F*ck you RI Energy!Submitted by ClnclyDprsd420 t3_zeqb60 in RhodeIsland
degggendorf t1_iz9pr75 wrote
Reply to comment by LurkingGuy in F*ck you RI Energy! by ClnclyDprsd420
> He didn't say there weren't any other offers.
They called it a monopoly. The definition of "monopoly" is having no alternatives.
> He said no COMPETITIVE offering.
I am not sure what they mean by "competitive" in this context. Cheaper?
LurkingGuy t1_iz9qqta wrote
The idea of a market is that competing companies drive innovation or better pricing. In this particular market neither of those things are happening. Imo it's more like a cartel where multiple companies collaborate to set equally shitty prices, but because the word "cartel" usually brings people to think about drug cartels it's probably easier to just describe it as an effective monopoly. When there's no "better" option, what are you going to do? You get from the "default supplier".
degggendorf t1_iz9s19s wrote
>Imo it's more like a cartel where multiple companies collaborate to set equally shitty prices
I could buy that if it was just our suppliers charging higher rates, but that's happening globally.
Like, is it a cartel to blame that corn cost more in RI this year? No, not really...summer droughts lead to smaller crops and prices went up across the board.
Similarly, Russia's invasion and the EU boycott effectively reduced energy supply and raised prices for everyone.
> The idea of a market is that competing companies drive innovation or better pricing
So what would you want, like newer companies coming in and building solar fields and selling the power to you at a lower price because solar is cheaper?
LurkingGuy t1_iz9tifm wrote
>Like, is it a cartel to blame that corn cost more in RI this year? No, not really...summer droughts lead to smaller crops and prices went up across the board.
Nice straw man. This has 0 relevance.
>So what would you want, like newer companies coming in and building solar fields and selling the power to you at a lower price because solar is cheaper?
The future is renewable. These resources only get cheaper with wider adoption. The only reason it isn't a larger/cheaper option is opposition from oil companies for decades.
Also, there is a literal cartel to control the price of oil. It's called OPEC. Saudi Arabia/OPEC literally cut oil production to drive up the price. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-arabia-eyes-opec-production-increase-wsj-2022-11-21/
degggendorf t1_iz9uuvx wrote
> Also, there is a literal cartel to control the price of oil. It's called OPEC. Saudi Arabia/OPEC literally cut oil production to drive up the price.
Last I checked, OPEC isn't one of the electricity suppliers in RI.
You are saying the same as me...the problem is in the global energy markets, not with regional suppliers.
> Nice straw man. This has 0 relevance.
I don't think you understand the definition of "straw man", and you're not sure how the global supply of a product affecting local prices is relevant to a discussion about the global supply of a product affecting local prices...?
> The future is renewable. These resources only get cheaper with wider adoption. The only reason it isn't a larger/cheaper option is opposition from oil companies for decades.
Well I have great news for you. That exact thing I just outlined has been available in our state for years, thanks to our deregulated supply. If you really didn't know that, you might want to focus more on educating yourself about all your options more than complaining about them.
LurkingGuy t1_iz9ygux wrote
straw man /ˌstrô ˈman/ noun noun: strawman 1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Anyway, a cartel is inflating energy pricing (global) and a cartel is stifling innovation (local + global) which has limited the access to renewable resources.
>Well I have great news for you. That exact thing I just outlined has been available in our state for years, thanks to our deregulated supply.
Only 13% of RI energy was renewable in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=RI#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20about%2013%25%20of,of%20that%20from%20solar%20energy
degggendorf t1_iza1kdm wrote
> Only 13% of RI energy was renewable in 2021.
My dude, PLEASE educate yourself about supply options. For all our good. If you are using the default supply you are part of the problem. You're voting with your dollars that petro-heavy generation is a-okay. You can (and I'd say, should) switch to a different supplier generating cleaner power, and drive the demand for cleaner energy. You will save money too.
While you're reading, you might want to brush up on the grid interconnects and resource mix; the generation happening within RI state lines (like you linked) is less relevant when the whole eastern grid is interconnected. That's why it's okay that "our" offshore wind power makes landfall on Long Island - it's all the same grid so it doesn't matter. That generation greens everyone's power.
So to recap: you are spending more money and preventing clean energy growth with your ignorance to how the system actually works. Learn and change, don't get hung up on the piece of paper that gets mailed to you every month.
LurkingGuy t1_iza49k7 wrote
You're making a lot of assumptions about me. My power is mostly solar from the panels on my roof. This discussion isn't about me personally.
[deleted] t1_izbjmsz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izbl9e2 wrote
[removed]
degggendorf t1_iza4kjm wrote
Oh okay, so your ignorance is merely misleading others. Got it.
My fault for making assumptions about you actually do; I should have only commented on what you've said.
SenorPoppy t1_izb1je7 wrote
you can be a monopoly if there are still technically alternatives but they are vastly inferior and thus not realistically viable.
degggendorf t1_izb5089 wrote
Do you consider a cheaper, greener alternative "vastly inferior"?
SenorPoppy t1_izbi08q wrote
I wasnt giving an opinion on energy providers fyi
degggendorf t1_izbiezg wrote
Okay so you agree that our electricity supply isn't a monopoly?
SenorPoppy t1_izbitso wrote
I wasnt giving an opinion on that. Just stating that a monopoly can still technically have competitors but be a monopoly.
degggendorf t1_izblmcx wrote
>Just stating that a monopoly can still technically have competitors
Good thing that's not what I said then?
But anyway, thank you for swinging by to confirm that everything I said is accurate.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments