Getting a better Energy deal - WHAT A JOKE!

[swk]

Two more Solar Farms under construction (inc the largest to date):
...


And there's another 120+ MW going in right now at Tailem Bend in SA that has been studiously ignored. I expect that there are numerous projects quietly happening. The economics for solar farms became viable a couple of years ago. What we'll see is a large number of farms racing to get into the market until it is saturated, then there'll be a cut throat fight between them to see who can stay viable. Which, in theory, should bring the wholesale price down.

SWK

[ian]

No, it really wasn't. At its very best when it was new in the 1980s-early 90s, it achieved 96% availability of 2x250 units (= 4200 GWh). Although it was later nominally re-rated to 2x260MW it never really achieved that availability again, due to problems, mostly with tube leaks. It got progressively worse after that as it could not compete in the market, then in the last years it was running with one unit or other mothballed, so wasn't producing more than 2000GWh.
If your numbers include Playford, that was another nominal 4x60MW alternators. But that never ran all of them together, since the 90s. In the early-mid 2000s that was refurbished but to the best of my knowledge never ran in a meaningful way in the last decade.

SWK
thanks or supplying the real operational numbers. I was using those attributed to the persons contributing to the ABC story.
In the context of the up-thread discussion, I believe the "omission" of the word "hours" was a deliberate with the intent to equate apples and oranges. as in "the new solar installation is as big as the old coal fired power station -- but much cleaner"

[ian]

The economics for solar farms became viable a couple of years ago. What we'll see is a large number of farms racing to get into the market until it is saturated, then there'll be a cut throat fight between them to see who can stay viable. Which, in theory, should bring the wholesale price down.
what I think I am seeing with solar farms is construction based on long term contracted sales to big entities -- ACT Government, AGL, University of NSW, etc. For example the ACT Government is paying upwards of 180 cents per kWh for it's "green" power.

Longer term, solar operational costs should be close to zero so the real competition will be in regards to their financing arrangements -- and unless something unusual has been happening in that area, most solar farms will have similar terms and interest rates on their bank loans.

[Pete57]

I have been told that the evening peak power usage rises more rapidly than in the past as it starts around sunset as solar stops generating. Wonder if daylight saving makes any difference to this.

[fletty]

I have been told that the evening peak power usage rises more rapidly than in the past as it starts around sunset as solar stops generating. Wonder if daylight saving makes any difference to this.

There have been a lot of studies on the evening peak as it is actually the peak, not the average load, that drives the need for network building and/or reinforcing. The total load during the peak (in say Western Sydney) can be up to 160% of average load on a typically hot Sydney afternoon. This peak is largely caused by residents returning home and turning on their aircon. If however it is the third day of a ‘heat wave’, then the peak increase is less but only because more residents have left their aircon on all day and so the daily base load is much higher all day. Aircon has changed Australia from a winter peaking network to a summer peaking network in only a decade. This is technically the worst outcome for networks because most network elements (including the humble cables and wires) can handle less load when the ambient temperature is high. So, the things that help the National market cope with these daily load cycles are that industrial load is reducing as domestic load increases, coastal load diminishes earlier than inland suburban load due to sea breezes AND the currentl differences in daylight saving between states displaces the load peak due to the 1 hour difference in times when people get home from work. It would be much worse if all of the eastern states where on the same time during summer.

[ian]

Aircon has changed Australia from a winter peaking network to a summer peaking network in only a decade. This is technically the worst outcome for networks because most network elements (including the humble cables and wires) can handle less load when the ambient temperature is high.
and at a guess, it will only get worse. As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs, it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes down.

[FenceFurniture]

As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs,I'd like to think this was right but what I saw at the Oran Park development (completed 2-3 years ago) was very disappointing indeed. After several drives, scouring the rooves for Solar, I finally saw one, just one. I think there may be a second one there somewhere now.

They seem to have spent all their money on the land, and the remainder on the house with nary a thought for Solar, which is pretty weird given that they are all air-conditioned, and now have HUGE running costs. The values of those homes have fallen around 10% (apparently) in the last 12 months, and the media keeps telling us the falls will continue.



...it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes downProbably true but at least the house would be cooled down, and not require "full on" air-con.

[Beardy]

When I was building a lot of houses the question often came up about solar from clients to which I replied to do your research and we are happy to work in with your solar installer during the build
Not one client proceeded with a solar system apart from a few hot water units
Perhaps some may have retrofitted it later on ?
The big project home builders would be all over it if there was a dollar in it but they don’t seem to touch it

[FenceFurniture]

When I was building a lot of houses the question often came up about solar from clients to which I replied to do your research and we are happy to work in with your solar installer during the build. Not one client proceeded with a solar system apart from a few hot water unitsWere the rebates in place at that time? (i.e. not the ongoing feed-in-tariffs but the Fed. Govt rebates on purchase price of the panels). The rebates are pretty good, and are phasing out at a rate of 1/14th (7.14%) per year over the next 13 years (first drop was Jan 2018)




The big project home builders would be all over it if there was a dollar in it but they don’t seem to touch itI doubt there will ever be a dollar in it for builders of any size because it has to be installed by specialists. The only way a builder could make any money would be to add on a fee for no real service, and that would probably be spotted by the client pretty quickly (if they were slightly on the ball). Now if the builders were to set up their own Solar installation sub-company it would be different - they could then benefit from a genuine value-add process.

[swk]

... I was using those attributed to the persons contributing to the ABC story.
In the context of the up-thread discussion, I believe the "omission" of the word "hours" was a deliberate with the intent to equate apples and oranges. as in "the new solar installation is as big as the old coal fired power station -- but much cleaner"

Nah.
I think you are assuming Ben actually understands this stuff enough to make politician type statements. I wouldn't assume that.

I heard the Federal environment minister talking about the new IPCC report a couple of days ago. She was talking about how the scientists were pushing for a temperature increase limit of 1.5 to 2 "percent". My view is that vanishing few politicians have the vaguest idea when the talk becomes technical. I remember (I think it was science historian James Burke) on the telly many years ago. He made a very pertinent comment. It was along the lines: "if the political debate is about the number of jobs, there are serious technical issues that no one understands or wants to address".

SWK

[Chris Parks]

and at a guess, it will only get worse. As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs, it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes down.

Roof top solar benefits the home in two ways, firstly by shading the roof with the panels and secondly by the electricity produced. The new AC systems now being used run on pennies when compared to the old ones so that should help alleviate the loads being introduced via AC. By now I would expect every new house to be fully lit via LED which further reduces the impact of very new home on the grid. They could of course build homes suitable for the climate and reduce cooling costs even more but that is unlikely to happen.

[Beardy]

Were the rebates in place at that time? (i.e. not the ongoing feed-in-tariffs but the Fed. Govt rebates on purchase price of the panels). The rebates are pretty good, and are phasing out at a rate of 1/14th (7.14%) per year over the next 13 years (first drop was Jan 2018)



I doubt there will ever be a dollar in it for builders of any size because it has to be installed by specialists. The only way a builder could make any money would be to add on a fee for no real service, and that would probably be spotted by the client pretty quickly (if they were slightly on the ball). Now if the builders were to set up their own Solar installation sub-company it would be different - they could then benefit from a genuine value-add process.

Most of the higher volumes were from early 2000 to 2015 so assume there were some decent rebates in that time?
The style of client was in a position to be able to afford it as we did poly kitchens with stone tops and full height tiling to bathrooms etc etc as standard amongst other things so it obviously must not have been seen as a viable/attractive proposition

[62woollybugger]

I'd like to think this was right but what I saw at the Oran Park development (completed 2-3 years ago) was very disappointing indeed. After several drives, scouring the rooves for Solar, I finally saw one, just one. I think there may be a second one there somewhere now.

They seem to have spent all their money on the land, and the remainder on the house with nary a thought for Solar, which is pretty weird given that they are all air-conditioned, and now have HUGE running costs. The values of those homes have fallen around 10% (apparently) in the last 12 months, and the media keeps telling us the falls will continue.


Probably true but at least the house would be cooled down, and not require "full on" air-con.
Not all of them are air conditioned, a friend built out there & didn't put AC in. I'm not sure which builder he used but his house is always cool in the summer, just good design.

Solar & wind power would not be ecconomically viable if they had to put storage systems in so that they could provide power 24/7 like coal, gas & hydro. I can't see battery technology being able to do this in your or my lifetime. Currently pumped hydro is the only viable option for storing enough power, but there have been some advances in Hydrogen production recently, which could provide another option for power storage.
If we'd had any governments with foresight, we should have had gas transport infrastructure in place, so we could have used gas generation as a transition from coal to renewables.

