ACTEW to push back on Solar plan

It’s called a “feed-in tariff” and is in no way a “bizarre plan” as it has been used to great effect in Germany to stimulate investment in the solar manufacturing industry.

The idea is to give certainty to consumers if they invest in solar cells, driving up demand and thus supply to fill that demand, and eventually gaining economies of scale in the industry as it matures and the relative price of the product falls. The feed-in tariff is then reduced or withdrawn.

Think of it as a way to help a new industry develop, because just like historical import-export trade tariffs which protected our industries, that’s what it will do.

Google it and see.

We need to incentivise the uptake of renewable generation and efficiency measures because coal currently DOES NOT PAY FOR ITS POLLUTION AND NEVER HAS (ie. a classic market failure).

I might just stick a gas tube up my ass and start eating baked beans. Surely I can sell the excess gas to the gas supply grid?

This is a great idea and I hope the Liberals back it to show some leadership on the issue.

However, 1kw panels? What a fracking joke!

Lets make a serious dent in global warming and not some token lip service to the issue. Look at what a normal Canberra house needs for its energy needs per day:

fridge
TV
lights in several rooms at once (kids et al studying)
one or two spot electric heaters
computer
games console
oven
electric range
water heater

plus the non essestials like dishwasher, but “every” new home/unit has one
clothes drier.

I bet (I stand correcte) you would need around 4kw of daylight power to run a house.

Therefore the ACTEW rebate should not kick-in unless a large panel is installed.

Oh I will give short shrift those those electricity nazies who find comfort having a $0 power bill, huddled around their 11W energy efficient globe.

Finally, it is not all about solar panels. Mike Genetleman would also encourage the installation of micro wind turbines on roof tops.

OK maybe not final, but the planning laws would have to be changed to allow, with no bloody restrictions, panels on street side roof and wind turbines above the roof line. Did you know that it is still illegal to have an antenae visible from the street?

Dr. Ralph, calculators and gadgets?
Well, it is projected that in the not too far future the German renewable energy market will supersede the German car industry.
I mean, considering that Germany isn’t really famous for its cars, this might not be big news…. And I mean, Australia could never compete with the amount of sunshine that central Europe gets!
There is also 250 000 jobs in that industry (a lot, considering the noise that Kevin Rudd makes about 20 000 coal jobs in Queensland).
So who is saying that it is ‘just near’ the tech hump? You haven’t been reading the same 80s pamphlets that propagate Vic Bitterman referred to?

Yeah, huge market potential, with massive amounts of public subsidies.

40-50 years, and they’re still saying this stuff is just near the technological hump.

Calculators and gadgets, nothing more.

Yes, let the market speak! Unfortunately, both Americans and Germans have discovered the huge market potential of renewable energy, while Australia is way behind.
Just a pity that the Libs and Labour are blocking this huge potential with their ideological ballast. Funny, this is the kind of thing that they usually hang on the Left: Ideology before profit!

And yes, caf is 100% spot on. The myth that production of panels uses a lot more energy than they will ever produce was built on figures from the highly technological 80s. Same time when 64 kb of ram made a kick ass computer.

You are right, I don’t care about AGW, it is a non-issue. I only care about real, measureable, environmental problems.

Your continued personal insults, calling anybody who challenges you a retard, dipshit etc do you no credit at all.

You think I don’t know that Woody?

No, I know you know it – I just think you don’t care. That makes you a special kind of retard – you’re willfully and deliberately ignorant in the face of the facts.

Don’t underestimate Ralph.

Yeah, I take everybody who talks about themselves in the third person seriously.

I’m off finalising a PhD at the moment, how’s yours coming along?

Great – I need another APS6 to carry my briefs.

Of course, Jon would have to stop using his ‘magic finger’, the one that puts a memorial wherever his finger stops.

Maybe govco could give consumers the option of paying for (all or part of) the solar panels, and enjoying the $$ return from the electricity being onsold, or pay a small rental fee for people’s roofs, install the solar panels and keep the $$ return for themself.

I’m all for the free market, but I think that govco needs to set up some sensible parameters for this market to operate within. If they could do that, they could have a winner on their hands, especially if they could get enough people to have solar panels so that we didn’t actually buy in much power. Canberra has a high number of average sunny days per year, so we are well placed to make something like this work.

Let the investigation begin…

The same article states that the units pay for themselves in 20 years (aprehensively). Any Government with a sense of responsibility to the environment that goes further than lipservice would be installing them for free.

I call this the ‘Don’t pay for the electrickery you use, and we’ll farm the roof of your house.’ concept.

You think I don’t know that Woody? Don’t underestimate Ralph. What you also fail to mention is that there are optimal rates of pollution, given the environment’s assimilative capacity. Different types of pollution also have different damage functions as well, requiring different responses.

The damage function for the AGW devil that you fantasise about is actually relatively flat compared to real environmental problems like hazardous waste.

I’m off finalising a PhD at the moment, how’s yours coming along?

This is only semi-related to the topic at hand…. I stumbled across a fascinating site the other week, which explained how the Australian electricity grid works and how each power company ‘bids’ for power based uypon what they anticipate their customers will use…

So Actew et al, don’t just buy power from the generators at $x, they bid on ‘parcels’ of electricity in a similar fashion to shares on the stock market….

Info here : http://www.powerworks.com.au/info.asp

Ralph, your beloved market fails dismally when it comes to environmental damage. Producers pass on the cost of production, plus a profit margin – who pays for the damage? Not you, that’s for sure. I’m still amazed you work at Treasury with such a poor grasp of simple economics. As for a free society – how delusional are you? You think you should be free to fsck over the planet and get away with it?

just look at housing

Yes, it makes perfect sense that because some governments have sometimes made poor judgements about interventions in one sector, all government should never intervene in any sector. Look at the government’s intervention with solar power in Germany – now they’re sitting on a squillion dollar industry with hundreds of extra jobs and buckets of green power.

Woody, Its bizarre as i didnt think it proven that solar was any more efficient than any other renewable energy source, so why this one?

Because it’s suitable for mass rollout at the point where energy is consumed, unlike wave or geothermal power? Because it’s unobtrusive, unlike wind power? Because expert research shows that investment now will give enormous payouts later? Because an identical program in Germany worked wonders?

It typically takes more energy to manufacture a solar panel than the solar panel can collect during its life.

We’ve solved our energy problems. You’re a walking methane plant, you talk so much shit.

As for instantaneous gas – go for it. It’s a much better option than solar hot water in Canberra. Save your money and spend some of it on green electricity instead. Nothing like dialing a perfect 42oC shower ;).

I’m sure there are more than 80 houses with solar in
Canberra – or does it mean solar linked back to the grid?

I’ve lived in 3 houses in Canberra with solar – it is fantastic. Our gas bills in summer were about 3.00 (and 30.00 supply fee).

We are currently installing a new hot water system. We looked at solar and found it to be very expensive to install initially and only under warrenty to -6 degrees after which solar panels have a tendency to crack. This makes it not so flash in Canberra which regularly drops below -6 in winter. At this point you still require some sort of back up system eg instant gas hot water, which is only slightly less efficient and costs heaps less.

any fee/levy which is not related to cost recovery is a tax.

whoops, guess i was wrong. I dont have one handy to check.

we’re arguing semantics though. Does it really matter who the company is who charges the additional levy.

Are you sure? Mine are on letterhead with “ActewAGL” in the top right hand corner and issued by “ActewAGL Retail”. Not to mention that the quotes in the linked CT article are from people working for ActewAGL.

I’m interested whether this proposed scheme would apply to any electricity retailer operating in the ACT, or just ActewAGL?

my electricity bill has actew on it, not actew agl so thats good enough for me.

I would also bet that actew as the holding company set finacial targets that its subsidiary companies must meet and therefore arent likely to wear the cost of the increased tariff.

Firstly, why can’t we have a little accuracy in our reporting of articles.

ACTEW Corporation is a holding company.

ACTEWAGL is a 50%/50% partnership between ACTEW and AGL.

ACTEWAGL has decided they are not happy with the ACT Govts. plan not ACTEW.

We don’t refer to Wesfarmers when we are deriding Bunnings so why do we do it with ACTEW.

