>> What are "unstable electricity bills" ?

> https://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data?market_area=DE-LU&au... Today Germany a peak of 2300€/MWh at 6-7, and a negative of -0.05€ at 12-13.

That's a price, not a bill. It's an auction. Electricity is traded there.

>> Changing market prices are the reality in many markets.

> For a market to be competitive, it must also be predictable. If energy costs vary drastically—€1000/MWh one day and €0 the next—it poses a severe challenge for companies. Such unpredictability discourages investment and may cause industries to relocate.

That's nonsense. "Markets" don't need to be predictable. There are lots of markets, where predictability plays a minor role. There are also renewable energy forecasts, just like there are weather forecasts.

In the future we will have much much more electricity capacity from renewable. Lots of business will then take advantage of that.

That's a completely new market.

> Imagine an energy-intensive company unable to operate profitably due to volatile energy prices.

energy intensive companies have long-term electricity contracts. Additionally many of these companies can steer their demand.

> Paid employees ready to work might have to wait because high energy costs could lead to financial losses.

What?

>However, this interconnectedness does not solve the problem. If Germany's electricity prices soar, they might rely on cheaper Swedish electricity, potentially saturating Sweden's supply and raising costs for Swedes. This scenario recently played out, prompting the Swedish government to halt plans for a new power cable to Germany.

That's all yesterday thinking. Germany is not only connected to Sweden (which it is indirectly) and countries/companies can regulate the export of electricity.

> The consequences are counterproductive. Germany's unstable energy market negatively impacts its citizens and neighboring countries. Rather than increased connectivity, the opposite approach might be more beneficial.

Sure not. It's the fear of modern technology.

> While the transition to renewable energy is essential, it is not without its challenges. Recognizing the limitations of renewables is crucial for anyone genuinely committed to this goal.

Sure there are challenges. Challenges are everywhere. We here in Europe, for example have the challenge to get rid of the energy dependence from Russia, which has served Europe (and Germany) with gas, oil and nuclear (fuel production, technology, fuel reprocessing, ...). Russia has used its energy industry to blackmail Europe. That's a challenge.

But you assume "limitations" of renewable energy which simply are not there or only temporary. For a lot of these "limitations" we will see solutions, like large interconnected grids, demand steering, usage of over-capacity in fuel production, large batteries, ...

We have seen this "limitation" thinking decades ago, when the German electricity industry (mostly coal and nuclear) claimed that renewable energy could only provide a few percent energy share. The grid would be unstable. The reality: the German grid is still super reliable and we approach 60% electricity from renewable energy - in a country with very little hydro capacity.

> Are you being paid to promote renewables? Many parts of your argument sound like poorly crafted commercials.

I had the same impression of your (in my opinion naive) nuclear talking points.

Hackernews (ran by a venture capital firm Y Combinator) is best for people who can extrapolate trends into the future. Energy policy is a field of long term industry trends. Changes can take decades. Currently we see that nuclear changes very slowly if at all, renewable still accelerates.

Don't bet the future on a stagnating energy technology.