(February 1, 2022 at 5:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A bit of both.
The least profitable generation plants would shut down first. That may (will) mean some people go entirely without outside of government intervention or on-site solutions. If the plants remaining don't hit a target number for the operators, they have a choice to fold, sell, or increase prices for the remaining generation.
That said, lighting isn't where our money or our fuel consumption goes. We cannot keep building houses the way that we do now, where we do now, with the range of use and function that they currently serve - and that's assuming we all conserve and the whole grid goes green. The lightbulbs are brass on the titanic, but if it gets people to buy more of them, they'll let you believe anything.
Well, in the Quebec system where it is mostly hydro power based, the conservation of energy seems pointless. If we don’t use it, that energy is just going to go towards the ocean and end up as heat.
Also, the turbines are turning at a certain rate whether people use it or not.
I’ve never heard the government ever announce that they are closing down a turbine or shutting down a plant.
In the USA, I think they mostly have coal fired plants. Again, I am not seeing how money can be saved. If you are buying coal from some 3 rd party and you buy less and they keep your $/ton the same, then you can have a saving.
Also, if people use slightly less power, I think this won’t result in a saving since the coal fired plant might still run all their turbines at full speed.
Perhaps if the reduction is large enough, they can shutdown one of their burners.
(I’m not an expert on this and there is the inductor effect that plays a role in this.)
What do you want to do with houses? Build large apartment complexes or single family houses with a nice large backyard and pool?
