Solar power will destroy us all

The renewable energy advocates make many misleading comments. For example, when I point out that solar generated electricity costs 10 times more than coal, the renewable energy advocates say “solar is getting cheaper”. So what, it is still ten times more than coal. And the renewable energy advocates have been saying for over 20 years “wind and dollar are baseload now – if the government would just give us some more money”.

The renewable energy advocates frequently quote snippets of misleading or irrelevant information like “the coast of wind turbines and solar panels is coming down”. So what, the cost of wind farms and the cost of electricity from wind farms is increasing. The cost of solar and PV is still some ten times more than the cost of conventional power. And that does not include the cost of transmission from remote areas.

The important point is that the cost of renewables is far more than the cost of fossil fuel generation. The case to justify the cost has not been made, other than by emotive pleading for irrational policies.

Open Your Mind @#41 said:
“Here’s a sample graph of a large Canberra system: http://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?id=390&sid=312&v=0&t=m“

However, that is a chart of monthly averages. The averages are irrelevant. What is relevant is what is the MINIMUM output. It is the minimum output that we have to back up for. So we need to pay for the total cost of the solar system plus the total cost of the backup system. And the back up systems is more expensive, less efficient and produces more CO2 per MWh than the conventional system.

parle said :

and can you, or whomever, please address the air conditioner claim and how that .47% local solar production is saving us all the extra infrastructure costs? thanks

Sure thing. One of the easiest ways to understand the cost of providing peak power for airconditioning is the spot cost of wholesale electricity during those peaks. The cost of a kWh of electricity increases by 50-200% during peaks. Suppliers are prepared to pay the premium to (largely gas fired) private producers rather than load dump or shut down suburbs at a time. Why pay a premium price for third party supply rather than invest in more generation capacity? Firstly there is the capital costs in doing that. Secondly a reluctance to invest in what is about to be obsolete technology – fossil fuel power plants. So it is not only cost but also an understanding of how energy production is changing.

Sorry for spamming the thread.

0.7% of total energy consumption provided by PV generation

As to the idea of $50 (potentially) flowing into the pockets of yuppies (ie middle class). it would be good to understand what the alternative is. Would you prefer the same amount or greater going to the rich? How so? The way electricity supply is organised now you are buying through companies who make a profit on selling electricity sourced from generators who are largely government owned. If generation costs increase at a wholesale level then the retailers benefit because they put a margin on the cost. Outside the feed-in tariffs there are others who can provide power at peak times. Look at the business cases for data centres and their gas fired power backup. They usually plan to sell power at peak periods at high prices and make a decent profit. No matter which way it goes any alternative to private PV feed-in costs is costs of the same order (over 10 years or so – see the following) going to those wealthy enough to invest in generation capacity – not necessarily with the same potential for environmental benefits.

Think a little down the track and it goes a bit like this:
Costs of electricity rise by 12% annually because the cost of fuel rises and the need to expand electricity production to meet demand, especially in Summer. Smart meters are installed and you get charged the going rate for electricity at peak times. You find that in five years you are being charged 60 cents a kWh for electricity one in four daylight hours in Summer.

The poor generating electricity from their PV on their rooves are getting the 50 cents that they signed up for a few years ago. Anyone who bought green energy is paying 50 cents a kWh and the rest are paying around 35 for non-peak electricity… three years later is is at least 50c. In the papers you see articles discussing how important it is for government to chip in $3-400 million to invest in new generation capacity and distribution systems. 20% of houses are losing power for non essential (not refrigeration, cooking and lighting) use on a regular basis. Coal fired power generation is being closed as fast as the generators can do it because of the increasing concern over liability for emissions and the uncompetitive costs of coal compared to the relatively cheap solar thermal electricity and geothermal. Power distribution companies are providing a subsidy to house owners to install and feed in PV electricity during peak demand at 20% less than the charge to the general public. They are doing this because it is cheaper than the capital investment for large scale generation and distribution of geothermal power located in central Australia.

Houses with north facing roof and no shade fetch a $20k premium.

This is a scenario quite likely to happen in the next decade. We are in the early stages of a gigantic shift in how we consume and produce energy.

parle said :

In Canberra solar usage is ZERO in the peak periods between now and December, the output that solar does ‘produce’ is during the day when a surplus amount of coal produced power is available anyway, making solar pointless economically, except for those systemic leeches that have subsidised residential solar panels.

So you’re saying that coal produces “surplus power”? Does that mean coal is useless?
I’m just trying to figure out which planet’s logic you’re employing here, please help me.

hmmm …
Not wanting to get tied up in knots but … it might be useful to note that peak demand for electricity is not in the middle of a winter’s night but in the hottest and sunniest days of summer. Baseload power is a concept entirely related to large scale steam boiler/turbine generation (ie coal) that relies on continuous generation for effective operation and there is no great infrastructure demand for more baseload generation. Most of the demand is for short term power when the sun is shining brightest and longest. This is reflected in the spot price of electricity in the wholesale market (and some retail prices for those on smart meters like Victoria) which is highest when demand is most above the baseload generation. In the middle of the night you get off-peak rates for electricity simply because the demand is low and the electricity is being generated regardless so the generator will sell it cheaper to create a market when there is little natural demand.

Subsidies are used to kick start adoption of generally desirable outcomes – in this case we are talking about generation of electricity to meet peak load demands and to reduce dependence on fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning has two fundamental problems. Firstly it is finite and burning it is probably the least economically beneficial thing to do with oil, especially but coal as well. Secondly burning fossil fuels has demonstrable risks for climate change and its many negative consequences.

An important benefit of installation subsidies and feed-in tariffs is to avoid larger costs to government and electricity infrastructure providers (generation being mostly a government owned business in Australia). Initial subsidies are wound back (as they are already for PV) and more mainstream adoption takes over as costs of the technology come down as installed base grows and an industry develops. IT would be worth looking at the business case for PV subsidies and seeing the projected return on the subsidies from the PV industry and green technology as a result of the subsidies.

It is worth remembering that electricity supply companies were starting to move to feed-in tariffs before government stepped in to legislate for it. They wanted the feed-in because of the high cost and risk associated with building more baseload capacity when the fuel supply and potential pollution consequences were factored in.

When comparing the subsidised installation of small scale PV installations it is important to also consider the capital cost of installing alternative generation. Capital costs for traditional electricity generation are also paid for by the community. The question that really must be answered is whether the subsidy (investment) in PV is the most effective investment in power generation based on a variety of factors:
– Is it cost effective based on per kWh generation
– Is the capital investment effective compared to alternatives
– Impacts on transmission and distribution networks
– Is it sustainable to use PV generation
– How does PV compare to fossil fuelled generation
– Are we managing future risks for fuel supply and environmental impacts within foreseeable timescales
– how long subsidies remain the right approach to industry development and when to take different approaches

The answer lies in the combination of all the factors above (and more than just them) so that any single factor may appear to “senseless” but the overall picture is what matters.

—–
BTW in somewhat more than 5 billion years solar power will kill us all – as the sun fades and paradoxically grows and engulfs the earth as it expands

Sounds to me people are just jealous they didn’t take advantage of the solar scheme..

We had a solar gas boosted storage hot water system (DUX) installed on our new house 7 years ago. The thermostat has f*^ked out once, and the heat exchange replace twice as well, whilst warranty covered it for 5 years. The heat exchange has terminated for the third time, now [ast the warranty period, and the cost to get it fixed will be $2500. There is only one plumber in ACT that fixes DUX, so I cant exactly shop around. Out of principle I flattly refuse to pay 40% of the original installation cost to have it fixed, I hate to imagine how a family on a low to modest income in these suburbs where solar HWS are compulsory could afford such repair costs. When DUX was questioned how they can justify to continue to install cheap Chinese shit parts, thier answer was, pretty much, meh. I wonder if the Federal Environment Minister or ACT Government know of this rort? I for one are encouraging people NOT to install solar, until the system and repair costs come down.

OpenYourMind said :

parle said :

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.

I can’t remember who they were but some solartroll that posts here couldn’t stop referencing the ‘fact’ that residential solar generation was to cover the peak usage times, particularly noting the load in summer caused by small cheap air conditioners… this is clearly not the case.

now who was that?

I saw that quote in the paper and thought to myself how wrong it was. Yes, solar produces less power in winter, but solar still produces in winter.

the article says ‘contributed nothing to the peak winter DEMAND’, can’t you read?.

In Canberra solar usage is ZERO in the peak periods between now and December, the output that solar does ‘produce’ is during the day when a surplus amount of coal produced power is available anyway, making solar pointless economically, except for those systemic leeches that have subsidised residential solar panels.

as for your graph, solar output does not equal actual usage silly!, why don’t you post up a graph that shows solar power being created at 6:30pm when everyone has stoves, kettles and heaters on?

and can you, or whomever, please address the air conditioner claim and how that .47% local solar production is saving us all the extra infrastructure costs? thanks

Martlark said :

From the article: 10,000 solar installations. At peak generation not even 1% of demand. The minister says that the cost will soon be $50 per household’s energy bill. .

You can’t fix your faulty maths by comparing the number of installation *now* with a speculative $$ cost in the future.

From the article: the number of installations *now* is 10,500 and the cost per household *now* is $26.

That’s 50 cents per week from each household. Oh! The OUTrage! How will we EVER afford it?!?!

Meanwhile, the clever cloggses who put one on their roof are earning $800 every year.
I guess you should have put one on *your* roof.

parle said :

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.

I can’t remember who they were but some solartroll that posts here couldn’t stop referencing the ‘fact’ that residential solar generation was to cover the peak usage times, particularly noting the load in summer caused by small cheap air conditioners… this is clearly not the case.

now who was that?

I saw that quote in the paper and thought to myself how wrong it was. Yes, solar produces less power in winter, but solar still produces in winter. Here’s a sample graph of a large Canberra system: http://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?id=390&sid=312&v=0&t=m

Fact: Solar in Canberra reliably produces an average 4kw/h per day per installed kW. When this stops, we’ll have bigger things to worry about than where our power comes from.

Fact: The price per installed kW is decreasing at incredible rates. The same kind of rates and reasons that have seen flat screen TV prices drop.

From the article: 10,000 solar installations. At peak generation not even 1% of demand. The minister says that the cost will soon be $50 per household’s energy bill. There are about 130,000 households in the ACT (ABS pub 4102.0). $50 x 130,000 = $6.5 million. That’s the predicted subsidy. Extrapolating to 100% daytime coverage is a simple multiplication by 100. $650 million in total, $5000 per year per house. Of course if every house had a solar panel there would be no cross subsidy, the feed in tariff subsidy would have to come from business power bills or general taxation. That would still be a $5000 per house hold cost through higher taxes, rates, charges and fees. That would not be tolerated by the public and would not happen. If solar power was to cover all of our power needs it would need to generate over 3 times the peak daily requirement to meet demand over night and when the sun is other wise unavailable from stored power. Is 3 or 4 times $5000 per household per year something anyone is prepared to pay? Without any dramatic advance is reducing the cost of solar installation and management, and, the development of some sort of effective storage, solar will be a niche product. And it’s niche should be off the grid remote area generation, not attempting to replace existing effective and efficient generating technologies. The money spent on city solar should have been spent on proven technologies with more bang for the buck.

HenryBG said :

PeterLang said :

However, first, let’s be clear: There are no baseload solar power stations, anywhere in the world. None come even close to being able to provide baseload power; i.e. provide electricity on demand, l

There you go. Three lines in and you demonstrate your crankspertise quite conclusively.

Baseload power is not there to provide electricity on demand. Baseload power is provided by coal because coal is cheap, but burning coal for power allows you no capacity for flexibly reducing or increasing electricity output.That’s why we have gas. Gas is more expensive (and increasing in price more rapidly than coal) but a gas-fired plant allows you to produce power “on demand” in order to meet the unpredictable variations or short spikes in demand.

Your various crankxpert “papers” on these issues have invariably been met be derision from economists and scientists alike.

People who want to see the comparative costs can ignore your cherry-picked examples together with your uninformed commentary and check what a proper expert at Yale has to say:
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/files/2009/04/lazard2009_levelizedcostofenergy.pdf

Oops, wrong link – the above link is a Lazard study on the comparative costs of different sources, this link is the Yale link which proves that it will be cheaper to invest in renewables rather than ignore them:
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

PeterLang said :

However, first, let’s be clear: There are no baseload solar power stations, anywhere in the world. None come even close to being able to provide baseload power; i.e. provide electricity on demand, l

There you go. Three lines in and you demonstrate your crankspertise quite conclusively.

Baseload power is not there to provide electricity on demand. Baseload power is provided by coal because coal is cheap, but burning coal for power allows you no capacity for flexibly reducing or increasing electricity output.That’s why we have gas. Gas is more expensive (and increasing in price more rapidly than coal) but a gas-fired plant allows you to produce power “on demand” in order to meet the unpredictable variations or short spikes in demand.

Your various crankxpert “papers” on these issues have invariably been met be derision from economists and scientists alike.

People who want to see the comparative costs can ignore your cherry-picked examples together with your uninformed commentary and check what a proper expert at Yale has to say:
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/files/2009/04/lazard2009_levelizedcostofenergy.pdf

In case it is not obvious from my previous comments, electricity from solar thermal would cost around ten times the cost of electricity from Australia’s baseload power stations.

That provides some insight into what the ACT Government is getting ACT residents into. There will be massive subsidies to get it started (think increases to our rates for a life time, add them to the cost of the new Cotter Dam which has blown to twice the budget and we’ll be paying for that for a life time, and add both to the subsidies we are already committed to paying the people who have solar panels on their rooves).

I suggest it is time to let the ACT government know we want to know the full costs before they proceed any further. (I have some idea about what they’ll be, but let’s get the Government to tell us). Please write and ask:
SolarAuction@act.gov.au
corbell@act.gov.au
seselja@act.gov.au

PeterLang said :

Yes, True. Solar systems are almost useless and they cost a small fortune. Not satisfied with the enormous waste of money on subsidising roof top solar PV, the ACT government is now in the process of evaluating responses to its request for proposals for solar thermal plants for the ACT. The cost will be huge. I asked the Department and the Minister for their preliminary cost estimates for: capital cost, increases to cost of electrcity and increases to our rates. The department answered they could not provide any information because it is “commercial and Cabinet in confidence”

But Peter, we’ve just established that solar PV earns the average ACT household 4 times more than it is costing.
Weren’t you paying attention?
Or is it necessary when pushing your anti-science barrow to block out all the inconvenient facts?

And just to be clear – are you in fact a resident of the ACT?
Because I would hate it if our elected representatives were wasting any time whatsoever responding to spurious nonsense from anti-science cranks.

In my previous comment I mentioned the cost of solar thermal. I’ll elaborate below. However, first, let’s be clear: There are no baseload solar power stations, anywhere in the world. None come even close to being able to provide baseload power; i.e. provide electricity on demand, with high availability, night and day, summer and winter, and through extended periods of cold, damp, overcast weather.

Below I’ll give examples of two solar thermal plants that are in operation, and one planned.

1. Andasol, hybrid (gas & solar) solar thermal power station, Spain.
Capacity = 3 x 50 MW each.
Energy storage = 7.5 hours (generation at full power)
Expected/planned annual generation: 158,000 MWh/yr from each unit
Capacity factor = 36% (but mostly in summer, near useless in winter) (less if gas component excluded)
Capital cost = about Eur 900 million = $A1.1 billion
Tariff = 27 Euro cents/kWh = A$340/MWh (c.f. about $30/MWh for Australia coal generation).

Water cooled; uses about the same amount of cooling water as a coal power station.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=3
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=4

2. Gemasolar, Spain, is 20 MW with 15 h storage. It has managed to generate for 24 h a few times in summer. It is next to useless in winter.

3. The USA has approved construction of a 110 MW version with 10 h storage (Tonopah). But it will be even worse in winter.
http://www.nrel.gov/solar/news/2011/1607.html

Yes, True. Solar systems are almost useless and they cost a small fortune. Not satisfied with the enormous waste of money on subsidising roof top solar PV, the ACT government is now in the process of evaluating responses to its request for proposals for solar thermal plants for the ACT. The cost will be huge. I asked the Department and the Minister for their preliminary cost estimates for: capital cost, increases to cost of electrcity and increases to our rates. The department answered they could not provide any information because it is “commercial and Cabinet in confidence”

JimCharles said :

My question is….why isn’t Australia the world leader in this field? All the best research, technology and machinery is currently German designed….and everybody relies on them to come up with the goods.
Australia is isolated and more at risk from declining, or potential future disruption to fossil fuel access, you have great Universities and facilities, vast land masses and and the best source of reliable sunshine on the planet.
Making this an Australian dominated industry would surely put you in charge of your own destiny and give great export opportunities plus the intellectual property to protect and develop…even if outsourced to China or India.
It just seems that it’s more crucial to Australia than anywhere else and you’re in the best location to take the lead.

