By Bernard Hickey
The Green Party has proposed the Government offer low interest loans to home-owners to buy solar panels, a move National described as "more magic money."
Green Co-Leader Russel Norman unveiled its Solar Homes policy on Sunday in a speech to the Green Party's 2014 campaign conference in Auckland.
The policy of lending up to NZ$15,000 per home to be repaid through rates over 15 years at the Government's own interest rate for borrowing (currently 4.1%) aimed to increase solar panel installations by 30,000 over three years and create 1,000 jobs. The policy is for a maximum of NZ$300 million of such loans.
Norman said the typical system would leave a household NZ$100 better off per year and allow them to sell any surplus back into the grid.
The policy document said a typical NZ$10,000, 3 kilowatts (kW) solar array would generate about 3,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year, producing NZ$1,000 of electricity a year at current prices and would cost NZ$900 a year over 15 years to pay off through the low interest low. It would also avoid the equivalent creation of 5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
"Solar Homes lets Kiwis take the power back, and break free from the big energy companies. This policy is about energy freedom. Availability of finance is seen as one of the key barriers to the uptake of solar in New Zealand. Solar Homes aims to remove this barrier," Norman said.
Norman said there were no government subsidies involved and the loans would be "cost neutral" to the Government.
"Solar is a smart choice for those wanting to reduce their power costs. It's also one of the greenest forms of electricity generation out there," he said.
Political reaction
Energy Minister Simon Bridges said the "Green Party's belief in their ability to make money magically appear seems to have no limits."
He said any lower interest rate than normal involved a government subsidy. "And if it makes the cost of solar power cheaper for families than existing power options it also must involve a subsidy," he said.
"Everyone wants something cheaper but someone has to pay. Solar is about three times more expensive than grid-scale generation from wind, hydro or geothermal power stations. If solar power was to be made more affordable other taxpayers and power users would have to pay for it," Bridges said.
"There is certainly a place for solar in New Zealand, but given the abundance of lower cost renewable alternatives, it can't be a priority to subsidise solar power or change the rules to suit a specific technology," he said.
Labour Leader David Cunliffe was reported as saying the policy looked sensible and Labour would consider it.
Prime Minister John Key and Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce also later said the Green plan had to involve a degree of Government subsidy.
Norman rejected their comments that the use of the low Government interest rate was a subsidy.
"It’s not: the interest rate on the Solar Homes loan covers the cost to the government of borrowing the money. There is no net operating cost to the Crown. Either Mr Key and Mr Joyce have failed basic fiscal accounting or they are deliberately trying to mislead the public," Norman said.
“If National wants an example of a subsidy, they should look at the $33m ‘buy now, pay later’ scheme that they provided to private investors in Meridian or the NZ$46m a year that they give to the oil and gas industry," he said.
“The truth of the matter is that Mr Key is just interested in defending the big electricity companies’ massive profits and their stranglehold on generation. Mr Key’s more interested in dividends for power company investors than he is in affordable, clean options for families to generate their own power."
EECA paper
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), which would have to administer the loans with councils, has also been advised that solar panels on homes don't make economic sense for either the home owners or the nation.
An internal paper presented to the EECA board last year concluded that although it may be viable in future, it was currently a "net cost from a national and consumer viewpoint."
"There are many better energy related investments and behaviours that consumers and businesses can undertake to achieve cost savings or greenhouse gas reductions," the paper advised.
English on subsidies
"The general public don't get the opportunity to borrow at the government rate. Only the government does, and if you offer that opportunity to people you are subsidising their debt," English told reporters.
"We are country already with high levels of debt and subsidising debt is not a good idea. It'll be solar panels this week, then it will be electric cars, then it'll be growing herbs. Who knows where it will get to. It's a subsidy," English said.
He was then asked about the NZ$30 million grant from the Government to Rio Tinto to ensure the continued operation of Tiwai Pt in Southland.
(Updated with board paper presented last year to EECA, comments from Bill English)
96 Comments
After spending 15k i would hope to save more than $100 per year.You could do this now if you went around and turned everything off at the wall.How long do these solar sytems work before needing repairs?Would they even last 15 years.More questions need to be asked before we create a new industry so installers and manufacturers become wealthy off our money.
Your not spending 15k. The money goes against your rates and is paid off at 900 dollars a year. The solar is then saving 1000 approx a year so you are actually "saving" 100 dollars a year for the first 15 and then 1000 dollars after that. The est lifspan is 25 years but that is a thumbsuck, it can last longer or less.
these folk - and others - are doing roof tiles direct.
Also not a Greens supporter , BUT this is not a bad idea .
Its an original thought with some sense.
- It fits with the idea of developing Green technology .
- We could make it a package with connected technology and could export it
- We can create reasonably well paid jobs in making and installing the soalr systems
- Its potentially a sustainable medium-tech industry .
I must say the Greens have a far more attractive policy package than Labours TAX- AND SPEND $60 per week bribes for babies.
Bollocks, Minister.
Solar is now - unsubsidised, three times cheaper than grid power. (not counting installation, but still.....).
The problem - if you stand back without bias - is that we have to morph to renewables while we still have nonrenewables to do so. That has to happen physically. No matter the accounting - this is a REAL thing. In that sense, Norman is putting his foot on the accelerator, Bridges is hitting the brake.
So Nornam has to be going in the right direction, and Bridges is looking like yesterday's fool. Not the only one, granted, but he's a Minister. Could do better.
... so Mr Genius , if solar is " three time cheaper " ( I'll assume in proper English you mean it's one third of the cost ) than grid power .... " not counting installation " ...
How does one bypass the need for an installation !!!! ..... aha ha de haaaaaaaaaa ....
The EECA paper looks interesting....
Initial looks suggest really there might be a bit of a porky here and there, but not un-justified.
The problem is really the costs of 8.5cents and the cost to transmit at 10.5cents , give a cost of 19cents....I find the latter damning myself, its costing more to transmit that make.
So really if you pay a feedin of say 17cents and use it locally its cheaper than making the same KWH and transmitting it a long way.
Interesting stuff.
I think we need this to force power co's to allow for a feed in tarrif- ie running the meter backwards- does anyone know the current situation on this- my understanding is that this is a real problem in NZ and power co's have no real interest in fixing it- but vector is doing something in this area?
It's good to hear the Greens (finally) talking about the environment and encouraging people to go solar. As a blue/green voter the part of this policy that irks is the interest free loans. Surely there is another way to bring the costs down without a tax payer sibsidy and more borrowing?
Politically, it's a shame that the Greens can't centre their economic policies and form a coalition with National, a strong economy and a strong green agenda. We don't have to have one or the other.
I disagree. The economy is based on producing goods and services. Manufacturer and disposal of goods creates waste streams. It also uses energy and other mineral resources to produce and transport these products.
Yes, you can 'green up' the way you run an economy, but you will never change the fact that economic growth = increased energy and waste production.
For a start lets squash the nonsense that PV systems will only run for 10-15 years because the panels die. Standard warranties on panels are that they still run at 25 years with 80% efficiency. To which no doubt we will get bla bla blah from the doubters that this can't be true etc.
Well sorry, but there is clear data out there that in fact panels made in the 1980's are still going strong. Thus:
http://scitizen.com/future-energies/how-long-do-solar-panels-last-_a-14…
''Recent evidence from Japan suggests that life expectancy is longer than expected.[1] A company that reuses old panels reports that it has tested 330 panels made in 1984. 90% of these units can still generate 80% or more of their initial output. The industry expects that products made today will be even more durable than those made in the 1980s. The backing materials used to create the solar panels should be less susceptible to discolouration. So typical lives of thirty or more years can probably be assumed''.
So lets put that little bit of nonsense from the anti-Green brigade to bed shall we?
Those spin doctors in the NY Times have been muddying the waters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-pow…
"Worldwide, testing labs, developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption.
No one is sure how pervasive the problem is. There are no industrywide figures about defective solar panels. And when defects are discovered, confidentiality agreements often keep the manufacturer’s identity secret, making accountability in the industry all the more difficult."
There has been some comments in the last year or so on the "suspect quality" of chinese panels as they are so much cheaper than the European made ones. Ive yet to see that substantiated. While sure older panels are likely to have been made to the best tech of the day, these days there is no assurance that what you are buying really will last 15+ years and longer....and that is a concern.
regards
This will be good. Planning a new building in the next year with a nicely oriented roof panel of about 70m2 which will do this very nicely.
Don't think I will need the greens money even.
What I will need is
- Proven - off the shelf hardware
- Experienced professional installer. Mainstream. (no alternative enthusiasts !)
- Non complex system and low/no management. (Got high maintainance solar water now. Sigh)
Then 'as far as I know' simply is not enough is it?
