Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,237
- Reactions
- 8,484
Who said people expect it for 'free' ?
.
The fairest out come is for all connected grid uses to pay a service charge, and then pay a fair retail rate for usage.
It all depends on the definition of "fair" doesn't it ?
Lets face it, a privatised power system is contrary to the national interest.
The national interest says reward customers for reducing consumption and therefore saving on infrastructure costs, and privatisation means penalising everyone for a reduction in demand for power in order to maintain profits.
Privatising an essential service doesn't work , it's blatantly obvious in this case.
Did you know that the Utility owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathway, provides power cheaper than neighbouring states where the utilities are government owned?
customers do get lower usage charges if they reduce consumption or invest in solar.
We tried this caper of higher network service charges in Tasmania back in the mid-1990's and it didn't go well.
If there is no fixed charged for solar users,
There is a fixed charge, the point is are you going to reward people for taking a load off the grid, or punish everyone by raising charges because solar users are reducing demand thereby saving the expense of building extra infrastructure ?
This seems to be a case of reverse capitalism. Less demand should result in lower prices as the retailers try to sell more product, but in the case of electricity they have everyone by the balls and they know it so they can raise charges at their whim.
The system is broken, which is why Finkel recommended more regulation.
As smurph said a long time ago, but as usual no one understands, the cost of generation hasn't changed much, if at all.
If anything, the cost of generation has fallen, fuel is cheaper.
It's not about "rewarding people that take load off" or "punishing people that put load on"
In Tasmania the reality is that Hydro gets 24.6% of what households spend on electricity (or 27.1% if you base it on the GST-exclusive price).
It's broadly similar nationally. Networks are where your money is going and the share of network and retail costs as a % of the average power bill has increased over the years.
20 years ago generation was about 40%.
The Chief Scientist disagrees. Perhaps you should read his report.
http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...es/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf
I am not talking about generation, I am just talking about accessing the grid, e.g. The poles and wires that allow the transport / trading of energy to happen, solar users rely on it, and should pay to access itAs smurph said a long time ago, but as usual no one understands, the cost of generation hasn't changed much, if at all.
If anything, the cost of generation has fallen, fuel is cheaper.
If he thinks solar users should be a special class that don't have to pay to access infrastructure which they rely on just as much as everyone else, then he is wrong, as I said even if we went 100% renewable, we would still require a grid and it needs to be paid for.The Chief Scientist disagrees. Perhaps you should read his report.
http://www.environment.gov.au/syste...es/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf
solar users rely on it, and should pay to access it
Why? It seems your ill informed posts have a bad habit of coming to reality, while the anti Rumpole oracles scores are pretty much zip ... I'm betting on you bhagwan.
I am not talking about generation, I am just talking about accessing the grid, e.g. The poles and wires that allow the transport / trading of energy to happen, solar users rely on it, and should pay to access it
Bless you my son.
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?