Who wants to pay more for green electricity?

Jul 02, 2009

A research report in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution suggests that individuals prefer to be involved in a collective contribution to green electricity that involve everyone paying more, rather than having individual higher bills.

Many electricity suppliers offer so-called green tariffs. These tariffs charge a premium, which is then invested in renewable electricity generation, such as wind power and solar energy, or in other forms of carbon reduction technologies. However, Roland Menges of the University of Flensburg and Stefan Traub of the University of Bremen, Germany, wanted to know whether an individual's "willingness to pay" (WTP) for green electricity matched up with expectations or whether an alternative business model might work better.

The researchers surveyed people and offered them either a public-choice scenario or an individual-choice scenario. They pointed out in their survey that there are three different payment vehicles for the public promotion of renewable energy: direct tax (reduced income), indirect tax (tax added to bill via green tariff) and "carbon" tax. They tested to see how much free-riding would take place in each scenario. Free-riding would involve individuals paying for a standard tariff while benefiting from the development of renewable energy paid for by others with green tariffs. They also looked at how public promotion of green electricity would impinge on opinions and uptake of green tariffs. Finally, they investigated trust in the market.

The overarching conclusion of the study is that people in Germany prefer their green electricity products to be paid for as a collective contribution rather than as higher bills for individuals who happen to opt for a green tariff. This result might be interpreted in light of the more general conclusion of political economy that voters prefer an improvement of the environment by means of regulations and prohibitions instead of market-driven activities, the researchers add.

More information: "Who should pay the bill for promoting green electricity? An experimental study on consumer preferences" in International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 2009, 39, 44-60

Source: Inderscience

Explore further: Climate change affecting species

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

British queen goes green

Jul 25, 2005

The Queen of England is ready to go green after getting the go-ahead to run Windsor Castle on hydroelectric power, it was announced Monday.

EPA announces latest Green Power list

Jan 25, 2006

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its latest "Green Power" list Wednesday, led by the U.S. Air Force and the Whole Foods Market chain.

Sun powered mobility

May 03, 2007

Solar powered mobility scooters could soon be on the streets thanks to the work of a student at The University of Nottingham. Matt Alvey, who is studying Architecture and Environmental Design, says the photovoltaic (solar ...

Do the benefits of renewable energy sources stack up?

Aug 13, 2007

Do the overall efficiencies of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal add up in terms of their complete life cycle from materials sourcing, manufacture, running, and decommissioning? Researchers in ...

Berkeley's blueprint for green future

May 25, 2007

Officials in Berkeley, Calif., are laying out a roadmap to reach a voter mandated 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Recommended for you

Climate change affecting species

30 minutes ago

The Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI) and the Wits Rural Facility (WRF) hosted a top climate change scientist, Professor Camille Parmesan, who delivered a talk to staff, students ...

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
3 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2009
PAY TWICE FOR POOR SCIENCE??

The public were cheated once by paying funds to scientists who claimed that Earth's climate is immune from cyclic changes in the Sun - a variable star.

Should the public be asked to pay extra for electricity that generates minimum CO2 - a well known form of gaseous plant food that has little or nothing to do with global warming?

I think not.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

Velanarris
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2009
A research report in the International Journal of Environment and Pollution suggests that individuals prefer to be involved in a collective contribution to green electricity that involve everyone paying more, rather than having individual higher bills.




This is in line with NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). Of course people don't want to individually support an ideaology that would affect their individual wealth without it affecting everuyone's wealth. It's a communal methodology that is directly influenced by the human sense of "fairness".

Conversely, if you instituted a policy of optioning green tariff by individual choice, even those with the most staunch belief will opt for a lower price if they cannot immediately detect detriment with the lower priced option.
david_42
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2009
Surcharges for "green" power are in use in the US. There are many people willing to pay the extra. This is quite amusing to me, as my baseline power is from hydroelectric; which is not classified as a renewable, "green" source. Only properly hyped sources are "green".

Even more so: One person I know has a photovoltaic system that floats on the grid. He gets paid about four cents per kilowatt and buys "green" power back from the grid at 14!
GrayMouser
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2009
Surcharges for "green" power are in use in the US. There are many people willing to pay the extra.


I'm not willing to pay for pseudo-scientific solutions to the wrong problem. The problem isn't CO2, it is shipping dollars outside of the country for a product that we have in abundance (oil and coal) but are unwilling to dirty our backyards (even theoretically) obtaining.

This is quite amusing to me, as my baseline power is from hydroelectric; which is not classified as a renewable, "green" source. Only properly hyped sources are "green".

I like hydroelectric and geothermal. They are reliable and proven technologies. The eco-nazis don't want ANY replacement for coal/oil/nuclear as primary sources of power.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2009
The Solar Constant is 1350 W m^-2 ~ 5 kWh m^-2 day^-1

The penultimate renewable energy rate limit.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009
The Solar Constant is 1350 W m^-2 ~ 5 kWh m^-2 day^-1

The penultimate renewable energy rate limit.

There is no such thing as a solar constant. The sun is variable, and so is the amount of energy. The term is solar average.

Surcharges for "green" power are in use in the US. There are many people willing to pay the extra. This is quite amusing to me, as my baseline power is from hydroelectric; which is not classified as a renewable, "green" source. Only properly hyped sources are "green".
The recently House passed Waxman-Markey bill classes Hydro-electric as a renewable source, only if it has the proper wildlife passages installed.

So your hydro-electric is only considered renewable if you have fish ladders and other mechanisms included.
omatumr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009
THE SUN IS A VARIABLE STAR !



There is no such thing as a solar constant. The sun is variable, and so is the amount of energy. The term is solar average.


You are exactly right, Velanarris.

Earth's heat source - the Sun - is variable and poorly understood by politicians and astronomers.

Earth glides through the outer layer of this variable star and is connected to it in many ways.

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144: http://tinyurl.com/kje8yx

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
thorn
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009
People shouldn't have to pay more for green energy. Parents should and are made to pay more for medications and procedures for their sick children. Sick from breathing dirty air.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
There will be sicker children as a result of solar technology--unless we change the technology to exclude the environmental toxins and ultra-potent GHGs from the manufacturing and maintenance processes.

Breaking up the desert lichens and thereby causing increases of bacteria-laden dust blown into the atmosphere by placing and building solar plants and wind farms in desert habitat will do far worse damage to the children than fossil fuels ever could.

Thanks for being more supportive of programs and legislation that will further sicken the children and increase our medical bills while ruining the economy further. :)
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
No. A bald assertion is hardly an argument but from your personal authority - which is non existent.

Solar irradiance fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1,412 W/m² in early January to 1,321 W/m² in early July). You may indulge in false precision as you will.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
No. A bald assertion is hardly an argument but from your personal authority - which is non existent.

Solar irradiance fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1,412 W/m² in early January to 1,321 W/m² in early July). You may indulge in false precision as you will.
So you claim it's a constant while citing that it's an average.

Thank you.
thorn
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
dachpyarvile, your getting me wrong. No matter what technology we decide to go with the ultimate losers evertime will be the ones who can't stand up for themselves. Kids. I'm absoluted sure you know the shit your talking about. I'm just saying those who can't afford to say no, in their heart will have to pay, with their wallet. I hate it more than most. It's kept me from what I love and made me fear for those I do.