Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

> I'm always advocating for 24/7 low-carbon, low-land, low-material energy (i.e. energy with high power density) like nuclear but it appears that the public simply is not interested.

As a member of the public, I have never been asked where I want my electricity to come from, so my interest has little bearing on what actually gets built.

The public may be asked to make a decision by proxy (R versus D), but that is only one of many decisions that get made, as a consequence of that choice.

View on HN

> As a member of the public, I have never been asked where I want my electricity to come from, so my interest has little bearing on what actually gets built.

Really? Here in the UK every energy supplier offers a "green tariff" (usually at a slightly higher rate) where a proportion (or all) of the energy is derived from green sources. There's some shenanigans with trading of certificates which means it's not quite as straight forward as that, but still I believe this does end up subsidising green energy.

In California we have this as well. PG&E (SF Bay Area) calls it Solar Choice, SCE (SoCal area) calls it Green Rates, and SDG&E (San Diego area) calls it EcoChoice. You can choose between 50% or 100% renewable energy and are charged a premium per kWh used.

I bet many other states in the US have this as well.

Metro Denver definitely has this through Xcel Energy. I'm enrolled in a program called Wind Source and I believe there is a similar program for solar.

This happens in NJ as well. One of my colleagues from NJ showed my a letter from their utility giving them the option to switch to solar/wind.

This may not apply to you (vkou) specifically but many people don't know that 1/3 of states have deregulated electricity markets that allow customers to choose who generates their electricity. There is still a local utility company that maintains the wires and handles billing, that does not change. The choices vary on price, length of contract, amount of renewables, etc. Signing up is as simple as filling out a web form, you continue to receive your bill from the utility as usual. The only difference is the part of the bill for generation has the new company's name and rate.

See https://www.electricchoice.com/ for which states and more background info.

My sense is that the awareness and participation is so low that ESCOs don't really make a difference. There's essentially no competition of the kind you see in other countries.

In Norway (my native country), there's a wealth of national providers, lots of competition, and it's easy to find the rates, and also super easy to switch. Pretty much everyone paying utility bills is aware of the choice, and most people don't choose their default infrastructure provider because they're usually much more expensive.

When I rented in NYC, I had the option of using ConEd or an ESCO. ConEd was always cheaper, because they already negotiate the best rates on the open market. I could choose a "green" provider, but I'd be paying 20% more.

In DC where I live about 15% of residential customers choose other than the standard offer service, while 85% of nonresidential do. Consumption breaks down similarly, however, since nonresidential is a bigger market the incumbent on supplies 30% of total MWH.

There are a lot of policies put in place that affect the energy markets that elected leaders are heavily involved in. For instance, there are production tax credits for wind. There are incentives for rooftop solar. There is talk of a carbon tax or cap and trade. There are debates about whether or not nuclear should be counted for or against clean energy targets. In the 1970s, there was massive legislation (the clean air act) that increased the costs of coal dramatically. These all greatly influence the mix of energy that gets built and are very tied to consumer preferences (if a little indirectly).

Can't you choose your electricity provider? I definitely check the electricity production type pie chart every time I switch providers.

I have a choice between having the one regional electricity provider provide me with electricity, and having no electricity.

If I owned a free-standing house, I could theoretically switch to rooftop solar, but it is uneconomical compared to utility solar.

Right, then there's indeed quite little you can do directly.

In the US most places have an established company (“the utility”) with a legal monopoly on electricity supply - and those companies choose where they source their grid power from.

Check with your utility though - we opted into a 100% renewable mix at a slightly higher price/kwh. Even in geographic monopolies, you can vote with your dollars if given the option.

That has been slowly changing though -- I think 17 states have 'deregulated' their electricity markets and 21 have done so for gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com