Daniel Andrews solar panels initiative

[basilio]

The Victorian Labour Government has released details of project to subsidise up to 650,000 homes with solar panels. Basically 50% rebate . Bit more as well.

Thoughts ?
Cutting Power Bills With Solar Panels For 650,000 Homes

• Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change

19 August 2018

• Energy
• Media Release

A re-elected Andrews Labor Government will help Victorians save around $890 a year on their power bills with half price solar panels at no up-front cost.

...Labor is putting power back in the hands of Victorian households with the new Solar Homes program, which will see solar panels installed on 650,000 homes over ten years.

Under the $1.24 billion program, Victorians will be able to install a solar panel system for half price and pay the rest of the cost back over four years with an interest-free loan.

This will save the typical Victorian household up to $2,225 for installation of an average 4kW solar system and help them save $890 a year on their electricity bills.

A new independent agency, Solar Victoria, will be established to work with industry, regulators and training organisations to deliver the program, which will create almost 5,500 new jobs.

Safety is paramount, and a re-elected Labor Government will invest $9 million to support accreditation of 4,500 electricians to install solar panels. Solar panel systems will only be installed by accredited solar installers using approved products to ensure the highest safety standards.

..However, we know Victorians are struggling with higher electricity prices right now. That’s why the Labor Government will immediately invest $68 million to launch the Solar Homes program.

From today, Victorians will be able to install a solar panel system and get half of the cost back via a 50 per cent rebate.

This will be expanded to include the interest-free loan from July next year, under a re-elected Labor Government.

The 50 per cent rebate on solar panel systems will be available to Victorians with a household income of up to $180,000 who live in their own home valued at up to $3 million – this means almost nine out of 10 Victorians who own their own house are eligible.

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/cutting-power-bills-with-solar-panels-for-650000-homes/

 

[SirRumpole]

Good idea, but isn't this the same government that mandated gas connection on all new homes ?

 

[basilio]

Good idea, but isn't this the same government that mandated gas connection on all new homes ?

And your point is ??

 

[SirRumpole]

And your point is ??

If you get a government that is flogging competing industries at the same time there may be a conflict of interest later on.

The solar deal may look good initially, but will they water it down later ?

 

[Smurf1976]

My thought is that in principle it's not a bad idea but I'd like to see how this fits into the overall plan for energy in Victoria.

Point there being there is no proper plan.

So if we're going to add 650,000 x 4kW solar systems then there's a lot of issues with that.

I say that as someone who's got a larger system on the roof of my present house and intends putting one on my new place too. I'm not against it at all but a roll-out on that scale needs to consider the broader implications.

650,000 x 4kW = 2600 MW. That's only slightly less than the maximum electrical consumption of the whole of SA (about 3100 in a typical summer) or the largest coal-fired power station in Australia (which is either 2800 MW or 3280 MW depending on how you measure it).

The relevant technical issues are:

1. Capacity of local networks to absorb this level of generation from places (houses) that were never envisaged as generating power when the networks were built. This isn't a show stopper but it's an issue.

2. How to manage the transmission grid and synchronous generation (that's conventional power stations) under circumstances of high solar generation and low system load as would occur on a mild sunny day with high solar generation and minimal use of heating or cooling devices. Even worse if it's a Sunday or public holiday when most businesses are shut.

Point 1 is a nuisance that at worst will cause the solar systems to not function and leave their owners unhappy.

Point 2 could very easily bring the entire grid down.

Exporting the problem interstate doesn't necessarily offer a solution. Eg right at this moment Vic is already exporting flat out into both SA and NSW meanwhile Tas is sending power in to Vic also at the transmission limit. So the limits there are already reached on occasion, albeit in this case Tas to Vic not Vic to Tas but for the other two it's heading outwards from Vic.

Now if it were windier in SA that would be reversed, flow from SA to Vic otherwise there's nowhere for it to go. Spot the problem?

There are also the economic implications. Over supply electricity during the middle of the day and it won't be worth much indeed the value will in practice almost certainly be negative (which already happens on occasion).

Overall I like the idea but I just want to see a proper plan rather than this approach of doing something which sounds good on paper, waiting for it to end very badly, then trying something else which is what we're doing at the moment. It ain't rocket science to work this stuff out properly from the start and there are some very obvious implications from this which need to be addressed before a few million Victorians find themselves sitting in the dark.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another issue in all of this is that if this scheme sees a rush of installations then it's plausible that it will crash the value of STC's (Small scale Technology Certificates - a government-created market mechanism basically) due to a surge in supply versus a fixed (government mandated) demand.

That's getting into a lot of if this and maybe that sort of assumptions but along with the Australian Government's threat to scrap the scheme altogether, which would also possibly lead to a rush to get in now, it's plausible (though I acknowledge that I'm speculating here).

If it does pan out that way then those in other states who want to install solar at home will be paying considerably more to do so. For those in the industry, some will presumably relocate to Vic as demand for their services increases there and contracts elsewhere.

The law of unintended consequences......

All that said, this is fundamentally a question of how to do it not whether it can be done. It can be done - but crashing through and ending up in the dark or with necessary parts of the system becoming financially unviable with no plan B isn't a great way to work out the "how" bit.

 

[basilio]

Thanks Smurf. These were some of the queries I had in terms of integrating them into teh system.

Mind you there is a 10 year roll out time proposed. I can see a need for a few decent battery banks or other energy storage systems to help stabilise the system. It may also be the case that the government encourages/supports home batteries in the future.

 

[moXJO]

Doesn't this just bump the price up for everyone else without solar space, or renters?
Don't batteries have about a 10 year life?

Another case of have and have nots. Probably time to stop farting around with the energy debate and ensure everyone has reliable, cheap energy.

I'm not against solar just seems like andrews giving the public a handjob, rather than it being anything meaningful.

 

[basilio]

Doesn't this just bump the price up for everyone else without solar space, or renters?
Don't batteries have about a 10 year life?

Another case of have and have nots. Probably time to stop farting around with the energy debate and ensure everyone has reliable, cheap energy.

I'm not against solar just seems like andrews giving the public a handjob, rather than it being anything meaningful.

I see what you mean MoXjo. The most cost effective way to ensure everyone has reliable cheap energy is developing a nationwide energy system based around cheap new renewables with hydro and battery back up.

It would be run through a national energy body which charged cost plus (say) 10% . It would probably be financed through industry super schemes earning investors about 5-7% interest.

But that would be so effective, so practical and so socialist it would never get off the ground would it ?
A clear eyed look at the Andrews government proposal would recognise that developing large stand alond renewable energy projects would be more cost effective. But this proposal puts the dollars in the hands of "hard working home owning Australians" .

And it is an election year..

 

[Smurf1976]

I see what you mean MoXjo. The most cost effective way...

I could write a book about all the associated technical and economic issues but perhaps the simplest way to express the whole lot is this.

Electricity is a technical subject. So long as we have politicians with no relevant technical knowledge running the show it's going to be a mess.

• Economic cost will be higher than it needs to be.

• Environmental cost will be higher than it needs to be.

• Supply reliability will be lower than it ought to be.

That's it really and the same applies to anything. Put in charge people with limited knowledge but a strong agenda and it tends to not end well.

The problems and details will change over time but the overall notion that energy is a problem in Australia isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[SirRumpole]

Electricity is a technical subject. So long as we have politicians with no relevant technical knowledge running the show it's going to be a mess.

I agree, but I doubt that a totally free market without any government intervention is the way to go either.

It's too easy to jack up prices for an essential service.

 

[Smurf1976]

I agree, but I doubt that a totally free market without any government intervention is the way to go either.

Agreed and I'll point out that such companies are by no means perfect either.

I can think of two that have very much put their foot in it financially in recent years and two others, lesser known, that sort-of have done the same. They might have ended up with a profit but not without throwing away serious $ in the process.

Therein lies the issue - anyone who things that improving efficiency leads to improved profit in this game has at best been mislead. Some are more blatant than others but you need inefficiency, not efficiency, if you want the money rolling in. That sort of stuff tends to give economic theorists a bit of a fit but the data's all publicly available via the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) public website for those who choose to peruse it. Trouble is, the facts don't align at all well with either of the two main political parties and their ideologies.

 

[moXJO]

I see what you mean MoXjo. The most cost effective way to ensure everyone has reliable cheap energy is developing a nationwide energy system based around cheap new renewables with hydro and battery back up.

It would be run through a national energy body which charged cost plus (say) 10% . It would probably be financed through industry super schemes earning investors about 5-7% interest.

But that would be so effective, so practical and so socialist it would never get off the ground would it ?
A clear eyed look at the Andrews government proposal would recognise that developing large stand alond renewable energy projects would be more cost effective. But this proposal puts the dollars in the hands of "hard working home owning Australians" .

And it is an election year..

I'm worried we as a nation are dithering on a clear plan forward. Cheap energy is a major factor on the economy as well.

Hydro I like. Very long lasting and low maintenance. Just the time and planning to get it up and running. I'm not really sold on solar/wind and batteries just yet.
But something needs to be done and soon.

I see too many problems aligning to really drag the country down with the same kind of inaction we are facing over ideological reasons.
Andrews approach is great for home owners.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm worried we as a nation are dithering on a clear plan forward. Cheap energy is a major factor on the economy as well.

There's rather a lot of existing plant that's getting fairly old these days so we've got to do something.

Torrens Island A is closing and the new Barker Inlet plant being built nearby replaces only half of it.

Dry Creek, Snuggery, Yallourn units 1 & 2, Liddell and Gladstone are all 40+ years old with the future much smaller in the past.

Three of the plants I've named there have been de-rated from their original design to a lower capacity. Simple layman's terms explanation = because they're not in good shape and by not pushing them too hard, bad stuff is less likely to happen.

So there's a need to do something about all this most certainly.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem is smurph, Labor don,t believe you.
They think saying renewables are the answer, is all that is required, Fairfax agree and champion the cause.
So a disaster has to happen, in order for reality, to be accepted.IMO.
The only one talking sense is Abbott and no one's listens to him, so let it happen I reckon.

 

[Knobby22]

The problem is smurph, Labor don,t believe you.
They think saying renewables are the answer, is all that is required, Fairfax agree and champion the cause.
So a disaster has to happen, in order for reality, to be accepted.IMO.
The only one talking sense is Abbott and no one's listens to him, so let it happen I reckon.

Don't know why you bring Fairfax into it. They own the most right wing radio stations in the country. Oh yea, they are competition to Murdoch.

Back to the issues, I agree the grid won't handle without giving money to the mostly Chinese owners to upgrade.
The other issue is that now they have announced it the industry will almost shut down to the election.
If it goes ahead I will be taking up the offer, how will they limit to 10 years?, everyone will be keen to take it up straight away, no cash upfront required.

 

[sptrawler]

Don't know why you bring Fairfax into it. They own the most right wing radio stations in the country. Oh yea, they are competition to Murdoch.

Back to the issues, I agree the grid won't handle without giving money to the mostly Chinese owners to upgrade.
The other issue is that now they have announced it the industry will almost shut down to the election.
If it goes ahead I will be taking up the offer, how will they limit to 10 years?, everyone will be keen to take it up straight away, no cash upfront required.

Pardon, come again?

 

[PZ99]

My thought is that in principle it's not a bad idea but I'd like to see how this fits into the overall plan for energy in Victoria.

Point there being there is no proper plan.

So if we're going to add 650,000 x 4kW solar systems then there's a lot of issues with that.

I say that as someone who's got a larger system on the roof of my present house and intends putting one on my new place too. I'm not against it at all but a roll-out on that scale needs to consider the broader implications.

650,000 x 4kW = 2600 MW. That's only slightly less than the maximum electrical consumption of the whole of SA (about 3100 in a typical summer) or the largest coal-fired power station in Australia (which is either 2800 MW or 3280 MW depending on how you measure it).

The relevant technical issues are:

1. Capacity of local networks to absorb this level of generation from places (houses) that were never envisaged as generating power when the networks were built. This isn't a show stopper but it's an issue.

2. How to manage the transmission grid and synchronous generation (that's conventional power stations) under circumstances of high solar generation and low system load as would occur on a mild sunny day with high solar generation and minimal use of heating or cooling devices. Even worse if it's a Sunday or public holiday when most businesses are shut.

Point 1 is a nuisance that at worst will cause the solar systems to not function and leave their owners unhappy.

Point 2 could very easily bring the entire grid down.

Exporting the problem interstate doesn't necessarily offer a solution. Eg right at this moment Vic is already exporting flat out into both SA and NSW meanwhile Tas is sending power in to Vic also at the transmission limit. So the limits there are already reached on occasion, albeit in this case Tas to Vic not Vic to Tas but for the other two it's heading outwards from Vic.

Now if it were windier in SA that would be reversed, flow from SA to Vic otherwise there's nowhere for it to go. Spot the problem?

There are also the economic implications. Over supply electricity during the middle of the day and it won't be worth much indeed the value will in practice almost certainly be negative (which already happens on occasion).

Overall I like the idea but I just want to see a proper plan rather than this approach of doing something which sounds good on paper, waiting for it to end very badly, then trying something else which is what we're doing at the moment. It ain't rocket science to work this stuff out properly from the start and there are some very obvious implications from this which need to be addressed before a few million Victorians find themselves sitting in the dark.

Maybe with point 2 they could drain off the excess power into the desalination plant ?

 

[Knobby22]

Maybe with point 2 they could drain off the excess power into the desalination plant ?

It's the local transformers that won't handle it. Also the mess all those digital outputs will make to the electricity waveform. Realistically it's not possible without major upgrades.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe with point 2 they could drain off the excess power into the desalination plant ?

The problem is, not what to do with excess power. The problem is the unstable power renewables produce.