august 5 electricity increase

[xtremerus]

What needs to be considered, is that solar panels do not last "forever".
Efficiency drops off over the years, and they will need to be replaced.

Going by most other products with a "20 yr guarantee", they probably won't last that long.
They may be viable at the moment with rebates etc., but in 20yrs, it may all be different.

Solar is one of the most expensive way of producing electricity, of all the alternative 'green' energy sources.
To stand alone on its merits, without subsidy etc, it is not the energy source of the future. Only a part of it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mondo_broady

i'm not debating the cost of "going green". the blow out in the solar panel scheme was the take up was bigger than expected. it is a good idea, just a costly one but a damn sight cheaper than building and maintaining a new power station!!

No its not cheaper, putting individual solar voltaics on tops of houses is the most expensive way to produce electricity currently in production anywhere!

Its costing us all money, those forking out the mulah to put them on their roofs and us paying the cost of part of those installations through either higher elec prices or taxes.

It really is poor long term thinking by our governments.

Even a power station running large scale solar voltaics would be have been far cheaper to setup (with aiming tracking mechanisms to follow the sun etc) , than the mindlessly expensive process of installing on difficult roof spaces and the cost of wiring all these individually.

Certainly a solar thermal plant would be even cheaper, that's the way they should have gone, making sure it got up and running, rather than the half hearted support it gave to the projects that have now gone overseas and certainly better than the expensive bandaid approach we have now.

[xtremerus]

Agree with you there, Sudszy. [ I can,t believe I said that]

[mondo_broady]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No its not cheaper, putting individual solar voltaics on tops of houses is the most expensive way to produce electricity currently in production anywhere!

Even a power station running large scale solar voltaics would be have been far cheaper to setup (with aiming tracking mechanisms to follow the sun etc) , than the mindlessly expensive process of installing on difficult roof spaces and the cost of wiring all these individually.

Certainly a solar thermal plant would be even cheaper, that's the way they should have gone,

tbh when i said that, i wasn't thinking of one of those, rather another coal fired power station on the scale of something like bayswater...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No its not cheaper, putting individual solar voltaics on tops of houses is the most expensive way to produce electricity currently in production anywhere!

Its costing us all money, those forking out the mulah to put them on their roofs and us paying the cost of part of those installations through either higher elec prices or taxes.

It really is poor long term thinking by our governments.

Even a power station running large scale solar voltaics would be have been far cheaper to setup (with aiming tracking mechanisms to follow the sun etc) , than the mindlessly expensive process of installing on difficult roof spaces and the cost of wiring all these individually.

OH MY GOD.

That's bloody it, I'm giving up the drink for good this time. Sudzy says something that actually makes sense AND I agree with it...... I know something must be up.

Clean and sober living here I come...

[z80]

Originally Posted by Scott

...cut...cut...
We use quite a bit more power than you, and we use a lot through the day as my wife is at home raising our daughter and I work from home - the meter never stops spinning here. Add the complication of a tenant on our meter too and our consumption sits around 50kw/day and a bill of +$1000 per quarter.

I don't have the $35-$45k to go and buy a system that would offset all our power, but if I did I'd still be looking at a lengthy payback of 10 years based on todays rates. If I finance the purchase into a package that fits my family budget, the system would be lucky to keep pace with the interest it would generate, so again I would realise little change to my OPE's.

I've read your post and I could give you some seriously good advice based on the bold text.

You run your own business from home?

Buy,panels wholesale,claim GST back instantly, pay with pretax dollars (at least 30% cheaper), then depreciate the rest over 5 years.
Sell the RECs cause as a business you don't get the same level of rebate.
Also, your tenant should be mitigating your claimed $1000/quarter.

As long as you earn 45-50k ayear you will have enough tax income to offset the depreciation.

It ain't rocket science.


BTW my excess power will get used up in summer.
I have a desallination unit that provides 45000 litres of microbiologically pure water into our tanks each week...it is completely solar powered.

48kw a day it uses....so my bill goes into much less credit.

But...we don't pay for water...cheaper to save money on water than pump power on the grid...water has gone up 150% in the last 3 years here.

[z80]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No its not cheaper, putting individual solar voltaics on tops of houses is the most expensive way to produce electricity currently in production anywhere!

Its costing us all money, those forking out the mulah to put them on their roofs and us paying the cost of part of those installations through either higher elec prices or taxes.

