VOTERS NETWORK ACTION FORUM
Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
Angus1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 16
 #1 
There is a lot to be said for Margaret's comment way back on 4 Jan 2019.
We seem to have these remarkable developments, but they don't seem to gain any real traction. There seems to be so many technical advances that just don't become mainstream.
Clearly, the major energy suppliers do not see these advances that Margaret mentioned as being in their own best interest, and probably lobby hard to ensure the status quo remains as it is.
And the Govt. of course tends to go allong any path where active preferences are expressed, even if it does not improve society.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #2 
We are an energy conscious family and our household energy bills have always been less than the average for our size of household, and generally we are not too concerned about the cost.  i am more concerned about the method of generation of the energy we use.
Thus i don't mind if we pay a bit extra for what we know of these days as 'clean' or 'renewable' energy.  However, i have to say that if all subsidies for the different methods of generating electricity were eliminated then the energy from the renewable resources would turn out to be cheaper and getting more cheaper than using fossil fuel resources.  unfortunately our federal government has refused to listen to that argument up to now.  however, the mood is changing and i think if we can create a task force to add to the voices for change we will get somewhere.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #3 
Perhaps people are not really worried about energy costs at all. Are you?
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #4 
This is an important issue and each party is supporting the interests of its membership base. Or is it? The government of the day will adopt the policy the vast majority of voters want when those voters express their views to MPs in a non-party-political way. Why not get involved in this discussion and make it happen?
0
Margaret3

Registered:
Posts: 7
 #5 
Biodigestors are being used successfully on farms. They take in waste food and sewerage and convert it to Methane Gas (same as fracking without the transport infrastructure and environmental damage required) and liquid fertilizer (black gold). If we had these installed in all hospitals, shopping centres, offices etc. the gas could be used to heat water and power generators. It would reduce the cost of dealing with waste and reduce energy costs.  Solar powered, aquaponic hydroponic superfood (Nutrient dense) garden systems which would produce food in places it is needed.


There are so many great inventions regarding energy creation and storage - gravity fed batteries, energy produced from water running through pipes, turbines on the top of buildings and in the middle of motorways driven by the motion of cars. The future lies in a multi-pronged approach to energy creation and storage, but politicians are too focused on the past to provide infrastructure for our future. 
0
Margaret

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 8
 #6 
I have seen King Island Power provided entirely by a very small outfit of wind turbines and solar grids. So it is out there being done.I think they may have escaped the Poles and Wires Privatisation rip-off.

I cannot see that the 15 salt storage towers and solar arrays known to be sufficient for all Australia and electric transport needs , after paying of the initial costs, would not improve the cost of power. Unfortunately we have the Poles and Wires again!
0
Angus1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 16
 #7 
No matter what the highly trained professional's tell us about climate change, and no matter that they are reporting a factual situation, they appear to be unable to present their case forcefully enough to overcome the 'far-right coal huggers' (FRCH).  If a certain previous Prime Minister is an Oxford Don, then one must assume he really can discern the truth - so then why is he the vocal front for the FRCH ? ?  Are lobbyists that persuasive and influencial that this intelligent man can't see the coal lobby for what it is ? ?   Hmmm.....  Meanwhile energy policy continues to be continually deferred.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #8 
We have solar panels on our roof.  obtained as a result of buying an air conditioner in time for last summer, and then me thinking that if i got solar power on the roof it would be operating at the time we needed the air conditioning  so it would not cost anything to run.  i did a rough analysis that told me it would be about a 5-year pay-back period assuming that we also got other daytime usage 'free'.  it has not turned out as well as i had hoped, but is still worth doing.  THE big thing i see wrong with the way it works is that [in my case]  we pay $0.30/KWH to the electricity supplier when we use electricity from the grid, but only get back $0.10/KWH when we feed electricity into the grid.  This is in rounded figures that means we are paid only 30% of the price we pay as a user.  I believe that is completely unfair to the retail user of electricity and should be changed.  There is also a standard connection fee charged by the supplier which in my case amounts to an additional 30% on the electricity usage.  [note we are a comparatively low energy user, so for the average consumer the %age would be less].
if the provider of our electricity is only paying 1/3rd of the charge to the actual supplier of the electricity, then that is an enormous profit margin for a near monopoly set up!  Note that the connection fee is what pays for the poles and wires etc of the distribution network.  --  we, the consumer is paying for that.
my proposal is that we pressure our MPs to bring in legislation to compel the electricity suppliers to pay at least 75% of the charge made by the supplier onto the user.  this would mean that as electricity supply costs go up, then so does the amount paid go up, and visa-versa. 
I am not a believer in government subsidies as that distorts the market, unless that is done deliberately to encourage a type of usage, so the subsidy is really a separate argument.  this price argument is about fairness to all.  Just as the power stations have to lay out capital to provide the power which they sell and should be recompensed accordingly, so should we retailers who have to lay out capital to install solar power be compensated fairly.
similarly i believe the connection fee is the wrong way to make that charge, but that is also a separate argument.
more thoughts and reactions please.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #9 
How many people actually feed power back into the grid? We first use the power we generate on our roof and then we use the power from the electiricty retailer. That means that the power we generate from solar is actually saving us the cost of that power at retail. I think we would need a lot of panels for us to be covering all our own power needs and then sending more back to the power company. I wonder if I have it right. Interested in what others think.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #10 
I would like to persuade our politicians to legislate to get the power providing companies to pay the people feeding electric power into the grid a fair rate for their input.  it is currently paying out only 30% of what it charges a user of power.  I believe it should be 75%  of the rate.  Most of this would be from roof top solar power systems.  fixing it to a proportion like this would have 3 effects:  '1' the roof top installations will pay for themselves sooner, so individual households will benefit immediately, and '2' the households payback will tend to keep up with inflation [and inflated costs!], and '3' it gets rid of any arguments about a policy being 'green' or greenhouse contributing.  This will get away from any government subsidies  If the suppliers want to pay less than 75% then they will have to justify the cost by proving that they have to pay that to the major power station providers.  if they claim their payment to the suppliers is less than the 75%, then they are admitting to a gross overcharge and profit.  now I feel sure that the payments to the power stations are actually more than the 75%, so it will also show that the individual supplier will still be contributing to the profits of the company.  overall it is a win-win with the Government keeping out of the way of subsidising any body or company,  AND bringing into the open all the costs and subsidies etc. thus making the power sourcing problem a pure economic one.
what do people think about this as a single issue to take up?
0
Sharon

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #11 
Australia needs to get out of the Paris Climate Agreement! We have given up our manufacturing, turning it over to India/Asia (the poorer nations), our politicians have destroyed millions of dollars worth of coal powered infrastructure under the guise of becoming ‘green’. Those countries we gave our manufacturing to, now have ‘clean’ coal power stations. All our natural resources, and we’re sending it off to be processed!
1
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #12 
it will indeed be interesting to see the response you get.  I remember seeing that argument put forward in the newspaper a few weeks ago.  It is my belief that it is pure obfuscation on someone's part in order to give the impression that the rest of the population is having to pay more because of those who install solar at their homes.  the argument is that if you install solar, then you do not pay the electricity supply company as much money as you would otherwise, so the cost of installing all the poles and wires will have to be borne by everyone else on their bills, therefore the non solar users become the subsidisers of the solar users.  by this argument of course the biggest users are subsidising the lowest users, no matter what.  The fact is that we all share the cost in proportion to our use.  if people do not accept that as a fair way to charge out, then we will have the situation where a 10Kw/week user will have to pay EXACTLY the same for the use of power distribution as the 100MegaW/week user.  would that be fair?  I think not.  As it is now, various heavy users of electricity have been and are still being subsidised by all of us in the name of providing employment in a particular area by reducing the cost of power to a business so that it sets up business where the government wants them to go.  OVERALL if people install solar power to save themselves cost, and thus reduce the need for that power to be created elsewhere, then we all benefit.  [and no -- i have not ignored any subsidy that the government gives to install solar as i know this also distorts the actual costs too].  I have seen enough articles on this subject considering all these different costs and subsidies to know that what we call renewable and non-polluting power has been subsidised in the past to get it off the ground, but we are now in a position that costs are about equal with coal and gas fired electric power, and 'renewable' power costs are coming down.
what I have ignored deliberately is any argument about the need to do something about global warming, an what it should be that we have to do.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #13 
I have just been told, in response to a Votergram asking how solar subsidies could increase power prices for other consumers, that " Subsidies increase electricity prices in this case because the subsidies are funded by charging every one else extra on their power bill. "
I am flabergasted! The government gave the impression that it was providing the subsidies and the assumption would be that they came from consolidated revenue. Now I am being told that in fact the subsidies were being compulsorily and secretly extracted from other power consumers. I have sought evidence of the explanation I have been given. It will be interesting to learn just how this was dealt with on the bills of those who were charged extra to provide the subsidies. I hope that no fraud has been committed on electricity consumers who did not take up solar power. Time alone will tell.

 

0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #14 
I am with you Mick1. The article by Ross Gittins in today's paper   (SMH Business p4) shows how badly our politicians have served Australians. Will you join an Action Team if we set one up to do a bit of research then start pushing our politicians to start performing for our benefit. I idly speculate that we could get a reductioon of up to 50% over the next 5 years, continually moving towards clean energy. As a retired Chartered Accountant who has run  various businesses it think we need to get the profit-motive out of power supply and the service-motive back in. If you would like to join us on a trip of power price discovery, let us know on this forum and encourage anyone you know who might be interested, to lend a hand. Voters Network does not receive funding from anyone and that is pitifully small, so we can achieve  lot only when voter actually join in the work of change.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #15 
Miki makes good points. I am a fan of rooftop solar for home owners as I feel that we are all taken for a ride by power suppliers and benefit from being independent. What does latest coal technology do? What do others think of it and rooftop solar?
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.