Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Green solar concerns as the industry hits the cap

By johnboy - 30 May 2011 28

Greens Energy spokesperson Shane Rattenbury is voicing his worries that the solar feed-in tariff is about to become over-subscribed leading to doom and destruction:

“Figures revealed in Estimates hearings show that within weeks Canberrans may no longer be able to obtain the Feed in Tariff,” said Shane Rattenbury.

“The Minister urgently needs to reveal how the Government intends to address this.”

Earlier this year, the Feed in Tariff (FIT) legislation was amended to place a limit of 15 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity on micro systems (generally household rooftop systems). In Estimates, the Minister revealed at least 9.5 MW was already installed, and at least 400 new applications are being received a week. At a conservative estimate, that means 700-800kilowatts a week being installed, which could see the cap reached in 7-8 weeks.

“Some in the industry are already speculating that the cap has been reached based on current orders.”

“The Minister urgently needs to inform Canberra consumers and installers what is going to happen when the cap is reached, and what will happen to those customers who place an order and then find they are not eligible to receive the FIT.”

“The Greens have argued that the cap will see the industry hit a brickwall, and we fear that is about to eventuate – perhaps even sooner than most people expected.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
28 Responses to
Green solar concerns as the industry hits the cap
1
Holden Caulfield 10:56 am
30 May 11
#

Watching this very closely as we have had an order in with Solar Shop for some time which has been held up at our end due to delays with our builder. We expect to be able to install in the next 7-8 weeks, or actually slightly after.

We saw a news report on ABC TV last night and funnily enough the phones at Solar Shop seem to be running off the hook this morning.

Report this comment

2
MERC600 12:46 pm
30 May 11
#

Good.. the less around, the less I have to subsidise it ” the rich man dances, while the poor man pays the band” ( American singer, sorry forgotten who ).

Report this comment

3
shadow boxer 1:04 pm
30 May 11
#

The same thing as happens to any other artificially created or subsidised deman,d it eventually collapses like a pyramid scheme, those that got in early may get a return but the vast majority will do their dough when it collapses.

Report this comment

4
Lazy I 1:06 pm
30 May 11
#

MERC600 said :

Good.. the less around, the less I have to subsidise it ” the rich man dances, while the poor man pays the band” ( American singer, sorry forgotten who ).

Yeah.. spot on… the ‘rich’ never subsidise the poor in this country, it’s always the other way round.

Oh.. wait…

Report this comment

5
shadow boxer 1:13 pm
30 May 11
#

Lazy I said :

MERC600 said :

Good.. the less around, the less I have to subsidise it ” the rich man dances, while the poor man pays the band” ( American singer, sorry forgotten who ).

Yeah.. spot on… the ‘rich’ never subsidise the poor in this country, it’s always the other way round.

Oh.. wait…

It’s a bit different when you are talking about societies most disadvantaged and an essential service.

Report this comment

6
dvaey 2:47 pm
30 May 11
#

shadow boxer said :

The same thing as happens to any other artificially created or subsidised deman,d it eventually collapses like a pyramid scheme, those that got in early may get a return but the vast majority will do their dough when it collapses.

Except that theyve got an asset on their property which will generate energy for them for the next 10+ years, even if its not generating revenue, so its not a complete loss.

Report this comment

7
shadow boxer 4:29 pm
30 May 11
#

dvaey said :

shadow boxer said :

The same thing as happens to any other artificially created or subsidised deman,d it eventually collapses like a pyramid scheme, those that got in early may get a return but the vast majority will do their dough when it collapses.

Except that theyve got an asset on their property which will generate energy for them for the next 10+ years, even if its not generating revenue, so its not a complete loss.

Yeh I take your point but if everyone gets one they will find a way to make you pay, we will still need power stations and the regulator will find a way to guarantee ACTEWAGL’s viability.

Nobody thought the farmers could ever be charged for rainwater in their dams either, but it happened

Report this comment

8
OpenYourMind 5:42 pm
30 May 11
#

I get that those renting or in apartments etc can’t capitalise on this scheme, but it annoys me when people talk about the solar scheme being for the ‘rich’ and the poor subsidising it. A basic system is probably similar money to the cost of a big arsed plasma TV a few years back. Plenty of ‘poor’ seemed to find the money for these TVs.

Report this comment

9
OpenYourMind 5:45 pm
30 May 11
#

Also, interestingly, with lowering solar PV costs, a time will come, sooner than any of us had probably imagined, that solar parity will occur. i.e. It’s as cheap to produce your electricity as it is to buy from the grid. When that occurs, it will change the energy production equation in this country. Going into the future, in my opinion, our big energy challenge is going to be storing it, not producing it.

Report this comment

10
Jethro 6:16 pm
30 May 11
#

MERC600 said :

Good.. the less around, the less I have to subsidise it ” the rich man dances, while the poor man pays the band” ( American singer, sorry forgotten who ).

True to an extent. The FIT is an absurdly expensive way for use to make the shift away from carbon based energy and the people who are paying for it are those who don’t have solar installed. However, I don’t think this is a rich versus poor argument. Families on lower incomes could have treated it as an investment opportunity and a chance to improve their family budget. In the past green loans made this even more possible for those on lower incomes. Indeed I know of quite a few low income families that have installed solar.

Nonetheless, I don’t think the FIT scheme has been the best policy.

Report this comment

11
LeatherJen 6:37 pm
30 May 11
#

It’s an unsustainable scheme that doesn’t take advantage of economies of scale.

But it made us feel all warm and fuzzy, as though we saving the environment or something.

End rant. Sorry, but I’ve always thought artificially supported feed-in tarriffs are not good for us long term. I realise many here will disagree with my opinion.

Report this comment

12
cranky 7:05 pm
30 May 11
#

OYM said.

‘Also, interestingly, with lowering solar PV costs, a time will come, sooner than any of us had probably imagined, that solar parity will occur. i.e. It’s as cheap to produce your electricity as it is to buy from the grid’

Quite possible, but then ACTEW will still find a way to charge through the roof because powerlines pass your property, even though you are not drawing one watt. The desire of the green fringe for this parity will come to grief on the horns of the government dependence on the dividends paid by their power distributors.

The householder will never get a fair break.

Report this comment

13
Golden-Alpine 7:15 pm
30 May 11
#

OpenYourMind said :

I get that those renting or in apartments etc can’t capitalise on this scheme, but it annoys me when people talk about the solar scheme being for the ‘rich’ and the poor subsidising it. A basic system is probably similar money to the cost of a big arsed plasma TV a few years back. Plenty of ‘poor’ seemed to find the money for these TVs.

So true….

Report this comment

14
breda 7:56 pm
30 May 11
#

What nonsense. Solar PV is still expensive, inefficient and propped up by other (poorer) users. I have been listening to proponents of solar power for decades now; we keep hearing that the breakthrough is “just around the corner”. It is not around the corner, because despite untold billions being thrown at it, over at least five decades, it is never going to provide the strong, continuous, reliable power we need at a competitive price.

Stupid schemes like the ACT one, where people are subsidised to put up panels, and then for the itty bits of power they produce, just place a burden on everyone else. Who do they think is paying for all these subsidies? The Green Fairies?

Report this comment

15
Holden Caulfield 8:17 pm
30 May 11
#

breda said :

Who do they think is paying for all these subsidies? The Green Fairies?

It’s the poor poor people, apparently. Just read any thread on here about solar panels and you’ll quickly learn that rich people must be getting free electricity. Even if they don’t have solar panels, because only the poor poor people are paying for electricity.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site