Reply To: NIMBY FUD

[annodomini2]

JimmyT wrote:

The other issue being a large component of that energy usage is also transport and heating (in colder climates).

The article only seems to discuss electricity generation, which FF is ideal to compete with, but what percentage of that usage is purely for electricity generation?

The main one that will take more time to replace is heating, the transport cycle is usually around 10-15years for the bulk of the market, so if electric based vehicles became widespread and cheaper (may take some advancement here as well), transport could be converted quite easily.

The issue is heating, many countries which developed with large gas reserves, their heating systems in the properties tend to be based around gas fired heating systems, which do not in themselves easily convert to electricity. The users of these systems will be quite averse to changing them due to cost. Unless the electricity is so cheap that the change will pay for itself within a few years.

If, as is predicted, the cheap electricity comes to pass; I plan to very quickly buy a cheap electric space heater. If I place this next to my furnace and set the furnace thermostat a couple of degrees colder than the space heater’s setting it should take care of most of my home heating. And at minimal expense.

Unfortunately energy is a market and every kWh has an innate value.

The financial backers will want to see a return on their investment when these systems are installed, therefore charging the market rate is logical, the price only drops when there is a significant surplus in supply.

This will only occur when smaller investors can get onto the market, currently it’s impossible to compete with the large generators, FF may offer this opportunity, but it will not be as simple or clean cut as many would imply.