3 ms·

Similarly here in Australia. Electricity prices keep increasing, daily supply charge keeps increasing (this ones supposed to pay for the transmission network),

Similarly here in Australia. Electricity prices keep increasing, daily supply charge keeps increasing (this ones supposed to pay for the transmission network), while the solar feed-in tariff keeps decreasing. With the added stupidity that, obviously the sun works during the day and so do you. Now tax payers are forced to subsidies residential batteries as well as rooftop solar, which results in a wealth transfer from everyone else to home owners, and isn’t a policy that helps low income earners and / or renters. It’s also government picking winners, which historically has never worked, rather than letting private enterprise pick winners, and potentially failing, in an open and free market. Wild.

chris222 3mo ago
Australia has been a great success for solar and battery storage. Your statement about a wealth transfer is putting no value on climate change or good air quality which benefits all.
- perpetuallunch 3mo ago
  No it hasn’t. What it has done is resulted in ridiculously high electricity prices, such that manufacturing anything in this country has become progressively less viable. The Net Zero story sold to Australians is, and always was always will be, complete bs, as evidenced by three facts: 1) It’s no longer the narrative, because “data centres” and 2) even when it was the narrative, it was always bs because Australia exports huge amounts of gas, and a metric ship load of coal, so other countries can have affordable electricity. So why don’t we just use it. There’s only one atmosphere. and 3) Australia could double or triple its emissions and it would have approximately no additional impact on total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We haven’t reduced our emissions, we’ve merely exported them. In before you say “shut up Pauline”, yes I did vote One Nation at the last federal election. And if you’re so sure I’m just drowning in koolaid, how certain are you you aren’t? Remember the good old days when governments weren’t to be trusted and we criticised them when they laid out idiotic policy?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - vvbull 3mo ago
    Australia emits 1-1.5% of greenhouse gases. Tripling that would absolutely impact global concentrations, especially over human time scales. But agree, Australia exporting fossil fuels should be reflected. If you counted their export of fuels it would be closer to 5% of global emissions. IMO, getting to zero would knock over a whole integer percent off the global goal, that's notable. And if you stopped exporting oil, we'd be 1/20th of the way to the goal already!
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      Your argument seems to boil down to: What we’re doing isn’t working, so let’s do more of it. There’s a cost of living crisis in this country effecting the majority of Australians. So let’s make energy more scares, more expensive. I’m with Gad Saad here, in that the one thing that astounds me the most about other people is their inability to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
      - vvbull 3mo ago
        Ah, so you are taking the anti capitalist stance. Interesting to see that pop up here. Australia sells its fossil fuels on the global market rather than prioritizing its local market. So when disruptions (like the various wars around) drive up prices, Australia sells the gas at a higher rate. This, in turn, drives up prices locally. Combined with aging and failing coal infrastructure, which isn't producing as much or as reliably, you have a marginal rate that can get quite high. Meanwhile, Australia has retail electricity providers and not a single government owned utility. Those retailers must make a profit, and they've invested heavy capex into smart metering. So they charge customers as much as customers will tolerate. You might be right, it might be time to nationalize some of that fossil fuel usage, and remove the profit motive from energy retailing. That could drive down costs for end users. But I don't think solar is really a major input here beyond replacing baseload. Expensive marginal priced peaker plants are one of the key drivers of high energy costs. When the sun sets, those plants have to come online. Better battery storage would smooth that demand significantly, as in parts of Australia solar production is already producing negative energy prices.
- cam_l 3mo ago
  The issue in oz, is that energy investment by power companies is locked in with decades long contracts - raising power prices for everyone. But investment by individuals is subject to bait and switch. Most people bought in with the expectation of a 12-15yr break-even, but the dropping feed in prices, and increase in grid costs have meant that break-even will probably never materialise. Meanwhile, we keep paying excess costs for power companies to produce dirty power, and subsidise mining companies to sell off our gas and coal overseas, without even getting a benefit through taxes or royalties (or barely any). Makes sense people are kind of pissed off about this (even if their reasoning is batshit-skynews-crazy).
  - hahahaa 3mo ago
    EV, Battery, Solar, Heat pump, Amber. Maybe be give it a tech abbreviation like HBASE? :) Ok this may squarely be in the upper middle class and up for now but prices will come down and change everything. Almost to the point of off grid being feasible for suburban and rural areas at least. Then build solar and wind farms and batteries and hydrogen production/consumption for base load. Edit: changed to inc. solar
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      Why? Why should Australians continue to tolerate a government that gives half our gas exports away, and exports at least as much coal as it uses. But not build any modern tech coal and gas for cheap reliable base load and load following power? And nuclear too, we export all the uranium we mine, and at least some of that to nuclear armed states. Yet prohibit both on our own soil. Why must we continue to be told we should, ever increasingly, rely on a) energy technologies that have proven to be more expensive and unreliable, and b) unproven technologies with unproven costs. Fortunately there are other political options on the table. Queue the continued downvotes for a reasonable comment that offers an option contrary to the received wisdom.
      - hahahaa 3mo ago
        I am up for nuclear actually. And some gas as backup but not base. I just thing that global warming is a threat and every country needs to combat it.
theshackleford 3mo ago
[flagged]
- perpetuallunch 3mo ago
  Very convincing argument. Thank you for your contribution.
  - theshackleford 3mo ago
    You didn’t have anything worth arguing against. When you do, feel free to let me know.
benj111 3mo ago
>It’s also government picking winners, which historically has never worked, rather than letting private enterprise pick winners, and potentially failing, in an open and free market. The internet was funded by the government until it got big enough. Solar panels were, wind turbines were. Many things aren't cost competitive in the beginning. The free market isn't good at funding something for 20 years to get it price competitive. You can argue about how long the subsidies should go on for. But they demonstrably work.
thelastgallon 3mo ago
Didn't Australia just introduce free daytime electricity?
- perpetuallunch 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - thelastgallon 3mo ago
    https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-free-electricity https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-...
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      Did you read any of that page? Have you reviewed any of the plans offered by the energy retailers? 1. The plans are optional 2. Only available in New South Wales, South Australia, and South East Queensland 3. You must have a smart meter 4. Only available to residential customers 5. The offer is for three hours during the middle of the day when most people are at work (sometimes four hours depending on retailer) 6. All of the plans offered by energy retailers have higher peak usage charge, the peak times are when most people are cooking, cleaning, bathing, etc. thereby at least somewhat negating the benefits 7. All the plans offered have a higher daily supply charge, again negating at least some of the benefits I stand by my earlier answer: No.

chris222 3mo ago

Australia has been a great success for solar and battery storage. Your statement about a wealth transfer is putting no value on climate change or good air quality which benefits all.

perpetuallunch 3mo ago
No it hasn’t. What it has done is resulted in ridiculously high electricity prices, such that manufacturing anything in this country has become progressively less viable. The Net Zero story sold to Australians is, and always was always will be, complete bs, as evidenced by three facts: 1) It’s no longer the narrative, because “data centres” and 2) even when it was the narrative, it was always bs because Australia exports huge amounts of gas, and a metric ship load of coal, so other countries can have affordable electricity. So why don’t we just use it. There’s only one atmosphere. and 3) Australia could double or triple its emissions and it would have approximately no additional impact on total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We haven’t reduced our emissions, we’ve merely exported them. In before you say “shut up Pauline”, yes I did vote One Nation at the last federal election. And if you’re so sure I’m just drowning in koolaid, how certain are you you aren’t? Remember the good old days when governments weren’t to be trusted and we criticised them when they laid out idiotic policy?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- vvbull 3mo ago
  Australia emits 1-1.5% of greenhouse gases. Tripling that would absolutely impact global concentrations, especially over human time scales. But agree, Australia exporting fossil fuels should be reflected. If you counted their export of fuels it would be closer to 5% of global emissions. IMO, getting to zero would knock over a whole integer percent off the global goal, that's notable. And if you stopped exporting oil, we'd be 1/20th of the way to the goal already!
  - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
    Your argument seems to boil down to: What we’re doing isn’t working, so let’s do more of it. There’s a cost of living crisis in this country effecting the majority of Australians. So let’s make energy more scares, more expensive. I’m with Gad Saad here, in that the one thing that astounds me the most about other people is their inability to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    - vvbull 3mo ago
      Ah, so you are taking the anti capitalist stance. Interesting to see that pop up here. Australia sells its fossil fuels on the global market rather than prioritizing its local market. So when disruptions (like the various wars around) drive up prices, Australia sells the gas at a higher rate. This, in turn, drives up prices locally. Combined with aging and failing coal infrastructure, which isn't producing as much or as reliably, you have a marginal rate that can get quite high. Meanwhile, Australia has retail electricity providers and not a single government owned utility. Those retailers must make a profit, and they've invested heavy capex into smart metering. So they charge customers as much as customers will tolerate. You might be right, it might be time to nationalize some of that fossil fuel usage, and remove the profit motive from energy retailing. That could drive down costs for end users. But I don't think solar is really a major input here beyond replacing baseload. Expensive marginal priced peaker plants are one of the key drivers of high energy costs. When the sun sets, those plants have to come online. Better battery storage would smooth that demand significantly, as in parts of Australia solar production is already producing negative energy prices.
cam_l 3mo ago
The issue in oz, is that energy investment by power companies is locked in with decades long contracts - raising power prices for everyone. But investment by individuals is subject to bait and switch. Most people bought in with the expectation of a 12-15yr break-even, but the dropping feed in prices, and increase in grid costs have meant that break-even will probably never materialise. Meanwhile, we keep paying excess costs for power companies to produce dirty power, and subsidise mining companies to sell off our gas and coal overseas, without even getting a benefit through taxes or royalties (or barely any). Makes sense people are kind of pissed off about this (even if their reasoning is batshit-skynews-crazy).
- hahahaa 3mo ago
  EV, Battery, Solar, Heat pump, Amber. Maybe be give it a tech abbreviation like HBASE? :) Ok this may squarely be in the upper middle class and up for now but prices will come down and change everything. Almost to the point of off grid being feasible for suburban and rural areas at least. Then build solar and wind farms and batteries and hydrogen production/consumption for base load. Edit: changed to inc. solar
  - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
    Why? Why should Australians continue to tolerate a government that gives half our gas exports away, and exports at least as much coal as it uses. But not build any modern tech coal and gas for cheap reliable base load and load following power? And nuclear too, we export all the uranium we mine, and at least some of that to nuclear armed states. Yet prohibit both on our own soil. Why must we continue to be told we should, ever increasingly, rely on a) energy technologies that have proven to be more expensive and unreliable, and b) unproven technologies with unproven costs. Fortunately there are other political options on the table. Queue the continued downvotes for a reasonable comment that offers an option contrary to the received wisdom.
    - hahahaa 3mo ago
      I am up for nuclear actually. And some gas as backup but not base. I just thing that global warming is a threat and every country needs to combat it.

theshackleford 3mo ago

[flagged]

perpetuallunch 3mo ago
Very convincing argument. Thank you for your contribution.
- theshackleford 3mo ago
  You didn’t have anything worth arguing against. When you do, feel free to let me know.

benj111 3mo ago

>It’s also government picking winners, which historically has never worked, rather than letting private enterprise pick winners, and potentially failing, in an open and free market. The internet was funded by the government until it got big enough. Solar panels were, wind turbines were. Many things aren't cost competitive in the beginning. The free market isn't good at funding something for 20 years to get it price competitive. You can argue about how long the subsidies should go on for. But they demonstrably work.

thelastgallon 3mo ago

Didn't Australia just introduce free daytime electricity?

perpetuallunch 3mo ago
[flagged]
- thelastgallon 3mo ago
  https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-free-electricity https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-...
  - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
    Did you read any of that page? Have you reviewed any of the plans offered by the energy retailers? 1. The plans are optional 2. Only available in New South Wales, South Australia, and South East Queensland 3. You must have a smart meter 4. Only available to residential customers 5. The offer is for three hours during the middle of the day when most people are at work (sometimes four hours depending on retailer) 6. All of the plans offered by energy retailers have higher peak usage charge, the peak times are when most people are cooking, cleaning, bathing, etc. thereby at least somewhat negating the benefits 7. All the plans offered have a higher daily supply charge, again negating at least some of the benefits I stand by my earlier answer: No.