I suggest you go and consult the Meridian website, or the Contact website (I will help you as it is be kind to strangers who wont do their own research day - the latter pays 17.8c/kWh (plus GST) as I recall, and Meridian pays more (25c/kWh) for the first 5kWh/day and 10c/kWh thereafter).
These are export prices - the power generated and used in situ and not exported (generally about 25% of the total produced) is in effect replacing that which would have been imported at whatever rate the elec co charges (in the high 20's c/kWh generally).
Thanks King, I'll take you up on your offer. All I found on the Contact webpage is "email us for applicable pricing plans" and " prices are subject to change".
With Meridian you would be generating somewhere between $600 and $800 of electricity per year, still not enough to break even.
Oskar. First thing that happens is that the power you produce replaces buying it. So you can calculate the return on what you don't have to pay. eg The price you pay to get it from the grid.
You might actually do quite well without feeding anything into the grid
Thats the basic principle. However the pleasure is reduced somewhat by different times of peak production - you are feeding out into the grid. And different times of use. (eg Night) when you are taking power in from the Grid and paying for it.
But its still good.
I recently tried to model this in a spreadsheet and it was incredibly complicated - I'm not a maths genius. If you go to work while the sun is out you have to work out what you generate during the day and what you use at night and what you can earn from Meridian's deal. If you get it wrong (too big) you end up contributing to Meridians profits!
I reckon that the one thing you have to do is put everything on a timer that you can (water heating, washing machine, dish washer, fridge) so that you use all the power you can during the day.
Our house is new and ticks all the boxes on the environmental front. Our bill is near enough $110 a month all year. We chose to have an all electric house (no fossil fuels) so cooking is a real problem due to the load it generates in the evenings - my wife said no to a wood fired range. :-(
Anyway I worked out we would take 8 years to pay back a 2k system - still waiting on fiscal approval but soon she'll give it I'm sure.:-) (Just another tech toy!)
It is and isnt the answer, I certianly think all new houses should have solar hotwater heating unless it can be demonstarted they are under such shade it wouldnt work. PV panels are also I think probable within a few years, but there has to be the infrastructure there to allow the backfeeding.
regards
The research and calculation has been done many times
The saving of $100 per year is pathetic and uncertain - if interest rate goes up you'd go in red. If your switch 4 downlights with CFL or LED, at 4 hours a day you'd save more than $100 in a year, and only cost you $50 ~ $250.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/9329703/Are-solar…
In the end "The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) recommended people carefully do their sums before investing in PV."
HAURAKI - how about you think a wee bit.
No goods/services are produced without the use of energy (all else like up[ping the 'value' of houses or shares, is horsepoo in the real world) and energy is getting sequentially worse in quality and availability. Solar will never match oil, so even though we will end up with it by default, current 'pricing' cannot be maintained. Enrergy will be the new gold, priced out of more and more folks reach.
Best time is now.
Are you sure?
The 77% share of renewable energy sources makes New Zealand one of the lowest carbon dioxide emitting countries in terms of electricity generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand
In 2011, a total of 77% of electricity generation came from renewable resources due to record high geothermal generation and good hydro in-flows. This is the highest renewables percentage since 1996 and is third in the OECD.
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/data/…
Yes I am sure. I said total energy use, not amount generated.
In 2013 it was 39% from renewables:
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/publi…
PDK has summed up the point I was trying to make. NZ imports the majority of its energy. As fossil fuels become more expensive / scarce more burden will be shifted onto the electrical grid leading to higher costs of electricity.
We should think about the long-term.
GV - no, you're the herring, even though probably not red.
Fossil energy is both finite, and has a finite potential to be used unmitigated before we are in trouble from doing so.
So logically, more demand will be offloaded onto our existing renewable electricity, and it wll get 'more expensive' as a result. Solar is the new 'more', in energy terms. Just apply logic; it was always going to be, it couldn't be any other way.
Have the greens factored in the reduction in power prices as they are hoping to do via their single buyer proposal? This solar initiative is more like what I would like to see from the Greens. However, bringing down current prices as per their other proposal has the potential to increase consumption and disencetivise alternatives. Some conflcit in their policies going on.
I don't think frost is an issue where 2/3 of NZers live. Any system with mechanical or eletrical components could fail over time so what's the point? Heard of any horror stories with Solar water systems so far?
The inverter is likely to give up long before the panels do. Not to mention for many ppl you have sell the electricity for cheap during day time, and buy back at higher prices during night. It may be a good choice for some, but not for everyone.
In the best case, as claimed by Green, you get to save $100 a year. Those could afford it and already done the math, would already have had it installed. So again what's the point?
The inverter if correctly designed, installed and manufactured is a solid state device, no reason to think it wont last 2+ decades. Besides which swapping in a new one is pretty trivial if a bit costly but then it should last another 20 years+. The bulk of the "difficult" cost is in installling it and that is a one off in effect, swapping out the odd failed part is no biggee.
You save $100 a year NET, the actual saving is $1000 a year but $900 is paying back the capital. The interest rate is currently 4.1% ergo really its a serious consideration. In year 16 you will be saving over $1k a year. There is no real "afford it" the payback is covered in the rates pay back and covered by the savings.
Solar water systems, yes they fail, mechanical things are always less reliaable than electronic things (all else being equal) however the new designs seem far better to repair...just swap in a new tube.
regards
Hush my mouth for saying it but PDK seems right about evacuated tubes (Solar water). Pumps, frost worries, Mine even needs mains power at all times to drive it. Pain in the butt device and I wish I never had. PV is where I will go next. (I do the LED lightning thing already)
I agree with PDK. I've got 3kW of PV solar which I use to heat water and it's been working great. No boiling or freezing issues and zero maintenance.
3kW of panels cost $3000, and the electronics to drive the hot water cylinder cost less than $1000. Installation is easy, just run a few wires instead of a plumbing nightmare on the roof.
A mistake I made with the Solar water system was to have a standard size water tank. It's a mistake you could make with PV powered tanks as well.
Mate, who actually manufactures water cylinder came by. His comment was that there was benefit in big big big hot water tank. Simple reason was storage, given the potential variability of solar input. More storage got over the variables and maximised use of the input.
Very true, the larger the better for both systems.
With PV the advantage is that the large water tank can be placed wherever it is convenient. The water does not need to get pumped up to the roof which eliminates pumping issues and heat losses in the pipes between the water tank and the roof.
I have a 150litre low pressure tank, when I go to high pressure I am putting in a 300~320litre stainless steel unit....the difference in cost is negligable...its a sweet spot it seems about $1800 with a 10 year warantee. Once my kitchen and insulating is finished...its my next job.
regards
... so we have a Greens policy to provide financial assistence in residential solar panel installations ...
And Labour have a policy for the government to reduce electricity prices by the state purchasing and on-selling all electricity through their centralised bureucracy ...
... two incompatible policies , within the shadow government ... Are the Greens and NZ Labour bothering to talk to each other ?
The grid tied PV will be all good until it hits critical mass and the excess energy needs to go on the national grid then the power co's will move you to “time of use metering” and the power you make will be worth nothing and you will be paying full price at night when you need to import power. Beware unintended consequences and feel sorry for those that have already invested in P.V if the greens get there way.
If you can store the energy then you don't have to worry about above problem, but costs lots more.
Would love to know how Vectors P.V system works. Wonder if they control when the energy stored in your batteries is used, this would enable them to control the peak load on there network which gives them an extra payback.
The power cos dont have that option as far as I know. Pretty sure the Green's for one will look to regulate a fair feedin tarrif. Once thats in and middle of the road NZ has PVs en mass in National would be stupid to try and change it.
Those with power shares should be worried....they were stupid buys before....
So far the un-intended consquences seem none.....anyone with a setup already should see a legislated feedin tarrif guaranteeing they cant get screwed over....
All good things.
regards
REsale of PV generation is a bit like the advantages in tax savings for investment projects.
It can be a bonus but it is definably unfeasible as a primary purpose (eg pricing).
This is because the co-generation must be bought as unit or wholesale (if not now, then eventually, as significant disruption will create drop in cogeneration profit, shrinking margins over time will also reduce commercial purchasers w/ regard to micro generation - esp as more microgeneration comes up and demand shifts until a energy sink project creates worthwhile demand which makes competition for new bulk generation.). Private/end user generation and consumption is guaranteed valuation at purchase (retail/higher) cost.
250W panel, $500. $2 per W production capactiy. 80% efficiency min. $2.50 per W. divide current cost per W (17c per kWh, 17c transport) 2.50/0.34 = 7.3 yrs on panels.
Just do the captial cost (brackets, enclosures, cables, charges, inverters, labour, consents).
Batteries, rough Rule of thumb, 1500W battery cap per 250W panel. on 4 -5 hr charge time (Peak Solar Hours). approx $500-900 per battery. So RoT, double the payback = 15yr.
Use MPPT for over 400W for efficiency. Gel cells better batteries for longer term savings but higher upfront cost.
Don't forget we're capitaslising the consumable cost.... ;) _that_ makes a difference. Power keeps going up, the money spent today, frees up tax paid disposable income for indefinate number of tomorrows.
the real benefit of solar will only be realized if you have a battery storage system. Then, you get to use your solar power when you get home from work, and the sun is not shining. All of the solar discussed here is called a "grid tie" system, where Meridian acts as your "battery" and does not pay you very well for your electricity. A friend told me a cheap way to add battery power to your system- buy an "uninterupted power supply," and pull it appart. Add car batteries to the ones already in there. Then plug it into your power point. It charges the batteries during the day, and you use them at night.
In the solar world, this is called a "hybrid" system, or you can buy a hybrid inverter (more expensive), or you can just use my friend's genius idea to do it yourself.
What the other person said was true- about the rates they charge for different times of day. They are already doing it to solar panel owners, by charging us more than they pay us for the same energy.
Energy in this country should be free....were it not for such creative accounting, and the REAL technology being withheld. See movie "sirius disclosure"
Doesn't this limit this to the people who own their own home?
How will this benefit those of us that the Greens would rather see living in apartments?
Doesn't the density argument say that those who want sections will be able to live on them, but they just have to pay through the nose for the privellege?
Can we assume then that this is a subsidy for the already-well off who are after a feel-good vibe?
How do those on lower incomes that the Green supposedly care so much about feel about that?
First point, yes.
The Green's as far as I am aware dont want "us who live in apparatments to specificially" can you point me at such a statement? If you have a say a body corporate then it maybe that you can still get a communial setup...might make even more sense.
Density argument? I dont know what you mean here.
No we dont have to assume its for the "well off" Anyone who has a suitable roof can get this put in and the savings cover the extra rates/capital payback plus a bit extra so I cant see there is any stratification of doing this.
regards
a) I wouldnt think they are, recycleable maybe.
b) Good Q, I have a glass and toilet buyout, not sure if that covers a PV or not. I'd assume your insurance would cover you if its worth claiming. I have a limit of $5 or 7k per item under contents i think after that the items have to be named, hence I's assume it has to be named, unless because its fixed....its part of the house cover and not contents.
regards
They're pretty tough panels (the decent ones). Designed to stand quite intense exposure and wind loads. Panels are certainly no worse biodegradibillity than many other modern compounds (ie probably not at all - haven't checked my cellphone for biodegradability).
Could get them insured - theft and wandon vandalism are more likely to be an issue
The Greens should go even further.
They should make it possible for all owners of Solar Power to get 15 year binding contracts with energy companies. These contracts would guarantee that the energy company would buy ALL surplus electricity from the home owner at 20 cents per kilowatt for the full 15 years.
If people were corporations the National government would have no hesitation in doing it so why not for people? If the government can give the private sector lucrative 30 year contracts why cant the people be treated equally?
Everyone should read this
Meet the potential future of electricity generation Aug 15, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-potential-future-electricity.html#jCp
"potential"
A lot of hype in there, but worth watching, especialy for waste gases from say garbage dumps, very much so, taking it at face value. These guys are not the only ones with cell technology BTW where it will be really interesting is if its cheap to make using common materials.
regards
Here's another that cropped up in my reading the other day. A wind turbine that uses the Venturi effect.
As noted, caution should always be exercised with "No-one outside the company has been allowed to test it yet"
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-sheerwind-invelox-turbine-power.html
A smorgasbord of points re PV.
- As PDK carefully omits to cover, there is no way a DIY grid-tied instal is possible. Certified sparkies, certified componentry, the whole professional fees schtick. DIY is only possible for marine-style parallel, non-grid-tie configurations. Not many homeowners gonna touch That aspect.
- As Europe is discovering, the unintended consequences of grid-tied renewables (especially on baseload) are starting to bite.
- A huge assumption (something I always look for) is that the feed-in-tarrif which is gonna help pay for the whole shebang, is constant over the period. Not somethging I'd bet the farm on: Europe and UK expoerience is that eventually the payers wise up, and re-negotiate the contracts. Downwards.
