6 ms·

"The average monthly cost of living in the United States for a single adult with two children is $4,820. This adds up to an average annual cost of living of $57

by mentos 10y ago

"The average monthly cost of living in the United States for a single adult with two children is $4,820. This adds up to an average annual cost of living of $57,851." What would the cost of living fall to if energy costs were $0?

gedy 10y ago
Gov't and business will never let costs go to zero
kctess5 10y ago
I'm not sure, but that will never happen unfortunately. The support infrastructure always comes with cost.
- giarc 10y ago
  Perhaps the commentor is thinking rooftop solar.
philipkglass 10y ago
A decent rule of thumb is that the cost of residential electricity is half for transmission and distribution, half for generation. So save 50% on your home power bill if electricity became free to generate but still had to be delivered from centralized plants. If household solar and small-scale storage get ridiculously cheap, grid defection may be cheaper than buying large-scale renewable output from the grid, but utility scale solar plants can generate more real output per nominal watt and cost less to build per nominal watt. Unless your local electricity system's history is weird (unneeded grid capacity built in Australia being paid for by households, Energiewende that shifted costs away from big industrial customers and toward individuals in Germany) then grid defection probably won't be the lowest-cost option in the next 5 years.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  On the topic of grid defection, in some areas where gas heating for homes is common, there is a move to stop hooking new houses up to the gas grid, instead having all heating and cooking done via electricity. That adds another interesting angle on these calculations, since not hooking up in the first place is obviously cheaper than hooking it up and then not using it.
- Inthenameofmine 10y ago
  What you call grid defection might very well happen in currently developing countries though, just as they never adopted telephone lines or stable postal services. In most developing countries the grid is the problem, not the production. They often lose more than 50% of the electricity before it gets O the point of use. They also need to make large scale coordinated upfront investments, which i difficult with weak governments. In a way, solar + cheap storage could become an economic and social democratisation force.
ams6110 10y ago
My electric bill barely gets to $200 in the hottest summer months. So, it would not change by a lot.
- tasty_freeze 10y ago
  Part of the cost of most things you buy goes towards the energy costs invested in making that thing. Lower energy costs would lower the prices of most things you buy.
undersuit 10y ago
Energy is free? I'm going to turn my (apartment)living room into a grow op for all my veggies. That should help reduce the cost of living some.
ars 10y ago
Cost of living would go to zero, because material cost for stuff would be zero. But you might wonder, what about salary? But salary would go to zero as well because you wouldn't need much money since everything is basically free. The problem will be motivating people to do stuff. You might expect an additional problem that certain items might be scarce, but the solar system is very large, and with free energy there will be no limit to getting things. If you think I'm wrong, try this thought experiment - what are the costs of things? To get started ignore salary, and think what do you have to pay for? Shipping: Free obviously. Mining: Free since you don't have to spend energy getting stuff out of the ground, Machines: Free, since they are made of metal and other resources that are in turn free. All you are left with is assembly and design i.e. wages. But as mentioned, those will go to zero since everything will be so cheap people won't need much money. (Note, I'm assuming unlimited energy. If you meant limited energy, but it was free, then you have a contradiction since if it's free no one will limit themself. Maybe you could do quotas.)
mikekchar 10y ago
I think you can reasonably estimate this simply. If you imagine that in any good or service you buy, there is a percentage that goes to salary and taxes and a percentage that goes to some physical thing. Now, assume that the physical thing's cost is 100% due to energy. It will be less than this, but even with this upper bound, it's not very high. For example, imagine a pair of shoes. You pay $100, but materials cost maybe $10. My guess is somewhere between 10-20%. My guess is that if energy costs were zero, the cost of living would still be at least $50K (in this stated scenario -- I actually have a hard time believing the cost of living is so high in the US).
edgarvm 10y ago
It'll never cost $0, even if we could satisfy all the demand of energy with solar power, electric grids still involve costs, same as roads.
- mason240 10y ago
  I think $0 cost in this context is near-zero. If my utily bill (electric + NG for heat) went from ~$150/mo to $15, I would think of as practically free.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by mentos 10y ago

gedy 10y ago

Gov't and business will never let costs go to zero

kctess5 10y ago

I'm not sure, but that will never happen unfortunately. The support infrastructure always comes with cost.

giarc 10y ago
Perhaps the commentor is thinking rooftop solar.

philipkglass 10y ago

A decent rule of thumb is that the cost of residential electricity is half for transmission and distribution, half for generation. So save 50% on your home power bill if electricity became free to generate but still had to be delivered from centralized plants. If household solar and small-scale storage get ridiculously cheap, grid defection may be cheaper than buying large-scale renewable output from the grid, but utility scale solar plants can generate more real output per nominal watt and cost less to build per nominal watt. Unless your local electricity system's history is weird (unneeded grid capacity built in Australia being paid for by households, Energiewende that shifted costs away from big industrial customers and toward individuals in Germany) then grid defection probably won't be the lowest-cost option in the next 5 years.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
On the topic of grid defection, in some areas where gas heating for homes is common, there is a move to stop hooking new houses up to the gas grid, instead having all heating and cooking done via electricity. That adds another interesting angle on these calculations, since not hooking up in the first place is obviously cheaper than hooking it up and then not using it.
Inthenameofmine 10y ago
What you call grid defection might very well happen in currently developing countries though, just as they never adopted telephone lines or stable postal services. In most developing countries the grid is the problem, not the production. They often lose more than 50% of the electricity before it gets O the point of use. They also need to make large scale coordinated upfront investments, which i difficult with weak governments. In a way, solar + cheap storage could become an economic and social democratisation force.

ams6110 10y ago

My electric bill barely gets to $200 in the hottest summer months. So, it would not change by a lot.

tasty_freeze 10y ago
Part of the cost of most things you buy goes towards the energy costs invested in making that thing. Lower energy costs would lower the prices of most things you buy.

undersuit 10y ago

Energy is free? I'm going to turn my (apartment)living room into a grow op for all my veggies. That should help reduce the cost of living some.

ars 10y ago

Cost of living would go to zero, because material cost for stuff would be zero. But you might wonder, what about salary? But salary would go to zero as well because you wouldn't need much money since everything is basically free. The problem will be motivating people to do stuff. You might expect an additional problem that certain items might be scarce, but the solar system is very large, and with free energy there will be no limit to getting things. If you think I'm wrong, try this thought experiment - what are the costs of things? To get started ignore salary, and think what do you have to pay for? Shipping: Free obviously. Mining: Free since you don't have to spend energy getting stuff out of the ground, Machines: Free, since they are made of metal and other resources that are in turn free. All you are left with is assembly and design i.e. wages. But as mentioned, those will go to zero since everything will be so cheap people won't need much money. (Note, I'm assuming unlimited energy. If you meant limited energy, but it was free, then you have a contradiction since if it's free no one will limit themself. Maybe you could do quotas.)

mikekchar 10y ago

I think you can reasonably estimate this simply. If you imagine that in any good or service you buy, there is a percentage that goes to salary and taxes and a percentage that goes to some physical thing. Now, assume that the physical thing's cost is 100% due to energy. It will be less than this, but even with this upper bound, it's not very high. For example, imagine a pair of shoes. You pay $100, but materials cost maybe $10. My guess is somewhere between 10-20%. My guess is that if energy costs were zero, the cost of living would still be at least $50K (in this stated scenario -- I actually have a hard time believing the cost of living is so high in the US).

edgarvm 10y ago

It'll never cost $0, even if we could satisfy all the demand of energy with solar power, electric grids still involve costs, same as roads.

mason240 10y ago
I think $0 cost in this context is near-zero. If my utily bill (electric + NG for heat) went from ~$150/mo to $15, I would think of as practically free.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]