Gas V Electric Costs

[Liam_snorkel]

imo most of the production is during times we are not home or at work and using less power...

for many people, yes, but you still have devices on stand-by during the day, and you're forgetting weekends.
origin energy for instance pays you an additional 6c/kwh so it still wouldn't be a complete loss.
with PV systems getting constantly cheaper and power prices expected to rise something like 40% in the next two years going solar is definitely something to consider.

 

[user 384]

Finlands appears to be a tax on fuel relative to emissions. Whereas ours taxes so much more such as council dumps etc due to their supposed emissions as opposed to the fuel they use. Ours is much broader therefore, I submit, larger.

In Australia only 500 emitters are taxed directly. There are 3,368,188 vehicles in Finland. Each time they refuel, they are taxed directly. 3,368,188 emitters vs 500 emitters, is much broader and, therefore, I submit, larger.

See how stupid such statements are?

As I've said, you can't say how big the tax is without looking at the rate and the base, and even then you need an equivalent comparator, such as GDP.

Finland, 2.9% of GDP vs Australia 0.5% of GDP. Simple question, which is bigger?

 

[Florian]

with PV systems getting constantly cheaper and power prices expected to rise something like 40% in the next two years going solar is definitely something to consider.

And if you consider possibly going solar, then get your application in with Energex until July 9.
Doesn't mean you have to do the install straight away or even do it at all, but at least you have the feed in tariff of 44c (plus whatever your retailer puts on top) guaranteed if you decide to go ahead. Nothing to loose.

Edit: that's for Qld, obviously.

 

[Rowy]

In Australia only 500 emitters are taxed directly. There are 3,368,188 vehicles in Finland. Each time they refuel, they are taxed directly. 3,368,188 emitters vs 500 emitters, is much broader and, therefore, I submit, larger.

See how stupid such statements are?

As I've said, you can't say how big the tax is without looking at the rate and the base, and even then you need an equivalent comparator, such as GDP.

Finland, 2.9% of GDP vs Australia 0.5% of GDP. Simple question, which is bigger?

Now I get it! The 500 won't pass the tax on.................silly me. Of course the difference this tax will make on global emissions is zilch......the basket weavers have had their little win but not long to go now.

 

[Maheel]

And if you consider possibly going solar, then get your application in with Energex until July 9.
Doesn't mean you have to do the install straight away or even do it at all, but at least you have the feed in tariff of 44c (plus whatever your retailer puts on top) guaranteed if you decide to go ahead. Nothing to loose.

Edit: that's for Qld, obviously.

i am going to do that tonight

good idea !! i missed the 2013 bit

thanks

 

[Greg.L]

If you live on a farm and have access to free firewood, then wood is cheaper than gas or elec. I just set up a couple of concrete blocks, a couple of bars of reo and put my 21L pots to heat (2 pots with about 30L of creek water) over the fire. I get to sit on the creekbank waiting for my billy to boil, or to get to 75C.

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if someone has already suggested this.

 

[Florian]

i am going to do that tonight

good idea !! i missed the 2013 bit

thanks

It's Energex form 1003 you need to submit.

You also need to nominate your installer on that form (usually the installer submits the form for you, but seeing time is of the essence it wouldn't hurt to do it yourself).

If you haven't spoken to anyone yet send me a pm, there is a local guy here who gets raving reviews over on whirlpool and certainly does a no ******** job for a fair price. Absolutely no affiliation.

 

[black_labb]

Now I get it! The 500 won't pass the tax on.................silly me. Of course the difference this tax will make on global emissions is zilch......the basket weavers have had their little win but not long to go now.

You do realise that accountants basically run businesses. You may also know that they often have a big say in wether a project is cosidered and approved. Projects are investments for the future, and project managers and accountants take the ongoing costs of a project into account when planning. Taxes are costs.

Some very educated scholars were able to put together the above statements and figure out that businesses would try and minimise CO2 emissions. Too bad only the most educated scholars are able to understand the complex system and no one else can.


A bit from the worlds second largest energy company on investment and carbon tax
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2012/06/20/t...ays-shell-boss/

 

[Malted]

Total cost my friends. Feed in tarrifs, $/per kw hrs in and out... Has anyone who has posted here actually got a PV system? Has anyone that has such a system looked at the total costs? Payback period anyone?

