Climate Change | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Climate Change

I did say moving away from. Nothing is close to getting banned in Australia. We arent getting to zero emissions in the near future.
But more people are getting rid of gas- my house hasnt had gas for a few years, when our old gas hot water system died we replaced it with a heat pump and bought some cheap portable induction cook tops. and turned the gas off.
More and more councils are doing away with making gas connections compulsory in new housing estates.
The need for gas is going to reduce. and the reliance on coal is also going to continue to reduce.

But yes, gas still has its place. at this stage. one question is tho is how much is it worth investing in if the aim is to continue to reduce its use down to zero in the future?

I still have gas, mainly because when I bought it, it was already installed, but I currently have a solar system on my roof, that produces more than enough power for my home, but due to time of generating it, most gets fed back to the grid. At the time of installation, a battery wasn't economical due to the upfront cost, but due to this, its likely that when my stove top gives up, I'll be replacing it with an electric induction stove. Similar for my gas water heating. I will probably look to replace with an electrical heat pump unit.

Its where I think the government are getting it wrong with subsidisation. The subsidisation of installation costs should be focused on removing households from the gas supply and moving towards a system where there is only 1 type of heating / electrical input into a home, and that being electric as it reduces part of the complexity of the network we have created and just enables the entire power consumption to be based around how you generate and transmit electricity compared to 2 sources entering a home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Whats the downside?
Is there an inpact for smaller, rural communities?
For example if Australia shifted to house solar and local community batteries, could that leave small towns with higher costs?
Or without adequate supply?

Lets face it, cynically and practically it would be a big hill to climb. All major power companies and the infrastructure are geared toward wide distribution so its a significant barrier.
But I'm ignoring that.
There would be a market cost for using the network as backup and to access the community batteries. So I'm finr skip over it.

@mrposhman too.
I'm generally in agreement with this idea, but looking beyond the easy suburban experience

Rural communities do present an issue, though I think removing the upfront and maintenance cost of the grid network into rural communities can easily offset the other investment that you need to make, to ensure that those rural communities are more self sufficient.

Rural communities are likely going to need a higher amount of over supply of renewables in their "enlarged" microgrid (I don't know what else to call it) to ensure continuous supply and there will therefore be an inevitable amount of lost electricity generation, but I would hazard a guess that the cost of the lost generated energy would be less than the cost of upkeep to the grid network.

This website gives a decent breakdown of what we are paying for in our energy costs. 44% of our electricity rate covers the cost of poles and wires. Obviously the more houses you have in an enclosed area, the lower the cost per kwh for those poles, so inevitably, the cost of poles and wire in urban areas is significantly cheaper than in rural areas, so in those rural areas, its likely to be far higher. Ie. urban areas will essentially be subsidising electrical costs in rural areas. Create smaller closed grids, will reduce the impact of these costs, as you don't need to run transmission lines to connect communities in a scenario where you operate closed systems over smaller localised areas,

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rural communities do present an issue, though I think removing the upfront and maintenance cost of the grid network into rural communities can easily offset the other investment that you need to make, to ensure that those rural communities are more self sufficient.

Rural communities are likely going to need a higher amount of over supply of renewables in their "enlarged" microgrid (I don't know what else to call it) to ensure continuous supply and there will therefore be an inevitable amount of lost electricity generation, but I would hazard a guess that the cost of the lost generated energy would be less than the cost of upkeep to the grid network.

This website gives a decent breakdown of what we are paying for in our energy costs. 44% of our electricity rate covers the cost of poles and wires. Obviously the more houses you have in an enclosed area, the lower the cost per kwh for those poles, so inevitably, the cost of poles and wire in urban areas is significantly cheaper than in rural areas, so in those rural areas, its likely to be far higher. Ie. urban areas will essentially be subsidising electrical costs in rural areas. Create smaller closed grids, will reduce the impact of these costs, as you don't need to run transmission lines to connect communities in a scenario where you operate closed systems over smaller localised areas,

I took a little review of this.


Industry is massively incentivised to over capitalise if they can convince the regulator the investment is needed as they get a guaranteed rate of return that goes into the base. Zero risk investment. Outrageous.

It’s very very very not capitalist and must be massively open to corruption. It’s the socialism version of capitalism. The only hooks seem to be reliability requirements - so industry will obviously argue it needs to spend shed loads to meet the reliability targets.

Will be a huge barrier to any shrink the grid stuff and also as anyone else leaves the grid then the cost to everyone else will go up.
 
I'd suggest start with facebook, tik tok and the daily mail. Should give you a good base.
I’m pretty sure he’s “Mr Disputatious” that writes into the DM all the time. The one protesting about Taylor Swift’s hair straightening and the effect her wand was having on the grid was outstanding.
 
It was about their forecasting, insufficient warnings, lack of reliability, poor resourcing, climate change etc etc

I have to say they are very hit and miss. Even their radar info is rubbish at times. Few weeks ago set off with the Chief in the car - 8 or 9 klm trip to a restaurant. BOM radar showed zero rain, zero prediction of rain. Well, it utterly bucketed down
with pretty intense rain the whole 9 klms over 25 minutes or so, and continued to rain heavily for the next hour at the restaurant. But not one skeric of rain on their radar or update to their forecast the entire time. Must have been 5-8mm or so.
Here we go.....again

1708587201284.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Don’t worry Fawcett. I’ve got you covered. I can advise …..that it is raining. And that it is wet.

Go forth with your normal duties.
Yeah but it's still stinking hot up here. Push that stupid change north ...quick!