Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] CFLs



I disagree with your analysis. By not charging the ratepayers for the external costs, you reduce the incentive to conserve. Thereby driving the cost up for everyone. Here in southern California we have tiered rates for residential electric consumption to encourage conservation.

US energy policies have led to profligate consumption of energy. We have about 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 25% of the world's energy resources.

Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Tarara [rtarara@saintmarys.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:23 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>


I pay about $0.14 per KWH. But, electricity costs in California always
have been high because of air pollution regulation that require the
utilities to use cleaner fuels and to have cleaner generating systems than
in most other parts of the country.

Unfortunately, there is a "free lunch" in the sense that most electricity
consumers do not pay for the "external" costs of generating power. For
example, you probably are not paying the real costs of air pollution
caused by using coal-fired plants nor for the disposal of nuclear waste
from the nuclear reactor on you electric bill. Much of that is subsidized
by the taxpayer in most parts of the country. Here more of it is covered
by the ratepayer.

I have never bought into this argument. OK, we pay for the externals,
through other costs--taxes being the main thing. But those payments are
pretty much distributed along usage lines. Pushing all the costs onto the
utility cost then ends up costing too much for the 'poor' so they get
subsidized, and pretty soon your taxes are right back where they were (if
they ever would have gone down in the first place) and you are still paying
more for your energy. That's a no win situation for those who actually pay
'full' taxes and pay for their own utilities (e.g. just an increased burden
on the middle class).

Rick

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l