# Do you have solar panels?



## springhill (22 January 2011)

Hi all,

I have built a new house and am looking to get solar panels installed on the roof. Have done some research on companies and their products, but would be interested in others experiences and opinions.

Have you, or would you consider getting them installed?

Have you used a company, and would recommend them, or vice versa?
How many kW should your system produce for it to be viable?
Most companies panels are made in China, but some have a 25 year manufacturers warranty, so the product seems to be of a reliable quality.

The government subsidies are due to reduce as of July 1st, so now may be a good time to make steps in this direction.

Any input would be appreciated.


----------



## Bill M (22 January 2011)

springhill said:


> Have you, or would you consider getting them installed?




Hi springhill, I ran the numbers for my house and it just isn't worth getting it installed for us. I have 8 inch thick insulation batts in the roof space and they work pretty well. My stove and hot water are gas so it makes my energy costs very low. My last electric bill was $144 for the quarter and the gas bill was $99 for the quarter. So for a $1,000 a year for all my energy costs it just isn't worth it. It all sounds good with the rebates and stuff but when you really get some quotes happening you are still out of pocket by many thousands of $$$. Plus we could sell up in a couple of years and could end up making a substantial loss. Our environmental damage is minimal, have not used the air con yet this summer and only used the heater (which is gas) about half a dozen times in winter so our output in minimal, cheers.


----------



## RandR (22 January 2011)

springhill said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have built a new house and am looking to get solar panels installed on the roof. Have done some research on companies and their products, but would be interested in others experiences and opinions.
> 
> ...




Hi !

Were in Queensland, we have somewhere in the vicinity of 160 PV solar panels, covering an area that is 30m x 12m.

- This produces 30kw of electricity, which is realistically as much as you can do (30kw is 3-phase power) and if you produce more then 30kw you get a commercial feed in rate.

-Cost was roughly 150,000

-Annual returns are in the vicinity of 25,000 - 30,000 the variation is dependent upon wheather. Yes, we are getting 20% returns, guaranteed at that rate, by both the government and our contracted energy company, and of course the manufacturers warranty, 20% .. every year ... for 25 years. Which is better then a managed fund 

-Our rate of of input to the grid is contracted for a long period of time.

-Indeed, we have a manufactures warranty that covers output efficiency for 25 years.

-In queensland we are paid on a 'net' feed in tariff, ie, only get paid on any production that is not consumed. This may be different in SA, you may have a gross feed in tariff. in which case you are paid for however much the system produces, regardless of how much you use.

- we have had it verified by the insurance company that it is protected under home and contents insurance (in our case)

- The property this is installed upon is 15 acres large, and has 2 electrical metres, 1 for the house and surrounds and 1 for a shed, obviously because of the net feed in tariff, we bypassed the house and went through the shed, which only has 3 halogen lights and an electric door, thereby we are getting paid for 99% of what it produces. Effectively meaning we are getting paid the net tariff, but on a gross tariff scale 

*What can kill it as an investment ?*

- if you dont optimize it .. as we have done 
- if you dont do considerable research
- high levels of inflation
- technologic innovoation that makes the technology redundant (which we figure even if they did, would be 10yrs plus away from implementation.


----------



## joea (22 January 2011)

springhill said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have built a new house and am looking to get solar panels installed on the roof. Have done some research on companies and their products, but would be interested in others experiences and opinions.
> 
> ...




Hi
If your hotwater system is electric, and installed by the standards, then it will have a cold water mixer to prevent children being burnt at various parts of the house.
If this is so, ensure your water is only being heated slightly over the final temperature.
Otherwise you are using excess energy heating up the water that is being cooled again.

Our neighbours have solarhotwater and a 5 panel grid connect and their bill is about $50
less than our. Our yearly bill $1200. but have gas hotplate. 

There is a local who has just installed a large system on a house . I will get particulars.
Cheers


----------



## Calliope (22 January 2011)

Springhill, you should read the solar panels buying guide in Choice magazine Oct 2010.

As Bill M says it would take many years to break even, so installing the average 1.5 kw system as a cost saving device is not on. The other alternative is if you are keen on saving the planet in the same way as greenies buy Prius cars.

Then there is a third reason My reason...I like gadgets, and have surrounded myself with all sorts of electronic products in which my interest soon wanes. However I am thoroughly satisfied with the solar system's performance. In the middle of a sunny day it does actually churn out 1.5 kw.

If you decide to go ahead I would suggest you go with a well known company like Origin. They use top products made by Sharp, and the installation was first class.


----------



## todster (22 January 2011)

joea said:


> Hi
> If your hotwater system is electric, and installed by the standards, then it will have a cold water mixer to prevent children being burnt at various parts of the house.
> If this is so, ensure your water is only being heated slightly over the final temperature.
> Otherwise you are using excess energy heating up the water that is being cooled again.
> ...




Unless you have a huge tank every time you use hot water cold will be replacing it in the tank so you will run out quick with multiple showers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 January 2011)

Happy to help anyone with solar but need some info first:

1. What state are you located in?

2. Are you on the main electricity grid?

3. Do you have a roof area facing somewhere near north (doesn't have to be exactly North, anywhere between East and West will be good enough) that the panels could be installed on?

4. Anything unusual? For example a steep roof pitch (eg an A-frame house), flat roof or multi-story construction?

5. What is the roof made of? Tiles? Metal? Something else? 

6. Is there any shade on the roof? For example, trees, surrounding tall buildings, power lines, TV antennas?

Whether or not it's financially viable really depends on your location (state) an the specifics of the property to a very large extent. More than happy to help you work it out. 

Personally, yes I've got solar power on my house and I've also been involved with the installation and design of rather a lot of stand alone (not connected to the grid) small systems for various purposes. I'm a licensed electrician but not formally qualified in designing solar power systems (they are all working fine however...).

My household energy is as follows. These figures are mostly measured but some are estimated.

Wood = 43% (all of which is used for space heating)

Grid electricity = 32% (58% of which is used for space heating, 23% for hot water, 19% of grid electricity + all of the solar electricity is used for everything else)

Solar & ambient heat input to heat pump = 23% (38% of which is as electricity used for non-heating purposes, 62% as hot water)

Oil & LPG = 2% (LPG for cooking and BBQ, petrol for the mower, fuel for the occasionally used heater in the garage)

Those figures are in terms of the energy sources. In terms of final usage (from all sources including solar):

Space heating = 62% 
Hot water = 22% 
Lighting = 3%
Aquarium = 3%
Refrigeration = 3%
Cooking = 3% 
Washing / Drying = 3%
Other = 5%

Figures don't add to 100% due to rounding each to the nearest whole %.

Equipment:

Solar power = 1.36kW panels (8 x 170W) and a 1100W SMA Sunny Boy inverter. Installed 2009.

Hot Water = Siddons Solarstream 327 Litre heat pump (split system). This was installed to replace a worn out electric storage water heater in 2009.

Heating = Saxon woodheater (slow combustion heater) in the dining room, 3.5 kW electric heater in the lounge, air transfer system from the woodheater with 3.5kW inline electric booster heater to the bedrooms, 4 x 275W heat lamps in the bathroom. Apart from the air transfer kit (installed 2010), the heating came with the house and presumably dates from early 1995 when the house was built.

Heating energy use is high and cooling is virtually zero due to being in Tasmania. The only cooling I've got is a portable evaporative cooler that costs about 1 cent per hour to run and we only get a few really hot days a year anyway so cooling isn't a significant cost. Obviously that's very different if you live somewhere that's hot.

As I said, happy to point anyone in the right direction with this sort of stuff. It's not rocket science and, apart from those living in Vic or SA, is pretty straightforward (it's still doable in Vic or SA, just some more messing about usually).


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2011)

I've installed a 3.4kw system this week in Perth. To date I've produced an average of 20kw per day for typical Perth summer weather. I've also moved to the smart power tariff at the same time as this also helps reduce cost if you can be flexible with when you use appliances

I haven't done a calculation myself, but from what others are saying, I expect a payback in 4 - 5 years. Apparently the bigger your system up to a certain point, the quicker the payback. 

Before I chose a system and supplier I did a fair bit of research. The best resource to use for Australia is the Whirlpool forums. This is a link:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/138?&g=223

To get to it from the main menu - select Discussion Forum, then Home from the Lounges section. It lists lots of Forums relating to many topics. If you go to the Group pulldown at the top and select Green, it will limit the topics to those related to "Green" issues such as solar.

You will find many topics specific to particular states, as each state has its own feedback tariff system. You will find lots of info on the quality of suppliers and you may find that some who advertise most are the worst to use. I went with GSI Solar in Perth and they have been excellent so far - from pre-sales to installation.

You will find lots of info on roof orientation, system efficiencies and pay back times. 

Good reading....


----------



## pixel (22 January 2011)

In reply to smurf's questions:

1. We live in the Perth metro area
2. yes
3. panels face in NE direction
4. about 30 degree pitch - near perfect for our latitude
5. tiles
6. our neighbour took down a messy palm tree - that could have become a problem

In May 2009, we replaced an old 50L electric hot water system by a 300L Solargain unit on our roof. After the Government rebate, we were $695 out of pocket. That reduced our electricity bill by about 25%. Perth's rising power rates will shorten the payback period to less than 3 years. After the installation, we activated the electric booster three times for under an hour each time; --> running costs under5 bucks a year.

In September 2009, we installed six Solargain panels of 170W and a 2KW inverter. Out of pocket expense: $3,990. In its first calendar year, it produced 1,666 KWh or a little over 4.5 units per day. During the first year, no special feed-in tariff was paid, which meant we saved "only" an average 18c/unit or $300. Meanwhile, the excess is rebated at a feed-in tariff of 47c; that means we will recoup the investment in about 8 years or less. As Synergy is a little slow with their bills, we don't have a reliable annual average yet. I do consider, however, doubling the capacity, which will cost (un-subsidized) approximately $3,500. If it produces an additional 1,666 KWh per annum, and assuming a mean unit price (mean of feed-in and reduced supply charge) of 30c/unit, 3,332 units per annum will save $1,000 p.a. for a payback period for the total investment of less than 8 years.


----------



## tothemax6 (23 January 2011)

RandR said:


> Hi !
> Were in Queensland, we have somewhere in the vicinity of 160 PV solar panels, covering an area that is 30m x 12m.
> - This produces 30kw of electricity, which is realistically as much as you can do (30kw is 3-phase power) and if you produce more then 30kw you get a commercial feed in rate.
> -Cost was roughly 150,000
> ...



Dude! That's epic! 
Is much from government contributions, or is it mostly the electricity price? Also, why not keep scaling this up? Also, regarding personal use, by your estimate is the area of a 'standard suburban' house's roof big enough to fit the cells required to power the contents of the house? Do you need much in the way for batteries for your installation, or does it just feed into the grid in the daytime?
Cheers


----------



## DocK (26 January 2011)

Have just paid a deposit on a 4.14kw system from Central Solar Systems on the Gold Coast - cost to us $16700 after rebates etc.  If anyone has any feedback on them I'd welcome it - we've paid a little more to have the Silex panels (made in Aust).  We have a 2 storey home with tile roof, unshaded, but unfortunately not enough roof space facing true north for all the panels so will have a split system of north and east.  As our daytime use is not large (and I will adjust using clothes dryer from morning to late afternoon etc) we hope to recoup the outlay in a little over 6 years.  The net feed-in tariff will be .50c/kw.  As our hot water costs are less than $500 pa (due to tariff 31 night rate) we've decided not to bother with replacing hot water until the present system dies - as it is located inside our garage this could be years away - and will probably look at a heat-pump system when that time comes.


----------



## inq (26 January 2011)

I'm looking at getting a 1.5kw setup for my new house. Origin can do this for 3k, however there is the option of using Sharp panels for an extra $800. 

Both come with a 25 year warranty, and Sharp's panels are now also made in China, so i'm wondering if anyone can figure any reason for upgrading?


----------



## Calliope (26 January 2011)

DocK said:


> Have just paid a deposit on a 4.14kw system from Central Solar Systems on the Gold Coast - cost to us $16700 after rebates etc.




Apparently the after-rebate price of the system increases way out of proportion to its power increase.e.g.;

Your  4.14kW system costs $16,700,
My 1.5kW system was $2,990. There are plenty of cheaper ones around for under $2,000.

This is a 558% increase in cost for a 276% increase in power rating. 

While we're  on the subject, I came across this article;



> It is also important to note that if you have a solar PV system installed, your electricity rates will change from an off‐peak tariff to a time‐of‐use (TOU) tariff. This will particularly affect your dedicated off‐peak loads, such as hot water, space heating and air‐conditioning. You should check with your electricity retailer whether the benefits of the time‐of‐use (TOU) tariff outweigh the benefits of staying on your off‐peak tariff. This needs to be considered before your install your solar P V panels



http://www.nationalsolarpower.com.au/solar-power.

Is this correct?


----------



## DocK (26 January 2011)

> Calliope said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently the after-rebate price of the system increases way out of proportion to its power increase.e.g.;
> ...




I had also come across this in my initial research - and can only conclude that the "time of use" tariff seems to be a Victorian thing at present.  Nobody I have spoken to in Qld knows anything about it, or plans to introduce it in Qld.  We can remain on tariff 31 "off peak night rate" for our electric hot water system after solar panels have been installed.  Most of the solar companies I've spoken to recommend switching solar hot water systems to tariff 33 in Qld (avail 18hrs per day at 8.712c/kw instead of 21.351domestic rate), but a heat pump system can apparently work quite well on tariff 31 boosting alone unless hot water requirements are very high.  I know several families in my neighbourhood that have installed solar systems both with and without solar/heat pump hot water, and most that went for the smaller 1.5kw systems wish they had gone bigger to start with - although most have 4 or 5 people per home.


----------



## Calliope (26 January 2011)

Thanks DocK. You have certainly done your homework. I live alone and don't use air conditioning, so 1.5kW is all I need. I am still waiting for Energex to make changes to my metering so  I can get credits for the surplus going back into the grid. At the moment it is going back gratis. However Energex is busy elsewhere restoring power to the flood victims.


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Is this correct?




If you are in WA (Perth specifically), you can be on the standard A1 tariff or chose the Smart Power tariff. I have opted for the later, as that makes more sense for my usage pattern.

The A1 tariff is (approximately) 20 cents per Kw hours throughout the day. The Smart Power tariff is (approximately) 40 cents during the working day (9 to 5), 10 cents at night (9pm to 7am) and 20 cents for the shoulder periods. Weekends are similar, without the 9 to 5 premium rate.

Moving to the smart power tariff makes sense if you have low day time usage. You may be consuming 2kW per hour and feeding back 20 kW per hour back to the grid during the day, hence getting 18 kW per hour feedback at 47 cents (the WA rate). At night you may be consuming 20 kW per hour (air con on), but are only paying 10 cents per kW hour for it. Shoulder period somewhere in between.


----------



## pixel (27 January 2011)

inq said:


> I'm looking at getting a 1.5kw setup for my new house. Origin can do this for 3k, however there is the option of using Sharp panels for an extra $800.
> 
> Both come with a 25 year warranty, and Sharp's panels are now also made in China, so i'm wondering if anyone can figure any reason for upgrading?



 The difference is in efficiency;
at peak performance, they may be similar, but at lower light and/or when the sun angle is not totally perpendicular, the polycrystalline and monocrystalline panels perform differently. Check it out and find which is which and how your house and roof pitch match your sun angle.


----------



## inq (27 January 2011)

Thanks for the info Pixel - I'm comparing the answers given here to those of the consultants. 

Something I noticed last night coming home from work: At around 7pm my evap aircon delivers a shadow across a part of the area which would have the panels installed.

If this is the case, is solar panels a no go for that short period of time out of the day where there is full light? I also don't have much knowledge of astronomy and the like, but does the angle at which the sun rises and set change?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2011)

DocK said:


> Most of the solar companies I've spoken to recommend switching solar hot water systems to tariff 33 in Qld (avail 18hrs per day at 8.712c/kw instead of 21.351domestic rate), but a heat pump system can apparently work quite well on tariff 31 boosting alone unless hot water requirements are very high.



Be warned - there's an awful lot of dud heat pumps and dud installers out there.

If they recommend running on peak tariff then Smurf recommends that you also do some running - well away from that supplier and/or product.

Usage will determine which tariff is most appropriate for a heat pump, but in a domestic situation it should be an off-peak tariff almost always. To do otherwise defeats the financial benefit of installing the heat pump in the first place.

In Qld, most will be best on Tarff 33 but if your usage is lower then 31 should be fine. I'd suggest leaving it on 31, assuming that is already installed for the existing hot water, unless there's a proven need to change.

In regard to heat pump brands, let's just say that if it has a booster element then that's not a sign of good design. If we can heat houses and hot water with heat pumps in the middle of the night in Winter here in Tassie with no booster, then you sure don't need a booster in most parts of Australia.

I have no association with the company, but I'll put a good word in for the Siddons Solarstream heat pump water heater. It's far better than the big name heat pumps in my opinion. It works fine at zero degrees with no booster, and a Google search will turn up plenty of praise without the horror stories associated with Rheem and Dux heat pumps. 

The Siddons tank is stainless steel and made in Australia, compressor is Japanese. And being a split system design, you can still have the tank under the house, in the garage etc if you want to. It doesn't have as much fancy electronics as some of the big name brands which is a good thing - it's those fancy control systems that seem to cause rather a lot of trouble with breakdowns.

Whether or not you're better off with a heat pump or some other solar water heater is very site and location specific.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2011)

inq said:


> Thanks for the info Pixel - I'm comparing the answers given here to those of the consultants.
> 
> Something I noticed last night coming home from work: At around 7pm my evap aircon delivers a shadow across a part of the area which would have the panels installed.
> 
> If this is the case, is solar panels a no go for that short period of time out of the day where there is full light? I also don't have much knowledge of astronomy and the like, but does the angle at which the sun rises and set change?



The sun will be further north during most of the year. If the evap cooler is directly west of the panels and only casting a shadow late in the day during Summer then it won't really be an issue. But if it's north of the panels then that's certainly a big problem.

Since they are wired in series, and the panels themselves are also in series, shading part of the array disproportionately drops the output relative to the area shaded. So you want no shade at all if possible for most of the day.


----------



## inq (27 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The sun will be further north during most of the year. If the evap cooler is directly west of the panels and only casting a shadow late in the day during Summer then it won't really be an issue. But if it's north of the panels then that's certainly a big problem.
> 
> Since they are wired in series, and the panels themselves are also in series, shading part of the array disproportionately drops the output relative to the area shaded. So you want no shade at all if possible for most of the day.




The Evap is indeed West of the proposed area, and the only shade from 6am-9pm is from around 7pm where the shadow forms. If what you say is true about the sun being further north most of the year, this will alleviate that problem. 

So in essense this isn't a deal breaker, just a reduction in effeciency for that part of the evening?


----------



## DocK (27 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Be warned - there's an awful lot of dud heat pumps and dud installers out there.
> 
> If they recommend running on peak tariff then Smurf recommends that you also do some running - well away from that supplier and/or product.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the info Smurf - as I mentioned I'm not looking at installing an alternative hot water system until my present electric one dies - but it is reassuring to find that the company I'm dealing with for the solar panels use the Siddons heat pump (also carry Stiebel Eltron).  Gives me hope that their claim of using the best available products might just be true


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2011)

DocK said:


> Thanks for the info Smurf - as I mentioned I'm not looking at installing an alternative hot water system until my present electric one dies - but it is reassuring to find that the company I'm dealing with for the solar panels use the Siddons heat pump (also carry Stiebel Eltron).  Gives me hope that their claim of using the best available products might just be true



Stiebel Eltron is another "good" brand judging by all reports I've seen (I have no personal experience with the Stiebel Eltron units). It does seem to be a quality product and is made in Germany to my understanding.

The other one I'd mention is Quantum. They were basically the pioneer of heat pump water heaters in this country and that dates back to the 1970's, systems going on sale in the 80's. The only downside is that they've since moved the manufacturing to China which raises a few questions...

I was planning on doing much the same as you, not replacing the hot water until later. But it just so happened that the hot water heater sprung a leak only a few weeks after the solar power went in so they both ended up being done around the same time (12 weeks apart).

One reason you might consider doing the hot water sooner is to beat the end of the $1000 rebate for solar HWS. But then, others would argue that prices would probably fall anyway without the rebate thus offsetting any real benefit of getting in early.

As for the existing water heater, if it is a conventional mains pressure vitreous enamel unit (Rheem, Dux etc) then replacing the sacrificial anode will greatly extend its life through prevention of corrosion (yes I did mine when I moved into the house, but it was too late with the tank already very badly rusted).


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2011)

inq said:


> The Evap is indeed West of the proposed area, and the only shade from 6am-9pm is from around 7pm where the shadow forms. If what you say is true about the sun being further north most of the year, this will alleviate that problem.
> 
> So in essense this isn't a deal breaker, just a reduction in effeciency for that part of the evening?



What location are you in? This affects what angle the sun will be at during different times of the year.

But assuming it's directly west of the panels and that the panels will be facing north, a bit of shade after 7pm is only going to cause a loss of a few % of annual power production so wouldn't be a major issue. Output tends to be low during the last hour or so of daylight anyway due to the angle of the sun relative to the solar panels at that time.


----------



## inq (28 January 2011)

Thanks for the info Smurf, FYI my location is Adelaide if that changes anything.


----------



## RandR (28 January 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Dude! That's epic!
> Is much from government contributions, or is it mostly the electricity price? Also, why not keep scaling this up? Also, regarding personal use, by your estimate is the area of a 'standard suburban' house's roof big enough to fit the cells required to power the contents of the house? Do you need much in the way for batteries for your installation, or does it just feed into the grid in the daytime?
> Cheers




If you look at the section you qouted it contains the answers to most of the questions youve raised 

- Its mostly the electricity price, government contributions were only really factored into the install. (as explained, by running through a seperate meter on the property to the house, we were able to achieve what is in effect, the price of the 'net feed' in tariff, at a gross tariff rate of production.)
- You cannot keep scaling up, because 30kw of power is as much as you can put on a 3 - phase line (3 phase is 10kwx3) and once you go past 30kw you are paid a commercial rate.
- each house and roof is entirely different (mostly) i cant give you an answer on a 'standard suburban roof'. But i think most standard households should be covered by about a 3kw system.
- there are deninitly no batteries ... because batteries are entirely innefficient ... all power is fed straight to grid.


----------



## RandR (28 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Be warned - there's an awful lot of dud heat pumps and dud installers out there.
> 
> If they recommend running on peak tariff then Smurf recommends that you also do some running - well away from that supplier and/or product.
> 
> ...




All good advice smurf ... except not neccesarily the bit i have bolded.

This is because as a plumber, if called to a property to fix a hot water system, if that system is a heat pump and the refrigeration component is malfunctioning, my options to fixing the system are quite limited, because im not a refrigeration mechanic, i do not carry tools, equipment, nor have the legal right as a licensed tradesperson to work on a heat pumps refrigeration system.

So having a back up booster element is quite a benefit, as it enables a plumber to disengage the heat pump, and enable the customer to have hot water in the time before they or I can arrange for a friggie to inspect the system.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 January 2011)

RandR said:


> All good advice smurf ... except not neccesarily the bit i have bolded.
> 
> This is because as a plumber, if called to a property to fix a hot water system, if that system is a heat pump and the refrigeration component is malfunctioning, my options to fixing the system are quite limited, because im not a refrigeration mechanic, i do not carry tools, equipment, nor have the legal right as a licensed tradesperson to work on a heat pumps refrigeration system.
> 
> So having a back up booster element is quite a benefit



I'll agree there is that benefit... 

But if the element is being used on a regular basis then that's not a good sign. If one manufacturer can heat water with a heat pump and still achieve decent efficiency when there is snow on the ground, yet another thinks you need a booster in Brisbane that will actually be used quite often, then something is clearly wrong with the design of the latter.


----------



## Lantern (29 January 2011)

I have a 305L solar hot water system., and also a 3.7kW solar grid feed system running through a SMA 3.8kW inverter.

I was lucky to get in whilst the 60c NSW FIT was still operating.
A scheme just too good to miss.

The next reading will be the first with the system connected for the whole duration of the bill.


----------



## Logique (31 March 2011)

The Qs I'm trying to work through are:
- what % savings are people getting on their bills
- is it important whether the panels are Sharp brand or something else, also made in China
- anyone having trouble getting their power utility to come out and install a new meter


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2011)

Logique said:


> The Qs I'm trying to work through are:
> - what % savings are people getting on their bills
> - is it important whether the panels are Sharp brand or something else, also made in China
> - anyone having trouble getting their power utility to come out and install a new meter




For some reason someone started another thread on solar panels yesterday. The information you seek may be there.


----------



## DB008 (1 August 2011)

My Dad's place up in Brisbane.
3.0 kw System. Cost around 6k (for everything, including rebates). 
16 panels, split, 2 groups of 8 (restricted roof space). 
Inverter in picture too, picture taken around 11AM


----------



## drsmith (1 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> My Dad's place up in Brisbane.
> 3.0 kw System.



How has he gone with that inverter when it's generating a reasonable amount (say, 1kW+) and AM radio interference ?

I've got the same type of inverter (Solarlord 1.5kW, box, display, connections look otherwise identical) which sends out a signal that obliterates AM radio stations above about 900W.

That's a good price for 3kW bearing in mind the solar panel rebate structure. I paid $2.4k for 1.5kW in late March, system installed at the end of June.

In WA, the government has cut the feed in tariff off at the knees for new applicants. This is after reducing it in May.

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.a...?ItemId=142552&minister=Collier&admin=Barnett


----------



## DB008 (1 August 2011)

Hey drsmith,
I will have to ask, but since he has an iPod (full of music) and listens to Jazz CD's (which he has lots of), I honestly don't think that he listens to AM anymore...


----------



## pixel (1 August 2011)

Logique said:


> The Qs I'm trying to work through are:
> - what % savings are people getting on their bills
> - is it important whether the panels are Sharp brand or something else, also made in China
> - anyone having trouble getting their power utility to come out and install a new meter



 No problem with Western Power installing the two-way meter; we had ours connected within 2 weeks - that was almost 2 years ago. Recently, neighbours decided to install smaller systems, and their meters were installed the same week.

As regards savings: A 300 litre solar hot water system (formerly Rheem electric) plus now 2KW Solar panels had an unexpected savings effect for us. The first 2-month period resulted in a Credit of $50 as opposed to a $250 bill two years ago; the next period, which included more use of heating (electric, RC aircon) came out with a $5.15 charge, compared to $280 pcp. 
As we were among the first to take up the 40c FIT offer - which has now been scrapped completely - our P/L account will obviously differ from others. The downside for us: We paid obviously a higher price than is now being charged for comparable systems.


----------



## pilots (9 November 2011)

We have a new way of ripping of the power, if you have solar panels, and you are getting more for your power from them, than you get from the grid, all you have to do is get a battery charger wired up to your solar panels, at night you turn on the battery charger.
Good one Labour.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> How has he gone with that inverter when it's generating a reasonable amount (say, 1kW+) and AM radio interference ?
> 
> I've got the same type of inverter (Solarlord 1.5kW, box, display, connections look otherwise identical) which sends out a signal that obliterates AM radio stations [/url]




Do you still listen to steam driven radio Doc? LOL


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Do you still listen to steam driven radio Doc? LOL




Actually Doc, I'm only joking a.m has the only informative broadcast. However in Perth I find the tunning drift and static terrible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 November 2011)

Stage 3 of my solar power system, adding a complete new 1.52 KW string on the NE roof face, will be a goer soon as I'm about to order the equipment.


----------



## drsmith (9 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Actually Doc, I'm only joking a.m has the only informative broadcast. However in Perth I find the tunning drift and static terrible.



I can't live without my daily dose of Howard Sattler.........

Only joking..........

Really, honestly, and for true.


----------



## drsmith (9 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Stage 3 of my solar power system, adding a complete new 1.52 KW string on the NE roof face, will be a goer soon as I'm about to order the equipment.



I'm shot for any serious upgrade.

If I upgrade the inverter to a higher capacity one, I lose the feed in tariff.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Stage 3 of my solar power system, adding a complete new 1.52 KW string on the NE roof face, will be a goer soon as I'm about to order the equipment.




Interesting thing the other day a mate who has 1.5kw on his east roof asked me where to put an extra 3kw he was going to buy.
The suplier said put it on the east roof as more output due to temp, therefore more feed in tarrif,
I suggested, because he is a high user (air con) he would be better to have it on the west side. Thereby reducing the a/c operating cost when feed in tarrif cuts out. Also reduces afternoon sun on the roof.
I just tend to think people are more concerned about the pay back time on the system. Than installing it in a manner which reduces their consumption in an efficient manner.


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2011)

North is obviously ideal, but east is better than west, all other factors being equal, as solar panel efficiency declines with increasing panel temperature.

Another consideration is slope of the roof, east vs west. 

Solar panels are generally specified at 25 DegC panel temperature (not air temperature) and decline by 0.45%/DegC. 

http://www.hanwha-solarone.com/imag...odules/polycrystalline/en/sf_190_poly_IEC.pdf


----------



## bellenuit (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> We have a new way of ripping of the power, if you have solar panels, and you are getting more for your power from them, than you get from the grid, all you have to do is get a battery charger wired up to your solar panels, at night you turn on the battery charger.
> Good one Labour.




That doesn't make sense. Assuming you are on the 47 cent FIT (WA, but I assume similar in other states), why would you direct your excess power to a battery foregoing 47 cent per kWH, when the battery operating at night will only save you 20 (approx) cents per kWH used or even less if you are using smart power. Additionally, charging a battery will always be less than 100% efficient, so you will not get back what you put in.

If you are not on the FIT, then what you are doing is perfectly valid so long as the setup is approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. You are generating the power, storing what you don't use during the day and retrieving it back at night. Who is being ripped off?


----------



## kimcasablancas (10 November 2011)

I don't, but I've considered getting them.


----------



## DB008 (10 November 2011)

bellenuit said:


> That doesn't make sense. Assuming you are on the 47 cent FIT (WA, but I assume similar in other states), why would you direct your excess power to a battery foregoing 47 cent per kWH, when the battery operating at night will only save you 20 (approx) cents per kWH used or even less if you are using smart power. Additionally, charging a battery will always be less than 100% efficient, so you will not get back what you put in.
> 
> If you are not on the FIT, then what you are doing is perfectly valid so long as the setup is approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. You are generating the power, storing what you don't use during the day and retrieving it back at night. Who is being ripped off?




+1 
I am a little confused with pilots statement.


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> North is obviously ideal, but east is better than west, all other factors being equal, as solar panel efficiency declines with increasing panel temperature.
> 
> Another consideration is slope of the roof, east vs west.
> 
> ...




The problem is Doc, when the feed in tarrif finishes. If the panels are facing east you are making power in the morning when you don't need it. When the house is hot in the afternoon and you turn on the a/c the panels won't be producing. IMO

By the way he doesn't have much north facing roof.


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The problem is Doc, when the feed in tarrif finishes.



That's why I referred to all other factors being equal.

Another consideration is the longevity of the components in terms of the return you get over a reasonable lifespan. It's OK to plan ahead, but what if the inverter packs up out of warranty but before or when the FIT ends ?

In relation to future usage, another consideration is the increasing cost of grid electricity and the reducing cost of solar components.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> That's why I referred to all other factors being equal.
> 
> Another consideration is the longevity of the components in terms of the return you get over a reasonable lifespan. It's OK to plan ahead, but what if the inverter packs up out of warranty but before or when the FIT ends ?
> 
> In relation to future usage, another consideration is the increasing cost of grid electricity and the reducing cost of solar components.



 In WA, the fit contracts run until 2020; by that time, our installation has been well and truly paid for and every unit produced after that will be a profit. Either in saved import (bought at ever increasing rates from Western Power) or exported into the grid at a lower wholesale price.
Should our inverter pack it in before then, it'll be replaced - either under warranty or from the Power Budget. I mean, we're not talking about a new car; the inverter is a small component of an installation that cost a few Grand in total.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2011)

DB008 said:


> +1
> I am a little confused with pilots statement.




Gentlemen, no batteries needed, you have a battery charger wired in to your solar panels, at night you turn on the charger and you get 47c for the power you are supplying to the grid, you are NOT paying 47c to run the charger(way less). This little scam will be costing the power companies big bucks, how are they going to stop it????


----------



## Calliope (10 November 2011)

The daily output of my 1.5 KW system exceeded 10 KWh for the first time yesterday. I doubt it will go much higher this summer. Although the days are gettin longer, they are also getting hotter. As drsmith pointed out, panel efficiency decreases with panel temperature rises.


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> Gentlemen, no batteries needed, you have a battery charger wired in to your solar panels, at night you turn on the charger and you get 47c for the power you are supplying to the grid, you are NOT paying 47c to run the charger(way less). This little scam will be costing the power companies big bucks, how are they going to stop it????




They are not 12volt panels.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> They are not 12volt panels.



 no, but you can get batteries with higher voltage.
I think pilot's ruse is, he buys power at the the cheap noght rate, shoves it into a battery, then he "empties" the battery during the day, increasing the solar panels' output into the grid, selling at the subsidised 47c rate.
It may be technically possible; whether it's legal or ethical is a different matter.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> They are not 12volt panels.




Is that so, tell me what are they if they are not 12v.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2011)

pixel said:


> no, but you can get batteries with higher voltage.
> I think pilot's ruse is, he buys power at the the cheap noght rate, shoves it into a battery, then he "empties" the battery during the day, increasing the solar panels' output into the grid, selling at the subsidised 47c rate.
> It may be technically possible; whether it's legal or ethical is a different matter.




No battery at all, the charger feeds in to the grid at night only.


----------



## DB008 (10 November 2011)

So what happens exactly.
Step by step please....
1)


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> The daily output of my 1.5 KW system exceeded 10 KWh for the first time yesterday. I doubt it will go much higher this summer. Although the days are gettin longer, they are also getting hotter. As drsmith pointed out, panel efficiency decreases with panel temperature rises.



 Sounds about right, Calliope;
our 2KW system produces around 100 units a week and the credits from our exports are just about balancing charges for imports.
That's slightly better than what my initial feasibility study was based on. As retail rates increase over time, the balance is likely to change numerically. But then, the value of any solar-generated power that we consume ourselves will increase - so it'll all even out.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> No battery at all, the charger feeds in to the grid at night only.



 OK, I get it:
You run the charger with power imported from the grid, then you feed the charger's output back into the grid.
Works only if you have two meters: one to import what you need for the charger, the other to register the export. Had you hoth on the same meter, you'd be paying through the nose because you'd never export more than you import. And at least in WA, you only receive FIT credits for the net charge that you export into the grid *after your own consumption.*

Another flaw: The Power Company may take some time, but they surely could find out if you exported more than your solar panels can produce. I'm sure they know about efficiency, cloudy days, etc. With tools like "nearmap.com" they'd also be able to find out the size of your solar installation. You'd be busted.


----------



## DocK (10 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> The daily output of my 1.5 KW system exceeded 10 KWh for the first time yesterday. I doubt it will go much higher this summer. Although the days are gettin longer, they are also getting hotter. As drsmith pointed out, panel efficiency decreases with panel temperature rises.






pixel said:


> Sounds about right, Calliope;
> our 2KW system produces around 100 units a week and the credits from our exports are just about balancing charges for imports.
> That's slightly better than what my initial feasibility study was based on. As retail rates increase over time, the balance is likely to change numerically. But then, the value of any solar-generated power that we consume ourselves will increase - so it'll all even out.




Aha! At last I get to say "mine's bigger than yours"   We've had our 4kw system since mid-Feb this year and am averaging 20-23 kwh daily this week.  So far, March, Sept & Oct were all similar at 510, 522 & 515 kwh respectively.  I'm located Gold Coast so agree that the increasing heat will no doubt compensate for longer production times.  Ours are half east and half north facing due to roof space available.  So far, with a family of four (including 2 teenagers who use far too much power and seem unable to turn anything off) we've had to pay only $140 to Origin since having the panels installed.  As we still have electric hot water, off peak, that makes me happy.  Our next bill will be the first with 3 spring/summer months and I'm hoping for a credit balance.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

DocK said:


> Aha! At last I get to say "mine's bigger than yours"   We've had our 4kw system since mid-Feb this year and am averaging 20-23 kwh daily this week.  So far, March, Sept & Oct were all similar at 510, 522 & 515 kwh respectively.  I'm located Gold Coast so agree that the increasing heat will no doubt compensate for longer production times.  Ours are half east and half north facing due to roof space available.  So far, with a family of four (including 2 teenagers who use far too much power and seem unable to turn anything off) we've had to pay only $140 to Origin since having the panels installed.  As we still have electric hot water, off peak, that makes me happy.  Our next bill will be the first with 3 spring/summer months and I'm hoping for a credit balance.



 LOL Doc,
being teenagers, your kids probably don't use all that much hot water.
Still, when we replaced our old electric Rheem by a 300L solar HWS, we noticed straight away a significant drop in our power bill. And since installation 2 1/2 years ago, the booster hasn't been running for longer than 5 hours in total. Yet, after a sunny day, the hot water comes out scalding - hotter than we've ever had it from the Rheem, which would've cost us between $25 and $35 bucks a month.


----------



## DocK (10 November 2011)

pixel said:


> LOL Doc,
> being teenagers, your kids probably don't use all that much hot water.
> Still, when we replaced our old electric Rheem by a 300L solar HWS, we noticed straight away a significant drop in our power bill. And since installation 2 1/2 years ago, the booster hasn't been running for longer than 5 hours in total. Yet, after a sunny day, the hot water comes out scalding - hotter than we've ever had it from the Rheem, which would've cost us between $25 and $35 bucks a month.




Can I be rude and ask how much the solar HWS cost to buy and install?  We're running out of roof space for more panels, but have friends with a heat pump HWS that apparently works well for them.  I have heard some can be noisy though, so am hoping in a few years the bugs might have been sorted.  As our electric system is inside our garage it may last us several years yet and as our total hot water cost is only approx $400 pa, it didn't make sense to me to spend much to replace it - I'll wait until it finally fails.  Off peak rate is only 7.92c/kw for us. We mostly shower in the morning, and I wash in cold water - don't know how much difference that makes but we do seem to use far less hot water than the solar HWS sellers quote as the average.


----------



## Glen48 (10 November 2011)

Reading were in Spain they shine light' s on Solar panels during the night or cloudy days   using diesel generators and collect  the subsidy back from the grid.


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> Is that so, tell me what are they if they are not 12v.




I think most roof mounted panels range from 20 - 50volts.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

DocK said:


> Can I be rude and ask how much the solar HWS cost to buy and install?  We're running out of roof space for more panels, but have friends with a heat pump HWS that apparently works well for them.  I have heard some can be noisy though, so am hoping in a few years the bugs might have been sorted.  As our electric system is inside our garage it may last us several years yet and as our total hot water cost is only approx $400 pa, it didn't make sense to me to spend much to replace it - I'll wait until it finally fails.  Off peak rate is only 7.92c/kw for us. We mostly shower in the morning, and I wash in cold water - don't know how much difference that makes but we do seem to use far less hot water than the solar HWS sellers quote as the average.
> 
> My two sons actually seem to spend an inordinate amount of time washing themselves - makes me wonder sometimes just what could take so long.....



 No problem, Doc, and no need to keep it secret: We had the HWS installed by Solargain in May 2009; the company obtained both lots of Government subsidies - I believe it was $1,600 each - on our behalf and only charged us the balance, which amounted to $695 including delivery, installation, GST.
So, even at the lowest saving estimate, it's paid back $750 over 30 months. Now it's printing us money


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Reading were in Spain they shine light' s on Solar panels during the night or cloudy days   using diesel generators and collect  the subsidy back from the grid.




You would want to be getting your diesel cheap. 20 years ago it used to cost about 30c/ kw to produce electricity with a generator.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I think most roof mounted panels range from 20 - 50volts.




They are 12v, you can join them up and have 24v or 48v. it is the inverter that takes the power from 12v and ramps it up to 240v. A lot of people are making money out of this scam.


----------



## bellenuit (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> No battery at all, the charger feeds in to the grid at night only.




Wouldn't that ring warnings bells at your electricity supplier? Power being exported by a consumer at night.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Wouldn't that ring warnings bells at your electricity supplier? Power being exported by a consumer at night.




How will they know it was exported at night????


----------



## DocK (10 November 2011)

pixel said:


> No problem, Doc, and no need to keep it secret: We had the HWS installed by Solargain in May 2009; the company obtained both lots of Government subsidies - I believe it was $1,600 each - on our behalf and only charged us the balance, which amounted to $695 including delivery, installation, GST.
> So, even at the lowest saving estimate, it's paid back $750 over 30 months. Now it's printing us money




That makes sense - I think we've missed the boat on subsidies now, in Qld at least, so the quotes I've received have been much higher.  At my calculation it would take me at least 5 years to be in front, so I'll wait until my present hws packs it in and hope that heat pump systems have had their kinks ironed out by then.


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> They are 12v, you can join them up and have 24v or 48v. it is the inverter that takes the power from 12v and ramps it up to 240v. A lot of people are making money out of this scam.




The dc input for my inverter is 60 - 320v. Currently running at 190vdc from 7 panels approx 27v/ panel


----------



## bellenuit (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> How will they know it was exported at night????




As I understand it, although they don't use it for billing purposes, the suppliers record usage in 30 minute blocks for those with smart meters.  This apparently will be used in the future to give users a snapshot of their usage throughout the day for planning purposes (particularly business customers). Whether it records usage only or import/export I don't know.

Also, if you are on the smart power tariff, in WA at least, it records import in 4 registers - 7am to 11am, 11am to 5pm, 5pm to 9pm and 9pm to 7am. If when they check your meter, the 9pm to 7am usage is zero or extremely low, it might raise suspicions. 

But you might be right in that there is no way of knowing for sure whether exporting takes place at night, but if the activity was to become widespread, they might start looking for anomalies in usage which might cause them to investigate further.


----------



## pixel (10 November 2011)

DocK said:


> That makes sense - I think we've missed the boat on subsidies now, in Qld at least, so the quotes I've received have been much higher.  At my calculation it would take me at least 5 years to be in front, so I'll wait until my present hws packs it in and hope that heat pump systems have had their kinks ironed out by then.



 Ring Solargain, Edwards, Solaheart, ... whoever is available in your area and ask them for a quote. All you can lose is the cost of a few phone calls.
If I'm assured of cost recovery within 5 years - that's 20% interest p.a. - I'll take it anytime.


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> How will they know it was exported at night????



Over time, the amount fed in relative to nearby installs relative to system size might ring alarm bells, assuming power companies actively monitor such things. In any case, they would need to allow considerable margin for differing usage patterns between households. A single home owner I would imagine would have far more control over his/her electricity usage than a large family.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is a scam. It's illogical in the extreme to offer feed in tariffs that exceed the retail price. It's an obvious target for abuse. 

That being said, are there clauses in feed in contracts that limit what can be fed in. If not, then to me, if it's renewable and keeps the inverter going at maximum capacity 24/7, it's fair game.


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> The daily output of my 1.5 KW system exceeded 10 KWh for the first time yesterday. I doubt it will go much higher this summer. Although the days are gettin longer, they are also getting hotter. As drsmith pointed out, panel efficiency decreases with panel temperature rises.



10.6 kWh from a 1.52kW system has so far been my best That was on a cool, sunny day after rain.  Two days later with a warmer, sunny day, daily output was 10.2 and I was heading for 9.8/9.9 the next day with a max temp in the low 30's before cloud developed during the afternoon and truncated output to 8.4 for that day.

We have had very few completely sunny days in Perth  in spring this year. I suspect the limit might be about 11 on a sunny, but cool day. 

Mr Swan Valley Sharp 1.54kW (the one I compare mine to) has maxed out just under 10.6 so far this spring, but got 10.93 on one day in October last year.

http://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?id=202&sid=217&v=0&t=m

My roof slope is a little less than his (22.5 deg vs 26 deg), so I should do a little better than him on a clear day at this time of year, all other things being equal.

While I have a 1.5kW inverter and can't upgrade that without losing a major component of the feed in tariff, I am considering adding two extra panels if it can be done cost effectively. The max DC input/AC output of the inverter is 1.8kW/1.65kW respectively. So far, in clear conditions, the highest AC output I have seen is about 1.4kW, although it can be higher on days when there is some cloud and there is reflectivity from this cloud in addition to full sun, although this is typically brief and intermittent.


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

pilots said:


> How will they know it was exported at night????




Smart meter EM1000 channel 60 =   KWh generated rate C (off peak) should = 0

There should only be readings on channel 50 = KWh generated rate A (peak)

                                            channel 70 = KWh generated rate B (weekday shoulder)

                                            channel 80 = KWh generated rate D (weekend shoulder)


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> I'm shot for any serious upgrade.
> 
> If I upgrade the inverter to a higher capacity one, I lose the feed in tariff.



Depending on what sort of inverter you have, they can be significantly over powered with no harm whatsoever and minimal loss of output.

For example, suppose that you put 2kW of panels on a 1.5kW inverter. You'll just lose any potential output above 1.5kW when the sun is shining brightly at mid day. But how often does that actually happen - in reality the loss will be in the order of 1%.

This all depends very much on the specific inverter in question and how it operates. Some will simply ignore any excess power available and will suffer no harm whilst others will not tolerate it at all. 

Stage 1 of my system = 1.02 KW of panels and 1.1 KW inverter. Not large but this was a typical system size at the time. Panels are all installed on the NW roof face.

Stage 2 = increased the panels to 1.36 KW, still on the NW roof face. Losses from over powering the inverter at this level are trivial.

Stage 3 = second string on the NE roof face will take the system total to 2.88 KW, still on the little 1.1 KW inverter. The inverter is going to be working pretty hard that's for sure, but it will still capture 85% of potential energy from the panels according to my calculations. Production will be pretty consistent throughout the day due to the use of two roof faces. 

Stage 4 = second inverter which will raise the utilisation of energy from the panels back to about 99% as well as adding a second MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracker) which will improve efficiency a little. 

Stages 1 & 2 have been running for a while and I've decided that Stage 3 will now be a goer. Stage 4 is on hold until it makes sense financially (ie when I can get a good deal on the equipmentand not before I've had Stage 3 running long enough to prove the accuracy of my math).

Note that there's nothing "iffy" about what I'm doing and it's all within manufacturer's specs. But remember no DIY tinkering with 400 VDC unless you really do know your stuff (and are licensed).


----------



## AlterEgo (11 November 2011)

DocK said:


> Aha! At last I get to say "mine's bigger than yours"   We've had our 4kw system since mid-Feb this year and am averaging 20-23 kwh daily this week.  So far, March, Sept & Oct were all similar at 510, 522 & 515 kwh respectively.  I'm located Gold Coast so agree that the increasing heat will no doubt compensate for longer production times.  Ours are half east and half north facing due to roof space available.  So far, with a family of four (including 2 teenagers who use far too much power and seem unable to turn anything off) we've had to pay only $140 to Origin since having the panels installed.  As we still have electric hot water, off peak, that makes me happy.  Our next bill will be the first with 3 spring/summer months and I'm hoping for a credit balance.




I've got a 4kw system too, installed earlier this year. It exceeded 25kwh on Monday - the highest reading I've seen on it so far.


----------



## DocK (11 November 2011)

AlterEgo said:


> I've got a 4kw system too, installed earlier this year. It exceeded 25kwh on Monday - the highest reading I've seen on it so far.




Where are you located AlterEgo?  Best ours has achieved so far was 24.54kwh on Sunday 6/11.  Previous high was just shy of 24 last Feb.  As our panels are split between north and east it will never generate the max possible at any one time, but sort of compensates by starting to generate earlier in the morning - I think we only lose about 7% efficiency by not having all the panels facing north.   As an experiment, my husband sprayed the panels with water on a hot sunny day last Feb, and they immediately started generating a little more until they heated up again.  As I'm in hot & humid Gold Coast I'll be hoping for a mild summer for more than one reason...


----------



## SuperGlue (11 November 2011)

Curious............
A house in my suburb has got solar panels & two win turbine. How does it work? Feeding power all day & night.


----------



## pixel (12 November 2011)

DocK said:


> As an experiment, my husband sprayed the panels with water on a hot sunny day last Feb, and they immediately started generating a little more until they heated up again.  As I'm in hot & humid Gold Coast I'll be hoping for a mild summer for more than one reason...



 Spraying the panels with water isn't only useful for cooling them down. Far more important is it to hose down all the dust and grime they collect during long spells of dry weather. We clean ours every couple of weeks if rain hasn't washed them in between. And while we're at it, the HWS gets some too.
Makes a helluva difference for efficiency.


----------



## drsmith (12 November 2011)

Thanks Smurf for the above contribution. There's some interesting thoughts there to consider and it's something I'll get back to.

As for squirting cool water on hot panels, is that a good idea ?
I'm thinking here in relation to thermal expansion and contraction.


----------



## AlterEgo (12 November 2011)

DocK said:


> Where are you located AlterEgo?  Best ours has achieved so far was 24.54kwh on Sunday 6/11.  Previous high was just shy of 24 last Feb.  As our panels are split between north and east it will never generate the max possible at any one time, but sort of compensates by starting to generate earlier in the morning - I think we only lose about 7% efficiency by not having all the panels facing north.   As an experiment, my husband sprayed the panels with water on a hot sunny day last Feb, and they immediately started generating a little more until they heated up again.  As I'm in hot & humid Gold Coast I'll be hoping for a mild summer for more than one reason...




I'm in Brisbane. Panels are facing north. They pretty much get full sun all day, except in the late afternoon when they start getting some trees shading them.


----------



## AlterEgo (12 November 2011)

pixel said:


> Spraying the panels with water isn't only useful for cooling them down. Far more important is it to hose down all the dust and grime they collect during long spells of dry weather. We clean ours every couple of weeks if rain hasn't washed them in between. And while we're at it, the HWS gets some too.
> Makes a helluva difference for efficiency.




Yeah, earlier in the year when we'd had a dry spell for several weeks, my panel output had dropped to around 18kwh per day. I hosed them off one afternoon and the very next day I got 24.4kwh, which at the time was the highest I'd seen mine produce. So it certainly does appear to make a difference.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2011)

DocK said:


> As our panels are split between north and east it will never generate the max possible at any one time, but sort of compensates by starting to generate earlier in the morning - I think we only lose about 7% efficiency by not having all the panels facing north.   As an experiment, my husband sprayed the panels with water on a hot sunny day last Feb, and they immediately started generating a little more until they heated up again.  As I'm in hot & humid Gold Coast I'll be hoping for a mild summer for more than one reason...



Panel orientation is critical for a stand alone power system where you want consistent year round power production. But for a grid-connect system it's far less important since it doesn't matter if you end up producing most of your power in a few months each year as long as the annual total is still good. And the practical effect of putting the panels East vs North vs West is that shifts the timing of production but doesn't make a huge difference to total annual output (a few %).

As for spraying the panels with water, there is a direct relationship between panel temperature and output with COLD conditions being preferable to hot. That's why the difference in annual output between Brisbane and Hobart, for example, is far less than you might expect (though output is still somewhat higher in Brisbane). 

But I wouldn't personally choose to spray any hot glass with cold water due to thermal expansion / contraction issues. Just like you only use cold water to clear a frozen windscreen in winter because hot water will shatter it, I wouldn't put cold water directly onto a panel that's been sitting in the sun all day in summer. Whether anything bad happens in practice I'm not sure, but the physics of it all does concern me.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2011)

AlterEgo said:


> Yeah, earlier in the year when we'd had a dry spell for several weeks, my panel output had dropped to around 18kwh per day. I hosed them off one afternoon and the very next day I got 24.4kwh, which at the time was the highest I'd seen mine produce. So it certainly does appear to make a difference.



Whether or not you need to clean solar panels is very much location specific. First rule is to have at least a 15 degree tilt no matter where you are located and which way the panels face. The rain does a better job of cleaning them that way.  

Whether or not it's worth actively cleaning them varies with location and also considerations as to how easily you can access them for cleaning versus the benefit of doing so.

My panels are on a 22 degree slope in a fairly clean environment so I've never cleaned them (I have checked and they aren't dirty). But that would be very different if I was in an area with industrial fallout, lots of pollution from traffic etc in which case I expect they would need a clean quite regularly.


----------



## sptrawler (12 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Whether or not you need to clean solar panels is very much location specific. First rule is to have at least a 15 degree tilt no matter where you are located and which way the panels face. The rain does a better job of cleaning them that way.
> 
> Whether or not it's worth actively cleaning them varies with location and also considerations as to how easily you can access them for cleaning versus the benefit of doing so.
> 
> My panels are on a 22 degree slope in a fairly clean environment so I've never cleaned them (I have checked and they aren't dirty). But that would be very different if I was in an area with industrial fallout, lots of pollution from traffic etc in which case I expect they would need a clean quite regularly.




Dust build up on the panels has a major effect.  
As this article says the worst countries for dust are the middle east, Australia and India.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11057771

I purchased an extendable broom, from Bunnings, that you can connect the hose to. Once or twice during summer I give them a wash. 
But as smurph says, this may not be practicle with some installations.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2011)

Record production today of 9.51 kWh from the 1.36 KW system (limited to peak AC power output of 1.1 KW).

Sunshine not all but almost all day but the real bonus was a consistent reasonably strong breeze from the right direction to keep the panels cool. That plus some decent rain a couple of days ago would have removed any dust too.


----------



## todster (12 November 2011)

Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
Human nature type savings.
Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2011)

todster said:


> Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
> Human nature type savings.
> Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.



It stands to reason that there would be a linkage between awareness of energy consumption and installing a solar power system at home. That said, the motivation in many cases would presumably be financial rather than energy or environmental issues.


----------



## pixel (12 November 2011)

todster said:


> Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
> Human nature type savings.
> Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.



 Would it be possible, todster, that your assertion makes even more sense the other way around? That people, who think about  their energy costs and are aware of the need to conserve finite resources, are also more likely to put their money on it?
I can only speak for myself; but in our household, it's been standing practice to fix leaking taps; to plant natives that need less water; to mulch to curb evaporation; and to switch off the lights where/ when they're not needed. Need I mention fluoro tubes and light bulbs? power boards that let us switch off unused appliances: microwaves,  radios, TVs, even computers and the modem. But we've done all those things routinely well before solar panels became an option. Therefore, all savings we achieved by installing solar HWS and power generation are the real deal on top of plain common-sense habits.
In fact, even before doubling our solar panels to 2KW capacity, we installed two new airconditioning units, which we use when summer days become uncomfortably hot. But in our climate control, we don't go overboard either; we set the target temperature closer to 28 centigrades in summer, 21 in winter.


----------



## todster (13 November 2011)

pixel said:


> Would it be possible, todster, that your assertion makes even more sense the other way around? That people, who think about  their energy costs and are aware of the need to conserve finite resources, are also more likely to put their money on it?
> I can only speak for myself; but in our household, it's been standing practice to fix leaking taps; to plant natives that need less water; to mulch to curb evaporation; and to switch off the lights where/ when they're not needed. Need I mention fluoro tubes and light bulbs? power boards that let us switch off unused appliances: microwaves,  radios, TVs, even computers and the modem. But we've done all those things routinely well before solar panels became an option. Therefore, all savings we achieved by installing solar HWS and power generation are the real deal on top of plain common-sense habits.
> In fact, even before doubling our solar panels to 2KW capacity, we installed two new airconditioning units, which we use when summer days become uncomfortably hot. But in our climate control, we don't go overboard either; we set the target temperature closer to 28 centigrades in summer, 21 in winter.




More power to you pixel or should i say less 
Do you see solar panels in Peppy Grove ,Mossie Park around the river or only in the pov areas of Perth?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

pixel said:


> I can only speak for myself; but in our household, it's been standing practice to fix leaking taps; to plant natives that need less water; to mulch to curb evaporation; and to switch off the lights where/ when they're not needed. Need I mention fluoro tubes and light bulbs? power boards that let us switch off unused appliances: microwaves,  radios, TVs, even computers and the modem.



It truly amazes me that anyone _wouldn't_ fix a dripping tap or turn off appliances that aren't being used.


----------



## pixel (13 November 2011)

todster said:


> More power to you pixel or should i say less
> Do you see solar panels in Peppy Grove ,Mossie Park around the river or only in the pov areas of Perth?



 There will always be areas, where people have more Dollars than Sense. Or where wasting resources is seen as a sign "Look how wealthy I am: I can light my havanna with $100 notes."
However, you will see solar panels in Nedlands, an "inner suburb" around the Uni of WA, for non-Sandgropers. And if I'm not mistaken, the new mansion South of Saunders St in Mosman Park has two rows of solar panels on its roof. 
Check it out on Nearmap: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-32.014611,115.776513&z=20&t=h&nmd=20110908
Navigate a little further West, and you'll find plenty more.
Or take Subi: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-31.941862,115.829622&z=20&t=h&nmd=20110908 which isn't exactly "pov" either.
So whether posh or pov, "thinking people" seem to have taken advantage of the opportunity.


----------



## todster (13 November 2011)

At the end of the day it is what the Government is going to give back to you.
The rest is bollocks
22 degrees,30degees,north ,south clean panels
Pretenders.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

todster said:


> Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
> Human nature type savings.
> Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.




Your spot on todster, its a bit nauseas at work, where everyone is going on about mine is bigger than yours and I produced x more KW than you.
Most of the solar installations are in affluent areas, poor areas can't afford them. Which is a shame because they could do with them the most.
Oh well, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as usual. It is a strange world we live in.


----------



## pixel (13 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> It truly amazes me that anyone _wouldn't_ fix a dripping tap or turn off appliances that aren't being used.



 Do you have teenage kids or grandkids?  
And have you ever wondered why the Government spends $Millions for TV commercials that urge people to "switch it off at the wall socket"?


----------



## noirua (13 November 2011)

todster said:


> Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
> Human nature type savings.
> Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.




Yes, I've noticed people talking about wasting power who happen to have solar panels fitted and only your comment brought this back into my mind. It seems you're allowed to do this if you have joined the solar panel club who have installed at very great cost to save the world.



Have you had time to vote for ASF at the forum poll yet: http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies/forums.html


----------



## DocK (13 November 2011)

todster said:


> Would it be possible that going down the path of solar panels and the outlay of cash that your use of power would change and also contribute to lower bills.
> Human nature type savings.
> Everyone i know with panels seem to also be instant power experts.




We've always done our best to reduce "wasted power" by turning things off, washing in cold water etc. Since installing the solar panels the only real change is the timing of things like using clothes dryer, dishwasher etc at night in order to maximise the power fed back to the grid.  Of course most appliances still get used when normally required, like ovens, aircon etc.

Like Pixel, we were always conscious of wasting natural resources and also have native gardens, 12000 litres of water tanks, we recycle, compost, grow some of our own vegies and generally try to "limit our footprint" where we can - to a point.  We do still run airconditioning when hot, have more tvs and computers running than strictly necessary and live a normal life - it's just about balance in my view.  If it's cost-effective and relatively simple to be environmentally responsible,  I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.


----------



## Eager (13 November 2011)

Don't know if it has already been asked in this thread or not (I haven't read it in full), but would the installation of solar panels add value to the home?

I would say yes, for the same reason that for a potential buyer, a house with solar hot water would probably sell easier than one with an old off-peak electric clunker. The way I see it, the more that the installation of solar panels becomes 'normal,' the more that people buying houses would demand it, since the initial outlay has already been made.

I've had differing opinions to this question in other places.


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Record production today of 9.51 kWh from the 1.36 KW system (limited to peak AC power output of 1.1 KW).



Is that the rated peak AC output of the inverter and, if so, does it go above it.

The reason I ask is that mine is rated max AC output of either 1600W or 1650W, I'm not absolutely sure, but I have seen it go slightly above that (1655 to 1660 on a number of occasions), and on a couple of occasions, up to 1700W but only for about 2 to 3 seconds. This has been in sunny conditions when there is also reflectivity from cloud near the sun. During these conditions, the output can be quiet variable due to cloud movement. 

The max putput current is rated as 8A with an AC voltage range (230V norm). 7.2Ax230V=1656W which is around the rates maximum AC output, so, I'm wondering whether the inverter could output 1800W at 250V.

Another consideration is that the PV array short circuit current is 5.5W. What worries me here is that if I add extra panels and that DC current is reached, it will trip the DC circuit breaker and cut all input from the panels.  The max DC input current for the inverter is specified at 8A.

I have a replacement 1.5kW inverter on the way to solve the AM radio interference problem (Sungold 1500).

http://www.ginverter.com/products_info.asp?pid=31#

While it is still rated with a max AC power output of 1650W, Max DC input and AC output currents for the replacement are rated 10A and 8A respectively. 8Ax250V=2000W.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

Eager said:


> Don't know if it has already been asked in this thread or not (I haven't read it in full), but would the installation of solar panels add value to the home?
> 
> I would say yes, for the same reason that for a potential buyer, a house with solar hot water would probably sell easier than one with an old off-peak electric clunker. The way I see it, the more that the installation of solar panels becomes 'normal,' the more that people buying houses would demand it, since the initial outlay has already been made.
> 
> I've had differing opinions to this question in other places.



Airlines scrap perfectly serviceable planes simply because they are too costly to operate compared to new ones.

Manufacturing industries scrapped their oil-fired boilers when fuel costs became too high relative to coal or gas.

Whenever there's a spike in petrol prices, gas guzzlers become extremely difficult to sell and their value drops.

Traffic authorities around the country are throwing out halogen traffic lights in favour of the more energy efficient LED's. Many of those halogen units aren't that old nad this action is a response to rising electricity prices combined with the development of a cheaper alternative.

There are plenty of precedents for scrapping perfectly serviceable equipment and/or modifying it in response to rising energy prices. If there's a serious rise in electricity prices as many are predicting then I'd expect that any "normal" (ie not a mansion etc where cost is not an issue) home that requires large amounts of electricity to operate will become a liability for the owners and will be difficult to sell. Adding solar panels would be the most obvious way to address this in many cases.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Is that the rated peak AC output of the inverter and, if so, does it go above it.
> 
> The reason I ask is that mine is rated max AC output of either 1600W or 1650W, I'm not absolutely sure, but I have seen it go slightly above that (1655 to 1660 on a number of occasions), and on a couple of occasions, up to 1700W but only for about 2 to 3 seconds. This has been in sunny conditions when there is also reflectivity from cloud near the sun. During these conditions, the output can be quiet variable due to cloud movement.



The 1100W figure I quoted is the inverter limit and is a "hard" limit set by software in the inverter. Actual panels connected at present total 1360W.

In terms of what you are seeing, it is commonly known as "edge effect" and is a consequence of reflected light etc, noting that after a period of cloud cover the panels will be cool. Then the sun appears and cool panels + direct sunlight + reflected light = output above nominal rating.


----------



## drsmith (13 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The 1100W figure I quoted is the inverter limit and is a "hard" limit set by software in the inverter. Actual panels connected at present total 1360W.
> 
> In terms of what you are seeing, it is commonly known as "edge effect" and is a consequence of reflected light etc, noting that after a period of cloud cover the panels will be cool. Then the sun appears and cool panels + direct sunlight + reflected light = output above nominal rating.



I underatstand the cool panels + direct sunlight + reflected light aspect of panel output.

I take it then you have never seen output go above the "hard" limit. I have (assuming it's the same as the max AC power rating), but only slightly.


----------



## pixel (13 November 2011)

Eager said:


> Don't know if it has already been asked in this thread or not (I haven't read it in full), but would the installation of solar panels add value to the home?
> 
> I would say yes, for the same reason that for a potential buyer, a house with solar hot water would probably sell easier than one with an old off-peak electric clunker. The way I see it, the more that the installation of solar panels becomes 'normal,' the more that people buying houses would demand it, since the initial outlay has already been made.
> 
> I've had differing opinions to this question in other places.



 How much an installed clean energy system is worth to the buyer may differ, depending on circumstances. There is a clause in the residential FIT scheme that concerns the transfer to a new owner: 







> *If the property with the renewable energy system is sold or leased  within the 10-year period, payments will transfer to the new owners or  tenants* if they are eligible*.



see http://www.energy.wa.gov.au/2/3654/64/residential_.pm for details. But generally, it will affect the price you can ask for your home.


----------



## todster (13 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Your spot on todster, its a bit nauseas at work, where everyone is going on about mine is bigger than yours and I produced x more KW than you.
> Most of the solar installations are in affluent areas, poor areas can't afford them. Which is a shame because they could do with them the most.
> Oh well, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as usual. It is a strange world we live in.




Hey sp it's a great change from the investment property talk at the workplace.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> I underatstand the cool panels + direct sunlight + reflected light aspect of panel output.
> 
> I take it then you have never seen output go above the "hard" limit. I have (assuming it's the same as the max AC power rating), but only slightly.



I think you're probably referring to the rating of the panels themselves?

What I'm referring to is the inverter's output limit which is simply set at 1100W. It could run higher, but would fry the inverter pretty quickly hence the limit. It wouldn't exceed this if I connected 1500, 2000 or even 10,000 watts of panels to it.

Panels on the other hand will certainly exceed their nominal rating from time to time under certain conditions and this will end up as AC power if it's within the inverter's capability. In my case however I've quite intentionally installed panels with a higher rating than the inverter so it's the inverter, not the panels, which sets the limit and there's no prospect of exceeding it.


----------



## sptrawler (13 November 2011)

todster said:


> Hey sp it's a great change from the investment property talk at the workplace.




You think so 
At least with investment properties you could have a laugh at the horror stories.
With this solar stuff it won't become a drama untill the feed in tarrifs cut out. 
Then smart meters that have been installed can really be exploited and everyone will be screaming, give me back the inductive disk meter.


----------



## todster (13 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> You think so
> At least with investment properties you could have a laugh at the horror stories.
> With this solar stuff it won't become a drama untill the feed in tarrifs cut out.
> Then smart meters that have been installed can really be exploited and everyone will be screaming, give me back the inductive disk meter.




And a big magnet


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2011)

And guess what todster, they payed to get their own meter upgraded.LOL
What am I saying, I was one of them OMG
Time of day charging. please noooo


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2011)

If you're interested in seeing how solar and wind can work as a major component of power supply into a grid then have a look here. It's only a small grid on an island, but it does show how the different technologies can work together and provides useful experience that could be applied on a larger scale. There's real time data on the website too.

http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/

Currently have the original diesel power station, wind farm, solar power, storage battery and a loading resistor. In the process of adding fly wheel and thermal storage systems as well. 

This is the only source of power on the island and it does work quite nicely...


----------



## todster (14 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> And guess what todster, they payed to get their own meter upgraded.LOL
> What am I saying, I was one of them OMG
> Time of day charging. please noooo




Yeah had a smart meter installed about 10years ago seemed like a good idea at the time.
We have no scheme water everything is pumped,bloody big swimming pool tropical gardens.
Usually sit down crack a beer before opening anything with synergy written on it.


----------



## bellenuit (14 November 2011)

I don't know what the issue with smart meters is?  I installed a smart meter as part of my solar install and also moved to the smart power tariff rather than the fixed tariff (called A1 in WA). Although it is hard to separate out the savings made from solar, I am fairly sure that even without the panels I would have made savings by moving to a smart meter and smart power tariff. It may not be doable by everyone, but by adjusting my power consumption to off peak times, I was able to make savings independent of the FIT.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2011)

I stayed on A1.

About 5 months after the smart meter install, I calculated the cost of the variable tariff structure against against total usage at the A1 rate and found that if I had switched to smart power, the cost of the electricity I used from the grid would have been about 9% higher.


----------



## bellenuit (15 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> I stayed on A1.
> 
> About 5 months after the smart meter install, I calculated the cost of the variable tariff structure against against total usage at the A1 rate and found that if I had switched to smart power, the cost of the electricity I used from the grid would have been about 9% higher.




I agree that smart power isn't for everyone. I have a few friends with several teenage kids who tell me the changes I have made would simply not be possible in their environment.

For us, winter is the hardest part as the high cost tariff is 7am - 11am and 5pm - 9pm. Lots of cooking, showers etc at those times that can't really be avoided. But we found summer easy, as highest cost is 11am to 5pm, lowest cost is 9pm to 7am and rest of the time at slightly lesser rates than A1. We found that running the aircon on the very hot days at night just between 9pm and 7am kept the house cool for the rest of the day. On a few days we needed to turn it on before 9pm, perhaps at 5pm, but the rate for that period is slightly less than A1 in any case. Weekends are a no brainer, as all periods costs less than A1.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2011)

Crunching the numbers again from September 25 to today (mostly summer period), the cost difference is 17% in favour of smart power. Overall though (since early April), it's still about 4% in favour of A1. 

It will be interesting to see after 12 months and a full contribution from both the summer and winter smart power rates.

http://www.synergy.net.au/at_home/smartpower.xhtml


----------



## bellenuit (15 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> Crunching the numbers again from September 25 to today (mostly summer period), the cost difference is 17% in favour of smart power. Overall though (since early April), it's still about 4% in favour of A1.
> 
> It will be interesting to see after 12 months and a full contribution from both the summer and winter smart power rates.
> 
> http://www.synergy.net.au/at_home/smartpower.xhtml




When you switched to the smart power tariff, did you make any adjustments as to when you use appliances to get the cheaper off peak rates?  We usually now leave usage of the dishwasher and washing machine to after 9pm. We haven't become power nazis, but find that by rescheduling when we use appliances can give us substantial cost savings with very little impact on our day to day activities.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2011)

I'm not on smart power, but the individual smart power tariffs are accessable on the meter for direct comparison with the A1 flat tariff and vice-versa.

http://www.synergy.net.au/at_home/how_can_i_read_my_meter.xhtml

Channels 10, 20, 30 and 40 are the individual smart power tariffs.
Channel 07 (total KW hours) is what is read for A1. On mine, this is also the default display.

My meter is the button type. There's a seperate button to read the amount fed into the grid from the solar panels (channel 107).


----------



## kimcasablancas (15 November 2011)

Occasionally there's Groupon coupons (click for reference) for them btw, so it's probably worth it to check back sometimes. If I get them I'll probably go that route for sure.


----------



## drsmith (15 November 2011)

Is that groupon coupons or groapon coupons ?

Either way, I think I'll pass.


----------



## bellenuit (16 November 2011)

drsmith said:


> I'm not on smart power, but the individual smart power tariffs are accessable on the meter for direct comparison with the A1 flat tariff and vice-versa.
> 
> http://www.synergy.net.au/at_home/how_can_i_read_my_meter.xhtml
> 
> ...




As a direct comparison you are probably right in your cost comparisons. But Smart Power is also meant to encourage you to change your usage pattern so that heavy usage is directed towards the lower tariff periods away from the high tariff periods. For me, that changes the equation in favour of smart power.


----------



## drsmith (17 November 2011)

bellenuit said:


> As a direct comparison you are probably right in your cost comparisons. But Smart Power is also meant to encourage you to change your usage pattern so that heavy usage is directed towards the lower tariff periods away from the high tariff periods. For me, that changes the equation in favour of smart power.



It's my intention to see how the comparison looks after a full year. 

Early signs on the summer smart power schedule are encouraging as above, but there's the hot months and aircon use to play out. 

I'm not one for attempting to change usage patterns where it becomes a personal inconvenience or counter to operating PC's/other electronic equipment in a suitably cool environment. Aircon use from mid/late afternoon on hot days is one example as is general evening use in winter.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> You think so
> At least with investment properties you could have a laugh at the horror stories.
> With this solar stuff it won't become a drama untill the feed in tarrifs cut out.
> Then smart meters that have been installed can really be exploited and everyone will be screaming, give me back the inductive disk meter.




There you go Todster, we said this could happen back in early November.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...he-cost-of-power/story-e6freuzi-1226227988163


----------



## todster (22 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> There you go Todster, we said this could happen back in early November.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...he-cost-of-power/story-e6freuzi-1226227988163




My meter is so smart they only read it once a year.
They have been estimating my usage and my bi monthly bill has been around $800!
They have recently read the meter and this bill is $35
Nice of them to keep my money safe for me.


----------



## Julia (22 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> There you go Todster, we said this could happen back in early November.



 From your link, sp:


> Senator Milne said: "For too long, governments, businesses and householders haven't tackled our hugely wasteful use of energy because there has been no clear and urgent driver to do so." She said a target for energy use reduction should be set at 3 per cent a year.
> 
> Energy Users Association executive director Roman Domanski said similar schemes in Australia and overseas had produced limited benefits. He said time-of-use pricing would be more pronounced in hotter areas of Sydney - the west.
> 
> ...



Bloody Christine Milne!  It's just fine for her.  She's just scored a 30% pay rise.
To charge ordinary families, the unemployed, people living alone DOUBLE rate between 4pm and 8pm is total extortion.

People have to use cooking appliances, have to heat/cool houses which have been closed up all day, have to bath children, wash dirty clothes etc etc.
These things are not discretionary.

Smart Meters, huh!   How absolutely disgusting, and on top of the additional impost of the carbon tax.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> If the panels are facing east you are making power in the morning when you don't need it. When the house is hot in the afternoon and you turn on the a/c the panels won't be producing. IMO
> 
> By the way he doesn't have much north facing roof.




This time of day pricing, is why I sugested installing panels on the west side( if you don't have room on the north aspect) the electricity cost for afternoon power will end up very high. IMO


----------



## DB008 (24 December 2011)

Just had a quick look at my Dad's solar unit, here in Brisbane.
Output today is currently at 6.8kw hours, not bad considering it's rained a few times and overcast.


----------



## Dowdy (24 December 2011)

Right now, with the current technology and price, it'll be foolish to get solar panels now.

Given a few years, when solar becomes grid parity then it'll be worth it...

So many people willing to spend tens of thousands on solar without actually doing a bit of research into the technology. The panels out there now are second generation, but pretty soon in the future there will be 3rd gen solar coming out, which will compete with coal on efficiency and cost

There is a company right now, in Australia, which is making pretty good ground in 3rd gen technology - Dyesol which is also listed on the ASX. Currently on my stocks to watch list


----------



## pixel (24 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> There is a company right now, in Australia, which is making pretty good ground in 3rd gen technology - Dyesol which is also listed on the ASX. Currently on my stocks to watch list



 DYE is already in my portfolio.
But by the time their technology hits main street (fingers crossed and hope it does) my 2nd generation solar panels will probably have paid for themselves. Admittedly, the payback is accelerated thanks to some generous subsidies, but it's the bottom line that counts for me.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2011)

pixel said:


> Admittedly, the payback is accelerated thanks to some generous subsidies, but it's the bottom line that counts for me.



Good for you.  However, those generous subsidies are a large part of what is driving up electricity bills for those who don't have the panels, including in particular people on low incomes who - regardless of any subsidy - would have had no hope of installing them.

As always, it's the poor who are always most further disadvantaged.


----------



## pixel (25 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Good for you.  However, those generous subsidies are a large part of what is driving up electricity bills for those who don't have the panels, including in particular people on low incomes who - regardless of any subsidy - would have had no hope of installing them.
> 
> As always, it's the poor who are always most further disadvantaged.



 So, what do you suggest, Julia? Not install Solar? Or reject the subsidy? I don't believe that would benefit a single disadvantaged person.

Earlier this week, our Solar Installation reached a milestone of 5 MWh. 
Apart from the tons of CO2 that has kept out of the air, I consider also that, by my early uptake (and paying a higher price per KW capacity) I have added to the technology's gaining momentum. Judging by recent advertisements, 1.5KW systems are now offered for less than $2,000 fully installed. At that price, it will become viable even without subsidies, which have already been phased out in WA. In other States probably too.

PS: The current A1 tariff, at which all private consumers are billed, is allegedly still subsidised to the tune of 30% off the true costs of generation, distribution, and grid maintenance. Western Power Corporation only pays us 7c per fed-in unit; the contracted 40c subsidy is separate and does not affect WPC's Accounts; so it can hardly be blamed for future rate rises.


----------



## DB008 (25 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> Right now, with the current technology and price, it'll be foolish to get solar panels now.
> 
> Given a few years, when solar becomes grid parity then it'll be worth it...
> 
> ...




So, should l wait to buy a laptop or car because the next model is just around the corner? I'd be waiting forever with your logic mate.

Good feed-in tariff rates + a generous Gov rebate, my Dad has 'free' power now. Only has to pay the QLD Ambulance levy.


----------



## Dowdy (25 December 2011)

DB008 said:


> So, should l wait to buy a laptop or car because the next model is just around the corner? I'd be waiting forever with your logic mate.




Two questions you should ask....

Does the cost outweigh the benefit 
Is it a want or a need?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> Two questions you should ask....
> 
> Does the cost outweigh the benefit
> Is it a want or a need?



Figures for my own circumstances are as follows.

Location is Tasmania. Installation in my roof at 22 degree pitch facing 20 degrees West of true North.

Energy rate on general Light & Power tariff is 25.132c / kWh. Same rate applies to import and export, and is a constant rate 24/7/365. There is no difference in the rate for solar versus non-solar households. (Note: space heating, air-conditioning and hot water are separately metered at a lower rate and will not be affected in any way by the installation of solar).

For a first installation which qualifies for the rebates, the annual return to the householder is 22.5% p.a. based on installed cost of $2050 and production of 1840 kWh p.a. from a 1.5 kW system.

Based on forecast electricity prices, this return rises to 28.1% p.a. two years from now with ongoing increases after that. Note that the extent of forecast increases in Tasmania, 25%, are at the bottom end of the scale nationally - it's expected to be even worse in the other states.

Now, go and find me another investment which returns 22.5%, indexed to the price of electricity and with no tax payable. 

From the perspective of the householder, solar is absolutely a good investment. It sure beats putting your money into property or a generic share fund. Obviously there are subsidies involved, but the entire economy is riddled with subsidies and I don't blame the average person for seeing an opportunity to save themselves some money by grabbing what's on offer. 

As for why electricity prices are rising, it's a complex issue but I'll give you the number one cause straight up. 

The National Electricity Market (NEM) and the "micro-economic reforms" of the 1990's have always been well understood by those with knowledge of the industry to lower the technical operating efficiency of existing power stations, increase the cost of transmission and distribution through loss of integration and ramp up costs as a result. 

Ask the economists and politicians why they thought it was a good idea to focus on one part of the industry which only ever accounted for 2 - 20% of household retail prices anyway (depending on what state you are in - lowest in Vic and Tas, highest in WA, SA, NT) whilst blowing out the remaining 80 - 98% of costs as a direct result. 

You'd have to speak to an economist or politician to answer that one - but it was known at least as far back as 1993 that lower efficiency would be the outcome and this was never kept secret (indeed the reverse is somewhat true).

The old state utilities had their faults, but they sure didn't employ an army of people sitting in offices trying to work out how to force the use of less efficient means of production so as to ramp up the price. This, I can assure you, is exactly what goes on these days...


----------



## DB008 (25 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> Two questions you should ask....
> 
> Does the cost outweigh the benefit
> Is it a want or a need?




1) Yes - 3kw system installed. No more power bills (for the foreseeable future).
2) Answer to Q1, answers Q2


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> Right now, with the current technology and price, it'll be foolish to get solar panels now.
> 
> Given a few years, when solar becomes grid parity then it'll be worth it...



It comes down to a question of economic and/or environmental issues. Which is more important is a matter of personal opinion.

But one thing is certain, solar panels don't go "out of date" or anything like that. Whatever technology is around in 5 or 50 years time does not change the fact that 230 VAC at 50 Hz (that is, normal household mains power) does the same job no matter how it is produced.

The oldest power station in ongoing usage supplying the main grid in Australia (which covers Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) is 97 years old. It's from an era when there was no such thing as a computer and TV was science fiction at best. But the power it produces today is as useful as it was back in 1914 even though it can now be used for applications never imagined at the time it was built.

My computer works just the same regardless of whether it's running from the power station referred to above, a newer plant, solar panels or a diesel generator. Likewise every other appliance is the same.

The only way an existing solar installation will become obsolete is if either (1) there is no space left on the roof to install more panels and you want to replace them with some new technology which produces more power per square metre or (2) we stop using electricity as we know it today. For the average household, point 1 isn't really an issue due to the roof area available and point 2 is something that, if it happens, nobody could reasonably plan for today.


----------



## sptrawler (26 December 2011)

Dowdy said:


> Two questions you should ask....
> 
> Does the cost outweigh the benefit
> Is it a want or a need?




Well I have had my 1.5kw system on for 1year, it has made $818. So therefore the payback time at current tarrifs, given similar consumption and weather, will be 4 years.
That will leave 6 years of income, if all goes well, before the feed in tarrif stops. Then you are saving on the cost by offsetting your consumption. Who knows what the price per kw will be then?


----------



## Dowdy (27 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well I have had my 1.5kw system on for 1year, it has made $818. So therefore the payback time at current tarrifs, given similar consumption and weather, will be 4 years.
> That will leave 6 years of income, if all goes well, before the feed in tarrif stops. Then you are saving on the cost by offsetting your consumption. Who knows what the price per kw will be then?





By the time that happens, hopefully 3rd gen panel will be cheap and then i'll be getting solar


----------



## DocK (27 December 2011)

I have just paid my electricity bill of $48 - it used to be ave $800 prior to installation of 16 panels on a 4kw system.  It should pay for itself inside 6 years and is currently the equivalent of a 20 - 25% return on capital.  I'd be delighted to be assured of that year on year in the sharemarket, so for me definitely worthwhile.  Panels may indeed get better and cheaper, but I'm getting min 20% on my money _now_.  What's that saying about a bird in the hand.....


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 December 2011)

Of course more efficient cell exchanges are the goal and this article suggests one method to increase solar panel efficiency.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111215141617.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 December 2011)

DocK said:


> Panels may indeed get better and cheaper, but I'm getting min 20% on my money _now_.  What's that saying about a bird in the hand.....



Better - not going to make any practical difference. Electricity is electricity.

Cheaper - maybe but we're down around $1 per watt (bulk price) for panels now anyway such that labour, cable, mounting rails, inverter etc are becoming a larger % of the total installed cost.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 January 2012)

I know with electrical current and dissimilar metals, aluminium can experience electrolysis so sacrificial zinc anodes are used to manage the problem. 
Am wondering if anyone has noticed their solar panel aluminium brackets or frame turning powdery or dissolving. I realise a climb on the roof doesn't happen regularly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 January 2012)

ANY metal can be subject to electrolytic corrosion either due to voltage produced by contact with other metals (it becomes a battery) or due to DC voltage from an external source.

On a household scale, there's a sacrificial anode in the hot water tank (with the common brands like Rheem or Dux) which transfers the site of corrosion from the tank to the anode itself, thus prolonging the life of the tank. You should replace the anode every 5 years (if necessary - at least inspect it that often to check its condition) otherwise once the anode wears out, the tank will start to rust and you'll end up with a leaking water heater.

On a larger scale, gas pipelines, oil platforms etc use the same approach.

In terms of stray DC currents causing corrosion, it's a major issue with trams (and anything else which uses DC from an overhead wire with ground return). On a larger scale, concern about potential corrosion of just about everything in Bass Strait (including gas pipes etc) is the reason a return conductor was added to the Basslink power cable, at an additional cost of around $350 million. The default (cheaper) option was to use the water itself as the return current path - but that came with corrosion risks.

For household solar PV, basically all the parts are aluminium so there should be no issues with dissimilar metals provided that you use rubber insulators under the L brackets to avoid direct contact with the roof. Due to the wiring arrangement, stray DC current is highly unlikely with a non-earthed system but is possible with an earthed array using a transformerless inverter (never heard of it actually being a problem though).

Anecdotally, the biggest risk for roof corrosion in a normal house is a poorly installed  wood heater flue. The main mistakes are either the flue is too short (corrosion effects from emissions, particularly in places that are affected by fog / mist), or there is inappropriate contact of dissimilar metals associated with the Dektite which seals between the roof and the flue.

The old oil heater flues caused a similar problem back when heating oil contained 0.4% sulphur. But with the sulphur almost completely removed these days, there should be no issues with ongoing use of these heaters (not that they are overly common these days anyway). The effects from burning #2 fuel oil (used to be 0.5% sulphur, now reduced to 0.001%) can be seen on many commercial building roofs where such systems are / were installed.

If you want to see real corrosion though then a sulphuric acid plant is the place to find it. Not so bad these days with everything tightly controlled, but the old ones had rust like nothing you'll ever see anywhere else.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 January 2012)

Thank you smurf. Thoroughly appreciated your post then. The insulation between roof and mounting brackets is the best way.


----------



## joea (16 February 2012)

Hi.
I was just wondering how some of the solar panel installations are going?
Are people happy with what they have done.?
3kW & 5kW systems. returns!
Seems a big variation in prices know, but a fair bit of activity in my area to get them installed before July 1st.
joea


----------



## pixel (16 February 2012)

joea said:


> Hi.
> I was just wondering how some of the solar panel installations are going?
> Are people happy with what they have done.?
> 3kW & 5kW systems. returns!
> ...



 It depends where you live, how big a house and family you have, and how diligently you try and cut down your own consumption.
In WA, the FIT is less than e.g. in SA.
For two retirees in a retirement Unit, 2KW breaks about even. And that translates, roughly, into us effectively having pre-purchased our power needs for the next 5 years with free power for the next 5 years - that's when the FIT subsidy will run out.


----------



## joea (16 February 2012)

pixel said:


> It depends where you live, how big a house and family you have, and how diligently you try and cut down your own consumption.
> In WA, the FIT is less than e.g. in SA.
> For two retirees in a retirement Unit, 2KW breaks about even. And that translates, roughly, into us effectively having pre-purchased our power needs for the next 5 years with free power for the next 5 years - that's when the FIT subsidy will run out.




Thanks Pixel.
Was wondering people with 5kW. system.
EG. where I live a 4.4kW is giving one family $360 credit/ quarter.
Another system just installed (5kW) is producing 23kW hrs. a day. for last 7 days.
joea


----------



## pixel (16 February 2012)

joea said:


> Thanks Pixel.
> Was wondering people with 5kW. system.
> EG. where I live a 4.4kW is giving one family $360 credit/ quarter.
> Another system just installed (5kW) is producing 23kW hrs. a day. for last 7 days.
> joea



 Since 29/08/2011, our 2KW system has averaged 10.5 KWh per day.
The maximum was above 13; minimum about 5 (I take readings only every few days.)


----------



## pixel (16 February 2012)

pixel said:


> Since 29/08/2011, our 2KW system has averaged 10.5 KWh per day.
> The maximum was above 13; minimum about 5 (I take readings only every few days.)



 fwiw, I just added today's reading to a spreadsheet I've kept since last August.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 February 2012)

I have two systems, details as follows:

System 1 has 8 x 170W panels facing 20 degrees west of true north. Roof pitch is 22 degrees. Inverter is a 1100W Sunny Boy. 

System 2 has 8 x 190W panels facing 70 degrees east of true north. Roof pitch is 30 degrees. Inverter is another 1100W Sunny Boy.

Highest daily output from system 1 has been 8.97 kWh and from system 2 it was 8.73 kWh. I don't check every day, but I check on perfectly clear days etc and those are the highest outputs I've seen.

The lowest output that I've seen was 0.17 kWh for the day. This was for system 1 in its' original 6 x 170W configuration prior to expansion. This was a heavily overcast day in winter.

12 months output for System 1 was measured as 1635 kWh. System 2 has been running less than 12 months so I have no firm data for that - it should be fairly similar to system 1 however.


----------



## pixel (16 February 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have two systems, details as follows:
> 
> System 1 has 8 x 170W panels facing 20 degrees west of true north. Roof pitch is 22 degrees. Inverter is a 1100W Sunny Boy.
> 
> ...



 I started with 6 x 175W Suntech panels and a 2KW Orion inverter. Roof pitch is about 30 degrees, orientation North-East. In the first year at 1KW, the output was 1,666 KWh.
Soon after, we added another 6 panels to bring it up to design capacity (and lock in the full WA subsidy at 40c/KWh.)


----------



## DB008 (18 February 2012)

My Dad just got $350 credit for the qtr. Not bad, and the gas bill was $150, so after paying both (including the ambo levy in QLD, $60 annually), he will still be left with $150 credit this qtr.


----------



## Eager (20 February 2012)

We are in the process of obtaining quotes for a solar power system.

After much research, we have decided on 10 x 190W Suntech panels and a 3kW Aurora inverter, which gives us the option of expansion down the track. The beauty of this inverter is that it has two separate inputs, so if we do get more panels in the future, they can be a different type and not clumped together with the others.

I wonder how many people realise that if they install a system with spare capacity, with a single input inverter they have to add panels that match exactly to the originals? Too bad if they are not made anymore!


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2012)

Eager said:


> I wonder how many people realise that if they install a system with spare capacity, with a single input inverter they have to add panels that match exactly to the originals? Too bad if they are not made anymore!



You can get away with a bit but certainly you can't just mix and match panels here and there.

My "8 x 170W" string actually has two 190W panels in it but due to losses with unmatched panels the effective output from them is 170W each.


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2012)

I can't add extra panels to my 1.52kW system even though my 1.5kW inverter hardly ever reaches its maximum rated AC output capacity (1.65kW) as more panels would result in the open circuit voltage from the panels exceeding the maximum rated open circuit voltage for the inverter.

That's what I've been advised from the manufacturer, Growatt.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2012)

I'm not familiar with that particular inverter but if the maximum input is 400V then that would be right.


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm not familiar with that particular inverter but if the maximum input is 400V then that would be right.



Inverter is a Growatt Sungold 1500TL rebadged as Solarlord. Max DC input is 450V.

http://www.solarsa.com.au/images/pdf/Growatt_Sungold_Inverter_Brochure.pdf

The open circuit voltage for each of the panels is 44.8V. I could theoretically go from 8 to 10, but that leaves no margin for variation.


----------



## joea (21 February 2012)

Eager said:


> I wonder how many people realise that if they install a system with spare capacity, with a single input inverter they have to add panels that match exactly to the originals? Too bad if they are not made anymore!




Eager
That is a very good point and was not mentioned in the Quotes I was given and the Specifications do not cover it as well.
It is a interesting project to install solar panels as you find out a number of good points.
1 Many of the houses have not got the tariff set up correctly to benefit the owner.
  One electrician only uses $26/quarter  for hot water with a couple and two children. "tariff  
  benefits.
2 Many electric hot water systems are using excess power for no household benefit.
   i.e. cold water mixer and heater settings.
3 A leaf on one panel will reduce output considerably. Dust is another problem.
4 It appears many boards have been tampered with, to have an additional wire added
   to claim free power. Meter Links are now installed in conjunction with solar 
   installations to prevent this.(In our area with Ergon)

One farmer I know had his meter going in reverse, however they accepted the extremely low cost of the shed it was installed in. i.e. $25 per quarter. 

There seems to a very wide variation in prices to set up a similar system. I do not know if this is from volume buying or "greedy contractor". In our area we have found variations of up to $4700 for a 5kW similar(same inverter) system. While efficiencies were claimed to be very similar. (Country town)

And finally go to the Golf Club to find out from the solar grid connect "experts".
joea


----------



## Logique (12 August 2012)

To NSW solar panel owners,

is anyone getting credits for net-metered (ie non-Solar Bonus Scheme) feed in tariff (FIT) kWh? If so, which supplier? Might save me a lot of searching.

I understand the recent IPART recommendation was for 7.7c on voluntary basis, but when I rang IE they said they don't currently offer anything on non-SBS net FIT.  For mine, if electricity suppliers are receiving non-SBS householder exports for free - then by rights they should offer at least something to the source panel owners.

Thanks anyone who can help.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Inverter is a Growatt Sungold 1500TL rebadged as Solarlord. Max DC input is 450V.
> 
> http://www.solarsa.com.au/images/pdf/Growatt_Sungold_Inverter_Brochure.pdf
> 
> The open circuit voltage for each of the panels is 44.8V. I could theoretically go from 8 to 10, but that leaves no margin for variation.




You may be able to put one panel on the east facing roof and one on the west. However a lot would depend on the low voltage threshold of the inverter.


----------



## stewiejp (19 August 2012)

Morning all,

Great thread, and just read it from top to tail - some great information in here. The Good Lady and I have been looking at putting solar into this place, it's just the two of us and the house isn't huge. Our water is gas, and heating is mainly done by wood heater.
We've worked out that a 3 or 4kW system would do the job easily, and would fit on our roof. Our conundrum, is who to go with. There are literally thousands of installers (in Melbourne) and their prices seem to vary wildly.

Any recommendations? We had a guy from Marks Group quote us just under $6700 (and by all intents and purposes his system looks the goods, quality and guarantee wise), but a similar looking system (although not *quite* as good) by True Value is being advertised for under $3000... We asked the Marks Group guy how this compares, and predictably he said a lot of negative things about True Value. 

We have done a bit of online research, but 99% of reviews seem to be by people who have had the systems installed but have not yet utilised it for a billing cycle of more. ie. They are reviewing the "installation experience" rather than how much money they are saving, or whether or not the system works. Of course, most negative reviews (from any old installation company) make comment on either the mess they leave (then clean up) or the amount of time the *Electicity Company* take to re programme the meter. IMO nothing to do with the installation company.

Bottom line - is an installer like Marks, or Leesons who have plenty of good feedbak worth paying close to seven grand for, when a "budget" type installer like True Value advertise well under $3000. We're in Melbourne FWIW.

(disclaimer: I'm a long suffering Bomber supporter who recently noticed TVal's sponsorship but don't hold that against me, be kind).

Thanks in advance for any advice people.


----------



## qldfrog (19 August 2012)

I understand you dilemma; the installer can make a difference but unless really lame, the real difference will be the hardware: panels and inverter
my own thoughts after a similar experience are: what is the $ difference:
usually a few thousands; it means that the cheap system will be fully repaid within 5 years or so;
This will add up to requiring five extra years for the "better" system (taking into account the yearly interest you do not get or extra mortgage you will need to pay)..well I am not ready to take that bet;

I went for the cheaper provider and the installation was actually better than I hoped, very well done and nice/clean ("solar consultants" here in Brisbane);
actual output perfect and as expected after the first few months;
Just have to wait to see for the longevity of the inverter; I do not worry too much for the panel as they are all relatively similar /mad in china


----------



## Logique (19 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> ...Bottom line - is an installer like Marks, or Leesons who have plenty of good feedbak worth paying close to seven grand for, when a "budget" type installer like True Value advertise well under $3000. We're in Melbourne FWIW...(disclaimer: I'm a long suffering Bomber supporter who recently noticed TVal's sponsorship but don't hold that against me, be kind)..



Hi, your query is best answered by Victorians, since FIT arrangements seem to vary by state. The Mark Gp price seems reasonable for a system that size. What is your desired $ payback period and risk tolerance for system failure? 

Do you really need a system that large, especially if the FIT is low or winding down, since you have gas hot water and a wood heater?  New, more efficient technologies are coming, do you want to be stuck paying off old technology.  

If it was in NSW (currently zero Net FIT), I'd say reduce to a 2kW system, and select the 'best cheapest' supplier, but if you've got a big roof, get an inverter capable of handling system expansion.

Can't help you on the Bombers, recommend a strong pre-season, but ease up on the in-season sessions.

Cheers L.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2012)

I can't comment on Melbourne installers (I'm in Tas) but the main issues to consider (listed in random order) are:

1. Quality of the inverter being used.

2. Is the panel mounting system properly secured to the roof and rated for your wind conditions?

3. Does the installer sort everything out with the electricity company? Or do you have to sort this out yourself?

4. Is the installer Clean Energy Council accredited? And are they licensed to do electrical work by your state electrical licensing authority? (Note that these two things are completely different).

5. Is the design of the system, in terms of string voltages and current ratings, compatible with the inverter? 

Will the VOC (Voltage Open Circuit - the maximum voltage reached under no load conditions) of any panel string exceed the inverter's input voltage limit on a cold morning if there's no load (eg if there's a mains power failure)? Failure to get this one right could lead to something going "bang" unexpectedly, and errors here are alarmingly common. 

What is the inverter's MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracker - think of it being a bit like how a constantly variable transmission on a car works) operating range? And what is the nominal maximum power point voltage of the panel string? Are they compatible? Get this one wrong and the output of the system will be poor (or even zero).

If there is more than one string of panels, which is almost certain for a system of that size, then are they identical in terms of orientation, panel number etc? If not then does the inverter have multiple MPPT's?

6. Do you have any shading of the panels? Antennas? Power lines? Vent pipes for the toilet? Chimneys / flues? Trees? Anything else? Even a tiny bit of shade on one panel in a string will drop the output seriously - you want NO shade if at all possible.

7. What is the orientation of the roof face the system will be installed on? Is it at least facing somewhere sort of north? It doesn't need to be spot on, but you don't want it facing south (and yes, I've seen this done!).

8. Where will the inverter be located? Avoid putting it on a wall which faces the same direction as the panels if possible. Heat isn't good for electronics that's a given, and the inverter will also generate some of its' own heat during operation. A still day, full sun on the panels and full sun on the inverter is a nasty combination - it'll reduce the output of power almost certainly, and will age the electronics unnecessarily as well. At least put it at a different orientation, better still somewhere not in the sun (mine are under the house).

9. Will you be given a copy of the Certificate of Electrical Compliance (or similar, the exact terminology varies between states)? If not then why not? It's a legal requirement that they give it to you, but one that is often ignored by anyone wanting to avoid electrical inspectors and other forms of scrutiny.

10. What is the basis of the pricing? Will there be any further costs, for example for the meter changeover?

Happy to help with this and hopefully the above doesn't sound too daunting. It's more a "sort the duds from the ones who know what they're on about" type of list. The installer should be able to easily answer all those questions however, and you can sort the ones about shade etc yourself. There's probably a few things I've forgotten to list, but those are the ones that come to mind right now. 

In terms of output, at least 1200 kWh per annum for each KW of installed capacity in a reasonably located (not perfect) system would be considered normal in Hobart. Since Melbourne gets a bit more sun, you should get a bit more than that but the difference between Vic and Tas isn't huge as long as we're talking about cities and major towns. Obviously output will be a lot lower if you're at the bottom of a valley etc.


----------



## stacks (19 August 2012)

I've bought a house with a 3.2 Kw system already installed in QLD, 2 adults, one child. Average about $150 rebate per qtr, differs with seasons. No gas all electric, no real changes in behaviour, Sunny Boy inverter works great. Seems like it would have been a no brainer to install before the rebates ran out given the current and future electricity costs. Interesting to see what happens in the distant future (I hope) with feed in tariffs


----------



## pixel (20 August 2012)

fwiw, I live in Perth and installed a 1KW system 3 years ago, expandable to 2KW.
We are in a similar situation: small Unit, just the two of us.

We chose Solargain: not the cheapest, but at the time, we considered them the most knowledgeable and "complete" provider. They dealt with all the red tape and showed us evidence of their and their Contractor's licenses. They also gave us the options between different panels (and prices) and as much as I could check online, their claims and explanations were pretty accurate.

I understand that Solargain are a franchise; therefore, we may have been lucky with our local outfit. I do believe though, they're also operating in Melbourne. Might be worth checking them out.

18 months later, we upgraded to 2KW; at that time, WA had finally introduced a 40c FIT, which was guaranteed for ten years. (It was soon after reduced for new installations, but existing contracts will be honoured.)

Our roof pitch is about 30 degrees, and the panels are facing North-East. There is no shade on any of the panels. Our inverter is branded "Orion"; Made in China of course, but by all reports of a reliable quality. Ours is installed under the carport roof at eye level. That way, it's protected from the elements, and is easily checked.

After almost three years in operation, our total production has recently exceeded 7MWh. In the first year, we got 1,666 KWh from the 1KW system. Predictably, this has about doubled after the upgrade. See table below. (Note: Averages *after* the upgrade are calculated as from that day.)





PS: Our power bills have gone into Credit; even after this year's hot summer and very cold winter mornings, with RC Aircon running long hours, the 2KW system has kept our annual power bill below zero.


----------



## stewiejp (20 August 2012)

Logique said:


> Hi, your query is best answered by Victorians, since FIT arrangements seem to vary by state. The Mark Gp price seems reasonable for a system that size. What is your desired $ payback period and risk tolerance for system failure?
> 
> Do you really need a system that large, especially if the FIT is low or winding down, since you have gas hot water and a wood heater?  New, more efficient technologies are coming, do you want to be stuck paying off old technology.
> 
> ...




Thanks mate -

Payback period - IF the cheap mob are right (TruVal), we should regain the outlay in a few years. The more expensive (Mark) probably 5 or 6. Hence the conundrum. Will phone the cheap mob this week and see what they have to say. 

A system that large (been looking at around 4kw) - *seems* to be the best value for money for our situation, still looking at other options as well. It should be said that we do use the air conditioner a bit during summer, and when the missus can't be bothered lighting the fire. Or we run out of wood.

FIT's - I'm actually budgeting for this to never actually return any money. If it does then great (or in our case since we are with the same supplier for gas we will then get a discount on that as an alternative too) but for budgeting purposes we're simply aiming to kill or significantly reduce our electricity bill.

As far as getting a bigger inverter to cover expansion - it is/was something we've been looking at, but the last salesman we saw (Marks) said this wouldn't work, as the sum of the watts on the panels (eg 200W) multiplied by the number should reach as close as possible to the inverter size. If it was say half, it just wouldn't work. Not saying I trust that, which is why we're still looking around.

Thanks for the advice, will take it all on board


----------



## stewiejp (20 August 2012)

Smurf,
thanks for the detailed reply...

Quality - apart from the cheap company (True Value) all other parts we are looking at are top of the range, or close to it, and installed will 100% guarantee. Will speak to TV soon. The expensive group do all the arranging with the power company on our behalf, although if saviing a few hundred or thousand dollars means I have to do it, am more than willing to do a bit of running around.

_5. Is the design of the system, in terms of string voltages and current ratings, compatible with the inverter? _
 - I certainly hope so... something to look at, and I suspect the reason True Value are so cheap. 

Shade - none at all, we're lucky. (Have been having a look at odd times of the day since we came up with this idea)

Inverter - I guess it would go under the pergola - not far from the panels. Panels all face north.

Meter changeover will be billed separately from the power company. They arrange it but we pay if. All other compliance certificates etc included and covered, including independant inspection.

_ It's more a "sort the duds from the ones who know what they're on about" 
_ - exactly what we're trying to do.

Thanks again, you've given us some ammo for the salespeople...


----------



## Logique (20 August 2012)

Stewie, a too-large inverter does mean reduced efficiency. But since you're planning quite a big system to begin with, you may as well match the inverter size to the panel capacity as Mark said. 

The other thing is, do the various installer companies offer the same panel failure warranties, and will these companies be around in 25 years time to make good on their promise.

Connecting to the grid: I engaged my own Level 2 electrician because I knew he was good. You don't necessarily have to get the solar panel company do this for you (not in NSW anyway).


----------



## pixel (20 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> FIT's - I'm actually budgeting for this to never actually return any money. If it does then great (or in our case since we are with the same supplier for gas we will then get a discount on that as an alternative too) but for budgeting purposes we're simply aiming to kill or significantly reduce our electricity bill.
> 
> As far as getting a bigger inverter to cover expansion - it is/was something we've been looking at, but the last salesman we saw (Marks) said this wouldn't work, as the sum of the watts on the panels (eg 200W) multiplied by the number should reach as close as possible to the inverter size. If it was say half, it just wouldn't work. Not saying I trust that, which is why we're still looking around.
> 
> Thanks for the advice, will take it all on board




We didn't count on the FITs either, but find they help quite a bit 

As regards Marks' assertion about inverter size, have a look at the data I provided yesterday:
average 4.5 units per day from 1KW with a 2KW inverter; twice that from 2KW *using the same inverter*.

Note: The average over 18 months was 4.9 u/d, but that included a second summer when production is naturally higher.


----------



## stewiejp (20 August 2012)

Thanks guys,

Pixel - so a 4.2 inverter with only 1600 watts worth of panels (8x200) will still be worthwhile? And obviosly upgradable if needed. That's the cheapest option, or one of the better deals anyway here for $2600:http://www.truevaluesolar.com.au/products/specials/

Your data above looks like in my situation I could do exactly the same. Will call them tomorrow and see what they have to say for themselves. The inverters they mention on their website are good ones, however no mention of what panels they use (alarm bells?)

Thanks again everyone.


----------



## sptrawler (20 August 2012)

I just checked the output on my 1.5Kw Sharp system. 20 August 2011 to 20 August 2012, 2500kw/hr produced 1400 exported. Located in Perth, north facing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> As far as getting a bigger inverter to cover expansion - it is/was something we've been looking at, but the last salesman we saw (Marks) said this wouldn't work, as the sum of the watts on the panels (eg 200W) multiplied by the number should reach as close as possible to the inverter size. If it was say half, it just wouldn't work. Not saying I trust that, which is why we're still looking around.



Whether or not it will work depends on the string voltage, not the power rating, being sufficient.

For example, suppose that your inverter has an MPPT operating range of 140 to 340 V and a maximum voltage of 400 V. Exact ratings will vary, but this is the actual specs of one inverter that was popular a while ago.

Now let's assume that you will be using nominal 24 volt panels. These actually have an open circuit (VOC) voltage of around 44.1 (will vary a bit with temperature) and a peak power output somewhere around 35 V (will vary significantly with temperature and the MPPT will follow this change to maintain maximum output).

Now, if you connect 4 panels to this inverter then it might, if you are lucky, actually turn on. It certainly won't work too well, since half the time the optimum voltage of the string will be below 140V. That's an example of a dud design.

In the real world, this inverter would be ideally suited to 8 panels (VOC 353 and maximum power at about 280V) but will work fine with 7 or 6 panels. 5 would be pushing the limits however, and I wouldn't recommend that for a "generic" design without first checking the specs of the actual panels in question. Even then, it's pushing it a bit far.

If you used a 5 KW inverter with a maximum input VOC of 500 V and configured the panels into two strings, then using 24V 250W panels (the second cheapest size per unit of output and easily obtainable) then you could realistically install anything from 1.5 to 5 kW without problems. There's a few technical considerations as to the actual wiring, but it's certainly very doable.

Another thing to consider is overpowering of inverters which, depending on design and circumstances, may be a viable option. In short, since you will rarely hit peak output, there's no economic justification for having a 2kW inverter on a 2kW system for those rare occasions when it will actually reach 2kW. It's more sensible to use a 1.6 kW inverter (cheaper) or to put 2.5 kW of panels on the 2kW inverter (saving cost per unit of output) instead.

The main proviso here is that you're using an inverter which will self limit its' actual output based on software settings, so as not to overheat itself. There are units designed to operate like this (notably the SMA inverters) and others which won't cope even briefly.

In my case I'm running two separate 1.1kW inverters. One has 1.36 kW of panels on it, the other has 1.52 kW. I did it this way for purely economic reasons, the aim being to produce energy at the lowest price per kWh. There's nothing "wrong" with any of that, and the underlying principles are much the same as those which underly much larger electrical things, including run-of-river hydro schemes and wind farms. Both inverters cap their output to 1100W as set by software.

Production from the 1.36 kW system last financial year was 1636 kWh. Panels are at 22 degree pitch, facing 20 degrees West of true North. This system was installed in two stages, initially to 1.02 kW. Panels are 170W each.

Production from the 1.52 kW system, which has been operating less than a year, is expected to be about 1400 kWh per annum. Panels are at 30 degree pitch, 70 degrees East of true North. This system was installed in a single stage, and uses 190W panels.

There is zero shading on either system.

So far as energy consumption is concerned, hot water is heat pump on off-peak tariff, cooktop is gas, oven is electric. The heating is a bit more complex, but it's electric and wood in the main part of the house, and wood and oil downstairs.


----------



## pixel (21 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> Thanks guys,
> 
> Pixel - so a 4.2 inverter with only 1600 watts worth of panels (8x200) will still be worthwhile? And obviosly upgradable if needed. That's the cheapest option, or one of the better deals anyway here for $2600:http://www.truevaluesolar.com.au/products/specials/
> 
> ...



You can Google a few answers online.
That's what I did - and found that the Orion inverter was considered good quality.
You may also want to check the difference between mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline panels.
No, I'm not an expert, so I won't give you an assurance. But we picked the better quality panels; and our output, 1666 units from 1KW, with roof not even straight North, matches exactly sptrawler's 2500 units straight North from 1.5KW.
How much we export will of course depend on our usage pattern; also on the type of our appliances. As an example, I noticed a significant drop in power consumption when I - "Finally!" the wife said - replaced the old CRT LG TV by a new LED LCD Samsung.


----------



## stewiejp (21 August 2012)

_ I - "Finally!" the wife said - replaced the old CRT LG TV by a new LED LCD Samsung. _

LOL - I got a similar reaction when we first "discovered" the new telly.

We're getting to the pointy end of things now - have decided a 3kW system will do the job nicely. Trina (or similar) 250W panels (x12), and a good 3kW (SunnyBoy/Auora etc) inverter will fit nicely on our roof. Since the house isn't huge, and luckily our biggest bit of roof faces north with no shadows - 12 panels will fit nicely we may as well get the better ones.

At least we know what we are after now when negotiating with the suppliers. The look on the Marks Group salesman's face when we asked for a discount for cash was priceless! (He was trying to sell us finance I think..)


----------



## Logique (21 August 2012)

Hey well done Stewie, you're on your way.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 August 2012)

Someguy on the news gloating how " the money rolls in " , making 6k a year from a roof full of solar panels while the average house elec bills are up $60 a year , obviously households are subsidising this gravy train for people.....

Another poorly thought out system ?

I understand kw government payments are being slashed from 50 odd cents to 8 , so probably put the electricity farmers off for a bit ?


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Someguy on the news gloating how " the money rolls in " , making 6k a year from a roof full of solar panels while the average house elec bills are up $60 a year , obviously households are subsidising this gravy train for people.....
> 
> Another poorly thought out system ?
> 
> I understand kw government payments are being slashed from 50 odd cents to 8 , so probably put the electricity farmers off for a bit ?




Yes , I would like to see the gloat removed from his face. Unfortunately it's not going to happen. In Queensland;



> Energy Minister Mark McArdle yesterday announced changes which will see the rebate for *new installations *reduced from 44 cents per kW/h to just 8 cents per kW/h.
> 
> *Although existing owners will retain the generous rebate until 2028, from July 10, anyone who sells their house with solar panels will lose the 44 cents per kW/h rebate and new owners will get the lower rate*.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e-to-maintain-it/story-e6freoof-1226408292697


----------



## stewiejp (21 August 2012)

As mentioned I am not all that interested in the FIT's, basically because I am very sceptical of government "schemes" to get people to move in a "green' direction - remember the insullation debarcle, same government. 

The main thing we are looking at is a return on investment (discounting FIT's other than putting our account into credit when the sun is shining to make up for winter.) Eg. If we pay (in round figures) $6000 for a system, and it reduces our $1200 annual bill to zero - that's a 20% return annually. Taking into account the savings are tax free, it equates to a 30% (or more) ROI. OK, it will cost a bit more that $6k and our annual bill is likely to be in future more than 1200 but I think you get my drift...

I'm just throwing figures around, but it *seems* after we jump through a few hoops, outlay some cash and wait for the sparkies to do their thing, (probably take months, the electric suppliers are't going to be in a rush to "re programme our "smart" meter if it costs them $$) - we could be looking at a great investment. Along the same benefit of *not* signing up to 20% credit cards, hire purchases etc...


----------



## prawn_86 (21 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> Along the same benefit of *not* signing up to 20% credit cards, hire purchases etc...




Or prepaying private health before the end of last FY. Not essential so to speak, but in theory delivers greater (relatively) risk free returns than cash in the bank


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2012)

stewiejp said:


> The main thing we are looking at is a return on investment (discounting FIT's other than putting our account into credit when the sun is shining to make up for winter.) Eg. If we pay (in round figures) $6000 for a system, and it reduces our $1200 annual bill to zero - that's a 20% return annually. Taking into account the savings are tax free, it equates to a 30% (or more) ROI. OK, it will cost a bit more that $6k and our annual bill is likely to be in future more than 1200 but I think you get my drift..



.
Any calculation of ROI needs to take into account the hardware itself does not have an infinite life and is therefore a depreciating asset.

To me, the minimum aim should be to recover the initial cost of the investment plus associated opportunity cost within the shortest warranty period of the associated components. Even then, the investment is not entirely risk free.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Or prepaying private health before the end of last FY. Not essential so to speak, but in theory delivers greater (relatively) risk free returns than cash in the bank



It did last FY as the private health insurance rebate means test didn't apply to advance payments made before July 1.


----------



## bellenuit (22 August 2012)

I'm pleased to note that Synergy in WA has increased their buy back rate from 7 cents to 8.4094 cents per kW/h.  This is in addition to the state Feed in Tariff of 40 cents for those lucky enough to get in on time.


----------



## Calliope (25 May 2013)

If 44c/kWh seemed too good to be true it probably is.



> McArdle says by 2015-16 most Queenslanders will be paying $276 a year, or about 17 per cent of their annual power bill, to subsidise other people having solar power on domestic roofs.
> 
> "But these are just the direct costs of the solar bonus scheme," he says. "What is not included is the cost of upgrading the electricity network to cope with widespread power flowing back into the grid, which has resulted in voltage and other issues making the electricity grid in some areas highly unstable.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...as-well-as-power/story-fn59niix-1226650182854


----------



## Some Dude (25 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> If 44c/kWh seemed too good to be true it probably is.




Not being able to read the article, I assume that the Mr McArdle quoted is the Energy Minister and QLD LNP Member for Caloundra, member of the government that said they would keep the bonus scheme but then after the election changed their mind?

Are there any references for the claims from less motivated sources?


----------



## Julia (25 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> If 44c/kWh seemed too good to be true it probably is.



About time the inequity was addressed.  The government decried the massive increase in electricity prices (I think it was about 40%) announced some months ago and scheduled for July this year, assuring the electorate they would find a way to reduce this.  Since then, the coffers appear to be even more bare than earlier anticipated, so they are looking like reneging on that promise.

To redress some of the solar v non/solar charges will help those at least somewhat who are struggling.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 May 2013)

I was just talking to a guy who knows all about alt energies, as an energy engineer.

He reckons wait a few years until PV systems have the ability to store energy.  This technology will come out of the US in a few years, he reckons.  Then you can run your whole house on it easily.


----------



## Some Dude (25 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I was just talking to a guy who knows all about alt energies, as an energy engineer.
> 
> He reckons wait a few years until PV systems have the ability to store energy.  This technology will come out of the US in a few years, he reckons.  Then you can run your whole house on it easily.




I'm looking into that also. The MIT Tech Review recently has a good article on this one a larger scale which I am sure will translate to smaller scale over time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 May 2013)

The entire pricing structure of electricity (for residential customers) embeds subsidies such that the vast majority are either paying too little or too much.

Solar panels are one thing that in most cases will result in the household falling into the "subsidised" category. But in the context of Queensland then so too will simply never using an electric clothes dryer. Likewise anyone who runs air-conditioning of an afternoon but not overnight is also likely to be in the subsidised category.

As for who is paying the subsidy, in broad terms it is those with above average consumption, particularly where that consumption occurs outside peak periods. So for example those who leave the A/C on overnight or who routinely use a clothes dryer are being over charged.

That will vary between states of course, but in broad terms the pricing mechanism recovers fixed supply costs via a loading on consumption charges such that there is a linkage between low consumption and being under charged, and high consumption and being over charged. That is complicated by time of use considerations.

Biggest subsidy of all tends to go to shacks and other non-permanently occupied residences for the simple reason of their typically non-urban location combined with (usually) very low consumption. 

The simplest way is to move to a fixed charge of roughly $800 per year per residence and lower unit prices. With that structure, it then doesn't matter what volume of consumption people have or how much of it they supply themselves versus from the grid. Ultimately that is what the industry will have to do in order to remain viable but the political implications are massive and it will take a crisis to get there in my opinion.

As for CO2 emissions from less efficient running of baseload plants, there is some truth in that but the inefficiencies introduced thus far by solar pale into insignificance compared to the inefficiencies introduced by the "competitive" structure of the industry. It's competitive in a sense, but only an economist with no understanding of electricity generation would fail to realise that there has been a drop in efficiency as a direct result of this.

Let's face it, there's practically nowhere in the world where electricity competition and other such reforms hasn't resulted in a loss of technical efficiency and higher prices. That's a far greater evil than solar panels on roofs, although for ideological reasons it's a much harder message to get through. In saying that I'm not commenting about ownership (public versus private) since that makes little difference overall. The key is having one owner, not the faux competition we have now which lowers technical efficiency and ramps up prices.


----------



## DB008 (25 June 2013)

Australia’s biggest CPV solar plant completed, connected to grid


> Silex Systems has announced the practical completion of its 1.5MW concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) solar power demonstration plant in Mildura, Victoria, with all 40 of the facility’s CPV dishes connected and now feeding power into the national grid.
> 
> Silex subsidiary Solar Systems made the announcement on Tuesday morning, describing the occasion as a “major milestone” on the road to commercialisation of its unique ‘Dense Array’ CPV technology.
> 
> The plant’s CS500 dishes are each made up of more than 100 curved mirrors which reflect sunlight and concentrate it to 500 times its normal intensity. This sunlight is then directed onto a receiver of densely packed, highly-efficient, solar cells, and then converted into energy at 43 per cent efficiency – generally regarded as the highest in the world.




http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/australias-biggest-cpv-solar-plant-completed-connected-to-grid-88711


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2013)

I'd like to get solar panels but my neighbour has a tree that pretty much shades my roof for 9 months of the year.

Since we don't have a right to light thre's not much I can do about it.

Why you can have a tree around 1.5M from my house growing to a height of 18M and covering the 2 properties either side of you I have no idea.  To build any structure as intrusive would never get through - unless it's a heli pad on Sydney Harbour.

So basically a single tree blocks my right to install solar panels or solar hot water.


----------



## FxTrader (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically a single tree blocks my right to install solar panels or solar hot water.




You are not alone and this is a very real problem in new suburbs and estates as well.  Solar panels go up on north facing roofs and then that newly planted 2M gum tree in the neighbors yard becomes a 15m monster 5 years later and shades your panels many hours during the day.  There seems to be nothing you can do about it either.  This is something anyone installing solar needs to consider.


----------



## boofis (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd like to get solar panels but my neighbour has a tree that pretty much shades my roof for 9 months of the year.
> 
> Since we don't have a right to light thre's not much I can do about it.
> 
> ...




You would have no trouble arguing to the council that the tree needs to be removed based on the need for sustainable sources of power.
What's your council? We can remove trees within 4m of a fenceline and 10m of a house without approval, if you can't, just get an arborist involved to officially document that the tree is blocking potential sources of 'renewable energy' over the most productive sun hrs and put it all in writing, include pictures and submit it to planners. There's no way they wouldn't have that thing chopped down if you did the former (speaking from experience).  AND if all that isn't enough, be ready to replant ten trees (doesn't matter if they die upon planting lol) to replace the one you take down.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> The simplest way is to move to a fixed charge of roughly $800 per year per residence and lower unit prices. With that structure, it then doesn't matter what volume of consumption people have or how much of it they supply themselves versus from the grid. Ultimately that is what the industry will have to do in order to remain viable but the political implications are massive and it will take a crisis to get there in my opinion.
> .




I think a fairer way is to bring in time of use charging with a tiered pricing structure.

We should all be able to cook our dinners and do the basics of life without being bankrupted by the charges.  Conversely if you have your air con running at peak times and part of the reason 10% of electricity assets are used for just a week of the year then you should pay for the privilege.

So I'd argue that using electricity in peak periods at a rate of < 2kWh should be at a reasonable rate, and anything above that prob goes up to double or triple that rate.  We should also introduce ways for consumers to allow the electricity companies to turn off their aircon during peak loading.  This is how they do it in the USA because they have worked out it's cheaper to use less power than to try to continually supply more and more.  heck, in the USA a regional power company was giving away free water heater insulation jackets as that was cheaper than building a new power station.

As for higher fixed charges, I suppose depends how the variable costs change to reflect that.  I'm already in the situation where the fixed charges on my electricity bill are close to 30% of the usage charge each quarter - the benefit of being a 8.5 kWh 3 person household - $57 fixed against $195 usage - so to increase my fixed component much more would cause a big increase in my charges, and it would also tend to send the wrong signal as reduction in usage would give a smaller financial reward than at present.


----------



## drsmith (27 June 2013)

Doesn't cutting trees down for renewable energy somewhat defeat the purpose ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I think a fairer way is to bring in time of use charging with a tiered pricing structure.



That still requires that the utility sells lots of power in order to recover the fixed costs. So it won't lead to any "switch off and save" campaigns anytime soon. 

That said, I acknowledge that it can be made to work. It's simply a case of having a high enough rate at times when the sun isn't shining and customers are somewhat captive. It fails in the event that battery storage gets cheaper however.

If enough people install solar then we end up with the peak being Winter evenings in most of Australia (notable exception of Tas where it is Winter morning). So it's ovens, lights and heaters that will be the issue in the longer term rather than cooling if large solar PV systems were to become mainstream (which they already would be if the high FIT rates were still being offered for new installs).

There's something rather odd about utility pricing generally. People quite happily pay $60 or even more per month for internet and landline phone, and sometimes more than that just for a mobile, and yet the notion of paying a similar amount for electricity connection creates a lot of excitement.

I could argue that my internet connection is somewhat unfair. I pay the same as others but use relatively little data since I don't generally download. Why can't everyone just pay per unit of data rather than a fixed monthly fee? The logic about electricity versus other utility pricing is somewhat interesting to say the least.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I think a fairer way is to bring in time of use charging with a tiered pricing structure.
> 
> We should all be able to cook our dinners and do the basics of life without being bankrupted by the charges.  Conversely if you have your air con running at peak times and part of the reason 10% of electricity assets are used for just a week of the year then you should pay for the privilege.
> 
> ...




I think you are on the money with the post Syd.
Smart meters are being installed when solar panel installations are carried out in W.A. Time of day pricing will come.
Also I'm sure I read all 'high draw' electrical appliances(eg air cons) have to be fitted with a frequency switch device after a certain date.


----------



## Julia (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd like to get solar panels but my neighbour has a tree that pretty much shades my roof for 9 months of the year.
> 
> Since we don't have a right to light thre's not much I can do about it.
> 
> ...



I'm in exactly the same situation.  A neighbour to my south east planted a gum tree 20 years ago and it's now huge and completely unsuitable for a small neighbourhood backyard.  It sheds thousands of leaves throughout my garden, into the pool and fills the gutters 12 months of the year, not to mention being a danger in storms.
It is not, however, actually overlapping any of our surrounding properties so we are unable to lop any limbs off.




boofis said:


> You would have no trouble arguing to the council that the tree needs to be removed based on the need for sustainable sources of power.



Really?  I can assure you that is absolutely not the case in the regional Qld area where I live.
The Council steadfastly refuse to have anything to do with any tree on private land.  We have argued that - just as they ban the planting of various noxious plants, they could absolutely equally ban the planting of trees in suburbia which will exceed a height and span of X metres.  They are not interested.



> What's your council? We can remove trees within 4m of a fenceline and 10m of a house without approval,



Yes, you as the tree owner can do this as opposed to the old arrangement of having to pay the local Council to acquire permission for this.  It's known as self assessment.
It is completely useless, however, in the situation where all the neighbours want the tree removed or trimmed, and the tree owner says "oh, no, I love my tree:  you can all go to hell".

We have even taken the issue to QCAT.  It took nearly a year of extensive photographs, documentation, written reports from arborists etc, and in the end, believe it or not, came down to a decision by the Tribunal that - despite full acknowledgment of the nuisance of the tree to various neighbours, because it was essentially a healthy tree, they would not issue an order for its removal.

So good luck with getting anything done about it.  It's greenie madness v the huge nuisance value to multiple neighbours.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2013)

Funnily enough this very problem was on the radio today, during the 'ask the lawyer segment'.

He installed 5Kw of solar on his shed roof, the guy over the back fence built a two story, result no sun.

Answer, tough, sorry.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2013)

boofis said:


> You would have no trouble arguing to the council that the tree needs to be removed based on the need for sustainable sources of power.
> What's your council? We can remove trees within 4m of a fenceline and 10m of a house without approval, if you can't, just get an arborist involved to officially document that the tree is blocking potential sources of 'renewable energy' over the most productive sun hrs and put it all in writing, include pictures and submit it to planners. There's no way they wouldn't have that thing chopped down if you did the former (speaking from experience).  AND if all that isn't enough, be ready to replant ten trees (doesn't matter if they die upon planting lol) to replace the one you take down.




Around 3 to 4 years ago whent he tree was rubbing against my roof my neighbours tld me to buggar off when I wasked them to cut it back.  Once I showed them some of the rulings from "tree court" they changed their tune.

I told them I'd pay for half the cost of removing the tree.  Council came out and basically said the tree adds to the general amenity of the area and therefore couldn't be cut down.

Pretty much unless I can prove it's causing major damage to my house it stays till it dies.

I couldn't get the inspector to reply to my question - would you plant this tree this close to your house?


----------



## sydboy007 (27 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Funnily enough this very problem was on the radio today, during the 'ask the lawyer segment'.
> 
> He installed 5Kw of solar on his shed roof, the guy over the back fence built a two story, result no sun.
> 
> Answer, tough, sorry.




There's been talk of changing council approval processes to combat this.

So far I don't think it's even gone to a committee to discuss so I doubt anything will change.

I live in the inner west where back yards are really courtyards and the size of the trees in 4 of the properties that bound my property should be out in the bush, not in these little plots of land.

I've read articles about spite trees and generally there's little you can do and state Govts have found the issue too daunting to take any action

- - - Updated - - -



drsmith said:


> Doesn't cutting trees down for renewable energy somewhat defeat the purpose ?




I'd argue 1 fully grown tree is probably close to neutral benefits in terms of breaking down CO2 with the amount of leaf and bark litter they shed.

I'd also argue in my case that at least 4 house holds are blocked from installing solar PV / hot water due to the tree.  I have to use lights down stairs much earlier in the evening than if that tree wasn't there blocking most of the light.

I've had to install root barriers and leaf guards to try and protect against it.  It clogged up the middle gutter of my house which caused flooding in the top room of my house and the other side of the duplex during heavy rain a couple of years back.  Had to rip out the carpet int he bedroom because of it.

Not much gets me riled about about my house, but the 15M+ trees that surround me sure do. Once things dry out in sydney enough I can look forward to a couple of hours clean up out the back and side of my house with what's fallen down in the foul weather.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Pretty much unless I can prove it's causing major damage to my house it stays *till it dies*.



Easy solution there.....


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> There's been talk of changing council approval processes to combat this.
> 
> So far I don't think it's even gone to a committee to discuss so I doubt anything will change.
> 
> ...




Yes. I can't remember exactly what the lawyer said, but it was something like.
Everyone has right to sunlight, his right is just as important as yours. Therefore as long as his house complies with building regs for the suburb, you are stuffed.
However he did say there is a push to include solar into building regs. But don't hold your breath.

- - - Updated - - -



Smurf1976 said:


> Easy solution there.....




That is the way I would deal with it.lol


----------



## Boggo (27 June 2013)

Julia said:


> I'm in exactly the same situation.  A neighbour to my south east planted a gum tree 20 years ago and it's now huge and completely unsuitable for a small neighbourhood backyard.  It sheds thousands of leaves throughout my garden, into the pool and fills the gutters 12 months of the year, not to mention being a danger in storms.
> It is not, however, actually overlapping any of our surrounding properties so we are unable to lop any limbs off.




Julia, the real problem with gum trees that goes unnoticed for years is the extent of the root system.
Apparently they can have a root system that expands laterally up to four times the height of the tree.

One way of reducing the risk to your property is to get a trenching machine to cut a deep trench and hopefully the roots alongside your boundary fence and then just refill it. The other way is to locate some of the roots, drill a few holes to the centre of the root and fill with undiluted roundup (last resort).

If you are within the shadow of a gum tree you will eventually have structural or drainage problems (or likely both) especially if you have the old terracotta sewer etc pipes.

Been through this issue years ago, the roots actually lifted the the floor of the garage and also started to lift the kitchen floor to the point where if you placed a golf ball on the centre of the floor it would roll to the edge !

- - - Updated - - -



sptrawler said:


> That is the way I would deal with it.lol




Had to resort to that, was effective


----------



## Julia (28 June 2013)

Boggo said:


> Julia, the real problem with gum trees that goes unnoticed for years is the extent of the root system.
> Apparently they can have a root system that expands laterally up to four times the height of the tree.
> 
> One way of reducing the risk to your property is to get a trenching machine to cut a deep trench and hopefully the roots alongside your boundary fence and then just refill it. The other way is to locate some of the roots, drill a few holes to the centre of the root and fill with undiluted roundup (last resort).
> ...



Thanks, Boggo.  Lateral extension of the root system to the point you describe would have the roots under my pool!   There is other vegetation along the boundary so it would be pretty impossible to identify what roots were what.  The other complication is that the boundary between my place and the tree owner's is only about three metres.  My property narrows into the corner.  Boundaries with three other neighbours all have much greater joint boundaries.  If I had the courage, I'd climb over the fence at night and apply some poison.
I hate that tree with total passion.


----------



## pixel (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks, Boggo.  Lateral extension of the root system to the point you describe would have the roots under my pool!   There is other vegetation along the boundary so it would be pretty impossible to identify what roots were what.  The other complication is that the boundary between my place and the tree owner's is only about three metres.  My property narrows into the corner.  Boundaries with three other neighbours all have much greater joint boundaries.  If I had the courage, I'd climb over the fence at night and apply some poison.
> I hate that tree with total passion.




Some long copper nails are supposed to work. Just make sure you're not seen or heard nailing.


----------



## Boggo (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks, Boggo.  Lateral extension of the root system to the point you describe would have the roots under my pool!   There is other vegetation along the boundary so it would be pretty impossible to identify what roots were what.  The other complication is that the boundary between my place and the tree owner's is only about three metres.  My property narrows into the corner.  Boundaries with three other neighbours all have much greater joint boundaries.  If I had the courage, I'd climb over the fence at night and apply some poison.
> I hate that tree with total passion.




You can get contractors that have these (pic below), some are only about 1.6 metres wide and will trench down about 1 metre alongside your boundary fence.




pixel said:


> Some long copper nails are supposed to work. Just make sure you're not seen or heard nailing.




Apparently they work, haven't tried them though. Interesting thing with gum trees is that when you poison a root then only a part of the tree seems to die off, ie. a few branches go brown. Gets the owner scratching his head though 

Sorry, I have taken this thread off topic, probably relevant though.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

Boggo said:


> The other way is to locate some of the roots, drill a few holes to the centre of the root and fill with undiluted roundup (last resort).



I think the following is agricultural strength. I either use that or 360 and make my own mix for weeds.


----------



## Julia (28 June 2013)

Thanks for the suggestions, fellas.  Problem is, however, that I have no access to the tree.
The tree owner is a crazy old woman who never leaves the property and has motion sensor lights everywhere, even if I was up to clambering over the fence in the dark.  I do not fancy being caught with industrial strength Roundup in the middle of the night on her property.

As I've said before, the dreaded tree is in the middle of her backyard, nowhere near the boundary.  It's the enormous height of it and the prevailing wind that makes it such a problem.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> I do not fancy being caught with industrial strength Roundup in the middle of the night on her property.



With that stuff, you'd only have to spray it from the fence line when the wind is favourable.

I'm only joking by the way. Apart from the fact that trying something like that would be very naughty, the resultant plume of dying vegetation might give away the origin.

I had a neighbour's tree next to the fence growing roots under the fence and under my shed. I cut through the roots on my side between the fence and the shed and the tree soon died. Fortunately, it wasn't too big.


----------



## Julia (28 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> With that stuff, you'd only have to spray it from the fence line when the wind is favourable.



I've clearly failed to convey the size of the tree.  The notion of my reaching over the fence with some pissy little sprayer, trying to deliver spray on a tree about 25 or 30 metres away, the diameter of which would be way greater than that, and the height three times that of a two storey house, is risible.



> I'm only joking by the way. Apart from the fact that trying something like that would be very naughty, the resultant plume of dying vegetation might give away the origin.



All that would be dying would be a bit of grass where the waft of spray drifted to the ground in my feeble attempt to even get it over the fence.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2013)

Julia said:


> I've clearly failed to convey the size of the tree.  The notion of my reaching over the fence with some pissy little sprayer, trying to deliver spray on a tree about 25 or 30 metres away, the diameter of which would be way greater than that, and the height three times that of a two storey house, is risible.
> 
> 
> All that would be dying would be a bit of grass where the waft of spray drifted to the ground in my feeble attempt to even get it over the fence.




I wonder if they ever go on holidays?
You could then look after their pet for them, like good neighbors do.
Then you could talk about the tree.


----------



## breaker (28 June 2013)

Grasslan it comes in pellets and u throw it round the base of the tree


----------



## stewiejp (29 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the suggestions, fellas.  Problem is, however, that I have no access to the tree.
> The tree owner is a crazy old woman who never leaves the property and has motion sensor lights everywhere, even if I was up to clambering over the fence in the dark.  I do not fancy being caught with industrial strength Roundup in the middle of the night on her property.
> 
> As I've said before, the dreaded tree is in the middle of her backyard, nowhere near the boundary.  It's the enormous height of it and the prevailing wind that makes it such a problem.




Bow and Arrow anyone? How's your archer skills Julia... just putting it out there.. 

 can see this turning into some commando type operation in the middle of the night. Camouflage, walkie talkies, hand signals.. 

best of luck in any case. I'm lucky we have awesome neighbors.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I wonder if they ever go on holidays?



There is no 'they'.  It is one old woman.  She never goes anywhere.



> You could then look after their pet for them, like good neighbors do.



There is no pet.  I'm not actually a neighbour in the side by side sense but over the back fence.
My 'real' neighbours couldn't be better.



> Then you could talk about the tree.



Funny.  You think I haven't tried such civilised measures?  She won't even speak to me.  I have had the Justice Dept ask her to participate in  mediation.  She didn't even answer their two letters.  Even during the QCAT process she simply refused to participate.



breaker said:


> Grasslan it comes in pellets and u throw it round the base of the tree



Thank you, breaker.  I can't find any reference to it with a Google search.  Do you have a link?



stewiejp said:


> Bow and Arrow anyone? How's your archer skills Julia... just putting it out there..



1.  They are untried, stewie, but - given my skills in similar fields - I'd say minimal.
2.  Anything that was lodged in the tree, coming from my direction, even optimistically assuming I'd hit the tree, would be pretty obvious.

Anyway, all this is rather distracting from the topic.  I apologise for raising it.


----------



## breaker (29 June 2013)

Julia said:


> There is no 'they'.  It is one old woman.  She never goes anywhere.
> 
> 
> There is no pet.  I'm not actually a neighbour in the side by side sense but over the back fence.
> ...





Hi Julia

http://www.dowagro.com/au/prod/graslan.htm


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

Thank you, breaker.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2013)

Tis a shame that the various levels of Government always seem to be able to design policies that conflict with each other.

I can understand preserving trees, but then there's needs to be some common sense that says in suburbia, and especially the little courtyard style back yards of most capital city inner suburbs, trees of 15M+ heights are really not appropriate in that landscape.

I will say the aborealist that came to inspect the roots of the tree causing me grief was suprised at the height of it.  He'd never seen that species any where near that big, so I suppose possibly the neighbour planted it expecting it to be only a few meters in height.  When I bought the house it was a nice size and provided the kind of shade that's beneficial.

I got the aborealist in, because if the frigging tree died I wanted legal deniability for liability.  I so longingly looked at the freshly cut roots before the installed the root guard.  Had visions of drilling holes and concentrated round up and natural light downstairs in winter.

Personally I'd like to see someone come up with a time share for a large scale solar plant and be able to buy X kWh of the capacity of the plant.  While I like the efficiency of producing the energy close to the point of use as home solar PV does, I also know that large scale plants are far cheaper to install and maintain, so you get a much bigger bang for your buck.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Tis a shame that the various levels of Government always seem to be able to design policies that conflict with each other.



In relation to your tree problem, if it's so close as to be rubbing against your house either present or past, what's stopping you having it cut to the property boundary ?

Is accessibility a problem with this option.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> In relation to your tree problem, if it's so close as to be rubbing against your house either present or past, what's stopping you having it cut to the property boundary ?
> 
> Is accessibility a problem with this option.




Neighbours get it cut back once it starts rubbing against my roof.

It is a very difficult expensive process as there's no access to the tree from the road so a craze is used to hold the workers and tree in place while the work is done.  Getting the large chunks of wood out is also a difficult job.

The other problem is that even without touching my roof, the amount of leave and bark litter is amazingly high.  Even with leave guards on the gutter there can be so much crap falling down that if something gets stuff and blocks other stuff falling off then it will start building up quite a bit.

It's a very difficult job to be able to brush the offending material off the leaf guards.

Maybe I should start up a new thread - the trees from hell.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Neighbours get it cut back once it starts rubbing against my roof.



So at least you have a measure of co-operation from the neighbours.  I suppose you've asked them if they would consider removing it, maybe even if you contribute to the cost?



> The other problem is that even without touching my roof, the amount of leave and bark litter is amazingly high.  Even with leave guards on the gutter there can be so much crap falling down that if something gets stuff and blocks other stuff falling off then it will start building up quite a bit.
> 
> It's a very difficult job to be able to brush the offending material off the leaf guards.



And the leaf guard material degrades in quite a short time.  I've found better to just keep clearing the gutters out.  Irritates me to have to pay someone to do this so often.



> Maybe I should start up a new thread - the trees from hell.



That wouldn't be an exaggeration.  Just one inappropriately planted tree can truly make life hell.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Neighbours get it cut back once it starts rubbing against my roof.
> 
> It is a very difficult expensive process as there's no access to the tree from the road so a craze is used to hold the workers and tree in place while the work is done.  Getting the large chunks of wood out is also a difficult job.



I don't know what a craze is, but it sounds more complex than a cherry picker.

How lopsided would the tree be if you did have it cut to the boundary up to full height ?

Is there then danger of it falling on their house or other infrastructure on their property during a storm ?

If that's the case, you then have a point of negotiation for removal of the whole tree although it's a negotiation that would need to be handled very delicately.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> I don't know what a craze is, but it sounds more complex than a cherry picker.
> 
> How lopsided would the tree be if you did have it cut to the boundary up to full height ?
> 
> ...




Craze should be crane 

I asked the aborealist if cutting back 1 side of the tree so heavily would cause issues and he said the trees roots will just grow in a way so as to keep the whole thing stable.  Am just glad I have a root guard to protect my house from that.  At least it's not a gum tree so probably not quite as structurally damaging.

My neighbours were amenable to removing the tree, not happy to, but could see they were going to be up for $1500-2000 each time it would need to be cut back.

Issue is the council is against removal of the tree as it enhances the general amenity of the area.  Every time I hear the word amenity, I get the grating tones of Pauline Hanson's voice in my head.

I said to the council inspector would you plant a tree this height this close to your house?  He waffled on a bit and did his best question time performance of answering a different question.


----------



## DB008 (29 June 2013)

breaker said:


> Grasslan it comes in pellets and u throw it round the base of the tree




Thank you.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue 1 fully grown tree is probably close to neutral benefits in terms of breaking down CO2 with the amount of leaf and bark litter they shed.
> 
> I'd also argue in my case that at least 4 house holds are blocked from installing solar PV / hot water due to the tree.  I have to use lights down stairs much earlier in the evening than if that tree wasn't there blocking most of the light.
> 
> ...




The solar panel aspect is clearly very minor in comparison to the other issues you face with this tree.



sydboy007 said:


> I said to the council inspector would you plant a tree this height this close to your house?  He waffled on a bit and did his best question time performance of answering a different question.



Was it your neighbour who involved the council ?

50/50 would be pretty good for them in terms of cost split for total removal in my view. With councils, it's sometimes a case of what they don't know won't hurt them.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> 50/50 would be pretty good for them in terms of cost split for total removal in my view. With councils, it's sometimes a case of what they don't know won't hurt them.



Definitely if they function on allowing householders self assessment re trees which I think most councils do these days.  If you and the neighbour can come to an agreement, the council probably doesn't need to be involved at all.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Definitely if they function on allowing householders self assessment re trees which I think most councils do these days.  If you and the neighbour can come to an agreement, the council probably doesn't need to be involved at all.




Trust me, I've checked the council regulations many times and this tree fits within the requirements of needing council approval to prune or remove.

They even say you can't just prune back to the fence line.  You have to hire an aborealist who will decide on the appropriate pruning method.


----------



## empyrealenergy (3 July 2013)

Does using solar panels bring in more benefits or no benefits at all to household or business?


----------



## pixel (3 July 2013)

empyrealenergy said:


> Does using solar panels bring in more benefits or no benefits at all to household or business?




If you consider it a benefit when our bi-monthly power bill is always in credit instead of us having to pay $150 to $300, then there is definitely some benefit 

We recently exceeded 10MWh of energy production, about half of which was exported into the grid. Here in WA, being an early adopter (which also means we paid about 3-times current prices), we receive a 40c additional FIT on top of wholesale production costs, which currently stand at about 8.5c per KWh.
Maintenance/ Service costs us about $100 p.a. The rest of the savings/ revenue is paying roughly 20% p.a. interest or, put differently, we'll recoup the original expense within less than 6 years. After that, the FIT contract will be continuing for 4 more years.

I would, however, urge anybody considering an SPV installation to check out the providers carefully. From personal experience, as well as reports from friends and on National discussion groups, I would give Solargain top marks. On the flip side, I have heard of plenty of fly-by-night cowboys that not only provided sub-standard advice and shoddy installation, but also cut corners on second-grade equipment.


----------



## Country Lad (3 July 2013)

empyrealenergy said:


> Does using solar panels bring in more benefits or no benefits at all to household or business?




Why ask when you are supposed to be the expert according to your avatar?  Empyreal Energy Consultants?

Sounds like the start of a bit of spamming.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## pixel (3 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> Why ask when you are supposed to be the expert according to your avatar?  Empyreal Energy Consultants?
> 
> Sounds like the start of a bit of spamming.
> 
> ...




After close of trades, I went for a little Google. Came up with
http://www.scambook.com/company/view/75621/Empyreal-Energy-Pty-Ltd-Australia

Also found an interesting thread on whirlpool:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1962207

*Of course those are simply other people's opinions and reports, and I can't verify them. So DYOR.*


----------



## stewiejp (7 July 2013)

We installed solar panels late last year and if I remember correctly I said I'd post our results here when we got a bill... well finally we did. 
We put in a 3 kw system in October and it was switched on/connected to the grid at the end of that month. Like a lot of people, we have been getting our power bills quite late (Energy Australia aka TRU - actually from Singapore but what's in a name right?). Got an email yesterday with the bill, and the bill started a couple of days after the panels were switched on.
It should be said that our average bill was around $400, this one was $180 in credit. Got to be happy with that, especially considering the following 3 months were summer as well, and we were away for a month of that. Our feed in tarriff is 31c all up (25c transitional, 6c "normal").

So considering our annual bill was usually $1600, and we paid around $6000 - assuming we don't pay another bill, the thing should have paid for itself comfortably within 4 years. Got to be happy with that "return".


----------



## sydboy007 (8 July 2013)

stewiejp said:


> So considering our annual bill was usually $1600, and we paid around $6000 - assuming we don't pay another bill, the thing should have paid for itself comfortably within 4 years. Got to be happy with that "return".




Lucky buggar 

Seems quite a high FIT that you're receiving.  My dad is getting < 9c kWh generated


----------



## pixel (8 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Lucky buggar
> 
> Seems quite a high FIT that you're receiving.  My dad is getting < 9c kWh generated




FITs differ by State; most schemes have also been reduced or stopped altogether, once they had achieved their purpose, which is help initial adopters lift the technology over the threshold to critical mass.
At about $1/Watt, the business case is meanwhile sound enough even without FIT.

wrt "not paying anything else": Budget for about $100 p.a. for bi-annual service, checkup. Well worth it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2013)

Last financial year my solar panels generated a total $1006 worth of electricity at 1:1 FIT of 27.785 cents.

How much they'll generate this year depends on what happens with the FIT rates which are under review (they won't go up.....) but production will be higher given that I added more panels 5 months ago. If the rate remained the same, production would be worth about $1300.

Total investment in the system thus far is $8,087. I could add more,  but won't be doing so until future FIT rates are clarified. If it remains attractive then I could more than double the current production levels quite easily - there's plenty of roof space left (well, I've used all the north-facing but there's plenty left that faces East or West).

If it works out financially then I'll add about 24% to production with the next stage.


----------



## Macquack (8 July 2013)

How many Kw system do you have Smurf. In NSW, single phase households are limited to a 5 Kw system.


----------



## stewiejp (9 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Lucky buggar
> 
> Seems quite a high FIT that you're receiving.  My dad is getting < 9c kWh generated




All up our FIT is 31c (6c from retailer 25c from subsidy) - we got ours just before it was cut to 6c (VIC) last October roughly. The price we are charged in that time has gone from 25c to 31c so it's a 1:1 ratio for now. Mate at work is still getting 60c from the initial deal some years ago.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> How many Kw system do you have Smurf. In NSW, single phase households are limited to a 5 Kw system.



I currently have a system comprising:

8 x 170W (1.36 kW) panels facing 20 degrees West of true North and connected to a 1.1 kW inverter.

8 x 190W panels facing 20 degrees North of true East and connected to a separate 1.1 kW inverter.

9 x 250W panels facing 20 degrees South of true West and connected to the same 1.1 kW inverter as the East facing panels.

So all up 5.13 kW of panels feeding two inverters with a peak output of 2.2 kW all up.

There are some losses from the E and W facing panels in this arrangement (losing roughly 20% of potential energy output from the E and W facing panels) but it is (1) safe and properly done and (2) financially the rational thing to do at this point. 

Depending on what happens with feed-in Tariffs, I'll add a new inverter, another 16 x 190W panels facing E and another 7 x 250W panels facing W and take the system up to a total of 9.92 kW (panels) with a peak AC output (inverters) somewhere around 6 - 6.5 kW.

The technical math behind all this isn't rocket science - not a lot different to any other electrical engineering as long as you understand the current and voltage profile of solar panels. The economic math is essentially the same as for a hydro scheme, so pretty well established principles there.

I've worked around electrical things my entire working life (and some time prior to that), both on the tools and office-based, and for what it's worth my avatar is a real power station control panel. You get the idea......


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> 8 x 190W panels facing 20 degrees North of true East and connected to a separate 1.1 kW inverter.
> 
> 9 x 250W panels facing 20 degrees South of true West and connected to the same 1.1 kW inverter as the East facing panels.






Smurf1976 said:


> There are some losses from the E and W facing panels in this arrangement (losing roughly 20% of potential energy output from the E and W facing panels) but it is (1) safe and properly done and (2) financially the rational thing to do at this point.



The question that comes to my mind is how much did you gain by adding the second set of 9 x 250W panels to that 1.1kW inverter ?


----------



## qldfrog (10 July 2013)

similar here: you basically added two set to the same inverter shifting boths array so that they did work both jointly each in a less than optimal solution:
would you not have been better off putting both in optimal north orientation (what i did here in qld when I added 3kw to my existing 1k system), or is this because of the tasmanian greater seasonal variation ?
Interested....


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> similar here: you basically added two set to the same inverter shifting boths array so that they did work both jointly each in a less than optimal solution:



Another question is whether the east and west facing arrays are connected to the inverter via a single or multiple strings. 1.1kW seems to be a low capacity inverter for multiple strings.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2013)

More panels facing North is out of the question without large frames etc which I am not prepared to install. Firstly for aesthetics, secondly because it wouldn't be the first time that we had winds well over 100 km/h, thirdly because facing E or W will still produce about 88% as much energy over 12 months (most of the loss being in Winter) so there's not a lot to be gained.

As for the inverters:

The first one and 6 x 170 W panels cost me literally nothing. Adding the extra 2 panels results in a production loss due to the capacity limit on the inverter which is trivial, 1 or 2% at most, so there's no point upgrading.

The second inverter cost me all of $400 (brand new, still in the box) and was installed with the intention of only ever connecting 8 x 190W panels (1.52kW). Given that those panels face East, there is a trivial production loss associated with having a smaller inverter.

Then the rules changed to allow systems greater than 3kW and that's where the West facing panels come in. From a purely economic perspective, adding another 1600 kWh of production without the need for an additional inverter stacks up fairly well. Overall, there's a loss of about 750 kWh of production from the E and W facing panels due to the undersized inverter. That is, they produce 3100 kWh of the 3850 that's theoretically available.

In terms of electrical connections, these inverters have only one MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracker) so yes there are some losses from that too, although the under-sizing makes them of minor consequence since that is the greater constraint. The use of 9 panels facing W is specifically to match the current and voltage profile of the E facing panels as closely as practical.

It's an economic decision to have it this way for the moment. That is, with the uncertainty about future FIT rates it is not necessarily going to be worthwhile to invest further in the system in order to produce another 750 kWh, practically all of which would be exported to the grid. With that uncertainty, pumping out a solid 1.1kW all day, plus the N facing system with it's "normal" production profile, is a lower financial risk proposition.

Suffice to say that I've done the maths on this in considerable detail with the specific aim of doing solar, but only if it's profitable. That has lead to the system I have now. Taking the extra 750 kWh that is available just hasn't stacked up from a cost and financial risk perspective thus far. If I get another inverter, it makes sense to get one that's big enough to take the system all the way to 9.92 kW. But that doesn't stack up financially unless I then actually install the additional panels - which only makes sense if the FIT is high enough. Hence no action until the issue is resolved.

Once there's an announcement about the future FIT for Tasmania then I'll be able to make a decision as to what, if anything, to do next. At the moment it's "wait and see". Heck, we don't even know who will be retailing electricity in this state as of 1 January next year.

In terms of the broader industry shakeup going on down here:

1. Aurora Energy Tamar Valley (AETV), the only large fossil fuel power plant in Tas, was transferred to Hydro ownership on 1st July. Hydro now operates every significant power station in Tasmania, the rest being a few co-generation plants in industry, landfill gas, rooftop solar etc.

2. Aurora Retail will be out of business after 31st December 2013. Who is buying it is unannounced at this point, other than to say that the law prevents Hydro from retailing within Tasmania either directly or via any of its' offshoot companies. So presumably, the new retailers will be AGL, Orign, ERM or someone like that. That's assuming they want to do it of course. 

3. Residential solar FIT is under government review in the context of point 2 above with a decision due fairly soon.

4. Aurora Distribution (the "poles and wires" business) will be taken on by Transend Networks (which owns most of the transmission network) in 2014. 

All this is of course subject to politics amongst other things and assuming that someone actually wants to buy the Aurora Retail (which is being sold in two halves). 

Suffice to say that I'm waiting to see how it all unfolds before investing any more in solar at home.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

The FIT in W.A now is about 8c, which actually means the electrical supply authority is making money.
However the cost of installing a system has dropped considerably. 
I recently installed a 1.6kw systm with a 5kw inverter for $2k, which really makes the panels $1/watt, can't be bad.
Now just have to wait for cheap panels.


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Then the rules changed to allow systems greater than 3kW and that's where the West facing panels come in. From a purely economic perspective, adding another 1600 kWh of production without the need for an additional inverter stacks up fairly well. Overall, there's a loss of about 750 kWh of production from the E and W facing panels due to the undersized inverter. That is, they produce 3100 kWh of the 3850 that's theoretically available.



How flat is the roof the east and west facing panels are on ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> How flat is the roof the east and west facing panels are on ?



Roughly a 30 degree pitch.


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Roughly a 30 degree pitch.



Intuitively (without actually doing the math), I do find an 80% efficiency the east/west component of your setup surprising. 

One factor could be cloud. On a cloudy day, 3.77kW of panels connected to a 1.1kW inverter in going to be far more efficient on a cloudy relative to inverter size than a system whose max output is rated at or near the max inverter capacity.

A while ago, I did some calculations on adding an extra 0.76kW of panels (4 panels) to my existing 1.52kW system connected to a 1.5kW inverter (max output 1.65kW). Based on the max inverter output figure, some 80% of the electricity generated from the extra 4 panels would feed through. I haven't done it because after discussion with the manufacturer (Growatt), the start up voltage of the panel array would exceed the maximum for the inverter. I purchased only one of the standard off the shelf systems without consideration for expansion at the time. That being said, it was relatively cheap, has proven to be reliable so far and will pay itself off in under 3 years.

The 1.52kW system facing slightly west of north at a roof angle of 22.5 degrees generates about 2500kW/year.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Intuitively (without actually doing the math), I do find an 80% efficiency the east/west component of your setup surprising.
> 
> One factor could be cloud. On a cloudy day, 3.77kW of panels connected to a 1.1kW inverter in going to be far more efficient on a cloudy relative to inverter size than a system whose max output is rated at or near the max inverter capacity.



On a cloudy day, or even simply during Winter, there is minimal loss due to the inverter capacity. So it's only on a clear day in the warmer half of the year that the losses occur. There can be quite a big loss on a clear day in December, but overall it's not as large as one might expect.

Contrary to popular opinion, generation of electricity from solar is basically a "slow grind" that occurs every day. Even in mid-Winter in Tasmania there is still significant output. But, and here's the point, the vast majority of production will occur at levels well below peak output since "ideal" conditions aren't something that occurs every day. As a rule of thumb, a 2kW system will rarely put more than 1.6kW into the grid, and most of the time it will be quite a bit less than that. So losing peak production due to a small inverter doesn't affect total annual output as much as you might expect.

So far as the technical aspects of over-powering inverters are concerned, it is make and model specific. Some will simply limit their own output to a set level (eg 1.1kW in my case) whereas others will attempt to use whatever the panels can supply and destroy themselves in the process. Don't even think of doing it without checking the technical specifications of the inverter in question.

As for voltages, the issue relates to open circuit (no load) voltage of the panels on a cold day. This will be considerably higher than the normal operating voltage but it it exceeds the input voltage limit of the inverter then most likely the magic smoke will come out. So this needs to be worked out properly before connecting anything.

At this point I should add that rooftop solar wiring operates at a significant voltage (DC) which can easily burn or kill someone. It's not like having a few AA batteries or even a car battery - we're talking 300, 400 or more Volts here and that's nasty stuff. By law, working with this is a job for a properly licensed person and not something that anyone should attempt to DIY.

If you want to DIY for reasons of education etc then get a 12V panel, a regulator and a battery and use it to run some 12 Volt lights or something like that. You won't electrocute yourself and, as long as you don't manage to short circuit the battery, it's reasonably safe. Such a thing is within the capabilities of anyone with basic knowledge who can use hand tools, but messing about with grid-connect systems (or any mains wiring) is definitely not something to consider doing yourself.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2013)

In the West, the economic chickens of government subsidies for solar panels are coming home to roost for a second time,



> Hundreds of thousands of WA households could be hit with higher electricity prices under a proposed shake-up of bills aimed at recovering the massive cost to the system caused by the popularity of rooftop solar panels.




One suggestion is to raise fixed charges, another is a straight-out levy on householders with solar panels. 

The residential feed in tariff is quiet low at about 9 cents per kWhr, but the issue could be more with electricity that is generated by the panels and not fed into the grid thus reducing consumption from the grid itself and hence revenue. If that's the case, applying the feed in tariff to all that is generated from the solar panels (gross as opposed to net) for new installs would help stem some of the financial bleeding from the utility. 



> It is not known whether the Government would consider a cut in consumption charges to offset any fixed-price move or opt for a straight-out levy on householders with solar panels.




It's not difficult to imagine the other states suffering the same sort of problem.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/17996196/power-supply-shake-up/


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> In the West, the economic chickens of government subsidies for solar panels are coming home to roost for a second time,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The big problem is people with 5kw systems, getting $3,000 payments from the government.
I don't think the FIT system was designed for consumers to become private generation companies.
The system should be designed to encourage people to mitigate their own usage.
Not encourage them to make it a money making venture.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The big problem is people with 5kw systems, getting $3,000 payments from the government.
> I don't think the FIT system was designed for consumers to become private generation companies.
> The system should be designed to encourage people to mitigate their own usage.
> Not encourage them to make it a money making venture.



All that should have been properly thought out before launching the scheme.  Yet another Labor 'initiative' that results in the end in massive inequity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2013)

Electricity distributors rely largely on volume consumption to recover fixed costs. That's pretty much how it's always been and, with the exception of Tasmania's highly controversial experiment in the mid-1990's, nobody in Australia has really tried to do anything different.

In short, if your consumption is below average then typically you are paying less than the true cost of supply, subsidised by those with higher consumption. How this comes about, be it using solar, running as much as possible on gas or simply being frugal is irrelevant. It's the net consumption level which counts - and if that's low then you aren't paying the fixed costs of the network.

It's a difficult argument however since charging people $200 a quarter (in 2013 $) before they even switch anything on is a hard sell politically. It stacks up very well from a purely rational perspective, but the mid-1990's attempt in Tasmania was without doubt the most unpopular thing any Australian electricity utility has ever done. Unpopular to the extent that attempts to survey public opinion took quite some time to find anyone who supported it (excluding electricity industry employees and politicians). The opposition was well over 99%, and public submissions to a formal investigation resulted in only one person arguing in favour of it. 

And so the attempt to allow an "open access" network where anyone could generate power and the financial imperative to sell as much as possible was abruptly terminated for political reasons. After that, the industry went back to trying to sell as much electricity as possible with a sustained advertising campaign based on unit prices between double and triple the rate they had been before. Oddly enough, consumers were quick to use more of the now far more costly power, to the point that finding ways to generate enough power soon became the new problem.

Rumor has it that most of the big energy companies are now pondering how to implement something very similar to what was tried in Tasmania two decades ago. The industry is now much further removed from political and public influence, and has less need to compete against gas (since the gas and electric companies are largely the same) and wood (which has simply gone out of fashion). Solar is the only real threat now, and introducing such a pricing mechanism creates a "doesn't matter anyway" scenario for distributors.

Amidst all this but sort-of related, there will be a massive shift in generation patterns soon anyway. Gas is being re-priced and effectively becomes uneconomic for baseload generation, hydro production will return to more normal levels as the water runs out, and the various goings on create a greater exposure to the black coal market price as well. So we'll see the brown coal plants in Victoria running flat out 24/7 once again, and that's going to happen with or without a change in the carbon tax with the only differences relating to timing.


----------



## Macquack (16 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The residential feed in tariff is quiet low at about 9 cents per kWhr, but the issue could be more with electricity that is *generated by the panels and not fed into the grid thus reducing consumption from the grid *itself and hence revenue.




Isn't that the whole concept of solar, to reduce consumption from the grid???



drsmith said:


> If that's the case, applying the feed in tariff to all that is generated from the solar panels *(gross as opposed to net)* for new installs would help stem some of the financial bleeding from the utility.



Surely, solar would become completely uneconomical in that case.


----------



## Crows (16 July 2013)

Julia said:


> All that should have been properly thought out before launching the scheme.  Yet another Labor 'initiative' that results in the end in massive inequity.




Could have said the same thing when the Libs sold ETSA, well for the most part.


----------



## Julia (17 July 2013)

What is ETSA?


----------



## Boggo (17 July 2013)

Julia said:


> What is ETSA?




Built by taxpayers, lease sold off by a govt and now run by Spark Infrastructure (SKI)

_ETSA UTILITIES: ETSA operates and maintains the electricity distribution network
in South Australia. Services are provided throughout major metropolitan areas,
including the capital city of Adelaide. ETSA operates its distribution network
under a 200 year lease from the South Australian Government, which commenced in
January 2000._


----------



## Julia (17 July 2013)

Thanks, Boggo.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> Isn't that the whole concept of solar, to reduce consumption from the grid???
> 
> 
> Surely, solar would become completely uneconomical in that case.




The problem is that subsidies for solar have made electricity more expensive and hence less economical as a whole.

It has been a backward step in terms of overall economic efficiency compounded by governments not moving fast enough to wind back subsidies as the cost of solar hardware has decreased.

In Western Australia, 2,000 households are currently applying to install solar panels every week.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 July 2013)

Julia said:


> What is ETSA?



Electricity Trust of South Australia.

It's the former state-run utility, equivalent to the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV), NSW Electricity Commission or the Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) in Tasmania. As with the others, it used to do everything required to supply electricity from mining the coal through to running power stations to reading meters and sending out bills to consumers.

Like many former public utilities, it was privatised (or in this case leased although a 200 year lease is for practical purposes the same as an outright sale) and then prices went up, up and up some more.

The point often missed is that there used to be pretty fierce competition between the various state authorities to attract major industrial loads, and between electricity and gas for heating and hot water. Victoria and Tasmania were always the most fiercely competitive, and that put a huge downward pressure on production costs and prices. NSW and Queensland, and to some extent SA, jumped on the bandwagon in the 1970's.

All that is gone now, with the new game being to raise prices rather than reduce them. Competition between the states is gone, and competition between gas and electricity is largely gone too. Prices are thus free to rise relatively unconstrained.

That's a bit off topic so far as solar panels are concerned, but suffice to say that as long as the current industry structure remains then electricity won't be getting cheaper. A token drop here and there perhaps, but we're not going back to the days when everyone could afford a warm home and a hot meal.


----------



## DocK (18 July 2013)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/07/18/454825_gold-coast-news.html






> IT'S the residential "solar farm" fracturing friendships in a quiet Gold Coast street - and the council can't stop one popping up in your suburb.
> 
> Despite having 23 solar panels on his roof, Hope Island retiree Graham Drew has caused a furore by erecting a frame along his property to hold a 40 more panels.
> 
> At least five neighbouring households have repeatedly raised safety and aesthetic concerns with the council, including Mayor Tom Tate, but it says it is powerless to act as the structure was approved by an independent certifier and the city's planning scheme does not regulate the installation of solar panels.



I just heard this article discussed on the radio - I know I'd be upset if I lived next door to him.


----------



## pixel (18 July 2013)

DocK said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/07/18/454825_gold-coast-news.html
> View attachment 53410
> 
> 
> ...




"Safety concerns"?
And how is a pergola covered with solar panels less aesthetic than one of Colorbond?
Grow up, peeps!


----------



## DocK (18 July 2013)

pixel said:


> "Safety concerns"?
> And how is a pergola covered with solar panels less aesthetic than one of Colorbond?
> Grow up, peeps!




The concerns about it becoming a giant wind sail do seem credible to me - I assume the weight of solar panels is substantially more than your typical colorbond roof, and we are prone to the odd violent storm here.  The glare from the panels would also be much, much more than their neighbours would normally get from a standard pergola roof.  I'd be pretty upset if my neighbours were allowed by Council to erect the same structure right on my property's boundary and my home dropped substantially in value as a result - not to mention the eyesore!


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2013)

Solar panels in the right place are in a sense beautiful in my opinion. I don't mean physically beautiful, but beautiful in the sense that a holes in the ground, ash dumps, wars and a clouds of smoke aren't exactly pretty and this does represent at least a partial alternative.

That said, the installation shown is clearly inappropriate in the context of a residential area. If someone built that on a rural property then it wouldn't be an issue. But not in the suburbs. The issue isn't the solar panels per se, but simply that a large structure has been built which will obviously impact on neighbours in a negative manner. That said, the same would apply if it were a double story house extension or the planting of large trees.

Putting panels on the roof of an existing building - I can't see a problem with that. Many roofs are pretty ugly anyway, and it's not going to cause any real harm to neighbours. But building actual structures to take them should be subject to the same approvals as any other structure in my opinion.

As for the safety aspect, that depends on how well it's designed and built. There's an awful lot of rooftop systems out there which don't have the required number of L feet brackets with respect to maximum wind loadings. This could get interesting in a major storm since, as with anything that's under designed or built, you don't find out until it's put to the test. The inspection process has a lot to answer for here - it's obsessed with putting labels on switches and using the right conduit but pretty much ignores any safety risk not directly related to electricity itself. Things like panels flying off the roof aren't exactly a trivial concern in my opinion.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2013)

The solar pergola.

It might be a bit hot standing under it in summer with only 15% or so of the sun's energy converted into electricity and the rest largely absorbed. Then again, with water jackets on the underside of the panels, they could well double as swimming pool heaters and the heat transfer may well help with electricity generation from the panels themselves, as well as limiting the exposure of one's scalp to the heat. 

The example shown is terrible visibly. The solar pergola clearly needs some work there, and also with the functionality of the space underneath in relation to the number of supports required to hold it up.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The solar pergola clearly needs some work there, and also with the functionality of the space underneath in relation to the number of supports required to hold it up.



Solar at home is like pretty much anything in life. OK within sensible limits, but it becomes a problem when it starts to take over literally everything and this is a classic example of that.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (5 August 2013)

Today's news.  Massive and unexpected uptake in residential solar.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...puts-dent-in-electricity-market-report-shows/


----------



## drsmith (6 August 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Today's news.  Massive and unexpected uptake in residential solar.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...puts-dent-in-electricity-market-report-shows/



A consequence of the solar panel uptake will I suspect be increases in fixed charges to maintain networks.

This is already under discussion in WA and SA are doing it, all be it with an interesting twist.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...for-tree-pruning/story-e6frg6n6-1226688974728


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> A consequence of the solar panel uptake will I suspect be increases in fixed charges to maintain networks.



At present, much of the cost of maintaining the network is recovered through unit consumption charges.

If net consumption drops (as it has) due to whatever cause (switching to solar, gas, wood, insulation, people simply choosing to use less) then that results in a drop in revenue to pay the _fixed_ costs of supply. The options being either jack up the unit rates (which then encourages a further drop in consumption thus starting a cycle) or increase fixed charges.

Increasing fixed charges isn't popular but it will be the outcome in my opinion. How much? Well here in Tas the real cost (as distinct from the actual fixed charge which is considerably less) of maintaining the network is around $800 per small customer (Eg household) per year. And that's without actually consuming electricity. So $200 quarterly bills without actually using any power is a definite possibility at some point I'd expect.


----------



## Craton (7 August 2013)

Yes, lucky to have had solar for a few years now (Far West NSW) and am all electric except the one gas space heater.

System is a 1.5kW system install by Nu Energy. Nice little incentive was the $100 deposit refundable once installed.

The only real cost was for the sparky to hook the system into the Grid. From memory that was $275 and yes we did get that 100 bucks back in quick time.

Always get a credit on the bill in the sunnier quarters, not much, highest $20 so far. Had I known what I know now I'd have upped the ante to a 5kW system just like my daughter did last summer, her first bill was nearly a $300 dollar credit and on a lower fed in tariff, she's in Sth Aust.

One down side though is that it is pretty much useless on cloudy days or even partly cloudy days. Still, when looking at the bill, a twenty dollar credit is better than a twenty debt.


----------



## qldfrog (7 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> At present, much of the cost of maintaining the network is recovered through unit consumption charges.
> 
> If net consumption drops (as it has) due to whatever cause (switching to solar, gas, wood, insulation, people simply choosing to use less) then that results in a drop in revenue to pay the _fixed_ costs of supply. The options being either jack up the unit rates (which then encourages a further drop in consumption thus starting a cycle) or increase fixed charges.
> 
> Increasing fixed charges isn't popular but it will be the outcome in my opinion. How much? Well here in Tas the real cost (as distinct from the actual fixed charge which is considerably less) of maintaining the network is around $800 per small customer (Eg household) per year. And that's without actually consuming electricity. So $200 quarterly bills without actually using any power is a definite possibility at some point I'd expect.



But with figures like this, I would go off grid as would many people???
so would they charge for the privilege of having the possibility to connect a bit like being sent a bridge toll invoice yearly because you could use it even if you never do???
Where is the limit???


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2013)

The WA state government has hit the panic button in relation to the cost of solar panel subsidies in today's state budget.



> In a bid to save money, the Government will also target the popular solar feed-in tariff scheme, with Mr Buswell describing the current 40 cent per kilowatt customer payment rate as "overly generous."
> 
> From 1 October the rate will drop to 30 cents and by 1 July next year it will reduce to 20 cents.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/wa-budget-handed-down/4874268?section=wa



> He said the Government had legal advice it could vary the contracts of people with feed-in tariffs for solar power, but argued the current 40 cent rate was “exceedingly generous”.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18413895/hip-pocket-hit-in-state-budget/

IIRC, the NSW state government also tried to retrospectively reduce their contracted feed-in tariff rate and subsequently had to back down.


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2013)

It would appear the WA state government is changing the net feed-in tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) of the contract,



> The state government is responsible for funding
> the payment by Synergy of the subsidy rate and
> setting the Subsidy scheme criteria for determining
> whether a customer is a qualified feed in tariff
> ...




As part of the budget announcement, the net feed-in tariff rate of 20 cents/kWhr is being extended for all participants for an additional two years.

If the WA state government can change the tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) above, any future commitment to both the tariff rate and duration is effectively not worth the paper it is written on.

Where this become interesting is that I have a letter from Synergy (the retail electricity provider in WA) in relation to changes to the scheme during 2011 to reduce the feed in tariff from 40 cents to 20 cents for new instillations on or after May 19 2011. My contract was signed before this date and I am advised in this letter that I would receive the 40c/kWh tariff for the full term of my contract, and this is without further qualification in that particular paragraph.

The letter also however advised that the terms and conditions of the scheme were changed. If these changes were to accommodate the change from 40 cents to 20 cents for new installs from May 19 2011 (that's what this letter is about), it would be interesting to know whether clause 17.1(d) was added at that time to accommodate that change. 

http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/REBS_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2013)

qldfrog said:


> But with figures like this, I would go off grid as would many people???



Certainly for small loads it's already cheaper to be off grid in most places.

Solar powered road signs are an example. Not sure how common they are elsewhere, but certainly in Tas they are at every school. A solar powered LED sign that comes on at the appropriate time with a 40 speed limit displayed. The sign is blank the rest of the time. That's one example, things like weather monitoring equipment in remote areas (ie anywhere not associated with an existing building) are another.

Perhaps the ultimate example is to realise that Hydro Tasmania, a large scale electricity generation business, uses solar to control the headworks (water valves, flow monitoring equipment etc) to a significant extent these days. Even when you _are_ the electric company, the cost of maintaining a power line to supply trivial amounts of power to these sites just isn't worthwhile and it's cheaper to go solar. Examples include Laughing Jack Lagoon level monitoring, the outlet gates at Lake Augusta and at Lake Echo, the latter directly feeding a "proper" power station that has been in service since 1956. Likewise flow monitoring on canals, river level monitoring etc - solar is much cheaper and easier than grid power in this situation. None of these solar installations are grid connected, they were installed specifically so as to either remove the existing grid altogether in these locations or to replace unpowered manual monitoring.

So certainly for small loads, off-grid is already the way to go.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> It would appear the WA state government is changing the net feed-in tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) of the contract,
> 
> ...
> 
> If the WA state government can change the tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) above, any future commitment to both the tariff rate and duration is effectively not worth the paper it is written on.



It's a brave move for any government to simply change any existing contract to the detriment of the other party. 

Regardless of the merits of otherwise of the contract in question, it shows that there's a high risk associated with entering a contract with the WA government and this has broader implications beyond solar.

What's the point of anyone entering a contract if that contract can simply be changed at any time by the other party (in this case the WA government)? It's a good way to scare thinking investors well away from WA.


----------



## pixel (8 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a brave move for any government to simply change any existing contract to the detriment of the other party.
> 
> Regardless of the merits of otherwise of the contract in question, it shows that there's a high risk associated with entering a contract with the WA government and this has broader implications beyond solar.
> 
> What's the point of anyone entering a contract if that contract can simply be changed at any time by the other party (in this case the WA government)? It's a good way to scare thinking investors well away from WA.




Let's hope some smart Lawyer represents us in High Court and has the breach of contract thrown out.
Otherwise, WA will rank way below the level of Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe in terms of Sovereign Risk.
It certainly lends substance to the popular label "Idiot Hill" for the location of Parliament House.

Can I renege on my March vote and contest the election result?


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2013)

pixel said:


> Let's hope some smart Lawyer represents us in High Court and has the breach of contract thrown out.
> Otherwise, WA will rank way below the level of Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe in terms of Sovereign Risk.
> It certainly lends substance to the popular label "Idiot Hill" for the location of Parliament House.
> 
> Can I renege on my March vote and contest the election result?



The WA government is of the view that it is on firm legal ground so I can only assume that it's not a technical breach of contract in in a legal sense. 

It's this that might count more than the breach of the spirit of the arrangement to the electorate in terms of sovereign risk.

An option in states where there are more watertight contracts, cash strapped governments may resort to increasing fixed electricity charges to households with solar panels. That was part of media discussion here a couple of weeks ago.

After today's announcement, I'll now be surprised if even the freshly reduced feed in tariff scheme lasts another 3 years in WA. The budget problems with the over allocation of subsidies for solar panels are now well and truly coming home to roost.

Like you I feel I want my vote back at the moment, but what we have seen today is symptom of a much broader problem.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> The WA government is of the view that it is on firm legal ground so I can only assume that it's not a technical breach of contract in in a legal sense.
> 
> It's this that might count more than the breach of the spirit of the arrangement to the electorate in terms of sovereign risk.
> 
> ...




I missed this thread doc, it will be an interesting time.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 August 2013)

No one seems to think the power companies that got their forecasts so wrong should have to write down some of the unused assets so the fixed charges wont need to increase so much?

Personally I'd like to see a bigger focus on large private and utility scale solar, with some emphasis on site orientation so they provide a decent level of power into the afternoon peak.

I'm waiting for the company to come out and sell me a share in a solar farm.  If I could buy 5kWh of capacity i think that would generate enough income to provide for my household consumption - avg 8.5kWh most days.


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Where this become interesting is that I have a letter from Synergy (the retail electricity provider in WA) in relation to changes to the scheme during 2011 to reduce the feed in tariff from 40 cents to 20 cents for new instillations on or after May 19 2011. My contract was signed before this date and I am advised in this letter that I would receive the 40c/kWh tariff for the full term of my contract, and this is without further qualification in that particular paragraph.
> 
> The letter also however advised that the terms and conditions of the scheme were changed. If these changes were to accommodate the change from 40 cents to 20 cents for new installs from May 19 2011 (that's what this letter is about), it would be interesting to know whether clause 17.1(d) was added at that time to accommodate that change.



It seems Synergy has sent this letter to everyone on the 40 cent feed in tariff,



> The Synergy notice sent to solar customers in May 2011 reads: "As an existing residential net feed-in tariff customer, Synergy is pleased to advise that your subsidy rate of 40c/kWh will not change and you will continue to receive 40c/kWh for the net export of electricity for the full term of your 10 year contract."




That's what the letter I got says, word for word.

It could also have federal political implications,



> Dr Evans said concerned solar users have discussed launching a class action against the Government.
> 
> "People are talking about taking legal action against the government for breach of contract, people are talking about marching in the street to express their outrage," Dr Evans said.
> 
> ...




Troy Buswell could well end up fighting the battle on this on more than one front. His timing could not have been worse in relation to the federal election campaign.



> "WA is the first state in Australia that has rewritten the rules for people who are in a solar contract."
> 
> Hundreds of West Australians have already signed a petition against the changes on the Solar Citizens website.



This is not correct. NSW also announced similar changes and then reversed course.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/solar-panel-feature/4877136?section=wa

My bolds.


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2013)

For those in WA, the Solar Citizens website is running a petition in relation the WA FIT changes and can be accessed from the following link,

http://www.solarcitizens.org.au/barnett_betrayal

It currently has about 2000 signatures and is growing by about three per minute. Their target is 10000.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> It seems Synergy has sent this letter to everyone on the 40 cent feed in tariff,
> 
> That's what the letter I got says, word for word.
> 
> .




The 40c wasn't put up by Synergy, it was put up by the government. 
Therefore I doubt they can speak for the government, or that the government could be held to the phrasing of the letter.

Synergy stump up 8c, that is the current feed in tarrif for new installations.


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The 40c wasn't put up by Synergy, it was put up by the government.
> Therefore I doubt they can speak for the government, or that the government could be held to the phrasing of the letter.



It shows the intent of the government at that time.

Synergy is also owned by the government.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> No one seems to think the power companies that got their forecasts so wrong should have to write down some of the unused assets so the fixed charges wont need to increase so much?



The issue relates to net energy delivered to consumers from centralised sources rather than the required capacity of the network itself since network capacity (as distinct from the minimum requirement to have a physical connection available) isn't as expensive as most seem to think.

It's akin to driving a normal sized bus around a suburban route then into the city centre in order to provide a transport service. It doesn't really matter how many passengers actually get on the bus or how long they stay on it assuming the bus is never actually full. The cost of fuel won't change much (minor difference due to weight), the driver's wages will be exactly the same, the cost of buying the bus in the first place is exactly the same and so on. And, as with electricity, these "fixed" costs of providing the service at a given capacity level are recovered via volume usage (ie passengers paying to get on the bus). If the number of passengers drops by 20% then either the operator takes a hit financially or raises fares to maintain revenue, the latter likely to prompt a further reduction in passenger numbers. 

In principle I'm in favour of solar, we just can't keep using fossil fuels or uranium forever, but the financial saving is pretty small to the power industry unless we get to the point of being able to physically remove (or abandon in place) the distribution grid. Just like the saving to the bus company by you not getting on the bus is minor unless it gets to the point where buses are no longer required at all or at least not as frequently. Just taking a bit of load off the system, or a few passengers off the bus, doesn't actually save much money.

Part of the problem politically is the general message that has been sent to the public in recent years. It goes along the lines that the network had to be upgraded due to growth in demand, and that this is the reason for rising electricity prices. That is partly true, although there are other factors at work. That electricity moved from non-profit to a profit making industry is the biggest one at the fundamental level. 

Competition policy and industry fragmentation is another - entire new pieces of major infrastructure had to be built just to keep the economists and regulators happy and there has also been an introduced forced (no alternative under the rules) bias toward network solutions rather than other options which would be cheaper. 

Another one is the separation of retail from owning the network and generation, which has brought about silly tariff structures designed to increase cost of supply rather than reduce it. 

Regulation is a massive cost increase driver in itself. In short, if you've got a guaranteed profit on investment then you'll find every excuse possible to get that investment approved. Add in regulators with knowledge of economics more than engineering and it's not hard to fool them at the technical level.

Add up the above 3 paragraphs and, in layman's terms, it leads to what is termed "gold plating". There's no actual gold, but there's a few electricity companies who could certainly afford to buy some these days.

Market gaming in the generation side is another factor, although that has had only a minor impact at the household level in a strict sense (but is used widely by retailers to justify huge increases to the public). Basically, there's money to be made by mothballing cheap means of production to a certain extent, thus forcing the use of less efficient plants and thus a rise in prices. Within the industry, it's no secret that some companies take this to extremes, others try to outsmart them on a constant basis (ie take the money their competitors were hoping to get) and others just carry on business as usual and watch the money roll in.


----------



## pilots (10 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> It seems Synergy has sent this letter to everyone on the 40 cent feed in tariff,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your letter about the 40c guarantee was sent to a top legal firm in Perth by 6PR, they said you don't have a leg to stand on, the Govement had it coved in the fine print.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's akin to driving a normal sized bus around a suburban route then into the city centre in order to provide a transport service. It doesn't really matter how many passengers actually get on the bus or how long they stay on it assuming the bus is never actually full. The cost of fuel won't change much (minor difference due to weight), the driver's wages will be exactly the same, the cost of buying the bus in the first place is exactly the same and so on. And, as with electricity, these "fixed" costs of providing the service at a given capacity level are recovered via volume usage (ie passengers paying to get on the bus). If the number of passengers drops by 20% then either the operator takes a hit financially or raises fares to maintain revenue, the latter likely to prompt a further reduction in passenger numbers.




I'm thinking more along the lines that the bus company predicted a rising peak so had to buy a second bus that is used for 10% of the time as the 1st bus.  Due to Govt legislation the bus company is provided a full cost recovery of the second bus.  Now it turns out the bus company actually didn't need to buy the second bus, but can still make passengers continue to pay for their mistakes.

The way the system is set up the energy companies can come back to the regulator at a later time and show that certain costs increased more than projected, and they get to increase charges to take account of them.  If the forecast increase in demand doesn't eventuate and a lot of the capex they have spent is not really used, there's no penalty.

It's like the old wool floor price.  Guarantee and above market return on a product and you will get over production / investment in it.

The owners of this unused capex need to take a financial hit as well as consumers otherwise they will continue to over invest for demand that's not there and may never be there as solar and efficiency gains limit or reduce electricity consumption.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines that the bus company predicted a rising peak so had to buy a second bus that is used for 10% of the time as the 1st bus.  Due to Govt legislation the bus company is provided a full cost recovery of the second bus.  Now it turns out the bus company actually didn't need to buy the second bus, but can still make passengers continue to pay for their mistakes.
> 
> The way the system is set up the energy companies can come back to the regulator at a later time and show that certain costs increased more than projected, and they get to increase charges to take account of them.  If the forecast increase in demand doesn't eventuate and a lot of the capex they have spent is not really used, there's no penalty.
> 
> ...




What if the projected demand did eventuate, but the generation and distribution infrastructure wasn't there to supply it?
In a first world country, people expect to have a reliable power supply, therefore capacity is installed on projections.
If you are going to run an electrical network on a reactive basis, where capacity isn't increased untill demand exceeds supply, blackouts become common. 

A bit like your bus example, where the company waits untill the first bus was full all the time, before ordering the second bus.
If demand increased passengers would have to be prepared to sit on the roof of the first bus untill the second bus arrived. 
Then  if you have one bus at 100% and the second at 20%, what happens if one of the buses breaks down?
It isn't a problem if people are prepared to accept a substandard service, but most aren't.

That is why as Smurph says, some things are best done by the government, where any profit goes to consolidated revenue.
Also extra plant and equipment can be installed for system security and integrity, not just to return a profit on investment.
That's what used to be called government services, in the 'old days'.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2013)

pilots said:


> Your letter about the 40c guarantee was sent to a top legal firm in Perth by 6PR, they said you don't have a leg to stand on, the Govement had it coved in the fine print.



It would be interesting to know what the NSW government had in the fine print and why they subsequently backed down from a similar change.

Some legal commentary from the West Australian,



> James Higgins - a Melbourne-based specialist in class actions for law firm Slater & Gordon - said it was doubtful the Government would have cut the tariff unless it had clear legal grounds to do so.
> 
> However, Mr Higgins said it was possible the Government could have misrepresented its position by signing customers up to a scheme under which they would be paid a certain amount, only to change it later.
> 
> He said in that case it would be up to a judge to determine whether the decision had left affected customers materially worse off than they would have been otherwise.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/18437211/states-faces-solar-lawsuits/


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2013)

The feed-in tariff in Qld dropping from 44c to 8c  for *new *customers in July last year, hasn't affected demand very much. 

AGL is actually paying me 52c and the weather has been gloriously sunny recently. "My Momma told me there'd be days like this".



> QUEENSLANDERS are still signing up for solar despite the Newman Government's decision to slash the feed-in tariff from 44 cents to 8 cents for new customers, new figures show.
> 
> Figures provided by Energex show by the end of this financial year about 230,000 households in southeast Queensland will have solar panels installed with about 20,000 of those at the lower feed-in rate.
> 
> ...



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...for-solar-panels/story-fnihsrf2-1226667994534


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What if the projected demand did eventuate, but the generation and distribution infrastructure wasn't there to supply it?
> In a first world country, people expect to have a reliable power supply, therefore capacity is installed on projections.
> If you are going to run an electrical network on a reactive basis, where capacity isn't increased untill demand exceeds supply, blackouts become common.
> 
> ...




The current system encourages the electricity networks to over invest.  Why project electricity consumption up 5% when you can say 15% and make a legislated 7+% return on all your spending.  No one else in the economy gets such a sweet heart deal.

Fully agree some things should be Government owned.  Corporatisation of GBEs seems to have worked fairly well.  Certainly improved their efficiency.

The rules of the whole electricity market need to be changed so their a less built in gain for companies getting their forecasts so wrong.  At the moment it's the energy users paying for it, which leaves less $$ for people to spend on other things and burdens business with higher costs making them less competitive against off shore competitors.

For our bus company example if they had a surplus bus that's probably not going to be used in the next few years they would probably sell it at a loss to the purchase price and write off the difference.  The electricity supply companies don't have to do that.  There's no financial penalty for them making a mistake.  It's heads i win tails you lose.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines that the bus company predicted a rising peak so had to buy a second bus that is used for 10% of the time as the 1st bus.  Due to Govt legislation the bus company is provided a full cost recovery of the second bus.  Now it turns out the bus company actually didn't need to buy the second bus, but can still make passengers continue to pay for their mistakes.



A more accurate statement would be:

The bus company cannot refuse allowing anyone onto the bus. If they do, they will be fined each and every time this occurs and directed to allow people onto the bus.

If, after being directed to allow people onto the bus, they are found to have overcrowded the bus they will be fined for doing so. In addition, they will be fully liable for any consequential injuries etc in the event of an accident.

In the event that they are fined for overcrowding, they must not force any passenger off the bus. If the bus remains overcrowded however, they will be fined again. Rinse and repeat.

The bus company cannot cancel a service due to a breakdown. If they do then they must hand each person who ever catches the bus, whether or not they would have used it at the time, $80. 

The bus company cannot offer inducements to modify the customers' behaviour, since all bus tickets must be sold by an independent party other than the bus company. Anyone attempting to board without a ticket, will be directed to one of the many competing ticket sellers, each with their own "plans" and pricing structure, and cannot buy a ticket from the bus driver.

Most of the ticket sellers have decided that the best way to maximise profit is to encourage bus travel at the times when buses are already most heavily used. This is done by aggressively targeting the commuter market for 9 - 5 workers.

Faced with all that, the only rational response from the bus company is to either (1) go out of business altogether or (2) ensure you have an abundance of buses and drivers so that you are never faced with a full bus or a cancelled service.

Now add in a guaranteed return on investment which exceeds the cost of capital, versus a high probability of being fined if you do not invest and it becomes a very simple business decision. Invest as much as possible, add your guaranteed return on investment and pass the cost onto retailers (who then pass it onto consumers).

It would be almost amusing if it wasn't ruining Australian business through ever increasing prices. You won't find many engineers, tradesmen, operators or other practical people who ever thought the whole thing was a good idea. The "micro-economic reform" types love it though - it's created another paperwork industry and another market to trade so they're happy.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Fully agree some things should be Government owned.



Being government owned is no guarantee of fairness.  Regional Qld is obliged to use the sole provider, the government owned Ergon.  The escalation of prices has been every bit as much or more as where there's private ownership.  Not even the element of competition to ameliorate the view of "we'll charge you because we can and we know there's nothing you can do about it".


----------



## pixel (10 August 2013)

Calliope said:


> The feed-in tariff in Qld dropping from 44c to 8c  for *new *customers in July last year, hasn't affected demand very much.
> 
> AGL is actually paying me 52c and the weather has been gloriously sunny recently. "My Momma told me there'd be days like this".




I don't have a problem with dropping the FIT for *new* customers to wholesale levels. 
It's the *early adopters* that did their sums on the basis of a ten-year supply contract and thereby helped the industry attain critical mass, for whom I am infuriated. Being one of them, I was even invited to (and attended) an awards presentation, which provided the Liberal MLA Peter Abetz with an opportunity to be photographed with proactive energy-conscious citizens.

Without the FIT contract, I would have waited a couple of years, until the cost per Watt had come from $6 at the time down to $1 or less - which is the price point just about now.
It's really back-of-business card Maths: 
A 1KW installation will produce about 4.5KWh per day; applying a retail price of a little over 20c gets you a Dollar a day. 1000 days, 3 years, worth of saved power costs make up for $1,000 original investment. Multiplied by 6, however, the payback time blows out to 18 years, which is longer than I'm likely to live - at least at this address.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2013)

pixel said:


> I don't have a problem with dropping the FIT for *new* customers to wholesale levels.
> It's the *early adopters* that did their sums on the basis of a ten-year supply contract and thereby helped the industry attain critical mass, for whom I am infuriated.



A contract is a contract in my opinion and government shouldn't be relying on "fine print" to avoid the spirit of it especially where ordinary members of the public are involved. 

If it says 50c, 40c or whatever then that's what they should pay for the duration.

Here in Tasmania much the same is about to happen. I don't know what the new FIT rate is going to be, but with Aurora about to disappear as a retailer after 31 December and claims that tenders have been received from prospective buyers of the retail customers, they can't delay an announcement on the FIT too much longer. 

At a guess, if it's a big reduction, they might be waiting until the Monday after the Federal election - that way it won't influence any votes and the media won't be paying much attention either. Sure, solar is a state issue not a federal one, but it's still not smart politically what the WA government has done. 

From a practical perspective, solar can still be worthwhile financially if you go about it the right way. The aim in a low-FIT environment is to produce power when you will use it yourself rather than exporting it to the grid. So instead of facing the panels North and getting peak output in the middle of the day, it's generally a better idea now to have half facing East and half facing West, thus giving about half as much peak output but maintaining it at that rate almost constantly through the day. The total electricity generated, will only be about 12% less than if the panels all face North, but it will be worth more financially since you'll be powering your own appliances rather than selling it to the grid for peanuts. 

Obviously if you lifestyle is such that you use a lot of electricity in the morning, then face the panels East. And if you use lots in the afternoon then face them West. But for a generic installation, half E and half W makes a lot of sense these days.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2013)

pilots said:


> Your letter about the 40c guarantee was sent to a top legal firm in Perth by 6PR, they said you don't have a leg to stand on, the Govement had it coved in the fine print.



Did you listen to this live or from a link on 6PR's website ?

I'm interested in listening to the full segment.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> From a practical perspective, solar can still be worthwhile financially if you go about it the right way. The aim in a low-FIT environment is to produce power when you will use it yourself rather than exporting it to the grid. So instead of facing the panels North and getting peak output in the middle of the day, it's generally a better idea now to have half facing East and half facing West, thus giving about half as much peak output but maintaining it at that rate almost constantly through the day. The total electricity generated, will only be about 12% less than if the panels all face North, but it will be worth more financially since you'll be powering your own appliances rather than selling it to the grid for peanuts.




There must be different ways that these schemes work.

My Dad got PV late last year and basically he gets around 8c kWh for all the electricity he produces and charged the standard ~28c kWh for what he uses.

Under this scenario he's better off producing as much electricity as he can.

These schemes need to be better designed so they do provide some incentive to produce more electricity into the late afternoon peak if possible, but then you get into all the pros and cons of ToU charging.

We need a lot better peak demand management here.  If the various state Govts had actually thought about ways to smooth out peak demand a lot of the CAPEX and massive increases in fixed charges we've had could probably been avoided, or at least the cost of the increases could have been more passed onto those causing it.


----------



## pilots (10 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Did you listen to this live or from a link on 6PR's website ?
> 
> I'm interested in listening to the full segment.




I was listing to it all day, people here in WA are not happy


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> A
> From a practical perspective, solar can still be worthwhile financially if you go about it the right way. The aim in a low-FIT environment is to produce power when you will use it yourself rather than exporting it to the grid. So instead of facing the panels North and getting peak output in the middle of the day, it's generally a better idea now to have half facing East and half facing West, thus giving about half as much peak output but maintaining it at that rate almost constantly through the day. The total electricity generated, will only be about 12% less than if the panels all face North, but it will be worth more financially since you'll be powering your own appliances rather than selling it to the grid for peanuts.
> 
> Obviously if you lifestyle is such that you use a lot of electricity in the morning, then face the panels East. And if you use lots in the afternoon then face them West. But for a generic installation, half E and half W makes a lot of sense these days.




It won't be long before it is worth changing all your lighting to LED, buying a 40" LED TV, 12/240v waeco upright compressor fridge freezer. Then chucking 400A/H of deep cycle batteries in the shed and charging them from the solar through a battery charger.
During the milder months you would need very little mains power, especialy if you had solar HWS and gas cooking.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> My Dad got PV late last year and basically he gets around 8c kWh for all the electricity he produces and charged the standard ~28c kWh for what he uses.
> 
> Under this scenario he's better off producing as much electricity as he can.



The best thing to do, from a financial perspective, is to use solar to avoid buying power from the grid at 28c.

Suppose that you have 500 Watts load in the house during the day and install a 2 kW solar system. If all the panels face north in order to generate maximum output, you'll be exporting anything over 0.5 kW into the grid and getting paid 8c for it. In the middle of the day you'll be exporting plenty at 8c but in the morning and evening when output is low (and for most households load will be higher) you'll be generating very little and buying from the grid at 28c.

You'd be better off spitting the panels E - W which will give a lower peak output (a bit over 1kW) but will sustain it through most of the day thus supplying your household consumption. Rather than getting paid 8c to export, you're saving 28c import cost in the morning and late afternoon.

I have two systems installed presently. Once facing N and the other split E - W. At 8am in the morning at this time of year, the E - W one is producing decent output whereas the N facing one is virtually idle. Much the same at 4pm. 



> We need a lot better peak demand management here.  If the various state Govts had actually thought about ways to smooth out peak demand a lot of the CAPEX and massive increases in fixed charges we've had could probably been avoided, or at least the cost of the increases could have been more passed onto those causing it.



The former state electricity authorities were all pretty keen on demand management, some of them quite aggressively so, since it has always been the key to keeping costs down.

The crux of the problem is that industry reform has removed any real link between power generation and consumers. These days you don't hear the owner of a power station advocating load shifting, since they are too far removed from customers to be able to do so effectively. For starters, you need a monopoly on centralised generation to make it doable, and it helps if you directly set the retail prices too. Without that, there's no real means to do it even if they wanted to. 

Tasmania is perhaps the best case in point. I won't reveal specifics, but around half the average system load is under some form of active demand management. The vast majority of that is direct deals between Hydro and large customers who don't go via a retailer. So that's direct bulk sales from the generator to customer. 

So far as all other customers, those who buy via retailers, are concerned it's pretty much dead. The retailer does nothing to promote the demand management options available, to the point that even many electricians think they no longer exist since there is not a word said about them. Some time ago the retailer was actually doing the exact opposite, encouraging consumption shift _from_ off-peak times _to_ the peak load times. Meanwhile on King Island, where the generator and the retailer are the same company (albeit under different trading names), an actual "smart grid" is underway right now. Enough said really about the problem with splitting things up and it's the same in other states.


----------



## sydboy007 (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> The best thing to do, from a financial perspective, is to use solar to avoid buying power from the grid at 28c.
> 
> Suppose that you have 500 Watts load in the house during the day and install a 2 kW solar system. If all the panels face north in order to generate maximum output, you'll be exporting anything over 0.5 kW into the grid and getting paid 8c for it. In the middle of the day you'll be exporting plenty at 8c but in the morning and evening when output is low (and for most households load will be higher) you'll be generating very little and buying from the grid at 28c.
> 
> ...




I don't think you quite understand how the system works for my dad.  Possibly he signed up for a bum deal as he originally thought he was on a net metering scheme ie produce 5  and use 10 only pay for 5.

Basically all his energy has to be exported at 8c kWh

All his electricity usage has to be at 28c kWh

Unless he could go off grid the only financial incentive for him is to have the panels producing the maximum amount of electricity through the day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2013)

Ah, now it makes sense. 

Seems that he is on gross metering whereas I was assuming the more common net metering arrangement.

If it's gross then yes, you want to maximise production and that means facing the panels north. But for anyone on net metering with a FIT rate lower than the rate paid for power from the grid, the E - W arrangement will typically be the best option financially.


----------



## medicowallet (10 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm waiting for the company to come out and sell me a share in a solar farm.  If I could buy 5kWh of capacity i think that would generate enough income to provide for my household consumption - avg 8.5kWh most days.




Exactly. 

This over subsidy is just crazy.

MW


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ah, now it makes sense.
> 
> Seems that he is on gross metering whereas I was assuming the more common net metering arrangement.
> 
> If it's gross then yes, you want to maximise production and that means facing the panels north. But for anyone on net metering with a FIT rate lower than the rate paid for power from the grid, the E - W arrangement will typically be the best option financially.




Wouldn't it still be best to face them E - W as the solar would still reduce the 28c demand at peak periods. 
As opposed to exporting more at 8c over the mid day period?


----------



## pixel (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ah, now it makes sense.
> 
> Seems that he is on gross metering whereas I was assuming the more common net metering arrangement.
> 
> If it's gross then yes, you want to maximise production and that means facing the panels north. But for anyone on net metering with a FIT rate lower than the rate paid for power from the grid, the E - W arrangement will typically be the best option financially.




That's the way it works in WA:
During the day, when we use less than our panels produce, the excess is fed into the grid and we get a credit of 8-and-a-bit cents plus FIT per KWh excess. During times of low or no sunlight, we buy off the grid at currently 23-and-a-bit cents per KWh.
In the past, it has just about balanced out.

PS: Yes, we had years ago replaced all our light bulbs; TV and computer monitors are LED; we also have Solar hot water; our kitchen stove runs on power with a gas BBQ for backup. Given the price of copper piping and the distance a new gas line would have to be run, it just wasn't worth the effort. Apart from that, the old locked-in domestic gas price contracts will also see massive increases, likely removing most of the price advantage that Alinta is currently still claiming in its ad campaigns. And besides: What's a Gov'mint guarantee worth anyway


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Wouldn't it still be best to face them E - W as the solar would still reduce the 28c demand at peak periods.
> As opposed to exporting more at 8c over the mid day period?



Not if the metering is set up to record all solar generation as "export" at 8c and all consumption as "import" (known as "gross metering" as distinct from the more common "net metering") as is the case with the system sydboy007 is referring to. In that case, you just want to maximise output but it will only be worth 8c no matter what your household consumption is at the time.

The E - W arrangement I have referred to is suited to households on net metering, where solar generation is used within the house first with only the surplus exported. In that case, a flat output profile during the day will in most cases result in more of it being used to power your own appliances and less being exported thus increasing the financial benefit in a situation where imports cost more than you receive for exports.

Someone mentioned buying shares in a solar farm. Well I suppose you could do just that. But then you could just buy shares in any other form of power generation as well, and it will generally be cheaper than solar. Oh wait..... It wasn't that long ago that everybody was a default part owner of power stations, transmission lines and so on and we did indeed get affordable electricity from that. Then someone came up with the idea of privatisation. Not that it's overly private as such, unless you count ownership by the governments of Singapore and China as being in some way "private".


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Not if the metering is set up to record all solar generation as "export" at 8c and all consumption as "import" (known as "gross metering" as distinct from the more common "net metering") as is the case with the system sydboy007 is referring to. In that case, you just want to maximise output but it will only be worth 8c no matter what your household consumption is at the time.
> 
> The E - W arrangement I have referred to is suited to households on net metering, where solar generation is used within the house first with only the surplus exported. In that case, a flat output profile during the day will in most cases result in more of it being used to power your own appliances and less being exported thus increasing the financial benefit in a situation where imports cost more than you receive for exports.
> 
> Someone mentioned buying shares in a solar farm. Well I suppose you could do just that. But then you could just buy shares in any other form of power generation as well, and it will generally be cheaper than solar. Oh wait..... It wasn't that long ago that everybody was a default part owner of power stations, transmission lines and so on and we did indeed get affordable electricity from that. Then someone came up with the idea of privatisation. Not that it's overly private as such, unless you count ownership by the governments of Singapore and China as being in some way "private".




That gross metering sounds somewhat unfair. The system is buying your production at 8c and selling theirs to you at 28c.
From your explanation, W.A has net metering, as Pixel described.
Thanks for the explanation Smurph.


----------



## sydboy007 (11 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> That gross metering sounds somewhat unfair. The system is buying your production at 8c and selling theirs to you at 28c.
> From your explanation, W.A has net metering, as Pixel described.
> Thanks for the explanation Smurph.




Very much so, and we can thank the private companies for bullying the Govt into this.

At least the power companies should be paying around the wholesale price for electricity, less transmission costs etc.

At least my parents are pretty frugal energy consumers so they still get a reasonable benefit from the solar, but definitely not as big a benefit as my dad originally thought.  Wish I'd been able to read his contract before he signed up.  I'd have tried to find a net metering deal, though being in a small town I'm not sure if you can get that kind of deal.

Now all i need is for my neighbour's tree to suddenly curl up it's roots and I could get some solar.  Am surprised that there's hardly any in my area.  I think being forced onto ToU charging turns a lot of people off.


----------



## Trevor_S (11 August 2013)

Yep.. Stand alone, off the grid.. Same for sewage, water, lots of food as well.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2013)

What do you use for backup Trev? Wind, diesel, petrol?


----------



## sydboy007 (11 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What do you use for backup Trev? Wind, diesel, petrol?




I got an image of a giant hamster wheel providing backup power...and entertainment


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2013)

Is this the future for rooftop solar ?



> Spain plans to make consumers pay for the clean electricity they generate and use themselves, a move unheard of in any other market.
> 
> A new draft bill on power consumption includes a fee for electricity that’s generated by solar panels or other renewable sources and used on-site, the text shows. The draft is being reviewed by industry regulator CNE.






> The bill extends the payback time for domestic solar systems to almost 35 years from about 12 years, according to UNEF. It will also extend the period for small and medium-sized plants to about 14 years.
> 
> Domestic installations with less than 10 kilowatts will have to pay 27 percent more than they would without the levy, the lobby estimates. The fee, which applies to all plants of 100 kilowatts or less, varies according to project size and may be modified in future, according to the draft legislation.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ar-with-plan-to-penalize-power-producers.html


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Is this the future for rooftop solar ?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ar-with-plan-to-penalize-power-producers.html




Well doc, if you think about it, if everyone in Australia was self sufficient on electricity. How much would the generators have to charge business to make money.lol
How much revenue would the government lose.
Maybe the greens should read the article.


----------



## lusk (12 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Is this the future for rooftop solar ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Taxing the sun :screwy:


----------



## Craton (12 August 2013)

lusk said:


> Taxing the sun :screwy:




Creating money from thin air this, literally and that's our wonderful capitalist world at work. Hmm, what can we monetize next?

I'm really wishing this doesn't get any traction and can't see it happening but if Wall Street has got a sniff of it, I suspect it's already too late...:bad:

Tax on oxygen anyone?


----------



## pixel (12 August 2013)

Craton said:


> Tax on oxygen anyone?




*Shhhh! *Don't let our politicians hear about that idea! They'll tax Oxygen twice as hard as Carbon.
After all, CO2 means there's two parts Oxygen to every one part Carbon in Carbon Dioxide!


----------



## pixel (12 August 2013)

pilots said:


> I was listing to it all day, people here in WA are not happy




In News just out, Premier Barnett has listened, it appears:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/18456332/liberal-rebellion-on-solar-heats-up/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...solar-rebate-cut/story-fnii5thm-1226695423494

Thanks to the petition by Solar Citizens http://www.solarcitizens.org.au/  - I signed it too.


----------



## Craton (12 August 2013)

@pixel, LOL. Yeah, double PLUS double again (coz there's two O's) PLUS, the tax on that naughty carbon.

Just heard on the ABC here too. WA govt has abandoned lowering the tariff. Had to laugh when a bloke being interviewed said that, he'll won't forget B1 and B2 at the next election.

Still, just like NSW a couple of years ago, nice to see the power of the people at work. Pun intended.


----------



## sydboy007 (12 August 2013)

Craton said:


> @pixel, LOL. Yeah, double PLUS double again (coz there's two O's) PLUS, the tax on that naughty carbon.
> 
> Just heard on the ABC here too. WA govt has abandoned lowering the tariff. Had to laugh when a bloke being interviewed said that, he'll won't forget B1 and B2 at the next election.
> 
> Still, just like NSW a couple of years ago, nice to see the power of the people at work. Pun intended.




Just wait to see the same power expressed when the Federal Govt decides it has to cut spending to get the budget back into balance.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2013)

pixel said:


> In News just out, Premier Barnett has listened, it appears:
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/18456332/liberal-rebellion-on-solar-heats-up/
> 
> ...



I suspect the heat from is own party and perhaps federal Liberal was too much to take. I noticed Senator Eric Abetz publically weighed into the issue this morning.

Emperor Barnett and his chair sniffing Troy boy have a lot of egg on their faces over this. Hopefully it will be an enduring lesson for them on how not to govern.


----------



## drsmith (13 August 2013)

In relation to that letter from Synergy, someone didn't do their homework properly.



> The West Australian  believes the legal advice, from the State Solicitor's Office, was based on clauses in the subsidy contracts.
> 
> But it did not take into consideration a letter sent in May 2011 by Synergy chief operation officer Greg Roberts to customers entitled to the 40 cent payment that they would receive it "for the full term of your 10-year contract".
> 
> Energy Minister Mike Nahan's office was not aware of the existence of the letter until it surfaced in media reports on Friday.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18471034/barnett-buckles-under-solar-heat/

The linked document in that article also contains some interesting information.

1) The state EERC approved the decision to reduce the FIT rate on June 24, so it was obviously considered before then.

2) It was approved by Cabinet on July 8.

Perhaps in the end, that letter from Synergy played a significant role in the government's reversal yesterday.


----------



## pixel (13 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> I suspect the heat from is own party and perhaps federal Liberal was too much to take. I noticed Senator Eric Abetz publically weighed into the issue this morning.
> 
> Emperor Barnett and his chair sniffing Troy boy have a lot of egg on their faces over this. Hopefully it will be an enduring lesson for them on how not to govern.




Love Alston's take on the whole affair:


----------



## drsmith (13 August 2013)

pixel said:


> Love Alston's take on the whole affair:



I'm trying to work out who it is that's disappearing over the fence.

Could it be Geoff Roberts, the Chief Operating Officer of Synergy who in 2011 wrote that letter ?

The only things that are missing are Don Randall with the hammer and Ken Wyatt with the nails. Canning and Hasluck are the two most marginal federal seats in Western Australia and each has 13000 and 9700 homes with solar panels respectively.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2013)

http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...t-the-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226696132724

Well I see that 789 billion Australians are still using Green power although the numbers are going down. Even SA has just under 7.8 billion households, or more than the entire human population of the world, using it. They're not so keen in WA however, with only 56 million customers using it in the West.

Gotta love the quality of News Ltd journalism..... Maybe they should by a calculator to help get things right - a solar powered one of course.


----------



## bellenuit (13 August 2013)

*bellenuit*



Smurf1976 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...t-the-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226696132724
> 
> Well I see that 789 billion Australians are still using Green power although the numbers are going down. Even SA has just under 7.8 billion households, or more than the entire human population of the world, using it. They're not so keen in WA however, with only 56 million customers using it in the West.
> 
> Gotta love the quality of News Ltd journalism..... Maybe they should by a calculator to help get things right - a solar powered one of course.




Smurf, if you look closely you will see that the 789 billion figure is actually 789 thousand. It is not a 12 digit figure, but two 6 digit figures separated by a space. Each row, as the heading indicates, shows the number of customers for two different periods and the % change between them. Perhaps you need glasses more than News needs a new calculator


----------



## pixel (13 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...t-the-carbon-tax/story-fnagkbpv-1226696132724
> 
> Well I see that 789 billion Australians are still using Green power although the numbers are going down. Even SA has just under 7.8 billion households, or more than the entire human population of the world, using it. They're not so keen in WA however, with only 56 million customers using it in the West.
> 
> Gotta love the quality of News Ltd journalism..... Maybe they should by a calculator to help get things right - a solar powered one of course.




Methinks you misread the numbers, mistaking a space between two numbers (each in the 100,000's) for a comma.
The figures represent customers in 2012-13 vs 2008-09, e.g.

Australia Q3of12-13 ... Q4of08-09 ... Change
Customers 789,062 ... 940,560 ... -16%

PS: bellenuit beat me by a minute


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2013)

Looking in a local rag, I note 1.5kW systems can be purchased for around $2k. This is relatively unchanged for the past couple of years. The price of bigger systems though has declined considerably over the same period and are now 3kW for ~$4k, 5kW for ~$6.5k and 10kW for ~$12k.

Perhaps the federal government incentives need to be reduced further, in particular for larger systems. Otherwise, one way or another, it's higher fixed charges for all.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...rkets/solution-barnett’s-unfair-fixed-charges


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Looking in a local rag, I note 1.5kW systems can be purchased for around $2k. This is relatively unchanged for the past couple of years. The price of bigger systems though has declined considerably over the same period and are now 3kW for ~$4k, 5kW for ~$6.5k and 10kW for ~$12k.
> 
> Perhaps the federal government incentives need to be reduced further, in particular for larger systems. Otherwise, one way or another, it's higher fixed charges for all.
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...rkets/solution-barnett’s-unfair-fixed-charges




Your post the otther day about the situation in Spain, wasn't so far fetched.

The system was designed for people to cover their own demand, not become private generators, that's the problem when people are greedy.
They stuff it for everyone.


----------



## pixel (15 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Your post the otther day about the situation in Spain, wasn't so far fetched.
> 
> The system was designed for people to cover their own demand, not become private generators, that's the problem when people are greedy.
> They stuff it for everyone.




Not quite so;
at least in WA, the recent glut of "excess" capacity has eliminated the need for a new - presumably coal-fired - power station. Just to cover peak demand for a growing population would have cost $2Billion - and given the way our Gov'mints manage to stuff things up, probably a Billion more than that.
Instead, they subsidised the initial push into Solar attaining critical mass, which cost less than $200M, and let home owners finance the rest. If you want to call that greedy, by all means do so; but don't expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## DB008 (15 August 2013)

Can't remember (or be bothered to go back over this thread), but IMO, the whole solar thing has been done wrong from the get go.

Big incentives should be given to installation of new systems (or even updates to systems - and even more so to Australian made parts/systems), yet feed in tariff's should be lower.

If someone pays 20c a kWh, feed in should be 22c (that's still 10% diff).

We are a land of plentiful sunshine, why not take advantage of it?

My old man is making a profit (including paying the ambo tax in QLD) for putting in a 3kw solar system, all at the expense of someone who hasn't got a solar system. Crazy.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2013)

Further to the article I posted a month ago in the West Australian, The Australian also published an article on fixed costs. This was back in late May.



> AUSTRALIA'S one million rooftop solar households could be forced to pay new fixed charges to help recover billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and make electricity prices fairer for all consumers.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...end-power-divide/story-fn59niix-1226650277855

Either fixed charges are going to rise for all or there will be a new levy for those with solar panels. The only question now is time. The magnitude of the problem can only be managed by managing the uptake of solar panels from this point forward. To that end, the federal government rebates for solar need to be scaled back further. The present level of subsidy is perhaps OK for the first 1.5kW but additional capacity beyond that should perhaps now be fully funded by the household.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Further to the article I posted a month ago in the West Australian, The Australian also published an article on fixed costs. This was back in late May.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Agree with you doc, oversizing the system is going to cause huge problems.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

pixel said:


> Not quite so;
> at least in WA, the recent glut of "excess" capacity has eliminated the need for a new - presumably coal-fired - power station. Just to cover peak demand for a growing population would have cost $2Billion - and given the way our Gov'mints manage to stuff things up, probably a Billion more than that.
> Instead, they subsidised the initial push into Solar attaining critical mass, which cost less than $200M, and let home owners finance the rest. If you want to call that greedy, by all means do so; but don't expect to be taken seriously.




Someone I know, told me he gets $3000 back per year from Synergy. I don't think that was the plan and I don't think that was the spirit in which the FIT was designed.
As for building more capacity, that will always be required as people still want electricity on cold overcast days.


----------



## pixel (15 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Someone I know, told me he gets $3000 back per year from Synergy. I don't think that was the plan and I don't think that was the spirit in which the FIT was designed.
> As for building more capacity, that will always be required as people still want electricity on cold overcast days.




Hi sptrawler,

That's a different angle: As usual, the Government stuffed up big time, by not setting the right parameters.
Initially, the main intention was "Let's get a viable Solar Industry by kick-starting it past the critical mass." But even then, it was clear that peak demand would have to be catered for by expanded production capacity. According to my information, the current plants can supply the base load for quite some time into the future. The Muja expansion was never supposed to run year round 24x7. Only on a few of the hottest summer days would there be peak hours of highest demand, at which power generators had to run their systems at, if not above rated capacity, therefore demanding extortionate unit prices. As it so happens, solar panels will produce very well in sunshine, taking the tip of peak demand when additional air conditioners have to be powered. And that eliminated the need for an additional power station that would have been needed only for those days of peak demand, but still cost $2B-plus.

At $6 per Watt (when we installed our first panels) nobody doing proper sums would have considered SPV without an additional incentive; it would have taken years to recoup a decent payback, and without decent volumes, the Solar Industry would have remained a high-cost niche industry. What the "Planners" failed to plan for was -
a/ at what point was "Critical Mass"?
b/ how much could future State Budgets afford to spend on ongoing subsidies?
c/ where was the balance between many small installations and a quick uptake by entrepreneurs?

There were a few more considerations, but those are the main ones IMO, and not one was properly considered. When the initial uptake - thanks to a generous 40c rebate and dropping costs per Watt - caught the Administration by surprise (with some decent planning, it need never have come to that!) they scrambled and reduced the FIT to 20c. Again, a stupid Policy on the Run - although at that time, at least they set a limit at xxx Megawatt; any additional capacity would have to "use it or lose it" - more precisely: get paid only wholesale 7c for the excess.

I have reservations about your complaint that some "rich" people over-invested and are now "rorting the system" by claiming the FIT, rather than giving many more on lower income the chance. To an extent I can understand where you're coming from. But considering that one key issue was "critical mass quickly", it's a balancing act between a single household stomping up the cash for 12KW or waiting for 8 households to buy 1.5KW each. Who is to say that the household putting up 12KW doesn't have a dozen kids, each with their own TV and games console and other power guzzlers? (I also seem to recall there was a limit of 3 or 5KW, beyond which no FIT was applied. Not sure whether that was actually implemented. I wouldn't have had a problem with that, if it had been. But I don't blame the citizens that took up the offer; rather the idiots that misplanned the scheme.)


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

pixel said:


> Hi sptrawler,
> 
> That's a different angle: As usual, the Government stuffed up big time, by not setting the right parameters.
> Initially, the main intention was "Let's get a viable Solar Industry by kick-starting it past the critical mass." But even then, it was clear that peak demand would have to be catered for by expanded production capacity. According to my information, the current plants can supply the base load for quite some time into the future. The Muja expansion was never supposed to run year round 24x7. Only on a few of the hottest summer days would there be peak hours of highest demand, at which power generators had to run their systems at, if not above rated capacity, therefore demanding extortionate unit prices. As it so happens, solar panels will produce very well in sunshine, taking the tip of peak demand when additional air conditioners have to be powered. And that eliminated the need for an additional power station that would have been needed only for those days of peak demand, but still cost $2B-plus.



Muja was not an expansion, it was an overhaul of its oldest and smallest units. Muja has 4 X 60MW and 4 X 200MW units, which, I believe, have been upgraded to 220MW.
The recent upgrade was to refurbish the 4 X 60MW units that were built in the 1960's.

To cover peak demand 2 X 100MW high efficiency gas turbines have been installed at Kwinana Power Station. These can be started and loaded to maximum output within 30 minutes, whereas steam plant can take several hours.
As you say solar panels produce very well in sunshine, but as the evening peak is usually around 4 - 8pm, most solar is well past its peak.
The $2b cost for extra capacity is a furphy. Gas turbines are about $1m/MW and Collie Power Station which has 1X 340MW coal fired unit, was built with provisions for a second unit.


----------



## pixel (15 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> Further to the article I posted a month ago in the West Australian, The Australian also published an article on fixed costs. This was back in late May.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




hmm - let's see:
A Million households. Shall we say 1.5KW panels on average? Would create about 8GWh per day on average.
That is energy, for which no coal is burned. Energy, for which no new power station needs to be built. Energy that reduces especially peak demand. And if you know how the supply tariffs are calculated - not by actual power delivered, but heavily influenced by the one hour (or day) of peak demand - you get an idea why the power station owners hate SPV.
Without any reliable data on the number of households that claim a FIT, it is impossible to verify those claims of "Billions of taxpayer Dollars". And what about the businesses that installed those Million systems? It took two tradies a day to install our system. That's 2 Million man-days at electrician's wages. They paid income tax, rather than drawing the dole. We paid GST on the hardware, the tradies paid GST and fuel excise on the petrol ... 

Those benefits - many still ongoing now that Australia has a vialble SPV industry - compare to what? 
The closest data I could find are from WA only, where the budget for 40c FIT is in the order of $50M.
*But* as I explained earlier, the alternative would be an additional power station at a conservative $2B; at 6% interest, the annual financing costs would exceed the FIT by a big margin. Now, extrapolate that across the Nation, and you know why I'm disgusted by the lack of any semblance of intelligence in our current crop of newspaper hacks: Can't spell; can't count; have no idea of the meaning of "research"; but repeat unquestioningly any cr@p they can copy from equally ignorant bloggers on twitter.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

pixel said:


> The closest data I could find are from WA only, where the budget for 40c FIT is in the order of $50M.



And the actual cost of that particular part of the scheme is going to be $450m.

One area where the Government has certainly stuffed up big time is by not being quick enough to adjust subsidies in line with the reduction in hardware costs. The above blowout is at least in part a result of that. The cost of larger systems have continued to come down considerably over the past two years whereas smaller systems have been relatively static as the federal solar credit multiple has been wound back for system up to 1.5kW.

If the federal solar credit system is not wound back further in response to the declining cost of panels, we will see a similar type of problem to the above but on a much larger scale. In the end, someone has to pay. If the federal solar credit was cut to the first 1.5kW for any household, that does not in itself limit system size to 1.5kW.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

ABC 730 Local (Perth) is going to have a piece on Solar Panels and the fixed component of electricity pricing tonight. It should be interesting viewing in light of the Barnett Government's decision to cut the 40 cent feed in tariff and subsequent backflip.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/wa/

Note that the broadcast time is 7:30pm WST (9:30pm EST).


----------



## pixel (17 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> ABC 730 Local (Perth) is going to have a piece on Solar Panels and the fixed component of electricity pricing tonight. It should be interesting viewing in light of the Barnett Government's decision to cut the 40 cent feed in tariff and subsequent backflip.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/wa/
> 
> Note that the broadcast time is 7:30pm WST (9:30pm EST).




Thanks dr.
That line of argument is even more infuriating. It vilifies those of us that did "the right thing" at the time, reducing our carbon footprint and reducing the need for additional power plants - a case clearly proven by the admission that power supply is now exceeding demand. Now it's "unfair" that we use less power and save, compared to those households that refuse to do the right thing.

I remember one discussion when I was accused of siding with "pov" against "posh", along the lines that solar panels were mainly taken up by "pov" suburbs of the mortgage belt, because those people are more inclined to consider saving opportunities. "Posh" suburbs can afford to remain wasteful. Apparently not any more, when the posh crowds are now crying foul that they are charged full price.

We've been asked to pre-pay some of our future power consumption, in exchange for certain contractual cost reductions that made the deal financially viable. What is so difficult to understand about that? If the counter party to that contract had been honest and said "but we might reconsider in a few years' time and penalise you for spending your money now" - who in their right mind would've even taken up the offer?

It's Policy on the Run, clearly influenced by the Power Generation lobby that hates the idea that some households cannot be forced to contribute as much to their profits as they'd like.
What's next? Penalise homes that have been built more energy-efficient? Better insulated? 

As far as the infrastructure (powerlines) is concerned, it's been dead wrong IMHO to even privatise the basic network. Maintenance of roads, power lines, gas, water, sewerage pipes ought to remain Commonwealth or State responsibility, funded by taxes and a cost component in the unit price of usage/ consumption. Separate charges for maintenance of the conduit to each dwelling would be open to abuse and inequity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2013)

pixel said:


> As far as the infrastructure (powerlines) is concerned, it's been dead wrong IMHO to even privatise the basic network. Maintenance of roads, power lines, gas, water, sewerage pipes ought to remain Commonwealth or State responsibility, funded by taxes and a cost component in the unit price of usage/ consumption. Separate charges for maintenance of the conduit to each dwelling would be open to abuse and inequity.



Agreed about privatisation, but the issue of fixed charges is a complex one.

In short, if fixed charges are recovered only through consumption charges then there is a very strong argument that the industry then needs to sell as much electricity as possible so as to remain in business and that means no solar grid-connect whatsoever. As an analogy, solar becomes the equivalent of a pub not only allowing BYO but allowing you to sell your alcohol to other customers whilst standing in the pub. Neither the power industry or the pub would remain in business in that case.

Personally, I'd prefer a situation where all customers just paid the fixed costs of the network as an actual fixed charge, with any concessions being a direct discount off that fixed charge as such. That way, there is no reason why the distributor needs to sell any particular volume of electricity and no need for them to worry about solar or other small scale (or large scale) distributed generation being connected to the system. So long as fixed costs are recovered via consumption charges, the industry needs volume sales of electricity to recover those costs and remain in business. Charging people directly would also put some pressure on network operators to contain costs - something they stopped doing when split off from the generation part of the industry and which has been the primary driver of soaring electricity prices to consumers.

Politically however it is very difficult. It was actually tried in Tasmania in the mid-1990's but suffice to say this was easily the most unpopular thing the Hydro has ever done and it won't be happening again anytime soon. Accepting that public relations disaster (and "disaster" is somewhat of an understatement) the only option was to pursue plan B. And so aggressive marketing of electricity sales was re-commenced - sell as much as possible in order to recover costs and keep unit rates down. Shortly after, the industry was restructured and the network handed to a new operator which, having noted the painful experience with fixed charges, ramped up the volume sales push even harder to an almost ridiculous extent at one point.

The crux of it is that so long as consumption charges are used to recover fixed costs, there will be an ongoing misconception as to the cost of bulk electricity. Literally right now, it's selling (spot rate) for between 3.428 cents per kWh (Tas) to 5.86 cents (SA). 

In terms of contract rates, they vary but I will say that in Tasmania the retailer currently pays 7.936 cents /kWh for bulk supply. The new retailers are being offered bulk supply at 7.236 cents / kWh from 1st January next year and 6.331 cents / kWh from 1st July 2014. 

The first reduction is a consequence of the effective ending of competition in the generation sector in Tas (Hydro having acquired the only other significant generator, AETV Power) with the second reduction being based on assumed carbon prices after 1st July 2014. The issue with competition in generation is that prices were previously jacked up so as to make it viable for AETV to be in business. With them gone, there is no reason to hold prices artificially high anymore and there has been a substantial cost saving through integration of AETV with the rest of the generation system (ie Hydro only runs the AETV plant when it can actually make money at the lower prices whereas AETV ran it flat out 24/7 - at present it's sitting idle).

Competition in generation is a complex issue. One one hand it does introduce competitive pressure to not overcharge. On the other hand it also directly increases the cost of doing business in the first place. So you end up with everyone having a higher cost of production, but an incentive to not overcharge as such. In contrast, a monopoly generator in a theoretically competitive market has (1) a lower actual cost of production since they can always run the most efficient plant and run it at optimum output levels and (2) an incentive to keep prices low enough to deter anyone else from entering that market. In a smaller market, eg WA or Tas, competition will always be a "forced" thing that won't happen naturally - prices have to be held high enough to support the operation of multiple generation companies.

One of the things to realise is that the industry has become so complex that actually generating power is almost a sideline. There is one generation company, I won't name them but they are well known and not based in Tas, where the business model is basically that of an investment bank. They make money trading financial instruments primarily, the actual generation of power being simply an input into that trading. Their activities are akin to a mining company deciding to trade metals "on paper" and simply feeding in their own mine production to that process when it suits them to do so. The scale of trading activities greatly exceeds the amount of power this company actually generates.

Anyway, I set up the new meter on my solar this evening. I've now got a nice little display sitting on the table which should show the system's output. I'll have to wait for the sun to come up tomorrow to see how it works in practice but in theory all should be well. It's correctly reading 0.000 at the moment.


----------



## pixel (17 August 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed about privatisation, but the issue of fixed charges is a complex one.
> 
> In short, if fixed charges are recovered only through consumption charges then there is a very strong argument that the industry then needs to sell as much electricity as possible so as to remain in business and that means no solar grid-connect whatsoever. As an analogy, solar becomes the equivalent of a pub not only allowing BYO but allowing you to sell your alcohol to other customers whilst standing in the pub. Neither the power industry or the pub would remain in business in that case.




I have no issue with that analogy; and the unwanted consequences of "BYO and selling it to others in the queue" has since been addressed. New installations receive only wholesale (cost of production) prices without FIT.

Only last week, I had to explain the difference to a neighbour. She wanted to install a system that delivered on an average day as much energy as she was likely to consume. Her plan was based on the misconception that she would be credited for every unused daylight unit and could import it at night. It took me an hour to make her understand that she'd be credited 8c per unit exported during the day, but charged 24c for the same unit drawn back at night. Therefore, if she used 6KWh during sunshine and 6KWh at night, her system would have to be laid out to 5KW (based on current conditions) to generate an average 24KWh per day, of which she'd use 6 and export 18. Only then could she re-import the missing 6KWh at 3-times the export credit. 
These days, every decent Solar Installer does calculate projected cost savings on the basis of "household uses ALL generated power and exports none." And the 3:1 inequity between draw and feed is the reason for that.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with that - *for new installations!*
What I'm dead-set disgusted about is the fact that the Barnett Government introduces a huge Sovereign Risk issue by vilifying those households that accepted the terms of the contract offered to them *for ten years!* Of course, there are vested interests gaining momentum, even influencing hare-brained journos at the ABC to jump on the band wagon in support of "those poor non-solar households" who now have to pay higher power bills to fund those greedy over-producing bastards who make their own. *We paid 5 times more for our installations than they cost now FFS! In return we were offered future rebates to make the investment decision justifiable!* That aside, it affects only a relatively small number of early adopters, who helped the industry along. Meanwhile, every household can reap the benefit of lower installation costs. Properly laid-out SPV systems deliver payback times of 3 to 4 years. It's a no-brainer!


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2013)

Agreed about the issue with contracts. A contract is a contract in my opinion, and as long as it's entered into under normal circumstances (ie nobody was coerced, mislead, drunk etc) then it ought to be upheld unless there is a legitimate escape clause in the original contract and the circumstances to trigger that clause have legitimately arisen (as distinct from anything being artificially manipulated etc).

As for solar, well I have the monitor up and running now and it's sitting next to the computer. It's sitting on about 1400 Watts right now, varying between 500 and 2200 due to small clouds intermittently blocking the sun. In the time if took to type this sentence it has gone back up to 1828, now 1862, now 1805 literally as fast as I could type that. And now it's 1702. The reading updates every 6 seconds.

It's a novelty more than anything else, since I don't actually _need_ the information, but I like this device. Cost about $100 including postage (plus installation which in my case is free using my own labour and a bit of scrap cable I had lying around). The transmitter is mains powered (uses very little power) and installed at the switchboard. The receiver and display runs on 3 x AAA batteries - not sure how long they'll last but I'd expect quite a while and they're cheap enough anyway. Now producing 1179 Watts.


----------



## sydboy007 (17 August 2013)

I was reading an article on Business Spectator a few days ago.

They were offering a solution along the lines of paying a fix charge based on 1kWh of usage during peak periods.  At other times the "limit" would not be relevant.

It would be up to customers to decide if they either move into expensive excess charges during peak periods, or they reduce their load so as to avoid the costs.

It might work, though am not sure it's fair to low consumers.  Certainly the 1K per annum fixed charge seemed rather high, especially as the unit charging was at 25c.  My anual electrcity bill is only arund the 1100-1200 mark.

The problem we have is the forecasts were so wrong that there's a lot of excess capcity in the system now, and we're stuck paying for it.

I'm starting to wonder if a small block of townhouse may be able to go off grid electrcity wise with say solar on all the houses and using a fuel cell with gas to provide electricity when the sun don't shine enough - it could also provide hot water for the houses.  Some battery backup for excess production in the day could be added.

These systems tend to not stack up so well for an individual house, but if the costs are shared by say 5 to 10 households, possibly the economics could work out.  Certainly you could save by not requiring so much battery backup, and it would probably be easier to design the sollar panels to provide electricity all through the day into the afternoon.  Throw in shared rain water storage as another potential money saver, with a shared laundry set up (read something similar is quite popular in the Netherlands) and you can afford to buy a few high efficiency washers rather than everyone buying cheaper ones.

Either we have asset write downs or the death spiral of the electrcity network will come a lot quicker than I think the distributors are ready for.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Either we have asset write downs or the death spiral of the electrcity network will come a lot quicker than I think the distributors are ready for.



Too true and network assets last a very long time - there are still transmission lines in service today that were built 75 years ago.

The only real, lasting solution is to take the hit financially and move on. That means write downs either directly or via accepting a lower rate of return on total assets.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2013)

pixel said:


> Thanks dr.
> That line of argument is even more infuriating. It vilifies those of us that did "the right thing" at the time, reducing our carbon footprint and reducing the need for additional power plants - a case clearly proven by the admission that power supply is now exceeding demand. Now it's "unfair" that we use less power and save, compared to those households that refuse to do the right thing.
> 
> I remember one discussion when I was accused of siding with "pov" against "posh", along the lines that solar panels were mainly taken up by "pov" suburbs of the mortgage belt, because those people are more inclined to consider saving opportunities. "Posh" suburbs can afford to remain wasteful. Apparently not any more, when the posh crowds are now crying foul that they are charged full price.
> ...



The three most interesting things I got out of it was as follows,

1) In the lead-in piece prior to the interview with Mike Nathan, one of the interviewees advised that solar was now competitive with other forms of generation. If that's without the federal solar subsidy, that should be removed. Cost with the subsidy is around $1.20/watt of installed capacity. 

2) He declared he pushed the envelope on the FIT cut an other information came to light. Push the envelope is a poetic choice of words. More than ever, I feel that other information that came to light was the contents of that envelope sent by Synergy to the 40c/kWhr FIT scheme participants in 2011.

3) Solar panel owners will not be targeted in isolation in any future increases in the fixed component of electricity charges. After the FIT fiasco, the government simply won't be game for some time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/energy-minister-not-committing-to-a-fixed-charge/4893730

I thought he spoke rather frankly bearing in mind the difficult situation he had put himself in.


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2013)

Czechoslovakia joins Spain in taxing solar panels.



> The Czech Senate has approved controversial laws to end subsidies for renewable energy and to extend a tax levied on solar power plants, following a vote on Friday.
> 
> The move has been widely expected since the motion was successfully passed in the lower house of parliament of the Czech Republic in mid-August.
> 
> ...




http://www.pv-tech.org/news/czech_senate_approves_renewable_energy_subsidy_cuts_and_10_solar_tax/


----------



## ClaudeOrtega (15 October 2013)

springhill said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have built a new house and am looking to get solar panels installed on the roof. Have done some research on companies and their products, but would be interested in others experiences and opinions.
> 
> ...




hello sorry for old thread reply but have you got the solar panels? i am looking to install solar panels on my home roof so please share your experience and tell about the cost of installation.


----------



## Calliope (23 October 2013)

They're coming after us!



> AUSTRALIA'S one million households with rooftop solar photovoltaic panels face the prospect of higher charges to use the poles and wires that distribute electricity under plans to deal with concerns they are being subsidised by consumers who have not installed the solar systems.




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-e6frg6xf-1226744816603#sthash.IOktX3mF.dpuf


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> They're coming after us!



More detail here,

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/grid-costs-may-hit-solar/2061458/


----------



## springhill (24 March 2014)

ClaudeOrtega said:


> hello sorry for old thread reply but have you got the solar panels? i am looking to install solar panels on my home roof so please share your experience and tell about the cost of installation.




My 5kw solar system was installed Friday just gone.

I went with a local company called Solar4Ever and found them to be extremely helpful & professional and they conduct their own efficiency testing on all products that they supply. I found this to be of most value when comparing output from the premium products, compared to product levels below that.

The installers were courteous & professional, the young guy (20ish) working even swept my garage clean, instead of sitting on his backside, when waiting for the senior installer & I to complete paperwork.

The cost was around $5,300.

In 2 full days of operation it has produced nearly 50Kw of which 30 something has gone back into the system. I have very little north facing roof space, which I am saving for a solar hot water system, so half the panels are on the western side & half on the eastern side. This produces 17% less power than if all were on a northern ceiling but for me this is unavoidable.
It has added another 8 months to the projected pay-off period.

We installed one now as my wife is pregnant with our first child and she is due in less than 3 months. With her being home for a year, instead of working, our power bills were set to sky rocket.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2014)

springhill said:


> half the panels are on the western side & half on the eastern side. This produces 17% less power than if all were on a northern ceiling but for me this is unavoidable.
> It has added another 8 months to the projected pay-off period.




Depending on what you are paid for feed-in to the grid (FIT) it is not necessarily the case that the E - W arrangement produces a worse outcome than having all the panels facing north.

You will produce less energy in total, that is a given, but it will be spread more evenly over the day than if they faced north. That is, a north-facing array will have an output that if graphed looks like a classic bell curve with a peak at noon. In contrast, the E - W arrangement will not produce the same peak output, but will produce a lower level far more consistently during sunshine hours. 

The practical effect of the E - W arrangement is that, unless you have a big peak in your power consumption around the middle of the day for some reason (which is unusual), then you will end up using a greater portion of your solar system's output within the house, feeding less into the grid and meaning that you also draw less from the grid in the morning and late afternoon.

If you are on a FIT that is paid a rate significantly lower than what you pay for electricity drawn from the grid then you'll actually be better off financially with the E - W arrangement in terms of your power bills (ignoring any installation cost difference for E - W versus all facing north). 

If I were to install a new system today, then I'd definitely go E - W even if there was a large north-facing space available for the reasons I've mentioned. 8c FIT versus 26c for power drawn from the grid (current rates here in Tas, will be fairly similar in most states) - it's financially better to spread your output more evenly thus increasing the amount of it used within the house.


----------



## drsmith (24 March 2014)

My 1.52kW system has just ticked over 7,000kW and should make 7,500kW by the third anniversary of its install.

It's now paid itself off.


----------



## sptrawler (24 March 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you are on a FIT that is paid a rate significantly lower than what you pay for electricity drawn from the grid then you'll actually be better off financially with the E - W arrangement in terms of your power bills (ignoring any installation cost difference for E - W versus all facing north).
> 
> If I were to install a new system today, then I'd definitely go E - W even if there was a large north-facing space available for the reasons I've mentioned. 8c FIT versus 26c for power drawn from the grid (current rates here in Tas, will be fairly similar in most states) - it's financially better to spread your output more evenly thus increasing the amount of it used within the house.




Agree 100%, I had a system installed recently on the holiday home.
1600W of panels with 5KW 4 string inverter, all the panels mounted on the West facing aspect.
As panels become cheaper, I will add more strings on the East aspect and then the North.


----------



## springhill (25 March 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Depending on what you are paid for feed-in to the grid (FIT) it is not necessarily the case that the E - W arrangement produces a worse outcome than having all the panels facing north.
> 
> You will produce less energy in total, that is a given, but it will be spread more evenly over the day than if they faced north. That is, a north-facing array will have an output that if graphed looks like a classic bell curve with a peak at noon. In contrast, the E - W arrangement will not produce the same peak output, but will produce a lower level far more consistently during sunshine hours.
> 
> ...




Thank you for this perspective Smurf, it makes perfect sense and I appreciate the time taken to flesh the thought out.

My neighbour popped over earlier today to enquire about my system, I updated him with this permutation when I saw him over the fence just a few hours ago.

After the 3rd full day, I have generated 66.7Kwh and feed 38Kwh of this back into the grid.

Lucky those who first installed at the 40c per Kwh feed-in tariff!


----------



## noco (12 April 2014)

Does anyone know if there is an advantage or disadvantage is splitting a 3KW system with 6 panels on each side of the roof......That is 6 panels on the East side and 6 panels on the west side.......it is being installed with 5 KW inverter.

I have heard it could add up to a 5 % disadvantage.


----------



## Bintang (12 April 2014)

noco said:


> Does anyone know if there is an advantage or disadvantage is splitting a 3KW system with 6 panels on each side of the roof......That is 6 panels on the East side and 6 panels on the west side.......it is being installed with 5 KW inverter.
> 
> I have heard it could add up to a 5 % disadvantage.




When you are using a single inverter all your solar panels should be at the same tilt angle and orientation otherwise there will indeed be a loss of power.
The actual quantitative loss will depend on your location's latitude, amongst other things.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 April 2014)

No real hassle provided that the 6 panels per string is within the inverter's voltage specifications (that is, having only one set of 6 panels results in operation within the inverter's turn on limit, it's MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracker) operating range and does not exceed its' maximum input voltage).

Eg If you have 6 x 24 Volt 200W panels wired in series (as they would be) then that will result in an operating voltage typically around 210V on the DC side of the inverter, dropping as low as 180V under some weather conditions and going up as high as 260V under open circuit (no load, eg due to failure of the mains power grid) conditions. That's not a problem provided that this is within the intended operating range of the inverter and that varies between models.

If the inverter has two MPPT's then it will operate at full efficiency despite two opposing panel orientations. If it has only one MPPT then it will still operate at well over 90% of it's optimum as long as it's wired as two sets of parallel strings (ie 2 x 6).

Don't, under any circumstances, allow someone to install a single string of 12 (or any other number) of panels wired in series with the panels facing different directions. That will pretty much kill the output of the system - it won't actually break anything, but it won't generate much power either. Suffice to say there have been more than a few installations by dodgy installers done this way.

As for the actual power output, you'll lose some output overall facing E or W compared to facing N, but with the advantage that you'll typically end up using more of your own power within the house rather than sending it into the grid. So, a bit less output but it ends up being worth more per unit of production assuming that your feed-in tariff (FIT) is considerably less than the price you pay for energy drawn from the grid as is usually the case with new installations in Australia.


----------



## Bintang (12 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Depending on what you are paid for feed-in to the grid (FIT) it is not necessarily the case that the E - W arrangement produces a worse outcome than having all the panels facing north.
> 
> You will produce less energy in total, that is a given, but it will be spread more evenly over the day than if they faced north. That is, a north-facing array will have an output that if graphed looks like a classic bell curve with a peak at noon. In contrast, the E - W arrangement will not produce the same peak output, but will produce a lower level far more consistently during sunshine hours.
> 
> ...




Smurf, perhaps you can help me better understand this because my brain us struggling with it.
If an E-W orientation is chosen the total amount of PV energy produced annually for a given size of array will always be less than if the array has north orientation.  Depending on the household energy usage pattern the proportion of produced PV energy used by the household might well be a bit more for an E-W versus nothern orientation but the total available PV energy for sale to the grid will be less overall. Whether the FIT is high or low I would still want to sell as much PV energy to the grid as possible.


----------



## noco (12 April 2014)

Thanks for your help Smurf

The inverter which has been installed is a Solar Max S-Serie 6000S made in Switzland....The company I am dealing with only have one Inverter which is the series 6000 S....one size suits all......I may have to check out the inverter or speak to the installers who have not finished yet due to the rain here in Townsville.

All I can note from the manual is mention of Maximum power point tracking (MPPT, searching for the optimum operating point)....no mention of having two MPPT.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 April 2014)

It comes down to electricity having a variable value (price) depending on when it is produced. That is true for both household solar and for large scale generation (power stations).

At the household level, for a new installation in most parts of Australia you'll be paid somewhere around $80 per MWh (8 cents / kWh) for what you feed into the grid (FIT). Meanwhile you will pay a higher price, commonly around $250 per MWh (25 cents / kWh) for what you draw from the grid.

The key point to understand here is that measurement is instantaneous. Eg feed-in 1kWh right now and you'll be paid 8 cents. Take back 1kWh straight afterward and you'll be charged 25c for it. The two are separate measurements - they don't "cancel each other out" or anything like that.

If your solar system generates power that you use at home, then you are saving around 25c for each kWh it produces at that time, thus giving a 25c value to each kWh generated. But if it produces power that just goes into the grid, well you only get paid 8c for it.

It is thus financially beneficial to correlate usage with production as far as practical since this results in a greater financial benefit from the solar power produced.

Suppose that you generate 5000 kWh over a 12 month period and use 2500kWh of it yourself. 2500 kWh x 25c = $625 plus 2500kWh fed in x 8c = $200. A total value of production of $825.

If however you produced 20% more, 6000 kWh, but fed the whole lot into the grid then you have 6000 kWh x 8c = $480.

So there is a definite financial benefit in producing power when you'll use it yourself, even if this comes at the cost of lower total output. Maximising production does not necessarily lead to maximising revenue.

Of course, if your motivation for generating power is something other than financial (eg environmental reasons or you just like the idea of generating power at home) then this doesn't apply. In that case face the panels north and you maximise total output. That said, even there it gets a bit complex - demand on the grid peaks during Summer afternoons and at this time supply has the greatest impact environmentally. So there's a benefit in maximising the mid-afternoon output of a solar system (ie face the panels West) in that case, partly offset by the production loss associated with them facing W rather than N. Overall, it gets complex if the aim is non-financial (eg to cut CO2 emissions) but what can really be said is that facing them N (maximum total output) or W (highest output when grid demand is highest) will be better than facing them E (which isn't optimum from either perspective).

The same logic applies to large scale power generation, especially hydro. Here's some data for a real hydro scheme.

Best efficiency, that is maximum power per litre of water used, is achieved with turbine output at 62 to 74% of capacity. Either side of that range efficiency falls off, and it falls off dramatically below about 52% at this plant. It falls off less seriously above the 74% level. And the long term supply of water (due to rainfall) is sufficient to operate the plant at 41% of its' capacity on average (ie the average output over many years).

Since this plant has enough storage to give flexibility of use, that is the dam is large enough to not spill even if the plant were shut down for an entire year, how to operate it becomes a question of price.

If the market price is moderate then running at optimum efficiency is the goal. So run 1 to 6 machines (there being 6 machines in this plant) at about two thirds of capacity thus maximising total output over the long term (using the water most efficiently).

But if the price is high well then efficiency doesn't really matter. Run it flat out to it's absolute limit, that's exactly what we do. Running at 100% capacity means a loss of output at some later time (since the quantity of water available is fixed). But that loss can be shifted to a time of low prices (eg middle of the night - just shut down the plant entirely if need be). So if we're selling at $100 per MWh then losing a bit of production at $40 per MWh some other time still makes sense financially. But if the market price is, say, $40 per MWh then there's no point running above the point of maximum efficiency, the sensible options being run at peak efficiency (or "efficient load" as it's known) or not run at all (save the water for use when prices are higher).

So the same underlying issue applies to power generation regardless of scale. If you're getting a low price then you need to focus on maximising efficiency. But at a high price, it's output NOW that really matters with efficiency being pretty much irrelevant.

With solar at home, typically you'll get a higher effective price by pushing production to a flatter profile throughout the day (E and W facing panels) rather than having a large "hump" in the middle of the day (panels facing N) which is fed into the grid at a low price.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 April 2014)

noco said:


> All I can note from the manual is mention of Maximum power point tracking (MPPT, searching for the optimum operating point)....no mention of having two MPPT.



I'm not familiar with that inverter but if there's only 1 MPPT then I wouldn't be too concerned in practice. There will be an efficiency loss, but we're talking about a couple of % not something huge.

Suffice to say that I have two strings (facing different directions) on a single MPPT inverter myself, the reasons being purely economic (too little to be gained to make it worth worrying about).

As for MPPT, the principle is that:

1. The optimum voltage to operate the panels at is not constant but varies with light intensity and temperature.  

2. As with a battery, the voltage of a solar panel is highest with no load (it's around 20.8V for a nominally 12V panel which has it's peak power typically around 17.5V) and falls as soon as a load is applied. Solar panels behave very similarly to a battery in an electrical sense when it's daylight.

So in layman's terms the MPPT just searches (constantly) for the optimum load to place on the panels. Too little load and the voltage goes up but the current goes down, thus leading to a drop in power output. Too much load (eg when it's overcast) and the voltage falls but current remains constant, also leading to a drop in power output. So the MPPT is simply searching for the "sweet spot" which gives the highest total power output under any given conditions (bearing in mind that light intensity changes more frequently than most realise - it's rarely constant for long).

It's like having a constantly variable transmission in a car. Not quite the same, but it's a similar principle. Keep the load on the panels (or car engine) at the optimum level for the conditions.


----------



## Bintang (13 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> ......
> With solar at home, typically you'll get a higher effective price by pushing production to a flatter profile throughout the day (E and W facing panels) rather than having a large "hump" in the middle of the day (panels facing N) which is fed into the grid at a low price.




Smurf, while you explanations are interesting I struggle to agree with you. I will try to explain with a couple of charts.
The first chart is an estimated annualised average daily profile of the power output from a 6.0 kW PV array located at lat/long 37.5S/145E with a tilt angle of 38 degrees but with three different orientations North, West and East.




Now I think you are proposing that instead of orienting 100% of the array panels north it would be better to orient half of them to the East and the other half to the West. The next chart shows the combined output of this arrangement and compares it once more to the 100% north oriented array.



Assume for the moment that the household consumption profile exactly matches the output from the mixed E-W oriented array. By examining the areas between the green and purple curves of Chart 2 I think it is fairly obvious that  an extremely large price difference between FIT and consumption price is needed for the E-W array orientation to be more cost effective than the 100% north oriented array. 
It does't matter what kind of consumption profile is used, the conclusion will be the same.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 April 2014)

Bintang said:


> The first chart is an estimated annualised average daily profile of the power output from a 6.0 kW PV array located at lat/long 37.5S/145E with a tilt angle of 38 degrees but with three different orientations North, West and East.



I was assuming a 22 degree tilt, since 38 degrees is pretty steep for a roof and installing a tilt frame offers no real advantage.

Here are some calculations for a 1kW system (to keep it simple) in Sydney. Output figures are annual AC generation.

22 degrees, facing North = 1388 kWh
38 degrees, facing North = 1356 kWh

22 degrees, facing East - West = 1239 kWh
38 degrees, facing East - West - 1142 kWh

For reference, here are the results if that system were installed in Darwin / Hobart.

22 degrees, facing North = 1559 (Darwin) / 1267 (Hobart)
38 degrees, facing North = 1456 / 1272

22 degrees, facing East - West = 1467 / 1089
38 degrees, facing East - West = 1333 / 1012

So at 22 degrees, the loss for E - W rather than facing N is 6% in Darwin, 11% in Sydney and 14% in Hobart.

At 38 degrees, the loss for E - W rather than facing N is 8% in Darwin, 16% in Sydney and 20% in Hobart.

So if we take an average situation, bearing in mind that most Australians live well south of Darwin and well north of Hobart, it's around an 11% loss (Sydney figures) as being fairly typical. 

Looking at my own system, and I have panels facing E, N and W (total 6.69kW) then I've actually seen one of the two East strings running at over 80% of nominal capacity whilst the North string (1.36kW) was sitting on 130 Watts (ie 10% of capacity) around 9am. So there's a definite large increase in production prior to 10am having the panels facing East, and similarly after 2pm with panels facing West. 

The above were calculated using Sunny Design (SMA).


----------



## Bintang (13 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I was assuming a 22 degree tilt, since 38 degrees is pretty steep for a roof and installing a tilt frame offers no real advantage.
> 
> Here are some calculations for a 1kW system (to keep it simple) in Sydney. Output figures are annual AC generation.
> 
> ...




I didn't know your location and guessed somewhere near Melbourne. Hence my choice of 38 degrees but of course if you are mounting on an existing  roof you can't necessarily install at the theoretical best tilt angle for your latitude. Anyway, I re-calculated some profiles based on 22 degrees and report the results as AC output from the inverter. I calibrated my models against your 1388 kWh for 22deg North for which I needed to use an inverter effificiency of 91.3% along with an assumed total de-rating factor for the PV array of 85%. Here are the results:



The first chart shows the sort of big difference you mentioned between the outputs of the East and West facing arrays at around 9:00am. Its not quite as large as your observed 8:1 ratio but then again this chart is an annual average.




Once again when the E-W facing array profiles are combined 50/50 the resulting profile is not flattened very much at all relative to the 'bell' shape of the north facing array profile. In fact the profiles have very similar shape except that the E-W profile has a lower peak. *So my conclusion is that provided I have the option to install with a north facing orientation I would never choose the split East-West orientation.*


----------



## brty (13 April 2014)

Bitang,

Your numbers are theoretical from some source, are they not? Are you sure the source is accurate?

Smurf gave a real life example of theeast string running at 80% while the north srting was running at 10% at 9 am.

I am wondering if the 'tilt' angles you are using are the same for east and west, ie the east string, 22" tilt to the east, or the east string tilted 22" to the north. Or the east and west strings tilted to the north-east and north west?

Several years ago, we put in 5kw and recieved the high feed-in tariffs after I had been involved in lots of discussion on the CFU thread, which convinced me of the worth of solar. We spent over $15k on our system facing north.

I am about to add another completely separate system andit will be east west for the reasons Smurf mentions. 
Another aspect not yet mentioned is that you could probably put 3kw facing east and 3kw facing west, with 30" tilts(to the east and west) and use a 5 kw inverter, to spread maximum power throughout the day.

Smurf, your thoughts on N/E and N/W tilts for east and west facing panels please?


----------



## Muschu (13 April 2014)

Hi

I'm in Perth with a 2 storey home with a steep roof.  I have just commenced enquiries about solar panels.  The first company contacted declined to quote as they don't install on steep roofs.

Any  recommendations appreciated.

Thank you.


----------



## Muschu (13 April 2014)

Sorry to go back to an old post Pixel... but as we're both in Perth...

After my post above I went for a walk and met a chap who had installed panels back when the rebate as 47c.  He was very dubious as to whether there is any financial merit in installing them now.

However I gather the general view is that installation is still a proposition worth considering.

If you, or others, have a view on this I would be grateful for comments.

Also if anyone is comfortable recommending a supplier with whom they were pleased I'd be grateful for the company name.

With thanks

Muschu [Rick in a previous time] 



pixel said:


> That's the way it works in WA:
> During the day, when we use less than our panels produce, the excess is fed into the grid and we get a credit of 8-and-a-bit cents plus FIT per KWh excess. During times of low or no sunlight, we buy off the grid at currently 23-and-a-bit cents per KWh.
> In the past, it has just about balanced out.
> 
> PS: Yes, we had years ago replaced all our light bulbs; TV and computer monitors are LED; we also have Solar hot water; our kitchen stove runs on power with a gas BBQ for backup. Given the price of copper piping and the distance a new gas line would have to be run, it just wasn't worth the effort. Apart from that, the old locked-in domestic gas price contracts will also see massive increases, likely removing most of the price advantage that Alinta is currently still claiming in its ad campaigns. And besides: What's a Gov'mint guarantee worth anyway


----------



## drsmith (13 April 2014)

Muschu said:


> Sorry to go back to an old post Pixel... but as we're both in Perth...
> 
> After my post above I went for a walk and met a chap who had installed panels back when the rebate as 47c.  He was very dubious as to whether there is any financial merit in installing them now.
> 
> However I gather the general view is that installation is still a proposition worth considering.



Systems were more expensive then, in particular large systems.

With the feed in tariff now much less than the usage tariff, the greatest benefit is obviously for those who would directly use most of the electricity generated from the panels. Subject to all other things being equal, a small system installed on a high usage household makes the greatest sense in terms of return on investment.

Advertisements I see showing rates of returns on solar panel installs assume the most generous scenario of a household using all the electricity directly from the panels and none being fed in to the grid. This is obviously unrealistic for many domestic situations and even more so with larger capacity systems.


----------



## Muschu (13 April 2014)

drsmith said:


> Systems were more expensive then, in particular large systems.
> 
> With the feed in tariff now much less than the usage tariff, the greatest benefit is obviously for those who would directly use most of the electricity generated from the panels. Subject to all other things being equal, a small system installed on a high usage household makes the greatest sense in terms of return on investment.
> 
> Advertisements I see showing rates of returns on solar panel installs assume the most generous scenario of a household using all the electricity directly from the panels and none being fed in to the grid. This is obviously unrealistic for many domestic situations and even more so with larger capacity systems.




Many thanks DrS and very interesting.

Regards


----------



## Bintang (13 April 2014)

brty said:


> Bitang,
> 
> Your numbers are theoretical from some source, are they not? Are you sure the source is accurate?
> 
> ...




My source of numbers are as follows:
Global horizontal radiation (GHR) at a specified location comes from the NASA SSE (Surface Meteorological Solar Energy) world data base. For Smurf's Sydney location I used latitude 33.85 South and longitude 151.2 East. 
GHR is converted to radiation incident on the solar array using the array's azimuth angle (i.e. orientation north, east or west) and tilt angle which in this case is 22 degrees from the horizontal for all orientations considered.





Yes all calculations used for designing solar installations are theoretical as is the case with any kind of engineering design. But that is the nature of design and it remains the basis for decision making.
As for Smurf's real life data, if it is consistently like that I would get the entire system checked. There could be an imbalance in the system such as some modules in the northern array being partly shaded or soiled.


----------



## brty (13 April 2014)

Bitang,

Thanks for that. As Smurf works in the electricity industry, I am not going to question his numbers.

However as you have the ability to draw those graphs for east and west, I was wondering if you could please do me a favor and show the output for east and west facing panels at several different tilts. We have those for 22". Could you generate some graphs for 30" and 40" please as I'd like to see the output for different angles for the system I'm planning (off grid, where late afternoon generation in summer will really count) lat 38.5 south long 143.5 east.

Thanks in advance


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 April 2014)

Bintang said:


> My source of numbers are as follows:
> Global horizontal radiation (GHR) at a specified location comes from the NASA SSE (Surface Meteorological Solar Energy) world data base. For Smurf's Sydney location I used latitude 33.85 South and longitude 151.2 East




I'm using Sunny Design, PV Watts and the real world experience of myself and others. But overall we both seem to be using "legitimate" sources of data.

My actual location is Hobart, but I've used Sydney for calculations since it's more relevant to where most Australians actually live (and near enough to Melbourne and Brisbane to not be a huge difference there). But I included Darwin and Hobart to show the range of possibilities.



> As for Smurf's real life data, if it is consistently like that I would get the entire system checked. There could be an imbalance in the system such as some modules in the northern array being partly shaded or soiled.




Everything's working fine, of that I am certain. The only issue with the Northern array is the neighbour's growing tree which thus year has become tall enough to start casting a shadow over the panels late in the afternoon at least during Autumn (and will be the same in Spring). I suspect that it won't (yet) be an issue in Summer or Winter however due to its' location.

The explanation for high output from East panels early in the morning versus low output from North facing panels is simply the location of sunrise. Eg in December the sun in Hobart rises at 5:26am, rising 34 degrees south of true east, such that there's no direct radiation onto north-facing panels for quite some time until the sun is higher in the sky. Meanwhile there's direct sun onto the East panels, which at that time of day will also be quite cool thus assisting their output. 

The concept of E - W versus N is an interesting one. The data I have, based on real world experiences, shows an almost flat (on a chart) level of production from early in the morning until not long before sunset for an E - W system versus the definite bell curve for a N facing system. This doesn't seem to match your calculated data however, which is interesting.

Think I'll have to investigate this a bit further.....


----------



## Bintang (13 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Everything's working fine, of that I am certain. The only issue with the Northern array is the neighbour's growing tree which thus year has become tall enough to start casting a shadow over the panels late in the afternoon at least during Autumn (and will be the same in Spring). I suspect that it won't (yet) be an issue in Summer or Winter however due to its' location.
> 
> The explanation for high output from East panels early in the morning versus low output from North facing panels is simply the location of sunrise. Eg in December the sun in Hobart rises at 5:26am, rising 34 degrees south of true east, such that there's no direct radiation onto north-facing panels for quite some time until the sun is higher in the sky. Meanwhile there's direct sun onto the East panels, which at that time of day will also be quite cool thus assisting their output.
> 
> ...




Smurf, are you able to share some plots of your actual data for E-W vs N as I am also curious?
In preparing my charts I have not examined seasonal differences, which of course  get more extreme further from the equator - or maybe in your case I should say closer to the south pole

A little bit of shading on even one module can have a big impact on performance as the whole series of modules gets 'dragged down' by the lowest performer. But you say there is only possibility of shade in the afternoon so that doesn't explain the morning phenomenon around 9:00am. Here are my charts for your actual location .... which I happen to know very well as I am originally from Hobart myself.

I recalibrated my calculations for the 22deg tilt North array to get the same annual AC output as you calculated for Hobart i.e. 1267 kWh/yr per 1kW PV (STC). With the same efficiency factors I get 1085 for the E-W configuration versus your 1089. So in terms of total annual output our results are the same. The only difference is the shape of the daily output curve.  I am also curious to know how your real world annual output compares to these theoretical estimates.


----------



## Bintang (13 April 2014)

brty said:


> Bitang,
> 
> Thanks for that. As Smurf works in the electricity industry, I am not going to question his numbers.
> 
> ...




brty  that's a fair bit of work but I'll see what I can do. I caution though that the charts I have been showing do not examine seasonal differences. They are averages for the entire year, i.e. the power output plotted for each hour of the day is the average of the power output at the same time of day on each day of the year.


----------



## Bintang (14 April 2014)

brty said:


> Bitang,
> 
> Could you generate some graphs for 30" and 40" please as I'd like to see the output for different angles for the system I'm planning (off grid, where late afternoon generation in summer will really count) lat 38.5 south long 143.5 east.




brty,
I began by looking up your location on Google Earth. Looks to me like you have quite a few trees there which might cause you a shading problem, in which case your PV output could look something like the red line on the following chart 




The charts that follow apply to a more 'treeless' landscape.

First is for an east facing 1kWp array at tilt angles 22/30/40. The second is a west facing 1kWp array at the same set of tilt angles. For interest, I have also included in these two charts the estimated output for a 1 kWp array that has continuous azimuth tracking.






If you are going to use east and/or west facing arrays the lower tilt angle of 22 deg is marginally better. This is not the case for a north facing array for which the annual array ouptut would be maximised with a tilt angle of around 35 deg - but again the difference is marginal because total annual output is more sensitive to azimuth angle than tilt angle.

Continuous azimuth tracking can give you 40% more output but such systems are not cheap. But this theoretical comparison between the fixed arrays and the tracking array is interesting.

The last chart once again examines the idea of  mixed East-West arrays but here I have plotted the output of 22 deg tilt east and west arrays, which are each 0.5 kWp. Their combination gives the total system output for 1kWp which is the dark blue curve. Theoretically the ideal installation would have azimuth tracking. Two 1kWp arrays, one facing east and one facing west would approximate the azimuth tracking array but at the cost of  twice as many PV modules.  But if the prices of PV modules continue to come down that might not be a silly idea.


----------



## brty (14 April 2014)

Thankyou Bintang,

That is exactly what I was after, and despite it being a yearly average, for when I need it, summer, it tells me that I can get away with just putting more panels on and give good performance throughout the day.

BTW, the lat and long were not exact, but close enough. I believe that to be about 10-15k from my location, didn't want to be exact.

Another question for either yourelf or Smurf (or anybody else who knows for that matter). Is it better to have panels direct coupled to a grid connect inverter, then a stand alone inverter (thinking SMA + sunny island) to run directly off 240v, with excess power going into a battery bank for cloudy periods, or better to run straight into batteries via a regulator, then to a sunny island for ac power? I hope the question makes sense.
I'm talking about an off-grid system that is mainly for the sunshine hours during summer, therefore small battery bank requirement.
TIA.


----------



## Bintang (14 April 2014)

brty said:


> BTW, the lat and long were not exact, but close enough. I believe that to be about 10-15k from my location, didn't want to be exact.
> 
> Another question for either yourelf or Smurf (or anybody else who knows for that matter). Is it better to have panels direct coupled to a grid connect inverter, then a stand alone inverter (thinking SMA + sunny island) to run directly off 240v, with excess power going into a battery bank for cloudy periods, or better to run straight into batteries via a regulator, then to a sunny island for ac power? I hope the question makes sense.
> I'm talking about an off-grid system that is mainly for the sunshine hours during summer, therefore small battery bank requirement.
> TIA.




Actually I figured you hadn't given me exact co-ordinates but I couldn't resist making a joke. (First rule for the prospective PV system installer ... Do a careful site analysis).

By the way, given a fixed number of modules/budget etc  I personally would still face all of the modules north (rather than half east and half west) *if my specific site situation would allow me to do so.*  (see below the last of my previous charts with a performance profile added for a 1 kWp north facing array).

However,  if Smurf can show us some real world data which demonstrates that over an annual period the combo east + west arrays give better cumulative performance than the north array and that it is not due to system imbalance, then I might change my mind. 




For your battery question you are now talking about a system which is grid-tied with battery back-up. Such systems are more complex and costly than a simple grid-direct system. You are going to need a battery bank with its own charge controller and a specialised inverter and you will probably also need a separate sub-panel for back-up loads. So then I have to ask you what do you mean by 'better'? If the answer is better economically I think the answer will be no.  Battery storage is worth considering  if your location is off-grid and getting connected to the grid is impossible or too costly but otherwise every time I have considered  a grid-tied with battery back-up system the economics don't make sense.  Nonetheless I am planning at some stage to install such a system but only as a 'hobby' project rather than for any economic objective. In this context 'better' for me means 'doing it for the hell of it and having some fun'.


----------



## brty (14 April 2014)

Bintang,

Again, thankyou, but you missed this bit....



> I'm talking about an off-grid system that is mainly for the sunshine hours during summer, therefore small battery bank requirement.




This is a separate system to anything grid tied. However in an off grid situation you can use an SMA grid-tied inverter with an SMA sunny island inverter. They speak to each other.

My question/situation is not about getting the maximum amount of power, but a distributed amount throughout the day, especially later in the afternoon.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2014)

I don't have the hourly data for individual strings, only for the total of the whole system, but I'll take some measurements soon (over Easter if the weather is suitable).


----------



## Bintang (14 April 2014)

brty said:


> Bintang,
> 
> Again, thankyou, but you missed this bit....
> 
> ...




Sorry brty, indeed I missed it. Must have been too busy multi-tasking. If you are putting in a completely off-grid system with some battery back-up and using SMA equipment, the configuration would be array connected to a Sunny Island charger and the battery bank would be connected to a Sunny Island battery inverter.
I don't think you can use a grid connect inverter.


----------



## noco (17 April 2014)

I just found this link on Chinese Solar Panels which makes for interesting reading.

I believe there is some 400 manufacturers of solar panels in China with only about 10% that are made to a satisfactory standard....The link recommends 10.....I pleased to say I chose Renesolar but at the time I was a little sceptical.  



http://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/...utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=new_content


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2014)

A bit later than promised due to weather, but here are some measurements.

Location = Hobart.

Time = 8:30am Thursday 24th April 2014.

Weather = 10 degrees, clear sky to the east, overcast to the west.

Output from East facing panels (8 x 195W) = 751W (481W per kW)

Output from North facing panels (8 x 170W) = 338 W (248W per kW)

Both are AC power measurements using an identical inverter.

Both systems are producing daily and annual outputs which suggest they are working correctly.

No shade on either system at this time of day.

Based on the above, I conclude that east-facing panels do generate more power prior to 9am (ie when household usage is typically higher) than do north-facing panels. At least they do at my house in Hobart. If I measured at a different time of day or different time of year the results would be different, but these are the actual figures for today.


----------



## brty (25 April 2014)

Hi Smurf,

Those figures of yours almost completely back up Bintangs arguments.

 For instance if both sets of panels were the same (I note you do have the w/kw figure), and you had half the number facing east(with the other half facing west) as that facing north, then the outputs would be nearly the same for 8.30am. 

From those numbers, it appears that there is no advantage in facing 1/2 panels east and 1/2 west instead of all north, to get a better spread of power output, without the mid-day peak . Interesting, or is it a time of year issue?


----------



## Roseanne Garriso (25 April 2014)

Someday ago, I read an article on Chinese Solar Panels. Personally I'm not interested to Chinese products as they are so much cheap,available and non branded products. You can goggling


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2014)

brty said:


> Those figures of yours almost completely back up Bintangs arguments.
> 
> For instance if both sets of panels were the same (I note you do have the w/kw figure), and you had half the number facing east(with the other half facing west) as that facing north, then the outputs would be nearly the same for 8.30am.



That does seem to be the case based on the numbers although what I really should have done is taken a measurement from the west-facing panels as well (which I simply didn't think of doing at the time).

A more complex argument with all of this relates to inverter sizing. Eg 2kW facing N with a 2kW inverter versus 1kW each facing E + W with a smaller and cheaper inverter due to the lower peak output.

I suspect that the results in Summer might be significantly different, given that the sun in shining from the SE in the morning such that there is zero direct sunlight onto a north-facing panel versus significant sun shining on an east facing panel. I'll have to wait until Summer to take such a measurement however. 

Anyway, on a completely different note and on the subject of renewable energy generally. Just as my solar output is getting lower and my house has turned from being a net exporter to a net importer of electricity, so too large scale wind generation has picked up and inflows to the hydro schemes are increasing thus pushing up forced ("use it or lose it") generation from a few of the schemes thus far. Whilst there's a big imbalance between the extent of household solar versus large scale hydro in the grid, it does illustrate the synergies between different sources of renewable energy.


----------



## qldfrog (25 April 2014)

If the feed in tariff is lower than purchase price, I would still try to get the optimal north facing production and then change the home usage to target the max production window:
run the pool from 10Am to 2PM, run dishwasher, washing machine, cook your bread/slkow cooker during that time?
I am luck to have an older system with high FIT so my interest is to feed as much as possible and consume by night
The stupidity of a low FIT is that it actually incite people to consume as much as possible during  daytime (and so peak hours)
but when has any policy been wise


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2014)

qldfrog said:


> The stupidity of a low FIT is that it actually incite people to consume as much as possible during  daytime (and so peak hours)
> but when has any policy been wise



From a policy perspective, the most sensible approach is to offer a FIT for all (gross) that is generated.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2014)

Electricity pricing is an absolute minefield. Always has been and probably always will be.

Your household electricity connection (no solar) is basically providing you with 4 things.

1. Physical connection to electricity supply infrastructure (the grid itself).

2. Capacity on the grid.

3. Energy (from power stations).

4. Generating capacity.

An attempt was made in Tasmania in 1994-95 to separate out the charges. Suffice to say that it was easily the most unpopular thing the power industry ever did, community opposition was almost universal, and I doubt that anyone in Australia will try it again. It was actually implemented, but became the primary focus of a state election campaign and only lasted a year or so before a reversion to a more conventional pricing structure.

Practically every electricity, gas and water utility in the country was watching it closely and most had ideas of doing something similar. The saw what happened, were glad that they weren't the ones to try it, and promptly buried all thoughts of attempting it. That said, the telecommunications industry was also watching closely and has sort of implemented it at least so far as mobiles an internet are concerned (and Telstra would do it in an instant with landlines if they thought that government would let them).

From a rational perspective it was the right answer. Charge consumers to access the network and let them do whatever they want with regard to consumption. Generate your own power? No problem, not even a problem if everyone did it since it would have been economically sustainable. Likewise it mattered not if a house used 500 kWh a year or if they used 25,000 kWh a year - nobody was cross subsidising anyone else at any level of usage.

The crux of the problem with "conventional" charging methods is that fixed network costs are recovered by volume consumption. That works fine until the masses decide to install solar or burn firewood, at which point the power distributor either goes broke or finds a workaround (like making it difficult to install solar or burn wood). No prizes for guessing who assisted those anti-wood heating campaigns in Tas after the Network Charge was scrapped, and no prizes for guessing that there isn't a single power distributor in the country who is keen on residential solar today.

Probably the easiest way to explain it in layman's terms is to use an analogy as follows.

Suppose that I'm in the business of renting houses (ie a landlord) and I charge $350 per week for each house. However, government considers my charges to be excessive and after doing some research finds that the average front door is opened 10 times per day. On that basis I must then charge $140 per week rent plus a $3 door fee every time the front door is opened.

That works fine in theory, I still get my $350 per week ($140 rent plus $210 in door usage fees) and you could even argue that there might be a loose correlation between the number of times the door is used and likely overall wear and tear on the property.

It sounds fine until I see that someone is aggressively marketing steps which they will install on both sides of any window that faces even remotely north, thus enabling tenants to use the windows to gain access to the property. And there's a government subsidy to get the steps installed, aimed at reducing the wear and tear on front doors. And since everyone knows that doors have become expensive to use in recent times, there's a rush of people getting the steps installed.

Now what am I supposed to do? Well I could increase the door fee for those still using them. Trouble is, that just encourages more people to get window steps installed or to at least minimise the number of times they open and close the door. I see that there are companies now offering advice on how to minimise the use of doors so as to save money.

So I can't charge enough rent to cover costs, can't get the money via door fees, and government is encouraging people to climb through the windows. And I'm not allowed to charge a window usage fee. Now what do I do? Start a scare campaign about the dangers of window steps?  

It sounds ridiculous but that's essentially the problem the electricity industry has with solar. Can't recover fixed costs directly via a fixed charge due to political constraints and can't recover them via usage charges without prompting consumers to install solar. 

The 8 cent FIT, by making solar panels less attractive financially, is simply a "band aid" measure. It doesn't really fix a broken business model, but it slows down the rate of solar installation at least for a while. In due course I expect we'll see the FIT further reduced toward the wholesale rate, possibly even directly linked to it.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2014)

qldfrog said:


> If the feed in tariff is lower than purchase price, I would still try to get the optimal north facing production and then change the home usage to target the max production window



I follow the principle, but I doubt that most people will effectively manage to do this.

Solar output is all over the place on a typical day with part cloud, part clear sky. It's nowhere near as constant as people tend to assume 5kW now, 2kW a minute later etc. So unless it's an automated process (such a device does exist) then it's difficult to achieve manually.

I can certainly see that people might manage to shift a bit of load, but if you want the heating on at 7am and cook dinner at 6pm then that isn't likely to change for most people.


----------



## Knobby22 (26 April 2014)

I am building a new house and AGL are offering a deal which means I don't have to stump up the capital cost upfront. My wife works from home and the roof is north facing so solar is probably necessary for me. I am in Melbourne.
Opinions?

http://www.aglsolarenergy.com.au/solar-pv/vic/?gclid=CKK8iay1_b0CFUMGvAodZmQAgw

Origin offer a similar deal.
http://www.originenergy.com.au/174/Solar-power


----------



## drsmith (26 April 2014)

http://www.aglsolarenergy.com.au/solar-pv/vic/?gclid=CKK8iay1_b0CFUMGvAodZmQAgw



> ^ Prices based on standard installation in metropolitan areas. Total price without payment plan is $3,299. Total price with payment plan is $3,611.52........




Seems a rather high price for 1.5kW.


----------



## Muschu (9 May 2014)

I am in Perth and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been investigating solar panel installation.

I have had several quotes from companies which appear reputable.  The quotes, for a 3kw system, range from $4870 to $6999. Different products etc.

Electricity costs are (last night's State budget) going up again.

My hesitation is the question mark around the current WA tarrif model where consumers are essentially charged by the number of units used.

However there is speculation about changing the "model".  I have not been following this closely but my understanding is that there could be a shift to a fixed price for being connected to "the network" (to be paid by all consumers irrespective of whether they have panels or not) plus a decreased unit cost.

This, in turn, would diminish the advantage of having solar panels in WA....

Thoughts welcome...


----------



## bellenuit (10 May 2014)

*In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely*

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2014)

Muschu said:


> However there is speculation about changing the "model".  I have not been following this closely but my understanding is that there could be a shift to a fixed price for being connected to "the network" (to be paid by all consumers irrespective of whether they have panels or not) plus a decreased unit cost.




There has been a general recognition in the industry for at least 20 years that this has to happen at some point since the model of recovering fixed costs via a loading on unit prices only works in a monopoly situation with a one-way flow of electricity from power stations to consumers. Once you have significant use of solar etc and people generating their own power by various other means too (eg gas) then it falls in a heap spectacularly and sends the distributors broke.

It was actually implemented in Tasmania in the mid-1990's but, in short, it was reversed after just 12 months since neither the Hydro nor the state government itself could withstand the political pain. And it was a LOT of pain I can assure you with public opposition almost universal despite attempts to sway opinion. It was half implemented in 1994, fully implemented in 1995, completely scrapped in 1996. It made massive sense economically and technically but from a public relations perspective it was nothing short of a disaster.

So if WA's going to try it then I'm 100% certain that every electricity distributor and retailer across the country will be watching what happens very closely as will Telstra etc with regard to fixed phone services.

As for solar etc, well certainly if the unit prices are reduced well then that does reduce the financial benefit of installing solar panels. No argument there whatsoever, the only question being whether the actual unit prices remain high enough to make solar viable. WA's high reliance on gas means that they'll never achieve unit generation costs as low as the eastern states can achieve with coal and hydro (although gas is still reasonably cheap in the overall context).


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely*




In some cases it already is cheaper to go off grid and that is true even if you literally are the electric company.

There's quite a few stand alone solar installations at Hydro sites here in Tas. Mostly for monitoring water levels and collecting other data but there's some which actually run substantial motor loads which operate occasionally.

The reason is simple. If you've got a dam, canal, flume, monitoring station etc in the middle of nowhere then it's cheaper to go solar than to maintain a grid connection in an area that otherwise has no need for the grid. That is true even if you quite literally own the power stations which generate the power that goes into the grid in the first place. 

It's the same with many other things of that nature too. Eg weather stations or electronic traffic signs which operate intermittently (eg the school zone signs in Tas simply have a solar panel sitting above the sign itself, all mounted on the same pole).


----------



## Muschu (11 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely*
> 
> http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely




Many thanks.  Very interesting article.


----------



## Muschu (11 May 2014)

Many thanks for your comments Smurf.  It all seems something of a "punt" really.

I should have added, in case the quotes I mentioned seemed high, that we are in quite a large 2 storey home with a steeply pitched roof.

Today's Perth paper carries a full page ad from a solar installation company.  Part of this reads:  "The Australian Government reviewing the Renewable Energy Target (RET).  Rooftop Solar Price May Go Up By Almost 80%!!!"

Then, further down, "BOOK NOW AND CLAIM GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES"


Interesting tactics with the use of words like "reviewing" and "may go up".

So much speculation and hard selling going on - at least in the press.  Fortunately the companies I have spoken with came recommended and I did not feel pressurised.

The future in terms of this topic is rather obscure however and I guess any decision made at this point comes with associated risk.

I wonder whether the budget will reveal any relevant info?

Anyway, once again, thank you for your comments.  I appreciate the effort and the information.












Smurf1976 said:


> There has been a general recognition in the industry for at least 20 years that this has to happen at some point since the model of recovering fixed costs via a loading on unit prices only works in a monopoly situation with a one-way flow of electricity from power stations to consumers. Once you have significant use of solar etc and people generating their own power by various other means too (eg gas) then it falls in a heap spectacularly and sends the distributors broke.
> 
> It was actually implemented in Tasmania in the mid-1990's but, in short, it was reversed after just 12 months since neither the Hydro nor the state government itself could withstand the political pain. And it was a LOT of pain I can assure you with public opposition almost universal despite attempts to sway opinion. It was half implemented in 1994, fully implemented in 1995, completely scrapped in 1996. It made massive sense economically and technically but from a public relations perspective it was nothing short of a disaster.
> 
> ...


----------



## FxTrader (11 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely*
> 
> http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely




Interesting article indeed but I doubt their 5 year projection will become reality - 10+ years perhaps.  The installed cost for off-grid generation will come down over time but that is not the only consideration.  A better way of looking at the cost of going off-grid would be the cost recovery period for assumed average annual usage.  If you need to live in a house for 20 years before you achieve breakeven on installation and maintenance does it make financial sense?  Since the average homeowner shifts house approximately every 7 years, cost savings break-even needs to occur prior to this to be a compelling financial proposition for homeowners.

Government installation and FIT subsidies drove solar installations because the cost recovery time was compelling.  With these subsidies now reduced and likely completely phased out soon, the case for going off-grid weakens further.

The logic deployed in this argument then is dubious...


> UBS argues that battery storage at the household level is likely to be most cost effective if the household remains connected to the grid, and simply uses the grid when storage is insufficient. “Since the current grid is largely a sunk cost there is little penalty to society for using the existing grid in this fashion,” it notes.




A hybrid grid/off-grid installation would incur higher installation and ongoing costs with breakeven cost savings taking much longer to achieve.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2014)

Diversity of demand. Whilst a household may well use an "average" amount of electricity, in most cases there is a huge variation day to day and week to week and any stand alone system needs to be sized to meet the _maximum_ load, not the average.

Eg if you're in Adelaide then an off-grid system needs to be able to run the air-conditioning on the hottest days of Summer, noting that solar panels lose efficiency as temperature rises and there's no guarantee that every single day of a heatwave will have clear blue sky.

Or if you're in Launceston then it needs to work in the middle of winter. If it's going down to -2 overnight then consumption will be huge for space heating. And if the fog hangs around most of the day then you'll (1) be boosting any solar water heater with electricity and (2) not getting much output from the solar panels. You're going to need some seriously big batteries to supply 85 kWh per day and keep that up without direct sunshine. Then in the middle of Summer the system will be supplying no more than 10% of that consumption whilst the sun is shining.

Even in places with less climatic variation there is still significant peaks in the load. Eg your average load may well be 0.5 kW in an energy-efficient house. Now just turn the oven and hot plates on to cook dinner meanwhile the heating is also running and you're drawing 12 kW, all of that coming straight from the batteries and needing a sufficiently sized inverter to actually supply that peak load.

The entire principle of the grid relies on the reality that not every consumer will draw their peak load at the same time. Eg if you exclude heavy industry then here in Tas the absolute maximum per-customer load is about 5 kW. Take out things like office blocks, shopping centres and so on and it's even lower. But I've got a 7 kW electric space heater in the lounge room and the house next door has 10kW of oven and hot plates (and a reverse cyclee A/C, and hot water, and all the normal appliances). Very few homes have an actual peak load under 10kW in practice.

It's the same with all other such systems. Eg roads work because only a very small portion of cars are actually being driven at any one time. The average car is completely idle (engine off) around 96% of the time (stats I got from a Ford dealer - they'd calculated it based on average distance traveled and average travel speed as measured by the vehicle itself). Same with the internet. Same with the copper phone network and same with the mobile network. Same with airlines, public transport, water supply and even supermarkets. It all works on the basis that only a small percentage of users will apply their own peak demand at any one time. So we can get away with relatively little capacity simply because it's shared around amongst many users at different times.

I can run the heater, clothes dryer and do some welding at the same time simply because not everyone is doing so right now. We're all sharing the same generating capacity, using it at different times. That applies on a bigger level too - eg Victoria has a peak electricity demand during the afternoon in Summer whilst in Tasmania it's morning and evening in Winter. Hence the logic of connecting the two grids together - we're sharing the same capacity and using it at different times. 

But once you go off-grid, well then you need to be able to meet your own peak alone. Depending on location, now we're talking about 15kW inverters and storing 500+ kWh in batteries. That gets seriously expensive.

So how do off-grid homes do it? Take a look and in almost all cases you'll find that they aren't really energy self-sufficient at all or if they are, then they are not a "typical" house. You find a wood fire for heating or you find LPG hot water and cooking etc or the whole place is unusually energy efficient to start with. To say they are off-grid is true in the literal sense, they are not connected to the electricity grid, but it's like saying you've cut your petrol consumption to zero whilst conveniently failing to mention that diesel car you just bought. 

I seriously doubt that we'll see everyone in Melbourne burning firewood to keep warm anytime soon since doing so creates all sorts of issues in a city that size. And we're not going to rebuild every house to take advantage of passive solar anytime soon. As such, we're still going to be using some form of centrally supplied energy for a long time to come, be it gas or electricity. One of those two systems will survive - though it's certainly plausible that we see either a move to off-grid electricity + gas (thus making the power grid redundant in residential areas) or a move toward "all electric" (thus seeing the demise of gas).


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2015)

The temperature at the moment on the Sunshine Coast is 34 degrees. Luckily, with some foresight, I had an 8Kw airconditioning system installed about a month ago. Also it is fortunate that my roof solar panel system reaches peak capacity on the hottest sunny days and offsets the expense of running the AC. Cloudy hot humid days are not so good.


----------



## Macquack (17 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> The temperature at the moment on the Sunshine Coast is 34 degrees. *Luckily, with some foresight*, I had an 8Kw airconditioning system installed about a month ago.




This is not going to go down well on the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> This is not going to go down well on the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread.




haha  

ah man that made my day.


----------



## pixel (17 January 2015)

Macquack said:


> This is not going to go down well on the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread.




Sshhh, Mac: Leave the flat-earthers and climate change deniers on their own soap boxes. 
The smart money is on renewable energy.

wrt Calliope's comment: Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter it gets. If they produce at a reasonable rate at this time of year, the longer period of sunshine per day has more to do with it.
I can only report from Perth conditions; around summer solstice, our SPV produces at a rate of 6-7 KWh per KW installed. Six months later, it's down to around 4, even less when it's overcast. However, on very hot summer days, the efficiency drops below 50%. E.g. one day recently fried an outdoor thermometer, the sensor of which was rated to only 50 degC. Although our panel orientation is slightly biased to the (cooler) morning hours, the daily rate fell below 5 KWh per KW.



> Effects of Temperature
> 
> The output of a solar cell, and therefore a solar panel, is affected by its temperature. As a result the power output will be reduced by between 0.25%(amorphous cells) and 0.5%(most crystalline cells) for each degree C of temperature rise.
> Panel temperatures in the summer in warm climates can easily reach 50oC resulting in a 12% reduction in output compared to the rated output at 25oC.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2015)

This may interest some people


Solar power inquiry conducted by Senate to shine spotlight on complaints with retailers


> A Senate inquiry is expected to hear from hundreds of Australians who have been hit with high costs and hidden fees after switching to solar power.
> 
> A group called Solar Citizens collected 500 complaints from households around the country, mostly about the big three power retailers AGL, Energy Australia and Origin.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (27 January 2015)

> The couple said they battled with AGL over billing problems for more than a decade.




tell me about it!! My son decided to switch electricity providers from my chosen provider to AGL in a flat I leased for his use.

When I finally kicked my son out and cancelled the connection I still rec'd a bill for another six months some other tenant had clocked up because I wasn't authorised to cancel because they said so, so it must be legal. The only reason the bills stopped is because I asked the landlord to have his tenant do the right thing. I refused to pay and eventually I had bill collectors and treats of black marking me under the Gillard legislation for credit defaults. 

Good luck anyone doing equitable business with company that was founded on the born to rule and old boy's club mentality of a Royal Charter.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Good luck anyone doing equitable business with company that was founded on the born to rule and old boy's club mentality of a Royal Charter.




At the risk of a very blatant plug, you can spend your time frowning at AGL or you could choose to live in a happier world and use SmilePower instead. They have gas now too.


----------



## Value Collector (28 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely*
> 
> http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely




I think that the inflection point of "going off grid" is not going to be when the price meets parity with the grid.

I see the grid as being a really reliable battery that people with solar can use to time shift their power production.

For me to take my system off the grid, I would want the capital cost of batteries to be significantly cheaper than the cost to connect to the grid, Because having my own off grid system has a lot of disadvantages.

eg. 
I have to out lay alot of money upfront buy the batteries
there would be a risk I may run out of power in high consumption times
when the system breaks down, I have to fix it, but with the grid they have to fix it
when I am away for a couple of days the batteries get full, and the system stops producing


----------



## DB008 (2 February 2015)

I have Origin up in Brisbane and their feed in tarrif rate is 8 cents per kWh.

Will be interesting to see what the ALP bring to the table. They did mention a few things but l wasn't really paying attention as I'm currently interstate for work.

Time will tell. Also, solar is so cheap, it might be worthwhile waiting a few years and going for an off-grid solution and using an energy company as a back-up.


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> I have Origin up in Brisbane and their feed in tarrif rate is 8 cents per kWh.
> 
> Will be interesting to see what the ALP bring to the table. They did mention a few things but l wasn't really paying attention as I'm currently interstate for work.
> 
> Time will tell. Also, solar is so cheap, it might be worthwhile waiting a few years and going for an off-grid solution and using an energy company as a back-up.




How would you use the energy company as a backup if you are off the grid? Do you mean you are still connected (on the grid) and remain their customer, but just exporting at all times. Presumably if you have told the energy company that you are no longer their client (my understanding of off the grid), they are going to charge you a fee every time you want to reconnect and there also could be a delay in the time that takes, which might negate them being a backup solution (if, of instance, your solar system is down for a few days because of problems).

I'm not disputing what you said, simply trying to understand if that would be feasible.

I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.


----------



## pixel (2 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.




... even more likely, Power Companies will lobby governments to legislate that all households pay a supply charge, whether they're connected or not. All the "poor families" that "could not afford" the up-front cost of solar and batteries, would be rallied to protest the unfairness of letting "the Rich" get away with free power at the expense of "ordinary Australians". Similar arguments were already raised when WA's King Col'n tried to renege on the 10-year FIT contract that subsidizes early adopters at 40c/exported unit.


----------



## DB008 (2 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> How would you use the energy company as a backup if you are off the grid? Do you mean you are still connected (on the grid) and remain their customer, but just exporting at all times. Presumably if you have told the energy company that you are no longer their client (my understanding of off the grid), they are going to charge you a fee every time you want to reconnect and there also could be a delay in the time that takes, which might negate them being a backup solution (if, of instance, your solar system is down for a few days because of problems).
> 
> I'm not disputing what you said, simply trying to understand if that would be feasible.
> 
> I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.




bellenuit, Get off grid - but have a back-up - preferably a generator or hardwired to existing power line, but then l'd imagine you would have to pay some sort of 'line rental' ?

Sorry, I should have been more clearer in my previous post.




pixel said:


> ... even more likely, Power Companies will lobby governments to legislate that all households pay a supply charge, whether they're connected or not. All the "poor families" that "could not afford" the up-front cost of solar and batteries, would be rallied to protest the unfairness of letting "the Rich" get away with free power at the expense of "ordinary Australians". Similar arguments were already raised when WA's King Col'n tried to renege on the 10-year FIT contract that subsidizes early adopters at 40c/exported unit.




Yes, I am now paying for someone else's solar feed in tariff. 

So, do I bite the bullet and install soon, or wait for better technology (battery and solar panels) ?




> *New Graphene ‘Wonder Material’ Breakthrough Enables Doubling of Solar Panel Efficiency*
> 
> One of the major reasons that solar panels are facing such hurdles to replace conventional electricity sources is because they are very inefficient. The most efficient (and most expensive) panel is currently somewhere around 32 percent efficiency. However, scientists in Switzerland have figured out a way to utilize Graphene in solar panel design, raising its efficiency to an absolutely staggering 60% – a finally feasible amount.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/graphene-wonder-material-breakthrough-enables-doubling-solar-panel-efficiency/#ixzz3QZBwmkrf








> *A Cheap Material Boosts Solar Cells by 50 Percent*
> 
> Putting a new kind of photovoltaic material on top of a conventional solar cell can boost overall power output by half. Researchers at Stanford University added a type of material known as a perovskite to a silicon solar cell, validating an idea for cheaply increasing the efficiency of solar power that was first proposed several years ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2015)

The inherent problem with the "grid as backup" model is that electricity itself is cheap, it's the grid which gobbles up most of your money. And the cost of maintaining the grid doesn't change greatly if people simply use it less, to achieve a major cost reduction you need to switch large sections of it (eg distribution to the suburbs or regional towns) off altogether. Once you do that, well then you no longer have it as "backup".

Electricity prices at the household level vary considerably around the country and between retailers, but somewhere around 25 cents / kWh is typical plus a daily supply charge on top of that. Trouble is, the power stations aren't seeing much of that money at all - the spot price is between 2 and 3 cents per kWh in most states right now and on average isn't much more than that. It's the grid itself, not generating electricity to put into it, where the money is going.

Average spot market prices this financial year to date:

Vic = 3.093 cents / kWh
NSW = 3.567 cents
SA = 3.739 cents
Tas = 3.759 cents
Qld = 5.43 cents

Something may well have been gold plated but it's certainly not in the power stations. Most generation companies are under financial pressure at the moment. Some are running their plants at a cash profit but struggling to cover the total costs overall once the non-variable business costs are included. In other cases the power stations are more profitable doing nothing, since the cost of operation exceeds what the electricity produced can be sold for.

Swanbank E (Qld, gas, 385MW), Swanbank B (Qld, coal, 480MW), Tamar Valley CCGT (Tas, gas, 208MW), Collinsville (Qld, coal, 190MW), Morwell (Vic, coal, 190 MW), Playford B (SA, coal, 240MW), Wallerawang (NSW, coal, 1000MW), Munmorah (NSW, coal, 600MW), Redbank (NSW, coal, 150MW) have all been either mothballed or permanently closed in the past 5 years. Torrens Island A (SA, gas, 480MW) is also on the cards to shut in 2017.

In addition, it's no secret in the industry that Hydro Tas has substantially walked away from the baseload market this financial year. Others such as Northern (SA, coal, 546MW) have taken a similar approach at various time in recent years although they're partially back in the game now. Meanwhile there are others, for example Newport D (Vic, gas, 500MW) still in operation as such but sitting idle virtually all the time since the spot price is rarely high enough to cover the cost of actually running the plant, hence it's not running.

So there's not much money to be made generating electricity at the moment. Trouble is, all a solar system does, assuming the grid remains in place, is generate. It doesn't really save on the other costs so long as the grid remains in place.

All that may not affect the decision of an individual consumer to any great extent, but it matters an awful lot if enough people start going off-grid and we still expect the grid to physically be there. 

In case you're wondering where the power is coming from with so many plants being closed, well demand is down, wind farms have taken a chunk of it and so has solar, but the very low cost plants such as Hazelwood and Yallourn (both in Vic) are still going full blast 24/7. And of course there is still production in the other states, just not as much as the industry had assumed would be needed hence the surplus capacity and low prices.


----------



## DB008 (18 February 2015)

*Elon Musk's Tesla set to unveil home storage battery*




> Elon Musk's electric car company Tesla is about to unveil a home storage battery that could compete with the electricity companies as a power source, he said in an earnings call.
> 
> Musk said yesterday the company has completed the design of the battery.
> 
> ...




http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/


----------



## orr (19 February 2015)

DB008 said:


> *Elon Musk's Tesla set to unveil home storage battery*



*

I read the report you linked to when following news on the Giga factory, along with an update on the Xmodel along with another on Porsches work on an all electric scaled down Panamera. Bosch currently offer (even here in austraila)a completely integrated Grid connected Solar, Battery storage and 'smart' appliance range. And put a couple  their components in just about every vehicle  on the planet.... A fair bit of the future being organised?

By my reading there's more than just the odd few that suggest a price per/kWh of lithium chemistry storage in the sub US$ 100  is not that far off.

Tesla(2130kg) in 'Insane Mode' V Lamborghini LP570-4 Super Trofeo(1375kg) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4CnSS4OG4A*


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.




everyone connected to the grid already pays a network fee, it's something like $1 a day from memory.


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2015)

I think the future might be a smart grid used for trading energy, rather than everyone trying to generate and store 100% of their own power.

I think a system where most people have solar connected to the grid feeding in during the day, and then wind, gas, coal or nuclear etc fill in the gaps during the night and peak times. 

Imagine getting home at night after a cloudy winter day, and having to decide whether to put the heater on, have a hot shower and cook your dinner or sit in the cold and charge your electric car (yes I think we are all going electric in the future), or the other end of the spectrum, Imagine being a away for a few sunny days and having your batteries become full, all that wasted energy.


----------



## drsmith (16 March 2015)

WA treasurer Mike Nahan apparently has been talking talking up the prospect of increasing fixed charges relative to the usage charges for electricity in the upcoming WA state budget, in particular for those who have solar panels.

The cost of government incentives for rooftop feed in solar are coming home to roost.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 March 2015)

drsmith said:


> WA treasurer Mike Nahan apparently has been talking talking up the prospect of increasing fixed charges relative to the usage charges for electricity in the upcoming WA state budget, in particular for those who have solar panels.




If the fixed and unit rates are set correctly in the first place then grid-connect solar poses no threat to the power industry whatsoever. Nor does gas, wood or insulation pose a threat if the rates are correctly set.

Trouble is, no Australian electricity supplier (retailer or distributor) is currently doing that, and the only one that has ever tried it 20 years ago learned the lessons from that public relations disaster (and it most certainly was an outright disaster from a PR perspective) and is in no hurry to do it again. At some point there will be no choice I suspect, and the industry is very slowly creeping forward in that direction, but we're not there yet by any means.


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> If the fixed and unit rates are set correctly in the first place then grid-connect solar poses no threat to the power industry whatsoever. Nor does gas, wood or insulation pose a threat if the rates are correctly set.
> 
> Trouble is, no Australian electricity supplier (retailer or distributor) is currently doing that, and the only one that has ever tried it 20 years ago learned the lessons from that public relations disaster (and it most certainly was an outright disaster from a PR perspective) and is in no hurry to do it again. At some point there will be no choice I suspect, and the industry is very slowly creeping forward in that direction, but we're not there yet by any means.



In a pure economic sense the unit rate payable to the property owner for grid connect solar should be the wholesale generation rate for all the electricity generated. In WA, that's currently set at ~$0.08/kWhr

If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary. 

One can understand subsidy in the context of encouraging take up but there's a cost to be paid either within the electricity sector or the broader state government budget balance where the utility is state owned.

Also, where there's a rebalance towards an increased fixed user component that obviously reduces the relative price signal in relation to usage which is counter to the objective of rooftop solar in the first place.


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2015)

drsmith said:


> In a pure economic sense the unit rate payable to the property owner for grid connect solar should be the wholesale generation rate for all the electricity generated. In WA, that's currently set at ~$0.08/kWhr
> 
> If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> ...




That is a very accurate summation and would be extremely fair, however the government don't make any money from that scenario.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 March 2015)

drsmith said:


> If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary.




I'm not sure about WA, but it most certainly is the case in every other state. In Tas the feed in 6.106 cents per kWh for new installations after 2013. There's a higher rate, 28.283 cents, which expires at the end of 2018 for older solar installations. That rate, 28.283 cents, was set equal to the general Light & Power (Tariff 31) consumption rate at the time. However, since electricity prices have since declined, the FIT for these older solar installations is now higher than the consumption rate (now 24.717 cents).

All that said, so long as the total exports do not exceed total imports from the grid, and that is the case for the majority of households with solar, then even a 1:1 FIT has no effect on the electricity industry financially that is not also caused by consumers simply reducing consumption (eg using gas).

The "Network Charge" circa 1994 was intended to address that problem since, at that time, large numbers of households in Tas were using non-electric (primarily wood but also oil and LPG) heating as a means of achieving below average electricity consumption and thus avoiding paying their full share of fixed network costs. That is the same scenario as applies to someone who installs solar and who generates less than they consume in total. 

The harsh reality is that a "fair" unsubsidised electricity bill is around $200 a quarter, and that's before you consume a single kWh. Under the present model of undercharging for fixed costs, and overcharging on consumption to offset this, the result is that anyone with below average consumption, achieved by whatever means be it solar or non-solar, is effectively subsidised by higher volume users.

The crux of all this is that the grid is moving from a system of supplying electricity generated at a few large power stations to a large number of consumers to a system which simply transports energy produced by anyone to any other customer. There is a major difference there, since the notion that any, or even most, customers will have a net level of consumption from the grid is increasingly irrelevant as consumption declines and self-generation increases.

The current funding model is akin to funding roads by means of a levy on bus and train fares. That would have worked reasonably well until the end of World War 2 after which privately owned vehicles substantially displaced public transport. The transition in the electricity industry is not overly different from that, to the point that we may well see the day where large power stations account for a minority of total electricity generation.


----------



## DB008 (30 May 2015)

*The Greatest Debacle in Solar PV: Australia’s Rooftop DC Isolator Fires​*



> The Australian solar PV market is on fire. Generous subsidies and support mechanisms have produced almost 2 million solar PV installations across the country, placing Australia among the leaders in solar PV deployment. It is also literally true, in that Australia is suffering a spate of solar-*‐related fires, hundreds of them. The cause of these fires isn’t the solar panels themselves, but rather a device installed next to solar panels called a rooftop DC isolator (or disconnect) switch””a uniquely Australian requirement.
> 
> How Australia came to mandate these switches has nothing to do with safety, testing, or standards of best practice. By mid-*‐2010, with over 100,000 solar panels installed across Australia, solar panels hadn’t caused a single fire, or harm to anyone. The solar industry was booming, but apparently not everyone was happy.
> 
> ...




More on link below....

http://tinyurl.com/pyyxlth


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 May 2015)

Ah yes, rooftop isolators.

DC is nasty stuff when it comes to switching. Seriously nasty when compared to switching the same voltage and current at AC. That's a fundamental technical issue and comes down to the constant DC voltage (and there's no ripple with solar, it's pure DC just like a battery) versus the sine wave with AC which, if from the grid in Australia, crosses zero volts precisely 100 times per second.

Putting this in layman's terms, if you get an arc (electricity jumping through the air, like what is done intentionally for welding - a bright bluish arc and fundamentally the same thing as lightning) then with DC it's far harder to extinguish than with AC. That comes back to the fact that AC, that is the normal power generated at power stations, transmitted via the grid and which you have at home, necessarily crosses the zero voltage line twice each cycle - so that's 100 times per second at 50 Hertz (the frequency we use in Australia - most countries are either 50Hz or 60Hz).

Now, if you switch something, like turning a light switch off, then you'll get a tiny arc the moment the switch is operated. Not a huge issue with AC - it very slowly (each time you switch it) wears out the switch but the arc itself is self-extinguishing since it's AC. Ever seen a little blue flash from a power point or light switch when turning it off? That's the arc. But with DC it doesn't self extinguish, you need specific steps to extinguish the arc and that's what makes if problematic. 

Whilst it's possible to design a switch to handle DC, that doesn't take care of what happens if water gets in and causes a short circuit. And if you've got a plastic box sitting up on the roof baking all day in the sun, then no prizes for guessing that at some point it's going to degrade and water ends up inside it when it rains. Out comes the sun and BINGO - there's your short circuit, producing heat, and eventual fire.

Some installers have, of their own accord added metal "sun shields" over the switches to try and improve the situation. But they're not perfect, you've still got a plastic box sitting up on the roof being cooked. The shield slows that down a lot, but plastic still fails eventually.

So why did we go down this track? It wasn't for sensible engineering or practical reasons. It makes the installer's job harder having to add a switch so they have no reason to want them given that the solar market is highly price conscious for domestic installations. It adds time to their job, it's more materials they have to buy, and it's another thing to go wrong resulting in a warranty call out to fix it. And that's just the purely practical side without mentioning the fire aspect.

So why? Well there's an organisation known as the Clean Energy Council (CEC). It's one of those self-formed "peak bodies" which decided it ought to represent the industry and managed to get the ear of government. Like most "peak bodies", it's just a private group that has managed to turn itself into a quasi-government regulator. So we ended up with a situation where most electricity distributors have compliance with CEC requirements as an actual condition of connecting a solar system to the grid. And further, only installers certified by the CEC (which costs $$$) can do the work in the first place - your average electrician cannot, unless they pay the CEC big $, legally work on solar.

The CEC has a nickname which says it all really. Installers often call them the "Clowns" or "Clown Corp". Enough said.

Looking ahead, as these isolators age we'll inevitably see a huge number of fires. At some point it will become a mainstream media issue and we'll probably see some sort of inspection and rectification program - the work only being available to those who are CEC accredited of course since nobody else is allowed to touch it.

A lot of this comes down to the electrical industry having not foreseen the rise of small grid-connected solar systems and then applying regulations that weren't really necessary. 

In short, there are some very tight regulations relating to large power stations and very good reasons for that. The industry is used to the idea that "generation" means a few large power stations and that everything else on the grid is a, in most cases trivial, load on that generation. The industry just didn't get its' collective head around the idea of having a million tiny generators connected and applied the "it's a generator so it needs to be regulated" principle as applies to large power stations. That then lead to coming up with all sorts of "regulations" for solar, some of which are necessary (eg inverter operating parameters) but some of which are just silly (like rooftop isolators).

If you want to know how silly it gets, another solar rule is that plastic cable ties can't be used to support the wiring up on the roof because they degrade and lose strength over time. Worst case, if they fail, that will leave the wiring sitting on the roof itself rather than being attached to the panels or mounting frame. That could lead to a problem but that's fairly unlikely to be anything major in practice given that the connectors are waterproof and, since they are under the panels, shielded from the sun. Overall risk = fairly low. But around the same time it was decided that putting a DC switch in a plastic box, which will also degrade just like the cable ties, was a good idea. Risk if that fails = far higher than the risk if the cable ties come off and far more likely due to the sun exposure of the isolator.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2015)

A close mate of mine recently switched from origin had his solar feed in tariff go from 6cents to 12cents. I can't remember the name of the retailer he went to, it was either connect or contact or something like that.


----------



## DB008 (21 June 2015)

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...


Got mine up recently.








​


----------



## pixel (21 June 2015)

DB008 said:


> If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
> 
> Got mine up recently.



Welcome to the Club 

Our 2kW system is averaging 8.9 kWh per day over the last 4 years. (Orientation N-E isn't ideal.)
We use 50% ourselves and export the other half at WA's FIT.
So far, the savings have recouped 65% of the initial installation and service costs.
(Note that 4-5 years ago, SPV systems were considerably dearer than nowadays.)


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

DB008 said:


> If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
> 
> 
> Got mine up recently.
> ...




Nice rig


----------



## awg (26 June 2015)

Greetings & salutations

Has anyone tried the micro inverter technology, most specifically Enphase ?

These have a small inverter under each panel.

The disadvantage is they cost more!

The cited advantages are somewhat technical, but according to them, 

* in a single inverter DC string system, if ANY of the panels is below max efficient, this will affect total output
  ie weakest link in the chain,,, the microinverters gets around this.

* along the same line, the single DC inverters need a certain amount of voltage to "wake up"
   (microinverters will put out power earlier and later in the day)

* safer, as no 600V DC...they are 48V AC (I believe)

* complete wi-fi monitoring of all that goes on (for you and company)

* modular, so MUCH more easily expanded later

* (arguably) with a one-only inverter, reliability is a BIG issue. I am led to believe inverters fail

This stuff is well developed and seems the way of the future

I have 3 phase power, which causes complications, especially inverter wise

Quoted cost for a 5kw = $10K

I have had estimates from single inverter systems of between $5k to $13K

My annual power bill is approaching $5k, and I can reprogram some of my electricity usage 

Intend living in the same house till I croak


----------



## Knobby22 (26 June 2015)

Sounds interesting awg.

Has anyone installed a small system that doesn't require a solar meter?

I am building a house and thinking of sticking up just a couple of kW to take the edge off.


----------



## ghotib (26 June 2015)

awg said:


> Greetings & salutations
> 
> Has anyone tried the micro inverter technology, most specifically Enphase ?
> 
> ...



Yes!! 3Kw system from Enphase installed on the shed roof in February. It's performing better than I expected even though it's shaded from early afternoon.  We'll be adding panels on the house roof some time in the next 2 years, which will mean some part of the system is generating in all daylight hours and we still have our big windbreak trees. We also have 3 phase power.

We paid about $7000. My husband did the specification and pricing. He reckons 5Kw should be around $11,500. He also says it's worth taking the trouble to get all your pumps and other essentials onto the solar "phase" (=circuit?).

Very pleased with the system and we're getting a lot of fun out of optimising our power use.


----------



## keithj (26 June 2015)

awg said:


> I have 3 phase power, which causes complications, especially inverter wise
> 
> Quoted cost for a 5kw = $10K



FYI I had no issues with 3 phase inverter. I had a 3 phase 5kW system installed in late 2014 at a cost to me of $6300. I'm 100km from Sydney. This included the 'smart' meter.


----------



## pixel (26 June 2015)

keithj said:


> FYI I had no issues with 3 phase inverter. I had a 3 phase 5kW system installed in late 2014 at a cost to me of $6300. I'm 100km from Sydney. This included the 'smart' meter.




ditto, we started with 1KW in 2009 and doubled that later.
Initially, we were told the smart meter would be $400 more for 3-phase, but they only invoiced $295.


----------



## awg (28 June 2015)

keithj said:


> FYI I had no issues with 3 phase inverter. I had a 3 phase 5kW system installed in late 2014 at a cost to me of $6300. I'm 100km from Sydney. This included the 'smart' meter.




Thankyou

I have been very slack up till now in the solar energy department, but some recent high bills made me
sit up and do some research.

Even though I have qualifications in electronics, sorting thru the various options over a few hours, there is quite a lot to consider.

To me, the be-all & end-all is "payback time", also whether the equipment will last its expected life.

I would like to be able to do a more thorough analysis of my power usage/bill, its not especially easy, partially because...salesmen will tell any lie, no matter how gross.

I do not know how much above average a $5K power bill is, with 3-7 adults at various times

On the issue of metering and 3 phase inverters, at this time, apparently no power company will confirm in writing that they will not reprogram their meter at any time, in a way that is most unfavorable to 3 phase users.

That is a complex topic, I can give links if requested

with regard to inverters, my opinion is it is wise to buy the best quality one can afford, and the best quality 3 phase items are a bit of a step up in price.

I have not had quotes from many as yet. A fair bit more calculations in store for me

Battery storage coming to market will hopefully be favorable


----------



## needsajet (2 July 2015)

4 KW - 15 x LG 275W panels. 8 face 10d NNE. 7 panels face WNW. SMA inverter. $6,700 included the meter and we used a well regarded contractor that is slightly more expensive than average.

We're in Sydney and expect 7 to 10 year payback - depending how much load we shift to daytime. In winter we use 50%-60% and export the rest. Summer is better. If electricity price goes down, payback would stretch out ;-)


----------



## pixel (2 July 2015)

needsajet said:


> 4 KW - 15 x LG 275W panels. 8 face 10d NNE. 7 panels face WNW. SMA inverter. $6,700 included the meter and we used a well regarded contractor that is slightly more expensive than average.
> 
> We're in Sydney and expect 7 to 10 year payback - depending how much load we shift to daytime. In winter we use 50%-60% and export the rest. Summer is better. If electricity price goes down, payback would stretch out ;-)




I'm not sure about the efficiency of a system where panels point in different directions. From what I've read, I obtained the impression that the output depends on the least efficient panel, which I take to mean, if one panel is50% shaded, the entire system will produce only at 50% capacity. If that is correct - and electrician experts will correct me if not - then your WNW panels would reduce the overall performance in the morning, and the panels looking slightly East drag you down in the afternoon.

As an aside on electricity price going down: Watch out for those big pink animals with curly tails flying overhead! Their droppings not only smell atrociously like pig pen, but will leave nasty stains. They may even break a panel, should they land on one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2015)

pixel said:


> From what I've read, I obtained the impression that the output depends on the least efficient panel, which I take to mean, if one panel is50% shaded, the entire system will produce only at 50% capacity. If that is correct - and electrician experts will correct me if not - then your WNW panels would reduce the overall performance in the morning, and the panels looking slightly East drag you down in the afternoon.




It's even worse than that.

A panel has typically 60 or 72 cells connected in series. Then you have typically 6 - 10 panels also connected in series.

Since they're all connected in series, you really only need to shade one individual cell to seriously drop the output of the entire system. TV antennas, sewer vent pipes, heater flues, even power lines will cause enough shade to produce a very significant drop in total system output.

So you want each string, that is set of panels in series, to be unshaded.

As for panels facing different directions, that's fine if they are separate strings connected in parallel but not if they are in series.

OK = two sets of (say) 8 panels, 16 in total, with 8 facing one way and the other 8 facing the other way, both strings connected in parallel to the inverter.

Not OK = one string with any panels facing a different direction.

Personally, I've got panels facing N, E and W spread across two inverters. One inverter has panels facing N and E (separate strings), the other has panels facing E and W (also on separate strings). So that's 4 strings feeding 2 inverters. All good.  



> As an aside on electricity price going down: Watch out for those big pink animals with curly tails flying overhead! Their droppings not only smell atrociously like pig pen, but will leave nasty stains. They may even break a panel, should they land on one.




Best option is to compare prices between competing retailers and don't forget to look at the actual price you are paying and don't get sucked in by any supposed "discounts"

If retailer x is offering a 30% discount on a price of 40 cents / kWh then that's a lot more expensive than another retailer offering 25 cents / kWh and no discount. The "discounts" are basically a marketing trick intended to fool those who assume a 30 or even 50% discount will automatically be good value. It's not good value if they just doubled the price first before giving you that supposed discount.

Beware also of "lock in" contracts that are one sided. You're locked in to a retailer for 2 years but that retailer isn't locked into what price they charge. Read the fine print.


----------



## needsajet (10 July 2015)

pixel said:


> I'm not sure about the efficiency of a system where panels point in different directions. From what I've read, I obtained the impression that the output depends on the least efficient panel, which I take to mean, if one panel is50% shaded, the entire system will produce only at 50% capacity. If that is correct - and electrician experts will correct me if not - then your WNW panels would reduce the overall performance in the morning, and the panels looking slightly East drag you down in the afternoon.




Important point for sure. The inverter has two inputs (one for each string of panels), and two separate MPPTs. I'm no expert, but as I understand it, each MPPT (maximum power point tracking) looks at the output and optimizes for what that string of panels is doing.


----------



## ghotib (10 July 2015)

pixel said:


> I'm not sure about the efficiency of a system where panels point in different directions. From what I've read, I obtained the impression that the output depends on the least efficient panel, which I take to mean, if one panel is50% shaded, the entire system will produce only at 50% capacity. If that is correct - and electrician experts will correct me if not - then your WNW panels would reduce the overall performance in the morning, and the panels looking slightly East drag you down in the afternoon.
> 
> As an aside on electricity price going down: Watch out for those big pink animals with curly tails flying overhead! Their droppings not only smell atrociously like pig pen, but will leave nasty stains. They may even break a panel, should they land on one.



We went with microinverters - i.e. one inverter per panel - partly to avoid this "weakest panel" problem. The other reason was to enable easy expansion of the system. 

As for those flying pink snorting animals, several energy retailers have recently lowered their usage charges and increased the fixed charge. Which makes payback slower for generators but faster for batteries. Off-grid here we come (in a couple of years anyway).


----------



## needsajet (19 July 2015)

Watch out for swine poo dropping between the patches of bat guano. The new July 1 prices dropped what we pay from $0.258 to $0.246 per kWh (includes consumption charges, supply charge, GST, and the pay-on-time-and-online discount). I suppose the reduction from no carbon tax and low coal prices are working their way through the system?


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2015)

needsajet said:


> Watch out for swine poo dropping between the patches of bat guano. The new July 1 prices dropped what we pay from $0.258 to $0.246 per kWh (includes consumption charges, supply charge, GST, and the pay-on-time-and-online discount). I suppose the reduction from no carbon tax and low coal prices are working their way through the system?




Not so.

Please have a look in the other energy thread.

Supply charge for Origin (in Brisbane) just went up 39%. I have included a scan of my invoice as proof.

I read on whirlpool that AGL and Click Energy are similar in regards to their price rises.

But hey, screwing the customer is OK? As soon as off grid becomes affordable, l bet a tin of people will be giving the energy companies the middle finger, me included.....


----------



## needsajet (19 July 2015)

DB008 said:


> Not so......




I'm only speaking for myself. Ours is with Origin (via Endeavour) in NSW.

We buy about 1500 kWh per quarter. Based on that and beginning July 1:
 - supply charge goes from $71 to $74 per quarter
 - thresholds and usage rates changed, with 1500 kWh costing us $375 before the change and $357 going forward
 - pay-ontime/online discount on usage charges increased from 16% to 18% for an extra $4 off
Net change for 1500 kWh = $19 less per quarter


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2015)

For what it's worth, the traditional model of electricity retailing is to collect a token daily charge, then subsidise the rest of the fixed network costs via higher consumption charges.

It doesn't cost anywhere near 25 cents / kWh to supply electricity if the connection is already there, it's more like 15 cents / kWh. But then there's no way it costs $1 per day to keep the connection in place, it's around twice that amount.

The traditional model works so long as (1) consumers have no option other than to use roughly similar amounts of electricity (2) consumption per customer is increasing such that prices fall in "real" terms and (3) there is no practical means of supply other than the grid.

All three of those keys are now failing and as such the model of high consumption rates subsidising network costs isn't really sustainable. Here comes higher fixed costs and lower consumption charges.

I'll make a very long term prediction and say that at some future time, the only source of commercially available energy that the average consumer will purchase will be electricity. No gas and definitely no petrol. That day is coming, the only question is when, but it does necessitate that the electricity grid will still be here. Running everything on solar + batteries is problematic, and likely always will be, when that "everything" includes cars and heating in the middle of winter. The grid may well disappear in the tropics or in the middle of nowhere, but it's here to stay in Melbourne, Hobart, Canberra etc in my view.


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2015)

Have a look at my supply charge

Once off-grid comes in, l'm cutting chops with the electricity companies. I think they know this will happen with a lot of people, "milk 'em while you can" comes to mind...


----------



## needsajet (19 July 2015)

Yeh, I looked at your invoice on the other thread. It's unfortunate that the supply charge affects you as much as it does, DB.

Smurf, thanks for the explanation which makes a lot of sense. Our house is an early example of what you're talking about. We have gas hot water which I think we'll replace, because 1) we also pay a daily supply charge for the gas, and 2) solar hot water with electric backup looks like a better option. With the shift from usage charges to supply charge, the incentive to get everything on electric goes up, even though our gas price has gone down more than our electricity rates. Now we just have to wait for the gas HWS to wear out!

I'll add a prediction to yours - possibly very near term. As the number of gas customers dwindle, providers will need higher supply charges. The government will do what it can to dictate lower gas supply charges in the same way it did for the price Telstra charges for its copper network.


----------



## DB008 (22 July 2015)

As I've said before, as soon as it becomes feasible to go off-grid, l will.

*Charged up over 'sun tax'​*


> A sun-fuelled stoush between Member for Morwell Russell Northe and the Victorian Greens leader on social media has sparked a wider debate over higher tariffs paid by home owners supplying solar power to the grid.
> 
> The debate has centred on the domestic distribution prices of energy retailer Simply Energy, an arm of Hazelwood owner-operator GDZ SUEZ, which has set the daily supply charge for homes with solar panels at 110.2 cents, about 14 cents more than non-solar customers, or $51 extra per year.
> 
> ...





http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/2422185/charged-up-over-sun-tax/​


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2015)

Off grid if it becomes mainstream won't be a way off the mains electricity service charge hook and I note mains water service charges as an example.

That's unless it can replace the grid altogether.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2015)

drsmith said:


> Off grid if it becomes mainstream won't be a way off the mains electricity service charge hook and I note mains water service charges as an example.
> 
> That's unless it can replace the grid altogether.




I think we are a long way, from that scenario, doc.

By the way, off topic, you were right the Roe hwy/ Kwinana fwy intersction looks like a winner, my apologies for the scepticism.


----------



## drsmith (23 July 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I think we are a long way, from that scenario, doc.



I think we are too but the point was where an essential service such as electricity, water or sewerage runs on the street pass the property, there will be a service charge. There can be a small amount of leakage with electricity with early adoption of new technologies but that should really only be considered as a bonus.



sptrawler said:


> By the way, off topic, you were right the Roe hwy/ Kwinana fwy intersction looks like a winner, my apologies for the scepticism.



