JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

Canberra man uses subsidies, “invests” $20,000, still pays $700pa in electricity. Hopes to break even in 14 years.

A fairly crappy investment in every sense — even as a “subsidy farmer”:

…renewable energy proponents say individual consumers like Mr Pulford could play an increasingly important role as citizen investors.

“I say it is a little bit gold plated,” Mr Pulford says of his $20,000 investment.

‘The new system was installed last month and he is already generating enough power to run all his home energy needs, charge his son’s hybrid SUV and sell excess back to the grid. “It ranges between $2 to about $1.90 a day for energy and that can be with the clothes dryers and bar heaters on.”

Mr Pulford said he expects to pay off the investment within 14 years.

He’s excited that his electricity bill is only $700 a year, after laying out twenty grand. After 14 years his “investment” will start to pay off, assuming the batteries are still running, the solar panels are clean, and the inverter didn’t need replacing. Those battery warranties, at best, are ten years. He might get lucky. Without subsidies, his “pay-back time” would be something like 30% longer.

In the ACT, 250 homes with Reposit technology are generating up to 1.2 megawatts, which is dwarfed by territory-wide consumption.

Reposit power gets a free advertisement from the ABC, but the ABC don’t mention that when it is forecast to be cloudy, the software Reposit uses is designed to charge the battery direct from the grid (and that will be mostly coal-fired). That way “solar users” get electricity at off peak prices and they can sell back the electricity at higher peak rates. This will help the grid deal with the intermittency of solar and wind, a problem the grid didn’t need to have.

The ACT has pledged to be 100% renewable by 2025. I say “bring it on” but they’ll only be 100% renewable when they cut the interconnectors.

Glorious solar subsidies

The ACT Government has released a third round of funding to accelerate solar battery storage and the $4 million includes subsidies for batteries with Reposit control boxes.

Mr Pulford agreed.

“We can’t continue to use fossil fuels for our energy because the future generation will pay the price,” he said.

It’s not the future generation who will pay, it’s people poorer than Mr Pulford who are already paying for the subsidy. He rationalizes his burden on the system with the superstitious belief that having solar panels on the roof will somehow make life nicer for future generations.

I’m sure he is a nice guy, but when it comes to accepting money from taxpayers, half the population is happy not-to-look-too-hard.

Isn’t it time we taught kids where taxpayer money comes from?

Solar subsidies for a 6kW system are round $3,500:

The lowest value STCs have held is $16, while their cap price is $40. Using the median price of $28 as a guide, the “rebate” you would receive for the 6.48 kW system described earlier is approximately 125 x 28 = $3500, which represents 30 to 40% of the price of a good quality system. Real-time STC market prices can be found online.

The subsidies were $1,000 bigger before July 20th 2017.

Choice Magazine looked at solar  “payback times” and estimated it took 14 – 24 years.

h/t Dave B.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (77 votes cast)
Canberra man uses subsidies, "invests" $20,000, still pays $700pa in electricity. Hopes to break even in 14 years., 9.6 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ycc5bqqj

154 comments to Canberra man uses subsidies, “invests” $20,000, still pays $700pa in electricity. Hopes to break even in 14 years.

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    I’ve got a 5kw system panels only and yes it was subsidised but still cost over $10k , did not do it to save the planet did it to save the wallet later on .
    My quarterly bill used to be high $700 to $800+ and now it’s $500 – $700 depending on time of year , electricity prices have nearly doubled since the installation but I am now switching provider which will mean cheaper bills .
    I know the less fortunate have subsidised the installation and the FIT but I’m no hypocrite and don’t pretend I’m saving the planet , the planet doesn’t need saving from Co2 .

    164

    • #
      Phoenix44

      I know it’s hard, but doing something you know is making the poor worse off is surely just wrong? And electricity prices have only gone up because of the sort of scheme you are involved in.

      383

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        I know it’s hard, but doing something you know is making the poor worse off is surely just wrong?

        Yep. That’s my view too.

        However, here’s the kicker:

        You’re also making yourself worse off at the same time.

        Take a look at the “Choice” analysis of the Payback Period that Jo included. What’s missing?

        Ever heard of Opportunity Cost?

        $16,500 invested at 5.0% pa = $825 pa.

        Add that to your costs and you never, ever reach break-even.

