I dropped by the Melbourne Botanic Gardens today to see the Titan Arum, Amorphophallus titanum. It obligingly flowered on Christmas day and the main flower is still looking good though the central spathe is wrinkled. No smell of rotting flesh fortunately and the queue to view it wasn't long.
I wonder how much longer the flower will last, but I'm pleased to have seen it in the flesh (so to speak!).
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Merry Christmas for 2012
Seasons Greeting to you all. I hope you have a safe and Happy Christmas .
We enjoyed our Turkey, Ham, Prawns and roast vegetables and salad outside on the patio under the shade cloth with our close family friends.
After the main meal we moved to our friends house to play a little Tennis, or in my case, try to actually hit the ball and enjoy more of the beautiful weather.
Now we are enjoying our well earned rest. Not too much eating, not too much alcohol, good friends and fine weather. Pretty good down under today!
We enjoyed our Turkey, Ham, Prawns and roast vegetables and salad outside on the patio under the shade cloth with our close family friends.
After the main meal we moved to our friends house to play a little Tennis, or in my case, try to actually hit the ball and enjoy more of the beautiful weather.
Now we are enjoying our well earned rest. Not too much eating, not too much alcohol, good friends and fine weather. Pretty good down under today!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Electricity Price hike for 2013
A 5% electricity price rise was announced by the press yesterday following the Australian Energy Regulator decision.
Reasons given include network expenditure and bushfire safety. I have seen the changing of wooden power poles to new larger concrete poles in my area which has a certain amount of natural bush and paddocks nearby, increasing the bushfire risk.
The Federal Government rebate on Solar PV systems will be reducing at the end of this year so I am hoping householders are putting their savings into getting their systems purchased and installed.
With my smart meter installed recently I am able to track how many kWh's I've generated and how many I have used. On a good fine day I can generate more than 6kWh's per day.
On my current figures I have generated 27.38% of what I have used. Not too bad for a 3.5 person household with fridges, freezer, computers and TV's. The average sized system is now 2.6 kW unlike my 1kW system. So upgrading to that level would mean most of my electricity costs (in summer at least) would be paid for by the Solar PV. An encouraging thought.
So my next hurdle is to upgrade mysystem so that I can keep up with the technology and ability to absorb the increasing costs.
Given that I am on the Victorian Premium FiT I'll bet that if I upgrade to a larger system I will be placed on the new, low FiT. This, plus the reducing rebate, means the payback period for the system will need recalculating. If the period is greater than 8-10 years, many people will find it unattractive to install Solar PV even though they know the environmental benefits are great.
I agree with reducing the rebate down to almost nothing as the Solar Industry needs to stand on its own feet and not be knocked by the hot and cold winds of Governments, State or Federal. So yesterday's release of the Renewable Energy Target Final Report will be on my Christmas reading list. But here is the response from the Clean Energy Council.
So the challenge to all people and our Governments - how to design a system which takes into account the true environment costs not just the flawed, manipulated economic system we are chained to.
Reasons given include network expenditure and bushfire safety. I have seen the changing of wooden power poles to new larger concrete poles in my area which has a certain amount of natural bush and paddocks nearby, increasing the bushfire risk.
The Federal Government rebate on Solar PV systems will be reducing at the end of this year so I am hoping householders are putting their savings into getting their systems purchased and installed.
With my smart meter installed recently I am able to track how many kWh's I've generated and how many I have used. On a good fine day I can generate more than 6kWh's per day.
On my current figures I have generated 27.38% of what I have used. Not too bad for a 3.5 person household with fridges, freezer, computers and TV's. The average sized system is now 2.6 kW unlike my 1kW system. So upgrading to that level would mean most of my electricity costs (in summer at least) would be paid for by the Solar PV. An encouraging thought.
So my next hurdle is to upgrade mysystem so that I can keep up with the technology and ability to absorb the increasing costs.
Given that I am on the Victorian Premium FiT I'll bet that if I upgrade to a larger system I will be placed on the new, low FiT. This, plus the reducing rebate, means the payback period for the system will need recalculating. If the period is greater than 8-10 years, many people will find it unattractive to install Solar PV even though they know the environmental benefits are great.
I agree with reducing the rebate down to almost nothing as the Solar Industry needs to stand on its own feet and not be knocked by the hot and cold winds of Governments, State or Federal. So yesterday's release of the Renewable Energy Target Final Report will be on my Christmas reading list. But here is the response from the Clean Energy Council.
So the challenge to all people and our Governments - how to design a system which takes into account the true environment costs not just the flawed, manipulated economic system we are chained to.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Queensland water tanks and solar hot water
Yesterday's Financial Review newspaper alerted me to yet another Queensland State Government anti-environment decision. That of dismantling previous Labor government policy in regard to installation of water tanks and solar hot water heaters (pg 11).
It seems the poor people of Queensland will not now be obliged to install these environmental saving devices when building new homes. Unlike in Victoria where a 6 Star Energy Rating is applied to all new homes and extensions, including a requirement for solar water system or rainwater tank.
Queensland customers can now choose!
Solarhart advertises the previous building requirements as such "Under the Standard Building Regulations (SBR) sustainability measures have been introduced which are expected to reduce energy use in new houses by 33 percent and reduce water use by up to 36 percent. "
So a saving of approx $5000 when building a house (in Queensland) can mean the loss of several 10's of years free hot-water and rain water, as well as the opportunity to improve our building stock. In one of the sunniest and water poor nations on our groaning planet.
Such is the power of choice.
Of course this change assumes that by enabling free choice the individuals concerned know enough to choose. Not necessarily a given in my humble opinion. Or that the $5000 saved can be retrofitted later. It will be interesting to see how much Queensland will lag in numbers fitting these devices in a few years time.
Perhaps the Queensland State Government will remove the requirement for other regulations that have been introduced for "the common good" and continue to back business interests. Makes my reading of Joseph Stiglitz' book "the Price of Inequality" even more relevant.
It seems the poor people of Queensland will not now be obliged to install these environmental saving devices when building new homes. Unlike in Victoria where a 6 Star Energy Rating is applied to all new homes and extensions, including a requirement for solar water system or rainwater tank.
Queensland customers can now choose!
Solarhart advertises the previous building requirements as such "Under the Standard Building Regulations (SBR) sustainability measures have been introduced which are expected to reduce energy use in new houses by 33 percent and reduce water use by up to 36 percent. "
So a saving of approx $5000 when building a house (in Queensland) can mean the loss of several 10's of years free hot-water and rain water, as well as the opportunity to improve our building stock. In one of the sunniest and water poor nations on our groaning planet.
Such is the power of choice.
Of course this change assumes that by enabling free choice the individuals concerned know enough to choose. Not necessarily a given in my humble opinion. Or that the $5000 saved can be retrofitted later. It will be interesting to see how much Queensland will lag in numbers fitting these devices in a few years time.
Perhaps the Queensland State Government will remove the requirement for other regulations that have been introduced for "the common good" and continue to back business interests. Makes my reading of Joseph Stiglitz' book "the Price of Inequality" even more relevant.
Confused Electricity Price Signals
While Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that she is going to help Australians save up to $250 dollars in Electricity bills (ha ha), the Queensland State Gvernment released its "Estimating a Fair and Reasonable Solar Feed-In Tariff for Queensland" draft report.
Both Julia's announcement and the draft Queensland report hold out little hope that small solar households will get any real reforms.
Crikey reports that 5 steps are needed to reform the energy market:
Crikey's first step Cost Reflective-Time and location variable charges talks about the need to accurately reflect costs at peak times. Crikey's report also indicates "existing electricity generators pay absolutely no fees for use of the network that delivers their electricity to customers’ doors. In combination with subsidies for rural consumers this distorts locational decisions around where to put these generators:"
Other comments including "state-government-owned networks have a very strong incentive to undertake more expenditure than necessary to maintain a reliable electricity supply"
This is interesting as the Queensland report talks about avoided network costs by PV customers - "The electricity distribution business is currently liable to pay the amount of the feed-in tariff which is then credited to the PV customer by the retailer" (p3). As distribution network charges are regulated , the costs incurred by the distribution business in funding the current Scheme (PV) are recovered through higher network charges for all customers"
Does that sound like the Electricity Distributors in Queensland are annoyed at subsidizing PV customers for generating electricity and using it without having the network charges levied? Even though the PV customers are doing what good citizens everywhere do, try to regulate their actions to reduce their own charges, including that of not needing so much network charges?
So it looks like the Queensland PV customers will be charged more for having avoided network costs plus have a reduced Feed-In Tariff, thus making sure the nascent PV industry will struggle to attract more customers. Thus allowing heavy users preference for using more electricity!
Crikey also reports "Network businesses are allowed to recover all their direct costs plus a margin thought to be necessary to raise finance from equity and debt markets." Looks like they also don't like a little local competition by cost effective PV units either.
Big corporations regulated by State Governments punishing little people for investing in local generation in this fashion will be a sure way to encourage a backlash. At least I hope so. The Conversation's Andrew Blakers article "Set reasonable PV feed-in-tariffs or expect perverse outcomes"also points out these issues.
I'm no expert, but having invested my $$ in doing something good for me and the environment, I will be quite peeved to see big business knocking back my initiative.
Just as well I'm not living in Queensland.
Both Julia's announcement and the draft Queensland report hold out little hope that small solar households will get any real reforms.
Crikey reports that 5 steps are needed to reform the energy market:
Crikey's first step Cost Reflective-Time and location variable charges talks about the need to accurately reflect costs at peak times. Crikey's report also indicates "existing electricity generators pay absolutely no fees for use of the network that delivers their electricity to customers’ doors. In combination with subsidies for rural consumers this distorts locational decisions around where to put these generators:"
Other comments including "state-government-owned networks have a very strong incentive to undertake more expenditure than necessary to maintain a reliable electricity supply"
This is interesting as the Queensland report talks about avoided network costs by PV customers - "The electricity distribution business is currently liable to pay the amount of the feed-in tariff which is then credited to the PV customer by the retailer" (p3). As distribution network charges are regulated , the costs incurred by the distribution business in funding the current Scheme (PV) are recovered through higher network charges for all customers"
Does that sound like the Electricity Distributors in Queensland are annoyed at subsidizing PV customers for generating electricity and using it without having the network charges levied? Even though the PV customers are doing what good citizens everywhere do, try to regulate their actions to reduce their own charges, including that of not needing so much network charges?
So it looks like the Queensland PV customers will be charged more for having avoided network costs plus have a reduced Feed-In Tariff, thus making sure the nascent PV industry will struggle to attract more customers. Thus allowing heavy users preference for using more electricity!
Crikey also reports "Network businesses are allowed to recover all their direct costs plus a margin thought to be necessary to raise finance from equity and debt markets." Looks like they also don't like a little local competition by cost effective PV units either.
Big corporations regulated by State Governments punishing little people for investing in local generation in this fashion will be a sure way to encourage a backlash. At least I hope so. The Conversation's Andrew Blakers article "Set reasonable PV feed-in-tariffs or expect perverse outcomes"also points out these issues.
I'm no expert, but having invested my $$ in doing something good for me and the environment, I will be quite peeved to see big business knocking back my initiative.
Just as well I'm not living in Queensland.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)