Yabby you are wrong you know, Desmond I think you are on track.
A few of us, for less than $1.000 have put solar on the roof.
Not enough to run the house but running on battery's we are blackout proof.
And can run lights radio and a bit more 24/7 for zero costs.
After our group of ham radio operators got that done one first got the scheme you talk of, not to make money by reselling but to cut costs.
Well it cut his, not ours we paid, he got the government cash.
I am planning on retirement to do the same, with battery's not using government money.
Yes it will cost more, but if ten thousand did it?, less power stations surely.
Wind water are no chance here but solar can work .
So very many tell me LPG is no alternative, yet our fleet runs on it, saves $35.000 a year on it, runs cleaner engines at the same speed and power longer without breakdowns.
Savings are only fuel cleaner engines less break downs add much to that , my last two had 350.000 on the clock when changed.
New things need a go.

Isn’t this fascinating. In this thread it was my intention to tie together the different aspects of antisustainability, using the enormous number of new air-conditioners being brought on line in SEQ as an example.

However, the discussion has followed just one aspect, with the others going virtually unaddressed.

The population growth factor in Queensland and the national immigration rate that largely drives it have been bypassed. And the reduction in quality of life as a result of rising prices due to rising demand for energy and other resources has gone unaddressed.

We have a narrow non-holistic focus. In this regard, we on OLO really are a true subset of our society.

While we are discussing the merits of various alternative energy sources, all of which have far less than clear advantages over fossil fuels in terms of their true costs and practicalities, we are letting a much bigger and a much easier factor to deal with just go virtually unaddressed.

The immigration rate is the biggest single factor in driving up our national greenhouse gas emissions and thus in preventing us from significantly reducing them in by 2020. It is also the biggest single factor in taking us diametrically away from a sustainable future. And it is the easiest factor to deal with.

It demands an expression of outrage from every person who is concerned about climate change and a secure future.

Population growth in already population-stressed regions is a little more difficult to deal with, but not as hard by any means as the development of alternative energy sources.

While people generally agree that these are huge factors, I’ve got to wonder why there is so little interest in addressing them.

You're right, Ludwig - and your example is a good one.

All the Bligh government needs to do is to impose a usurious sales tax on air conditioners - as they do with e.g. tobacco and alcohol - to make them so so expensive that nobody can afford to install them.

Several positive effects would flow on from such a tax - less brick boxes would be built, fewer people would want to move to Queensland, and the State government would be more able to afford to fund its health and education services, thus removing the excuse for its rampant privatisation plans!

From FNQ.

I actually prefer the buildings that are climate friendly with open air living in my neck of the woods. The old Queenslander was perfect for the climate. Large decks, lots of trees and lots of open windows. We live a bit like a mushroom. We do have an old small air-con unit in the bedroom which is used on very humid nights for about one hour before bedtime. Otherwise we manage without it. I guess you get acclimated.

Now the newer building have to be air conditioned. When they are not they get mouldy and smelly. They concrete over so much land they then need elaborate drainage systems. Nothing is done that reflect the local conditions. It is just the same developments from another city with some minor adjustments.

The more educated we become the less we think. I am certain of this fact. Just one manual learned by rote for each task sans common sense.

I'm not wrong Belly. No business can buy something at 60c and
sell it at 20c and survive financially, unless its only a fraction
of the total budget and they are generating healthy revenue
elsewhere, to pay for the losses.

That is essentially what is happening with the power buyback schemes.
Because so few people do feed back into the grid, they can afford
to offer it to a select few and claim to be doing something for
the environment, which is great politics right now. If everyone did
it, the whole thing would essentially collapse, which is my point.

Yes, solar cells work, yes they can be installed, but it does not
stack up economically, without huge subsidies.

As Col Rouge pointed out, electricity generation is only one part
of the cost, the infrastructure cost and maintenance are major
expenses. Last time I saw any figures, the actual cost of
coal generated electricity was only 3-4c a kw/h, the rest goes on
infrastructure. That still has to be working and in place, even
when people have solar cells.

Right now a 10kw solar system costs around 50k$. Even if it worked at
100% efficiency for 300 days at 10hours per day, at 20c/kwh that's
around 6000$ a year. In other words, it just covers its depreciation
over time

*to make them so so expensive that nobody can afford to install them.*

Oh sure CJ, with that kind of draconian Govt, people sure would
soon want to leave Queensland

Actually solar cells are worse than most people realise.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
is a concept that I was not familiar with and I gather it is used in
the financial investment field.
It has been adapted for use in the energy field as;
Energy Internal Rate of Return, or EIRR.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51060

Taking this into account reveals that solar cells are not very good performers.
I have only become aware of this today, so I am no expert.
I think I was aware subconsciously of this but not the comparisons
or the detail.

Anyway have a read of it, very interesting.