The carbon tax is wonderful

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.
Maybe if they spent 3 months on a construction site in the middle of summer, doing hard yakka, they might appreciate better what they should be doing as politicians.
I tune out to the petty whinging and bickering that is thrown down our throats on the idiot box every bloody night of the week.

Lawyer's make pretty decent coin, a lot more than politicians.
I find it hard to believe them, when they preach about making the country/world a better place for mankind, etc, etc.

Maybe it's the whole power trip thing, flying first class for free, chauffeur driven cars. Free this, free that!
The politicians these days behave more like rockstars than public servants.

What do you blokes reckon?
Why would you become a politician if you already are a practising lawyer?

Justin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinmcf

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.

---

Justin

I don't know the stats either. I currently work with an ex MP. He is an electrician by trade. I was talking from personal experience in my earlier post.

My one time accountant is also the leader of a political party.

Why do they do it? Good question.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinmcf

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.
.

---

Yeah...me neither...I know a couple and have come to the conclusion that ...the desire to become a politician should automatically exclude you from ever becoming one

I live in the Southern Highlands and work in the Sydney CBD. I made the decision to return to working in Sydney over 3 years ago, and at the time I evaluated what my options were regarding transport. I could take the train to and from Bowral each day - 5 hours per day on a train. Or I could drive to work each day - roughly 5 hours per day in the car (which I could reduce if I left home each morning at 5am and then didn't drive home again until 7pm - but that would leave me with less than 8.5 hours per day at home).

I knew that in my field any job I took would mean a minimum of 10 hours a day at work. So I decided that I would stay up in the city during the week, in spite of that meaning that I would not see my family during the week. It took me a year or two to get used to that emotional upheaval, but I still think it was the right decision.

Then I looked at options for living in the city during the week. Given the appalling state of PT in Sydney after 15 years of being mis-managed by the most corrupt and incompetent state government in Australia, I decided that I would live close enough to the CBD to walk to work. And that is what I do.

Would I choose to live up here if I didn't have to work to support my family? No, not in a pink fit. Would I prefer to be able to work close enough to my family so that I didn't have to live apart from them during the week? Absolutely. Unfortunately my circumstances are what they are (there are reasons which I won't go into), and thus I live the way I have to live.

If anyone believes that the government will do good things with the money that they collect with the carbon tax then they should look at how the government spends the tax they already collect. Wake up people - this is another tax! They'll do the same with this lot of money that they do with the rest of it - waste whatever they can't steal.

Undie

I suspect it is a power quest in at least some measure. It is an authority that is handed to them when they are successful in winning an election.

However there are then a couple of problems. Firstly they are bound by the policies of their political persuasion ( and arguably without which they would not have been successful) whether they believe them or not. Therein lies the potential for their first deception.

Secondly, just because they were sufficiently articulate and persuasive enough to become elected, it does not mean they have any real ability. How does that old story go? The one that says in a company structure we are promoted to our own level of incompetence.

Clearly in politics that can happen very quickly. They can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk Then we are stuck with them and if they are in a safe seat we are stuck with them for a very long time.

Regards
Paul

Sick as a dog this week.

The trouble is to get into parliament you can either run as an independent and be limited in what you can achieve (unless you get a hung parliament) or you go up through the party system.

Labour - lawyer (flowery language, paper shuffling and lies), union official (corruption and thuggery), suck up get elected and held to ransom by party officials and factions. Anyone well intentioned bailed early, and well you see what's left.

Coalition - lawyer (see above), businessman (white collar thief), beholding to back room party officials and corporate mates all of whom expect payback.

So if you've hung around long enough to be a sitting member your either incompetant and incapable of getting a better paid job, an egomaniac/power mad, setting yourself up for cushy jobs post parliment (Beatie et al), filling up your swiss bank account (Hawke et al).

Unfortunately the system has sunk to the point where it prohibits anyone representative of the wider community actually getting power. The last one IMO was Gorton.

Apart from the oppressive invasion of privacy, the tremendous weight given to image and spin, the party system itself is riddled with thugs and thieves.

I'll say it again. The occupy protests are a complete waste of time, badly targeted and pointing at the wrong people. What we need is an electors education protest, driving some reality and engagement into the minds of the disinterested voters. We need the great majority of voters to:

understand the basics of how the system works

know ahead of the next election what each candidate in their electorate stands for

have some idea of where they stand on the issues

to then vote for a representative who reflects their ideas, whatever they may be.

Until we get there we might as well live in a dictatorship.

I have a little information on solar power, as in that which you place on your roof and if you have got it right feed into the grid.

We had a solar power representative come around and give us a talk. So if I can put forward some of the information in point form:

The states have used their allocation of subsidised solar energy with the exception of QLD.

The RECs (renewable energy certificates, which is the means by which you may be entitled to assistence), vary in number according to the solar zone you live in and in value because they are traded on the share market. Currently they are around $28. A month or so ago they were $22, but during their history they have fluctuated.

44c is the price for feeding back into the grid set by the government, but some retailers are offering more. This is at their discretion and normally is a result of competition. Where we are there is only one retailer available so it's 44c, but in other areas it could be 50c.

Where a price has been set, it should continue even though the scheme is no longer available.

I asked about how long 44c would be paid and there is for the moment some ambiguity here. The solar company's representative said until 2028. I checked with Ergon and they said it was up for review all the time and there was no guarantee.