It really is poor long term thinking by our governments.

Even a power station running large scale solar voltaics would be have been far cheaper to setup (with aiming tracking mechanisms to follow the sun etc) , than the mindlessly expensive process of installing on difficult roof spaces and the cost of wiring all these individually.

Certainly a solar thermal plant would be even cheaper, that's the way they should have gone, making sure it got up and running, rather than the half hearted support it gave to the projects that have now gone overseas and certainly better than the expensive bandaid approach we have now.

Absolute rubbish....so much misinformation and rhetoric in one post?

You sir, clearly have NFI about the extent of transmission losses from a power station hundreds of kilometres from the target consumer.

When I grid feed it goes straight into my neighbours house....almost 100% transmission efficiency.

[z80]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

What needs to be considered, is that solar panels do not last "forever".
Efficiency drops off over the years, and they will need to be replaced.

Going by most other products with a "20 yr guarantee", they probably won't last that long.
They may be viable at the moment with rebates etc., but in 20yrs, it may all be different.

Solar is one of the most expensive way of producing electricity, of all the alternative 'green' energy sources.
To stand alone on its merits, without subsidy etc, it is not the energy source of the future. Only a part of it.

Yeah...they become minimum 85% efficient after 25 years....so what?

That means I might have to add another 7-8 panels onto my string of 60 panels in the year 2037?

Maybe you might want to comment on how many drive shafts and transmissions all those wind turbines will go through in the same period?...

[Scott]

Originally Posted by z80

BTW my excess power will get used up in summer.
I have a desallination unit that provides 45000 litres of microbiologically pure water into our tanks each week...it is completely solar powered.

48kw a day it uses....so my bill goes into much less credit.

Thanks.

That's a hell of a lot of water - do you actually pull that much? Do you run a large scale hydroponic setup? Is that why you need to reduce your power bill? [/jk].

48kw a day is a fair addition to 24kw, do you leave your "winter" credits with the provider to offset your summer usage?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by z80

Absolute rubbish....so much misinformation and rhetoric in one post?

You sir, clearly have NFI about the extent of transmission losses from a power station hundreds of kilometres from the target consumer.

When I grid feed it goes straight into my neighbours house....almost 100% transmission efficiency.

Sorry disagree, atm energy loss in our system is split between the distribution grid and the lines to the power station, about 15%. The invertors used in domestic voltaic installations dont do any better than that for starters and you are forgetting that they dont have tracking mechanisms to follow the sun to maximise the output, further reducing output.

You have also forgotten about the actual amount of labor it costs to install a home installation on a roof as opposed to mounting the same panels in the middle of a paddock + all of the wiring/metering etc.

Locations for solar stations would obviously be chosen on where the sun shines the most, ie riverina etc 350+ days sunlight a year and can make much more energy from the same amount of panels on a roof than in dreary melbourne. Of course on a large scale solar thermal is heaps more cost effective than photovoltaics and should be the option entertained.

Im not here to dismiss your decision to invest in the panels, the way it is setup at the moment, it makes good sense to do what you have done, its just not the right or fair solution to increases our renewable energy use.

[BHDOGS]

Everybody knows the best system currently in place for baseload power and emissions is nuclear we got the stuff time to stop being pussys and just build them already green energy and coal can both get stuffed

[mondo_broady]

i'm comfortable with nuclear.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by mondo_broady

i'm comfortable with nuclear.

Me too. Just not near me or anything I will ever eat, drink or fornicate with.

[z80]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry disagree, atm energy loss in our system is split between the distribution grid and the lines to the power station, about 15%. The invertors used in domestic voltaic installations dont do any better than that for starters and you are forgetting that they dont have tracking mechanisms to follow the sun to maximise the output, further reducing output. .

My SMA500 transformerless FET output stage inverter is 94% efficient in conversion.

The distance over my private power lines to the grid is 400 metres.

Neighbours are 450 metres, 650 metres etc....they suck it as quick as I can deliver it.

Transmission losses are almost zero....that is a fact.

That scenario is typical of a solar setup...the neighbouring property gets the power first.

How can the Hazelwood power station, almost 270 kilometres away possible deliver it with less losses......?

Originally Posted by sudszy

You have also forgotten about the actual amount of labor it costs to install a home installation on a roof as opposed to mounting the same panels in the middle of a paddock + all of the wiring/metering etc..

Mine are in a paddock, a really big paddock.

