The great energy debate

I agree with Alex's sentiments. The thread is a fascinating read, with loads of background and detail. Thanks to the major contributors, in particular swk and Bushmiller.

So, the question is, should solar energy fit-outs for households be subsidised or not? Obviously the main power generators wouldn't think so and could be expected to lobby hard against it, but surely that would have to go a reasonable distance towards achieving a "proper" reduction (i.e. >26%:~). After not too long the investment for each household is recouped - perhaps the govt could recoup the subsidy from electricity fed back into the system for a period.

Just a thought, and no doubt there are downsides to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So, the question is, should solar energy fit-outs for households be subsidised or not? Obviously the main power generators wouldn't think so and could be expected to lobby hard against it,

---

Brett

The burning and most emotive question of all. The alternative energy industry and in this case solar had to be given a kick start. Without it the necessary development was just not going to occur. The irony was that the subsidy itself pushed up the price of the installations!

Speaking for myself, I took out a loan to afford the solar panel installation. At the time I calculated it would take a minimum of eight to ten years to break even. So a way of looking at that is that I am subsidising the market for that period of time. Agreed, if the panels and associated equipment last the distance, I will make some money after that time.

Regards
Paul

I was scaning the TV programmes and saw this on SBS about a show on uranium:

"In our energy hungry, warming world, uranium both tempts with unbelievable power and threatens all life on earth. Destroyer and saviour, dream and nightmare: the extraordinary paradox of uranium."

I thought it was appropriate having regard to earlier comments about the "nukes."

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The irony was that the subsidy itself pushed up the price of the installations!

Speaking for myself, I took out a loan to afford the solar panel installation. At the time I calculated it would take a minimum of eight to ten years to break even. So a way of looking at that is that I am subsidising the market for that period of time. Agreed, if the panels and associated equipment last the distance, I will make some money after that time.

Regards
Paul

---

Surely that can be put down to rorting by the installers, just as there was with the doomed insulation fiasco.

It sounds like you went solar a few years ago? If that was the case then the time to recoup investment is still +- a similar time. Panels are apparently significantly cheaper in the last couple of years or so, but the return for putting lecky back into the system is rubbish now (in NSW anyway). I suppose the recent large increases in power cost would mean a shorter return time though.

As bushmiller said, subsidies of any kind distort the market.

Think back to the LPG installation subsidy, almost overnight the cost of LPG installations increased by the same amount as the subsidy, as the subsidy reduced, the cost of installation reduced by the same amount. To add insult to injury the government then decided to recoup these subsidies by increasing the excise on LPG, which of course affected every user of automotive LPG, not only the ones that "benefited" from the subsidy.

First home owner grants are another prime example, I could go on.

Subsidies are used by governments (of any colour) for political gain, but ultimately it totally distorts the market and all consumers and tax payers finish up paying more than the subsidies ever put in the pockets of the recipients (usually the industry - not the consumer it was aimed at).

Economics 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So, the question is, should solar energy fit-outs for households be subsidised or not? Obviously the main power generators wouldn't think so and could be expected to lobby hard against it, but surely that would have to go a reasonable distance towards achieving a "proper" reduction (i.e. >26%:~). After not too long the investment for each household is recouped - perhaps the govt could recoup the subsidy from electricity fed back into the system for a period.

Just a thought, and no doubt there are downsides to it.

---

The problem I have with the question is the number of households who can't install (or can't afford to install) PV panels. If The Herald is to be believed, something like 30% of Sydney households rent and around 50% of all new dwellings in Sydney are units. Installing PV is difficult for both groups and I find it difficult to see why users who can install PV should be subsidised by those who can't. i.e the feed-in tariff shouldn't exceed the retail price for the time of day, though I would support a subsidy funded from general tax revenue.

There are some energy companies who have seen the writing on the wall and are now offering solar panels up for lease to consumers.

Lots of really good information, thanks to all.

About 10 years ago, I installed a small solar power system because of frequent power outages, particularly in the winter. Was not cheap but hindsight has shown me the wisdom of my decision. Cost-effectiveness may be an issue for you but freezing to death is a little higher up on my list of concerns. I need 500W to run the motors in my Harman pellet stove. My system will do that for 8 hours+. Maybe this October, I buy 2 more batteries = they really are the core of the system.

My oil-fired central heating system cost nearly 2X the pellet stove operating cost. Three winters and the capital cost of the stove ($3k) was recovered. In the next two winters, the solar panel and bits were paid for.
I have a plug in alarm in the bedroom which goes off when there's a power failure. In the summer (now), I don't care much except to run the coffee pot and the toaster. Winter night, high wind, blowing snow and -20C, I do care. Fortunately, all my neighbors know about the power system so they have all been invited to hang out at my place while their own homes freeze up. Water expands about 1/11 (approx 9%) when it freezes. Icebergs float. In copper water pipes, the copper will split = serious issues.

I realize that this story is nothing like your own. For my peace of mind, I could not afford NOT to do it.

A very civilised thread to what has been for sometime a divisive topic, perhaps there has been a shift in attitude over recent times. We put on solar a few years back and also expect an eight year payback. Our annual electricity bill is nil and will stay that way until we come off our very generous feed in tariff of 66C/Kw. Technology eventually makes everything redundant, how many still have video recorders? The big money is leaving coal because it is a sunset industry, early renewables will suffer the same fate. The future will be low cost renewables some yet to be invented some currently in development. The only question will be the pace of change and Australia by being slow to embrace technological change will possibly suffer a competitive disadvantage in the long term. Our biggest risk is loosing the technological and manufacturing skills to profit from change, we embrace gadgets but are slower to improve and modernise our industry which is why we have lost major industries in the past from wool processing through to cars.

I would expect to see an ETS to possibly return as a government policy but for my money I'd like to see more investment in next generation research and development and the continual rollout of wind turbines and solar farms of which the former seem to be dotted all over Europe and not be a big deal like they are here. The main worry is ensuring those on low incomes can afford power, generation power isn't the main problem it is distribution costs but as more go solar rooftop the more the cost burden falls on those who either rent or can't place a solar array on their roof tops.

An interesting thought on future technology and how we struggle to think what the future will be like.

The square kilometre array radio telescope being built in Aus and South Africa will be 50 times more sensitive than present and survey the sky 10,000 times faster.

There is no computer on earth remotely capable of dealing with it. But, the advance curve predicts we will have enough computer power by the time it comes online.

This is the type of thinking we need for the future.


[emoji204][emoji85][emoji86][emoji87]

From recent posts here is a little information to put some aspects of power generation pricing into context.

The wholesale price of electricity varies greatly but probably averages around 5c per KW/Hr. This varies from state to state with SA being slightly above and QLD, as the cheapest, being slightly below. I stress that these are average prices only and the pool price is constantly fluctuating. For example, last Thursday in QLD for a single five minute segment the price reached it's maximum of 1380c for a KW/Hr! At other times, as SWK mentioned, particularly at night, I have seen negative prices. We have to pay them!!

We do this for short periods of time because it is cheaper than taking the units offline and then putting them back on again.

Retail cost to the consumer I think is getting towards 30c per Kw/Hr (I am not quite sure of the cost as I havn't seen a bill for a couple of years now.)

Pricing during the subsidised period of solar installation saw prices up to 66c depending which state you live in. In QLD it was 44c. While this was clearly a significant subsidy, as the price of electricity increases the relative advantage of the subsidy deceases, although it looks as though it will still be of benefit right until the end of the scheme (if governments continue to honour the agreement) for those that contributed.

It may be that the advent of solar pv will contribute to holding costs down as the maintenance of the distribution network is huge. Compare the difference in the whole sale cost to the cost that at the consumer end. At least five times as much.

It was mentioned in an earlier thread that industry consumes about two thirds of our power. I don't know the details of those figures, but it is quite likely when you consider than a single pot line in an aluminium smelter draws around 500MW. I think some smelters have three pot lines.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Surely that can be put down to rorting by the installers, just as there was with the doomed insulation fiasco.

It sounds like you went solar a few years ago? If that was the case then the time to recoup investment is still +- a similar time. Panels are apparently significantly cheaper in the last couple of years or so, but the return for putting lecky back into the system is rubbish now (in NSW anyway). I suppose the recent large increases in power cost would mean a shorter return time though.

---

Brett

Rorting? How dare you suggest such a thing? :oo:

Of course it was :- .

I put my solar system in within a few weeks of the subsidy shutting down. 5KW costing $16,900 if I remember right. After the subsidy had ceased I was talking to a colleague at work who was considering an identical system even down to the same inverter. He had realised that if you put your name down for the commitment you could still get the subsidy even though the scheme had technically ended. However without the subsidy, the market was in a spiral fall. He paid only $11,000 for his installation. When I first looked at a solar installation I was quoted about $24,000 for 5KW!

Today, without that subsidy, I think such a system would cost about $7,000 or even less (possibly somebody with recent experience of the market could verify that.)

So rorting, absolutely!

Regards
Paul

Little did I expect when I began this thread that it would develop the way bit has.

The responses have been to the point, informative and extremely civilized. For that we should all be very thankful.

The responses also demonstrate the diversity of the membership of these fora. It never fails to amaze me that people
from such diverse backgrounds are interested in woodwork and so many other topics.

On the subject of subsidies I know there are many who have missed the subsidies offered by various governments and many
who are implacably opposed to subsidies. I know that in Spain there is a legal requirement for people to install PV cells on
new buildings and there is NO subsidy. My view is that the market would soon adopt to a subsidy free environment if any
government had the political will to make solar installation obligatory.

The information supplied here with regard to nuclear is, I find, a total revelation. A pity the information is not so readily known
to the general public!

Keep the information coming fellas!! Every little morsel is grist for the mill.

Arthur

I can see a time when every new dwelling will have to have a solar array on the roof. We already have it with water tanks (admittedly they don't go on the roof :rolleyes: .)

The big advantage with something like PV is that you don't have to go around buying up land and getting permission to stick your power station in the ground. Solar PV represents an instant mini power station utilising existing line infrastructure with out the need for an EIS and the like.

There are some issues with using the existing structures and antagonists continue to trot these out, but to my mind they are fairly easily overcome if the desire is there.

Regards
Paul

One of the issues trotted out with solar PV on roof tops is that if everyone does it you end up with to much load on the grid on sunny days as a result of feedback. I would imagine the new Tesla battery concept puts paid to that problem as it stores excess power for later use. I would think once we come off our contracted feed in tariff the Tesla storage system is something we will consider very seriously. Certainly at end of transmission runs solar PV has proven useful in keeping sufficient load in the network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

One of the issues trotted out with solar PV on roof tops is that if everyone does it you end up with to much load on the grid on sunny days as a result of feedback. I would imagine the new Tesla battery concept puts paid to that problem as it stores excess power for later use. I would think once we come off our contracted feed in tariff the Tesla storage system is something we will consider very seriously. Certainly at end of transmission runs solar PV has proven useful in keeping sufficient load in the network.

---

Battery storage systems present the same problem to the power suppliers that PV systems do......unless you are able to monitor how much everyone is using and how much they are pumping back into the grid...managing the grid becomes an impossible task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

One of the issues trotted out with solar PV on roof tops is that if everyone does it you end up with to much load on the grid on sunny days as a result of feedback.

---

John,
at the local level solar does something like this

The blue line is the load of a local part of the electric system. The brown line is the power generated by PV in that area. The black line shows what has to be supplied to the area from the grid.
If you can imagine the brown line getting higher (more PV systems bought), the black line comes down to nothing. If the whole grid behaves like this, some power stations will have to come off. Which might be OK for some peakers but very difficult for base load. This is one of the reasons that big power stations with slow response may be in trouble sooner than expected (depending on how different parts of the grid develop).


Regards
SWK

given the slow ramp up and ramp down of thermal, I think that thermal coal might stabilise around the overnight plateau, with the "peak units" cutting in big time on cloudy days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

Battery storage systems present the same problem to the power suppliers that PV systems do......unless you are able to monitor how much everyone is using and how much they are pumping back into the grid...managing the grid becomes an impossible task.

---

Managing the grid is difficult, but not impossible.
I was talking to some folks today about a development in Vic. After the bushfires there, one of the distributors wanted a system which they could use to shutdown the power in an overhead line on fire danger days, but still have power to customers at the far end. Some sort of remote generation or storage. After they thought about this for a while they realised that a system like that could also be used to manage peaks throughout the day in suburban areas.

In fact a system like this does more than just shift the peaks, it actually has 7 functions, the easier explained ones are;
In the very short term (less than seconds) it can stabilise frequency and control power quality (ie the timing and shape of the ac waves).
At slightly longer time periods (some seconds) it can act as spinning reserve, that is, for outages caused by loss of a big generator it can quickly pick up load and help the remaining generators which are trying to share that extra load.
At the minutes to hours level it can detect if the power requirements have gone over a defined maximum level and "shave off" short term peaks and for longer time periods it can shift the loading level around (ie flatten out that squiggly blue line in my previous post) and remove the issue with solar PV driving the local load low/to zero in the middle of the day. Think the Tesla battery idea, but not for your house, for your suburb.

Pie in the sky? Here it is, its been running since January

And before you jump to the conclusion that it is simply a diesel generator charging batteries. It isn't. The batteries charge and discharge into the grid, the diesel is a back up only for the rare times when the batteries go completely flat like a total grid power failure. Under normal operation the diesel is meant to run hardly at all.
This one is of course only comparatively small (about 1MW for an hour), but it is a trial in Australia based on equipment already in use overseas. 20MW systems will be available based on the battery technology available now and probably bigger systems with some improved battery chemistries.

Like the duck swimming, calm on the surface but paddling madly underneath, there is a lot happening in the electrical industry caused by renewables. Not just in Australia. Those buzz words again, disruptive technology.

Regards
SWK

One of the problems with the generation of electricity is that the demand is not constant. We have already seen that there are the "base load" generators who tend to run all the time. They are base load because they are the cheapest. They tend to be cheapest because they are large and there is an economy of scale.

The generators that provide the peaking power are often smaller and more specifically able to respond very quickly to a load demand. They are often gas turbines or gas turbines with an HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) tacked on to the exhaust end of the gas turbine.

Bear in mind that there is normally a "rolling reserve," which is power capability that is not being used. For example, if station has a capability of 500MW, but is only generating 300MW it can provide a rolling reserve of 200MW.

In the old NSW system there used to be a rolling reserve of 2000MW at any one time to cover sudden and unexpected losses of generation. Today I don't really know what it is, but I would expect something similar.

If the rolling reserve is insufficient to cover a sudden loss of generation there has to be load shedding.....Blackouts.

I thought you might be interested to see a typical generation pattern and pricing from my last two night shifts. The picture cover three days from the 27th to the 29th. I took two snapshots each evening: One shortly after the start of shift and one during the early or late morning when demand and prices had fallen to their lowest. There was other information behind the maps, which could arguably have been deemed sensitive information so I cut most of that away. It related to forecast prices, but doesn't have much relevance here.

The picture on the left is at 1941hrs and on the right 0247hrs.

