Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

lenergy.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 427 posts

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#121

Post by rswail »

mchusma wrote: post #14

Incentivizing usage during peak times makes total sense, but if price swings are this wild, how are grid scale batteries not highly economical? My rough ballpark math was that you need roughly 20 kilowatts of battery storage to make this issue basically nonexistent, and that would cost about 10 billion dollars, which doesn't seem that much for this.

They are, and they are being rapidly rolled out and the "post sunset" spikes are rapidly being flattened by both grid storage and "behind the meter" home batteries.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#122

Post by AnthonyMouse »

embedding-shape wrote: post #110
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whethe…

> If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget…

> Spoken as someone who never been poor. There is definitely a ton of stuff people with money can do to save more money, that is completely out of reach for the people who would actually benefit from those savings the most. Subsidies is quite literally about reaching these folks that others tend to forget about.

Except that there is no additional money, its just your own money but now there are strings.

On top of that, that still isn't necessary for things that save a non-trivial amount of money, because that's what loans are for. If it has a $100/mo loan payment and saves $150/mo on the electric bill then you take out a loan or buy it on an installment plan and don't need to have any accumulated capital in order to do it.

> Compared to "take it from you and not give it back to you", it's definitely helping people who have less money. Not sure how this needs explaining.

Why would anybody want that either, instead of just not taking it from you to begin with?

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#123

Post by rswail »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #106
embedding-shape wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it so out of the ordinary that a government tries to help people save money or what's the question? Sounds like you've only had the American experience in life unfortunately.

If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whethe…

Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits.

The money saved is distributed across the community, for both those that directly benefit and those that can't (eg renters, apartments etc). The general benefit is of greater value than the individual savings.

Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#124

Post by sevenseacat »

perilunar wrote: post #102
michaelt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's less a question of batteries being economical, and more a question of the relative economics of batteries vs solar panels. After all, if the highest demand is between 16:30 and 19:00 you could use batteries to store power at 12:00 and sell it at 18:00 - or in famously sunny Australia you could build enough solar panels that solar output at 18:00 matches power demand. If batteries have a solid 9% return o…

> you could build enough solar panels that solar output at 18:00 matches power demand No you could not. For half the year the sun has set by 18:00.

I mean in the dead of winter, yes. For six months of the year? Definitely not.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#125

Post by AnthonyMouse »

master-lincoln wrote: post #111
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whethe…

Think about people who could not afford the initial investment. It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all.

> Think about people who could not afford the initial investment.

This is what loans and installment plans are for, the payments for which come out of the savings on the utility bill.

> It's beneficial for society here if the government redistributes wealth for the benefit of all.

Which has nothing to do with batteries. If you want to do that then provide them with a refundable tax credit that allows for a negative tax rate in cases where that's deemed desirable.

And even that doesn't apply to the majority of people who are currently paying a non-negative amount of tax. Why attach strings to the money going to a middle class homeowner who should have just been allowed to keep that portion of their own salary?

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#126

Post by fragmede »

Gigachad wrote: post #67
fragmede wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or plug them into a UPS that charges when it's free but you can run them whenever.

Batteries are massively more expensive. Thats why the utility companies are just giving consumers free power over building their own grid scale batteries. A tank of water is cheap, it’s just not possible to distribute hot water over the grid. But it’s very realistic to store it locally and use for heating and cooling. Which is the bulk of power usage anyway.

There are never designs coming into the market that support only, say, the fridge, and have the software to be time of day use metering aware, that won't totally break the bank.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#127

Post by rswail »

bruce511 wrote: post #12
russelg wrote: post #5

Australia, excluding Western Australia as we are on a separate electricity grid.

From the article; this applies to NSW, South Australia and part of Queensland. So yeah, not universal yet. But the precedent means it's moving in that direction. If WA homes end up producing lots of solar at midday then this opens the door there as well.

It applies in Victoria as well.

Victoria deregulated its market before NSW/SA/Qld.

All of the eastern states (SA/QLD/NSW/VIC/Tas) are part of a single market, with interconnects and wholesale prices set every 5 minutes.

Victoria has its own "default offer" and regulator of the retail market, which is also offering similar "free power" hours.

WA could be part of the NEM with some HVDC across the Nullabor, not sure if it would be economically worthwhile though.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#129

Post by rswail »

leonidasrup wrote: post #24

Dynamic pricing and deployment of digital smart meters should by mandatory in all electric grids dominated by renewables. Large electric consumers are already buying electricity at dynamic prices, small consumers should have the same incentives to shift the demand to day hours.

Victoria has had smart meters for two decades. The rollout started in 2006 and was basically complete a decade later.

The other states are aiming for a 100% rollout by 2030.

Re: Australian energy retailers must offer three hours of free daytime electricity

#130

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rswail wrote: post #123
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something actually saves money then it doesn't require a subsidy because people would be doing it regardless. Meanwhile the government doesn't have any of its own money, so it can't really give you something that was yours to begin with, all it can do is take it from you and then give it back with strings attached. How is that helping you? Instead of subsidizing something you can make up your own mind about whethe…

Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits. The money saved is distributed across the community, for both those that directly benefit and those that can't (eg renters, apartments etc). The general benefit is of greater value than the individual savings. Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, ev…

> Because the individualized incentives do not take into account the community benefits.

Only if the utility company is pricing things incorrectly.

If the price of electricity is ~free during the day and expensive in the evening then the individualized incentives for installing a battery line right up.

> Your attitude that somehow taxation is theft is a very silly Ayn Randian Objectivism outgrowth that has never been true, even in the most "free" US states.

Whether it's theft or not doesn't change the arithmetic. When you're paying them the money they're paying you, it was your money to begin with.

Post reply on HN