Shadow
I can not find any support for your claim that wind and solar are responsible for high electric prices in the EU.
Germany renewable sector is very close to the EU average and therefore is not the reason that Germany's electric prices are high by European standards.

The 3 main reasons appear to be:-
1 They are phasing out existing nuclear power plants well before their economic life span, and replacing them, and not necessarily with renewables.
2 They tax power heavily at 51.6 %
3 They import power from elsewhere to make up the shortfall.

The Eu countries have two tariffs one for domestic and one for industry, Both Spain and Denmark charged below the EU average for industrial power in 2014 and have reduced their tariffs in recent years. The domestic prices are high but this appears to have more to do with government revenue raising than anything else.

Data and quote from here:-
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers

"At the other end of the scale, the highest proportion of taxes in the final price of electricity for consumers was recorded in Denmark, where more than half (56.8 %) of the final price was made up of VAT, taxes and levies, as was the case in Germany (51.6 %); Portugal (41.7 %) had the next highest share."

Figures EU 2014 Euros per KWh for industry

Eu Average Industrial 0.120 €/KWh

Germany 0.152 €/KWh and rising

Portugal 0.119 €/KWh small rise

Spain 0.117 €/KWh and falling

Demark 0.088 €/KWh and falling.

Warmair,

Then you are obviously not looking.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/germany-s-green-energy-is-an-expensive-success

Germany's subsidy to solar and wind now exceeds E20bn p.a. and is subsidized primarily from household consumers who pay the second highest prices in the EU. Industrial consumers pay nearly 3x what Aus industries pay.

Graeme of Malvern
I spend a good deal of time checking my information comes from reliable sources. Your figure of 60% nuclear for Sweden is definitely wrong.

My Figures comes from this link
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/5/5d/Renewable_energy_YB2015.xlsx

See figure 2 on the spread sheet.

I can not find current reliable figures for Sweden's nuclear power, It be should be around 38%, but according to the highly biased world nuclear site it is 40%:-

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Sweden/
Quote
"About 40% of domestic production is nuclear, and up to half hydro, depending on the season (affecting hydro potential). In 2013, Sweden generated 152.5 TWh, of which 65.8 TWh (43%) was from nuclear and 61.3 TWh (40%) from hydro. Wind provided 10 TWh and various fossil fuels 5 TWh and biofuels & waste 10.6 TWh"

Shadow
The Bloomberg article is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever, which is as about as useful as certain redundant parts on a bull.

Warmair,

You provide a hodge podge of data with much of it out of date yet try and claim that the article in Bloomberg is worthless because it does not publish spreadsheets of data. What bollocks. The article contains links to other sites with the requisite data which I guess you missed. Also Bloomberg is one of the most respected financial journals which is based on sound analysis not opinion.

Try this:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-electricity-market-balance-must-pay-flexible-back-power/

It should have enough facts for you.

warmair,

Regarding Shadow Minister's most recent link - the Institute for Energy Research:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Energy_Research

"The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance, a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER. AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena." AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters."

"In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain. These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe and Ontario, Canada. The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists."