I have to agree; silicon panels are really a form of bling-bling showing off. However there aren't so many ways of showing off conservation. Germany has innumerable solar roofs with a generous feed-in electricity tariff but now they want to build a score of new coal fired power stations.

I'm not so opposed to rainwater tanks with gravity reticulation as a way of keeping up water to plants in dry times. Then again mulch is cheaper but who notices? Ditto solar hot water in non-cloudy regions. It could be argued that students, staff and parents are made aware of the issues by conspicuous symbols such tanks and solar panels. On the other hand simple targets in reduced water and electricity consumption by schools cost little. Trouble is next the kids will ask politicians to fly and drive less.

Ariel understates the working life of solar panels (if they are looked after they can last several decades) and neglects the real benefits that can be had from low-tech rainwater tanks, but the gist is correct. PV panels are one of the most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today. Mass transit is cheaper and has important peak-petroleum-related economic benefits, but is not as cheap as improving electric efficiency.

Buying solar panels today has benefits quite apart from the direct emissions reduction.

First, there is propaganda (or "consciousness-raising") value, for politicians yes, but also for renewable energy itself.

Second, PV panels' generation leads and matches the afternoon air-con demand peak. Since this displaces gas-fired and hydroelectric peaking generation rather than coal-fired baseload, its carbon-emission-reduction effect is minimal, but the economic benefit is optimised because it reduces peak wear-and-tear on substation equipment and saves precious variable-load stored energy in the form of gas fuel and heads of water in dams. This makes solar panels a worthy investment in simple dollar terms -- "peak-shaving" can save utilities millions.

Third, buying solar panels in bulk today supports the PV industry and helps it to reduce costs, which are already falling rapidly. If this momentum is maintained, PV power can be expected to reach cost-parity with grid electricity within the decade. At that point, talk of nuclear power stations will be shown up for the farce it always was.

For these reasons I'm entirely in favour of the Solar Schools initiative, regardless of the limited direct environmental effect. Real emissions reductions are best bought by polluters in a carbon market, not politicians on the campaign trail.

As for the Kyoto successor-treaty: Ariel seems to have swallowed the Coalition's sook story. It is incumbent on rich nations such as Australia and the USA, who have benefited for decades from exploitation of abundant fossil fuels, to show leadership in technology and regulation for essential emissions reductions. The more such countries drag their feet, the *less* likely it is for big developing emitters to sign on to compulsory emissions caps of their own.

Solar pannels will work for every school no matter where it is. Rain water tanks will work no matter were the school is. Mass transport of kids may well have a bigger impact in some areas but not others. But mass transport of kids to school is petty much happening already to push it up higher would take alot of work. In the in Government should not and can force kids to use mass transport. However they have full control over were the poser to power schools comes from and what water they use.
Oh and as for Solar pannels having a lifetime of 8 years, that just the start of the writers bad facts and figures.

In bagging Labor's Solar Schools Policy, Ariel's simplistic cost-benefit analysis concludes that the Policy is "a ridiculously expensive way to combat climate change" while funding public transport would give "a bigger payoff in the volume of greenhouse gasses saved".

"I have no background in environmental science," confesses Ariel. Nor any in educational strategies, or logic, it seems.

First, the two schemes under Ariel's scrutiny are not mutually exclusive. Only a simple mind would think in either/or terms. Both - and others - are well worth doing.

Second, Ariel's critique misses a crtitical factor. A nation-wide schools program is not just about saving greenhouse gasses specifically in schools. The existence of solar energy in every Australian schools is potentially a major tool for teaching all Australian children over a prolonged period (10-12 years) about the value and importance of renewable energy. The multiplier effect as generations of children graduate is incalculable, but Ariel didn't have the wit to factor it into his one-dimensional calculator.

Third, Ariel does not factor in the universal, compulsory nature of schooling - where there is a captive audience for environmental learning as opposed to the optional nature of transport where milions of people will continue to exercise choice about how they get to work or to the shops.

All we need to do, says Ariel, is to "convince, or more correctly persuade, the public to drive less", but, as if conceding this is unachievable, he concedes that we also need to remove federal taxes on hybrid vehicles; lower (or eliminate altogether) car registration costs for such vehicles; exempt hybrids altogether from (state, but not privately-levied?) tolls.

Ariel is not a serious environmentalist. His article was just the vehicle (pun intended) to allow him to take a cheap shot at the ALP: the 'long march towards Kyoto II'; 'the unionists', 'Porkahontas', 'an affordable way to buy votes'.

If he were fair dinkum and even-handed, Ariel would tell us how the Liberals' environmental record has contributed over the past 11 years and how their plans stack up against what's needed now and in the future.

Frank,

A few of points, if I may.

1. You mention my comments on exemptions from state (road) tolls and point out that I did not include private toll roads. Mea culpa. Of course I meant to include private toll roads.

2. I do not agree that $500m spent to educate the young on renewable energy is value for money.

3. I do believe that by bribing people to take mass transit (by offering free or near-free travel) will generate enormous benefits for the environment. And I do feel such environmetal dividends are achievable, if there is a political will.

4. As to your comment on the absence of a critique on ‘the Liberals' environmental record’, well, if they come up with such pork, I will be first in line to call it for what it is.

Fair points Mr Ariel, though I'd have thought the cumulative benefits make it a viable proposition.

Aside from the issue of greenhouse gases, presumably there's also a reduction in power taken from the grid. This is in essence, extra electricity catering for growth. The same goes for the water tanks.
This is also a longterm issue, as far as I can tell, most of your calculations are based on a single year.
Aside from that, there is the fact that we need to start somewhere in fostering renewable energy - it comes as little surprise to me, that the first few salvos aren't particularly financially attractive.

More to the point, is there any reason why we can't do this and the public transport solution as well?

Jonathan

So private toll roads are in too. Now, can you show us how you costed your proposal for "free or near-free travel" please? Does it include upgrading of decades-old transport infrastructure, the extension of public transport links to the outer suburbs, installation of new rail lines? Salaries for extra station staff and security, and their training?

On my critique of your critique of the school solar energy program you merely repaet your opinion. But why do you not feel an obligation to say why we should reject school education on environmental issues? After all, it's the one universal experience that young Australians have and so an ideal place to demonstrate and teach about renewable energy as an investment for the future through the hearts and minds of Australian young people.

On your lack of a critique on ‘the Liberals' environmental record’, you respond limply: "Well, if they come up with such pork, I will be first in line to call it for what it is."

The Liberals' lack-lustre record and their insipid 'plans' for the future are available to you. So while you sneer at Rudd, Porkahontas all about getting elected, you have nothing to say about the past 11 years? Or the Liberals' wishy-washy vision for the future?

Nothing about the PM suddenly discovering the water crisis late last year? His sudden conversion from global warming skeptic in the shadow of an election? Key Cabinet members like Vaille and Minchim still today holding the old skeptic line?

Nothing to say about the Orange-bellied parrot windfarm fiasco? Nothing about plans for 25 commercial nuclear reactors (HUSH, the electorate might be listening)?

Come on Jonathon, your article wasn't about the environment. You admit you have no background. It was a polemic. Nothing wrong with that in an election; but why not be honest and up-front about your proselytising?

C'mon, isn't John Howard trying to win the election with promises too? Will he be our Sitting Bull?

I have a small solar electricity system that has been running for 16 years now. I would like to make some observations. The two largest panels available today are 80 watt and 160 watt panels. They cost about $10.00 a watt, or about $900 and $1500 respectively. My 800 watt panel produces about 5 amps @ 12 volts (or 60 watts) from about 10am to 2 pm, and then drops off. Assuming no other loss in efficiency my panel can run a 60 watt globe for abot 4 hours a day in the middle of the day.
A 2hp airconditioner uses about 1500 watts, and would require (1500/60) 25 80 watt panels to run it for four hours, or 12.5 160 watt panels. The panels alone will cost almost $20,000.00 or even more!
I think it is important for school children to see for themselves how impractical solar panels on the roof really are. I predict Rudd will NEVER implement this policy for the above reasons.
Geoffrey Kelley

Well said geoffreykeeley; think global, act local indeed! The answer will be in mass produced clean energy, distributed 'locally'. Posters above who champion the horse and buggy approach base their argument on two faulty premises- 1. a cottage industry/artisan viewpoint( go the Guild Frank) and 2. a mandated approach by govts. where propoganda is fine, as long as it agrees with my prejudices.

Economics is based on the idea of scarcity. Why is it that those who decry loudest economic rationality do so with argument based on... scarcity of.....?oil,energy,compassion,freedom,education,health etcetc

Geoff,

You, and unfortunately some big Australian retailers, are waaay behind the curve. *Some* installers may still charge over $10/watt before installation, but they are rip-off merchants if so. Gross installed costs (before rebate) ought to be closer to $7/watt today for a large domestic grid-connected package with inverter. If bulk buyers like the Solar Schools project pay more than that I'd be astonished.

The "best" retail price for panels using the established technologies of crystalline silicon solar cells has been steady around the $US4.70 per watt mark for the last three years; this reflects a short-term spike in the price of refined silicon (solar cells compete for this raw material with higher-value microchips) combined with a fall in the overlaid costs of solar technology.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm

Thin-film solar cells are already cheaper at $US3.69 per watt, though current commercially-available devices are less efficient (require a greater area for the same power) and may not be as reliable as crystalline silicon.

Various developing technologies and processes, including improved thin-film technology, promise to bring manufacturing costs below $US1 per watt in the next two years. Installed costs should fall to something like $3 per watt; much cheaper for large installations.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:AVA_Solar_Inc
http://nanosolar.com/economic.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml

For comparison, the capital cost of a new coal-fired power station is about 80c per watt (that's without paying for the coal!), and today's large wind turbines cost a shade below $2 per watt.

The bottom line is that solar cells can't compete with grid electricity today, though they are quite cost-effective for off-grid uses. Given a chance, they will compete with grid power within a few years.

Palimpsest,

Things like compassion, sunlight and carbon sinks aren't traded on the open market; fossil fuels are. For this reason it has been possible to pursue profits in the fossil fuel business even as it damages vital resources it doesn't pay for, while things which are more valuable in a human sense (like early-childhood education) or cheaper in a thermodynamic sense (like collection of ambient energy) are not accurately valued by the market.

Markets need sane regulation to work properly.

Palimpsest, if you try and buy Australian solar panels today they will cost about $10 a watt.
The ALP is selling the idea that all Australian homes should have solar panels on the roofs. The average Australian voter I chat with thinks you can run a home on about three panels, and this is clearly not true. Further, I venture to suggest that the average Australian voter cannot differentiate between solar hot water panels and solar electrical panels!
You say, “The bottom line is that solar cells can't compete with grid electricity today, though they are quite cost-effective for off-grid uses. Given a chance, they will compete with grid power within a few years.”
That is an expression of hope, but is not reality.
We both accept that solar cells can’t compete with grid electricity.
If you are connected to a grid as most Australians are, all you need to harvest solar electricity is a bank of collectors (panels) and an inverter to turn the electricity harvested solar power into 240 ac. During the day the meter will run backwards. But it is not cost-effective today. A 1300 watt inverter costs about $2,500.00 and will drive about half a Dimplex heater!
If you have an “off-grid” system, you need a third element. You need accumulators to store the electricity you have harvested. Typically these are ex Telecom 2V accumulators set up in banks of 12 or 24 V, or you might use the 12V batteries used in the back of fork-lift trucks.
Using today’s technology you and I both know that it is impossible to make a house self-sufficient on solar energy without expending a ridiculous amount of money. Houses that are self-sufficient (such as mine) have generators to back up the solar power. The generators supply the baseload.
We still need the LaTrobe Valley to supply baseload to the rest of Victoria.
I really hope you are right and that one day soon solar technology will improve to the point that it can compete with grid electricity, but I cannot see that happening in my lifetime.
Geoffrey Kelley

See there was this guy called Johnathon J Ariel and he could only see the world through rose coloured glasses. Let's call him Rosey. And these glasses, although they were rose coloured would actually only let Rosey see the world in black and white. And everything that the Liberal Party did under its noble leader John was white and therefore good. And everything that the Labor party did under its evil leader Kevin was black and therefore bad. And Rosey kept making a fool of himself by writing stupid pieces about the black and white world until one day he gave up.