歐洲為能源支付的費用比幾乎所有主要經濟競爭對手都高（英國除外）
Europe pays more for energy than almost all its major economic competitors. (except for the UK)
譯文簡介
我們特么的怎么會這么高
正文翻譯
Europe pays more for energy than almost all its major economic competitors. (except for the UK)
歐洲為能源支付的費用比幾乎所有主要經濟競爭對手都高。 （英國除外）
歐洲為能源支付的費用比幾乎所有主要經濟競爭對手都高。 （英國除外）
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 11 )
收藏
For fuck sake why are we so high? Please don't say Brexit.
我們特么的怎么會這么高？別跟我說是英國脫歐。
Australia
You guys were never on the continental European grid, and there are non-EU countries on that grid, so yeah nothing to do with Brexit. It's just gas-fired generation being real expensive because of the war.
你們從未在大陸歐洲電網中，而且該電網包含非歐盟國家，所以和英國脫歐沒關系。只是單純由于戰(zhàn)爭導致天然氣發(fā)電成本高昂而已。
United Kingdom
Like EU our prices are lixed to gas but tories sold off most of our storage so we can’t store some when prices are cheap in summer and get extra fucked when prices increase
就像歐盟一樣，我們的價格與天然氣掛鉤，但是保守黨出售了大部分的存儲能力，所以我們無法在夏季價格便宜時儲存一些，而在價格上漲時受到更大的困擾。
No, literally nothing to do with Brexit.
The graph is a little misleading, because it’s actually a lot more complicated than can be illustrated on the graph.
The biggest factor is the UK dependence on imported gas, that why you see a huge price spike from the Ukraine war.
There are other things like the fact that green subsidies are paid for directly out of energy tariffs, which is not the case across the eu.
Another huge factor is the level of privatisation in the energy industry in the uk (under thatcher), which has demonstrably caused higher energy prices. What is particularly “hilarious” about this is that profits to companies like EDF helps subsidise energy provision in EU countries. Ha ha ha… not.
So no, this has absolutely nothing to with Brexit.
不，這與英國脫歐毫無關系。
這張圖有點誤導，因為它實際上比圖上所顯示的要復雜得多。
最大的因素是英國對進口天然氣的依賴，這也是烏克蘭戰(zhàn)爭導致價格大幅飆升的原因。
還有其他一些因素，比如綠色補貼直接從能源關稅中支付，而歐盟各國并非如此。
另一個巨大的因素是英國能源行業(yè)的私有化（撒切爾時期），這確實導致了更高的能源價格。特別是令人“好笑”的是，像 EDF 這樣的公司獲得的利潤有助于補貼歐盟國家的能源供應。哈哈……完全不好笑
所以，這與英國脫歐完全無關。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Because we chose a price model where the most expensive production in the mix sets the price.
So we are always paying the max price - in order to 'encourage the development of efficient production' - cause profit margins will be reinvested and no-one will abuse a system like that - like say .. trading energy back and forwards to bring the price up.
因為我們選擇了一種價格模式，即由組合中最昂貴的產品來確定價格。
因此，我們總是在支付最高價格--以“鼓勵發(fā)展高效生產”--因為利潤空間將被重新投資，沒有人會濫用這樣的系統(tǒng)--比如說......通過能源的來回交易來抬高價格。
France
So we are always paying the max price
No. The average price is lower than the "instant (spot) market" price. Most of energy is purchased in advance. Then there are last minute purchases to adapt offer and demand, but it doesn't represent the bulk of purchases.
Because we chose a price model where the most expensive production in the mix sets the price.
Neither. It's the last power added that sets up the price. Basically, it's like, demand: "Oh I was wrong in my purchases, finally I need 1Mwh more. Let see what is the cheapest currently on the spot market". Offer: "well, most of electricity has already been sold and the cheapest first, you're buying the 1% not sold, and yes, it's pretty expensive as the only thing available is gas imported from the USA, but hey, it's last minute, and it represents costs".
There is nothing wrong with this mechanism, it's called marginal costs.
“所以我們總是支付最高價格?！?br /> 不，平均價格低于所謂的“實時（現(xiàn)貨）市場”價格。大部分能源都是提前購買的。雖然也有為適應供求關系而在最后一刻購買的情況，但這并不代表大部分的購買量。
“因為我們選擇的價格模式是由組合中最昂貴的產品來確定價格?！?br /> 也不是，是最后添加的電力決定的價格?；旧暇拖瘢枨螅骸芭?，我買錯了，最后我發(fā)現(xiàn)還需要 100 萬千瓦時。讓我們看看目前現(xiàn)貨市場上最便宜的是什么”。供應：“嗯大部分的電已經賣出去了，并且是最便宜的部分，你現(xiàn)在在買剩下的1%，并且沒錯，它很貴因為唯一可用的是美國進口的天然氣，但是嘿，這是最后時刻的，而且代表著成本”。
這種機制并沒有錯，這就是所謂的邊際成本。
>Because we chose a price model where the most expensive production in the mix sets the price
That is false. USA also uses such an auction approach. Not in every state, but they also do that.
We have this because of two factors:
Europe has this feeling of greatness. We do nothing to maintain our edge in the world, because we are "Europe", hence we do all kinds of silly thing all the time and are slowly reaping the consequences.
The green way of thinking (based on wishful thinking) - lest close all dirty production and things will auto-resolve. While at it also lets close nuclear. Where is no proper strategy in place, some virtuous people say this is the right thing to do, and when shit hits the fan. Focus had to be set on cleaner production, before closing things. But no lets do everything the wrong way.
Europe lacks its own energy resources. Green people are partially to blame as well here. Because they pushed for extraction cuts, rather than pushed for better local production.
In general, it's a clusterfuck made because people think that stuff just works and auto-resolves. Let's see how it will work out once even more factories close, and people vote in even more radical/populist people into power.
Before you go and comment that I'm an asshole - I have a solar power plant (10kw), heat pump, and super well-insulated and airtight house (you would not believe how little energy I use for heating).I did more to greenify my footprint than 90% of the population. And yet I also think green activists are mostly entitled idiots who care only about themselves and to cover that use virtuous signaling to feel better.
“因為我們選擇的價格模式是由組合中最昂貴的產品來確定價格。”
這是錯誤的。美國也使用這種拍賣方式。不是在每個州都這么做，但他們也會這樣做。
我們來到這種境地是因為兩個因素：
1. 歐洲有一種優(yōu)越感。因為我們是“歐洲”，所以我們不需要做任何事情來保持我們在世界上的優(yōu)勢，因此我們一直在做各種傻事，并慢慢地收獲了后果。
2. 綠色思維（基于一廂情愿的想法）--最好關閉所有臟的生產，事情就會自動解決。關閉核能就是這種想法的體現(xiàn)，在沒有制定好策略的情況下就貿然關閉事物。一些善良的人說這是正確的做法，但在問題爆發(fā)時就無計可施了。在關閉核電廠之前，必須將重點放在清潔生產上。但是，讓我們用錯誤的方式來做所有事情吧。
歐洲缺乏自己的能源資源。部分綠色人士也要對此負責。因為他們推動了開采削減，而非推動更好地在本地生產。
總的來說，這是一團糟，因為人們認為事情會自動解決和修復。讓我們拭目以待，一旦更多工廠倒閉，人們投票選舉更多激進/民粹主義者上臺執(zhí)政，結果會如何。
在你說我是個混蛋之前-- 我有一個太陽能發(fā)電廠（10 千瓦）、熱泵和超級隔熱密閉的房子（你不會相信我的取暖能耗有多低）。我在綠色化自己的足跡方面所做的比90%的人還要多。然而我還是認為綠黨活動家大多是自以為是的白癡，只關心自己，為了讓自己感覺更好而濫用道德信號。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Differences within the EU are quite large. For Portugal for example non-household medium size customer prices haven't increased much. In Austria the have doubled.
And for the Putinfans, Hungary is even worse off than Austria. So capitulating towards Russia doesn't give you cheap electricity. I know, the FP? is also spreading that fairy tale, like it does with all fairy tales from Sputnik.
歐盟內部的差異相當大。以葡萄牙為例，非家庭中等規(guī)?？蛻舻膬r格沒有增加多少。而在奧地利，價格卻翻了一番。
對普京粉絲說一下，匈牙利的情況甚至比奧地利還要糟糕。因此向俄羅斯投降并不能給你便宜的電力。我知道，奧地利自由黨（極右翼）也在傳播這個童話故事，就像它傳播所有來自俄羅斯衛(wèi)星通訊社的故事一樣。
Portugal | Switzerland
Yeah the Iberian Peninsula is an “energy island”, being almost its completely separate thing of rest of the EU when it comes to Energy. Always has been. Not only because of France, but also because of their proximity to other markets (Us and Africa)
This is both good and bad, but when energy prices skyrocketed throughout EU because of the war in Ukraine, Spain and Portugal didn’t see such massive increases because most energy actually comes either from renewables (winds, dams and mostly solar) but also from Africa or the US (gas and fuel).
Prices did increase here, but not as much as other EU countries thats for sure.
是的，伊比利亞半島是一個“能源島”，在能源方面幾乎完全獨立于歐盟其他地區(qū)。一直以來都是如此。不僅因為法國，還因為他們靠近其他市場（美國和非洲）。
這既是好事也是壞事，但當烏克蘭戰(zhàn)爭導致整個歐盟的能源價格暴漲時，西班牙和葡萄牙并沒有出現(xiàn)如此大規(guī)模的漲價，因為大部分能源實際上都來自可再生能源（風能、水壩和大部分太陽能），但也有來自非洲或美國（天然氣和燃料）的能源。
這里的價格確實上漲了，但肯定沒有其他歐盟國家漲得多。
lifting sanctions on russia would in fact give you cheaper natural gas again, that is the entire reason this problem exists
解除對俄羅斯的制裁實際上會再次給你更便宜的天然氣，這就是這個問題存在的原因
I hope you don't think Russian took the Crimea because they wanted to liberate Russians. It has nothing to do with Nato too.
我希望你不要認為俄羅斯占領克里米亞是因為他們想解放俄羅斯人。這也與北約無關。
Don't tell me it was because of the massiv gas reserves that were found in the waters around crimea? What a twist.
難道是因為在克里米亞周圍的水域發(fā)現(xiàn)了巨大的天然氣儲備嗎？這真是意外啊
Norge
Can you stop saying Europe like Norway, Switzerland, Russia(for better and worse), Belarus, Iceland, the UK, Ukraine and most of the Balkans doesn't exist?
It's so fucking annoying. I'm not here to shit on the unx or anything but lets not conflate a political unx with the entire continent.
你們可以停止說歐洲，卻假裝挪威、瑞士、俄羅斯（不管好還是壞）、白俄羅斯、冰島、英國、烏克蘭和巴爾干半島的大部分國家不存在嗎？
這真的很煩人。我不是在這里要詆毀歐盟或任何其他東西，但請不要將政治聯(lián)合體等同于整個大陸。
Hopefuly soon Hamburg
Nuclear, I'm keep saying it, nuclear!
If we had proper grid of nuclear plants, this would not have happened.
So thank you, Deutschland. This one is thanks to you and your absolutely retarded anti-nuclear ideology. Brainwashing by weapons-grade stupidity.
核能！我一直在說，核能！
如果我們有適當?shù)暮穗娬倦娋W，這種事情就不會發(fā)生。
所以，謝謝你，德國。這要感謝你和你那絕對弱智的反核意識形態(tài)。用武器級的愚蠢來洗腦。
France
Germany is the most influencial among European countries that are against nuclear power, but it's not the worst.
Austria is even more stupid because they passed a law decades ago that states Austria is a "nuclear free" country, and the sole power plant under construction never entered service despite being practically finished.
在反對核電的歐洲國家中，德國的影響力最大，但它并不是最糟糕的。
奧地利更加愚蠢，因為他們幾十年前就通過了一項法律，規(guī)定奧地利是一個“無核”國家，而唯一在建的發(fā)電廠盡管幾乎已經完工，卻從未投入使用。
Italy dismantled its own working nuclear plants after a referndum that was made not long after Cernobyl... We were probably the only country that let a popular vote after a nuclear catastrophe in the soviet unx decide our energy future and we are still paying for our old plants today by the way due to storage. We also stopped construction of a reactor that was in progress and had costed us billions already.
When we tried to reintroduce nuclear we made another referendum, shortly after Fukushima...
I guess we are probably on top of the chart on this, as with many negative charts in Europe...
