< In most Australian states the cost of electricity has been rising dramatically and continuously, not because of the carbon tax but, ostensibly, to fund maintenance and upgrade of the national grid. >

Hold on Mike, you are leaving something out there…

… to fund maintenance, upgrade and EXPANSION of the national grid.

We need to grow the grid in order to provide the same resource for ever-more people, within the regime of very rapid population growth.

I would think that if immigration were to be slashed, it would help a great deal to stave off further increases in power costs.

Some seriously wishful thinking here. As of now home batteries for PV storage are too expensive and short lived, geothermal has not measured up and solar thermal with overnight heat storage is several times more expensive than coal and still requires winter backup. Oh yes non-hydro renewables are only about 6% of overall generation despite very generous subsidies and mandates. The result is the big coal fired power stations are not going anywhere.

Add to that the likelihood the $24 carbon price will drop to $10 or perhaps zero. I didn't notice if nuclear power had been touted as a replacement for coal baseload. That would be more centralised generation requiring a convdentional grid. When southern cities nudge 50C in future summers I suspect people will want aircon powered by the grid, particularly as the sun goes down and PV dwindles. Flat dwellers and renters may not even have PV. The author is living in a fantasy world.

Without a national grid the Snowy scheme cannot be used to help cover peek demand which is in the heat of summer or the cold of winter's early evenings. Without a grid weather vagaries have far greater effects.

All renewable energy is dearer than coal based power.

Other comments have also covered the nuclear issue but the most promising appears to be liquid fluoride thorium salt reactors capable of being mass produced and with almost no waste problems compared to uranium fuelled reactors and no meltdown risk. There is an aim to produce this nuclear based power at a cost less per coal.

I have extracted the NSW cost of coal fired generation and over the last 15 years the cost ex the power station has increased by 1.6% per annum compound. The cost is currently between 5and 6c per KWH. Before privatisation of the marketing function about 1,000 people were employed in accounting in NSW. The figure under privatisation is 6,000.

Improvements to the grid are capital items and should be charged to customers over the life of the new assets. Otherwise present users are paying for equipment to be used by a new generation of customers.

We should not understate the effect of so called 'climate policies' on the cost of electricity. Especially we should not understate how these cost will increase if policies such as carbon pricing and renewable energy incentives continue.

Firstly, if Treasury's projections for the ETS are correct, the ETS will cost Australia $1.3 trillion to 2050 ($400 billion discounted). Another way of looking at the costs is the ETS will cost Australia's economy $10 for every $1 of projected benefit. But even the $1 of projected benefits is unlikely to be realised: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/ . So the ETS is a massive and futile waste of Australia's wealth.

Secondly, a significant component of the additional grid costs are a result of the many renewable energy schemes. An Energy Supply Association of Australia 'Discussion Paper" provides just one example of the hidden costs of renewable energy that are being added to grid costs: http://www.esaa.com.au/Library/PageContentFiles/0ed86edb-b445-43f7-b1da-04dba6c4b4bf/Who_pays_for_solar_energy.pdf Homes with solar panels are being subsisised by those without by about $1000 per year on average for their use of the grid.

The national grid is a great white elephant, that virtually doubles the cost of energy to the end user.
Thorium is cheaper than coal. And can be built in small modules, that can be transported to where the power is needed.
Say industrial estates or military bases etc; thereby halving the cost of reticulated energy, and quite massively reducing/eliminating transmission line maintainence costs!
I've read that Chinese pragmatists, are currently building them at the rate of one a week?
Apart from that, we can and should convert all our biological waste into energy.
Australia has invented the two tank system which does just that, minus the smell factor!
The biogas that is created can be stored in simple bladders after scrubbing.
The scrubbed gas is then suitable to power another Aussie innovation, ceramic fuel cells.
The products include endlessly available electrical power, free hot water, carbon rich and sanitised organic fertilizer, reusable water; and, mostly water vapour as the exhaust product.
The 72% energy coefficient of the ceramic fuel cell, and the fact that it eliminates expensive to maintain transmission lines, means that this power provision, is at least SIX TIMES less expensive than coal fired reticulated power.
The ceramic cell will also work quite well on piped NG/CSG/land fill methane, where biogas is unavailable.
Once the infrastructure costs have been recovered, the energy created by this solid state system is virtually costless and endlessly sustainable; and indeed, available 24/7!
A saleable surplus can be created by adding food scraps.
Or alternatively, used to recharge residents' electric vehicles?
Rhrosty.

Ludwig – Quite right, but surely grid expansion to serve Greenfield development is really development of a local grid, rather than the National Grid. Further, my understanding is that these expansions are normally paid for by the Greenfield developers.