That Electricity rip-off again

[AndrewJ]

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.

Andrew

[icytailmark (Mark)]

invest in solar panels. My electricity company pays me a cheque every quarter.

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

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.

In the current geo-political environment that is not going to happen

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???

Vested interests me thinks!

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 :-)

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.

That will swamp any gains we make by switching off a few lights in Oz.

We have to start somewhere. To do nothing is to admit defeat.

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by icytailmark

invest in solar panels. My electricity company pays me a cheque every quarter.

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.

[swannies1983 (Dan)]

Originally Posted by icytailmark

invest in solar panels. My electricity company pays me a cheque every quarter.

Not easy when you rent!

[icytailmark (Mark)]

take the big step and buy a house!!! Worth it in the long run

[swannies1983 (Dan)]

Not going to happen at this point in time

[Exfso (Peter)]

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.

[Zhou (Mick)]

This looks promising:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-...le-energy.aspx

[AndrewJ]

Gday Mick

Furthermore, businesses require a growing market to increase their profits. Thats what it comes down to, profits! For good or for ill.

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 )

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 )

Andrew

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Hi Mick
There is the rusting hulk of a wave power generator lying in the water near Wollongong apparently-says how developed that technology is.

[icytailmark (Mark)]

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.

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Hi Mick
There is the rusting hulk of a wave power generator lying in the water near Wollongong apparently-says how developed that technology is.

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:
http://www.emec.org.uk/
http://www.wavec.org/index.php/1/home/
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):
http://www.all-energy.com.au/Exhibition_2012.html

[Larryp (Laurie)]

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.

[Colin_Fraser]

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.

[pgc hunter]

Originally Posted by clive milne

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.

Are you for real?? 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!

Originally Posted by clive milne

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.

I assume you have a proposal to replace both fossil fuels and nuclear power?

Under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees (Celsius) or even more," Professor Tony McMichael said.

Booze ain't cutting it anymore, I want what Tony McMichael is having

Originally Posted by clive milne

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.

Guess what, those "scientists" are closet drug addicts.
Here is the irrefutable, conclusive proof:

"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."

The only thing they should be worried about is strapping themselves to a bed and come down from what ever smack they're on.

btw) Anyone care to challenge the scientific basis for this argument...?

Yes. I accept the challenge.

[Astro_Bot]

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.

[Zhou (Mick)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

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.

I don't think we should get nuclear war confused with nuclear power

[clive milne]

fwiw) Here is a press release from Purdue University relating to the long term climate modelling I referred to earlier:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...berLimits.html

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.

[clive milne]

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.