Why is it that alternate energies or alternate foods always cost exactly what the former energies or foods costs, for the citizens? Is “cheaper alternative” a never-ending scam?
The wind generated energy is super cheap, but maintaining balance on the network becomes more expensive. You pay for energy and network.
For processed foods it is a scam I think. Combined with subsidies and lower scale production. A veggie burger is objectively a lot cheaper to produce than a meat burger, but the meat is often cheaper still for the consumer…
New tech is almost always more expensive as it is being developed. It becomes more efficient over time as it scales up and as improvements are figured out. You only see the new tech becoming available at the retail level once it’s cost has come down to around the same as that of existing solutions (unless there are non-market forces, like governmental policy at play). So the new stuff comes in at the same price, but then has the potential to get cheaper to produce. Of course, unlesss there is an abundance of supply, the retail user won’t see a cost reduction (unless there are non-market forces, like governmental policy at play) because the business using the new tech will charge what the market will bear to maximize profits. And the market cost is already established with the old tech.
The only ones that seem to not be like that are hydroelectric and geothermal, since they’re baseload. Which is why they’re the two I advocate for the loudest – why not use stuff that works?
The improvement isn’t always economic. There are other factors that make any alternative option to anything attractive, like renewability or ease of use.
It’s just that in a Capitalistic world, we often don’t see something as a success unless it is either A) Cheaper, or B) More profitable.
Why is it that alternate energies or alternate foods always cost exactly what the former energies or foods costs, for the citizens? Is “cheaper alternative” a never-ending scam?
…because you’re on a price plan that doesn’t get cheaper on windy days.
The wind generated energy is super cheap, but maintaining balance on the network becomes more expensive. You pay for energy and network.
For processed foods it is a scam I think. Combined with subsidies and lower scale production. A veggie burger is objectively a lot cheaper to produce than a meat burger, but the meat is often cheaper still for the consumer…
New tech is almost always more expensive as it is being developed. It becomes more efficient over time as it scales up and as improvements are figured out. You only see the new tech becoming available at the retail level once it’s cost has come down to around the same as that of existing solutions (unless there are non-market forces, like governmental policy at play). So the new stuff comes in at the same price, but then has the potential to get cheaper to produce. Of course, unlesss there is an abundance of supply, the retail user won’t see a cost reduction (unless there are non-market forces, like governmental policy at play) because the business using the new tech will charge what the market will bear to maximize profits. And the market cost is already established with the old tech.
The only ones that seem to not be like that are hydroelectric and geothermal, since they’re baseload. Which is why they’re the two I advocate for the loudest – why not use stuff that works?
The improvement isn’t always economic. There are other factors that make any alternative option to anything attractive, like renewability or ease of use.
It’s just that in a Capitalistic world, we often don’t see something as a success unless it is either A) Cheaper, or B) More profitable.