[poundy]

Currently pumped hydro is the only viable option for storing enough power
I don't think that's actually correct these days. Several of the posts in this thread talk about salt storage and there are many farms with salt storage around the world.

[Beardy]

Roof top solar benefits the home in two ways, firstly by shading the roof with the panels and secondly by the electricity produced. The new AC systems now being used run on pennies when compared to the old ones so that should help alleviate the loads being introduced via AC. By now I would expect every new house to be fully lit via LED which further reduces the impact of very new home on the grid. They could of course build homes suitable for the climate and reduce cooling costs even more but that is unlikely to happen.

The BASIX requirements you are required to meet for a new home are pretty good at making an energy efficient home and then some people take that a step further but Even at the minimum basic build they are miles ahead of older homes. Even the old full brick homes that people think are good are behind your modern basic project home for energy efficiency

[FenceFurniture]

If we'd had any governments with foresight, we should have had gas transport infrastructure in place, so we could have used gas generation as a transition from coal to renewables.So you don't think we should export it for less than it's worth here? I dunno, sounds like a plan to me. A Govt plan, that is.....

[62woollybugger]

I don't think that's actually correct these days. Several of the posts in this thread talk about salt storage and there are many farms with salt storage around the world.

From my understanding, molten salt storage is only used on solar thermal power plants, not PV. The loses to convert electricity from PV into heat to melt the salts, then to produce steam to drive a turbine to power a generator are too great to make it viable. If any large scale energy storage system was fiancially viable you could bet that the companies investing in wind & PV solar plants would be installing them so that they could store power produced in low demand times so they could sell it at a higher price in peak times.

[Chris Parks]

The BASIX requirements you are required to meet for a new home are pretty good at making an energy efficient home and then some people take that a step further but Even at the minimum basic build they are miles ahead of older homes. Even the old full brick homes that people think are good are behind your modern basic project home for energy efficiency

Australian houses are brick veneer tents with damn all thought put into thermal efficiency for heating or cooling.

[Beardy]

Australian houses are brick veneer tents with damn all thought put into thermal efficiency for heating or cooling.

The older ones I agree but ones built in the last 10 or so years don’t go too bad but would be better if the didn’t brick them and used a cladding instead.
Reverse brick veneer would be better again but affordability starts to creep in. Cost starts to become the juggling point chasing a diminishing return

[poundy]

From my understanding, molten salt storage is only used on solar thermal power plants, not PV. The loses to convert electricity from PV into heat to melt the salts, then to produce steam to drive a turbine to power a generator are too great to make it viable. If any large scale energy storage system was fiancially viable you could bet that the companies investing in wind & PV solar plants would be installing them so that they could store power produced in low demand times so they could sell it at a higher price in peak times. which just means more production of the solar thermal during the day goes into storage rather than consumed with base load that gets mopped up by home PV.

[Lappa]

Article just out

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/wind-turbines-a-potential-health-risk-world-health-organisation-ng-b88986358z

[FenceFurniture]

In the news today (too much solar power for Victoria's system :doh:)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-26/victorias-renewable-energy-boom-could-burn-electricity-market/10405210

We really do need our Fed, State and Local Govts to start talking to each other about power. WOULDN'T THAT BE GOOD!! We might actually get somewhere fast, and start leading the world like we should be (with our sunlight resources to make use of)

[FenceFurniture]

Heh heh, I can see it now:

The Department of Power

Idiot politicians will be falling over themselves to get that portfolio. :roflmao2:

[FenceFurniture]

Remember that? That's where we were a year or so ago - not that I object at all to the direction that the discussion has gone - very enlightening.

Well guess what? It's a year later and Origin are saying that some of my discounts are going to expire. They reckon that the Gas discount of 20% has to come down to 17%, and electrickery has to come down from 28% to 21%.

JOHN ELLIOT RESPONSE TO THAT!

Now Origin are a bit smarter about these things than AGL. The avid reader of this thread will recall that it took me something like 53 phone calls to get it all sorted out last year, and only after tremendous cockups by AGL. In the end I said to Origin "why don't you just put me through to your retention team, and we can save each other's time?".

So they did.

That's how I got what appear to be excellent discounts.

Today I had to talk to Origin about another matter, and "Steph" happened to say that one of the discounts was about to drop off, blah blah as described in the 2nd para above. I suggested that she tell her manager that this was going to be another giant waste of time for both parties dancing around to the same old tune. Her manager said she could put me through to retention. They called me back 5 minutes later, plans extended for another 12 months. I congratulated her on reducing last year's mammoth 53 phone calls to just 2 this time, and that next year, because I am going to make a diary note to call her directly in the first week of October, the phone calls will reduce by another 50% and we'll do it in one call.

Still took an hour of my time though. :D

[FenceFurniture]

Even though Origin are a bit smarter about it than AGL, they still try it on. They're trying to tell me that the discounts I am on are loss making for them.

Another John Elliot response!

Why the hell would they be bothered giving me a loss making discount just so I don't leave? It is not logical Captain!

They may not be making very much out of me, but there is no way they would subsidise my bills just so I don't leave - I'm just not quite that likeable! :;

[aldav]

AGL installed a smart meter for us (???) in September. No mention of any tariff changes leading up to the change, but no sooner is it in and they send me an email with new peak, shoulder and off-peak prices that made my eyes water (and my blood heat up to uncomfortable levels). The peak and shoulder rates were only 1c per kwh different and were 24% more than the previous general usage tariff. Guess what discount we were on - yeah that's right 24%. To rub salt in to the wound the email started, " We recently reviewed your account and found that the pricing originally quoted for your energy plan at ....... was incorrect." Naturally I looked around for a better deal, and found one. Once AGL realise we're leaving they come back to us with a 32% discount, which results in an almost identical bill to the new supplier.

I hate all this sort of c#$p! None of these companies are worthy of our custom, but most of us have to use someone. Why is it so much more viable for them to get a new customer than to keep an old one? We'd been with AGL for about 5 years. Maybe if enough people leave and tell them why they'll finally get it.

[Chris Parks]

I look back on the days of the Sydney County Council and think how good we had it. The price was what it was and this is how much you owe us.

[Lappa]

About 6 months after I had the house retired and a new meter fitted, AGL sent me a letter to say they were going to install a Smart Meter. I rang thrm up and asked why. They said it was so the meter could be read without coming on the property. They were very cagey when I asked about various changing charges at various times so I said - “no thanks, I don’t want the meter. Mine was only replaced 6/months ago.” . They said “O/K we won’t fit one”. So obviously there is a choice as to whether one will be fitted or not - as far as AGL goes.

On another note, there was a guy from the Electricity industry in Victoria on TV last night talking about the large take up of solar panels in Victoria.
He stated that the existing electricity supply infrastructure was reaching a point where it wouldn’t be able to cope with the amount of electricity being generated by solar panels during the day when demands were low.

[Bushmiller]

On another note, there was a guy from the Electricity industry in Victoria on TV last night talking about the large take up of solar panels in Victoria.
He stated that the existing electricity supply infrastructure was reaching a point where it wouldn’t be able to cope with the amount of electricity being generated by solar panels during the day when demands were low.

Lappa

This has been the cry from the detractors for some time. There is the potential for more power to be going out than was ever designed to come in. However installations have to be "approved" and I presume that the level of solar for any given location is taken into account.

The other issue is that our single phase supply is taken from one of the three phases available and there is also the potential for another imbalance. However that is also true for incoming power. To my mind the increasing level of solar power should all be allowed for as and when upgrades take place. This should be an ongoing issue. Take any street in the country and the demand today is vastly increased to, say, fifty years ago. The incidence of appliances, air conditioners and other electrical devices has increased out of all proportion. So it is with the increase in solar installations. It is ludicrous to state that solar is a problem because the infrastructure is inadequate. (I appreciate the Electricity guy may have been stating the existing situation rather than detracting). The Electricity distributors have to wake up, acknowledge that the nature of electrical generation is changing, do their share and provide for the future.

I have to say that if all this was still in the hands of the governments and not private enterprise it may be less of an issue. Private enterprise just sees such things eating into their profits. I can see why a private enterprise is not receptive to such change at their expense but it also demonstrates why public utilities (electricity, gas and water) should not be in the hands of private enterprise .

Regards
Paul

[Beardy]

You would like to think that it would be better if it was still in government hands but when you look st other public services and infrastructure they run I am not so confident.

[ian]

There is the potential for more power to be going out than was ever designed to come in. However installations have to be "approved" and I presume that the level of solar for any given location is taken into account.

The other issue is that our single phase supply is taken from one of the three phases available and there is also the potential for another imbalance. However that is also true for incoming power. To my mind the increasing level of solar power should all be allowed for as and when upgrades take place. This should be an ongoing issue. Take any street in the country and the demand today is vastly increased to, say, fifty years ago. The incidence of appliances, air conditioners and other electrical devices has increased out of all proportion. So it is with the increase in solar installations. It is ludicrous to state that solar is a problem because the infrastructure is inadequate. I suppose that at some point the total solar generation in a street could exceed the capacity of the wires in the street.
but more interestingly, can a step-down transformer work backwards?

Scenario:
there are two "demands" both supplied from a single 11kV line. (for now ignore redundancy issues)
Demand 1 is industrial and is supplied by a dedicated 11kV to 415V transformer.
Demand 2 is a residential area also supplied through a dedicated 11kV to 415V transformer.

Now if the residential area installs solar panels feeding back into the grid, at some point the number of roof top solar panels will feed enough power back into that part of the grid within the residential area that the step-down transformer will be idle or working at some small fraction of its current carrying capacity. (Is a transformer's effectiveness affected by temperature? meaning that if the transformer has very little current passing through it, is that an issue? especially in terms of response time to a sudden increase in load.)

Then if the residential area installs more roof top solar, at some point the 11kV to 415V step-down transformer will need to "work backwards" to step the 415V solar generated power up to 11kV so that it can energise the 11kV line and can be used by the adjacent industrial demand.

Is this possible with the installed base of step-down transformers?



More generally, what is getting up my nose is the cross subsidy from renters and apartment dwellers -- who mostly can't access solar power -- to owner/occupiers of stand alone housing who receive subsidies to install solar panels.

[Bushmiller]

Beardy

I should have qualified my comments a little in that, it might at least get done eventually under government ownership.

As it is, the incentive to eat into profit is just not there for the private enterprises. There is the added barrier of the government's (all sides of politics) lack of decision and the constantly changing standpoint. What company is going to commit to a multi million (actually make that billion) dollar project if they know the goal posts are going to be moved. An example of this in recent times is the competitive market that operates along the east coast of Australia. The system was established with associated rules and for years it operated with considerable losses to the generators. Now it has reached an equitable point in terms of market returns the government fabricates "rip-off" type scenarios and wants to change the market conditions.

Both governments and public commentators are fond of quoting extraordinary high prices on the wholesale market and indeed this does happen: It is infrequent and commonly lasts for five minutes. I have heard this on numerous occasions; I have never heard them quote the -$1000 (yes that is "minus") that actually occurs more frequently and sometimes for longer. None of this affects the domestic user as an immediate consequence and large consumers in industry and on the wholesale market have the option to enter into contracts at guaranteed fixed prices which effectively insulate them from those wide market swings.

I see that I have digressed a little as my own emotion on the subject gains momentum. So, yes, the government is inefficient but at least they can't start to shelve the blame to other entities. The buck ultimately stops with them. Not so at the moment.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

To my mind the increasing level of solar power should all be allowed for as and when upgrades take place.This goes back to the various levels of Govt talking to each other. If they were communicating (properly) they could even do something radical like plan for all the extra Solar power. Councils could be taking advantage of surplus power production by having some batteries scattered throughout the community to run streetlights, traffic lights, whatever. Those same batteries could also be used for coping with surges in power (couldn't they??) and perhaps helping with blackouts due to lightning strikes (couldn't they??). Every time we have an electrical storm up here the power gets knocked out fro anywhere as short as a second to as long as several hours, and we get a lot of electrical storms here by comparison.

I don't understand the technicalities, but it just seems to me that if a battery such as the SA monster can help with State-wide stability, then surely smaller batteries scattered around the community can help on a more micro level.

If there had been any kind of proper plan in place it would have meant that the various levels of Govt could have accelerated battery development with funding, because they would have known that the demand would be there - THEY would be creating the demand. What we do know is that funds speed up development. Surely batteries can't be that far off being viable if the SA battery is anything to go by. I forget the numbers now but it sounds like it will pay for itself in not too many years and create more stable power as well in the meantime.

Bring on a powerful Dept Of Power I say. :D



It is ludicrous to state that solar is a problem because the infrastructure is inadequate. The Electricity distributors have to wake up, acknowledge that the nature of electrical generation is changing, do their share and provide for the future.Because if they don't their business model will become obsolete, and quickly at that. A few hundred posts ago I said that I thought Mike Baird had sold the Poles & Wires at the perfect time - while he could still get decent bucks for them. It would have been a much better idea if much of that money was mandated to go into renewable R&D rather than completely wasting it by rebuilding the Football Stadium and the Olympic site *like they couldn't have been used for another 10-30 years.......and Football is SO much more important than a secure electricity supply)

[Bushmiller]

If there had been any kind of proper plan in place it would have meant that the various levels of Govt could have accelerated battery development with funding, because they would have known that the demand would be there - THEY would be creating the demand. What we do know is that funds speed up development. Surely batteries can't be that far off being viable if the SA battery is anything to go by. I forget the numbers now but it sounds like it will pay for itself in not too many years and create more stable power as well in the meantime.



Brett

More interest and involvement would certainly improve and speed up development. I sometimes think back to cars and TVs and how the increased interest and consumption decreased the cost hugely. QED.

However.... having said that, I am not convinced that batteries are sufficiently economic yet. Solar by itself is still only "approaching" the cost of thermal fired power. Batteries are an extra cost on top. We tend to forget that and talk about them separately and then compare them to thermal coal or gas. That is not a true comparison.

What is the current coast of a solar plant? Not quite sure, but in round figures when out station was built in 2002 it cost $1.5 billion for an 850MW plant. OK it would be more expensive today, but compare to the Tesla battery at 100MW for ONE hour at a cost of $500mil. (8.5 x 24 x 500 produces a figure that is laughable: $102 billion, plus the cost of the Solar generation). The real advantage of the Tesla battery is the ability to regulate voltages extremely quickly and provide voltage control where previously with solar there was no provision for what is an essential aspect of electrical generation. It is not a cheap solution.

The claims of batteries becoming cheaper is probably true, but the assertions that they are viable is still for the moment, I believe, hyperbole. This is much as I would like to believe that. My own fanciful belief is that some other storage option will be developed and batteries, as a large scale storage device, will fade away. I hope I am wrong.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

However.... having said that, I am not convinced that batteries are sufficiently economic yet.

The claims of batteries becoming cheaper is probably true, but the assertions that they are viable is still for the moment, I believe, hyperboleAgreed - I'm just saying that if there was a national plan put into place - say a decade or more ago - we would be much further down the battery development path than we are now. We might even be at the reasonable "break even" point by now, especially given that batteries look like being commercially viable in around 5 years from now.

[ian]

Thinking about batteries, the funny thing is that one of the "presumed" benefits of electric cars is that when you get home after your daily commute you plug the car in and the residual energy in the battery is used to help manage the evening peak demand. The car is then charged overnight with off-peak power at a time when coal fired thermal is probably the cheapest and most reliable source.

[FenceFurniture]

Business not only wants certainty with Energy policy, it seems to want Solar:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/sanjeev-gupta-throws-clean-energy-challenge-to-government/10445518

The more various business lobby groups tackle the Federal Govt the quicker we might get some kind of certainty, but that may have to wait until after the next election (dunno what Labor's Energy policy is, but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")

[Chris Parks]

My daughter's in laws own several large wharehouses and they have finally decided that the sums now add up to cover them in solar panels.

[Bohdan]

but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")

You forgot "definitely, positively with absolute certainty maybe"

[FenceFurniture]

My daughter's in laws own several large wharehouses and they have finally decided that the sums now add up to cover them in solar panels.So now that you've had your panels up for a year (I think) what's the best estimate of how long before you break even on the cost?

[ian]

The more various business lobby groups tackle the Federal Govt the quicker we might get some kind of certainty, but that may have to wait until after the next election (dunno what Labor's Energy policy is, but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")
now that's very cynical

I though the Lib's had a well thought out energy policy that Labor (but perhaps not the Greens) supported but a certain former PM wouldn't countenance because
1. it had Malcolm Turnbull's name on it.
2. Labor was generally supportive.
3. it would deliver a stable investment environment for business -- which was bad because of 1.
4. it would almost certainly survive a change in government -- which was bad because of 1.

[FenceFurniture]

now that's very cynical Yeah, o'coarse! I agree with the general idea that you've outlined there Ian. It was all the reasons why the Libs were thinking their so called virginity was taken by Turnbull. He was trying to Centrify them, and for the likes of Abbott and his fellow buzzards, it had very little to do with policy (and good policy at that) and far more to do with personal revenge which is just a pizz-weak reason to stay in Parliament (thank you Malcolm for buggering off quickly and without having to be told).