        Over the projected 20 year life of the system (pigs might fly) it’s another $16,500 that you’ll never get back.

        371

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          14 years is way too long…. 4 yeah, maybe….

          This whole thing gets more and more messed up the deeper we go…

          82

          • #
            Geoff

            If Kim Jong un has enough lithiun deuteride nuclear winter is going to make ALL of the solar panels useless.

            21

          • #
            jorgekafkazar

            When I was designing and estimating operating improvement projects, we didn’t consider anything that didn’t pay for itself earlier than four or five years, including maintenance. If you throw labor & cleaning water costs onto that $700 per year, Canberra Man’s system will pay for itself, as Sam points out, above, well after porcine aerobatics becomes a popular sport.

            141

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Colour me skeptical too. I’ve never yet seen a properly costed solar installation that includes all costs, maintenance, depreciation, etc, and that clearly shows solar is worthwhile over say a 15-year period.
          All I hear is statements of quasi-religious blind faith that it will save them money.
          Pointing out that you can make just as much money by investing the capital is a worthwhile comparison and something I hadn’t considered.

          131

          • #
            Manfred

            …but they’ll only be 100% renewable when they cut the interconnectors.”

            Someone perhaps consider ‘freeing’ them from their dependence right away?
            Let them forge ahead alone to their brave new World.

            111

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        You’d be 100% right with that comment only thing I wasn’t aware of or didn’t think about the subsidy until much much later on , originally I thought it was subsidised by my tax dollars but now know through this website it’s subsidised through higher electricity prices .
        I’m sure if this was explained to most people at the point of purchase most would change their mind .

        221

        • #
          Dennis

          The local grid neighbours effectively subsidise the solar systems in the neighbourhood.

          162

          • #
            toorightmate

            Dennis,
            Pensioners and those with disabilities also forfeit more financial assistance to help the subsidy mentality.

            51

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Robert, I’m sorry you’re in the situation that you find yourself in. Truly.

          May I take your figures that you’ve given us and let others see what it might mean for them?

          Conservatively, on your figures, you’re saving is a maximum of $300 per quarter and a minimum of $200 per quarter. Let’s take the mid-point of $250 per quarter.

          That’s $1,000 pa.

          Your capital outlay was “over $10,000”. Let’s call it a straight 10K – just for fun!

          Over 10 years it looks as if the panels have paid for themselves. And, assuming a PV system life of 20 years, you got another 10 years of use. Which means “free electricity” for 10 years!

          Now, I’m not going to go to the growing inefficiency of your panels (at around negative 1% pa) or the need to replace your Inverter after 10 years at your own expense, or the need to spend $150 pa on the cleaning of your panels, or the cost of annual maintenance at maybe a couple of hundred dollars a year in the latter years of operation of your system. OK? Take all that as a gift from Gaia. Including the hail.

          But here’s the bottom line:

          If you were to take your $10,000 and invest it at 5.00% pa, at the end of the 20 year period of the life of your panels it could have (conservatively) earned you $10,000 + in tax free income (or partially tax paid income) and likely, provided a capital gain.

          However, let’s be negative. Assume no capital gain on your investment of the $10,000. You get your $10,000 back. So, you’re still in front by a minimum of $10,000.

          And the alternative? What are your panels worth after 20 years? They’re written off. They’re worth nothing. Zilch. Nada. Blotto. And you need a new Inverter!

          OK? So where does one get 5.0% or better (fully franked)? Phone the company that’s got no tag line.

          100

          • #
            Spetzer86

            It’s not that the panels are worth nothing after 15 years, it’s what they cost to get rid of. They aren’t going to pop off the roof by themselves and they aren’t going to go free into that long dark as somebody will have to pay to have them landfilled.

            71

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              One of the things I’m watching for is when the solar panels are declared hazardous, and need to be disposed of in a most expensive way. Then I’ll laugh myself silly for a week.

              00

          • #
            Robert Rosicka

            Sceptical Sam , actually think it was $12k but I agree with your workings out , when I was considering the system I was recovering from a work place injury that would put me out of the workforce for the rest of my life .
            Living in the sticks everything here is electric , every time you pull the chain every time you turn a tap on it requires a pump etc etc .
            Knowing my income was all but gone for life but having a small injury payout my thinking was to use some of it to reduce costs into the future so I could stay in the home I built myself for as long as I want .
            Without the panels my quarterly electricity bills would be over $1000 , well over in fact and I wouldn’t have been able to afford to stay here given our double rates and hefty water charges .
            Cost recovery was and is no issue , cheaper cost of living was the one and only factor I had , was told a lot of porkies by the various solar companies at the time as to efficiency , how much power I could get from a 5kw system etc but worst of all had no idea I was contributing to increased electricity prices for others .
            Had I have known I wouldn’t have had them installed , it’s unfair that low income family’s , pensioners etc had to pay for my panels and it doesn’t sit right with me now that I know that .
            I do get comments about being green and reducing my carbon footprint etc but set anyone straight immediately and now I have a bigger rebuttal for anyone who says this to me .
            I’m just glad I found this website and a few others to learn the truth , all be it a little late.

            81

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Robert as I said in another post, governments are put in place to act on our behalf and always to do the right thing by us.

              That they think nothing of deliberately acting contrary to our interests and acting only for themselves and assorted cronies is unethical and worse.

              Do not feel that you are being judged by us here on this blog.

              Governments need to be held to account.

              51

              • #
                Robert Rosicka

                KK , I agree totally the governments do need to be accountable for the mess they’ve put us in , as for being judged I’m not taking it that way and clearly see and agree on all points and comments people have made .

                21

              • #
                Annie

                Good for you Robert. You could only make your decision at the time on the information available. We’d be stuck for using pumps here if there’s no power, which is the situation for most rural dwellers in Australia, even those only a couple of hours’ drive from a capital city such as Melbourne.

                30

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                In centuries past, the governments became accountable when the people rioted and they lost their heads. I miss the old days…

                00

        • #
          JJB MKI

          If only climate modellers and politicians had your level of retrospective honesty..

          110

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Robert, the government has scammed everyone on this issue.

          If both our elected representatives and hired government employees were forced to take personal responsibility for their actions you can be sure that this rooftop scheme would never have been implemented.

          As it is, all we can do is point the finger at them and complain fruitlessly and wait and wait for our real power plants to come on line. USC and HE coal fired?

          I have a weird feeling that the next clean energy fad after biomass might be a shock.

          Nuclear anyone?

          40

      • #
        Antoine D'Arche

        same for me – I could not bring myself to participate.

        90

      • #
        Ve2

        Did you feel that way when Gillard announce she putting on a tax to force up the price of power in order to cut emissions by making you use less?
        Labor and the Greens wanted it, the voters put them in so stiff cheddar.
        Labor own the price rises and now they are complaining the Liberals aren’t doing enough to keep prices down.

        Hypocrites.

        30

    • #
      Roger

      In the UK the last Labour Government brought in similar schemes where electricity generated by homeowners’ solar panels could be sold back to the grid. It also included ‘subsidies’ towards the capital cost of the installations, But there was a major problem with the scheme and a very typical one where left-wing politicians are concerned.

      Back in 2008 I was converting some buildings of mine into 8 houses and was keen to install PV (solar panels) on them and costed all the kit and electricians charges needed to do this. It came out at an average of around ~£1500 a property and was well worth doing despite the efficiency of solar PV being only around 10% in the UK.

      But I couldn’t progress it because to be able to qualify for the capital cost subsidy and to be able to sell back to the grid the installation had to be done by one of the handful of Government Approved Installers, from memory there were about half a dozen of them covering the whole of the UK. Their standard costs After Subsidy ranged from £3950 to some £6500++ depending on the size of the property and installation. (The houses ranged from 2 – 4 bed).

      Those prices weres uneconomic – up to 4 times More expensive than the actual cost of materials and installation – and so it couldn’t be done.

      I took it up with Government ministers at the time but was completely ignored – what I argued was that if they really wanted to increase the amount of domestic PV then they must open up the market rather than creating a system where a handful of selected companies had a monopoly position and could milk the market and the houseowner.

      I proposed that they should change this so that all that was needed to be eligible for the full subsidy and to sell back to the grid was a Certificate from a qualified electrician that the installation met all the requirements (safety etc etc) – that would have enabled houseowners to install PV at a fraction of the costs and obtain a genuine return on their investment within 5-6 years. If necessary the trade licensing body could have brought in a new additional qualification for electricians to become PV Certifiers. It would have led to an explosion of PV installations across the UK.

      But for reasons best known to the Labour politicians they preferred to keep this business in the hands of their chosen few operators.

      160

      • #
        richard verney

        I argued was that if they really wanted to increase the amount of domestic PV then they must open up the market

        And the EU imposes high import tariffs on Chinese panels needlessly increasing the cost of solar PV. Whilst the cost of panels is only a small part of any system, this high tariff disincentives people from installing solar.

        Spain nearly bankrupted itself with generous solar subsidies, and has now done a complete U turn.
        Its subsidies/feed in tariff incentives were so great that many land owners/farmers bought lots of solar panels and fitted diesel generators so that they could milk the subsidy/feed in incentives 24/7. Eventually the Spanish Government realised that they were paying even when the sun was not shining!! This is a bit like the Irish biomass scandal where farmers burnt biomass 24/7 to heat empty sheds because the subsidy was about £100 per tonne over and above the cost of the biomass.

        Now in Spain, if a private person goes off-grid, they have to pay a tax to the Government since the Government is losing out on sales tax/VAT which it would have got had the individual bought electricity from the big suppliers.

        60

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Just a thought but maybe cut the FIT Tariff given to home solar installations and whatever they pump back into the system reduce the electricity charges for pensioners by the same amount .

      30

    • #
      Rosco

      With home ownership at 33% in Australia obviously 67% cannot install panels and “benefit” from these schemes.

      Further unit complex owners cannot install panels.

      It truly is middle class welfare gone mad.

      Another triumph for our politicians who are now looking just plain stupid threatening companies with export bans because they failed to consider the results of their stupidity. Such bans if implemented would obviously be subject to large legal penalties as companies are sued for breach of contract.

      Our Liberal “government” is sounding and acting in the “best Stalinist” terms in recent times and the opposition is still mired in the stupidity of treating modest warming as the great moral challenge.

      100

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Talk about subsidies SA are paying $3.10 per mw to send power into vic at the moment with both interconnectors maxed out .
    Windmills do give cheap power after all or am I reading it wrong .

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      The report, undertaken by economic consultancy Principal Economics, found that Australia’s renewable energy sector received subsidies (including the Renewable Energy Target, feed in tariffs and other green policy costs) worth $2.8 billion in 2013-14. This dwarfed the public support for research and demonstration projects for low emissions coal technologies being conducted by the CSIRO and other research bodies (and matched by the coal industry).

      On an output basis, these renewable subsidies translated into almost $412 per megawatt hour (MWh) for solar technologies, $42 per MWh for wind and $18 per MWh for all other renewable sources (including hydro).

      By comparison coal fired power received less than $1 per MWh and natural gas less than 1 cent per MWh delivered.

      In 2013/14, these renewable energy subsidies added between 3 to 9 per cent to the average household bill and up to 20 per cent for some industrial users.

      The report uses the World Trade Organisation’s definition of subsidies, an approach similar to the method used by the Productivity Commission in its annual Trade and Assistance Review.

      At face value, increasing Australia’s share of renewable energy is a laudable goal. The minerals industry is a user of renewable energy and hopes that it will provide a solution to provision of competitively priced energy, especially in remote areas. And renewable energy depends on the minerals sector – after all, every off shore wind turbine contains 250 tonnes of metallurgical coal.

      But renewable energy must win increased market share on its own merits, not be guaranteed it by expensive mandatory targets and feed-in tariffs, the cost of which is simply borne by householders and industrial users. For household consumers, the burden falls heaviest on low income households. For industrial users, the burden shackles export and import-competing businesses in many sectors.

      You can read the report here: http://bit.ly/1MQP8yw

      131

      • #
        TdeF

        The distortion in this is that it is all done by the distributors. They pay for the STCs and LGCs. Of course they pass this cost on. Doubled. That is how business works. You have an input cost and you double it and pass it on. So the cost to the public is $6Bn. What is wrong is that the retailers can buy the certificates in retrospect but collect the money immediately, so it is not a cost at all. Just profiteering.

        The other is the general idea that “the government” subsidizes things. From our taxes. Soak the rich, who pay most of the taxes.

        No, this is a direct charge to all the users of electricity, doubled, regardless of taxation and in addition to them. So it comes out of disposable income after taxes. Currently estimated to be at least a massive 10% of disposable income for most households and far higher for the poorer people. That means the poorest people get the biggest hit. Taxing the poor to pay for unnecessary solar power systems for the middle class. Green Socialism at work.

        Greens are often the very comfortable middle class with the highest frequent flyer points. These are people who lecture on the evils of flying. To Durban and Rio and Lima and Qatar and Paris and .. for IPCC conferences

        102

        • #
          RobK

          If you look on eBay for second hand panels, there are a lot for sale. Last year I bought 3kW of panels for $1k. No certificates of course. These panels are ten years old and bought from an installer. I asked why they were for sale and he said “upgrades, people that signed contracts with both high state (40c FIT) and up front fed subsidies(RET) are upgrading.” Most sales of second hand panels are to hobbyists from what he said so the 15years of calculated payout is short changed.
          Many domestic installations are sub optional in orientation. Many domestic installations are fitted close to the roof and get very hot. The panels lose 3-5% output for every 10deg C of increased panel temp. So if they hit 80deg C the output has dropped by upto 30%, just when you need the air con. The green energy office argues that’s why small scale certificates are less than large scale ones.
          The subsidies are a gross insult to non participants who pay tax. They also offer a rationale to subscribers because their decision is sanctioned by both state and Fed government. In W.A. the 40c Feed-in-tariffs were canned because of over subscription. It was and is still costing the state millions until the ten year deals run out.
          High uptake of domestic solar often pushes line voltage upto as much as 270v. The grid has trouble stabilizing distributed feed-in.

          50

    • #
      Ve2

      Do you have a link to that?

      00

  • #
    Dennis

    These “info commercials” or “advertising dressed up to look like news” (not here) never refer to the cost of financing: repayments and interests on loan or loss of interest on cash funds invested.

    Or provide an accounting of the financial plan for writing off the cost of the equipment before the effective working life end timing is reached ready to re-invest in new equipment.

    122

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    It was never meant to be that subsidies were so good that people could go off grid and save heaps of money. If it were that simple the whole power generation system would financially collapse as people move en mass off grid. Then watch the fun when government responds and not only removes the subsidies to save the power companies from financial failure, but introduces a penalty for those who are off grid by placing some levy on them that would completely wipe out any financial advantage assuming there is one. We can’t have it both ways. Either we live in a society where there is a power grid for all, or we dispose of them and go off grid en mass, including businesses and industry. Clearly the latter is not only impractical but also very expensive. Perhaps one day some new yet undiscovered power source could be developed to provide reliable, safe, efficient and cheap power at or near the point of use. Until that happens, any dream of going off grid for great financial regards is out of the question. Governments have been through that lessons not long ago with the original solar subsidies where some people actually got very rich by getting off the grid. They had to shut down that subsidy quick smart, and they did.

    91

    • #
      Dennis

      And many solar businesses quickly closed down.

      62

    • #
      Roger

      PeterS

      “Perhaps one day some new yet undiscovered power source could be developed to provide reliable, safe, efficient and cheap power at or near the point of use.”

      Thorium seems as if it may be able to offer the potential for small scale local generations, by that I mean town-sized generation that does not need to rely on the grid. Seems that could be around the size of a 40ft trailer .

      Whilst China and India are both pursing that potential it seems that the Western civilisations that have sold-out their policy making to the Green Lobby are resolutely ignoring it.

      80

      • #
        sophocles

        You could look over the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment from back in the 1960′s. The Chinese are now pouring a lot of effort in terms of research and development (with lots of patents) into this area. They must have read the MIT Review.
        The Americans are moving on this technology too. (Lots of into at this site.)

        One major advantage of the MSR technology, is the overall safety—no “China Syndrome” and no “Chernobyl Events.” There has been a suggestion that MS-Reactors may be the solution to our Atomic Waste problems, MS-Reactors seem to be able to burn anything radioactive, and burn it down to cold ash. If that is true, then they solve a couple of major problems: the storage and reprocessing of spent fuel from our current solid-fuel conventional reactors.

        50

    • #
      RickWill

      The grid is toast under the current RET. Any household can produce power cheaper with solar and batteries than grid scale wind/solar plus batteries plus transmission. The grid scale would need to produce at half the price and that is not possible because there is no economy of scale.

      10

    • #
      RickWill

      If the RET remains the grid will collapse. It is already cheaper to go off grid in South Australia.

      I do not see the government stepping in to save the private companies that generate, distribute and retail power.

      It is becoming apparent in SA that AEMO will need to limit grid connected solar because it is so destabilising. The existing solar is able to produce 50% of demand at lunch time on a good day. Once it exceeds 100% it will just shut down and that will encourage people to go off grid.

      Grid supplied electricity is already too expensive to supply heavy industry in SA so the industrial demand is dropping.

      We are witnessing the demise of the network in SA and other States will follow. A power grid makes no sense unless there are economies of scale so it is incompatible with fully distributed generation and storage.

      All Australian business would be negligent if they were not looking at their options to reduce power costs. The linked article gives details on Woolworths:
      http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/woolworths-quadruples-energy-investments-to-offset-soaring-prices-20170903-gya21y

      Brad Banducci, the chief executive of Woolworths, which consumes about 1 per cent of the total electricity generated in Australia, warned of the impact of rising energy costs this year, saying the company is “trying to outrun a bear” amid soaring electricity and gas prices.

      The company is also investigating direct purchase contracts for renewable energy, through corporate power purchase agreements, and is looking at opportunities for battery storage, Michael Shelley, manager energy and services, told the forum.

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Several years ago in Sydney the owners of a small and quite old inner suburb block of flats decided to have them converted into two townhouses using the existing exterior walls and roof. The clients wanted to be as self sufficient as possible by installing an appropriate solar system including battery storage.

    The builder introduced them to the electrical contractor who explained that he could provide what they wanted, but then explained to them in detail why it would not be cost effective. Happy to profit from the supply and installation he said, but I cannot in all honesty recommend it.

    72

  • #

    I like oil. And I love what diesel can do inside a Landcruiser like the 8-cyl camper beast my neighbour just bought and showed off last night.

    But I can’t help imagining how Big Oil must laugh their heads off at the efforts of coal and uranium rich Australia to blunder toward greater oil dependency in the name of sustainability/renewables etc.

    Those good old boys must be in danger of rolling on the ground and crushing their cee-gars and stetsons. They couldn’t be laughing any harder, surely. And I’ll bet their sheik mates are in on the hilarity.

    Duping coal and uranium-uber-rich Aussies into forgoing their stupendous natural advantages in energy should be harder than this.

    But it’s like shootin’ fish in barrel, ain’t it cowboy? Whaddaya say, Sheik? Is there a cheaper ‘n easier sell than those bone-head skippies with their green “targets” and their green zombie politicians?

    Humiliating. Just…humiliating.

    180

    • #
      Manfred

      My guess is that in 15 or less years the unsustainable renewables boondoggle will be, well, unsustainable. I imagine by then many of the current PV arrays will be up for renewal, and the question then may well be, “who can afford it?” The economically bankrupt State won’t be able to afford supporting subsidies, particularly if ever larger number join the boondoggle. Talk about Ponzi schemes … (yes, I know Jo has).

      No, owners will be begging people to rid them of the useless property devaluing junk on the roof, or prospective house purchasers will demand it before they buy, as they will of the removal and disposal of toxic batteries…and may well be sooner than later due to the relatively short life of a battery.

      Do as I do. Make similar investments (or any for that matter) in power companies and see your shares hold or increase their value, while at the same time receiving a robust annual dividend, which in our fortunate case ensures there is NO power bill to pay. After you’ve done this, move on to the banking sector and do the same.

      40

  • #
    pat

    Mr. Pulford is presumably basing his payback time on the system working as advertised.

    however, I have heard people complain on radio or in comments that their inverter only lasted a couple of years. that subject comes up on this page, along with numerous other problems. there are 33 pages to check out for the rest of the reviewers who rate True Value Solar as “terrible”:

    True Value Solar (page 3 of 33)
    652 Reviews
    Excellent 303

    Terrible 248
    https://www.productreview.com.au/p/true-value-solar/3.html

    80

  • #
    Antoine D'Arche

    I REALLY can’t wait for the system to crash, the lights to go out, the a/c units to stop, EVERYTHING, to hear the wailing of the weak and the stupid.
    A colleague, a surgeon in Victoriastan, thinks it is important to pursue renewables even if climate change is a hoax, if it improves the quality of the air in downtown India.
    THAT is the level of intellectual rigour that is going to bring this country to its knees.

    211

    • #

      A surgeon? He should have been a glazier.

      40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Id get a second opinion….

      50

    • #
      Robdel

      I agree with you Antoine. The sooner the crash comes and the electrical blackouts arrive, the quicker will the populace come to their senses. The policians and snake oil merchants better watch out then.

      50

    • #
      el gordo

      I’ll add my voice to the others, there is no ‘intellectual rigour’ except in small pockets like here.

      In an historical sense, they will look back on this era as a time of mass delusion orchestrated by scientists, media and politicians, and be amazed.

      The other thing worth mentioning is that medical professionals seemed to have swallowed the big green pill lie. Teachers have also been severely brainwashed and are corrupting our children into thinking the end of the world is nigh, its not a good look.

      40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        “The other thing worth mentioning is that medical professionals seemed to have swallowed the big green pill lie. Teachers have also been severely brainwashed and are corrupting our children into thinking the end of the world is nigh, its not a good look.”

        Yep…now imagine if all these groups all worked together in furthering a mass delusion hand in hand with the govt….

        Now insert any other topic they want to promote as “truth” or get it on the PBS or….or….

        Once the grid goes down hard, thos eof us who actuially know about how to fix or make stuff will survive fine, but make have to keep away those who failed to heed the warning signs….

        I’ll pull up now while my sense of humour is still intact.

        10

  • #
    pat

    26 Sept: CityAM: The UK’s first subsidy-free solar farm jolts life into the sector
    by Courtney Goldsmith
    The UK’s first solar farm to be built and operated without a government subsidy will open in eastern England today thanks to a rapid drop in renewable energy costs, paving the way for further funding activity in the sector.
    The 45-acre Clayhill solar farm and energy storage facility, located in Bedfordshire, was built by energy provider Anesco.
    The site is made up of more than 30,000 solar panels, which can generate 10 megawatts of power, or enough electricity for 2,500 homes…

    (Maria Connolly, partner and leader of the energy and renewables team at law firm TLT) said developers are also looking into subsidy-free wind schemes, especially in Scotland. “We might see something over the next 12 months. That’s where the sector would love to see a groundbreaking move,” she said…
    http://www.cityam.com/272748/uks-first-subsidy-free-solar-farm-jolts-life-into-sector

    26 Sept: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: This summer was greenest ever for energy, says ***National Grid
    Carbon emissions pushed to lowest level yet as first subsidy-free large solar power project opens in the UK
    (Duncan Burt, director of the system operator at National Grid) added that while the group would have liked to have seen some windier, sunnier days in August, it had coped with the challenge of managing intermittent power sources such as wind and expected the trend to continue…

    ???While National Grid said that handling the amount of variable, renewable power on the system is not adding to consumer costs at the moment, studies have shown a much higher penetration of green energy could result in higher bills. A report by the UK Energy Research Centre earlier this year warned that balancing intermittent wind and solar would increase costs if the grid is not made more flexible with new measures, such as battery storage…

    “Solar obviously by itself is still very difficult. What we’re doing is making it into a hybrid site,” said Steve Shine, chairman of Anesco, in reference to the 6MW of batteries that will store electricity generated from the 10MW solar farm during the day, to be sold when the power is most valuable. The farm’s capacity is enough to power the equivalent of about 3,000 homes.

    Shine said the project would break even due to the batteries and the way the company had cut costs by nearly a third through measures such as not burying cables…

    Separately, a report (LINK) from Imperial College predicted that the combination of solar power and batteries could be so financially attractive to householders by 2030 that the technologies would “bleed revenues from the utilities sector”.
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/26/summer-green-energy-national-grid-carbon-emissions-solar-uk

    ***re National Grid. I thought it was a government body until I checked them out on Wikipedia.

    40

    • #
      Curious George

      By 2030 the technologies would “bleed revenues from the utilities sector”.
      Obviously a daring aspiration. The plan is to move the whole island to align Wales with the New South Wales. That’s what Brexit really means.

      20

    • #
      el gordo

      Subsidy free renewables are still a blight on the landscape.

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That’s true but despite the hype, despite the bluster, is there a hidden support mechanism they are not disclosing?

        How can they pump out cheap power like the USC coal plants.

        Do they function because they can sell into a rigged market.

        Is it a free market or a market designed by scammers.

