Intergenerational politics

There have been a number of articles recently about the increasing wealth disparity that exists between the baby boomer generation and subsequent generations. These take several forms:

• The ABC had an article about the rapid accumulation of wealth in older Australians versus declining wealth in younger generations. LINK
• This (slightly hyperbolic) ABC article was written about a Grattan report - LINK
• Another article defended the record of baby boomers. LINK
• Yet another article recounted a very personal debate about the vices of the baby boomers. LINK

I think that we need to step back from this. The risk in these kinds of articles is that we establish an intergenerational schism. People get defensive, or aggressive.


So, prior to any analysis I think I should observe that:

• Cultural differences between baby boomers and subsequent generations are very minor (much less than between the boomers and earlier generations). At the individual level, we are no different and would have likely made the same choices (in aggregate) had we been in the same situation. (ie. while I think there is plenty to criticise in what the boomers have done, I think my generation will fare no better)
• In any population or demographic analysis such as this, we are always talking about a distribution. There are many poor baby boomers, and many rich Millennials.
• It is utterly useless to attribute blame anyway

Data

From what I have seen, the Grattan report seems pretty good. It is not inflammatory (unlike some of the others), and is based on data. The most compelling data are shown in this figure:

Data showing welfare receipt in Australia by age. Source: Grattan

My view is that these data are unequivocal. There is a net transfer of wealth from young and relatively poorer Australians to older richer Australians. The critical thing to notice is the large increase in the right-most bar in the 65+ bracket. Also, the right-most two bars of the 25-34 bracket. 

From reading comments on a couple of online sites, there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding what this report is saying and what it means.

This report is not comparing baby boomers in their 30s against today's 30 year-olds.

Instead, it is looking at demographic changes that have occurred in Australia in the last 8 years. What they have found is that, in those 8 years, older Australians have got substantially richer, while younger Australians have become poorer [1]. Let's keep things simple: people who were in the 25 - 35 age group 8 years ago are now in the 35 - 45 age group. I don't think we can attribute these changes in wealth to big differences between these age groups. In other words, I don't think there are large differences between today's 30 year olds and today's 40 year olds in terms of frugality, sense-of-entitlement, work-ethic, etc. I don't think such differences can account for these systemic shifts. 

These are statistics that have been calculated across the entire population. They are not about individuals. This report highlights systemic problems that urgently need to be addressed. You do not want to be living in a country with a poor and disenfranchised youth -- see Libya, Egypt, Iran for what happens. 

-------

[1] In other words, comments like "Well, I was poor when I was young too" do not apply, as what we are looking at here are rapid changes in the relative levels of wealth between different age groups.

Power consumption at my house

Summary

We have a normal house, and have not invested greatly in energy efficiency, but we are very careful with our power use. We have spent about $2500 installing a solar hot water heater, and have bought some energy saving LED light bulbs, and are very aware when we use power. All of our appliances are at least reasonable when it comes to power use, and we have installed a small (2 kW) solar PV system (we paid $5000 for a good one, but similar systems are available for $2000). We are now in a situation where we are exporting (selling) about 3x the power we are importing (using), and I expect to have negative power bills (ie. the utility pays us). I have estimated our ROI for this investment to be about 17.5%. We do not have a generous tariff on our solar PV (we get 24 c/kWh when we sell, and are charged 35 c/kWh for what we buy). We buy 100% GreenPower. I think this makes the case that high electricity bills aren't a necessity, and that you have the power to do something about it.

Our power consumption

This is a short post which shows graphs of the power consumption at my house. There is nothing fancy about it -- I just take regular meter readings myself so that I can monitor the system's performance. These graphs should stay up-to-date as I add new data. I show these data so that you can see what is possible in a very normal Australian house. We don't have fancy passive-house design or lots of expensive modifications. We just don't use a lot of power because we're careful. Our house was built in 1955 and is unassuming. We do not use gas at all (well, we have a gas bottle on the BBQ which we use a handful of times each year).



We have a standard grid-tied solar PV system. This means that any power it produces, that we are not using then-and-there, is exported to the grid. The amount of power exported is measured. If we are using power (eg. electricity in the house) while the system is producing, then only the excess power is exported (ie. the difference between what's generated at the panels and what we consume). If our consumption exceeds what we're generating, then we're importing power.



The first graph shows daily consumption (get power from grid, red) and solar PV export (send power to grid, green). I don't take a meter reading every day, so where I don't take a reading the graph shows an average since the previous meter reading. Notice the sharp change at the beginning of September where the electric storage hot water system was switched off. This reduced our daily power consumption by about two thirds (from to 3 kWh/day). Note that I live in Australia -- winter is from June to August!




The second graph shows our cumulative consumption and solar PV export. Seasonal variation in exported solar PV production is very evident (green line, from May to August). The production decrease in winter looks worse than it actually is because this shows not the generated power, but the exported power (which has our instantaneous use subtracted from it, which is higher in winter). Also note that the angle of power consumption changes at the beginning of September, when the electric storage hot water system was switched off. Our 2 kW solar PV system is mounted flat on a tiled roof. I don't know the exact angle, but it would be less than about 30 degrees, which is sub-optimal for winter production (because of the angle of the sun in winter, they would produce more power if they were at a steeper angle -- 60 degrees in Adelaide). They do and are unshaded all day.













This article was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au

Reducing electricity consumption to affect political change

Many people are concerned about the negative effects that humans are having on the Earth's ecosystems, and with good reason: those systems support us, and without them we would not survive. It is estimated that for every dollar of GDP produced, the natural world contributes .75c -- these are services that nature provides for free and, without which, our quality of life would drop by 75%.

A big cause of human destruction of natural systems is in the provision and delivery of energy. The main culprits are fossil fuels which are starting to alter the world's climate -- a change that, if unchecked, will wreak great destruction on both the natural and human systems that support us. There are now technologies (solar PV and wind turbines) that can produce energy with much  less damage to the environment, and it is imperative that we transition to these as soon as possible. Unfortunately, there are entrenched interests that are heavily committed to fossil fuels and use their influence to slow the adoption of newer, less harmful, methods of energy production.
What is clear is that majority political support for serious action on climate change is currently lacking.

There are huge forces at work here. In the absence of a government with the ability and disposition for serious action, what can an individual do to help this process?

Number one: Use Less

When it comes to reducing one's impact on the systems that support us, there is simply no substitute for using less. Even "green" energy sources have impacts (albeit much more minor). Using less frees money and resources that can be better deployed by helping other, less fortunate, people adapt.

Number two: Avoid electricity or fuel where possible

Electricity is hard to produce, and there are always wastes and damage to the environment -- even when using solar PV or wind turbines. This is because the manufacture, installation and maintenance of these generally result in carbon emissions and other forms of pollution.
Therefore, if a task can be performed without using electricity at all, it is preferable to do so. A great example of this is hot water, which can be heated directly from the sun without need for electricity at all. By doing this, your electricity consumption will be much lower.
Similarly, a solar cooker can cook food without fuel or electricity, using only heat directly from the sun. These are simple and cheap to build.

Number three: buy carbon-emission-free ("green") power, and/or install solar panels

Here is where your large reductions in consumption will help -- because you're now using a lot less power, you will not need many solar panels to offset your electricity consumption (cheaper!).
At my house, we have reduced our power consumption to about 3 kWh/day for a family of four without significant lifestyle sacrifices. I think it can go lower still. We have a 2 kW solar PV system, which produces an average of about 6 - 8 kWh/day (averaged over the year) -- more power than we consume. We do draw power from the grid though, as we do use power at night (when the PV panels aren't producing), which is why we also buy carbon-emission-free power. By doing this, we ensure that we're not directly supporting the use of coal for electricity generation and because our power consumption is so low, the additional cost is very small. This also supports the businesses that are producing renewable carbon-free energy in Australia.

Dirty companies only have as much money as we give them

Using less means less revenue for the large energy generation, distribution and retail companies that, generally, are slowing the adoption of renewable energy technologies, and affecting public policy in negative ways. Make no mistake -- the combined actions of individuals is very powerful. The uptake of domestic solar PV has already had a huge effect on the energy generators and retailers in Australia.
This is because solar PV is usually producing power at precisely the times that energy is most expensive (energy retailers pay a fluctuating ("spot-") price for electricity,  and the times when the spot price is highest are the most profitable for the generators. Domestic solar PV is taking the edge from this demand, which is having a significant affect on the profitability of some of the big dirty producers. These kinds of commercial disincentives work to the advantage of renewable energy technologies.

If Australians continue to reduce their consumption and simultaneously install distributed generation (like solar panels, solar hot water, etc) and buy carbon-emission-free power, this will help to encourage the necessary changes. This will have a concrete effect on Australia's carbon emissions and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.

Remember, a carbon tax only has benefits because it causes people to use less -- we as concerned citizens can use less all by ourselves.

This post was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au