NYC Stores Ordered To Shut The Door If AC Is On

[dmcowen674]

Noooooooooo

We all like paying higher electric bills so stores can blow that cool air on us as we walk by.

8-14-2008 NYC Stores Ordered To Shut The Door If AC Is On

New York City -The City Council is slamming the door on stores that blast their air-conditioning in the summer to lure foot traffic from the city's hot sidewalks.

A bill is expected to pass Thursday that would prohibit large stores from keeping their doors open while running their air conditioners. First violation gets a warning, second gets a $200 fine, and third gets a $400 fine.

The council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe it will help conserve a bit of energy in summer months when power demands are at their highest.

 

[GenHoth]

Why is it their business if they want to pay for more power?

 

[NeoV]

because it's wasteful

why question this?

Why report this for that matter?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
Why is it their business if they want to pay for more power?

Maybe because they get a cheaper commerical rate not available to us peons that get penalized with higher rates even though we are conserving power with CFL bulbs etc so we pay for the stores power.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
Why is it their business if they want to pay for more power?

Because it drives up costs for everyone else and pushes the grid closer to capacity on those hot summer days.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: GenHoth
Why is it their business if they want to pay for more power?

As posted above, for one store it is not a problem.

When many stores do so, the electric load is increased.
The straw that breaks the camel's back effect.

Until you are actaully impacted by a brown out/tripped grid you do not appreciate what you have.

Just like a drought. A little bit here and there does not seem to make a difference; but when added up, what you saved could have stretched your resources for another couple of days.

 

[LegendKiller]

I have walked down the sidwalk in manhattan and seen dozens of stores with their doors opened in the peak of summer. Never made any sense to me, glad they are doing something to stop it.

Wasted energy increases energy costs for all people. Both by increasing demand (and price), but by also increasing the overhead costs of the store, which are then passed onto consumers.

 

[StageLeft]

I wonder how much difference this makes, I bet a very small one. I wonder how many are on board with this but against mandates against SUVs, the arguments against which are all the same as against this and of far greater impact to us all.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy,

it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it.

If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

Exactly.

Because it is us little peons paying for the store to keep it's doors open and the AC running.

Congrats, you get it.


Take away that commericial rate that us residential peons are subsidizing and watch how fast those stores keep the doors shut.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

You mean it would cost consumers a fortune? Ever bought things in NYC? Just pass the cost along...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

You mean it would cost consumers a fortune?

Ever bought things in NYC?

Just pass the cost along...

I buy things in NYC almost every week, what's your point?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

You mean it would cost consumers a fortune?

Ever bought things in NYC?

Just pass the cost along...

I buy things in NYC almost every week, what's your point?

I wasn't speaking to you, was I?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

You mean it would cost consumers a fortune? Ever bought things in NYC? Just pass the cost along...

Of course that would be the case, but in a free market, why would that not be the case?? Shouldn't the price of goods reflect the actual cost of producing them? When you tamper with the system such that the actual cost is not passed on at each stage of the process, you create disincentives or counter productive incentives. For example, if I live in an apartment where my water is paid for no matter how much I use, what it my incentive to conserve water? Nothing (other than not wanting to be wasteful). If I have to pay the real rate that it costs to 'produce' the water, I'll be more careful in how I use it. Same with electricity. If it costs x to produce, and stores pay for x, they'll figure out if it's worth paying x to open the doors to lure in customers. Making a law that says "don't keep your doors open" isn't needed unless x does not reflect the real cost of producing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
This is a stupid ordinance, attacking a symptom rather than the cause, as politicians typically do.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the government should decide if you should keep your doors open or closed, the problem is not that the store wastes energy, it's that the cost of purchasing energy is (apparently) not truly reflective of the cost of generating it. If it was, then the store would have an incentive to keep their doors closed because wasting so much energy would cost it a fortune.

You mean it would cost consumers a fortune? Ever bought things in NYC? Just pass the cost along...

Of course that would be the case, but in a free market, why would that not be the case?? Shouldn't the price of goods reflect the actual cost of producing them? When you tamper with the system such that the actual cost is not passed on at each stage of the process, you create disincentives or counter productive incentives. For example, if I live in an apartment where my water is paid for no matter how much I use, what it my incentive to conserve water? Nothing (other than not wanting to be wasteful). If I have to pay the real rate that it costs to 'produce' the water, I'll be more careful in how I use it. Same with electricity. If it costs x to produce, and stores pay for x, they'll figure out if it's worth paying x to open the doors to lure in customers. Making a law that says "don't keep your doors open" isn't needed unless x does not reflect the real cost of producing.

Even Adam Smith recognized that "free markets" can never really be free. There are too many inefficiencies in "free markets", as well as nefarious profit taking and law breaking that requires oversight.

The price of goods should reflect the actual efficient cost of inputs. We aren't talking about machines making things, eating more electricity. We are talking about an easily reduced extraneous expense borne by society. You're thinking that efficiencies should result in the optimal price, but that's only thinking theoretical. Actual application is something different.

 

[BoomerD]

This law is stoopid. If the stores leave their doors open and let the cool air out, they're helping to fight global warming! :roll:

 

[lupi]

Hey look, NYC enacted some more dumbass nanny state laws. Amazing. I guess next they will have a law installed in everyones vehicle limiting the number of miles you can drive in a week to help keep gas prices down.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: lupi
Hey look, NYC enacted some more dumbass nanny state laws. Amazing. I guess next they will have a law installed in everyones vehicle limiting the number of miles you can drive in a week to help keep gas prices down.

Nice argument.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: lupi
Hey look, NYC enacted some more dumbass nanny state laws. Amazing. I guess next they will have a law installed in everyones vehicle limiting the number of miles you can drive in a week to help keep gas prices down.

Or everyone in the NYC area can thank NYC for telling these stores to stop wasting so much electricity since it drives up costs for the rest of us by increasing demand.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: lupi
Hey look, NYC enacted some more dumbass nanny state laws. Amazing. I guess next they will have a law installed in everyones vehicle limiting the number of miles you can drive in a week to help keep gas prices down.

Or everyone in the NYC area can thank NYC for telling these stores to stop wasting so much electricity since it drives up costs for the rest of us by increasing demand.

After paying $250/mo for cooling a 688sqft apartment in Manhattan to 78 degrees in the summer, I think it's a great idea.

People who don't live in Manhattan or NYC really have no fucking clue.

 

[ManyBeers]

My idea just makes more and more sense.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
My idea just makes more and more sense.

Make more sense to promote the use of solar panels on each house and building imo.
Imagine the amount of energy we could free up during the day and use for other things.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
My idea just makes more and more sense.

Expanding nuclear power is great, but we shouldn't just promote continued waste. We should look to conserve where we can AND expand the use of nuclear and renewable energy to cover the continued demand for electricity and reduce pollutants thrown into the air by fossil fuel power plants.

Also, the idea of putting small nuclear plants everywhere is kind of scary. I wouldn't trust Joe 6-pack to run one of those things. Plus, you get more efficient designs when you build larger power plants.

Solar panels and small wind generators would be a better option for people to install on the roofs of their homes/businesses.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
My idea just makes more and more sense.

Expanding nuclear power is great, but we shouldn't just promote continued waste. We should look to conserve where we can AND expand the use of nuclear and renewable energy to cover the continued demand for electricity and reduce pollutants thrown into the air by fossil fuel power plants.

Also, the idea of putting small nuclear plants everywhere is kind of scary. I wouldn't trust Joe 6-pack to run one of those things. Plus, you get more efficient designs when you build larger power plants.

Solar panels and small wind generators would be a better option for people to install on the roofs of their homes/businesses.

Joe 6-pack wouldn't "run" anything. It's just an appliance like any other. Does Joe 6-pack run his refrigerator or furnace? No they just run when needed. Same here. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters in life. How about not being on a grid, or not having a monthly energy bill or in disasters not having to rely on the local infrastructure. Distributed power has disadvantages too you know.

In an article link in the thread i cited Toshiba is already making 200 kilowatt reactors for apartment buildings and small city blocks. How much longer before they make them small enough for individual buildings?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
My idea just makes more and more sense.

Expanding nuclear power is great, but we shouldn't just promote continued waste. We should look to conserve where we can AND expand the use of nuclear and renewable energy to cover the continued demand for electricity and reduce pollutants thrown into the air by fossil fuel power plants.

Also, the idea of putting small nuclear plants everywhere is kind of scary. I wouldn't trust Joe 6-pack to run one of those things. Plus, you get more efficient designs when you build larger power plants.

Solar panels and small wind generators would be a better option for people to install on the roofs of their homes/businesses.

Joe 6-pack wouldn't "run" anything. It's just an appliance like any other. Does Joe 6-pack run his refrigerator or furnace? No they just run when needed. Same here. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters in life. How about not being on a grid, or not having a monthly energy bill or in disasters not having to rely on the local infrastructure. Distributed power has disadvantages too you know.

A nuclear reactor isn't like a refrigerator.

What about nuclear waste? What about the extreme costs involved in such a device? There are better ways to be "off the grid" then installing nuclear reactors in everyone's home.