Article just out
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wor...-ng-b88986358z
Printable View
Article just out
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wor...-ng-b88986358z
In the news today (too much solar power for Victoria's system :doh:)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...arket/10405210
We really do need our Fed, State and Local Govts to start talking to each other about power. WOULDN'T THAT BE GOOD!! We might actually get somewhere fast, and start leading the world like we should be (with our sunlight resources to make use of)
Heh heh, I can see it now:
The Department of Power
Idiot politicians will be falling over themselves to get that portfolio. :roflmao2:
Remember that? That's where we were a year or so ago - not that I object at all to the direction that the discussion has gone - very enlightening.
Well guess what? It's a year later and Origin are saying that some of my discounts are going to expire. They reckon that the Gas discount of 20% has to come down to 17%, and electrickery has to come down from 28% to 21%.
JOHN ELLIOT RESPONSE TO THAT!
Now Origin are a bit smarter about these things than AGL. The avid reader of this thread will recall that it took me something like 53 phone calls to get it all sorted out last year, and only after tremendous cockups by AGL. In the end I said to Origin "why don't you just put me through to your retention team, and we can save each other's time?".
So they did.
That's how I got what appear to be excellent discounts.
Today I had to talk to Origin about another matter, and "Steph" happened to say that one of the discounts was about to drop off, blah blah as described in the 2nd para above. I suggested that she tell her manager that this was going to be another giant waste of time for both parties dancing around to the same old tune. Her manager said she could put me through to retention. They called me back 5 minutes later, plans extended for another 12 months. I congratulated her on reducing last year's mammoth 53 phone calls to just 2 this time, and that next year, because I am going to make a diary note to call her directly in the first week of October, the phone calls will reduce by another 50% and we'll do it in one call.
Still took an hour of my time though. :D
Even though Origin are a bit smarter about it than AGL, they still try it on. They're trying to tell me that the discounts I am on are loss making for them.
Another John Elliot response!
Why the hell would they be bothered giving me a loss making discount just so I don't leave? It is not logical Captain!
They may not be making very much out of me, but there is no way they would subsidise my bills just so I don't leave - I'm just not quite that likeable! :;
AGL installed a smart meter for us (???) in September. No mention of any tariff changes leading up to the change, but no sooner is it in and they send me an email with new peak, shoulder and off-peak prices that made my eyes water (and my blood heat up to uncomfortable levels). The peak and shoulder rates were only 1c per kwh different and were 24% more than the previous general usage tariff. Guess what discount we were on - yeah that's right 24%. To rub salt in to the wound the email started, " We recently reviewed your account and found that the pricing originally quoted for your energy plan at....... was incorrect." Naturally I looked around for a better deal, and found one. Once AGL realise we're leaving they come back to us with a 32% discount, which results in an almost identical bill to the new supplier.
I hate all this sort of c#$p! None of these companies are worthy of our custom, but most of us have to use someone. Why is it so much more viable for them to get a new customer than to keep an old one? We'd been with AGL for about 5 years. Maybe if enough people leave and tell them why they'll finally get it.
I look back on the days of the Sydney County Council and think how good we had it. The price was what it was and this is how much you owe us.
About 6 months after I had the house retired and a new meter fitted, AGL sent me a letter to say they were going to install a Smart Meter. I rang thrm up and asked why. They said it was so the meter could be read without coming on the property. They were very cagey when I asked about various changing charges at various times so I said - “no thanks, I don’t want the meter. Mine was only replaced 6/months ago.” . They said “O/K we won’t fit one”. So obviously there is a choice as to whether one will be fitted or not - as far as AGL goes.
On another note, there was a guy from the Electricity industry in Victoria on TV last night talking about the large take up of solar panels in Victoria.
He stated that the existing electricity supply infrastructure was reaching a point where it wouldn’t be able to cope with the amount of electricity being generated by solar panels during the day when demands were low.
LappaQuote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
This has been the cry from the detractors for some time. There is the potential for more power to be going out than was ever designed to come in. However installations have to be "approved" and I presume that the level of solar for any given location is taken into account.
The other issue is that our single phase supply is taken from one of the three phases available and there is also the potential for another imbalance. However that is also true for incoming power. To my mind the increasing level of solar power should all be allowed for as and when upgrades take place. This should be an ongoing issue. Take any street in the country and the demand today is vastly increased to, say, fifty years ago. The incidence of appliances, air conditioners and other electrical devices has increased out of all proportion. So it is with the increase in solar installations. It is ludicrous to state that solar is a problem because the infrastructure is inadequate. (I appreciate the Electricity guy may have been stating the existing situation rather than detracting). The Electricity distributors have to wake up, acknowledge that the nature of electrical generation is changing, do their share and provide for the future.
