"Unfortunately some poor communication on the part of energy distributors, and some massive disinformation campaigns by the tinfoil hat brigade, have blocked distribution of smart meters where timely rollout has been attempted."

You failed to mention another cause, i.e. where energy distributors failed to pass on the cost savings of smart meters to their consumers. The distributors grabbed all the benefits and gave the consumers nothing. Hardly the sort of behavior to encourage cooperation. The distributors shot themselves in the foot.

I'm not actually sure there are any benefits from smart metering if the consumers aren't motivated to change their consumption behaviour by improved information and/or potential financial benefit. The distributor only *enables* this benefit; it is up to the consumer to realise it.

Compulsorily charging customers hundreds of dollars for new meters they didn't ask for is another way to shoot yourself in the foot. Some of these consumers will likely choose to ignore their new meters, avoid changing their consumption habits in any way, and blame the imposition for any increase in their bill.

In some cases the new "smart" meters replaced defective old ones and billed substantially more or less than the old meter did. I can understand it if some few consumers, used to being billed some modest amount, were highly resentful when they started getting bills for their usage. The few who benefited from the change would be happier but less likely to make a public noise.

"The distributor only *enables* this benefit;"

That was the problem, the distributor didn't enable the benefit. It just kept charging like it did before, same rate regardless of time of day. Is it any wonder consumers were turned off by this sort of behavior?

John

Good point. I am just imagining the Australian industrial workers and their families and rural communities thrown on the scrapheap when an Australian aluminium smelter is forced to close.

Aluminium is a wonderful metal. It is light, strong, malleable, machineable and makes wonderful airframes for things called aeroplanes. These aeroplanes, pushed along by irreplaceable hydrocarbon fuels, carry academics around the world to conferences to discuss how to reduce the use of electricity and irreplaceable resources.

Professor Sandiford shouldn't just switch off a 75 watt light, he and the Melbourne Energy Institute should have the guts to stop flying and go Renewable Only. When they do, I will start taking notice of what they say.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Just imagine the effect of replacing coal-fired power generation for aluminum smelting with whichever non-fossil generation makes sense. For Port Henry, it may well be wind power and solar thermal power from an installation in the Wimmera or Mallee. If transport costs and emissions are to be minimised, then alumina refineries and aluminum smelters would be constructed in Arnhem Land and on Cape York, and would be powered by solar thermal stations (or nuclear if that proves optimal).

Aluminum airplanes need not be powered by "irreplaceable" fossil fuels, they'd be powered by hydrocarbon fuels derived from algae.

Imagine the jobs in alternative energy and fuels.
For mine, we'd be a lot better off if we didn't subsidise aluminium smelters. They should stand or fall as the market dictates.

Mr Boxall

Responding to your points.

Imagining jobs in alternative energy and fuels is all you can do Mr Boxall, because there are virtually none in Australia. The number of such

So aluminum smelters have have to stand or fall as the market dictates!!!!!!!! Professor Sandiford and the Melbourne Energy Institute won't be happy to hear that idea, because if we applied the same rule to wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal or wave energy they would all fall.

if you want to see the green jobs nirvana go and visit Tasmania. Poor old Tassie's motivated youngsters flock to Melbourne, drawn by the glitter of real jobs powered by brown coal! The ones who stay get 'green' jobs like waiting on tables or driving tourist buses.

Do any of you guys know how much oil feedstock, rare earths, refined copper, steel, aluminium, beryllium copper, brass, lead, tin goes into making the keyboard you are tapping away at.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Gerard Dean says
"Imagining jobs in alternative energy and fuels is all you can do Mr Boxall, because there are virtually none in Australia."

Nonsense. Who do you think is installing solar pv and building and maintaining wind farms.

Due to a change in solar tariffs in Qld, 75,000 applications for new solar pv were received in 13 days between the 26th of June and the 9th of July.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/newmans-accidental-solar-boom
Any thoughts Gerard as to who is going to install those panels?

In Germany *before* they committed an extra $100 billion to renewable energy, 300,000 jobs had already been created in renewable energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/germany-renewable-energy-electricity

Are you arguing that renewable energy can be rolled out in Australia without creating jobs?

You have an unfortunate habit of making evidence free claims Gerard.

Gerard Dean: "Imagining jobs in alternative energy and fuels is all you can do Mr Boxall, because there are virtually none in Australia." So our alternative energy and fuels sectors run without staff? Now that's efficiency that only an extreme market fundamentalist could dream up!
Gerard Dean: "So aluminum smelters have have to stand or fall as the market dictates!!!!!!!!" Subsidising power users, good; subsidising power producers, bad. That's even handed for you!

Well David, we have found and area where you and I can at last agree, but probably for different reasons.

I am sure you are familiar with the political history of aluminium smeltering in Victoria. It was subsidised via extremely favourable power prices, attached to assurance of security of power supply by earlier state governments in order to create employment in the regional centres, Geelong and Portland. It succeeded in the job creation objective, but they are very expensive jobs.

Invariably, subsidising industries, unless it is for national security reasons, leads eventually to the chickens coming home to roost. That in my opinion, applies uniformly - and will in time be the case for all the 'green' subsidies too. C'est la vie.

Mr Boxall

There is a disconnect somewhere. Why do you have a problem with Australian workers smelting aluminium in Australia?

The first industrial production of aluminium was based on base load renewable, hydroelectricity in Europe.

Surely if Australian aluminium smelters are supplied by renewable energy, all Australians should be proud.

Why is subsidising foreign made manufacturers making windmills and solar panels good, whil subsidising Australian workers making Australian products bad?

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Hi David

Fuel from algae is a promising technology, and I suspect in the future at some time will find a place in the liquid fuel industry. But it needs sufficient scale to get costs down to a competitive level.

Interestingly the "peak oil" predictions are again proving to be wrong, with the development of shale oil deposits, particularly in America. Some years ago the USA imported 60% of its oil & gas needs - it is now 45%. The economic situation has had an influence on this. Although a bit early to say yet it is possible that the US could be self sufficient and indeed become a nett exporter.

It is a development which is driving environmentalists into a lather, and which goes a long way to explaining the US reluctance to engage in any cap and trading scheme.

Mr Hansen

You claim that I make "Evidence free claims", and then you quote the Climate Spectator and The Guardian.

You mentioned Germany. We all agree that German cars are no match for the mighty Holden Commodore, however they are fantastic engineers and manufacturers. While many western nation's base manufacturing are contracting, Germany's is growing. That is despite the obliteration of German solar panel manufacturer's by low cost Chinese competition.

I make machines for German manufacturers which takes me to the Ruhr industrial area from time to time. It is stunning to see the scale and level of engineering and manufacturing output from the area. When you next visit Essen or Bochum look about and then you will realise that German industry could never be powered by renewable energy and maintain, let alone increase production levels.

Don't believe what the cafe latte drinking Guardian jounalist tells you, instead, look out of your car window and feel the raw power of the diesel engined semi trailer bringing the food to you.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

... but still they come.

German network operators have been successfully integrating ever-increasing power from renewables for decades. They are facing, understanding and overcoming the difficulties inherent in this process. First up, it's important to note that a large portion of German renewable electricity comes from biogas, which is perfectly dispatchable, ideal for load-following, and essentially indistinguishable from fossil natural gas.

Among the innovations required to adapt to ever-larger portions of intermittent renewable energy are a number of developments which are of course being pursued in Germany : demand management, biogas, hydroelectric storage (even as Swiss pumped-storage operators fume over the loss of revenue due to German PV shaving the midday peak demand, German utilities are investing in expanded hydro and pumped-storage capacity in all the hills they can reach : domestically and across borders including in Switzerland, France, Austria, the Czech Republic and Norway); long-distance HVDC transmission; adiabatic compressed-air electric power storage, grid-stabilizing large-scale electronic power storage (ie. flywheels, supercapacitors and grid batteries) and, looking ever further ahead, electricity-to-fuel technologies.

Turning electricity back into fuel may seem like a crazy idea (and it certainly isn't cost-effective this year), but so did a lot of things we take for granted now, when they were first tried.

I, and a whole lot of other people, have no doubt whatsoever that renewables *will* eventually provide the vast majority of Germany's energy needs *even at today's consumption levels*, and indeed those of most countries.

BTW I know Bochum well, I have family there :)

Aluminium smelters have for decades been subsidised through a massive distortion of the electricity market in a way that has proven to have several detrimental externalities.

I for one have no issue at all with subsidising Australian manufacturing, providing that it results in a net benefit to the country. Aluminium smelters don't automatically qualify.

