24 May 2012

Auction time for the solar power plant

| johnboy
Join the conversation
39

Simon Corbell has let us know the 22 shortlisted proposals for a solar power plant in the ACT are going to auction.

The first 20 megawatts of production will be awarded in August.

Join the conversation

39
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

rosscoact said :

That’s pretty funny using a journalist as a source. Nice work

pfft, journalists!, with all their ‘quotes’ from ‘experts’ that they name. A much better source is some old man posting about stuff that he’s heard of without any reference whatsoever.

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

or you could ask gungahlin al but he seems to have shut up about this since the article came out. oh well.

Martlark said :

rosscoact said :

solar electricity operates at its best at peak times. peak time is also when electricity is at its most expensive and where the fossil fuel energy suppliers make huge profits

Not true for Canberra.

Electricity demand and solar power production statistics for Canberra, as reported by G. Downie (CT 2012), show that the peak demand for electricity and the peak power production for solar power do not coincide.

The last few days of freezing cloudy days would have resulted in huge demand for electric heating and a likely near zero solar power production.

That’s pretty funny using a journalist as a source. Nice work

Martlark said :

Electricity demand and solar power production statistics for Canberra, as reported by G. Downie (CT 2012), show that the peak demand for electricity and the peak power production for solar power do not coincide.

The last few days of freezing cloudy days would have resulted in huge demand for electric heating and a likely near zero solar power production.

See, your (rather vague) reference is a reference to some journalist’s scribblings. Your second assertion is utterly unsupported by any kind of reference.

Downie is not an economist nor an engineer. Whatever he writes will suffer from the usual journalistic immunity to numeracy, understanding of science, and phobia of careful analysis, hampering his interpretation of primary sources, if he has even read any of those.

How about some hard facts and primary sources?

For example, here is a scholarly article which attempts to answer that question for the UK in relation to Wind Power:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421505002752

“…during peak demand periods, the capacity factor of wind power in the UK is around 30% higher than the annual average capacity factor.”

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

yet you rubbish any discussion about sustainable transport options in the ACT.
……

You have made a million-and-one excuses as to why cycling is not an option in Canberra,.

This isn’t true. I just respond to stuff I read here which is wrong.
On cycling, the reality is this isn’t Holland, so stop pretending we can have the same as they do.
Average commutes here are 3 times longer and more difficult, which greatly reduces the numbers who can access this option.

No. You have argued vehemently against investing in cycling infrastructure.

I’m against my money being spent to favour a tiny minority by building long-range cycle paths that normal people will never in a million years even consider using.

rosscoact said :

solar electricity operates at its best at peak times. peak time is also when electricity is at its most expensive and where the fossil fuel energy suppliers make huge profits

Not true for Canberra.

Electricity demand and solar power production statistics for Canberra, as reported by G. Downie (CT 2012), show that the peak demand for electricity and the peak power production for solar power do not coincide.

The last few days of freezing cloudy days would have resulted in huge demand for electric heating and a likely near zero solar power production.

Jim Jones said :

MERC600 said :

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

So … let me get this straight … Tim Flannery lives near the water, therefore climate change isn’t happening?

Climate change is happening like it always has for the last 4,5 billion years but so what its not an issue and the inflated scaremongering of the likes of Flannery doesnt help the global warmist cause at all its turning people away big time. I mean he did say the sea levels would rise above an 18 story building haha he’s a fool mind you he’s made money from it so maybe the fools are the people who gave him the money.

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

yet you rubbish any discussion about sustainable transport options in the ACT.
……

You have made a million-and-one excuses as to why cycling is not an option in Canberra,.

This isn’t true. I just respond to stuff I read here which is wrong.
On cycling, the reality is this isn’t Holland, so stop pretending we can have the same as they do.
Average commutes here are 3 times longer and more difficult, which greatly reduces the numbers who can access this option.

No. You have argued vehemently against investing in cycling infrastructure.

Jethro said :

Don’t you see the disconnect between your views on climate change and your views on cars and bicycles?

I’d also like to add that I only used the car one day this week for work, which was the day I had to be in Bruce & Barton. Cycling about 100km is not an option. Public transport would potentially eat up 4 or 5 hours of my day in this situation which is completely unacceptable.

Doesn’t mean I have to swallow bicycle lobby rubbish aimed at promoting the interests of the tiny minority who cycle excessively for fun.

