Here we go again, "Save hundreds on your power bill!" Gov't decrees.

So here we go again, the highly politicised, highly vocal promise, that the electricity sector will be forced (this time) to ensure South Australian households (there are over 760,000 of them according to Census) save $800 each in electricity costs per year. "...potential energy savings, for S.A. up to $832 p.a."

So let's do some math about the BIG PICTURE here.

If we assume only HALF of these households actually get this saving within 12months, then there's 380,000x$800=$304m vacating retail profits from the retail energy sector.

$304 million p.a. ripped out of the retail energy sector in SA alone, and that's with only one half of the households moving from a high price to a heavily discounted one, but more likely to be the actual outcome, as many households already have good discount plans. So what about this (saved) $304 million? Well, look at it this way, do you think the energy companies are just going to roll over and forego $304 million profit p.a. collectively?
I don't think so, that's why, just like in 2015 when "they" promised us $150-$500 p.a. savings, GUARANTEED, I called bullshit, and did it happen for anyone reading this? Even $100 p.a., NO, it didn't, and again now we're getting more "Blah, blah, blah".

Mixed bag day

Every now and then shit happens!
Yesterday was pickup day for some Tindo Solar panels that the company was disposing of at a very attractive price. No warranty, no STC's but these were straight from the factory.

That's 5 240W Tindo KARRA's. They work fine just have some cosmetic irregularities as they're seemingly early "preproduction" test build units which they held back. These will be perfect for my Island in the Sun research project. That was the good part of this story.....

The other bit is the surprise I got while demonstrating my cloud based monitoring app for my 3kW Tindo micro-inverter system only to discover I appear to have one dead panel.

------------------------

Australian Storage

We find ourselves in an amazing event right now!
I predict here the biggest paradigm shift in Australian consumer history. The tables are about to be turned on the most insidious business in everyone's lives.
The electricity suppliers/retailers are on a precipice they have unwittingly carved themselves by the relentless pursuit of (contractually GUARANTEED!) increasing profits.

Background

Under the dubious (dis)guise of "Competition", fanfared by Australian State Governments eagerly relinquishing their "performing" assets for cash to soften their deficits, into the hands of equally eager Corporations, our power "utility" has morphed into a greedy monster which has inflicted such a significant financial burden on the average Australian power customer, that it's resulted in people actually accomplishing substantial power (consumption) savings via various initiatives including appliance/plant replacement for more energy efficient units, and compliance with the incandescent bulb ban of 2009. In addition, solar incentives have been well exploited by consumers hungry for more effective and permanent energy savings.
The result is a dramatic decline in electricity consumption, with commensurate loss of revenues for the energy businesses.
These losses have been so significant that suppliers/retailers have had to ratchet up the kWh price accordingly, to protect their profit profile. 
In graphical form, their problem looks like this...

Australian electricity consumption KWh per capita

Source: EGA 2014, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) 2014

The game changer!

Not surprisingly, the game changer was already lurking in the shadows of some customers' savings excursions. Of course it had always been the heart, arguably, of all remote, non-grid connected, installations ranging from humble farm setups to mining enterprises with significant energy needs. The simple, humble storage battery has been hard at work for decades in such environments, ensuring that generators of many types could have a rest from time to time, or, in the event of a generator failure, continue to maintain vital electricity supply to critical equipment ranging from telephony equipment to mine lighting and even medical equipment.

More and more has been demanded from batteries over the years and in recent times the advent of it's supply cohort, the inverter, to maintain AC supply to household appliances has developed a whole new market driven by the mobility of ordinary travellers choosing caravans and "RV's" as their mobile accommodation.

But, in fact, the battery (concept) is not the game changer, and yet it is.

That's a bit confusing! Well let me explain....

Until a few years ago the most common battery types for medium sized applications, such as the RV environment, were the sturdy lead-acid type. Heavy but reliable, and with adequate capacity and good efficiency, they provided an acceptable solution at an affordable price.

THEN, along came the EV! The Electric Vehicle easily adapted the battery storage to supply the electric motor for adequate performance but poor range.

As more and more enthusiasts, and eventually entrepreneurial manufacturers, embraced the possibility that an EV could have range and performance, the hunt was on to find or develop the better battery! Nickel Metal Hydride batteries first appeared in the late '90's in the first "mass produced" EV of the day, GM's EV1 "second series", replacing Lead-Acid batteries in the initial builds.

But even that's not the game changer!

The startling appearance of the Tesla Roadster in 2008, powered by thousands of Lithium Ion laptop cells, heralded a paradigm shift in battery application.

Rather than using larger form factor batteries, the demands of range, performance, durability and compactness identified the unexpected solution, many small cells.

But that's still not the game changer!

What really delivered the final element was the extraordinary commitment by Tesla Motors, producers of the Tesla Roadster, and now the highly successful and highly acclaimed Tesla S electric sedan, to establish battery manufacturing (of these Li Ion batteries) on a "Giga" scale, i.e. producing them in massive quantities in "Gigafactories". Three of these are to be built, with construction of the first in California, well underway. Tesla's battery partner Panasonic will also reap the benefit of the resultant price reductions this scale of production will deliver. Tesla will have millions of these cells coming of the production line at a rate which their car manufacturing process could hardly consume. There'll be shiploads produced every month and they need to be sold! So, now comes the game changer, the Tesla Powerwall, already on offer today at a USD price of $3,500 (approx AUD$4,500), for a 10kWh unit, which is a price point at a mere fraction of a locally available battery pack of similar (9.2kwh) capacity for AUD$8,650.

So where are we headed?

The future prospects for power companies are the same as always, rosy, and perhaps now even better thanks to this new game-changer. Just like before they will continue to grow their profits courtesy of their Government mandated profit guarantees, and might possibly even make more "value added" business profit introducing the "average customer" to the "benefits" of battery storage "solutions" they will supply.

As for you and me, well we don't have a Government mandated guarantee that we will pay less for anything, let alone electricity. Even if we "invested" in RTS, and now batteries, to attempt to reduce our energy spend we now countenance the prospect of paying even more to remain "grid-connected". These pricing impacts reflect a game-changing move on the part of the energy companies to head in the direction the telecomms businesses have offered for a long time; fixed priced plans with consumption limits that trigger massive penalty changes, just like when you exceed your internet "download" limit.

Many people are seriously considering going "off-grid" to escape the looming price gouges, but the bad news for those is, unless you live in a other than a metropolitan environment, you won't escape the "connection" charges, as the grid passes your property. So, can you go off-grid? Well, actually, yes you can. In fact, throughout Australia, thousands go "off-grid" every year, when they fail to pay their electricity bill. The only problem with this method is it affects your credit rating, as you've defaulted on your supply contract.

The next 18 months are going to keep us all on our toes trying to avoid continuing price hikes and figure out how to beat the suppliers. Good luck with that!

More of the same - SAVINGS!

My April quarter bill arrived and I'm still generating a credit, albeit a smaller one than the previous (January) quarter. This is still a great result as my actual consumption in this quarter has continued to decline, meaning less electricity actually purchased, i.e. savings. On top of that, despite less total solar generated, I still produced enough export to return a good credit. Overall I now have a respectable credit accumulated with my retailer to potentially neutralise my autumn/winter quarter outcomes resulting from (predicted) diminishing solar during shorter days, and possibly increased consumption due to low temperatures and resultant heating consumption.

5kW, the first 12 months.

What's happened so far..

The beginning of March marks the completion of a full 12 month's operation of the total 5kW system, and my most recent bill finally resolved to an overall, substantial, credit.
Analysis of my data reflect the following key conclusions:

1. A total saving of almost $1,800 in my electricity costs in that period.
2. Annual solar production in excess of my actual consumption
   (6800kWh v 6613kWh).
3. Average export of 63% of my total solar production.
4. An opportunity to save more by retaining more of my solar production.

The following graph shows our current trend:

By adopting strategic use of my appliances during daylight (solar) hours the benefit is apparent in the increased gap between the yellow (Total Solar) and green (Exported) lines. This, in turn, is reflected in the increased gap between the blue (Total Consumption) and red (Charged Consumption) lines. Any reduction to the export %, i.e. consume more of my generated solar rather than export it, is the key to further savings.