I thought you'd be impressed although my understanding is that only the new 2 lanes south from Roe Highway are presently open while the existing 2 lanes are resurfaced. 

There's quiet a bit of work coming up for the Kwinana Freeway. The southbound widening project will be extended from Armadale Road to Russell Road in a project to widen that section from 2 to 3 lanes commencing later this year.

Northbound from Russell Road to Roe Highway is also likely to be widened from 2 to 3 lanes in the near future, probably in conjunction with Roe 8. Not announced as a project at this stage as yet though but it's one to watch.

Another one to watch is conversion of the emergency stopping lanes to traffic lanes between Judd Street and the Canning Highway under the managed motorway concept.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/28876411/moves-to-open-stop-lanes/

Then there's Roe 8 and the associated interchange with the Kwinana Freeway. That's quiet a beast.

http://www.southmetroconnect.com.au/wp-content/uploads/60100953-215J-CI-DRG-0027-RevB.pdf

Back to the topic at hand, my 1.52kW system passed 10,000 kWh this month, just over 4 years after install.


----------



## pixel (23 July 2015)

drsmith said:


> my 1.52kW system passed 10,000 kWh this month, just over 4 years after install.




well done, Doc 
Since upgrading to 2KW in March 2011, we've recently crossed the 14 MWh line.
And after the recent Synergy bill, I've calculated that 60,1% of our initial CapEx plus service cost has meanwhile been repaid. That brings us slightly ahead of the initial guesstimate of an 8-year payback period.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2015)

Just over 27 MWh generated so far, recovering about 65% of the $ spent on the system between 2009 and 2013 in various stages.

The heat pump water heater, installed in 2009, has now recovered its full additional cost (over and above that of an electric HWS that I'd have otherwise had to buy). So it's all profit from here on as long as it keeps working.


----------



## DB008 (29 July 2015)

pixel said:


> Welcome to the Club
> 
> Our 2kW system is averaging 8.9 kWh per day over the last 4 years. (Orientation N-E isn't ideal.)





Hi Pixel,

Came home today and gave the SMA a 'knock' (that's how they work for the menu).

Anyways, produced 32kw/h today. Not bad.



​

I think l might get higher in summer with more daylight hours.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2015)

Like anything electrical (especially in Tas....) it has become political but the transmission and distribution company (same entity for both) here is proposing radical tariff reform for small customers.

They don't have firm details in terms of actual prices, but the broad concept seems to be:

1. End the present differences in charging based on usage, which is large in the case of the uniquely Tasmanian situation of separately metering heating loads. At the retail level, Tariff 31 (general power) for households costs 25.2 cents per kWh versus 15.197 cents / kWh for heating on Tariff 41 / 42. Tas Networks (transmission and distribution) wants to abolish Tariff 41 / 42 (which are the same rate in practice) and set a new price that's part way between the two rates. So all consumption, regardless of purpose, goes on the same meter versus two meters for 24/7 supply at present.

2. Move toward pricing based on contribution to peak demand. There aren't firm details, it's still at the debate and negotiation stage, but this could go as far as an actual demand charge for households being applied during certain times of the day (peak). In return, energy prices for consumption would be reduced.

The above would likely spark renewed interest in off-peak supply which in Tas is presently a very minor thing (about 3% of total residential consumption and the vast majority of homes don't have any off-peak meter installed). At present, close to 90% of Tas homes use peak rate hot water systems - a situation that's virtually unheard of anywhere else in Australia (with a few exceptions).

It would also remove the situation where a home can, at the same time, be exporting power and receiving the FIT whilst buying it back (at almost 3 times the price) on Tariff 41 / 42 to run water heating or space heating.

Whether or not it goes ahead will come down to politics I suspect, but there's a proposal nonetheless and considerable effort being expended on it at this stage. It is proposed to commence fully in 2019 but with Tariff 41 being closed to new customers as early as 2016.

Winners = those with low or no consumption on T41. That is those who actually do use off-peak for hot water or who have gas, solar etc. 

Losers = those with a larger than average proportion of consumption on T41. Eg electric space heating and hot water plus relatively low consumption on the general tariff (T31) due to (for example) gas cooking and solar panels.

If it achieves the objective of increasing off-peak load and decreasing peak load then that also benefits any future expansion of intermittent renewable generation, particularly wind.

Tariffs at present (retail prices by Aurora Energy, the only retailer currently supplying residential customers in Tas) are:

T31 (general light & power) = 25.2 cents
T41 / 42 (space heating and continuous hot water (24/7 supply)) = 15.197 cents / kWh
T61 (off-peak with afternoon boost period) = 12.235 cents / kWh
T62 (off-peak night only) = 11.524 cents / kWh

At present, due to the cheapness of T41/42, consumption on the off-peak tariffs is relatively low and virtually unheard of for new installations in the past 25 years. And of those who do use off-peak, the vast majority are on T61 due to the minimal difference between that and T62 and also because most of them are old installations and T62 didn't exist at all until the early 1990's.

There's possibly a major public education effort required in all of this since:

A - a large share of the population doesn't seem aware that it's even possible to run hot water on off-peak and have literally never heard of the concept. To the extent that off-peak is used in Tas, it is generally associated with space heating rather than hot water. It's going to take quite an effort to convince the masses that the water won't go cold at 7am each morning when the power is turned off and that such systems are legitimate and not in some way "dodgy".

B - a very widespread, almost universal, but incorrect belief that off-peak has or is being phased out, is illegal, or at best is not available for new installations. That belief is so widespread that even many electricians believe it to be the case. I'd say that the majority of electricians in Tas aged under about 40 have literally never installed an off-peak supply, that's how rare it is for new installations. 

Interesting times ahead it seems.


----------



## pixel (29 July 2015)

DB008 said:


> I think l might get higher in summer with more daylight hours.




Of course you will. 
In December, the daily rate in Perth is well above 6KWh/KW installed (12.7 ~ 12.9 for our 2KW system)
June/July not only have shorter daylight here in Perth, but it's often overcast and rainy. That brought our average daily production rate down to less than 3KWh/KW installed (5.6 for 2).

You're not that much further North than we are, so you'll probably get similar increases - unless the day you read those 32.00 was exceptionally sunny and cloud-free. In my spreadsheet, I enter readings roughly every 2 weeks, then whittle the numbers down to daily averages. 

During the Winter months, we're hit with a double whammy insofar as we produce less, but have the RC aircon heating for long hours. In Summer, we don't need anywhere near as much power for cooling, and we export most of our solar output into the grid and collect FIT credits.


----------



## pixel (14 April 2016)

Solar Citizens, http://www.solarcitizens.org.au/ presented Malcolm Turnball with this award:






> It turns out the PM’s own electorate of Wentworth is second last in the whole country when it comes to the number of solar rooftops. We reckon he can do a lot better, both in Wentworth and Australia-wide. And his constituents agree.
> 
> In fact, recent polling we commissioned tells us that 63.5% of people in Wentworth would be more likely to vote for a party with a policy to gradually transition Australia away from coal-fired power to 100% renewable power by 2030.*


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2016)

For a group that claims not to support any one political party, that's awfully political.


----------



## Craton (15 April 2016)

I've received a letter from the Dept. of Industry - Resources and Energy notifying me that as a participate of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme, the Scheme will end on the 31st Dec 2016 meaning I will no longer receive the subsidised feed-in tariff after that date.

I've been advised that a minimum feed-in rate will be paid for the electricity my panels generate after that date and am aware that my provider will be sending me out some info soon regarding the changes. From what I've read I gather that I'd need to change from a "gross" to a "net" meter to reduce my billing costs.

I realise that there is still some time to go plus I don't have all the facts but just wondering if the collective can help in advising which provider pays the best prices and any gotchas I should be aware of, especially after the 31st Dec?

TIA.


----------



## orr (15 April 2016)

Craton said:


> I've received a letter from the Dept. of Industry - Resources and Energy notifying me that as a participate of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme, the Scheme will end on the 31st Dec 2016 meaning I will no longer receive the subsidised feed-in tariff after that date.
> 
> I've been advised that a minimum feed-in rate will be paid for the electricity my panels generate after that date and am aware that my provider will be sending me out some info soon regarding the changes. From what I've read I gather that I'd need to change from a "gross" to a "net" meter to reduce my billing costs.
> 
> ...




Use what you can on site... Obviously I don't know your installation circumstances but heating water with a heat pump hot water system is a much cheaper storage solution than any battery set up.... or make ice and sell to passers by? 
My feed in nets me 0.04c/kwh ... Use it or lose it.


----------



## CanOz (15 April 2016)

orr said:


> Use what you can on site... Obviously I don't know your installation circumstances but heating water with a heat pump hot water system is a much cheaper storage solution than any battery set up.... or make ice and sell to passers by?
> My feed in nets me 0.04c/kwh ... Use it or lose it.




That ice idea is very clever....

I don't even know where to start on researching solar. I know we will go off grid as soon as we buy our house. We've got another year to look for a place, but we are definitely going full solar. To not encourage that should be a criminal offence in a country like Australia. 

Is anyone here fully solar off grid with A/C running, all appliances etc., on a new lithium battery setup?


----------



## bellenuit (15 April 2016)

CanOz said:


> I know we will go off grid as soon as we buy our house.




I was reading an article a few weeks ago, I'm not sure of it was posted here, that said with the dropping cost of solar batteries, rather than loosing customers who go off grid, suppliers might encourage them to stay by buying electricity from them straight from their batteries at nighttime or when sun generation is low.

A significant number of households going off grid would only make fixed costs for those remaining prohibitively expensive. However, if households with solar panels can generate and store in their batteries enough power to not only cover their own daily night and day usage, but a little bit more, then the providers could buy the excess from them at a cost greater than the fixed costs of staying on the grid. If there are enough consumers with sufficient storage capacity to cover their own usage and also supply providers with power direct from their batteries (this is in addition to power fed back to the grid directly from the panels during sun generating times) then these batteries become a virtual power station for the electricity suppliers. If reliable, it might obviate the need for additional power generation infrastructure as well as allow them to spread their fixed transmission costs over a wider group than otherwise.


----------



## CanOz (15 April 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I was reading an article a few weeks ago, I'm not sure of it was posted here, that said with the dropping cost of solar batteries, rather than loosing customers who go off grid, suppliers might encourage them to stay by buying electricity from them straight from their batteries at nighttime or when sun generation is low.
> 
> A significant number of households going off grid would only make fixed costs for those remaining prohibitively expensive. However, if households with solar panels can generate and store in their batteries enough power to not only cover their own daily night and day usage, but a little bit more, then the providers could buy the excess from them at a cost greater than the fixed costs of staying on the grid. If there are enough consumers with sufficient storage capacity to cover their own usage and also supply providers with power direct from their batteries (this is in addition to power fed back to the grid directly from the panels during sun generating times) then these batteries become a virtual power station for the electricity suppliers. If reliable, it might obviate the need for additional power generation infrastructure as well as allow them to spread their fixed transmission costs over a wider group than otherwise.




Thanks Bellenuit, that was the plan that Elon (Musk) had in mind i think...


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2016)

Craton said:


> From what I've read I gather that I'd need to change from a "gross" to a "net" meter to reduce my billing costs.
> 
> I realise that there is still some time to go plus I don't have all the facts but just wondering if the collective can help in advising which provider pays the best prices and any gotchas I should be aware of, especially after the 31st Dec?




Gross meter = all your solar goes into the grid (in an administrative sense) and is paid at whatever FIT rate you receive. All power you use within the house is then drawn from the grid (in an administrative sense) and charged at the (higher) price for grid power.

Net meter = your solar is connected to the load side of the meter so the meter only "sees" the net flow into or out of your home to the grid. So if you are generating 3kW and using 2kW yourself, then the meter sees that as 1kW going into the grid and that's what it records (it has no idea how much is actually being generated and used, just what the net flow is). So if your FIT is lower than what you are paying for power this will result in lower bills. 

Note that net metering is on an instantaneous basis and is not based on accumulation over time. So if you generate 3kW right now and use 2kW then you receive the FIT for the 1kW going into the grid. If you then turn the oven on and the sun stops shining, so that you are now generating 1kW and using 4kW, the 3kW being drawn from the grid will be charged at the applicable rate. The power you previously exported is not "banked" or stored - you sold it and were paid at the FIT rate, now you're buying and will be charged at the appropriate (higher) price. It's all done on an instantaneous real time basis with nothing "banked" or "stored".

So if you want to remain on grid and minimise your bills then the standard answer is to shift your power use to when the sun is shining. So instead of running the dishwasher at 10pm and paying for power from the grid, you run it at noon and use your own power that would otherwise be exported at the FIT rate.

One way to maximise use of your own power, if you have electric storage (with a tank) hot water is a device such as the Immersun or Optimmersion. This is an electronic device that monitors power flow into / out of your house and adjusts (in a constantly variable manner - like an audio volume control but fully automatic) how much power goes into the water heater. So if you are producing 2kW from solar and using 1.2 kW for your appliances at that time, then the Immersun sends the other 0.8 kW into the hot water (up to the point where the tank is fully heated and the thermostat switches it off, after which any surplus power is exported to the grid in the normal manner). 

If you've already got solar panels and electric hot water then in practice this device turns your existing water heater into a solar one, albeit an electrically powered solar heater but it's still making use of the power you generate yourself so as to minimise both import and export to the grid. So you use the power that's worth 5 cents / kWh (FIT) instead of paying whatever rate to buy power from the grid and heat water with it. The device is able to incorporate a "fully heat the tank using grid power overnight if it wasn't fully heated once the sun went down" function so that you'll still have hot water even if there's heavy cloud all day or you have the air-con running and using all your solar production.

To use the Immersun all you need is an existing solar power system and an electric water heater of sufficient capacity to provide hot water with once per day heating (same as normal off-peak except for the different time of heating it).

Note that this works with conventional electric systems only and cannot be used with heat pumps.

Any electrician could install it, but you'd be wise to find a good one since most will have no prior experience with this as it's a relatively new product that doesn't (yet) have a lot of market penetration.

Retailers - no comment there since I could reasonably be considered as biased toward Momentum (100% owned by Hydro Tas). http://www.momentumenergy.com.au/ 

I'll add a comment though that despite the rather large problems Hydro has at the moment, Momentum customers in the mainland states won't be facing power shortages or having their lights go out. So long as Hydro can't generate that power (and has no means of getting it across Bass Strait with the broken cable), supply is simply being purchased from the market (ie rival generation businesses) with Momentum acting purely as a retailer. So it's business as usual so far as Momentum and its customers in NSW, Vic and SA are concerned.

Big thing to look out for with any retailer is "discounts" and other complex pricing arrangements intended to confuse rather than inform. Just because you're supposedly getting a 30% discount from a retailer doesn't mean you're necessarily paying a lower price than with another retailer that offers no discount at all. Getting 30% off isn't a good deal if their prices were double what others were charging to start with. So you need to look at the actual prices and ignore the "discount" scam.

Time of use pricing, where it's an option, is another potential trap. Some will win, some will lose, and it all depends on how much you use and when. My personal opinion is that you've best to avoid it where possible unless you're very sure you'll actually save money due to most of your use being at the cheaper times.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I was reading an article a few weeks ago, I'm not sure of it was posted here, that said with the dropping cost of solar batteries, rather than loosing customers who go off grid, suppliers might encourage them to stay by buying electricity from them straight from their batteries at nighttime or when sun generation is low.




This idea is about to be given a go on Bruny Island (Tas) as a means of addressing a local peak supply constraint.

Most electricity on the island is from the Tas grid via underwater cables, but during the peak tourist season demand at times exceeds capacity of the cables and this is presently addressed via running a diesel generator on the island.

The idea is to have users install batteries and to dispatch that power into the grid at the times when demand peaks, thus removing the need for the diesel generator (or alternatively upgrading the cables which would cost $$$).

It hasn't happened yet but it's about to be pursued. http://www.tasnetworks.com.au/TasNetworks/WebParts/TasNetworks/Media/DownloadMedia.ashx?d=300&m=v


----------



## poverty (16 April 2016)

The best thing about solar panels is the electricity companies have to pay the owners of the panels more than the going rate for wholesale electricity, so they have to pump up everyone elses bills to compensate.  It's great that Mavis in her housing commission unit has to pay more!


----------



## pixel (16 April 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Gross meter = all your solar goes into the grid (in an administrative sense) and is paid at whatever FIT rate you receive. All power you use within the house is then drawn from the grid (in an administrative sense) and charged at the (higher) price for grid power.
> 
> Net meter = your solar is connected to the load side of the meter so the meter only "sees" the net flow into or out of your home to the grid. So if you are generating 3kW and using 2kW yourself, then the meter sees that as 1kW going into the grid and that's what it records (it has no idea how much is actually being generated and used, just what the net flow is).* So if your FIT is lower than what you are paying for power* this will result in lower bills.
> 
> ...



The ratio FIT to Retail charge is the crucial point, Smurf.
The early adopters among us, who locked in a FIT boost in compensation for the high initial price for SPV systems, will adopt the opposite strategy: Use as little power as possible during the day, and run appliances like dishwasher and clothes dryer after Sundown - if you have to at all. There is never a substitute for a general attitude towards power-saving. Once the FIT boost runs out - as WA's 40c increase does in 2020 - we'll be back to the way you described. However, until then, every additional KWh I can sell during the day becomes a credit of 48c, while the same KWh used at night costs me about half that amount.
If it weren't for those 40c, I would be worse off if I shifted usage from sunlight hours to night time because my system's daylight production would only pay 8c per KWh and cost 25c after sundown.

Long-term, it will therefore support the case for larger SPV capacity, but making sure you use the entire production and store all excess into batteries, laid out to a capacity that is sufficient for several nights of draw-down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 April 2016)

poverty said:


> The best thing about solar panels is the electricity companies have to pay the owners of the panels more than the going rate for wholesale electricity




I'm very sure that to the extent that there's money to be made in electricity it sure isn't in generation. Networks account for most of what consumers pay, retail is rather profitable too in many cases, but there's not a lot of money in the generation side these days.

Consumers get upset that they're paid 5 - 6 cents / kWh for solar fed into the grid. Suffice to say that large scale generators would be pretty happy with that price if they could get it.

Broadly speaking, the large scale generators are staying in business by:

*Running old plants that cost very little to operate but which wouldn't be economic to replace. They'll exit the industry when the plant wears out. Hazelwood is the best known plant in that category but it's certainly not the only one (just the best known).

*Make most of their money in retail rather than generation. Having their own generation is simply a means of avoiding wholesale price risk but isn't overly profitable as such. Any of the big retailers with their own generation.

*Have a generation business that's coupled with their gas business and works to optimise the two and collectively it's profitable through various tricks. They can drive a much harder bargain for their gas when they've got the alternative option of just using it themselves for power generation.

*Are profitable only due to the renewable aspect of their output than from the electricity per se. Hydro Tas is the most obvious one there but certainly not the only one in that situation.

*Are running what amounts to a financial trading operation with the physical production of electricity being just a means of enabling the trading. Snowy Hydro comes to mind there. 

*Are losing money most of the time, being profitable only due to the occasional price spike. Plenty in that category.

*Aren't actually profitable at all but are still in the generation business for reasons of avoiding plant closure and cleanup costs, a hope that others will close first and send prices up so as to make their own operation viable, being locked into fuel supply contracts or for reasons of risk management in their retail business.

In Tas, Hydro gets 22.7% of the retail price of electricity to households. Networks get 59.6% and the rest is retail and other things. It's fairly similar in most parts of the country. Poles and wires bring in a lot more $ than turbines and alternators.


----------



## Craton (18 April 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Gross meter = all your solar goes into the grid (in an administrative sense) and is paid at whatever FIT rate you receive. All power you use within the house is then drawn from the grid (in an administrative sense) and charged at the (higher) price for grid power.
> 
> Net meter = your solar is connected to the load side of the meter so the meter only "sees" the net flow into or out of your home to the grid. So if you are generating 3kW and using 2kW yourself, then the meter sees that as 1kW going into the grid and that's what it records (it has no idea how much is actually being generated and used, just what the net flow is). So if your FIT is lower than what you are paying for power this will result in lower bills.
> 
> ...




Thank you for a most detailed reply, really appreciated. I like the idea of that Immersun unit and yep, I know it'll be a mine field out there when the time comes. Bit hard to navigate as things, no doubt, will change down the track.

FWIW, my little 1.5kW system churned out over 9kW the other day when I remembered to check. Might not seem like much but I've only had to shell out $23.00 in the last six months for electricity. Guess that's one of the benefits of being an empty nest widower and living in the sunny outback.

Looking at the cost of larger systems I may add to my little solar array as costs have come down.

Cheers again.


----------



## pixel (19 April 2016)

> The problem is, our federal government has no plan! Can you believe it? No plan beyond 2020, and that’s only four short years from today. So, we did what sensible folks do when there’s no decent plan set to make a clean, renewable future a reality: we wrote one for them.



*
A Plan to consider:*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TFXrpyxNuQ


----------



## Muschu (26 March 2017)

After procrastinating and doing on-off research for 3 years I finally had a 6+ Kw system installed yesterday in Perth.  2 story home with steep roof pitch.  All Austrian or German products and used a smaller installer I had heard of through satisfied friends.
I don't know what this would have cost when the now-cancelled 47 c rebate was in, but this set us back $6175.
Our last power bill helped with this decision


----------



## Wyatt (26 March 2017)

Good move. Having had a 6+KW system on my roof for nearly 5 years and a smaller system prior to that, I can vouch that solar is great (especially on a nice feed in tariff) It is very consistent over the years. You may have seen the chart where you can look up your nearest city, then azimuth and roof angle and after considering any shading get within a percent or 2 of what you are going to harvest. I hope you bought a SMA inverter.
You can also log performance for free if you could be bothered

https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?id=12896&sid=10826


----------



## noco (26 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> After procrastinating and doing on-off research for 3 years I finally had a 6+ Kw system installed yesterday in Perth.  2 story home with steep roof pitch.  All Austrian or German products and used a smaller installer I had heard of through satisfied friends.
> I don't know what this would have cost when the now-cancelled 47 c rebate was in, but this set us back $6175.
> Our last power bill helped with this decision




I outlaid $5000 some 2 years ago and get $80 to $90 rebate every 3 months......The best scenario being $360 per year.......It is a dead loss a as far as I am concerned.


----------



## moXJO (26 March 2017)

noco said:


> I outlaid $5000 some 2 years ago and get $80 to $90 rebate every 3 months......The best scenario being $360 per year.......It is a dead loss a as far as I am concerned.



Is that off your power bill, or your power bill costs plus $80-$90 on top?


----------



## noco (26 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Is that off your power bill, or your power bill costs plus $80-$90 on top?




As I stated it is the rebate off my power bill......Ergon Energy pay 7.44 cents kwh into the grid...They started at 9 cents per kwh and the slowly reduced it without notice.

They charge 24.6 kwh for uncontrolled power and 19.96 kwh for controlled power to hot Water and Air con units.

We don't have a choice up here.....Take it or leave it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2017)

Strangely enough this Smurf jumped at the opportunity to put a power station on the roof back in 2009. 

Cost me a grand total of absolutely nothing. Got the $8K government grant, plus $800 worth of REC's, and the electricity distributor kindly threw in the meter changeover for free as well. So not a bad deal really, even posting the forms back was reply paid and the phone call was a 1800 number too. Bargain!

My thinking back then was actually that I was doing something rather unique. First house in the area with solar and I honestly didn't think it would become anywhere near as popular as it has. The only people really interested back then were electricians, engineers and other technical type people - and suffice to say I did get quite a few knocks on the door from random strangers who saw the panels and asked if I'd tell them about it and how it worked. Go forward a few years and solar panels are pretty much everywhere now. 

Added some more panels later at my own cost for everything. Got 33 of them in total including the original 6. Working nicely and in 2013 I decided to add data recording so I've got daily production data for the past 3.5 years now.

As an investment it's not the single most profitable thing I've ever done but it hasn't been too bad overall.

One aspect I like is risk mitigation. I'm on the high rate FIT until the end of 2018 after which it drops to the standard rate which isn't much (but for the record, large scale power stations are getting even less per kWh and aren't anywhere near as profitable as you might expect so don't complain too much about what solar owners get - most of your power bill goes to the networks not generation, of that I am extremely sure). 

But, and I see this is as a definite plus, in the event that something bad were to happen to me then most likely I'd be home more often during the day. Unemployment, disability, whatever. And if I'm home more often then I'll be using more power when the sun is shining such that the financial benefit of having the system increases in a situation where I'd need it most. I like that aspect being there but hopefully won't have reason to benefit from it.

For my other low energy stuff, well the heat pump water heater is now 7.25 years old and despite the predictions of many has been flawless thus far. It's in profit now so I won't have lost even if it did die tomorrow. With a bit of luck though it'll keep working for a while yet.


----------



## Muschu (26 March 2017)

Wyatt said:


> Good move. Having had a 6+KW system on my roof for nearly 5 years and a smaller system prior to that, I can vouch that solar is great (especially on a nice feed in tariff) It is very consistent over the years. You may have seen the chart where you can look up your nearest city, then azimuth and roof angle and after considering any shading get within a percent or 2 of what you are going to harvest. I hope you bought a SMA inverter.
> You can also log performance for free if you could be bothered
> 
> https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?id=12896&sid=10826



Not SMA but Fronius Symo - both very good.  Panels are Solar World Bifacial [glass either side].. Generating beautifully.


----------



## Muschu (26 March 2017)

noco said:


> I outlaid $5000 some 2 years ago and get $80 to $90 rebate every 3 months......The best scenario being $360 per year.......It is a dead loss a as far as I am concerned.



That's odd... What size system and where are you located?


----------



## Joe Blow (26 March 2017)

I got a 3.2kw system installed a couple of months ago and got the meter upgraded at the same time. I spent a little more and went for Jinko panels and a Fronius inverter. Total cost was about $5,000.

The key seems to be to use as much power as possible during the day, so we run the dishwasher and washing machine during daylight hours and try to only use minimal power during the evening. Using this approach we have managed to reduce our power consumption to about 4 or 5kwh a day. I switched from AGL to Powershop and for fun I am trying to see how little I can actually pay for power. On a good day the system will generate about 15 to 20kwh, with excess being exported back to the grid. Based on my current usage I should be down to about a dollar a day or perhaps a little more if there are a lot of overcast days. There are only two of us in the house but I estimate at this rate we'll save a couple of hundred dollars each quarter on average which will mean the system will be paid back in about five or six years.

If it wasn't for the daily supply charge of about $1, we'd be doing a lot better out of it.


----------



## Muschu (26 March 2017)

Joe Blow said:


> ..............
> The key seems to be to use as much power as possible during the day..............\



Yes pretty much pointless otherwise.


----------



## noco (26 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> That's odd... What size system and where are you located?




I have a 3.2 kw and am located in Townsville


----------



## bellenuit (26 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> Yes pretty much pointless otherwise.




Except for those who are on a good Feed In Tariff, in which case the opposite is true. I get 47 cents or thereabouts, so I have gone to a Smart Meter and push most of my power needs to nighttime which is about 50% of the normal rate.


----------



## luutzu (26 March 2017)

Joe Blow said:


> I got a 3.2kw system installed a couple of months ago and got the meter upgraded at the same time. I spent a little more and went for Jinko panels and a Fronius inverter. Total cost was about $5,000.
> 
> The key seems to be to use as much power as possible during the day, so we run the dishwasher and washing machine during daylight hours and try to only use minimal power during the evening. Using this approach we have managed to reduce our power consumption to about 4 or 5kwh a day. I switched from AGL to Powershop and for fun I am trying to see how little I can actually pay for power. On a good day the system will generate about 15 to 20kwh, with excess being exported back to the grid. Based on my current usage I should be down to about a dollar a day or perhaps a little more if there are a lot of overcast days. There are only two of us in the house but I estimate at this rate we'll save a couple of hundred dollars each quarter on average which will mean the system will be paid back in about five or six years.
> 
> If it wasn't for the daily supply charge of about $1, we'd be doing a lot better out of it.




That's what the brochure said 

The power our system generated equal or surpass our usage during Summer. So even if service fees and stuff are included, we'd only be paying about $3 a quarter for power.

But AGL is pretty clever and so charges us some 27c while our feed in goes to them for 7c. 

Last bill was some $500 a quarter, after rebating us our $29.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2017)

Before ordering our first solar panels in 2009, I did the sums; had to make some vague assumptions because, at the time, not much solid evidence was available. So I simply discounted the figures in the prospectus and worked on 4.5kWh per average day with rising power costs. The cost for a 1kW system came to a little over $3,500, so I arrived at an estimated return on investment of 7-8 years, and every year past that would save a some $400+ off power bills.
I didn't even figure the rebate for excess power sold into the grid. Without FIT, it doesn't make sense to sell for 7 or 8c only to buy it back for 27c when the sun don't shine.

Once the 40c FIT was introduced a year later, the calculation changed dramatically. Every exported unit would net us 47c, buying it back later cost a bit over half of that. That made an upgrade financially attractive, even though the installer charged the same amount for the 2nd lot as he had done for the first, which included the inverter. (Apparently, the initial installation had benefited from a Government subsidy, whereas the upgrade had to be paid in full.)
Now it makes of course sense to use as little power as possible during the day and export as much as possible. In a 2-person household, there isn't much scope though. In summer, the air conditioner is needed when it's hot. As we also have solar hot water, it doesn't matter when we do the dishes or take a shower, and the light bulbs have long been replaced by LED lamps.

After 7 years, and regular record keeping of production rates and consumption charges, I am happy to say that my initial assumption was pretty close to the mark. We're just about at break-even point, and the remaining 3 1/2 years of the FIT contract will add ample interest to the ROI - something I had decided to ignore in my initial estimate.


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Except for those who are on a good Feed In Tariff, in which case the opposite is true. I get 47 cents or thereabouts, so I have gone to a Smart Meter and push most of my power needs to nighttime which is about 50% of the normal rate.



Yes true of course but no longer available in WA.  I think, here, this better scheme had a 10 year expiry. I think this has a way to go. Even small systems do well out of this atm.
The other side of the coin is that system prices have decreased significantly.


----------



## moXJO (27 March 2017)

noco said:


> As I stated it is the rebate off my power bill......Ergon Energy pay 7.44 cents kwh into the grid...They started at 9 cents per kwh and the slowly reduced it without notice.
> 
> They charge 24.6 kwh for uncontrolled power and 19.96 kwh for controlled power to hot Water and Air con units.
> 
> We don't have a choice up here.....Take it or leave it.






luutzu said:


> That's what the brochure said
> 
> The power our system generated equal or surpass our usage during Summer. So even if service fees and stuff are included, we'd only be paying about $3 a quarter for power.
> 
> ...




Pretty cr.ap return. I was thinking of installing solar but might wait it out.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Pretty cr.ap return. I was thinking of installing solar but might wait it out.



"cr.ap return only if you over-capitalise, trying to make money from power generation. If you configure your installation to meet your daily consumption, you save the full 27c or whatever your GST-inclusive cost per unit.


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

What might be intersting is if anyone can post their total annual electricity bill for the year before installation and the year after.  Thinking of those who have installed since the 47c rebate and perhaps in last 2-3 years.
Plus perhaps the cost and size of system.
I obviously don't have this data yet.

(Not sure if there are gaps in this.  Might omit other factors.... But a start?)


----------



## Quant (27 March 2017)

I was lucky i probably got my solar at the ideal time in 2012 with Fit at 52c kwh , 6kw system for $10k installed , fully paid of in tad over 3 years , now looking forward to free power basically for next 10 years  . one of the lowest risk investments you could ever make imo  , basically  yearly 30% ROI now after payback in quicktime . AC  almost running nonstop all summer here in Brisbane without a care in world  . When opportunity knocks you have to answer the door  , was a no brainer


----------



## luutzu (27 March 2017)

moXJO said:


> Pretty cr.ap return. I was thinking of installing solar but might wait it out.




Yea, pretty crap.

And we went into this thinking that we'd do most of our consumption during the day so we'd save there. But even though we're told that during the day, the panels will feed into our usage first, would only use the grid if we're low, then feed into the grid when we're not using... I don't think that's the case.

Maybe it was before they put the smart meter in. Maybe. Or they'd just charge us whatever they want for what we use, with all our panels power counted as theirs when we use it.

It's all a bait and switch with these guys. Giving us incentives, high initial purchase price... then opps, market forces tells them to pay us 1/4 what they charge us. With probably most of that power coming from our own panels.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> What might be intersting is if anyone can post their total annual electricity bill for the year before installation and the year after.  Thinking of those who have installed since the 47c rebate and perhaps in last 2-3 years.
> Plus perhaps the cost and size of system.
> I obviously don't have this data yet.
> 
> (Not sure if there are gaps in this.  Might omit other factors.... But a start?)



I record my production - read off the inverter - about once a week. Synergy tells me how much I took out of the net and how much I exported into it (I could also read it off my smart meter.) Therefore, I know precisely, how much of my production I used for myself (produced minus exported in billing period) and how much that would've cost me had I bought it from Synergy.
In Alex Meerkat's words: "Simples, bfft"


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

Quant said:


> I was lucky i probably got my solar at the ideal time in 2012 with Fit at 52c kwh , 6kw system for $10k installed , fully paid of in tad over 3 years , now looking forward to free power basically for next 10 years  . one of the lowest risk investments you could ever make imo  , basically  yearly 30% ROI now after payback in quicktime . AC  almost running nonstop all summer here in Brisbane without a care in world  . When opportunity knocks you have to answer the door  , was a no brainer




Sounds good... I guess time will tell and everyone's circumstances differ.  System prices have certainly come down though.  Our 6.2 Kw system. all European, was $6125 on a 2 story home.  Cheaper products could have been closer to  $4.5 k.
Interestingly I don't know of any friends, relatives or colleagues here in Perth who have regretted installation - whether years ago or recently... [Unless they don't want to admit it ]


----------



## Quant (27 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> Sounds good... I guess time will tell and everyone's circumstances differ.  System prices have certainly come down though.  Our 6.2 Kw system. all European, was $6125 on a 2 story home.  Cheaper products could have been closer to  $4.5 k.
> Interestingly I don't know of any friends, relatives or colleagues here in Perth who have regretted installation - whether years ago or recently... [Unless they don't want to admit it ]



True enough systems are 40% cheaper then when i installed but the FIT is 6c v 52c , as i said the economics of it when i installed was a no brainer , 3 years pay of  on a FIT of 52c till 2028 . I still have another  11 plus years of $3000 a year savings to come and fair chance that might be $5000 a year by the time 2028 comes around   . I have zero regrets and thats purely economically based  . $10k investment with a likely minimum $50k plus return  . Sure production will degrade but the rising price of power squares that up  ..


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

Quant said:


> True enough systems are 40% cheaper then when i installed but the FIT is 6c v 52c , as i said the economics of it when i installed was a no brainer , 3 years pay of  on a FIT of 52c till 2028 . I still have another  11 plus years of $3000 a year savings to come and fair chance that might be $5000 a year by the time 2028 comes around   . I have zero regrets and thats purely economically based  . $10k investment with a likely minimum $50k plus return  . Sure production will degrade but the rising price of power squares that up  ..




Yes, but that "really good return" is being funded by taxpayers, its not a genuine return based on your production, that "Incentive scheme (rort)" was never going to last.

The current economics are not as profitable, but they are still worthwhile, the reason the economics of it have reduced is because now people rely on the market rate of their output rather than government hand outs.


----------



## Quant (27 March 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but that "really good return" is being funded by taxpayers, its not a genuine return based on your production, that "Incentive scheme (rort)" was never going to last.
> 
> The current economics are not as profitable, but they are still worthwhile, the reason the economics of it have reduced is because now people rely on the market rate of their output rather than government hand outs.



Here we go , is that meant to make me feel bad , not likely , about time i could square up tbh , i never got the free rudd handout , ive never got anything for free from govt , Ive paid my share and 20 others share . You'd have to be an idiot not to take it when they offer it , i pay my fair share of tax and im no bludger .  SO THERE lmao and im no rorter so jam your insults where they fit


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

Quant said:


> Here we go , is that meant to make me feel bad , not likely , about time i could square up tbh , i never got the free rudd handout , ive never got anything for free from govt , Ive paid my share and 20 others share . You'd have to be an idiot not to take it when they offer it , i pay my fair share of tax and im no bludger .  SO THERE lmao and im no rorter so jam your insults where they fit




It's not meant to be an insult, I am just pointing out that the government handouts were never going to last, you have to agree with that.

I am not saying you are personally an immoral "Rorter", just that the scheme itself was a rort, I don't want you to feel bad about it, just don't feel great about it either, and don't boast about it either or try and make people that are entering the system now on fairer terms feel ripped off.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2017)

Value Collector said:


> I am not saying you are personally an immoral "Rorter", just that the scheme itself was a rort,




Government subsidies aren't necessarily 'rorts' , they are incentives to invest in a certain area. In the case of solar PV they have taken the load off other generating systems and have enables 'ordinary' people to make money out of their investment in solar PV. I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Government subsidies aren't necessarily 'rorts' , they are incentives to invest in a certain area..




They are when they are over the top, which the solar subsidy was.


> enables 'ordinary' people to make money out of their investment in solar PV. I don't see a problem with that




The "Ordinary people" would make money from their investment without the government giving them cash on each kilowatt they produce.

It would have been cheaper for the government to just give out free solar installations, and not pay 52cents a kilowatt.

The government will end up paying many times more in bonus payments than the systems themselves cost, that is not an incentive, its a Rort. 

As I said it would have been cheaper to just give out free systems, or at least put a system on every government building e.g. schools, hospitals, defence etc.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2017)

Governments direct contracts, subsidies, tax incentives all the time and anywhere they feel it's justified. I don't feel bad "accepting" the subsidy and 10-year incentive (40c only in WA). Apart from the obvious: pre-paying a low charge for the next 20+ years of household power, i feel good about (a) having done a small bit for the environment, and (b) having helped the Solar Industry gain momentum to critical mass where it's now.
Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing? Or couldn't Holden drivers in years sadly gone-by feel proud to have bought a (heavily subsidised) Commodore? I bet even Union workers didn't feel resentful accepting Barnett's cash for starting on the despised Roe-8


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

pixel said:


> Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing?




Negative gearing doesn't require the government pay out cash, its a tax deduction due to an actual loss.

People that negative gear certainly never receive 3 to 4 times the original purchase price of their investment back in government hand outs.

look at this quote by a member today.



> I still have another 11 plus years of $3000 a year savings to come and fair chance that might be $5000 a year by the time 2028 comes around




So he has already had more than the total cost of his system paid for by the government in previous rebates he has received, and is looking forward to getting another $33,000 to $40,000 in future payments.

As I said, its doesn't sound like an incentive, it's free money. Surely that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out every year for the next decade.

The government at the time really didn't think it through.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2017)

pixel said:


> Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing? Or couldn't Holden drivers in years sadly gone-by feel proud to have bought a (heavily subsidised) Commodore?




Exactly. Would tax reductions for start up companies be a 'rort' ? If they help an industry employ workers and contribute to GDP they are simply a good investment of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Exactly. Would tax reductions for start up companies be a 'rort' ? If they help an industry employ workers and contribute to GDP they are simply a good investment of taxpayer dollars.



As I said,  that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out for the next decade.

Given that it would have been cheaper just to give installations away for free, and still get all the same benefits, how can you not see it's a terrible deal for tax payers.


----------



## Quant (27 March 2017)

I really dont want to get into this **** but half of the power that comes of my roof is used by me so there is no govt payment , thats just a straight saving for me with no cost to anyone , the other half is govt subsidized at around 27c a kwh  , my neighbour is buying that and paying half the FIT so the cost to the govt is nothing like you are sprouting . Now the govt had an incentive to do this to make mandated renewable energy targets so once again im paying partial to help the govt meet tgts and they help me at same time  . SO your alledged rort aint as bad as you may imagine .. If the govt pays for renewables the people pay so the amount paid ( burden on society ) aint excactly what it would appear . Side benefits are less carbon footprint and a whole new industry and economy that now established is bringing the cost of installation down for all due to economy of scale  ...   i shouldnt even need to mention any of this as it clear as day


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

Quant said:


> I really dont want to get into this **** but half of the power that comes of my roof is used by me so there is no govt payment , thats just a straight saving for me with no cost to anyone , the other half is govt subsidized at around 27c a kwh  , my neighbour is buying that and paying half the FIT so the cost to the govt is nothing like you are sprouting . Now the govt had an incentive to do this to make mandated renewable energy targets so once again im paying partial to help the govt meet tgts and they help me at same time  . SO your alledged rort aint as bad as you may imagine .. If the govt pays for renewables the people pay so the amount paid ( burden on society ) aint excactly what it would appear . Side benefits are less carbon footprint and a whole new industry and economy that now established is bringing the cost of installation down for all due to economy of scale  ...   i shouldnt even need to mention any of this as it clear as day




I am just saying it would have been cheaper for the government to just buy you a solar installation and walk away, as you pointed out that would be paid for now, and they wouldn't have to pay you thousands of dollars over the next decade.

Or, better yet, buy every public school building a system instead, at least that would reduce tax payers costs.

All the benefits e.g. employment, environmental targets etc would still be the same, just without the thousands of extra dollars. being spent for the next decade.


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

Hmmm... Seems I have started something here... I was looking at this as a good environmental option and, as I move even further into retirement, as an opportunity to pay now for the cost of having lower bills when I have a reduced income.  
Like others I have paid my taxes for 45 years.  I don't see any rort in this... The original scheme, to my understanding, was too expensive [to the taxpayer] to continue but was never a "forever" plan anyway.
Isn't it just a matter of how we individually do our domestic budgeting?


----------



## Value Collector (27 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> Hmmm... Seems I have started something here... I was looking at this as a good environmental option and, as I move even further into retirement, as an opportunity to pay now for the cost of having lower bills when I have a reduced income.




Thats a very good idea, I am not saying solar panels are bad, they are a great idea.


> I don't see any rort in this



... 

The current scheme is not a rort, I am talking about the older scheme



> The original scheme, to my understanding, was too expensive [to the taxpayer] to continue but was never a "forever" plan anyway.




Yes, thats the plan I have described as more of a rort than a genuine incentive scheme, the government really didn't think it through.


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

Value Collector said:


> ............... Yes, thats the plan I have described as more of a rort than a genuine incentive scheme, the government really didn't think it through.




When was the 10 year time limit [WA] imposed?  I don't know and haven't time to check atm.


----------



## pixel (27 March 2017)

Value Collector said:


> As I said,  that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out for the next decade.
> 
> Given that it would have been cheaper just to give installations away for free, and still get all the same benefits, how can you not see it's a terrible deal for tax payers.



It's not a matter of whether the government spent taxpayers' money wisely. Governments rarely do. Let the taxpayers make it clear to their pollies that they feel shafted. 
But if I'm offered a contract that guarantees me a set price for selling power into the grid, I do my sums based on that offer. If I come out ahead, I'll take it, otherwise I leave it. But if the counterparty stuffed up and pays me more than it's worth, I won't reject it or feel guilty accepting it. It is not as if I had forced them to stuff up. 

As far as my comparison to negative gearing goes, and I can also include halving the CGT after 12 months, I see those issues on exactly the same level: Nobody in their right mind will buy a rental property expecting it to be a long-term losing business. What you call an "actual tax loss" may well apply in the short-term view for the initial years of ownership. Over time though, appreciation will ensure that the investment is profitable, or nobody would buy rental properties and accept the hassle and red tape that comes with it - not to mention the chance of finding a rotten tenant that wrecks the place and then does a runner. The Government wanted to boost the Building Industry, so they gave tax money away in order to get more taxes from builders, rental agents, and other sources.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2017)

pixel said:


> The Government wanted to boost the Building Industry, so they gave tax money away in order to get more taxes from builders, rental agents, and other sources.




Yes, and it hasn't worked because most investors buy existing property. Time NG was dropped, but that's off topic, sorry.


----------



## moXJO (27 March 2017)

pixel said:


> "cr.ap return only if you over-capitalise, trying to make money from power generation. If you configure your installation to meet your daily consumption, you save the full 27c or whatever your GST-inclusive cost per unit.



Not interested in making money from it, just don't want to pay the power company.


----------



## Boggo (27 March 2017)

This guy seems to provide a good bit of info on the basics.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/solar101.html


----------



## sptrawler (27 March 2017)

Muschu said:


> When was the 10 year time limit [WA] imposed?  I don't know and haven't time to check atm.




http://www.finance.wa.gov.au/cms/Pu...newable_energy_help/Feed-in_tariff_rates.aspx

The 40c feed in tariff, started June 2010, so it will expire between 2020 and 2021.

Now you just get a feed in payment, of between 7 and 8 cents/ Kwhr.
Hope that answers your question.


----------



## DB008 (27 March 2017)

My average power bill, even with a mesley 6 cent feed in tariff (QLD, Origin), is on average $50-$70 a qtr. Used to be $200+ a qtr. Huge saving.


----------



## Wyatt (27 March 2017)

While a little off topic, reduced energy usage is in everyone's best interest.
Coming from the tropics, ceiling fans help you keep your cool for most of the tropical season, ceiling fans are cheap to run. When I go south, ceiling fans seem to be reasonably rare and as soon as the temperature goes up just a little during the day, on goes the living area A/C and stays on. Airflow is the key for comfort and the stillest days tend to be the sunniest days (where solar really shines, pardon the pun) When I asked a few people about it they do not seem to be interested or see value in ceiling fans. Is this a common attitude with you southerners?
Getting back on topic, i personally feel good about exporting on average 20KWH/day to the grid, one day when electricity prices get to a point where large solar fed domestic battery plants can be accessed by the NEM and homeowners paid a premium for it, as the peakers are now, it could go a long way to solving our power needs. We and everything else on the earth are only here because of the sun, surely harnessing it's energy is a no brainer for our future.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2017)

Wyatt said:


> When I asked a few people about it they do not seem to be interested or see value in ceiling fans. Is this a common attitude with you southerners?




Well, hot air rises and ceiling fans just blow it back down on you.

Evaporative coolers are an alternative as long as you are in their direct flow.


----------



## sptrawler (27 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, hot air rises and ceiling fans just blow it back down on you.



They were all people had a generation ago, my wife and i lived in Exmouth in the early 80's, all we had was ceiling fans. You manage, today there seems to be little tolerance of hardship, to save money.



SirRumpole said:


> Evaporative coolers are an alternative as long as you are in their direct flow.



Evaporative, especially in dryer climates, like W.A, S.A are really good.


----------



## Muschu (27 March 2017)

Thanks for the comments and info above.  We lived in PNG for 5 years with no air con and with ceiling fans.  Also much younger then! 

I used Solar Quotes a lot in my research but also a very informative Whirlpool thread on Solar Panels in WA [ thread title may have been Perth].

Anyway, right or wrong, the system is in and staying there.  Generated 34.7 kWh today when the weather fluctuated a bit and the morning quite cool.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2017)

Wyatt said:


> When I asked a few people about it they do not seem to be interested or see value in ceiling fans. Is this a common attitude with you southerners?



There was a ceiling fan in my house when I bought it - installed for the purpose of pushing down hot air from the wood fire in winter. 

It wasn't much good at that, not powerful enough, and was also at a height just perfect for trimming the hair of anyone even slightly over average height. Once it broke I didn't bother fixing it and replaced it with a ducted heat transfer system which does a much better job of moving the heat around the house.

So far as energy's concerned there are some interesting differences between states when it comes to heating and cooling. One that immediately comes to mind is that the average house in Victoria actually uses more heating than the average house in Tasmania. Then there's differences in the means of doing it with gas being incredibly common in Vic whereas gas is a minor thing in Tas with electricity being dominant followed by wood.

As for power bills, well my last one was less than zero so no complaints there. Winter is a lot more though since the solar doesn't do much and consumption is far higher due to heating (have electric as well as wood so well prepared there).


----------



## sptrawler (27 March 2017)

You're spot on smurph, energy needs to heat or cool, are dramatically different throughout Australia.

On the East coast, I would think evaporative cooling would have limited effect, due to the high humidity in summer.
However in the areas through S.A and W.A, that run from a line South of Carnarvon through to Adelaide, they really work well with evaporative cooling.
This is due, to the heat being generally accompanied by an easterly wind from the desert, and a high pressure system lacking humidity.


----------



## sptrawler (25 January 2019)

Has anyone gone off grid yet? if so what batteries did you settle on and why?
The son is building a house and no grid available, so doing a lot of research on batteries. Interesting he sent an email to Redflow, didn't get an answer, so is going to chase them up.
Any info, on experience with house batteries, appreciated.


----------



## Macquack (26 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Has anyone gone off grid yet? if so what batteries did you settle on and why?
> The son is building a house and no grid available, so doing a lot of research on batteries. Interesting he sent an email to Redflow, didn't get an answer, so is going to chase them up.
> Any info, on experience with house batteries, appreciated.



With advice from the guru Smurf and Google and Youtube, I am off the grid on a small house where grid connection was not viable. One year down the track and everything is working fine. Using AGM batteries I purchased off ebay (Giant brand). I have never had to externally charge the batteries even after multiple rainy/ overcast days. A bit of power management/ common sense becomes second nature.


----------



## Lantern (26 January 2019)

We are really liking the offerings from BYD. 48V 2.5kW blocks. Also the Power Plus in both 24V & 48V are looking promising.


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2019)

Macquack said:


> With advice from the guru Smurf and Google and Youtube, I am off the grid on a small house where grid connection was not viable. One year down the track and everything is working fine. Using AGM batteries I purchased off ebay (Giant brand). I have never had to externally charge the batteries even after multiple rainy/ overcast days. A bit of power management/ common sense becomes second nature.



Thanks for that Maca, how many Kw/hr of batteries do you have, what voltage are you running the bank at? I guess you are using a hybrid inverter ? or are you running separate inverter battery charger set up? 
Yes I have explained to the son he needs to think about power management, tank on a stand to supply house water, orientation of the house, insulation, wet back stove with solar hot water. etc
He is a good kid pretty smart, so he should be o.k.
Any advice you can offer, would be greatly appreciated, no better knowledge than someone who has done it.


----------



## Macquack (26 January 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Thanks for that Maca, how many Kw/hr of batteries do you have, what voltage are you running the bank at? I guess you are using a hybrid inverter ? or are you running separate inverter battery charger set up?
> Yes I have explained to the son he needs to think about power management, tank on a stand to supply house water, orientation of the house, insulation, wet back stove with solar hot water. etc
> He is a good kid pretty smart, so he should be o.k.
> Any advice you can offer, would be greatly appreciated, no better knowledge than someone who has done it.



I started by purchasing 20 solar panels of which I could only use 18 because of the configuration dictated by the inverter. So I have 4.5kW of panels being 6 strings of 3 panels so the VOC (voltage open circuit) is only approximately 120 volts DC.

The inverter is a 5kW 48 volt all in one charge controller/inverter with twin MPPT solar inputs. I purchased the inverter on Ebay,  it is a MPP brand, I think it is the PIP5048MSD but I can't find that model on Ebay now.

The battery bank is just 8 X 130ah 12 volt AGM batteries in 2 strings of 48 volts. The batteries are Giant brand purchased on Ebay. As I understand I have approximately 12.5 kWh of battery power which translates to approximately 6.25 kWh of usable power because of the recommended 50 % maximum of depth of discharge of AGM batteries.

Very basic system that relies on gravity feed water supply that I pump upstream with a petrol water pump. Gas oven and cook top.  Gas boosted solar hot water. Wood combustion heater and NO air conditioning.


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2019)

Macquack said:


> I started by purchasing 20 solar panels of which I could only use 18 because of the configuration dictated by the inverter. So I have 4.5kW of panels being 6 strings of 3 panels so the VOC (voltage open circuit) is only approximately 120 volts DC.
> 
> The inverter is a 5kW 48 volt all in one charge controller/inverter with twin MPPT solar inputs. I purchased the inverter on Ebay,  it is a MPP brand, I think it is the PIP5048MSD but I can't find that model on Ebay now.
> 
> ...



That sounds great Maca, I will pass on the info to the son, as I said he is a bit ocd so he will research it to the enth degree. If you like I will continue the conversation as pm's, unless you wish to just keep this thread going. Up to you.
But he will really love the info.


----------



## Lantern (29 January 2019)

To all people who are thinking about connecting lead acid/AGM batteries in parallel please read and try to understand this.
http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html

Whilst there is a correct way to do it, in reality it's never a good idea.


----------



## sptrawler (29 January 2019)

Lantern said:


> To all people who are thinking about connecting lead acid/AGM batteries in parallel please read and try to understand this.
> http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html
> 
> Whilst there is a correct way to do it, in reality it's never a good idea.



Thanks for that Lantern, great link.


----------



## basilio (29 January 2019)

Lantern said:


> To all people who are thinking about connecting lead acid/AGM batteries in parallel please read and try to understand this.
> http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/batt_con.html
> 
> Whilst there is a correct way to do it, in reality it's never a good idea.




Wow ! The internet just justified itself... alomost.
Nice to learn something practical and well explained.


----------



## Djamila78 (1 February 2019)

Wyatt said:


> Good move. Having had a 6+KW system on my roof for nearly 5 years and a smaller system prior to that, I can vouch that solar is great (especially on a nice feed in tariff) It is very consistent over the years...



We have installed a similar system for the residential sector of the farm. It paid for itself in more than six months. Some of the energy went on the milking sheds (click here). I'm thinking about installing the next installation after expanding the territory.


----------



## Belli (2 February 2019)

As part of the renovations to my home, solar panels were installed.

System:
19 x 345W panels
Sunny Boy 5.0 single phase.

Location: Canberra, 37 degrees north-east, roof incline 22 degrees.  No shading.

Pricing (rounded to very close approximates):

Smart meter.

Daily supply charge $1.39 per day;
Monthly maximum demand charge (maximum use in any one-half hour block between 5pm and 8pm) multiplied by number of days in month and charged at 16c per kWh, essentially a high watermark impost;
Peak usage charge of 20c per kWh;
Off-peak (hot water) charge of 16c per kWh;
Feed-in tariff (no contract) of 11c per kWh. 

I haven't taken much notice of how effective the system is - mainly because I don't think I can do anything to improve it's effeciency.  However, for the first time I had a look at the January figures.

Solar production for month of January was 1,086 kWh.

Usage:

Off-peak: 62.7 kWh
Peak: 195.4 kWh
Solar exported: 752.6 kWh
Maximum demand on 4 January at 2.8 kWh

Ducted recycle cooling used (obviously) when temperatures were hitting over 35C.

So in rough terms the cost to me in January was:

Supply charge: $43.09;
Maximum demand charge: $13.89
Off- peak: $10.03
Peak: $39.08
Solar fee-in: $82.79
Net cost: $23.58, i.e. $0.76 per day

Overall not too bad I guess.

One odd thing, and I don't really understand why, is to do with the ducted cooling.  Double glazing has also been installed.  When the forecast has been for rather vile days, I have essentially put the place into lock-down around 10am and turned on the aircon.  I haven't changed the default setting of 28C from when it was installed.  Steady cool air coming through the outlets.  However, it didn't seem to me the aircon was working overly hard and checking the thermometer occasionally it indicated the internal temperature of the house was 25C.

I was considering putting in solar hot water or a heat pump but decided against either as reviewing my off-peak usage over the two years prior to installing the PV solar system, the annual cost was around $230 and there wasn't any monetary benefit in paying $3,500 or more just to save, maybe, about $200 a year. 

Nevertheless, as I have a very large roof space (essentially the house is a large rectangle of close to 15m straight,) another PV system will be installed soon.  Again 19 x 345 watt panels but as part of the roof can become shaded during winter and at certain times of the day during Summer, they will have micro-inverters.  The system will be a battery ready with SolarEdge 5 kW single phase  - even though I have three-phase power to the house.  I couldn't justify the additional cost of three-phase.

It's going to be interesting in many ways to see the results.


----------



## sptrawler (2 February 2019)

Belli said:


> As part of the renovations to my home, solar panels were installed.
> 
> System:
> 19 x 345W panels
> ...



I can't believe how cheap your peak and off peak electricity is, obviously there are a lot of pluses living in Canberra.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2019)

Belli said:


> Nevertheless, as I have a very large roof space (essentially the house is a large rectangle of close to 15m straight,) another PV system will be installed soon.  Again 19 x 345 watt panels but as part of the roof can become shaded during winter and at certain times of the day during Summer, they will have micro-inverters.  The system will be a battery ready with SolarEdge 5 kW single phase  - even though I have three-phase power to the house.  I couldn't justify the additional cost of three-phase.



A "heads up" - check with your electricity _retailer_ to be sure that you aren't falling foul of any capacity limits beyond with the standard feed-in tariff (FIT) doesn't apply.

I'm not familiar with the rules in the ACT but for other states there are typically limits set by both the distributor (who owns the poles and wires) and the retailer (company who you pay for electricity) and those limits aren't necessarily the same.

There's probably no issue but I do recommend making sure "just in case".


----------



## Belli (3 February 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I can't believe how cheap your peak and off peak electricity is, obviously there are a lot of pluses living in Canberra.




There is that aspect.   I have briefly looked at pricing applicable in other States and concluded were not doing too bad here in that respect.

It's a real effort and a half going through the retailer's pricing plans and it really isn't simple with Time of Use plans, standard plans, etc, etc.  All seemingly designed to confuse.  I decided to elect the default Solar plan.  There is simply no simple calculator I could find where you can just plug in the numbers on consumption and come up with a "best fit."

And to counter my next doors neighbours complaint (all of close to a 30 minute harangue) I'm installing solar at his expense as I'm not contributing to maintaining the infrastructure, the retailer sort of gets around that.  Non-Solar plans have a daily supply charge of $1.07 per day and no maximum demand charge whereas solar is $1.39c daily supply charge and a maximum demand charge.  Admittedly I pay 20c per kWh whereas he pays 25c per kWh.  The small devil in me grins when I think the retailer buys off me at 11c per kWh and re-sells to him at 25c per kWh.  Not exactly true but I like to think so.



Smurf1976 said:


> A "heads up" - check with your electricity _retailer_ to be sure that you aren't falling foul of any capacity limits beyond with the standard feed-in tariff (FIT) doesn't apply.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the rules in the ACT but for other states there are typically limits set by both the distributor (who owns the poles and wires) and the retailer (company who you pay for electricity) and those limits aren't necessarily the same.
> 
> There's probably no issue but I do recommend making sure "just in case".




Yep and thanks for that.  As you'd know each PV system has to apply to the distributor to connect to the grid and that's been done in this case.

The retailer has no issue with two PV systems from the one location and advised there is no need for an additional smart meter as that was one issue which did cross my mind.  I'm only required to confirm in writing after the system is installed with the NMI even though the retailer would be aware it happened via the smart meter.  It maybe smart but maybe their not.

They are cunning though.  At the time I had the first system installed, the limit for the FIT was 10 kW single phase and 30 kW for three-phase.  Since then, while a 10 kW system for single phase can be installed the limit of the FIT for the system is 5 kW.  The three phase limit still applies.

Could be it happened due to the up take of solar installations here where there has been close to a 100% increase in residential solar electricity production in 2018 compared with 2017.  Usual situation of no cogent policy at a number of levels of Government so individuals take action according to their perception.


----------



## DB008 (3 February 2019)

Belli said:


> There is simply no simple calculator I could find where you can just plug in the numbers on consumption and come up with a "best fit."




I find that Origin doesn't make it too hard.

Here are some screenshots of my current contract













I signed up for this plan last year and with the 5% discount and 14 FIT - I don't have bills anymore, l receive credit. Not bad at all.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2019)

Belli said:


> They are cunning though.  At the time I had the first system installed, the limit for the FIT was 10 kW single phase and 30 kW for three-phase.  Since then, while a 10 kW system for single phase can be installed the limit of the FIT for the system is 5 kW.



The 5kW on single phase thing is an Australian Standard so it’s a national requirement.

Some electricity distributors, SA and Tas and possibly elsewhere, will allow some “creativity” on the part of those who want to push the limits but ultimately it’s a national standard that they’re just enforcing.


----------



## Belli (4 February 2019)

DB008 said:


> I find that Origin doesn't make it too hard.
> 
> I signed up for this plan last year and with the 5% discount and 14 FIT - I don't have bills anymore, l receive credit. Not bad at all.




Appreciate this D808.  I tried it but it doesn't work for me as Origin's data seems a little behind as it indicated I don't have solar at my address  - which is incorrect.

I'll check them out further but it does appear one annoying aspect is it doesn't have a comprehensive pricing brochure which I am able to print out and study in detail.  I'll need to ring and probably have to endure to a sales pitch simply to get data for my purposes.

Not overly concerned about it really as I installed solar for other reasons.  Plus I didn't work hard to get the dosh.  Merely using some funds from the January distributions of STW and VGS.  The previous system was installed via a similar method.



Smurf1976 said:


> The 5kW on single phase thing is an Australian Standard so it’s a national requirement.
> 
> Some electricity distributors, SA and Tas and possibly elsewhere, will allow some “creativity” on the part of those who want to push the limits but ultimately it’s a national standard that they’re just enforcing.




Thanks for that information Smurf1976.  It clarifies the rationale behind the retailer's decision.


----------



## Belli (1 March 2019)

The second PV system has been installed (SolarEdge 5kW single phase, battery ready, 19 x 345 Q-Cell panels with power optimisers.)  Became operational mid-morning. Smart meter three-phase as that is presumed necessary is for the size of this property I guess.  Not a clue about that as it was connected before I bought this place.

Metering service advised no upgrade to smart meter required and wiring the PV solar to the smart meter along with the other 5kW system will not cause issues.  Not being at all versed in this stuff I'll have to take the advice as correct until proven otherwise.  As the feed-in terrif is based on each individual inverter, it seems I am eligible to receive the feed-in tariff (11c per kWh) for both.

Combined production on the day of installation was 55kWh (rounded) of which 50kWh was exported.

As with any new toy, I did have a look early in the morning as to how each PV system was doing.  The system at one end of the house was producing 50w while the other, with the power optimisers, and was just starting to receive direct sunlight was producing 340w.

All very interesting, at least to me.  I'll be curious to see:

(a) what it does to my electricity bill (the last was 80% less than the previous corresponding period and

(b) the operation of these systems over the cooler months.


----------



## DB008 (1 March 2019)

How much did the system cost?


----------



## Belli (1 March 2019)

DB008 said:


> How much did the system cost?




$10,560 installed.  Net of STC.

And the wink in my previous post was not supposed to be there.  The auto thingy seems to like changing semi-colons.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 March 2019)

Belli said:


> I'll be curious to see:
> 
> (a) what it does to my electricity bill (the last was 80% less than the previous corresponding period and
> 
> (b) the operation of these systems over the cooler months.




For the bill I recommend checking very carefully to make sure everything's reasonably as expected. That is, that your account shows plausible volumes for import from the grid, export to the grid and any additional metering (eg off-peak hot water) if you have it.

That is especially so if you are located in SA, Vic, NSW or south-east Qld. Less likely to be dramas anywhere else although mistakes aren't impossible.

For the production in Winter versus Summer it really depends on orientation of the panels. Anything facing E or W will tend to have a greater seasonal variation than if they're facing N. For those facing N the tilt angle will have a major influence.

So it's very hard to generalise there.....


----------



## Wyatt (1 March 2019)

Here's a ripper chart to work out your potential PV harvest from a solar setup. Quick easy and accurate.
Data from10 cities across Australia.

See link half way down on 1st post. C/O Whirlpool Forums

https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2678825


----------



## Belli (2 March 2019)

Thank you peoples.  Much appreciate your posts.  If I need to I can access the retailers website which can provide me with a Yearly, Monthly, Weekly or Daily (in hourly increments) breakdown on exported solar or peak and off-peak usage.

I'll probably have a play with the calculators for the fun of it.

I have to be careful not to become over obsessed with this.  One of my more unfortunate traits I'm afraid.  From my current position this stuff is very marginal in a financial sense.


----------



## Belli (2 March 2019)

This is really only for me as a memory jogger down track as it is unlikely I'll check the systems very much in the future.

Data for 1 March 2019.  Figures are in kWh.

SMA solar production: 39.506
SolarEdge solar production: 40.12
Combined: 79.626

Data from retailer:

Off-peak usage (10pm): 1.496
Peak: 3.697
Solar: 73.817


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 March 2019)

Contract has just been signed for my new system.

StorEdge (SolarEdge) 5kW inverter DC coupled to an LG RESU10 battery and with as many panels as can fit on the usable roof space, expected to be 5.11kW subject to minor variation at the time of installation.

Reason for not going bigger is lack of suitable roof space. It's shaded E & W so that only leaves N and there's a limit to the available space. I'm using rather expensive 365 Watt panels to get the biggest practical output from the limited available space.

Installation will be in about a month once all the paperwork, meter change etc is sorted out.


----------



## Macquack (4 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Contract has just been signed for my new system.
> 
> StorEdge (SolarEdge) 5kW inverter DC coupled to an LG RESU10 battery and with as many panels as can fit on the usable roof space, expected to be 5.11kW subject to minor variation at the time of installation.
> 
> ...



How much, if you don't mind me asking? Those batteries aren't cheap.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 March 2019)

Macquack said:


> How much, if you don't mind me asking? Those batteries aren't cheap.



Just under $15k for the lot net of all rebates etc.

If I had more roof space without shading issues then I could have saved $2K easily by using panels with lower output per m2. That wasn't a realistic option however.

The battery + associated bits comes to about $10,850 less $4650 SA government subsidy = $6200 cost to me (installed price).

Ideologically I'm not keen on subsidies like that but pragmatically they're going to hand the money out, the scheme has a fixed quantity, so I'd be silly to not take it.


----------



## Macquack (5 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Just under $15k for the lot net of all rebates etc.
> 
> If I had more roof space without shading issues then I could have saved $2K easily by using panels with lower output per m2. That wasn't a realistic option however.
> 
> ...



The battery is a very good deal after the subsidy.

I have a technical question. If your load exceeds 5kWs (say 7 kW), does the battery via the inverter supply the full 5 kW with the shortfall 2 kW coming from the grid OR does the full 7 kWs come from the grid because the inverters maximum capacity is exceeded?


----------



## Belli (5 March 2019)

Not an major issue but I have noticed the monitoring software for the SolarEdge does not automatically refresh - at least in my case.  I had to refresh the browser.  Admittedly I don't know much about it as I only looked at it for about 5 minutes on the first full day after installation so it could refresh at other intervals.

The SMS does seem to show current power as it occurs.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 March 2019)

Trying to improve the efficiency of solar cells.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...taic-limit-shockley-queisser-physics/10862544


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 March 2019)

Macquack said:


> I have a technical question. If your load exceeds 5kWs (say 7 kW), does the battery via the inverter supply the full 5 kW with the shortfall 2 kW coming from the grid OR does the full 7 kWs come from the grid because the inverters maximum capacity is exceeded?




The battery has a discharge limit of 5kW (assuming the inverter it is connected to has at least a 5kW rating which in my case it will, otherwise the limit would be lower eg 3kW inverter).

The inverter in my case is 5kW. It didn't have to exactly match the battery but it does.

Now suppose that load is 7kW, there is 2kW being generated from solar because it's cloudy and the battery is charged because load was much lower until I started cooking etc.

What will happen in that situation is the inverter will output 5kW, the limit of its capacity, with 3kW being drawn from the battery to add to the 2kW from solar. The other 2kW needed to supply the 7kW load will be from the grid.

If the load then drops to 1.5W and the sky is now clearer so there's more sun and solar production is 4kW then that will result in the inverter outputting 1.5kW to match the load and the other 2.5kW going into the battery assuming it isn't already fully charged. If the battery were fully charged then the inverter would output the full production of the solar panels with the surplus 2.5kW being fed into the grid.

So output from the solar panels will, in priority order, supply house load, charge the battery, be exported to the grid.

The battery will only ever be charged using surplus solar and will only be discharged to enable the inverter to supply the house load in the absence of sufficient solar to do so. That is, the battery will not be charged from the grid and will not discharge to supply the grid. Technically that could be done but would be uneconomic from my perspective with present retail electricity pricing.

So if the battery is not flat and is not full and load is not more than 5kW then flow through the electricity meter will be zero. 

The hot water will remain separately supplied from the grid on controlled load (off-peak) supply unaffected by the solar which won't "see" that completely separate load with its own meter. There's no benefit either economically or technically in messing about with it under my circumstances so I won't.


----------



## Belli (6 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Trying to improve the efficiency of solar cells.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...taic-limit-shockley-queisser-physics/10862544




We can be innovative at times and it's one of the things we can be good at.  Always exploring how to improve stuff.   From my very limited understanding, at one stage 250w panels were the bees knees and now it appears to be 365w.  To me that seems a pretty good jump.

I believe there are a couple of commercial places which have installed clear glass solar panels at the entrance.  Doesn't take much of an imaginative leap to wonder if it can eventually be adapted for home and office windows.


----------



## lindsayf (6 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The battery has a discharge limit of 5kW (assuming the inverter it is connected to has at least a 5kW rating which in my case it will, otherwise the limit would be lower eg 3kW inverter).
> 
> The inverter in my case is 5kW. It didn't have to exactly match the battery but it does.
> 
> ...




We installed a similar system about 3 months ago.
brand: Solax
6.5kw of panels
5kw inverter
5kw LG battery
Operates just as you have described and has functionality to operate when grid is down.
I was surprised to find that that functionality is not default. I had to request it and there was a small cost increase for it. Out of pocket cost after rebates about $13k.

This is on a property we bought around July last year which is on 24 acres. It already had solar hotwater and a Rayburn stove with water jacket that heats the hotwater (electric as well) and the in slab hydronic heating...all integrated.  We are more or less off grid and if we add another 5kw battery (and a back up genny) and a few more panels we probably could go fully off grid.  But for now it works very well with minimal grid use.


----------



## Belli (6 March 2019)

Paid for 60% of the costs today (30% was previously paid as the deposit.)  Final 10% will be paid after the ACT Building Planning inspector give the tick it's all been installed properly.

I think the ACT may be the only jurisdiction which does these inspections.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 March 2019)

Belli said:


> I think the ACT may be the only jurisdiction which does these inspections.




It varies yes.

In Tas there's an electrical inspection but no building inspection as such for smaller systems. 

Larger systems need engineering certification that they're not going to cause problems with the roof either due to weight or lift during high winds.

In SA I haven't found out how it works yet although I do know that SA Power Networks will kindly be giving the area a planned 6.5 hour blackout a couple of weeks before I get the system installed. Had they planned that for sometime later then I could have used the backup power function but such is life.


----------



## Belli (7 March 2019)

OK it's a new toy so I couldn't help myself.  Data for the first five days.

1 March (kWh)

SMA production: 38.506
SolarEdge production: 40.12
Total: 78.626
Retailer received: 73.817

2 March

SMA production: 31.058
SolarEdge production: 30.479
Total: 61.537
Retailer received: 55.278

3 March

SMA production: 38.207
SolarEdge production: 38.827
Total: 78.034
Retailer received: 71.795

4 March

SMA production: 29.04
SolarEdge production: 31.15
Total: 60.19
Retailer received: 53.943

5 March

SMA production: 17.245
SolarEdge production: 17.04
Total: 34.285
Retailer received: 28.453​


----------



## DB008 (7 March 2019)

Hey Belli,
I use an app called 'Oxley Solar" on Android.

Connects via Bluetooth to my SMA. Easy as pie to set up.

Here is a screenshot l just did - I can drill down to live, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly.


----------



## qldfrog (8 March 2019)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sunpower-unveils-worlds-first-400-184006097.html
400w per panel, based on article will be available in Australia


----------



## Belli (8 March 2019)

Thanks for that @DB008.  I'll have a play with it more than likely.



qldfrog said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sunpower-unveils-worlds-first-400-184006097.html
> 400w per panel, based on article will be available in Australia




Yep, nothing seems to be static with this industry.  Cost per panel may be higher but fewer needed for similar output so overall cost of system should be less expensive.

A neighbour down the road is humming and haring about installing solar and is tossing up whether to do it now or wait for improvements in the equipment.  I can understand that but I think it's line ball on getting the benefit of solar now or wait.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 March 2019)

Belli said:


> A neighbour down the road is humming and haring about installing solar and is tossing up whether to do it now or wait for improvements in the equipment.  I can understand that but I think it's line ball on getting the benefit of solar now or wait.



Efficiency of the panels matters in one circumstance only and that's if the available sunlight is limited. In practice that means you've got limited space.

In any other circumstance the only downside of lower efficiency is needing to use more physical space but if that's not an actual constraint then no issues.

Panels themselves are so cheap now that further reductions in cost won't make a huge difference to the price of an installed system since the other components of the cost, that is the inverter, wiring, panel mounting system, meter changeover, labour and incidental bits and pieces are where most of the money's going these days.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2019)

Hi Guys,

Is there anyone that has solar panels, and uses Energy Australia?

Can you PM me, I need to compare my Bill with some one else’s, just the part about energy usage.

Because I am pretty sure they aren’t charging me for my imports, but still giving me credit for exports.


----------



## Belli (18 January 2020)

I'd forgotten this thread existed.  Must be getting old which I am.

I haven't checked the production of the PV systems I have but yesterday I wondered about the impact of the smoke haze which hit this and other places.  On 5 January 2020, where I live (Canberra was suffocating.  Air Quality Index was twice as bad as Delhi and it was yellow (check out these ABC photos)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-05/nsw-fires-blanket-canberra-in-thick-smoke/11841546

Goodness me did in have an adverse impact as it would on any PV system.  On a "normal" Summer's day one PV system would produce about 40 kWh.  On that day the production was 7kWh.

Pure serendipity I had 12 months earlier ripped out the windows and frames and replaced them with double glazing.  Suffered from cabin fever but was OK with the effect of the smoke.  Not as bad of course as those who were and still are living on the various fire grounds.


----------



## IFocus (18 January 2020)

Just moved into a new place next to the ocean, solar install scheduled for late Feb, wondering if any one needs to clean their panels?

Have been watching the smoke haze must be a nightmare for those with health issues my wife has a condition where she just cannot breath smoke if it happened here in WA for any length of time we would have to move....maybe a month or two in Bali 

Possibly too windy here for a long duration.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> Just moved into a new place next to the ocean, solar install scheduled for late Feb, wondering if any one needs to clean their panels?



That'll depend on tilt angle and rainfall (intensity and frequency of it more than total volume).

If the panels are tilted at least 15 degrees from horizontal and you get periods of proper rain, as distinct from just drizzle etc, then should be no real problem.

Keep watch on them once they're up.....


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> Just moved into a new place next to the ocean, solar install scheduled for late Feb, wondering if any one needs to clean their panels?
> 
> Have been watching the smoke haze must be a nightmare for those with health issues my wife has a condition where she just cannot breath smoke if it happened here in WA for any length of time we would have to move....maybe a month or two in Bali
> 
> Possibly too windy here for a long duration.



The biggest problem you will have ifocus, is the salt spray down there on the ocean front in Falcon.
I have panels in Mandurah cbd, once a year I give them a scrub with a soft broom and wash it off with a battery operated pressure sprayer sucking from a bucket. Found it too awkward managing a hose on the second floor roof.


----------



## IFocus (18 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> That'll depend on tilt angle and rainfall (intensity and frequency of it more than total volume).
> 
> If the panels are tilted at least 15 degrees from horizontal and you get periods of proper rain, as distinct from just drizzle etc, then should be no real problem.
> 
> Keep watch on them once they're up.....




The house is 7 years old tin roof, tek screws already growing / corroding so got up replaced 1000 before the solar goes on (1st time I have ever harnessed up on a roof must be getting old ) so I figure we will get spray on the panels no big deal can hose off once in a while.

Another point was lower end panels wouldn't give warranty that close to the beach.


----------



## Belli (18 January 2020)

I did bravely climb on the roof (I hate heights!) and hosed all the dust and ash off the panels  - all 38 of them plus the two for the solar hot water.

Futile exercise as the bloody stuff came back in the following days.  Salt residue is another matter but not an issue I have to contend with luckily.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2020)

IFocus said:


> The house is 7 years old tin roof, tek screws already growing / corroding so got up replaced 1000 before the solar goes on (1st time I have ever harnessed up on a roof must be getting old ) so I figure we will get spray on the panels no big deal can hose off once in a while.
> 
> Another point was lower end panels wouldn't give warranty that close to the beach.



Just had a thought Ifocus, if I was you, I would get in touch with the company installing the system and ask them if they use good quality stainless 316 bolts for the panel to rail clamps. Also I would be getting a tin of never seize, and ask the guys who put the panels on to coat the bolts, if you don't you will have a $hit of a job trying to get them off at a later date to repair or replace them with the corrosion from the surf spray.
If they are using galvanised bolts get the measurements and buy some stainless ones.
Just my opinion.


----------



## IFocus (19 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Just had a thought Ifocus, if I was you, I would get in touch with the company installing the system and ask them if they use good quality stainless 316 bolts for the panel to rail clamps. Also I would be getting a tin of never seize, and ask the guys who put the panels on to coat the bolts, if you don't you will have a $hit of a job trying to get them off at a later date to repair or replace them with the corrosion from the surf spray.
> If they are using galvanised bolts get the measurements and buy some stainless ones.
> Just my opinion.




Yes agree SP will see what turns up and hassle but no big deal to change out if not up to spec.


----------



## Belli (26 January 2020)

I logged in to the energy retailer I use and was surprised at how little power I draw from the grid.  It is between 3 kWh to 5 kWh per day.  This is despite the awful conditions with heat, bush fires and other impacting factors.

My off-peak power use is zero and has been since I had solar hot water installed in early August last year.  The electric boost is connected to peak so that is not stunning news to me but it has been switched off day after installation when it was used allow the water to heat.  Since then I have had no issues with the amount of hot water or its temperature.  However, the tank is a 300 liter for a four-bedroom house and I am single so that is one cause for the outcome.

One aspect I couldn't understand for a while is why the house, when all closed down due to smoke haze, became slightly warmer later in the day.  It was only after discussing it with a person who is familiar with these issues did I get some understanding.  The house has double glazing.  It works in reverse as well.  So the heat from any electrical equipment (refrigerators, units on stand by power) and body heat will cause the temperature to rise slightly as well as the humidity.  I can only assume that is the cause as I have no knowledge in such mattes but I found it interesting.

Since October last year, the house has consumed the following in peak-power:

October 19: 200.5 kWh
November 19: 128.9 kWh
December 19: 155.5 kWh
January 20 (part): 135.4 kWh

Solar exported for same periods:

October 19: 1,867.7 kWh
November 19: 2,078.9 kWh
December 19: 2,026.1 kWh
January 20 (part): 1,279.8 kWh


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2020)

Belli said:


> So the heat from any electrical equipment (refrigerators, units on stand by power) and body heat will cause the temperature to rise slightly as well as the humidity.  I can only assume that is the cause as I have no knowledge in such mattes but I found it interesting.



That’ll be it.

Heat is heat whether it’s coming in from outside or whether it’s from electrical appliances or humans giving off about 100 Watts each or whatever.

It’s not such an issue these days due to the lower power consumption of equipment and better air-conditioning systems but in the past places like TV studios, control rooms with a whole wall full of monitors and so on with everything giving off heat and it being impractical to have open windows were incredibly hot inside. Not unusual to find 35 degrees in a place like that when it’s 15 degrees outside and cloudy.

Factories, power stations and so on are also often incredibly hot inside for the same reason of internal heat generation from machinery.


----------



## Humid (31 January 2020)




----------



## sptrawler (31 January 2020)

Humid said:


>




Nice pickup Humid, I will check it out when I get on the home computer and off the phone.


----------



## barney (25 April 2020)

Bit late to the party I guess but just had a new roof put on the house and think its time to put Solar on.

Basic question  …. Any recommendations on a good/best value Company and accompanying Energy provider(east coast Aus) I should be going with?

I was told by a mechanical engineer that a quality Inverter is the most important part of the equation in the long run?

Any advice/comments/suggestions from other's experience appreciated … Cheers


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2020)

barney said:


> Bit late to the party I guess but just had a new roof put on the house and think its time to put Solar on.
> 
> Basic question  …. Any recommendations on a good/best value Company and accompanying Energy provider(east coast Aus) I should be going with?
> 
> ...



Good move barney, I guess a lot depends on how much you want to spend, if you want to add a battery, roof space limitations.  You need a different inverter if you are going to install a battery.
I have had three solar systems installed, non have had the top shelf German inverters and non have failed.
I assume the German ones are better, but Im of the opinion that in 10years time whatever inverter you have, will probably need upgrading due to technical improvements and changes.
In W.A it cost $3000 for a 6.6kw system with a 5kw inverter, it was an extra $1000 to have a German inverter, I didnt bother.
But smurf will have a better idea than me with the situation on the East coast, also he has installed a battery, so probably has a hybrid inverter, which would add extra costs.
Over here in W.A you only get 7c feed in tarrif and last timd I checked you recieved no feedin tarrif if you had a battery.
Lots of variables barney, so plenty of research is the order of the day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2020)

barney said:


> I was told by a mechanical engineer that a quality Inverter is the most important part of the equation in the long run?




Definitely agreed. The inverter, which in simple terms is the box full of electronics which converts DC (from the solar panels) into AC power (what your house uses and the grid works on). If anything's going to cause trouble then that's where it will be so you want top quality in my opinion. 

The panels well personally I'm less fussy and would accept anything reasonable. Only reason to go for the latest and greatest is if you've got very limited roof space and need to maximise output per square meter since the top of the range panels do have higher output per unit of physical size. Otherwise, well paying 50% more for a panel that produces 10% more isn't the way to go - better off just adding another few panels unless physical space is a problem.

No comment on specific companies beyond noting that the vast majority of the physical work installing solar is done by small businesses. Even the large companies that do sell solar systems generally sub-contract the physical work to someone reasonably local. 

Energy companies - go for whoever has the best deal unless there's some particular problem with customer service, billing etc or some reason why you just don't like a particular company. From a technical perspective well there's only one power grid and who you're paying for electricity makes zero difference there.

A few things though:

Shading - is there any shade, at all, on your roof? If so then this isn't a show stopper by any means but it does mean you need micro-inverters or optimisers on the panels. Have a good look - chimneys, TV antennas, trees, sewer vent pipes, anything that casts a shadow.

Inverter location - I strongly recommend that it's placed out of direct sunlight if at all possible. Heat is the enemy of the longevity of electronics. 

How old is your switchboard? If it's old (has fuses) then it'll need replacement as part of the work. No problem if it's modern (has circuit breakers) and there's space to add the solar one and everything's in good condition. The installer will need to see it to confirm but if it's old then expect to need an upgrade.

Site inspection - if whoever's quoting won't come on site to give a firm quote then personally I'd be looking for someone who will. Site unseen, based only on Nearmap images, is good enough only for ballpark figures. It'll tell you how many panels fit on the roof but personally I'd want a site visit.

What direction(s) does the roof face?

Presumably you are on the main power grid somewhere? That is, you're not in a remote town that runs its own generators? Reason for asking is that in the case of the latter there may be different rules as to what's allowable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> But smurf will have a better idea than me with the situation on the East coast, also he has installed a battery, so probably has a hybrid inverter, which would add extra costs.



Yep 

Previous house (Tas):

4 systems totaling 6.69kW installed progressively 2009-13 on the N, E and W facing roof areas. Total of 33 panels in sizes 170W, 190W, 195W and 250W such was the progress of technology during those years. 

All inverters were SMA (made in Germany) although one carried BP branding the others SMA branded. All panels were Chinese brands.

Current house (SA):

1 system comprised of 14 x 365W panels all facing North. Reason is the other roof spaces are heavily shaded by trees. These are LG panels, at the expensive end certainly, and chosen for no reason other than the physical space limit - if it wasn't for that then I'd have gone for a larger number of much cheaper 335W generic brand panels. That wasn't an option however.

Inverter is SolarEdge which by its nature means there's an optimiser on every panel so no problems with any shading of those.

Battery is DC coupled to the inverter, so yes it's a hybrid, and the battery is an LG RESU10H so that's 9.3kW active storage capacity with a maximum charge / discharge rate of 5kW (short term overload rating of 7.0kW in discharge mode).

Yes it's set up to operate as an islanded power system in the event that the grid power fails. That is, the panels still operate, so does the inverter and battery, and I'll still have power if the mains fails so long as the battery isn't discharged fully. Not all circuits are connected so as to preclude any overload situation - in short the oven and hot plates are not backed up in a blackout (but yes they will use solar power under normal circumstances, the distinction is for technical reasons due to equipment capacity limits and the huge current draw of the hot plates and oven).

System was installed in 2019 so it's all pretty new. Total energy generated thus far = 6.7 MWh. Needless to say, this arrangement was not cheap.......


----------



## Value Collector (26 April 2020)

barney said:


> I was told by a mechanical engineer that a quality Inverter is the most important part of the equation in the long run?




Look into micro inverters, where each panel has it's own inverter, they can increase the amount of generation you get from your panels, especially if some of your panels get a bit of shade throughout the day.

also, if your traditional inverter fails the the whole system goes down. but with micro inverters you only loose the production of the one panel, also the systems I was looking at the micro inverters came with longer warranty periods than the traditional inverters.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2020)

Value Collector said:


> Look into micro inverters, where each panel has it's own inverter, they can increase the amount of generation you get from your panels, especially if some of your panels get a bit of shade throughout the day.



Agreed - though I'll point out that properly installed optimizers on panels subject to intermittent shading are another way to achieve the same end result.

Key point there is that without adopting either approach, micro inverters or optimizers, shading one panel cuts the output of the whole lot hence the critical "is there any shade at all?" issue - it changes the design approach required for the system.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Otherwise, well paying 50% more for a panel that produces 10% more isn't the way to go - better off just adding another few panels unless physical space is a problem.




Would the more expensive panels be likely to last longer ?


----------



## Humid (26 April 2020)

Rule of thumb about 1K per kw
Just installed 6.6kw system 
3 Phase Fronius inverter with Longi panels
GoodWe was the other option a bit cheaper 
If you get quotes be prepared to be hounded


----------



## Humid (26 April 2020)

Value Collector said:


> Look into micro inverters, where each panel has it's own inverter, they can increase the amount of generation you get from your panels, especially if some of your panels get a bit of shade throughout the day.
> 
> also, if your traditional inverter fails the the whole system goes down. but with micro inverters you only loose the production of the one panel, also the systems I was looking at the micro inverters came with longer warranty periods than the traditional inverters.




you also eliminate having high dc voltage running through your roof space


----------



## barney (26 April 2020)

Thanks for the replies and advice gentlemen …  much appreciated. The good news is I have a flat roofed house with basically no shading problems at all  although a lot of it slopes SSW which I read is not ideal. 

Meter box is a bit ancient so probably an upgrade needed there as well.  Quote time I guess and see what eventuates. Cheers.


----------



## Humid (26 April 2020)

Try Whirlpool too you can get more local ideas


----------



## bellenuit (26 April 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> shading one panel cuts the output of the whole lot hence the critical "is there any shade at all?" issue - it changes the design approach required for the system.




Could you explain what you mean by that Smurf, please. I currently have a 24 panel set-up (nearing 10 years now) in WA and in the late afternoon about 2 or 3 of the panels become shaded by the sun going behind a nearby roof. So if 3 are in the shade am I my losing *more* than 1/8 of what I would be getting if there was no shading?


----------



## Humid (26 April 2020)

If it's wired in series you will


----------



## Humid (26 April 2020)

bellenuit said:


> Could you explain what you mean by that Smurf, please. I currently have a 24 panel set-up (nearing 10 years now) in WA and in the late afternoon about 2 or 3 of the panels become shaded by the sun going behind a nearby roof. So if 3 are in the shade am I my losing *more* than 1/8 of what I would be getting if there was no shading?




https://www.infiniteenergy.com.au/shading-solar-pv-systems/


----------



## sptrawler (26 April 2020)

barney said:


> Thanks for the replies and advice gentlemen …  much appreciated. The good news is I have a flat roofed house with basically no shading problems at all  although a lot of it slopes SSW which I read is not ideal.
> 
> Meter box is a bit ancient so probably an upgrade needed there as well.  Quote time I guess and see what eventuates. Cheers.



There has been some great feedback, great thread Barney.
Another thing to consider, if you can only fit a small system on the roof, check out the threshold voltage on the inverters they offer, it will make a lot of difference, as some inverters start generating at 70volts others at 110volts, so the 70 will start up earlier and shutdown later, it isn't such a big deal with large systems but can make a big difference on smaller systems.
As Humid said whirlpool is a good source of geeks and you will get good info there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Would the more expensive panels be likely to last longer ?




Hard to know really.

The LG panels are in the "expensive" category and do look to be a quality product which hasn't come out of the same factory as the generics. Whether or not they'll last longer though, well that's much harder to know since we're talking about a lifespan that ought to be decades.

Good installation is crucial to panel longevity however - under no circumstances should there be twist or other pressure exerted on the panels, they need to sit flat on the rails and be clamped in place but no twisting is acceptable. They won't fail immediately but it'll greatly increase the chance of stress fractures of the individual cells and eventually that kills the panel.

Which brings me to an important point - a decent installer who knows what they're doing and who does things properly is crucial. Regardless of the equipment, it needs to be properly installed - we're talking about something that should last a very long time here so it needs to be done properly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2020)

bellenuit said:


> So if 3 are in the shade am I my losing *more* than 1/8 of what I would be getting if there was no shading?



In short yes.

If you have 24 panels then depending on the panel size and voltage they are probably wired as two strings of 12 panels or they could possibly be done as 3 x 8 depending on the panels and inverter.

Regardless of that detail, current flow through the string will be limited to the lowest performing panel not the highest or the average.

Eg for simplicity let's suppose we have 10 panels in series with 9 in full sun and one completely shaded. The output you get will be equal to that of 10 shaded panels since the lowest will limit current flow through the whole string.

A shaded panel is a bottleneck basically. 

Simple solution for an existing system is install optimisers on any panels subject to shading. In simple terms that enables a by-passing of the shade-induced obstruction to the rest of the system. So in that case you'll only lose output from the panels which are actually shaded.

Happy to explain further - I've cut this short because I'm about to run out the door. Back later.


----------



## Belli (13 May 2020)

I now have twelve months of financials for the operation of the two PV solar systems for my home which covers all appliances, cooking, heating and cooling.  The net cost to me was $63.28.  Before installing the systems I estimate I was paying over $2,000 pa (haven't kept the actual numbers.)

Of course my household structure and usage is different to others.


----------



## marys (15 May 2020)

I have a solar panel on my house roof. I also researched some articles and found this one for you about 25 kW Solar System - Blog About Solar Energy | Websolarguide


----------



## Belli (30 August 2020)

Belli said:


> I now have twelve months of financials for the operation of the two PV solar systems for my home which covers all appliances, cooking, heating and cooling.  The net cost to me was $63.28.  Before installing the systems I estimate I was paying over $2,000 pa (haven't kept the actual numbers.)
> 
> Of course my household structure and usage is different to others.




Did a comparison of the electricity consumption for June-August 2019 v current period (with two days to go so close enough.)

First I live in Canberra so it does get cold during the Winter months and for me that is the period of the largest energy consumption mostly heating.

The electricity bill for the period ending 8 August was just on 20% lower than pcp.  On the energy usage aspect:

June 2020 17% lower than June 2019
July 2020 25% lower
August 2020 to 29/8 is 32% lower.

I haven't changed my usage habits - when I'm cold I heat the house and push the button on the ducted recycle system.  However, the energy provider has also changed its pricing policy the major aspect being a 38% reduction in the daily supply charge.  Consumption charges have also reduced but not to the same extent being a reduction of 1%.  They have also reduced the feed-in tariff by 27%.

The only recent enhancement I have made to the house is replacing the timber front doors with double glazed ones in February this year as the level of draft, despite weather strips, was quite high.  Although this would have some impact I doubt it would account entirely for the reduction in energy usage.  Possible but I don't think that would be the case.

On the production of solar energy, it is less that the same period last year.  Variable days due to weather events.  On a couple of days export production as a result was down to 1.5 to 3kWh.

All-in-all despite the good and bad with pricing, I feel the overall result is good from my perspective.  Despite the apparent brouhaha in some part of the mainstream media about electricity bill shock, it hasn't happened to this little black duck unless a bill reduction is considered a shock.

Now, if only they would introduce micro-grids in my neck of the woods.  Yet to happen.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2020)

Belli said:


> Did a comparison of the electricity consumption for June-August 2019 v current period (with two days to go so close enough.)
> 
> First I live in Canberra so it does get cold during the Winter months and for me that is the period of the largest energy consumption mostly heating.
> 
> ...




My house is 100% electricity for everything, heating, cooling, Hot water, cooking, My car, and even the lawn mower, and my 8.23 KW solar system covers my total usage averaged thought out the year.

however the time of year does Affect it, my bills were as follows.


Summer $54 Bill ( high air conditioning)
Autumn  $129 credit 
Winter    $80 Bill (lower production, heating)
Spring     $95 credit

I am super happy with our system, because we work from how summer time bills used to be huge, with air conditioning, now it’s less than the cost of the supply charge, and that’s including the addition of an electric car.


----------



## Belli (30 August 2020)

Nice going there @Value Collector.

My bills are greater than yours but so are the refunds.  As usual it all depends on many factors; house orientation, numbers in household, etc.

If there is one thing which does annoy me is people such as my neighbour who sprouts nonsense averages about electricity usage without understanding averages do not necessarily apply to individual households. Yes, they are included in the average but they aren't the average. I suppose he annoys me as he keeps claiming he is subsiding my solar power.  Hmm,  former electrician whose business failed,  ended as a property manager so knows absolutely everything about building and energy.  Tiresome person who is an example the Dunning Kruger effect is alive and well.


----------



## Value Collector (30 August 2020)

Belli said:


> Nice going there @Value Collector.
> 
> My bills are greater than yours but so are the refunds.  As usual it all depends on many factors; house orientation, numbers in household, etc.
> 
> If there is one thing which does annoy me is people such as my neighbour who sprouts nonsense averages about electricity usage without understanding averages do not necessarily apply to individual households. Yes, they are included in the average but they aren't the average. I suppose he annoys me as he keeps claiming he is subsiding my solar power.  Hmm,  former electrician whose business failed,  ended as a property manager so knows absolutely everything about building and energy.  Tiresome person who is an example the Dunning Kruger effect is alive and well.




I don’t know why he thinks he is subsiding your solar, 10 years ago that was probably the case, but now that all bills pay for usage as well as the connection fee, and our solar feed in tariffs are less than what we buy electricity for it’s not the case any more.

You pay the same daily charge to be connected to the grid as he does.


----------



## Belli (30 August 2020)

Sorry about the rant. I'm 70 and happy that I am. It affords me the privilege of telling those who annoy me to go and get fundamentally fumigated and not care.


----------



## Belli (10 October 2021)

I am currently paying $18 per month for electricity using the energy providers averaging calculations based on Winter readings from last year. Sneaky dastards recently reviewed (?) the payment and increased the amount by $4 per month.  If I used their calculations for Winter just past the amount would be $65 per month. I have decided to leave the payment at $18 pm. Summer is close and the export credit plus payment will build up and I'll consume most of that next Winter.

I did the usual annual search for the electricity deal using the energymatters website.  Plugged in the NMI and there is still nothing better than what I am presently paying.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2021)

Now that this thread has come up again I'll pose a question.

Originally, the recommendation was for north aligned panels , but someone told me that it's better to have east-west aligned panels.

Can anyone clarify this ?

Thanks.


----------



## rederob (10 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Now that this thread has come up again I'll pose a question.
> 
> Originally, the recommendation was for north aligned panels , but someone told me that it's better to have east-west aligned panels.
> 
> ...



This should help:





However this informative article tells you why it can make sense orienting west, depending on your electricity plan and the time of day you use most electricity.
So nothing wrong with choosing different orientations depending on usage and the plan you are locked into.


----------



## moXJO (10 October 2021)

Value Collector said:


> I don’t know why he thinks he is subsiding your solar, 10 years ago that was probably the case, but now that all bills pay for usage as well as the connection fee, and our solar feed in tariffs are less than what we buy electricity for it’s not the case any more.
> 
> You pay the same daily charge to be connected to the grid as he does.



Solar rebates?
Wasn't there some rebate on the installation?
Wasn't the feed in tarrifs raising prices via both upgrades and oversupply?
Genuine question.


----------



## Value Collector (10 October 2021)

moXJO said:


> Solar rebates?
> Wasn't there some rebate on the installation?
> Wasn't the feed in tarrifs raising prices via both upgrades and oversupply?
> Genuine question.



I believe the solar rebates are funded through the sale of the green certificates, but either way the fossil fuel industry receives government hand outs.

feed in tariffs these days are pretty representative of the market price for electricity, especially when you factor in that the electricity is sold directly into your neighbourhood, without the costs of transmission and energy losses etc.


----------



## rederob (10 October 2021)

Value Collector said:


> I believe the solar rebates are funded through the sale of the green certificates, but either way the fossil fuel industry receives government hand outs.
> 
> feed in tariffs these days are pretty representative of the market price for electricity, especially when you factor in that the electricity is sold directly into your neighbourhood, without the costs of transmission and energy losses etc.



I think there may have been some tweaking of the system in recent years, but am not sure.
This link gives a better idea of how it all works now,


----------



## bellenuit (10 October 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Now that this thread has come up again I'll pose a question.
> 
> Originally, the recommendation was for north aligned panels , but someone told me that it's better to have east-west aligned panels.
> 
> ...




My understanding is as follows, but I am no expert.

Assuming no shading, you generate the maximum amount of solar power when the panels are facing where the sun is at midday, which will be generally be to the geographic north.

Household power consumption during daylight hours, particularly for working families with school going children, is generally at its highest in the mornings and in the early evenings. The mornings due to cooking breakfasts, showering (for electric water heaters) etc. and in the early evenings due to cooking dinners, maybe TV watching and in particular air conditioning usage on hot days. Air conditioning usage tends to make the early evenings more energy dependent than mornings. Middle of the day usage is low due to parents working and kids at school.

About a decade or more ago, when many people were on very generous feed-in tariffs that were greater than the cost of buying power, it made sense to have the panels orientated to the north. The more power you could feed to the grid the better as you get more for your power that way than you would save in not paying for grid power.

When the generous feed in tariffs ended, the equation changed. Here in WA the feed-in tariff is only a fraction of the cost charged by the energy suppliers. That means it is better to use your own produced power as much as possible in preference to taking power from the grid. So north facing panels mean that your need for power is at its lowest when you are producing it at the maximum and your need for power is highest when you are producing the least. So an east or west or both direction solution can actually be the cheapest solution overall. You still do not produce as much power as when your panels are facing north, but the lesser amount being produced is more effective at keeping costs lowest overall.

Obviously there are lots of provisos that go with the above. Usage of smart tariff meters, being a non-typical household, having smart appliances that can be time controlled, use of battery storage etc. all will have an impact on what is the best orientation.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2021)

Spot on @bellenuit


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 October 2021)

Value Collector said:


> feed in tariffs these days are pretty representative of the market price for electricity




For the record *** (electricity company) is quite happily paying their customers in SA 12.7 times the market value of solar electricity at present.

In truth, at the wholesale level, well electricity never was expensive and it's worth even less now.

Average spot market value for rooftop solar over the last 12 months:

NSW = $44.63
Tasmania = $35.70
Queensland = $32.82
WA = $29.13
Victoria = $22.20
SA = $4.71

All prices in $ per MWh.

As a consumer I won't object to being subsidised but I won't expect that to continue forever. At some point such things tend to change.

What really needs to happen however is on the consumption side. Early afternoon on Sunday and there was about 1800 MW of wind and solar generation curtailed, that is turned off, across the mainland NEM states.

Now if it were up to me, well I'd be making sure we put that to use so far as possible. Technically that's pretty straightforward albeit unexciting. Politically well it's difficult.....


----------



## Value Collector (11 October 2021)

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record *** (electricity company) is quite happily paying their customers in SA 12.7 times the market value of solar electricity at present.
> 
> In truth, at the wholesale level, well electricity never was expensive and it's worth even less now.
> 
> ...




Not really though, The retailer has to buy the power at a whole price, but will also have to pay transmission and distribution costs, and suffer losses. Where as when a solar feed in goes from the one house to the neighbors house, there is no transmission costs or losses.

Also, some times the power is resold and consumed in the same house that generates it at a higher price than the feed in tariff.

for example I get paid a 15cent feed in tariff, but if my hot water system is running on the off peak circuit which it does every day, I have to rebuy my own power at 17.5 cents plus GST.


----------



## DB008 (11 October 2021)

New build, new solar

Longi Panels (450W LONGi Solar Hi-MO4m) with Enphase inverters as l have shade in the afternoon

7.2kw system. Touch under $9k.









.​


----------



## noirua (11 October 2021)

Microinverters​The heart of every Enphase system.​


			https://enphase.com/installers/microinverters


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 October 2021)

Value Collector said:


> The retailer has to buy the power at a whole price, but will also have to pay transmission and distribution costs, and suffer losses.



Where the issue arises is that a large portion of distribution costs are fixed, they exist in order to build and keep the network in place, and _someone_ has to pay those costs.

Reducing peak demand will lower distribution costs but reducing throughput at off-peak times, when a water heater would normally operate, makes no real difference. 

That argument then opens up quite a minefield......


----------



## Belli (16 December 2021)

While don't have much sympathy for the energy distributors, I can get why they are nervous about the bottom line.  I had a look at this houses' usage over the last last four days.

Drawn from grid over 24 hours.
0.589 kWh
0.775 kWh
0.480 kWh
0.578 kWh

Solar export over same period.
65.413 kWh
58.924 kWh
64.116 kWh
57.147 kWh

Of course there is the daily supply charge but I would incur that irrespective of having solar or not (although the rate would vary slightly.)


----------



## rederob (16 December 2021)

Belli said:


> While don't have much sympathy for the energy distributors, I can get why they are nervous about the bottom line.  I had a look at this houses' usage over the last last four days.
> 
> Drawn from grid over 24 hours.
> 0.589 kWh
> ...



Your "export" figures are impressive, and while we could match them it would void our 20 year contract that limited us to a 5kWh inverter that capped our feed in rate.  That said, we do get 52cents/kW FIT so are very happy.

From what I have gathered from this and other threads on electricity there has been a consistent failure of the federal government to work with States to harmonise renewables' rollouts and facilitate their technical integration with the grid.  It's much easier to buyout and build Snowy2 and receive accolades than deal with the tougher issues confronting distribution *and *expect the private sector to fund them.

Back on topic, I need to rebuild the pool's gazebo after white ants took a liking to the oregon timber, and was looking at installing a roof laden with solar panels to power a proposed DC pool pump with battery backup.   I worked out that payback would be around 3-4 years.  Unfortunately the solar company I contacted said that if I did this it would void my solar FIT arrangements and I would be worse off.  Even though the proposed gazebo solar was to be totally isolated (and not contribute to FIT) the contract I have does not allow for any other devices to be powered by a separate solar system.  The good news is that I can now tell my better half we have to wait another 8 years to fix the gazebo.  And there was I thinking I had to procrastinate on this task.


----------



## Belli (16 December 2021)

The only reason the export figure is impressive is because I have two separate 5 kWh inverters and so both are eligible for the FIT.  One is with optimisers as it gets shade at various times whereas the other doesn't.  It was less expensive doing it that way rather than a 10 kWH system with micro-inverters. Single-phase and not three-phase systems.

You may know about this already but I'll post the link nevertheless.  Only 10 years ago but not warmly embraced by industry players.  I am surprised by that. 





__





						Home | iGrid - CSIRO Intelligent Grid Cluster
					

The Intelligent Grid Cluster is a major collaborative research venture between the CSIRO and the university sector under the CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship. It explores the economic, environmental and social impacts and benefits of the large-scale deployment of intelligent grid technologies...



					igrid.net.au
				




Excellent attitude there to always put off maintenance issues until technical difficulties arise which prevent you from doing them anyway.


----------



## Belli (2 January 2022)

It's getting to the stage where the energy provide is about to write to me begging I use more power from the grid.

From Grid

26 December: 0.543 kWh
27 December: 0.729 kWh
28 December: 0.808 kWh
29 December: 0.637 kWh
30 December: 0.203 kWh
31 December: 0.244 kWh
1 January: 0.002 kWh

Solar:

26 December: 45.456 kWh
27 December: 32.219 kWh
28 December: 72.430 kWh
29 December: 80.731 kWh
30 December: 77.519 kWh
31 December: 72.154 kWh
1 January: 77.710 kWh

The oddest thing is they appear to have entered into an agreement with the financial institution I use to provide a 10% rebate on all utility (electricity/water) payments I make from the account.  Not too sure what I what I will buy with the $0.48 per fortnight I get back.

PS: For 1 January the combined solar production of both systems was 85.869 kWh so solar consumption and efficiency issues of the system accounted for 13.715 kWh.  Also have solar hot water as well (installed when the then hot water system blew up) which in the past cost approximately $210 per year.


----------

