That Electricity rip-off again

[iceman (Mike)]

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.

[clive milne]

Cool, and thanks.

Originally Posted by iceman

Noone's denying global warming is a debate that needs to be had.

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.

[marki]

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.

Mark

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by marki

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.

Mark

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.

[clive milne]

Point being;
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.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

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.

[marki]

Originally Posted by clive milne

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.

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.


Mark

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by marki

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.

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.

[Barrykgerdes]

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.

Barry

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Larryp

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.

Hey Larry,
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.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by Larryp

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.

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?

In June 2010, a report from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ment_Programme declared that a global shift towards a vegan diet was needed to save the world from hunger, fuel shortages and climate change.

Spending billions to find a solution and they come up with this

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Talk about experts, what do you make of this?

Spending billions to find a solution and they come up with this

Being that meat production is one of the largest contributors to GHGE directly, and indirectly through deforestation, the study is not without merit.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

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!

[2stroke (Jay)]

hmm "volcanoes" http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Scopie (Brad)]

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

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
Sorry Clive Milne, but if you make such ridiculous statements you can expect some flak

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.

[Scopie (Brad)]

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!

[Scopie (Brad)]

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.

[clive milne]

This is worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Dr Albert A Bartlett
Professor Emeritus
Department of Physics
University Colorado at Boulder

[GrahamL]

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 ,,,

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
can.

[Exfso (Peter)]

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.