The price of smug

“If a coal fired power plant was required to plant all the trees needed to soak up the carbon it was to produce over it’s 40+ year lifespan upfront, then I think we would start to establish exactly how “cheap” coal power is…”

Coal fired plants don’t produce carbon – coal is carbon. They produce carbon dioxide, an essential trace gas in the atmosphere, without which all plant life (and therefore all other life) would perish.

There is no evidence that modern coal fired plants do any damage to ‘the environment’ or human life whatsoever. There are a bunch of PlayStation (c) garbage in/garbage out models which claim to predict the future climate – not that they can reproduce past climate using the same variables, or even agree with each other.

SV and windmills are just rorts on taxpayers and consumers, courtesy of panicked politicians using our money to make life’s essentials more expensive.

Let us acknowledge that fossil fuel based power is subsidised too, both directly i.e. governments investing money to upgrade infrastructure – rail lines carrying coal, and transmission lines, and also indirectly, in that coal fired power plants are able to ‘externalise’ costs, to the environment, to the health of people, etc.

If a coal fired power plant was required to plant all the trees needed to soak up the carbon it was to produce over it’s 40+ year lifespan upfront, then I think we would start to establish exactly how “cheap” coal power is…

Common Sense said :

Gungahlin Al, I’m with JB on this one. Stop imposing your lefty green ideology on the good people of Gungahlin and move to the inner north with the rest of your lecturing self satisfied mates.

Erm, JB lives in the inner north, what if GA moved next door to him, haha.

Many years ago, when Australia had a Labor Government worthy of respect, I had the interesting but mixed fortune to work in an area that provided funding for ‘alternative energy’ r & d. Everything from remote area solar electricity to massive coal-to-oil plants (remember, this was before greenhouse gases became an issue). Despite the diversity, when the proponents argued their case to us, they all used a phrase that has stuck with me ever since- ‘ It only needs a subsidy to make it economic’.

Seems nothing’s changed in almost 30 years. In the absence of (or in place of) fundamental reform and restructuring, politicians want initiatives to make it look as if they are doing something. And their initiatives may have a positive effect, but they will rarely be the most cost-effective option. Domestic PV is a very expensive way to achieve greenhouse gas objectives.

Breda + 1

luke79 said :

The government should have thrown all the money at the electricity companies to research cleaner and greener energy. It would have been cheaper for all involved and the technology would have been much better.

What’s there to research. Brand new nuclear power plants are available and can provide the power we require now and into the future.
And before everyone goes all Midnight Oils on me, yes I have done the research, yes I would live next to a Nuclear Facility and allow my children to grow two heads and no Chernobyl doesn’t scare me as the accident was caused by a mismanaged electrical engineering experiment.
So as long as the facility is managed within its capacity and maintenance of the facility is kept up to date you would expect to be able to use the facility for decades.

For a moment there, this thread was starting to read like the anti-woodsmoke nazis, but then common sense returned and we all started arguing amongst ourselves again.

To all the posters explaining how it ‘pays for itself’ – no, it doesn’t. Other electricity users pay for it.

PV solar costs around 4 times as much to generate as baseload power. Because it is intermittent, and cannot be stored efficiently, exactly the same amount of baseload capacity has to be in place.

We pay for it twice – firstly as taxpayers (via government subsidies for installation) and then as consumers (subsidising those with solar panels while still copping the full cost of baseload generation and distribution).

It is a feelgood rort promoted by politicians using Other People’s Money – that would be ours. Since it does not affect baseload power requirements, it has virtually no effect on carbon dioxide emissions (even if you believe that matters a rat’s). And, the environmental cost of manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining solar panels – which mainly come from China – never seems to get into the equation.

I don’t agree that “only the rich can afford solar”, but not withstanding this, the air we breathe knows no boundaries between (say) Yarralumla and Canberra’s outer suburbs.

Bring on Nuclear.

So what’s the motivation to to put PVs on ones roof? Is it economic or environmental?
A dollar generated in our society as far as I can tell produces about 500grams of CO2
The fact is a small system costs about $12K regardless of the rebate and it’s electricity production is subsidised by others requiring a greater production CO2. And what if the system is purchased on credit? even more CO2 is generated. It’s seems to me to be a false ‘Carbon economy’
The only way to cut our carbon emissions is to cut our consumption.

Interestingly, it’s not the ‘rich’ that seemed to be going for this scheme, but rather middle income households. Driving around really wealthy suburbs, you don’t see a lot of solar panels.

As with the comment regarding greenchoice, I think you’d find most households that have made the investment in solar have also carefully reviewed their overall household energy usage as well. We have solar PV and also solar hot water and have made all sorts of other efforts to reduce energy costs.

johnboy said :

Well you have to own the house first Al.

Where by “own” you mean “be living in a house that we’ll be buying off the bank for the next 30 years”, right?

And $4k is a lot of money for most of us untermenschen.