Plenty of room for expansion.

Installation labour cost was zero...did it all myself, sparky certificate of safety cost $120...hardly a deal breaker?

Anyone on an auto forum who has any trade experience can wire up a solar panel.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Locations for solar stations would obviously be chosen on where the sun shines the most, ie riverina etc 350+ days sunlight a year and can make much more energy from the same amount of panels on a roof than in dreary melbourne. Of course on a large scale solar thermal is heaps more cost effective than photovoltaics and should be the option entertained..

No mate, disagree....

Sorry, there are limits on transmission lines...about 300k's from memory...then the losses are so huge it's uneconomical...the further it has to go the more they have to jack up the voltage...after about 500,000 volts it makes your hair stand up and the spark will jump nearly a metre through the air. the cost of the insulators,the towers etc all rise dramatically.

The reason we build nuclear power stations and desal plants right next to large cities is to mitigate those transmission losses.

It's the biggest hurdle to geothermal plants...they are too far away, mostly in remote SA and WA.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im not here to dismiss your decision to invest in the panels, the way it is setup at the moment, it makes good sense to do what you have done, its just not the right or fair solution to increases our renewable energy use.

NP..no offence taken, but "fair solution"?

fair to who?

[z80]

Originally Posted by Scott

Thanks.

That's a hell of a lot of water - do you actually pull that much? Do you run a large scale hydroponic setup? Is that why you need to reduce your power bill? [/jk].

48kw a day is a fair addition to 24kw, do you leave your "winter" credits with the provider to offset your summer usage?

Nah...no hydroponics...that isn't much water at all if you look at a bill.

We use about 400kl average every 3 months.

Big garden (I do mean BIG garden..>3 acres), 35 cows who drink a lot of water.

In our region (Torquay) we had stage 4 restrictions for a few years..and since I do a lot of work with the guys who built the desal plants in Brisbane and Sydney I got a few tips on what to get organised domestically.

The water I start with is so salty that sheep will not drink it.

When filtered it is better than the water from the street.

It filters at 400 psi through fibreglass mebranes of 0.6 microns.

Viruses are 1 micron so they don't get through...so no chemical additives in the water.


But yeah that's the primary reason i got such a big solar setup, to run the desal. But it's a win/win cause we use bugger all water for half the year and the power bill still gets nulled.


But i am going off topic...sorry.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Everybody knows the best system currently in place for baseload power and emissions is nuclear we got the stuff time to stop being pussys and just build them already green energy and coal can both get stuffed

arn't they around $30+ billion to build?

could have 15 gas/coal fired for that sort of coin, same base load output plenty of coal and gas.
just need to clean it up a bit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by z80

How can the Hazelwood power station, almost 270 kilometres away possible deliver it with less losses......?Sorry, there are limits on transmission lines...about 300k's from memory

Sorry, not arguing about whether Hazelwood is a good way to be producing electricity, but now you menition it, why dont you actually look up the losses per km for AC power supplies at high voltage and quote some numbers rather than relying on something someone told you etc, they aren't as much as you think.

Originally Posted by z80

Mine are in a paddock, a really big paddock.

Plenty of room for expansion.

Well, that's nice of you to tell everyone now, not quite the same thing as having them installed on a sloping roof somewhere in suburbia where there are always compromises with trees and other buildings with the amount of sun hitting the roof.
Though even though you have them in a paddock, you dont have any tracking + tilting mechanism to follow the sun. I dont know where you are located, but even if you can boast the same number of days of sunlight as the riverina regions this is not going to be the case for the rest of the population who see more rainfall and clouds who live closer to the coast.

Originally Posted by z80

Installation labour cost was zero...did it all myself, sparky certificate of safety cost $120...hardly a deal breaker?

Anyone on an auto forum who has any trade experience can wire up a solar panel.

Oh, another thing you didnt tell anyone.

You were able to bypass most of the installation cost, at a guess that's easily about a $1000 worth on most installations and not something the average house owner can do themselves if they have to roof mount, internally wire etc.

The metering hardware, who wires all of that up, no it is not legal for anyone other than qualified sparkies to muck around putting these into meter boxes etc.

Originally Posted by z80

The reason we build nuclear power stations and desal plants right next to large cities is to mitigate those transmission losses.

It's the biggest hurdle to geothermal plants...they are too far away, mostly in remote SA and WA.

Desal plants need to be close to large cities? where is that one in vic?

Biggest hurdle to renewables isnt the loss in transmission, its actually getting the technology and investment setup to run them properly. Whether there are 4% losses down the lines or 8% losses because the station is much further away isnt the issue if the production cost at the other end is next to nothing.

Just the same as if solar volataic panels suddenly only cost $20 per sqm each, it doesnt matter that they are at best 20% efficient if we can make all the elec we need for next to nicks.

Originally Posted by z80

NP..no offence taken, but "fair solution"?

fair to who?

we have a system at the moment where for power companies to continue to operate they have to meet renewable targets. Rather than invest in any infrastructure(government's doing) they get you to do it and pay you for a very very expensive service.....rather than setup long term renewable supplies that are going to be more cost effective for us all.

where does that money come from, everyone else , that's why its not fair.

[z80]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Well, that's nice of you to tell everyone now, ...blah..blah...blah.
.

Sounds like the menopausal woman down the street, ....

You've made so many ill informed replies in the above post and i have a life.

Pick just one and i'll answer it.

How about this one?

[z80]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Desal plants need to be close to large cities? where is that one in vic?

.

It's in Wonthaggi, strategically connecting to the Eastern treatment plant infrastructure and the coast, thereby mitigating cost to trunk tunnelling costs.
Also potentially opening up the option of processing waste water.

[V8XTasy]

Don't have to worry about carbon tax as "only the biggest polluters are going to pay, not individuals" (according to the tax payer funded government ads which are rammed down my throat every 5mins on the radio, TV, newspaper and letters through my door.
Fortunately only my gas, electric and kids swimming lessons have gone up in the few days since announcing the carbon tax, so I can see it's really hurting the bog polluters already and has no effect on me.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Scott

Me too. Just not near me or anything I will ever eat, drink or fornicate with.

Would this make you 'Radioactive Man'?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by irish2

Would this make you 'Radioactive Man'?

Just a little bit

[mondo_broady]

Originally Posted by V8XTasy

Don't have to worry about carbon tax as "only the biggest polluters are going to pay, not individuals" (according to the tax payer funded government ads which are rammed down my throat every 5mins on the radio, TV, newspaper and letters through my door.

gov. of all persuasions do this. the libs were experts at it during the howard era... i bet labor would love the armchair ride the libs receive from the Murdoch media when pushing their agenda...

Fortunately only my gas, electric and kids swimming lessons have gone up in the few days since announcing the carbon tax, so I can see it's really hurting the bog polluters already and has no effect on me.

WTF?? it doesn't even exist yet and you're blaming price rises on it...

i wonder if you and others squealed this much when the GST came in?? it was a far bigger tax upheaval than this carbon tax will be. we're still paying taxes howard promised to abolish 10 years ago when they introduced it!!!

Carbon trading is coming like it or not. we are not the only country doing this. Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK have all enacted taxes based on carbon. NZ has an emissions trading scheme. Costa Rica has a carbon tax. Provincial gov. in Canada have introduced carbon taxes. Some states in the US have introduced carbon taxes. India has a carbon tax, China is looking to introduce a tax next year. South Korea & Taiwan also are planning for introduction of a Carbon Tax.

I'm not convinced, but i'm trying to keep an open mind and ignore the rhetoric intended to whip up hysteria...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by z80

The reason we build nuclear power stations and desal plants right next to large cities is to mitigate those transmission losses.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Desal plants need to be close to large cities? where is that one in vic?
.

Originally Posted by z80

Sounds like the menopausal woman down the street, ....

You've made so many ill informed replies in the above post and i have a life.

Pick just one and i'll answer it.

How about this one?

Originally Posted by z80

It's in Wonthaggi, strategically connecting to the Eastern treatment plant infrastructure and the coast, thereby mitigating cost to trunk tunnelling costs.
Also potentially opening up the option of processing waste water.

I dont think we spent x Billion on a desal plant for the benefit of 6000 people in Wonthaggi.

I gather from this that you have no sensible response to the other points you feel I have "NFI" on.

[V8XTasy]

Originally Posted by mondo_broady

gov. of all persuasions do this. the libs were experts at it during the howard era... i bet labor would love the armchair ride the libs receive from the Murdoch media when pushing their agenda...



WTF?? it doesn't even exist yet and you're blaming price rises on it...

i wonder if you and others squealed this much when the GST came in?? it was a far bigger tax upheaval than this carbon tax will be. we're still paying taxes howard promised to abolish 10 years ago when they introduced it!!!

Carbon trading is coming like it or not. we are not the only country doing this. Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK have all enacted taxes based on carbon. NZ has an emissions trading scheme. Costa Rica has a carbon tax. Provincial gov. in Canada have introduced carbon taxes. Some states in the US have introduced carbon taxes. India has a carbon tax, China is looking to introduce a tax next year. South Korea & Taiwan also are planning for introduction of a Carbon Tax.

I'm not convinced, but i'm trying to keep an open mind and ignore the rhetoric intended to whip up hysteria...

I'm not blaming, the suppliers of the services who have increase their prices are blaming. I had the letter from the gas and electric company citing their prices increase being due to the impending introduction of the carbon tax and so did the local swimming pool, in the expectation their costs will increase. So my point still stands, that it does have a very real impact on the individual. Whether that whips up hysteria, I'm not sure. But I think that if the majority agreed with it, we wouldn't need $Xmillion spent on ads and letters through the door to convince us. It's suspicious to me that governments create hysteria over global warming/cooling and surprise, surprise, the only cure is to raise taxes.
If global warming/cooling is a real threat and our CO2 emissions are the cause, there are many, many, many other ways to tackle it without taxing individuals. However, just like speed cameras being used to reduce the toll on the roads, when speeding actually causes a small % of the toll compared to other causes (I know any reduction is good), the governments of the world chose to take the easiest option, that looks like they're trying to make a difference and brings in a lot of revenue on the side. Then other countries chose to follow so they're not left out. Using the reason that other countries have xyz so we should have it, does not necessarily cure the problem, but it looks great to follow them.
I suspect when GST was introduced, it was clear that this was raising tax for the government and was going to affect every individual on most things they bought. This is different to the smoke screen that is carbon tax, where it's only the biggest polluters who are going to pay, and heaven forbid, should they pass on the cost, the government is generously going to give tax back to us to cover the costs. And this is all on the premise that it's going to make a difference, which indecently can not be measured or checked. A vast majority of the CO2 emissions reduction by 2050 is by emissions trading. Is that really reducing our emissions?
I don't think it's obvious that GST had a far bigger effect than carbon tax. With GST it was clear most goods would cost 10% more and that has not changed over 11 years. With carbon tax, we have no idea how much cost is going to be passed on to use and how much it will increase each year.
Saying that it's coming like it or not, does not mean it shouldn't be discussed with people having different opinions on it and it's effects on them without being cursed at for having a different opinion to you. You should learn that people may have different opinions to you without cursing them or responding aggressively . Being aggressive with someone is NOT going to make them agree with you, far the opposite I'm afraid

[mondo_broady]

wow, so much ignorance in one post, it's giving me a headache. actually, scratch that, in the whole thread. *note to self* i must stop reading these type of threads...

sorry for hurting your feelings...

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by z80

Absolute rubbish....so much misinformation and rhetoric in one post?

You sir, clearly have NFI about the extent of transmission losses from a power station hundreds of kilometres from the target consumer.

When I grid feed it goes straight into my neighbours house....almost 100% transmission efficiency.

And you have NFI either - network impedance will affect your supply and possibly drop you by up to 30% - this will depend on the type of network asset employed in your local system. Add to this your phase profile matched against the network profile may also lead to a greater impedance value.

[z80]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

And you have NFI either - network impedance will affect your supply and possibly drop you by up to 30% - this will depend on the type of network asset employed in your local system. Add to this your phase profile matched against the network profile may also lead to a greater impedance value.

Yeah...might this maybe that....blah blah negative posts,blah blah

Prove it?

[irish2]

This thread has gone a little off topic.

Carbon tax or no carbon tax there is still nothing other than coal, gas, or nuclear that can supply baseload power requirements. They have almost 60c of tax on every litre of petrol but it hasn't stopped people using it, because the alternatives are unviable. It will be the same with power.

[ebxr8240]

Quote Sorry, there are limits on transmission lines...about 300k's from memory...then the losses are so huge it's uneconomical...the further it has to go the more they have to jack up the voltage...after about 500,000 volts it makes your hair stand up and the spark will jump nearly a metre through the air. the cost of the insulators,the towers etc all rise dramatically.

Hmm The high voltage will carry alot of load with small cables..
Volts & amps are always proportional...