Do you have solar panels?

[Tisme]

The couple said they battled with AGL over billing problems for more than a decade.

tell me about it!! My son decided to switch electricity providers from my chosen provider to AGL in a flat I leased for his use.

When I finally kicked my son out and cancelled the connection I still rec'd a bill for another six months some other tenant had clocked up because I wasn't authorised to cancel because they said so, so it must be legal. The only reason the bills stopped is because I asked the landlord to have his tenant do the right thing. I refused to pay and eventually I had bill collectors and treats of black marking me under the Gillard legislation for credit defaults.

Good luck anyone doing equitable business with company that was founded on the born to rule and old boy's club mentality of a Royal Charter.

 

[Smurf1976]

Good luck anyone doing equitable business with company that was founded on the born to rule and old boy's club mentality of a Royal Charter.

At the risk of a very blatant plug, you can spend your time frowning at AGL or you could choose to live in a happier world and use SmilePower instead. They have gas now too.

 

[Value Collector]

In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely

I think that the inflection point of "going off grid" is not going to be when the price meets parity with the grid.

I see the grid as being a really reliable battery that people with solar can use to time shift their power production.

For me to take my system off the grid, I would want the capital cost of batteries to be significantly cheaper than the cost to connect to the grid, Because having my own off grid system has a lot of disadvantages.

eg.

1. I have to out lay alot of money upfront buy the batteries
2. there would be a risk I may run out of power in high consumption times
3. when the system breaks down, I have to fix it, but with the grid they have to fix it
4. when I am away for a couple of days the batteries get full, and the system stops producing

 

[DB008]

I have Origin up in Brisbane and their feed in tarrif rate is 8 cents per kWh.

Will be interesting to see what the ALP bring to the table. They did mention a few things but l wasn't really paying attention as I'm currently interstate for work.

Time will tell. Also, solar is so cheap, it might be worthwhile waiting a few years and going for an off-grid solution and using an energy company as a back-up.

 

[bellenuit]

I have Origin up in Brisbane and their feed in tarrif rate is 8 cents per kWh.

Will be interesting to see what the ALP bring to the table. They did mention a few things but l wasn't really paying attention as I'm currently interstate for work.

Time will tell. Also, solar is so cheap, it might be worthwhile waiting a few years and going for an off-grid solution and using an energy company as a back-up.

How would you use the energy company as a backup if you are off the grid? Do you mean you are still connected (on the grid) and remain their customer, but just exporting at all times. Presumably if you have told the energy company that you are no longer their client (my understanding of off the grid), they are going to charge you a fee every time you want to reconnect and there also could be a delay in the time that takes, which might negate them being a backup solution (if, of instance, your solar system is down for a few days because of problems).

I'm not disputing what you said, simply trying to understand if that would be feasible.

I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.

 

[pixel]

I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.

... even more likely, Power Companies will lobby governments to legislate that all households pay a supply charge, whether they're connected or not. All the "poor families" that "could not afford" the up-front cost of solar and batteries, would be rallied to protest the unfairness of letting "the Rich" get away with free power at the expense of "ordinary Australians". Similar arguments were already raised when WA's King Col'n tried to renege on the 10-year FIT contract that subsidizes early adopters at 40c/exported unit.

 

[DB008]

How would you use the energy company as a backup if you are off the grid? Do you mean you are still connected (on the grid) and remain their customer, but just exporting at all times. Presumably if you have told the energy company that you are no longer their client (my understanding of off the grid), they are going to charge you a fee every time you want to reconnect and there also could be a delay in the time that takes, which might negate them being a backup solution (if, of instance, your solar system is down for a few days because of problems).

I'm not disputing what you said, simply trying to understand if that would be feasible.

I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.

bellenuit, Get off grid - but have a back-up - preferably a generator or hardwired to existing power line, but then l'd imagine you would have to pay some sort of 'line rental' ?

Sorry, I should have been more clearer in my previous post.

... even more likely, Power Companies will lobby governments to legislate that all households pay a supply charge, whether they're connected or not. All the "poor families" that "could not afford" the up-front cost of solar and batteries, would be rallied to protest the unfairness of letting "the Rich" get away with free power at the expense of "ordinary Australians". Similar arguments were already raised when WA's King Col'n tried to renege on the 10-year FIT contract that subsidizes early adopters at 40c/exported unit.

Yes, I am now paying for someone else's solar feed in tariff.

So, do I bite the bullet and install soon, or wait for better technology (battery and solar panels) ?

New Graphene ‘Wonder Material’ Breakthrough Enables Doubling of Solar Panel Efficiency

One of the major reasons that solar panels are facing such hurdles to replace conventional electricity sources is because they are very inefficient. The most efficient (and most expensive) panel is currently somewhere around 32 percent efficiency. However, scientists in Switzerland have figured out a way to utilize Graphene in solar panel design, raising its efficiency to an absolutely staggering 60% – a finally feasible amount.

http://wccftech.com/graphene-wonder-material-breakthrough-enables-doubling-solar-panel-efficiency/#ixzz3QZBwmkrf

A Cheap Material Boosts Solar Cells by 50 Percent

Putting a new kind of photovoltaic material on top of a conventional solar cell can boost overall power output by half. Researchers at Stanford University added a type of material known as a perovskite to a silicon solar cell, validating an idea for cheaply increasing the efficiency of solar power that was first proposed several years ago.

Perovskites are materials with a particular crystalline structure. The perovskite used by the Stanford team contains relatively abundant and cheap materials including ammonia, iodine, and lead.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534511/a-cheap-material-boosts-solar-cells-by-50-percent/

 

[Smurf1976]

The inherent problem with the "grid as backup" model is that electricity itself is cheap, it's the grid which gobbles up most of your money. And the cost of maintaining the grid doesn't change greatly if people simply use it less, to achieve a major cost reduction you need to switch large sections of it (eg distribution to the suburbs or regional towns) off altogether. Once you do that, well then you no longer have it as "backup".

Electricity prices at the household level vary considerably around the country and between retailers, but somewhere around 25 cents / kWh is typical plus a daily supply charge on top of that. Trouble is, the power stations aren't seeing much of that money at all - the spot price is between 2 and 3 cents per kWh in most states right now and on average isn't much more than that. It's the grid itself, not generating electricity to put into it, where the money is going.

Average spot market prices this financial year to date:

Vic = 3.093 cents / kWh
NSW = 3.567 cents
SA = 3.739 cents
Tas = 3.759 cents
Qld = 5.43 cents

Something may well have been gold plated but it's certainly not in the power stations. Most generation companies are under financial pressure at the moment. Some are running their plants at a cash profit but struggling to cover the total costs overall once the non-variable business costs are included. In other cases the power stations are more profitable doing nothing, since the cost of operation exceeds what the electricity produced can be sold for.

Swanbank E (Qld, gas, 385MW), Swanbank B (Qld, coal, 480MW), Tamar Valley CCGT (Tas, gas, 208MW), Collinsville (Qld, coal, 190MW), Morwell (Vic, coal, 190 MW), Playford B (SA, coal, 240MW), Wallerawang (NSW, coal, 1000MW), Munmorah (NSW, coal, 600MW), Redbank (NSW, coal, 150MW) have all been either mothballed or permanently closed in the past 5 years. Torrens Island A (SA, gas, 480MW) is also on the cards to shut in 2017.

In addition, it's no secret in the industry that Hydro Tas has substantially walked away from the baseload market this financial year. Others such as Northern (SA, coal, 546MW) have taken a similar approach at various time in recent years although they're partially back in the game now. Meanwhile there are others, for example Newport D (Vic, gas, 500MW) still in operation as such but sitting idle virtually all the time since the spot price is rarely high enough to cover the cost of actually running the plant, hence it's not running.