Origin do a package deal of solar hot water + PV system for $1000 up front, they take future payments out of your feed-in profits. If you’re replacing an electric hot water system, this investment will pay itself off in about four years. Assuming, of course, that you actually turn things off when you’re not using them (ie: don’t leave your X-Box and TV on ‘standby’ for the 23 hours of the day that you’re not using them).

You don’t need to be rich, you just need to be self-motivated enough to lift the phone and call Origin Energy or The Solar Shop.

Agree with you in principle, JB, though it is funny how this sort of criticism is rarely made in relation to people who are “wealthy” enough to afford investment properties and who enjoy government subsidy of their investment through negative gearing – which costs the taxpayer about $5 billion per year in lost tax revenue. I’m sure that would work out to at be well in excess of $225 per Australian household per year.

perhaps all the people who can’t participate cost effectively (renters, apartment owners, low income high density) should be exempt from being forced to contribute to the subsidisation of people that can and do.

It is also quite obvious that not ‘everybody’ could actually participate, if they did there wouldn’t be enough people left to pay for the subsidy, as they’ve discovered in NSW.

Most people who are doing this have already bought green choice energy, and have already made a decision to ‘flick a few switches’ to reduce power where possible.

(No I have got solar feed-in, but I dont’ begrudge the people who have.)

I don’t consider us to be ‘wealthy’ we are on average incomes with a small young family. It is wrong just to say those that are buying their own homes are ‘wealthy’.

I recognise that this solar panel option is a good one and seriously considering it. My electricty bill will be covered plus a little bit extra from the feed in tarrif, so why not? This means the system pays for itself within 4 years.

Before seriously looking into it I assumed it was out reach for us but it makes sense. It will also add value to our house when it comes to sell or rent out.

Cleo I recall the French having something to say in 1789 about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

When you are doing your sums for a PV system it is probably best to reduce your final output figures by at least 25%… for a 1.5kw system, a much cheaper and ‘greener’ alternative would be to cut your electricity useage, it is as easy flicking a few switches off.

The whole grid connect solar industry is about to go balls up pretty soon as the economic truths start to appear. The governments are throwing huge amounts of money at these things for very little in the way of results, I cant see how it can continue.

Energy companies are struggling with the technology also. Much like the home insulation scheme, the rush to ‘do something’ has caused the problems. Much more research needed to be done before everything was rolled out on a large scale. Rising line voltage on the networks is big problem. There are also big issues when a storm rolls in and all the PV systems drop out, that then creates a sudden and big drain on the generators which they can’t cope with.
Financially the PV systems are more or less bending over the electricity companies and giving it to them.. The price we pay for electricity isnt just the generating costs, infact the majority of the tariff goes on network costs (maintenance etc.).
For electricity companies, buying electricity at retail prices is crazy and they need to recover costs, so prices rise and everyone else has to cover the costs.

It is my understanding that what the world needs is a reduction in energy use, PV systems do not reduce energy consumption. Alternative energy generation is important but grid connect PV systems are not the solution, infact they are proving to be more of a problem than a benefit. The government should have thrown all the money at the electricity companies to research cleaner and greener energy. It would have been cheaper for all involved and the technology would have been much better.

lower income earners got a much greater rebate from teh ACT govt.

We can’t just continue on our merry way and do nothing about polution and diminishing resources. The nay-sayers never have any better ideas.

It seems it is nimbyism to not want drastic changes to one’s suburb, or night time noise, but changes to ones lifestyle of high energy consumption are sacrosanct.

johnboy said :

Well you have to own the house first Al.

And $4k is a lot of money for most of us untermenschen.

I think you missed the point JB. Sure you do need to have your own house. But given that, the sums show that you do not need $4000. You need $0. You can finance the lot. And to NOT do so represents an opportunity COST to you of $500pa.

As for people renting, I am trying to get a community-based solar co-op off the ground into which people without their own homes can invest small (or large) amounts. Just need Simon Corbell to talk with us about a bit of dirt to start it on.

It woudln’t be so bad if there was an “opt out” option.

Please tick one box.

[ ]I am a wealthy person with a Solar feed-in system, please include me in the tarrif.

[ ] I am a misguided hippy who thinks this may in some way be “Green” and “better for the environment” please charge me more money for my electricity.

[ ] I don’t read papers, use the internet, or watch the TV news, please rip me off unmericfully for my electricity and give my money to rich people.

[ ] Pay a tarrif? Get stuffed.

Gungahlin Al said :

So DS, exactly how rich is it that one must be to participate in this scheme???

As per johnboy… Rich enough to own a house with appropriate roof area and have $4k spare cash.

I would also point out that at $1000 generation return, you are generating ~2000kWh/year. For comparison you could have instead connected to ACTEWs Green Choice 5 plan for a cost of $130 a year which would generate a roughly equivalent 1825kWh green energy/year. It would take 30 years on this plan before matching your original outlay cost.

Also re your point on a carbon tax… yes it will force up the prices of things, but it will do so in a far more cost effective way than a disortionary government subsidized PV scheme.

