5 ms·

They are super economical… which is why there’s a subsidy required for people to buy them?

embedding-shape 2mo ago
Is it so out of the ordinary that a government tries to help people save money or what's the question? Sounds like you've only had the American experience in life unfortunately.
- AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
  If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whether you want, they should just lower your taxes by the amount of the subsidy and let you use your money for that or something else at your choice.
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about. > all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining.
    - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
      > Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about. Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings. On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it. > Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining. Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with?
      - embedding-shape 2mo ago
        > Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings. I understand what you mean, and yeah, "it's just your money", but also, it really isn't. Poor people have to pay taxes, no way around it, getting them back as subsidies is still better for them than not getting it back at all. The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies". > On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it. Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities? Because "loans" are vastly different things compared to subsidies, but I'm guessing you already knew this. > Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with? Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works...
        AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
        > The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies". That's the false dichotomy that happens in a broken government, but then why hold that out as something desirable? > Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities? Is the larger amount of mortgage or car loan debt they have to carry when they pay the extra money in tax? > Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works... Your argument seems to be that lowering taxes on ordinary people is impossible?
    - budsniffer952 2mo ago
      That's a strange definition of "subsidy".
    - abecedarius 2mo ago
      To target the "poor people need more money" problem, the most direct answer is give them money. If someone's answer is a variety of politically-allocated narrow subsidies, you should wonder what interest they're really aiming to satisfy. When you get money, you can choose to spend it on what's worth the most to you. Thus "strings attached" on the opposite.
  - master-lincoln 2mo ago
    Think about people who could not afford the initial investment. It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all.
    - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
      > Think about people who could not afford the initial investment. This is what loans and installment plans are for, the payments for which come out of the savings on the utility bill. > It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all. Which has nothing to do with batteries. If you want to do that then provide them with a refundable tax credit that allows for a negative tax rate in cases where that's deemed desirable. And even that doesn't apply to the majority of people who are currently paying a non-negative amount of tax. Why attach strings to the money going to a middle class homeowner who should have just been allowed to keep that portion of their own salary?
      - actionfromafar 2mo ago
        Why should they? In my mind it's all a coordination problem. Sometimes loans work better, sometimes subsidies work better. Neither loans nor subsidies are dirty words IMHO.
        AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
        > In my mind it's all a coordination problem. But that's the point. It isn't. Electricity costs more in the evening than during the day and there is a technology that can profitably be used to arbitrage the difference. There is no coordination problem at all, people have the direct individual incentive to buy the technology, on credit if necessary, without any form of government subsidy or involvement whatsoever.
        actionfromafar 2mo ago
        That cow is looking too spherical for my tastes. Credit is another thing which is highly intertwined with goverment involvement.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rswail 2mo ago
    Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits. The money saved is distributed across the community, for both those that directly benefit and those that can't (eg renters, apartments etc). The general benefit is of greater value than the individual savings. Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states.
    - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
      > Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits. Only if the utility company is pricing things incorrectly. If the price of electricity is ~free during the day and expensive in the evening then the individualized incentives for installing a battery line right up. > Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states. Whether it's theft or not doesn't change the arithmetic. When you're paying them the money they're paying you, it was your money to begin with.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    Think of it as a giant corporate tax break, but for the little people.
    - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
      > Think of it as a giant corporate tax break So the thing everyone correctly maligns because it's generally some form of corruption or inefficiency?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - EliRivers 2mo ago
    "If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless." Yet people frequently don't. This assertion and reality disagree.
  - BeeOnRope 2mo ago
    It can work when the marginal cost of new capacity is high, compared to existing capacity. E.g., if the marginal cost of supporting 1 kW of new capacity may be X, while the current averaged cost of 1 kW provided to existing customers may be Y, with Y < X. The customer will calculate their ROI on a battery purchase based on the cost Y of kW to them, which may be poor (4%), while on the government level of the ROI may is closer to that implied by the cost X (say 10%). However, the government cannot easily pass on the "marginal cost" to customers as there is no specific kWh which is that marginal one across all customers. In this case a subsidy directly picks out customers who can reduce their demand by buying a battery (e.g., a subsidy which raises the ROI to somewhere between 4% and 10%).
  - throw0101a 2mo ago
    > If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. …assuming people are good at math. And given that most people probably don't have a bunch of cash just sitting there doing nothing, they will have to take out a loan and most folks probably don't like going into debt even though 'the math says' it's a good ROI. The idea that 'ROI good, therefore people will do it' is the 'spherical cow' of economics. In reality there are all sorts of other motivations for human economic actions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
    - mothballed 2mo ago
      To be clear, this doesn't change the price floor for ROI calculations. A non "approved" contractor or DIY job non-subsidized is well cheaper than a piddly few percent interest rate arbitrage to a pre-approved list. This does nothing beyond let some rich contractors regressively allocate money from taxpayers to themselves by artificially appearing a bit less of a premium to the alternatives. It looks more like to me some installers saw their industry was becoming commoditized and the government got together with them to figure out how to grift taxpayers into making the more connected ones command a premium while simultaneously being better positioned to eat the lunch of the small middle class "guy and a truck" who does cash jobs for cheap but has no resources to become "accredited" on a subsidization list.
liamkinne 2mo ago
The government loan changes the calculus. Allows for short term thinking and a long term benefit.
vitro 2mo ago
I know people who would purchase solar panels and batteries, but they do not have enough capital to do so.
- aianus 2mo ago
  In Australia? The houses are like 30x-100x more expensive than a battery, how would this be possible?
chii 2mo ago
> which is why there’s a subsidy required for people to buy them? the gov't also offers interest free (but inflation indexed) loans to tertiary education. Just because there's a subsidy, doesn't mean the tax payer is paying a price for inefficiency. The policy itself needs to be individually examined to determine whether it's an efficient use of funds, not simply that it's a subsidy (time frame needs to be taken into account too).
- ghiculescu 2mo ago
  Yes, and nobody would describe Australian tertiary education as "super economical".
TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
Yes. People can't always afford super economical things when the initial cost is high and the pay-off takes a while, but is easily worth it in the end.
stubish 2mo ago
The more households that buy them, the less peak power generation is needed and less large scale battery deployments. If the ROI of a household battery was just 4%, you are better off economically paying higher power bills and sticking that money in an index fund. But if subsidies increase that ROI, more people buy batteries. The money the government contributes hopefully ends up less than they would need to spend on large scale battery deployments or on legacy power generation to power peak usage times. It also has the side effect of getting more citizens (literally) invested in sustainable power usage, and people get more interested in insulating their homes, buying more efficient appliances, moving away from gas etc.
Panzer04 2mo ago
Yes, the government subsidies for home batteries specifically are a very poorly targeted handout. Unfortunately splashy policies like this are classic vote buying measures, even if economically they don't make much sense - home batteries cost more - homeowners buying batteries are already pretty well off on average - a large portion of the population (renters) is excluded from the policy. - prices are falling anyway so the subsidy is just a waste of tax dollars, arguably - grid scale batteries are more cost effective and benefit everyone via cheap prices broadly, instead of specific homeowners. Etc. but pork barreling be pork barreling.

Is it so out of the ordinary that a government tries to help people save money or what's the question? Sounds like you've only had the American experience in life unfortunately.

AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whether you want, they should just lower your taxes by the amount of the subsidy and let you use your money for that or something else at your choice.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about. > all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    > Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about. Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings. On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it. > Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining. Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with?
    - embedding-shape 2mo ago
      > Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings. I understand what you mean, and yeah, "it's just your money", but also, it really isn't. Poor people have to pay taxes, no way around it, getting them back as subsidies is still better for them than not getting it back at all. The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies". > On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it. Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities? Because "loans" are vastly different things compared to subsidies, but I'm guessing you already knew this. > Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with? Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works...
      - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
        > The choice isn't "Keep the money or have subsidies", the choice is "The money goes to other stuff or get subsidies". That's the false dichotomy that happens in a broken government, but then why hold that out as something desirable? > Are those interest-free or managed by for-profit entities? Is the larger amount of mortgage or car loan debt they have to carry when they pay the extra money in tax? > Because "not taking it from you to begin with" isn't a practical and realistic alternative, that's not how the world, and especially taxes and government works... Your argument seems to be that lowering taxes on ordinary people is impossible?
  - budsniffer952 2mo ago
    That's a strange definition of "subsidy".
  - abecedarius 2mo ago
    To target the "poor people need more money" problem, the most direct answer is give them money. If someone's answer is a variety of politically-allocated narrow subsidies, you should wonder what interest they're really aiming to satisfy. When you get money, you can choose to spend it on what's worth the most to you. Thus "strings attached" on the opposite.
- master-lincoln 2mo ago
  Think about people who could not afford the initial investment. It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    > Think about people who could not afford the initial investment. This is what loans and installment plans are for, the payments for which come out of the savings on the utility bill. > It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all. Which has nothing to do with batteries. If you want to do that then provide them with a refundable tax credit that allows for a negative tax rate in cases where that's deemed desirable. And even that doesn't apply to the majority of people who are currently paying a non-negative amount of tax. Why attach strings to the money going to a middle class homeowner who should have just been allowed to keep that portion of their own salary?
    - actionfromafar 2mo ago
      Why should they? In my mind it's all a coordination problem. Sometimes loans work better, sometimes subsidies work better. Neither loans nor subsidies are dirty words IMHO.
      - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
        > In my mind it's all a coordination problem. But that's the point. It isn't. Electricity costs more in the evening than during the day and there is a technology that can profitably be used to arbitrage the difference. There is no coordination problem at all, people have the direct individual incentive to buy the technology, on credit if necessary, without any form of government subsidy or involvement whatsoever.
        actionfromafar 2mo ago
        That cow is looking too spherical for my tastes. Credit is another thing which is highly intertwined with goverment involvement.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- rswail 2mo ago
  Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits. The money saved is distributed across the community, for both those that directly benefit and those that can't (eg renters, apartments etc). The general benefit is of greater value than the individual savings. Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    > Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits. Only if the utility company is pricing things incorrectly. If the price of electricity is ~free during the day and expensive in the evening then the individualized incentives for installing a battery line right up. > Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states. Whether it's theft or not doesn't change the arithmetic. When you're paying them the money they're paying you, it was your money to begin with.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  Think of it as a giant corporate tax break, but for the little people.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    > Think of it as a giant corporate tax break So the thing everyone correctly maligns because it's generally some form of corruption or inefficiency?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 2mo ago
  "If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless." Yet people frequently don't. This assertion and reality disagree.
- BeeOnRope 2mo ago
  It can work when the marginal cost of new capacity is high, compared to existing capacity. E.g., if the marginal cost of supporting 1 kW of new capacity may be X, while the current averaged cost of 1 kW provided to existing customers may be Y, with Y < X. The customer will calculate their ROI on a battery purchase based on the cost Y of kW to them, which may be poor (4%), while on the government level of the ROI may is closer to that implied by the cost X (say 10%). However, the government cannot easily pass on the "marginal cost" to customers as there is no specific kWh which is that marginal one across all customers. In this case a subsidy directly picks out customers who can reduce their demand by buying a battery (e.g., a subsidy which raises the ROI to somewhere between 4% and 10%).
- throw0101a 2mo ago
  > If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. …assuming people are good at math. And given that most people probably don't have a bunch of cash just sitting there doing nothing, they will have to take out a loan and most folks probably don't like going into debt even though 'the math says' it's a good ROI. The idea that 'ROI good, therefore people will do it' is the 'spherical cow' of economics. In reality there are all sorts of other motivations for human economic actions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
  - mothballed 2mo ago
    To be clear, this doesn't change the price floor for ROI calculations. A non "approved" contractor or DIY job non-subsidized is well cheaper than a piddly few percent interest rate arbitrage to a pre-approved list. This does nothing beyond let some rich contractors regressively allocate money from taxpayers to themselves by artificially appearing a bit less of a premium to the alternatives. It looks more like to me some installers saw their industry was becoming commoditized and the government got together with them to figure out how to grift taxpayers into making the more connected ones command a premium while simultaneously being better positioned to eat the lunch of the small middle class "guy and a truck" who does cash jobs for cheap but has no resources to become "accredited" on a subsidization list.

liamkinne 2mo ago

The government loan changes the calculus. Allows for short term thinking and a long term benefit.

vitro 2mo ago

I know people who would purchase solar panels and batteries, but they do not have enough capital to do so.

aianus 2mo ago
In Australia? The houses are like 30x-100x more expensive than a battery, how would this be possible?

chii 2mo ago

> which is why there’s a subsidy required for people to buy them? the gov't also offers interest free (but inflation indexed) loans to tertiary education. Just because there's a subsidy, doesn't mean the tax payer is paying a price for inefficiency. The policy itself needs to be individually examined to determine whether it's an efficient use of funds, not simply that it's a subsidy (time frame needs to be taken into account too).

ghiculescu 2mo ago
Yes, and nobody would describe Australian tertiary education as "super economical".

TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago

Yes. People can't always afford super economical things when the initial cost is high and the pay-off takes a while, but is easily worth it in the end.

stubish 2mo ago

The more households that buy them, the less peak power generation is needed and less large scale battery deployments. If the ROI of a household battery was just 4%, you are better off economically paying higher power bills and sticking that money in an index fund. But if subsidies increase that ROI, more people buy batteries. The money the government contributes hopefully ends up less than they would need to spend on large scale battery deployments or on legacy power generation to power peak usage times. It also has the side effect of getting more citizens (literally) invested in sustainable power usage, and people get more interested in insulating their homes, buying more efficient appliances, moving away from gas etc.

Panzer04 2mo ago

Yes, the government subsidies for home batteries specifically are a very poorly targeted handout. Unfortunately splashy policies like this are classic vote buying measures, even if economically they don't make much sense - home batteries cost more - homeowners buying batteries are already pretty well off on average - a large portion of the population (renters) is excluded from the policy. - prices are falling anyway so the subsidy is just a waste of tax dollars, arguably - grid scale batteries are more cost effective and benefit everyone via cheap prices broadly, instead of specific homeowners. Etc. but pork barreling be pork barreling.