut by private individuals.
Then I think that could be called nostalgic at best. It certainly doesn't speak of economic literacy.
Nuclear power generation has been more or less flat since ~25 years, with overall growth of electricity generation. Solar and wind on the other hand...
In the near future you will have essentially free energy during the day or when it's windy. What do you do with your 90% capex nuclear fleet then? You can throttle them for most of the year, but that just increases cost per kWh until they're not competitive with storage.
So we'll have sunk a few hundred billion into nuclear plants that won't be useful instead of just building more renewables and storage? What's the point?
If one doesn't count the ever-present possibility of freak accidents, the externalities, or the endless heaps of subsidies for nuclear (some covert in the way of colonial arrangements and other ways, others open), yes.
the problem is, every time the sun shines and the wind blows it makes the investment in nuclear a sinking ship.. you cant throttle nuclear power plants like that, so they keep producing energy you cant charge for. They keep producing waste, they keep chewing up fuel and they continue being a saftey issue.
What needs to happen is baseload storage, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen/ammonia.
I'm 100% on the renewable energy arc and have been for decades. However ..
> and they continue being a saftey issue.
this just gets tedious. I'm been in exploration geophysics and resource estimation, modelling, resource processing, etc for decades and batteries, hydrogen | ammonia aren't going to be any safer than existing nuclear reactors.
eg:
South Korea battery maker apologises for deadly fire but says it complied with safety rules
following a massive factory fire that killed 23 workers
Nuclear power can be dispatched/throttled. The reason why it's not done in practice is because it's uneconomic - the cost of nuclear power is almost all in building the plant and in the subsequent decommissioning, the power itself is almost free once you account for that. So you're better off producing, even under very unfavorable conditions. (Negative prices for power due to excess production can theoretically happen, but they will be solved if storage can be expanded and demand response can be deployed at scale. And renewables are even less capable of throttling in case of negative prices.)
Building new nuclear night have been a worthwhile proposition 10-15 years ago, but if you build one now, the exponential growth of grid storage will render it useless by all measures once it is finally in operation. Definitely decommissioning existing nuclear makes no sense for the next decade or two.
Is there data about this exponential growth of grid storage?
Here in the Netherlands grid is over-capacity and cannot be expandee easily because it should have been planned 10-15 years ago. Grid storage is in a worse state than the grid itself.
It’s exponential growth, very similar to the growth curve of solar and wind. What’s different is the curve is even more explosive than either, to the point that it will surpass daily renewable consumption in little over a decade.
The only grid storage that matters at scale is pumped hydro. Everything else is literally a drop in the bucket. And you can't practically scale pumped hydro beyond what's there now.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. And pumped hydro isn’t what’s driving that growth. If the curve continues in the same fashion as renewables consumption has and still is today, we’ll have one day’s worth global capacity by the middle 2030s
That’s the same incredulity that was and still is applied to solar’s stratospheric growth, yet the curve has remained true for decades now. There’s a Cambrian explosion of storage technologies ATM^ and it’s driven by profit incentive. Many places are reaching overcapacity of renewables, making storage a dire necessity that can be capitalized upon.
^ And crucially, grid storage doesn’t care so much for mobility or gravimetric density, so it can look very different to energy storage in an EV for example
It's informed speculation. As industry grows, economies of scale delivers a stable learning curve. We saw it in solar panels and lightbulbs, and we're seeing it in batteries of various chemistries.
There's now greater capacity† in grid batteries than pumped hydro, and the former is increasing rapidly.
† note "capacity" has a sometimes misinterpreted meaning here. It means instantaneous generation and/or the opposite how many watts can be taken off the grid for later. Pumped Hydro can discharge for longer, but in a world of cheap intermittent generation, this isn't particularly helpful.
There's more pumped hydro only because pumped hydro used to be the only option. But it's no longer the only option, so that state of affairs will change soon.
That comparison lacks as France heavily subsidizes nuclear energy as well. At the same time having to demolish and rebuild multiple reactors. Nuclear energy was never cheap.
I don’t have the numbers but I doubt that France made the better net-deal.
I think a good indicator here is that EDF, after several years of partial privatisation, became an essentially (92%) state owned company again - partly because they've lost €19bln when it suffered nuclear power plant outages along with scheduled maintenance.
France doesn't really seem to have a plan for when their current fleet of nuclear reactors reaches decommissioning age. There's no schedule for replacing them, much less expanding generation capacity.
Those subsidies are the result of getting rid of the EEG surcharge. Before that, the EEG surcharge funded the entirety of the feed in tarrifs. When you consider the fact that the CO2 price was introduced a few years ago, it means that the government merely shifted the burden away from electricity consumers to CO2 polluters, but it also reclassifies the payments as a subsidy that has to be paid through taxes rather than surcharges.
If Germany gets this right, then, very little gas. The role of gas peaker plants in a system dominated by PV and wind is as a dispatchable backup for weather patterns in which storage is insufficient. By building out storage, load shifting and long distance transmission, you can squeeze out gas almost completely.
You still need it for those very low probability situations that would be disproportionately expensive to also cover with storage (since storage becomes exponentially more expensive the more you build, since it needs to be used exponentially less).
At some point, it'll hopefully be possible to eliminate carbon emissions from gas plants entirely with CCS or by burning synthetic gas.
How can you realistically build out storage when the bulk of current storage is pumped hydro, which can't realistically be scaled up and is not obviously enough for the possibility of lengthy, geographically vast "cold snaps" of renewables-hostile weather. Is this about feasible, proven technology or just sci-fi speculation?
With a turnover of over 15.7 billion euros, and a 46 percent growth increase in comparison to 2022, the energy storage sector’s expansion in Germany continues at a fast pace ...
The toal capacity of household storage devices now has reached about 6 gigawatts, roughly equal to the capacity of Germany’s pumped hydro storage installations, the association said.
Don't ask me, go do your own research if you really want to learn about this. It's a complex topic.
I agree that nuclear should have it's place in a modern energy grid for the time being, but the skepticism towards renewables from nuclear proponents is also not right. It may have been justified twenty years ago, but the world is different now.
The thing is that there's isn't one answer to how to smooth out renewable production, making it harder to mentally model than a simple "just build nuclear".
I'm going to just give a few ones that you need to take together:
* You don't need pumped hydro. There's a massive yearly 650 TWh of hydro in Europe, which can serve as a "virtual battery" by using it only when other renewable sources are low. The same, to a lesser extent, is true for bio-methane.
* Electricity is just about 10% of primary energy. The other 90% contain many sources of demand that are extremely amenable to load shifting. Cars, heating, to name two massive ones.
* Short term variations in renewable output (i.e, anything shorter than seasonal) can be smoothed by batteries, eventually. Not today, but, like PV, battery cost is on a staggering exponential decline.
* The EU has an integrated grid, nuclear will continue to be used in all European countries at least indirectly through imports.
From a high level economic perspective: The low and declining cost of a kWh PV provides a massive economic incentive to solve this.
> How can you realistically build out storage when the bulk of current storage is pumped hydr
You build batteries like what California is doing.
> possibility of length, geographically vast "cold snaps"
The correlation between renewables drops off literally exponentially as a function of distance, creating a diversification effect that makes this situation sufficiently rare. The bigger the land mass, the better. You also overbuild by a bit to handle droughts, and curtail in normal periods. In the circumstances that it still happens, you use natural gas as a backstop, or you use long-duration clean storage like hydrogen (which remains more hypothetical/expensive currently, but that will change).
I'm not making the argument that grid-scale storage is currently feasible, but there are some really interesting developments on sand batteries, CO2 batteries, and plastic batteries, among others. They're at various stages of development and all have unique pros and cons (cost, efficiency, longevity, scalability, etc), but I suspect renewables + storage will eventually prove to be exceedingly cost efficient once we figure out the "right" way to do them.
Hydrocarbons have had centuries of process improvements and optimizations - I think it's only fair to give renewables a chance to catch up, no?
Just add batteries. It's cheap. Fleet of installed grid batteries will exceed pumped hydro in maybe 2-3 years and will keep expanding at a crazy rate after. Storage is solved.
In general, renewable electricity is solved. Energy transition problems is now about marine and air transport for which no applicable solution exists yet (ammonia is too problematic from too many angles and hydrogen stubbornly refuses to really take off).
Battery storage systems generally provide 4 hours of full power output per daily cycle not minutes and are specifically designed to exploit the most typical daily demand cycle which has a 4 hour peak.
You're mixing up the use of batteries for grid stabilization with their use for storage.
That’s not true - the average storage duration for grid batteries used in non-stabalization roles is 4 hours - see https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51798 and that’s from a few years ago. Since then the xMW, 4xMWh format has become almost universal.
A typical grid-storage battery will have enough storage to dispatch power at 100% of its rated capacity for 4 hours.
Of course if you draw out the energy at less than full capacity, it will take longer to fully discharge.
The largest battery currently in the US - Moss Landing - for example is rated 750 MW/3,000 MWh - which means it can sustain 750MW of output for 4 hours and it does this daily.
Perhaps they are people who understand that the failure mode or nuclear, whether it's an accident at the station or regarding the long term byproducts storage (and also transfer), is not that good of a bet.
Or the kind of people who don't buy the assurances (from players, scientists working in the industry, and fanboys)
Or the kind of people who are not convinced by statistics about the "low" past impact of accidents and leaks, because they can see how they're downplayed and under-measured by governments trying to save face or promote further nuclear plans, but more importantly, because it just takes one grave accident to kill tons of people, doesn't matter if 200 previous accidents were "tame" enough.
Dams have killed tens of thousands of people, the latest incident 10 months ago killed 10000-20000 people, yet I always see people bring up how dangerous nuclear is.
Well, the dam that killed those people was built to prevent flooding, and help with water for irrigation. It's was a neccessary preventive structure to avoid people dying in the first place - that failed after 15 years of lack of government, civil war, and related non-maintenance. Not something they've built despite having other options.
At least it wasn't a nuclear factory that could fall into the hands of ISIS (also operating there), and whose materials could be used for bringing havoc all over the globe.
November 2023: 18600€, 6.4kW solar, 8.7kW battery, inverter, installation, new electrical cabinet. The subsidy is the 19% VAT is free
Germany near NL.
Current energy price 0.25cents/kWh. Sunny days gives 40kWh of production with 50% of it being used. Current rate is 0.807cents/kWh when feeding back to the grid.
In any case, most of these support contracts have a "contract for difference" structure with a price established by competitive auction. In the early years, the prices were high as there were fewer bidders and large (unjustified) profits were made. But as time has gone on, increasing competition has pushed the prices lower and lower. On a net project-lifetime basis, it's probably now a wash whether you operate a wind farm under a CFD regime/contract or you just compete in the regular market. CFDs require you to reimburse the state when you get paid more than the strike price and so many (particularly wind) producers in the west/north of Europe were hit with large rebate bills in 2022 and 2023 as wholesale prices often exceeded the strike prices after the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine.
At least in the UK and Ireland, some renewable energy companies are opting out of the renewables-subsidy scheme completely. For example, the owners/promotors of the large Oriel off-shore wind project in Ireland are skipping all the bureaucracy and delays associated with the renewable auction process and will build the wind farm to compete directly in the day-ahead wholesale markets.
Of course there is a large benefit to being protected from the volatility of wholesale electricity markets but it seems like we've passed the point where the financial value of such a contract is required to make a renewables project viable.