View Full Version here: : That Electricity rip-off again
24-07-2012, 03:14 PM
I just downloaded the new rates from the AGL website which come into effect from July 1. It was supposed to be a 20% increase, wrong :mad2: it works out to 26%. They have gone from 27.7c/kwh to 34.9c/kwh winter rates. And summer rates are even higher. I rang the energy ombudsman, and they are a toothless tiger, they reckon the energy companies can basically do as they wish, no wonder we are going down the gurglar:screwy:
Agreed, it is just plain theft, and no one seems to care, the authorities that is.
24-07-2012, 03:33 PM
How many times do we have to drag these stupid whinge sessions up? It's a product, reduce your usage and you pay less.
If you are worthy of government rebates, then you will pay less if not zero. A lot of unworthy get these rebates as well. Those of us that use it and earn a living from working get to pay for everyone else.
24-07-2012, 03:43 PM
24-07-2012, 04:32 PM
Don't know koputai :shrug:
I suppose it depends on how much longer it takes for people to roll over and blindly accept getting in kicked in the guts.
Or maybe while users like you and me "drag these stupid whinge sessions" on :confused2:
24-07-2012, 04:54 PM
Jason, you have totally missed the point here. Why should we just sit back and accept getting shafted, if everyone did that we would cop it worse. These power hungry (no pun intended) electricity companies are just running over anyone they like, there is no control, contrary to what is believed, and that is from the ombudsman, they can just raise the prices whenever they like. You say to reduce power consumption, well I know I have to the tune of about 30% but that is very soon swallowed up by these outlandish price rises. I does no good to change to gas either as that is going through the roof as well. Nothing wrong with venting one's feelings over this one as it does affect anyone that uses power. :P
Mike, your little thumbnail probably sums up where we are going, bring on the candles. Unless one is getting paid huge dollars this is probably the only alternative to using electricity for light. If you are trying to convey that this is a boring topic, well obviously you arent affected. I dont know anyone who isnt copping it, at least in my neck of the woods.
24-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Ahhh :lol: no, bills pee me off just like everyone else, I'm just making light of a topic that has been thrashed and thrashed and thrashed again on here, you will get the same comments, the same replies, the same everything, oh well...all good fun I guess :thumbsup:
24-07-2012, 07:23 PM
I agree with jason - get used to it. Imagine what would happen if the power companies just shut the system down. The same as would happen if we had petrol strikes like in the 1970's (Though this did not happen back then)(, if petrol tanker drivers went on strike, people would be happy to pay $4 a litre for petrol if they could get it - don't kid yourself!
With electricity you pay for the service as well as supply.
24-07-2012, 07:31 PM
Another thread about electricity? Didn't we do this just a month ago?
24-07-2012, 08:30 PM
Yeah you might as well delete it Mike, no one cares anyway, they just make a joke of it. I wont put it up again.
24-07-2012, 08:54 PM
:mad2: but still the more we pay to live , the less we get to use to enjoy our hobby , the powers that be ?? are squeezing harder ..
Sorry to say again ,, I seen this happen in NZ 10 years ago and its happening here in this beautiful continent !!! :shrug: . Called Australia .
Sorry , but true .
24-07-2012, 09:05 PM
Peter, reduce the amount of Light boxes you sell through IceTrade and your power consumption should go down by the the reduced amount of power tool usage. ;)
24-07-2012, 09:11 PM
:help: Dont say that ... It will get a carbon tax put on it ,,,SHHH ! ,
ps. I seen this happen in NZ as well ...:question:
24-07-2012, 09:13 PM
Dark skys and no more power bills:cool::party:
cold showers and dinner and the wife having to do the washing by hand would probably be a little harsh though.
24-07-2012, 09:13 PM
John, no power consumed at all building them, only a stanley knife and lots of glue and patience. Havent built all that many anyway..One thing is for sure, I dont make much, just enough to cover expenses. It is done more for a service for people that want them. In any case this really is not the place to discuss Ice Trade stuff:P
24-07-2012, 09:13 PM
Or just set up a stand-alone solar power system. We make our own electricity.
24-07-2012, 09:57 PM
:DCool solar ,, we get 6 months monsoonal clouds up here a year , thats why we build scopes up here in the north , I sthe gov't gonna suplement my friends and I a good 20k for a deep cycle battery cube to store oll that wasted solar .... Electricity ? or give us break , people before profits ? :help:,, Na
I just woke up :screwy: . a cube . not a new Borg Cube , but the deep cycle batteries what were not sent out to people ? futile ....
yea No Resistance ..
Sorry but true .
24-07-2012, 10:20 PM
My last bill showed "Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tonnes) Generated For This Account 1.33920T"
If the carbon tax price is $27/tonne, I'd expect an increased due to the carbon tax by a little under $40.
Well it didn't! It increased $96 for the same usage as shown on the previous bill.
Seems the power companies pay $27/Tonne then charge the consumer about $60/Tonne.
How does that work out?
24-07-2012, 10:31 PM
Yes, and there were 170 posts about it. Think that shows people are very concerned about the price hikes.
We should be able to vent our disgust as long as we don't step outside the Terms of Service.
And if users want to laud how terrific the price hikes are, they can start a thread about it ;)
24-07-2012, 11:04 PM
Well... we could always keep on burning fossil fuels, in which case (according to scientists at the University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the United States) Climate change could make much of the world too hot for human habitation within just three centuries, research recently released showed.
Under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees (Celsius) or even more," Professor Tony McMichael said.
"If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat - as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there."
..... If the price of energy needs to go up to $1 per unit to force us to acknowledge this reality, so be it I say.
btw) Anyone care to challenge the scientific basis for this argument...?
We should use uranium (or even better thorium) and ditch coal.
24-07-2012, 11:22 PM
I agree that thorium is a nice idea in principle, but at the end of the day it will only be a temporary solution.
Continuing to burn coal on the other hand will be an (ostensibly) permanent and unprecedented disaster.
The problem is this phobia against uranium, Australia has the largest reserves in the world of the stuff. Despite the drawbacks of nuclear power it is much better than burning dirty coal. The ideal, of course, are renewables but they will need time to develop particually in regards to baseload power supply.
24-07-2012, 11:40 PM
This is asking for trouble.
24-07-2012, 11:43 PM
Totally agree. Sell it overseas but will not use it here. Selling it is the same as using as far as I am concerned.
Power is going to go up forever now. Thankfully we have solar power.
"This is asking for trouble"
Back in the day I was was very anti nuclear power. The thing is we have a much bigger problem, anthropogenic global warming! We seriously have to look at all options.
25-07-2012, 12:01 AM
I try really, really hard not to voice opinion on IIS. There is nothing sensible in nuclear energy.
I understand the baseload problems. But I will never support a power source that will condemn countless generations of MY children to the madness of looking after the waste. This includes the decommisioned reactors, contaminated power sites, ground water, etc. There is nothing smart about it. Medical and scientific applications is as far as I go.
I am in a situation with my business that EVERY aspect of what I produce involves power. Lots of it. Yet I cannot pass on these costs to my clients.
Nuclear will not see a reduction in power costs. Even if we did have nuclear from the year dot, the price hike would have still happened. Yet everyone still wants their big TVs, central heating, airconditioning, every type of power hungry gizzmo. Somethings got to give. Yes, we need options, but not madness.
25-07-2012, 12:02 AM
Agreed, it is the lesser of two evils by a long margin.
fwiw)... the prognosis (of burning fossil fuels) paints a picture of a world that would be more profoundly damaged in the long term than one ravaged by nuclear war.
A sobering thought.
25-07-2012, 12:13 AM
I completely agree with the principle you stating here Alexander. I am not a fan of nuclear power and I will make no attempt to marginalise the significant issues involved with it... However, I would encourage you to consider the legacy of damage we are leaving as a result of burning fossil fuels with the same spirit of objectivity.
It is actually far worse.
25-07-2012, 12:57 AM
Well, if we're going to go off topic, may as well go the whole hog ...
What piques my interest is that many people (excluding, of course, our learned IIS members!) complain about the release of radiation from nuclear energy yet, each year, more radioisotopes are released from burning coal than from nuclear power, and more people die from coal-related incidents than nuclear power-related incidents. People complain about the risk of a nuclear accident, but use 40+ y/o reactor technology as their example ... kinda like complaining about the reliability of a 1970 MGB and using that as a reason to distrust all future vehicles, regardless of what they may be. And, of course, people fear something like Fukushima, yet that 40 y/o reactor (built on a fault line, in a Tsunami zone, hit by a double natural disaster on the same day that was five times its design limit, in densely-populated Japan, with under-resourced response mechanisms, hampered by opaque management ... could the surrounding circumstances have been any worse?) has still only managed to hospitalise 4 people (for radiation exposure) - and they've all recovered. I'm not saying that nuclear energy is without risks - clearly they are substantial - but they are manageable. The main problem is that public perception (i.e. fear) is greatly out of proportion to the facts.
Waste management is a different issue, but if you define waste to include gaseous emissions, then the waste issues of coal seem to be significantly larger than those of nuclear fission, including the impact on future generations. I could say more about waste management, but, alas, I would have to use words like "paralysed", "myopic" and "political football" ... and I don't want to do that!
I think many people (quite understandably) are misled by our historical inability (or refusal) to cost all externalities associated with power generation. It's an approach that still needs some bedding down amongst the populace, but it's entirely necessary to permit fair comparison.
What I do disagree with, is that nuclear energy will be cheaper - there is no clear evidence that it will be so. It may be, depending (I think) on scale and technology employed in waste management and fuel processing, but I've yet to see any compelling evidence.
Also, keep in mind that, even if "we" decide to go nuclear tomorrow, it would take 15+ years to get a reactor into service .. and that's reactor #1 of 25 or so. I doubt we could commission them any faster than one per year, and that's damn fast. So, it's no panacea for our imminent problems, but may yet be necessary. IMHO, we should not write it off - we should continue research and planning to maintain it as a potential addition to Australia's power generation mix.
(This post is intended to stimulate thought, not argument, if you know what I mean).
25-07-2012, 01:09 AM
25-07-2012, 07:41 AM
Obviously we couldn't use nuclear power, its safer than almost every energy supply that can produce the quantity we need. It is more friendly to the environment than any other sources of power that make this volume of electricity. And what would we do with all that dangerous scary barreled waste when were done with it.
Its not like BHP are digging a mile deep hole in the desert that we could bury it in. We wouldn't want to contaminate the land where all of the uranium came from anyway.
25-07-2012, 07:44 AM
I totally agree, Astrobot
25-07-2012, 07:59 AM
I dont know about nuclear power making energy more affordable either CURRENTLY, however we have to think to the future. Nuclear power has an almost linear relationship with Uranium price and thus its price has increased linearly meanwhile coal and gas power does not.
I think in the future coal and gas power will be far higher than fission based power especially if the government decide on increasing this carbon price. And maby we need to look into investing in the large capital cost of these reactors now.
25-07-2012, 08:57 AM
The legacy of fossil fuels is a real one, I totally agree. But to switch from fossil to nuclear JUST to reduce emissions is an absurdity. It is just swapping one poison for another.
Implementing "alternative" power sources will take no longer than nuclear. The technology is there. What isn't is the Corporate will as the vested interests of the status quo wants to keep their money stream running, & doesn't stand to make a buck NOW, or ever, by having these systems implemented. These vested interests have their spin machine in the ear of government to keep themselves rich. That is the way of capitalism.
It will take courage & balls to stand up to these powerful corporations for the interests of the planet & humanity. From people & government, & yes, from corporations too.
I'm not happy with fossil fuels. Nuclear is NOT an alternative.
I admit most Aussies are very anti nuclear power and I also acknowledge the problems associated with using this form of energy. However, the clear and present danger is AGW caused by the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and the worst culprit of them all is coal. Counties such as Australia and China have a real fixation on burning this stuff and the consequenses of this are not good to put it lightly. Uranium might not be ideal but fossil fuels and their effect on our global environment is much worse.
Of course my first preference is for renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal and I do hope governments and industry pull their fingers out and start looking at seriously developing these technologies. I also hope fusion power can be developed and become viable in the next couple of decades too :thumbsup:
As for power prices they will just keep going up. I guess we just have to be sensible how we use electricity.
25-07-2012, 09:21 AM
You CAN'T be serious :screwy:
100% genetic mutation of plants and animals for eternity :help:
ALL Humanity and Animals on the brink of EXTINCTION :earth:
However on the upside whoever is left might just be Xmen ;)
A very broad statement that...
A link to peer reviewed papers would be a start
25-07-2012, 09:38 AM
We need to step back from the argument of emissions & environmental consequences for a moment, & look to understand what is keeping real change from happening.
The fixation on coal comes from its quick and reliable technology. Also, there is so much money being made from digging the stuff up & from burning it. The same with uranium & nuclear power. Our dependence on power effectively sees these two groups as protected spieces. Money talks.
If you are corporation with an interest in promoting alternative power, you really have bugger all chance of getting anywhere the way things are now. Unless governments are brave & moral enough to listen & act appropriately nothing will change, and their big corporate masters will be pleased.
Our problem is also cultural as much as practical. Buy, buy, buy. Spend, spend, spend. You can't have it both ways.
If you were a multi billion dollar corporation, would you want your business stopped dead in its tracks? You are there to make money for yourself. I am, though my budget is much smaller.
The problem is multi faceted. The only "alternative" is compromise and compassion. Who's got the balls?
You have that one spot on! I was reading an article a few weeks ago about tips to reduce energy consumption (mainly to save money) and one of the tips was to not leave your heated towel rail/ rack on overnight. Towel warmer! I didn't even know these things existed or people even bought such appliances. As a society we have such a yearning want to consume even if it is for something we dont even really want (my appologies to towel warmer owners :P).
Quite. There are many people who do want to compromise but sadly many others are put off from doing so because of the perception they are losing out on something. Big business, of course, wants to and has to make money and that includes companies dealing with energy. But in the current geo-political environment where the market rules it is hard to see how society at large can do much.
25-07-2012, 11:18 AM
I reckon its a bit deeper than this.
Unless we can somehow develop an economic model that doesnt rely on constant growth for its existence, no amount of cutting back will help.
I find it interesting to see how all the financial/economic wizards say we have to get bigger to be efficient, but "most" of the time this happens, it becomes more cumbersome, impersonal and ends up costing us more???
However, i think all that will pale into insignificance when compared to the accelerating effects of pure population growth, and its requirements for power/food/cars/idevices :-) .
That will swamp any gains we make by switching off a few lights in Oz.
Dunno the answer to that one either.
25-07-2012, 11:31 AM
invest in solar panels. My electricity company pays me a cheque every quarter.
In the current geo-political environment that is not going to happen :sadeyes:
Vested interests me thinks!
In large part population growth is driven by poverty. Developed countries have little or indeed negative population growth. In fact the population of many developed nations only increase due to immigration. The residents of developed nations, however, do have material aspirations. So even if the population growth is fairly slow the take up of power hungry gadgets and appliances seems to be increasing. Furthermore, businesses require a growing market to increase their profits. Thats what it comes down to, profits! For good or for ill.
We have to start somewhere. To do nothing is to admit defeat.
Thats the good news. The use of solar panels has proliferated in Australia in the last few years. The last time I visited Australia last year I was pleasantly suprised how widespead their use had become.
25-07-2012, 12:13 PM
Not easy when you rent!
25-07-2012, 12:25 PM
take the big step and buy a house!!! Worth it in the long run
25-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Not going to happen at this point in time :(
25-07-2012, 03:07 PM
I signed up with this mob a couple of weeks back www.onebigswitch.com.au
They have found the best deals for me at least in SA and it is a considerable saving to what is being offered by AGL who are my current provider. A 16% discount on electricity is not to be sneezed at. AGL are offering 14% but it is not applicable if you have solar panels installed.
This looks promising:
25-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Understood, which is why i'm pessimistic at present.
A good analogy is the current EU.
Small countries dont believe they cant survive alone so need to join together.
Need massive new layer of administrators ( all very well paid ) to run it.
They cant get on with each other let alone run the show.
The strongest in the group gets stronger and the weaker ones start getting wiped out.
Those wiped out need to implement massive price increases for everything, even tho they have to pay it from handouts.
( Using handouts to cover price rises, where have i heard that before:question: )
Perhaps if Europe does collapse, and this time it takes several sovereign nations down, instead of just a few banks, it might change things.
( Ahhhh who am i kidding :shrug:)
25-07-2012, 03:49 PM
There is the rusting hulk of a wave power generator lying in the water near Wollongong apparently-says how developed that technology is.
25-07-2012, 04:29 PM
the only reason why the cost of living is so high right now is because big companies wanna make BIG!!! money before countries swap over to more green technologies.
25-07-2012, 05:56 PM
Do you base your opinion on the development of car technology on a rusted wreck by the side of the road you thought was a car? That's a very narrow and negative way of looking at things! Early cars drove at 5mph and were very expensive, so obviously they were never going to be viable, right?
Some European examples of the development of marine energy technology:
Summary: development of marine resources is growing rapidly, with a number of wave and tidal projects now transitioning from development stage to commercial deployment. This is also happening in Australia, with some test sites near Perth for example. Rome wasn't built in a day, and these technologies are not yet fully mature of course, but they are rapidly improving, with associated reductions in cost per kWh. Why be so negative about them?
