If the electricity bill would be lower people would use more energy and switch to electric cars real fast. I’m sure some people would not change their habits, but I’m inclined to think a lot of people would just use more and care a bit less about trying to use it as efficiently as possible.
Just take cars as an example. Everyone wants low gas prices, but when gas prices are low, people are buying bigger cars that consumes more gas/energy. Another example are places with renewable energy powering the grid, having cheaper electricity, but also ending up using more per person.
The province of Québec is one of the biggest consumer of electricity per inhabitant in the world, behind Iceland and Norway. Source in French Those places have super high percentages of cheap renewable energy being generated, but they also consume much more per inhabitant. Sure, if we cover the earth in solar panels, reservoirs, tap geothermal, and have enough energy to waste for everybody, and every manufacture. But this takes resources, space, batteries, and ends up polluting too. The less we need, the better it is for everyone.
I’m not saying we don’t need renewable nor deserve lower bills. Just that the actual system of consumption cannot only be reduced to “more cheap renewable energy”. I’m in Québec and energy is mostly renewable and relatively cheap here. But we also can’t just continue to build giant reservoirs visible from space to quench our insatiable appetite for electricity. We’ll have to learn to use less energy too; be more efficient with what we have. Not just convert everything to renewable and call it a day.
Why are utilities privatized?
Our energy provider increased our rates, then reported record breaking profits the next year. :(
(US)
So government can spend the investment on schools and hospitals instead. (In the civilised world, obviously not America)
This has little to do with where you’re from. It’s just neoliberal rhetoric. Having a public energy sector would be beneficial in the long run and would reduce what we have to pay for it. Right now the earnings are privatized in most places.
My area privatized the publicly owned electricity provider and since prices started going up they then had to implement rebates to bring bills down a bit. Effectively a roundabout way to move public funds from paying for the actual infrastructure into subsidizing corporate profits instead
Exactly. Privatize the profits and socialize the costs. What a brilliant system. Unfortunately it benefits only a small handful while everyone else picks up the tab.
Having a public energy sector would be beneficial in the long run and would reduce what we have to pay for it.
A well-run public energy sector, certainly. Idk what we’d end up with given the most recent rotation of people in charge.
The state does have an incentive to keep consumer costs low in a way the private sector does not. But state officials also traditionally do a bad job of maintaining and expanding utilities to match consumer demand.
The end result tends to be low end user prices at the expense of reliable distribution and surplus volume.
It’s not rhetoric. It’s economics 101. Opportunity cost.
A mixture of private and public is best.
Thanks professor. Do you know private debt and state debt are hardly the same? Have you considered the opportunity cost of not having public energy, therefore losing potential “earnings” to private investors? Or are you telling me next that rich people are a necessity as well? Is trickle-down part of this course or do I have to wait for 201?
Solar is so cheap now, that some people can just build their own solar and battery setup themselves.
Yes, but at scale it is significantly cheaper to build larger and distribute it. It also means people don’t have to over invest in their own set up just to cover their peak usage. There is also a large amount of up front capital required to build with usually years before you get back what was invested. Its also almost impossible for renters or apartment buildings to do it themselves.
Yes I know all of that, I’m saying that solar is so much cheaper than coal power that even private individuals can buy it, so we shouldn’t be wasting money on new coal plants or gas plants.
Same for nuclear. U.S.-Americans are brainwashed on this topic.
First, they pay with their tax dollars for the subsidies that the private for-profit companies use to build the nuclear reactors. After that, they pay again, because the private company charges them extra on the electricity bill for the electricity generated by the very same nuclear reactor so that they can make even more profit.
It’s so stupid and they’re brainwashed to defend it to the teeth. They also always try to deflect from the fact that renewables are cheaper than nuclear and can be owned by them instead of a for-profit company, by pretending that everyone who opposes nuclear energy must be in favour of coal and gas. It’s mind boggling to watch.
It would be cheaper to just end most of the oil subsidiaries and move some of those subsidies to solar/wind/etc. refineries and processing and distribution, while profits are private, are heavily funded by public tax or tax breaks on profits.
https://www.fractracker.org/2025/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-free-market-myth/
Guess the problem with green energy (hint: it’s not the fact that it’s better for the environment)
Well, they could be cheaper.
Or the power company – the only one you’re allowed to do business with – could lower their production costs but leave your rates the same, pocketing the difference as profit.
Of the quicker way: the government nationalised all power companies, and sold electricity for cheap… Because it’s necessary… For society…
Both. Both is good.
I vaguely recall a lemming posting a highway outdoor advertising “Green coal” or something like that. Guess that’s the green energy the USA govt is investing in (also crypto bros, because they got money to buy entire fucking power plants to run their stupid coins)
Will they really though?