I have to say that if all this was still in the hands of the governments and not private enterprise it may be less of an issue. Private enterprise just sees such things eating into their profits. I can see why a private enterprise is not receptive to such change at their expense but it also demonstrates why public utilities (electricity, gas and water) should not be in the hands of private enterprise .
Regards
Paul
You would like to think that it would be better if it was still in government hands but when you look st other public services and infrastructure they run I am not so confident.
I suppose that at some point the total solar generation in a street could exceed the capacity of the wires in the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
but more interestingly, can a step-down transformer work backwards?
Scenario:
there are two "demands" both supplied from a single 11kV line. (for now ignore redundancy issues)
Demand 1 is industrial and is supplied by a dedicated 11kV to 415V transformer.
Demand 2 is a residential area also supplied through a dedicated 11kV to 415V transformer.
Now if the residential area installs solar panels feeding back into the grid, at some point the number of roof top solar panels will feed enough power back into that part of the grid within the residential area that the step-down transformer will be idle or working at some small fraction of its current carrying capacity. (Is a transformer's effectiveness affected by temperature? meaning that if the transformer has very little current passing through it, is that an issue? especially in terms of response time to a sudden increase in load.)
Then if the residential area installs more roof top solar, at some point the 11kV to 415V step-down transformer will need to "work backwards" to step the 415V solar generated power up to 11kV so that it can energise the 11kV line and can be used by the adjacent industrial demand.
Is this possible with the installed base of step-down transformers?
More generally, what is getting up my nose is the cross subsidy from renters and apartment dwellers -- who mostly can't access solar power -- to owner/occupiers of stand alone housing who receive subsidies to install solar panels.
Beardy
I should have qualified my comments a little in that, it might at least get done eventually under government ownership.
As it is, the incentive to eat into profit is just not there for the private enterprises. There is the added barrier of the government's (all sides of politics) lack of decision and the constantly changing standpoint. What company is going to commit to a multi million (actually make that billion) dollar project if they know the goal posts are going to be moved. An example of this in recent times is the competitive market that operates along the east coast of Australia. The system was established with associated rules and for years it operated with considerable losses to the generators. Now it has reached an equitable point in terms of market returns the government fabricates "rip-off" type scenarios and wants to change the market conditions.
Both governments and public commentators are fond of quoting extraordinary high prices on the wholesale market and indeed this does happen: It is infrequent and commonly lasts for five minutes. I have heard this on numerous occasions; I have never heard them quote the -$1000 (yes that is "minus") that actually occurs more frequently and sometimes for longer. None of this affects the domestic user as an immediate consequence and large consumers in industry and on the wholesale market have the option to enter into contracts at guaranteed fixed prices which effectively insulate them from those wide market swings.
I see that I have digressed a little as my own emotion on the subject gains momentum. So, yes, the government is inefficient but at least they can't start to shelve the blame to other entities. The buck ultimately stops with them. Not so at the moment.
Regards
Paul
This goes back to the various levels of Govt talking to each other. If they were communicating (properly) they could even do something radical like plan for all the extra Solar power. Councils could be taking advantage of surplus power production by having some batteries scattered throughout the community to run streetlights, traffic lights, whatever. Those same batteries could also be used for coping with surges in power (couldn't they??) and perhaps helping with blackouts due to lightning strikes (couldn't they??). Every time we have an electrical storm up here the power gets knocked out fro anywhere as short as a second to as long as several hours, and we get a lot of electrical storms here by comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I don't understand the technicalities, but it just seems to me that if a battery such as the SA monster can help with State-wide stability, then surely smaller batteries scattered around the community can help on a more micro level.
If there had been any kind of proper plan in place it would have meant that the various levels of Govt could have accelerated battery development with funding, because they would have known that the demand would be there - THEY would be creating the demand. What we do know is that funds speed up development. Surely batteries can't be that far off being viable if the SA battery is anything to go by. I forget the numbers now but it sounds like it will pay for itself in not too many years and create more stable power as well in the meantime.
Bring on a powerful Dept Of Power I say. :D
Because if they don't their business model will become obsolete, and quickly at that. A few hundred posts ago I said that I thought Mike Baird had sold the Poles & Wires at the perfect time - while he could still get decent bucks for them. It would have been a much better idea if much of that money was mandated to go into renewable R&D rather than completely wasting it by rebuilding the Football Stadium and the Olympic site *like they couldn't have been used for another 10-30 years.......and Football is SO much more important than a secure electricity supply)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
More interest and involvement would certainly improve and speed up development. I sometimes think back to cars and TVs and how the increased interest and consumption decreased the cost hugely. QED.
