Electricity going up...
|
Prev: Consumer News
Next: Consumer Info
From: David Clayton on 12 Apr 2010 03:01 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:54:52 +1000, Mr.T wrote: > > "B J Foster" <bjfoster(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:hpp4lg$h1t$1(a)bjf.motzarella.org... >> ...yet the ETS was voted down. >> >> NSW Labor are raising electricity prices *anyway* despite the fact that >> the bulk of it was intended to fund the ETS. The ETS has been voted down >> in the senate and yet NSW Labor are raising prices anyway. > > Electricity prices have been going up everywhere for *many* decades. Why > on earth do you think it's somehow linked to the ETS? > There have been reports in the media that a portion of the price rises factors in a future ETS/Carbon price, so naturally all the "There is NO Climate Change" brigade jump on it and have a big whinge. The uncomfortable truth that NSW electricity prices have been held low for ages - basically for political reasons - and that the infrastructure needs heaps spent on it seems to escape most people. Add in the cold, hard reality that anything being set up for privatisation has to be made attractive to any potential buyer, and it isn't hard to see that now the piper has to be paid...... -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
From: B J Foster on 12 Apr 2010 06:42 David Clayton wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:54:52 +1000, Mr.T wrote: > >> "B J Foster" <bjfoster(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hpp4lg$h1t$1(a)bjf.motzarella.org... >>> ...yet the ETS was voted down. >>> >>> NSW Labor are raising electricity prices *anyway* despite the fact that >>> the bulk of it was intended to fund the ETS. The ETS has been voted down >>> in the senate and yet NSW Labor are raising prices anyway. >> Electricity prices have been going up everywhere for *many* decades. Why >> on earth do you think it's somehow linked to the ETS? It was buried in the NSW treasury budget estimates. >> > There have been reports in the media that a portion of the price rises > factors in a future ETS/Carbon price, so naturally all the "There is NO > Climate Change" brigade jump on it and have a big whinge. Some idiots actually like paying tax - usually they're green on the outside and red on the inside. > > The uncomfortable truth that NSW electricity prices have been held low for > ages - basically for political reasons - and that the infrastructure needs > heaps spent on it seems to escape most people. Prior to the pack of idiots known as 'NSW Labor', we had infrastructure levies - where the cost of infrastructure was built into the cost of new homes. These incompetent fraudulent idiots have siphoned off the infrastructure revenue into general revenue, resulting in an expensive (ten times te cost!) power-hungry, carbon producing desalination plant instead of dams and rainwater tanks. With the manufacturing sector shrinking and new energy-saving technologies, we DO NOT NEED MORE POWER CAPACITY. > > Add in the cold, hard reality that anything being set up for privatisation > has to be made attractive to any potential buyer, and it isn't hard to see > that now the piper has to be paid...... > What rubbish. No government can allocate capital more effectively than the private sector. In case you hadn't noticed, communism failed twenty years ago. If NSW Labor are about to spend on major capital works preparatory to privatisation, you need to report it to ICAC.
From: Sylvia Else on 12 Apr 2010 23:41 On 12/04/2010 8:42 PM, B J Foster wrote: > David Clayton wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:54:52 +1000, Mr.T wrote: >> >>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:hpp4lg$h1t$1(a)bjf.motzarella.org... >>>> ...yet the ETS was voted down. >>>> >>>> NSW Labor are raising electricity prices *anyway* despite the fact that >>>> the bulk of it was intended to fund the ETS. The ETS has been voted >>>> down >>>> in the senate and yet NSW Labor are raising prices anyway. >>> Electricity prices have been going up everywhere for *many* decades. Why >>> on earth do you think it's somehow linked to the ETS? > > It was buried in the NSW treasury budget estimates. > > >>> >> There have been reports in the media that a portion of the price rises >> factors in a future ETS/Carbon price, so naturally all the "There is NO >> Climate Change" brigade jump on it and have a big whinge. > > Some idiots actually like paying tax - usually they're green on the > outside and red on the inside. > >> >> The uncomfortable truth that NSW electricity prices have been held low >> for >> ages - basically for political reasons - and that the infrastructure >> needs >> heaps spent on it seems to escape most people. > > Prior to the pack of idiots known as 'NSW Labor', we had infrastructure > levies - where the cost of infrastructure was built into the cost of new > homes. These incompetent fraudulent idiots have siphoned off the > infrastructure revenue into general revenue, resulting in an expensive > (ten times te cost!) power-hungry, carbon producing desalination plant > instead of dams and rainwater tanks. You can't build dams unless there's somewhere suitable to put them, and the easy (equals cheap) ones get done first, so each new dam costs more than the previous. Sydney already collects the available rainwater from a huge area. There's little scope for extending its catchment in an economically viable way. Having more storage for the existing catchment is only useful if the existing storage reaches capacity. That hasn't happened for ten years. Building storage capacity that's only used over those sorts of timescales makes no economic sense. I've run the numbers. Rainwater tanks are a very expensive way of obtaining water - much more so that desalinators. Run the numbers yourself - you'll reach the the same conclusion. > > With the manufacturing sector shrinking and new energy-saving > technologies, we DO NOT NEED MORE POWER CAPACITY. We need more power capacity because more people are installing air conditioners. They don't use much energy overall, but they all tend to get run at the same time, which pushes up the required power capacity. The generating capacity can take the form of peaking generators, which are cheap to build, though expensive to run. However transmission capacity is capital intensive. Sylvia.
