Last edited Sun Apr 12, 2026, 04:47 AM - Edit history (1)

At least on the 'cheaper' part.

No price reduction seen by me, the bill payer.

I can quote you quarterly bills for electricity going back over 10 years.
The total bill for 2025 is around AU $4K.
And looking to be higher this year.

South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the country.

What explains the high current prices?

1. The cost to electricity suppliers of setting up wind and solar farms.
2. Setting up a battery farm for a 24 hour supply if the generation system or network goes down.
3. Setting up a desalination plant in preparation for the next drought. It's idling but still needs power to do that.
4. Relatively small population to spread the costs over. 1.9 million.

Source of the claim that electricity prices dropping by roughly 33% in a single year desperately required, because I'm not seeing it.

Maybe in future years, when the establishment costs have been paid off.
Maybe by 2030?

Honestly, some of the crap pushed as facts! Mind boggling!

But the sources are Reddit, Facebook and New Scientist . . . say no more!

Some Alternate Facts:

"Electricity prices in South Australia are among the highest in Australia, with average annual bills for households exceeding $2,300 as of mid-2025. Costs are rising due to network investments and generation costs, with average rates around 43.9c/kWh. Residents are advised to compare plans, as rates vary significantly, and solar feed-in tariffs are declining, often to 4c–8c/kWh.

Key Electricity Price Factors & Trends (2026):
Price Increases: Annual bills for South Australian households were projected to increase by $71 starting July 1, 2025, exceeding $2,300, according to industry forecasts."

We aren't big users.

All electric home, 2 adults, 1 cat. No rooftop solar.

Heating and cooling is by a single wall mounted reverse cycle air conditioner and restricted to the living room only.
The rest of the house is hot or cold depending on the weather.

In any case the claim that "wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new energy generation" is an accounting trick that neglects the costs of integrating this "renewable energy" into a reliable electric grid. If we are being honest with ourselves it's a lie.

In practice places with aggressive renewable energy programs have some of the most expensive electricity in the developed world and the economic viability of these renewable energy schemes is dependent on having neighbors willing to buy excess solar and wind energy. In some places, such as Scotland and Northern England, the utilities have to PAY for the privilege of exporting excess wind energy. Electricity consumers in Norway, for example, are starting to complain about increasing electric bills that are a consequence of surrounding nations using their hydroelectric powered electric grid as a "battery."

When Scotland generates 200% of it's national electric demand with wind power that excess energy has to go somewhere. Worldwide, the problem of excess wind or solar power is usually dealt with by selling it (sometimes at a negative price... ) to neighbors with dirtier electric grids. If neighbors are not willing to accept this excess power (maybe because they have their own surplus of "renewable energy" ) the knee-jerk solution is expensive battery or pumped hydro energy storage schemes. These add further to the cost of electricity.

The results of large scale renewable energy experiments are not promising. The rough math is:

For fossil fueled electric grids you can triple the price of electricity for a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Further additions of renewable energy have increasingly diminishing returns. Renewable energy cannot displace fossil fuels entirely.

In the long run nuclear power costs less than hybrid gas/wind/solar/battery systems with a quarter the greenhouse gas emission or less. Nuclear power could displace fossil fuels entirely. In doing so it would also make large scale wind and solar projects unnecessary.

South Australia follows the same pattern as other electric grids with aggressive renewable energy programs such as California or Denmark. Electricity is expensive and carbon dioxide emissions are five or six times those of nuclear powered France.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/AU-SA/12mo/monthly

Estimating future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by linear extrapolations of renewable energy trends is unrealistic. I'm certain the fossil fuel industry in Australia and worldwide understands this. If the public will not accept an economy powered entirely by fossil fuels, these aggressive renewable energy programs are the next best thing because they will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels.