This question is not on whether these devices work or not but so much as if they did work. What if electricity can be made so cheap that everyone could afford it ti the point there was no demand for electricity? Would a new clean source of electricity generated from home at a fraction of the cost of solar or other external power be harmful economically?

enter image description here

  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking whether the economy is worse off because we have electricity (cheap, can be made renewable) at home instead of coal fires? $\endgroup$ – Giskard Jul 12 '18 at 18:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We already have very cheap energy. Do you think that the abundance of very cheap energy has been economically harmful because of its cheapness (rather than because it pollutes? Also, a motor isn't a source of energy: can you explain how the image fits with the question? $\endgroup$ – 410 gone Jul 12 '18 at 19:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Muze the price that the major industrials (the major consumers of electricity) pay, is astonishgly cheap - typically around $50/MWh or so. That's very little money for a vast amount of the highest-quality most useful energy. It's very unclear what you are asking, and what the actual real-world problem is that you are trying to solve, and how the tags you've chosen are related to your question. $\endgroup$ – 410 gone Jul 12 '18 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ It sounds like you are trying to build a fictional world. Can I recommend our sister site Worldbuilding, which was made for those questions. Here, we apply economics to real-world problems. $\endgroup$ – 410 gone Jul 12 '18 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @EnergyNumbers That is an insult and it would be off topic. $\endgroup$ – Muze the good Troll. Jul 12 '18 at 19:29

Energy firms generally have obsolescence in mind Meaning they're more likely to see trends in the energy sector and adapt. Whether completely shutting down operations across the board and possibly merge with a firm less invested in the obsolete industry, or discontinue unprofitable operations and alter investments toward improving this new cheap alternative energy. Both outcomes won't create quite the drastic economic shock, at least in the U.S. since U.S. workers in the energy sector in 2017 accounted for merely 2% of the U.S. population (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf#page24).

Low-skill workers in this industry would be the ones hit hardest by the disruptiveness of this new technology. Unemployment may go up - bad for the economy. Yet the savings generated from this new economical method for producing energy may just overcompensate the decrease spending from workers and firms hit hardest by this new technology. Meaning a country's disposable income may rise, thus creating incentive to spend more.

Again, depending how disruptive this technology may be, I don't see any cost-saving method for producing energy at home or a business, as a harmful threat for an economy. There will be losers, sure, but the net-gain - economically, as a nation - in achieving energy independence outweighs the short-term losses from the descriptiveness of this new technology. Fusion reactors will soon be viable sources of energy and people in the energy sector ought to know this.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.