Smart Technology Can Prevent Blackouts

Having smart heating and cooling systems that are connected to a smart electricity meter and a smart Grid can prevent blackouts.

Once blackout conditions are met, the system can send a signal to all smart cooling systems to turn down the temperature by a degree or 2 previously calculated by the smart grid system.

The system would look at the the load for cooling across a whole suburb.

Next the system would work out the current load, work out the amount that needs to come down and divide that amount across all cooling systems.

So the blackout load is this amount, it needs to come down by this amount, and that amount is spread across all coiling systems in the suburb which then reduce their temperature to meet the new load conditions.

Does that make sense?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Smart Technology Can Prevent Blackouts

Having smart heating and cooling systems that are connected to a smart electricity meter and a smart Grid can prevent blackouts.

Once blackout conditions are met, the system can send a signal to all smart cooling systems to turn down the temperature by a degree or 2 previously calculated by the smart grid system.

The system would look at the the load for cooling across a whole suburb.

Next the system would work out the current load, work out the amount that needs to come down and divide that amount across all cooling systems.

So the blackout load is this amount, it needs to come down by this amount, and that amount is spread across all coiling systems in the suburb which then reduce their temperature to meet the new load conditions.

Does that make sense?

Sure why not. I guess it could also detect when people are watching something stupid on TV and switch that off.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Smart Technology Can Prevent Blackouts

Having smart heating and cooling systems that are connected to a smart electricity meter and a smart Grid can prevent blackouts.

Once blackout conditions are met, the system can send a signal to all smart cooling systems to turn down the temperature by a degree or 2 previously calculated by the smart grid system.

The system would look at the the load for cooling across a whole suburb.

Next the system would work out the current load, work out the amount that needs to come down and divide that amount across all cooling systems.

So the blackout load is this amount, it needs to come down by this amount, and that amount is spread across all coiling systems in the suburb which then reduce their temperature to meet the new load conditions.

Does that make sense?

Sure why not. I guess it could also detect when people are watching something stupid on TV and switch that off.

True, but that might cause a bit of a backlash from the Dutton supporters.

But seriously, there is huge scope for storing energy at the consumer end when there is an excess supply, so it can be used when it is needed, so the need to switch off stupid TV should almost never occur.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Smart Technology Can Prevent Blackouts

Having smart heating and cooling systems that are connected to a smart electricity meter and a smart Grid can prevent blackouts.

Once blackout conditions are met, the system can send a signal to all smart cooling systems to turn down the temperature by a degree or 2 previously calculated by the smart grid system.

The system would look at the the load for cooling across a whole suburb.

Next the system would work out the current load, work out the amount that needs to come down and divide that amount across all cooling systems.

So the blackout load is this amount, it needs to come down by this amount, and that amount is spread across all coiling systems in the suburb which then reduce their temperature to meet the new load conditions.

Does that make sense?

Sure why not. I guess it could also detect when people are watching something stupid on TV and switch that off.

True, but that might cause a bit of a backlash from the Dutton supporters.

But seriously, there is huge scope for storing energy at the consumer end when there is an excess supply, so it can be used when it is needed, so the need to switch off stupid TV should almost never occur.

Tesla Wall got you on commission?

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Sure why not. I guess it could also detect when people are watching something stupid on TV and switch that off.

True, but that might cause a bit of a backlash from the Dutton supporters.

But seriously, there is huge scope for storing energy at the consumer end when there is an excess supply, so it can be used when it is needed, so the need to switch off stupid TV should almost never occur.

Tesla Wall got you on commission?

No, I’m signed up with Sibeen’s “We’re not Musk but we’re cheap” consortium.

But you don’t even need batteries.

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

>Sure why not. I guess it could also detect when people are watching something stupid on TV and switch that off.

you funny

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

What are you thinking?

Incidently, the load does communicate something back to the power station (and substations etc). Even the load centre in your house.

So, why not a realtime display of power consumption in your house (of your consumption), and for those that indulge the superorganism, they can have a realtime display of the various power consumption outputs from power stations.

And adjust their contribution.

transition said:

Incidently, the load does communicate something back to the power station (and substations etc). Even the load centre in your house.

So, why not a realtime display of power consumption in your house (of your consumption), and for those that indulge the superorganism, they can have a realtime display of the various power consumption outputs from power stations.

And adjust their contribution.

You could display the total energy consumed and have a state government incentive for households to use the least amount of power.

Power companies will love that idea.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

What are you thinking?

