Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !
From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Nov 2004 16:01:17 -0800
alexterrell@yahoo.com (Alex Terrell) wrote in message news:<d81e59c9.0411220217.367d64f4@posting.google.com>...
> greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411191908.6b920793@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > The Government here (UK) did something like that before most others.
> > > As a result, intense competition in the retail sector has pushed
> > > prices down, improved choice, pushed cost savings through the supply
> > > chain, freed the market from some state control (it is still
> > > regulated) and provided outside investment. Virtually no down side -
> > > though perhaps, allegedly, some increased risk of power cuts due to
> > > reduced standby capacity, and more regulation needed to boost
> > > renewables.
> >
> > Sounds too good to be true.
>
> The UK electricity privatisation and deregulation is widely considered
> a success. There are some concerns over security of supply.
>
> > Here they allowed the refinery to close,
> > and allow the electricity suppliers to up prices at the drop of a hat
> > >
> The retail end of the market is very cometitive, apart from those
> people too dumb / lazy / rich not to shop around.
Pathetic isn't it? All we are really doing, is buying the right for
someone to bill us for the product. After all, the biller doesn't
guarrantee supply, nor create nor distribute the product. They just
try to get a large enough volume to create their own little monopoly,
as those drop out of the market who maybe didn't have a large enough
capital base to operate for a time at a loss.
>
> The whole sale market does still have some controls as it's not fully
> competitive.
>
> The transmission business is highly regulated as it is to some extent
> a natural monoploy.
>
> > > California tried something similar, but prevented price rises reaching
> > > the consumer. So when demand and cost increased, no one was
> > > incentivised to provide new capacity. Retailers were forced to sell
> > > electricity more cheaply than they could buy it, so balckouts actually
> > > helped them in some respect.
> >
> > ...and the collapsing company nearly bankrupted the state, IIRC
> > >
> > > > Meanwhile, even with a line passing within a few hundred meters, the
> > > > price of electricity connection in the country makes rural building
> > > > horrendously expensive- sometimes the value of the building!
> > >
> > > I guess in your case, there is simply no one around anymore to
> > > subsidise rural connections. But in any case, rural connections
> > > shouldn't be subsidised by power companies. If at all, that is the
> > > role of Government as part of their rural policy.
> >
> > I doubt there ever was. The price has always been high enough for the
> > supplier to turn a nice profit. The whole thing is only a disguised
> > (thinly) monopoly.
> > For a couple of poles and a transformer, with a days work for a couple
> > of men, expect a bill for $50,000. Welcome to political reality land!
> > There are very few voters in the country.
> >
> Then the regulator ought to insist that anyone with appropriate
> qualifications is allowed to do this work. The incumbant will of
> course try and play games and point out that no one else is qualified
> to string together the poles. Then the regulator has to kick some ass.
The incumbent is The Electricity Trust of South Australia (govt owned
monopoly). The govt is The Australian Labor Party (SA). Such a
situation is not likely to see much arse kicking around here!
>
> > > (I remember my first visit to Cape Tribulation. At midnight, the
> > > generator would switch off, and then it was flashlights and fires
> > > only. Last time I went it had been really spoilt by grid connections,
> > > and even worse, paved roads bringing in busloads of package tourists).
> >
> > What!! Destroy the ozone layer with fires!!! Burn a piece of wood that
> > the seven-toothed cock-lizard might have been hiding under????
> >
> It was renewable wood.
I use wood for most of my household heating
>
> > Shame on you!
> > Do what they do here in the National Parks; ban access to everyone not
> > on foot.
> > (it's getting that way)
>
> Well - there is some merit in that. Would you like to see roads built
> into Arnhem land for the busloads of overweight tourists?
Within limits. The tourists, being well informed by the tour guide as
to the damage being done to the park by cane toads and rubber plant
infestations (among other ecological disasters), can go home and lobby
govt through the ballot box, to do some REAL conservation activity
Cheers
Jim G
- Next message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
