Hacker News Reader

Comment by sep_field | Hacker News Reader

You are right it creates perverse incentives, but so does the current system. For instance check this article [0] that shows pictures of Houston's skyline during the recent power outages where completely empty skyscrapers are wasting power while ordinary people freeze.

I'd rather have poor people using electricity than rich corporations. At least keeping people warm is productive.

[0] https://heavy.com/news/photos-houston-skyline-lit-up-power-o...

View on HN

>I'd rather have poor people using electricity than rich corporations.

Deicing power plants and pipelines requires electricity. If electricity cost is $9000/MWh then paying that money is worth it since you unlock the ability to produce more electricity and sell the additional production capacity you brought online for $7000/MWh. Repeat this with multiple power plants and you are back to $100/MWh.

If you just hand it out to random people you might not have enough electricity to keep the electric grid alive.

None of the skyscrapers in those pictures are power plants or pipelines. Human beings were freezing to death while empty corporate headquarters remained lit up like xmas.

Maybe there should be some reserve power in the system to make sure power plants have capacity to heal themselves, sure. But that's really a tiny part of the overall system.

>You are right it creates perverse incentives, but so does the current system.

Does the current system charge customers by minute by minute spot prices? I don't think so. If electricity costs $5/kWh you bet the CFO is going to tell the janitor to turn off the lights.

The current system allows rich customers to negligently waste electricity that poor customers need to stay warm. If the system prioritized usage and charged the corporations $5/kWh while charging poor customers the standard rate, people wouldn't have frozen to death.

GP's point still remains. Even if you do charge corporations $5 kWh, that's likely not enough to solve the power deficit. After all, corporate offices aren't exactly power suckers (a 1500W space heater is equal to at least a few dozen LED office lights), and the heavy users (factories) are usually the first ones to go when there's a power shortage. Price signals are still needed to ensure that people are sufficiently motivated to change their behavior. Leaving prices unchanged will basically mean consumer demand remains unchanged.

Charge rich people more than poor people. Cut them off sooner. They have bigger houses that use more energy and they have more blankets and supplies. Poor people with fewer options deserve the power more.

I agree with your idea of charging more for higher earners, much like is some northern European countries fines are proportional to income... the photo linked is eye opening, I'd suggest in extreme weather cases like this, corporations should be charged more depending on how many employees/income/profit. Indeed if capitalism is meant to help create a fairer more innovative/dynamic society Corporations shouldn't be represented legally on the same status (as they are in the U.S.) as people...

Capitalism, unfortunately, is not meant to help create a fair society. It is designed to maximize shareholder value based on endless growth and consumption, and that is all it is good at. This is unsustainable both socially and ecologically.

Instead of giving corporations legal status as people, we should be giving the Earth legal personhood. Some countries are already starting to do so. [0]

[0] https://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/

How Jet Stream Collapse will Cause Mass Starvation Explained by Dr. Peter Wadhams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKilc_oMbrg&feature=yout...

Here are four countries that have given nature the same legal rights as humans. #BeLikeThem. Solutions are everywhere. Let's implement them and protect people and the planet. #ActOnClimate #nature #forests

https://twitter.com/MikeHudema/status/1361531384351891456

Reply on news.ycombinator.com