From: B J Foster on 13 Apr 2010 18:37 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/04/2010 8:42 PM, B J Foster wrote: >> David Clayton wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:54:52 +1000, Mr.T wrote: >>> .... >> >> Prior to the pack of idiots known as 'NSW Labor', we had infrastructure >> levies - where the cost of infrastructure was built into the cost of new >> homes. These incompetent fraudulent idiots have siphoned off the >> infrastructure revenue into general revenue, resulting in an expensive >> (ten times te cost!) power-hungry, carbon producing desalination plant >> instead of dams and rainwater tanks. > > You can't build dams unless there's somewhere suitable to put them, and > the easy (equals cheap) ones get done first, so each new dam costs more > than the previous. Sydney already collects the available rainwater from > a huge area. There's little scope for extending its catchment in an > economically viable way. Having more storage for the existing catchment > is only useful if the existing storage reaches capacity. That hasn't > happened for ten years. Building storage capacity that's only used over > those sorts of timescales makes no economic sense. Rubbish. Rainwater tanks provide water at around $1.20 per kilolitre. Desalination costs over $5 per kilolitre. More if the state operates it and you fully cost all the bureaucracy and more still if you fully cost the energy. Desal is energy-hungry and I strongly doubt that they fully costed the fraudulent ETS-based electricity price increases into the cost of desal. Rooftop systems require *zero* energy. > > I've run the numbers. Rainwater tanks are a very expensive way of > obtaining water - much more so that desalinators. Run the numbers > yourself - you'll reach the the same conclusion. I did. Rainwater is capex only. Payback is about 3 years, after that it is free. I recall rainwater tanks being *banned* in certain councils of NSW because they were so *effective* that people were *not* using the council supply. Until the drought. > >> >> With the manufacturing sector shrinking and new energy-saving >> technologies, we DO NOT NEED MORE POWER CAPACITY. > > We need more power capacity because more people are installing air > conditioners. They don't use much energy overall, but they all tend to > get run at the same time, which pushes up the required power capacity. > The generating capacity can take the form of peaking generators, which > are cheap to build, though expensive to run. However transmission > capacity is capital intensive. This is mature technology. We have vast reserves of coal. Distrust people who make a big issue out of electricity capacity expansion. The other thing to consider is that the need to expand capacity is driven by migration-driven population increases. This *should* be take into account in the infrastructure levies but the dishonest NSW Labor party have been putting these proceeds into general revenue for years & *not* expanding infrastructure as was intended. In the case of Newcastle port capacity the incompetence of NSW Labor is extreme, as capacity expansion would have led to even greater income, ie. expanding port capacity is profitable. > > Sylvia.
From: Mr.T on 13 Apr 2010 22:08
"B J Foster" <bjfoster(a)yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message news:hpute2$ad9$1(a)bjf.motzarella.org... > With the manufacturing sector shrinking and new energy-saving > technologies, we DO NOT NEED MORE POWER CAPACITY. I guess you haven't heard that increasing population, and increasing use of appliances (especilly air conditioners) HAS caused an increase in consumption then! > What rubbish. No government can allocate capital more effectively than > the private sector. The same old mantra despite all proof to the contrary. A Bernie Maddoff fan too I suppose? :-) The real fact is that a government should supply essential services at cost, whereas private enterprise MUST make a profit for it's shareholders at consumer expense. Both sectors are incompetently and corruptly managed, so no difference there! MrT. |