I checked on the net with the Electricity Act 2008 (ammended) and in Part 3, section 10 and section 11 it appears to say that whatever price is contracted, will continue until 2028 or for twenty years. I have to pursue this one on Monday as I was unable to get back to Ergon today.

The tarrif (44c) is paid on any surplus power fed into the grid. Not on the aggregate and not on gross power generated.

I still have to check whether I would be entitled to off peak hot water if I enetered into this scheme. I believe this may disappear.

There are three types of PV (photovoltaic) panels

Mono Crystalline. These are the best, will be more expensive, require fewer panels for a given output and will have the best longevity (also reflected in the longest guarantees.)

Poly Crystalline. The next best and still worth considering.

Thin Film. Very cheap. Be wary. You may not even be getting what you are paying for here. To my mind you need them to last a minimum of twenty years. It seems unlikely these will last. Also their production of power is significantly less than the other two types of cell.

Hope this will help anybody contemplating embarking on this scheme.

Regards
Paul

Great information, thanks!

Just a little extra information following another couple of phone calls.

The federal government sets the subsidy. It is 44c per kwh. It is set in concrete untill 2028 as the ammended electricty act of 2008 states. If the act was repealed or altered this could change the rate, but it would need an act of parliament.

In reality I can't imagine this happening for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the government has to reduce it's carbon emissions somehow and this was also a commitment made under the Kyoto arrangement.

Secondly, the 44c subsidy is fixed and while it looks very attractive for the moment, by 2028 I would expect the price the consumer pays for electricity to be in excess of that. It could easily be 50c per kwh.

However that would mean your system, assuming it is still functioning, would be saving that off your bill. Any excess generated would presumeably (my guess) be bought at the wholesale rate, which might by that time be 10c to 15c per kwh.

The wholesale price of electricity varies from state to state, but on average for the year, at this time, is around 3c to 4c per kwh! Currently our retail price to the consumer is 22c.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The federal government sets the subsidy. It is 44c per kwh. It is set in concrete untill 2028 as the ammended electricty act of 2008 states. If the act was repealed or altered this could change the rate, but it would need an act of parliament.

---

I think you will find that it is the State and Territory Governments who set the subsidy. There's a good table of the current situation state by state on the energymatters website.

I wouldn't hold too much stead on the ending date of the programs as long as you have peace of mind until theoretical payback. It looks pretty certain that the price we pay for power by then will be well in excess of the FIT. If the government holds the solar generators to the FIT (and don't adjust the rate) it may even land up as a disadvantage: Maybe in 20 years we could pay 60c+ and get 44c; doesn't look so good then.

woodbe

Woodbe

A good link.

One of the reasons only QLD still has the scheme available is that it elected to use a net feed in tarrif. In other words at any moment of the day excess generation above your useage is bought by the retailer at 44c (Ergon for example in our area).

Other states, but not all, had a gross feed tarrif which meant that all power generated was bought at the feed in tarrif (44c) and any power consumed was paid for at the normal rate (around 22c). This was clearly most attractive and arguably over generous. It is probably the main reason that the allocation was used fairly quickly in those states.

On the subject of future electricty pricing, if the rate goes to, for arguments sake 50c per kwh, your solar system will be saving you that much. This would be power for free if the system paid for itself during the intervening years.

The only thing it will not be doing is earning you significant income. Your electricty bill, depending on your system's capability will be subsidised.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

On the subject of future electricty pricing, if the rate goes to, for arguments sake 50c per kwh, your solar system will be saving you that much. This would be power for free if the system paid for itself during the intervening years.

---

Paul,

If the FIT remains at 44c and the price for power goes to 50c, then you would get 6c less for every kwh you export than what you pay for the power you import. In a NET FIT meter, these are separate registers in the meter, and are read separately by the meter reader. Whether this eliminates the bill depends upon the size of the system and the amounts imported and exported.

Installations that produce the same kwh as consumed over a year would then go from a net income situation to a net expense situation. Those that just manage to eliminate their bill currently will see it steadily grow as the power prices rise (assuming their consumption remains the same)

At any rate, it would certainly offset part of the bill but it would not be as overwhelmingly positive as the current scenario in the states that still offer FIT to new installations.

woodbe

Woodbe

That is pretty much correct. In addition to changes in the cost of power there are a few other variables.

Different households have differing consumptions of electricity and differing times as to when that power might be used.

Take a household with two people where both work during the day. During the hours of 9 to 4 when most of the solar energy is generated, nearly all that energy will be fed into the grid. Probably the only consumtion would be from the fridge and that would be minimal (no one opening the door). This would provide the best result for the consumer.

However, take a household where there is a family of five with only one adult working and three small children at home and the oucome is very different. Usage during the day is now high and possibly no generation is returned to the grid.

Ideally solar users should manage their power so that daytime consumption is minimised. Once the retail price per kwh exceeds the feed in tarrif the philosophy should be reversed.

In practice this would be difficult to achieve 100% and there would only be a tendency to have either day or night bias.

Off-peak tarrifs also further complicate how the use of power should be managed.

Regards
Paul

Yep. Once the cost of power exceeds the FIT, you're better off if your generated power gets used in the home than exported only to be re-imported later. Not so easy for most.

Dunno how they manage offpeak in Qld (I thought they used time-of-use instead of offpeak up there?) but down here offpeak is a separate meter, separate power circuit in the home, and a separate line on the bill. The offpeak circuit is remotely turned on for several hours a night by the electricity authority.

woodbe