A melting pot of other positive examples of renewable energy development in Australia (not surprisingly a large amount of solar):
25-07-2012, 06:51 PM
Well Andy, did you just not say the same as I did, but in a more roundabout way?
Maybe these technologies will improve with time, but they are not there yet. The other thing with wave technology is the size of the machinery necessary to produce a meaningful amount of power.
25-07-2012, 08:22 PM
I can see where it will end up.
Consumers are terrified at the moment, panicking and going into debt to get solar panels installed.
More consumers will be generating power via solar or whatever.
The feed in tariff will disappear resulting in electricity retailers getting electricity off customers at no cost.
They will drop the price/kw to a level that is considered reasonable then increase the service charges (daily rate) & introduce infrastructure charges.
That way, your usage will cost will be modest and "other fees & services" will spiral.
Even if a consumer reduces their usage significantly, the savings will be minimal.
Just like water companies, usage $40 admin fees $300.
25-07-2012, 08:44 PM
Are you for real?? :screwy: You actually believe that burning fossil fuels is more damaging than a nuclear war? How long has humanity been burning fossil fuels - how many centuries? Does the average city or town look like Prypiat? NO!
I assume you have a proposal to replace both fossil fuels and nuclear power?
Booze ain't cutting it anymore, I want what Tony McMichael is having :screwy:
Guess what, those "scientists" are closet drug addicts.
Here is the irrefutable, conclusive proof:
The only thing they should be worried about is strapping themselves to a bed and come down from what ever smack they're on.
Yes. I accept the challenge.
25-07-2012, 08:53 PM
May I suggest that we all limit ourselves to an exchange of ideas, rather than attacking people, whether members of IIS or not.
Even better if ideas (and any other comments) are evidence-based.
I don't think we should get nuclear war confused with nuclear power :)
25-07-2012, 11:06 PM
fwiw) Here is a press release from Purdue University relating to the long term climate modelling I referred to earlier:
To put this in to context, 5C is the variation between an ice age and warm period. 6C is generally regarded as catastrophic, and we are likely to see this by the end of the century. This would result in approximately 50% species extinction, the collapse of our food infrastructure and our global society along with it.
It will also result in the natural feedback mechanisms overwhelming anthropogenic factors, thereby rendering mitigating action on our part, redundant. In this scenario, we can expect climate change to keep on accelerating over the next few hundred years to the point where global average temperatures are likely to be 12C warmer than today (maybe as much as 20C)
Much of the world (most of it actually) will experience wet bulb maxima at a level where mammals can no longer regulate their internal temperatures... ie) You, and everything around you dies from overheating.
The reason I suggest that this would worse than a nuclear war is that it would not be limited to human population centres and it will last for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years before the climate can correct itself.
Humanity will not be rebuilding from the rubble of this before a long period of fighting simply for survival has been endured..
Future generations will look back at us in disbelief that we knew what was coming but chose not to act in time.
25-07-2012, 11:18 PM
Basically there is no avoiding a damaged biosphere, but to avoid leaving a nightmare behind, emissions have to peak in the next 5 to 10 years and then rapidly be brought to zero.
Considering how long it will take to put the infrastructure in place to achieve this, the time for action is now.
I do hear what your saying. Sadly we live in pretty unenlightened times where science is oxymoronically seen as an impediment to progress. I guess we have to be careful of of what we say because there are people waiting to for that "gotcha" moment. I know that only too well.
25-07-2012, 11:27 PM
By all means...
Start with some credible climate science that challenges it.
But I do hope you have your ducks in a slightly better row than you managed in our last discussion.
25-07-2012, 11:33 PM
Hey Zhou, point well taken...
btw) I just noticed you are from China.
I worked over there (in Shanghai) back in 92, lots of vivid memories. I bet the place is unrecognisable from when I was there though.
26-07-2012, 10:38 AM
Err, no I didn't. I'm afraid you were dismissive about technology I doubt you're aware of, whether you intended to be or not. And having seen up close and personal a number of wave and tidal power developments, they're a lot smaller than your average coal-fired power station. You're welcome to do the volume/quantity of steel & concrete calculations per megawatt generated, and I still suspect coal will come out worse. And that's before considering some of the coal station's externalities, such as toxic coal ash (including radioactivity (http://www.epa.gov/radtown/coal-plant.html)), the powerful global warming agent CO2, and of course the requirement for a continuous supply of fuel. Mining that fuel requires further resources, equipment, degradation, pollution and human risk.
Given all that, it might do good to be positive about developing and deploying much cleaner sources of energy? And given the relative price trajectories of renewable vs non-remewable energy sources, they'll soon enough be cheaper too. Surely everyone's positive about that? Grid parity is being reached by some renewable technologies already, and that is only increasing as dirty fossil fuels become more expensive and scarce.
26-07-2012, 10:58 AM
and saying things like fossil fuels are more damaging than a nuclear war and half the world population will be wiped out in the next 300 years because of man-made "global warming" (by up to 20C nonetheless!!!!) is credible? Give me a break :rolleyes::screwy:
Sorry Clive Milne, but if you make such ridiculous statements you can expect some flak :rolleyes:
26-07-2012, 01:37 PM
Our family has been protected pretty well from the electricity price rises (much of which in my State has been due to infrastructure investments prior to carbon price). We installed solar panels while there was still a nice gap between what we get paid per kW/h for generation; and what we pay (ie we got the 60c per kW/h), but we also went onto time of use metering and did a few other things to get our usage down.
These included getting ceiling insulation and a gas heater (pretty good outcome - don't use heating so much in winter now and when it was warmer, as long as we kept the windows covered during the day, the house would stay nice and cool); operating washing machine and dishwasher (which we use rarely) after 10 or 11 pm at night, when the tariff is much lower, training the kids to turn lights off when they leave the room and keeping stuff switched off at the wall when not in use.
We bought a $20 monitor plug thing from Jaycar that showed us how much standby power our appliances used; and got Belkin Conserve sockets, which switch off the power after a timed period. These are great for switching off mobile phone chargers that suck power even after the device is fully charged.
Doing these things, we got our 4 person household down to an average use of about 7 kW/h per day. Our bills are much lower and usually our usage is less than we generate now, in winter and summer.
Hope this is useful to anyone - here's another good site with tips on saving energy: http://theconversation.edu.au/the-carbon-tax-neednt-cost-you-easy-ways-to-cut-energy-costs-7879
I reckon whatever happens with carbon prices and the like, you can bet electricity prices will continue to increase (population increase, plus increasing demands of modern households) and i hope my state doesn't privatise power generators too fully, as based on other states like Victoria, this will probably result in bigger increases and less reliability of supply. I reckon the aim should be to reduce usage as much as possible and get some future-proofers like solar panels which can help offset proce rises.
26-07-2012, 04:03 PM
I have solar panels too, and I have converted my cooking, heating and hot water to natural gas. I use the profit from the solar to pay my gas bill, and my total energy expenditure per annum would be maybe $200.00
26-07-2012, 04:42 PM
I know all the lurks about saving energy, and I have cut my useage right back, this is not what the thread is about or getting into an argument about Nuclear versus conventional power generation, it is about the outlandish price rises that have occurred in the last 18 months. End of story. Simple fact, the general public is being shafted, big time.....:screwy:
26-07-2012, 08:37 PM
The 12C to 20C claim is made by climate scientists at Purdue University and the University of NSW.... perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you think you are a more credible source of information on long term climate change (and its impacts) than they are? Incidentally, these guys are leading the field in long term climate modelling. Pretty much everyone else has limited their focus to this century.
fwiw) The nuclear war aftermath analogy is my commentary, but I stand by it as being a fair comparison to the impact of a 12C to 20C step change in average global temperature. Your value judgements may differ of course.
26-07-2012, 08:51 PM
27-07-2012, 08:16 AM
Really is quite a joke huh Clive?...can only shake our heads
27-07-2012, 09:42 AM
Why cant you guys keep to the topic instead of going off at a tangent. The mind boggles.:shrug:
27-07-2012, 09:45 AM
Scientific evidence backed up by a cartoon drawing :lol:
27-07-2012, 09:49 AM
Gotta make it simple for simple minds sometimes I guess :)
27-07-2012, 09:32 PM
And the basis for doubting or denying the seriousness of anthropogenically forced climate change is what exactly?
27-07-2012, 09:36 PM
Because the subjects being discussed are inextricably linked.
A reminder to everyone that in the Forum TOS Rules (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/tos.html), Mike has stated the following rule:
We have been keeping an eye on this thread closely and don't want to see it end up the same way all the other threads we have moderated in the past have ended up, locked, moderated or deleted.
Many thanks for understanding and for your co-operation.
28-07-2012, 05:00 AM
Hey i do my part for them environment, each summer i turn all our air conditioners up, open the fridge and freezer doors, then open all the doors and windows of our home to help combat global warming :)
On a real note this power monopoly has got me worried, but we all know who is to blame for selling the utility's to start with, and also who voted the low life's in (not my gen bahah) :) now we just have to deal with it unless you guys are planing a NWO we are all going to have to put up with being bent over and shafted by our new overlords :( Give peter garrett a call, hell he might even sing a song for you and make it all better :)
1 [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural i·ro·nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expression) to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Socratic+irony)
4. dramatic irony. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dramatic+irony)
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
28-07-2012, 10:34 AM
Andrew, I think most ISS members appreciate your efforts to keep the forum civil and free of ad-homonym argument.
On the subject of AGW, it is arguably the single most important planetary science and its relevance is the reason the subject elicits such passionate debate.
I think the words of James Hansen (NASA Goddard Institute for space studies) are instructive:
Dr. Hansen explains that, after speaking out for the need for an energy policy that would address climate change, the White House contacted NASA and Dr. Hansen was ordered to not speak to the media without permission. After informing the New York Times about the situation, the censorship was lifted and Dr. Hansen continued to speak out, justifying his actions with the first line of NASA’s Mission Statement’: “To understand and protect the home planet”. But there were consequences… the reference to the home planet was soon struck from NASA’s Mission Statement, never to return.
James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change: TED TALKS: documentary,lecture,talk:
it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Thanks Clive, my point is that whether others, including myself, agree or disagree with your views the fact remains that the words of my mate, Mike Salway.....trumps your references to Dr James Hansen, et al.
28-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Noone's denying global warming is a debate that needs to be had.
But in our experience, debating it on IIS always end up with a select few people arguing their side over and over again and usually ends up with people personally attacking each other, before the thread gets locked or deleted.
That's all the warning was for. Keep it civil and it can remain open.
28-07-2012, 11:06 AM
Cool, and thanks.
btw) I think it is worth pointing out that amongst the (climate) science community, no one is debating the actuality of AGW.
The public arena is in stark contrast.
Perhaps this says more about the editorial content of our main stream media institutions than anything else.
28-07-2012, 12:23 PM
What is being over looked here is that the OP did not want to start yet another global warming thread and has pleaded on several occassions that people get back on topic only to be completely ignored which is quite frankly very rude. Clive you are obviously very passionate about this debate if you think the two are inseperable start your own thread on global warming and try to keep it alive.
28-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Mark, there are many factors driving the cost of energy prices, AGW and the strategies employed to combat it being high on the list. To stipulate that we should ignore the social, economic and environmental costs of this commodity is a specious argument at best.
And... none of this prevents any other aspect of the non-AGW related discussion from taking place.