Installing a PV system is expensive. This has to be offset against potential savings or 'earnings' from the potential energy it is 'saving'. Had you not installed it there would be a bunch of money you would still have.

We are looking at an 8 year period before the amount we paid (actually my employers at out office) is negated by the installation costs. Warranty on different PV system varies but can be 10 -15 years if you're lucky. So after 8 years we might be ahead for 2 - 7 years. Is the average Joe Blow going to make such an investment for a payback not payable until 8 years in the future? What if he invested the same amount in some sort of non-PV investment? Would that be a better net return in 8 years time? I honestly do not know.

I am not going to install a PV on my house because I don't know if I will still be here in 8 yrs time. What if I want to sell in 10 yrs time for a bit of an upgrade? Is the big outlay now worth it for a potential 2yr saving in 8yrs time? Fark it, i'll keep the extra coin now and maybe spend it on something with immediate benefit, such as shiny stuff for brewing.

 

[bum]

A valid position but projecting it on to everyone else presumes everyone else is only fiscally motivated in regard to this issue.

 

[kelbygreen]

malted the scheme is only in place till 2015 (from memory, was about 3 years ago when I done my house hold sustainability coarse and then it was about 6 years left on the scheme) so after that you may not get any money back for the electricity you produce (doubt this will happen) but it may be GREATLY! reduced! or they might increase it (government dependent) So its very hard to say what will happen when the current bill expires, this is a risk both ways but I cant see them cutting off the payment you produce.

You may get more per KW or less per KW but that will be for the government in power to decide. If you ever put PV system in always put a inverter bigger then your system so if you want to expand you wont have to put a whole new invert in.

 

[Malted]

A valid position but projecting it on to everyone else presumes everyone else is only fiscally motivated in regard to this issue.

You too have a valid position; no objections. I failed to consider that some may be more hugging motivated than fiscally motivated. After all most brewers (since we are considering our peers on this forum) are not tight arses and are more likely to hug trees and small furry mammals. Jokes aside, IMO most folks want to save the planet reduce carbon emissions etc, as long as it doesn't cost them. NIMBY make some one else pay for it. Thoughts?

 

[Malted]

malted the scheme is only in place till 2015 (from memory, was about 3 years ago when I done my house hold sustainability coarse and then it was about 6 years left on the scheme) so after that you may not get any money back for the electricity you produce (doubt this will happen) but it may be GREATLY! reduced! or they might increase it (government dependent) So its very hard to say what will happen when the current bill expires, this is a risk both ways but I cant see them cutting off the payment you produce.

You may get more per KW or less per KW but that will be for the government in power to decide. If you ever put PV system in always put a inverter bigger then your system so if you want to expand you wont have to put a whole new invert in.

It is my understanding that folks were are able to lock in a tarrif for a period of time. There are cut offs for when these locked in tarrifs will become unavailable.
I doubt feed in tarrifs will increase. The governmenbt **** themselves at how popular and rapid the uptake of the scheme was, that is why they shut it down. There is another element to it also.
Current infrastructure is suited to a certain load flowing to houses, if too many houses are feeding back into the grid, the infrastructure is not suited to this. It is my understanding that they don't want too much power flowing back into the system because it would be too costly to upgrade the infrastructure to cope with this. I don't fully understand the details of it and this is my simplistic understanding, it may well be flawed. I encourage someone to enlighten me. As it was, there were limits to the systems and rebates available because the government didn't want folks to be net energy producers. IMO it was barely better than the home insulation scheme.

 

[bum]

IMO most folks want to save the planet reduce carbon emissions etc, as long as it doesn't cost them. NIMBY make some one else pay for it. Thoughts?

As an observation of the current general climate (if you'll forgive the near pun) - I'd say this was accurate.

As an assessment of people's actual, unspoken opinions - that's not even close. The truth is closer to "I don't care. I'll be dead anyway. The money is better in my pocket."

If people actually cared and actually believed that the issues/science being presented to us were real then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Some policy would have been enacted YEARS ago and we'd already be seeing if it had any effect. Well, realistically, if we actually believed it we wouldn't even need a policy shift - we'd just stop consuming so much.

I'm not going to come out in defence the current approach but I will say this - regardless of your position, what is the harm in reducing consumption? In keeping resources in reserve? In polluting our environment to a lesser extent? Yeah, some of you will ask me, in turn, "Bum, what of the economy if consumption were to fall?" I'd tell my interrogators that they may have missed the point of the carbon tax entirely.

 

[Malted]

As an assessment of people's actual, unspoken opinions - that's not even close. The truth is closer to "I don't care. I'll be dead anyway. The money is better in my pocket." Very true.

If people actually cared and actually believed that the issues/science being presented to us were real then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Some policy would have been enacted YEARS ago and we'd already be seeing if it had any effect. Well, realistically, if we actually believed it we wouldn't even need a policy shift - we'd just stop consuming so much. If only the science had a consensus. Who are we to know who to believe? Modelling is modelling after all.

what is the harm in reducing consumption? In keeping resources in reserve? In polluting our environment to a lesser extent?
Surely you jest? Would I really want to change the lifestyle I am accustomed to?

 

[kymba]

1) buys solar panels & errata

2) tell the power companies to gag on my cock

3) wait 8 years to pay off panels

4) profit!!! (sort of, maybe, if i haven't sold my recs already)

5) resort to stealing from 7-11's and dimmeys when my feed-in tariff is reduced, again

 

[bum]

If only the science had a consensus. Who are we to know who to believe? Modelling is modelling after all.

There is certainly more than a little truth to that, however, any credible sources are only arguing about scale right now (as is my understanding, anyway - I'm no science-talking-guy). Any inactivity only makes the problem worse, no matter whose models you choose. I mean, even Big Oil (etc) has stopped trying to bury their heads in the sand. They don't have to answer to a constituency - this suggests to me that climate change is real and the dangers are real even if uncertain.

Surely you jest? Would I really want to change the lifestyle I am accustomed to?

This is essentially what I've said is closer to the truth above though, right? Regardless, it doesn't come down to a matter of "want". It is a matter of "need". Obviously, we all determine our own needs based on priority. Feathers are getting ruffled here because certain needs are artificially being set against each other.

 

[black_labb]

I can't remember the details but there is a company that has or is going to launch a product for powering your house. It uses a fuel cell running on natural gas and uses the heat created/cooling needed to heat your hot water. The system is something like 80% efficient as the inherrent losses are turned into hot water heating. A Coal fired power plant gets 30% efficiency. Also being in the home you don't have the losses involved with powerlines and transformers crossing the country. They can be used a a base power load. They still create carbon dioxide but the amount is very much decreased as well as the amount of fuel being fed in is much less.

http://www.harveynormansolar.com.au/BlueGEN.html

 

[user 384]

Has anyone who has posted here actually got a PV system? Has anyone that has such a system looked at the total costs? Payback period anyone?

Yep, I have a 4kw system. Top grade panels, best quality German inverter, mounted on custom stainless frame to optimise the angle of the panels. It's the Rolls Royce of PV systems, so as you might guess, not cheap.

Even with a top of the line system, it will take only 4 years 3 months to pay back. This is based on the real life output of my system. Considering SA Government just announced an 18% increase in electricity costs, it will be even sooner.

Installing a PV system is expensive. This has to be offset against potential savings or 'earnings' from the potential energy it is 'saving'. Had you not installed it there would be a bunch of money you would still have.

OK, what about the money I could have earned if I had just invested the initial capital outlay. It pushes the pay back period out to about 5 years 6 months (again this doesn't take account of the 18% increase).

So after 5.5 years, I'm ahead each year by $2,200. No doubt this will be higher as the cost of electricity continues to increase.

I have a 15 year warranty on the panels and 17 years more of the high feed-in rate. It was a no-brainer for me.

I am not going to install a PV on my house because I don't know if I will still be here in 8 yrs time

Additionally, it adds re-sale value to my house. In SA, if I sell the house, the new owner is also entitled to the high feed-in rate.

 

[glenwal]

You're all wrong, the cheapest way to brew is underpants.

1. Collect underpants
2.
3. Profit