Shane on the solar coaster

Diggety said :

A couple of points:
1) Australian energy prices are indeed too expensive affecting our manufacturing sector, low income earners and international competitiveness. (you’ll probably hear more about this soon, trust me).

Oh I’m sure we’ll all hear heaps more about it, like we heard that the Carbon Tax would ruin us all. I just don’t think that it’s true.

Manufacturing decline has been a long running trend in Australia driven by high wage rates and recently, the strong Australian dollar; not electricity prices (except for extremely electrical energy intensive industries like aluminium smelting).

Diggety said :

The AEMO report shows a doubling of wholesale prices if we follow 100% renewables, that is even before the land purchase costs of biofuels are included (a surprising and unhelpful omission). We now know that chasing renewables alone will be expensive and slow.

Yes, it will be expensive and it will only get more expensive the longer we delay (which is the objective of the incumbent coal and gas industries). But the costs of the world not acting dwarfs those costs.

I don’t accept that chasing renewables alone would be any slower than if we planned on using nuclear too.

Diggety said :

2) 10 years ago I shared your enthusiasm for what I thought would be a renewable energy revolution, one that could rapidly clean up the environment and deliver affordable and competitive prices. The results are in, and I now admit that I was wrong.

Ha, about ten years ago I was arguing your current position. I couldn’t see how change could happen in time, and because of the lack of demonstrated, scalable green energy or storage options I was arguing that we must consider nuclear.

What changed my mind, and it was only fairly recently was two things:

a) Despite all the obstacles we are seeing, around the world, exponential decreases in green technology costs, with different technologies on different parts of that curve; and exponential increases in the amount of deployed green capacity.

I don’t think I am underestimating the size of the problem. Energy is just part of the problem with transport and agriculture also being major emitters. Energy is however the easiest of the three to fix!

b) Becoming a father meant that it was unacceptable to give up and say that it is all to hard. For the sake of my children and everyone else’s children we must do what needs to be done.

I think that a lot of people think that the change required is impossible and have given up. I’m trying to show that the change is happening. That it is happening surprisingly fast, and that if we give it our full support it might just happen fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change outcomes.

Diggety said :

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ is a good example of the failure of ‘renewables only’ in this regard:

– Emissions: Some of the highest electricity sector carbon emissions (~450g/kWh). France with nuclear energy, has ~70g/kWh.
– Energy prices. The second highest electricity prices in the world. Over 800,000 Germans living in energy poverty, with 1 trillion Euro in subsidy liabilities. Next door, France has some of the cheapest prices.
– Fossil-fuel displacement. Only 20% renewable energy generation in 15 years, with more coal and gas fired power plants being built. France displaced their fossil-fuels in a decade using nuclear energy.

Do you have sources for the above?

One fifth of all energy in 15 years is a great achievement. How much of that change happened in just the last 5 years? You need to look at how the change is accelerating.

Getting back to nuclear – I agree that the calculation is likely very different for those countries that have an existing nuclear industry. Australia doesn’t.

Diggety said :

I hope you can see my point that renewables AND nuclear is a better option.

For Australia, I don’t think nuclear helps. Aside from the political, and NIMBY issues, It will take too long and cost too much. There are better alternatives for Australia.

To convince otherwise the nuclear industry must provide some very good evidence to support their claims

Diggety said :

It is true to point out the differential costs between a NOAK and a FOAK, decommissioning and regulatory factors, however do keep in mind that this also applies to all other energy generation technologies.

Yes, but I don’t think that it is an exaggeration to say that these external costs, to establish a nuclear industry from scratch, are orders of magnitude greater than those of other green technologies.

An extreme but simple example to make my point:

Kids, as part of a school science project, set up their own miniature solar PV system or concentrated solar system to create steam would be a great, educational experiment that could be done tomorrow with no problems.

Kids creating their own operational nuclear reactor (whilst an amazing achievement) – not so good. Nuclear is not a play thing.

Diggety said :

Modern nuclear energy generation avoids a lot of the previous establishment costs that applied to the more archaic practices of yesteryear. Standardisation in reactor design and regulation mean a knowledge based training scheme, and regulatory framework are delivered with the generation unit – previously, nations used to train, design, build and regulate in-house.

As to new technology… maybe – I don’t know enough to make an informed comment. I like IP am wary of such assurances. I do know that a meltdown at a solar, wind, geothermal or tidal installation can’t cause thousands of deaths and contaminate a region for decades or centuries into the future. A failure in a Hydro system could cause mass flooding and associated loss of life – that’s as bad as it gets.

It doesn’t change the fact that setting up a nuclear industry, just to support the power plants, is very expensive and time consuming, especially in comparison to the other alternatives.

Truly advanced technologies, like “TerraPower” being supported by Bill Gates [Ted talk here with Terra Power introduced at about half way] are potentially decades out if they work at all. Worth investigating for sure – but as you are awear we need solutions now, in this the critical decade.

Diggety said :

Fuel enrichment and processing facilities are not needed as this can be purchased externally. Disposal costs are nowadays included in the wholesale price of generation, the IAEA puts this at around $2/MWhr.

If we purchase pre-processed fuel then the price of the fuel will be higher. Plus we introduce a lot more risks whilst transporting the fuel by sea – ships sink all the time.

When you say Disposal costs are included in the wholesale price:

a) that is not the case in report discussed. That was explicitly excluded
b) Is $2/MWhr a lot? To me that’s just a number, I need something to compare it against to give it some perspective.
c) What does “disposal” include? Just disposal of the waste; but not the decommissioning of the plant?

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

Well, to continue the US example, the insurance fund has never been exceded. If a ‘Fukushima’ were to happen (much less likely in the US due to reactor designs and regulation) then yes, the fund would be exceeded as Fukushima costs are likely to be approx $50b.

However, this scenario is not exclusive to nuclear – all forms of energy generation have the potential to exceed their policy cover, indeed in some cases (e.g. oil spills, etc) they have.

It is untrue to say the nuclear industry does not pay for disposal of waste, most cases nowadays they do and the cost is included in the wholesale price (approx $2/MWh). The disposal issue is made far more difficult by politics by the way, there are much better ways of handling the waste by either burning it as fuel or permanent storage – both are technically possible and economically feasible but meet political resistance. Sellafield is a an example of archaic nuclear practices are not representative of modern industry.

On uranium mining rehabilitation, I agree that there are cases of bad practic but again, it would be untrue to say that of all nuclear industry practices. Need to judge that on a case-by-case basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Insurance
Note the statement that if the USA insurance fund were to be exceeded, the state would pick up the bill. (And no, I haven’t just edited the Wikipedia entry!)

If no permanent solution has been found to the waste disposal problem, how can the industry be paying the true cost? Are they paying into a trust fund? This blinding trust in the private sector, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary (it’s probably only minutes since an Australian company folded without leaving sufficient funds for its liabilities), is quite sweet but not very realistic. And people accuse environmentalists of being naive.

Speaking of political, it’s a classic political trick to say “But we don’t do things the same way any more” until caught out, then make some trivial change and say “It isn’t the same any more” until caught out, then make some trivial change etc…

We haven’t mentioned nuclear weapons proliferation, of course, another unacceptable, unavoidable and uninsurable risk of nuclear power.

IP

Some of which you say is true IP, and worthy of mention, however I don’t agree that the points you raise translate to the way we would consider modern nuclear generation. At this point it is probably important to point out that we do share an overlap in concern of how past nuclear practices were dealt with. Mainly, reactor design, regulation, waste handling, decommissioning and public relations.

What I would invite you to do – and by domino your political colleagues – is to consider the evidence in a updated context.

I could sit here and tear shreds off the anti-nuclear movement proving the majority of their fear mongering was incorrect, misleading or out-of-date. Or I can encourage those amoung us to face up to the problems we have and encourage a evidence based debate on the role of nuclear energy in Australia. Happy to do either, but more motivated to engage in the latter.

For anyone reading along this discussion is in relation to this article that I linked to previously: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reshapes-energy-market-in-south-australia-18272

The article and discussion relates back to an earlier discussion in this thread on whether or not solar PV is having an effect on the profitability or not of traditional fossil fuel power generation…

parle said :

okay, this is why it’s an opinion piece;

a) The author (an accomplished renewables spruiker) makes a ‘therefore’ argument based purely on demand data.

“The author (an accomplished renewables spruiker)” – play the ball not the man.

“therefore arguments” are quite common at the conclusion of a logical argument. They are less often found in expressing purely opinion.

parle said :

b) The article has no balance as it puts no effort to disprove more likely events in reduction of demand like cooler summers or higher prices.

The article is about the change in the shape of the demand. The reduction in the peak summer daily demand. Cooler summers would produce this change but have they been cooler? The last one, included in the figures for the article, was a shockingly hot one.