Coal is why. Australia has the 4th largest deposits of coal of any country in the world, and is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Natural gas to a lesser extent.

Sure, Australia has the sunlight and technological know how to become a world leader in solar power, but there is already a very big and extremely powerful industry based around digging up coal and selling it to Asia at exorbitant prices. That industry employs an awful lot of people who might not be terribly pleased with a government that started giving lots of concessions to the solar industry.

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.

I can’t remember who they were but some solartroll that posts here couldn’t stop referencing the ‘fact’ that residential solar generation was to cover the peak usage times, particularly noting the load in summer caused by small cheap air conditioners… this is clearly not the case.

now who was that?

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

His maths is absolute crap.
Let’s use the numbers out of the article itself:

– ACT electricity consumers are paying about $8.37 million annually
– more than 10,500 solar generators
– produce only 0.7 per cent of the overall annual requirement.
– The cost for an average household has reached about $26.40 a year
– those who have had solar generators installed receive on average almost $800 a year

The first thing that leaps out at me is this:
If 10,500 solar generators are producing $800 each, that totals to $8.4 million pa.
The cost is $26.40 x 100,000 households = $2.64 million pa

So the PV we have is generating $6.24 million pa into our local economy. Unless I’m missing something.

Oops just saw the mistake in my last. Shouldn’t be $5B should be $500 mill.

Henry,
yes rereading it, it doesn’t add up.

The average cost per household is $26 this year predicted to get to $50 next year.

But that’s the average cost per household not total cost which is borne by ALL ACT electricity customers.

So I’m assuming that the missing $6.2 million you’ve identified is the cost currently paid by non-residential electricity users in the ACT.

….the majority of which would be the Federal Government.

This is just sounding better and better, the more I hear – the ACT government has figured out how to make the Federal Government pay (say 2/3 of 75% = 50%) of the cost of subsidising the installation of domestic solar PV.
This brings the price of subsidised solar power to the households of the ACT down to pretty much the same price as old-style power. Awesome. Maybe I’ll vote Labor next local election…(only joking).

HenryBG said :

His maths is absolute crap.
Let’s use the numbers out of the article itself:

– ACT electricity consumers are paying about $8.37 million annually
– more than 10,500 solar generators
– produce only 0.7 per cent of the overall annual requirement.
– The cost for an average household has reached about $26.40 a year
– those who have had solar generators installed receive on average almost $800 a year

The first thing that leaps out at me is this:
If 10,500 solar generators are producing $800 each, that totals to $8.4 million pa.
The cost is $26.40 x 100,000 households = $2.64 million pa

So the PV we have is generating $6.24 million pa into our local economy. Unless I’m missing something.

Oops just saw the mistake in my last. Shouldn’t be $5B should be $500 mill.

Henry,
yes rereading it, it doesn’t add up.

The average cost per household is $26 this year predicted to get to $50 next year.

But that’s the average cost per household not total cost which is borne by ALL ACT electricity customers.

So I’m assuming that the missing $6.2 million you’ve identified is the cost currently paid by non-residential electricity users in the ACT.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

Martlark said :

$50 per household, 100k households for 1%, in the day. To make that 100% in the day time, would cost 100 times per household; there are not enough roofs, but indulge me, 100 x 50 = $5000 per household, and we’d still have to pay for the night time energy.

OK, I’m not exactly on my first glass of wine tonight, but…does that numerical gobbledegook make any sense to anybody?

Isn’t it funny that every crank who hates new technologies is also illiterate and innumerate, and massively challenged in the communications department?

Like I said before, I’m paying about $2600 per year in energy bills. If you say I’m paying an extra $50 per year because the government is making some pitiful token effort to wean us off fossil fuels, then I don’t really see any problem with that.
I’d rather it was $500 per year.