What about solid pumped storage.
When you have an excess of trickery you use it to raise massive solid heavy blocks.
A potential energy battery.
You harness it allowing it to slowly fall driving an electric generating motor through a series of gears.
It’d be terrific, bugger all moving parts and maintenance, no chemicals.
You can start it and stop it will and completely variable.
I think we’re going to be rich.

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Nothing so fancy.

You can get systems that heat up bricks at night, then blow air over them during the day for heating.

So how come we don’t have similar systems for cooling?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Nothing so fancy.

You can get systems that heat up bricks at night, then blow air over them during the day for heating.

So how come we don’t have similar systems for cooling?

What’s wrong shading buildings with eaves and green stuff and using heavy weight interiors?

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Nothing so fancy.

You can get systems that heat up bricks at night, then blow air over them during the day for heating.

So how come we don’t have similar systems for cooling?

What’s wrong shading buildings with eaves and green stuff and using heavy weight interiors?

If that’s enough to keep the building cool over a long hot spell, nothing.

If not, you’d do both.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How come no-one is selling systems to store cold stuff at night so you don’t need to use peak price fossil fueled electricity for the AC during the day?

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Nothing so fancy.

You can get systems that heat up bricks at night, then blow air over them during the day for heating.

So how come we don’t have similar systems for cooling?

I mean in a sense you already do that. Your roof and walls cool at night. So it’s a matter of having some materials cool at night and then thermally isolating them until you want the “coolth” in the mid-afternoon. I’m tempted to suggest using a fluid rather than solid because it can more easily be placed in an insulated reservoir (and because water is cheap). Water has a C of 4200 kJ/kg/K. If there were negligible losses, and there were a 10 K difference between night and day, a thousand litres of water could give you 12 kWh of cooling.

But I mean people often talk about making houses ultra efficient this way … even pumping heat from the refrigerator into the oven or storing it. I think the bottom line is that a) this stuff costs money and b) storing electricity is cheaper than storing heat.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Are you talking about wiring the fridge up backwards?

Nothing so fancy.

You can get systems that heat up bricks at night, then blow air over them during the day for heating.

So how come we don’t have similar systems for cooling?

I mean in a sense you already do that. Your roof and walls cool at night. So it’s a matter of having some materials cool at night and then thermally isolating them until you want the “coolth” in the mid-afternoon. I’m tempted to suggest using a fluid rather than solid because it can more easily be placed in an insulated reservoir (and because water is cheap). Water has a C of 4200 kJ/kg/K. If there were negligible losses, and there were a 10 K difference between night and day, a thousand litres of water could give you 12 kWh of cooling.

But I mean people often talk about making houses ultra efficient this way … even pumping heat from the refrigerator into the oven or storing it. I think the bottom line is that a) this stuff costs money and b) storing electricity is cheaper than storing heat.

Some of those hippies have been building walls incorporating 44 gal drums (or similar) of water for a long time.

Candles are good.

Some idiot occasionally forgets (every year, it’s laziness) to adjust the SPs here for the seasons, so in the evening the inverter drops out (when fridge turns on).

Yes, all the technology dies for a while.

I don’t mind it.

dv said:

a thousand litres of water could give you 12 kWh of cooling.

b) storing electricity is cheaper than storing heat.

Does not compute.

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity, but electricity is way more useful than heat.

But if you are going to use your stored electricity to produce heat (or cool) anyway, you might as well store the heat or cool in the first place.

It seems to me the reason we don’t see stored heat and cool in domestic housing is:
1) Technological inertia
2) The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

Looks like something out of Dune.

a lot of the heat/cold storage designs i have seen require quite a large unit. you need a buffer for days of high heat, with not much cooler nights, or vice versa for heating. several thousand litres. salt or pebble storage.

>Looks like something out of Dune

looks quite nice too

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

a thousand litres of water could give you 12 kWh of cooling.

b) storing electricity is cheaper than storing heat.

Does not compute.

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity, but electricity is way more useful than heat.

But if you are going to use your stored electricity to produce heat (or cool) anyway, you might as well store the heat or cool in the first place.

It seems to me the reason we don’t see stored heat and cool in domestic housing is:
1) Technological inertia
2) The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

I partly use stored heat/cool. Cavity brick house on a concrete slab, insulated roof.
The wood heater is in an angle between two internal brick walls so these are warmed when the fire is going & cool slowly during the day.

>The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

You don’t find many political parties saying that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity

Not on a time rate
I can store electricity in a battery for weeks because only a subset of materials conduct electricity. It’s harder to do that with heat (or cold) without great expenditure because any matter conducts heat.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity

Not on a time rate
I can store electricity in a battery for weeks because only a subset of materials conduct electricity. It’s harder to do that with heat (or cold) without great expenditure because any matter conducts heat.

OK, but we’re talking about storing it for 18 hours max.

Ian said:

>The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

You don’t find many political parties saying that.

It is odd that some expenditures are much more politicised than others.

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

There’s nothing you can say that it is fucking amazing that the cost to power all the things in a household is now so cheap that it is only about 1% of household income. Obv some households earn more or less or pay more or less in electricity but that doesn’t change the equation much. It is a basic necessity of modern life that is somehow of nearly inconsequential price but it has become impossible to have an honest conversation about that.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-the-average-australian-households-income-is-145400-heres-what-they-spend-it-on-2014-9#state1
https://www.billrepublic.com/average-electricity-usage/

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity

Not on a time rate
I can store electricity in a battery for weeks because only a subset of materials conduct electricity. It’s harder to do that with heat (or cold) without great expenditure because any matter conducts heat.

OK, but we’re talking about storing it for 18 hours max.

There is a hush in the stadium as the two greatest Titans pit themselves against each other. Who win? Who will be the greatest Titan?

dv said:

Average household income that year was $145,400.

I wouldn’t have thought so high.

What’s the median?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Storing heat is way cheaper than storing electricity

Not on a time rate
I can store electricity in a battery for weeks because only a subset of materials conduct electricity. It’s harder to do that with heat (or cold) without great expenditure because any matter conducts heat.

OK, but we’re talking about storing it for 18 hours max.

LPITW, do you think this is such a red hot goer that you personally are going to invest in designing, building and marketing these household cold storage systems?

dv said:

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

Shows how little you know.

dv said:

Ian said:

>The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

You don’t find many political parties saying that.

It is odd that some expenditures are much more politicised than others.

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

There’s nothing you can say that it is fucking amazing that the cost to power all the things in a household is now so cheap that it is only about 1% of household income. Obv some households earn more or less or pay more or less in electricity but that doesn’t change the equation much. It is a basic necessity of modern life that is somehow of nearly inconsequential price but it has become impossible to have an honest conversation about that.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-the-average-australian-households-income-is-145400-heres-what-they-spend-it-on-2014-9#state1
https://www.billrepublic.com/average-electricity-usage/

Would the median household income be more appropriate rather than the average? There’s a few Turnbulls, Palmers and Bishops that would drag the average higher.

sibeen said:

dv said:

Average household income that year was $145,400.

I wouldn’t have thought so high.

What’s the median?

google reckons median is $80k, average $107k (203-14)

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Ian said:

>The same reason we don’t see stored electricity, electricity it is way too cheap, even in peak periods.

You don’t find many political parties saying that.

It is odd that some expenditures are much more politicised than others.

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

There’s nothing you can say that it is fucking amazing that the cost to power all the things in a household is now so cheap that it is only about 1% of household income. Obv some households earn more or less or pay more or less in electricity but that doesn’t change the equation much. It is a basic necessity of modern life that is somehow of nearly inconsequential price but it has become impossible to have an honest conversation about that.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-the-average-australian-households-income-is-145400-heres-what-they-spend-it-on-2014-9#state1
https://www.billrepublic.com/average-electricity-usage/

Would the median household income be more appropriate rather than the average? There’s a few Turnbulls, Palmers and Bishops that would drag the average higher.

Yep. Much higher.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

Shows how little you know.

I provided the refs for those facts.

Or perhaps you meant that as a compliment.

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Average household income that year was $145,400.

I wouldn’t have thought so high.

What’s the median?

google reckons median is $80k, average $107k (203-14)

Wouldn’t most of Australia love to get 80 grand. FFS get real, most Australians would be lucky to get 50.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Not on a time rate
I can store electricity in a battery for weeks because only a subset of materials conduct electricity. It’s harder to do that with heat (or cold) without great expenditure because any matter conducts heat.

OK, but we’re talking about storing it for 18 hours max.

LPITW, do you think this is such a red hot goer that you personally are going to invest in designing, building and marketing these household cold storage systems?

Well I’ll run it past sibeen and see what he thinks.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Annual household electricity cost in Australia was $1690 per year.
Average household income that year was $145,400.

Shows how little you know.

I provided the refs for those facts.

Or perhaps you meant that as a compliment.

You are so out of contact with reality that you have to get the refs that are wrong and think they are right.

More details:

The purpose of an economy is to provide needed or wanted goods and services to a nation’s population. In Australia in 2014, this means 24 million people in 9.3 million households.

Only a few centuries ago, most goods and services were produced on a do-it-yourself (DIY) basis within households. But with outsourcing, we have created over 500 classes of industry to do it for us, and work in one of them to earn the money to buy these goods and services. Nowadays, of all the goods and services produced (our GDP) and imported – totalling $1.9 trillion – some 59% goes to households. A further 22% goes into capital expenditure for the future and 19% goes to other countries as our exports. So households are the biggest market by far: no surprise there.

But the statistics on household finances do provide some surprises, whether expressed as averages or ranges. Averages are always just that, and they can disguise the often polarised distribution of all sorts of things important in an economy and society. And yet, both the averages and the distributions tell us a lot when it comes to household incomes and how we spend them, our wealth and our taxes.

Starting with average household income and spending, the first chart shows the picture in 2014. The first surprise is the average income, a staggering $145,400 across the nation’s 9.3 million households.

The total income across all households is around $1.4 trillion, which is made up of wages, mixed incomes (of unincorporated businesses), investment incomes, welfare payments, transfer payments, other incomes and the imputed rent value of home ownership. We will return later to look at the polarised distribution of these incomes between the rich and poor.

Savings, including superannuation, are currently around 7% of income. Savings were negative through the middle of the last decade, well before the impact of the global financial crisis at the tail end of the decade, which was a wake-up call to recalcitrant and spendthrift households. Taxes are a surprisingly modest one-seventh of gross incomes, as is rent (including actual rent and the imputed rent of home owners). In the case of imputed rent, the Australian Bureau of Statistics treats home owners as investors that ‘earn’ and ‘pay’ a rent to themselves.

https://www.ibisworld.com.au/media/2014/09/10/household-finances/

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

I wouldn’t have thought so high.

What’s the median?

google reckons median is $80k, average $107k (203-14)

Wouldn’t most of Australia love to get 80 grand. FFS get real, most Australians would be lucky to get 50.

But lots of Australians live in 2 income households.

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few earning more than 50,000 as well.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

google reckons median is $80k, average $107k (203-14)

Wouldn’t most of Australia love to get 80 grand. FFS get real, most Australians would be lucky to get 50.

But lots of Australians live in 2 income households.

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few earning more than 50,000 as well.

Considering that a full time minimum wage job is 37000, I suppose that is so.

dv said:

More details:

The purpose of an economy is to provide needed or wanted goods and services to a nation’s population. In Australia in 2014, this means 24 million people in 9.3 million households.

Only a few centuries ago, most goods and services were produced on a do-it-yourself (DIY) basis within households. But with outsourcing, we have created over 500 classes of industry to do it for us, and work in one of them to earn the money to buy these goods and services. Nowadays, of all the goods and services produced (our GDP) and imported – totalling $1.9 trillion – some 59% goes to households. A further 22% goes into capital expenditure for the future and 19% goes to other countries as our exports. So households are the biggest market by far: no surprise there.

But the statistics on household finances do provide some surprises, whether expressed as averages or ranges. Averages are always just that, and they can disguise the often polarised distribution of all sorts of things important in an economy and society. And yet, both the averages and the distributions tell us a lot when it comes to household incomes and how we spend them, our wealth and our taxes.

Starting with average household income and spending, the first chart shows the picture in 2014. The first surprise is the average income, a staggering $145,400 across the nation’s 9.3 million households.

The total income across all households is around $1.4 trillion, which is made up of wages, mixed incomes (of unincorporated businesses), investment incomes, welfare payments, transfer payments, other incomes and the imputed rent value of home ownership. We will return later to look at the polarised distribution of these incomes between the rich and poor.

Savings, including superannuation, are currently around 7% of income. Savings were negative through the middle of the last decade, well before the impact of the global financial crisis at the tail end of the decade, which was a wake-up call to recalcitrant and spendthrift households. Taxes are a surprisingly modest one-seventh of gross incomes, as is rent (including actual rent and the imputed rent of home owners). In the case of imputed rent, the Australian Bureau of Statistics treats home owners as investors that ‘earn’ and ‘pay’ a rent to themselves.

https://www.ibisworld.com.au/media/2014/09/10/household-finances/

As Rev pointed out it is rubbish. Five family businesses in my area are between them worth billions. There might be a few on maybe $150,000 but the vast majority earn 40,000 or less. I earn more at the moment than I’ve ever earned in my life and I’d be lucky to get above 30.000.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

google reckons median is $80k, average $107k (203-14)

Wouldn’t most of Australia love to get 80 grand. FFS get real, most Australians would be lucky to get 50.

