 | The Bullroarer - Saturday 16 February 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Monday 18 February 2008 |  |
29 comments on Big boost for solar rebates in South Australia
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Although in theory I think limiting consumption has merits, and we agree that in practise its not as politically acceptable... I did not suggest this.
All the price mechanisms suggested rely on the idea of optimal allocation of resources thru the free market. I'm not totally convinced this happens automatically... just as I'm not convinced that Big Govt has the solutions.
I do think we need to pay some attention to the uses of the power.
An AC Airconditioner affects the system in a different way than the home theatre system... the former being a combination of reactive and resistive loads ( 1, 2, 3), whereas the latter is mainly a resistive load.
Allowing everyone to have all these electric motors (Air Cons) results in a different allocation of resources by the power generator.
Monetary measures do not (necessarily) take this into account, as once reduced to a monetary unit, these important differences in system detail are minimised.
Mr Odum would have something to say about this.
Well, I think we can learn from the experience with trying to reduce water consumption.
Melbourne went for restricting types of use, and public education, and reduced domestic water use by 25%.
Brisbane introduced a tiered pricing scheme, and reduced domestic water use by 50%.
I don't see why electricity should be any different. Price is a strong market signal, so the economists tell us.
Two points to consider.
The use to which water is put at the consumers end has little bearing on the processes used to clean the water... as all water in public systems is treated to drinking water standard (even though a lot of the water is then flushed down the loo or sprayed on the garden). This is not directly comparable to my point about reactive power and AC motor use... where the process of consumption has an immediate feedback effect at the power plant.
Secondly, along side your percentage figures, we need to see absolute consumption values. Comparing percentages is meaningless otherwise.
Melbourne may already have been at a lower absolute consumption level (I don't know), the "easy saving" may already have been made.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument/proposals. A tiered system is good... but it's not everything, and you need to be careful of details that have systemic effects. That's all.
You can adjust price and thus consumption without any new infrastructure; all this DC lighting stuff requires new infrastructure.
In absolute figures per capita daily, from 1995 to 2005, Brisbane went from 500 to 250lt, Melbourne from 290 to 230lt. I dunno about "low-hanging fruit" - Brisbane is a lot hotter and more humid than Melbourne, and you commonly find domestic water use is about double in summer what it is in winter, whatever city you're in.
The national average in Aussie cities is 253lt. And that's heaps. Our household uses 65lt per person daily, since we reckon that every drop counts (warning: contains useful advice which you're a lazy drongo if you don't follow).
I thought it was clear that I was suggesting the minimal change that utilised the existing wiring, without the expense of a complete PV system.
What is the point of your pricing structure if not to facilitate a change to a more sustainable system? A change that will require new infrastructure.
In my system, you raise the funds first and then you build the infrastructure. And the method of raising funds encourages people to consume less, so that buys you extra time to build the infrastrcture.
In your system, we build the infrastructure first and charge for it later, and we have to build it all ASAP.
I prefer scenarios where we get to start with more money and time than we need. We're dealing with big government and corporate projects, after all - and they always take more money and time than you expect, it's nice to have some leeway.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I proposed.
I am trying to think of how we evolve our existing infrastructure at the most appropriate scale; in this case only considering domestic lighting. Where did you get the "all at once" idea from? I suggested new houses at first, and older houses (where practical) as the lighting circuit in a house is separate from the power outlets, stove and hot water. You would not need to rewire the house. A small solar PV system could easily charge a battery bank to power the new generation of LEDs (etc) for a nights lighting.
I like to think that a scheme like this achieves more in the long run than just reducing consumption...
What monetary system you put in place to encourage the adoption of such a scheme I left vague.
But, I would argue you must have some idea of the infrastructure you want before you start out raising the money... aren't we too far down the track to just "muddle through" on this one... is there enough time for "the market" to pick a winner through successive iterations of business successes and failures?
And would it really matter if some of these changes were paid for by the Federal Govt?
We could take a billion away from buying crap second hand weapons from our great saviour and put it into something really useful!
Consider it a national investment in reducing a part of our CO2 economic externality.
By "muddling through" I didn't mean "leave it to the market." I meant the usual and actual combination of market, government, luck and so on.
"Leave it to the market" means "do nothing and watch CEOs crash everything and go back to their home countries with record bonuses."
Fair enough... :-)
We could do with some luck.
But then, the only trouble with luck is that those in power at the time attribute it to their own skill...
Yes but that's only a problem if your country is trying to conquer a good chunk of a continent or something.
"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." - Paul Wolfowitz, March 2003
Aside from that it's a matter for the history books to sort out. And in the end I don't give a damn what history says or who takes the credit so long as it comes out alright.