Jethro said :

yet you rubbish any discussion about sustainable transport options in the ACT.
……

You have made a million-and-one excuses as to why cycling is not an option in Canberra,.

This isn’t true. I just respond to stuff I read here which is wrong.
On cycling, the reality is this isn’t Holland, so stop pretending we can have the same as they do.
Average commutes here are 3 times longer and more difficult, which greatly reduces the numbers who can access this option.

2604 said :

Got any examples of The Australian claiming that sea levels are not rising? Articles like this and this expressly acknowledge the fact of rising sea levels.

Is The Australian also being untruthful when it acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic global warming? It also supported the need for an ETS and supports the implementation of the carbon tax, things you’d know if you’d ever read it.

On sea level, they have published oodles of crap.

There’s this one,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
where they misrepresent Phil Watson’s research as saying the something it doesn’t, and misrepresent their source, Howard Brady as being a “climate researcher at Macquarie University”, which he absolutely is not. A bald-faced lie.

This one, presumably written by some Arts graduates (or Canberra Uni graduates even):
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
which is just completely innumerate.

This classic which was accompanied by a front page photo of some old codger on the beach who is their source for a, “sea levels aren’t rising” claim:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
More innumeracy there.

More crap here, in response to being called on their previous crap,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/only-when-the-tide-goes-out/story-e6frg71x-1226100074756
they just dig themselves in deeper.

This one, which is so stupid it’s funny,:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tide-of-anger-at-flawed-facts-on-water-levels/story-e6frg6nf-1226167996520

And in this doozy, their source is Nils Axel Morner, a nut,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/seeing-through-hoax-of-the-century/story-e6frg6qx-1225794053555

Of course, there’s the apology they had to print to Flannery for publishing a stupid “we know where you live” article about his house being at risk of sea level rise (when it isn’t).

Check out the paragraphs a few from the end in this utter load of garbage:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-will-cripple-climate-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1225972366783

Publishing the occasional article which recognises reality doesn’t make up for publishing dozens which are untruthful and misleading. They regularly run the editorial which says, “we’ve always accepted the science, blablabla…”, which is obviously just another lie when you consider the carefully calculated dishonesty in the articles they constantly print poo-poohing it.

Tim Lambert did some stats on this after somebody like you made the same claim you just did:

In the first 4 months of 2010, he found this:

4 articles supporting mainstream science: 20/3 Ziggy Switkowski, 11/3 James Hansen (opposing ETS), 23/2 Oliver Sartor, 2/2 Penny Wong

23 articles opposing mainstream science: 24/4 Richard Lindzen, 21/4 Tom Switzer, 17/4 13/1 Frank Furedi, 17/3 27/1 20/1 Janet Albrechtsen, 15/3 17/2 28/1 Bjorn Lomborg, 27/2 13/2 6/2 30/1 23/1 Christopher Pearson, 20/2 Terry McCrann, 18/2 21/1 Alan Moran, 16/2 David Henderson, 13/2 Graham Young, 6/2 Tony Abbott, 6/1 Christopher Monckton, 2/1 Garth Paltridge

Remember, “balance” would be printing articles reflecting not 15%, but the 97% support among scientists for “mainstream science”.
Not sticking anything, no matter how obscure, on the front page if it can be spun their way.
And not misrepresenting the qualifications of some of the idiots in the second list.

Basically, they’ve been printing about 5 crap articles per week about climate change since Rupert Murdoch decided we needed to go to war on Iraq and turned his media organisation into the propaganda arm of his friends’ neo-con, “End-Times” agenda. That’s over 500 of them.

No wonder some people who are not sufficiently sceptical have fallen for the guff, there’s been so much of it.

HenryBG said :

Because it’s about bloody time we started taking concrete steps to wean ourselves off our stupid short-sighted addiction to fossil fuels.

Does this include our addiction to cars?

Yes.
We need to start getting people out of their cars.
We could have a weight test: anybody with a BMI greater than 24 has to walk to work.
The rest of us can drive.

HenryBG… I don’t get you. You obviously really care about the threat of climate change, yet you rubbish any discussion about sustainable transport options in the ACT.

Don’t you see the disconnect between your views on climate change and your views on cars and bicycles?

You have made a million-and-one excuses as to why cycling is not an option in Canberra, when it is obvious that cycling is an option because plenty of people already choose it.

So, HenryBG, instead of attacking cycling as a form of transport, why not actually give it a go? It really isn’t that hard. You will save thousands of dollars a year on fuel, and you will be taking a clear step towards reducing your personal carbon emissions.

Heck, I’d be happy to take you on a nice easy cycle myself. I don’t even wear lycra (except occasionally for Mrs Jethro).

HenryBG said :

Where did the claim originate? The Australian, an untruthful paper that tries to convince its readers that sea levels are not rising.

Got any examples of The Australian claiming that sea levels are not rising? Articles like this and this expressly acknowledge the fact of rising sea levels.

Is The Australian also being untruthful when it acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic global warming? It also supported the need for an ETS and supports the implementation of the carbon tax, things you’d know if you’d ever read it.

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

Why?

Because it’s about bloody time we started taking concrete steps to wean ourselves off our stupid short-sighted addiction to fossil fuels.

Does this include our addiction to cars?

Yes.
We need to start getting people out of their cars.
We could have a weight test: anybody with a BMI greater than 24 has to walk to work.
The rest of us can drive.

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

Why?

Because it’s about bloody time we started taking concrete steps to wean ourselves off our stupid short-sighted addiction to fossil fuels.

Does this include our addiction to cars?

Jim Jones said :

MERC600 said :

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

So … let me get this straight … Tim Flannery lives near the water, therefore climate change isn’t happening?

Somebody would have to teach them how to actually formulate an argument before we started worrying about whether that argument was in any way sensible.

MERC600 said :

Good grief .. ( JohnBoy you listening to this ) HENRY says ” I always thought it was just the lefties that suffered from class envy, but all this faff and nonsense about Flannery’s earnings and “boutique jetty” reveals the rightwing retard riff-raff are every bit as jealous of their betters’ superior salaries and more extensive material wealth as the lefties are.
You’re as pathetically tribal and backward as each other. “

Well I’m going for a couple of common type ales ..

Have a VB (Very Backward).

Good grief .. ( JohnBoy you listening to this ) HENRY says ” I always thought it was just the lefties that suffered from class envy, but all this faff and nonsense about Flannery’s earnings and “boutique jetty” reveals the rightwing retard riff-raff are every bit as jealous of their betters’ superior salaries and more extensive material wealth as the lefties are.
You’re as pathetically tribal and backward as each other. “

Well I’m going for a couple of common type ales ..

gazket said :

a.c.t. Labour is hell bent to getting taxpayers to bend over and take one more pineapple up the back passage before they get voted out.

Yeah, coz we’re *really* going to vote for Zed, who scotched the gas-fired power station & data centre in favour of some NIMBY complaints from the people who live downwind from the Tip in Macarthur……

MERC600 said :

HenryBG .. regret am not savy enough to copy the Google earth piccy of Coba Point. Perhaps after re checking your Gold Coast shots, you could have a look. There’s only about a dozen houses there, right on the water. The Prof even has his own little boutique jetty..

Yeees…and those house are not at risk of inundation. Unlike the bit of Gold Coast I showed you, the houses at Coba Point are not on low-lying land.

Of course, instead of employing an expert consultant to put together their environmental assessment, Hornsby Shire could have just paid somebody like you to provide made-up data instead.
Any guesses as to why they may have preferred the professional approach?

What’s a “boutique jetty”, btw? Is it a thing made out of wooden pylons and a wooden deck, by any chance? Is that another bit of nonsense you got off Andrew Bolt?

I always thought it was just the lefties that suffered from class envy, but all this faff and nonsense about Flannery’s earnings and “boutique jetty” reveals the rightwing retard riff-raff are every bit as jealous of their betters’ superior salaries and more extensive material wealth as the lefties are.
You’re as pathetically tribal and backward as each other.

MERC600 said :

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

So … let me get this straight … Tim Flannery lives near the water, therefore climate change isn’t happening?

HenryBG .. regret am not savy enough to copy the Google earth piccy of Coba Point. Perhaps after re checking your Gold Coast shots, you could have a look. There’s only about a dozen houses there, right on the water. The Prof even has his own little boutique jetty..

HenryBG said :

MERC600 said :

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

You know, you wouldn’t need to use so many jumbled-up words if you could just point out that Flannery lives within 1m of high tide mark.

So – does he?

Here you go, it really isn’t that difficult:

This is the Hornsby Shire Council “Climate Change Adaptation Strategic Plan”:
http://www.lgsa-plus.net.au/resources/documents/Climate_Change_Adaptation_Strategic_Plan_-_Council_report_copy_-_August_Ordinary_Meeting.pdf

Skip forward to Page 69. The bits coloured red are at risk of inundation.