If you can’t understand the difference between the 2 companies then you should be commenting in this discussion.

taking your idea further ralph consider this as a bit of stick and carrot incentive scheme

1. Set a Carbon tax on non renewable/dirty electricity sources.
2. Offer non means tested, no interest loans for those interested in using renewable energy sources such as solar panels or wind power etc..

Govt/ACTEW then offsets the cost of the no interest loans against the increased revenue from carbon tax while making it more attractive for consumers to go to cleaner energy source. Joe Average uses the savings in energy costs on his power bill in the short term to pay off the installation.

sorry to disappoint you mutley. its actually selma’s long lost brother in law, freidrick august .

not nearly as cute

Where does Selma Hayek come into this?

mmm Selma Hayek……..

I think i’d get it, but only if i was doing a new build and could optimise the orientation of the house.
I’m not sure i could be stuffed retrofitting my current house

I don’t think Hayek is relevant here, makes perfect sense for public goods, but we already have energy markets, and no case has been made as to why solar should receive special treatment.

Carbon tax, then let the market decide.

‘People shouldn’t be forced into paying for something that they don’t want.’

normally i’d agree with this, but a person with any familiarity in hayekian economics understands that sometimes there is an overriding need for a govt to exercise this form of control for greater societal good. hayek is specific about it being when its uneconomic for private capital to invest in such a venture.

id be happy for every suburban roof in canberrs sprawling poorly designed suburbs to have a solar array on it. it might defray the power gobbled by the following unnecesary household items: plasma tv’s, dishwashers, clothes dryers, air-conditioners etc.

bring it on.

VY (and others), I will restate something I have said before: the idea that solar photovoltaics don’t ever repay the energy used to manufacture them is a myth (but a fairly persistent one). Research on the subject is not hard to find – see this FAQ published by the US DOE, and the papers it references, as a starting point.

Energy payback periods for solar PV installations are in the order of 3 years (for comparison, the energy payback period for a nuclear power station is around 2 years).

However, I would like to say that I agree that artifically pricing solar energy is not the right solution – though perhaps a case could be made for it as an interim measure until a carbon pricing mechanism is in place.

Electricity markets are strange things – grid-connected electricity is virtually worthless for 23 hours and 30 minutes a day, and horrendously expensive for the other 30 minutes.

Before crowing on about how environmentally friendly solar energy is, do some research about the energy cost of producing the solar panels in the first place. It typically takes more energy to manufacture a solar panel than the solar panel can collect during its life. Typically, the superficial is held up by the greenies – how about some real ideas?

All I am saying is if there is some sort of market failure concerning global warming, then put a carbon tax in place, and let the market decide what is economic.

just look at housing. the more govts artificially meddle with the natural market the more unbalanced it becomes and the more meddling it requires to get it back in balance.

Woody, Its bizarre as i didnt think it proven that solar was any more efficient than any other renewable energy source, so why this one?

Btw,Coal is also a renewable energy source. eventually

We live in a free society Woody, something that Marxist-greens grapple with. People shouldn’t be forced into paying for something that they don’t want.

Coal and nuclear are clearly more economic, and efficient. Your beloved clean energy costs more to produce, you should pay that premium if you choose to accept it.

No, Government’s shouldn’t be manipulating any markets, that’s where they mess things up in a big way.

Exactly what are the market’s interests anyway? Presently cheap coal and predisposition for that reveals that is exactly what the majority of consumers want.

And I loved this gem from the article:

“Why should other consumers who don’t want to put solar power in have to pay?”

Because the amount you charge for coal-fired electricity isn’t a real reflection of its costs, dip5hit – just its immediate costs to you, plus a profit margin. A more useful question is “why shouldn’t my clean, green, renewable energy be an order of magnitude more valuable than your dirty, wasteful, damaging energy? Any why shouldn’t governments step in to manipulate the market when the market’s interests are counter to those of the community in the long term?”

Indeed, pouring taxpayers money into something that hasn’t become economic beyond calculators and other assorted miscellaneous gadjets.

Why is this bizarre? It worked perfectly in Germany. (Cue Nazi jokes)