[wildmanxx]

Which is a good thing. Just converting energy sources is not going to save us. We need to tackle the energy sinks too, i.e., getting smarter about how we use the available energy, i.e., mostly being more energy efficient. ("We" as in "humankind".) Raising prices is the right incentive here. In the long run, +50% is not actually that bad. There is room for a lot more.

[_dain_]

paying way more for electricity is not a good thing, sorry.

[wildmanxx]

Funny, I had this exact discussion with a colleague at work the other day. She claimed this is nonsense and won't change anybody's mind.

Then she mentioned that she just had bought a new car. I asked what kind, it's a hybrid. I asked why? Well, because her old car was using so much fuel, and with recent price hikes, that became too expensive, so she just bought one that was significantly more fuel efficient.

The _exact_ same person! Just 2 minutes after claiming monetary incentives don't work demonstrated that it actually worked for her!

I have high hopes that price hikes are what convinces people to change their behavior. Not ads, not appealing to ethics or conciousness or "the future of your kids" or pictures of dying polar bears. You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple.

[luckylion]

> You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple.

In that case, we should make the price of power relative to your wealth, shouldn't we? I'm guessing you're an academic and work in tech or consulting, so you make two, three times the national average if you live in Germany. Trippling the price of power will barely register on your level, so you have little incentive to conserve energy. However, if we said that e.g. a kwh costs 1/15000 of your personal wealth, you'd have a lot of incentive, because even if you start the year as a billionaire, you'd be broke if you used 15000kwh.

I have a feeling that none of the -typically well-off- proponents of "we must make the people pay more so that they stop consuming" will be a fan of that.

[988747]

Hybrids are not the same as electric. They get their fuel savings from the fact that they can convert kinetic energy from braking back to electricity. Plus the fact that electric engines are more efficient way to pull off (which is where the ICE wastes most fuel). None of those things require an external electricity source.

[jschveibinz]

I tend to agree with your approach. Charging more for electricity and other energy will likely reduce demand and consumption.

I recently purchased a hybrid vehicle, and I find myself much more conscientious about how much energy I am using.

I wonder: if every house only had a certain allotment of energy each day to use at the “regular” price, would energy consumption go down?

[nradov]

Would a house with 8 residents get the same allotment as a house with 1?

[Ekaros]

Maybe we should take step further. Make energy cost non-linear. Make it cost exponentially more with increased use. So if you do not use lot you pay base rate per unit. If you use lot you pay price multiple to the base rate per unit.