But you are right there has been a decrease in overall demand too. I mentioned as much back in comment #18 when I said:

They [grid owners] have been taken completely by surprise by a) the effect of solar PV in reducing [daily] peak demand; and b) reduced overall demand from more efficient energy use and to a smaller extend reduced manufacturing in Australia.

Parle, it is here that I think your confusion is. The Renewable Economy article and I are talking about the daily peak demand. You, and the report you linked to, keep referring to yearly peak demand.

Power companies don’t make all their profits from just a handful of peak demand days in the year. They make them from the daily peak demands throughout the year.

parle said :

c) It has no sourced detailed pv production data which is very odd as it’s the point of the article, the only pv production data he quotes is the generalised 2.4% figure from aemo,

No the point of the article is to look at the *effect* of Solar PV on the energy market in South Australia. You are correct that no detailed production data was included and it would be nice to see such data matched against *daily* demand. Such data should exist but I don’t know of any analysis of it like this. Note that a number of the other articles I linked to do provide more detailed information on installed solar PV capacity.

parle said :

howeph said :

Ausgrid is a network operator responsible for ensuring that the grid can meet THE peak load OF THE YEAR which is a different thing to the DAILY peak loads as being discussed (do you know what we are talking about?).So when you say that solar PV only provided 0.42% on the HOTTEST DAY OF THE YEAR… well blow me down with a feather; who would have thought. Or more precisely… No shit Sherlock.

okay, thanks for the caps, but you didn’t read the report, you’ve obviously taken my paraphrase and assumed.

At least I begin my sentences with caps. I did read the report, and then I related my response back to your comment. The report looked at the five biggest individual peak days for the summer and winter. It does not look at the average daily peaks. I was trying to emphasise to you that you are trying to argue a different point to the one I’m making. It is a straw man argument, but I don’t think that it is deliberate, just frustrating.

parle said :

the .42 comes from only one DAY, 4pm on an exact DAY, the best pv HOUR on the best pv DAY, not for the year or the full day (nice rant though!). I know you’re thinking it’s because people are using their own pv but that’s not how the meters work.

I failed. You still don’t understand.

parle said :

I think you’ve misspoke here re ausgrids role, maybe you’re thinking of transgrid? ausgrid is sydneys network (same function as actew’s networks division-the first source I used), they don’t do the retail billing but everything else is them, they’re what used to be energy australia until the government broke it up to sell of the difficult bits.

Nope, I didn’t misspoke, I’m in agreement with you. Ausgrid is a network operator. They build and manage poles and wires. The grid must deliver on those few peak days of the year. The larger discussion with respect to climate change is not about those few peak days, it’s what is happening every day.

In response to your “I’m not interested in your opinion”, I said:

howeph said :

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can go and get stuffed.

The RiotAct is is a public forum for the sharing of news, ideas, *opinion* and information. I don’t care if your interested in my opinion or not. I’m not providing my opinion for your sole benefit. This is a public discussion and others might be interested.

parle said :

I was trying to rattle you enough to get you to stop your unbearable waffle, which it seems I’ve almost done.

Dream on.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

The arbitrary exclusion of nuclear power in Australia is likely to result in slower climate action and a burden on Australian competitiveness, that much we now know for sure.

I don’t think that nuclear power has been *arbitrarily* excluded from power generation in Australia.[/quote

Nuclear energy has indeed been arbitrarily excluded, see EBPC Act section 140A. Federal law makes it illegal to employ one of the best tools human kind has ever devised to displace fossil-fuels, and consequently decarbonise.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

However, what ATEA2012 (and successive reports) tell us is not good news – decarbonising our electricity sector will add more pain to an already arguably uncompetitive energy system

I’m not sure what other “successive reports” you are referring to, but I certainly don’t see the reports on the energy sector as all bad news. AEMO’s draft report shows that it is both a technically and financially feasible to rapidly switch to a 100% renewable electricity supply.

I don’t accept on face value that we have an “uncompetitive energy” system, nor that de-carbonising it will make it uncompetitive; quite the reveres – failing to de-carbonise risks making it uncompetitive.

What I do see as extraordinarily bad news is the ever growing chasm between what the scientists are saying we need to do, in order to have a decent chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, and what our politicians, economists and industry leaders are planning to do.

That said, there is an undeniable, global renewable energy revolution that has begun. It is already taking place at a terrific speed and it is accelerating. This revolution is taking place largely in spite of the politicians and established industries. We have to hope that it happens fast enough.

A couple of points:
1) Australian energy prices are indeed too expensive affecting our manufacturing sector, low income earners and international competitiveness. (you’ll probably hear more about this soon, trust me).
The AEMO report shows a doubling of wholesale prices if we follow 100% renewables, that is even before the land purchase costs of biofuels are included (a surprising and unhelpful omission). We now know that chasing renewables alone will be expensive and slow.

2) 10 years ago I shared your enthusiasm for what I thought would be a renewable energy revolution, one that could rapidly clean up the environment and deliver affordable and competitive prices. The results are in, and I now admit that I was wrong.

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ is a good example of the failure of ‘renewables only’ in this regard:

– Emissions: Some of the highest electricity sector carbon emissions (~450g/kWh). France with nuclear energy, has ~70g/kWh.
– Energy prices. The second highest electricity prices in the world. Over 800,000 Germans living in energy poverty, with 1 trillion Euro in subsidy liabilities. Next door, France has some of the cheapest prices.
– Fossil-fuel displacement. Only 20% renewable energy generation in 15 years, with more coal and gas fired power plants being built. France displaced their fossil-fuels in a decade using nuclear energy.

I hope you can see my point that renewables AND nuclear is a better option.

howeph said :

I have now skimmed through the report, only concentrating on what it has to say about nuclear power. Some points to consider:

1) “Capital costs are provided on the basis of an Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK)
plant in Australia and, thus, do not attract the cost premiums of the delivery of a first-of-a-kind
plant (FOAK)” pp13

In other words, it is the cost of building “just another” nuclear power plant. It does not include the costs of establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia. For nuclear one would assume that these costs will be significant, and largely borne by the tax payer. Costs would include:

* Development and passing of Regulation – high political risk
* Establishment of Regulator agencies – lots of new skills to be acquired
* Building of nuclear fuel enrichment and processing facilities
* Building of enriched fuel transport capabilities
* Building of fuel waste disposal facilities
* Building of capability to deal with nuclear emergencies
* possibly many more that I haven’t thought of…

I also accept that there are other types of reactors that don’t have some of the more risky fuel issues, but I don’t think these were being considered in this report.

2) “The capital costs to be considered as part of each generation project includes plant and
equipment costs, typical electrical and site preparation costs and fuel and cooling costs inside
the nominal ‘project fence’ that delineates the separation between the project and the grid.
External factors such as electrical connection, fuel pipelines or delivery handling systems … are excluded from capital costs”

So the costs used is just what is inside the fence surrounding the power plant. Re-iterating what is above. Nor are any of these costs include in the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) calculations

3) “Costs associated with plant decommissioning have not been included in the calculation of
LCOE. Decommissioning costs are discussed in individual technology sections where they may
be significant.”

Decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations can be as much as, of even much more than the commissioning costs.

It is true to point out the differential costs between a NOAK and a FOAK, decommissioning and regulatory factors, however do keep in mind that this also applies to all other energy generation technologies.

Modern nuclear energy generation avoids a lot of the previous establishment costs that applied to the more archaic practices of yesteryear. Standardisation in reactor design and regulation mean a knowledge based training scheme, and regulatory framework are delivered with the generation unit – previously, nations used to train, design, build and regulate in-house.

Fuel enrichment and processing facilities are not needed as this can be purchased externally. Disposal costs are nowadays included in the wholesale price of generation, the IAEA puts this at around $2/MWhr.

IrishPete said :

Diggety – do you have a connection with the nuclear industry? Perhaps you’re a researcher in the field?
For the record I have no connection with any industry related to power generation, my only relevant connection being to politics.

IP

A fair question IP, deserves an answer: I have no connection with the nuclear industry, nuclear research, political party or any other organisation that would benefit from my comments. None.

Diggety said :

I didn’t know we were yelling… (?) Perhaps I need to start using emoticons 😉

I didn’t know if ‘yelling’ was the right word either, that’s why I put it in quotes, perhaps “talking past each other” is a better description. Please, only use emoticons very sparingly.

Diggety said :

The AETA2012 – as a base – is a very constructive report allowing us to start assessing our future energy options. Previous to this, there was a lot of conjecture thrown around resulting in uncertainty, and allowing vested interests from all sides to obfuscate the debate.

These independent, government funded reports are fundamental to having reasoned debate; but they are not a panacea.

It is tempting, especially when the results match your pre-conceived notions, to just skip through to the report’s conclusion and start using those results in conversations and debate without having a working understanding of how those results were derived. A mistake I have made in the past and likely will again – confirmation bias is really, really difficult to beat.

I have now skimmed through the report, only concentrating on what it has to say about nuclear power. Some points to consider:

1) “Capital costs are provided on the basis of an Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK)
plant in Australia and, thus, do not attract the cost premiums of the delivery of a first-of-a-kind
plant (FOAK)” pp13

In other words, it is the cost of building “just another” nuclear power plant. It does not include the costs of establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia. For nuclear one would assume that these costs will be significant, and largely borne by the tax payer. Costs would include:

* Development and passing of Regulation – high political risk
* Establishment of Regulator agencies – lots of new skills to be acquired
* Building of nuclear fuel enrichment and processing facilities
* Building of enriched fuel transport capabilities
* Building of fuel waste disposal facilities
* Building of capability to deal with nuclear emergencies
* possibly many more that I haven’t thought of…

I also accept that there are other types of reactors that don’t have some of the more risky fuel issues, but I don’t think these were being considered in this report.

2) “The capital costs to be considered as part of each generation project includes plant and
equipment costs, typical electrical and site preparation costs and fuel and cooling costs inside
the nominal ‘project fence’ that delineates the separation between the project and the grid.
External factors such as electrical connection, fuel pipelines or delivery handling systems … are excluded from capital costs”

So the costs used is just what is inside the fence surrounding the power plant. Re-iterating what is above. Nor are any of these costs include in the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) calculations

3) “Costs associated with plant decommissioning have not been included in the calculation of
LCOE. Decommissioning costs are discussed in individual technology sections where they may
be significant.”

Decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations can be as much as, of even much more than the commissioning costs.

Diggety said :

However, what ATEA2012 (and successive reports) tell us is not good news – decarbonising our electricity sector will add more pain to an already arguably uncompetitive energy system

I’m not sure what other “successive reports” you are referring to, but I certainly don’t see the reports on the energy sector as all bad news. AEMO’s draft report shows that it is both a technically and financially feasible to rapidly switch to a 100% renewable electricity supply.

I don’t accept on face value that we have an “uncompetitive energy” system, nor that de-carbonising it will make it uncompetitive; quite the reveres – failing to de-carbonise risks making it uncompetitive.

What I do see as extraordinarily bad news is the ever growing chasm between what the scientists are saying we need to do, in order to have a decent chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, and what our politicians, economists and industry leaders are planning to do.

That said, there is an undeniable, global renewable energy revolution that has begun. It is already taking place at a terrific speed and it is accelerating. This revolution is taking place largely in spite of the politicians and established industries. We have to hope that it happens fast enough.

Diggety said :

The arbitrary exclusion of nuclear power in Australia is likely to result in slower climate action and a burden on Australian competitiveness, that much we now know for sure.

I don’t think that nuclear power has been *arbitrarily* excluded from power generation in Australia. I think that the total cost of nuclear (both financial and political) has been deemed, after reasonable consideration, to be too high; especially when there are less risky green alternatives. For countries that already have an established nuclear industry this equation is likely very different.

Diggety said :

But the policy reality, is that we are relying on carbon capture and storage to see us through this century – a technology I have serious reservations with on it’s ability to deal with fossil-fuel based issues with any kind of economic sense.

I share your concerns over carbon capture and storage. From what I have read it appears to be an infeasible solution. The AEMO draft report, linked above, explicitly excludes carbon capture and storage solutions.

Diggety – do you have a connection with the nuclear industry? Perhaps you’re a researcher in the field?
For the record I have no connection with any industry related to power generation, my only relevant connection being to politics.

IP

howeph said :

Diggety said :

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Do you have evidence to back up your claimed fact?

Yes, the CSIRO. Follow the instructions, and substitute with/without nuclear energy. In all cases, the inclusion of nuclear delivers lower costs and faster decarbonisation.

Great. Now instead of “yelling” at each other we can have a proper debate, where there is the possibility of someone changing their mind.

It seams that the CSIRO tool gets its cost data from the Australian Energy Technology assessment, as shown on the eFuture assumtions page.

I haven’t seen the technology assessment report before. Time to get reading…

I didn’t know we were yelling… (?) Perhaps I need to start using emoticons 😉

The AETA2012 – as a base – is a very constructive report allowing us to start assessing our future energy options. Previous to this, there was a lot of conjecture thrown around resulting in uncertainty, and allowing vested interests from all sides to obfuscate the debate. However, what ATEA2012 (and successive reports) tell us is not good news – decarbonising our electricity sector will add more pain to an already arguably uncompetitive energy system

The arbitrary exclusion of nuclear power in Australia is likely to result in slower climate action and a burden on Australian competitiveness, that much we now know for sure. But the policy reality, is that we are relying on carbon capture and storage to see us through this century – a technology I have serious reservations with on it’s ability to deal with fossil-fuel based issues with any kind of economic sense.

apologies, I missed this;

howeph said :

Yes, it is a website about renewable energy, not just solar.
No, it is not an *opinion* piece. It is a news piece discussing the analysis performed by Professor Mike Sandiford of the Melbourne Energy Institute and is backed up by statements from the Australian Energy Market Operator. If you disagree with facts, figures and analysis provided by those organisations and presented in the article then please address them directly. You can’t just dismiss as opinion.

okay, this is why it’s an opinion piece;

a) The author (an accomplished renewables spruiker) makes a ‘therefore’ argument based purely on demand data.

b) The article has no balance as it puts no effort to disprove more likely events in reduction of demand like cooler summers or higher prices.

c) It has no sourced detailed pv production data which is very odd as it’s the point of the article, the only pv production data he quotes is the generalised 2.4% figure from aemo,

howeph said :

Ausgrid is a network operator responsible for ensuring that the grid can meet THE peak load OF THE YEAR which is a different thing to the DAILY peak loads as being discussed (do you know what we are talking about?).So when you say that solar PV only provided 0.42% on the HOTTEST DAY OF THE YEAR… well blow me down with a feather; who would have thought. Or more precisely… No shit Sherlock.

okay, thanks for the caps, but you didn’t read the report, you’ve obviously taken my paraphrase and assumed.

the .42 comes from only one DAY, 4pm on an exact DAY, the best pv HOUR on the best pv DAY, not for the year or the full day (nice rant though!). I know you’re thinking it’s because people are using their own pv but that’s not how the meters work.

I think you’ve misspoke here re ausgrids role, maybe you’re thinking of transgrid? ausgrid is sydneys network (same function as actew’s networks division-the first source I used), they don’t do the retail billing but everything else is them, they’re what used to be energy australia until the government broke it up to sell of the difficult bits.

http://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/About-us/Newsroom/Discussions/Solar-panels-and-peak-demand-research.aspx

howeph said :

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can go and get stuffed.

The RiotAct is is a public forum for the sharing of news, ideas, *opinion* and information. I don’t care if your interested in my opinion or not. I’m not providing my opinion for your sole benefit. This is a public discussion and others might be interested.

I was trying to rattle you enough to get you to stop your unbearable waffle, which it seems I’ve almost done.

Diggety said :

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Do you have evidence to back up your claimed fact?

Yes, the CSIRO. Follow the instructions, and substitute with/without nuclear energy. In all cases, the inclusion of nuclear delivers lower costs and faster decarbonisation.

Great. Now instead of “yelling” at each other we can have a proper debate, where there is the possibility of someone changing their mind.

It seams that the CSIRO tool gets its cost data from the Australian Energy Technology assessment, as shown on the eFuture assumtions page.

I haven’t seen the technology assessment report before. Time to get reading…

Diggety said :

And the reason we are finding climate action so difficult is some sections of the environmental movement trotting out misleading, outdated or certifiably false claims on nuclear energy (looking at you Greenpeace and fossil-fuel industry).

Renewables help, but alone they are only increasing electricity prices and are having insufficient effect on CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. And in most cases, require new capacity of fossil-fuels.

I accept your argument re energy efficiency, etc. This technique has been the most successful at lowering emissions.

My 2kw solar PV system isn’t increasing anyone’s prices. Yes I received government rebates, but no profitable feed in tariff. 2kw of solar panels are now available on Ebay for under $2000. Lots of people get by with standalone solar. Industrial solar, wind and hydro can provide whatever is necessary for industry (and I mean industry, not shops and offices – they should be using rooftop solar too). That’s not a scientific analysis.

IP

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

We don’t need nuclear power, it’s as simple as that.

IP

We don’t need solar or wind either IP. But we want it, as it contributes positively. You need to start to understand the value of including all tools available for a better holistic outcome.

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Nope. There is no need to replace one problem with another. Climate change is not the only environmental problem. It just happens to be the one most in vogue at the moment.

Anyway, there’s still a lot of mileage in energy efficiency rather than creating lots of new, cheap or expensive, electricity generating capacity.

And reducing population growth, or even reducing population.

IP

And the reason we are finding climate action so difficult is some sections of the environmental movement trotting out misleading, outdated or certifiably false claims on nuclear energy (looking at you Greenpeace and fossil-fuel industry).

Renewables help, but alone they are only increasing electricity prices and are having insufficient effect on CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. And in most cases, require new capacity of fossil-fuels.

I accept your argument re energy efficiency, etc. This technique has been the most successful at lowering emissions.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Do you have evidence to back up your claimed fact?

Yes, the CSIRO. Follow the instructions, and substitute with/without nuclear energy. In all cases, the inclusion of nuclear delivers lower costs and faster decarbonisation.

johnboy said :

If it’s from wikipedia it’s as likely to be true as any other source and you better have a specific rebuttal if you want to be taken seriously.

totally agree, rightly or wrongly I still just find it funny everytime I read wikipedia as the only source…

beardedclam said :

Martlark said :

howeph said :

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong….[solar power industry quotes]……

WRONG.

From wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]:

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

US dollars per megawatt hour for new generating plants which are likely for Australia.

Coal – 99.6
Gas – 68.6
Biomass – 120.2
Wind – 96.8
Solar PV – 156.9

Solar PV is the most expensive. We should be installing gas combined cycle instead and use the savings for something more environmentally useful. Australian figures are on that page as well and show much the same.

hahahahaha well if its from Wikipedia it must be true.

Australian pricing of energy technologies has been done by BREE, see AETA 2012 report

howeph said :

Diggety said :

howeph said :

Diggety said :

To the point where they even believed solar plants were generating megawatts under moonlight – extrordinary example of credulous belief

Please provide link to back up your claim.

It looks like they’ve taken the story down, I’d be embarrassed too: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/first-solar-finds-a-new-power-source-moonshine-49126

Here I found it for you:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/not-so-cool-first-solars-moonshine-story-was-moonshine-14869

“On Thursday (US time) RenewEconomy published a story quoting operators at the AVSR1 project, under construction in the Antelope Valley in California, as saying that the 136MW currently connected actually managed to produce a small amount of electricity during the “super moon” last Sunday/Monday.”

Of course it did. Photovoltaic cells will produce some energy as long as there are a few photons falling on them. Under a supermoon – or even a fill moon – that energy would be measurable, though very small.

What’s the problem?

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

We don’t need nuclear power, it’s as simple as that.

IP

We don’t need solar or wind either IP. But we want it, as it contributes positively. You need to start to understand the value of including all tools available for a better holistic outcome.

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Nope. There is no need to replace one problem with another. Climate change is not the only environmental problem. It just happens to be the one most in vogue at the moment.

Anyway, there’s still a lot of mileage in energy efficiency rather than creating lots of new, cheap or expensive, electricity generating capacity.

And reducing population growth, or even reducing population.

IP

Diggety said :

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Do you have evidence to back up your claimed fact?

IrishPete said :

We don’t need nuclear power, it’s as simple as that.

IP

We don’t need solar or wind either IP. But we want it, as it contributes positively. You need to start to understand the value of including all tools available for a better holistic outcome.

Climate action in Australia will be faster and deliver cheaper energy with nuclear: fact.

Diggety said :

howeph said :

Diggety said :

To the point where they even believed solar plants were generating megawatts under moonlight – extrordinary example of credulous belief

Please provide link to back up your claim.

It looks like they’ve taken the story down, I’d be embarrassed too: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/first-solar-finds-a-new-power-source-moonshine-49126

Here I found it for you:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/not-so-cool-first-solars-moonshine-story-was-moonshine-14869

IrishPete said :

We don’t need nuclear power, it’s as simple as that.

+1

As for insurance, “Japan is about to embark on a clean-up that could cost at least $100bn – on top of the cost of compensating evacuees and decontaminating their abandoned homes… decommissioning the plant could take 30 to 40 years”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/06/fukushima-nuclear-decommissioning-plant-safety

howeph said :

Diggety said :

To the point where they even believed solar plants were generating megawatts under moonlight – extrordinary example of credulous belief

Please provide link to back up your claim.

It looks like they’ve taken the story down, I’d be embarrassed too: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/first-solar-finds-a-new-power-source-moonshine-49126

Martlark said :

howeph said :

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong….[solar power industry quotes]……

WRONG.

From wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]:

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

US dollars per megawatt hour for new generating plants which are likely for Australia.

Coal – 99.6
Gas – 68.6
Biomass – 120.2
Wind – 96.8
Solar PV – 156.9

Solar PV is the most expensive. We should be installing gas combined cycle instead and use the savings for something more environmentally useful. Australian figures are on that page as well and show much the same.

hahahahaha well if its from Wikipedia it must be true.

Diggety said :

Well, to continue the US example, the insurance fund has never been exceded. If a ‘Fukushima’ were to happen (much less likely in the US due to reactor designs and regulation) then yes, the fund would be exceeded as Fukushima costs are likely to be approx $50b.

However, this scenario is not exclusive to nuclear – all forms of energy generation have the potential to exceed their policy cover, indeed in some cases (e.g. oil spills, etc) they have.

It is untrue to say the nuclear industry does not pay for disposal of waste, most cases nowadays they do and the cost is included in the wholesale price (approx $2/MWh). The disposal issue is made far more difficult by politics by the way, there are much better ways of handling the waste by either burning it as fuel or permanent storage – both are technically possible and economically feasible but meet political resistance. Sellafield is a an example of archaic nuclear practices are not representative of modern industry.

On uranium mining rehabilitation, I agree that there are cases of bad practic but again, it would be untrue to say that of all nuclear industry practices. Need to judge that on a case-by-case basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Insurance
Note the statement that if the USA insurance fund were to be exceeded, the state would pick up the bill. (And no, I haven’t just edited the Wikipedia entry!)

If no permanent solution has been found to the waste disposal problem, how can the industry be paying the true cost? Are they paying into a trust fund? This blinding trust in the private sector, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary (it’s probably only minutes since an Australian company folded without leaving sufficient funds for its liabilities), is quite sweet but not very realistic. And people accuse environmentalists of being naive.

Speaking of political, it’s a classic political trick to say “But we don’t do things the same way any more” until caught out, then make some trivial change and say “It isn’t the same any more” until caught out, then make some trivial change etc…

We haven’t mentioned nuclear weapons proliferation, of course, another unacceptable, unavoidable and uninsurable risk of nuclear power.

We don’t need nuclear power, it’s as simple as that.

IP

Diggety said :

To the point where they even believed solar plants were generating megawatts under moonlight – extrordinary example of credulous belief

Please provide link to back up your claim.

By the way, I’m not being tribal, I’m a polemicist.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

getting a bit too trible in the energy arena.

What does that mean? What are you accusing me of?

By providing links it allows people to check the basis for my opinions and gives them a better opportunity to challenge them. I wish others would provide the same courtesy.

Just because you may not like the source does not make it wrong or invalid. Be careful not to dismiss information just because you don’t like it – that is called ‘confirmation bias’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Also I have liked to a number of different sources in order to backup and give substance to my claims. In this thread alone:

* reneweconomy.com.au – (not surprising given it is a thread about renewable energy)
* http://www.abc.net.au/news
* wikipedia (aidan provided the original link but ignored relevant details that I quoted from it)
* climatechange.gov.au (showing draft report from Australian Energy Market Operator)

Diggety, what links have you provided to back up your claims and opinions?

Reneweconomy, howeph – they trip over themselves trying to believe renewables are angelic. To the point where they even believed solar plants were generating megawatts under moonlight – extrordinary example of credulous belief. ‘Tribal’ would be an understatement.

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

No, it’s not simple. But it is easy to dismiss the claim that “nuclear can’t get insurance”. It is a false claim.

P.S. there is an attainable ‘pool’ of funds, they are legislated to do so (and have been earning interest off said funds for >18 years) pretty much like a bank.

And that fund is sufficient to cover events as large as Fukushima, for example? Sorry, I find that rather hard to swallow.

Also the nuclear industry is still not paying for rehabilitating of uranium mines, nor for disposal of nuclear waste. Nor do I believe the rather too easy statement that Sellafield is being paid for by the state because it was state-owned. the state is ALWAYS the insurer and cleaner-up of last resort, and it is very easy for a private company (including the insurer) to avoid its liabilities.

Cradle to grave (or lifecycle) analysis is what is needed, and the anti-renewable movement is quick to apply it to renewable energy sources, but not to their own (coal, oil, nuclear)

IP

Well, to continue the US example, the insurance fund has never been exceded. If a ‘Fukushima’ were to happen (much less likely in the US due to reactor designs and regulation) then yes, the fund would be exceeded as Fukushima costs are likely to be approx $50b.

However, this scenario is not exclusive to nuclear – all forms of energy generation have the potential to exceed their policy cover, indeed in some cases (e.g. oil spills, etc) they have.

It is untrue to say the nuclear industry does not pay for disposal of waste, most cases nowadays they do and the cost is included in the wholesale price (approx $2/MWh). The disposal issue is made far more difficult by politics by the way, there are much better ways of handling the waste by either burning it as fuel or permanent storage – both are technically possible and economically feasible but meet political resistance. Sellafield is a an example of archaic nuclear practices are not representative of modern industry.

On uranium mining rehabilitation, I agree that there are cases of bad practic but again, it would be untrue to say that of all nuclear industry practices. Need to judge that on a case-by-case basis.

Diggety said :

getting a bit too trible in the energy arena.

What does that mean? What are you accusing me of?

By providing links it allows people to check the basis for my opinions and gives them a better opportunity to challenge them. I wish others would provide the same courtesy.

Just because you may not like the source does not make it wrong or invalid. Be careful not to dismiss information just because you don’t like it – that is called ‘confirmation bias’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Also I have liked to a number of different sources in order to backup and give substance to my claims. In this thread alone:

* reneweconomy.com.au – (not surprising given it is a thread about renewable energy)
* http://www.abc.net.au/news
* wikipedia (aidan provided the original link but ignored relevant details that I quoted from it)
* climatechange.gov.au (showing draft report from Australian Energy Market Operator)

Diggety, what links have you provided to back up your claims and opinions?

Diggety said :

No, it’s not simple. But it is easy to dismiss the claim that “nuclear can’t get insurance”. It is a false claim.

P.S. there is an attainable ‘pool’ of funds, they are legislated to do so (and have been earning interest off said funds for >18 years) pretty much like a bank.

And that fund is sufficient to cover events as large as Fukushima, for example? Sorry, I find that rather hard to swallow.

Also the nuclear industry is still not paying for rehabilitating of uranium mines, nor for disposal of nuclear waste. Nor do I believe the rather too easy statement that Sellafield is being paid for by the state because it was state-owned. the state is ALWAYS the insurer and cleaner-up of last resort, and it is very easy for a private company (including the insurer) to avoid its liabilities.

Cradle to grave (or lifecycle) analysis is what is needed, and the anti-renewable movement is quick to apply it to renewable energy sources, but not to their own (coal, oil, nuclear)

IP

@ howeph. give the reneweconomy pamphlets a rest – getting a bit too trible in the energy arena.

caf said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

That’s an outdated claim – privately owned nuclear reactors are insured privately, and in the US they are also legislated to generate a pool of funds in case of an accident. All these costs are included in the wholesale price – and even still nuclear delivers some of the most reliable and low cost energy.

In the case of Sellafield, the reason for the public liability of decommissioning is due to it being owned by the public and the costs of decomissioning was not included in the wholesale price (approx. $2/MWh according to the IEA).

The “nuclear can’t get insurance” claim is simply a myth!

It’s not that simple. The current situation in the US is that privately-obtained insurance covers the first ~$400m worth of liability; the Price-Anderson fund covers up to $112m per existing reactor; and anything above that is still backstopped by the US Government.

The Price-Anderson fund isn’t really a “pool” because the reactor companies don’t pay into it until an accident actually occurs.

No, it’s not simple. But it is easy to dismiss the claim that “nuclear can’t get insurance”. It is a false claim.

P.S. there is an attainable ‘pool’ of funds, they are legislated to do so (and have been earning interest off said funds for >18 years) pretty much like a bank.

parle said :

that’s an opinion piece from a journalist on a pro solar website drawing his own conclusions, he essentially says that demand is down in SA so it must be solar, right?

Yes, it is a website about renewable energy, not just solar.

No, it is not an *opinion* piece. It is a news piece discussing the analysis performed by Professor Mike Sandiford of the Melbourne Energy Institute and is backed up by statements from the Australian Energy Market Operator.

If you disagree with facts, figures and analysis provided by those organisations and presented in the article then please address them directly. You can’t just dismiss as opinion.

parle said :

do you have any hard data like this?

http://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/About-us/Newsroom/Discussions/Solar-panels-and-peak-demand-research.aspx

it shows that solar production in winter is pointless and summer, when on the hottest day, supplied no more than 0.42% of peak demand.

Ausgrid is a network operator responsible for ensuring that the grid can meet THE peak load OF THE YEAR which is a different thing to the DAILY peak loads as being discussed (do you know what we are talking about?).

So when you say that solar PV only provided 0.42% on the HOTTEST DAY OF THE YEAR… well blow me down with a feather; who would have thought. Or more precisely… No shit Sherlock.

parle said :

also, I’m not interested in your opinions of what’s ‘most’, ‘likely’ or ‘similar’ as I’m not convinced you know what you’re talking about.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can go and get stuffed.

The RiotAct is is a public forum for the sharing of news, ideas, *opinion* and information. I don’t care if your interested in my opinion or not. I’m not providing my opinion for your sole benefit. This is a public discussion and others might be interested.

howeph said :

Certainly, the effect is most obvious in South Australia where they have the highest take up of Solar PV:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reshapes-energy-market-in-south-australia-18272

Most Australians, who live along the coastal fringe, have mild winters. Therefore peak usage, particularly domestic usage, is also likely to be similar to SA.

I agree that the ACT has both hot summers and cold winters so the peak seasonal usage here may look quite different.

that’s an opinion piece from a journalist on a pro solar website drawing his own conclusions, he essentially says that demand is down in SA so it must be solar, right?

do you have any hard data like this?

http://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/About-us/Newsroom/Discussions/Solar-panels-and-peak-demand-research.aspx

it shows that solar production in winter is pointless and summer, when on the hottest day, supplied no more than 0.42% of peak demand.

also, I’m not interested in your opinions of what’s ‘most’, ‘likely’ or ‘similar’ as I’m not convinced you know what you’re talking about.

parle said :

howeph said :

Yes, the peak usage time varies by location and by the season. For most of the population of Australia the largest peaks of the year are in summer running the AC when Solar PV is producing its peak output.

to give your point some perspective do you have a source with regard to the solar powered peak ‘evening’ air conditioning usage you speak of?

I ask as a certain green public official on here used to parrot that ‘fact’ all the time until actew themselves stated rooftop solar in canberra only produced a pointless 0.47% during summer peak.

Certainly, the effect is most obvious in South Australia where they have the highest take up of Solar PV:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reshapes-energy-market-in-south-australia-18272

Most Australians, who live along the coastal fringe, have mild winters. Therefore peak usage, particularly domestic usage, is also likely to be similar to SA.

I agree that the ACT has both hot summers and cold winters so the peak seasonal usage here may look quite different.

howeph said :

Yes, the peak usage time varies by location and by the season. For most of the population of Australia the largest peaks of the year are in summer running the AC when Solar PV is producing its peak output.

to give your point some perspective do you have a source with regard to the solar powered peak ‘evening’ air conditioning usage you speak of?

I ask as a certain green public official on here used to parrot that ‘fact’ all the time until actew themselves stated rooftop solar in canberra only produced a pointless 0.47% during summer peak.

parle said :

howeph said :

Solar PV produces electricity at or around peak usage

“These systems contributed nothing to the peak winter demand because at that time, without sunlight, they were not operating. During the summer peak, solar photo voltaic systems contributed about 0.47 per cent of that demand.” – ActewAGL general manager network services Rob Atkin

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/high-price-paid-for-low-solar-return-20120422-1xfca.html#ixzz2WVeBt0QU

Yes, the peak usage time varies by location and by the season. For most of the population of Australia the largest peaks of the year are in summer running the AC when Solar PV is producing its peak output.

howeph said :

Solar PV produces electricity at or around peak usage

“These systems contributed nothing to the peak winter demand because at that time, without sunlight, they were not operating. During the summer peak, solar photo voltaic systems contributed about 0.47 per cent of that demand.” – ActewAGL general manager network services Rob Atkin

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/high-price-paid-for-low-solar-return-20120422-1xfca.html#ixzz2WVeBt0QU

caf said :

It’s not that simple. The current situation in the US is that privately-obtained insurance covers the first ~$400m worth of liability; the Price-Anderson fund covers up to $112m per existing reactor; and anything above that is still backstopped by the US Government.

The Price-Anderson fund isn’t really a “pool” because the reactor companies don’t pay into it until an accident actually occurs.

Sometimes I think I know quite a lot stuff, and then someone pops up on RiotACT who clearly knows rather a lot more than me. I am awestruck (no sarcasm, honestly awestruck!)

By the way, I can see 400million disappearing pretty quickly in a puff of mushroom-shaped smoke after only a fairly minor incident… Especially in litigious USA where lawyers would get most of it.

And government is always the insurer of last resort, when insurers go belly-up (as they have done many times).

IP

Hi Diggety, thanks for a detailed response. Sorry I didn’t get back sooner.

Diggety said :

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Like I said years ago, feed in tariffs are problimatic for solar and are not the correct kind of subsidy.

Why are they problematic? What do you think is the correct kind of subsidy? Or do just think that there should be no subsidies?

I think that feed in tariffs, around the world but particularly in Germany, have been hugely successful. It has been the feed in tariffs that have driven demand for Solar PV which in turn has brought the price down quicker that it would otherwise have done.

And now that the price is down the feed in tariffs can be reduced (Green’s position) or eliminated (Labor’s position)… perfect.

The primary reason that FiT subsidies are problematic is because they are ongoing. It locks in 20+ years of subsidies into a contract.

Sure, the policy has a cost. You don’t get anything for nothing. I’m assuming that we both agree that there was, and is, a desperate need to switch to renewable energy; in which case the question is “was there a better more efficient way of stimulating the transition to renewables than feed in tarrifs?”

I stand by the argument that Feed In Tariffs have been hugely successful in mobilising capital to install roof top solar as evidenced by 1 million installations in Australia alone in only the last five years http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-tops-1-million-rooftop-solar-pv-systems/4610902

Was locking in 20 year contracts worth that? I think so. To argue otherwiseyou have to look at what the alternatives were at the time the policy was introduced. You argue that:

Diggety said :

If PV needs to be subsidized, then a far better subsidy would be to target the capital costs. There are many ways of doing this, my favoured approach would be to provide tax incentives to PV installations – whether that is to the benefit of the PV modules or businesses installing PV or the customer or all of the above, deserves more comprehensive analysis to reach the best outcome.

But didn’t the government, ACT and Federal, do that too?

Diggety said :

You use Germany as an example, but Germany is becoming a clear case of FiT failure.

Success or failure depends on how you define the criteria by which it is to be judged.

From wikipedia:

Feed-in electricity tariffs have been introduced in Germany to encourage the use of new energy technologies such as wind power, biomass, hydropower, geothermal power and solar photovoltaics. Feed-in tariffs are a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies
…
The aim is to meet Germany’s renewable energy goals of 12.5% of electricity consumption in 2010 and 35% in 2020. The policy also aims to encourage the development of renewable technologies, reduce external costs, and increase security of energy supply
…
In 2011, 20% of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Germany

(Note: Australia is only aiming for 20% [what Germany has already done] by 2020 and the Liberal Government is being pressured to lower this target if they are elected)

So in terms of meeting the renewables objective the Feed in Tariffs seam to have been successful to me.

Diggety said :

They have a Trillion+ Euro dollar headache due to PV FiTs at present, it is effecting energy prices to business and residences so much so that it may influence the outcome of their national election. One of the difficulties is that the contracts and financial liabilities have already been signed – it is a locked in problem. Their energy policies in general have resulted in high energy costs and negligible CO2 abatement from the energy sector.

I can’t find any data to support your claims. Do you have links to support this?

Diggety said :

PV cost reductions are not attributable to German PV FiTs. The market price of metallurgical grade silicon (decreased use from electronics) and cheaper manufacture (shift to China, improved fabrication techniques) have been the primary drivers of $/W of PV.

I’m not sure on the changes of metallurgical grade silicon, but I agree that the price decrease is because of manufacturing efficiency and move to China. But that transformation, the benefits of scale, was driven by the increase in demand which in turn was created by the feed in tariffs.

Diggety said :

Secondary reasons are:
– $/kWh prices liable for FiTs are inelastic, they do not reflect the $/kWh fluctuating nature of grid prices, nor even the capital cost changes of PV.
– It discourages PV users to install storage, and incentivises grid use. PV users on a FiT have been financially rewarded at the expense of renters and low-income earners due to added PV network distortions. This deprives storage technology of enjoying the economy-of-scale of which it is dependant upon to achieve realistic costs for commercial use.
– An FiT subsidy encourages a mismatched supply-demand profile. People are being paid a subsidy for energy that may not be used and consequently wasted via network spillage.

Your final point, that “People are being paid a subsidy for energy that may not be used and consequently wasted via network spillage” I don’t think is valid. Solar PV produces electricity at or around peak usage.

Your other points, and your argument in general, I think is valid, but only if the feed in tariffs were being introduced now or were being continued given energy environment that we have now. At the time that the feed in tariffs were introduce the roof top solar was a fledgeling industry and needed the support to accelerate it. This has been achieved and now the tariffs are being withdrawn. A job well done. I don’t deny that it caused temporary market distortions but I think that it has been worth the cost.

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

That’s an outdated claim – privately owned nuclear reactors are insured privately, and in the US they are also legislated to generate a pool of funds in case of an accident. All these costs are included in the wholesale price – and even still nuclear delivers some of the most reliable and low cost energy.

In the case of Sellafield, the reason for the public liability of decommissioning is due to it being owned by the public and the costs of decomissioning was not included in the wholesale price (approx. $2/MWh according to the IEA).

The “nuclear can’t get insurance” claim is simply a myth!

Oh Diggety, haven’t you stopped banging on about nuclear yet? Could you please be more specific about the Western World’s nuclear insurance. In particular how much of the industry can only exist with government assistance to underwrite the risk.

Any new nuclear discussion came to an abrupt end when the Fukushima event occurred. It’s simply wasted breath to talk about it because it just isn’t going to happen in Australia in the short or medium term future.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

dungfungus said :

I would like to invest in rooftop solar but my house exists in the shadow of a large hill and neighbours’ trees on the Northern side which means I only get about 4 hours of sunlight on the roof during the winter months so I am denied a service which is available to most other Canberrans.
It is not unlike the situation when TransAct kicked off by way of only houses with Actew power poles adjacent could get the service which was only by cable strung from the poles.
The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

What’s unfair is that people who had a spare $5k about 3-4 years ago got a cheap subsidized solar install with drastically inflated feedback tariffs, around double what we pay for electricity now. If you install solar now, you’d be lucky to get half that and if in N.S.W, you only get around 6c/kwH, lucky to be a quarter of what you pay. Solar now takes twice as long to pay off, by which time it is time to replace, so not worth the money you spend. Better off putting it into a high interest savings account, much like where your super money should be going.

Fair comment.

I don’t think it is a fair comment at all. People who invested in solar 3-4 years ago did get higher tariffs, however the cost of solar was significantly higher than it is now. A friend of mine who was a fairly early adopter spent $45k on a 7kW system.
I see it as more like posh cars paving the way with safety features. Sure, the wealthier get the airbags, abs etc. first, but the benefits eventually flow down to everyone.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Like I said years ago, feed in tariffs are problimatic for solar and are not the correct kind of subsidy.

Why are they problematic? What do you think is the correct kind of subsidy? Or do just think that there should be no subsidies?

I think that feed in tariffs, around the world but particularly in Germany, have been hugely successful. It has been the feed in tariffs that have driven demand for Solar PV which in turn has brought the price down quicker that it would otherwise have done.

And now that the price is down the feed in tariffs can be reduced (Green’s position) or eliminated (Labor’s position)… perfect.

The primary reason that FiT subsidies are problematic is because they are ongoing. It locks in 20+ years of subsidies into a contract.

You use Germany as an example, but Germany is becoming a clear case of FiT failure. They have a Trillion+ Euro dollar headache due to PV FiTs at present, it is effecting energy prices to business and residences so much so that it may influence the outcome of their national election. One of the difficulties is that the contracts and financial liabilities have already been signed – it is a locked in problem. Their energy policies in general have resulted in high energy costs and negligible CO2 abatement from the energy sector.

PV cost reductions are not attributable to German PV FiTs. The market price of metallurgical grade silicon (decreased use from electronics) and cheaper manufacture (shift to China, improved fabrication techniques) have been the primary drivers of $/W of PV.

Secondary reasons are:
– $/kWh prices liable for FiTs are inelastic, they do not reflect the $/kWh fluctuating nature of grid prices, nor even the capital cost changes of PV.
– It discourages PV users to install storage, and incentivises grid use. PV users on a FiT have been financially rewarded at the expense of renters and low-income earners due to added PV network distortions. This deprives storage technology of enjoying the economy-of-scale of which it is dependant upon to achieve realistic costs for commercial use.
– An FiT subsidy encourages a mismatched supply-demand profile. People are being paid a subsidy for energy that may not be used and consequently wasted via network spillage.