Flannery lives right near where the “ee”s in “Berowra Creek” are, near the centre of the map.

As you can see, there is no identified inundation risk anywhere in the vicinity of Flannery’s house.

So, as I have just shown, you can do a bit of research and be informed. OR, you can parrot the crap you read in the media.

a.c.t. Labour is hell bent to getting taxpayers to bend over and take one more pineapple up the back passage before they get voted out.

MERC600 said :

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

You know, you wouldn’t need to use so many jumbled-up words if you could just point out that Flannery lives within 1m of high tide mark.

So – does he?

qbngeek said :

Gee HenryBG, I love how everyone who disagrees with you is a Bolt or Hadley fan and drives a H2 around and burns kittens for fun.

I actually don’t agree with most of the stuff you seem to blindly follow that the greens have sprouted to you and like to make up my own mind on most issues. I drive an SUV because it suits my hobbies and is more comfortable and the fuel usage is very very close to that of a Prius.

I grow almost all my own fruit and veg and I am aboutt o get chickens for egg production. I only buy free range eggs and only free range chicken (which I get from the farmer so I know they are cared for). At the same time I hunt, but make up for this by using almost all of any animals I kill. I also eat most of most animals out there.

You may think I am a Bolt fan, but I despise the man. I also think the Greens are clueless kooks. I only vote because I have to and my vote goes to who has the best policies. Libs and Labor are just as bad as each other and the two party system needs to be abolished.

I think you are a moron with your labeling of people and pidgeonholing everyone who doesn’t agree with you as nature killers. People are diverse and will amke up their own minds, suggest you try it sometime.

I’m not accusing anybody of anything except being wrong, being unsceptical, and relying on sources who are proven to be highly innaccurate.

Claiming that Flannery lives on land at risk of global-warming-related sea level rise is wrong.

Where did the claim originate? The Australian, an untruthful paper that tries to convince its readers that sea levels are not rising.
Who propagated it? Global-warming denying buffoons like Bolt, who has been found by a court to be an incompetent journalist.
Who still believes this kind of tripe? Morons.

I don’t give a #$@* what you drive, (although if you drive a Hummer/Prius I reserved the right to mock the pitiful size of your penis/the fact you’ve been ripped off when a VW Golf Bluemotion is cheaper and more fuel efficient) and if you think the Greens are kooks, and the rest of them a complete bunch of idiots, then I’ll agree with you.

The Greens being kooks doesn’t make Bolt, Abbott, or The Australian correct in their ridiculous beliefs about the laws of physics. And whereas the Greens threaten us with annoyances like having to *buy* plastic bags for the bin, the other idiots are putting us at the mercy of american multinationals who want to make us all their slaves and fighting their wars over fossil fuels as has been the case since 1914.
Energy prices have tripled in 10 years, and become hugely volatile.
People – evil greedy people – are trying to prevent us from implementing more reliable technologies that won’t involve constant wars in the middle-east (like 1914, etc…).

rosscoact said :

this means two things, solar can bring down the average price paid for energy, as it has in Germany for instance and fossil fuel electricity suppliers hate it because it provides competition for their product where usually they have no competition

The electricity suppliers dont really care, they make their profit from the customer no matter how much the energy costs. The smart fossil fuel companies are creating alternative energy options like BP Solar. The only losers in the game are the companies that ignore the competition, that will eventually run out of fuel to sell, and will have no other energy product for the market.

The Prof lives near the river level. Have a squiz at this how even tides alter the river level.

Hawkesbury River – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkesbury_RiverThe Hawkesbury River is navigable from Windsor to the sea. There are no dams or locks on the river, and the effects of the tide are felt as far as Windsor.

And whats with all this thing re Melbourne paper reporters, and NSW radio commentators.!!!

Gee HenryBG, I love how everyone who disagrees with you is a Bolt or Hadley fan and drives a H2 around and burns kittens for fun.

I actually don’t agree with most of the stuff you seem to blindly follow that the greens have sprouted to you and like to make up my own mind on most issues. I drive an SUV because it suits my hobbies and is more comfortable and the fuel usage is very very close to that of a Prius.

I grow almost all my own fruit and veg and I am aboutt o get chickens for egg production. I only buy free range eggs and only free range chicken (which I get from the farmer so I know they are cared for). At the same time I hunt, but make up for this by using almost all of any animals I kill. I also eat most of most animals out there.

You may think I am a Bolt fan, but I despise the man. I also think the Greens are clueless kooks. I only vote because I have to and my vote goes to who has the best policies. Libs and Labor are just as bad as each other and the two party system needs to be abolished.

I think you are a moron with your labeling of people and pidgeonholing everyone who doesn’t agree with you as nature killers. People are diverse and will amke up their own minds, suggest you try it sometime.

MERC600 said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

Perhaps I should have made it a little clearer. I just want to know how much MORE I’m going to be paying above the current rate. .

According to the economist at Yale that has published a study on this, it will *save* you money. It will be *more* expensive if you don’t spend some money on Solar/etc… now:

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

Obviously, none of this stuff is simple enough to fit into an Andrew Bolt blog or a Ray Hadley soundbite, so you may have missed it. In fact, as a fan of the above-mentioned twits, you may even lack the attention span to read the study and take on board its message. Do try though.

MERC600 said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

Perhaps I should have made it a little clearer. I just want to know how much MORE I’m going to be paying above the current rate. I got back lots of other info, but not even a ball park figure on how much extra this will cost us .. As for the Gold Coast flooding, well I guess they could all shift to that estuary where Prof Flannery lives, he’s obviously not worried about rising seas too much..

The high ground around the Hawkesbury isn’t going to be flooded by a 1 metre rise in sea level.
You do understand this concept we call “elevation”, do you? It isn’t proximity to water that tells you who gets inundated, it is height above sea level.

I guess people who go to Andrew Bolt for their information might find this quite difficult to understand, though.

Try a few maps, and see if you can get the idea.
For example, here are the Northern Beaches,
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/Map_images/Sydney/2.2/jpg/150dpi/Sydney_22_150_map_1.jpg
no inundations there – why? Elevation.

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

Perhaps I should have made it a little clearer. I just want to know how much MORE I’m going to be paying above the current rate. I got back lots of other info, but not even a ball park figure on how much extra this will cost us .. As for the Gold Coast flooding, well I guess they could all shift to that estuary where Prof Flannery lives, he’s obviously not worried about rising seas too much..

Diggety said :

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

How?

Economies of scale.
The subsidy needed for a large(r) scale solar plant will be far less per MW installed than for the domestic installations.
The actual amount of subsidy will be decided by the reverse auction in which the proponents compete against each other blindly. That way the most cost effective projects can be chosen.

Not saying that the price will necessarily be good but it will be better than the domestic FIT.

Diggety said :

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

How?

What a bizarre question.
The people assessing the bids are looking at the FiT requested by the bidders.
They will choose the one that gives the best value for money.
The existing FiT schemes were all closed off due to demand reaching the extent of what the government was willing to pay.
The law of demand and supply says therefore that the price offered was generous.
Therefore in competitive bidding where the price isn’t set, the price requested will be lower.

Has Andrew Bolt not yet told you what to think on this one?

Diggety said :

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

Why?

Because it’s about bloody time we started taking concrete steps to wean ourselves off our stupid short-sighted addiction to fossil fuels.

100 years from now, coal will be a very valuable resource (and oil will be worth its weight in gold), and people will say – what were they doing burning it just to power their flat-screen TVs? What were they thinking when they could have been collecting all the free energy available from wind, solar and tide?
(Not to mention the fact the Gold Coast will have lost big chunks of several suburbs to sea level rise by then (http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/Map_images/SthEastQld/OCGC_South/2.2/jpeg/150dpi/Brisbane_22_150_Map_37.jpg), which will have some people wondering WTF was going on).

solar electricity operates at its best at peak times. peak time is also when electricity is at its most expensive and where the fossil fuel energy suppliers make huge profits. \

this means two things, solar can bring down the average price paid for energy, as it has in Germany for instance and fossil fuel electricity suppliers hate it because it provides competition for their product where usually they have no competition

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

How?

Northbourne Ultimatum said :

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

Why?

Northbourne Ultimatum10:05 pm 24 May 12

MERC600 said :

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

The cost to consumers will depend on the value of the Feed-in tariff (FiT) that wins the reverse auction. Whoever wins, it’s going to be cheaper than the FiT for domestic installations. I will be very happy to be subsadising more efficient large scale systems like this rather than the rebates and FiT for small domestic systems.

Just remind me again please, how much lolly do the consumers fork out for this scheme.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.