Socialised utiltities

Now, what news on the Rialto?
Post Reply
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Socialised utiltities

Post by noddy »

ive heard alot of blah blah from the left on the absolute efficiency and need for centralised socialised utilities and how the right is stupid not to understand how we all benefit from these.

ive heard alot of blah blah from some sections of the right on how solar is a joke and cant replace oil.

reality however is chugging along nicely and maybe ill get to remove some parasitic rent seekers from my life after all :)

while its true that heavy industry cant work on solar thats not my problem, my problem is powering a few light bulbs and whitegoods and in australia that works just fine on solar and within 10 years the return on investment makes it cheaper than the government utility.

anyone who can put the 20 grand up front is currently doing so and its causing much angst to the socialist ones and the capitalists who think i should be subsidizing their industry

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/10 ... ce-spiral/
The electricity ‘death spiral’ is raising considerable angst. Residential demand for power appears to be declining. This has led to higher prices to cover fixed network costs. The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has highlighted the relationship between embedded generation (such as home solar systems) and network pricing in its Strategic Priorities.

So what is the ‘death spiral’?

The idea is simple. The cost of the electricity network – the wires and poles that bring power to our homes and workplaces – is pretty much fixed. It depends on peak demand, not on the everyday electricity load. The network is built to meet a specified level of reliability so that our power doesn’t go out (too often) on exceptionally hot days in the middle of summer when we all turn on our air conditioning. So most of the time the network costs are just a fixed cost of delivering electricity that doesn’t depend on the amount of electricity that consumers buy.

However, to pay for the network, consumers pay a charge based on electricity consumption. Roughly speaking, network charges are set by taking the fixed cost of the electricity network and dividing by the predicted quantity of power that consumers will buy. This gives a per kilowatt hour (kWh) network charge. As individuals, if we use more electricity we pay more of the network cost. If we use less electricity, we pay less. At the end of the process the network owner gets about the same amount of money, but who pays that money varies with consumption.

Unfortunately, turning fixed costs into variable charges can lead to nasty outcomes. And that is what is happening in electricity.

If consumers have no alternative but to use the electricity network to buy power and power demand is insensitive to price, then there is not too much harm. The variable network charges push up the cost of every kWh we consume but we can’t avoid the payment and, with insensitive demand, we don’t react too strongly to the higher price.

These are the traditional assumptions for electricity pricing. However, the development of rooftop solar power (photovoltaic or PV systems) and more energy efficient buildings and appliances, means these assumptions are wrong.

When consumers install PV systems, their demand for traditional electricity falls. These consumers reduce the amount they ‘use’ the network. But the fixed network costs do not change. So these fixed costs are spread over a smaller volume of electricity. And this means that the price of that electricity has to rise for everyone else.

Of course the rise in price encourages more consumers to adopt power-saving technologies and to install PV systems. So these consumers also reduce their consumption of traditional power. But the network costs are still fixed. So the price of electricity has to rise for everyone else.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

If solar is viable..... and only you and your hairdresser know for sure, then you go for it. Makes sense in a number of instances. The wider the variety of sources of energy the better.

I remember when we used to celebrate diversity in Merika...... :(

How many years before there is a booming industry.... nah religion..... nah cult...... whose mission in life is to prove that solar energy is bad, because the Earth is no longer absorbing that energy, and the impending Apocalypse is being caused by Man Made Global Cooling?

I'll bet you a beer it is less than 20 years! ;)
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Some US utilities are objecting to the newer, more efficient systems with battery backups because when they overproduce the utilities are required to pay the solar owners for the excess power they push into the grid. The batteries have made some solar owners a net loss for the utilities, and they are starting to fuss about it.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Some US utilities are objecting to the newer, more efficient systems with battery backups because when they overproduce the utilities are required to pay the solar owners for the excess power they push into the grid. The batteries have made some solar owners a net loss for the utilities, and they are starting to fuss about it.
It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.

If Fred produces more electricity than he can use, or more carrots than he can eat, the idea that a third party intervening to force a second party to buy Fred's excess production will increase the quality of life for society is an amazing perspective.

It often seems a manifestation of the power brokers attempting to deal with their internal demons more than a desire for egalitarianism.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Enki »

Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
:lol: tinker what you are able to read into a post never fails to amuze me.

Or if I'm in NYC and I need to warm up on a cold winter day... or I need to take a dump real bad, but I can't cause you locked the door to your apartment?
Last edited by Simple Minded on Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

The article noddy posted has a lot of analogies to taxation in the US.

For example, a lot of highway building & maintenance is paid for via fuel taxes. So if someone does not own a car, The argument can be made both ways, that they are not contributing to traffic congestion and road deterioration, or that they are not paying their fair share of taxes as a cost of citizenship.

In VA, the state has imposed an annual fee of $45 on the evil rich who can afford hybrid vehicles since they are still using public roads but buying less fuel.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Enki »

Simple Minded wrote:
Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
:lol: tinker what you are able to read into a post never fails to amuze me.

Or if I'm in NYC and I need to warm up on a cold winter day... or I need to take a dump real bad, but I can't cause you locked the door to your apartment?
Coercion is relative.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Enki »

The picture of the rocket spiralling out of control really makes it.

One of my companies big contracts that got us started was a data set that takes all of the investment data and EPA emissions data and other related public and private data from coal fired power generation in the country from like 1991 on. That dataset alone can improve efficiency in that market incredibly.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
:lol: tinker what you are able to read into a post never fails to amuze me.

Or if I'm in NYC and I need to warm up on a cold winter day... or I need to take a dump real bad, but I can't cause you locked the door to your apartment?
Coercion is relative.
:D :D Absolutely, often just a matter of chosen perspective.

Paul sees justice, Peter sees opresssion.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by noddy »

Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
ive had suprising success provided i asked the fellow first, people dont like surprises.
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:The article noddy posted has a lot of analogies to taxation in the US.

For example, a lot of highway building & maintenance is paid for via fuel taxes. So if someone does not own a car, The argument can be made both ways, that they are not contributing to traffic congestion and road deterioration, or that they are not paying their fair share of taxes as a cost of citizenship.

In VA, the state has imposed an annual fee of $45 on the evil rich who can afford hybrid vehicles since they are still using public roads but buying less fuel.
one of the problems inherit in the public model is that the panel of experts who make the decisions is the exact same folks whos livelihoods depend on the status quo, which is the utility companies and their government oversight.

in theory this is a moderated mix of public and private and creates balance, while in practice it smells more like 2 different groups of rent seekers squabbling over who gets my resources.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Enki wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: It is always a bizarre perspective that forcing another to do something they don't want to do makes the world more fair.
Like if you are a wealthy dude who has a thousand acres and I want to pitch a tent there and you force me to move along?
:lol: tinker what you are able to read into a post never fails to amuze me.

Or if I'm in NYC and I need to warm up on a cold winter day... or I need to take a dump real bad, but I can't cause you locked the door to your apartment?
Coercion is relative.
Indeed. Sm's example is closer to reality.
Censorship isn't necessary
Simple Minded

Re: Socialised utiltities

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
one of the problems inherit in the public model is that the panel of experts who make the decisions is the exact same folks whos livelihoods depend on the status quo, which is the utility companies and their government oversight.

in theory this is a moderated mix of public and private and creates balance, while in practice it smells more like 2 different groups of rent seekers squabbling over who gets my resources.
Very true. hence the return on investment in heavily regulated markets is often higher from bribing the regulators than investing in R&D.

The utility owner has the same problem as the solar panel owner, how to balance supply and demand during peak load and off-peak hours. They invest billions in that problem. Being a smart man, you will probably size your system to provide 50% of peak load, but may have 200% capacity during your off peak load periods.

If you as a solar panel owner are not willing to cover up your solar panels, or pump water from one end of your swimming pool to the other end during your off peak hours, but the utility is forced to buy your excess power generation, their balancing problem, associated hardware, and costs go up, which they will simply pass on to your neighbors. In fact you will also pay more during your peak load hours. Anyone who thinks that forcing utilities to buy excess capacity from the home generators does not drive up costs for everyone connected to the grid is just ignorant of the reality.

Just like the All Merikan ideas that taxing Coca Cola or tobacco companies are altruistic ideals since the ideologues are not directly targeting the poor :) ......and we all know that makes one a good person :) , reality does not support the theory. :(

Once you get past voluntary transactions, deciding who to favor and who to f*ck to make things "fair" is always a conundrum :? .

I don't know of anyone in IT who wants Obamacare style regulations applied to their industry, even though those evil bastages are over charging everyone for everything in the US today. ;) People......

As a wise man once said: "ive had suprising success provided i asked the fellow first, people dont like surprises."

Have you ever tried using a magnifying glass to toast an English muffin? ssummin of course they have English muffins in Stralia.... :)
Post Reply