If PV needs to be subsidized, then a far better subsidy would be to target the capital costs. There are many ways of doing this, my favoured approach would be to provide tax incentives to PV installations – whether that is to the benefit of the PV modules or businesses installing PV or the customer or all of the above, deserves more comprehensive analysis to reach the best outcome.

But in the case of FiTs for PV – it is a shit system. One that politicians, economists, and climate action thinkers are- albeit belatedly – beginning to acknowledge.

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

That’s an outdated claim – privately owned nuclear reactors are insured privately, and in the US they are also legislated to generate a pool of funds in case of an accident. All these costs are included in the wholesale price – and even still nuclear delivers some of the most reliable and low cost energy.

In the case of Sellafield, the reason for the public liability of decommissioning is due to it being owned by the public and the costs of decomissioning was not included in the wholesale price (approx. $2/MWh according to the IEA).

The “nuclear can’t get insurance” claim is simply a myth!

It’s not that simple. The current situation in the US is that privately-obtained insurance covers the first ~$400m worth of liability; the Price-Anderson fund covers up to $112m per existing reactor; and anything above that is still backstopped by the US Government.

The Price-Anderson fund isn’t really a “pool” because the reactor companies don’t pay into it until an accident actually occurs.

IrishPete said :

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

That’s an outdated claim – privately owned nuclear reactors are insured privately, and in the US they are also legislated to generate a pool of funds in case of an accident. All these costs are included in the wholesale price – and even still nuclear delivers some of the most reliable and low cost energy.

In the case of Sellafield, the reason for the public liability of decommissioning is due to it being owned by the public and the costs of decomissioning was not included in the wholesale price (approx. $2/MWh according to the IEA).

The “nuclear can’t get insurance” claim is simply a myth!

wildturkeycanoe said :

dungfungus said :

I would like to invest in rooftop solar but my house exists in the shadow of a large hill and neighbours’ trees on the Northern side which means I only get about 4 hours of sunlight on the roof during the winter months so I am denied a service which is available to most other Canberrans.
It is not unlike the situation when TransAct kicked off by way of only houses with Actew power poles adjacent could get the service which was only by cable strung from the poles.
The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

What’s unfair is that people who had a spare $5k about 3-4 years ago got a cheap subsidized solar install with drastically inflated feedback tariffs, around double what we pay for electricity now. If you install solar now, you’d be lucky to get half that and if in N.S.W, you only get around 6c/kwH, lucky to be a quarter of what you pay. Solar now takes twice as long to pay off, by which time it is time to replace, so not worth the money you spend. Better off putting it into a high interest savings account, much like where your super money should be going.

Fair comment.

arescarti42 said :

dungfungus said :

The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

Solar feed in tariffs are bloody unfair from a social welfare perspective as well.

Who does the subsidy benefit? People who are:

1. Wealthy enough to own a detached house.
2. Have a spare $8k burning a hole in their pocket to blow on PV panels.

If you rent or own a unit (typically poorer households) then you’re excluded from the subsidy. If the cost of the subsidy is recouped through electricity tariffs, then poorer households also bear a greater share of the cost, by virtue of their typically shitty, un-insulated housing requiring more electricity to heat.

I always find it interesting that the Greens never mention this.

+1.

arescarti42 said :

dungfungus said :

The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

Solar feed in tariffs are bloody unfair from a social welfare perspective as well.

Who does the subsidy benefit? People who are:

1. Wealthy enough to own a detached house.
2. Have a spare $8k burning a hole in their pocket to blow on PV panels.

If you rent or own a unit (typically poorer households) then you’re excluded from the subsidy. If the cost of the subsidy is recouped through electricity tariffs, then poorer households also bear a greater share of the cost, by virtue of their typically shitty, un-insulated housing requiring more electricity to heat.

I always find it interesting that the Greens never mention this.

This Green member has always criticised as middle class welfare initiatives like solar PV, or any other that requires a significant upfront cash spend, even if it was later entirely refunded in rebates. The Green Loans initiative was much more defensible but was horribly screwed up by the dysfunctional energy audits initiative.

Many of these initiatives were also specifically designed to exclude social housing, or any rented housing, business premises etc.

Good ideas badly implemented (like the roof insulation).

IP

dungfungus said :

The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

Solar feed in tariffs are bloody unfair from a social welfare perspective as well.

Who does the subsidy benefit? People who are:

1. Wealthy enough to own a detached house.
2. Have a spare $8k burning a hole in their pocket to blow on PV panels.

If you rent or own a unit (typically poorer households) then you’re excluded from the subsidy. If the cost of the subsidy is recouped through electricity tariffs, then poorer households also bear a greater share of the cost, by virtue of their typically shitty, un-insulated housing requiring more electricity to heat.

I always find it interesting that the Greens never mention this.

dungfungus said :

I would like to invest in rooftop solar but my house exists in the shadow of a large hill and neighbours’ trees on the Northern side which means I only get about 4 hours of sunlight on the roof during the winter months so I am denied a service which is available to most other Canberrans.
It is not unlike the situation when TransAct kicked off by way of only houses with Actew power poles adjacent could get the service which was only by cable strung from the poles.
The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

What’s unfair is that people who had a spare $5k about 3-4 years ago got a cheap subsidized solar install with drastically inflated feedback tariffs, around double what we pay for electricity now. If you install solar now, you’d be lucky to get half that and if in N.S.W, you only get around 6c/kwH, lucky to be a quarter of what you pay. Solar now takes twice as long to pay off, by which time it is time to replace, so not worth the money you spend. Better off putting it into a high interest savings account, much like where your super money should be going.

aidan said :

You should have read a bit more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity#Pricing_solar

The costs you quote are generation AT SOURCE. We’re talking about generating electricity at your own home. And we’re also comparing what we can generate it for compared to retail costs. As that link above shows, we’re at grid parity now.

Thanks for the backup above. I leapt straight into my earlier reply without first reading your response too.

aidan said :

The problem is storage. Even someone with a massive PV array can’t generate at night. Essentially the grid for them is just a limitless battery.

Yes, but I don’t see this as a problem… yet. In fact currently it is a good thing (for the environment). By happenstance, solar PV produces the most energy right around the time of peak demand in most locations, so it all gets used and it isn’t wasted. Therefore there isn’t any need for storage in the network just yet.

Instead, solar PV (along with the other renewables and gas) is having a big effect on coal. Because the energy generator companies make most of their profit during the peak demand periods (the wholesale price is at its highest then, and the most energy is being consumed), solar PV, by levelling off the peak bites directly into those profits. Falling profits and decreased demand means that the most inefficient power stations are closing. The following are some of the coal powered power stations that have all closed recently in Australia:

* 1/2 Tarong power station (700MW capacity closed)
* Munmorah power station (600MW)
* Stanwell’s Swanbank B power staion (125MW)
* Playford B (240MW)
* Northern Brown (520 MW)

However in the future, as renewables take more and more of the load then storage is required. In the future the key question is weather renewables can service peak demand alone. As mentioned above, solar PV is already levelling off and removing the evening summer peak, so the biggest challenge is the winter heating requirements. Energy storage will then be the key to managing supply and demand, to smooth output and over periods when there is not much wind and little sun. Existing solutions are:

* Concentrated Solar Thermal with Storage (such as molten salts);
* Existing pumped hydro; and
* Biofas fuelled peaking plants

Modelling by the Australia Energy Market Operator shows that these existing technologies combined should be sufficient.
[Draft Report: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/aemo/renewables-study-report-draft-20130424.pdf (100+ pages)]
[Executive Breifing: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/aemo/renewables-study-summary-draft-pdf.pdf (22 pages)]

aidan said :

The grid owners then have to price access to that grid based on this usage pattern. Currently the cost of the grid is mostly subsumed into the price per kWh. This model is fast becoming broken. Rather than fix it properly and price access to the grid based on what it actually costs to provide the grid they have chosen to play silly buggers and make it as unattractive as possible to install solar PV.

I agree, but their playing silly buggers wont work. Roof top solar PV is unstoppable now. my argument to support this claim follows:

The grid owners have massively over invested in infrastructure. They have been taken completely by surprise by a) the effect of solar PV in reducing peak demand; and b) reduced overall demand from more efficient energy use and to a smaller extend reduced manufacturing in Australia. The billions of dollars of over investment still needs to be paid for, and that is why we have seen such large price rises on electricity bills.

And this brings us to a tipping point:

1) Solar PV is at or better than Grid parity now.
2) The price of grid electricity keeps going up
3) Therefore people install more solar PV
4) Increased solar PV reduces demand for grid electricity
4) Generators still need to cover their investment costs and will try to maintain their profits so they have to increase their prices even more
5) Increased solar PV also further reduces the cost of solar PV;
6) Repeat

The above halts once the storage issue you raised comes into effect.