Attachment 358143Attachment 358144

and on the second night at 1950hrs and 0604hrs:

Attachment 358145Attachment 358142

Some points of interest are:

South Australia is the most expensive state and that partially shows why it has been quicker to adopt alternative energies ( coupled with a lot of wind :rolleyes: ).

The chevrons indicate where there is a transmission line (interconnector) between neighbouring states. It shows the maximum capability for both import and export and what the line was carrying at that moment.

Note that NSW was being fed energy from both Victoria and Queensland.

Victoria was feeding power into both SA and NSW

Tasmania was feeding Victoria.

The prices are all per MW/Hr. Divide by 1000 and you have the price per KW/Hr.

Although these are very normal prices, they can be extreme and I have seen -$1000 as well as +$13,800 (as I mentioned in an earlier thread). Ordinarily these extremes are for very limited periods: Rarely more than 30 minutes.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

......
I pointed out that if I have to work for an environmentally polluting electrical generator this is probably the best one I could choose, but I am looking forward to the day they build a solar plant so I don't have to apologise to people for placing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Regards
Paul

---

How did that go down?

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveTTC

How did that go down?

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

---

Dave

I'm still there :D..............for the moment :( .

It was a time more for openness and honesty than sycophantic subterfuge :wink: .

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I don't have to apologise to people for placing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Regards
Paul

---

I'm more of a methane man myself, but apologies are still rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I'm more of a methane man myself, but apologies are still rare.

---

Brett

I thought CO2 would be more than enough for him to digest without getting into methane :rolleyes: .

Regards
Paul

A very interesting walk i to your world which our world depends on.

Another post from SA. Cant recall who it was but guess he was talking about ETSA and Torrens island

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

As bushmiller said, subsidies of any kind distort the market.

Think back to the LPG installation subsidy, almost overnight the cost of LPG installations increased by the same amount as the subsidy, as the subsidy reduced, the cost of installation reduced by the same amount. To add insult to injury the government then decided to recoup these subsidies by increasing the excise on LPG, which of course affected every user of automotive LPG, not only the ones that "benefited" from the subsidy.

First home owner grants are another prime example, I could go on.

Subsidies are used by governments (of any colour) for political gain, but ultimately it totally distorts the market and all consumers and tax payers finish up paying more than the subsidies ever put in the pockets of the recipients (usually the industry - not the consumer it was aimed at).

Economics 101.

---

How very true, the first home buyer subsidy is the glaring example of this as is the diesel fuel subsidy for commercial operators. Both distort the market and the industry cops the cream.

It rather begs the question as to whom the subsidies are intended: The provider or the recipient? I think we know who gets the benefit.

Regards
Paul

Subsidies distort markets but are useful if used to give new technology the start it needs to gain critical mass to reduce production costs through technological improvement and larger production runs. Diesel subsidies for farm users aren't a big deal because it is effectively the removal of the road tax for off road use. Diesel rebates for heavy haulage are a different matter, that is distorting the market and discouraging to a certain extent alternatives such as rail (debatable it makes any difference given the logistics of efficiency between the two) Subsidies such as the first home owners grant went into a market that was already under pressure, bit like using petrol to supress a fire, wrong economic lever, they needed to increase supply but instead increased demand pressure, prices lifted as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

Subsidies distort markets but are useful if used to give new technology the start it needs to gain critical mass to reduce production costs through technological improvement and larger production runs. Diesel subsidies for farm users aren't a big deal because it is effectively the removal of the road tax for off road use. Diesel rebates for heavy haulage are a different matter, that is distorting the market and discouraging to a certain extent alternatives such as rail (debatable it makes any difference given the logistics of efficiency between the two)

---

I'm not sure that's correct.
The diesel fuel rebate for rail is about 39 cents per litre, for heavy haulage it's about 13 cents.
Rail gets the Fuel Excise refunded in the same way that farmers, miners and general industry does on the basis that the fuel is for non-road use.
The heavy haulage "rebate" is, I think, a repayment of the difference between the road user charge (the road damage component of the heavy vehicle registration fee), set at about 25 cents per litre and the "road component" of the excise which is about 40 cents per litre. In part the "rebate" is intended to encourage the take up of newer, cleaner diesel engines.
The balance of the excise -- about 10 cents -- is for general revenue purposes. Economists might term it paying for the externalities of fuel use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

I'm not sure that's correct.
The diesel fuel rebate for rail is about 39 cents per litre, for heavy haulage it's about 13 cents.
Rail gets the Fuel Excise refunded in the same way that farmers, miners and general industry does on the basis that the fuel is for non-road use.
The heavy haulage "rebate" is, I think, a repayment of the difference between the road user charge (the road damage component of the heavy vehicle registration fee), set at about 25 cents per litre and the "road component" of the excise which is about 40 cents per litre. In part the "rebate" is intended to encourage the take up of newer, cleaner diesel engines.
The balance of the excise -- about 10 cents -- is for general revenue purposes. Economists might term it paying for the externalities of fuel use.

---

I don't think it is clear cut, rail provides its own roads, but are tracks subsidised?, To what extent are road taxes spent on roads and how much extra tax payer money goes into roads. Fuel subsidies are a very muddy pond. Higher not lower Diesel prices should encourage a shift to ever more efficient diesel engines, yet lower diesel prices encouraged the shift from petrol heavy haulage truck to diesel power plants originally, why do we continue to subsidise heavy haulage fuel. Most of this is rhetorical, there really isn't an answer other than politics plays a big part.

The price of diesel went up when subsidies were introduced, I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

I don't think it is clear cut, rail provides its own roads, but are tracks subsidised?,

---

brief answer is yes, rail tracks are subsidised.

Most interstate track in Australia is owned or controlled by the Australian Rail Track Corporation -- a Federal Government body funded in part by tax payers.

"in 2014–15 over 78 per cent of all [Federal] infrastructure expenditure is to be spent on roads. Rail receives approximately 13 per cent." source: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201415/Infrastructure

13 % of about $5.8B is around $750M.

The track user charge paid by rail operators is, according to the National Transport Commission, competitively neutral with heavy haulage's road user charge which is collected through the fuel excise system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

To what extent are road taxes spent on roads

---

this is as good an into as any
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/under-the-pump-where-your-petrol-taxes-are-really-going/story-fnagkbpv-1226298533026
summary
Drivers see only nine of 40 cents-per-litre spent on roads (more typically, over time the spend on roads has been around 50% of the fuel excise revenue)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

and how much extra tax payer money goes into roads.

---

none

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

why do we continue to subsidise heavy haulage fuel.

---

I argue we don't.
the "rebate" is supposed to return the difference between the full fuel excise and that proportion of the excise "deemed" to represent a road user charge similar to the track user charge paid by rail operators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

Most of this is rhetorical, there really isn't an answer other than politics plays a big part.

---

:whs:

With all the talk of SA and its move away from coal we have this http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busines...23-gj5ktn.html

Imagine a farm dam covered in one of these, the evaporation would be cut down and you get solar power as well.

They may have to find a way to keep the birds off though, water birds are messiest poopers there are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

They may have to find a way to keep the birds off though, water birds are messiest poopers there are.

---

Gas guns...but then you have noise pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

Gas guns...but then you have noise pollution.

---

I think you will find the birds get used to them after a while.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think you will find the birds get used to them after a while.

Regards
Paul

---

The more they get used to them the more they will use them as a roost, they love to roost on anything that floats on water DAMHIKT.:;

If you have ever seen roosting spots where water birds nest and roost you will know what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

With all the talk of SA and its move away from coal we have this http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busines...23-gj5ktn.html

Imagine a farm dam covered in one of these, the evaporation would be cut down and you get solar power as well.

---

I like it

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

Interesting article on going 100% renewable

https://theconversation.com/renewabl...ctricity-29200