Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
Fish ponds, a swimming pool, enough electronics to start a Jaycar franchise and two huge AC units make it all add up. I would put more solar up but there is no more roof area suitable. The AC was on yesterday and the consumption with just one unit working was over 10kwh. We had a data logger from Fronius installed with the solar and it really shows the true story for better or worse.
Even in this quite small house the June-Sept gas bill was $530, and that is with the so called "loss making" discounts I get. $80 for daily supply, say $30 for the cooking stove, and $420 for the Central Heating gas usage (about $4.70 per day). I didn't have all that much firewood this year (and at $180/tonne which lasts for about 3 weeks - or $9/day - I wasn't about to buy any). Last year was the first time in ten years that I purchased firewood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
For the last 2-3 years I have been entering the energy bill data into a spreadsheet so I know exactly what is going on. I hadn't entered the Origin bills for the last 9 months until a couple of days ago.
Well they are certainly not exempt from the usual shenanigans of "How can we make this bill even harder to read for no good reason?". In fact, so desperate are they to achieve this that they fabricated two rate changes within a week on one electricity bill, and two so-called rate changes on another - except the rate didn't change AT ALL!
That is just in an effort to add two pages of irrelevant IDENTICAL numbers to the bill to confuse people who don't necessarily understand these things.
As for having a "Contract" with them, I really do wish that someone with enough money would take these mongrels on in court, because their behaviour is unconscionable. I would have thought that a contract means they will supply X product for Y cost for Z months or years, but I'd be wrong about that.
For those who are not numerically minded, please bear with me because the numbers tell the truth and show the attitude.
Origin Gas over the four bills of the last 12 months (and keep your eye on the first bracket in each bill):
Bill 1. 51 days of late Spring to early summer
0-1056 MJ at 3.70 cents
1057-2096 at 2.5 cents
Bill 2. 91 days of summer when gas usage is down......
0-1885 MJ at 3.70 cents
So you can see that because the usage will be low in summer they increase the threshold from 1056 to 1885.
Bill 3. 92 days of Autumn (cool up here)
0-1906 MJ at 3.70 cents
1907-3781 at 2.5 cents
3781+ at 2.4 cents
so that's another effective price increase that will earn them significant money over Bill 1 rates. 4% increase as it turns out.
Bill 4. 90 days of Winter, but with a rate change after 16 days
So 16 days of
0-331 MJ at 3.70 cents
332-658 at 2.5 cents
659+ at 2.4 cents
then 74 days of (and I think this is when Turnbull started barking at the Gas industry)
0-1533 at 3.59 cents
1534-3041 at 2.42 cents
3042+ at 2.33 cents
and the supply charge dropped by ~2c per day
So my bills were
1. $64.71 ($1.27/day)
2. $42.97 (47c/day for summer cooking)
3. $270.85 ($2.95/day for Autumn)
4. $530.21 ($5.89/day for Winter)
Noo then, because I have a spreadsheet I can really easily work out what the bills would have been if I had a PROPER contract on the same rates that I signed up for.
Standby.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill 1 & 2 would be the same (because I used bugger all gas in summer for Bill 2 - which begs the question of "why then change the rates at all - nobody is heating?")
Bill 3 cost me $10.47 more than it should have. This is a 4% increase in one quarter.
Bill 4 was where there was a price drop. If it had continued at the Bill 3 rates it would have cost me $14.45 extra. At the original rates it would have cost me $4 extra.
The point being that overall there was no real price drop - a mere 0.75% over the original rates, but dressed up to look like 2.75%.
Furthermore, the "contract" says
"We change the charges from time to time, generally in July. We'll let you know if they change."
JOHN ELLIOT response again! Four times in nine months including twice in one quarter. And no, they didn't advise me (oh, except on the bill where the charges at the new rates are calculated).
As near as I can tell, the contract boils down to:
"We'll give you the same discount for the contracted period, but we'll change the rates to suit ourselves, any time we like, and as often as we like. And we'll charge you an exit fee if you think our rates have become too high."
Three apparently different rates within 24 hours:
Attachment 445223
That was for 11 days, then we have a new rate for one day, and then a new rate for the next 79 days:
Attachment 445224
NO! WAIT! They're all the same rate. Not even a fifth decimal place difference!:doh:
If that's not deliberate obfuscation, then I don't know what is.
Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-...-2018/10491734
That of course makes the Australian economy susceptible in the longer term, given the amount of coal we export, so the various Govts need to plan carefully for the inevitable demise of coal.
That appears to be a little bit of a loaded article.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
What they are saying is that 60% of NEW electricity plants being built are using renewables, I would of thought that that was a given and probably won’t impact on coal use much would it?
Wont the coal demand be pretty strong for the coal plants that are already in place now and will continue for the foreseeable future.
I don't see how it can be characterised as "loaded" when the very first sentence says "Renewable energy has surpassed fossil fuels worldwide as the main source of new electricity generation". Not like it was buried in the article somewhere, and very clear from the outset what the premise of the article was. Apparently it wasn't a given until just recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
As Coal Power Stations collectively get to their end of life then coal demand will have to wane, and Australia will need to proof itself against that loss of revenue - that is what I meant by the longer term. As I recall the IPCC says we have to get rid of coal by 2050 to have any chance of keeping the warming to 1.5° so that means that Coal stations will be closing before their use-by-date (if it happens, that is) given that they are still being built particularly in Asia. They would be here too if the current Govt gets its way). I am not across all the future demand issues though.
Uh, it looks to me like the threshold is a daily use threshold, not a set one for the period of the bill which will obviously be different each time. So it's obviously going to be different for each bill. The charge rate is identical for all 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
You've lost me. Yes the charge rate is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobbieB
Bill 1. 51 days of late Spring to early summerQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
0-1056 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day
1057-2096 at 2.5 cents -- or 20.4 MJ/day
Bill 2. 91 days of summer when gas usage is down......
0-1885 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day
Bill 3. 92 days of Autumn (cool up here)
0-1906 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day
1907-3781 at 2.5 cents -- or 20.4 MJ/day
Ok, I see that now. It's a pretty daft way of expressing it though - they talk about the first nnMJ per day in the contract and then never mention in again as such. They just issue a bill which is completely confusing because they only refer to the first xxMJ per quarter (88-92 days depending on the meter read day). In fact they have no idea on how many MJ per day I use - they just average it anyway.
To avoid the confusion they only need to quote the daily MJ usage brackets, like "First 20.7 MJ/day" but I guess that would make the bill easier to read. I still can't find any reason whatsoever for the three different blocks of charges in the April-July bill (images posted). Not even the Govt rebate rate changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I agree that the article was not loaded. Actually I think it was your original statement that could be misconstrued in post #351:
"Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:"
:D
However, I don't believe that was your intent, but it does show how easy it is for a comment to be interpreted incorrectly and then some other entity picks it up and runs with it as if that is absolutely true. In fact when I first read your statement, I thought "%^&*," that's not true, and read the link. All was then apparent.
I was having a short conversation with SWMBO regarding coal (I think that if we could harness the steam that comes out of her ears on the subject of coa, land also Telstra, we would have no need for coal :rolleyes: ) and there are two distinct types to my mind. I don't mean black coal and brown coal, I mean coking coal and the absolute rubbish coal we burn in coal fired power stations. While there is still the need for coal to smelt iron ore the coking coal industry will continue to flourish. At some point in the future even that may be redundant. My impression is that, and somebody will have to correct me if this is wrong, electric arc furnaces are for re-heating and using steel ingots rather than the initial process: The old BOS style process or it's modern derivatives still require coal.
Power stations have a usual life of around 40 years before they become outdated, broken down and generally uneconomic. The last four stations in Australia were built post 2000 with Kogan creek in 2007. So all of them will be nudging the pension by the mid forties. I am not sure of the last station built in the other states, but they are older.
One of the reasons SA got rid of it's coal fired station was that they were too old and nobody wished to fork out for a thermal station that was not going to go the distance: In fact to continue the pugilistic metaphor they may well suffer a KO before 2050. They really did not have too many options.
Regards
Paul
Yeah, agreed. I musta bin loaded when I typed it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Kogan sure has diversified quickly for a young fella. No wonder Gerry Harvey can't stand him.
My Son has had the dubious pleasure of travelling to Canberra for the purpose of speaking to politicians involved in decision making re renewable energy options. He, along with others from the various companies were able to present their case over a two day period. This was followed up by another session a few weeks later.
End result - the Company reps took away some valuable information, but the Polys seemed to be struggling to gain any traction.
While ever our parliamentary benches are filled with lawyers and accountants the introduction of progressive thinking is going to be hard won to say the least. I dotting and T crossing will always take precedent over common sense until such time as a few forward thinkers find their way into the House of Stoush.