28-07-2012, 12:44 PM
At some stage we will have to come to terms with the reality that we can no longer rely on our current source of energy and that the physical process of adapting to a sensible alternative will obviously come at a cost. The longer we delay the necessary action, the greater the financial burden associated with it escalates.
You can choose to separate the issues for only so long.
28-07-2012, 12:50 PM
Would be nice if the proceeds of the carbon tax were used to subsidise rooftop solar for the population. That would reduce the need for so much coal fired generation and be better for the enviroment, as well as reducing peoples power bills.
I just don't see pricing electricity so high as to create hardship as the answer to AGW concerns.
28-07-2012, 12:53 PM
Clive I do not disagree with you, we are in trouble and something needs to be done, however, this thread was started to highlight Peter's struggle and needs to remain focused there with perhaps others chipping in and sharing how they are dealing with the price hikes. It can only have a positive outcome if we all learn to use less energy yes. I feel right now if I started a thread on this site about how much fun I had on the weekend skate boarding that there was smoke pouring off the wheels it would somehow degenerate into a global warming or political argument and simply would not bother sharing in the first place. By hijacking threads you lose your power to get the message you are so passionate about out among the masses. Unless the thread is started under that title and I strongly suggest you do start a thread, all you manage to do is place snippets of your concerns whilst spending the majority of your time defending your own integrity. I also believe global warming needs to be discussed but on its own terms in its own well moderated thread.
28-07-2012, 01:22 PM
Fair enough, I accept your point, and I do not disagree with you either.
What I am trying to get across is the seriousness of the situation the world is facing and how that is going to effect energy prices in the future. Whatever pain Peter (and others) are feeling right now is not going to get better.
fwiw) I have a background working as a GHGE, energy efficiency & climate change readiness auditor. For me, this is like watching two passenger trains on a collision course where there is just enough time to avert a catastrophe.. but no one wants to listen to the alarm bells.
28-07-2012, 01:41 PM
Reading the comments it is interesting to see the wide range of prices people need to pay for electricity.
The biggest reason for the jump in prices relative to the inflation rate is the privatisation of the electric industries. For many years the price of electricity has remained below the inflation level because governments did not want to lose votes. Now with privatisation interest needs to be paid on investment and a reasonable amount set for maintenance. This has resulted in catchup pricing.
Back in the 70's while in England I paid 3.3 pence per KWh on a weekly pay of $80 (0.0004125%).
Today I pay 21 cents per KWh on a weekly income of $800 (0.0002625%). About half the 1970's price.
We are much better off than some other countries that don't have cheap coal fired power stations and remember CO2 is not a pollutant and it is fully recyclable. I can't say the same for some other emissions.
28-07-2012, 01:42 PM
It is a nice idea in principle, but I think there are more cost effective ways to use the revenue. Base load solar thermal being one of them.
The issue with subsidising rooftop solar is that it disproportionately benefits a specific demographic of people. ie) home owners with spare cash (those that need relief from escalating energy prices the least) There are also problems associated with electricity distribution networks and the variability of sunshine. Even with the amount of rooftop solar we have at the moment, in some communities this is enough to play havoc with transformers etc) when clouds come over or leave the area. The other issue with sinking cash into infrastructure for private individuals is that it results in a negative cash flow situation for the government. On the other hand, if the money was invested in government owned energy infrastructure it would be cash flow positive ie) sustainable.
28-07-2012, 02:13 PM
Almost totally agree Larry. Almost because I don't believe the energy suppliers will allow lower power bills.
You may use less but they will only increase the daily account keeping fee.
Talk about experts, what do you make of this?
Spending billions to find a solution and they come up with this :lol:
28-07-2012, 02:44 PM
Being that meat production is one of the largest contributors to GHGE directly, and indirectly through deforestation, the study is not without merit.
28-07-2012, 03:14 PM
Clive, taking the meat production one step further-there are just too many human beings on the planet, and also too many animals being bred to feed them. Not that I am volunteering to leave just yet!
28-07-2012, 03:58 PM
hmm "volcanoes" http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
28-07-2012, 04:05 PM
In Clive's defense try this for size...
Since the industrial revolution, energy consumption has increased on average 3% pa. So if you say that we've had roughly 200 years since the IR, and you do a compound interest calc on that, your answer is that we are now using 369 times more power than we were at the start of the industrial revolution. Extend that another 300 years and you get 2,621,877 times the amount of energy we used at the start of the IR. That's about 7,000 times the power we are using now. Don't like those numbers? Let's assume we can do half the consumption growth going forward (ie: an UNPRECEDENTED reduction) - that's still 87 times what we are consuming now. If you have seen what is going in in the most populous nations on the planet you will find such a reduction laughable.
That's the magic of compound interest.
In 2010 the world consumed about 470 exajoules of power but to be honest I am hard pressed to understand the ramifications of expending 87 times more power than this let alone 7,000. What we WILL do, however, is to continue increasing energy consumption as much as we can. And that to me makes Clive's 20 degrees actually look pretty conservative.
I read another article where the author (a physicist) argued that even if we converted all of our power generation to solar panels and covered the surface of the earth with them, then converted everything to the most efficient heat pumps technically possible, the surface of the earth would be hot enough to melt lead in 300 years if we continued our 3% average growth rate just from the waste heat of hyper efficient industry.
Something about the entire structure of human activity, economics and resource consumption will need to change drastically or we will reach a tipping point somewhere that will involve a dramatic correction, not unlike the GFC impact on our financial markets. The entire fabric of our society only works when economies grow. We fail badly at a steady state economy (0% growth) and literally die under negative growth. Last time I checked there are no other credible sources of resources but the one we're standing on.
Think on this, the UN population growth forecast predicts that we will put on three billion extra people in the first three decades of this millennium. Our last billion took just 12 years. We're already consuming the resources that only four earths could provide sustainably. Correcting this imbalance could be a very rude shock because we effectively need to reduce our resource consumption globally to a quarter of what we use now to be sustainable with the population we have now, let alone one that could increase by 50% before 2050.
