The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Installing solar PV panels - the figures don’t add up, BUT… > Comments

Installing solar PV panels - the figures don’t add up, BUT… : Comments

By Ross Buncle, published 20/2/2009

Want to 'do your bit' and install solar panels? Do the homework and you’re in for a jolting reality check!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 8:28:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rossko, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 9:46:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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".
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 10:26:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:04:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 8:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 26 February 2009 3:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy