18 February 2011

Now you're paying for large business solar panels

| johnboy
Join the conversation
28
sol invictus

Liberal Leader Zed Seselja is pointing out that the changes under way to the feed-in-tariff scheme (whereby people who own properties get paid outrageous prices for solar power generated on their roofs at the expense of everyone else) will mean large businesses can now effectively gouge the less well off.

“Canberra families will be paying more for their electricity while larger companies reap the profits of the Government’s scheme under these changes,” Zed said.

Late last year it was revealed that the scheme would add $225 to Canberra household’s annual electricity bill.

“The scheme is highly inequitable for households who can’t pay for the upfront costs of solar panels on their roofs but are forced to pay for large businesses and corporations who can.

“Labor and the Greens are recklessly driving up the cost of living for Canberra families – It’s homeowners who will be forced to pay the additional $225 every year for this policy, and the Canberra Liberals cannot support this,” Zed concluded.

Interesting that Zed forgets, again, the existence of electricity users who do not own their own houses.

Simon Corbell in turn is celebrating the changes:

Key aspects to the amended feed-in tariff legislation include:

— re-naming the existing household component as Micro Generator;
— creation of the Medium Generator and the Community Based Generation categories;
— introduction of capacity caps for both new categories (15 megawatts each);
— provide for a mechanism by which the Premium Price applicable to each category may be set and reviewed; and
–extend scheme eligibility to include not-for-profit community organisations.

“These amendments will enable both individuals and community organisations greater access to the scheme and a greater ability to do their part in reaching our greenhouse gas emission targets,” Mr Corbell said.

The Greens’ Shane Rattenbury on the other hand wants even larger facilities to be paid for by the renters and public housing tenants:

“The Greens are concerned that Government moves to cap the micro-generation scheme at 15MW will have too sudden an impact on the industry,” Shane Rattenbury, Greens Energy Spokesperson said.

“There are sound economic reasons for winding back support for small scale solar, but the Greens think it should be done more gradually so that we don’t end up with the NSW situation here in the ACT – a quick rush before the deadline, followed by a collapse in the number of solar schemes being ordered by consumers.

Shane is, however, advocating for reducing the tariff as solar panels have become much cheaper.

Join the conversation

28
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

pandaman said :

Short sighted, unfairly implemented and I’d wager, fairly innefective at achieving your long term clean energy goals.

Best summary of the scheme I’ve heard yet.

Trad_and_Anon10:04 am 14 Jun 11

MrBurmester said :

No one is ‘subsidising’ anyone’s power use in the Feed-in-Tariff.

….

The Bill that was passed yesterday costs ACT electricity consumers an average of $27/year over 5 years – right now, only 7MW is installed and it’s around 20 cents a week; when the full amount is installed, it will be around $1/week.

This looks like a contradiction to me. It costs me money that goes to someone whose power bills are reduced. That is a subsidy. The money for the feed in tariff has to come from somewhere. It comes from the pockets of the poor buggers who are unable for a variety of reasons to put up dolar panels.

As far as I can tell, the solar feed in tariff a mutant love child of the greens doctrinaire authoritarian fantasy with economic rationalist authoritarian ideology. It produces public policy that is grotesque.

Again, the poor get to pay for the better off.

Trad_and_Anon9:54 am 14 Jun 11

Brianna said :

Chaz said :

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything. Is that how they want to fix everything?

Apparently, yes. If they make everything more expensive then the public is much less likely to use it therefore we all go back to what it was like before we knew about carbon footprints. A lot less air con, less heating, less car travel, etc.

Yes. And then we will have the answer to the question: What is it like to live in Pakistan, Indonesia or some other third world country. Vote Greens – and experience third world deprivation!

MrBurmester said :

Seems like a good time to step in and straighten the record a bit…

Energy costs money, whether it’s coal or solar. When private money is invested, a return is expected – or should people only make money producing power from coal?

The Bill that was passed yesterday costs ACT electricity consumers an average of $27/year over 5 years – right now, only 7MW is installed and it’s around 20 cents a week; when the full amount is installed, it will be around $1/week.

And finally, we did get our words right…and our units right. The 15MW we were talking about is the total installed capacity of the micro generation scheme – a new provision put in the Bill yesterday. The Greens thought it was better to use existing mechanisms to lower the tariff rate gradually rather than capping the total installed capacity for micro schemes at 15MW. You’d get roughly the same amount of capacity, but with a whole lot less angst for industry who is trying to plan ahead, but keep having the goalposts moved.

[I am a Greens advisor]

MrBurmester,

I’m after some background, primarily technical/cost analysis and sources the Gov/Greens have used for policy development. Could you help me out?

P.S. If not, Skidbladnir?

Mr Burmester (Greens adviser) said:

The Bill that passed the Assembly also allows community groups to put up solar projects, so if you are a renter or you just have a bad roof for solar, the legislation will now allow you to join a community project, or even lease roof space in a different location. There’s pretty much no reason that people can’t participate if that’s an investment they want to make.

Energy costs money, whether it’s coal or solar. When private money is invested, a return is expected – or should people only make money producing power from coal?

———————————————————————————————————–

‘When private money is invested, a return is expected – or should people only make money producing power from coal?’

I agree – so please advise me how I can make money from burning wood and coal in my fireplace, which takes pressure off the grid. Also, since I sometimes produce excess energy (eg after I have gone to bed), how can I get connected to the grid and be paid for the excess energy that is produced? You did say that people deserve to be paid for producing energy, whatever the source.

“if you are a renter or you just have a bad roof for solar, the legislation will now allow you to join a community project, or even lease roof space in a different location.”

That sounds wonderful. Could you please explain how joining a community project will reduce my electricity bills, and by how much? Oh, and a list of community projects would be helpful.

I would love to lease some roof space – it sounds so practical for a household that is struggling to pay the bills. It is no wonder that I am not a Greens policy adviser, because I have no idea how that would work. Perhaps you could enlighten me? I have a $400 electricity bill in front of me, and winter is coming. It’s great to think that your policies will make a real difference.

I cannot express how much I am looking forward to your response.

MrBurmester said :

Seems like a good time to step in and straighten the record a bit…

No one is ‘subsidising’ anyone’s power use in the Feed-in-Tariff. Feed-in tariffs encourage private investment by paying generators for their electricity at a higher rate than coal fired electricity. So if you put private capital on the table to install solar panels, then generators are paid for the electricity they generate at a rate that pays them back for their investment, and then a little more on top, as an incentive. If it’s a big system, that upfront investment can be tens of thousands. Feed in tariffs leverage private investment that governments are unlikely to make.

The Bill that passed the Assembly also allows community groups to put up solar projects, so if you are a renter or you just have a bad roof for solar, the legislation will now allow you to join a community project, or even lease roof space in a different location. There’s pretty much no reason that people can’t participate if that’s an investment they want to make.

Energy costs money, whether it’s coal or solar. When private money is invested, a return is expected – or should people only make money producing power from coal?

The Bill that was passed yesterday costs ACT electricity consumers an average of $27/year over 5 years – right now, only 7MW is installed and it’s around 20 cents a week; when the full amount is installed, it will be around $1/week.

And finally, we did get our words right…and our units right. The 15MW we were talking about is the total installed capacity of the micro generation scheme – a new provision put in the Bill yesterday. The Greens thought it was better to use existing mechanisms to lower the tariff rate gradually rather than capping the total installed capacity for micro schemes at 15MW. You’d get roughly the same amount of capacity, but with a whole lot less angst for industry who is trying to plan ahead, but keep having the goalposts moved.

[I am a Greens advisor]

Hmmm, amateurish attempt at market manipulation, failure to recognise that the very definition of subsidisation perfectly describes what is occurring, displaying a misguided belief that photovoltaics are in fact worthy of subsidisation and furthermore a total failure to recognise that low income earners will be unfairly targeted by a blanket price increase. Yep, I’d say you are in all probability, a Greens advisor.

