Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

Australia's reducing carbon emissions.

solar wind solar hot water

 
17 replies to this topic

#1 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:57 AM

"Australia has cut its total carbon emissions for the second year running, according to figures
recently published by the federal government.
Analysis from the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts showed that overall greenhouse
emissions had dropped about one per cent in the year to September 2011, largely led by the
electricity sector.
Better energy efficiency and the increased use of technologies such as solar power, wind power
and solar hot water were some of the factors that the government said contributed
to the strong result."

http://www.utilitypr...ons-fall-1.html

#2 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:12 AM

The price of electricity has increased greatly over the last 5 years here. many older people now cannot afford to use it so that is also a big part of the decrease in carbon emissions. So electricity prices can effectively be used as a population control method.

#3 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:46 AM

View Postarboramans, on 21 February 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

The price of electricity has increased greatly over the last 5 years here. many older people now cannot afford to use it so that is also a big part of the decrease in carbon emissions. So electricity prices can effectively be used as a population control method.
From the article:
"Renewable energy such as solar and wind power is falling rapidly in price and will help to provide an insurance policy against the rising fuel costs of coal and gas as we are increasingly exposed to international markets."

#4 Phil

Phil

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 944 posts 142 rep

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

Thanks to China making solar modules a commodity, solar is finally becomming viable.  Hopefully within five years subsidies will no longer be necessary.

I think we are on the cusp of a major energy shift but we need to stop talking about buiding solar modules, (that ship has sailed), and start talking about using them.

#5 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:54 PM

View PostShortpoet-GTD, on 21 February 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

From the article:
"Renewable energy such as solar and wind power is falling rapidly in price and will help to provide an insurance policy against the rising fuel costs of coal and gas as we are increasingly exposed to international markets."

Your Point?

The price of electricity to 95% of the population has increased over 50% in 3 years and is expected to double again within another 2 years. I don't care what your article 'says', I live in Australia and I know for a fact what is going on here. The givernment has promised a far too high feed in tariff (from 44 to 60 cents depending on the). the whole sale price of electricity 2 years ago was less than 12 cents kwk - the standard price now due to the tariffs pulling up the price is now 27 cents kwh.

#6 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 45 rep

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:31 PM

While I am sure you are seeing increases in costs to consumers, the costs of solar power are coming down. In the short term, this  means that everyone is paying the costs for moving to more sustainable energy production so there is going to be some pain. Given the rate of cost increases, the government will have to pull back on their subsidies somewhat in order to reduce the number of new solar installations going in. If they also match the amount of subsidies in terms of the declining costs of new solar installations, they will be able to continue transitioning power generation over to alternatives without such a rapid increase in costs to consumers.

While consumers feel the pain now, it does make sense to get the transition happening rapidly as it helps to fund further reductions in production costs meaning the overall cost is reduced.

#7 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:51 PM

Yeah you're right - what does it matter if a few old age pensioners kick the bucket because they can't afford to turn on the a/c in summer? The planet's overpopulated as it is right? What country do you live in?

#8 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 02 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

View Postarboramans, on 21 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Your Point?

The price of electricity to 95% of the population has increased over 50% in 3 years and is expected to double again within another 2 years. I don't care what your article 'says', I live in Australia and I know for a fact what is going on here. The givernment has promised a far too high feed in tariff (from 44 to 60 cents depending on the). the whole sale price of electricity 2 years ago was less than 12 cents kwk - the standard price now due to the tariffs pulling up the price is now 27 cents kwh.

If I understand things right from just a little googling around you can't ascribe the whole increase to renewables.
From an article a couple of years ago:
" A decade-long freeze on electricity prices following the break-up of Western Power meant that until last year provider Verve Energy was making a significant loss."   at  http://www.theaustra...f-1225859619180

So it seems like there is some making up for lost time here.  Do i understand correctly that not very many years ago Australian electricity was generally provided by government /state owned companies and that things were privatized and that the freeze was associated with that?

In the US electricity was mostly provided by state regulated but privately owned integrated utilities that both generated electricity and distributed and sold it too.  Somehow the idea of deregulation was sold, the notion being that competition would lower the cost of electricity to consumers.  Integrated utilities were broken up, unregulated generation generally ending up being separate from still-regulated distribution.  Different states carried out things differently.  Here in California we eventually had the gamed electricity shortages of 2001, courtesy of Enron and others.  Huge cost to the distribution utility, to ratepayers and to taxpayers.  Deregulation backed off to a large degree here in California.  Don't think anybody touts the electricity deregulation as a success.

So how much of that increase you mentioned is due to renewables and how much to other factors?  Seems like there'd have to be a sizable percentage of renewables to actually justify as big an increase as you mentioned.  May not actually have to be a justified increase though.  Renewables could just be an excuse.  I can't tell from here.

#9 tri-n-b-helpful

tri-n-b-helpful

Posted 10 March 2012 - 02:06 AM

View PostShortpoet-GTD, on 21 February 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

"Australia has cut its total carbon emissions for the second year running, according to figures
recently published by the federal government.
Analysis from the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts showed that overall greenhouse
emissions had dropped about one per cent in the year to September 2011, largely led by the
electricity sector.
Better energy efficiency and the increased use of technologies such as solar power, wind power
and solar hot water were some of the factors that the government said contributed
to the strong result."

http://www.utilitypr...ons-fall-1.html

Thank you for you interest in our government's "achievements" from their point of view. This is a very emotionally charged issue here right now for us, please understand, people. The reason, as cited by other organizations online, that we have reduced our energy consumption is that we cannot afford the bills anymore. It has never made headlines before now, but people are filing for bankruptcy in droves because they cannot pay their energy bills. So, we all reduced our consumption hoping to reduce our bills. Did it work? No! They hit us with higher bills because we used less.

http://www.futuresus...une_2011_copy_2

The reason solar installations have come down in price recently here is because no-one is buying them anymore and suppliers are desperate to get rid of stock and get jobs before they go out of business. Why? Last week, without any warning or notice, our government axed the rebate to subsidize installation of these systems. The cheapest pv system costs around $11000 fully installed, etc. Over $8000 of this used to be paid for by the government, up until last week. Couple that with every state government who used to subsidize massive feed-in tariff payments for grid connected systems... now either axed totally in every state and territory or very much reduced... it makes solar extremely unviable in this country. Everyone who had such a system installed in more favourable times are now receiving much smaller refunds on their energy bill and the price they paid for their system will take an extremely long time to recover to "break even" point - well past the warranty on each and every system component. This has all been in the news for a long time now - you can even find it in Yahoo news. All subsidies at both a state and federal level are unsupportable - even with our booming economy and highest tax rates on earth.

Please do not believe our Government; they are lying spin doctors trying to prove to us their spending "investments" and "green" policies are working. For years, our last remaining electronics magazine has spoken out against this multi-faceted farce. Huge numbers of letters from those who own such systems have poured in from all over the country for years. These people are industry experts and qualified technicians who know what they are talking about and have their measurements independently verified. I cannot even begin to summarize the diversity of complaints. They all advise the rest of us to never invest in such a ridiculous and unworkable scheme with major problems at every level in every state. Here at least, consumers believe that having such systems installed means they own it. Not so. The government and energy providers own you even more so than before. Be very careful America; be very, very careful indeed!

#10 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 10 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

One of the issues with having an international forum like this is that each country can be very different.  Australia verses the United State.     First let me say that about the only thing in common about the two countries is that both sell electricity. Lois Moore

I want to talk about the different energy costs in the United States and Australia and issues both face.  Both are in transition today and are facing complicated and expensive decisions regarding how to pay for a post carbon energy future.

Australia - 2005-2010-Electric deregulation the average cost of electricity increase on average by the following Perth 36%, Brisbane 51%, Sydney 62%, Melbourne 57%, and Canberra 46%.

Promised incentives by different governments and feed in tariff for alternative energy producers many average consumers invested in alternative energy for homes and businesses. Problem- Utilities in charge of size permitting- they only allowed for small percentage of totals needed.  In other words most were not allowed to put in enough production to provide total needs of home or business-average was 35% - Note the United States does not allow this practice today- Local city, county and state control permitting laws allow 100 % production- However, Several U.S. utilities are lobbing states and federal governments for a model like Australia’s to be adopted.—So here in the U.S. watch out, or we could be facing the same problem.

  June 1 2011-already facing some of the highest electrical rate costs in the developed world consumer where hit with a 6.6% increase. Reason Given - “didn't use enough electricity over summer.” Honest, I kid you not- this was the official reason given by the government and utilities.

November 8, 2011- Australia passes carbon tax laws – “fantastic alright, yea they got it right, hurray,”- or at least that’s what I said living here in the United States.

Problem- Not Production Based – Instead of taxing producers Australia is figuring a carbon tax on utility, transportation, construction, business, food, medical, schools… the list goes on but I think you get the picture.  Instead of being based on one specific area like say a gas tax, this is a top to bottom nationwide value added tax, meaning the more you spend on whatever, the more you pay.  Get the picture. Outcome- across the board, multi level, multi taxing on every level at production, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and consumer.  Meaning everything now costs 6% more. However on the total across the board level it can mean an increase of 25% - 40% overnight on your monthly and annual budget.

January & February 2012- Australian government announces that money has run out for incentives and utilities now no longer have to pay consumers and businesses for most if not all their feed in tariffs. Meaning that consumers can’t pay off their alt energy and by the way they still have to pay the utility also.

People are mad in Australia, instead of alt energy being a way up and out to a post carbon economy it has been a bait and switch model that has made utilities, both electric and natural gas very rich in Australia and the average person a whole lot poorer. This is why you see a lot of very negative press and blowback, including ultra conservative groups, which make the United States  tea party people look like hippies.

Comparison - In the United States the average home owner pays between 11-18 cents a kW hour,- hold it people I said average, I am well aware that in some areas this is higher up to 22 to 26 cents, but I said average ok. Now, the average cost of gasoline today in the U.S. is approaching between $3.74 to $3.85 per gallon, att att ahh,- once again “average” in some areas it is already over $ 4.25, or higher, I know.  Finally Natural Gas, as always “on average” is between $1.08 - $1.76 per therm, which is a unit of energy contained in about 100 cubic feet of gas. Helps we have lower natural gas prices today.  Stop Shale Fracking, like I want to see and that will go up, or if a lot of people switch to natural gas cars and trucks it will increase also, but anyway I digress.

Australia which is much harder to determine because of all the different tariffs charged and add on.
Average home consumers kW/h 19- 41 cents with  added tariffs and fees  and the current monetary exchange rate is figured in. Gas or Petrol as they say, is sold by the liter so 4 liters in a gallon mean that between $6.15 - $6.45 per gallon, Diesel is currently slightly cheaper around $6.05 gallon on US scale.

  Ok to close living in Australia is expensive, the government has caved into ultra rich utilities,  limits the amount of alternative energy consumers can produce, cancelled promised alt energy incentives and ability to pay off by lowering reimbursement.  Gasoline is higher and now they have a tax on everything bought for carbon, which they pay on many levels over, and over, and over, everyday.

Like I said when it comes to energy

The only thing in common about the Australia and the United States is that both sell electricity.

Lois Moore

#11 Phil

Phil

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 944 posts 142 rep

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:27 AM

Sounds like Austrailia really bit the big one.  Man that sucks.  That looked like the ideal place for solar too.  Here in the US there are mandates on the utilities as well and they are fighting them as well.  Personally I look at them as quasi government organizations, yet another bureaucracy you cannot do without.

I put 10KW on my roof to try to negate most if not all of my electricity, I hope to generate 9-10MWH/yr while I currently use 12MWH/yr.  Once if find an LED flood that truly dims, (most do not despite claiming they do!), I could actually generate more than I use.

One good thing here are state initiatives.  If you get enough signatures you can put an initiative on the ballot and if it gets the vote it becomes law.  This allows the people to bypass the A-holes in the legislature when they do something stupid.  Even then they sometimes fight them in court.

The idea that solar is subsidized so those who do not convert pay increasinlgy higher prices is a good incentive to eventually move most everyone over to generating something.  But that only works when the utility is forced to buy what is produced.  Sounds like the Aussies need a "torch and pitchfork" moment with their government.

P.S.  I am Tea Party and I fully support solar. I am not alone.   It's wise not to always believe what you hear on the news.  Tea wants smaller, less intrusive government that isn't in bed with business, (crony capitalism, too big to fail, bailouts,picking winners and losers, etc.), sounds like Australia could use a Tea Party of its own.

#12 tri-n-b-helpful

tri-n-b-helpful

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:14 AM

Thanks Lois, that's at least starting to scratch the surface. I wouldn't go so far to say, "that about the only thing in common about the two countries is that both sell electricity". Our two countries share a common history, as our leaders have recently reminded us, and your President, in his speech before Parliament on his last trip here, made the point that America invests more in Australia than any other country in the world and Australia invests more in America than it does any other country in the world. That being said, I realize that you meant only in terms of energy in the end, so, on with the show.

Here's the rest of the story about our Carbon Tax:

Point number one: we were promised time and time again before the last election that Juliar's Labor Party would not introduce a Carbon Tax. She turned around and forced through legislation for a Carbon Tax by July 1 this year.

Point number two: Australia did not vote for this government. The primary vote had the Coalition with 680000 more votes than Labor. Tied on seat numbers, it was up to the three independents to decide whom they would form government with. Bob Katter, independent for Kennedy, considered the offers presented, consulted his electorate, looked at how they voted and believed the best offer that suited the people he represented was the Coalition's, so he voted to form government with the Coalition. The independent for New England, Tony Windsor, declared "well, I was always a Labor man, so I'm voting to form government with Labor!". He did this despite over 92% of his electorate voting against Labor. The Independent for Lyon, Rob Oakschott, in the most long-winded, pathetic speech I've ever heard, reckoned the Coalition's offer seemed unattainable and decided to vote to form the current government with Labor despite 96% of his electorate voting against Labor. So that's the story of how our hung parliament turned into a government nobody wanted.

Point number three: this isn't even a policy of the Labor government, but a policy of the Greens Party, who only managed to get one seat in the whole election, but manages to control every bit of legislation passed thus far. It's one of the worst compromise policies ever. Instead of getting the best of both party's policy details on this issue, it combines the worst. Either policy would have worked well in their unadulterated form. What we now have is economic death for Oz and a carbon tax that won't make any difference whatsoever to global warming.

Point number four: we now have the tax, so there's no point complaining about it. We can always move to America if we don't like it.

Point number five: atmospheric data shows that our greenhouse gas emissions are increasing each year, led largely by the agricultural sector which pumps more methane (traps heat more than 72 times better than CO2) and nitrous oxides (trap heat about 300 times better than CO2) into the atmosphere as sheep and cattle numbers increase. Any effect on overall emissions of a CO2 reduction by reducing energy usage is negligible.  Unfortunately, the official Australian Bureau of Statistics stopped counting sheep and cattle numbers after 1997 (too many to count?), but this activist website, Animals Australia, states that their number "...is increasing significantly each year".

#13 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:51 AM

Governments are bailing on subsides, they can't afford it. Imo, that's why Germany is bailing because they
want to help out Greece. Can't do both.
I hope the U.S. bails on subsides too-to the oil and coal industries first. But we also need to stop the
money hemorrhaging to sugar, corn, and a host of other industries that we can no longer afford to give our
taxpayer money to.
Sadly, renewables are the ones taking the hits.

#14 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:17 AM

View Posttri-n-b-helpful, on 10 March 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

.... . Why? Last week, without any warning or notice, our government axed the rebate to subsidize installation of these systems. The cheapest pv system costs around $11000 fully installed, etc.......
Please do not believe our Government; they are lying spin doctors...... America; be very, very careful indeed!

Axed rebates to solar hot water, not PV, looks like.
http://www.theaustra...f-1226285622435
From googling, looks like PV rebates are to be stepped down in increments but that's it's been known for some time.
Part of the rationale for rebates for solar is to promote technological inovation.  Solar hot water is technologically pretty mature by now.

Being careful is a good idea.

#15 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:54 AM

In 2008 my company was asked to evaluate and provide designs for 3 sites for alternative energy instillations in Australia.  My husband and I traveled to Australia several times and meet with utilities, land owners and council governments to try and transplant the type of facilities we had had success with here in the US to Australia.  In the beginning we were very excited about the prospects and were fired up about bringing clean low cost energy to the people of Australia.

Little did we understand what we were getting into in regard to the greed of some of these utilities who felt that profits not people were the only concern or the lack of understanding by governments on what would and would not work.  They were very good a saying one thing but working toward something completely different.  After almost 20 months of trying to work with these companies we realized that the American model was not going to work. It was a heartbreaking experience.  Why?

Because the average people of Australia are warm, caring, good people, what my grandparents called the salt of the earth.  They are easy to laugh, deal with adversity in a chin up and push forward mentality that values every individual.

My husband who is a native Texan raised on a cattle ranch is fond of saying that the best Texan he ever meet was in the outback of Australia- meaning that their independent spirit is so well balanced with their quick action to help their neighbors, which exemplifies the best possible example of humanity.

The people of Australia and the US are very much alike in what they want, the governments are very different in how they function.  As far as energy, which was my point, the amount of unbridled greed and sticking it to the average person is so great that if it happened here in the U.S. would probably cause a second revolution.

My overall point was to damper down the amount of rhetoric that was occurring in the forum by showing the vast differences between the two countries energy policies, and reminding people to keep this in mind.

One of the biggest reasons I joined this site is because it is international, and as such people have to remember that situations are different and be aware of those differences.  The second was their willingness to talk and listen without bashing, and name calling, which I see on so many other sites.

I am firmly convinced that Australia will work through the political problems going on in the country and I am well aware of the issues tri-n-b helpful has raised.

Yes it’s not just energy, we must deal with methane emissions which are 23-26 times more a green house gas than CO2 and nitrogen also which is a huge ignored problem here in the US.  Most Americans either do not know or want to admit that meat production is the second largest cause of climate change on the planet.  That’s cattle, sheep, goats, and so on.

What is needed is this debate that we are all participation in right now.  Now when it comes to governments, well we all have our problems, but as people, human beings, well for me- all you need is love. McCartney/Lennon.

#16 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:48 PM

Found a website that has a recording and print transcript of a radio program from last year where the price increases of Australian electricity are discussed.
http://www.abc.net.a...ams/rearvision/

Several causes are mentiooned, but nowhere are rebates or renewable electricity programs brought up.  The carbon tax hasn't been implemented yet and when it is should lead to a smaller increase than has already occurred.  

Some quotes:

Why privatization?
"was seen as a way of reducing State debt in response to what was regarded as a debt crisis in both those States, following the financial crisis both in Victoria and in South Australia, following deregulation of the financial system"

Deregulation of financial system?  Cause a problem?  Naah.....

When electricity was provided by government owned utilities:
"These authorities were generally staffed by engineers and what they would do is, they would identify future need for electricity and build plants in advance to cope with future growth. They'd take out loans in order to finance the infrastructure, and then those loans would be gradually paid back over decades, as the electricity was generated and rate payers paid for it. And because technology improved all the time, electricity prices generally remained very reasonable and actually tended to come down, rather than go up, over time."

After privatization:
"In relation to the generation side of it, there are fewer players involved in that, and increasingly that's becoming more monopolised by a range of key investors, predominantly in South Australia by the Chinese investors, both the industry here around in Victoria have a very large share of foreign investment in it now, and the reason for that of course is that it is seen as a very profitable venture for investment, particularly going forward with the prospect of electricity prices going much higher. It's really a licence to print money in that respect."

My view? From a consumer viewpoint, better to have an engineer in charge than an MBA.  But I'm prejudiced.

#17 tri-n-b-helpful

tri-n-b-helpful

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:59 PM

View Poststill learning, on 11 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Axed rebates to solar hot water, not PV, looks like.
http://www.theaustra...f-1226285622435
From googling, looks like PV rebates are to be stepped down in increments but that's it's been known for some time.
Part of the rationale for rebates for solar is to promote technological inovation.  Solar hot water is technologically pretty mature by now.

Being careful is a good idea.

To clear this up, I was discussing two separate points in the same paragraph without differentiating between the two (solar hot water and photovoltaic systems). The result, however, is much the same, though I didn't mean to blend the two. As I said, it's a bit of a touchy issue here and is easy to get caught up in emotionally. What did end last week was the solar hot water rebate. The scenario where the 1kW, $11000 system was rebated by the federal government $8000 and the remaining $2000 rebated by the installer (making a further point that the taxpayer is footing the bill for solar, not the minority solar system "owners"), referred to the solar power rebate's closing on June 9, 2009. This scheme was later replaced by a much smaller solar credits scheme, which gets massively reduced each year and closes completely and forever, never to be replaced, on July 1 next year. You can read in Yahoo News, or whatever media outlet you use, about the states all individually axing or heavily winding back feed-in tariff subsidies. Both of these situations combined have killed off the hope of making either of these systems pay for themselves, let alone saving on a household's "normal" and rapidly rising (regardless) energy bills.

There is, unfortunately, a vast amount of information on Australia's energy needs, what is being done currently and proposals, not the least was the 329 White Paper the federal government just released in January this year (but closed to public comment as of today!). Our top engineers and industry experts are incredibly disappointed to tears. Their assessment is that this report is "in the realm of fantasy" and have rightly concluded that our energy needs are being managed by clowns.

Our whole history with this government's programs is worse than a yo-yo. As soon as a rebate is announced, industry pours investment into that one corner, skewing the economy, and are then left high and dry with everything from excess stock to excess staff once the rebate period ends. This has happened with every single program this government has implemented from the moment it took over. Some have commented that this is what we get when it's being run by Union Representatives rather than Industry experts, in sharp contrast to the highly successful investment programs made by the former Liberal Government.

#18 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:50 PM

View Posttri-n-b-helpful, on 11 March 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

..... our energy needs are being managed by clowns......

Sure sounds like it. Clowns and thieves...

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users