Do you have solar panels?

[Smurf1976]

Solar panels in the right place are in a sense beautiful in my opinion. I don't mean physically beautiful, but beautiful in the sense that a holes in the ground, ash dumps, wars and a clouds of smoke aren't exactly pretty and this does represent at least a partial alternative.

That said, the installation shown is clearly inappropriate in the context of a residential area. If someone built that on a rural property then it wouldn't be an issue. But not in the suburbs. The issue isn't the solar panels per se, but simply that a large structure has been built which will obviously impact on neighbours in a negative manner. That said, the same would apply if it were a double story house extension or the planting of large trees.

Putting panels on the roof of an existing building - I can't see a problem with that. Many roofs are pretty ugly anyway, and it's not going to cause any real harm to neighbours. But building actual structures to take them should be subject to the same approvals as any other structure in my opinion.

As for the safety aspect, that depends on how well it's designed and built. There's an awful lot of rooftop systems out there which don't have the required number of L feet brackets with respect to maximum wind loadings. This could get interesting in a major storm since, as with anything that's under designed or built, you don't find out until it's put to the test. The inspection process has a lot to answer for here - it's obsessed with putting labels on switches and using the right conduit but pretty much ignores any safety risk not directly related to electricity itself. Things like panels flying off the roof aren't exactly a trivial concern in my opinion.

 

[drsmith]

The solar pergola.

It might be a bit hot standing under it in summer with only 15% or so of the sun's energy converted into electricity and the rest largely absorbed. Then again, with water jackets on the underside of the panels, they could well double as swimming pool heaters and the heat transfer may well help with electricity generation from the panels themselves, as well as limiting the exposure of one's scalp to the heat.

The example shown is terrible visibly. The solar pergola clearly needs some work there, and also with the functionality of the space underneath in relation to the number of supports required to hold it up.

 

[Smurf1976]

The solar pergola clearly needs some work there, and also with the functionality of the space underneath in relation to the number of supports required to hold it up.

Solar at home is like pretty much anything in life. OK within sensible limits, but it becomes a problem when it starts to take over literally everything and this is a classic example of that.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Today's news. Massive and unexpected uptake in residential solar.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...puts-dent-in-electricity-market-report-shows/

 

[drsmith]

Today's news. Massive and unexpected uptake in residential solar.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...puts-dent-in-electricity-market-report-shows/

A consequence of the solar panel uptake will I suspect be increases in fixed charges to maintain networks.

This is already under discussion in WA and SA are doing it, all be it with an interesting twist.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...for-tree-pruning/story-e6frg6n6-1226688974728

 

[Smurf1976]

A consequence of the solar panel uptake will I suspect be increases in fixed charges to maintain networks.

At present, much of the cost of maintaining the network is recovered through unit consumption charges.

If net consumption drops (as it has) due to whatever cause (switching to solar, gas, wood, insulation, people simply choosing to use less) then that results in a drop in revenue to pay the fixed costs of supply. The options being either jack up the unit rates (which then encourages a further drop in consumption thus starting a cycle) or increase fixed charges.

Increasing fixed charges isn't popular but it will be the outcome in my opinion. How much? Well here in Tas the real cost (as distinct from the actual fixed charge which is considerably less) of maintaining the network is around $800 per small customer (Eg household) per year. And that's without actually consuming electricity. So $200 quarterly bills without actually using any power is a definite possibility at some point I'd expect.

 

[Craton]

Yes, lucky to have had solar for a few years now (Far West NSW) and am all electric except the one gas space heater.

System is a 1.5kW system install by Nu Energy. Nice little incentive was the $100 deposit refundable once installed.

The only real cost was for the sparky to hook the system into the Grid. From memory that was $275 and yes we did get that 100 bucks back in quick time.

Always get a credit on the bill in the sunnier quarters, not much, highest $20 so far. Had I known what I know now I'd have upped the ante to a 5kW system just like my daughter did last summer, her first bill was nearly a $300 dollar credit and on a lower fed in tariff, she's in Sth Aust.

One down side though is that it is pretty much useless on cloudy days or even partly cloudy days. Still, when looking at the bill, a twenty dollar credit is better than a twenty debt.

 

[qldfrog]

At present, much of the cost of maintaining the network is recovered through unit consumption charges.

If net consumption drops (as it has) due to whatever cause (switching to solar, gas, wood, insulation, people simply choosing to use less) then that results in a drop in revenue to pay the fixed costs of supply. The options being either jack up the unit rates (which then encourages a further drop in consumption thus starting a cycle) or increase fixed charges.

Increasing fixed charges isn't popular but it will be the outcome in my opinion. How much? Well here in Tas the real cost (as distinct from the actual fixed charge which is considerably less) of maintaining the network is around $800 per small customer (Eg household) per year. And that's without actually consuming electricity. So $200 quarterly bills without actually using any power is a definite possibility at some point I'd expect.

But with figures like this, I would go off grid as would many people???
so would they charge for the privilege of having the possibility to connect a bit like being sent a bridge toll invoice yearly because you could use it even if you never do???
Where is the limit???

 

[drsmith]

The WA state government has hit the panic button in relation to the cost of solar panel subsidies in today's state budget.

In a bid to save money, the Government will also target the popular solar feed-in tariff scheme, with Mr Buswell describing the current 40 cent per kilowatt customer payment rate as "overly generous."

From 1 October the rate will drop to 30 cents and by 1 July next year it will reduce to 20 cents.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-08/wa-budget-handed-down/4874268?section=wa

He said the Government had legal advice it could vary the contracts of people with feed-in tariffs for solar power, but argued the current 40 cent rate was “exceedingly generous”.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18413895/hip-pocket-hit-in-state-budget/

IIRC, the NSW state government also tried to retrospectively reduce their contracted feed-in tariff rate and subsequently had to back down.

 

[drsmith]

It would appear the WA state government is changing the net feed-in tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) of the contract,

The state government is responsible for funding
the payment by Synergy of the subsidy rate and
setting the Subsidy scheme criteria for determining
whether a customer is a qualified feed in tariff
customer. The state government is also solely
responsible for determining the subsidy rate and
the duration of the subsidy scheme. The state
government may change the Subsidy scheme
criteria, subsidy rate and Net feed in tariff terms
and conditions at any time and therefore the
contract will be subject to change from time to
time and any such change may, without
limitation, have retrospective effect.

As part of the budget announcement, the net feed-in tariff rate of 20 cents/kWhr is being extended for all participants for an additional two years.

If the WA state government can change the tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) above, any future commitment to both the tariff rate and duration is effectively not worth the paper it is written on.

Where this become interesting is that I have a letter from Synergy (the retail electricity provider in WA) in relation to changes to the scheme during 2011 to reduce the feed in tariff from 40 cents to 20 cents for new instillations on or after May 19 2011. My contract was signed before this date and I am advised in this letter that I would receive the 40c/kWh tariff for the full term of my contract, and this is without further qualification in that particular paragraph.

The letter also however advised that the terms and conditions of the scheme were changed. If these changes were to accommodate the change from 40 cents to 20 cents for new installs from May 19 2011 (that's what this letter is about), it would be interesting to know whether clause 17.1(d) was added at that time to accommodate that change.

http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/REBS_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf

 

[Smurf1976]

But with figures like this, I would go off grid as would many people???

Certainly for small loads it's already cheaper to be off grid in most places.

Solar powered road signs are an example. Not sure how common they are elsewhere, but certainly in Tas they are at every school. A solar powered LED sign that comes on at the appropriate time with a 40 speed limit displayed. The sign is blank the rest of the time. That's one example, things like weather monitoring equipment in remote areas (ie anywhere not associated with an existing building) are another.

Perhaps the ultimate example is to realise that Hydro Tasmania, a large scale electricity generation business, uses solar to control the headworks (water valves, flow monitoring equipment etc) to a significant extent these days. Even when you are the electric company, the cost of maintaining a power line to supply trivial amounts of power to these sites just isn't worthwhile and it's cheaper to go solar. Examples include Laughing Jack Lagoon level monitoring, the outlet gates at Lake Augusta and at Lake Echo, the latter directly feeding a "proper" power station that has been in service since 1956. Likewise flow monitoring on canals, river level monitoring etc - solar is much cheaper and easier than grid power in this situation. None of these solar installations are grid connected, they were installed specifically so as to either remove the existing grid altogether in these locations or to replace unpowered manual monitoring.

So certainly for small loads, off-grid is already the way to go.

 

[Smurf1976]

It would appear the WA state government is changing the net feed-in tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) of the contract,

...

If the WA state government can change the tariff rate under clause 17.1(d) above, any future commitment to both the tariff rate and duration is effectively not worth the paper it is written on.

It's a brave move for any government to simply change any existing contract to the detriment of the other party.

Regardless of the merits of otherwise of the contract in question, it shows that there's a high risk associated with entering a contract with the WA government and this has broader implications beyond solar.

What's the point of anyone entering a contract if that contract can simply be changed at any time by the other party (in this case the WA government)? It's a good way to scare thinking investors well away from WA.

 

[pixel]

It's a brave move for any government to simply change any existing contract to the detriment of the other party.

Regardless of the merits of otherwise of the contract in question, it shows that there's a high risk associated with entering a contract with the WA government and this has broader implications beyond solar.

What's the point of anyone entering a contract if that contract can simply be changed at any time by the other party (in this case the WA government)? It's a good way to scare thinking investors well away from WA.

Let's hope some smart Lawyer represents us in High Court and has the breach of contract thrown out.
Otherwise, WA will rank way below the level of Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe in terms of Sovereign Risk.
It certainly lends substance to the popular label "Idiot Hill" for the location of Parliament House.

Can I renege on my March vote and contest the election result?

 

[drsmith]

Let's hope some smart Lawyer represents us in High Court and has the breach of contract thrown out.
Otherwise, WA will rank way below the level of Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe in terms of Sovereign Risk.
It certainly lends substance to the popular label "Idiot Hill" for the location of Parliament House.

Can I renege on my March vote and contest the election result?

The WA government is of the view that it is on firm legal ground so I can only assume that it's not a technical breach of contract in in a legal sense.

It's this that might count more than the breach of the spirit of the arrangement to the electorate in terms of sovereign risk.

An option in states where there are more watertight contracts, cash strapped governments may resort to increasing fixed electricity charges to households with solar panels. That was part of media discussion here a couple of weeks ago.

After today's announcement, I'll now be surprised if even the freshly reduced feed in tariff scheme lasts another 3 years in WA. The budget problems with the over allocation of subsidies for solar panels are now well and truly coming home to roost.

Like you I feel I want my vote back at the moment, but what we have seen today is symptom of a much broader problem.

 

[sptrawler]

The WA government is of the view that it is on firm legal ground so I can only assume that it's not a technical breach of contract in in a legal sense.

It's this that might count more than the breach of the spirit of the arrangement to the electorate in terms of sovereign risk.

An option in states where there are more watertight contracts, cash strapped governments may resort to increasing fixed electricity charges to households with solar panels. That was part of media discussion here a couple of weeks ago.

After today's announcement, I'll now be surprised if even the freshly reduced feed in tariff scheme lasts another 3 years in WA. The budget problems with the over allocation of subsidies for solar panels are now well and truly coming home to roost.

Like you I feel I want my vote back at the moment, but what we have seen today is symptom of a much broader problem.

I missed this thread doc, it will be an interesting time.

 

[sydboy007]

No one seems to think the power companies that got their forecasts so wrong should have to write down some of the unused assets so the fixed charges wont need to increase so much?

Personally I'd like to see a bigger focus on large private and utility scale solar, with some emphasis on site orientation so they provide a decent level of power into the afternoon peak.

I'm waiting for the company to come out and sell me a share in a solar farm. If I could buy 5kWh of capacity i think that would generate enough income to provide for my household consumption - avg 8.5kWh most days.

 

[drsmith]

Where this become interesting is that I have a letter from Synergy (the retail electricity provider in WA) in relation to changes to the scheme during 2011 to reduce the feed in tariff from 40 cents to 20 cents for new instillations on or after May 19 2011. My contract was signed before this date and I am advised in this letter that I would receive the 40c/kWh tariff for the full term of my contract, and this is without further qualification in that particular paragraph.

The letter also however advised that the terms and conditions of the scheme were changed. If these changes were to accommodate the change from 40 cents to 20 cents for new installs from May 19 2011 (that's what this letter is about), it would be interesting to know whether clause 17.1(d) was added at that time to accommodate that change.

It seems Synergy has sent this letter to everyone on the 40 cent feed in tariff,

The Synergy notice sent to solar customers in May 2011 reads: "As an existing residential net feed-in tariff customer, Synergy is pleased to advise that your subsidy rate of 40c/kWh will not change and you will continue to receive 40c/kWh for the net export of electricity for the full term of your 10 year contract."

That's what the letter I got says, word for word.

It could also have federal political implications,

Dr Evans said concerned solar users have discussed launching a class action against the Government.

"People are talking about taking legal action against the government for breach of contract, people are talking about marching in the street to express their outrage," Dr Evans said.

"For the Minister to just say 'Well I'm just going to tear up the contracts' is a slap in the face for tens of thousands if not millions of solar owners around Australia."

He is also concerned about the precedent it could set across the country, where it has the potential to affect millions of Australians who have invested in solar panels.

With 2.5 million Australians living under solar roofs around the country, that's a big voting block.

"It could end up being a backlash against the Government because a lot of solar owners live in marginal seats in WA," he said.

Troy Buswell could well end up fighting the battle on this on more than one front. His timing could not have been worse in relation to the federal election campaign.

"WA is the first state in Australia that has rewritten the rules for people who are in a solar contract."

Hundreds of West Australians have already signed a petition against the changes on the Solar Citizens website.

This is not correct. NSW also announced similar changes and then reversed course.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-09/solar-panel-feature/4877136?section=wa

My bolds.

 

[drsmith]

For those in WA, the Solar Citizens website is running a petition in relation the WA FIT changes and can be accessed from the following link,

http://www.solarcitizens.org.au/barnett_betrayal

It currently has about 2000 signatures and is growing by about three per minute. Their target is 10000.

 

[sptrawler]

It seems Synergy has sent this letter to everyone on the 40 cent feed in tariff,

That's what the letter I got says, word for word.

.

The 40c wasn't put up by Synergy, it was put up by the government.
Therefore I doubt they can speak for the government, or that the government could be held to the phrasing of the letter.

Synergy stump up 8c, that is the current feed in tarrif for new installations.

 

[drsmith]

The 40c wasn't put up by Synergy, it was put up by the government.
Therefore I doubt they can speak for the government, or that the government could be held to the phrasing of the letter.

It shows the intent of the government at that time.

Synergy is also owned by the government.