8 ms·

The only inefficiency is that they're burning a consumable to provide the electricity during peak. The rest (likely a good part of the that 40M) is going back i

The only inefficiency is that they're burning a consumable to provide the electricity during peak. The rest (likely a good part of the that 40M) is going back into the economy in one way or another (construction of the peaking plants, operators margins, jobs, suppliers of consumables, taxes on consumables, taxes on profits, etc) - provided that those funds don't leave the country it should be very near to a net neutral cash flow for the local economy, only that the battery keeps more in the consumers pockets vs the utilities', hence my socialist comment - moving money from corporations to consumers. If you consider that the energy for the battery ultimately comes from the same grid, and that grid is not entirely renewable, then it's power in all probability also consumed some fuels (70% of Australia's power comes from coal I think). So: Australia is sunny and it's consumption peaks generally follow the temperature due to air conditioning - so build more solar and pair it with more storage (batteries) instead of investing in coal and gas burning.

simonh 8y ago
> hence my socialist comment - moving money from corporations to consumers. Thats is such a bizarre comment. No corporation has a right to make money, they have to earn it by providing a valuable service. If that service can be provided more efficiently another way, tough. That's what market forces are all about. Yes the energy company commissioning the battery is publicly owned. You could squint and see some socialism in that. I've no argument there. However it's doing this because it is exposed to market forces, and overspending on peak power provision. Characterising responding to that market stimulus with capital investment is I think going a step too far. Look at it another way. Is exposing public companies to market forces and having them react to those stimuli more socialist than protecting them from markets, or less socialist? Is it closer to pure capitalism or further away?

simonh 8y ago

> hence my socialist comment - moving money from corporations to consumers. Thats is such a bizarre comment. No corporation has a right to make money, they have to earn it by providing a valuable service. If that service can be provided more efficiently another way, tough. That's what market forces are all about. Yes the energy company commissioning the battery is publicly owned. You could squint and see some socialism in that. I've no argument there. However it's doing this because it is exposed to market forces, and overspending on peak power provision. Characterising responding to that market stimulus with capital investment is I think going a step too far. Look at it another way. Is exposing public companies to market forces and having them react to those stimuli more socialist than protecting them from markets, or less socialist? Is it closer to pure capitalism or further away?