And I’d rather they stopped paying for a Human Rights Commissioner and the army of worthless political staffers and other dross whose wage bills my rates are covering, and channel all that money into something constructive and worthwhile.

Yes the maths makes sense, except for the bit about paying for energy at night. Obviously we’d need to be storing the solar energy used during the day which has it’s own issues.

We’re paying (or will be) $50 per household for the currently installed PV systems which produce ~1% of our total energy usage.

There are ~ 100 000 households in Canberra hence the total cost is $50 000 000.

If our energy was produced 100% by rooftop solar power the total bill would be 100 times this.

So the total cost would be $5B or $5000 per household.

Note, I’m not saying there isn’t holes in this argument but his maths isn’t wrong as far as it goes.

His maths is absolute crap.
Let’s use the numbers out of the article itself:

– ACT electricity consumers are paying about $8.37 million annually
– more than 10,500 solar generators
– produce only 0.7 per cent of the overall annual requirement.
– The cost for an average household has reached about $26.40 a year
– those who have had solar generators installed receive on average almost $800 a year

The first thing that leaps out at me is this:
If 10,500 solar generators are producing $800 each, that totals to $8.4 million pa.
The cost is $26.40 x 100,000 households = $2.64 million pa

So the PV we have is generating $6.24 million pa into our local economy. Unless I’m missing something.

Lazy I said :

Kinda like means testing rebates… oh wait.. that punishes the ‘wealthy’, that’s all good.

You mean the people that don’t need the rebates?

HenryBG said :

Martlark said :

$50 per household, 100k households for 1%, in the day. To make that 100% in the day time, would cost 100 times per household; there are not enough roofs, but indulge me, 100 x 50 = $5000 per household, and we’d still have to pay for the night time energy.

OK, I’m not exactly on my first glass of wine tonight, but…does that numerical gobbledegook make any sense to anybody?

Isn’t it funny that every crank who hates new technologies is also illiterate and innumerate, and massively challenged in the communications department?

Like I said before, I’m paying about $2600 per year in energy bills. If you say I’m paying an extra $50 per year because the government is making some pitiful token effort to wean us off fossil fuels, then I don’t really see any problem with that.
I’d rather it was $500 per year.

And I’d rather they stopped paying for a Human Rights Commissioner and the army of worthless political staffers and other dross whose wage bills my rates are covering, and channel all that money into something constructive and worthwhile.

Yes the maths makes sense, except for the bit about paying for energy at night. Obviously we’d need to be storing the solar energy used during the day which has it’s own issues.

We’re paying (or will be) $50 per household for the currently installed PV systems which produce ~1% of our total energy usage.

There are ~ 100 000 households in Canberra hence the total cost is $50 000 000.

If our energy was produced 100% by rooftop solar power the total bill would be 100 times this.

So the total cost would be $5B or $5000 per household.

Note, I’m not saying there isn’t holes in this argument but his maths isn’t wrong as far as it goes.

It’s very interesting reading this, many of the issues are exactly the same as in the UK where people would like to use more, but the deals are not great and the efficiency of the systems are not yet as good as they can be.
The UK has got more potential for hydroelectric systems off the shallow coastlines and are finally making progress in implementation, but they have the same pressures from economics and big power companies (mostly now foreign-owned) calling the shots and pushing us down a nuclear route….thus preventing a lot of renewable initiatives (unless they get the work themselves and can price fix to maintain profits and there own futures)

My question is….why isn’t Australia the world leader in this field? All the best research, technology and machinery is currently German designed….and everybody relies on them to come up with the goods.
Australia is isolated and more at risk from declining, or potential future disruption to fossil fuel access, you have great Universities and facilities, vast land masses and and the best source of reliable sunshine on the planet.
Making this an Australian dominated industry would surely put you in charge of your own destiny and give great export opportunities plus the intellectual property to protect and develop…even if outsourced to China or India.
It just seems that it’s more crucial to Australia than anywhere else and you’re in the best location to take the lead.

OpenYourMind said :

The interesting thing is the drop in price of PV has happened more suddenly than most (including our Govt) ever imagined. It’s hard to say when the rate of drop will flatten out, but at the current decrease in PV prices we will soon be at the point where a system without subsidy can produce power at a cheaper rate than you can buy from the grid.

…good point, but I dont think the our electricity provider will ever let that happen. Government can do nothing about it either.

Personally I think that anything that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels is worthwhile. If we can find something to reduce our dependence on the middle east, then everyone would be alot happier as well (I am not arguing for or against the science of climate change, but both sides have to agree with this).

milkman said :

arescarti42 said :

It’s exactly like negative gearing, which does outrage me. I suspect the reason that more aren’t outraged is that they don’t understand what negative gearing is, what it does, and how it affects government revenues (including a lot of people who are negatively geared).

And like negative gearing, there’s an elephant in the room – the carbon cost of manufacturing and transporting solar panels to suburban roofs.

(the elephant for negative gearing is the $33 billion dollars that our governments collect in property-related taxes each year)

I thought negative gearing had a negative effect on tax from all of the tax deductions – but now I’m wondering whether I dreaming. Does anyone know for sure?

It also has a cost in terms of housing affordability and distortions in the housing market.

duckylucky said :

For those with home solar units, have any of you managed to get a decent return on investment yet?

To answer your specific question, yes. About 14% per annum tax free locked in for 20years for early adopters. It’s hard to find a better investment.

Systems have gotten much, much cheaper, but the rate has dropped from 50.05c/kWh to 16.6c/kWh.

The interesting thing is the drop in price of PV has happened more suddenly than most (including our Govt) ever imagined. It’s hard to say when the rate of drop will flatten out, but at the current decrease in PV prices we will soon be at the point where a system without subsidy can produce power at a cheaper rate than you can buy from the grid.

Our domestic PV system produces as much power as our household consumes…albeit at different times. This is not a big issue for now as solar is still a small part of the energy grid equation.

I-filed said :

Would stones chucked on roofs break those panels?

Are you the Taliban, threatening our power supply?

Let’s hope the whole cranky luddite thing doesn’t end up with ASIO getting involved.

Would stones chucked on roofs break those panels?

Martlark said :

$50 per household, 100k households for 1%, in the day. To make that 100% in the day time, would cost 100 times per household; there are not enough roofs, but indulge me, 100 x 50 = $5000 per household, and we’d still have to pay for the night time energy.

OK, I’m not exactly on my first glass of wine tonight, but…does that numerical gobbledegook make any sense to anybody?

Isn’t it funny that every crank who hates new technologies is also illiterate and innumerate, and massively challenged in the communications department?

Like I said before, I’m paying about $2600 per year in energy bills. If you say I’m paying an extra $50 per year because the government is making some pitiful token effort to wean us off fossil fuels, then I don’t really see any problem with that.
I’d rather it was $500 per year.

And I’d rather they stopped paying for a Human Rights Commissioner and the army of worthless political staffers and other dross whose wage bills my rates are covering, and channel all that money into something constructive and worthwhile.

Martlark said :

Diggety said :

I think Martlark raises some valid points for discussion, but the title of the article is quite retarded.

I blame me.

Well that’s a pretty frank admission hard to come by these days, but it doesn’t remedy my concern.

If you could do one of two things:

1. Admit that the title you used does not match or support your argument in the article.

Or

2. Outline a fresh argument with matching evidence to support the title.

For those with home solar units, have any of you managed to get a decent return on investment yet?

HenryBG said :

So….we have very little solar power installed, therefore it only provides a 1% share of our production, therefore we shouldn’t increase our installed capacity of solar generation?

Is that the logic?…

$50 per household, 100k households for 1%, in the day. To make that 100% in the day time, would cost 100 times per household; there are not enough roofs, but indulge me, 100 x 50 = $5000 per household, and we’d still have to pay for the night time energy.

Diggety said :

I think Martlark raises some valid points for discussion, but the title of the article is quite retarded.

I blame me.

Special G said :

…Since I have had them installed I have also started paying more attention to how much power I use and have dropped my electricity consumption by half. You do the maths on how much that is costing you.

$4000 to $5000 Sustainable Energy rebate. Couple of grand Govt. grant to install I suspect. Some sort of excessive payment multiple times the retail cost for what you generate. That is what it is costing us. Nice for you, don’t see why I should subsidise your comfort.

