Does energy savings translate into lower profits for the energy companies?

Question

If we lower our monthly bills by conserving energy, say by $50, doesn't that mean lower profit for the energy companies?

If they just raise the rates to offset the cost, (wouldn't that just figure?!) isn't that redundant for us? I mean other than the benefit that we're not wasting energy to pollute God's earth.

Answer 1

You have a point, but if enough people saved more energy less power stations would be needed so some of them could be closed down completely. In the long run it would be better for the environment to have less power stations as the environment could become life threatening if it gets much worse.

Answer 2

Profit is not the issue.  They can automate further, fire employees, or decrease their salaries.  They can run more efficiently, also, by using higher temperatures, in many cases anyhow.

They need a Return of Investment, not gross profits, anyhow.  

So there are many things that can be done.  But..are they practical?

One gentleman ran on about running out of Oil...he needs to look at the new oil fields being opened in the Arctic by the Russians, etc., the stuff the UN is keeping in the ground in Africa while Africans die for lack of local energy, and the America/Canadian Rockies field, with wells already drilled, proven...and capped so as not to depress the prices for oil so our Congressmen who invested will make a bigger ROI...that are KNOWN already to cover all our needs for 300 years, and only the edges of the oil deposits are known.  

Environmentalists are preventing finding out just how much IS there.  But...Running out of oil is very unlikely!!  And it could cost a lot less if the investors did not want to make huge killing later on.

Conserving energy is good IF it does not price the energy we need out of sight.  Or destroy our nation.

Again, we can invest in all these new ideas for conservation, but they have to also return to us more on the investment than we put in.  I would be glad to put in a closed-cycle geothermal heating and cooling system, like President Bush has in his home.  But for me here, the costs to drill to a solid water table, and the piping, and the electric costs out here in the wilderness to run it would be prohibitive...I would never see a plus in my costs.

But after spending more than my house cost on just the geothermal heating, and then maintaining it, and the power to run it...when do I, or my children, really see a positive return?  I do not get paid back for not burning wood and putting CO2 into the atmosphere!  Besides, History shows that Global Warming has always been good in the past, not bad as Al and the Gorean 2500 say.

But you are right in that I would not be policing up old dead trees and burning them for heat!!  And my electric costs would be way way up pumping water a half-mile up to the heat exchangers.

There is more involved than a simple savings, depending on how you cut that $50, and the complexity of the interactions I see.  It is, I am afraid, a bit more complex that I an equipped to handle

But the economics I studied talked of that $50 you are no longer spending no longer going through many hands and its effects being multiplied.

I cannot give you a definitive answer, really...but I do have great misgivings about the detrimental potentials for that $50 savings in terms of a deflation of our economy, tho perhaps that would be good.

We shouldda listened to the likes of Ben Bova and others of the same persuasion, and gone to space 70 years ago, and built power plants there to microwave power back.  So by now the plants would be paid off and run nearly automatically, and the savings would be real.

Same thing with other power sources I have investigated, or talked with users on.  Break-evens are usually 15-30 years in the future, and unless Medicine make a huge breakthrough, I will never see such a break-even point.

So for now, it would be a real drag on my economy, so I could not easily purchase food, build other things, etc.  Hurt the overall economy with my money tied up in something not paying off.

Think for a moment what it would do if you do save $50.month?  How many jobs is that going to eliminate?  How many salaries no longer there to spend on food, etc?

Those people then cannot spend on things, unless they get government handouts, paid for by your taxes, and with the resulting waste and graft of a huge welfare program.  I think the total economic impact has to be carefully studied in a culture so inter-related as ours.  Not like each family is an island unto itself, like pioneer days.

Might be nice if we could all be self-sufficient and spend nothing, right?  No need for money, etc.

Answer 3

no the price will simply go up thay have to make a profit for thair service but conserve our natural resorces waste not want not

Answer 4

No because the US government subsidizes it. Until the government allows for actual free market trade nothing we do will change how much we pay! Let the weaker businesses die and the stronger businesses survive, that is true competition and that is what will bring prices down!

Answer 5

Makes no difference the oil Co. will still make billions. Remember this that they had a chance to make a good profit or rob us.

Answer 6

LMurray: You made good points, but I'd quibble about when the shortage of oil will affect us. Even d**k Cheney talked about "peak oil" and the oil companies admit it. Peak oil means that when the oil supply pumped out of the ground begins to level off (as it has), we can expect oil prices to skyrocket.

In other words, demand continues to increase at any given price, but the supply is now totally flat from year to year.

Please help educate the American people, the media is shunning it's responsibilities and is focused on making money.

Answer 7

-I agree and yes in one way it seems to lower their profits,but in another way,they claim they dont have enough enegry to supply everyone.

-so if they raise rates cause they loose $$ cause they cant supply enough for every one,shouldnt they be sued or fined?

-If me or u couldnt run ours jobs on production or in a way we cant keep up with the demands,would we still have a job?h**l NO>

-Like with cars,,did u know american car companies wanted to sue the goverment because the goverment "hinted" that they would like to see american car companies compete with the fuel saving cars japan and china are making.

-The problem is that Our politicans makes billions of $$ allowing this country to be a wasteful nation.(Why would u spend millions of $$ to get a job in politics,only make a hundred thousand a year?)

-Great question,,questions like these should be better ask by our goverment,http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home...

-That way we know who is in office that will stand by our beleifs and understand what the people want instead of what big companies want.

-If the goverment doesnt respond,let everyone know who listens and who dont so we can get them outta office,if u dont like what they say,run for office,I will vote 4 u.

-I'd rather have someone who doesnt know about politics in office,because the ones who do know are s******g up bad.

Answer 8

With population increases, the electric and other energy companies have the ability to make a profit.

One caveat, if pollution laws become unreasonable and a company is also mandated to keep their price lower than their cost basis or if the price a company has to charge becomes so high people stop buying their goods and is then replaced by another company.

It is usually good to have free markets but electric supply is not handled in this way so the above situation is one to be concerned with.

Answer 9

The electric utility industry is not like most. It is regulated by governments, pays far more for the last one electrons at peak, and would love for everyone to use less. The grid is getting old and needs major upgrades-new wires. But Photovoltaic is helping this, as would lower use. These are the plans.

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.