Rudd was just as guilty of hanging around to white-ant (a particularly sensitive term amongst Woodies :D). I was disappointed that he didn't take a golden opportunity for a Double Dissolution election back when his ETS was knocked back twice by the Senate. It seemed to me at the time (2009??) that they (or more probably he) didn't have the nuts for it, when the truth is they would have won in a canter, and therefore both houses combined for the DD vote on the Bill would have carried the vote for the ETS (which I seem to remember as being even better policy than any of the myriad policies and non-policies that have followed).

Remembering of course that Climate Change is BS - just ask the Farmers and Industry - what would they know compared to a Glass House Politician from the Northern Beaches? He's even a so-called eggspurt on Indigenous matters (and it would seem they don't want to know Abbott about him either). :((

[Chris Parks]

So now that you've had your panels up for a year (I think) what's the best estimate of how long before you break even on the cost?

It is a moving target, as the prices go up the pay back period gets shorter but I reckon on five to six years at the present rates. I gave up keeping detailed records at the beginning of the year and just pay the bill when it comes in. What has become obvious is that during the hot days of summer it is unlikely we could full charge a battery pack which I had always suspected but numbers now prove. I have been looking at the workshop roof but the problem there is it is shaded by the house during winter and the carport roof is too flimsy to hold any panels at all. Overall our bill is about $650 better off per quarter.

[swk]

A long clip, but worth listening to here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=n9agMs6uZ2c).

CEO of the US firm Exelon, one of the largest single utilities in the US.

SWK

[Lappa]

Overall our bill is about $650 better off per quarter.

:oo: My combined electricity and gas bill isn’t that much a quarter!

[Chris Parks]

:oo: My combined electricity and gas bill isn’t that much a quarter!


Fish ponds, a swimming pool, enough electronics to start a Jaycar franchise and two huge AC units make it all add up. I would put more solar up but there is no more roof area suitable. The AC was on yesterday and the consumption with just one unit working was over 10kwh. We had a data logger from Fronius installed with the solar and it really shows the true story for better or worse.

[FenceFurniture]

:oo: My combined electricity and gas bill isn’t that much a quarter!Even in this quite small house the June-Sept gas bill was $530, and that is with the so called "loss making" discounts I get. $80 for daily supply, say $30 for the cooking stove, and $420 for the Central Heating gas usage (about $4.70 per day). I didn't have all that much firewood this year (and at $180/tonne which lasts for about 3 weeks - or $9/day - I wasn't about to buy any). Last year was the first time in ten years that I purchased firewood.

[FenceFurniture]

For the last 2-3 years I have been entering the energy bill data into a spreadsheet so I know exactly what is going on. I hadn't entered the Origin bills for the last 9 months until a couple of days ago.

Well they are certainly not exempt from the usual shenanigans of "How can we make this bill even harder to read for no good reason?". In fact, so desperate are they to achieve this that they fabricated two rate changes within a week on one electricity bill, and two so-called rate changes on another - except the rate didn't change AT ALL!

That is just in an effort to add two pages of irrelevant IDENTICAL numbers to the bill to confuse people who don't necessarily understand these things.

As for having a "Contract" with them, I really do wish that someone with enough money would take these mongrels on in court, because their behaviour is unconscionable. I would have thought that a contract means they will supply X product for Y cost for Z months or years, but I'd be wrong about that.

For those who are not numerically minded, please bear with me because the numbers tell the truth and show the attitude.



Origin Gas over the four bills of the last 12 months (and keep your eye on the first bracket in each bill):
Bill 1. 51 days of late Spring to early summer
0-1056 MJ at 3.70 cents
1057-2096 at 2.5 cents

Bill 2. 91 days of summer when gas usage is down......
0-1885 MJ at 3.70 cents
So you can see that because the usage will be low in summer they increase the threshold from 1056 to 1885.

Bill 3. 92 days of Autumn (cool up here)
0-1906 MJ at 3.70 cents
1907-3781 at 2.5 cents
3781+ at 2.4 cents
so that's another effective price increase that will earn them significant money over Bill 1 rates. 4% increase as it turns out.

Bill 4. 90 days of Winter, but with a rate change after 16 days
So 16 days of
0-331 MJ at 3.70 cents
332-658 at 2.5 cents
659+ at 2.4 cents
then 74 days of (and I think this is when Turnbull started barking at the Gas industry)
0-1533 at 3.59 cents
1534-3041 at 2.42 cents
3042+ at 2.33 cents
and the supply charge dropped by ~2c per day


So my bills were
1. $64.71 ($1.27/day)
2. $42.97 (47c/day for summer cooking)
3. $270.85 ($2.95/day for Autumn)
4. $530.21 ($5.89/day for Winter)



Noo then, because I have a spreadsheet I can really easily work out what the bills would have been if I had a PROPER contract on the same rates that I signed up for.

Standby.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill 1 & 2 would be the same (because I used bugger all gas in summer for Bill 2 - which begs the question of "why then change the rates at all - nobody is heating?")
Bill 3 cost me $10.47 more than it should have. This is a 4% increase in one quarter.
Bill 4 was where there was a price drop. If it had continued at the Bill 3 rates it would have cost me $14.45 extra. At the original rates it would have cost me $4 extra.

The point being that overall there was no real price drop - a mere 0.75% over the original rates, but dressed up to look like 2.75%.

Furthermore, the "contract" says
"We change the charges from time to time, generally in July. We'll let you know if they change."

JOHN ELLIOT response again! Four times in nine months including twice in one quarter. And no, they didn't advise me (oh, except on the bill where the charges at the new rates are calculated).

[FenceFurniture]

As near as I can tell, the contract boils down to:
"We'll give you the same discount for the contracted period, but we'll change the rates to suit ourselves, any time we like, and as often as we like. And we'll charge you an exit fee if you think our rates have become too high."

[FenceFurniture]

Three apparently different rates within 24 hours:

445223

That was for 11 days, then we have a new rate for one day, and then a new rate for the next 79 days:

445224


NO! WAIT! They're all the same rate. Not even a fifth decimal place difference!:doh:

If that's not deliberate obfuscation, then I don't know what is.

[FenceFurniture]

Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-13/international-energy-agency-world-energy-outlook-2018/10491734


That of course makes the Australian economy susceptible in the longer term, given the amount of coal we export, so the various Govts need to plan carefully for the inevitable demise of coal.

[Beardy]

Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-13/international-energy-agency-world-energy-outlook-2018/10491734


That of course makes the Australian economy susceptible in the longer term, given the amount of coal we export, so the various Govts need to plan carefully for the inevitable demise of coal.

That appears to be a little bit of a loaded article.
What they are saying is that 60% of NEW electricity plants being built are using renewables, I would of thought that that was a given and probably won’t impact on coal use much would it?
Wont the coal demand be pretty strong for the coal plants that are already in place now and will continue for the foreseeable future.

[FenceFurniture]

What they are saying is that 60% of NEW electricity plants being built are using renewables, I would of thought that that was a given and probably won’t impact on coal use much would it?
Wont the coal demand be pretty strong for the coal plants that are already in place now and will continue for the foreseeable future.I don't see how it can be characterised as "loaded" when the very first sentence says "Renewable energy has surpassed fossil fuels worldwide as the main source of new electricity generation". Not like it was buried in the article somewhere, and very clear from the outset what the premise of the article was. Apparently it wasn't a given until just recently.


As Coal Power Stations collectively get to their end of life then coal demand will have to wane, and Australia will need to proof itself against that loss of revenue - that is what I meant by the longer term. As I recall the IPCC says we have to get rid of coal by 2050 to have any chance of keeping the warming to 1.5° so that means that Coal stations will be closing before their use-by-date (if it happens, that is) given that they are still being built particularly in Asia. They would be here too if the current Govt gets its way). I am not across all the future demand issues though.

[RobbieB]

Origin Gas over the four bills of the last 12 months (and keep your eye on the first bracket in each bill):
Bill 1. 51 days of late Spring to early summer
0-1056 MJ at 3.70 cents
1057-2096 at 2.5 cents

Bill 2. 91 days of summer when gas usage is down......
0-1885 MJ at 3.70 cents
So you can see that because the usage will be low in summer they increase the threshold from 1056 to 1885.

Bill 3. 92 days of Autumn (cool up here)
0-1906 MJ at 3.70 cents
1907-3781 at 2.5 cents
3781+ at 2.4 cents
so that's another effective price increase that will earn them significant money over Bill 1 rates. 4% increase as it turns out.


Uh, it looks to me like the threshold is a daily use threshold, not a set one for the period of the bill which will obviously be different each time. So it's obviously going to be different for each bill. The charge rate is identical for all 3.

[FenceFurniture]

Uh, it looks to me like the threshold is a daily use threshold, not a set one for the period of the bill which will obviously be different each time. So it's obviously going to be different for each bill. The charge rate is identical for all 3.You've lost me. Yes the charge rate is the same.

[ian]

You've lost me. Yes the charge rate is the same.

Bill 1. 51 days of late Spring to early summer
0-1056 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day
1057-2096 at 2.5 cents -- or 20.4 MJ/day

Bill 2. 91 days of summer when gas usage is down......
0-1885 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day

Bill 3. 92 days of Autumn (cool up here)
0-1906 MJ at 3.70 cents -- or 20.7 MJ/day
1907-3781 at 2.5 cents -- or 20.4 MJ/day

[FenceFurniture]

Ok, I see that now. It's a pretty daft way of expressing it though - they talk about the first nnMJ per day in the contract and then never mention in again as such. They just issue a bill which is completely confusing because they only refer to the first xxMJ per quarter (88-92 days depending on the meter read day). In fact they have no idea on how many MJ per day I use - they just average it anyway.

To avoid the confusion they only need to quote the daily MJ usage brackets, like "First 20.7 MJ/day" but I guess that would make the bill easier to read. I still can't find any reason whatsoever for the three different blocks of charges in the April-July bill (images posted). Not even the Govt rebate rate changed.

[Bushmiller]

I don't see how it can be characterised as "loaded" when the very first sentence says "Renewable energy has surpassed fossil fuels worldwide as the main source of new electricity generation". Not like it was buried in the article somewhere, and very clear from the outset what the premise of the article was. Apparently it wasn't a given until just recently.


As Coal Power Stations collectively get to their end of life then coal demand will have to wane, and Australia will need to proof itself against that loss of revenue - that is what I meant by the longer term. As I recall the IPCC says we have to get rid of coal by 2050 to have any chance of keeping the warming to 1.5° so that means that Coal stations will be closing before their use-by-date (if it happens, that is) given that they are still being built particularly in Asia. They would be here too if the current Govt gets its way). I am not across all the future demand issues though.


I agree that the article was not loaded. Actually I think it was your original statement that could be misconstrued in post #351:

"Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:"

:D

However, I don't believe that was your intent, but it does show how easy it is for a comment to be interpreted incorrectly and then some other entity picks it up and runs with it as if that is absolutely true. In fact when I first read your statement, I thought "%^&*," that's not true, and read the link. All was then apparent.

I was having a short conversation with SWMBO regarding coal (I think that if we could harness the steam that comes out of her ears on the subject of coa, land also Telstra, we would have no need for coal :rolleyes: ) and there are two distinct types to my mind. I don't mean black coal and brown coal, I mean coking coal and the absolute rubbish coal we burn in coal fired power stations. While there is still the need for coal to smelt iron ore the coking coal industry will continue to flourish. At some point in the future even that may be redundant. My impression is that, and somebody will have to correct me if this is wrong, electric arc furnaces are for re-heating and using steel ingots rather than the initial process: The old BOS style process or it's modern derivatives still require coal.

Power stations have a usual life of around 40 years before they become outdated, broken down and generally uneconomic. The last four stations in Australia were built post 2000 with Kogan creek in 2007. So all of them will be nudging the pension by the mid forties. I am not sure of the last station built in the other states, but they are older.

One of the reasons SA got rid of it's coal fired station was that they were too old and nobody wished to fork out for a thermal station that was not going to go the distance: In fact to continue the pugilistic metaphor they may well suffer a KO before 2050. They really did not have too many options.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I agree that the article was not loaded. Actually I think it was your original statement that could be misconstrued in post #351:

"Renewables are now drawing ahead of fossil fuels in world elec production:"

:DYeah, agreed. I musta bin loaded when I typed it. :D

Kogan sure has diversified quickly for a young fella. No wonder Gerry Harvey can't stand him.

[rustynail]

My Son has had the dubious pleasure of travelling to Canberra for the purpose of speaking to politicians involved in decision making re renewable energy options. He, along with others from the various companies were able to present their case over a two day period. This was followed up by another session a few weeks later.
End result - the Company reps took away some valuable information, but the Polys seemed to be struggling to gain any traction.
While ever our parliamentary benches are filled with lawyers and accountants the introduction of progressive thinking is going to be hard won to say the least. I dotting and T crossing will always take precedent over common sense until such time as a few forward thinkers find their way into the House of Stoush.

[FenceFurniture]

Here's one for the woodies:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-21/timber-mill-turns-excess-sawdust-into-bioenergy/11120590

[fletty]

200 tonnes of sawdust PER DAY and “good clean smoke”? ........ NOoooo!

Surely he he meant to say “processing 200 tonne of timber per day” and “good clean STEAM”?
I hope he still has a job by the end of today!

[FenceFurniture]

I hope he still has a job by the end of today!I have no doubt that he will. ABC News thinks it's ok to run two news articles PER DAY on Game of Bloody Thrones. News has gone to the dogs under Craig McMurtrie.

[Bushmiller]

"There may be a bit of smoke. But it's good clean smoke."

Surely that is an oxymoron.

If it is a 15MW boiler that might require 60T of sawdust to fire up to that level. Only 3 1/2 hours of operation per day at max capacity. They are processing pine. 300,000 tons of sawn timber per year. I am not sure of the conversion rate from log to timber product. 75% conversion, which even for softwood would be exceptional, would yield 200T per day for 365days of the year.

My guesstimate figures may be a little out. (based on 2T of coal/MW in a high tech boiler. Figures rounded for simplicity)

So it may be possible: Not however the clean smoke.

Regards
Paul

[rustynail]

This is nothing new for the timber industry. Mills have been burning waste for years to produce heat or steam. Its the smoke produced that becomes the problem. Better to put waste to a recycle use than send it up a chimney.

[BobL]

Clean smoke is "relative"

Deep in the forested northern Italian Alps where there are a number of saw mills one of my cousins is an engineer in charge of a small timber waste power plant (2 x 12 MW) where they burn wood waste including a lot of roadside trimmings and supply electrical power and hot water (for domestic use and central heating in winter) for a local ski resort and nearby small town. Before they did this they imported oil to power the generators and had no centrally distributed hot water system and the roadside trimmings and wood waste was just burned. At the height of the ski season, on still days the smoke from he oil fired generators hung around in the valleys and ski runs were tainted with a brown rind which was not too attractive and they were losing trade to other fields. When the snow melted the oil contaminated ground and ground water and streams etc.

The process started with a hard-nosed financial analysis that demonstrated that it could be done on a cheaper sustainable basis provided they did not collect teh waste from more that 35km away. Then there was a wide consultation and education of the community. Every homeowner of the two was required to contribute 2000 euros which basically paid for a heat exchanger for their house. The easiest persons to convince were the 90 year old grandmas who were keen to leave a clean legacy to their descendants. As a result the snowfields are back to where they were 40 years ago and the water pollution has been reduced. There are now a number of similar small local power stations in the alps and the latest estimate is they have reduced oil importation by more than 100,000 tons a year.

In another town not that far away two other cousins own a mega CNC carpentry business (their machine can handle 13m! x 600 mm x 600 mm inputs). Their main sellers are complete roofing timbers and mountain trail refuges but they can also make whole houses. The CNC generates a lot of waste and they burn this and the replaced roof timbers to provide the town with hot water - they make almost as money out of the hot water business as they do from the carpentry.

I posted about all this back in 2010 but unfortunately all those photos.

[Bushmiller]

In burning fossil fuels there are two potentially polluting aspects. The first is visible pollutants which are the non combustible components of the fuel (ash etc.) or, in the case of poorer burning processes, the unburnt particles of the fuel that did not ignite because of poor combustion.

The second aspect, which is the main focus and contentious issue of the day, is the production of carbon dioxide. All fossil fuels do this and in similar combustion situations they can be compared. Power stations are such a similar combustion scenario. The rating is designated carbon intensity. The worst is brown coal, then black coal, then black coal in the most modern power plants (tending to be the so-called supercritical boilers), then gas fired stations (Gas turbine peaking plants) and finally gas plants with a heat recovery steam generator tacked onto the exhaust gases. Intensity varies from 1.6 at the worst of the brown coal stations (the now defunct Hazelwood plant) through to .9 for the supercritical, .8 for the straight through gas turbines and .6 for the Gas Turbines with a HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) tacked on the exhaust gases.' The is is for the CO2 emissions and does not reflect the economy of these plants. On an economic basis it is a totally different picture.

The domestic fire place and the open BBQ are at the worst end of the spectrum. I don't know where oil features in all this as nobody in industry use that fuel in this country. Wood, particularly soft wood, I think is worse than brown coal, but I don't know the value. I did find these tables below that are not carbon emissions but gives the relativities of various fuels and is German in origin.

454950

Lignite is brown coal. Traditionally brown coal has to be dried before it can be successfully burnt and I would expect that sawdust from green milling has to be treated the same way. As high temperature kiln drying for radiata pine takes around eight hours I expect that it is not a big issue to treat the sawdust in a similar fashion prior to burning. However I have no direct knowledge of this.

Also it is interesting to note that diesel fuel is a poor performer compared to petrol and is one of the explanations as to why the Europeans, having initially embraced diesel powered vehicles with a vengeance, are moving back to petrol. Of course that is with domestic vehicles. I don't know how that will pan out with trucks where the characteristic of a diesel are more suited to heavy duty haulage. Australia is clearly behind this trend as it was to adopt diesel powered cars until very recently. You can also see from those charts why electric vehicles may be so much more efficient.

Lots of openings for discussion there I know.

:)

Regards
Paul

[clear out]

We visited a mill just out of Tamworth in 74 which had an old boiler from Morts Dock in use.
They had numerous small steam engines mounted under floor and the waste was moved on belting.
They were bought out by a big operate for their timber stands and the mill disappeared.
Briggsvale had a C38 bricked in and the steam winding engines off the original HMAS Sydney to peel the Coachwood for ply for the Mosquitoes built during WW2. Briggs ply no longer exists.
The mill the hippies bought in Nimbin had steam wastewood drying kilns, I used to ride dirt bikes with the previous owners son.

So nothing new here , just another sound bite like big laminated timber beam buildings being something those amazing architects are now designing, how was the opera house built?
All but one of Symonds buildings are now demolished after 60 or 70 years, google Symonds it’ll blow your mind.
H.

[Lappa]

Mercedes Benz announced in May this year that they will cease production of all petrol and Diesel engines ( traditional combustion engines) by 2039 and produce a fleet of carbon neutral passenger vehicles. They will be electric or eFuel hybrids.

[FenceFurniture]

The original thrust of this thread was to describe the ridiculous series of events that one has to go through to get a better deal. The scenario was that in late 2017 I changed over from AGL to Origin Energy for electricity and gas. AGL then had their "Retention Team" contact me and offered me a much better deal, which I accepted. They then proceeded to make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing, so I called Origin (after going many levels up the management tree at AGL) and simply said that maybe I should just speak to the Retention Team at Origin, which I did.

I got a pretty good deal, with around 30% discount on usage. I had to ring a special phone number every year to revitalise these discounts (know idea why I really had to call).

Everyone is aware of the current turmoil in the prices for energy, and so Origin once more contacted me to say that I had to renew. Rang the number, left a msg, rang again some days later, left another msg, no response. So I rang Origin on their regular number and spoke to someone who said things have changed now, and the only way I can speak to Retention is if I leave Origin, which will trigger them to call me with a better offer.

So the upshot of that is that this morning I had to waste 30 minutes of my time, and Jane's time, from Energy Australia, transferring my accounts over to them. In a few days time when Origin are notified of this it will trigger their retention team to contact me, offering me some kind of discount to stay (probably about 15% I imagine).

My view of this is that it is disgraceful for one company (Origin) to quite deliberately waste the time and resources of another company (Energy Australia, or whichever supplier I have to select for the hoodwink). Now Origin would say "But they all do the same thing". This of course does not make it okay at all, when all they have to do to maintain the status quo is transfer me to their retention team to discuss what the new discounts will be. It also wasted Mohammed's time (Origin) this morning for about 20 minutes. All that has to happen to obviate this monumental waste of time for many people is to flag my file with "he knows how the game works" and then make an electronic offer of the new percentage discount with "you don't have to do anything to accept".

Any wonder why they have to keep putting up their prices. :doh:
The things you have to do to keep the bastards honest.



If anyone else is considering changing suppliers, and know they'll also have to go through this fiasco, I'd suggest that you pick one of the bigger players for the hoodwink. The smaller players have to operate on skinnier margins, and wasting their time would be more damaging to them. Apart from that, "But they all do the same thing" means I have no compunction about wasting a large corporation's time when they indulge in such behaviour.

[Mr Brush]

Standard operating procedure for energy companies. Some years ago I was with AGL for electricity (we have bottled gas for cooking), but had a bit of a shop around for better deals based on our usage pattern. Red Energy came up trumps with substantially better rates, but since we had been with AGL for 10 years I called them up as a courtesy and asked whether they would match a written quote from another outfit. "Oh no, we NEVER do that, we don't offer discounts against competing offers" they said fairly rudely, so I arranged the changeover to Red Energy and sat back to await the savings. About 8 weeks after the changeover.......yes, you guessed it......AGL ring up to say they were sorry to have lost our business, and what did they have to do to get us back? I explained to the nice lady on the phone that if their business model relied on pissing customers off and letting them go elsewhere, then running around trying to get them back, maybe they might want to take a look at that?

[FenceFurniture]

In a few days time when Origin are notified of this it will trigger their retention team to contact me, offering me some kind of discount to stay (probably about 15% I imagine).Well that didn't take long. A missed call at lunchtime today, and then another at about 3pm. All sorted, Energy Aust told to bugger off but thanks for the dance. Gas prices only marginally higher than previously, but elec prices still through the roof (+50%), but better than the original offer (+60%), and everyone else.

[crowie]

G’day Brett.
On a similar annoying issue is the payment the electrical companies give you for your “feed in solar generated electricity”.
They then sell the electricity you’ve made to at a staggering 600% profit.
I thought that the consumer helping electricity companies and the country by adding solar panels was to benefit everyone not the electricity companies bottom line.
Silly me :~, cheers Peter

[Bushmiller]

G’day Brett.
On a similar annoying issue is the payment the electrical companies give you for your “feed in solar generated electricity”.
They then sell the electricity you’ve made to at a staggering 600% profit.
I thought that the consumer helping electricity companies and the country by adding solar panels was to benefit everyone not the electricity companies bottom line.
Silly me :~, cheers Peter

Peter

There is a big anomally at the moment in that the price offered for feeding into the grid form your solar panels should match the average wholesale price at least. At the moment that price would be around 28c/KWhr. However I expect many of the retail companies would say that they only buy small amounts at that price from the spot market and they have more on contract at much more advantageous prices. It remains to be seen what happens when those contracts run out.

Regards
Paul

[woodPixel]

Funny this thread should pop up.

I renewed my Gas/Elec just before the "Crisis" in mid-July (1st to be exact).

These are the screen grabs from when I renewed and last nights prices....

515822 515823

BAZINGA !!!!!

[FenceFurniture]

One thing I've noticed (with Origin) is that where I used to get whatever (variable) rates with a hefty discount of around 30%, now they have woken up to the fact that whatever the rate is, I was still getting 30% off. There is no % discount now, just "mate's rates" which they can of course change at any time they like.

The whole system is bollocks, skewed completely in the retailer's favour. A contract for 12 months guarantees the consumer absolutely jack, except that they have to pay whatever is demanded of them by the retailer.

[FenceFurniture]

Fer crying out bloody loud! What's the title of the thread? Something about a joke?

It's descending into farce.....


:rant2:

I transferred to them on 10th August (8 days ago), and at 11.01am on the 11th they sent me a "welcome" email about how warm and fuzzy they felt.:inlove:
The next day the Origin retention team rang me (I missed a call at around midday, and answered the one at around 2pm), so I stayed with Origin, and later in the afternoon of the 11th I was getting emails from Origin about how warm and fuzzy they felt.:inlove:
At 15.24 I got an email stating proudly "Your electricity is all sorted", so that's precisely 28hrs 23mins after Energy Australia. Origin's computer has told EA's computer to "bugger off, we still have the poor sodding bastard".:pointlaugh: :harhar:



All was well....I thought. :ohyaaa:

I must say that I did think it was a little odd that I still got emails from EA after 15.24 on the 11th. I didn't even open them, thinking "you'll find out". All part of this merry jig I have to dance.

3 days ago I heard the meter door slam down so I knew that Origin would send me a bill by the end of this week.

This morning I got a bill from Energy Australia for the last three months from...wait for it....18th May. That's 84 days before I even bloody well called them! GRRRR! Email to my contact at Origin with the reply "Nup, not our fault, you'll have to call EA". :ranting2:

So I rang EA....have a wild guess what they said. Go on....

