1. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35637
    07 Dec '18 12:032 edits
    @divegeester said
    If the energy being consumed remains the same but the cost to those users goes down then there needs to be a HUGE reduction in cost to produce in order to maintain net profit while simultaneously increasing the numbers of people employed in the process.

    If technical efficiencies in the production and transfer of energy reduce production costs but increase employee hea ...[text shortened]... energy use is pretty much a closed category. No one consumes more energy just because it is cheaper.
    Nope, you're still not getting it.

    The cost savings is on the consumer end, realized through paying less to the energy providers (electric companies) over time. Some units are so efficient that some can enter into agreements with the electric companies to buy your excess electricity. The makers of these units make a profit (otherwise there would be no business) on the front end, when the consumer buys the unit and through service contracts.

    What you may be missing here is that the ones providing the old tech electricity (the power companies, through hydroelectric and nuclear means, and in some areas coal and/or oil or liquified natural gas) are not the same ones providing or producing the solar or wind home units. Some power companies have been fighting the new tech by tacking on outrageous fees for the minimal power some of these users still use. Eventually, once market saturation hits a tipping point, they may be forced to invest in these technologies to stay in business or just go the way of the dodo.

    New technologies, new paradigms. Seldom does what works for antiquated tech also work for new tech. This is how progress works.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13728
    07 Dec '18 21:39
    @mchill said
    Despite Donald Trump's ridiculous statements on climate change, and his systematic pandering to the coal and oil industry, the news on the environment is not as grim as we might think.

    Wind and solar power are not only cheaper than coal and oil, but now provide far more jobs than fossil fuels. i.e. Capturing the ocean winds over the north Atlantic could generate enough ene ...[text shortened]... ZL8_6Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3OA1s8-SI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5o7RdlP4FY
    Coal is the least expensive. It is less expensive than solar and wind.
    If wind and solar are cheaper why are there few people investing in cheaper electricity? Reality seems to contradict your assertion.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52695
    10 Dec '18 18:41
    @metal-brain said
    Coal is the least expensive. It is less expensive than solar and wind.
    If wind and solar are cheaper why are there few people investing in cheaper electricity? Reality seems to contradict your assertion.
    You do realize big oil spends millions of dollars on lobbyists don't you? Do you seriously think wind people can put up that kind of money to influence politicians?
Back to Top