|
op now you know what it feels like to live in hawaii. the monopoly power company buys out local officials and pushes legislation that works against consumers in favor of the corp... story of my life. just wait until they say "hey you have to pay us to send inspectors to 'certify' that your house is independent energy-ready, and 99% of people fail the inspection automatically, but this is 100% legal because it's codified in the state law."
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Pendragon posted:Hi op! I kinda/sorta understand the energy industry, so you might say I have an "understanding" of this stuff. That said I believe in global warming, so I could be just really stupid too. But in any case, here's why your energy company is doing that! I like this but feel like maybe the op had a point when he said Fogmoron posted:I'M OLD! Somebody was once wrong about science in a single article in the Times! Trust no Science! Touch my peepee!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
if the government is subsidizing something it makes sense for private businesses to be able to take that money subsidy -> people: bad subsidy -> private business: good
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Lol at everyone who thinks the poor power companies have to charge more for people using less power just to keep from going broke. What percentage of homes are serviced by a single mile+ long line that needs constant servicing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:it's happening already. if you live somewhere relatively insulated from these changes, then you should prepare for the hordes of climate refugees. stockpile ammo, make a long oven. see this is the part where you global warming nutters go off the rails. you can't be super smug about "science being on my side"  and then veer into insane apocalypse prepper crap in the same breath. it makes you all lose credibility
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
paul_soccer10 posted:Solid troll it's one of the best I've seen this week I'm legit jealous
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Fat Jesus posted:global warming is totally real and happening in spite of every single prediction by global warming science mans not coming true and if you even doubt this truth you probably also think the holocaust never happened and the earth is flat and vaccines give you autism and other crazy stuff I think anyone who brings up the number of times science mans have been caught data tampering to prove it's hotter than ever before should be sent to re-education camps our future is too important to allow debate when the science is settled. ice meltdown
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Nebraska has public power and it's cheap as gently caress, lol at you people living in states with forced capitalism on something that should 100% be state run due to societal necessity of mass distribution and localized monopoly creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
central dogma posted:Lol at everyone who thinks the poor power companies have to charge more for people using less power just to keep from going broke. What percentage of homes are serviced by a single mile+ long line that needs constant servicing? Don't get me wrong there is a "bigger profits = better than" side of this, but the fact that someone can buy solar panels and sell power to the utility at noon while buying power from 5 PM to 6 AM and have a $0 electric bill will be an issue in the long term. Power from 5 PM to 7 PM is expensive and the utility still has to maintain the infrastructure to send power to that home. Granted said infrastructure isn't a mile-long line direct from the power plant (it's a bunch of high-KV lines and substations shared among thousands of homes) but maintaining that poo poo does cost money. If you get enough people with solar panels then the pot of money for that maintenance gets smaller, and long term if enough people get solar panels it becomes too small. When you're a utility looking out 20 years trying to plan where you need to build power plants, high-KV lines, and substations, you need to know you'll have the money to maintain that stuff. It's kind of like how some states are looking at ways to fund roads other than gas taxes. Gas taxes assumed everyone used gas to drive and electric cars are changing that assumption. You need a way to make electric cars pay for the road too (preferably while still incentivizing them if you believe in that climate change stuff). Pendragon fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:Hi op! I kinda/sorta understand the energy industry, so you might say I have an "understanding" of this stuff. That said I believe in global warming, so I could be just really stupid too. But in any case, here's why your energy company is doing that! This is all excellent and true and good, but you have to convince me, the consumer, why I give a flying gently caress about that slice on the graph labeled 'profit' as this doesn't matter to me. Why can't that slice go down for the power company and they deal with it elsewhere? Why is it accepted that they get to set the size of that chunk and then get all pissy when reality doesn't work out to whatever projected number? The answer of course is CAPITALISM and I understand that but do you see what I am saying here? EDIT Also for as dumb as gently caress as Florida is we DID rebuke the power lobby's attempt to constitutionalize some good-for-them solar panel laws that was also worded in the 'subsidize others' sort of way. Still falls apart though because nobody besides the power company gives a poo poo about their 'profit' line as in 'subsidize our profit pls  '
KakerMix fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:This is all excellent and true and good, but you have to convince me, the consumer, why I give a flying gently caress about that slice on the graph labeled 'profit' as this doesn't matter to me. Why can't that slice go down for the power company and they deal with it elsewhere? Why is it accepted that they get to set the size of that chunk and then get all pissy when reality doesn't work out to whatever projected number? you the consumer make it okay by paying for and receiving their service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
scott zoloft posted:you the consumer make it okay by paying for and receiving their service. Yeah this is CAPITALISM as I said, but you do see where I am taking issue with right? That profit chunk is a part of the 'subsidize' portion of the argument but where I will see a chunk of profit and go "This is good enough" the power company is always going to say "more" which is where we then run into the issue of for-profit power companies vs. state run things. I am old enough to remember "global cooling", so kindly gently caress off VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV KakerMix fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
scott zoloft posted:you the consumer make it okay by paying for and receiving their service. There is literally no advantage to private power. You pay more for the same service, and you can't vote out the board running it when they try to scam you, and the profits go back to your infrastructure instead of rich people wallets Seriously why the gently caress do we have private power still For profit is loving pointless when it's functionally a monopoly with no local oversight at all C-SPAN Caller fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:1. Charge everyone more, effectively subsidizing your low rate with everyone else's money. It's a good idea because then more people will add solar panels to stop nonexistent climate change! However, what if everyone installs just a few crappy panels? Then they'll have to raise rates even further! And further! Until eventually the few people that can't afford solar panels have really high electricity bills to make you feel like you are your own man. Those poor people. Even 50+ years ago America was okay with everybody being charged a bit more so that the rural areas had service. Congrats on being the bigger rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
end thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
op starting threads like "i believe dinosaurs and man lived at the same time and were feiends. now forget about that while i give you my thoughts on peak oil"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Yeah this is CAPITALISM as I said, but you do see where I am taking issue with right? That profit chunk is a part of the 'subsidize' portion of the argument but where I will see a chunk of profit and go "This is good enough" the power company is always going to say "more" which is where we then run into the issue of for-profit power companies vs. state run things. yeah it's a real poo poo chute. i'd like to see public utilities treated like they were meant to serve the public. i'd also like to see our fiber / telecommunication infrastructure treated as such. tax dollars put the lines up and we're still paying for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:There is literally no advantage to private power. You pay more for the same service, and you can't vote out the board running it when they try to scam you, and the profits go back to your infrastructure instead of rich people wallets Private utilities exist because all legislatures in the US are basically big ol bribery zones. gently caress, some places have private water/sewer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
As a person from the Great State of Utah, I really wish they go ahead with nuclear power plants in green river.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:Private utilities exist because all legislatures in the US are basically big ol bribery zones. Something something bernie sanders something something money out of politics
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
ppl should put nuclear reactors on their roofs instead
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:This is all excellent and true and good, but you have to convince me, the consumer, why I give a flying gently caress about that slice on the graph labeled 'profit' as this doesn't matter to me. Why can't that slice go down for the power company and they deal with it elsewhere? Why is it accepted that they get to set the size of that chunk and then get all pissy when reality doesn't work out to whatever projected number? Dude, you're preaching to the choir here. Power's one of those funky things where I can see the benefit to both sides of public vs. private. I live in a deregulated state, and I do have my pick of who I "buy" my power from. That said, only one company controls the infrastructure (the legacy provider from before deregulation), and they control about half my bill. They also can lobby the state legislature to increase my prices on that half of the bill. They're trying to do just that right now to justify keeping some nuke plants open, and legislature's gotta legislate so they've tacked on coal mining incentives and other crap to that increase. Infrastructure is one of those things where competition is nonexistent because capital costs are so high, so you end up with one monopoly provider run by shareholders being able to dictate how much their share of your bill is. That is Bad. On the other hand, I've seen the good deregulation does to the generation side. It does incentivize people to build plants where they're needed (at least to some respect, long-term/really big capital projects aren't incentivized as well), and it helps keep prices low because only the cheapest generators need to run. It's the reason you see coal plants shutting down and gas plants starting up. Here you see utilities group together and form nonprofit organizations that handle the day-to-day generator scheduling and transmission dispatch. That part does work (with the exception of long-term as I said before), and provides power to over half the country. So basically it's a mixed bag, but overall I agree with you that having one provider is lovely. blugu64 posted:Even 50+ years ago America was okay with everybody being charged a bit more so that the rural areas had service. Congrats on being the bigger rear end in a top hat. I think you missed the point. The point wasn't that people will be incentivizing solar panels. I'm okay with that (but I believe in climate change so whatever). The point is that you can only incentivize solar panels so much via a usage-based power bill before things start breaking down. If everyone had solar panels on their roof but relied on utility power at night/cloudy days, the utility would be getting far less money to run its generators/maintain its infrastructure, and things would start breaking. Granted the idea that everyone has solar panels is laughable (at least right now), but the point is that there is a breaking point where enough solar panels + power grid backup just won't work with usage-based billing. This is why utilities are looking for ways to get the money needed for generators/infrastructure from people that may have little to no net usage. It's either that or you keep raising rates on the people that can't get solar panels, but those tend to be people with lower incomes that can't afford solar panels (which kinda defeats the purpose of incentives). This could also be just a plain cash grab by the utility but I'm trying to explain the possible motivation behind it other than "more money for us, gently caress you." Edit: It's why I mentioned gas taxes. Most states and the feds use gas taxes to pay for the roads because it's a nice and easy way to make those who use the roads more pay more for them while nicely incentivizing high MPG cars. However, if everyone bought an electric car tomorrow, we'd be hosed because there'd be no money for roads (similar to how utilities would be hosed if everyone got solar panels). States are looking decades ahead to a time when electric cars make up a good portion of the cars on the road and are trying to find ways to tax those who use the roads without using gas taxes, just like how utilities are looking to get money from solar panel users who have tiny bills but still need the grid for backup. Pendragon fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
A misanthrope posted:op starting threads like I am old enough to remember "Piltdown Man", so kindly gently caress off VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
looks like Op got wrecked and won't return to the thread anymore can we crowdfund a ban for him
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
kuddles posted:I am old enough to remember "Piltdown Man", so kindly gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:Dude, you're preaching to the choir here. Power's one of those funky things where I can see the benefit to both sides of public vs. private. I live in a deregulated state, and I do have my pick of who I "buy" my power from. That said, only one company controls the infrastructure (the legacy provider from before deregulation), and they control about half my bill. They also can lobby the state legislature to increase my prices on that half of the bill. They're trying to do just that right now to justify keeping some nuke plants open, and legislature's gotta legislate so they've tacked on coal mining incentives and other crap to that increase. Infrastructure is one of those things where competition is nonexistent because capital costs are so high, so you end up with one monopoly provider run by shareholders being able to dictate how much their share of your bill is. That is Bad. Dude gas taxes are regressive as gently caress because 99% of the damage done to our roads is truck hauling, but the individual tax paying citizen then gets hosed because moving cars does less tonnage per gallon pulling and cars are required in most of the country. Trucks don't pay their fair share, and a lot of long haul would be better off on trains environmentally and economically if we stopped subsidizing trucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:Dude gas taxes are regressive as gently caress because 99% of the damage done to our roads is truck hauling, but the individual tax paying citizen then gets hosed because moving cars does less tonnage per gallon pulling and cars are required in most of the country. Trucks don't pay their fair share, and a lot of long haul would be better off on trains environmentally and economically if we stopped subsidizing trucks You're right on all points. Doesn't change the fact that gas taxes are used to pay for roads unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
It's funny too because civil engineers don't use cars in road damage calculations on pavement because it's within the margin of error, so it really is like 99%, and they only pay maybe 34%
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
none of this will matter once Trump ends all the alt-power subsidies. lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
C-SPAN Caller posted:Dude gas taxes are regressive as gently caress because 99% of the damage done to our roads is truck hauling, but the individual tax paying citizen then gets hosed because moving cars does less tonnage per gallon pulling and cars are required in most of the country. Trucks don't pay their fair share, and a lot of long haul would be better off on trains environmentally and economically if we stopped subsidizing trucks and who is buying the poo poo on the trucks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and who is buying the poo poo on the trucks? THE GODDAMN CARS!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and who is buying the poo poo on the trucks? Lizard people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:Don't get me wrong there is a "bigger profits = better than" side of this, but the fact that someone can buy solar panels and sell power to the utility at noon while buying power from 5 PM to 6 AM and have a $0 electric bill will be an issue in the long term. That is a good argument for it to be a government entity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:and who is buying the poo poo on the trucks? Trucks are fine for short haul but railroads have no government subsidies and pay for their own repair entirely out of pocket, while the government props up trucking that allows long haul. Environmentally speaking, trains pollute way less and carry way more for long haul logistics, but cheap gas and regressive tax structures actively allows trucking to compete where it shouldn't be able to on long haul long delivery time goods. It's government welfare when a far more efficient and cheaper system that also saves the planet exists. Short haul is where trucking should be, not long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
RobattoJesus posted:Lizard people? I KNEW IT!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
OP what other mainstream sciences do you not believe in? I, for instance, do not believe in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
I still think the earth is flat tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:That is a good argument for it to be a government entity. Welcome back OP! You're right, but you're still left with the problem of how to pay for infrastructure. Usage-based fees are no better than utility billing systems at solving the problem because solar users can still pay less than their "share" per-se (with the exception that the government doesn't have to make a profit). Income and other taxes put towards power grids are possible, but they're subject to the whims of legislatures that are more concerned about the next election than setting aside money to replace the 230 KV lines bringing power to their constituents 20 to 30 years down the line. One thing to keep in mind with the people who want the government to take over power distribution: government control isn't a perfect panacea. There are major portions of our infrastructure that are under government control right now (at least in most areas). Water comes to mind, and that's not doing so well right now. Major portions of our water infrastructure are at the end of their life and need replacement, but very few governments have set aside money over the past 50 to 100 years to replace them. Current estimates to fix the issue range from $600 billion to $1 trillion. Roads are also under government control, and the problems facing our transportation infrastructure are well documented. In a perfect world, government control is the best solution because it doesn't make sense for things like major life-sustaining infrastructure to have a profit motive. Unfortunately, we live in a nonperfect world where it's hard to set aside now for a problem 50 years down the line (like climate change, if you believe in that).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:Welcome back OP! All places with private water/sewer pay more for services and the companies are more prone to fight consent decrees from EPA, leading to fewer repairs and more poo poo in source waters. The fact that some utilities are poorly managed is not a valid criticism of public utilities in general. Public utilities are subject to harsher scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
i say we privatize it
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:09
|
|