4 ms·

I live in Finland next to a hydroelectric dam. Electricity is, at worst, like 200 bucks a month. More than half the cost is transport. The dam is less than 15km

I live in Finland next to a hydroelectric dam. Electricity is, at worst, like 200 bucks a month. More than half the cost is transport. The dam is less than 15km out. What a ripoff. Privatizing the electric grid would make electricity cheaper, they said.

jpollock 6y ago
Even though you're 15km from a primary source, the network is built to provide you electricity even if that source is down. That requires connections to generators much further away. It's the uptime that adds costs.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  The privatized electric grid companies were granted permission to raise prices for funding grid expansion. A later audit discovered that they pocketed 90% of the raise. (the expansion cost only 10%) Even closer than the hydro dam there's a waste incinerator plant 3km from my home. Even if the hydro wasn't 100% reliable which of course it isn't (the channel is drained occasionally for maintenance), they can burn trash at any time to make up the difference. On some days there's a funny smell in the air. It's greed that adds to these costs.
  - spurgu 6y ago
    Privatization as its finest.
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  Here in Norway it's because we sell our cheap hydro overseas, so that we can buy back more expensive energy when hydro is low. The owners make a ton of cash, and us consumers can only say "thank you". Sure something something more reliable, but don't come here and say the cash they skim isn't a strong motivation in this equation. At least a lot of the hydro is owned by local municipalities and counties, so most of it goes back into the local communities. But not all.
  - marvin 6y ago
    Norway's system of municipal hydropower ownership combined with export of surplus hydropower, effectively converts the (basically mandatory) electricity bill into a tax. Reducing the need for other forms of local government taxation, given that the municipality is well-run and not corrupt. Beneficial side effects are incentivizing power efficiency, since capital-intensive efforts like insulating your house and installing a heat exchanger are only profitable if electricity prices are high. Another dramatically undersold benefit is that Norwegian municipalities are effectively well-paid pumped storage operators when continental European power prices are low or negative, which effectively reduces the effective "synthetic" power bill taxation, while retaining its income to the municipalities. Authorities and publicly owned power companies have really screwed the pooch on explaining these benefits to the public. Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important. If they're sold to private owners, it's basically tantamount to allowing private owners to purchase tax collection rights. And honestly, screw that.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      Yeah as long as ownership is retained by the public I don't mind so much, I'd just like it if they called a spade a spade. But things are getting sold off, which is a worrying trend.
      - marvin 6y ago
        I agree, also regarding the latest wind power projects. These are often built on public land, and regardless on land that's open to the public through the right to roam. I would have less of a problem with it if the incomes from these power stations were owned by the municipalities. But the municipal governments have demonstrated time and time again that they really suck at negotiating. So what happens is that private investors, often foreign, negotiate a very cheap lease where wind turbines are built on public land. All profits, except a small yearly lease to the municipality, are returned to the investors. There should be people in the current conservative government that understand enough about market forces to step in and ensure that profitable wind power projects are actually built by the municipalities, but looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Or maybe there's some special interest groups that have managed to sneak in and stop that kind of measure. This is an area where ideology ends up being the enemy of the public.
WalterBright 6y ago
Privatizing the grid isn't enough to make it cheaper. The regulatory environment has to be set up to allow competition. It's competition that lowers prices, not simply being privately owned.
yurishimo 6y ago
$200 max sounds nice. I paid that some months for a 900 sqft (83.6127 m2) apartment in the summer in Texas. I have family that have seen 3-400/month for their larger houses some months. Granted, these are mass produced homes built in the 50s-80s for the most part before home construction got more strict about insulation and energy used to be a lot cheaper.

jpollock 6y ago

Even though you're 15km from a primary source, the network is built to provide you electricity even if that source is down. That requires connections to generators much further away. It's the uptime that adds costs.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
The privatized electric grid companies were granted permission to raise prices for funding grid expansion. A later audit discovered that they pocketed 90% of the raise. (the expansion cost only 10%) Even closer than the hydro dam there's a waste incinerator plant 3km from my home. Even if the hydro wasn't 100% reliable which of course it isn't (the channel is drained occasionally for maintenance), they can burn trash at any time to make up the difference. On some days there's a funny smell in the air. It's greed that adds to these costs.
- spurgu 6y ago
  Privatization as its finest.
magicalhippo 6y ago
Here in Norway it's because we sell our cheap hydro overseas, so that we can buy back more expensive energy when hydro is low. The owners make a ton of cash, and us consumers can only say "thank you". Sure something something more reliable, but don't come here and say the cash they skim isn't a strong motivation in this equation. At least a lot of the hydro is owned by local municipalities and counties, so most of it goes back into the local communities. But not all.
- marvin 6y ago
  Norway's system of municipal hydropower ownership combined with export of surplus hydropower, effectively converts the (basically mandatory) electricity bill into a tax. Reducing the need for other forms of local government taxation, given that the municipality is well-run and not corrupt. Beneficial side effects are incentivizing power efficiency, since capital-intensive efforts like insulating your house and installing a heat exchanger are only profitable if electricity prices are high. Another dramatically undersold benefit is that Norwegian municipalities are effectively well-paid pumped storage operators when continental European power prices are low or negative, which effectively reduces the effective "synthetic" power bill taxation, while retaining its income to the municipalities. Authorities and publicly owned power companies have really screwed the pooch on explaining these benefits to the public. Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important. If they're sold to private owners, it's basically tantamount to allowing private owners to purchase tax collection rights. And honestly, screw that.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    Yeah as long as ownership is retained by the public I don't mind so much, I'd just like it if they called a spade a spade. But things are getting sold off, which is a worrying trend.
    - marvin 6y ago
      I agree, also regarding the latest wind power projects. These are often built on public land, and regardless on land that's open to the public through the right to roam. I would have less of a problem with it if the incomes from these power stations were owned by the municipalities. But the municipal governments have demonstrated time and time again that they really suck at negotiating. So what happens is that private investors, often foreign, negotiate a very cheap lease where wind turbines are built on public land. All profits, except a small yearly lease to the municipality, are returned to the investors. There should be people in the current conservative government that understand enough about market forces to step in and ensure that profitable wind power projects are actually built by the municipalities, but looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Or maybe there's some special interest groups that have managed to sneak in and stop that kind of measure. This is an area where ideology ends up being the enemy of the public.

WalterBright 6y ago

Privatizing the grid isn't enough to make it cheaper. The regulatory environment has to be set up to allow competition. It's competition that lowers prices, not simply being privately owned.

yurishimo 6y ago

$200 max sounds nice. I paid that some months for a 900 sqft (83.6127 m2) apartment in the summer in Texas. I have family that have seen 3-400/month for their larger houses some months. Granted, these are mass produced homes built in the 50s-80s for the most part before home construction got more strict about insulation and energy used to be a lot cheaper.