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.