[Phil_Latio]

> In this case, there is no "increased subsidies for less feasible regions"

https://energiewende.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/EWD/Red...

> The price actually paid is the bid price, which is adjusted up or down by a correction factor. This is higher in low-wind locations and lower in high-wind locations. Put simply, this means that where there is a lot of wind and yields are high, there is slightly less money per kilowatt hour fed into the grid. Where the wind is weaker, the subsidy increases.

Now why do they do this? Because the goal is to do _everything_ with renewables. Which means: Since it's not so easy to route electricity from the north to the south, the south needs it's own plants, even if they are unprofitable.

[cedilla]

I thought you were referring to that. But what's so bad about highly profitable places receiving less subsidy? Framed that way it's not as outrageous, right?

There's no malicious encouragement to build wind power where it does not make sense.

But why are there subsidies anyway? Well, all forms of power are subsidised, nuclear power the most, and renewables and coal about to the same tune (in Germany). Also, the electricity price is very low in Germany. Often lower as in France. You know, neither coal plant operators nor wind power operators profit from the extremely high consumer price point. So even though wind power is the cheapest form of energy to produce (in Germany), even it can't break even all the times, which is a scary prospect for investors.

[Moldoteck]

Nuclear power in EU is least subsidized per IPEX. Renewables get about 15x more subsidies. Fossils about 30x more. Again, data is open

German household prices are highest in EU https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... And industrial ones in top 5. All this despite EEG subsidies. Without them the price would be about 6ct/kwh higher