IPCC Report and the Average Joe

As I waited in the supermarket today I asked the friendly shop assistant how business had been. To my surprise, given I was buying food essentials, she replied that business is slow.
People are finding life expensive and have cut down on essentials such as food.
She also mentioned the cost of electricity and water being so high.

To turn the conversation to a more positive note I mentioned that I had invested in Solar Power and was receiving some money off my electricity bill and money back from the company. This started a productive exchange about how useful and expensive this process was. To my surprise the lady following me also mentioned she had been investigating solar power and her friend already received a substantial reduction in her electricity bills because of their investment in Solar.

This supermarket is in a low socio-economic area of Melbourne. One of the "Righteous "complaints about the current Solar schemes and other RET investments is that they are causing poor people to suffer.
We shall see how much the upcoming budget will continue that process.

Poor people are by definition poor. They have very little disposable income. It is short-sighted not to be concerned, but equally short-sighted not to change important essentials such as food, petrol, electricity, gas if that is needed and to help the poor manage that adjustment.

In all this debate about the Carbon Tax, how many people have forgotten the money paid back to individuals to allow them to bear the higher electricity costs? The tax free threshold has been raised for the poorest as well as the rest of us.

The IPCC Report released yesterday 31 March 2014 -

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

 makes it clear why these taxes are necessary.

The Australian

This research has indicated life will be much worse if we don't act effectively.
While a Carbon Tax is not the whole solution, its an important first step.
Ask Clive Palmer how much Queensland Nickel has paid into this years budget and how much more he can afford to pay, considering the money he's reportedly pouring into election campaigns in WA.
Who can afford that?
The lady in the supermarket from the poorer end of town, or a mining magnate?

Election Madness

As the September 7th Federal election announcement hit the news media last Saturday, before the actual announcement, I realised the radiowaves, ABC TV and newspapers would be almost unwatchable/unreadable for 5 long, cold, windy weeks.

So inspite of a number of interesting articles in the Saturday Age newspaper (business section) 3rd August 2013, we will get slogans (Stop the Boats, Axe the Carbon Tax) and spin from all the major parties.
1. Michael West "Demand for power down, demand for profits up" Pg 9 talked about the reality of falling power demand and the "fact that company budgets and profits are stuck on network spending".

2. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote on Pg 12 "Peak oil : its still a harsh reality" that "the output of the five big oil majors- Exon, BP, Total, Cheron and Shell - has fallen by 26 per cent despite a relentless hunt for new fields" and I might also say the development of shale oil fields in USA and Canada.

3. Peter Hannam's article "Consumers switch on to solar power" shows that despite the falling Australian dollar and in spite of subsidies removal, householders are still installing lots of solar. Talks about large scale Solar Farms still abound though Spain seems to be changing their tariffs sufficiently to bankrupt the Solar Thermal Installations us greenies like to trumpet. See the blackly entertaining "Spain levies consumption tax on sunshine"

In the current election both parties are worried about the cost of living for 'working families'. So here goes with my responsibility list.

• Electricity regulation falls largely into the State responsibilities, as we have seen with the reduction of the Victorian Feed in Tariff to 8c.
• Petrol pricing is influenced by world pricing (with taxation by the Federal Governments.)
• The cost of housing and rent, a major expenditure by said 'working families' is determined by the marketplace - demand for housing, thus price, is increasing with increasing population. I haven't seen any form of Government influence this except to increase the costs with large handouts to first home buyers.
• The cost of water, in Victoria, is also a State Responsibility. We have seen a major increase in costs due to the ill-fated desalination plant built by the previous Labor State Government.

So how can the current Federal parties manage to help out on this stuff?

Wages for the 'working families' depends on your industry, but the only ones having large increases in earning power over the last decade have been CEO's of large companies, who are asking for tax cuts, no or low levels of paid-parental leave and benefits such as Fringe Benefits taxes.

Public employees are facing major job cuts as the economy tanks. So there will be major cuts to services in spite of promises by Labor and Liberal. With corresponding increases in unemployment and New Start and other Centrelink allowances.

Face it, for the majority of Australians, harder times, higher costs in basic needs and a structurally changing economy will provide considerable stresses. Will this be the "Recession we have to have?" no matter who wins on 7th September?

"Sunny Times Ahead" whilst we flood

Flooding Nov 2007

As the rain continued to fall yesterday leading to flooding in Gippsland and parts of Melbourne, I was reading my paper copy of Choice Magazine. "Sunny Times Ahead" detailed the findings by the Alternative Technology Association, ATA, on the payback periods for Solar Power ( PV) throughout Australia.

Whilst now is a good time to buy current solar technology, the fall in the Australian dollar will lead to an increase in the price of panels, in the short term at least. Long term, I would have thought the outlook is sunny with further reductions in costs and increases in efficiency as more research is done.
What concerned me is the question "Is bigger better?" on page 39 of the article.

In purely economic terms, the answer is no. The changes to Feed in Tariff's(FiT) have mean't that consumers are actively penalized from installing as much capacity as our roofs can stand. This means the Electricity companies are continuing to produce highly polluting, carbon rich electricity, particularly in Victoria with little thought of the environmental consequences. So if you considered only the environment, then big is certainly better!

If all the roofs in Melbourne, capable of producing solar power, were encouraged to produce and feed into the grid, then more CO2 free electricity is produced, less infrastructure in terms of new Coal Powered Generation is required. (Gas Powered generation will be required to load balance at the moment).

Research has shown that the current level of Solar Power, plus other renewable energy is reducing the cost of peak power. It is incredibly short-sighted to reduce this energy input and will make those who are poorer and don't own their own roofs more susceptible to "electricity supply gold plating". See the following article by the Age and checkout the Melbourne Energy Institute web site for more in-depth, knowledgeable articles.

That's why I have joined Solar Citizens, the ATA and the Australian Consumer Association. I want my voice to be heard, my roof to produce as much solar as it can (within my limited budget) and know that I am at least trying to reduce my environmental impact, before it all becomes irrelevant (EROEI stuff).

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.