Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: Super Chute Rope Bag. Volume 25 litres. Single adjustable shoulder strap. Rope tarp dimensions: 146 X 126cm. 400d nylon. Assorted colours. (Holds up to 80M Rope)  $49.00
30% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 1 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 73
Author
O.T Carbon Tax v's PV ecomonic? but for who
lacto
16/08/2011
9:13:26 AM
My PV array has just turned out 20,000kwh or a saving of 26 tonnes of carbon at $23 per tonne is $598of saving.
The whole system cost me around $36000 nett and has since been largerly depreciated against tax . With premium feed back (66 cent /kwh)and consumption it is returning around $3800 per year for a simple return of around 10.5% or 15+ after the tax situation.
A SIMILAR 4.95 KW ARRAY just installed for todays prices of $14000 will generate around 7500 to 8000kwh p.a or 10 tonne of carbon or $230 .
return on electrcity depends on the tarriff but minimal rate is 23.5 cent kwh or $1762.50 the consumptive rate currently 24.8 and rising around 10% a year or $1860.00or the premium feed back of 66 cent or $4950 p.a . With the carbon tax power will increase in victoria by 3 cent kwh or an extra savings of $225 .
So for new system the minimal return on a 5KW array is 12.5% and could possibly go up to 35.3% return on your money
PV is certainly a good investment but does it make sense from a carbon perspective
maxdacat
16/08/2011
10:55:30 AM
Certainly a good investment given you are being effectively being subsidised by other utility consumers without the luxury of owning the roof over their heads.
kieranl
16/08/2011
12:36:23 PM
On 16/08/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Certainly a good investment given you are being effectively being subsidised
>by other utility consumers without the luxury of owning the roof over their
>heads.
Wow, you've swallowed that line. Heaven forbid that anyone investing in solar should actually get a return for their money.
maxdacat
16/08/2011
1:36:04 PM
Why is it a line? It is pretty clear that a generous feed in tariff in the region of 60c comes at the expense of other consumers when the standard charges (ie cost to produce more or less) are in the 20 cent range. What am I missing?

Eduardo Slabofvic
16/08/2011
1:56:29 PM
Alternatively, it could be viewed as a finacial reward provided to the early adopters of the technology so as to assist in creating a demand for the product thus assisting in establishing new businesses
maxdacat
16/08/2011
2:18:51 PM
On 16/08/2011 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>assisting in establishing new businesses

in China.

Eduardo Slabofvic
16/08/2011
2:49:50 PM
The guys who installed them on my house weren't Chinese
maxdacat
16/08/2011
3:13:06 PM
True, but if we in Australia are just doing the installation rather than the manufacture and R&D then it's hardly the hi-tech economic transformation the Labor/Green spin machine would have you believe.

Coincidentally, I spoke to somebody who worked for an aussie solar panel manufacturer at a barbie a few months ago but I understand this company has since closed.

Did you manage to find out where yours were sourced from?

Eduardo Slabofvic
16/08/2011
3:28:15 PM
It will be written down at home, so i can find out. I would not be opposed to buying an Australian manufactured one, and, yes, there is no end of spin, but I haven't had a power bill in two years. In fact I'm owed money. That said, I have wanted to have solar panels on my roof since I first read out them as a child, I just needed to wait until the price came down and my income went up so as I could aford them. The financial incentives just meant I could afford it sooner rather than later.
maxdacat
16/08/2011
3:36:23 PM
I wouldn't criticise you one way or the other just curious. Also if I was in the same position I would certainly try and take advantage of such a scheme. From an economic point of view I think they cannot be justified and they are also polictically difficult to alter once in place, witness what happened in NSW with the new Lib government recently.
climberman
16/08/2011
3:53:49 PM
I think the NSW government's issues would have a bit easier to manage if they didn't decide to make it retrospective - always a bad look.

rodw
16/08/2011
3:57:58 PM
Mine were manufactured..or at least assembled in a factory in Western Sydney.
bones
16/08/2011
4:13:10 PM
There's a company in Richmond that produces solar panels
Wendy
16/08/2011
4:22:46 PM
On 16/08/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Why is it a line? It is pretty clear that a generous feed in tariff in
>the region of 60c comes at the expense of other consumers when the standard
>charges (ie cost to produce more or less) are in the 20 cent range. What
>am I missing?

I don't think paying the feed in tarrif is the major contribution to increasing electricity prices.

rodw
16/08/2011
4:29:05 PM
Agreed ....... its just there using it as an excuse me thinks.
maxdacat
16/08/2011
4:49:16 PM
On 16/08/2011 Wendy wrote:
>On 16/08/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>>Why is it a line? It is pretty clear that a generous feed in tariff
>in
>>the region of 60c comes at the expense of other consumers when the standard
>>charges (ie cost to produce more or less) are in the 20 cent range.
>What
>>am I missing?
>
>I don't think paying the feed in tarrif is the major contribution to increasing
>electricity prices.

On what basis are you saying that? Take NSW for example:

"The O'Farrell Government has announced plans to slash the rates paid to households who generate solar electricity from their systems for the electricity grid from 60c per kilowatt hour to 40c until the scheme ends in 2016 in order to save $470 million. "

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/families-burned-by-solar/story-e6freuy9-1226060298657

so extrapolating for a moment, if a third of the subsidy is costing $470m then it must be about $1.5b in total. Not exactly chump change.

Of course a portion of this is borne by the taxpayer and and some by the utility companies, although the article doesn't mention the split. Why would the cost borne by the energy companies not increase prices?

PS - i don't read the daily telegraph it was just one of the results coming up when i ggogled "NSW solar subsidy".
uwhp510
16/08/2011
6:43:05 PM
An often overlooked factor in the economics of small scale domestic solar power generation is the savings in the construction and maintenance of grid infrastructure provided by the decentralisation of power sources and of course the co-location generation and consumption points. I'm not making any claims about the size of the saving relative to the costs of the feed in tariff, but I'm sure they're not insignificant, particularly given that NSW has been under-investing in power generation and grid infrastructure for years, which everyone is just now having to paying for.

PS Maybe if the liberals didn't hate scientists and economists so much, we might have seen some more long term thinking in terms of investment in renewable energy industries 10 years ago, and we could have been developing producing and exporting our own solar panels? Better late than never hey?

rodw
16/08/2011
7:18:55 PM
That cost of feed in tarriffs is not fully borne by the Utility companies...as stated last post they have no up keep costs of the generators themselves...they get govt funding to help pay for it and they also charge more for green power when giving it back to the end user.....add to that its going to become much more cost effective when you bring a carbon tax online and the money it saves them as well (which the end user wont see)...I think your using the "raw" money data your coming up with is very simplistic at best.

Also once the feed in tarriff contracts expire, they get the beneift of them producing green energy for the expected life of the Solar panels roughly extra 18 years (ie they will be buying at a lower rate than they sell it back)....I guessing they wont sudenly drop the cost of electricity after all the contracts have matured?

When a massive utility starts crying poor...but also posting large profits...sorry if Im a bit sceptical as to their motives.
lacto
16/08/2011
10:12:54 PM
My first systems arrays were made in australia in the now closed bp plant .My latest was made in china by the company set up by the australian trained ,denied financing to produce here so moved to china . The change in value of the aussie dollar and volume manufacture effctively has cut the cost to around 30 % of that 2and a half years ago . THE VICTORIAN PV feed back is capped at 100Mw capacity which is nearly reached so the need to build say a new gas turbine at a cost of around $200 M has been avoided and this would only be required on a few days of the year for a few hours , this is why power costs are going through the roof as the builders of these plants need a return on their investment , On many ocassions over the last few years I have fed power (around 4kw) back in at 60 cent when the going rate was well above this and up to a capped amount of $10.00 a kwh. A far bigger increase in electricity for us will be the result of the royal commision into the bushfires report which recommends placing SWR lines underground and other 22Kv line .Ted has guarenteed to implement this in full and has approved the first installment which will increase powercor costs from around $140 to $340 per connection . and spausnet will be a $300 a year increase , this will be over 3 years. 3 out of my 4 supplies are from SWR lines which to me dont appear to impose a fire risk in our area . Grid connected pv is economic at present with current feed back at what you actually pay for power ,but if no large demands say 5KW + demands then stand alone with battery storage is starting to look like it will be viable especially if you have to pay for the poles and transformer to connect . A neighbor paid $44000 just to get power to his boundary !! . To me probably the greatest thing is that people who install PV tend to become much more energy concious and certain energy time use concious which is good for reducing total demand on the grid . Why use power at 2 pm at 23.8 cents when you can get 60 if fed back and use that power at night for 9 cents
Wendy
17/08/2011
7:54:14 AM
On 16/08/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>On 16/08/2011 Wendy wrote:
>>On 16/08/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>>>Why is it a line? It is pretty clear that a generous feed in tariff
>>in
>>>the region of 60c comes at the expense of other consumers when the standard
>>>charges (ie cost to produce more or less) are in the 20 cent range.
>
>>What
>>>am I missing?
>>
>>I don't think paying the feed in tarrif is the major contribution to
>increasing
>>electricity prices.
>
>On what basis are you saying that? Take NSW for example:
>
>"The O'Farrell Government has announced plans to slash the rates paid
>to households who generate solar electricity from their systems for the
>electricity grid from 60c per kilowatt hour to 40c until the scheme ends
>in 2016 in order to save $470 million. "
>
>http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/families-burned-by-solar/story-e6freuy9-12260602986
>7
>
>so extrapolating for a moment, if a third of the subsidy is costing $470m
>then it must be about $1.5b in total. Not exactly chump change.
>
>Of course a portion of this is borne by the taxpayer and and some by the
>utility companies, although the article doesn't mention the split. Why
>would the cost borne by the energy companies not increase prices?
>
>PS - i don't read the daily telegraph it was just one of the results coming
>up when i ggogled "NSW solar subsidy".

Ah, the daily telegraph ... quality peer reviewed reading. Don't worry, i'm about to quote the Alternative Technology association, which i don't think was peer reviewed either.

"At an equivalent cost of less than two cups of coffee per household per year, the scheme is extremely cheap and is not hurting Victorian electricity consumers."

With 2.1 million households in Vic, that's still a bit over $10 million, but a wee bit less than your figure.

But the Garnaut report and Au energy regulator place electricity price rices firmly on increases in distribution and network costs:

"Network costs have risen dramatically since 2006. The high capital cost of investment required in
electricity networks is the single largest cause of recent electricity price rises.

Total electricity network investment
is forecast at over
$7 billion and $32 billion for distribution networks (AER 2010a). This represents a rise in investment
from the high levels of the previous period, of 84 per cent and 54 per cent (in real terms) in transmission
and distribution networks respectively (AER 2010a).
Source: AER (2010a). State of the Energy Market 2010. "

It then cites the next largest contributer to cost increases being cost of production, such as the rising cost of coal and gas.

Somewhere down the line it talks about the cost of the mandated reneable energy target.

Then there's a little bit about feed in tarriffs. 0.5% increase on SA bills. NSW would have been more if they hadn't canned it because of higher uptake and rates.

He does (and I'm certainly not going to argue against it) say feed in tarriffs are a silly way of trying to reduce carbon, that it does benefit those better off people who can afford systems and that a carbon price would be more effective. But just because it's a strange bloody tactic on behalf of the govt doesn't mean that it's the major driver of increases in electricity prices.

 Page 1 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 73
There are 73 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints