The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for action on the price of electricity > Comments

Time for action on the price of electricity : Comments

By Damian Sullivan, published 7/12/2012

Energy affordability needs to be high on the agenda for today's COAG.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Does the Plan for Affordable Energy include campaigning for repeal of the pointless Carbon Tax? And if not, why not?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 7 December 2012 4:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The eco-Left wanted energy prices to be high so we we wouldn't be trashing the planet with that abominable plant food, CO2. Its all backfired, predictably of course, and now Gillard the champion of the Carbon Tax price hike, wants the cost to be lower?? She let the Labor state premiers rake in a fortune with energy price hikes but now the Libs are in power in the states she wants to deprive them of the same income while jealously guarding her expensive Carbon Tax.

Gillard is the complete hypocrite on this one.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 7 December 2012 5:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to the authors argument, I think Jenny is on the right track. Could it be that Jenny lives alone (what a huge waste of resources if so) and having an electric hot water system heat water for one person is incredibly wasteful ! Pooled (no pun intended) use of resources is a great idea.

Assuming we believe the Scientists, I am not sure why the author ignores the futures users of the Planet ? Jenny is simply at the fore front of a changed system, we need a complete rethink on society moving forward, getting her (or anyone) cheap polluting energy, ensuring profligacy, is not the answer.

I have a solar hot water system with a big resevor, it's not hooked up to power. When the Sun doesn't heat the water, that's to bad, I also moved to a milder climate to ensure that the "too bad" was not unbearable. One suggestion might be for Jenny to do the same.
Posted by Valley Guy, Friday, 7 December 2012 6:11:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...My power bill comes in at $2.20 per day. That in relative terms is less than half the daily cost of my bread supply. $2.20 per day includes the cost of hot water, heated without solar assistance, supplying two separate units.

...So what do I do that is different? Firstly, as Valley Guy suggested, a move to a warmer climate is a big factor in power savings. I use no power at all for heating or cooling. The climate in winter is very mild and the cooling breeze off the sea in summer is with the compliments of ďMother NatureĒ.

...I also use a metho stove which is economic, in place of the electric range which I have but donít use. I have previous experience living for many years in locations with no electricity, so basically I ignore the stuff. The smell of kerosene lights and refrigerators is familiar; (what about kerosene TVís and kerosene computers for the modern age); bath at the beach and simply turn off Juliaís Carbon Tax at the meter-box: Brilliant, what great advice.

...Bob Brown and the Greens would love us all to do just that. But Iíll make a wild guess here, no politician will be turning off their power supply in order to pay the rent!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 7 December 2012 8:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are also risks, however, with this aspect of the proposed reform. Before such a measure is introduced, we need to make sure vulnerable households are not disadvantaged. Currently, we don't have enough information about how time of use pricing would affect low-income households or other vulnerable customers. This needs urgent investigation."

The author is being irresponsible in calling for time of use (TOU) pricing when he does not know what the effect would be on the vulnerable households.

As most households probably would find it impractical to move most of their consumption to non-peak times, their total electricity bills probably would increase with TOU pricing. This certainly would be the case if non-peak tariffs are left unchanged when the higher peak tariff is implemented -- precisely what happened when TOU tolls were implemented for the Sydney Harbour tunnel and bridge -- a devious way of increasing the electricity retailers' revenue. Besides, consumers would have to pay for installation of the TOU meters, estimated to cost at least $250. Consequently, even more households are likely to become vulnerable.

The PM's assertion (or should that be propaganda) that new measures including TOU pricing would reduce electricity prices by $250, should be taken with a grain of salt, especially as there is no move to abandon the renewable energy target (RET), the attainment of which is designed to raise electricity prices substantially.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 7 December 2012 10:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All commentators on this subject fail to answer the basic question, which is how do State governments raise the money they need while still getting elected? Nick Greiner did it by stealing the electricity assets in NSW (which had been paid for and belonged to the customers, not to the NSW government), and then forced the payment of a yearly dividend. Later governments sold the stolen assets, and allowed the new owners to rip us off. I have repeatedly suggested a voluntary method whereby billions could be raised each year without compulsion. This would be to tax sex. Each adult would have to decide each year whether or not to have sex. A "yes" answer would mean the need to buy a sex licence; a "no" answer would require a virgin permit. These permits would be interchangeable at any time, and both would cost $5,000 per year. People could decide to buy neither, but without a licence a man would commit an offence if he approached within 10 metres of any woman, and a woman without a permit could not prosecute a charge of rape.

Having disposed of the simple problem of financing government, which has been suggested to the governments of Europe, Japan and the USA, I can, if respondents wish, read my simple solutions to the middle east problem, overpopulation, pollution, squaring the circle, and any other difficulties that exist.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 8 December 2012 10:46:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy