Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I saw a similar figure for various centres around Aus - I think it was a CSIRO site, but I cannot find it.

Apart from the lack of gardens in apartments, houses and apartments used roughly the same amount of water, except for bathrooms. Apartment dwellers inexplicably used more water in the bathroom than house dwellers.

Sydney Water quote 200L/day/person, 26% for showers, 6% for baths and 23% "outside". Other sources quote much higher values for showers, others put the bulk towards the garden.

I suspect that it's all a guestimate, designed to support whatever story the author is trying to tell. The apartment dweller using more water in the bathroom is quite likely a mathematical construct to explain why they use much the same but don't have a garden! On the other hand, I've walked along roads and watched the water running off apartment balconies because the irrigation system is watering a couple of small pots for 45minutes solid!

Found a 20 year old ABS report on domestic water use, but couldn't find annything more recent - presume ABS has put the statistics behind the pay wall?
1350.0 - Australian Economic Indicators, Australia, Jul 2005

Interestingly it quotes the proportion of water used for "outdoor purposes" - presumably gardens as:

• 25% - NSW,
• 35% - Victoria
• 50+% - Rest of Australia.

Intuitively, these variances reflect the proportion of flats/apartments in the states.

The overall average consumption was


Domestic Water Use.jpg


I am fairly competent at searching, but I could not find any more uptodate statistics. Sorry.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Found a 20 year old ABS report on domestic water use, but couldn't find anything more recent - presume ABS has put the statistics behind the pay wall?
1350.0 - Australian Economic Indicators, Australia, Jul 2005

"The information in this article is based on data obtained by the ABS through direct surveys of water providers (as well as other peak industry bodies such as the Australian Water Association (AWA) and Water Services Association of Australia(WSAA)) and occupants from a sample of dwellings."

I find these things fascinating. Many years ago, I used to provide consultancy services to big pharmaceutical companies, and it used to fascinate me how many statisticians and statistical programmers they employed. I often wondered why they needed quite so many people to establish something as seemingly simple as "does it work" and "does it kill people". The ABS, I suspect, do a similar thing. Their entire operation is based on "asking people" (aka a survey) and then analysing the result. In this case they have "asked" the organisations listed above, but no information is supplied about whether those organisations measured consumption (a meter on each water outlet in a statistically representative number of dwellings in every area of the country?), or whether they also "asked someone" or simply had a guess!

If no measurements have been done, then the result is almost arbitrary - what people think, even about their own habits, is often far removed from reality, and that's before any politically motivated (or otherwise self-serving) concocted answer.

With regard to the "outside" water usage, it is indeed possible that, as hypothesised in the article, the lack of outside space (apartments) impacts the water usage. Also, as hinted at, there is the issue of water restrictions, plus the planning of Sydney's desalination plant and so forth. If the data was indeed just a "survey", I would suspect that many people wouldn't feel comfortable saying they used huge amounts of water "outside" when to do so would be to break the restrictions - even if they actually did!

I'd also love to see actual measured data, including outside use, from various climatic areas. I'd assume that higher rainfall areas would use far less water on their gardens than hot and dry places... or maybe not!

Originally Posted by warb

I'd also love to see actual measured data, including outside use, from various climatic areas. I'd assume that higher rainfall areas would use far less water on their gardens than hot and dry places... or maybe not!

A lot of water is used by councils on sportsgrounds and parks. Their automatic watering systems still come on at midnight when it is pouring.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Interestingly it quotes the proportion of water used for "outdoor purposes" - presumably gardens as:

• 25% - NSW,
• 35% - Victoria
• 50+% - Rest of Australia.

Originally Posted by Warb

With regard to the "outside" water usage, it is indeed possible that, as hypothesised in the article, the lack of outside space (apartments) impacts the water usage. Also, as hinted at, there is the issue of water restrictions, plus the planning of Sydney's desalination plant and so forth. If the data was indeed just a "survey", I would suspect that many people wouldn't feel comfortable saying they used huge amounts of water "outside" when to do so would be to break the restrictions - even if they actually did!

Not sure about what happens in other states but on my water bill, in Melbourne, we get a charge for water supply and another charge for waste water/sewage disposal.

Quite a few years ago, I began to wonder about this. I know that we have an electricity meter, a gas meter and a water meter which either gets read by a person coming around, (water and gas) or remotely (electricity), but I was pretty sure we didn't have a sewage meter. Google told me that it was worked out as a percentage of our water usage but there was nowhere that I could find what that percentage was.

Having spent a large proportion of my working life as an intelligence analyst, I started playing with the numbers on my water bills to find out what the correlation between the amount of water used and what the waste water charge was. There didn't seem to be any.

A quick phone call to the Water company should provide the answer, I thought. Well, no such luck. All that they could tell me was that it was worked out on a percentage of the water usage, which I already knew. Asking what the percentage was produced a stunned silence. Apparently nobody had ever asked that before. Escalated to a supervisor only wasted another hour of my time, listening to the elevator music while they tried to find an answer for me, and failed. They promised to find me an answer but I am still waiting.

All I can say with any certainty is that the percantage has been different on every bill I have analysed.

When I was studying in the 1960s, the figure quoted in notes (written some years earlier) was 20 gallons (91 litres) per head for people living in cities, and in the early '70s it was said to be increasing, but I don't remember a figure being quoted. About 10 years ago some colleagues contracting for Sydney Water were involved in a project using smart meters (actually just data loggers) and the data was analysed to look at what water was being used for - different uses have different patterns. I know that the test was carried out in a suburb with only houses, no units, but it was probably carried out in other typical areas.

Originally Posted by Warb

If you don't mind me asking, have you measured how much power it draws in winter? The efficiency of (heating) heat pumps drops with decreasing ambient temperature, and whilst when investigating them I frequently saw specs quoting power draw at upwards of 30C ambient and fairly warm "cold water" temperatures, I'm intrigued as to what they draw in cooler conditions. In Canberra the summer average max is 27C, and in winter 12C (roughly speaking), so for the vast majority of the time such a unit would be operating at ambient and water temperatures far below those at which the spec is quoted. I assume the decrease in efficiency at lower temperatures is why the specs of heat pumps often also show a "max draw" which can be three times what they quote at >30C.

I've seen studies of heat pumps at lower temperatures, down to -10C or so, but they often seem to use "low temperature" heat pumps specifically designed for the job. Such "low temperature" heat pumps go from a COP of >4.5 at higher temperatures down to <3 at approaching 0C. I'd love to know how a real-life unit performs!

Hi Warb,

We live in Hobart - 2 adults - and have used a Sanden unit since 2013. Over this period of time, our quarterly hot water tariff power bill has never exceeded $50 excluding the statutory daily charges.

The unit outside is very quiet to the extent that I cannot tell if it is on or off when I walk past it.

The system will turn off when the water filter gets clogged which usually means a lukewarm shower...DAMHIK !!!
I suspect this is because our water main is old so I flush the system every 6 months or so. I called the service man the first time it happened, not realising that I could do it myself as per the manual....

Overall, very happy !

Cheers,
Yvan

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

A lot of water is used by councils on sportsgrounds and parks. Their automatic watering systems still come on at midnight when it is pouring.

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

Many country sportsgrounds, and indeed private houses, have bores for irrigation.

I assume (!?) that the domestic statistics are all for "mains" water usage, and don't include rural houses running on rainwater tanks and bore water for the garden.

While not law in Australia (yet) in the EU and for sure in Germany for many years, is electrical product efficiency requirements that should help the grid masters to keep the lights on.

For some time vacuum cleaners in the Eu have had a maximum 1200W power draw limit, which has the effect of overall lowering of power consumption.

Then there are dishwashers, which apparently are really big users of electricity, firstly with their direct power usage, and secondly with their indirect electrical power usage where the water pumps that keep the water flowing. Use less water and the country uses less power. This indirect power consumption by villages, towns, cities and the whole country, is noticeably less around five years after some of these requirements came into effect.

Miele have released some innovative dishwashers where power and water consumption is demonstrably less than only a few years ago. They have one 450mm wide dishwasher model, which in one mode, uses 6 litres of water for a wash, and in Eco mode, uses just 0.67kW/h of power.

It is these almost inconsequential things, which should help the future of the Australian electricity market much more than most people think.

Mick.

Originally Posted by Optimark

Then there are dishwashers, which apparently are really big users of electricity, firstly with their direct power usage, and secondly with their indirect electrical power usage where the water pumps that keep the water flowing. Use less water and the country uses less power. This indirect power consumption by villages, towns, cities and the whole country, is noticeably less around five years after some of these requirements came into effect.

Miele have released some innovative dishwashers where power and water consumption is demonstrably less than only a few years ago. They have one 450mm wide dishwasher model, which in one mode, uses 6 litres of water for a wash, and in Eco mode, uses just 0.67kW/h of power.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products.


Firstly, and most obviously, they cost a fortune. You can buy a dishwasher for $600, but the cheapest Miele is three times that, and they run up to over $5000. This is the same problem as with heat pump water heaters - when an old style hot tank costs $1000 or so, the additional $4000 investment in a Sanden buys a lot of power. Overall these products may save money, but you have to be able to afford that upfront cost, and (in our disposable, "if it's not new, it's not cool" society) you also have to intend to keep them for many years.


Secondly, the eco cycles tend to take forever to run. In our house we have energy and water saving laundry appliances. They do, I have no doubt, save both water and electricity, but they don't save time. To use the "most saving-est" cycles takes hours longer than the standard cycles on an older machine, which is a problem if you're trying to do all the family's clothes and bedding on a Saturday morning....


There's actually a third issue, which as is the case with many of these "save the planet" products, relates to marketing and usage. The marketing says the product uses x% less power, and under a fixed set of circumstances that's true. But in the bigger equation, replacing a functional unit with a new one that saves x% means that the embedded carbon cost of the new one needs to be factored in. It has taken energy to make and transport the new product, so how long will the savings take to recoup those costs? Will it actually be kept long enough for that to happen? And will it be used in the correct manner to achieve those savings, given that the savings may apply to one specific "cycle" which may not be the one chosen - those energy saving washing machines still retain the high energy usage "boil washes" of old.


The marketing also often relies on "assumptions" which can vary enormously - the estimated break-even point (in carbon terms) for a Tesla Model 3 varies between the 15,000-25,000km suggested by Reuters, through 150,000km suggested by Damien Ernst (University of Liege) up to 700,000km (Ernsts original estimate, later revised downwards). We've already discussed the financial break-even point with PV and batteries being somewhere between "a long time" and "longer than the life of the batteries", but both financial and carbon break-even points are often quite long, and indeed may never actually be reached!


The other big problem of having the entire "save the climate" movement being driven by the desire for corporate profit, is that by necessity it involves selling something, whether the something is a dishwasher or the power itself. The power companies don't really want you to use less power, that cuts their profits (unless they jack-up the price). And the manufactures of dishwashers will say and do anything to get you to buy a new dishwasher. The end result is that neither organisation will tell you the truth, which is that the greatest saving for water, power and money is probably to keep your old appliance but only run it on a low temperature cycle when it's actually full!! When that old appliance finally dies, replace it with an energy and water saving unit, but don't bother replacing it simply because the new version is a tiny bit better..

We only get a fixed charge for sewerage. For water we get a fixed + variable charge.

Originally Posted by doug3030

... Having spent a large proportion of my working life as an intelligence analyst, I started playing with the numbers on my water bills to find out what the correlation between the amount of water used and what the waste water charge was. There didn't seem to be any. ....

Must be a good cypher, Doug, if you could not crack it.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

Yes, they do, but not as much as their PR people would like you to believe. Grounds/parks close to treatment plants do use recycled water, but it is rather expensive and disruptive to dig up suburban streets to lay separate treated water lines, so it does not happen.

No bores down this way.

Originally Posted by Warb

... Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products. ...

Ditto.

Our previous Miele washing machine had a water saver option. Select it, and it used less water on most cycles. But the freshly washed clothes felt strange, in a horrible sort of way.

Lots of investigation. Turns out that it put less water in the tank for both wash and rinse cycles and it reduced the rinse cycles. Those strange feeling clothes were actually still full of dried laundry detergent. Yuk.

It really was a dumb idea.