Have you looked at your power bill and seen how much of the bill is not power consumption?
We have also seen multiple times where the wholesale price of electricity is below zero yet consumers are still paying for power during those times.
It’s almost like utilities are a natural monopoly that do not fit within the economic ideology of “free market” capitalism…
People seem to be forgetting that unless green power or nuclear power are socialized projects they would by default have to find a way to capitalize their products by some means. Whether it would be by capitalization via consumption rates, maintenance fees, or even subscription, a private business would have to be able to make ever increasing profits.
Have you looked at your power bill and seen how much of the bill is not power consumption?
Not in US, but after our power went private it literally doubled. The nice lady tried to convince me the “extra” charges were always there but not itemized, but while holding the previous bill with the same (within a few points) my usage was the same but the “fees” were as much as my power usage
Did she open the flaps on her shirt and start rubbing her nipples?
Now that you mention it, I think I did hear that velcro ripping noise
In the long run, yes. In the short term, the grid upgrades are quite expensive.
One form of government investment is subsidized panels for homes so you rely on utilities less.
Unfortunately Trump has no ability to think about a future past tomorrow much less one that benefits anyone other than himself, so there’s no chance this will be fixed until he’s replaced.
Fun Fact: Doesn’t really work in Winter.
Source: EU countries that don’t have a ton of cheap gas, flowing water or nuclear power and unlimited storage.
deleted by creator
Plug and play solar and wind are the future:
- Solar
https://www.amazon.com/SOLPERK-Maintainer-Waterproof-Controller-Adjustable/dp/B08GX19KT9?
- Wind
https://www.amazon.com/pofluany-Generator-Controller-Turbines-Windmill/dp/B0D1VHSHNH?
- Wind, not plug and play, but you get the idea
https://www.amazon.com/VEVOR-500W-Wind-Turbine-Generator/dp/B0D3T9Q6QC?
- You would need a few of these and also not plug and play
This 500W vertical axis wind turbine utilizes a helical design and a permanent magnet generator to operate effectively in low wind speed environments. Its high power output and low starting wind speed make it ideal for maximizing energy production.
https://www.amazon.com/Vertical-Generator-Permanent-Intelligent-Controller/dp/B0DSC27VD1?
How does this handle grid power outages?
In my area, you’re required to prevent back feeding if the grid goes down (otherwise it can be hazardous for the linemen repairing the issue).
It can also be hazardous for electricians or DIY home repairs if they don’t know about it.
Oh, you think you’re safe because you turned the house’s power off at the main breaker? Forgot about the solar panels backfeeding into the panel – all the circuits are still live!
(Or, even more fun, only half the breakers in the panel are still live, since the solar panels are only feeding into one of the two phases. So maybe you test to make sure the power is off by turning on the lights, and the lights don’t turn on so you think you’re safe. But the power outlets you’re about to work on are on a different circuit, one that’s on the same phase as the solar, so they’re still live. Fun stuff!)
All that’s to say… You should definitely still do home solar if you can. But document it well, and establish ways to disconnect power to ensure safety!
They all have controllers? I’m guessing it’s all done through that. You’ll probably want to be careful when you get one for your specific area that it follows all of the laws.
When the price goes up it’s because the renewables don’t produce power when there is no wind and sun (which pretty much sums up January here). Building more of something that does not produce power is not going to help with the price shocks.
We need to figure out grid scale storage, fusion or build nuclear power to get rid of fossil fuels. Until then utility bills will be occasionally more shocking than jamming a fork in the outlet.
figure out grid scale storage, fusion or build nuclear power
You don’t necessarily need that, actually. Another option is to invest in a larger, wider grid with more interconnects and more long-range transmission capacity.
Maybe the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing where you are … but the sun is shining somewhere, and the wind is blowing somewhere. If you can transmit the power from those places to where you are (and vice versa) then you really don’t need nearly as much storage capacity or continuous generation. If you can transmit power from farther away, that can really help even out the random variability in renewable power sources by averaging them out over a much wider area.
Another often-overlooked constant source of renewable energy is geothermal. Geothermal power plants can be extremely green and efficient, and their power capacity basically never changes at all. They’re only viable in certain places that have geothermal hot spots, of course … but once again, you can solve that by increasing long-range transmission capacity. Build massive geothermal plants in the few places where they’re viable, and then transmit that power to all the places where geothermal isn’t viable.
So, the government. Where does it come from?
Where does it go?
Usually the middle east
Cotton eyed Joe
Nuclear energy
That’s incorrect. Nuclear power is one of the more expensive options when you factor in the costs after operation ends, which you should obviously do.