So there's not much money to be made generating electricity at the moment. Trouble is, all a solar system does, assuming the grid remains in place, is generate. It doesn't really save on the other costs so long as the grid remains in place.

All that may not affect the decision of an individual consumer to any great extent, but it matters an awful lot if enough people start going off-grid and we still expect the grid to physically be there.

In case you're wondering where the power is coming from with so many plants being closed, well demand is down, wind farms have taken a chunk of it and so has solar, but the very low cost plants such as Hazelwood and Yallourn (both in Vic) are still going full blast 24/7. And of course there is still production in the other states, just not as much as the industry had assumed would be needed hence the surplus capacity and low prices.

 

[DB008]

Elon Musk's Tesla set to unveil home storage battery

Elon Musk's electric car company Tesla is about to unveil a home storage battery that could compete with the electricity companies as a power source, he said in an earnings call.

Musk said yesterday the company has completed the design of the battery.

"We are going to unveil the Tesla home battery for use for people's houses and businesses fairly soon. We have the design done, and it should go into production in about six months or so." he said.

He said the product will probably be unveiled in the next month.

"It is really great, I am really excited about it."

Chief technology officer JB Straubel also said the company was in the process of talking to a number of utility companies. “This is a business that is gaining an increasing amount of our attention," he said.

During the earnings call the company revealed it made a loss of $108m (£71m) in its fourth quarter, blaming poor sales in China.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

 

[orr]

Elon Musk's Tesla set to unveil home storage battery

I read the report you linked to when following news on the Giga factory, along with an update on the Xmodel along with another on Porsches work on an all electric scaled down Panamera. Bosch currently offer (even here in austraila)a completely integrated Grid connected Solar, Battery storage and 'smart' appliance range. And put a couple their components in just about every vehicle on the planet.... A fair bit of the future being organised?

By my reading there's more than just the odd few that suggest a price per/kWh of lithium chemistry storage in the sub US$ 100 is not that far off.

Tesla(2130kg) in 'Insane Mode' V Lamborghini LP570-4 Super Trofeo(1375kg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4CnSS4OG4A

 

[Value Collector]

I would also assume that should battery power become so feasible that many customers no longer need the energy company except as backup, they will institute a charge just to remain connected.

everyone connected to the grid already pays a network fee, it's something like $1 a day from memory.

 

[Value Collector]

I think the future might be a smart grid used for trading energy, rather than everyone trying to generate and store 100% of their own power.

I think a system where most people have solar connected to the grid feeding in during the day, and then wind, gas, coal or nuclear etc fill in the gaps during the night and peak times.

Imagine getting home at night after a cloudy winter day, and having to decide whether to put the heater on, have a hot shower and cook your dinner or sit in the cold and charge your electric car (yes I think we are all going electric in the future), or the other end of the spectrum, Imagine being a away for a few sunny days and having your batteries become full, all that wasted energy.

 

[drsmith]

WA treasurer Mike Nahan apparently has been talking talking up the prospect of increasing fixed charges relative to the usage charges for electricity in the upcoming WA state budget, in particular for those who have solar panels.

The cost of government incentives for rooftop feed in solar are coming home to roost.

 

[Smurf1976]

WA treasurer Mike Nahan apparently has been talking talking up the prospect of increasing fixed charges relative to the usage charges for electricity in the upcoming WA state budget, in particular for those who have solar panels.

If the fixed and unit rates are set correctly in the first place then grid-connect solar poses no threat to the power industry whatsoever. Nor does gas, wood or insulation pose a threat if the rates are correctly set.

Trouble is, no Australian electricity supplier (retailer or distributor) is currently doing that, and the only one that has ever tried it 20 years ago learned the lessons from that public relations disaster (and it most certainly was an outright disaster from a PR perspective) and is in no hurry to do it again. At some point there will be no choice I suspect, and the industry is very slowly creeping forward in that direction, but we're not there yet by any means.