However.... having said that, I am not convinced that batteries are sufficiently economic yet. Solar by itself is still only "approaching" the cost of thermal fired power. Batteries are an extra cost on top. We tend to forget that and talk about them separately and then compare them to thermal coal or gas. That is not a true comparison.
What is the current coast of a solar plant? Not quite sure, but in round figures when out station was built in 2002 it cost $1.5 billion for an 850MW plant. OK it would be more expensive today, but compare to the Tesla battery at 100MW for ONE hour at a cost of $500mil. (8.5 x 24 x 500 produces a figure that is laughable: $102 billion, plus the cost of the Solar generation). The real advantage of the Tesla battery is the ability to regulate voltages extremely quickly and provide voltage control where previously with solar there was no provision for what is an essential aspect of electrical generation. It is not a cheap solution.
The claims of batteries becoming cheaper is probably true, but the assertions that they are viable is still for the moment, I believe, hyperbole. This is much as I would like to believe that. My own fanciful belief is that some other storage option will be developed and batteries, as a large scale storage device, will fade away. I hope I am wrong.
Regards
Paul
Agreed - I'm just saying that if there was a national plan put into place - say a decade or more ago - we would be much further down the battery development path than we are now. We might even be at the reasonable "break even" point by now, especially given that batteries look like being commercially viable in around 5 years from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Thinking about batteries, the funny thing is that one of the "presumed" benefits of electric cars is that when you get home after your daily commute you plug the car in and the residual energy in the battery is used to help manage the evening peak demand. The car is then charged overnight with off-peak power at a time when coal fired thermal is probably the cheapest and most reliable source.
Business not only wants certainty with Energy policy, it seems to want Solar:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...nment/10445518
The more various business lobby groups tackle the Federal Govt the quicker we might get some kind of certainty, but that may have to wait until after the next election (dunno what Labor's Energy policy is, but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")
My daughter's in laws own several large wharehouses and they have finally decided that the sums now add up to cover them in solar panels.
You forgot "definitely, positively with absolute certainty maybe"Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
So now that you've had your panels up for a year (I think) what's the best estimate of how long before you break even on the cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
now that's very cynicalQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I though the Lib's had a well thought out energy policy that Labor (but perhaps not the Greens) supported but a certain former PM wouldn't countenance because
1. it had Malcolm Turnbull's name on it.
2. Labor was generally supportive.
3. it would deliver a stable investment environment for business -- which was bad because of 1.
4. it would almost certainly survive a change in government -- which was bad because of 1.
Yeah, o'coarse! I agree with the general idea that you've outlined there Ian. It was all the reasons why the Libs were thinking their so called virginity was taken by Turnbull. He was trying to Centrify them, and for the likes of Abbott and his fellow buzzards, it had very little to do with policy (and good policy at that) and far more to do with personal revenge which is just a pizz-weak reason to stay in Parliament (thank you Malcolm for buggering off quickly and without having to be told).Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Rudd was just as guilty of hanging around to white-ant (a particularly sensitive term amongst Woodies :D). I was disappointed that he didn't take a golden opportunity for a Double Dissolution election back when his ETS was knocked back twice by the Senate. It seemed to me at the time (2009??) that they (or more probably he) didn't have the nuts for it, when the truth is they would have won in a canter, and therefore both houses combined for the DD vote on the Bill would have carried the vote for the ETS (which I seem to remember as being even better policy than any of the myriad policies and non-policies that have followed).
Remembering of course that Climate Change is BS - just ask the Farmers and Industry - what would they know compared to a Glass House Politician from the Northern Beaches? He's even a so-called eggspurt on Indigenous matters (and it would seem they don't want to knowAbbottabout him either). :((
It is a moving target, as the prices go up the pay back period gets shorter but I reckon on five to six years at the present rates. I gave up keeping detailed records at the beginning of the year and just pay the bill when it comes in. What has become obvious is that during the hot days of summer it is unlikely we could full charge a battery pack which I had always suspected but numbers now prove. I have been looking at the workshop roof but the problem there is it is shaded by the house during winter and the carport roof is too flimsy to hold any panels at all. Overall our bill is about $650 better off per quarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
A long clip, but worth listening to here.
CEO of the US firm Exelon, one of the largest single utilities in the US.
SWK
:oo: My combined electricity and gas bill isn’t that much a quarter!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
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.