It would be interesting to know how many of these wealthy, subsidised “identities” are hooked into Green and in-the-know circles … remember, the Stanhope Government did this to us!

I think Martlark raises some valid points for discussion, but the title of the article is quite retarded.

Special G said :

Had your whinge – good – now show me the money. No electricity bill and extra cash generated covers gas, water and phone bills.

Since I have had them installed I have also started paying more attention to how much power I use and have dropped my electricity consumption by half. You do the maths on how much that is costing you.

Sounds good to me! What size system did you get? Also, what did you do to drop energy use by half?

arescarti42 said :

dpm said :

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

It’s exactly like negative gearing, which does outrage me. I suspect the reason that more aren’t outraged is that they don’t understand what negative gearing is, what it does, and how it affects government revenues (including a lot of people who are negatively geared).

And like negative gearing, there’s an elephant in the room – the carbon cost of manufacturing and transporting solar panels to suburban roofs.

(the elephant for negative gearing is the $33 billion dollars that our governments collect in property-related taxes each year)

Had your whinge – good – now show me the money. No electricity bill and extra cash generated covers gas, water and phone bills.

Since I have had them installed I have also started paying more attention to how much power I use and have dropped my electricity consumption by half. You do the maths on how much that is costing you.

dpm said :

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

Well I for one sure am.

dpm said :

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

Kinda like means testing rebates… oh wait.. that punishes the ‘wealthy’, that’s all good.

dpm said :

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

Good point.
He’s wrong anyway – ultimately, the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are the people who pay the most taxes, and these are the people who are most able to afford to put PV on their roofs.
That works.

dpm said :

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

It’s exactly like negative gearing, which does outrage me. I suspect the reason that more aren’t outraged is that they don’t understand what negative gearing is, what it does, and how it affects government revenues (including a lot of people who are negatively geared).

arescarti42 said :

..It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it..

Kinda like negative gearing rules, but no one seems to be as outraged over that inequitable system…

I think every city needs to reduce their CO2 emissions as soon as possible, but I also have concerns about domestic roof-top solar systems.

I’ve noticed several roof panels which have large trees nearby, placing them in shadow for a few hours each day. We want large trees around our suburbs, but they don’t go well with solar panels.
Almost all of these systems have only been installed because of the government subsidies, at a time when most people agree markets pick technology winners better than governments.
Economies of scale in economic theory point to a reduction for installation, maintenance, and operation costs as the size of the solar plant increases, suggesting mid size plants would be better.
The electricity distribution grid has been designed for the flow of power into the suburbs from distant generators, and 10,000 generators now within the city must be causing a few distribution anomalies.

I’d prefer mid to large size solar or wind placed outside the city, and am glad to see mid size schemes opening up now.

Perhaps that $50mil should have been spent installing PV systems on all the govvie houses in the Territory. That way we would get the solar power into the grid, and the government would get the cash since they own the systems.

So….we have very little solar power installed, therefore it only provides a 1% share of our production, therefore we shouldn’t increase our installed capacity of solar generation?

Is that the logic?

I spend about $2600pa on electricity and gas.
According to you, I am paying $50pa for solar power.

I notice that the price of solar power is not increasing year-on-year, whereas the price of fossil-power is doubling at a rate of once every 10 years.
In other words, if we don’t start installing a lot more solar and wind very soon, we will be paying a lot more than an extra $50pa for the privilege of using power generated from non-renewable sources.

I’m hoping a lot more investment is made into cheaper and more price-stable forms of power generation (such as wind and solar) very soon, so my power bills don’t go through the roof, as they will if anybody pays any attention to the reality-denying changeophobic cranky Abbott-loving pensioners.

Home solar PV systems are hardly useless, but if the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, then subsidising their installation has got to be one of the most expensive ways to do it.

It is also a really inequitable and socially regressive subsidy in that the people who are being subsidised are those who are both wealthy enough to own a house and have a couple of thousand dollars just lying around. Ultimately the people who bear the costs of the subsidy are those who are too poor to take advantage of it.

I’m a huge proponent for reducing GHG emissions, but the feed in tariff scheme strikes me as a bad piece of public policy.