# Solar Panels and Tax



## Ferret (30 March 2011)

I did a search of the ATO site and didn’t find anything on this.

I’ve heard that the income from solar panels should be included as taxable income in your tax return.  Sounds likely.  It would then also seem reasonable that you could claim a deduction for depreciation.  Maybe also interest if you borrowed to fit them. 

Do any accountants (or others) here know what the situation is?


----------



## bellenuit (30 March 2011)

This is from March 2010 and the answer then was NO.  I don't believe it has changed since....

*Tax implications of going Solar!*

http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/tax-implications-of-going-solar.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2011)

There's no issue in the context of a small residential system on your roof but I'm not sure about large commercial systems.

Basically, I think it's just another anti-solar scare tactic to be honest. Always plenty of them around - it will make your power bills go up, it will burn the house down, systems don't work, pay tax on the power produced, pay the power company for using your own power and so on. 

All of those claims are absolute rubbish assuming we're talking about a decent installation, but they seem to have succeeded in keeping a great many people well away from solar power.

I'm very realistic about the limitations of distributed power generation, it is not a major alternative to fossil / nuclear / hydro, but that doesn't alter the fact that putting panels on your roof can actually be quite profitable depending on circumstances.


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2011)

The ATO would be a big loser if the income (feed in tariffs) was taxable with resultant depreciation and finance interest deductability as the purchase value is the sum of what the resident paid plus the solar credits.

Some bean counter in the ATO may have realised this.


----------



## nioka (30 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> it is not a major alternative to fossil / nuclear / hydro, but that doesn't alter the fact that putting panels on your roof can actually be quite profitable depending on circumstances.




It is a great investment. After six months of using power as we need it without trying to save on the cost we are almost $1200 dollars ahead and have free power on top of that. Our panels can generate up to 3.6kw. And that is after the cloudiest, wettest summer in many years. (and tax free too)


----------



## Julia (30 March 2011)

nioka said:


> It is a great investment. After six months of using power as we need it without trying to save on the cost we are almost $1200 dollars ahead and have free power on top of that. Our panels can generate up to 3.6kw. And that is after the cloudiest, wettest summer in many years. (and tax free too)



 That's very impressive.  Is the subsidised deal through which you did this still available?  Can you tell us some of the detail of it?
After the subsidy, approx what was the cost:  therefore how long until the system has paid for itself?

Do the solar panels necessarily need to be mounted on a north facing roof?
(I already have all my north facing roof covered with solar heating for the pool).


----------



## drsmith (30 March 2011)

I've recently signed up for a 1.5kW system with install before the end of June. On the installer's figures an a simple assumption about what is used/feed back into the grid, annual return would be about 35% on the system purchase price. I'll be happy with 25% as that represents payback of intial capital over 4 years.

I have not done it out of concern for the environment, but rather for the return above and the expectation that electricity costs will continue to increase significantly. Partly for this reason also, I have purchased a solid fuel heater.

In terms of carbon (dioxide) abatement, I have seen a figure of $300 per tonne in relation to residential solar panels. That, if truen is much more expensive than a carbon price of, say, $25 per tonne.

For the government, taxpayers and installers, I wonder whether demand may necessitate an earlier withdrawal of government rebates due to the cost to the federal budget. If this is the case, the impact on installers could be adverse (like pink batts) resulting in long term warranties on components being worthless. 

I suspect that like pink batts, this is another disaster in the making for the government. 5 years (possibly less) is all I need for a return better than bank interest (pre tax). Anything beyong that is, as far as I'm concerned, a bonus.


----------



## bellenuit (30 March 2011)

Julia said:


> That's very impressive.  Is the subsidised deal through which you did this still available?  Can you tell us some of the detail of it?
> After the subsidy, approx what was the cost:  therefore how long until the system has paid for itself?
> 
> Do the solar panels necessarily need to be mounted on a north facing roof?
> (I already have all my north facing roof covered with solar heating for the pool).




Julia,

There is a lot of good stuff on the Whirlpool Forums about solar....

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/138

See if there is a forum listed specific to your location or at least to QLD.  That will give you more precise info on the feed back tariffs applicable to your area.

I paid $9K for a 3.4 KW system.  I don't know what the full price is, as the deal generally is the solar company takes the government discount and charges you the balance.

In WA, we get 47 cents for every net KW exported, net being the difference between what we produce and what we use calculated for each 30 min interval. I have mine installed only 2 months but I am expecting it to pay for itself in about 4 - 5 years.

North facing is the best, but east or west are also possible, but not as efficient.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Do the solar panels necessarily need to be mounted on a north facing roof?
> (I already have all my north facing roof covered with solar heating for the pool).



You'd be surprised how little difference it really makes having the panels face E or W depending on your roof pitch. In most cases, we're talking about a loss of less than 10% in total annual output assuming it's less than 90 degrees off true north. The exact losses will depend on roof pitch.

One thing however - NO shade at least during the majority of the day.

Regarding location, the critical factor is light not heat. They'll work better in Qld that's for sure, but output is still pretty decent in Vic or Tas as long as you're not at the bottom of a valley somewhere that gets no sun.

In terms of CO2 emissions savings, take it as being in the order of 2 tonnes per annum for a 1.5 kW system. That will vary with location, but it's of that magnitude. Bit more or bit less depending on where you live, which way the panels face and so on.

How much is the power output worth? Again that varies, but the worst case (Tasmania) is about $420 a year - lowest system output (due to weather) and relatively low price for the power too. The figure is higher in the other states - the exact amount varies but we're talking quite a lot more. It will depend partly on your power usage profile etc.

Bottom line? It's profitable to install a 1.5kW system in my opinion. A decent return, tax free, on a fairly conservative investment. Yes it's subsidised, but if someone's giving out money then I may as well have some.

I'm presently running a 1.36 kW system (originally installed as 1.02 kW under the old rebate system) and am giving some thought to expansion toward 3 kW. The deciding factor for that expansion will be financial (bearing in mind that there's not much in the way of subsidies for such an expansion).

With regard to specific equipment, my opinion is to steer well clear of Chinese inverters. Get a German, Japanese, USA or Australian made inverter from a decent manufacturer (personally I prefer the SMA products (made in Germany) since they're pretty much bullet proof in terms of reliability but there are other quality brands as well). 

As for the panels themselves - your choice is either generic Chinese or a brand name that is probably made in the same factory or just down the road. Personally, I'd take the risk on cheaper panels but not a cheap inverter.

As for the actual installation - just a tip, get the inverter put under the house or somewhere else that's in the shade if at all possible. 

Another one - make sure that installation of the import / export electricity meter is included in any price you are quoted. This will be done by the electricity distributor - costs vary between states (free in some states, not in others).

Maintenance? Not really necessary. Under normal circumstances you don't need to be cleaning the panels or anything like that unless you're living next to a factory with lots of fallout or get dust storms or something like that. Provided that they're on at least a 15 degree slope, normal rainfall will keep them clean. 

Warnings? If you're in SA or Vic then just make sure you know what rates you will pay for electricity once the system is installed. Some of the suppliers there offer some rather nasty "deals" which you don't want.

What about solar hot water? My advice is that if you are going to install solar hot water as well as solar power then make sure the installer locates whichever you install first so as to leave space on the roof for the other. Don't put the first set right in the middle of the roof (many installers will do just that if you don't ask otherwise).

Specific comments for anyone in Tasmania for small systems under 3kW - meter install is free, no change to the rates you pay for electricity. Yes you still keep HydroHeat and/or off-peak meters and tariffs which are completely unaffected by installing solar (all solar output will be credited against your normal Light & Power use which is the highest rate). Only thing you can't have is Pay As You Go since the PAYG meters are not suitable for use with solar.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Bottom line? It's profitable to install a 1.5kW system in my opinion. A decent return, tax free, on a fairly conservative investment. Yes it's subsidised, but if someone's giving out money then I may as well have some.
> 
> I'm presently running a 1.36 kW system (originally installed as 1.02 kW under the old rebate system) and am giving some thought to expansion toward 3 kW. The deciding factor for that expansion will be financial (bearing in mind that there's not much in the way of subsidies for such an expansion).
> 
> ...



This is the inverter to come with my system.

http://jtsolar.com.au/klne-sunteams-1500-high-efficiency-inverter.html

Chinese: Yes. Cheap: The above crowd have them listed for $1.4k. It does come with a 5-year warranty, so hopefully the installer in my case will last that long.

The following system has very similar characteristics to the one I have ordered in terms of location, pitch and direction.

http://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?p=0&id=202&sid=217&o=date&d=desc

He's averaged about 10kWh/day on sunny days since data commenced in mid Sept 2010. This is quiet similar to the sunny day numbers I have estimated for the corresponding time of year.


----------



## pixel (31 March 2011)

It may not be relevant for tax returns, but it does affect people who are receiving a pension. There is a flyer from Centrelink stating that -


If you receive a rebate that exceeds the charge for power drawn from the grid, i.e. if your Power Utility sends you a cheque, you have to declare it as income for the billing period.
If the credits are less, i.e. if you still have to pay something, there is no impact.
Sounds stupid, I know; but that's the kind of hare-brained idea they come up with.


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2011)

bellenuit said:


> There is a lot of good stuff on the Whirlpool Forums about solar....
> 
> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/138




Yes anyone considering purchasing a solar system should look at this site.

I got my system through Origin because I was impressed with the quality of the panels and inverters their contract installers use.

After about 6 weeks my inverter (Sharp) displayed an error code. I went through the process of trying to reset (from the handbook and the help of the whirlpool site) to no avail. The inverter is guaranteed five years. It was replaced inside a week with no further problems. 

There are quite a number of dodgy installers out there.(pink bats revisited.).Go with big companies.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2011)

pixel said:


> It may not be relevant for tax returns, but it does affect people who are receiving a pension. There is a flyer from Centrelink stating that -
> 
> 
> If you receive a rebate that exceeds the charge for power drawn from the grid, i.e. if your Power Utility sends you a cheque, you have to declare it as income for the billing period.
> ...



More information;

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/feed_in_tariffs.htm 



> *On 14 May 2010 the Government announced that feed-in tariffs paid as an electricity account credit will not be assessed as income for pension purposes.*
> 
> Feed-in tariffs paid as cash to pensioners (for example by cheque or by direct deposit) will continue to be counted as income for pension purposes.
> 
> ...



Synergy's (WA) default option is to credit excess credits to the homeoner's account (FAQ 8). 

http://www.energy.wa.gov.au/3/3649/64/frequently_asked_questions.pm



> *Payments are made to the holder of the electricity account at the address where the system is installed. Payments are made as credit on the electricity account.* If the account is more than $100 in credit arrangements can be made with Synergy or Horizon Power to receive the payment as a cheque.
> 
> Synergy will be introducing electronic funds transfer for its customers and this should be available shortly.


----------



## Ferret (31 March 2011)

Thanks for the advice, people.  Bellenuit, that link and the embedded link to the ATO was just what I was looking for.

Its good news, although the stance from centrelink and veteran's affairs is a little disturbing.  Hope the ATO doesn't decide to follow this.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2011)

Thanks to all who have offered such useful information.

Smurf, if my aim was to reduce the cost of running the heat pump for the pool (average three month cost in winter around $800) would I need to install a larger than usual system?   

I've just spoken with a rep from Solarlife Pty Ltd who seems less than bright, and suggested I should remove the very efficient solar tubing which covers the north facing roof to heat the pool, to make way for the new solar panels!

Can anyone recommend a firm in SE Qld?


----------



## Ferret (31 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks to all who have offered such useful information.
> I've just spoken with a rep from Solarlife Pty Ltd who seems less than bright, and suggested I should remove the very efficient solar tubing which covers the north facing roof to heat the pool, to make way for the new solar panels!




Lol!  One of my relatives just had a similar experience.  

He has a roof that is part slate, part aluminium sheet and asked for quotes to fit solar panels on the aluminium part.  One rep suggested replacing the slate roof so that my relative could fit more solar panels!


----------



## pixel (31 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks to all who have offered such useful information.
> 
> Smurf, if my aim was to reduce the cost of running the heat pump for the pool (average three month cost in winter around $800) would I need to install a larger than usual system?
> 
> ...



 I believe Solargain are a National outfit. If they're represented in your area, and assuming their service is consistent across the Nation, I would recommend you at least invite one of their advisors to come and have a look-see and chat.

Conceded they're not the cheapest, but their warranty is 25 years and their Suntek panels are rather efficient. We started with a 1KW system, but opted for the 2KW inverter. A couple of weeks ago, we added another 6 panels and regularly harvest between 10 and 12 units per day, even though our roof is not straight North-oriented.

PS: Remember to hose the panels down every couple of rainless weeks. Splashing the dust off the panels makes a helluva difference to the panels' efficiency.

PPS: Don't pick any of the el-cheapo's; friends wanted to "save" - now they find that a chimney casts a shadow on the panels, which reduces the efficiency drastically (there would've been space enough away from the chimney); and if they want to toggle through production figures on their inverter, they need a ladder. "D'oh!"


----------



## bellenuit (31 March 2011)

pixel said:


> A couple of weeks ago, we added another 6 panels




Pixel,

Does the government REBS rebate apply to extending an existing system? 

I put in 3.4 KW of panels a few months ago, but attached them to a 4 KW inverter.  I'm regretting now I didn't max out the inverter capacity.  If I add more panels to fully utilise the inverter will the REBS discount apply?


----------



## pixel (31 March 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Pixel,
> 
> Does the government REBS rebate apply to extending an existing system?
> 
> I put in 3.4 KW of panels a few months ago, but attached them to a 4 KW inverter.  I'm regretting now I didn't max out the inverter capacity.  If I add more panels to fully utilise the inverter will the REBS discount apply?



 Yes and No: the Government's subsidy is a fixed amount for the first installation only. We were lucky that we snuck in before the $8,000 were cut back to $6,000 in mid-2009. And luckier still when it came to our power company to charge us for the digital meter: initially, we had been quoted $695 (we needed a 3-phase one), but by the time they got around to billing us, that had come down to $290 as well 

RECs can be used to lower the price each time you add more panels; we signed ours over to Solargain - didn't amount to a lot anyway.
The extension cost us about as much as the initial installation, but I had done the sums, and with the increased feed-in tariff, we'll have the entire system paid off in under 8 years. As power charges will only go up, that period is set to shrink even further.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2011)

pixel said:


> RECs can be used to lower the price each time you add more panels; we signed ours over to Solargain - didn't amount to a lot anyway.
> The extension cost us about as much as the initial installation, but I had done the sums, and with the increased feed-in tariff, we'll have the entire system paid off in under 8 years. As power charges will only go up, that period is set to shrink even further.



 Many thanks for your advice above, pixel.

When you say here that you will have the entire system paid off in under 8 years (which actually seems like a pretty long time to me) how does this work?
Is it dependent on the existing rules continuing to apply?
Is it conceivable that a change of government, or just a change of government policy, could scrap your capacity to get paid for the excess you generate?

sorry if these are dumb questions.  I really have no idea how it all works.
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.


----------



## pixel (1 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Many thanks for your advice above, pixel.
> 
> When you say here that you will have the entire system paid off in under 8 years (which actually seems like a pretty long time to me) how does this work?
> Is it dependent on the existing rules continuing to apply?
> ...



 LOL, Julia;
I'm sure you know the definition of a "dumb question": Dumb can only ever be applied to the question that didn't get asked.

Here in WA, the Government passed a law that guarantees a feed-in tariff of 40c *for ten years* starting in September 2010. That is on top of the power utility being obliged to pay the standard (7c) generation cost per unit.
I understand that South Australia has a similar legislated subsidy that's even higher.
That being the case, I cannot see any possible constellation, under which a new State Government could change the rules *for existing installations.* It may be conceivable that the FIT will be reduced at some time in the future, but only for installations begun *after *the new framework became Law. But the contract I have with Synergy and the State Government is quite clear-cut: 47c per unit that I deliver into the grid.

My "bankable feasibility study", made before I ordered the extension, made certain assumptions about our future power consumption vs power production. In it, I assumed a retail price of 21c as the bottom line: If we consume every unit we produce - averaging 10 units a day, we save about $750 per annum. In reality, however, there are times when our consumption is much less than 1 KW, so we'll "feed in" any excess that our 2KW installation produces. Those "fed-in" units carry a price tag of 47c rather than 21c.

During the first year of production, our 1KW system "made" 1,666 units; double that for the upgraded 2KW system. Then rough an average price of 30c per produced unit, and you end up with $1,000 ROI p.a. 
Our total costs were a shade below 8 Grand, so you can see where my 8 years payback comes from. With every price increase, the price mix moves up in our favour, increasing the rate of annual savings.

PS: OK, so I ignored the cost of capital; had I invested $8K in the market at x% (taxable!) interest, I might have, after 8 years, slightly more than $8K capital. But neither did I account for the fact that *for every year AFTER the system has paid for itself, it'll give me at least $750 worth of free power - year after year.* That is $750 worth in today's money, without any further feed-in tariff...


----------



## nioka (1 April 2011)

Julia said:


> That's very impressive.  Is the subsidised deal through which you did this still available?  Can you tell us some of the detail of it?
> After the subsidy, approx what was the cost:  therefore how long until the system has paid for itself?




Original Quote was for a 3.06 kw system with 2 inverters $17,194.50 less 7,199.50 subsidy. and less $500 "order now" discount? So $9,995.

Because I had room for more panels I paid an extra $2000. The inverters had the capacity but there was no extra rebate bacause the rebate is only for the first 1500kw.

My cost therefore was $12,300.extra was for an electrician to make the final connection to the grid. The unit has capacity in theory for 4000kw. The best instant read of generation has been a rate of 3.69kw per hour. Average is way down on that of course. We have a contract for 6 years to sell into the grid all we produce at 60c kw. In six months I have used $763.08 worth @22.12c and have a credit of $947.53. ( They pay annually so they get an advantage there). 

So for an investment of $12,300 I have received back $1,710.61 in six months. Last meter reading and account last week.

Note we get 60c a unit for all we produce and buy back at the lower rate. This deal may not still be available in NSW.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2011)

Thanks, pixel and nioka, much appreciated.


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

nioka said:


> Note we get 60c a unit for all we produce and buy back at the lower rate. This deal may not still be available in NSW.



If 60c per unit gross was on offer in the west, I'd seriously consider plastering the entire north facing roof with solar panels.

The Swan Valley 1.54kW setup (someone else's) that I linked earlier has produced about 1800kW of electricity from mid-September to the end of March or a dollar value of $1080 at $0.60 per unit. I would estimate another 500kW is likely over the cooler months taking the dollar value to $1380pa. At that rate, a 1.5kW setup could be paid off in under 2 years. With 4kW, that would rise to $3680pa or a payback time of 3.3 years for $12300.

If only the WA government was that foolish, er, um, generous. A net feed in tarriff of $0.47 combined with a 50/50 split between feed in and usage (~$0.21 per unit) results in a net of $0.34 per unit produced or $782 for 2300kW of generation over a year. My net cost is about $2.7k for 1.5kW including 3-phase meter changeover for a payback time of ~3.5 years (29%pa). I suspect that in reality, it could be a little less, more like 4 years (25%pa) as I'm a little further south (more cloud/weather than the Swan Valley setup).

With the government subsidy reduction above 1.5kW, each additional kW of generating capacity costs about $4000. That, on the WA estimated figures above would generate $521 of revenue per kW of generation capacity for a payback period of 7.7 years (13%pa). While this sounds attractive in the context of bank interest, it does not take into account depreciation as the hardware only has a finite useful life while money in the bank does not lose it's nominal value. For this reason, I have not considered investment beyond 1.5kW to be worthwhile.

As this is an evolving technology, I also wonder to what extent improvements will result in price reductions per unit output (much like the evolution of computer components). 

In 5 years time, is it possible that a 1.5kW inverter could be replaced with a 5kW one for, say, 1/2 the price ?


----------



## pixel (3 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> If 60c per unit gross was on offer in the west, I'd seriously consider plastering the entire north facing roof with solar panels.
> With the government subsidy reduction above 1.5kW, each additional kW of generating capacity costs about $4000. That, on the WA estimated figures above would generate $521 of revenue per kW of generation capacity for a payback period of 7.7 years (13%pa).
> In 5 years time, is it possible that a 1.5kW inverter could be replaced with a 5kW one for, say, 1/2 the price ?



 Hi Doc,

We started with a 1KW setup and 2KW inverter.
The harvest for the first year was 1,666 KWh (or "units"). Of course, when the increased FIT legislation came in, we researched a larger than 2-fold expansion. We were however told that would require a complete rewiring in addition to replacing the inverter, because  the installed system had been dimensioned for no more than 2KW.
Sure, that's still possible, but in our case, the extra costs didn't stack up.

Your 7.7 years payback period sounds about right; it matches my own calculation/ estimate based on our routine power consumption. If we follow a neighbour of ours and go caravaning for extended periods, that will of course change. He was quite chuffed recently, returning from 3 months outback to find a power "bill" for over $400 credit


----------



## nioka (3 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> If 60c per unit gross was on offer in the west, I'd seriously consider plastering the entire north facing roof with solar panels.
> 
> In 5 years time, is it possible that a 1.5kW inverter could be replaced with a 5kW one for, say, 1/2 the price ?




That is why I increased my installation to utilise the full north facing roof area.

In 5 years time I could afford to replace the inverters from profits accumulated.

The offer of 60c is no longer available as the energy companies filled their quota and our dear premier , make that ex premier, had hers instelled the week before the subsidy was reduced. Maybe that is one more reason why she is the ex.


----------



## pixel (3 April 2011)

nioka said:


> The offer of 60c is no longer available as the energy companies filled their quota and our dear premier , make that ex premier, had hers instelled the week before the subsidy was reduced. Maybe that is one more reason why she is the ex.



 Now Now, nioka; that is a nasty insinuation 

You should applaud her for putting her money where her mouth is and going green like the rest of us.

And like the rest of us, she would have ordered her panels months before installation. Solar installers' order books are overflowing, but the subsidy conditions are locked in on the date the order is placed. (At least that's how it worked when we placed our initial order.) That renders irrelevant the fact that her system happened to be delivered a week before the cut-off date.


----------



## Calliope (3 April 2011)

nioka said:


> So for an investment of $12,300 I have received back $1,710.61 in six months. Last meter reading and account last week.
> 
> Note we get 60c a unit for all we produce and buy back at the lower rate. This deal may not still be available in NSW.




And the beauty of it is that the consumers who don't have it are the suckers who are paying for it. It is to our advantage not to encourage others to take it up, or the golden goose will be cooked.


----------



## nioka (3 April 2011)

pixel said:


> Now Now, nioka; that is a nasty insinuation
> 
> You should applaud her for putting her money where her mouth is and going green like the rest of us.
> 
> And like the rest of us, she would have ordered her panels months before installation. Solar installers' order books are overflowing, but the subsidy conditions are locked in on the date the order is placed. (At least that's how it worked when we placed our initial order.) That renders irrelevant the fact that her system happened to be delivered a week before the cut-off date.




Actually I think the press report was that she ORDERED it the week before. I've been trying to find the news report but cant find it. There is a report though that she said in parliament that she will now not claim any subsidy etc.


----------



## nioka (3 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> And the beauty of it is that the consumers who don't have it are the suckers who are paying for it. It is to our advantage not to encourage others to take it up, or the golden goose will be cooked.



 The suckers as you call them had the same opportunity to help save the enviroment so why should they not pay the cost of pollution if they are not prepared to help.After all that is what this is all about.


----------



## Calliope (3 April 2011)

nioka said:


> The suckers as you call them had the same opportunity to help save the enviroment so why should they not pay the cost of pollution if they are not prepared to help.After all that is what this is all about.




Exaclly, that *is* what it is all about. Why should we feel any qualms about profiting at the expense of the less well off, when we are doing it to "help save the environment?"
After all, it is the government's job to subsidise our capital costs and also to compensate the less well off for their rising electricity costs.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2011)

Further to my earlier questions, I had the representative from "SolarLife" out yesterday.
Upshot is that (due to all the north facing roof being covered with solar tubing for pool heating) I don't have enough suitably directed roof to install a system which would provide value for money.

That's fine, and pretty much what I expected.

What I did find a bit remarkable, though, is the professionalism of the sales person, who essentially told me not to waste my money, even though to do so meant his loss of commission.
That's integrity and something I'll remember when talking with anyone who is thinking of installing a system.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2011)

You seem to have found the most honest solar salesman around. 

Sadly, the industry has a bit of a reputation for ripping off consumers...


----------



## ggumpshots (5 April 2011)

pixel said:


> LOL, Julia;
> I'm sure you know the definition of a "dumb question": Dumb can only ever be applied to the question that didn't get asked.
> ........
> 
> PS: OK, so I ignored the cost of capital; had I invested $8K in the market at x% (taxable!) interest, I might have, after 8 years, slightly more than $8K capital. But neither did I account for the fact that *for every year AFTER the system has paid for itself, it'll give me at least $750 worth of free power - year after year.* That is $750 worth in today's money, without any further feed-in tariff...



 Re Above
Of course you can still continue to invest the $8000  after 8 years if you are going to continue usuing the system. The question is , Is the oppurtunity cost worth it?


----------



## pixel (5 April 2011)

ggumpshots said:


> Re Above
> Of course you can still continue to invest the $8000  after 8 years if you are going to continue usuing the system. The question is , Is the oppurtunity cost worth it?



 Not sure I understand your point:
The system stays on my roof; of course I'll continue to use it and the power it generates. And I'll "export" any excess into the grid. The only difference after September 2020 is the price the Power Utility pays me for what I feed in. Until 2020, that'll be at least 47c; after that, it'll be less. But every unit that drives my home appliances will be free, as opposed to what Synergy would've charged me.


----------



## ggumpshots (5 April 2011)

pixel said:


> Not sure I understand your point:
> The system stays on my roof; of course I'll continue to use it and the power it generates. And I'll "export" any excess into the grid. The only difference after September 2020 is the price the Power Utility pays me for what I feed in. Until 2020, that'll be at least 47c; after that, it'll be less. But every unit that drives my home appliances will be free, as opposed to what Synergy would've charged me.




My point was that there is an oppurtunity cost which is compounded at x% ( eg 7% in an offset account, which could reduce a mortgage) after 8 years at 7%  your $8000 has become $13745.
  So, have you saved $5745 in generated electricty or electcity  fees?

 After 20 years @ 7% your 8k has turned into $30957.
So thats an average  $1547  a year  you need to recoup in electricty charges to break even.
its not so straight forward anyway just food for thought.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 April 2011)

ggumpshots said:


> My point was that there is an oppurtunity cost which is compounded at x% ( eg 7% in an offset account, which could reduce a mortgage) after 8 years at 7%  your $8000 has become $13745.
> So, have you saved $5745 in generated electricty or electcity  fees?
> 
> After 20 years @ 7% your 8k has turned into $30957.
> ...



A more accurate "real world" basis would be to assume that annual savings from solar are compounded. Not necessarily into more solar panels, but into something (Eg cash deposit or more likely, repaying a mortgage).


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> A more accurate "real world" basis would be to assume that annual savings from solar are compounded. Not necessarily into more solar panels, but into something (Eg cash deposit or more likely, repaying a mortgage).




What's the cost of installing solar panels on say a 30sqm dwelling in Tassie Smurf?

And how much can the average joe blow get back in dollars if they feed it back into the grid?

If he uses more than he captures, can he still make a quid out of it?


----------



## Happy (6 April 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> ... If he uses more than he captures, ...




Money saved by not having to pay for all the power used are real money too.

What worries me is that every year solar panels derate by more than 0.5% 
Meaning that in 10 years time system will not produce as much as during first year after installation.

Hope that new energy saving devices will be able to compensate for that.


----------



## Happy (6 April 2011)

ggumpshots said:


> ... eg 7% in an offset account, ...




Problem with this assumption is that TAX-man takes part of it back, unless all the income is below magic level when no tax has to be paid.


----------



## ggumpshots (6 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> A more accurate "real world" basis would be to assume that annual savings from solar are compounded. Not necessarily into more solar panels, but into something (Eg cash deposit or more likely, repaying a mortgage).




Good point.
Also what will be the real world cost of electricity in 10, 15 and 20 years?


----------



## nioka (6 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> A more accurate "real world" basis would be to assume that annual savings from solar are compounded. Not necessarily into more solar panels, but into something (Eg cash deposit or more likely, repaying a mortgage).




Very true. In my last calculations I had a credit of $947.53 but the cheque arrived today for $1019.85. That money will be invested is shares and hopefully will be a ten bagger in the next twelve months. It will purchase a spec stock as I can afford to risk it. The spec bought will be QUR so watch this space.

Even invested in a blue chip it would compound faster than the asset on the solar power will depreciate. Actually even saved up in a normal account would beat depreciation.

Remember it also yielded free power for the period. Even that is a reasonable return on the investment.

Everyone should have on on commercial grounds and any enviromental benefit is a bonus.


----------



## Ferret (6 April 2011)

nioka said:


> Remember it also yielded free power for the period. Even that is a reasonable return on the investment.



Nioka,
When did you sign up for a scheme?  I've been on a NSW scheme since last August and get 66c/kW feed in, but I still pay separately for all I use at around 20c/kW.


----------



## nioka (6 April 2011)

Ferret said:


> Nioka,
> When did you sign up for a scheme?  I've been on a NSW scheme since last August and get 66c/kW feed in, but I still pay separately for all I use at around 20c/kW.




24/05/10  Looks like you have a better. We get a credit for all we produce @60c. We then pay for what we use, currently the rate is 22.122 as at today. The contract was with Country Energy but they have been taken over by Origin and Origin continue the contract.

When I said free power I mean over and above the cheque for the credit. The cheque is the nett result.


----------



## bellenuit (6 April 2011)

I have had my first Synergy (WA) bill today for a full period following the installation of a 3.4 KW system a few months ago. Bill was $3.50.  This same period last year was about $400 and I believe that there was a tariff increase in the meantime. I'm pretty happy with that.


----------



## pixel (6 April 2011)

ggumpshots said:


> My point was that there is an oppurtunity cost which is compounded at x% ( eg 7% in an offset account, which could reduce a mortgage) after 8 years at 7%  your $8000 has become $13745.
> So, have you saved $5745 in generated electricty or electcity  fees?
> 
> After 20 years @ 7% your 8k has turned into $30957.
> ...



 Thanks for expanding on it;
yes, I was aware of that and said in my first post that I did NOT bring the costs of capital to bear. I don't have a mortgage, so an offset or whatever didn't apply.
Yes, I could park the money in a term deposit and hope that the interest (6.5% of $8,000 = $520 p.a.) covers part of my power bill. It won't - not by a long shot. 
Therefore I would need to apply a bi-monthly withdrawal strategy, reducing my initial $8,000 by the amount by which the (unreduced) power bill exceeded the (solar-reduced) charges, offsetting that against the interest.

Those what-if scenarios can become quite messy - that's why I ignored the entire complex and stated that I had


----------



## Julia (6 April 2011)

bellenuit said:


> I have had my first Synergy (WA) bill today for a full period following the installation of a 3.4 KW system a few months ago. Bill was $3.50.  This same period last year was about $400 and I believe that there was a tariff increase in the meantime. I'm pretty happy with that.




What was your capital outlay, after the govt subsidy, bellenuit?


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 April 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> What's the cost of installing solar panels on say a 30sqm dwelling in Tassie Smurf?
> 
> And how much can the average joe blow get back in dollars if they feed it back into the grid?
> 
> If he uses more than he captures, can he still make a quid out of it?



Since the import and export rates for small household solar systems are the same here in Tas, it won't make any difference how much power the house actually uses. 

That is, the solar panels will generate power that has the same financial value whether exported to the grid ($ earned) or used within the home rather than buying power from the grid ($ saved).

A 1.5kW system would reduce power bills by about $450 a year and costs $2200 - $4000 installed depending on the supplier. The figures would generally look better in the other states, but it's still worth considering in Tas in my opinion - electricity sure isn't getting any cheaper...


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2011)

An interesting article on the forces behind electricity price rises.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...olding-the-ashes/story-e6frg9p6-1226043486673


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> An interesting article on the forces behind electricity price rises.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...olding-the-ashes/story-e6frg9p6-1226043486673



I would certainly agree that network investment is a major reason behind the price spikes. 

What is not mentioned however is exactly why this is occurring. The disaggregation of generation from transmission and distribution is itself one of the things that has contributed to the cost blow out.

Entire transmission lines and even power stations have been built for no reason other than that there is no co-operation between generation, transmission, distribution and retail these days. That goes as far as some parties deliberately imposing as much stress as possible (in a technical sense) on assets which belong to another, thus forcing upgrades or replacment. No prizes for guessing who ends up paying for all this...

I've said it before. We had the most efficient thermal (fuel based) generation in the OECD prior to the industry "reforms" which have sent prices through the roof. This so-called electricity market that puts an instantaneous price on electrons has a lot in common with those wanting to put a price on carbon. It creates financial trading opportunites for a few but doesn't serve the best interests of ordinary Australians.


----------



## Logique (24 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..That is, the solar panels will generate power that has the same financial value whether exported to the grid ($ earned) or used within the home rather than buying power from the grid ($ saved).
> A 1.5kW system would reduce power bills by about $450 a year and costs $2200 - $4000 installed depending on the supplier. The figures would generally look better in the other states, but it's still worth considering in Tas in my opinion - electricity sure isn't getting any cheaper...



Smurf, silly question here, I'm assuming the panels are the default delivery to the house during the day, with any excess off to the grid, and the mains electr kicks in at night? I was thinking this would still make it worthwhile. If the only benefit was the 20c/kWhr for exporting to the grid, then not so attractive.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Smurf, silly question here, I'm assuming the panels are the default delivery to the house during the day, with any excess off to the grid, and the mains electr kicks in at night? I was thinking this would still make it worthwhile. If the only benefit was the 20c/kWhr for exporting to the grid, then not so attractive.



What you have with solar is essentially just another power station (albeit a rather small one) on the grid in parallel with all other generators and loads.

In layman's terms....

Suppose that you are generating 1000 Watts at home, and your consumption is 400 W. That simply means that the remaining 600 W flows back into the grid and you are paid the relevant "feed in" rate for this.

Now suppose that your consumption jumps to 1700W. Now you are drawing 700W from the grid, and will be charged the appropriate rate for this.

Now suppose that the sun goes down and your consumption goes back to 400W. You are now drawing 400W from the grid, charged at the appropriate rate.

Every single kilowatt hour of energy produced by solar is of financial benefit, the only question being how it is measured by the electricity supplier. It will either reduce your consumption from the grid (thus saving you money) or will be surplus to your own use at the time and thus exported to the grid (thus earning you money).

If the feed in and purchase rates are the same, that is you don't have a "premium" feed-in rate, then the financial effect will be _exactly_ the same whether you use the power yourself (saving $) or it is exported to the grid (earning $). Either way, you've generated a certain quantity of power that has a financial value - whether that's as a saving or earning is irrelevant except in an accounting sense.

If the feed-in rate is different from the purcahse rate, then it gets a bit more complicated exports to the grid have a different value to what you buy back. 

Anecdotally, the general consumer experience here in Tas with small (1 - 1.5kW) systems is that they export about 60% of total generation to the grid, and that consumers draw most of their own consumption from the grid. In other words, solar generation typically occurs at a different time to consumption - but that has no practical effect on consumers given that the feed-in rate and purchase rate are exactly the same here.

Note with those figures that they may differ in the other states significantly. Hot water, heating and air-conditioning are normally separately metered in Tas (due to being charged at a different rate) which will lead to a  different consumption profile to the other states where air-conditioning is more widely used due to climate and is usually connnected to the main household electricity meter.

An example using an electricity bill of mine from last Spring:

Light & Power (import from grid) = 645 kWh
Solar (export to grid) = 228 kWh
Net purchase from power supplier = (645 - 228) = 417 kWh.

Hidden in those figures is the solar power that was used within the house, since that is not recorded by the electricity supplier's meter. I would estimate this at 152 kWh.

Note that these consumption figures are fairly low and my household energy usage is not typical. They are sufficient to illustrate the point however...


----------



## Logique (25 April 2011)

Brilliant. Many thanks Smurf that clarifies it nicely.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

My calculations for a 1.5kW system, based on a 47 cent/kWhr net feed in tariff and retail rate of 21 cents/kWhr with a 50/50 split between the two is $680 for 2000 kWhr of generation each year.

The 47 cent feed in tariff (WA) comprises a 7 cent wholesale electricity cost plut a 40 cent top up. For a 1.5kW system costing $7k (before claiming REC's of approx $4.5k), the return on investment based on the above wholesale rate is 2%pa.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I would certainly agree that network investment is a major reason behind the price spikes.
> 
> What is not mentioned however is exactly why this is occurring. The disaggregation of generation from transmission and distribution is itself one of the things that has contributed to the cost blow out.
> 
> ...



That article also gets stuck into solar panels,



> "Green schemes have emerged as a new driver of price increases," warns IPART.
> 
> It's the result of federal and NSW incentives for households to install solar panels on their roofs. The bigger than expected take-up has overtones of Labor's disastrous home insulation program. It serves the yearning by higher-income environmentally aware consumers to save the planet by acting locally while getting other consumers to subsidise their power bills.
> 
> Sims slams the combination of federal and NSW solar panel incentives as "an expensive, cost-ineffective way of reducing carbon emissions". "Its cost will be borne either by consumers or taxpayers for many years to come," the IPART ruling says. Of course, the whole point of a carbon tax is to eliminate the need for such high-cost abatement. Yet the power price increases fuelled by high-cost green schemes are inflaming the catch-22 backlash against a lower-cost carbon price.



The calculation in the post above based on Western Power's wholesale rate demonstrates how much of a fraud solar panel subsidies are on the taxpayer and electricity consumer.

The sad truth is that we are allready, in effect, paying a carbon tax on electricity.

My 1.5kW system is not yet installed, but I expect it to be shortly. This is very much a case of, "If you can't beat em, join em".


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2011)

The upside is drsmith, when it finally is payed off. The generation from the panels offsets your usage no matter what the cost goes to. But I agree with you it really is a line ball decission. Depends if you are going to stay in the house.
It is open to being rorted because with the new meter they know what you export and import. Who says they have to pay anything later on for export?
At least with the inductive disc meter it went backwards when you were exporting, maybe in the long term we will wish we kept them.


----------



## Glen48 (25 April 2011)

Has some one work out the cost per KW and what is the life of the battries?
Are you better off putting power back into the grid and just run the meter left and right to save buying batteries, cables, controllers  etc.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The upside is drsmith, when it finally is payed off.



The calculation above that shows a 2% return is not from the perspective of individual households. This is substanitally higher due to the subsidies.


----------



## nioka (25 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> My calculations for a 1.5kW system, based on a 47 cent/kWhr net feed in tariff and retail rate of 21 cents/kWhr with a 50/50 split between the two is $680 for 2000 kWhr of generation each year.
> 
> The 47 cent feed in tariff (WA) comprises a 7 cent wholesale electricity cost plut a 40 cent top up. For a 1.5kW system costing $7k (before claiming REC's of approx $4.5k), the return on investment based on the above wholesale rate is 2%pa.




It doesn't pay to work on the generation potential that is given by salesmen. They quote the maximum potential, my 4kw unit produced a total of 1407 kwh in 84 days. My unit is ideally placed, has the right aspect with no shade whatsoever and an ideal roof pitch. We had a period of abnormal cloudy days and rain but even on good days there really is only an hour or two of top generation. 2000kwh may be achievable but I suggest it is optomistic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> The calculation in the post above based on Western Power's wholesale rate demonstrates how much of a fraud solar panel subsidies are on the taxpayer and electricity consumer.
> 
> The sad truth is that we are allready, in effect, paying a carbon tax on electricity.
> 
> My 1.5kW system is not yet installed, but I expect it to be shortly. This is very much a case of, "If you can't beat em, join em".



Strongly agreed. If you want cheap generation then coal, gas or hydro is the answer there. I have solar panels on the roof because doing so is profitable for me personally even though it is not profitable for society as a whole (ie your taxes are the major source of my profits).

To the best of my knowledge, Tasmania is the only place in Australia (and one of few in the world) that has ever attempted actual cost reflective electricity pricing. That is, you pay to be on the network separately from energy consumed, thus removing the financial reliance of the electricity utility on maximising sales (and hence removing any incentive for them to promote consumption).   

Let's just say the experiment in Tas during the 1990's was an outright disaster politically and there is zero chance of it ever being revived. It was replaced with a complicated hydbrid system as a compromise, but that has slowly been transformed back toward the standard means of electricity pricing that historically prevailed. There's still a bit of the principle at work, but it's very much a political compromise certainly. The fixed costs of the network are once again being subsidised by energy unit rates. 

Never underestimate the power of vested interests opposing change. Lesson learnt the hard way on that one.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2011)

> "Green schemes have emerged as a new driver of price increases," warns IPART.
> 
> It's the result of federal and NSW incentives for households to install solar panels on their roofs. The bigger than expected take-up has overtones of Labor's disastrous home insulation program. It serves the yearning by higher-income environmentally aware consumers to save the planet by acting locally while getting other consumers to subsidise their power bills.
> 
> Sims slams the combination of federal and NSW solar panel incentives as "an expensive, cost-ineffective way of reducing carbon emissions". "Its cost will be borne either by consumers or taxpayers for many years to come," the IPART ruling says. Of course, the whole point of a carbon tax is to eliminate the need for such high-cost abatement. Yet the power price increases fuelled by high-cost green schemes are inflaming the catch-22 backlash against a lower-cost carbon price.




Hence the exponential  rise we are seeing in basic bills to households.
i.e. the costs involved in providing subsidies to people wealthy enough to outlay the necessary capital to take advantage of the scheme are being passed on to those least able to afford these increases.

So you have the comfortable middle class, including those who are not even driven by environmental considerations but rather the notion of something for free, having their overall financial situation improved whilst the impoverished and disadvantaged pay the price.


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2011)

nioka said:


> It doesn't pay to work on the generation potential that is given by salesmen. They quote the maximum potential, my 4kw unit produced a total of 1407 kwh in 84 days. My unit is ideally placed, has the right aspect with no shade whatsoever and an ideal roof pitch. We had a period of abnormal cloudy days and rain but even on good days there really is only an hour or two of top generation. 2000kwh may be achievable but I suggest it is optomistic.




You are spot on nokia, tests carried out by Boston University for NASA, found that 4g/sqmetre of dust caused a 40% reduction in output. Australia has more than 4 times that deposition /month.
What I was getting at was, with the solar system you have to put in a new meter which differentiates between import and export. At the moment you get payed for export and get charged for your imports.
But in the future when you don't get payed for export will the solar generation reduce your imports through this style meter?
With the old meter if you were using less than you were making ,your meter went backwards and reduced your bill.
I wonder, when the rebate for exported power stops, if you can ask for one of the old meters to be installed?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Has some one work out the cost per KW and what is the life of the battries?
> Are you better off putting power back into the grid and just run the meter left and right to save buying batteries, cables, controllers  etc.



I haven't worked out the exact cost, but I'll put it this way. The entire electricity industry, from fuel supply (to power stations) to distribution in your street, has major issues dealing with variation in demand (particularly at the extremes). If batteries were viable as a means of storage, you can be pretty sure that the industry would be using them.

At present, there's a significant battery system on King Island but that's about it apart from various experiments and the usual battery applications of backing up supply to critical equipment etc. Batteries are high cost, high maintenance and high pollution.

The major storing of electricity in Australia occurs in the form of pumped hydro at Tumut 3 (Snowy scheme), Wivenhoe (Qld) and the Shoalhaven scheme (NSW). The other common means is to store it as heat where heat is the ultimate use - off-peak hot water is the common household example but there is some use of the same principle for space heating (mostly confined to Vic and Tas though it does exist elsewhere) and commercial chillers, particularly at dairy farms.

In short, if you're going to stay connected to the grid then forget batteries unless it's for backup during blackouts etc. If you're not on the grid then it's a very different story and in most situations you'll need batteries if you want 24/7 power supply.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> But in the future when you don't get payed for export will the solar generation reduce your imports through this style meter?
> With the old meter if you were using less than you were making ,your meter went backwards and reduced your bill.
> I wonder, when the rebate for exported power stops, if you can ask for one of the old meters to be installed?



What happens in future is a damn good question and I must say that the electricity industry has a pretty poor track record of actually sticking to a plan as far as household consumers are concerned. Lots of things have come and gone over the years, and more than few have been left with dud investments as a result.

To be fair though, it's not just the electricity industry. There's still plenty of people around who compare any form of future price gouging in the energy industry to the heating oil price shock of 1979 that left tens of thousands of families literally shivering when they couldn't afford the cost (a claim suppored by the massive 60% decline in consumption compared to 1 year earlier). There's still plenty of people around with bitter memories of those days even though it was 32 years ago.

Fundamentally, solar panels are pretty robust as are _most_ inverters. The main investment risk is thus political (the electricity industry is still substantially government controlled even where it is privately owned).


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

nioka said:


> It doesn't pay to work on the generation potential that is given by salesmen. They quote the maximum potential, my 4kw unit produced a total of 1407 kwh in 84 days. My unit is ideally placed, has the right aspect with no shade whatsoever and an ideal roof pitch. We had a period of abnormal cloudy days and rain but even on good days there really is only an hour or two of top generation. 2000kwh may be achievable but I suggest it is optomistic.



Salesman figures were around 2500kWh to 2800kWh.

The following 1.54kW setup in the Swan Valley just north of Perth suggests that might be achievable,

http://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?p=0&id=202&sid=217&o=date&d=desc

He has generated about 2000kWh since install in mid Sept 2010. Perth though is a very sunny location and the period since his install has been even less cloudy than normal.

I have a very similar roof aspect to that setup, so my 1.52kW setup should be similar or perhaps slightly less due to being a little further south (more cloud) and late afternoon tree shade.

With regard to the tree shade, if one panel (or more) is shaded in part or in full, does this affect the output from the remaining unshaded panels ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> With regard to the tree shade, if one panel (or more) is shaded in part or in full, does this affect the output from the remaining unshaded panels ?



Yes, shading one panel will affect the output of the whole string since the panels are wired in series.

Typically, a smaller system will have all the panels wired in a single string. 2 or 3 strings are common only on larger systems.

Avoid any shade on the panels if at all possible. Trees, wood/gas/oil heater flues, roof mounted air-conditioners, sewer pipe vent, hot water system vent pipe, TV antennas / satellite dishes, whirlybirds etc. If at all possible, locate the panels where they won't be in the shade at least for the majority of the day. Don't forget the things you don't have control over - things that aren't on your property but which cast a shadow.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

Thanks Smurf for the reply.

There is an assortment of roof furniture (for want of a better expression to describe vents, flues, TV antennas etc) to consider.

Another question;

What happens when one (or more) individual cells are shaded on a solar panel ?


----------



## Glen48 (26 April 2011)

I was reading were the introduction of fuel efficient cars would deprive the feds of revenue so they are now looking at way to tax the hybrid's etc wonder if the same will happen to solar were the power stations are not making money and each price rise make more people go solar.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> I was reading were the introduction of fuel efficient cars would deprive the feds of revenue so they are now looking at way to tax the hybrid's etc wonder if the same will happen to solar were the power stations are not making money and each price rise make more people go solar.



Bottom line is that the actual cost of your household electricity supply is several hundred $ per annum just to keep the system available. In addition, there's the cost of actually generating electricity (which is relatively low by the way).

The present and historic pricing model recovers most of the fixed costs via what amounts to a (hidden) surcharge on the unit rate for consumption. This model works perfectly well only where consumers have no alternative other than to consume electricity from the utility. Since fixed charges are recovered in proportion to consumption, the utility has a strong interest in maximising the volume of consumption - hence the industry's historic fairly aggressive marketing of electricity for applications where it faced competition (cooking, hot water and especially space heating in the cooler states).

As I said before, there was an attempt to separate all this out in Tasmania during the mid-1990's but it ended in an outright disaster politically. Some parts of it remain, albeit in a rather hidden form. The majority of Tasmanian homes pay $350 a year in fixed supply charges (still only around half of what it really ought to be) and the offset via higher unit rates is directed away from uses that face competition (heating and hot water) and into the largely captive "everything else" market.  

The situation in the other states is generally even more extreme, with the fixed charges even lower and most of the actual fixed costs recovered by a charge on each unit consumed. Trouble is, this model falls in a hole big time if consumption declines.

In short, the cheapest way is large scale centralised generation using coal, gas or hydro. But the industry is no longer focused on cost as it was pre-1990's, and such arguments about cost minimisation are now largely irrelevant in practice. Indeed it would be true to say that the industry is now largely focused on how to justify higher costs, rather than how to reduce them since that's the way it works these days.

Put solar on your roof yes. You can get a 1.5kW system fully installed for somewhere in the order of $2000 if you're in a capital city. But don't fool yourself into thinking that we can run the whole country this way...

Solar market penetration here in Tas is around 2% of all homes now, virtually all of those installed within the past 2 years. Those 2% of homes with solar, manage to generate 0.05% of the state's electricity. 0.05% of power from a $35 - $40 million total investment - you do the math but suffice to say that hydro, wind or gas are far cheaper options for generation here in Tas and that coal or gas are cheaper options in the other Australian states. But as I said, the industry hasn't really been focused on costs since the 90's since that's not how it works these days.


----------



## sptrawler (26 April 2011)

Good summation smurf, coal is still the cheapest base load fuel,in W.A and will be for a long time. Alternative sources e.g wind and solar still require spinning reserves to cover them. Renewables won't be a real success untill battery storage technology improves.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Panic stations ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-over-solar-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1226047241258

One wonders what the Feds will do in the upcoming budget.


----------



## Logique (30 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Panic stations ?http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-over-solar-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1226047241258One wonders what the Feds will do in the upcoming budget.



Thanks Dr Zacchary, I heard something this morning on the radio. 

Looks like the solar rebates party is over in NSW. 

I'm sure the announcer said it's possible that even the 20c feed in tariff could go.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Logique said:


> I'm sure the announcer said it's possible that even the 20c feed in tariff could go.



I wonder too how much longer the party will last in WA. In recent months there has been a sharp increase in system installs.

http://www.energy.wa.gov.au/3/3623/64/suppliers_and_installers.pm


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> I wonder too how much longer the party will last in WA. In recent months there has been a sharp increase in system installs.




Some see a moral issue here with those who don't want or can't afford solar panels subsidising those who have installed them. Combet will probably pull the plug soon. 



> SOLAR panel rebates could be slashed again after the Government confirmed it was still concerned the scheme was driving up electricity prices for the poor.
> 
> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said he was deeply concerned about the equity of the program that some experts estimated was already costing families that couldn't afford panels about $100 a year.
> 
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/solar-scheme-costs-poor-100-a-year/story-fn6ck45n-1226040263036


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Some see a moral issue here with those who don't want or can't afford solar panels subsidising those who have installed them. Combet will probably pull the plug soon.



What happens to all the solar panel companies that have started up ?

It'll be pink batts on steriods.

When are these clowns going to realise that such large subsidies for a single product creates severe market distortions and money poorly spent ?

Oh well!

Another ideological bender gone wrong.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Good summation smurf, coal is still the cheapest base load fuel,in W.A and will be for a long time. Alternative sources e.g wind and solar still require spinning reserves to cover them. Renewables won't be a real success untill battery storage technology improves.



Wind "sort of" stacks up in Tasmania since it integrates very nicely with the energy constrained baseload hydro system where it can be an actual alternative to other means of system expansion. Also we don't have cheap coal as an alternative (we've got some coal, but lack of attainable scale in mining and using it precludes doing it cheaply as confirmed by numerous studies over the years).

But certainly in the other states wind doesn't really make economic sense. All it's doing is saving a bit of fuel, but the (coal or gas) power sations still have to be built and operated.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2011)

In W.A we have a wind farm on the coast and one is nearing completion 300k's inland. These are to make use of the overnight easterlies and the morning sea breeze, but because of W.A's load profile it is difficult to manage.


----------



## drsmith (5 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> Panic stations ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-over-solar-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1226047241258
> 
> One wonders what the Feds will do in the upcoming budget.



I didn't think it would be a long wait.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-solar-credits/story-e6frg6xf-1226050083922



> Under the solar credits scheme, householders are eligible for an upfront payment worth five times the value of certificates their solar panels will produce.
> 
> That was to have been scaled back to four times from July 1 under changes announced in December but the scale-back will be deepened today when the government declares the multiple will be cut to three from July 1.
> 
> The move will hasten the phase-out of the scheme. The multiple will fall from three to two from July 1, next year and then revert to one from July 1, 2013.


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> I didn't think it would be a long wait.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-solar-credits/story-e6frg6xf-1226050083922




For those of us who have them installed, this is the sting in the tail. I always knew the feed-in price was too good to last.



> As it moves to confront cost-of-living pressures, the government will also today announce it will ask state and territory governments to make sure their feed-in tariffs "do not impose an unjustifiable burden on electricity consumers".


----------



## bellenuit (5 May 2011)

Calliope said:


> For those of us who have them installed, this is the sting in the tail. I always knew the feed-in price was too good to last.




I haven't read the Ts & Cs of the FIT, but I understand from posters on Whirlpool that any reduction to the FIT would apply to new installations only. Aren't those from NSW who were lucky to be on the 60 cent rate still receiving that after the rate was reduced to 20 cents?  I'm from WA so I am not sure.


----------



## drsmith (5 May 2011)

In WA, the net feed-in tariff scheme is reviewed every three years or when 10 megawatts of new generation is installed. This, I assume is for new installs.

From the graphic in post #73 above, about 18000 systems were installed under the scheme from August 2010 to March 2011 with the monthly install rate rising rapidly. This takes new generation capacity well above 10mW even assuming an average size of 1.5kW.

Expect a downward adjustment in the 40c/kWh feed-in tariff in the upcoming WA state budget.


----------



## drsmith (5 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> In WA, the net feed-in tariff scheme is reviewed every three years or when 10 megawatts of new generation is installed. This, I assume is for new installs.



This I have confirmed with the WA Office Of Energy. Existing participants in the scheme would stay at the current rate, and it's 10 years from signup.

While my 1.5kW system is not yet installed (early June is the expectation), I'm allready signed up to the net feed-in tariff, so the state government can now do what it likes with tariff rate.


----------



## carbonadvisor (7 May 2011)

Here's a good site - www.carbontaxadvise.com

With some ideas for alternative green energy sources.

"It's all good until they figure out a way to tax the sun!"

-Famous last words


----------



## Glen48 (8 May 2011)

I was reading were the greenies are demanding low water flush toilets now they have found out the pipe work from the throne's to the pumping stations etc is building up with mold's. sludge's etc because there is not enough water going through the system to flush it all away the answer is to spend million on bleach to clean out the trash.
 Also the front loading washing machine have been found not to clean as well as the older models so things on the surface might sound OK  but further analysis shows up the true facts, just like QE 1 QE 2 QE???


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2011)

Top Solar Addresses;



> According to Matthew Warren, Chief Executive of the Clean Energy Council, "It’s a common misconception that household solar panels are popular in our capital cities and exclusive suburbs, and not in rural and regional Australia or working class neighbourhoods. These new figures show clearly that Australia’s switch to renewable energy is even more popular in regional Australia than it is in the city."
> 
> The CEC lists the top 20 solar postcodes as being:
> 
> ...



http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1495


----------



## Glen48 (11 May 2011)

Has any on worked out the running cost over several years with maintenance and battery replacement etc?
 Most likely in here some where ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2011)

A grid-connected system has no batteries involved.

Panels - the better manufacturers offer a 25 year warranty. That's considerably longer than the warranty on just about anything else you can buy, including the house itself.

Inverter - minimum life 5 years, should last 10+ for a decent one.


----------



## Glen48 (11 May 2011)

i bet the feds will hate this down the track they won't be able to work out a tax a system and it will Merrily plug along getting more profitable each year.


----------



## Ferret (13 May 2011)

NSW government have today announced that they will use *retrospective* legislation to cut the feed in tarrif to 40c/kWh for those who signed up to the scheme at 60c/kWh.

Not at all happy.  When I ordered mine a year ago the cost was much higher than today, but I did the numbers and decided to go ahead on the basis of the 60c rate being guarranteed until 2017.

Individuals and businesses just can't plan for the long term these days with the way governments keep moving the goal posts.


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2011)

Ferret said:


> NSW government have today announced that they will use *retrospective* legislation to cut the feed in tarrif to 40c/kWh for those who signed up to the scheme at 60c/kWh.



http://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/__da...govt-announces-closure-solar-bonus-scheme.pdf

What happens to the installers in NSW and what about the potential legal challenges on the retrospective feed in tariff changes ??

How quick will this spread to other states ?

What a mess.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 May 2011)

Ferret said:


> Individuals and businesses just can't plan for the long term these days with the way governments keep moving the goal posts.



To be perfectly honest, I do think that the constant changing of the rules with solar is quite intentional so as to scare most people well away from it. Make it look like something positive is being done when really it is not.

The average person has no real knowledge on the subject other than what they hear through the media. They hear a constant stream of problems and negative stories, such that they decide to stick with their "safe" grid electricity and electric hot water. The coal mining companies must love it...


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2011)

As Yogi Berra would say "It's deja vu all over again."



> *Statewide solar panel checks after flaws discovered*
> 
> NSW Fair Trading will carry out statewide checks of solar panels installed under the state's controversial solar bonus scheme after a small number of potentially fatal flaws were discovered in some northern NSW homes.
> 
> ...






Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/e...-discovered-20110522-1eyi3.html#ixzz1N3quPzth


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 May 2011)

Based on my experience I'd say that the electrical installation in 50% of homes are up to standard, 25% are not as they should be but are reasonably safe, 25% are outright dangerous.

Dodgy solar installs is a problem but it's certainly not the only one. I'd be more worried about missing or disconnected earthing systems, TRS cable and things done by well intentioned but unsafe handymen (or dodgy tradesmen) than solar panels in terms of electrical safety as a whole. 

At a guess, I'd say that many of the concerns being referred to (but not stated) in that article have to do with incorrect connection of the DC circuit breaker as this does seem to be a common problem area and relates to lack of understanding of correct proceedures. That plus failing to use a sufficient number of L feet to attach the rails to the roof prior to mounting the panels - that one comes down to cost cutting. 

But let's keep this in perspective. Yes, your solar installation could be done incorrectly. So could every other aspect of you house's construction. This isn't a reason to avoid solar but rather, it's a reason to avoid dodgy tradesmen be it electrical, plumbing, building or whatever.


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Based on my experience I'd say that the electrical installation in 50% of homes are up to standard, 25% are not as they should be but are reasonably safe, 25% are outright dangerous.
> 
> Dodgy solar installs is a problem but it's certainly not the only one. I'd be more worried about missing or disconnected earthing systems, TRS cable and things done by well intentioned but unsafe handymen (or dodgy tradesmen) than solar panels in terms of electrical safety as a whole.
> 
> ...





In WA the contractor number and the electricians license number are both registered on the job with the test certificate break the rules and you get hammered big time.

Maybe differed in the rip off corrupted Eastern States


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> This isn't a reason to avoid solar but rather, it's a reason to avoid dodgy tradesmen be it electrical, plumbing, building or whatever.




I'm sure we are all aware of that. However when the government offers us the installation of something at a huge discount it attracts dodgy tradesmen like vultures to a carcase. People assume that because it is a government sponsored project, that the dodgy installers have the Government's stamp of approval.

As Ronald Reagan said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> In WA the contractor number and the electricians license number are both registered on the job with the test certificate break the rules and you get hammered big time.
> 
> Maybe differed in the rip off corrupted Eastern States




Thank God for living in a liberal run state ehh


----------



## Calliope (23 May 2011)

I doubt that anyone installing a roof solar system was naive enough to believe he was reducing global emissions. What we did know was that other consumers would pay for it.



> Rooftop solar photo-voltaic systems are an enormously expensive way to pursue greenhouse gas abatement.
> 
> Last year, the Department of Climate Change estimated that, at the photo-voltaic costs then prevailing, fitting every home in the country with a 1.5 kilowatt array would have a capital cost of about $200 billion - five times the cost of rolling out the broadband network - and would deliver in 2020 less than 10 per cent of the national abatement target.
> 
> In a nutshell, solar panel schemes drive up power bills while making minimal reductions in carbon dioxide. There are cheaper ways to reduce emissions.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...taxpayer-dollars/story-fn59niix-1226060667283


----------



## Logique (23 May 2011)

Further to that C., Premier O'Farrell has said that the basic choice for NSW consumers was:
Either:
- Cut the feed in tariff to 40c (still very generous, for existing sign ups only).
Or:
- add $170/ann to every consumers electricity bill.

The solar scheme began under the present ALP Opposition leader's then Ministry, budgeted to expend $400M, which has now blown out to $2Bill. Just what is a responsible incoming Premier meant to do?

Managing the state's finances responsibly is the promise I expected Premier O'Farrell to keep.

So business people took on financial (borrowing) risks based on a promise from...a Labor Govt...clearly on it's way out... Give me a break, why didn't they give themselves a buffer and cost it out at 25c fi-tariff? 

This sounds like
 - privatizing the windfall gains at 60c, but
 - socializing the opportunity cost of slightly lesser gains at 40c

Anyone now wanting solar panels in NSW is offered a Net (vis-a-vis Gross) meter, fi-tariff = zero. Depending on future kWhr rate inflation, and also the percentage of consumption netted off, this is still somewhat attractive. But I'd be thinking it would have to at least double the break even point to pay it off? Grateful for any numbers people could supply here. I've been thinking ~10yrs for a 1.5kW system.


----------



## Julia (23 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Further to that C., Premier O'Farrell has said that the basic choice for NSW consumers was:
> Either:
> - Cut the feed in tariff to 40c (still very generous, for existing sign ups only).
> Or:
> - add $170/ann to every consumers electricity bill.



And the latter option is totally unfair to everyone who wasn't able to afford the capital outlay to put the system up.
It would especially affect renters who are usually those in the most disadvantaged situations.


----------



## Logique (23 May 2011)

Julia said:


> And the latter option is totally unfair to everyone who wasn't able to afford the capital outlay to put the system up.
> It would especially affect renters who are usually those in the most disadvantaged situations.



Absolutely Julia, and add to that high rise apartment dwellers, students and others. For every owner of panels there are many more that didn't have the opportunity.

Yes, breaking political promises is to be avoided like the plague, but all the same it's hard to feel too much sympathy for someone merely going from 60c to 40c fi-tariff, still very generous indeed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2011)

If you had your own home two years ago then you certainly DID have the opportunity to get a small solar system installed cheaply, indeed for a standard installation the price was literally ZERO.

Yes, taxpayers were footing the bill. But the offer was there for those willing to pick up the phone. If government is going to start throwing money around then I might as well have some...


----------



## pixel (30 May 2011)

moXJO said:


> Thank God for living in a liberal run state ehh



 We also received a letter today, Synergy advising that the 40c feed-in tariff will remain in force for the full 10 years *for existing *residential net feed-in tariff customers.
The reduced 20c will only apply to new installations and until a capacity limit of 150MW has been reached.

No breach of contract here.


----------



## drsmith (18 June 2011)

> The Moree Solar Farm and Solar Dawn at Chinchilla were selected to build the power plants under round one of the Australian government's $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program.
> 
> The federal government will contribute $306.5 million towards Moree -- worth an estimated $923m.
> 
> The 150 megawatt photovoltaic power plant will be nearly twice the size of any similar plant operating in the world today.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-nsw-queensland/story-e6frg97o-1226077596870

If I read the above correctly, a 150mW photovoltaic solar power plant has an upfront capital cost of $923m. That equates to $9230 per 1.5kW, or more than the unsubsidised capital cost of rooftop solar panels, fully installed.


----------



## sails (18 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-nsw-queensland/story-e6frg97o-1226077596870
> 
> If I read the above correctly, a 150mW photovoltaic solar power plant has an upfront capital cost of $923m. That equates to $9230 per 1.5kW, or more than the unsubsidised capital cost of rooftop solar panels, fully installed.





Does labor actually do any cost analysis on anything or do they just shoot from the hip and then look around to see what they've damaged?

It is ridiculous - who is going to pay around $6000 for 1kW...
We use about 25 kW on average per day - so that would be $150,000 per day if your calcs are right, drsmith.

EDIT:  I got that wrong - I see that is the set-up cost of the plant, but even so, it's very expensive.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-nsw-queensland/story-e6frg97o-1226077596870
> 
> If I read the above correctly, a 150mW photovoltaic solar power plant has an upfront capital cost of $923m. That equates to $9230 per 1.5kW, or more than the unsubsidised capital cost of rooftop solar panels, fully installed.



Based on the article, that would seem to be correct.

For reference, capital cost for a baseload gas-fired plant would be around $200 million (less for a peak load plant) and about $400 million for a black coal-fired plant of the same size. Costs per unit of output would be somewhat less if those plants were scaled up, especially in the case of coal where individual generating units are ideally 500MW or more, with multiple units at any given power station. To a lesser extent, there are also economies of scale with gas (hence the plants being quite large especially in Qld, NSW and Vic ).

A complicating factor however is that the gas or coal plant can run almost continously, easily averaging 130MW from a 150MW plant, whereas the solar plant will produce an average output far less than its 150MW rating. That makes a direct comparisson somewhat complicated, although you can certainly say that solar does cost more than coal or gas.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2011)

From a purely political point of view - ignoring the actual cost-benefit factors of this proposed venture - it's my bet that a considerable proportion of the electorate will simply think "oh great!  wonderful new renewable energy happening here" and give the government a big tick.  I hope I'm wrong.

This is a great example of where the opposition needs to jump in quickly and point out the actual costs as detailed above.

It's quite amusing that Ms Gillard decided to make this feelgood announcement today in the wake of her abysmal polling.


----------



## sails (18 June 2011)

Julia said:


> From a purely political point of view - ignoring the actual cost-benefit factors of this proposed venture - it's my bet that a considerable proportion of the electorate will simply think "oh great!  wonderful new renewable energy happening here" and give the government a big tick.  I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> This is a great example of where the opposition needs to jump in quickly and point out the actual costs as detailed above.
> 
> It's quite amusing that Ms Gillard decided to make this feelgood announcement today in the wake of her abysmal polling.




I agree that the opposition need to point out how horrendously expensive these solar plants are to set up and, even then, they may not produce the same quantity or reliability of power as coal plants.  What happens when there is no sun for a few days/weeks?  It has happened before.

I wonder if there are co2 emissions from making these solar panels?  I have heard elsewhere that the process of making steel windmills will have significant co2 emissions.  If so, it seems rather futile with the little power windmills will supply.

Just like all things labor, their new fangled plans sometimes look good on the surface until you see what's really going on underneath.  I would imagine these solar plants have a reasonable potential of being yet another labor debacle or white elephant.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2011)

sails said:


> I wonder if there are co2 emissions from making these solar panels?



Aren't most of these being imported from China?


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2011)

sails said:


> I wonder if there are co2 emissions from making these solar panels?  I have heard elsewhere that the process of making steel windmills will have significant co2 emissions.  If so, it seems rather futile with the little power windmills will supply.



If it involves making or moving something then it involves emitting CO2 at some point. For most people that's every single thing you did today...

As for CO2 and specific renewables, estimates vary but most would put emissions associated with photovoltaic (solar panels) as the highest of the renewables, with wind and hydro* at the bottom. All of them are lower than emissions from coal / oil / gas plants however.

In regard to panel manufacture, it is correct that China is a major supplier. Even BP Solar has their panels manufactured in China these days. On a positive note, that's Australian coal and other minerals being used. I'm guessing that the Chinese source their own sand.

There used to be solar panel manufacturing in Sydney but that became unviable due to competition from China. 

In more recent times there was a proposal for a silicon production plant in Tasmania but, as with all proposals in Tas in recent years involving the use of large amounts of electricity and/or wood, it seems to have disappeared (?) lest it becomes yet another focal point for the Green anti-everything brigade. Yes, you read that correctly, trees are chopped down in order to produce solar panels - the wood is needed to produce charcoal for the process. 

The plant was proposed for what someone will no doubt claim is a "wilderness" at Port Latta - right next to the iron ore pellet plant and shipping facilities. Note that this proposal was entirely different to the well known at the time "silicon smelter", actually producing ferrosilicon which is used in making steel, which once operated at Electrona until closing about 20 years ago.

*There's a lot of disagreement in regard to emissions from hydro generation. Some claim it to be significantly higher than brown coal (most notable person making this claim is Bob Brown) whilst others claim it to be about 0.02 kg / kWh versus 1.0 kg / kWh from coal. Reality is that it would vary hugely with the specific scheme in question and in particular, whether or not creation of the storage involved flooding large amounts of vegetation. My own understanding is that the vast majority of Australian schemes would have very low emissions, in some cases virtually zero, but there are exceptions where emissions due to vegetation decay are likely quite significant.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> In regard to panel manufacture, it is correct that China is a major supplier. Even BP Solar has their panels manufactured in China these days. On a positive note, that's Australian coal and other minerals being used. I'm guessing that the Chinese source their own sand.
> 
> There used to be solar panel manufacturing in Sydney but that became unviable due to competition from China.




Silex (ASX: SLX) are still active manufacturers but like most companies, are effected by imports.



> CHINESE solar panel makers were among the biggest beneficiaries of half a billion dollars in public subsidies to the rooftop solar panel industry last year, prompting their only Australian rival to cry foul.
> 
> A new report has shown Australia last year imported photovoltaic technology worth $1.1 billion -- effectively halving the value of the industry to the local economy.
> 
> Michael Goldsworthy, chief executive of Silex, Australia's only maker of home solar panels on a commercial scale, said overseas manufacturers, led by the Chinese, were able to offer big discounts because of government production subsidies at home, and held about 95 per cent of the Australian market.


----------



## Glen48 (18 June 2011)

Some one should be looking at making DC  white goods 12 /48 volt so we don't need peak load 
 As far as I know solar panels are only about 1-2 % efficient?


----------



## Ferret (19 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> As far as I know solar panels are only about 1-2 % efficient?




Its about 17% and getting better all the time.  I don't think we should rubbish new technology just because its not competitive at the outset.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Some one should be looking at making DC  white goods 12 /48 volt so we don't need peak load
> As far as I know solar panels are only about 1-2 % efficient?




Alot of power is lost in inverting the power from DC to AC...that why in the old days of solar if you wanted an energy efficient solar powered house then most of your appliances were DC...i still have a rare DC color tv from the good olde days.


----------



## pixel (19 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> As far as I know solar panels are only about 1-2 % efficient?



 Your knowledge must come from a past life, Glen:
If you're as young as your avatar suggests, you should have more current information.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Efficiency and you'll find







> Crystalline silicon devices are now approaching the theoretical limiting efficiency of 29%.



Pretty dam good, methinks


----------



## Glen48 (19 June 2011)

I am all for solar.
 I see some one is working a solar powered A.C which is great because you have the sun full on when you need the AC I had a CRT 12v 240V and a 12v fridge /freezer both worked well.
Troubl is with solar they can't get enought tax out of it long term thats why we are stuck with AC and 2 wires when we could be using the Teslar system


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Alot of power is lost in inverting the power from DC to AC...that why in the old days of solar if you wanted an energy efficient solar powered house then most of your appliances were DC...i still have a rare DC color tv from the good olde days.



Historically that was certainly the case, but the modern grid-connect inverters are well over 90% efficient, many of them in the mid-90's.

But does efficiency actually matter?

If we are using a limited resource then there is a sound case for using it efficiently. Likewise if there is some nasty side effect to the use of that resource. So there's good sense in using oil, coal, uranium etc as efficiently as we can. 

In most cases (not all since it isn't able to be traded) that would also apply to hydro since whilst it is a renewable resource, there isn't enough of it to produce all of our electricity needs (with a few exceptions worldwide). So again, it makes sense to maximise efficiency so as to reduce the use of coal, oil etc.

But there's no chance that putting inefficient solar panels on your roof is going to cause the sun to run out. And for the moment at least, wind energy is in the same category - the resource is vastly larger than present or near term likely development such that efficiency is of no real consequence.

The only reasons to be worried about the efficiency of solar panels are:

1. Physical space taken up 
2. Cost
3. Size of the panels and materials used to make them (use of resources, environmental effects etc)

But there's no need as such to use the sun efficiently since we're not going to use it all up if we waste it like we will with oil etc. 

People tend to worry a lot about the efficiency of solar. My response to that is that for a typical household grid connect installation it is completely irrelevant. So what if 80% of the sunlight goes to waste? You're wasting 100% of it right now without solar.

Most energy conversions are reasonably inefficient, particularly those involving multiple steps. Chemical energy (coal) into radiant heat into steam into mechanical power into electrical power. That's rather a lot of conversions and the end result is that even a highly efficient plant is only about 40% efficient (it's a bit lower for the average of coal-fired plants actually in service due to age etc).

Solar may only be 17% efficient, but you're using an effectively unlimted resource...


----------



## Glen48 (19 June 2011)

We need to change our life style every one wants power at 4 -10 pm and then nothing so power generated after is wasted but until the feds act we will continue to do nothing until it is to late. 
 Also it is still cheaper to use Coal fired power than buy & install Solar but there a lot of things we could use as I said running of DC just as Edison wanted years ago . I found DC LED lights to be great rather than AC down lights


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-nsw-queensland/story-e6frg97o-1226077596870
> 
> If I read the above correctly, a 150mW photovoltaic solar power plant has an upfront capital cost of $923m. That equates to $9230 per 1.5kW, or more than the unsubsidised capital cost of rooftop solar panels, fully installed.



Further to the above, a 1.5kW rooftop system will produce, at best, 7.5kWh of electricity per day on average, based on the most optimistic assumption from from a retail installer. This equates to approximately 2800kWh per year. Scaling up to 150mW, this would produce 280,000mWh of electricity per year. With a wholesale tariff of $0.07/kWh (WA wholesale component of feed in tariff), the plant would therefore generate $19.6m per annum in revenue. It may be more, depending on whether the solar panels themselves follow the sun during the day, but even if it was 50% more, that would still only equate to a 3% revenue return on investment and that's before any operating costs.


----------