Support for renewable energy innovation most certainly *would* have, if we had actually sustained them. But the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't nature of our clean energy support has led time and time again to technically brilliant Australian people and businesses moving offshore.

A curious distinction Jonathan. After all aluminium smeltering is a manufacturing operation. However, the employment base is trivial cf the the total manufacturing base, agreed. But exactly how far do you go? And how do you assess a nett benefit in the long term? One man's subsidy is inevitably another man's tax.

What you forgot to mention Jonathan is that they are also investing in coal powered generation - the last time I looked it was 12 Gigawatts and growing.

Gerard Dean: "Why do you have a problem with Australian workers smelting aluminium in Australia?" Mendacious non-sequitur.
I live near the recently closed smelter at Kurri Kurri. From acquaintanceships with locals who worked at the smelter, both on pot-lines and in administration, I have a reasonable overview of the industry (at least, at that location).
When will you learn how foolish your habit of pontificating in abysmal ignorance makes you look?
assistance from the state government (specifically, a subsidised power deal) so they pulled out. Join the dots yourself to get some idea of the magnitude of subsidies involved. Much as I dislike our state government and much as the closure has distressed people close to me, I support the state government's action.
Norsk Hydro, the owners of the smelter, were actually offered federal government assistance. They couldn't get additional

Not sure what happened there; that last paragraph should read:
Norsk Hydro, the owners of the smelter, were actually offered federal government assistance. They couldn't get additional assistance from the state government (specifically, a subsidised power deal) so they pulled out. Join the dots yourself to get some idea of the magnitude of subsidies involved. Much as I dislike our state government and much as the closure has distressed people close to me, I support the state government's action.

The military and aviation industry evident think otherwise.

I assume you are referring to biofuels from algae? The military are not investing nor is aviation, as far as I know. But there is some commercial investment. Let's hope green politics doesn't get involved and give this investment the "green kiss of death".

Whilst I agree with you, the result of course is that the smelters simply move elsewhere, where someone else is prepared to subsidise the electricity. Such is the nature of the beast. I'd be happy to see shelters operating here - unsubsidised. But that is not the way of the world is it!

I'm not aware of any *new* coal-fired power station making it past drawing-board status in Germany within the last decade, despite numerous proposals. I am aware of a couple of upgrades, increasing generating capacity and/or adding district heating (combined heat and power for improved overall fuel efficiency), with no associated increase in coal consumption or CO2 emissions.

12GW is a big figure. Can you corroborate?

I was not distinguishing between "manufacturing which brings a benefit" and "smelting which has negative externalities" -- smelting *is* manufacturing; and any particular manufacturing process or scenario should be evaluated on its specific merits.

I didn't mean to imply aluminium smelting is not manufacturing; just that it has proven rather expensive and that I have no qualms whatsoever with the least-viable Australian smelters going out of business -- not least because of the follow-on effects in the electricity market. As I'm absolutely certain I've made clear elsewhere.

Mr Maddox.

But still they come.

Don't listen to the Guardian and Melbourne Energy Institute Dreamers, look at the facts. "German Energy mix", Wikipedia says:

- Renewables make up approximately 20% of German electricity production, with wind and hydropower making up 70% of this total. Biofuels hardly rank.

- Germany imports approximately 65% of its power consisting of oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

- Therefore, renewable energy makes up about 6% of Germany's total energy use, which is marginally more than Australia's 5%. Good Germany - bad Australia.

And, turning electricity into JetA1 fuel sounds like a crazy idea, because it is a crazy idea.

Transforming coal, shale oil, biomass or electricity into liquid hydrocarbon fuel is horrendously expensive and wasteful of energy. It takes 2.5 kg of coal to create 1 kg of liquid hydrocarbon. As for algae, maybe 50 years, maybe 100 years.

Remember: People who demand the rest of us live sustainably on this planet, then choose to fly to Europe for holidays or academic conferences are hypocrites. No if's, no but's.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Peter Sommerville: "... the result of course is that the smelters simply move elsewhere, where someone else is prepared to subsidise the electricity."
The market comes into play. Part of the problem was the high Australian dollar and low prices on the aluminium market. It depends how far we're prepared to distort the market. Eventually, it get too expensive. My neighbours are suffering, but I can't deny that the cost was beyond what could be demanded of the state.

Peter Sommerville: "The military are not investing nor is aviation, as far as I know." Then you know too little.
Despite Republican obstructionism, the US military has invested in various biofuel projacts. The latest RIMPAC exercises providing cases in point. Aviation industry and airlines have been investing for some time, the latest of which I'm aware being Qantas (can't remember much about that) Lufthansa recently signed with some Australian mob.
Do your research.

Peter Sommerville: "Invariably, subsidising industries, unless it is for national security reasons, leads eventually to the chickens coming home to roost."
If the subsidies are ongoing, perhaps. That's what happened to aluminium. The industry proved not to be self-sustaining.
Peter Sommerville: "That in my opinion, applies uniformly - and will in time be the case for all the 'green' subsidies too."
If renewable energy proves not to be self-sustaining, probably. If subsidies are needed, only to allow self-sustaining industries to establish, probably not.

Seems to me you are conflating electricity with energy. You're not the only one to do this, so perhaps your sources confused you.

There is no "German energy mix" page on Wikipedia; and pages such as "Energy in Germany" and "Renewable energy in Germany" give numbers which differ considerably from the ones you give here.

Germany does not import 65% of its electric power; it is a net exporter of electricity. It does rely somewhat on trading electricity with neighbouring countries to balance the peaks and troughs of its generation and demand curves, from which those neighbours earn a healthy profit. It also imports both coal and gas which are used to generate electric power on German soil.

Your numbers are completely wrong regarding the percentage contributions of renewable energy technologies to German electricity production. Over 20% of German electricity production is from renewables, of which the largest contributing technology by far is intermittent wind (7.6% of total electricity generated, or almost 40% of renewable electricity). Biomass (solid biofuel) is number two (3.9% of total electricity) and biogas is number three (3.6% of total electricity, about the same as hydro). Solar PV now contributes a fat 3.2% of total electricity. Domestic hydroelectricity as a primary energy source (not pumped storage) contributes a mere 3.6% of total electricity, no more than it did 20 or even 40 years ago.

It's worth repeating : wind contributes 40% of German renewable electric power, up from zero 25 years ago. Biomass and biogas between them contribute another 37% or thereabouts (a lot of this comes under the heading of "waste management"). Hydro contributes only 12% (down from 99% 25 years ago), and solar PV contributes 9% (up from zero just 10 years ago).

That's only 20% of German electricity though -- coal, gas and nuclear power do indeed contribute the rest. The country does not *yet* run on renewables, no-one says it does. It's in transition.

But of course electricity is not the whole story.

Both Australia and Germany rely heavily (Australia almost exclusively) on oil products for transportation energy. In Germany all oil is imported; Australia has some domestic production. Germans are under no illusions regarding this dependence on imported energy which must become increasingly expensive as the world's resource is depleted, which is precisely why their industries are investing so heavily in efficient consumption, direct use of electricity in place of liquid and gas fuel, and (looking forward in the very long range) producing liquid and gas fuels from electricity. Yes; this process wastes energy. Every energy conversion is wasteful. Even so, we convert energy from less-valuable to more-valuable forms all the time. It's already the case that energy in the form of liquid fuels is more expensive than electric energy from the grid (even in Germany), so the conversion makes sense at only a slightly higher oil price, just as it makes sense to convert low-cost coal and no-cost wind energy into electricity today.

Germany still relies heavily on natural gas, most of it imported, for domestic heating purposes, though this dependence has been reduced somewhat in recent years. Natural gas is also of course a significant part of electricity generation.

As for Germany being "good" and Australia "bad" in terms of renewable energy investment, your numbers are nonsense again. It's more like both are trying, but Australia is way behind. 20% of German electricity is renewable (most of that production added in the last 15-20 years), only 5.2% of Australian electricity is renewable (most of it added in the 1930s). A very small fraction (well below 5%) of liquid fuel is renewable in both countries -- liquid biofuels from oil, sugar and starch crops are an almost entirely unpromising technology in my opinion; in some places a modest increase in production is still possible, but there's no way we can replace the oil bonanza with crops. Mostly they're an expensive boondoggle; in some wet sunny places (Brazil, perhaps India, Burma or Queensland) sugarcane ethanol or jatropha crops can be cost-effective but still can't scale up to replace more than a fraction of our oil use without taking over vast tracts of land the planet can't spare from food and forest use.

I think the electricity

I strongly disagree with, and personally resent, your accusation that people are hypocrites, who use fossil fuels while recognising and advocating the need to transform the energy system so that industrial civilisation can continue when such fuels are no longer available. Fossil fuels are a bonanza of wealth which our generation and those immediately preceding have been able to exploit tremendously to our advantage. But unlike diamonds, petroleum is not forever, nor is the atmosphere an infinite dump site for our fossil fuel exhaust. We *must* change our energy use such that we do not depend so utterly on fossil fuel, or industry will collapse and take weather systems and agriculture with them.

That said, I personally am very judicious in my consumption, especially when it comes to air travel. When I go across the world I stay extended periods at my destination. I haven't travelled to Europe in eleven years, nor do I fly even within Australia more than once every two years on average. But I was raised in a world where fossil energy use was and is endemic.

David,

"Then you know too little."

Us scientists tend to be linear thinkers and I thought we were discussing algae as a source of biofuel. As I am sure you are aware algae are mostly lipids and grow rapidly - a good combination for a biofuel feedstock.

And I also suspect we ascribe a different meaning to the word "investing".

The Qantas trial was simply trial and used vegetable oils as a source. To me that was not an investment. From memory the trial involved a 50:50 mixture with conventional aviation fuel

Lufthansa engaged in a trial using biofuels as a 50% feed to one engine (again from memory). It was initiated as a consequence to the EEC introducing emission taxes targeting the airline industry. The trial involved around 1100 flights and was terminated a little while ago due to difficulties in supply. The situation may have recently changed - if it has I would be interested.

From memory the RIMPAC exercise was also a trial involving 5 ships and using biofuels derived from a number of sources, including Algae. It is facing steep opposition in the US Congress because of the price - US$26 per gallon.

I am a bit of a pedant, so I don't equate these exercises as investments. However, there are some serious commercial investment projects for converting algae to fuel (see Sapphire Energy, Solazyame, Origin, Exon for example).

Personally the possibilities excite me - but there are significant hurdles to be overcome. Cost and achieving sufficient production scale are significant hurdles. But I suspect commercial investors are best suited to overcome these. It will be interesting to see how it evolves.

Jonathan,

As promised. The statement is based on an analysis by Michael Pahle from the Potsdam Institute:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/pahle

It was reported in the New Scientist, Issue 2801, page 4. To save you time the report follows:

"EUROPE'S plans for tackling global warming by driving down emissions of carbon dioxide may have backfired in Germany, where they have encouraged energy companies to build coal-fired power stations instead of gas-fired stations, which emit less CO2.

Launched in 2005, the European Union's Emissions Trading System sets a limit on the combined emissions from Europe's power stations, which gradually declines each year. To encourage clean energy production, European nations issue pollution permits to their individual generators, which they can trade, allowing clean stations to sell any unwanted permits to "dirty" ones.

But a new analysis led by Michael Pahle of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany shows that when the German government issued permits in 2005, its allocation rules encouraged a "dash for coal".

Pahle, whose results appear in Energy Policy (DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.027), says that the mistake in 2005 was to allocate permits according to demand from existing technology, which meant coal-fired generators got the lion's share. Auctioning the permits or prioritising allocations to the cleanest technologies available would have encouraged investment in gas-fired stations.

The policy resulted in the building of coal-fired power stations with a combined capacity of almost 12 gigawatts - about one-third of peak German demand in 2008. Together, these will emit about 54 megatonnes of CO2 per year, which Pahle says is roughly double what would have been emitted if gas-fired stations had been built instead.

The European Commission, meanwhile, says that despite the dash for coal in Germany, the carbon trading scheme remains successful overall, with a fall in CO2 emissions in 2009 of 11 per cent across the EU compared with 2008."

The decision by Merkel to close down Germany's nuclear reactors by 2022 means that there will be continuing expansion of coal powered generation. Somewhere I read a report that Germany will increase electricity production from coal by 13-14% in 2012.

In terms of current new construction I simply refer you to the Moorburg plant, scheduled to begin operation in 2014. It is a replacement for the Wedel plant.

http://powerplants.vattenfall.com/node/294

If you dig around you will find others. Indeed Germany is expected to build up to 26 new stations.

One point needs to be made however - they will be cleaner and much more efficient that plants that are to be replaced. But coal will remain Germany's largest source of electricity for the foreseeable future.

Peter Sommerville: "... I also suspect we ascribe a different meaning to the word "investing"." I find it hard to ignore the substantial investments by countless corporations and governments, here and overseas. One obvious one you've missed is NASA.

David,

"I find it hard to ignore the substantial investments by countless corporations and Governments"

A bit of an exaggeration, but never mind, we are all entitled to vent our enthusiasm. I didn't intend to provide a comprehensive list, even though I have one somewhere, I personally don't regard NASA as commercial, but certainly NASA is interested in the technology. I also left out Synthetic Genomics - a big player,

Interestingly the bulk of the investment is is in America. You might find this article interesting:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/05/20/will-algae-biofuels-hit-the-highway/

Cheers.

Thankyou Peter.

I'd seen some of this information, and seen plenty of publicity about new coal-fired power plants, including publicity from protest groups who successfully prevented construction of proposed new power stations. I wasn't aware of any of the genuinely *new* ones actually going ahead.

Most of the projects which have gone ahead represent a significant increase in energy efficiency over older equipment, by way of (a) using a higher furnace and boiler temperature; (b) being better-equipped to follow load with a quick response (improving renewables integration) and (c) using district heating networks, many of which already existed with standalone boilers, as the cooling infrastructure.

While I do side with the protestors in objecting to these new investments that rely on coal, simply because it "locks in" coal consumption for the life of the investment, I am quite impressed with the measures taken to improve efficiency and assist in the integration of renewables.

Like the other projects, the new Kraftwerk Moorburg is being built on a site where power stations have been in operation since 1974 until recently, and it is being integrated into the city heating network. But I suppose I *must* acknowledge that it's a new coal power station, because it's bigger than its predecessors and ... the big gotcha ... the predecessors didn't run on coal. The previous Moorburg power stations burned mostly oil, which had become highly uneconomical.

No problems Jonathan.

I think two key points emerge here. The "rush for coal" identified by Michael Pahle indicates how creation of artificial markets can often have unintended consequences.

The second point is that the principle reason Germany will move to more coal power generation is to ensure base load capacity. The renewable technologies don't really provide that. Despite the protests this is inevitable as the nuclear stations are shut down. Otherwise Germany will have to import base load from surrounding countries.

There is no question that modern technology enables far more efficient production of electricity so emissions per tonne will go down.

I have to object to "Germany will move to more coal power generation", seeing as it These generation investments are not ongoing and current policy strongly favours renewables. We've come up with just one instance of a new power station that will actually increase coal consumption -- the other dozen or so leave it more-or-less unchanged and indeed pave the way to reducing aggregate consumption over their lifetimes by permitting greater integration of intermittent generation.

You're absolutely right that the market distortion of free permits issued to existing polluters, clearly identified well before the EU carbon emissions market came into force, has caused coal to be favoured over gas for these facilities -- if all permits had been auctioned from the start, gas would have been favoured for most or all of these power stations, and CO2 emissions would have been significantly reduced.

It's another market distortion of sorts, I suppose, that first created and then closed German nuclear power generation capacity. I guess, and I regret, that closing nuclear power stations will initially lead to increased consumption of both coal and gas as well as imports of more than just peak power. Typical conservative overbuild in both Germany and its neighbours means that it's not really necessary to build more power stations to cover the closure of a handful of nuclear reactors, given other recent investments in both renewable and fossil power infrastructure.

I think I've figured out your problem; you confuse investment with profit. Aren't development and testing necessary investments? Wouldn't a genuine "Scientist & Technologist" recognise that?

My problem?

Oxford dictionary:
Invest: "Apply or use (money) especially for profit"
Investment: "The act or process of investment; money invested; property etc in which money is invested".

But I am happy to accept you have a broader definition.

I do consider development and testing necessary investments, which is exactly what the various companies developing algae farming as a feedstock for biofuel production are doing. But their investment is directed at a commercial outcome. The Qantas, Lufthansa and RIMPAC trials were simply validating what is already known - biofuels work.

But I really don't wish to bog down in a trivial argument. The important issue is that research and investment into utilising Algae as a commercially viable feedstock is actually happening, funded largely by private capital. As a scientist and a technologist I find that exciting. :-)

So you go from denying that there's any investing:-
Peter Sommerville: "The military are not investing nor is aviation, as far as I know."
To denying that investment is investment:
Peter Sommerville: "Investment: "The act or process of investment; money invested; ..." ... But I am happy to accept you have a broader definition."
Peter; whatever you're trying to argue, it isn't coming through.

Steve Drummond: "The ideal solution would be a duel 12v- 240v system which would allow me to buy electricity off the grid at the cheapest rate, store it in battery and use it the grid price is high." Bear in mind that the best batteries are about 80% efficient (of what you put in, roughly 20% doesn't come back out). Efficiency doesn't increase as batteries age.

I got a smart meter when I got solar panels, and I love it. My bills show how much electricity I use in the three daily time periods and the different rates per kWh for each. Our main response has been to do optional things (using the oven, dishwasher, washing machine, etc) outside the 2.00-8.00pm peak period.

I think our bills are slightly lower since we got the smart meter. The meter shows all our electricity consumption. The solar PV production is shown separately and, as we installed them in 2010, we benefit from the now-defunct 60c FIT in NSW.

I looked at this David - the cost is considerable. Deep cycle batteries are not cheap.

I have wired my PV system so I can fall back on this option should the feed-in tariff be reduced to irrelevancy thereby using PV and off-peak to charge the batteries. Theoretically, if I wanted, I could also go off grid, provided I also install a generator backup for those occasions where the PV system can't keep up. But it is all expensive, and getting off grid is not all that easy.

Peter Sommerville: "Deep cycle batteries are not cheap."
The last time I checked, service grade storage was about $500 per kWh. I don't know about domestic grade.

Dave Smith: "... the real question is: "what exactly is the function of the Australian Energy Regulator?"". Indeed.
I've just been informed of upcoming changes in my electricity supply contract:
Daily Service Charge goes from 46.2 cents per day to 67.089 (GST inc.);
Usage goes from 19.03 cents for the first 19.23 kWh per day to 26.84 for the first 10.95. I cop it coming, going and standing still.
What really puzzles me is the Daily Service Charge. Wouldn't folding that into the usage charges be a greater incentive to reduce consumption?

In Victoria (via AGL) there are two tariff combinations. Costs for 2012/13 are:

Peak (i.e. flat) Tariff: 24.70 c/day less 10% discount plus GST
Service Charge: 84.84 c/KWh + GST (no discount)

or

Peak (1500-2300): 32.30 c/KWh + GST
Shoulder (0700-1500): 22.98 c/KWh + GST
Off Peak (1100-0700): 10.67 c/KWh + GST
Service Charge: 87.29 c/KWh + GST

Off peak also applies on Weekends. There are no discounts.

The service charge will never be folded into the supply rate here. It provides a guaranteed cash flow that is not impacted by reduced consumption. The same situation exists for gas and water supply as well. It is understandable in the context that there is a cost associated with simply supplying a connection point to each residence, irrespective of whether or not it is used.

Enjoy your rates - they seem very good to us southerners.

Peter Sommerville: "The service charge will never be folded into the supply rate here. It provides a guaranteed cash flow that is not impacted by reduced consumption. ... there is a cost associated with simply supplying a connection point to each residence, irrespective of whether or not it is used."
It depends what behaviour we want to encourage. Incorporating infrastructure costs in usage charges increases consumption unit cost, thus motivating consumption reduction. It's basic market economics. Service availability charges reduce consumption unit cost, thus giving less incentive to reduce consumption, but motivate those who can to go off-grid. What is the impact of that on the value of the infrastructure?

I've just noticed that you mentioned a service charge per kWh, whereas mine is per day. If that's accurate, the way you're charged seems to be what I'd advocate.
Hang on, rereading your post again, there's something you call a Peak Tariff, which is a daily charge. I'm getting a headache.

Would this directly impact the fact 20,000 individuals are yet to have their solar installed as they're ability to feed power back to the grid destabilises concepts like credit margins, National Energy Provision and perhaps even on a much broader scale democracy and class?

I wouldn't jump to the conspiracy conclusions just yet. There's plenty of scope for that, but there are also simple typical administrative cockups and, far more significantly, real costly technical issues with integration of distributed generators into a network designed purely to deliver centrally-generated electricity to distributed consumers. You can't easily make a sixty-year-old substation run backwards.