 

[drsmith]

If the fixed and unit rates are set correctly in the first place then grid-connect solar poses no threat to the power industry whatsoever. Nor does gas, wood or insulation pose a threat if the rates are correctly set.

Trouble is, no Australian electricity supplier (retailer or distributor) is currently doing that, and the only one that has ever tried it 20 years ago learned the lessons from that public relations disaster (and it most certainly was an outright disaster from a PR perspective) and is in no hurry to do it again. At some point there will be no choice I suspect, and the industry is very slowly creeping forward in that direction, but we're not there yet by any means.

In a pure economic sense the unit rate payable to the property owner for grid connect solar should be the wholesale generation rate for all the electricity generated. In WA, that's currently set at ~$0.08/kWhr

If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary.

One can understand subsidy in the context of encouraging take up but there's a cost to be paid either within the electricity sector or the broader state government budget balance where the utility is state owned.

Also, where there's a rebalance towards an increased fixed user component that obviously reduces the relative price signal in relation to usage which is counter to the objective of rooftop solar in the first place.

 

[sptrawler]

In a pure economic sense the unit rate payable to the property owner for grid connect solar should be the wholesale generation rate for all the electricity generated. In WA, that's currently set at ~$0.08/kWhr

If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary.

One can understand subsidy in the context of encouraging take up but there's a cost to be paid either within the electricity sector or the broader state government budget balance where the utility is state owned.

Also, where there's a rebalance towards an increased fixed user component that obviously reduces the relative price signal in relation to usage which is counter to the objective of rooftop solar in the first place.

That is a very accurate summation and would be extremely fair, however the government don't make any money from that scenario.

 

[Smurf1976]

If that were the case, a rebalance to a higher proportion of fixed vs usage charges as a consequence of growing rooftop solar wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure about WA, but it most certainly is the case in every other state. In Tas the feed in 6.106 cents per kWh for new installations after 2013. There's a higher rate, 28.283 cents, which expires at the end of 2018 for older solar installations. That rate, 28.283 cents, was set equal to the general Light & Power (Tariff 31) consumption rate at the time. However, since electricity prices have since declined, the FIT for these older solar installations is now higher than the consumption rate (now 24.717 cents).

All that said, so long as the total exports do not exceed total imports from the grid, and that is the case for the majority of households with solar, then even a 1:1 FIT has no effect on the electricity industry financially that is not also caused by consumers simply reducing consumption (eg using gas).

The "Network Charge" circa 1994 was intended to address that problem since, at that time, large numbers of households in Tas were using non-electric (primarily wood but also oil and LPG) heating as a means of achieving below average electricity consumption and thus avoiding paying their full share of fixed network costs. That is the same scenario as applies to someone who installs solar and who generates less than they consume in total.

The harsh reality is that a "fair" unsubsidised electricity bill is around $200 a quarter, and that's before you consume a single kWh. Under the present model of undercharging for fixed costs, and overcharging on consumption to offset this, the result is that anyone with below average consumption, achieved by whatever means be it solar or non-solar, is effectively subsidised by higher volume users.

The crux of all this is that the grid is moving from a system of supplying electricity generated at a few large power stations to a large number of consumers to a system which simply transports energy produced by anyone to any other customer. There is a major difference there, since the notion that any, or even most, customers will have a net level of consumption from the grid is increasingly irrelevant as consumption declines and self-generation increases.

The current funding model is akin to funding roads by means of a levy on bus and train fares. That would have worked reasonably well until the end of World War 2 after which privately owned vehicles substantially displaced public transport. The transition in the electricity industry is not overly different from that, to the point that we may well see the day where large power stations account for a minority of total electricity generation.

 

[DB008]

The Greatest Debacle in Solar PV: Australia’s Rooftop DC Isolator Fires​

The Australian solar PV market is on fire. Generous subsidies and support mechanisms have produced almost 2 million solar PV installations across the country, placing Australia among the leaders in solar PV deployment. It is also literally true, in that Australia is suffering a spate of solar-*‐related fires, hundreds of them. The cause of these fires isn’t the solar panels themselves, but rather a device installed next to solar panels called a rooftop DC isolator (or disconnect) switch””a uniquely Australian requirement.

How Australia came to mandate these switches has nothing to do with safety, testing, or standards of best practice. By mid-*‐2010, with over 100,000 solar panels installed across Australia, solar panels hadn’t caused a single fire, or harm to anyone. The solar industry was booming, but apparently not everyone was happy.

Silly season on solar PV started in February 2010 with some wild claims.

Peter Marshall of the Firefighters Union of Australia was quoted as saying “a number of firefighters have lost their lives from this DC current”””a complete fabrication. Similar stories followed, and the message spread like wildfire: solar is dangerous; the firefighters said so. [1]

In mid-*‐2010, Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade investigator Rod East, responding to dubious claims of solar panel-*‐caused house fires, called for tighter regulations. Specifically, Mr. East wanted “rules to ensure an isolation switch to turn off any electric current was located both at the switchboard and near the device.” A DC isolator was already required at the switchboard, but the firefighters’ demand compelled some state regulators and power companies to mandate the additional rooftop DC isolator next to solar panels. The practice was widely adopted. [2]

The federal government, in turn, ordered an inspection program on solar panels, starting in 2011. The inspections revealed that almost a quarter of the solar panel installations were substandard or unsafe. More than 90% of these installations were traced back to a single cause: the DC switch. [3]

In October 2011, Australia had its first confirmed, solar panel-*‐related fire, at a toy library in Darwin. The rooftop DC isolator caught fire, and six toddlers were evacuated from the building, fortunately located next door to the fire station. The fire didn’t spread and was quickly extinguished. [4]

Despite the lack of fires or any demonstrable harm from solar panels themselves, and in spite of the evidence showing the fire risk from DC switches, Standards Australia moved to mandate the rooftop DC switch nationwide in 2012, in the name of fire safety.

During the standards-*‐drafting process, Standards New Zealand sought an exemption from the rooftop DC isolator requirement, calling it a stupid idea. The rift eventually led to Australia-*‐only and New Zealand-*‐only sections of the standard”” usually technical standards are harmonized between the two countries. [5]

Submitters to the drafting process warned against the rooftop DC isolator requirement. Testing reports detailed the dangers of the switch, especially in firefighting situations. Further inspections of solar panels in Australia continued to show issues with the dodgy devices. But Standards Australia forged ahead, and in late 2012 the rooftop DC isolator became a legally mandated requirement in Australia””the only place in the world today.

Germany, itself a world leader in solar electricity, had once required a practice similar to Australia’s rooftop DC isolator requirement but eventually stopped, because it was causing too many fires. The Germans found that placing DC switches in exposed places creates a degenerative process that, without regular maintenance, causes the switches to heat up, and eventually, to catch fire””even the high-*‐quality German ones.[6]

In Australia, the fires started immediately after the introduction of rooftop DC isolators, and so did the product recalls. By January 2012, Australia had its first product recall on DC isolators due to a high number of faults and risk of fire. By October 2012, days before the nationwide requirement came into effect, Australia saw the front of a wave in solar panel-*‐related fires, all caused by the rooftop switch. [7]

More on link below....

http://tinyurl.com/pyyxlth

 

[Smurf1976]

Ah yes, rooftop isolators.

DC is nasty stuff when it comes to switching. Seriously nasty when compared to switching the same voltage and current at AC. That's a fundamental technical issue and comes down to the constant DC voltage (and there's no ripple with solar, it's pure DC just like a battery) versus the sine wave with AC which, if from the grid in Australia, crosses zero volts precisely 100 times per second.

Putting this in layman's terms, if you get an arc (electricity jumping through the air, like what is done intentionally for welding - a bright bluish arc and fundamentally the same thing as lightning) then with DC it's far harder to extinguish than with AC. That comes back to the fact that AC, that is the normal power generated at power stations, transmitted via the grid and which you have at home, necessarily crosses the zero voltage line twice each cycle - so that's 100 times per second at 50 Hertz (the frequency we use in Australia - most countries are either 50Hz or 60Hz).

Now, if you switch something, like turning a light switch off, then you'll get a tiny arc the moment the switch is operated. Not a huge issue with AC - it very slowly (each time you switch it) wears out the switch but the arc itself is self-extinguishing since it's AC. Ever seen a little blue flash from a power point or light switch when turning it off? That's the arc. But with DC it doesn't self extinguish, you need specific steps to extinguish the arc and that's what makes if problematic.

Whilst it's possible to design a switch to handle DC, that doesn't take care of what happens if water gets in and causes a short circuit. And if you've got a plastic box sitting up on the roof baking all day in the sun, then no prizes for guessing that at some point it's going to degrade and water ends up inside it when it rains. Out comes the sun and BINGO - there's your short circuit, producing heat, and eventual fire.

Some installers have, of their own accord added metal "sun shields" over the switches to try and improve the situation. But they're not perfect, you've still got a plastic box sitting up on the roof being cooked. The shield slows that down a lot, but plastic still fails eventually.

So why did we go down this track? It wasn't for sensible engineering or practical reasons. It makes the installer's job harder having to add a switch so they have no reason to want them given that the solar market is highly price conscious for domestic installations. It adds time to their job, it's more materials they have to buy, and it's another thing to go wrong resulting in a warranty call out to fix it. And that's just the purely practical side without mentioning the fire aspect.

So why? Well there's an organisation known as the Clean Energy Council (CEC). It's one of those self-formed "peak bodies" which decided it ought to represent the industry and managed to get the ear of government. Like most "peak bodies", it's just a private group that has managed to turn itself into a quasi-government regulator. So we ended up with a situation where most electricity distributors have compliance with CEC requirements as an actual condition of connecting a solar system to the grid. And further, only installers certified by the CEC (which costs $$$) can do the work in the first place - your average electrician cannot, unless they pay the CEC big $, legally work on solar.

The CEC has a nickname which says it all really. Installers often call them the "Clowns" or "Clown Corp". Enough said.

Looking ahead, as these isolators age we'll inevitably see a huge number of fires. At some point it will become a mainstream media issue and we'll probably see some sort of inspection and rectification program - the work only being available to those who are CEC accredited of course since nobody else is allowed to touch it.

A lot of this comes down to the electrical industry having not foreseen the rise of small grid-connected solar systems and then applying regulations that weren't really necessary.

In short, there are some very tight regulations relating to large power stations and very good reasons for that. The industry is used to the idea that "generation" means a few large power stations and that everything else on the grid is a, in most cases trivial, load on that generation. The industry just didn't get its' collective head around the idea of having a million tiny generators connected and applied the "it's a generator so it needs to be regulated" principle as applies to large power stations. That then lead to coming up with all sorts of "regulations" for solar, some of which are necessary (eg inverter operating parameters) but some of which are just silly (like rooftop isolators).

If you want to know how silly it gets, another solar rule is that plastic cable ties can't be used to support the wiring up on the roof because they degrade and lose strength over time. Worst case, if they fail, that will leave the wiring sitting on the roof itself rather than being attached to the panels or mounting frame. That could lead to a problem but that's fairly unlikely to be anything major in practice given that the connectors are waterproof and, since they are under the panels, shielded from the sun. Overall risk = fairly low. But around the same time it was decided that putting a DC switch in a plastic box, which will also degrade just like the cable ties, was a good idea. Risk if that fails = far higher than the risk if the cable ties come off and far more likely due to the sun exposure of the isolator.

 

[Value Collector]

A close mate of mine recently switched from origin had his solar feed in tariff go from 6cents to 12cents. I can't remember the name of the retailer he went to, it was either connect or contact or something like that.