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".