How can you not see that raising everyone’s electricty prices to encourage a guaranteed return investment by already wealthy idividuals in one particular “renewable” energy source is not a good idea? Whether you open it up to “community projects” or not is irrelevant, a significant amount of capital is still required, and I seriously doubt it would fit the investment pattern of the average bogan.

Another thought, If this scheme were to catch on on a large scale (which I doubt, due to the occasional rational person actually practicing economics in high places) it could even have potential to stifle development of some of the more exciting clean technologies out there like solar-thermal, tidal and even cleaning up fossil fuel technologies.

Short sighted, unfairly implemented and I’d wager, fairly innefective at achieving your long term clean energy goals. but best of luck to you, I live in NSW. 🙂

georgesgenitals10:48 pm 22 Feb 11

Brianna said :

Chaz said :

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything. Is that how they want to fix everything?

Apparently, yes. If they make everything more expensive then the public is much less likely to use it therefore we all go back to what it was like before we knew about carbon footprints. A lot less air con, less heating, less car travel, etc.

Good luck with that.

MrBurmester said :

[I am a Greens advisor]

[I am a Taxpayer]

MrBurmester said :

Seems like a good time to step in and straighten the record a bit…

No one is ‘subsidising’ anyone’s power use in the Feed-in-Tariff.

Direct ‘subsidising’ or in-direct ‘subsidising’ is still subsidising.

Skidbladnir said :

1) The church pictured above would have terrible solar power generation, due to the slope on the roof.

.

Not ideal, but not terrible. Probably more economical over the lifespan compared to added structure for ideal angle of incidence.

Seems like a good time to step in and straighten the record a bit…

No one is ‘subsidising’ anyone’s power use in the Feed-in-Tariff. Feed-in tariffs encourage private investment by paying generators for their electricity at a higher rate than coal fired electricity. So if you put private capital on the table to install solar panels, then generators are paid for the electricity they generate at a rate that pays them back for their investment, and then a little more on top, as an incentive. If it’s a big system, that upfront investment can be tens of thousands. Feed in tariffs leverage private investment that governments are unlikely to make.

The Bill that passed the Assembly also allows community groups to put up solar projects, so if you are a renter or you just have a bad roof for solar, the legislation will now allow you to join a community project, or even lease roof space in a different location. There’s pretty much no reason that people can’t participate if that’s an investment they want to make.

Energy costs money, whether it’s coal or solar. When private money is invested, a return is expected – or should people only make money producing power from coal?

The Bill that was passed yesterday costs ACT electricity consumers an average of $27/year over 5 years – right now, only 7MW is installed and it’s around 20 cents a week; when the full amount is installed, it will be around $1/week.

And finally, we did get our words right…and our units right. The 15MW we were talking about is the total installed capacity of the micro generation scheme – a new provision put in the Bill yesterday. The Greens thought it was better to use existing mechanisms to lower the tariff rate gradually rather than capping the total installed capacity for micro schemes at 15MW. You’d get roughly the same amount of capacity, but with a whole lot less angst for industry who is trying to plan ahead, but keep having the goalposts moved.

[I am a Greens advisor]

michcon said :

My understanding is that the Federal government solar credits scheme, and the ACT government premium feed in tariff program do not discriminate against renters. For anyone who is in this situation, have you exhausted all avenues in negotiating with your landlord?

Good luck paying it back in the life of the average lease.

My understanding is that the Federal government solar credits scheme, and the ACT government premium feed in tariff program do not discriminate against renters. For anyone who is in this situation, have you exhausted all avenues in negotiating with your landlord?

Skidbladnir said :

IE: This a bad example photo to use for solar generation stories.

This is an excellent photo to show the absurdity of this feed-in tariff scheme. It lacks fairness not only to renters but to all those that either can’t (shaded house, wrong orientation, can’t afford it, too old, moving in a while, etc) or don’t want to stick their hands into their neighbours pockets because they think that paying $600 to supposedly save a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions doesn’t make sense.
1000 kilowatt-hours of electricity produced by these generators is supposed to save a tonne of emissions. During the period only base load is used no carbon dioxide is abated. The furnaces of the coal fired power stations still burn and when solar power does substitute for gas fired peak power, 1000kWh of solar only saves about half a tonne because the gas fired plants emit less CO2.

Because solar generators actually save so much less (I guess about a third) of the carbon emissions claimed, the CO2 payback period is 3 times longer up to 6 years and much longer for those that include aluminium framing and rails.

Watson said :

“Interesting that Zed forgets, again, the existence of electricity users who do not own their own houses.”

It should have just read, Zed Forgets…… Proof that the Liberals in either State/terriotry or Federally have no foresight when it comes to the future and the environment. Rather than saying its good that more people will be generating power and saving fossil fuel generation, Chairman Zed focusses on a negative… AGAIN

But is it art?

If you really want to discuss my comment re: the angle of that roof instead of addressing my point raised re: MegaWatts vs MegaWatt hours:
The Google street view of the profile of the O’Connor Uniting Church building says its not quite an equilateral A frame, granting side lengths in the vicinity of roughly 55degrees.
While for maximum winter generation, this may be useful (being close to Canberran latitude (35deg) + 15deg), for summer generation this is terrible (peak performance coming from Latitude – 10deg).

Assuming its a fixed-position system, I really don’t think their extra winter generation income makes up for the lesser summer generation income.
(Or this is a standalone system only used to keep the church off-grid during winter)

IE: This a bad example photo to use for solar generation stories.

dtc said :

I dont imagine churches are big power users, apart from the odd midnight mass

Solar power will be really handy, then…

dtc said :

the Church roof does face pretty much due north, for what that is worth (knowing nothing about solar collection technicalities). I dont imagine churches are big power users, apart from the odd midnight mass

The sun during summer passes just over vertical and during winter at about 30degrees above horizon.
The further away your arraw is from perpendicular to the sun the less radiation can be collected. This array is pretty poor because the slope of the roof is too high and the angle that the radiation would be hitting it will be large for the vast majority of the year.

the Church roof does face pretty much due north, for what that is worth (knowing nothing about solar collection technicalities). I dont imagine churches are big power users, apart from the odd midnight mass

Brianna said :

Chaz said :

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything. Is that how they want to fix everything?

Apparently, yes. If they make everything more expensive then the public is much less likely to use it therefore we all go back to what it was like before we knew about carbon footprints. A lot less air con, less heating, less car travel, etc.

You’re missing the point. Carbon emissions have ZERO to do with our atmosphere. They are trying to tax you out of thin air

Skidbladnir said :

1) The church pictured above would have terrible solar power generation, due to the slope on the roof…

Could have put more panels up if they had depicted the cross in “negative” ie the whole roof as panels except for the cross.
Com’on think outside the cross.

“Interesting that Zed forgets, again, the existence of electricity users who do not own their own houses.”

Plebs. Should’ve never been given the vote in the first place.

1) The church pictured above would have terrible solar power generation, due to the slope on the roof.

2)The Greens (and everyone involved in the bill) need to get their words right…
“The Greens are concerned that Government moves to cap the micro-generation scheme at 15MW will have too sudden an impact on the industry
15Megawatts as instantaneous output could provide excess power to a small Pacific island.
(As example, this is a 6Megawatt wind turbine, it is 138m tall)

15Megawatt hours is roughly what the average 4kW home-scale system will produce in a year.

Thoroughly Smashed10:20 am 18 Feb 11

Chaz said :

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything.

They do?

Yes,
I can’t wait for the warm and fuzzy environment saving feelings I’m going to get when my local Woolworths installs a massive system.
Yay for us renters.

Chaz said :

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything. Is that how they want to fix everything?

Apparently, yes. If they make everything more expensive then the public is much less likely to use it therefore we all go back to what it was like before we knew about carbon footprints. A lot less air con, less heating, less car travel, etc.

the Greens seem to want to raise the price of everything. Is that how they want to fix everything?

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.