- Joined
- 29 September 2008
- Posts
- 113
- Reactions
- 0
I see,It is not profit as such. Whilst the retail price exceeds the marginal cost of supply (ie the cost avoided if consumption is reduced or households generate some of their own power), the extra cost is largely needed to cover the fixed (non-volume related) cost of maintaining the network.
That is, half the cost of supply (roughly) would still exist regardless of consumption levels and that is my point. This cost must be recovered somehow, and if net consumption is going to seriously fall then that precludes recovering the fixed costs in the conventional manner on a cents / kWh basis.
It's like how the car costs a lot of money just to have sitting there even if not used. Those costs have to be paid, by whatever means, whether the car travels 100,000 km or just 1 km per year. Trouble with electricity is that if you recover the costs on a cents / unit of consumption basis as is normally done, it all falls apart economically if consumption falls in a big way. Either that or charges have to be massively hiked which hurts the poor, renters etc unable to lower consumption levels.
whats the breakdown of all this ongoing maintenance, ie wheres the money going.?
I have lived in the same street for over 10 years, theres never been any maintenance work.
Is it the power plants or high transmission lines being maintained?
Can these costs be cut/avoided by using a lot of Bluegens?
So do you think by doubling the price of electricity this problem could be overcome?
Thanks.