[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Cutting subsidies to coal and/or increasing subsidies to solar just raises the cost of energy for end users

Source? And does that include the future costs of the environmental impact for the end users that will still be alive by then?

> Germans already paying a ridiculous amount of money per kilowatt hour

What exactly is ridiculous about a price that reflects the actual costs?

> (in fact, we are the first world country with the highest electricity price, 40 US cents as compared to 12 US cents you would pay in the States).

If you are paying 40 US cents per kWh for electricity in .de, then that's because you chose to, not because that's the market price.

> Raising subsidies is an antisocial move that will lead to increased public unrest, at a time when we see right-wing politics raising it's ugly head again.

So ... we should implement right-wing politics so that right-wing politics doesn't win? What's even the point of that argument?

[DocTomoe]

> Source?

"Source" is not a magic incantation that invalidates a statement. When subsidies change, price goes up, we have seen that repeatedly happening in the German electricity market, most prominently with the EEG.

> environmental impact for the end users that will still be alive by then?

You try to derail my point by underhandedly claiming I want more coal, which is false. I am pro-nuclear until we get fusion (also technically a nuclear technology) working. "But the costs are hidden, deconstruction will have to be paid by the taxpayer". Maybe - but when we were nuclear and before we installed bird-shredding and insect-killing wind farms, before we made everyone pay for large amounts of money to gift to rich homeowners to put solar on their roofs, electricity was considerably cheaper.

> What exactly is ridiculous about a price that reflects the actual costs?

The actual cost of power generation apparently can be a lot lower, because the hypercapitalist US pays about a third of our price.

Also, if you need to prop up an energy source with money, obviously it is not cost-effective.

> If you are paying 40 US cents per kWh for electricity in .de, then that's because you chose to, not because that's the market price.

I pay about 46 Eurocents per kilowatt hour, or around 52 US-Cents, with EnBW (900 kw/h per year[1], fixed costs factored in). Arguably, I could lower that to about 42 Eurocents per kilowatt hour if I change to Yello, who are famous for buying large amounts of nuclear electricity. Which, btw, is about to end here. With my low consumption, savings of about 36 Euros are just not worth it.

[1] So here I am - a single who moved to a small flat, all the lights are LEDs (which are considerably more expensive than the old ones), cooking rarely, enterntainment coming from a low-wattage laptop, actually turning off everything before leaving the flat ... I have done my part. I won't be painted as some kind of environmental monster or a right-winger because I do not support risking the social cohesion of our society to provide for some people's green renewable fantasies.

> So ... we should implement right-wing politics so that right-wing politics doesn't win?

So, what exactly is right-wing in not making the price of electricity rise to appease some crypto-right-wing Greens?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> "Source" is not a magic incantation that invalidates a statement.

That is correct. The statement is already insufficiently justified all by itself. "Source?" simply points out this pre-existing problem.

> When subsidies change, price goes up, we have seen that repeatedly happening in the German electricity market, most prominently with the EEG.

So, if we were to completely subsidize electricity for all citizens ... the price paid by citizens would go up? And that is because when we forced utilities to buy certain forms of energy at a fixed price, they passed that cost on to the customer? Are you really sure that that is your argument?

> You try to derail my point by underhandedly claiming I want more coal, which is false. I am pro-nuclear until we get fusion (also technically a nuclear technology) working.

You seemed to object to cutting subsidies for coal. But well, I guess your plan then is to increase the share of nuclear energy by continuing the subsidy for coal!?

> "But the costs are hidden, deconstruction will have to be paid by the taxpayer". Maybe - but when we were nuclear and before we installed bird-shredding and insect-killing wind farms, before we made everyone pay for large amounts of money to gift to rich homeowners to put solar on their roofs, electricity was considerably cheaper.

Erm, what? So, maybe the costs are hidden and will be paid via taxes ... but the prices that didn't include those costs were considerably cheaper? And that is supposed to be an argument for what exactly? That we should pay rich homeowners with taxes rather than increased energy prices?

And shredding birds somehow also magically kills the insects that those birds don't get to eat? Or what is that argument about?

> The actual cost of power generation apparently can be a lot lower, because the hypercapitalist US pays about a third of our price.

So, how much of the long-term costs of electricity generation in the US are included in the retail price? We don't want to be comparing apples to oranges, do we?

> Also, if you need to prop up an energy source with money, obviously it is not cost-effective.

How does that follow?

> I pay about 46 Eurocents per kilowatt hour, or around 52 US-Cents, with EnBW (900 kw/h per year[1], fixed costs factored in). Arguably, I could lower that to about 42 Eurocents per kilowatt hour if I change to Yello, who are famous for buying large amounts of nuclear electricity. Which, btw, is about to end here. With my low consumption, savings of about 36 Euros are just not worth it.

Well, that's certainly not representative. I pay ~ 0.27 EUR/kWh effective, though at ~ 3000 kWh per year, which makes a big difference for the effective price--and as such, I doubt you can reasonably compare your 0.50 USD to some average 0.12 USD in the US.

> So here I am - a single who moved to a small flat, all the lights are LEDs (which are considerably more expensive than the old ones)

Wut?

If we assume your typical "60 W" LED lamp lasts 10000 hours, that's 3 EUR for the lamp (if you buy reasonable quality somewhat cheaply) plus (assuming 6 W) 60 kWh of electricity, which at 0,46 EUR/kWh costs 27.60 EUR, so a total of 29.60 EUR.

The same amount of light from incandescent lamps is 10 60 W bulbs at ~ 0,40 EUR each, plus 600 kWh of electricity, that would be 276 EUR, so a total of 280 EUR.

What kind of LED lamps do you buy where LED lamps are "considerably more expensive"?! Even if we assume cheaper electricity, or terrible lamps that blow out after 1000 h, or that the incandescent bulbs were for free ... how do you manage to make LED lamps more expensive?!

> I won't be painted as some kind of environmental monster or a right-winger because I do not support risking the social cohesion of our society to provide for some people's green renewable fantasies.

I don't care whether you are a right-winger, your suggestion amounted to implementing right-wing policies.

As for whether those "fantasies" are bad policy or not, your arguments so far have not been particularly convincing.

> So, what exactly is right-wing in not making the price of electricity rise to appease some crypto-right-wing Greens?

The unjustified assumption that this is about appeasing anyone, and not about finding the best solution for an actual problem.

[DocTomoe]

The rest of your post does not warrant a response, but the insect thing may be something you are not yet aware of, so ...

Dr. Franz Trieb of the DLR institute of technical thermodynamics has found some interesting correlations about the decline of insect populations and the creation of windparks, and considers them a major factor (next to pesticides) in what we call the "insect apocalypse":

"Fluginsekten - Studie zu Wechselwirkungen von Fluginsekten und Windparks" https://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2885/4422_re...