Go have a look at the wiki entries for peak water, peak phosphorus and the impending collapse of global fish stocks.
There are many, many problems looming and carbon emissions are only a symptom. People are the cause. You can't fix a problem by just treating one of the symptoms. A different symptom will just sneak up and whack you while you are looking the wrong way.
28-07-2012, 04:28 PM
Now, for all readers of this thread, I have something that I hope will benefit your hip pocket. About 18 months ago I bought half a dozen LED lightglobes from an Ebay seller called Dreammacys. They cost $6-8 each DELIVERED. In Australia companies are only just starting to stock LED globes and charging $20-40 each for them.
You are looking at roughly half the power consumed for the same amount of light. One way to tell is that CF globes are often too hot to touch, but the LED globes are fine to touch directly even after hours of use. That heat is wasted energy NOT being put out as light. I also measured the power draw of several of their globes using some desk lamps and a plug-in meter- they were pretty much as advertised.
I since bought another 15 globes. Not a single LED globe has failed yet (in the previous 2 years at this house I lost 2-3 CF globes).
I was particularly pleased to switch our kitchen light from 4 x 50w halogen to 4 x 6w LED globes. Yes, they are a LITTLE dimmer and you can't "dim" them, but from 200w to 24w in one light fitting made an obvious difference in our power bill. Cutting all the others in half did too.
Get the ones with the big yellow 5050 SMD LEDs in them rather than hundreds of the more traditional LEDs.
Also watch out that dreammacys often lists the same products several times for prices a couple of dollars different- rank the result price and postage cheapest first and then look for the attachment style (bayonet, screw) and voltage you need.
Make sure you buy the right voltage (not 110v if in Oz, and know whether your down lights are 12v or 240)...
Disclaimer: I don't have anything to do with or earn any money from that ebay seller other than being a very satisfied customer. Buy their own products at your own risk, but my experience has been excellent!
28-07-2012, 05:03 PM
I also recommend that those who are concerned about their power bills get one of those plug-in power meters that go between an appliance and the wall socket- they only cost $30-40 or so. They tell you a whole lot about how much power on average and peak etc. that any plug-in appliance is consuming.
I did this before putting solar on the roof to work out what size system I'd likely need, but the results of some appliances would astonish you!
Biggest surprise for me was our water bed, which has a heating pad under it. Well, that heating pad draws an average of 400w. And runs 24 hours a day in winter... so that's 9.6Kwh A DAY! We didn't give up the bed, but we most certainly screwed everything else down as low as possible.
We put in a 5kw solar system. In Perth this generates about 21kwh on a sunny day in winter and 31kwh on a sunny day in summer. Our average household usage is 20-22kwh a day- but I have 2 adults and 1.5 kids at home most days- your mileage will be different. One thing to watch with solar is make sure that a) it faces as close to due NORTH as possible (if you are in the southern hemisphere!) and b) it is at an angle commensurate with the sun being perpendicular to the panel mid-spring and mid-autumn UNLESS those are the seasons when you get the most rainfall. Why? Well putting your panels on an east or west facing roof means you're cutting your power generation significantly. West is often worse because most panels perform worse when they get hot. This is also why you don't have them angled so that they are perpendicular to the noon sun in summer.
We even use rechargeable solar lights from bunnings just to navigate the house at night. I'm trying to cobble together something charges solid state capacitors so I don't have to use batteries.
I also pulled the rare earth magnets out of old hard disk drives and glued them to the back of these so we can stick the lights to the metal door frames inside our house or the downpipes outside and move them as needed.
28-07-2012, 06:21 PM
This is worth watching.
Dr Albert A Bartlett
Department of Physics
University Colorado at Boulder
28-07-2012, 09:55 PM
If everyone who is able to aford the cost of roof top panals was trying to do there best to minimise consumption through using less power I'd be all for it , but most I know see only the dollar savings on the bill while still running a pool pump ,air con ,and a house full of energy sucking god knows what while constantly bangin on about what they are doing for the enviroment ,,, but we get a credit on the our bill ,,, :P
And every time the sun don't shine and it gets around 3.00 pm please tell me how the enviroment benefits from having all our coal fired power stations ramping up to to meet the grids peak demand ? and its ongoing to as we will have to build more of them as that peak demand increases .
Those who genuinaly use less , more so at those peak times , or store and use , should also be where the big $ go in subsidies , not soley to those who scratch out a little middle class welfare because they
29-07-2012, 01:40 AM
Holy cow Barry 21c/kwh, how come you get it that cheap, we are in the Mid 30's now and still climbing. Shows the disparity between the states I quess. :( I am lucky I have solar panels, but I paid top dollar for them, (they are now half the price). I am very much aware of cutting on power as a matter of fact prior to having them installed, my daily consumption was around 20kw, now in summer it is as low as 6kw and during winter averaging 12kw. One thing is for sure, I am not using power like a drunken sailor now that I have solar, I believe if anything it has made me more aware of cutting back on useage to maximise the benefits of the panels. But the benefits are being eroded by the outlandish price hikes in power, which appear to have been much higher in SA than the eastern states, going by the kwh rates I have seen for the easterners.
29-07-2012, 09:24 AM
The single all day rate is around 21c. That's what I get. As long as I stay under 1750kWh then it jumps to 24c. I have 4 people in the house and I work from home. My last bill (Electricity only) came down to $335.00 for 90 days. We did 13kHw average opposed to 21kWh last bill and 18kWh last year same period. I haven't got solar panels yet but seriously considering it to offset my day consumption as I work from home 7:00am to 6:00pm so not interested in buy back rates.
What made a difference for me:
1_ change all lighting to LED. That suprisingly made a big difference. The biggest I think.
2_ Changed my 16yr old Fridge to a new one.
3_ change the way I do things around. (i.e use the electric oven less, don't leave PC unattended on, etc...)
