"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Dump Solar Incentives says NSW Premier.

Barry O'Farrell has  told the Federal government to dump costly solar incentives which are driving up power bills.

THE NSW government has called on Julia Gillard to immediately dump incentives for households that install rooftop solar panels, saying federal Labor's green scheme is too expensive.
Despite Climate Change Minister Greg Combet having scaled back subsidies in the scheme to quell anger over rocketing electricity prices, the NSW pricing watchdog yesterday confirmed that the federal government's renewable energy target - which requires 20 per cent of electricity to be produced from renewable energy sources by 2020 - would be responsible for six percentage points of a 17 per cent increase in power bills from July 1.
NSW Energy Minister Chris Hartcher seized on the price hike to demand that Canberra's "very costly" renewable energy schemes be dismantled.
"The Prime Minister may look good when she makes the announcement, but at the end of the day someone has to pay, and it's the electricity customers of NSW who are paying," Mr Hartcher said yesterday.
As reality bites more and more of these silly green power schemes will be given the axe as voters "feel-good" becomes "feel-bad" when the astronomical  power bill arrives. 

1 comment:

  1. This kind of thing is the oldest form of 'Con' around, but people just want to believe in what they perceive as a good cause, so it is extremely difficult to convince them of this.

    It is even more difficult to dissuade them from being sucked in when the 'Con' is being perpetrated by the government of the day using guilt tactics.

    This has seen people unwittingly hooked when the perceived, but always fading, financial gain is linked to an emotionally charged 'do good' cause like saving the planet.

    What many people apparently fail to understand is that the only deliverable outcome possible from providing subsidies to consumers to convert to so called alternative energy forms, or green power, is a giant exercise in 'Cost Shifting'.

    This sees what are essentially the fixed costs of providing a reliable source of energy via conventional generating and distribution means shifted from one consumer group to another.

    Unless power stations and distribution lines can be completely shut down there is no real saving, so the required income must be raised one way or another to enable these facilities to be operated and maintained...and yes, even expanded.

    This has led us to where we are today where we are seeing a major shift in the cost of providing power toward the group of customers who refuse to be taken in by this ruse who, as we all know, are now paying a lot more for their power to pay for all of this stupidity.

    But it doesn't stop there. Unfortunately, many of the bunnies who expected to make big savings are also seeing their supposed savings eaten up by the ever increasing tariffs now being levied. By the time this is all finished, they will be very close to paying the same gross dollar amount they were paying before, while consuming much less actual power. Then when their solar panels and what have you eventually need replacing, as they must do in 10 or 20 years time, who is going to pay for it? I can hear them screaming and complaining now!

    It's the classic 'pea and thimble' con...now you see it now you don't.

    Wake up people...as always, there 'aint no such thing as a 'free lunch'. If they are going to run mains power to out of the way communities (as they should, of course) then someone has to pay for this and if the people who live in these communities then start installing solar systems to reduce their cost of power, someone is going to have to pay more to offset these so called savings. It really is as simple as that.

    Of course we have seen all of this happen before when the 'User Pays' principle was first introduced supposedly to encourage a reduction in water use. True, water consumption has reduced in most homes, but the reasons for this have now shifted from what were mainly altruistic ones to financial ones. People can no longer afford to pay what the authorities are now demanding. Even worse, our council rates are now right back to where they were before when they used to include the cost of water. Why? Simply because there is an essentially fixed cost involved in the collection, storage and reticulation of water that must be met, so if people start using less, the authorities just up the tariffs to maintain the flow of income they need to provide us with something that is essential to very maintenance of life. They can't lose, can they?

    Nothing else ever comes down does it? Our taxes either remain constant, or go up and they keep finding new and inventive ways of levying more and more 'User Pay' charges on what is essentially a, non-complaining, compliant society and all in the name of 'conservation' and 'doing good'.

    What a giant rip-off!