The coal power industry is a dinosaur going extinct – they are only just starting to realise it
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/is-the-coal-industry-gaining-a-sense-of-its-own-mortality-72756

I would like to invest in rooftop solar but my house exists in the shadow of a large hill and neighbours’ trees on the Northern side which means I only get about 4 hours of sunlight on the roof during the winter months so I am denied a service which is available to most other Canberrans.
It is not unlike the situation when TransAct kicked off by way of only houses with Actew power poles adjacent could get the service which was only by cable strung from the poles.
The householders in Canberra with undergound power connecting their homes were therefore subsidizing the ones that were accessing the others with poles who could get the TransAct service.
Bloody unfair I reckon.

IrishPete said :

When talking about subsidies, can we please ensure we are including all the direct and indirect subsidies to coal, gas and nuclear industries, so we comparing like with like?

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

For coal and gas some of the subsidies are more obvious – the diesel fuel rebate to miners being the most obvious and well-known, but RiotACTers can probably provide a much longer list.

IP

Actually I just tried to find a list of those subsidies, but I couldn’t find any really good analysis on it. The Greens policy is to remove the following subsidies:

* Diesel fuel tax rebates – $7.95 billion over four years;
* Accelerated depreciation on assets – $1.85 billion over four years; and
* Accelerated depreciation on exploration – $4.05 billion over four years.

But I don’t know where they got their figures from. If anyone does know can they please post link(s).

When talking about subsidies, can we please ensure we are including all the direct and indirect subsidies to coal, gas and nuclear industries, so we comparing like with like?

For nuclear, I think one of the biggest subsidies is that government provides the insurance of last resort, as the private sector won’t touch it with a barge pole; as far as I know, government has also been paying for decommissioning (what a layperson would cal cleaning up the mess), tens of billions for Sellafield/Windscale in England.

For coal and gas some of the subsidies are more obvious – the diesel fuel rebate to miners being the most obvious and well-known, but RiotACTers can probably provide a much longer list.

IP

I like that headline. Too many puns are barely enough.

Martlark said :

Solar PV is the most expensive. We should be installing gas combined cycle instead and use the savings for something more environmentally useful. Australian figures are on that page as well and show much the same.

Are you comparing cost per mwh at the generation source or at the site of consumption? The advantage of small solar is that the 2 things are the same. With generators, you lose massive amounts of energy in transmitting it between the generator and the home, which losses obviously don’t occur when the generator is at the home.

Martlark said :

howeph said :

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong….[solar power industry quotes]……

WRONG.

From wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]:

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

US dollars per megawatt hour for new generating plants which are likely for Australia.

Coal – 99.6
Gas – 68.6
Biomass – 120.2
Wind – 96.8
Solar PV – 156.9

Solar PV is the most expensive. We should be installing gas combined cycle instead and use the savings for something more environmentally useful. Australian figures are on that page as well and show much the same.

So I read your link (did you read the ones that I provided?) and… you are still wrong, and your link proves it.

First regarding the table of figures you posted; Wikepedia says (just above the table) : “Photovoltaics (solar PV) can be used both by distributed residential or commercial users and utility scale power plants. The costs shown are for utility scale photovoltaic power plants.”

I.e. if you want to make a big utility power station then Solar PV is still more expense (i.e. wholesale) where as the article that we are discussing is ROOF TOP SOLAR. In which case Solar PV is at or better than parity now.

Further, under the section titled “Photovoltaics” it goes on to say:

Photovoltaic prices have fallen from $76.67/Watt in 1977 to an estimated $0.74/Watt in 2013, for crystalline silicon solar cells. This is seen as evidence supporting Swanson’s law, an observation similar to the famous Moore’s Law that states that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.

As of 2011, the price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60% since the summer of 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in a number of sunny countries; an alternative and consistent price decline figure of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published, though it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or generally global. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from PV is competitive with conventional electricity sources in an expanding list of geographic regions, particularly when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night. There has been fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years. As time progresses, renewable energy technologies generally get cheaper, while fossil fuels generally get more expensive.
…
As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further.

I think that you have been rather selective in your quoting.

As I said, only a few years ago you would have been correct, solar PV was expensive. However it isn’t any more.

Martlark said :

howeph said :

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong….[solar power industry quotes]……

WRONG.

From wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]:

You should have read a bit more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity#Pricing_solar

The costs you quote are generation AT SOURCE. We’re talking about generating electricity at your own home. And we’re also comparing what we can generate it for compared to retail costs. As that link above shows, we’re at grid parity now.

The problem is storage. Even someone with a massive PV array can’t generate at night. Essentially the grid for them is just a limitless battery. The grid owners then have to price access to that grid based on this usage pattern. Currently the cost of the grid is mostly subsumed into the price per kWh. This model is fast becoming broken. Rather than fix it properly and price access to the grid based on what it actually costs to provide the grid they have chosen to play silly buggers and make it as unattractive as possible to install solar PV.

Diggety said :

Like I said years ago, feed in tariffs are problimatic for solar and are not the correct kind of subsidy.

Why are they problematic? What do you think is the correct kind of subsidy? Or do just think that there should be no subsidies?

I think that feed in tariffs, around the world but particularly in Germany, have been hugely successful. It has been the feed in tariffs that have driven demand for Solar PV which in turn has brought the price down quicker that it would otherwise have done.

And now that the price is down the feed in tariffs can be reduced (Green’s position) or eliminated (Labor’s position)… perfect.

Can anyone describe what the ACT Liberal’s position on the feed in tariffs is? That we shouldn’t have done anything… that the market will fix it?

Diggety said :

Large scale solar projects are unlikley to go ahead or be bogged down by budget over runs.

Maybe, maybe not. Are these reasons to do nothing?

howeph said :

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong….[solar power industry quotes]……

WRONG.

From wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]:

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

US dollars per megawatt hour for new generating plants which are likely for Australia.

Coal – 99.6
Gas – 68.6
Biomass – 120.2
Wind – 96.8
Solar PV – 156.9

Solar PV is the most expensive. We should be installing gas combined cycle instead and use the savings for something more environmentally useful. Australian figures are on that page as well and show much the same.

Martlark said :

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity.

Wrong.

Not so many years ago you would have been correct but Solar PV has show a staggering decline in cost, and it is set to keep on getting cheaper:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-solar-powers-massive-cost-drop-57442

Solar PV is at Grid Parity now. (Grid Parity is when the cost of solar electricity – without subsidies – is equal to or lower than the residential electricity rate):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/solar-industry-celebrates-grid-parity/2875592

Cost of solar PV will continue to fall as efficiency goes up and cost of production goes down. Some are predicting wholesale grid parity by 2020:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solars-path-to-wholesale-grid-parity-by-2020-2020

Martlark said :

The only good part is that people feel ‘nice’ about having panels on their roofs.

Wrong again.

Rooftop solar PV is only just getting started, but already it is having a measurable impact and starting to worry the traditional power generators:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/whos-afraid-of-solar-pv-38844

what about transmission losses?

The current pricing model for electricity providers is broken. They are trying to patch over it, but in the end they’ll have to adopt a different charging model where a realistic price is paid for the access to the network. That price will have to depend on the capacity of that connection to the network.

Of course they’re shit scared of doing this, as it would then look more attractive to be “off-grid”.

The supposed “subsidies” to solar PV installations pale into insignificance compared to the subsidy for those using reverse cycle air-con on hot summer days. $7000 dollars worth of grid infrastructure for every $1500 air con installed.

Read http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-hidden-cost-of-infinite-energy-part-1/19/

It’s an eye opener.

I’m forever into actew for their continual waste of money but the gas plant was a good idea. It was a shame they were trying to instal it amongst the nimby population and not somewhere else where it could have gone ahead.

It would have been a great project for Canberra and satisfied out demand for power.

Like I said years ago, feed in tariffs are problimatic for solar and are not the correct kind of subsidy.

Large scale solar projects are unlikley to go ahead or be bogged down by budget over runs.

Solar power is among the most expensive ways of producing electricity. The only good part is that people feel ‘nice’ about having panels on their roofs.

I am not sure how any of these solar installation companies are still managing to stay in business, I would think that once this next 2 weeks is over with there will be a lot fewer house owners looking to install solar.

I wonder who would pick up the warranty work on systems that have been installed with long warranties, when the installing companies go belly up?

Put another way, Shane says rooftop solar doesn’t cost much and doesn’t annoy any neighbours, or at worst annoys everyone a tiny little little bit, and Simon says screw the neighbours we’ll put scores of acres of solar panels and associated heavy infrastructure wherever we want. Royalla residents are right to be nervous that this man is in charge of the solar farm across the road from them… He madeup his mind long before the DA was submitted.

IP