But lots of Australians live in 2 income households.

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few earning more than 50,000 as well.

Yes. Not arguing that there are rich people. Most are poorer though..

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Wouldn’t most of Australia love to get 80 grand. FFS get real, most Australians would be lucky to get 50.

But lots of Australians live in 2 income households.

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few earning more than 50,000 as well.

Considering that a full time minimum wage job is 37000, I suppose that is so.

Virtually nobody earns full time minimum wages. At the minimum end it is all casual work.

Come down to the level of real people.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But lots of Australians live in 2 income households.

I’m pretty sure there are quite a few earning more than 50,000 as well.

Considering that a full time minimum wage job is 37000, I suppose that is so.

Virtually nobody earns full time minimum wages. At the minimum end it is all casual work.

You can earn well over minimum wage doing casual work..

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Considering that a full time minimum wage job is 37000, I suppose that is so.

Virtually nobody earns full time minimum wages. At the minimum end it is all casual work.

You can earn well over minimum wage doing casual work..

You can also earn way below it.

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Virtually nobody earns full time minimum wages. At the minimum end it is all casual work.

You can earn well over minimum wage doing casual work..

You can also earn way below it.

which is what makes 80K the median value… just as many above it as there are below it

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

You can earn well over minimum wage doing casual work..

You can also earn way below it.

which is what makes 80K the median value… just as many above it as there are below it

The ones that are above usually earn way more. I think you will find that there are far moe below than above.

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

You can also earn way below it.

which is what makes 80K the median value… just as many above it as there are below it

The ones that are above usually earn way more. I think you will find that there are far moe below than above.

look up the definition of ‘median’… I think you’ll find there isn’t.

roughbarked said:

As Rev pointed out it is rubbish.

I don’t think said that it is rubbish.

roughbarked said:

As Rev pointed out it is rubbish. .

That’s not actually what I pointed out.

dv said:

More details:

The purpose of an economy is to provide needed or wanted goods and services to a nation’s population. In Australia in 2014, this means 24 million people in 9.3 million households.

Only a few centuries ago, most goods and services were produced on a do-it-yourself (DIY) basis within households. But with outsourcing, we have created over 500 classes of industry to do it for us, and work in one of them to earn the money to buy these goods and services. Nowadays, of all the goods and services produced (our GDP) and imported – totalling $1.9 trillion – some 59% goes to households. A further 22% goes into capital expenditure for the future and 19% goes to other countries as our exports. So households are the biggest market by far: no surprise there.

But the statistics on household finances do provide some surprises, whether expressed as averages or ranges. Averages are always just that, and they can disguise the often polarised distribution of all sorts of things important in an economy and society. And yet, both the averages and the distributions tell us a lot when it comes to household incomes and how we spend them, our wealth and our taxes.

Starting with average household income and spending, the first chart shows the picture in 2014. The first surprise is the average income, a staggering $145,400 across the nation’s 9.3 million households.

The total income across all households is around $1.4 trillion, which is made up of wages, mixed incomes (of unincorporated businesses), investment incomes, welfare payments, transfer payments, other incomes and the imputed rent value of home ownership. We will return later to look at the polarised distribution of these incomes between the rich and poor.

Savings, including superannuation, are currently around 7% of income. Savings were negative through the middle of the last decade, well before the impact of the global financial crisis at the tail end of the decade, which was a wake-up call to recalcitrant and spendthrift households. Taxes are a surprisingly modest one-seventh of gross incomes, as is rent (including actual rent and the imputed rent of home owners). In the case of imputed rent, the Australian Bureau of Statistics treats home owners as investors that ‘earn’ and ‘pay’ a rent to themselves.

https://www.ibisworld.com.au/media/2014/09/10/household-finances/

“The total income across all households is around $1.4 trillion, which is made up of wages, mixed incomes (of unincorporated businesses), investment incomes, welfare payments, transfer payments, other incomes and the imputed rent value of home ownership. “

The “imputed rent value of home ownership” would make a significant difference, when comparing these numbers with what the average person thinks the average household earns.

Might also explain the difference from the $107,000 figure given by Wikipedia.

I think my basic point stands … Time was when the fuel for cooking, heating, lighting a house was one of the big ticket household expenses. It’s a second order effect now despite the fact that a lot more powered activity occurs in a household. People typically spend more on entertainment or non-essential consumables than on electricity and as a consequence don’t think about it much until one day demand exceeds supply, but politically are much more sensitive to changes in electricity costs than they are to all the things that are non-essential, and it bodes ill for the prospect of including environmental costs in electricity prices, assuming that at least one major party is sufficiently amoral as to try to make political capital on that basis.

roughbarked said:

I earn more at the moment than I’ve ever earned in my life and I’d be lucky to get above 30.000.

Most people have jobs that require particular skills that allow them to earn more than below minimum wage.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

I earn more at the moment than I’ve ever earned in my life and I’d be lucky to get above 30.000.

Most people have jobs that require particular skills that allow them to earn more than below minimum wage.

People in rural areas often barter a lot RB. Your income is probably mixed in less obvious ways.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

I earn more at the moment than I’ve ever earned in my life and I’d be lucky to get above 30.000.

Most people have jobs that require particular skills that allow them to earn more than below minimum wage.

Note that the basic Age Pension with rent assistance in Australia is $21100 and with Energy supplements, Rent assistance, and Pension Supplement is over $26000 per annum. Bottom line is that I hope you are not working too hard for that amount less than <30000.

dv said:

I think my basic point stands … Time was when the fuel for cooking, heating, lighting a house was one of the big ticket household expenses. It’s a second order effect now despite the fact that a lot more powered activity occurs in a household. People typically spend more on entertainment or non-essential consumables than on electricity and as a consequence don’t think about it much until one day demand exceeds supply, but politically are much more sensitive to changes in electricity costs than they are to all the things that are non-essential, and it bodes ill for the prospect of including environmental costs in electricity prices, assuming that at least one major party is sufficiently amoral as to try to make political capital on that basis.

Totally agree on all counts.

“Prevent” is a bit of a strong word to use in this context. “Mitigate” would be better.

When bushfires take out every power line within a 50 km radius there is going to be a blackout no matter what technology is used.

I had an electricity blackout three days ago, due to replacement and maintenance of the power lines around Marysville.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

As Rev pointed out it is rubbish. .

That’s not actually what I pointed out.

No but it meant much the same. The figure being skewed by the top mpney grabbers, Facts that suit their argmrents.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

As Rev pointed out it is rubbish. .

That’s not actually what I pointed out.

No but it meant much the same. The figure being skewed by the top mpney grabbers, Facts that suit their argmrents.

Well if “much the same” means “the exact opposite”, yes.

mollwollfumble said:

“Prevent” is a bit of a strong word to use in this context. “Mitigate” would be better.

When bushfires take out every power line within a 50 km radius there is going to be a blackout no matter what technology is used.

I had an electricity blackout three days ago, due to replacement and maintenance of the power lines around Marysville.

I was thinking same, overload from demand peaks is just part of it

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Prevent” is a bit of a strong word to use in this context. “Mitigate” would be better.

When bushfires take out every power line within a 50 km radius there is going to be a blackout no matter what technology is used.

I had an electricity blackout three days ago, due to replacement and maintenance of the power lines around Marysville.

I was thinking same, overload from demand peaks is just part of it

Yes, but power cuts from bushfires or high wind are not important.

It’s only when power cuts can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity that they become important.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Prevent” is a bit of a strong word to use in this context. “Mitigate” would be better.

When bushfires take out every power line within a 50 km radius there is going to be a blackout no matter what technology is used.

I had an electricity blackout three days ago, due to replacement and maintenance of the power lines around Marysville.

I was thinking same, overload from demand peaks is just part of it

Yes, but power cuts from bushfires or high wind are not important.

It’s only when power cuts can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity that they become important.

power cuts due to high wind can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity

so is it important or not?

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I was thinking same, overload from demand peaks is just part of it

Yes, but power cuts from bushfires or high wind are not important.

It’s only when power cuts can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity that they become important.

power cuts due to high wind can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity

so is it important or not?

Not sure.

I suppose it’s related to the party in power in the state where it occurs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, but power cuts from bushfires or high wind are not important.

It’s only when power cuts can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity that they become important.

power cuts due to high wind can be linked to the use of non-fossil fueled electricity

so is it important or not?

Not sure.

I suppose it’s related to the party in power in the state where it occurs.

Is this a stepping around it motor?