- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,300
- Reactions
- 17,537
There was an attempt nearly 17 years ago in Tasmania to fundamentally change the electricity industry business model so as to remove the industry's incentive to maximise sales in order to maximise profit. This was done simply by separating out costs and charging consumers accordingly, such that each additional kWh sold no longer recovered disproportionate revenue (ie profit) for the industry.Power utilities, however, have a business model that means less energy consumption equals less profit. That will have to change, and may need to do so quickly.
There was an attempt nearly 17 years ago in Tasmania to fundamentally change the electricity industry business model so as to remove the industry's incentive to maximise sales in order to maximise profit. This was done simply by separating out costs and charging consumers accordingly, such that each additional kWh sold no longer recovered disproportionate revenue (ie profit) for the industry.
Bottom line was an uproar and it became a significant election issue that was universally opposed by just about everyone. Labor hated it, Greens hated it even more.
And so the industry reluctantly accepted a rather big slap in the face and adopted a more publicly acceptable strategy. Just sell as much electricity as possible to anyone who will buy it, encouraging them via an incredibly blatant marketing campaign "use our energy". Much easier that way, and still quite profitable.
It's not just the industry that doesn't like change. The public and politicians don't like it either. The other states were certainly known to be watching at the time, but never did actually try the same experiment. Worth noting though that the public doesn't seem too impressed with the lesser reforms, interval metering, that some states are pressing ahead with.
I hear lots of talk, lots of people saying the industry should do all sorts of things but that support has a habit of disappearing the moment the industry actually tries to do what people supposedly want.
I wonder how many people realise that the very concept of a feed-in tariff requires by its very nature that the vast majority of consumers do not install such a device? And I wonder how many people realise that if we did put a fuel cell unit in every home and shift to renewables generally then in order to make it work we'll also be building more dams, primarily in NSW? Lots of things people haven't really thought about when it comes to energy...
I'm not against it, under the right circumstances I'd actually buy a fuel cell unit. But there's a lot of issues that most haven't thought about when it comes to fuel cells and distributed (or any non-hydro non-biomass renewable) generation.
re 'frankblack': Awesome contribution with the link to the transcript; Has really cleared up a few ambiguities I had with the product
Just a further question on it; I am quite confused about the feed-in tariff. Is B. Dow asking the Govt. to impose a tax on utilities in Australia when they utilise what the fuel cell puts back into the grid? Or have I completely misunderstood what was said??
Do your own math using whatever cost for the equipment you deem fit.For all your skepticism, i am not sure what point you are making, yes it is your opinion based on what happened in the past , the rest is speculation.
Eventually something will be done about the amount of co2 coming from power stations today, this is just fact.
what will be done maybe determined by the market or government, but change is inevitable. i am sure lots of people have and are thinking of all the issues, as i am sure mistakes will be made, that is the way of the world.
Do your own math using whatever cost for the equipment you deem fit.
A 2kW unit is going to produce 17520 kWh of electricity per annum if run at constant 100% output.
Conventional large scale generation can produce this power for about $700 per year.
Large scale renewable generation can supply this power at about $1500 per year.
Now, do you think this really stacks up financially? Or does it only work due to various subsidies? Subsidies tend not to remain in place forever, especially not if something actually becomes popular (witness the abrupt disappearance of the solar grants as soon as a large number of applications began to be received).
I'm not against the concept, but there's a lot of barriers in terms of it being an actual replacement for large scale conventional power generation. I don't doubt that there is a viable market for this device, I'm very confident that there is, but I don't expect to see too many in residential use anytime soon.
Commercial applications with a need for heat are an entirely different story and potentially very profitable...
Since 2003 Osaka Gas has sold more than 56,000 co-generation products to residential customers. These products use internal combustion technology to generate up to 1 kilowatt of electricity with an electrical efficiency of 22.5 percent. In mid 2009 Osaka Gas began marketing a co-generation product based on PEM fuel cell technology, which can generate up to 0.75 kilowatts at an electrical efficiency of up to 35 percent.
Ceramic Fuel Cells’ BlueGen product can generate up to 2 kilowatts of electricity with a peak electrical efficiency of up to 60 percent.
What kind of subsidy/rebate do you think would be needed for this to be seen as a viable option.
newbie,
Probably something like the solar rebate upfront but higher, ie $15000 plus. The reason being that the initial cost of the units at $20-25k will by itself kill the thing.
By spending that type of money you can get a very good solar system that does not have ongoing costs, does not need gas.
What most are overlooking is that as the price of electricity rises so will the price of gas, the main input of the unit.
So we have cost of money being high, (interest on $20-25k) depreciation, (life of 15 years) high and rising inputs (gas).
From a green perspective this is not as good as solar panels, (still uses ghg) and has maintenance.
brty
The reason is simply that the only alternatives available at the time of building those plants were:as a post script, I am dismayed that we do stick with this brown coal...
I just checked out the cost of Solar in Victoria and I can get 18kW to20kW for the price of a BG(this is at the standard A$2,499 per 1.5kW not the postcode 3 offer of A$1,899).
Thanks to the state’s generous Feed-In Tariff scheme (FIT), not only will your system help reduce your annual electricity bill, you could be paid for every additional kilowatt hour of renewable energy generated that you don’t use and send back to the grid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?