Oh dear Popnperish, why do people turn to latin when they get overly sensitive?

http://www.bigpondmoney.com.au/why-power-bills-are-rising

It ain't population. It's because SA, NSW, Vic and especially Qld have very old distribution networks as per the link above. They are very inefficient. It's not anyone trying to have a go at you. It's just a fact. Absolutely nothing to do with population. Everything to do with old infrastructure. Actually, having more people use an old grid is a problem which revolves around paying more for goods and services but that's another story.

But that is exactly what you find with high population growth. Funds are so short that Government has to get the maximum life from public infrastructure. So things get left until they fall apart, services, education and training get cut, taxes are raised, public assets are sold off, and still debts rack up.

The mining boom has greatly improved the balance of trade, but the pursuit of high population growth by the Federal Government has left state finances in a mess.

Cheryl - you are drifting from simple abuse into incoherence. I am having trouble following the "logic" of your sentences. Maybe you need to seek medical help?

A couple of things, transmission losses averages at around 50%. Locally sourced power made by digesting human waste onsite, and then using the biogas, [methane,] to create on demand electricity, costs around one third of the cost of coal fired power, which currently costs 3-5cents per kilowatt hour to make. We not only pay for the transmission losses but the resale mark-up as well, and given the losses, twice as much carbon creation as would occur making the power right where it is needed.
We are told the huge recent increases are a consequence of the need to renew aging infrastructure. Transmission lines etc. It seems to me, we could simply reject this centralized power delivery system with its quite massive renewal costs and make our own onsite, utilizing Aussie innovation.
We are told that some of the old power stations are going to be replaced by gas burning ones? If gas halves Co2 emission, then piping the gas directly into the homes and making power on site on demand, using a ceramic fuel cells, will halve it again. We can make all the fuel we will ever need by replacing fossil fuel with that created through large scale algae farming. Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb up to 2.5 times their own bodyweight in Co2; and furthermore, under optimised conditions double that bodyweight every 24 hours. Growing algae inside closed circuit systems, can be achieved for just 1 or 2% of the water required for traditional food or ethanol crops. This single feature, if applied to areas like the Murray/Darling, could rescue all the towns and villages who depend on the river system for their livelihoods, as well as the river itself.
We don't need to live in a bubble or allow others to do our thinking for us. Or swallow all the BS and simply destroy our manufacturing base by pricing it out of existence, with entirely unessential increasing energy charges, all of which impact most negatively on our most disadvantaged and vulnerable citizens. Rhrosty

Given the anti-population, anti-development thrust of the paper, one could be forgiven for mistaking the author as a member of the Greens.

The author overlooks the electricity inflationary contribution of all the "green schemes" that have been implemented. He should be aware that there is no scientific nor economic justification for adopting the 20% renewable energy target that led to the adoption of those schemes and the carbon tax, thanks to politicians being conned into accepting the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. The UN political organisation, the IPCC, was and still is the main con-merchant. After some 24 years of searching, the IPCC has failed to table empirical scientific evidence to substantiate that claim. Instead, it has used assertion and its unvalidated climate change models to project the alarming outcomes that have been accepted unquestionably by its scientist disciples, socalled learned societies, the media, politicians and others.

Given that wind-generated electricity is about three times as expensive as, and solar-generated electricity is about ten times as expensive as, coal-fired electricity generation, there is no economic justification to switch to renewable energy.

Apart from the cost of upgrading the electricity networks, a task that previously had been neglected by the various power supply authorities, electricity price rises otherwise should have been insignificant.

Here I am in India, looking upon Dharavi. I see a mass of enslaved humanity, living in abject poverty and filth, with little chance of bettering their lives. Yet to my astonishment, there is Cheryl looking on with a broad smile and nattering excitedly about their wonderful prospects. I do admit to a bit of embellishment here as Cheryl has an antiseptic soaked cloth held to her mouth the whole time, so I cannot be certain of the smile, let alone the gender. But the lilt of gaiety is definitely in her voice at the sight of all that suffering and deprived humanity.

Then it is off to Tokyo. I hear moaning and look about to see Cheryl prostrate on the ground. “Whatever is the matter, Cheryl?” I ask. “They are all doomed!” she howls. And no Arjay, it isn't the caesium, it's the ageing catastrophe. And here was I, looking at the wonderful infrastructure and thinking of the great wealth and education of these people. “Opportunity” was my thought, not “Doom”.

I guess the truth is that people will ever see things differently.