|
|
|
|
|
by roenxi
1255 days ago
|
|
That isn't a fair comparison though; China will also have a big spread of prices between their provinces. And it would seem from the other link you posted that average Chinese business has much better access to electricity than the average US one. India too. |
|
Then use the national figures. Still cheaper.
And China won’t, not for oil. Oil is cheap in Texas because it’s pumped in Texas. China’s closest analogs are Russian pipeline terminals and seaports. The former, in aggregate, is less than a third of Texas aline’s oil production. The latter vulnerable. (Chinese electricity is cheaper in its mining provinces.)
> seem from the other link you posted that average Chinese business has much better access to electricity than the average US one. India too.
America is ridiculously more electrified than either country, so “better access” is the wrong phrase. I think you mean cheaper?
Short answer, mostly no. New York City adds power tariffs because they don’t want power-intensive industry in the city. If you’re doing energy-intensive work, you go upstate, where the tariffs are intentionally cheaper.
Will a shop in San Francisco pay more for power than one in Delhi? Sure. But now the energy intensity comes back to bite, because that shop in San Francisco is doing a better job turning energy into production. That means the fraction of income going towards power is smaller.
In any case, those are policies voters chose to impose on themselves. They could any day choose to prioritise cheaper power over environmental concerns and pay what Wyoming does. We’re comparing retail prices, after all, not generation costs.