(no title)
vegardx | 1 year ago
In Norway we have a model like that, and it effectively sets a lower boundary of (depending a little on the region) around 0.50NOK/kWh, around 0.05$/kWh. The price for electricity quite often go into the negative during summer, but you still end up paying for the distribution.
nl|1 year ago
However it's not clear that the appropriate way to pay for that is usage based: looking at domestic supply for example it's roughly the same cost per house to connect to the grid, so it doesn't really make sense to pay more if you have more usage.
I'm not sure what alternative models look like for this and I'm not sure they are better or worse. But there probably is room for innovation on billing this part.
vegardx|1 year ago
londons_explore|1 year ago
At that sort of price, for low usage users it might be multiple years simply to pay back the cost of the meter.
One can buy a $3 meter from China, but obviously it is less accurate. I'd like to see a system where less accurate meters are used, but you pay a small premium to cover any inaccuracies in metering.
vegardx|1 year ago
In Norway we quite recently switched to more accurate networked meters and at that time they said that as much as 30% of all electricity produced wasn't accounted for, which you end up paying for, one way or another. Some of these losses are from the network itself. But a not insignificant part was from people illegally tapping the grid or last-mile losses due to poorly maintained infrastructure that was hard to pinpoint without using expensive manpower to physically check every single connection.
dzhiurgis|1 year ago
7e|1 year ago