[Bushmiller]

So I rang EA....have a wild guess what they said. Go on....

"I'm sorry sir, but you didn't contract out so that means you accepted." Not a "fait accompli" by any means if that is the case.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Well they haven't actually said very much yet, except "It was Origin's fault."

So here we go again with two large corporations blaming each other, with me in the middle having to berate them into submission. One of them (Origin) already has my money for the period in question, as I pay a fixed amount to them each fortnight to avoid bill shock. The other one (EA) wants me to pay it all over again....and get this...at their new current sky high rates backdated to gouge me for something they did not provide (or at least administer), compared to my old rates at Origin which only expired a few days ago (that's why I had to renew the plan). My calculations show that where EA want $545, the old Origin plan would be $362.

Last week sometime someone from EA called me from a mobile number, but I could barely hear a voice. At first I thought it was yet another scam call with nobody there, but I'm pretty sure I did here my name. Anyway, I said to call me back to fix the comms problem, but nothing happened. I returned the call which is when I found out it was EA calling me, but I have no idea what for.

Right now, as I type, I am back on the phone to EA. I have been told this will be sorted out today.

Yeah.


Right.:no:

[FenceFurniture]

So I have just completed a 110 minute phone call with EA, speaking to four different people (is this sounding like deja vu??).

Origin should have told me to contact EA to say I wasn't staying with them.
That makes Origin at fault.

EA should have returned my call on Monday, when their retention team called me but I couldn't hear them.
EA should have called me back yesterday as the promised they would.
EA should have made damn sure that I understood that the electricity was going to be back dated to the last meter read in May (due to a change in Legislation late last year). They said "it's in the fine print" to which "I said "Bollocks! Do you read the 10,000 words of fine print of T&C before you click I Accept for a software installation? No, I didn't think so". Especially in the circumstances of the last three months, where prices have nearly doubled, they need to make sure that people know BY TELLING THEM UPFRONT!
That makes EA at fault.

So by 95 minutes we were up to
Him: "Is there anything else I can help you with?"
Me: "No. Ahh, well, actually I suppose we better make sure that the same cockup isn't happening with the gas"
Him: "No, it's still transferring".
Me: "From? To?"
Him: "From Origin to us".
Me: "Ah fer chrissakes!" :firedevil:
:punching:

:banghead:

:arge:

:upset:


So that was when I had to speak to the fourth person.


Now I have to go back to Origin and chew them out for not advising me properly. I think a $50 credit to my account for my time (3 hours) would be appropriate. After all, even though they both screwed up, it started with Origin when they didn't tell me I had to call EA to cancel the transfer, and none of this would have happened had they done so.

[rwbuild]

If you want to try and take it further
Energy & Water Ombudsman NSW (EWON) | Service NSW (https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/energy-water-ombudsman-nsw-ewon)

[Chris Parks]

So I have just completed a 110 minute phone call with EA, speaking to four different people (is this sounding like deja vu??).

Origin should have told me to contact EA to say I wasn't staying with them.
That makes Origin at fault.

EA should have returned my call on Monday, when their retention team called me but I couldn't hear them.
EA should have called me back yesterday as the promised they would.
EA should have made damn sure that I understood that the electricity was going to be back dated to the last meter read in May (due to a change in Legislation late last year). They said "it's in the fine print" to which "I said "Bollocks! Do you read the 10,000 words of fine print of T&C before you click I Accept for a software installation? No, I didn't think so". Especially in the circumstances of the last three months, where prices have nearly doubled, they need to make sure that people know BY TELLING THEM UPFRONT!
That makes EA at fault.

So by 95 minutes we were up to
Him: "Is there anything else I can help you with?"
Me: "No. Ahh, well, actually I suppose we better make sure that the same cockup isn't happening with the gas"
Him: "No, it's still transferring".
Me: "From? To?"
Him: "From Origin to us".
Me: "Ah fer chrissakes!" :firedevil:
:punching:

:banghead:

:arge:

:upset:


So that was when I had to speak to the fourth person.


Now I have to go back to Origin and chew them out for not advising me properly. I think a $50 credit to my account for my time (3 hours) would be appropriate. After all, even though they both screwed up, it started with Origin when they didn't tell me I had to call EA to cancel the transfer, and none of this would have happened had they done so.

Set up a conference call and let them fight it out.

[woodPixel]

This is a very confusing read.

[FenceFurniture]

This is a very confusing read.You oughta try living it! Even after all that yesterday, there are still two twats at EA who think they'll be sending a bill, and another subsequent one who says not. :doh: All based "offshore" as near as I can tell:

First twat:
"I can confirm that the account is still active on our end but since you prefers to stay with Origin, a final bill will be issued once the billing rights has been transferred back to them, deem necessary."


I responded:
You will NOT be issuing a final bill, or any other bill, and you will be completely cancelling the bill that was sent yesterday.
In my first email to you I said: "Please ensure that my accounts are completely cancelled and that I am not issued with any bills."


Then the second twat:
"EA has the billing rights of your electricity since 18/05/2022. This is because the account was submitted as a retrospective Change of Retailer, where the account start date will be the previous meter reading. Please contact your previous retailer for them to adjust your final bill. Once the transfer of account to Origin Energy has been completed, we will issue a final bill because this is a proof of your final usage with us."


I responded:
"Is anyone there paying attention? READ MY FILE - there will be no bill whatsoever from EA, as agreed with "Shay" this morning.
EA asked me to complete a survey, which I did this morning. I was scathing about the incompetence that has been displayed during this saga.
It's about time EA stopped continually proving this to be an exceptionally accurate assessment of their performance!"


Then, finally:
"Trust that once origin gained their rights again, we will no longer issue you any bill."




We'll see about that (which btw does NOT mean they are going to try to issue a final bill). I think I might have said earlier that I'll have to berate them into submission. Apparently it's the only thing that works. :shrug:

It occurs to me that with all this unbelievable confusion, Origin may not get a trigger to issue a bill for the period May-Aug – I will gladly accept that outcome, should it happen.

[woodPixel]

This doesn't sound like something a consumer can fix.

They are either unwilling to fix it, or cannot fix it. Probably both.

I would very clearly write up the problem with account numbers/dates/conversations(+lengths +numbers used), no hyperbole, and send it to the ombudsman.

I would also email AND send a posted copy of this, to both retailers.


The time for your involvement is over. Let the ombudsman handle this.


(I also record all of my calls. Always have. Useful for review.)

[FenceFurniture]

Today I received an SMS from Energy Australia reminding me I had to pay my bill by 5th Sept. This means they haven't done what they said they would about cancelling all bills. That means I have just ticked over another hour long (so far) phone call still trying to get this sorted out. I'm just typing this to deaden the pain of being berated whilst on hold, as they "look for the best solution for me, to sort this out today".

The incompetence is unbelievable.

[Glider]

Here's a good one. I've just received two bills from the same retailer but for two different properties, one on the Central Coast and t'other near Oberon:

Peak rate: Central Coast $0.1964/kWh Oberon $0.3839 /kWh. Nearly double.

The "resolutions team" for the retailer told me that the provider for the Central Coast is Ausgrid and for Oberon, Essential Energy. They can't control what the provider charges, sorry.

How is this possible?

mick

[FenceFurniture]

Presumably because it costs more to deliver energy to Oberon, especially with its sparser population compared to the Central Coast. That's probably yet another good argument for nationalising energy provision so that people in the bush get a fairer deal.

[Glider]

Presumably because it costs more to deliver energy to Oberon, especially with its sparser population compared to the Central Coast. That's probably yet another good argument for nationalising energy provision so that people in the bush get a fairer deal.

No mate, it doesn't work that way. The Service Charges are double for us in the bush but that's all about poles, wires, and distance. It shouldn't be about cost per kWh.

When I explored an alternative plan, I could access cheaper usage charges, but the Service Charges also increased so any savings disappeared.

mick

[ian]

No mate, it doesn't work that way. The Service Charges are double for us in the bush but that's all about poles, wires, and distance. It shouldn't be about cost per kWh.

When I explored an alternative plan, I could access cheaper usage charges, but the Service Charges also increased so any savings disappeared.

mickwell, Mick
That's just another reason why the service charge -- poles and wires -- should be regulated.
It's the same "fixed" cost to the supplier (Ausgrid or Essential Energy) no matter where you receive your power -- Central Coast or Oberon -- but by fiddling the usage charge the retailer can make the apparent cost particularly opaque.



strongly reminiscent of the old days with mobile phone pricing plans.
at one time I believe there were over 200 different plans -- the basic differences being how much you paid to access the network [Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone(?)] and how much each call would actually cost either per 30 seconds, 1 minute, or otherwise.

