Thread: Use less electricity and water

I've asked a few people this question . Who owns the coal that is used by the power stations in Victoria . I have heard that there is enough there for the next 200years . So if It was sold off how much did It go for , and to whom ? Someone must own It ? ,and there not going to give It away , So how do you put a value on coal a hundred years from now ? If coal costs so much a ton , and there are millions of tons ,What would be worth at a price not yet fixed ?

Originally Posted by jimr1

I've asked a few people this question . Who owns the coal that is used by the power stations in Victoria . I have heard that there is enough there for the next 200years . So if It was sold off how much did It go for , and to whom ? Someone must own It ? ,and there not going to give It away , So how do you put a value on coal a hundred years from now ? If coal costs so much a ton , and there are millions of tons ,What would be worth at a price not yet fixed ?

In Australia coal (and other minerals) belong to the crown*, i.e. the State Government. Because, as you say, there are vast resources of coal, it has very little intrinsic value, which is why it is so widely used for power generation - most of the "cost" of the coal to the power company is the mining cost; plus a royalty to the state government, which effectively sells the coal to the power company.

*I think there are still a few small areas in NSW where very early land grants alienated minerals as well as surface rights, although most of these were re-acquired by the state about fifty years ago.

John

Yep, everything below the surface is owned by the Crown. There is a fixed depth - I think it's 6cm from memory, but that may not be correct. So, for example, property owners don't own the minerals or groundwater, the Crown does. So, property owners are actually selling the right to access the resources, not the resources themselves.
Some farmers get very narky about this and carry on with 'Lock the Gate' protests, but actualy they're on shaky ground legally. Other landowners are much smarter and queue up to sell their access rights to the highest bidder to earn cash to invest in improving their properties.
Back on solar, some 'solar rights' exist in relation to views I understand, so property owners should have the right to access solar to generate energy. I hope local governments are never allowed to force landowners to connect to services they don't want. Consmer rights should include the right NOT to be forced to consume.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The other issue is that energy supply companies, are now considering an annual surcharge for solar powered houses to connect to the grid. So not only will they only pay 4c for solar energy fed into the grid and 33c to get it out they will be charging you extra for power if you have panels compared to the neighbour who doesnt.

This reinforces what I was trying to say in post#14."They" being the power companies and the government are NOT going to lose out.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

This is exactly what happened with the MWS&DB in Sydney (water utility company) in the 1950s and 1960s, many houses in the metro area ran on tank water when they ran the water mains past a house the householder had to connect to the mains,.

It seems unjust but explained another way:

Assume (for the purposes of story telling ) that it costs $1000 p/m to install water mains up a 1 km long street. The poor guy at the far end decides he would like mains water - the first house in the street to do so. The cost to him is $1M. Of course he can't pay. The next guy to connect doesn't have to pay anything, coz the first guy did.
A far more equitable model is to ask everyone to pay $1000 per meter frontage. This is the model used by the NBN and just about every utility developer and council.

Another model, sometimes used in the US, is to temporarily assign 'ownership' of the pipe to the original purchaser (or more usually the developer or builder), who then 'subcharges' a commensurate fee to everyone who subsequently wants to be connected. Once costs are recouped, the pipe reverts to public ownership or in most US cases, the utility who financed it.
This is good for those who don't want connection, but it can mean 25 years down the track when that person moves, the new tenent is up for mega bucks.

Cheers
Ralph

In NSW, electricity supply used to be a public service. The Electricity Commission (who I did my time with) generated, and the County Councils (one of which I joined 35 years ago) distributed. They acquired assets, and financed their own infrastructure; They were a bit top heavy employee-wise, but this provided a valuable service to our society by providing stable employment.

Then, in the '80s, the economic gurus in the state government got hold of the system and decided to make it conform to their economic model. The people that I worked for were told that they didn't have an acceptable level of debt (i.e. not enough). Assets were virtually thrown away, accumulated spare parts were literally dumped, and the annual profits were allocated to the coffers of the State government. This "dividend" was usually at least $100 million per year. One year it was $150 million.

Parts of the system were then subsequently sold off, taking a short-term profit but irreversibly squandering assets belonging to the people of the state. The new owners are understandably profit-driven, and so the consumers will suffer. The villain of the piece, however, is the State Government, which has gradually transformed the electricity supply industry from a benign entity into a rapacious predator. It will come as no surprise that we have been betrayed by politicians and high-level public servants.

Originally Posted by Ralph1Malph

It seems unjust but explained another way:

Assume (for the purposes of story telling ) that it costs $1000 p/m to install water mains up a 1 km long street. ....

That still doesn't justify the making water tanks illegal. In a democratic society one should be free to choose to have flurodated mains water or unflurodated tank water. Even if there is a charge for the mains past the front door.

It is also not universal, one of my work colleagues bought a rural block outside Maroulan for her weekends. It was unpowered and at the end of a lane. She spoke to her neighbours, all wanted mains power but none would share the cost of the poles and wires. They figured she would pay for the poles and wires and they could merely connect later. She went solar/batteries 20 years before it was common.

Here's a good story about how state governments are laughing all the way to the bank about electricity prices, while trying to blame solar and carbon tax when its actually their own actions. And the federal government is raking in lots of money from the GST on higher power prices.

Who Really Profits From Power Bill Increases In Queensland? : Renewable Energy News :