Who wants to pay more for green electricity?
July 2, 2009A research report in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution suggests that individuals prefer to be involved in a collective contribution to green electricity that involve everyone paying more, rather than having individual higher bills.
Many electricity suppliers offer so-called green tariffs. These tariffs charge a premium, which is then invested in renewable electricity generation, such as wind power and solar energy, or in other forms of carbon reduction technologies. However, Roland Menges of the University of Flensburg and Stefan Traub of the University of Bremen, Germany, wanted to know whether an individual's "willingness to pay" (WTP) for green electricity matched up with expectations or whether an alternative business model might work better.
The researchers surveyed people and offered them either a public-choice scenario or an individual-choice scenario. They pointed out in their survey that there are three different payment vehicles for the public promotion of renewable energy: direct tax (reduced income), indirect tax (tax added to bill via green tariff) and "carbon" tax. They tested to see how much free-riding would take place in each scenario. Free-riding would involve individuals paying for a standard tariff while benefiting from the development of renewable energy paid for by others with green tariffs. They also looked at how public promotion of green electricity would impinge on opinions and uptake of green tariffs. Finally, they investigated trust in the market.
The overarching conclusion of the study is that people in Germany prefer their green electricity products to be paid for as a collective contribution rather than as higher bills for individuals who happen to opt for a green tariff. This result might be interpreted in light of the more general conclusion of political economy that voters prefer an improvement of the environment by means of regulations and prohibitions instead of market-driven activities, the researchers add.
More information: "Who should pay the bill for promoting green electricity? An experimental study on consumer preferences" in International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 2009, 39, 44-60
Source: Inderscience
Jul 25, 2005 |
not rated yet |
0
The public were cheated once by paying funds to scientists who claimed that Earth's climate is immune from cyclic changes in the Sun - a variable star.
Should the public be asked to pay extra for electricity that generates minimum CO2 - a well known form of gaseous plant food that has little or nothing to do with global warming?
I think not.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
This is in line with NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). Of course people don't want to individually support an ideaology that would affect their individual wealth without it affecting everuyone's wealth. It's a communal methodology that is directly influenced by the human sense of "fairness".
Conversely, if you instituted a policy of optioning green tariff by individual choice, even those with the most staunch belief will opt for a lower price if they cannot immediately detect detriment with the lower priced option.
Even more so: One person I know has a photovoltaic system that floats on the grid. He gets paid about four cents per kilowatt and buys "green" power back from the grid at 14!
I'm not willing to pay for pseudo-scientific solutions to the wrong problem. The problem isn't CO2, it is shipping dollars outside of the country for a product that we have in abundance (oil and coal) but are unwilling to dirty our backyards (even theoretically) obtaining.
I like hydroelectric and geothermal. They are reliable and proven technologies. The eco-nazis don't want ANY replacement for coal/oil/nuclear as primary sources of power.
The penultimate renewable energy rate limit.
There is no such thing as a solar constant. The sun is variable, and so is the amount of energy. The term is solar average.
The recently House passed Waxman-Markey bill classes Hydro-electric as a renewable source, only if it has the proper wildlife passages installed.
So your hydro-electric is only considered renewable if you have fish ladders and other mechanisms included.
You are exactly right, Velanarris.
Earth's heat source - the Sun - is variable and poorly understood by politicians and astronomers.
Earth glides through the outer layer of this variable star and is connected to it in many ways.
See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144: http://tinyurl.com/kje8yx
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Breaking up the desert lichens and thereby causing increases of bacteria-laden dust blown into the atmosphere by placing and building solar plants and wind farms in desert habitat will do far worse damage to the children than fossil fuels ever could.
Thanks for being more supportive of programs and legislation that will further sicken the children and increase our medical bills while ruining the economy further. :)
Solar irradiance fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1,412 W/mē in early January to 1,321 W/mē in early July). You may indulge in false precision as you will.
Thank you.