- The Green proposal ignores the rise of BIPV - proposal consists essentially of tacking PV over existing structure. Maintenance-wise, a potential nightmare. Roof tiles or building-envelope PV would haveta pass BRANZ etc certification to happen locally, and I don't see That trumpeted anywhere.
- 3 KW is fairly small - if I run the drop saw, washing machine and toaster all at once I'm already at 6. Total annual usage is 12,000 KWH (a little higher than average) so 3 just don't cut it.
Waymad -
I don't back grid-tied as the best option. Straight to a 2-element HW cylinder, and relieve your grid demand is the first way.
Actually, I'm hearing of more and more (not green types either) looking at separate lighting, marine/motor-home style, but HW is still the biggest user.
No - the German experience is that there is no problem covering existing roofs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nZZT_DEBj8
Your last comment is - uncharacteristically - silly. Try eating your toast before you use the saw, and wash your overalls after. Come to that, cook the toast directly in the sun - why pay for the electrical interface? Sheesh. I'm all for PV, but our outdoor solar shower is a 100mm deep butynol-lined tray, with glass (shower door) over. It goes to 50 degrees on a full-sun day, gives showers for 30 mins. Total loss (no cold mixing), last person out fills it up for tomorrow. It'll be working in 50 years, and 100 too probably.
a) The $15k would include a professioanl install, consent fees and not buying a bunch of parts. that would be normal.
b) looks a partisan comment...bought by the utilities maybe.
c) Tarrif can be legislated for. Of course there is also potential of increases in fossil fuel costs that is a risk also.
d) Nightmare, not really, thoughtful install, yes....some panels are simply flexi shets by the way, like rugs easy to move. take my roof, simple fix I replace the 40 year old tin with brand new tin for a 40 year life span under the panels...
e) 3kw covers the average power use base load. Now running a drop saw while toasting bread is a mind boggling idea, is that how you cut your loaf? I kind of use a hand knife myself....
but anyway you are still grid tied so for a few seconds while chopping the bread with your er 1kw chop saw......you import power. 10 seconds later you export it again, for a lot longer and recover the import cost...then the toaster pops and you are done, 3kw is going out...
I mean really is this the best you right / libertarian wingers can come up with?
blah is all I can say.
regards
Forget the State ever being the sole buyer of electricity and selling it to you and me .
It is never going to happen., and GreenLabour is pissing into the wind if they think it could ever be done .
This type of Nationalisation was done in the last century by socialists , communits and marxists and it failed dismally in a pile of unsustainable debt , hopeless mismanagement , incompetence , inefficiency and under-investment.
Oh right and your shares drop in value? become worthless even?
The state doesnt have to be the sole buyer, just a buyer, a big one, just like say riotinto is. Get it around your head that big businesses pay little for power compared to retail, all this does is level the paying field a bit.
It isnt the same type of Nationalism.
regards
I'm completely flattered by the instant attention, chaps and chapesses.
'Tarrif can be legislated for' - hmmm. In a totalitarian state, where ECON101 can be ignored for a while, perhaps. Or is one unaware of the downwards march of FIT's world-wide? The Grauniad is certainly concerned. So are the Germans (Google translate advised, title is 'The Sun Sends an Invoice' - I like that) who burnt through (sorry) EUR21 billion if the article is to be believed.
Main takeaways from all this:
- PV and solar has its place in point-and-time-of-generation consumption, as PDK eloquently notes.
- Ye cannae rely on FIT's (absent Steven's totalitarian edicts) over the payback period on the deal. Everywhere else ( WA, UK, Germany - google "Feed-in-tariff reductions") the subsidiser has ended up welshing on the initial deals.
I'd suggest to anyone contemplating PV, use the NIWA calculator here....before 'investing'. It's a sobering view of effective insolation capture, site-specific, modified by cloudiness, tilt and azimuth of array. Essential homework..
Just don't expect it to perform miracles.
Maybe a less baised view,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11…
regards
maybe because its such an illogical, partisan rant.
We have regulation now, simple we regualte that the fair tarrif is 75% of the buy tariff, or whatever is considered fair.
Lots of foreign countries have over-done the incentives to get early installation bases. The Greenare not talking about forcing the SOE's to buy above the retail rate, or subsidise by another method. The cost of PV panels these days negates this need.