I honestly apologize for dissecting your case so specifically, but your post *exactly* proves the points I was making originally.

Not that I support it, but at least this scheme has some redeeming social and environmental value, however insignificant.

If you want something really outrageous, how much is Stanhope’s generous donation of our money to the football industry costing us?

Gungahlin Al, I’m with JB on this one. Stop imposing your lefty green ideology on the good people of Gungahlin and move to the inner north with the rest of your lecturing self satisfied mates.

I don’t know JohnBoy, a lot of the not ‘rich’ seem to find $4k for big screen TVs!!!

As with all these types of schemes, people from all walks of life and all kinds of outlooks have been getting on board with solar.

The argument about using Greenchoice energy instead doesn’t really cut it as from what I’ve seen, the people who really are concerned about CO2 go solar AND also Greenchoice.

It’s a shame that this scheme is a victim of its own success, but there’ll be a time in the not too distant future when a feed-in solar scheme that sells at the same price as the buy price will still be a viable option. Many of the bigger systems (or smaller energy footprint households) are at the break even point where the energy produced through the day by the PV system is equal or greater than a household’s consumption. PV systems are getting cheaper every year.

johnboy said :

Well you have to own the house first Al.

And $4k is a lot of money for most of us untermenschen.

I won’t pretend to know what that means, but some of us (a lot of us) that feel like money is a hot potato, can agree with that.

Well you have to own the house first Al.

And $4k is a lot of money for most of us untermenschen.

DeadlySchnauzer said :

a scheme that essentially pours money into the pockets of rich PV owners, regardless of the actual environmental impact they are having.

So only rich people can access this, heh?

I have priced a quality 1.5kW system using hybrid thin film panels.

The sums go like this:
System, inverter and ACTEW meter residual cost of $3850 after RECs (on a corro roof – add $300-ish for tiles).
Our annual power consumption approximately $1000.
Annual system revenue generation approximately $1000 (so that netts out – for the first year anyway). Fixed at 47.5 cents/kWhr for 20 years.
Annual repayments on 100% personal loan on the residual installation cost, over 10 years: approximately $500.
Therefore annual related cashflow position: improved by $500, reducing as power bills go up.

So DS, exactly how rich is it that one must be to participate in this scheme???

For pete’s sake, you are quick to fall for the same sort of fear-mongering and incomplete information that has seen the NSW FIT decimated.

For starters, there is no mention here that it was a projected rise over the next 10 years. How much does the annual compounding inflation factor into that, for starters?

Yes power bills will cost more. But have you stopped to ask what the comparable increase would be if we were to continue to rely on greenhouse-unfriendly electricity generation? Or the costs that would be passed on by ACTEW AGL for upgrading its connections to the national grid, or of building that gas-fired power station they have been talking about?

And then there are the costs that would result from the inevitable carbon pricing – the purpose of which is to realise that dirty power has not to date met the full impost it has on our society and environment.

All these costs would be passed on to ACT consumers in exactly the same way that ACTEW has been jacking up water costs to pass on the capital expenses of building the Cotter Dam extension and the Googong Pipeline.

My point is that we are all going to get much more expensive electricity over the next 10 years. We can pay more for making it clean energy, or we can pay more for keeping it dirty energy. I know which I prefer.

People (and the local Liberal party in their delight at the prospect of replicating the NSW situation, and bugger the cost to society) need to look at the entire picture, rather than going off half cocked at half the picture.

I thought it was about free electricity and increased house value.

DS +1

“Better get rich or die trying, because the new green economy is going to be hell for little people.”

Yes it will be. This is the tip of the iceberg.

“Gross” feed in tariffs are a massive economic and environmental distortion because they compensate heavy energy users and light energy users equally.

“Base cost + bonus” feed in tariffs are a massive economic and environmental distortion because they compensate energy creators more than the actual economic and environmental benefits of the energy they create.

The ACT feed-in tariff scheme has both these distortionary features, creating a scheme that essentially pours money into the pockets of rich PV owners, regardless of the actual environmental impact they are having.

And finally, residential PV installation is probably *the least* efficient and cost effective way to cut CO2 emissions. You may feel all warm and fuzzy with those PV panels on your roof, but for a fraction of the cost you could have cut your CO2 emissions just as much by signing up to a green energy power supply scheme. At $225 per household, the government could have instead *almost* paid for all of Canberra to be connected to industrial scale green energy from existing suppliers.

/end rant

that’s the plan of the “green economy”. it’s all about taking every last dollar from the battler and letting the rich get richer. if the whole “global warming” thing was for real, they should start with industry, not civilians

Solar feed-in tariffs, 40% carbon emission reduction, no plastic bags, gay marriage, etc…

The price of indulging Simon Corbell’s desperate attempt to be bigger progressive lefty than the Greens.

Meanwhile electricity and water costs go up, his jail is a joke and the courts are a mess under his administration as Attorney General.

What’s new? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!