It is possible to kill off the energy industry without making a state energy company. I’m not sure if this was intentional. I was just fiddling around with policy in a decades long game.
Why would some subsidies stimulate the industry when others choked it? One might assume any of these policies would draw government contracts for all programs through either the industry or state body. If that’s not the case because it’s too complex, perhaps these policies should affect energy efficiency rather than the industry or the cost of the state system.
As the policies read:
Mandatory “Microgeneration”
“Micro” Generation Grants. It means that more and more people produce energy on a local lvl not by big industries. The Subsidies are not affecting who is producing, because everybody gets it. Eco home and smart meter both raise energy efficiency if im right and by that reducing the amount of energy needed. thats a reason why i go with state energy most of the time - the eco policies kill the energy industries and i want the reduces unemployment rate
Totally, but I’m saying that surely the smart meters would be sold and installed by whatever energy body is in control of the system, therefore the business they lose from more frugal customers is regained by the purchase of the models and installation services.
The same could be suggested of the insulation and solar panel markets. Why kill your own industries like that? Why would state spending which directly motivates energy equipment for all homes everywhere hurt business? Just because it’s state money doesn’t mean people on the value chain don’t profit. Industries pay an arm and a leg lobbying for state contracts because they’re so good for business.
1 Like
I’m not saying that some of these things shouldn’t reduce the industry, after all reducing consumption is the point of efficiency, and reduced consumption is reduced sales.
The smart meter incentivizes the customer to shift their consumption away from peak hours, the customer still consumes energy, so the effect might be overstated.
Micro generation would also have limits on its potential benefit, even if it is both subsidized and enforced. Imagine trying to have enough solar panels on an apartment building for everyone to have the stove on at once. Micro generation could greatly reduce the need for industrial scale power generation and distribution, but will never eliminate it.
Eco home regulation will do a lot too. Heating is the main source of energy consumption in a home, and better insulation will reduce the need to heat a home. There is no such thing as perfect insulation however, so homes will need to be heated. Heat pumps also greatly reduce energy consumption, as they move heat rather than creating it. There is still a massive difference between reducing and eliminating consumption.
On the flip side, GDP should have a much bigger impact on energy consumption. Additionally, I would put add a two way link between industrial automation and energy consumption. More automation means more energy consumption, and as consumption rises, so will the price, making automation somewhat less cost effective.
2 Likes
Cliff, what would be a way to balance micro-generation grants with private energy industry without resorting to state energy company?