If you average 7kWh per day your quarterly bill will increase by $150.00 roughly with the new tax being implemented and probably to 60% of what you're paying now within 2 years.
PS: I also talked to my supplier and they now give me 8% off my gas bill and 12% off my electricity bill if I signed for 2yrs with them which I didn't mind as I've been with them for over 17yrs now.
29-07-2012, 10:43 AM
Marc that says it all really, you pay 21c/kwh we pay 34c/kwh, that is a huge difference. And yes I have done all the things you suggest to cut back and more. Our summer rate is over 40c/kwh :mad2: How the hell can there be such a huge difference between the states????
29-07-2012, 11:18 AM
I have my electricity and gas with the one supplier. Peak charge between 2.00pm and 8.00pm was$0.406/Kwh, shoulder charge $0.1640/Kwh and off-peak $0.0960/Kwh, although these costs have gone up since 1/7/12
Certainly makes you think about when you use power!
29-07-2012, 11:40 AM
That's the thing Peter, I have a flat rate. If you have off peak and shoulder rates you'll pay way more than I do during the day (40c) but less at night (10-16c). This is part of your billing. Ring your supplier and see if you can change your rates. Maybe you can't because you might be using electric hot water and that would kill you on a single rate as well. I'm lucky I run Gas. Still cheap now but I won't hold my breath. These will change as well.
Your best bet is to insulate your house as best as you can and cut your consumption. It's not going to get any better but try to shop around.
Yes, if you have off peak and shoulder rates it makes sense. In my case it doesn't matter when as I use all day. Although for me it still makes sense to use gas hotwater for dish washer or washing machine during the day when it's not so cold.
29-07-2012, 01:39 PM
Marc, I dont have off peak rates, and the house is insulated. In any case I dont use electricity for heating, I have a slow combustion wood heater.
29-07-2012, 02:01 PM
No ideas why you guys pay through the nose down there. :shrug: Sucks to be in SA then. Sell and move over the border? Snake Valley ;)
29-07-2012, 02:27 PM
They have $200k more than us to pay for their power ;). Average house price in Syd $650k, average house price Adel $450k
29-07-2012, 02:30 PM
I generally reject that most people that have solar panels are more flippant with their power. Like Pete I have made modifications to our usage. Not that we were using much before we got panels. Our average bill was around $350 per quarter. We don't have lots of lights on during the night and all of them are low power units. I work from home too and have done for the last 10 years. Yet our usage was quite low.
Since putting on solar panels we are more conscious of our usage. We only have a 3kw system and that is working well for us. So far cost neutral on power bills and that is a factor worth considering. It is not only environmental but the cost of installation has to be offset by the panels themselves. When you have panels yourself you are trying to maximise the return faster so you will use less power. So to use a generalisation that most people with solar panels are just as wasteful is well not true. I know about 10 people with panels and everyone of those people are more energy conscious than people without them.
Power distribution and generation are probably most of the reason for differing prices. SA has to import a lot of power from the eastern states and also we have the largest wind farms in Australia. The cost of those things is almost prohibitive for residents here. Importing power from other providers is likely to cost more than generation ourselves and this would be a signification reason for higher prices. Knowing business this cost is off set plus a 5-10% clearance margin. Going from state owned to public is generally been considered a bad move here and I hear this from other state commentators too. There is also the cost of replacing infrastructure. ETSA utilities is being forced to upgrade 30 and 40 year old infrastructure and that has to be paid for somehow. A simple irony is that we paid for all the gear and yet are being forced to pay for its use all the time via the service charge.
Added to this is the fact that we do not have off peak except for hot water systems. We have a flat rate all year round for general power. This is because we do not generally have smart meters here. My wife's house has a smart meters as we asked for it specifically when we got panels (my house had one because it is only 6 years old). When everyone in this state has those then I am sure off peak power consumption will come into vogue.
Until then I suspect the power companies will continue to push up prices where they can.
29-07-2012, 02:40 PM
I agree, Paul. When I put solar panels in, I checked the meter readings weekly and kept a written record of my power generation for the first year-that gave me a good average for the amount of power my panels generated. I became very conscious of what I was consuming and what I was generating-changed all the light bulbs, tried to use power at more economic times of day etc.
30-07-2012, 12:59 PM
You are exactly right with this. Panels are producing a small fraction of their rated power during what you'd normally consider peak energy consumption hours. So you still need all the power capacity you have now to meet demand. Unfortunately ramping coal stations up and down is very costly as it wears them out faster. The modern coal stations actually suffer more through this than the old clunkers that aren't combined cycle.
The funny thing about this is, less power consumed but needing the same power infractructure = higher cost per unit of electricity.
30-07-2012, 10:45 PM
Noting the price increases, I also note that the bulk generation price in $/MWHr have not really increased at the rate of retail prices. The prices being paid to generators only a few weeks ago is still similar to those being paid to generators 5 to 10yrs ago. Obviously this market is subject to large fluctuations when a machine falls over or near a weekend where a large thermal station may be paid as low as a few $/MWhr to stay on to avoid a costly run down and run up (on diesel oil - all the coal fired stns I'v worked at start on oil and shut down on oil).
Very interesting to observe (to my perception) the increasing gap between bulk and retail prices paid/charged.
On another note, I just returned from a recent trip to Europe where we are buying a small 40MW generator for new power station up north. The guys at the factory took us to their latest machine, a single 1800MW monster. This thing is going to a new nuclear power station. It takes 4yrs to build and the size of apartment block. This is only the generator - not the turbine.
Consider a grid (eg Europe) that has generation in the 10,000s of MW and try and base load that reliably & economically with the current technological offerings for renewable energy. Wind and solar are inherently chaotic sources. They can not be reliably predicted when required for base load.
I am a strong believer in distributed solar and the concept of distributed generation but the engineering reality must also be taken into consideration.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.