This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Do you have solar panels?

Jump to new
What might be intersting is if anyone can post their total annual electricity bill for the year before installation and the year after. Thinking of those who have installed since the 47c rebate and perhaps in last 2-3 years.
Plus perhaps the cost and size of system.
I obviously don't have this data yet.

(Not sure if there are gaps in this. Might omit other factors.... But a start?)
 
I was lucky i probably got my solar at the ideal time in 2012 with Fit at 52c kwh , 6kw system for $10k installed , fully paid of in tad over 3 years , now looking forward to free power basically for next 10 years . one of the lowest risk investments you could ever make imo , basically yearly 30% ROI now after payback in quicktime . AC almost running nonstop all summer here in Brisbane without a care in world . When opportunity knocks you have to answer the door , was a no brainer
 
moXJO said:
Pretty cr.ap return. I was thinking of installing solar but might wait it out.
Click to expand...

Yea, pretty crap.

And we went into this thinking that we'd do most of our consumption during the day so we'd save there. But even though we're told that during the day, the panels will feed into our usage first, would only use the grid if we're low, then feed into the grid when we're not using... I don't think that's the case.

Maybe it was before they put the smart meter in. Maybe. Or they'd just charge us whatever they want for what we use, with all our panels power counted as theirs when we use it.

It's all a bait and switch with these guys. Giving us incentives, high initial purchase price... then opps, market forces tells them to pay us 1/4 what they charge us. With probably most of that power coming from our own panels.
 
I record my production - read off the inverter - about once a week. Synergy tells me how much I took out of the net and how much I exported into it (I could also read it off my smart meter.) Therefore, I know precisely, how much of my production I used for myself (produced minus exported in billing period) and how much that would've cost me had I bought it from Synergy.
In Alex Meerkat's words: "Simples, bfft"
 

Sounds good... I guess time will tell and everyone's circumstances differ. System prices have certainly come down though. Our 6.2 Kw system. all European, was $6125 on a 2 story home. Cheaper products could have been closer to $4.5 k.
Interestingly I don't know of any friends, relatives or colleagues here in Perth who have regretted installation - whether years ago or recently... [Unless they don't want to admit it ]
 
True enough systems are 40% cheaper then when i installed but the FIT is 6c v 52c , as i said the economics of it when i installed was a no brainer , 3 years pay of on a FIT of 52c till 2028 . I still have another 11 plus years of $3000 a year savings to come and fair chance that might be $5000 a year by the time 2028 comes around . I have zero regrets and thats purely economically based . $10k investment with a likely minimum $50k plus return . Sure production will degrade but the rising price of power squares that up ..
 

Yes, but that "really good return" is being funded by taxpayers, its not a genuine return based on your production, that "Incentive scheme (rort)" was never going to last.

The current economics are not as profitable, but they are still worthwhile, the reason the economics of it have reduced is because now people rely on the market rate of their output rather than government hand outs.
 
Here we go , is that meant to make me feel bad , not likely , about time i could square up tbh , i never got the free rudd handout , ive never got anything for free from govt , Ive paid my share and 20 others share . You'd have to be an idiot not to take it when they offer it , i pay my fair share of tax and im no bludger . SO THERE lmao and im no rorter so jam your insults where they fit
 

It's not meant to be an insult, I am just pointing out that the government handouts were never going to last, you have to agree with that.

I am not saying you are personally an immoral "Rorter", just that the scheme itself was a rort, I don't want you to feel bad about it, just don't feel great about it either, and don't boast about it either or try and make people that are entering the system now on fairer terms feel ripped off.
 
Value Collector said:
I am not saying you are personally an immoral "Rorter", just that the scheme itself was a rort,
Click to expand...

Government subsidies aren't necessarily 'rorts' , they are incentives to invest in a certain area. In the case of solar PV they have taken the load off other generating systems and have enables 'ordinary' people to make money out of their investment in solar PV. I don't see a problem with that.
 
SirRumpole said:
Government subsidies aren't necessarily 'rorts' , they are incentives to invest in a certain area..
Click to expand...

They are when they are over the top, which the solar subsidy was.
enables 'ordinary' people to make money out of their investment in solar PV. I don't see a problem with that
Click to expand...

The "Ordinary people" would make money from their investment without the government giving them cash on each kilowatt they produce.

It would have been cheaper for the government to just give out free solar installations, and not pay 52cents a kilowatt.

The government will end up paying many times more in bonus payments than the systems themselves cost, that is not an incentive, its a Rort.

As I said it would have been cheaper to just give out free systems, or at least put a system on every government building e.g. schools, hospitals, defence etc.
 
Governments direct contracts, subsidies, tax incentives all the time and anywhere they feel it's justified. I don't feel bad "accepting" the subsidy and 10-year incentive (40c only in WA). Apart from the obvious: pre-paying a low charge for the next 20+ years of household power, i feel good about (a) having done a small bit for the environment, and (b) having helped the Solar Industry gain momentum to critical mass where it's now.
Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing? Or couldn't Holden drivers in years sadly gone-by feel proud to have bought a (heavily subsidised) Commodore? I bet even Union workers didn't feel resentful accepting Barnett's cash for starting on the despised Roe-8
 
pixel said:
Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing?
Click to expand...

Negative gearing doesn't require the government pay out cash, its a tax deduction due to an actual loss.

People that negative gear certainly never receive 3 to 4 times the original purchase price of their investment back in government hand outs.

look at this quote by a member today.

I still have another 11 plus years of $3000 a year savings to come and fair chance that might be $5000 a year by the time 2028 comes around
Click to expand...

So he has already had more than the total cost of his system paid for by the government in previous rebates he has received, and is looking forward to getting another $33,000 to $40,000 in future payments.

As I said, its doesn't sound like an incentive, it's free money. Surely that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out every year for the next decade.

The government at the time really didn't think it through.
 
pixel said:
Does an Investor not feel "great" about making use of negative gearing? Or couldn't Holden drivers in years sadly gone-by feel proud to have bought a (heavily subsidised) Commodore?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Would tax reductions for start up companies be a 'rort' ? If they help an industry employ workers and contribute to GDP they are simply a good investment of taxpayer dollars.
 
SirRumpole said:
Exactly. Would tax reductions for start up companies be a 'rort' ? If they help an industry employ workers and contribute to GDP they are simply a good investment of taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...
As I said, that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out for the next decade.

Given that it would have been cheaper just to give installations away for free, and still get all the same benefits, how can you not see it's a terrible deal for tax payers.
 
I really dont want to get into this **** but half of the power that comes of my roof is used by me so there is no govt payment , thats just a straight saving for me with no cost to anyone , the other half is govt subsidized at around 27c a kwh , my neighbour is buying that and paying half the FIT so the cost to the govt is nothing like you are sprouting . Now the govt had an incentive to do this to make mandated renewable energy targets so once again im paying partial to help the govt meet tgts and they help me at same time . SO your alledged rort aint as bad as you may imagine .. If the govt pays for renewables the people pay so the amount paid ( burden on society ) aint excactly what it would appear . Side benefits are less carbon footprint and a whole new industry and economy that now established is bringing the cost of installation down for all due to economy of scale ... i shouldnt even need to mention any of this as it clear as day
 

I am just saying it would have been cheaper for the government to just buy you a solar installation and walk away, as you pointed out that would be paid for now, and they wouldn't have to pay you thousands of dollars over the next decade.

Or, better yet, buy every public school building a system instead, at least that would reduce tax payers costs.

All the benefits e.g. employment, environmental targets etc would still be the same, just without the thousands of extra dollars. being spent for the next decade.
 
Hmmm... Seems I have started something here... I was looking at this as a good environmental option and, as I move even further into retirement, as an opportunity to pay now for the cost of having lower bills when I have a reduced income.
Like others I have paid my taxes for 45 years. I don't see any rort in this... The original scheme, to my understanding, was too expensive [to the taxpayer] to continue but was never a "forever" plan anyway.
Isn't it just a matter of how we individually do our domestic budgeting?
 
Muschu said:
Hmmm... Seems I have started something here... I was looking at this as a good environmental option and, as I move even further into retirement, as an opportunity to pay now for the cost of having lower bills when I have a reduced income.
Click to expand...

Thats a very good idea, I am not saying solar panels are bad, they are a great idea.
I don't see any rort in this
Click to expand...
...

The current scheme is not a rort, I am talking about the older scheme

The original scheme, to my understanding, was too expensive [to the taxpayer] to continue but was never a "forever" plan anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats the plan I have described as more of a rort than a genuine incentive scheme, the government really didn't think it through.
 
Value Collector said:
............... Yes, thats the plan I have described as more of a rort than a genuine incentive scheme, the government really didn't think it through.
Click to expand...

When was the 10 year time limit [WA] imposed? I don't know and haven't time to check atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Scale Economies
Replies
3
Views
1K
RickyY
R
R
What Kind of Buckets Do You Have?
Replies
1
Views
2K
luutzu
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
Best Hotel Booking Site - Who Do You Use?
Replies
14
Views
4K
The Triangle
What if China stops buying Aussie coal?
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...