在切爾諾貝利核電站事故后不久，意大利就在一次全民公決后拆除了自己的核電站...... 我們可能是唯一一個在蘇聯(lián)發(fā)生核災難后讓民眾投票決定我們能源未來的國家，而且由于儲存問題，我們至今仍在為我們的舊核電站買單。我們還停止了一個正在建設中的反應堆的建設，雖然該反應堆已經花費了我們數(shù)十億美元。
當我們試圖重新引入核電時，我們又進行了一次全民公決，就在福島事故發(fā)生后不久......
我想我們在這方面可能是名列前茅的，就像在歐洲的許多負面排行榜上一樣...
Same here in Ireland. Two small plants would be enough for small Population but instead thanks to greens we destroy fishing and mountains to build short term wind turbines. And cover good land with solar plants. It’s really a stupid stance but….greens are an ideology not rationalists
愛爾蘭也是如此。兩座小型發(fā)電廠就足以滿足小規(guī)模人口的需求，但由于綠黨的存在，我們卻毀掉了漁場和山脈來建造短期風力渦輪機。用太陽能發(fā)電廠覆蓋良田。這真是一種愚蠢的立場，但....綠黨是一種意識形態(tài)，而不是理性主義者。
Meanwhile Germany Would Need around 45 new plants to run the grid by nuclear. Is that your solution? Really?
Meanwhile when we have those 45 plants in 25 years, we still need coal plants, gas plants, batteries or our neighbors to level our consumption and our production. Nuclear always runs at the same rate 24/7 no matter if we need energy or not. You can turn them down but that makes the cost calculation explode and the lifecycle calculation dip…
And all that while being more expensive than the renewable technologies that lower their cost per watt every single year.
同時，德國將需要大約45座新的核電站來運行電網。這是你的解決方案嗎？真的嗎？
同時，在我們擁有這45座電站25年后，我們仍然需要煤炭發(fā)電廠、燃氣發(fā)電廠、電池或我們的鄰居們來調節(jié)我們的消費和生產。核電站始終以相同的速度全天候運行，無論是否需要能源。你可以降低它們的功率，但這會使成本計算爆炸，并且生命周期計算下降……
而所有這些都比每年都在降低每瓦成本的可再生技術更加昂貴。
Ireland
This is almost certainly the primary reason the US economy has doubled relative to the EUs since 2004.
這幾乎可以肯定是自 2004 年以來美國經濟相對于歐盟翻了一番的主要原因。
The primary reason is that the US dollar has appreciated relative to the Euro so the nominal value of Europe's economy went down when measured in American dollars. Things look a bit better in real terms.
The second reason is that the USA beat Europe in the tech boom by a mile. While EU countries have adapted to it they have not been anywhere close to leaders in the field.
Energy costs come third or fourth depending on what you think about deficit spending. Because one big reason why the US economy growing faster is that the US has been deficit spending a lot, especially in recent years. The debt burden of all EU countries is about 80% of European GDP. US Federal debt is worth 120% of US GDP.
主要原因是美元相對于歐元升值，因此以美元計算，歐洲經濟的名義價值下降了。按實際價值計算，情況要好一些。
第二個原因是，美國在科技繁榮方面遠遠領先于歐洲。雖然歐盟國家已經適應了這一趨勢，但在該領域并未成為領導者。
能源成本排在第三或第四位，這取決于你對赤字支出的看法。因為美國經濟增長較快的一個重要原因是美國的赤字支出較多，尤其是近年來。所有歐盟國家的債務負擔約為歐洲 GDP 的 80%。而美國聯(lián)邦債務占美國國內生產總值的 120%。
Finland
Third reason is that the USA has been buying out successful EU companies or incentivitizing them to move to America with low taxes.
第三個原因是，美國一直在收購成功的歐盟公司，或以低稅率激勵它們遷往美國。
I agree with what you said. In general the USA has a lot of competitive advantages compared to EU. They also have a continent that is pretty much in their sphere of influence and even when they go to war it is far away from their borders. The Ukraine war affected EU much more than the US since we did trade much more with both Russia and Ukraine, in fact, US producers probably love us being dependent on energy import from them.
The dollar being the reserve currency of the world is also another advantage, it allows them to print money much more freely than the EU. In fact the ECB needs to follow the Fed more often than not since our energy imports are denominated in dollars, which reduces our monetary authonomy compared to them.
The tech advantage is also tied to the fact that they have a single financial market and their technology business can rely on financing from a nation whose economy is greater than that of each european state combined. Plus it was a race and they won first place, now many of their giants are de-facto monopolies and it's hard to create a local equivalent without massive investments. Admittedly many of our countries aslo protected local auto-makers a bit too aggressively which caused a focus on the industry that much likely should have been reduced decades ago.
我同意你的觀點?？偟膩碚f，與歐盟相比，美國有很多競爭優(yōu)勢。他們還擁有一個幾乎在其勢力范圍內的大陸，即使發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭也遠離其邊界。烏克蘭戰(zhàn)爭對歐盟的影響要比對美國的影響大得多，因為我們與俄羅斯和烏克蘭的貿易量都要大得多，事實上，美國的生產商可能更喜歡我們依賴從他們那里進口能源。
美元作為世界儲備貨幣也是另一個優(yōu)勢，這使他們可以比歐盟更自由地印制鈔票。事實上，由于我們的能源進口是以美元計價的，歐洲央行需要更多地跟在美聯(lián)儲后面，這就降低了我們的貨幣自主權。
技術優(yōu)勢還與他們擁有單一的金融市場有關，他們的技術業(yè)務可以依靠一個經濟總量超過歐洲各國總和的國家的融資。再加上這是一場競賽，他們贏得了第一名，現(xiàn)在他們的許多巨頭已經成為事實上的壟斷者，如果不進行大量投資，很難在當?shù)亟⑵鹋c之相當?shù)钠髽I(yè)。不可否認的是，我們許多國家對本地汽車制造商的保護有些過于激進，這導致了對該行業(yè)的關注，而這種關注很可能在幾十年前就應該減少了。
No, based on what exactly do you draw your conclusion?
Energy prices have probably played a role over the past few years with the recent cost explosion. But the graph clearly shows that prices have been pretty stable until the end of 2021 on both sides of the Atlantic, while the United States always had access to cheaper energy. That's nothing new. Plus it's generally not energy-intensive industries that made up most of US growth.
不，你究竟是根據(jù)什么得出結論的？
在過去幾年里，能源價格可能起到了一定的作用，最近成本激增。但從圖表中可以清楚地看出，直到 2021 年底，大西洋兩岸的能源價格都相當穩(wěn)定，而美國一直都能獲得更便宜的能源。這并不新鮮。另外，美國經濟增長的主要部分一般都不是能源密集型產業(yè)。
Ireland
The graph only goes back to 2015, but it was pre-2008 that our economies were broadly the same.
Also, this is a graph of energy prices, not wealth; all else being equal, one would absolutely expect the economies to diverge if the energy prices were stable but different, and even until 2021 our costs were well over 50% higher.
Also, energy cost affects 100% of the domestic economy, not just energy intensive sectors? If our costs are 50% higher, we pay 50% for for switching on a 5W lightbulb (again all else being equal, so yes that is simplified). It means that our domestic goods and services become more expensive than imports from places that have lower energy costs, having a knock-on effect as more people buy cheaper (yet more environmentally destructive, due to shipping) imports.
High energy costs are a grave threat to our prosperity. ...just ask Germans, now that they haven't got cheap Russian imports.
該圖表僅追溯到2015年，但在2008年之前，我們的經濟基本相同。
此外，這是一張能源價格的圖表，而不是財富的圖表；在其他條件相同的情況下，如果能源價格穩(wěn)定但不同，經濟絕對會出現(xiàn)分歧，甚至到2021年，我們的成本仍然高出50%以上。此外，能源成本影響的是100%的國內經濟，而不僅僅是能源密集型行業(yè)。如果我們的成本高出50%，那么我們在開啟一個5瓦特的燈泡時也要多支付50%（再次強調，其他條件相同，所以這是簡化的）。這意味著我們的國內商品和服務比來自能源成本較低地區(qū)的進口商品更貴，導致更多人購買更便宜的（但由于運輸而對環(huán)境更具破壞性的）進口商品。高能源成本對我們的繁榮構成了嚴重威脅……問問德國人就知道了，現(xiàn)在他們沒有廉價的俄羅斯進口了。