This was also said ten years ago lol. Knock on my door when you have this particular grail.
On second thoughts the world will knock on your door and all my arguments will be void. Good luck!

Ho hum, JBowyer beat me to it.

Please don't tell me what you are "gunna do" tell us when you've done it.

You need to be careful, remember the boy who cried wolf.

Well almost anything is possible, if you include slave labor or slave wage conditions, 12 hour around the clock, 7 day shifts and very low cost dorm accommodation.
Even if solar power gets down to a price that actually competes effectively with coal, it will never likely compete with thorium power, which placed adjacent to our new industrial estates, will provide industrial power for less than half of the coal fired conventional, grid delivered variant.
Nor will any compete with scrubbed bio gas connected to ceramic fuel cells, which produce almost free, endlessly sustainable energy, and virtually endlessly free hot water, once the infrastructure costs are recovered.
Not the sort of news one wants, when there's patently vested interest in the fossil fuel variants; or the great white hope of the green movement, solar voltaic power.
My two examples will still be providing copious reliable, around the clock power, long after the cheap Chinese solar panels on my roof, are battered and torn by one too many storms, or just the shattering effects of brittle old age?
Rhrosty.

These devices, and mast head wind turbines are wonderfull for my boat (100 year old 40ft ex-Sydney ferry). But it doesn't matter how cheap they are, If they can't run my house 24/7/365, they are of no use to me.
Let me know when you have one of those.
As JBower and Hasbeen states, seem to have heard all this quite some time ago.
Rhrosty's thorium power, when economic, will always be of greater demand than solar.

The different national approaches are telling in themselves.
China and the US are saying that affordable solar power is doable, and that they can do it.
Here in The Land of Sunshine, we are saying it can't be done by anyone so why bother. So much for give it a go, you mug.
No prizes for guessing who is dependent on coal exports.

So on sunny days, we'll be fine. At night, on rainy days, in fog, or when it's clouded over, we'll be stuffed. Unless we solve the real crisis, the energy storage crisis. There is not, and never has been, a shortage of energy; just a shortage of places to keep it.

Jon J. Couldn't agree with you more. In the boat I have 2 engine and 2 'house' batteries. Solar keeps them topped up during the day (mostly) and the masthead wind turbine catches up at night (mostly). I have very low usage of this power, unlike your standard suburban house.
In an emergency, I MUST have power available.
Guess what? Just behind the wheelhouse I have a small (2000w) generator, I have been compelled to use it 4 times in the last 12 months!
Solar panels could be as little as $1 each and it is still not suitable to me at home. Sure, I will have a low power bill but..... I still need hydrocarbon or similar high density power source. What is it with these people?? What don't they get??

The cost of a 2kv solar system is now around the same as two and half weeks average wages. In Australia it will produce as much power as a typical 2 person household uses in a year. It will pay for itself in 6 to 10 years and should last about 25 years. Ok it is not going to give you power 24/7, but the grid is still available both to supply power at night, and you can sell excess power back to the grid during peek periods. It has reached the stage where photovoltaic is now both practical and economic.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/why-is-electricity-consumption-decreasing-in-australia-19459

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/utilities-wake-threat-mass-grid-defection-29631

Large scale power generation using coal generates power at a cost of around 10 cents per KWHr but then it has to get to the customer which roughly doubles its cost. Solar power can easily generate power below this combined cost but it requires storage. The problem is not technically difficult to solve, but at this point in time it is not economic for the home user.

Sorry Rhrosty Thorium power is just a pipe dream it is too late, by the time it is economic with coal it will be game over. The only advantage it has over conventional nuclear power is that there is no shortage of fuel, and it is not so easy to use thorium to make nuclear bombs. It will take decades to get it up to speed and by then the renewable storage problem will have been fixed

As some have said and others have hinted:
- Cost equivalence has been the holy grail of PV since some time last century.
- Cost equivalence MUST include fit-for-purpose solutions, not just electrons under pressure somewhere, without connection to loads, or loads going unmet because PV is useless at night and during rainy days, etc.
- Cost equivalence, thus MUST include either full grid cost plus backup plus peaking power plus whatever else is needed to run our electrical world, or
- Cost equivalence MUST include on-site backup as one with a floating home has stated. Batteries, inverters, diesel standby generators... that kind of thing.

Till that day, please STFU about wet dreams of cost equivalence. They are your private illusory pleasure and have nothing much to do with my experience of the real world.

Having said all the above, let me state openly and without hesitation: If and when that sainted day arrives, I will be only too happy to jump on board the solar bandwagon.

While I am here...

The list of countries that have been presented as probable achievers of the first cost equivalent Solar PV electricity generating plant is a long one and getting more so. Spain, Australia (yes, back when the CSIRO had a full set of brains and Australia still had a Minister for Science), Germany, China, USA... Throwing a few more names into the ring doesn't necessarily indicate that any of the "zero carbon" energy solutions that emerge periodically and invariably without peer review are any closer to realisation.

Besides which, what about the 80% of Australia's energy needs that is currently not met by electricity? Surely we cannot just lean back and cry "Job's done!" when there is still 80% of the race still to be run?

John

I am a member of a club that relies on solar power for 99% of its needs.The remaining 1% is provided by a generator which we already had. It works well and saved some $10,000 over what it would have cost to connect to mains power. In the mean time we have saved some $4000 over what we would have paid on power bills. Not that it is particularly relevant the decision had nothing to do with any members views on climate change.

I rest my case and no I not impressed by comments such as STFU under any circumstance.

http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/news/australia-hits-1-million-solar-homes-180413/

Hi, Warmair.

I accept that my language was unfortunate and for this I apologise. Emailed communication can be a bit blunt on occasion.

However, I have yet to see a single peer reviewed article that agrees with the basic premise that solar PV is currently, or will soon be, at parity with other electricity options where mains power is available.

On an island... ok. Think Hawaii, perhaps.

On a yacht, certainly.

But the largest and most pubic attempt to present a case in Australia for zero carbon electricity was presented by Diesendorf et all about 5 years back. Since then and despite much careful criticism from those much smarter and better informed than I am, Mark Diesendorf has avoided showing his calculations, explaining his assumptions, or responding to analysis and data that do not support his case. As an academic, he knows that responding to criticism from his peers is healthy and necessary for scientific/academic engagement.

That is why I rely on the peer reviewed numbers.

This applies equally to the numbers for a single clubhouse.

The old addage is a good one:
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary references".

In 12 years I had 3 different solar instillations on my yacht. None ever did the full job, & none lasted a full 2 years.

I tried one commercial wind generator, & one made by a boffin. The commercial thing was more trouble than it was worth. The boffin thing may have kept the batteries up, but took up so much space, & made such an annoying noise, it made living on the yacht unpleasant. No it didn't float.

When I asked my brother in law, an engineer, the best thing about moving into town his immediate reply, connection to the grid.

When we moved ashore off my yacht our 4 year old daughter asked, "will the house have real electric daddy, or just the Mickey Mouse stuff like the boat.

Out of the mouths of babes, & just so true.

Hi John
I am impressed that you apologized for your flowery language, it is rare to see anyone on a forum have the decency to do it.

I am not claiming that everyone can just dump the grid tomorrow. I do however think that it makes sound economic sense for a typical householder to add solar panels while remaining connected to the grid.

I also believe that if Australia had the will it could get close to a 100% renewable power. I have my doubts about northern Europe on the other hand. The biggest problem I see is the vested interest of big coal power stations. It is important to remember that to achieve this goal you have to use all available renewable sources. I don’t know why we don’t make use of geothermal power; we have numerous places where hot water is available particularly in the great artesian basin, and in the great divide. In SE Australia we have the happy situation that peek loads due to air-conditioning use happen to coincide with the lots of solar power availability and often plenty of wind.

Hi Hasbeen
I am not surprised that solar power is not that wonderful on a yacht. Lack of space, orientation of panels, and a harsh environment all conspire to make it problematic.
Solar roof panels are typically guaranteed for at least 20 years to achieve 80% capacity. Our clubs panels have been in place for 6 years and show no noticeable deterioration but anyway are guaranteed.

Re the example of my club the power line was 1.5 ks from our doorstep the last quote we had to bring power to our doorstep was $50,000 we were told afterwards that we could have got it done cheaper, the solar system cost us $28,000 but in any event we were a long way ahead.

My estimate as to how much we saved on power bills is a bit iffy, because after 10 years or so we will have to replace the batteries, which is a postponed cost we will eventually have to pay. The good news is battery capacity continues to improve and prices continue to fall. On the other hand power bills will almost certainly increase over the next decade especially if grid power consumption continues to decline.

The critical issue is the connection to the distribution system. This provides system stability, reliability, avoids the cost of batteries (eg clubhouse and yacht) and much more.

Having only a couple of days back tossed out a deep freeze full of rotten meats due to loss of power, I am reminded that continuity of service (ie availability and reliability) are nice to have.

Thus, any domestic PV system must consist of (at least):
(A) Adequate Off-Grid. PV array, inverter and batteries, plus backup (diesel?) small generator.
(B) Basic Off-grid. PV array, inverter, batteries plus an acceptance of unreliability and an acceptance of risks due to non-availability of supply. This has a (negative) comparison value wrt Options A and C.
(C) Grid-connected. PV array, inverter plus connection to the grid. A pro-rata share of the overall capital cost of the whole SE Australia transmission and distribution system rightly belongs in the costings, plus the cost of connection and metering capital and operating costs (your clubhouse's $18k).

However, the article which started all this ignores cases A, B and C and discusses the wholly unacceptable and impractical and insufficient option as being panels plus inverter only. This is not being "fully cost competitive", as was stated in the opening sentence.

This is attempted fraud. It certainly does not compare the costs of outcomes which a customer might find comparable or acceptable.

It is "doing a Diesendorf". (See ZCA2020 to understand where this term comes from.)

i try TO IGNORE THESE FOOLS
but..PLEASE NOTE..THE COST OF COAL[BEFORE YOU GUYS BEgan screwing them and shutting theM DOWN[OR THE FUTURE CARBON CREIT PRICED COAl

THING IS..THEse..fools..DONT REALISE WHY THEY ARE GETTING NEAR 4 TIMES THE COal price generated powER PRICES[THE EXPECTATION IS THAT keep doubling up the price of coal/and 55 cents buy back will look cheap

how to say..[nay demand/thEY INCLUDE PRICES/WHEN THE PRICE PARITY
FINALY SETTLES..TRIPPLE THE COST TODAY.

RELitivly speaking..55 cent buy back mob wiLL THEM BEGIN TO FEEL AS WE WHO GAVE THEM THeir free lunch feel today[SURE WAY BACK..IF MY POWER BILLS WERE the same..in a tyear as free solar cells/i too [as a huge user abuser/POWeR USER[IF SO THEN YES I WOULD TOO HAVE SNAFLED UP 55 CENTS extortion fron everyone else

i now seE THOSE FACTORY ROVES/AND Rooves on them semii private public buILDINGS AS A WAY TO DO A HUGE CASH CRAB FOR THE ARTS/AND SPORT STADIUMS/OFF SETTING THEIR HUGe powr costs/of my full rice power bill

you scum are doing treason
how dare you lot keep pronising[all rEADY MY POWRR RATE HAS DOUBLED
CODE RADS COAL .SOLAR PARITY[SURE/but at what cost?..who is gETTING THE BIG BUCKS BY THE HECTARE?..audit their boOKS[I HEAR SOME ARE TAKING OFF peak..at 11 cents/to charge up solar cells/by lights/to sell back at 55 cents/24/7..MINUS THe two hours off peak shuts off.

GREAT ENRON SCAMING
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

AHH YA GOTTA LOVE NEST FEATHERING
NOW HOW..TO/JUSt get the coal price up..TILL 55 CENTS LOOKS CHEAPER

YOUR GREAT GRANDkids will reap the pain
done by fear mongering spin/of big money down the drain.
THIUNK WHAT OUR POWER EXPENDITURE USED TO SUPPORT/NO MORE FAMILY TREats/thanks to you greenie freaks.

die/your EXCESS IS KILLING ME

John

Case B is simply incorrect our club system is more reliable than the grid. We have never had a power outage since we went solar. The system is very reliable because we are using a bank of batteries, it is highly improbable that enough batteries would fail at the same time to take down the power and anyway in the worst case we just flick a switch to start the generator.

The only problem is that we have to start the generator if we wish to use equipment which has a very high current draw such as a wielder. The only other time our club has to start the generator is when we have a dozen or more people staying for over a week. On a regular basis we run 3 large fridge’s, a desk top computer, wifi, a combined fax scanner printer, communication equipment, numerous lights, a large television for presentations, several battery charges for the onsite vehicles and sometimes provide power to a couple of caravans as well.

Re ZCA2020
To achieve zero emissions by 2020 while perhaps theoretically possible is not going to happen. To be clear I do not consider it practical to replace all transport needs with renewables but I do think it is a no-brainer to achieve this for the power grid. Rational economics dictate that a period of greater than 10 years would be required.