Ross's essay is a useful summary of the "average punter's" view of renewable energy policy. I offer some alternative perceptions. (I'm not a solar nay-sayer)

Photovoltaics (PVs) are still expensive relative to carbon-based, wind-based or nuclear-based electricity- at any scale. Even large-scale systems still cost at least 25-50 cents/kwh, before subsidies. Prices are declining, due to economies of scale of production.

To get to competitive prices, demand has to be at the tens of gigawatt (GW) level- Australia has a total electricity generating capacity of about 50 GW. It would take one million systems of the size that Ross has analysed to make one GW, t a cost about $13 billion. As the Government has allocated about $100 million to this program, it is obvious that the domestic demand for PVs in Australia is not going to change the price or make a significant dent in the coal-based electricity demand.

Should the Government increase the subsidy and allocate more funds to the program? I would argue not. There are four basic reasons for subsidies, based on market failure grounds: R&D (which industry invariably under-funds), scaling-up new products to assist local production, special needs (like remote communities),and security. The early uses of PVs were for the latter two, which served to demonstrate that the technology was viable.

Which leaves the second reason for subsidy. As we have no PV industry to speak of, the subsidies are providing a minor stimulus to overseas manufacturers, and provide a few local jobs for system installers. Germany has been into PVs for two reasons- security (against capricious Russian gas suppliers) and to build up its export manufacturing base. China is aiming at both exports and local consumption on a huge scale.

So where does this leave Australia? We have missed the boat on manufacturing. Remote communities are important, but not economically significant.

We would be better off putting our money into energy conservation measures, and waiting for the Chinese and German PVs to reach genuinely competitive prices- and hope that we have something to export to pay for them.

Installing solar PV panels - the figures don’t add up, BUT…
By Ross Buncle –
I’m not surprised by the figures quoted but more important, in our quest for CO2 reduction, is the energy content of making the panels to how long the solar energy takes for the panels to become energy neutral. Money unfortunately has little connection with the physical world it therefore lead us astray.

Thanks for this article. I've been thinking seriously about installing PV panels at my home but hadn't got to crunching the numbers. Now I know where I stand. With WA electricity costs set to rise I had been thinking that installing solar would be a good investment, but this is clearly not the case.

I spent $20k on a circa 2kw system in 2005 in cloudy Tasmania. I got $4k back and the export tariff is 16.5c per kwh. My electricity bill is currently in credit. The secret is minimal hot water use, microwave and woodfired cooking and in my case woodfired winter heating due to free local firewood. Passive cooling and generally mild summers make air conditioning unnecessary.

I disagree with feed-in-tariffs as I think they are a tax on the poor which drives up electricity prices across the board while favouring the already well off. We may have to face the fact that solar photovoltaics may always be too expensive for general use while being great for outback water pumps. Note winter insolation is 25-30% that of summer. If prices of panels, inverters and compact longlife batteries came down at least 50% I propose an alternative financing model. Power companies should progressively install 2.5 kw of panels and a 10-20 kwh online uninterruptible power supply in every home with responsible occupants. The power bill is reduced by a kind of rent for roof space and energy microstorage. A box the size of a suitcase combines battery, UPS, inverter and smart meter. The money comes from carbon taxes or the emission trading scheme and counts towards a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET). Meanwhile other cheap lower carbon options are pursued such as conservation, wind and nuclear power. Think of solar as a form of energy superannuation that takes a long time to show lasting benefits.

Terrific article.

I have signed the petition and urge other OLOers to do the same.

We won't achieve a sustainable economy in the current tokenistic employed by government.

Otherwise we are just sitting watching opportunities fade away along with fossil fuels.

I have no doubt that the calculations in the article are correct, and that's with a subsidy. However, I would urge everyone to avoid Taswegian's solution of burning firewood to reduce electricity consumption. That approach adds substantially to any individual's carbon footprint (one could argue that its part of the carbon cycle but its still seems an odd, short-term approach to solving an alleged carbon overload in the atmosphere).
In any case, the article underlines the whole problem of shifting to alternatives. Alternatives remain both horribly expensive and unreliable (PVs only give power during the day). Until some cheap, reliable means of storing power becomes available, about all the Aus power industry can do to reduce its footprint is to switch to gas (nuclear also seems to be out).

Curmudgeon

Funny you should say "Until some cheap, reliable means of storing power becomes available..."

Because while you were writing that I was perusing the Science Weblogs as I am apt to do.

Please read on.

"Near Granada, Spain, more than 28,000 metric tons of salt is now coursing through pipes at the Andasol 1 power plant. That salt will be used to solve a pressing if obvious problem for solar power: What do you do when the sun is not shining and at night?

The answer: store sunlight as heat energy for such a rainy day.

Part of a so-called parabolic trough solar-thermal power plant, the salts will soon help the facility light up the night—literally. Because most salts only melt at high temperatures (table salt, for example, melts at around 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, or 800 degrees Celsius) and do not turn to vapor until they get considerably hotter—they can be used to store a lot of the sun's energy as heat. Simply use the sunlight to heat up the salts and put those molten salts in proximity to water via a heat exchanger. Hot steam can then be made to turn turbines without losing too much of the original absorbed solar energy."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night&sc=CAT_TECH_20090218

Now if we could just find a solution to constant negativity...

