For reference, the price for fixed-cost plans is around 10c/kWh.

As someone who’s been constantly running an electric heater in the garage while painting my car, I was quite lucky with the timing.

It’s not literally free, though. Transfer prices are fixed, and there are taxes and some other minor costs associated with it, so where I live, it still adds up to around 6c/kWh even when the price drops to zero. The cheap prices are due to an excess of wind power, but once the wind dies down, prices usually spike hard.

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Agreed. We should build much more of it to the point where we’d basically be powering our southern and western neighbours too.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I initially read that as 0.11/kWh and was wondering why that was such a big deal since I pay $0.13/kWh. Then I noticed the c.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    In Malaysia it’s rm0.218/kwh, around €0.05. I wonder if they will chop down the electric price further if they switch to these renewable so AC is much more accessible for low income family. Feels like sauna here whenever it’s sunny day and would be worst in the future.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      There are still costs attached to maintaining the network that provides electricity, so it can’t really be free unless it’s nationalised and paid for by taxes (which still isn’t free).

      • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Well, in Malaysia, our electricity is provided by TNB, which is state owned company, and power generation so far is mostly coal and natural gas. The pricing is controlled by government, but since the price is at a low side globally, it’s heavily subsidised. Though the pricing is tiered, the more you use the more expensive it get per kwh.

        I doubt they will be free, just lower the price a bit more for the first tier and everyone will be happy.

  • safesyrup@lemmy.hogru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Do you have fully dynamic prices? Does the price have a upper bound or is it the responsibility of the customers to check the price every time so they won‘t receive a bill of 100€ for making hot water? Very interesting thank you :)

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t remember the exact statistics but around half of Finns have plan similar to mine where the prices change hourly. So far it has been cheaper on the long run but there are days when the prices are so high that you basically have to turn off heating or it’ll cost you hundreds in one day. There is no upper limit to it but there’s no lower limit either. Sometimes it goes to negative as well. Last year there was a day when it went so far into negative that people were earning money by running electric heaters outside in the winter.

      • wewbull
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Interesting to hear the differences. I’m on a similar plan in the UK.

        For us the prices changes every 30 minutes and there’s a maximum unit price. I believe it’s £1 per kWh maximum, but I’ve never seen anything over 65p. There a peak price window every day between 4pm and 7pm where the price has an extra multiplier applied, and that’s when you can get the high prices.

        Overall I’m saving hundreds of pounds a year over a normal plan, and can change plan within 24hours if I ever feel it’s the wrong choice. This last weekend for us with the unit price around zero Saturday night, Sunday daytime (before peak) and Sunday night when it went slightly negative.

  • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s a great example to show electric energy based on wind, water, solar is the way to go - not only because it’s more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels of any kind or nuclear, but it’s economically better as well.
    Thanks for sharing!

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It’s fair pointing out the lack of (sufficient) storage for electric energy, but I’d say the average price of electricity in Finland for the past week indicates both capabilities of renawables and lack of storage.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        This is actually an area that’s developing quite quickly. In 2023, California managed to put almost 14mw worth of storage on the grid; if they keep building out at that rate, peaky/transient power sources like wind and solar will have someplace to park until someone needs that energy. Almost 12mw of that was utility storage; it’s like the utilities have the chance to get out of the business of producing power themselves and into the role of renting storage (or buying surplus energy then selling it later when it’s needed)

        Granted, 14mw isn’t a lot in the scale of California, but the rate of growth in grid-storage over time is humongous

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I have nothing against nuclear energy personally. I wish we’d build more of it. Currently about 2/5th is wind power, 2/5th nuclear and 1/5 hydro. When there’s no wind and it’s cold outside we see prices in the 30 - 70c/kWh which is insanely expensive. If we had huge storage capacity and much, much more wind turbines then maybe it could work.

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Compared to fossil fuels I tend to prefer nuclear as well, because even though mining uranium has quite some ecological impact including emitting carbon emissions, running a nuclear power plant doesn’t have carbon emissions and that’s important.
        What worries me is that there are nuclear power plants around the world and despite the first nuclear power plant having been built 70 years ago, not a single ultimate disposal place for the radioactive waste has been found/created.
        Having “cheap” electric energy for 3-4 generations and putting a burden on the next 40,000 generations just does sound like a bad deal to me.
        Until we have more wind and hydro, keeping nuclear running might be a price we have to pay.
        Not being able to dispose of some more (thousands of) tons of radioactive waste is making the problem only quantitatively worse and not qualitatively.

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          not a single ultimate disposal place for the radioactive waste has been found/created.

          Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository

          Also something to keep in mind is that high level waste which is the spent fuel is only about 3 - 5% of the total radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Majority of the waste has way lower levels of radiation and it’s things like reactor parts and safety equipment.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I stand corrected regarding ultimate disposal and apparently they are planning to use it in a clever way.
            Thank you for letting me know!