How can I improve this?

I've determined from observation and measurement that my typical daily consumption profile suggests 87% of my consumption of grid electricity is occurring at night (non solar). My typical energy load at this time consists of the following appliances:

1. Air Conditioning
2. Refrigeration
3. Entertainment

Of these three the last two are fairly constant and predictable energy consumers, while air conditioning is a fluctuating, seasonal consumer. My measurements of the latter two groups suggests consistent, daily consumption in the order of 2-3kWh. I also have another fridge that uses another 2kWh/day. As these devices are in relatively close proximity I am able to easily connect them to a 3.5kW inverter/charger which in turn is supplied by both mains A/C and battery storage. When the mains A/C is available it powers the refrigerators and entertainment centre (via the inverter circuitry but not actually using the inverter) , while also recharging the battery, if necessary. When the mains A/C is removed, supply to the attached appliances is maintained by the battery powered inverter.

By restricting the mains A/C supply (initially with a timer switch) to only be available during (solar) daylight hours, i.e. switching the A/C mains OFF at night, the batteries can be used to collect available solar for later use at night, when I would otherwise be purchasing (expensive) electricity from the grid. In this way I can reduce my exported solar, which, as I mentioned in the previous section, is the key to further savings.

In fact, over the course of a whole year, a collection of just 2kWh daily represents a 730kWh (2x365 days) redirection of my (cheaper) solar to night time consumption. In terms of electricity bill savings this equates to $93 p.a**. If the daily figure is greater, then the savings would increase as well. Once we go past September 2016, the feed-in tariff will drop to a mere 5.3c/kWh instead of the currently subsidised 23.6c/kWh, which will then represent an annual saving of $230. So this approach will initially return a small saving, but once the subsidy ceases I've protected myself quite effectively.

This setup is also advantageous as it provides "autonomy" in the event of a mains grid power loss or interruption. This incidental benefit has massive value, as most people would list "power outages" as one of their biggest inconveniences and stressors. Depending on the capacity of the batteries I use, this can provide protection for a number of days, if necessary. Furthermore, as this is connected as an appliance inside my home it escapes the prima facie restrictions and consequences of incorporating "grid connected" storage. The regulators can only go so far....inside my home is out of bounds.

** 750kWh at 36c/kWh costs $270

If that bought electricity is replaced by my solar (via storage) currently worth 23.6c/kWh, that means a loss of $177 feed-in credit against the full cost of $270, a saving of $270-$177=$93.

That sum changes to $270-$39.75=$230.25 saving when the feed-in subsidy is reduced to 5.3c/kWh

Electricity savings, a real possibility or a losing game?

The current situation

As electricity prices continue to rise, even those with solar, attracting generous Feed-In tariffs through a Solar Feed-in Scheme (in S.Aust), may find, one day, that they're paying (more) for electricity again. Most are simply reducing their expenditure to a manageable level in the interim. So how did we get to this state of affairs?

"Competition arrives" - yeah, right!

What was once a public utility run for the benefit of consumers and industrial development has been transformed through "privatisation/Corporatisation" into a business itself with simple, consistent profit motives. The arguments put forward in the '90's for this "transition" included constant emphasis on the opportunity for consumers to gain access to "competitive pricing" compared to the old monopolistic, Government (that's us peeps) run "utility" which was constantly criticised (by the consumers? I think not!). 
Sadly, while competition is available, the price growth across the board for the new "competitive model" has outstripped any expected savings for consumers, resulting in ever increasing "bill shock" with more people than ever before being disconnected from supply. Such action was rare if not unheard of before privatisation.
And as for the claimed "inefficiency" and "wasteful" operations practices of the Government's "utility model", the following letter may put paid to those claims, but it also heralds an increased value for the utility which made it attractive to "business", hence the (then, as now, economically inept, debt ridden) Government found itself with a saleable asset of immense interest and value to entrepreneurial Corporations who quickly snapped up the opportunity.

..and the consumer benefits?

Unfortunately consumer oriented, expenditure saving initiatives such as the Solar Feed-in Scheme are, by logical definition, the antithesis of Corporate (supplier) objectives. Year on year their business plan is based on more sales units (kWh's) to generate more revenue to create more profit, and ultimately, a healthy divedend and capital growth for their shareholders. Naturally the increased revenues they rely on are undeniably threatened by any consumer oriented changes that result in less electricity (kWh unit) consumption/sales. No successful business wants to sell less (units) than it did the year before. The thousands of "solar producing" customers in SA alone represent a dramatic incursion on their business plans.....
Perhaps one can consider the difference between a "utility to ensure supply" (Government model) and a "business to grow profit" (Corporate/business model), that's what's changed.

....and just who is more important?

...so, understandably they submit their tale of woe to the "energy regulator" (ESCOSA in S. Aust) and demand (yes, demand: their secret contracts with the Governments of all states stipulate their guarantee of rising revenues and profits.) a price increase, which consumers have to wear. This writer is not aware of any instances where those demands have not been met, at least in part.
Just in case you think I'm making this up, this snippet from "Personal Investor" magazine dated Dec 2000, may clarify my statements:

 

Stay or go?

This background can be helpful to understand how consumers have come to the thinking that they might just want to somehow be rid of what many consider to be parasitic freeloaders. As mentioned before, despite a "competitive marketplace" the reality is a pricey and even more complex hornet's nest, that is difficult to understand and navigate to optimise one's simple personal objective: save money. Many talk of going "off the grid" and capitalising their own power producing system to fulfill their energy needs, but even the regulatory system all but prevents this. Arguably it can't ban it altogether when you consider those who have been disconnected (by the suppliers) due to "non payment", in essence they're legally "off the grid". Quite a contradiction. A look at this publication's graphical summary at Fig. 4.5 (last page) will show you SA has many "off gridders".

Conclusion

Basically, unless one has unlimited funds and lives well out of the metro area where perhaps electricity is not yet connected, the options are few and all directly linked to the plans and objectives of the energy companies. So what opportunities, apart from solar, exist to save some money?

Here are a four that might help:

1. Led lighting, best, currently most expensive lighting option.
2. Solar lights, not surprisingly people are buying items from the ever increasing and economical range of solar garden and security lighting offerings to avoid using expensive grid energy for home lighting. in many cases they simply plant their lights outside during the day and bring them inside at night. SIMPLEZ!
3. Newer whitegoods can represent a good investment if replacing 10+ y.o. appliances, with realistic energy savings in the 50%+ range not unlikely. TIP: always compare the Watts (W), the star energy rating system is a bit "iffy" IMHO, especially if you didn't keep or even have one for your old appliance, AND over the last ten years it's been "modified" anyway, making apples:apples comparison impossible. Best practice, find the label on your appliance and the one you're considering buying and photograph them for comparison, here's an example:
   
   
    for how to use this info see **
   
4. Newer LED/LCD TV's offer exceptional power savings! Refer to my previous posts "Better than a Solar System?!" and "TV Power Savings, no waiting" for helpful info that might apply to you.
   

How to calculate consumption cost

**

To use the label information (pictured above) for comparison look for a Wattage (W) figure, sometimes though, as in this case, they only provide a Current figure (A) of, in this case, 1.00A (at 230V).

From the info given, 1.00A x 230v=230W is the power required to run this refrigerator, when it is actually running. As the appliance "cycles" on and off we need to consider it's daily consumption, which in the case of this fridge has been measured to be 1.47kWh/day. These numbers allow us to deduce the "duty cycle" of this fridge. If it ran continuously at 240W for 24 hours it would use 230x24=5520wH, or 5.52kWh. If we divide the actual usage by the continuous usage (1.47/5.76) we get a result of 0.267 or 26.7% duty cycle, i.e. it runs for approx 16 mins every hour, which could be 4 times for 4 minutes every 11 minutes, etc. ALSO, you'll notice that there's a (W) figure given for "Defrost". This adds a bit more consumption as the 355W indicated would only be consumed every now and then for a few minutes, as controlled by the fridge's "smarts", in the case of this calculation it will only affect the duty cycle, as the total daily consumption was measured.

So to sum up, using the above label information the daily consumption for this refrigerator can be considered to be approx. 1.5kWh per day. This is then applied to calculate the annual consumption (emphasised by the STAR rating label), 365x1.5=547.5kWh. At 36c/kWh this is an annual running cost of $197.10, which is typical of newer fridges (this one's less than 10 y.o.)

If your fridge is say 15-20 years old it may have a wattage (W) anywhere up to 400W or more. To use that figure to determine the running cost simply divide the 400W by the 230W and multiply that result by the annual running cost.... i.e. 400/230=1.74, then 1.74x$197.10=$342.95.

So if you don't have the benefit of a meter device to monitor the actual appliance consumption, but wish to compare consumption, it's safe to resort to simply comparing the label displayed (W) figure (but NOT the "defrost" value) or, if that's not provided, calculating the (W) by multiplying the Volts x Current (I), as above. Considering the "duty cycle" would be similar for most fridges, the comparison of the (W) figure would be adequate, if not accurate, to determine if a newer unit will provide significant savings.

Finally!

Good things come to those who wait!

Early January finally delivered the payoff, my spreadsheet indicating that, for three months running, Oct to Dec '14, my solar credit exceeded my charged consumption, meaning there was every prospect of an issued bill in credit. It's worth noting the figures I've calculated and track in my spreadsheet ignore my hot water ("J" tariff) and daily connection charges, so the final, actual bill result, may not be as significant as my figures suggest. I decided to ignore those items in my calc's as there's no direct involvement in the solar/consumption relationship. The hot water is charged at a lower rate and is only consuming at night so my solar production can't contribute to any overall change to that cost. Similarly the connection charge can't be affected by my solar production.

The Bill!

So my official issued bill summary looked like this:

My Calculations

My spreadsheet summary, based on my "scheduled" readings (first day of each month) looks like this:

Legend:

1.   Total Cons.                 actual electricity in kWh used in house (calculated**)

2.   Charged Cons.            kWh I paid to buy from the grid (from the meter)

3.   Total Solar                  kWh my panels produced

4.   Exported                    kWh sent to grid

5.   Charged Cost              the cost of 2. @ approx 36c/kWh (incl GST)

6.   Solar Credit                the value of 4. @ 23.6c/kWh

7.   Total Cost                   what it would have cost me to buy all the electricity used at 1.

8.   Billing                         the difference between 5. and 6.

9.   Actual Savings            the difference between 7. and 8.

10. Export:Prod                the proportion of solar exported (lower is better)

11. Accumulated savings   the progressive sum of 9.

12. Solar Surplus?            the difference between 3. and 1. (more is better)

13. Prog. Surplus             the progressive sum of 12. Shows cons/prod profile

** to calculate my actual consumption the following formula using the above figures is used:
1. = 2.+(3.-4.) 

i.e. Total consumption=Charged Cons. + (Total Solar-Exported)

Consumption Strategy

As I'm a "Customer Group 4" participant in the (SA Gov.) "Solar Feed-in Scheme" I only receive 23.6c/kWh for any electricity exported to the grid. As this is less than (cheaper) the electricity I purchase (~36c/kWh) it's to my benefit to use as much of my (cheap) solar electricity as possible, hence I monitor the "Export:Prod" figure. In order to reduce this figure I take steps to ensure appliances are used during the day ("solar time") rather than at night, these include power tools, dishwasher, washing machine and electric vehicle charging, etc.

When the actual (SA Gov.) "Feed-in" subsidy ceases at the end of September 2016, I'll only get the "Minimum Retailer payment" which is a mere 5.3c/kWh (I appear to be getting 7.6c/kWh ATM). This will have a significant impact on my financial model, reducing my savings(!!), and means I'll have to take steps to minimize the Export:Prod figure further, possibly adapting storage strategies I'm currently evaluating and will elaborate in future posts.