Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Consumers Supportive of Renewable Energy, But Unwilling to Pay More for It

February 29, 2008 | 27 Comments

Do you like this research & reports?

Bookmark

Feed

The results of a new poll released by Harris Interactive show that many in the five largest countries in Europe and in the United States like the idea of renewable energy, but are not willing to pay any more than their current rates for renewable energy sources. The poll was conducted among a total of 6,448 adults aged 16 to 64 within France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain and the United States, and adults aged 18 to 64 in Italy, between January 30 and February 8, 2008.

According to the results of the poll, a majority of adults who have some form of responsibility for paying household energy bills in Great Britain (54%) and Germany (50%), pluralities in Italy (44%), France (42%) and the U.S. (40%), as well as just over one-third of adults responsible for paying household energy bills in Spain (35%), all say they would be not be willing to pay more for energy even if it was produced from renewable sources.

When this decision of paying more was translated into actual currency, it was even less likely that people would be willing to pay more for renewable generated electricity. Using European Commission estimates that it would cost each household an extra €150, £110 or $220 (depending on country) per month to cut greenhouse gasses and get more renewable energy, a strong majority of those surveyed in all six countries said they would not be willing to pay this extra amount.

Support for bio-fuels and wind farms was strong across these six countries, but while people support these types of renewable electricity, they would not be willing to actually pay more for it. According to analysis by Harris Interactive, until people are forced to do so, or the price for renewable energy comes down considerably, people will not make the choice to go with renewables.

ON PAYING MORE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
"How much of an increase would you be willing to pay at the most for energy if it were from renewable sources?"


	Britain	France	Italy	Spain	Germany	U.S.
	%	%	%	%	%	%

Unweighted Base	884	934	807	848	968	787

Nothing more	54	42	44	35	50	40
5% more	18	25	25	25	22	17
10% more	12	16	15	14	14	17
15% more	2	4	7	4	4	7
20% more	2	2	4	3	2	4
30% more	1	*	*	1	1	2
40% more	1	*	*	1	1	1
Not sure	10	10	5	17	5	11
AVERAGE	3.9%	4.7%	5.1%	5.3%	4.4%	6.1%
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding Base: All EU adults in five countries and US adults who have some form of responsibility for paying household energy bills

Bioenergy, Green Power, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power

27 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 27

deep_patel

March 1, 2008

Well this is no suprise. There have been numerous studies conducted on consumers who declined purchases of a PV system and the primary factor has been cost. The problem is consumers not only dont want to pay a higher rate, if they are buying their own system, they cant afford to pre-pay their energy expenses for the next 30 years. I feel consumers should think of how they can use a couple solar panels just to reduce their peak consumption then think about eliminating their bill. People don't give a hoot about greenhouse gasses, they only thing they care about is the green in their wallets, until govts. around the world stop promoting fossil fules and give renewable energy a fair grounds to compete the cost will never be comparable.-Deep Patel<a href="http://www.gogreensolar.com" target="_blank">www.gogreensolar.com</a>

Comment
2 of 27

Ogemaniac

March 3, 2008

What is interesting about this data is that Americans seem to be the ones with the largest willingness to put their money with their mouths are.  Any European seeing this data should feel embarassed, except perhaps the Spanish.

Comment
3 of 27

robert-nolan-41143

March 4, 2008

Finally some reality here.  Until renewable costs are competitive with "traditional" resources there is no business here.  We are also seeing the fallacy of social and economic liberalism being exposed.  Left to their own devices people will seek out the lowest cost solution.  Selling them on Al Gore's false prophet-hood isn't going to work and neither is taking money from one group to subsidize another.  Renewables will be an important solution for us moving forward but only when it can generate real profits and be cost effective for people to use.  Government is not the answer, committed individuals are. 

Comment
4 of 27

charlie-miller-76370

March 4, 2008

Governments keep citizens financially committed to the limit. Few citizens can financially affords extra energy expenses. Those that can now, just wait and time will take it's toll.  Why are citizens committed to the government propaganda and status quo? The tendancy is to intentionally avoid a cost effective, cost reducing, technically superior environmentally friendly energy system.  The real question remains, who is willing to pay less for a biomass technically superior energy system supplied by free enterprise?

Comment
5 of 27

charlie-miller-76370

March 4, 2008

Who is willing to pay less for a biomass technically superior energy system supplied by free enterprise?  Some with full knowledge of the locally available system will spend three years waiting, evaluating and watching their friends invest and achieve one year ROI.  Government financed Public schools teach that If it sounds too good to be true, it must not be true. No one teaches simple financial basics - how to balance a check book, for example, or even how to correctly file taxes.

