It sounds a bit excessive. I think I posted something a while ago on the same topic but it sure wasnt that high
Just heard this on the radio... infact on Nova FM Melbourne.
Seriously, who makes up this crap...
I have no doubt power bill rise, they sure will never fall... but what is with telling people by 400%!!!
I've had a look on the net and can find nothing.
400% my ass.
Look Here -> |
It sounds a bit excessive. I think I posted something a while ago on the same topic but it sure wasnt that high
Shock Jocks strike again.
Some people need to get their finger out of their arse so that the brain can get some oxygen"
they probably read it in the Herald Sun. The same place that most morons get their news from. Anything for a knee jerk reaction form the public.
iam a bogan
trev78 (22-01-10)
Maybe they meant 4 times ...
When you do things right, people won't be sure that you have done anything at all
Yeah, when i Googled, most news on Power Bills going up was around Nov/Dec 09 and a rise or 20% to 60% stuff like that.
No idea where they got the news from, but they were happy to broadcast it to a very wide audience.Wonder if they'll continue to do it at each news cross today?
400%, i have clients that have Power Bills of $15,000 a quarter. I can hardly see them being expected to pay $60,000 a quarter.
Or your average household bill of around $400 a quarter going to $1600.
Makes you wonder what you trust hearing these days.
Last edited by ol' boy; 21-01-10 at 09:24 AM.
maybe in 100years they will be 400% of what they are now. ive heard they are doing a few rises over the next 5yrs or so, by another 50% or so
Best way if they gonna do that is cover your whole roof with solar panels and patly run it off the grid without telling the government..
i just got this email good read i thought
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09. Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone.
This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses.
Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.
Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.
Written By Terence Cardwell
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin head.
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous is that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor: I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
conan_oz (03-03-10),dashinson (21-01-10),LeroyPatrol (21-01-10)
There are a couple of possibilities here.
It's an ambit claim where they really want 200% increase but ask for 400% and then settle for 200% and let people think they have had a win.
Or its true they want 400% they have not built much in the way of new power station for the last 11 years and the new AGL hydro plant is intended to power the desalination plant thus to avoid rolling blackouts they pump up the price to force people to use less.
The minister in charge of this is Peter Bachelor of how to vote card fame. He is not running at the next election so perhaps he's been chosen to take the heat or as it's an election year perhaps the plan is to announce this and have the government knock it back thus making them look like white knights until after the election when it will go up.
Can't wait to see people hot wiring electricity poles like in India and third world countries because they can't afford electricity.
I wonder what the price will go to if Rudd and Wong succeed in forcing the ETS on us too.
Bring on the election. Its about time the Brumby/Bracks disaster got the boot.
It gets better.
Victorian Auditor-Generals report
(AMI is ‘Advanced Metering Infrastructure’ ie ’smart’ meters)
From the report.
"The cost-benefit study behind the AMI decision was flawed and failed to offer a comprehensive view of the economic case for the project."
Consumer implications
The cost-benefit analysis is unclear about how stakeholders, particularly consumers, will benefit and who should bear which costs. There is little evidence to show that when the project was designed, the resultant benefits and costs were adequately considered. It is therefore possible that there will be an inequitable, albeit unintended, transfer of economic benefits from consumers to industry. The regulator recently determined that ‘on average, customers will pay $67.97 more in 2010 for metering services than in 2009, with a further increase of $8.42 in 2011.’ DPI estimated that consumers would pay $40–50 a year for meter costs. Retailers could also pass their costs on to consumers, with one retailer recently indicating in a public
statement that consumers may have to pay an extra $100–150 each year. In another public report, a consumer advocacy group has estimated that the average annual cost of electricity may rise by $120–170 due to the implementation of AMI. If the project’s emerging risks delay the installation of smart meters it is likely that consumers will face further cost increases and gain fewer benefits.
Last edited by SystemRat; 21-01-10 at 05:31 PM.
How the hell does it get more expensive with smart meters when :
A. They are charging us for them
B. They are no doubt going to sack all the meter readers and save a fortune
Bachelor was interviewed on 3AW and he spun his way around it but basically he said the cost was not just the meter but the infrastructure to support the meter. I am guessing but I think its data path is via the power lines in which case there will need to be a bit of gear installed to allow the signal to be sent and received. Alternately it could be wireless perhaps with base units setup thought the areas for the chatter.
The current meter readers will be made redundant as will the fee they charged.
It was interesting listening to Bachelor on occasions prior to the price issue where he said it would offer consumers greater control over their energy costs ! When pressed on what that meant he did not answer the question.
This project is way over budget too it's something like 2.1 billion dollars. All that to eliminate meter readers yea right. My spies tell me the next step is smart water and gas meters. These will somehow piggy back on the data link used by the smart meter.
The trial of this has shown problems however as the water meter electronics has a small rechargeable battery. This is kept charged by a turbine in the water flow.
Problem is if the property is vacant say the owners are on holiday or a holiday house perhaps the battery goes flat.
With a state election coming it seems very strange this is being bought up now. I am not sure if its just bad luck or if they are clearing it out now so people will forget in a few months.
I am sure they do not want the cost of the meter project to make it into the media.
Problem is people glaze over when faced with the term smart meter. Smart meter got to be good huh. Better than a dumb meter.
Last edited by SystemRat; 21-01-10 at 09:45 PM. Reason: Bloody typo's
Looking like another Myki !!!!
Have a listen to this - Good grief.
Ha Ha.. got my elec bill today.
$184 for one month.. sheesh, I live alone. It's either the tv, box, aircon or laptop.
* Bill Paxton is the only actor to be killed by Alien, a Terminator, and the Predator.
Bookmarks