7 ms·

It's weird that we have higher late-summer electricity prices that we did mid-winter this year. But all things considered, energy prices do in fact need to be h

by marvin 5y ago

It's weird that we have higher late-summer electricity prices that we did mid-winter this year. But all things considered, energy prices do in fact need to be high in order to support faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy. Sucks for everyone who has marginal incomes, but I'm sure we can make some adjustments to the safety net policies to mitigate that.

tomp 5y ago
> energy prices do in fact need to be high in order to support faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy. In this case, energy prices are (partially) high because of deployment of renewables (and not nuclear)
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> But all things considered, energy prices do in fact need to be high in order to support faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy. >Sucks for everyone who has marginal incomes, but I'm sure we can make some adjustments to the safety net policies to mitigate that. When people complain about policies that screw the middle class this is exactly the kind of stuff they are talking about. The poors scrape by with their vouchers. The middle class flounders until they're poor enough to qualify for the vouchers. Energy, education, healthcare, housing, etc. etc. etc. regardless of the sector the effect is the same. People have a habit of voting against people who screw them once they figure it out. Burning fossil fuels might be unsustainable on a 50yr timeline but squeezing people financially is unsustainable on a 5yr timeline that gets us the worst of both.
- radicalbyte 5y ago
  In Germany, consumers pay a significantly higher rate than industry.
- marvin 5y ago
  While I agree in general, I'd argue that energy/climate gas emissions are in its own category, because they represent an unpriced externality that will have terrible consequences if the world doesn't get serious about sustainable solutions very soon. Also keep in mind that my country has an annual national budget of $35,000 per capita, one third of which goes to welfare programs. We practically have a basic income program going already. We're not totally insulated from the forces that besiege the middle class, but I'm pretty sure we're mitigating them as well as anyone. Would love to hear your suggestions on what policies would do better, assuming an intention to prevent catastrophic global climate change.
- UglyToad 5y ago
  I wonder if something like 'progressive' energy pricing might be a solution here. It's kind of a weird idea but effectively some baseline 'required for living' amount of energy is free and then scales some non-linear amount, e.g. exponentially but not really, as usage increases. So some grandma with her 3 bar electric heater is paying some token amount for her usage over what is deemed 'baseline' but then crypto miners or industry is effectively subsidising everyone and also incentivised to reduce usage more heavily.
PeterisP 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised that if this trend increases and the push comes to shove, then the voters - especially those on marginal incomes - might decide that actually they much prefer lower energy prices instead of supporting renewables and CO2-neutral energy; and in democratic countries it's the general public who are entitled to make that choice for their country instead of accepting the decisions of elites/experts and waiting for safety net policies to compensate for the suck. I agree that faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy does require high energy prices - however, it's not my decision to make whether that benefit is so desirable to justify the costs, it's up to the people in each specific country to decide - and taking into account the benefit to them specifically and the costs to them, not the global benefit and someone else's budget. And IMHO governments have not really asked them for a proper informed decision, it all has just-sort-of-happened without informed consent of the masses and they might just refuse that consent if the price rises sufficiently. In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense.
- marvin 5y ago
  > In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense. While I sympathize with this view on a certain level, applying it to policy consistently and literally is a likely path towards chaos and immense death and suffering 70 years from now. That's a high cost to pay to consider climate policies an optional luxury good. I'm increasingly convinced that bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy to keep society moving towards climate gas neutrality. I certainly agree with the view that all climate policies are worthless if they don't take into account real-world considerations such as free will and what significant parts of society are able/willing to afford. It's painful to watch this slow-motion tragedy play out. Certainly interested in hearing suggestions for improving it.
  - ip26 5y ago
    bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy It's not really a bribe. If running your leaf blower pollutes the air that others breathe, is a (tiny) payment from you to those people not simply compensation for (tiny) harm you've caused? A carbon tax dividend simply manifests this concept (though aimed at carbon instead of pm2.5) It's always seemed like a really promising policy that drives many of the right incentives, but getting it passed seems impossible.
ben_w 5y ago
Much as I support transition to green energy as fast as possible, doing so in ways that increase prices create a risk that businesses which care more about money than environment just move to where the energy is cheaper and then you lose both influence over them and employment for those very same marginal income people. I’d rather governments use general taxation to subsidise deployment of PV (or research into superconductors and storage) than encourage higher prices — the rewards form research can bring benefits that make the cost worthwhile.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  How about go nuclear, that works even during windless nights?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I have no fundamental problem with fission myself, at least as a short-term solution, but (1) I recognise a lot of people are terrified of it so it may be a political non-starter, (2) it is very expensive, and (3) you’d have to complete a few hundred reactors each year to make a reasonable dent in emissions. For emphasis: this isn’t a “no” — I expect it to still be part of the solution despite all that because all options take time to scale up and diversity is good — just that it isn’t a slam-dunk.

by marvin 5y ago

tomp 5y ago

> energy prices do in fact need to be high in order to support faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy. In this case, energy prices are (partially) high because of deployment of renewables (and not nuclear)

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

> But all things considered, energy prices do in fact need to be high in order to support faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy. >Sucks for everyone who has marginal incomes, but I'm sure we can make some adjustments to the safety net policies to mitigate that. When people complain about policies that screw the middle class this is exactly the kind of stuff they are talking about. The poors scrape by with their vouchers. The middle class flounders until they're poor enough to qualify for the vouchers. Energy, education, healthcare, housing, etc. etc. etc. regardless of the sector the effect is the same. People have a habit of voting against people who screw them once they figure it out. Burning fossil fuels might be unsustainable on a 50yr timeline but squeezing people financially is unsustainable on a 5yr timeline that gets us the worst of both.

radicalbyte 5y ago
In Germany, consumers pay a significantly higher rate than industry.
marvin 5y ago
While I agree in general, I'd argue that energy/climate gas emissions are in its own category, because they represent an unpriced externality that will have terrible consequences if the world doesn't get serious about sustainable solutions very soon. Also keep in mind that my country has an annual national budget of $35,000 per capita, one third of which goes to welfare programs. We practically have a basic income program going already. We're not totally insulated from the forces that besiege the middle class, but I'm pretty sure we're mitigating them as well as anyone. Would love to hear your suggestions on what policies would do better, assuming an intention to prevent catastrophic global climate change.
UglyToad 5y ago
I wonder if something like 'progressive' energy pricing might be a solution here. It's kind of a weird idea but effectively some baseline 'required for living' amount of energy is free and then scales some non-linear amount, e.g. exponentially but not really, as usage increases. So some grandma with her 3 bar electric heater is paying some token amount for her usage over what is deemed 'baseline' but then crypto miners or industry is effectively subsidising everyone and also incentivised to reduce usage more heavily.

PeterisP 5y ago

I wouldn't be surprised that if this trend increases and the push comes to shove, then the voters - especially those on marginal incomes - might decide that actually they much prefer lower energy prices instead of supporting renewables and CO2-neutral energy; and in democratic countries it's the general public who are entitled to make that choice for their country instead of accepting the decisions of elites/experts and waiting for safety net policies to compensate for the suck. I agree that faster deployment of renewables and CO2-neutral energy does require high energy prices - however, it's not my decision to make whether that benefit is so desirable to justify the costs, it's up to the people in each specific country to decide - and taking into account the benefit to them specifically and the costs to them, not the global benefit and someone else's budget. And IMHO governments have not really asked them for a proper informed decision, it all has just-sort-of-happened without informed consent of the masses and they might just refuse that consent if the price rises sufficiently. In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense.

marvin 5y ago
> In some sense a clean environment and less dangerous future are "luxury goods" that societies and people want to buy if they can afford to, but should not be forced if they can't afford the expense. While I sympathize with this view on a certain level, applying it to policy consistently and literally is a likely path towards chaos and immense death and suffering 70 years from now. That's a high cost to pay to consider climate policies an optional luxury good. I'm increasingly convinced that bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy to keep society moving towards climate gas neutrality. I certainly agree with the view that all climate policies are worthless if they don't take into account real-world considerations such as free will and what significant parts of society are able/willing to afford. It's painful to watch this slow-motion tragedy play out. Certainly interested in hearing suggestions for improving it.
- ip26 5y ago
  bribing part of the voters with some sort of climate tax dividend is a sensible policy It's not really a bribe. If running your leaf blower pollutes the air that others breathe, is a (tiny) payment from you to those people not simply compensation for (tiny) harm you've caused? A carbon tax dividend simply manifests this concept (though aimed at carbon instead of pm2.5) It's always seemed like a really promising policy that drives many of the right incentives, but getting it passed seems impossible.

ben_w 5y ago

Much as I support transition to green energy as fast as possible, doing so in ways that increase prices create a risk that businesses which care more about money than environment just move to where the energy is cheaper and then you lose both influence over them and employment for those very same marginal income people. I’d rather governments use general taxation to subsidise deployment of PV (or research into superconductors and storage) than encourage higher prices — the rewards form research can bring benefits that make the cost worthwhile.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
How about go nuclear, that works even during windless nights?
- ben_w 5y ago
  I have no fundamental problem with fission myself, at least as a short-term solution, but (1) I recognise a lot of people are terrified of it so it may be a political non-starter, (2) it is very expensive, and (3) you’d have to complete a few hundred reactors each year to make a reasonable dent in emissions. For emphasis: this isn’t a “no” — I expect it to still be part of the solution despite all that because all options take time to scale up and diversity is good — just that it isn’t a slam-dunk.