Bill there is something important missing in your article that (unfortunately for the solar PV industry) influences our government that sees its role as managing the economy.

That missing piece is cost.

Solar PV, as I am sure you know, is the most expensive way to generate electricity - by a country mile. Only ocean power gets close (IPCC figures). I know the PV industry keeps talking about "parity with coal pricing" but they still haven't delivered it and, according to the IPCC, won't have delivered it by 2030 - even including the cost of CCS for coal. We all hope for order-of-magnitude reductions in PV pricing but only the PV industry optimists seem to believe it's going to happen any time soon.

Is it right that the government (and by implication the tax payers) should subsidies home owners to install a very expensive technology that, presumably, they wouldn't install without the subsidy? If they would then the solar PV industry has no need to be concerned.

Consider this:

Australia's present electricity generating capacity is about 50 GW. This is about 10 times the global production of PVs in 2008 and 2 times total global windpower production.

As present (fossil fuel) replacement cost is about $2B/GW, the total replacement "benchmark" is about $100B. Windpower cost are competitive in windy places but PVs are about 5 times benchmark. Nuclear is arguable, but probably no better than windpower.

Large scale PV systems cost about 1/3 of small domestic PV systems.

The recently scrapped PV subsidy cost about $100M- about 50% of installed cost of 1KW domestic systems- about 0.2% of installed capacity. This could have been 0.6% if applied to large-scale systems.

Australia has a negligible PV manufacturing capacity. Japan, China and Germany produce most of the world supply. Australia can't be competitive with this group, given their relative capabilities, scale and momentum.

These countries have subsidised PV domestically and industrially to build up their manufacturing capability. Germany and Japan are also hypersensitive to basic energy security.

In summary, the present renewable policies will have no significant effect on supply or cost. Installation jobs will be created, but in the same way as selling and servicing imported SUVs. Promoters of domestic PV systems are either well-wishing, but misguided, or self interested (installers).

Instead, we should:

Instal a limited number of large (say 10MW) PV systems to familiarise engineers with future systems issues. These will also contribute (globally) to reducing costs through scale economies at 3x domestic systems.

Windpower systems have a higher local content than PVs so should be pursued where possible.

Energy conservation in commercial buildings is a very good return on investment, so should be encouraged.

Solar water heating still has good domestic and industrial economic potential

Get the debate onto "significance of effort" and "relative bang for the buck", and away from "domestic autonomy" and "job creation" of PVs

Over 40 years involvement in the renewable energy indudtry, I've seen it come and go a number of times. We have lost opportunities, but we won't get them back by subsidising domestic PVs.

I'd love to see 2.5kw systems on every roof and a nuke station balancing the load.

The others are quite right to point to the horrific expense of solar energy. The additional expense makes even less sense when you realise that, even when feeding into the national supply grids, alternate energy offsets only a tiny fraction of the emissions that you would expect from its power output.
The reason is that the output is so variable, and energy is so difficult to store. Power supply authorities cannot switch power stations on and off at a moment's notice so they have to keep them operating, even when PVs or wind turbines or whatever are generating electricity. By spreading the alternative sources geographically, using different technologies and backing it with a pumped hydro system (really expensive and difficult in Australia) you can offset some of these problems, but the target of 20 per cent of power from renewables by 2020 is ridiculous - that is, if you want to make a real 20 per cent, rather than a nominal one.
The whole government policy on renewables should be dumped and rethought, along with any promises. As it stands it is madness.

Subsidies can be justified for 1) special needs 2) Research, 3) Demonstration or 4) achieving critical mass for economy of scale. For PVs we are at stage 4, but if we (globally) are to get economies of scale, then we need to do it efficient;y. For costs projections Google "Photovoltaics cost" and go to "Images" for graphs. 2020 is probably the breakeven date, if we keep demand up. But as I said, we can't reach that level by putting penny-ante systems on domestic roofs.

So Kenny, in the spirit of OLO, can you please provide some justification for your wishes?

It’s hard to reconcile any government’s post-election uselessness with any of the statements they make about anything before an election. The people who “elected (Rudd) because (they) believed he would make some sweeping changes” are typical of mostly apathetic and stupid Australian voters. Most of them have just settled back into their apathy, and accept that the current government is just another elected dictatorships that was always going to as it pleased after being elected. They know that they can get away with that because who can touch them once they are in?

The previous government was exactly the same. We shouldn’t vote for any Australian politicians until they get the message.

As for the mismanaged solar policy, we shouldn’t worry about it. There is no optional energy worth a pinch of salt; solar and wind – the only two toys having taxpayers money poured into them (to the glee of the rent-seekers) are simply not reliable, both need our current coal-powered generation to back them up.

This government, and any other government, would do well to do nothing about everything suggested by the warming freaks. People can adapt to climate change, and alternative energy is just not necessary or useful.

People who believe the hype about climate change and the difference renewable is supposed to make deserve everything they get. It’s unfortunate that I and people like me who don’t believe in the mumbo-jumbo will have to pay the same price as the galahs

If you are looking to Solar Energy to safe money, you are running in the wrong lane. The real benefit from installing solar panels is not money. It is the effect it has on your kids in greater awareness of their environment.
Nothing teaches them the value of energy and its conservation better than the challenge of trying to juggle what comes in on electricity with what is going out. In our house there is no light or appliance switched on which is not needed. The kids watch it, day and night; and they tell you quick smart if you do not!
Alfred

Considering that the cost of a 1kVA solar unit is about $15000 and that it generally generates power when it is not needed, the subsidy is completely unjustified.

Solar water heaters are far more worthwhile.

PV cells are only eductional in showing kids that they have little value.

I've recently received flyers advertising solar hot water systems with government subsidies around 70% of the installed cost. Looking at my water heating bill and checking the experience of an adjoining house with SHW, I estimate that with very favourable assumptions, my rate of return would be at best 6 per cent, probably less. So the return on the total cost would be well under 2 per cent. There must surely be better options for my and the government's (i.e., our) funds.

Of course, I haven't allowed for any externalities such as reduced CO2 emissions. That's because I don't find the anthropoggenic global warming story convincing; but even if I accepted that CO2 savings were valuable, the return would still be very low. How might it compare with nuclear energy, I wonder?