Do you have solar panels?

prawn_86 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

McArdle says by 2015-16 most Queenslanders will be paying $276 a year, or about 17 per cent of their annual power bill, to subsidise other people having solar power on domestic roofs.

"But these are just the direct costs of the solar bonus scheme," he says. "What is not included is the cost of upgrading the electricity network to cope with widespread power flowing back into the grid, which has resulted in voltage and other issues making the electricity grid in some areas highly unstable.

"Solar power is being provided into the grid during the day when there is a surplus of power available. Queensland's coal-fired baseload power stations cannot be switched on and off and need to run continuously.

"There is no logic to this policy. It does little to reduce carbon, as its supporters claim, because the baseload power stations have to stay on ... to meet demand at peak periods."

Click to expand...

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

Calliope said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Calliope said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Gringotts Bank said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silex Systems has announced the practical completion of its 1.5MW concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) solar power demonstration plant in Mildura, Victoria, with all 40 of the facility’s CPV dishes connected and now feeding power into the national grid.

Silex subsidiary Solar Systems made the announcement on Tuesday morning, describing the occasion as a “major milestone” on the road to commercialisation of its unique ‘Dense Array’ CPV technology.

The plant’s CS500 dishes are each made up of more than 100 curved mirrors which reflect sunlight and concentrate it to 500 times its normal intensity. This sunlight is then directed onto a receiver of densely packed, highly-efficient, solar cells, and then converted into energy at 43 per cent efficiency – generally regarded as the highest in the world.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

sydboy007 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

sydboy007 said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Smurf1976 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

sydboy007 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

sydboy007 said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

sydboy007 said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

boofis said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Answer, tough, sorry.

boofis said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

sptrawler said:

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

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

Answer, tough, sorry.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

drsmith said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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