Comment
6 of 27

jeff-anderson-44139

March 5, 2008

This report supports what I already new to be true. That most people are unwilling to pay the true cost of renewable energy. Unfortunatly thier are some dumb people who think the government should pickup the full cost of solar. As a tax payer I know were the money comes from.But the positive thing is that most consumers are willing to tolerate a small increase in thier utility bills for renewables. But suck a program needs to be gradual and cost effective.<a href="http://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm" target="_blank">http://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm</a>

Comment
7 of 27

david-ahlport-66657

March 5, 2008

Good thing that non-grandfathered Nuclear and Coal cost more than Renewables.<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal</a> <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2</a><a href="http://greyfalcon.net/costlynuclear " target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/costlynuclear </a>

Comment
8 of 27

paul-johnson-34828

March 5, 2008

Yes Ryan some like myself do when given the option.  Not every part of the US provides customers the option to choose a green version.  I don't know about other countries but this is a start.The best part of this is that where provided, people have a choice.

Comment
9 of 27

ryan-tucker-81604

March 5, 2008

People already do chose to pay more for alternative energy.  Several utility companies offer options to "pay a little more on your bill and support alternative energy".  Thousands of people have opted in to the programs with no pressure.  People are definately willing to pay more to have renewable energy. Take this program for example: http://my.dteenergy.com/products/greenCurrents/index.html

Comment
10 of 27

brian-hall-45210

March 5, 2008

Of course a majority of Germans are not willing to pay more for renewables...they are already paying more on thier electric bill to pay for renewables in thier Solar Incentive structure...Consumers don't have much choice on the current rates they are paying for electricity. Self-generation is usually the only option outside of the local utility...and I'm pretty sure we don't have a say in how much the utilities charge...but the governement does...hmmmm...interesting.

Comment
11 of 27

dave-mcdermitt-64774

March 5, 2008

Maybe I'm wrong ...  but the headline and lead in this story appear to be awfully misleading. Other than Great Britain and Germany, a majority of people in the other countries surveyed ARE WILLING TO PAY MORE for renewable energy. E.g., in the US, 48% are willing to pay between 5% and 40% MORE versus 40% who say they would pay no additional cost. Gee, could this be the media twisting a story to make it appear more sensational? Shocking!

Comment
12 of 27

paul-johnson-34828

March 5, 2008

I disagree.  The facts, whether we like them are not, are real.  Ignoring these facts will only slow the progress that needs to be made.Changing the questions to get an answer that is more to your liking benefits nobody.  One common human fallacy is that "if I just explain my point of view, they will think like me."Like it or not, the economic equation is critical to mass adoption as it will drive human behavior (as this study clearly points out).

Comment
13 of 27

joseph-schiller-24827

March 5, 2008

Peter makes the most relevant point.  If you do not ask people to consider the costs of not paying more for Renewables, you are not conducting an objective poll.  It is not necessary to put it in terms of the future of their children, though the future of their children is imperiled, because even in purely monetary terms their will be tremendous costs later for not paying more now.  This is the whole basis of the insurance industry and almost everyone purchases insurance.

Comment
14 of 27

peter-vogelsanger-82068

March 5, 2008

Such polls are not useless.  Such polls are dangerous.  If you do not tell them what they get from it if they pay more or rather what they get if they don't, there is no reason to expect a reasonalble answer. Committed individuals won't solve the environental crisis simply because they can't.  So PLEASE do not ask them if they will! The question to ask is: Do you want to put the future of your cildren at risk?  They will all say "no!". All that needs to be done is to make harmfull energies much more expensive and everything will be there: efficiency, cunsumption cuts, renewables, because the incentive will be there. When energy bill payers now reckon they can't afford the renewables, the will then know (and say!) that they can't afford the old destructive energies. Governments (or voters) will solve this problem or nobody will. Elections this year, they say: CHANGE !

Comment
15 of 27

SoreBird

March 5, 2008

Really simple solution 100% tax credit.How about the governments laying of with the TAXES on all the equipment and infrastructure cost associated with the adaptation of Alt. E. 100% tax free labor, equipmet cost.If you give WalMart that kind of incentive they would have already converted.

Comment
16 of 27

g-andrews-59068

March 5, 2008

Actually, with electricity costs increasing at average 9% per year clip (UTILITY RATES will DOUBLE in approx. 8 years), paying utility bills for energy will cost us MUCH MORE over the life of a 20-30 + renewable energy system, even Solar PV!! Getting a 20 year loan for a system will cost you less than paying for steadily increasing electricity rates(Pay a little more now or LOT MORE with current BILLS). Long term planning shows we'll save hugh over life of systems.PLUS, property value usually increases by MORE than cost of renewable system, AND gets BETTER over time due to ZERO FUEL COSTS.FORETHOUGHT IS NEEDED to SEE the LIGHT...

Comment
17 of 27

jerry-klinken-54665

March 5, 2008

“Taking money from one group to subsidize another” is exactly what we need. The billions in taxpayer money that’s given to oil and nuclear conglomerates should instead be used to subsidize clean renewable energy. If there were real incentives for installing solar PV, I’d do it tomorrow and I’m anxiously waiting for the new administration to make it happen. And I’m waiting for plug-in hybrids to hit the market which I’ll charge with the solar PV. Then I can finally be nearly carbon neutral, and off of polluting and destructive oil and coal.  

Comment
18 of 27

Bill-Brobeck-CTO

March 6, 2008

There are other ways to get solar on every building that has acceptable solar exposure. Simply look outside the box.

Comment
19 of 27

rick-brooke-82431

March 6, 2008

The way I read this poll is that more Americans ( 48%) are willing to pay more for clean, renewable power than those who do not ( 40%).  Of that 40%, I would ask, what about the externalized costs of increased air pollution ( health costs), greenhouse gasses ( global warming), military costs ( for oil-rich unstable regions), and environmental remediation costs due to oil spills, strip mining, etc?  If one adds up all these externalized costs ( which come from the other back pocket's wallet), I believe that those who are not willing to pay more for clean, renewable power are already paying more for conventional energy, and they don't even realize it.

Comment
20 of 27

peter-vogelsanger-82068

March 6, 2008

If someone chooses the green option -- say Jack buys PV -- he pays more and outs himself in his neighborhood as the fool who pays more for his energy. Even if he did it more discretely (assume he has the "green" electricity option) it would normally not make any difference because not enough people (his smarter neighbors) enroll in the green scheme: the extra expenditure of those (Jack the fool) who pay more is used to lower the bill of the others (his smarter neighbors) for them to pay even less, and energy production does not become any greener, if enough green energy is produced to supply the fools anyway (which is the case where I live). Objectively there is absolutely no incentive to pay more.

Comment
21 of 27

peter-vogelsanger-82068

March 6, 2008

If people are not eager to pay more, it is because it does not offer them any benefit. If at all they are not ready to pay more! Good point made above: The poll shows a surprisingly high readiness to pay more! By the way: There is some logic behind the fact that the Americans who pay next to nothing (per unit consumed!) for their energy are slightly more inclined to pay more, than the Germans who pay more already. Could the reason why the Americans are the world's biggest energy wasters be that they pay so little per unit consumption?

Comment
22 of 27

thomas-schmidt-36371

March 6, 2008

There was an old phrase. What was it? Something about "fools being born every second." "You know, maybe I am not paying enough for my electricity. I should pay more."I hate say I told you so, but... The push for renewable energies is not helping at all. Its only adding to the insanity. You should have stayed out of the mix. If anything you should have encouraged off grid living and conservancy. Should'a, could'a, would'a, its to late now. You all may not want to see it, but from my eyes, this all looks like someone rushing in to put out a fire with a bucket of gasoline. Pity about Earth.

Comment
23 of 27

narsi-venkat-78376

March 7, 2008

J B's idea of tax free infrastructure warrants a second look. The only approach seems to be to lobby senators to purse this line but I think the panel manufacturing companies are doing good business and in no need to lobby for this. It is upto the installers and I am not sure if they are organized to do that. Maybe Deep Patel can get a communique to registered installers to do just that. Next the insurance companies can lobby hoping that will result in increased coverage for homes and installers. I am just trying to walkthru the existing food chain to see who feeds who to get what.

Comment
24 of 27

paul-johnson-34828

March 8, 2008

Peter, you comment on American's being the biggest energy wasters is incorrect.  We are the biggest energy consumers.  However if you look at energy consumed vs. output, America is at the top.  Taken as a whole, we actually use the energy relatively efficiently. 

Comment
25 of 27

gamessier

March 10, 2008

Whatever the energy product in question (petroleum, electricity, etc.) price matters.  We're all consumers;  Few will willingly pay more, when a cheaper,  conventional source is readily available down the street.  "Saving the world" really doesn't carry much weight when balancing the family checkbook...      It follows that one way to erase RE's price disadvantage is to raise the price of conventional sources by restricting development of additional supplies.  In the US, NIMBY has gone BANANA:  Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.  Happily, high prices do contribute to demand destruction - polite greens call it "conservation".  Didn't anybody take Economics 101...?

Comment
26 of 27

RichardA

March 12, 2008

How about asking people if they want to continue subsidizing fossil and nuclear fueled energy with their health, environmental degredation, wars, government guarantees and tax breaks?  We've got to put external costs on all forms of energy.  Then we can make informed judgements about what cost more and whether or not government needs to guide the market for the community good.  (For the Adam Smith exstremist out there:  Government, through our elected representatives - i.e. "we" - already guides the market in many ways, such as restraurants have to comply with safety laws, home ownership is encouraged through tax deductions, etc.)

Comment
27 of 27

gamessier

March 13, 2008

Richard -Much of what we see around us is an outgrowth, and continuation of 20th century excess, itself borne of Depression Era and WWII hardships and despair.  It's not ALL bad...  Longevity is currently 77-79 yrs for those born in the US, up from 47 in 1900, and 65 in 1935, the year SS was established.  As Churchill observed: "Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else."

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!