Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Electric prices go negative in California, while gas hits $7.29 a gallon.

[center]
[/center]

[i][b]Photo above[/b] - the California governor's mansion. Which doesn't have rooftop solar but gets free electricity courtesy of taxpayers.[/i]

Congrats if you already put solar panels on your roof. I'm not going to cast shade on you. Even if you got government subsides. And also signed up to have the state of California buy your “excess solar electricity” on sunny days. You're just playing the game according to the rules. The problem is, those rules were written by politicians who are REALLY bad at math. That's why 2024 is the year of energy Armageddon in California. See links below.

Electricity prices in California are now “negative”. At least on sunny spring days. There is soooo much rooftop solar, there's no place to send it. The grid is full. But only on sunny days. At night, when you might want to plug in your Tesla model Y (or F150 lightning) it's a different story. Electric demand zooms up just as the sun sinks below the horizon. Nobody saw this coming, we are told. Um . . . you mean nobody did a 5-year projection of solar production based on compounded annual installation rates? Sheesh!

I know that sounds stupid, but please remember that California is ALSO the state with mega-miles of century old high voltage transmission lines, most of which have never been maintained or replaced. Despite some of the highest residential energy rates in the world. Solar panels, meet your rich uncle - high conventional electric costs. And your offspring is – negative daytime electric rates. But a shortage of electricity at nights. And still no solution to the giant tangle of 40,000 volt wires overhead which are causing constant brushfires. The perfect (solar) storm?

I don't like to put problems on the table without potential solutions. So California, here I come. At least one of these should work for you.

1 – Build Giant Batteries – to store the daytime electrons and sell them back at night. At government cost, with more tax increases. Don't laugh and say this is ridiculous. They're already doing it - new reservoirs. Use cheap daytime electricity to pump water in, and at night, open the turnstiles and let it flow down through the electric turbines. If you don't see a problem here, then you haven't done the math on land cost and environmental impacts. Just like politicians never did the math on buying voters' rooftop electricity.

2 – Stop buying residential daytime solar. Or at least, only buy it if you absolutely need it. Cloudy days? Short winter days? And don't overpay. Don't promise sky high checks arriving at solar panel owners' mailboxes if it means rebates will be subsidized by taxes on $20 an hour burger flippers and school cafeteria workers. Market based pricing would work in the People's Republic of California, if they gave it a chance.

3 – Start firing electric company CEOs. The government granted them a controlled monopoly, so therefore the government should be able to tell them to hit the bricks. Like when their decrepit prohibition era wires start brushfires and burn millions of acres. Don't just penalize them with fines, and let the crazy-lazy execs keep their jobs. That only increases electric rates on the $20 an hour burger flipper. Tell CEOs what everybody else hears in the real world: “Either you fix this mess, or the person I replace you with will do it.”

If you're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore, don't imagine that you can find relief by trading in your tax subsidized EV on a conventional car. California gas prices just hit $7.29 a gallon. About double what I'm paying here in Florida. Geeze louise . . . I hope people don't start migrating here for affordable 87 octane too. There already arriving in U-Haul caravans trying to escape high taxes and crime. There is a bright spot though – Florida has plenty of sunshine, except when there's a thunderstorm.

I'm just sayin' . . .

[b][u]California Now Has So Much Solar Power That Electricity Prices Are Going Negative During the Day (futurism.com)

California Residents Erupt After Gas Prices Hit $7.29 per Gallon (msn.com)[/u][/b]
Good. We need to switch to 100% renewables now. Yet people still want to cling to the old ways. Well that’s their problem

Signed, me, who charges his ev for approximately 6 euros a week 😊
@wildbill83 It will be. Fleets of EV trucks are being rolled out. The future is here, sorry.
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
@Aidankenny23 no such thing as an EV cargo ship or EV air freight... EV truck shipping rates will increase drastically given the reduced range and cargo weight (batteries weight a lot...)
@wildbill83 so? We can fully electrify energy, road and rail.
@Aidankenny23 says [quote]No more than I pay now for the heavily subsidised energy i used to get from gas and oil.[/quote]

@SusanInFlorida says [quote]i don't think you can produce a web link to "subsidies" for the oil and gas industry. happy hunting though[/quote]

Wow, that was pretty easy!! Direct US dollar subsides to the US fossil fuel industry are a mere $20 billion. The real money is in that license to pollute for free.

[quote]As we’ll hear today, the United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer dollars. It’s not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income.

In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry. What do we get for that? Economists generally agree: not much. To quote conservative economist Gib Metcalf: these subsidies offer “little if any benefit in the form of oil patch jobs, lower prices at the pump, or increased energy security for the country.” The cash subsidy is both big and wrong.

But the really big subsidy is the license to pollute for free. The IMF calls this global free pass an “implicit” fossil fuel subsidy. Economists call it an “unpriced externality.” Behind these benign-sounding phrases is a lot of harm.

Start with harmful effects of local air pollution. Researchers from Harvard found pollutants from oil and gas combustion were responsible for 8.7 million premature deaths annually – the increased mortality rates from heat and air pollution we heard about at last week’s hearing.

Then, growing costs from intensifying disasters: wildfires, floods, droughts, which according to OMB could cost the federal budget $2 trillion annually and reduce US GDP 3 to 10 percent by the end of the century.

You tally up the harms, and the IMF estimates it at a $5.4 trillion annual subsidy worldwide. In the United States, it’s $646 billion – every single year. [/quote]
[b]https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-whitehouse-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-we-are-subsidizing-the-danger-[/b]
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@SusanInFlorida You asked for a link and I produced a link. If you dislike the link so much perhaps you have a better one? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're allergic to posting links, [b]LOL!!![/b]

As @Aidankenny23 points out, my link mentions the source of the data, the International Energy Agency. With that and keywords like 'fossil fuel subsidies' it's trivial to find the source report. Are you, @SusanInFlorida, really incapable of taking these trivial steps? Here's the result:
[b]https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022[/b]

The other source mentioned in my link is the IMF, for the fossil fuels 'free pollution' subsidy; also trivial to locate with those keywords. Go to
[b]https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281[/b]
and click where it says "free download."

Dear @SusanInFlorida I hope you have learned from this that with a source name and a keyword or two, you can easily find all kinds of useful information. No longer will you have to depend on silly right-wing blogs!

[b][i]The trouble with our conservative friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. [/i][/b]
@ElwoodBlues And I’ll repeat. I don’t think we’re going to be hearing from @SusanInFlorida on this any time soon. Perhaps she has some dignity, still, and will graciously accept defeat.

I’m just sayin’…
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@jshm2 i think "free land" was the key part of that equation. large cities were built, and nobody wants to live there, because there are no jobs or shopping.
Good for you. The economy just grew and Americans didn't gain spending power. That's the goal, isn't it?
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@Roundandroundwego i think you'll find that the amount the economy "grew" was about the same as the inflation rate.

that is . . . we didn't produce more goods and services. we simply paid more for them. and paid workers more.

this is always the consequence of political mismanagement of a nation's economy. sometimes it culimates in hyperinflation. You may want to google

- Weimar Germany
- Argentina
- Uganda
- Zimbabwe

Or you could do a deep dive on why the russian ruble is now worth just one penny,

still, that's better what happened under soviet rule. You needed 6,000 USSR rubles to get $1 dollar.

You can look it up.
BLP11520 · 61-69, M
Why do people like there??😂😂😂

 
Post Comment