Curious because when you placed a call, the network access charge was essentially fixed.

[Chris Parks]

Our last Electricity bill was $1110, the latest one is $350 which I pleasantly surprised at. It appears that when the sun shines, the solar system does its thing, very little heating or cooling is required and a new heat pump hot water system is installed you don't use many ergs from the grid.

[Tccp123]

FF, you have the patience of a saint...

[FenceFurniture]

So the yearly merry-go-round has come full circle, and my plan with Origin has now expired. As we all know, energy prices have risen substantially in recent times, so again I checked the EnergyMadeEasy site and plugged a whole bunch of figures into my spreadsheet.

This time, for my region, Amber Electricity were the best for sparks, and GloBIRD were best for gas, and over the weekend I transferred the accounts to those two. We have decided to abandon gas heating in favour of reverse cycle split aircon (2x) as much as possible, and only use gas for cooking. The forthcoming bills will give a better indication.

O'course the Origin Retention Team called me this arvo, but I couldn't talk, so we will have an "interesting" conversation tomorrow. The last 12 months of Origin Electricity has been a continuing fiasco. Apart from completely screwing it all up a year ago and costing me 50 hours of time on the phone (yes, really), they did not send a bill for 9 months! Fortunately I pay an averaged amount every fortnight so I was ahead of the eventual bill. In fact, the only reason the fabled Origin Computer eventually spat out a bill was because I asked for a refund and the puta said "FAAAARK! We can't let him have all that back" and so a bill came out.

Amber Electricity has an interesting business plan. They charge a monthly membership fee of $19 and then you only pay wholesale rates. If you are a CommBank customer you get six months free membership. So if you are a large consumer of sparks it becomes pretty attractive. They have an app for your phone so you can see what today's forecast rates are for each hour – very useful. At 17:36 I got an SMS to say rates were spiking so "turn off what you can" and an hour later another SMS to say "relax, it's over". So I looked at the app and sho'nuff the rate at 17:30 was $45 something per kW.

That's a REALLY useful service!

They have a mate's rates thing where if you refer someone to them you both get a $30 credit. (read into that whatever you like :D)

Pretty smooth experience so far, but it's early days yet.

[Simplicity]

So the yearly merry-go-round has come full circle, and my plan with Origin has now expired. As we all know, energy prices have risen substantially in recent times, so again I checked the EnergyMadeEasy site and plugged a whole bunch of figures into my spreadsheet.

This time, for my region, Amber Electricity were the best for sparks, and GloBIRD were best for gas, and over the weekend I transferred the accounts to those two. We have decided to abandon gas heating in favour of reverse cycle split aircon (2x) as much as possible, and only use gas for cooking. The forthcoming bills will give a better indication.

O'course the Origin Retention Team called me this arvo, but I couldn't talk, so we will have an "interesting" conversation tomorrow. The last 12 months of Origin Electricity has been a continuing fiasco. Apart from completely screwing it all up a year ago and costing me 50 hours of time on the phone (yes, really), they did not send a bill for 9 months! Fortunately I pay an averaged amount every fortnight so I was ahead of the eventual bill. In fact, the only reason the fabled Origin Computer eventually spat out a bill was because I asked for a refund and the puta said "FAAAARK! We can't let him have all that back" and so a bill came out.

Amber Electricity has an interesting business plan. They charge a monthly membership fee of $19 and then you only pay wholesale rates. If you are a CommBank customer you get six months free membership. So if you are a large consumer of sparks it becomes pretty attractive. They have an app for your phone so you can see what today's forecast rates are for each hour – very useful. At 17:36 I got an SMS to say rates were spiking so "turn off what you can" and an hour later another SMS to say "relax, it's over". So I looked at the app and sho'nuff the rate at 17:30 was $45 something per kW.

That's a REALLY useful service!

They have a mate's rates thing where if you refer someone to them you both get a $30 credit. (read into that whatever you like :D)

Pretty smooth experience so far, but it's early days yet.

Brett
Interesting that there Hooking up with the Commonwealth Bank, maybe I’m just moving into the over cynical view point, but then we’re talking about banks, an spark provides.
None seem too be making huge financial loses lately.
Tho from a personal perspective I have no reason too be hear [emoji849].

Cheers Matt.

[Bushmiller]

Amber Electricity has an interesting business plan. They charge a monthly membership fee of $19 and then you only pay wholesale rates. If you are a CommBank customer you get six months free membership. So if you are a large consumer of sparks it becomes pretty attractive. They have an app for your phone so you can see what today's forecast rates are for each hour – very useful. At 17:36 I got an SMS to say rates were spiking so "turn off what you can" and an hour later another SMS to say "relax, it's over". So I looked at the app and sho'nuff the rate at 17:30 was $45 something per kW.

That's a REALLY useful service!



Brett

It is useful providing you notice it. :)

Yesterday was a good example for price spikes. In Queensland there was a wholesale spike to $14,777. In NSW it went to VOLL (value of lost load), which is the ceiling price, and made an eye watering $16,599 per MW/hr. If you happened to be thicknessing (3KW) and, of course, dust collecting (2KW) and because of the noise and your level of concentration did not notice the notification, you may have blown the expected monthly budget in one day!

In QLD it lasted for about ten minutes at that level and then reduced. I did not see what happened in NSW.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

In Queensland there was a wholesale spike to $14,777. In NSW it went to VOLL (value of lost load), which is the ceiling price, and made an eye watering $16,599 per MW/hr. If you happened to be thicknessing (3KW) and, of course, dust collecting (2KW) and because of the noise and your level of concentration did not notice the notification, you may have blown the expected monthly budget in one day! Yes, it's a work in progress to see how it goes. The price spike they showed at 17:30 was $45/kWh which is $45,000/MWh, so I'm not sure I understand how that works yet.

Amber is monthly billing so I should know pretty quickly how well it goes.

Origin Retention rang back again this morning. The rates they offered were slightly lower than the two retailers I chose $100/year for sparks and $6/year on gas), but as I said to her "then I only have Origin's billing incompetence to cope with". I declined their offer and said I would be in touch if it didn't pan out as I expect.

[Mr Brush]

Sounds like our experience with Red Energy. If their business model consists of happily losing customers by refusing to match lower prices, having the customer switch to another provider, then running around making better offers to get the customer back.....I'd say they have a problem.:rolleyes:

Happy with OVO; it isn't even summer yet, and on sunny days we're already routinely making a couple of $ a day even allowing for supply charges, etc. I'm still getting used to the idea of my (prepaid) account balance going up instead of down, and they pay 3% interest on surplus finds in your account. I'm expecting at least two quarters to be in credit at this rate, and we only have a 5kW inverter on our solar.

[Bushmiller]

Yes, it's a work in progress to see how it goes. The price spike they showed at 17:30 was $45/kWh which is $45,000/MWh, so I'm not sure I understand how that works yet.

Amber is monthly billing so I should know pretty quickly how well it goes.



Yes, there is an anomaly there with the $16,599 cap and a $45 charge. It should have been $15.60. Somebody has poor mathematics skills or is telling porkies. If they are charging you the wholesale price (plus their membership fee) are they repaying you when the price is negative. For example, as I write the w/sale price is $- 56.91 meaning that they should be paying you nearly 6c for every Kw/hr.

I only have figures for yesterday in QLD, but even with the price spikes the average was $189 which translates to around 19c/Kwhr. It may have a little more in NSW as the volatility seemed slightly more extreme. The previous days averaged 3.9c and 5.2c per Kwhr in QLD. However, I would be wary of any retailer who does not have contracts in place as that may well be a very different "Wholesale price" as all the previous figures related to the spot market.

Something does not ring true with the "wholesale" price statement.

I would be interesting to know exactly how this is managed.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Yes, there is an anomaly there with the $16,599 cap and a $45 charge. It should have been $15.60.Yep. Mind you, I think Amber's minimum time period is 30 minutes, rather than the 5 minute intervals that the wholesale market uses. That's probably for practical reasons, and they probably average the 6x five minute intervals.


If they are charging you the wholesale price (plus their membership fee) are they repaying you when the price is negative. For example, as I write the w/sale price is $- 56.91 meaning that they should be paying you nearly 6c for every Kw/hr. Yes they do pay me when it's -ve.


I would be interesting to know exactly how this is managed.You and me both! The billing cycle is monthly, so I'll just modify my spreadsheet accordingly, and I should have a pretty good idea after the first 2 months, depending on how much heating is required. We are killing the gas heating to see how it goes.

[FenceFurniture]

This was the situation a few minutes ago, and I think that confirms the 30 minute intervals they use.

530283