In terms of azimth etc, it doesnt matter that much (within reason). Simply if you want a 3 kw systems and the angles are wrong you add another panel or 2 adds to the cost a bit, sure it might make it un-realistic, for your house sure. And sure some houses wont work at all...those facing south under a Lee. For the vast majority of houses its no biggee.
regards
PV panels are the future IMHO but this proposal has some flaws. The biggest expense of the grid is setting up the grid and building enough generators to cover 'peak loads'. Because this system is 'grid-tied' the homeowners want the benefits of being able to access the grid at peak times. But they don't want to pay for it. They want a contract that balances PV generation in non peak times with grid electricity imports at peak times.
It will not work, over time as more people convert to PV the number of people paying for the grid and peak load generators would fall until eventually no-one is paying for it. That cannot happen so the contracts for PV electricity exports will fall.
My advise is to wait for PV panels and electricity storage devices to drop in price, it is happening and maybe in a few years time we can all be like PDK, grid free.
The grid is already set up so that point is moot and its paid for (or can be) with a standing charge anyway.
One of the biggest loads is summer air con, demand at its highest just when PV panels are at their best, in a way an ideal match. So by doing it this way (installing Solar) we negate the need for more large peak plant and maybe not repalce older plant.
The owners will find that they will have to pay a surcharge for the resilance, much like they pay a standing charge for a network connection. How that is done has to be worked out, no biggee. These costs to be "fair" maybe substantial, they may not....eg a grid tie plant might get 75% of the retail price and / or pay a daily surcharge for teh ability to use if needed.
Of course if you dont want to pay these costs you can disconnect from the Grid altogether and have batteries. Given the daily costs saved that might make economic sense.
In terms of waiting, yes maybe 12months for lower component costs and issues to shake out...maybe a year after the Green/labour win which maynot be this election.
We have lots of examples in say Germany where these details have already come up. The biggest is we dont expect to see subsidies, its a fair tarffic price and low finance...to make it work.
So right now I see a lot of right wing idealogical ranting, that really doesnt seem overly justified...let the dust settle a bit.
regards
The grid still needs to be maintained, especially in windy places like we live in. Remember power lines get blowin over, trees fall on them etc.
Peak demand is in winter evenings. It is also when water/energy storage is at its lowest. Which is what this PV grid-tied proposal is reliant on.
Otherwise I agree with you.
Regards
peak load is a tea-time because most folk come home from 'work'.
If we're to go sustainably on this planet of ours, we need to be doing a shitload less of that. So we can reasonably assume a more random eating schedule.
This is why you've got to stand back, think systems and big. Minutiae doesn't retain perspective. Speaking of which, nobody has mentioned taking some of the peak load off by solar cooking. It's free (and works well).
Indeed, Brendon.
Perhaps these geniuses could come up with a 'Grid Infrastructure Development Contribution'.
That'd be Fair, Easy to Calculate, Transparent and Other Important buzzwords-du-jour.
It would work just like TLA DC's.
Swimmingly.
Incidentally, I'm just lovin' the slow accumulation of Fings Wot We Gotter Do in future, aren't you?
- Regulate FIT's
- Stagger tea-times (Tealess days? Sorry, M'am - your surname starts with F, it's a Tuesday, and the Moon is in the third quarter. Tea at 9.53 pm, please)
- Cook with the Sun (after a 4-12 pm shift?)
Micro generation will certainly lead to changes in the way we distribute electricity. And will require changes to the physical layout of the grid. And changes to the basic financial structure of the industry, especially the big generators.
But is that a problem. it's just a job we will need to do.
The new wonder fuel - Lignite (for Germans)...
Elsewhere known as Hypocrisy - Germany is the worst possible example to hold up as any form of alternative energy, when they pull stunts like this. Bloomberg is similarly unimpressed...
Bollocks, Waymad. You have more cranial capacity than that. That's denial by straw-clutching.
Germany is between a rock, a hard place, and a cliff. They - rightly - understand that there is no future in nuclear (nobody has solved the disposal issue, least of all the Japanese). They understand that the future is renewables - and they're going there faster than any one except China.
Then, they have the problem that all Govts have - one of having to powerdown, without social chaos. Given that they - like us - have evolved an interdependent system of specialisation with no overview, they have no political/management structure capable of orchestrating the descent, so they are extending and hoping. The best of the worst alternatives was lignite.
Don't blame them - blame our blind specialised structures (read Alvin Toffer, The Third Wave) which produced a whole society believing you can exponentially grow forever within a closed system. Then gave those idiots the vote. Which gave them politicians who make idiotic decisions. Globally, it tells you that we're stuffed. Too stupid to survive,
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.