Look at the networks, not nuclear, to reduce energy bills
RENEW ECONOMY, Tristan Edis, Dec 19, 2024
The next election is shaping up to become a competition between politicians about which type of big power stations – nuclear or renewables – will help lower or drive-up power bills.
The fact that paying for big power stations makes up only a third of the power bill will probably be completely missed by both sides of politics. If politicians really want to help households lower their energy bills, there’s better places to go looking than the next big power station.
One of the places they seem to always glance past are the energy network monopolies. I suppose politicians can’t quite fathom how they might be able to turn this into a vote winner. But if you genuinely want to help lower energy bills you can’t afford to look past them.
As I explained in a prior article, the monopoly businesses operating our electricity networks have over 2014 to 2022 managed to manipulate the regulations and the regulator to generate profits 70% greater than the regulator had originally thought they’d capture.
This came on the back of a huge blow-out in expenditure and incredible shareholder returns for many of these networks over the 2008 to 2013 period.
Critically, electricity networks have not delivered these increased profits through better efficiency, with total factor productivity of networks today being worse now than it was back in 2006 when the Australian Energy Regulator began measuring productivity.
In terms of gas networks the story is worse, with the Regulator signing off on prices that gave these businesses profits 90% greater than the Regulated had anticipated.
What’s absolutely staggering is the energy network monopolies are mounting a lobbying campaign to extend their monopoly reach beyond poles and wires and into distributed batteries, electric vehicle charging and the management of household electrical devices.
Yet these technologies can be provided to consumers at lower cost via competitive markets and simply don’t need to be delivered or controlled by network monopolies.
The reality is that we can’t rely on the Australian Energy Regulator to keep these monopolies in check. Instead our best hope to address networks’ excessive charges is likely to be competition.
By shifting away from gas appliances to electric alternatives we can minimise our reliance on gas pipelines.
That, of course, still leaves us reliant on electricity networks. In this case though there is also the potential for competition through use of a combination of solar, batteries and energy efficient appliances and homes.
Also, if electric vehicles are charged during the daytime and outside evening demand peaks they can vastly improve utilisation efficiency of network capacity.
Even better, the technology is available for these vehicles to discharge power during peak demand periods to compete against networks augmenting capacity and large peaking power plants.
Energy networks’ lobbying campaign seeks to suggest they just want to help us make effective use of these technologies to address climate change. Yet effective use of these technologies entails less demand for network capacity.
Why would they want to undermine their own revenue base? And why should we turn to a monopoly to roll out technologies which could be procured competitively from businesses that are vastly more experienced in providing these technologies to consumers than the networks?
Where this is most insidious is the concept of so called “community batteries.” Networks are keen to market “community batteries” – which in reality are network monopoly-owned batteries – as a more efficient and fairer option than households adopting their own battery. This is based on the claim that by building bigger batteries, networks will be able to capture economies of scale to deliver batteries more cheaply.
But as I’ve explained previously, and now corroborated in data gathered by the ARENA, it’s just not true. Network-provided batteries are significantly more expensive than household batteries.
Yet this is not their only area of poor performance in supporting the use of distributed energy solutions…………………………………………………………………………… more https://reneweconomy.com.au/look-at-the-networks-not-nuclear-to-reduce-energy-bills/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHYFmJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRWjory7UuJpQrd_U1wReQbbc2h5lgpmbHM
Australian navy advertises nuclear submarine job with $120,000 salary and ‘no experience’ needed
Defence outlines long-term strategy to staff US-built Virginia-class submarines expected in 2030s as part of Aukus deal.
Henry Belot, Guardian, 24 Dec 24
The Australian Navy is offering high school graduates “with no experience at all” up to $120,000 to become nuclear submarine officers who will eventually manage nuclear reactors and weapons systems.
The recruitment drive has been launched despite Defence not being expected to receive a Virginia-class submarine from the US as part of the Aukus deal until at least the early 2030s and amid warnings of cost blowouts and delays.
A navy job ad targets people who may have “recently finished school or are currently studying” with the promise of eventually “driving the vessel and charting its position”.
“Your training will first equip you with technical expertise in nuclear propulsion, the platform, and its equipment,” the ad said. “You will then move into your submarine qualification and oversee day-to-day operations, and you could one day lead the entire crew as commanding officer.”
A Defence spokesperson said the hiring drive was part of a long-term strategy to ensure it had enough specialist staff to deploy the submarine once acquired.
“This is to ensure we have the right mix of candidates and to ensure there is time to generate a sustainable career pathway,” the spokesperson said.
Once accepted, an officer would undergo 12 months of nuclear training in the US along with three months of basic submarine and warfare courses. The officers would then be posted to a seagoing submarine for further training.
Nuclear submarine technicians would receive 18 months of training in the US including six months of nuclear theory and 12 months of practical training on existing vessels. The technicians would also be posted to seagoing submarines…
The job ad also offers recruits “travel opportunities, job security, incremental salary increases as you progress through training and ranks, chef made meals at sea, social and fitness facilities, balance of shore and sea postings [and a] variety of allowances”…………
Defence has previously struggled to recruit enough personnel. In a briefing to Marles in 2022, obtained under freedom of information laws, Defence warned: “The last year has seen lower recruiting achievement and higher separation rates, which have resulted in the ADF and [Department of Defence] workforce size being below approved levels.”
The federal government also funded a new training centre at HMAS Stirling, a Royal Australian Navy base in Western Australia, to train a local workforce to deploy the Virginia-class submarines.
The US plans to sell Australia at least three and potentially five nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s, before Australian-built submarines enter service in the 2040s.
In the lead-up of the acquisitions, from 2027 at the earliest, there are plans to establish a rotational presence of one Royal Navy Astute-class submarine and up to four US navy Virginia-class submarines at HMAS Stirling. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/24/australia-navy-nuclear-submarine-job-salary
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 