There is still a lot of manual labour required in assembling a PV panel, hence the high cost.
The author is correct, without substantially higher feed in taffifs the pay back time for a system is over 20 years. This makes the proposition unattractive if you plan to sell your home in a lesser time frame, or if you are in your senior years.
Home owners also need to bear in mind that in states, such as Victoria and Tasmania, there are times of the year when the panels will be fairly ineffective. Despite some misinformation around, these panels require direct sunlight.
Cheaper panels are usually utilising an older technology and are therefore, not as efficient as newer (Monocrystaline) panels.
A good inverter that is IP rated, has no moving parts and a decent warranty (7 years) is expensive. There are cheaper inverters which are fan cooled and only have a 1 or 2 year warranty. Remember anything with moving parts is prone to failure.
A solar system is generally only viable if you are building a new property more than 4kms from the grid. The cost of connecting to the grid is higher than installing a stand alone solar system.

If governements truly believe that CO2 emissions are a menace to our climate then they would have embarked on a Nuclear Power station program. Renewables alone cannot generate all of our power needs. Unless we are going to accept trauma victims being turned away from hospitals at night, when there is no wind blowing. Our lack of water makes hydro electric unviable. All other options require CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere.

Australia can only radically reduce it's CO2 emissions by replacing coal power stations with nuclear power stations, and using renewable for peak load demand. Without such a plan, Carbon Trading Schemes etc are doomed to failure.

There is clearly a lot of misconceptions and mis-information about PVs- and nuclear power.

The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was that rooftop PVs are unlikely to ever be economical because, as Liberal in Upwey rightly points out, there are both high labour costs and high "balance of systems" (inverters, batteries, control panels etc) costs which will not reduce much in price. The future for PV lies in meso- and mega systems. It is possible that meso-scale systems- eg factory roofs could be economical, but megascale- perhaps unproductive farmland- will provide the necessary economies of scale. To put this in proportion, one Gigawatt (2% of Australia's electricity) would require about 10 million square metres- ie about 3 km X 3 km- not a large area of farmland, but about 10% of Australia's houses.Economies of scale in installation and much reduced balance of systems costs are possible on this scale.

All of these systems take energy to build- at present that is carbon-based energy- see my article on net energy analysis forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8077. It is likely that new nuclear power plants will take more carbon-based energy to construct, maintain and decommission than they will produce. Even then, there is only about 50 years of uranium fuel available at extraction-energy costs that are viable.

The future has got to have a mix of carbon, conservation and a variety of renewables.

[quote]
"Near Granada, Spain, more than 28,000 metric tons of salt is now coursing through pipes at the Andasol 1 power plant."
[/quote]

This is excellent technology. They store heat in the the salt like cold is stored in ice. It's call latent heat, or heat of fusion, it happens during the phase change from a solid to a liquid.

Just like water when it becomes ice. When the salt becomes molten, it can store huge amounts of energy without an increase in temperature. When the sun goes down, they can draw from this heat bank and keep the turbines running. On long periods of no sunshine, the system can be kept going with a raw fuel such as gas, coal, wood, or anything that can produce heat.

Obviously the techs figured steam is the best fluid to run the turbines on those larger systems but an Organic Rankin style system can be more efficient and run at lower temperatures. This system can be scaled down to provide power where high heats are not available.

We could all have one in our homes if someone were to make it and it would be very cost effective compared to PV panels. Just the councils would probably have kittens if everyone had 20sq meters of parabolic dishes on top of their homes. But who knows, maybe in years to come all homes will have to have something like that and councilors will just have to suck it up and bare it!

I should have also pointed out that Australia is one of, if not the best country in the world to use this technology. Bust alas, our lipstick wearing PM is too stupid to know any better. Instead the Milky bar kid would rather give everyone chocolate wagon wheels worth 52 billion dollars and tax them for the privileged!

I am always intrigued that solar panels are judged on their ability to pay for themselves. We don't require that of other appliances. An electric hot water system, for example, is money straight out the door, along with ongoing and escalating running costs as the cost of electricity rises, and no returns at all. Why don't we focus instead on bringing down the cost of solar panels? They are not very complicated and seem unreasonably expensive for what they do. I could have a hot shower from something as simple as a garden hose left in the sun for an hour, so improving solar technology to make it better and cheaper seems the way to go, hand in hand with getting rid of subsidies for the coal industry.

I concur with Ross Buncle having done something similar a long time back before any subsidies. The analysis is about right, yet what happened at the last election is that the spin doctors on both sides saw political value in "solar panels". We got the message in the neck without any proper analysis and moreover without any real policy by either side. If we are going stick PV panels on roofs then it must be done under a proper national feed in tariff enshrined in law so the on off tinkering of federal governments can be finally stopped. Give the industry the right settings and we will progress AND create jobs. FiTs do not disadvantage the poor. FiT as a mechanism can be extended to larger systems where say warehouses and factories generate electricity.

What a mischievous article!

However, having no prejudice against the author's self-proclaimed position with respect to renewable energy and sustainability, I'm glad he's written this article, and titled it the way he has. It effectively opens Pandora's newly-corporatized 'junction box' of intendedly-prospective future grid electricity supply throughout Australia to public view.

The punchline of the article is "We need a simple nationalised feed-in tariffs program, based on the successful German model.".

What is not so succinctly put is that implementing a nationalised feed-in tariff based on the German model is predicated upon all retail electricity consumers paying anything up to six times as much as they presently do per unit for any electricity they draw from the grid, throughout Australia.

The objective of the proposed 80c per KwH feed-in tariff for PV electricity is, in my view, to provide an excuse for the arguably already unconstitutionally misbegotten 'national electricity market' to increase prices for its non-PV conventionally generated electricity by up to a factor of six! How do you think the government rebate is going to be funded if the uptake of these non-stand-alone, incomplete in self-sufficiency, PV panel installations increases to an extent enough to provide a significant part of the increased generating capacity projected as being required?

Promoting PV panels as if there were no other solar, let alone other sustainable energy options, that are already far more cost effective substitutes for some coal-fired power generation is based upon sheer guilt-peddling over the fact that we have had it so well in Australia compared to Germany with respect to electricity prices. It uses the cloak of 'environmental responsibility' in the form of the uptake of cost-ineffective PV panels to mask and excuse what is nothing less than a commercially opportunistic massive price-hike in an only relatively recently 'privatized' captive market.

The article's blithe presumption that PV panel-generated electricity is the only form of solar, let alone sustainable, electricity generation possible is utter rubbish.

Featherbedding photo-voltaics.

And now to do a curmudgeonly thing to Curmudgeon's misleading advice.

Well, perhaps not quite. In reality Australians should consider themselves indebted to Curmudgeon for revealing so early on, in what really needs to be a national discussion, the almost reflexive anti-wood-fuel prejudice of surprisingly many self-styled proponents of renewable energy.

Wood is a natural solar energy storage system.

Wood's burning has long been correctly accepted as being greenhouse-neutral, as Curmudgeon somewhat dismissively acknowledges in his parenthetical recognition that it is part of the carbon cycle. Wood for many domestic Australian energy consumers is cheap, available, and reliable as a source of energy. Note that it is the use of wood fuel that, in conjunction with PV panels that only supply perhaps at most 20% of what would otherwise be Taswegian's household electricity requirement, brings about for that household a situation of virtual energy self-sufficiency.

The ability to use wood as a fuel is not heavily tied up with claimed intellectual property rights. Planned innovative and sophisticated wood fuel uses are far less susceptible to the depredations of, for example, 'patent trolls'. Planning for the use of wood fuelling for electricity generation can occur on both the medium, and most especially small, scale, in a largely 'open source' knowledge environment. That's hugely important, if only from the point of view of switching to reliable self-sufficient stand-alone power supply.

But there's more derivable from the increased and more sophisticated use of wood as a fuel, and that's in the area of solving the problem of the alleged overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ongoing pyrolysis of wood, whether self-fueled or using solar thermal energy, with its by-product of biochar used as a soil-improver, will actually start removing CO2 from the atmosphere!

As for reducing the 'carbon footprint' of the rest of the Australian power industry, at least one cheap reliable 'open source' means of storing power is already available: solar ponds. They might, unsubsidised, with economies of scale, soon drive coal out backwards.

Forrest

As the topic was about solar panels and not all types of available alternative energies, may I suggest you are reading far more into the author's intent than is there. Photovoltaic (PV) panels is simply another name for solar panels. Photovoltaic refers to the action of obtaining energy from a source of light as photosynthesis is the process plants use to obtain energy from sunlight. Of which I am sure you're aware.

You are quite correct is saying that conventional energy purveyors will want to make up for the loss in income that will inevitably occur should all homes and industry become more self-sufficient. It is this fear of being outmoded that prevents many alternative energy products from being implemented as quickly as those in favour of sustainable industry would like.

The German model is a good example. It is not the only way and I don't see this article as being a blatant exercise in promoting this as the only way forward. Ideally we should be looking at multiple energy sources, however without active government support we will be at the (small) mercy of the corporations. If current (no pun intended) electricity companies are unable to adapt and move into alternatives, then they deserve to go the way of many outmoded technologies.

Below is link to article & slide show looking at pros & cons of energy sources:
“Of course, all forms of energy get a carrot-and-stick treatment from governments, whether to provide work for coal miners or to prove that splitting the atom is useful for something besides bombs. But in many places, renewables get something even better: quotas. And rising prices for traditional fuels could help, raising the market to reach the renewables’ costs.”
http://www.sciam.com/slideshow.cfm?id=how-renewable-energy-and-storage

Apart from ponds and a new look at timber (which are very worthwhile) what are your suggestions on viable, sustainable, clean energy sources for home and industry?

Fractelle asks what suggestions we might have for clean energy sources.

The first point to make is that with a modicum of sense and good engineering we can REDUCE our demand for energy by about 35%. A major retailer has done this and it remains for ALL major retailers to follow the example. 35% is worth $millions for this company. It did not require any government intervention - they just made the investment and got a handsome ROI. Now's the time.

Next we take steps to remove all old energy guzzling hot water systems and ban (for example) electric storage systems. Pick the best option for low energy - probably gas boosted solar.

We reduce demand and do as much as possible to avoid energy demand growth.

What next? Large scale solar thermal. We have the technology, the expertise and the climates. Provide the output - steam or electricity to industry to ensure the industry can grow solidly. Then turn to utility scale and provide loan guarantees to ensure investment occurs. The money IS out there.

Then look at shallow geothermal for district heating and cooling, followed by wind and waves.

PV will play a role but until we get realistic about demand, it is limited. If your home is using 25kWh/day (units) and up, don't bother - you will never generate the supply to meet that demand. Reduce your demand.

Fix up house suburban and home design to avoid the need for ANY purchased energy.

I think the calculations are interesting and helpful - to me they are an indicator of what happens in the "early adopter" stages of all innovations. That is, the generous or financially viable folk,who follow their environmental ideals and principles are really sacrificing themselves until the technologies reach critical mass (through whatever events). They are sacrificing themselves to innovation until conventional energy sources lose consumers and lower their price. There seems to be no alternative to these sorts of adoption cycles currently, within free market economies (unless a considerable carbon tax makes the conventional supply unviable to producers and consumers).

My Wife and I have had a grid interactive system for almost eight years. It's our veggie patch. We didn't do it for the cheap power we did because we beloved the tech was good. Someone has to be the first. That's how things work, and while I do think the government should provide some incentives to create an Australian solar industry it should be on the back of market forces. Al Gore once said "we didn't moved out of the stone age because we run out of rocks". That's true, but we stopped using rocks because we found something better. Solar needs to be made better. There should not be mass government subs to put current solar tech on people’s houses the money would be far better spent on R&D. Maybe when solar is 50 or 60 % and cheap storage is available.
If you want to reduce your carbon foot print the reduce your energy usage in the end it will have a much less of a impact on the ecosystem.

Kenny

The money to provide infrastructure for sustainables is already available - all government has to do is stop subsidising fossil fuels.

"GOVERNMENT subsidies to some of Australia's electricity generation companies are so big they exceed the profits made by those companies, a report on energy and transport subsidies says.

Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, the report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney has found.

Subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution, says the report, written by the institute's research principal, Chris Riedy, and commissioned by Greenpeace.

The report identified energy and transport subsidies in Australia during 2005-06 of between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion. More than 96 per cent of that money flowed to fossil fuel production and consumption, with the remainder going to renewable energy and energy efficiency."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/public-purse-props-up-fossil-fuel-industries/2007/05/07/1178390228019.html

Fractelle, in drawing the discussion back to the fact that the article was about solar panels and not ALL types of available renewable energies, actually helps make my point as to the mischievousness, if not of the article as such, that of the idea of a feed-in tariff being for PV solar panels ALONE. There is no proposal for a feed-in tariff for other, or all, renewable energy technologies, and indeed in some recent reading I have done with respect to Australian governmental renewable energy encouragements, there is specific and express exclusion of wood-fuelled alternatives from benefit under any such programs.

However, I don't want to beat the drum on behalf of wood excessively. There are other equally viable alternatives. Why not help them achieve the necessary economies of scale?

Fractelle, in saying that "conventional energy purveyors will want to make up for the loss in income that will inevitably occur should all homes and industry become more self-sufficient" comes very close to answering this question. That part of the misbegotten national electricity market that is already 'privatised', together with the erstwhile intending purchasers of the now-stalled NSW power sell-off, all of which are CONVENTIONAL energy purveyors, want to preserve unto themselves the enormous profit opportunity represented by a non-self-sufficient grid-dependent captive market. What they want to do is 'privately' monopolise electricity supply and distribution.

Any move to renewable energy sources, whether driven by fossil-fuel price increases (peak oil, gas, coal), or mandated by governments as a response relevant to claimed climate change, will be funded by this same captive market. With the potentially viable renewable alternatives not yet scaled up, why should those who will fund the scale-up not own outright the new enterprise they themselves have to bring into being? Its technological basis is not proprietary.

80% of the Australian public effectively hold this view already.

Signing the petition on the basis of the argument presented in this article will be helping start a fire that may burn out signatories' futures. Don't do it. Backburn!

I would just like to add a note of realism to this argument. I concur absolutely with comments that seek to make the discussion inclusive of all technologies and the reduction in demand being central to all of this.

David Mackay has written an excellent book:

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

Its free of charge and whilst it focusses on the UK, its content could be adapted to Australia. Ironically, we are in worse position than the UK in demand terms but much better in renewable energy resources.

As someone who lived in a solar powered home for 10 years, I would have to say the most attractive thing about PV is no moving parts.
As to the economics, I lived several kilometres away from grid supply, so did it to try to save money.
Factoring in the cost of batteries, inverter, panels, gas fridge (very expensive) and most importantly back up generator, as well as wood fire for heat and hot water, my electricity bill was considerably higher than if I had connected to the grid, and -arguably- my carbon footprint was probably greater; although I accept forest gumpp's point about bio char.
IF I had had the capital to install a full PV system, without backup generation and gas fridge;
IF I could have been connected to the grid, and therefore not needed about $4k in batteries;
IF I had the capital to just line my home, much less insulate it;
It MAY have been ecologically justifiable, but still probably not economically feasible.
In my experience, self sufficiency is a game for the rich, not a viable alternative for the poor.
Although morally, I still think it should be.

In order to not be seen to be evading Fractelle's request that I suggest viable sustainable clean energy sources for home and industry other than wood and solar ponds, may I first offer up a combo of wave/tidally pumped elevated seawater storage - hydro generation and return-to-sea operating as a component of a/the grid, and second a day-time solar thermal powered coal (or wood) gasification - night-time Fischer-Tropsch synthesis gas-to-liquid fuel conversion process co-generating electricity from the associated 'waste' heat. (The catalysed Fischer-Tropsch reactions are exothermic.)

All this renewable stuff can generate electricity around-the-clock, since the storages necessary to compensate for the intermittencies involved are of solids, liquids, or gases, not the notoriously difficult-to-store electricity. Arguably no proprietary technology need be involved. And yes, you can utilize the existing grid, where it exists, for distribution (unless that has been 'privatised' too). The nitwits wouldn't have already 'privatised' the whole national grid itself, would they? Perhaps the authors use of the term 'nationalised' in association with 'feed-in tariffs program' was not just an apparent Freudian slip, after all.

You will note I ignore hot dry rock geothermal energy, which is touted as being, once scaled-up, capable of producing electricity at around half the current costs of coal-fired generation. I ignore it because I do not consider it fulfils Fractelle's sustainability criterion. Its exploitation is of the nature of the mining of an albeit claimedly large, but nevertheless finite, resource. Sooner than might be thought, one might encounter 'peak hot dry rock' at viable exploitation costs.

There is another reason I ignore, AT THIS TIME, HDR. I strongly suspect that in a number of ways solar pond/organic rankine cycle generated electricity is suspected by 'Big Oil', elements within or near to the Australian Government, and overseas investment houses, as being extremely competitive with HDR on many fronts.

The unnoticed elephant in the room is that, in Australia, a remnant public renewable electricity industry, well-led, could stand poised to substantially DISPLACE OIL!

I'm not sure why solar power always gets people so excited. It's just one way we have developed to produce energy without adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Before someone get's PV panels installed on their roof, I would hope they've got their house properly insulated. They should also be using some form of solar heating for their hot water.

You can also sign up for green power from your local energy retailer. The economies fo scale these companie gain means their per unit cost is far lower than the avg householders. The same amount of money spent brigns in a lot more "green" powetr. More bang for ya buck :).

A feed in tariff is also a form of picking winners. It means that PV gets a hands up against other forms of carbon free energy production.

Just remmeber, that feed in tariff is paid for by all energy consumers.

JJO:

"I'm not sure why solar power always gets people so excited. ....."

The fact is it does, and very well some vested interests know it.

These observations emphasise the mischievousness of the idea of a German-style feed-in tariff exclusively for domestic roof-mounted photo-voltaic electricity generation. Promotion of this idea, at this time, constitutes a smokescreening of what may be really going on in that arena where transnational mega-corporates contest for the 'inside track' with respect to Australian government plans and policies, at the expense of the Australian community at large.

As poster Jedimaster (OLO article contributor John Barker, see: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8077 , and at the bottom of the page for his qualifications) makes clear, "... rooftop PVs are unlikely to ever be economical." The trans-national mega-corporates AND the Australian government are thus quite at ease with the promotion of, and public excitement about, domestic rooftop PV solar panels. That is also why "The government is canning the means-tested $8,000 rebate mid-year and replacing it with a more complicated system.", to quote the author. Government has already decided domestic rooftop PVs will never be a goer, and reducing a subsidy that only benefits overseas manufacturers of PV panels is politically risk-free here in Australia.

They'll likely keep a reduced subsidy in place, and, by way of 'compensation' to eager PV adopters, legislate a feed-in tariff, because that will provide a superficially believable covering explanation for the price-hikes the 'national' electricity market wants to happen in the near future in any event.

It should be noted that the Australian Government has already committed $500 million of taxpayers money to the Renewable Energy Fund, see: http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=113221 Read it VERY carefully. My post on Ludwig's OLO General Discussion topic 'Rudd’s renewable energy shame' (as usual, containing a typo - an extra 'e' on the end) expounds. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2372#52921

The winning renewable? Already decided. Just not telling.

Forrest Gumpp,

Your constant harping on the "mischievousness" of my post is getting up my nose. Ditto, your adopted position of superior knowledge on the entire topic of renewable energy. Too much hubris, and not a little ego-driven paranoia, methinks.

Firstly, I reject your repeated claims of some sub-agenda lurking beneath the surface of my post. WYSIWYG, suh. Sorry to pee on your conspiracy theory party, but I trust you'll acknowledge that I, as the author, should be aware of my intentions in writing the piece? Or perhaps you really do harbour some delusion of omniscience? Got myself wrong, perhaps, and only you can see THE TRUTH?

From the horse's mouth, then... I was taken aback after discovering that some misleading information was being disseminated – largely unwittingly, I suspect - at some seminars in Perth, during which people were being advised of the savings to be had by installing solar PV panels. One presenter opened with the line "Who's still paying for electricity?"

I sought through my article to share my research, which exposed as apocryphal some of the more extravagant claims circulating out there. Secondly, I believe in renewable energy as the way of the future, and in individuals doing as much as possible to further the cause. Thirdly, since Germany has already set an impressive precedent with solar PV panels, I see no reason for us not to carefully consider following their example.

You and others have brought up some worthy arguments against feed-in tariffs, not all of which I was aware of until now. I acknowledge, then, that the issue is not as black and white as my article might suggest. That is not to concede that my agendas were other than outlined above, or that I have changed my views on feed-in tariffs. Frankly, you detract from your credibility in positioning yourself as some sort of authority privy to knowledge inaccessible to lesser beings, and attributing underhand motives to those with differing views.

Sincere thanks to others who have contributed so many thought-provoking points to the debate, both pro and contra feed-in tariffs.

Well said, Ross!

I continue my plea for INFORMED opinion, not just unsubstantiated opinion. There's a lot of people who really want to know about the topics that OLO presents so that they can make better informed decisions about their lives.

Unfortunately there always seem to be people wanting to coat-tail on the latest matter of public concern- ranging from paranoid ranters who see apocalyptic signs in everything, to hucksters trading on the optimism and technical ignorance of ordinary citizens, to the pathetic types who try to con bushfire victims.

The nub of this issue is whether domestic rooftop PV systems can make a difference. Of course they will make a difference to the owner, but should anyone else pay- yes, if it is to their benefit as well AND more beneficial than alternative uses of their taxes. Nobody (well maybe some of those mentioned above)needs to be convinced that PVs actually work- so subsidising demonstrations is not justified. I've commented before on subsidising remote users. So that leaves creating a large market through subsidies. Rooftop PV could work, but at a much higher cost to all than meso and mega-scale systems.

As I see it, a lot of people think that they are helping others by being energy independent. They're not if the taxes on others are greater than the benefits to others. And the numbers suggest, if not prove, that rooftop PVs aren't the best way to get to a sustainable future.

The URL http://www.feedintariff.com.au/ , to which the author's highlighted text link towards the end of the article delivers you, displays a page upon which are visible two significant features: the first and most obvious being the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia; the second being an 'about us/contact' tab at the top of the page, which takes you here: http://www.feedintariff.com.au/about.php

In the opening line on the 'about us' page you read that "FeedInTariff.com.au is a public service provided by Australian renewable energy company, Energy Matters." When you follow the highlighted text link 'Energy Matters' in that opening line, you will be taken here: http://www.energymatters.com.au/ , the home page of Energy Matters. On it you can see what they sell.

I derive from this that Energy Matters, in promoting this petition for a national feed-in tariff, is promoting its own commercial self-interest, and that it is doing so with the blessing of the Federal government. In turn, the author is promoting the petition, and that's all OK so far as I am concerned. (Whether it is with respect to OLO rules, I leave to the hopefully light hand of the Moderator.) It's just that everybody who participates in what should be a most interesting discussion, or reads the thread, should know this in advance.

It is unfortunate that Ross Buncle sees my open discouragement of the signing of the petition, and my repeated description of the promoting of the idea of a German-style feed-in tariff for photovoltaics alone as mischievous, as constituting 'harping'. Especially so, given his gracious admission:

"[Forrest Gumpp] and others have brought up some worthy arguments against feed-in tariffs, not all of which I was aware of until now. I acknowledge, then, that the issue is not as black and white as my article might suggest."

Ross also says:

"I believe in renewable energy as the way of the future, and in individuals doing as much as possible to further the cause."

Agreed.

Sleazy stuff, ForrestG. Far from acknowledging you got it wrong with your charges of "mischievousness", you resort to more of the same. Perhaps it's time for YOU to demonstrate a little graciousness.

For the record, before publishing my article I challenged Green Matters along similar lines to those you outline and was satisfied with their response. In any case, since I seek to alert people that installing PV panels is NOT presently economically sensible, implications that corporate promotion is part of my agenda are illogical.

Further, I suggested an email alternative to the petition.

I do not appreciate your slights. A fair-minded person might see fit to apologise for erroneously accusing me of hidden agendas. Alas, righteousness and ego are obstructions to fairness and quality debate. Transcending this sort of petty-mindedness enhances one's credibility - worth making the effort, I'd suggest.

To get maximum output from the cells you need to have them track the
sun both daily and seasonally. This requires more hardware but is not
an impossible project.
Additionally I would need to have several trees removed or
substantially cut back.

As these are council trees I see no hope of that.
I could ground mount them in the backyard but would lose a significant
amount of morning sun due to shade from the house.

I agree with the figues given, I got the dame result.

THE FIGURES DO ADD UP IF YOU BULK BUY!! Go to http://www.localpower.com.au/ and then http://www.beyondbuildingenergy.com/index.php The former URL gives a lot more explanation of the advantages of economies of scale, though I ended up opting for the latter deal - much cheaper (& admittedly more risky). By end March I expect to have 1kW solar PV installed for a net outlay of $500, resulting in a payback period of under 3 years. Then I'll thank the Howard Government (& current taxpayers :) and the ingenuity of Beyond Building Energy; pity though about the increased pollution around the solar panel factory in China.

I guess that the PV enthusiasts who are availing themselves of the Feds $8000 rebate are similarly enthusiastic about governments bailing out banks and protecting shareholders and executives. A stretch? Not really. The scheme that Rossko has joined seems to provide some economy of scale, but the system still costs about $10,000 and produces about $200/year of electricity- a 50 year gross payback. The return doesn't even cover the interest on the money, even at present low interest rates.It still costs someone else $8,000. That someone else is your neighbour who hasn't installed a PV system

The point that the PV enthusiasts seem to refuse to answer is WHY? The fact that someone else is paying for it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea- unless you think that the community really owes you something.

Do this thought experiment: Suppose every household/taxpayer decides to install a $10,000 PV system and applies for the $8,000 rebate. Essentially, as the $8,000 will be coming out of their own pocket, everyone will be faced with a 50 year payback. Doesn't work, does it?

It would be helpful if we stopped using the word "government", which is thought of as "them", and we started using the word "Commonwealth"- ie "common-wealth", which is "US".

The concluding sentence in my last-but-one post, "Just not telling.", was not meant to imply I was 'privy to knowledge inaccessible to lesser beings'. It was the OLO word limit at work. It was in reference to the Federal government, not to me. In hindsight, I should perhaps have added an 's' to 'renewable'. All of this claim is derivable from published reports, a link to one of which I provided, courtesy of an earlier posting thereof by Ludwig on his now archived topic, 'Rudd's renewable energy shame', also linked to in that post.

The thing is, the decision process as to which technologies and commercial entities stand any chance of receiving support from the $500 million Renewable Energy Fund is running on a very short fuze, and the shortlist can only come from a very narrow field, those enterprises that have a demonstration project in existence either already, or at the latest, by inference, by the time applications have to be lodged some time in the first half of 2009. A Google search revealed this Ministerial statement: http://minister.ret.gov.au/TheHonMartinFergusonMP/Pages/BUDGETBOOSTSCLEANCOALANDRENEWABLEENERGY.aspx , but no published guidelines as yet.

Note the existence of two separate funds, the Energy Innovation Fund ($150 million over five years), and the Renewable Energy Fund ($500 million over six years). The latter already makes express provision of $50 million for 'THE' geothermal drilling program. It is only the former that mentions funding for solar energy, and that is funding of $100 million supporting the creation of an Australian Solar Institute, and solar thermal and solar photovoltaic research and development.

You don't have to be Einstein to realise that the Federal government already favours HDR, or that it will get the lion's share of subsidy. They've ALREADY allocated $50 million of funding. So far as I know, Geodynamics has the only such demonstration project. Therefore that funding is, presumably, for them.

Should the market for their seemingly viable, largely taxpayer-funded, technology be the NSW/Qld governments, or, say, Chevron oil? Shouldn't taxpayers benefit most?

It was pointed out in OLO article 'Hot rocks rock' by Kevin Cox (OLO userID 'Fickle Pickle) see: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7662 , that hot dry rock geothermal as a clean energy source, and seemingly more abundant or longer lasting alternative to nuclear fuels, though finite, offered prospects of providing grid-distributed electricity at a cost of around 2 cents per KwH, as compared to the 4 cents per KwH of current coal generation costs. (These costs are ex-power station, and do not include costs of distribution.)

Given that the projected cost of production of electricity from HDR is around half that from coal, it is not hard to see why the bulk of the Renewable Energy Fund monies beyond the $50 million apparently already committed, around $450 million, might also be thought to be earmarked for HDR scale-up and development. Indeed, would we not all of us, at least those connected to the grid, be wanting such a scheme to go ahead as quickly as possible? Clean energy, the fulfilment of an election policy dream, and CHEAPER THAN BEFORE! Why would you not?

Especially why would you not if Kevin Cox's figures are anywhere near correct (and let's give him credit, for he, unlike me, is in these matters some sort of an authority) that the investment required by the electricity-consuming public to bring this all about is only of the order of 4 cents extra per KwH in the price of electricity? As I have said before, in another place, "too easy".

It can't be that HDR geothermal is so unevadeably protected by patent rights that no entity other than, for example, Geodynamics, could provide the technology. Chevron is already big in geothermal in the Phillipines, I understand, and maybe elsewhere. Why could not an existing public electricity authority be head contractor in bringing such a scheme to fruition? We have had the Snowy Mountains Authority, and the (Tasmanian) Hydro-electric Commission in the past. We have the NSW State corporation, Energy Australia, in the present.

Why not?

Well, one reason why you might not is if there is another renewable energy technology capable of applying for scale-up assistance from the Renewable Energy Fund (and/or the Energy Innovation Fund) that is potentially capable of offering a delivered price for distributed electricity lower than that able to be projected as being distributed under the HDR technology via the existing grid.

Could that be a prospect?

Solar Pondage and Organic Rankine Cycle technology might be able to do so. As an example, the Pyramid Hill solar pond facility of Pyramid Salt could conceivably meet the very restrictive criterion of being a demonstration of the technology in existence at the time of application for scale up funding. I have no idea whether that enterprise has, or intends, applying for scale up funding. It worries me that I read recently on a website somewhere that the facility may have been (temporarily) decommisioned, I think due to a move of premises. I'm worried that would constitute a disqualification for eligibility if true.

Only a very large existing enterprise would be capable of mobilising the sort of assets and skills needed to quickly reinvigorate what would be presumed to be a relatively small enterprise of the nature of one such as Pyramid Salt (was it to be interested), such that it would meet the government criterion of an actual demonstration of the technology in action within the short-fuzed application period. If I was to be a principal in an enterprise of the like of Pyramid Salt and I wanted a piece of the Renewable Energy Fund action, I'd be looking to come to some sort of arrangement with a very large, preferably proprietary company, led by a principal renowned for eliciting extreme loyalty from its executive staff, and that has an active interest in recycling and renewables.

The only Australian enterprise that I can think of that meets these requirements is Visy.

Solar pond/ORC technology is substantially non-proprietary. Once scaled-up, further Australian equity participation in electricity generation AND distribution may be possible.

The safeguard of competition.

This discussion has roamed far and wide from Ross's original post and ends up being the same old same old.

There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW.

I'll comment on HDR. There is another well established but dormant aspect of geothermal heat. In WA, a group of licences have been issued for geothermal companies. These companies have secured leases over ground much like the petroleum industry. This is all HDR but heat extraction from shallower depths. The University of Western Australia is interested in this as a business to provide energy for air-conditioning. In times past the Perth Zoo used use geothermal heat as did others.

HDR may have significant technical issues with corrosion - any comment?

The Hot Rocks method seems very promising.
I was surprised at the comment bout saline solution.
Stainless steel piping might help but expensive. Plastic pipe could be
an alternative.

Solar thermal seems to be very attractive as it should be possible to
retrofit to existing power stations as at Liddel.

Bazz,

I have worked on a mine site in the Murchison and seen groundwater bore renovation work, 316 stainless steel pipes from 1kilometre down looking like Grannies lace curtains...

renew says:

"This discussion has roamed far and wide from Ross's original post and ends up being the same old same old.

There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW."

It would appear that formulation of such a policy is exactly what the Federal government has taken in hand in its establishment of the Renewable Energy Fund, along with that fund's little brother, the Energy Innovation Fund. Applications by players within the renewable energy industry are now being called for with a very short fuze with respect to time within which such applications for scale-up funding must be made, and, presumably, then be decided upon by government. 'Winners' are about to be picked. My concern as a consumer and taxpayer is that any such 'winners' truly represent a win for the people who are funding the scale-up and will pay the ultimate bill as customers for the renewable energy that legislation, rather than the market's present dictates, says we all should have.

It is always refreshing on OLO to receive feed-back from an article author. I'm embarrassed, however, that on this thread I appear to have hogged all that feed-back. I do try to keep the ego-driven paranoia off the article discussion threads, but if it must come into the credibility equation a far better example of it can be found here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#55024 Anyone reading the ego-driven paranoia in this post, and other posts earlier and later in the thread, should heed the warning given that fact may well be mixed with fiction therein. Its sort of like a blog on renewable energy.

I thank renew both for the link to 'withouthotair' and the mention of shallow geothermal. That, together with a blog entry on the sciam site linked to by Fractelle (of the Cysterhood), has shown me how to use my bore for airconditioning.

"There is no substitute here for policy that gives security to the RE industry for investment in functional technology. Let the R&D go on of course but we need industrial change NOW."

My own words. These then from ForrestGump

"It would appear that formulation of such a policy is exactly what the Federal government has taken in hand in its establishment of the Renewable Energy Fund, along with that fund's little brother, the Energy Innovation Fund. ........... 'Winners' are about to be picked."

I disagree. Creating a "fund" is a discretionary process and subject to political whims. Maybe I wasn't specific enough - policy in my view must lead to legislation. A national feed in tariff would be an example. MRET another. The renewable energy industry and its R&D support have said we need to quit the stop start. Picking winners? So be it. If one technology is pulled through to win it is usually because the costs of goods, of installation etc are down far enough to make it viable in the market. But if a technology is say just beyond proof of concept but not yet commercial, the pulling effect of sound legislation may be beneficial.

renew's post of Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 8:13:17 AM says: "what happened at the last election is that the spin doctors on both sides saw political value in "solar panels". We got the message in the neck without any proper analysis and moreover without any real policy by either side."

Grim's post of Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 9:55:30 AM says: "..., I would have to say the most attractive thing about PV is no moving parts."

RawMustard's post of Friday, 20 February 2009 at 9:47:34 PM mentions roof-mounted parabolic dishes in conjunction with small solar thermal power conversion using ORC engines.

Forrest Gumpp's post of Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 11:20:18 AM says: "... pyrolysis of wood, either self-fueled or using solar thermal energy, with its by-product of biochar used as a soil-improver, will actually start removing CO2 from the atmosphere!

How to build a tracking flat mirror array solar concentrator:

See: www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/JF/431/A%20-%20Teton%20-%20Focussing%20Solar%20Collector.pdf

Used to pyrolyse wood, one of its products would be wood gas, which is simply stored in a small gasometer over water. This gas can be used at any time, day or night, to power a conventional IC engine generator. If, in association with the pyrolysing chamber a thermo-electric generator is incorporated to utilize waste heat, the unit will also generate low voltage DC power with no moving parts, that can charge conventional lead-acid batteries.

In the context of RawMustard's suggestion, see this link: http://www.katrix.com.au/news-events_detail.aspx?view=8

"This [Australian invented] core component of a solar thermal microCHP system, will become an enabler of such systems with power outputs of 1 – 10kW, with expected efficiencies greater than PV systems at a significantly reduced capital cost per kW."

The petition, sponsored by a firm dealing in VARIOUS types of renewables, asks for a FiT for PV panel power ONLY. Why?