        KK

        10

  • #
    pat

    25 Sept: CityAM: UK utilities set for major disruption by 2030 as residential renewables become profitable
    by Courtney Goldsmith
    The Centre for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial College London has developed a new framework called “firm power parity” which forecasts the milestones at which on-site renewables will deliver the same service and cost as conventional energy supplies…

    The researchers said consumers were unlikely to leave the power grid completely until after 2030, but their gradual withdrawal from traditional utilities will have significant implications for electrical utilities and investors…
    “The UK government has a big problem on its hands: solar and storage technologies are advancing rapidly and will bleed revenues from the utilities sector, yet we need a financially healthy industry to enable large-scale investments in smarter, more flexible electric power networks,” said Charles Donovan, director of the Centre for Climate Finance.
    “The transition ahead is going to be messy. For example, the expensive baseload power to be generated by Hinkley Point C may not even be needed if consumers make the profitable switch to onsite solar and storage indicated by our model,” Donovan added.

    Donovan said the new concept of firm power parity is more suited to the competitive landscape of renewable technologies as it calculates what is available when the sun is not shining…
    “The results of our research are exciting as they show we will soon be entering a period where reliable and profitable solar power production by residential energy consumers becomes a reality in relatively cloudy places like London.”
    http://www.cityam.com/272580/uk-utilities-set-major-disruption-2030-residential

    following is undated, but search results date it as 4 Sept. looks like it’s been picked up by MSM today to go with the National Grid story:

    Imperial College Centre for Climate Finance & Investment: Firm Power Parity: A Framework for Understanding the Disruptive Threat of Solar & Storage
    Abstract: This paper proposes a new conceptual framework for understanding competition in electricity markets. Noting that one of the primary drivers for consumers to switch from grid-supplied electricity to self-generated electricity is cost savings, we have constructed a model that forecasts when grid defection may become widespread.

    Based on detailed modelling of technology cost curves, we estimate the year in which three types of consumers switch to on-site power generation that offers similar reliability and lower cost as grid-supplied electricity. We name these customer switching points “firm power parity.”
    (LINK) Read the short report
    (LINK) Read the long report
    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/research/management/management-research/projects-and-centres/centre-for-climate-finance-and-investment/firm-power-parity/

    10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yeah and as every bloke cranks up their inverter voltage to make sure they can export power to sell it, voltage will be all over the place and 50 hz will be a pipe dream…..

      The sooner it all goes bang, the sooner we we can have the climate nuremberg trials…i will enjoy that day….

      71

  • #
    pat

    indeed, the National Grid & Imperial College 4 Sept reports seem to have been published to coincide with the Solar Farm story. MSM is picking up the following worldwide, without any caveats:

    26 Sept: MIT Technology Review: How to Build a Solar Farm without Government Subsidies
    In a nutshell: find a site where you can lean on existing infrastructure.
    Anesco, the company that designed and built the 10-megawatt farm, is rightly proud of the feat, calling it “a landmark development” that “paves the way for a sustainable future.”
    But while clean energy is certainly plummeting in price, the news doesn’t quite signal that government subsidies for renewables are no longer needed.

    As the Financial Times points out, the solar farm is actually built next to another similar facility, which was built using a subsidy. That means much of the required infrastructure, such as grid connections, already existed for Clayhill to piggyback upon.

    Not only that, there’s also a six-megawatt-hour grid battery on that site which Clayhill farm also makes use of, allowing it to store excess electricity that can be sold during times of high demand. Anesco’s executive chairman, Steve Shine, tells the newspaper that the installation “wouldn’t pay with solar by itself at the moment … it needs the storage as well.”

    That’s totally reasonable, of course. And it’s not to belittle the achievement that’s been made here, which is both impressive and encouraging. But it does serve to underscore the fact that renewables still require a little help from governments if they’re to maintain their current momentum.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608956/how-to-build-a-solar-farm-without-government-subsidies/

    7 Sept: InteractiveInvestor: Uptake Of Batteries Seen As Credit Positive For National Grid And SSE
    by Joshua Warner
    Moody’s said increasing use of batteries within the grid will allow renewables to be integrated at lower cost, providing opportunities for outperformance and helping to slowdown the rises in customer bills.
    “Battery storage is a credit positive for the UK’s electricity transmission network operators as it will allow renewable energy to be integrated in a more cost-efficient way,” says Graham Taylor, vice president, senior credit officer at Moody’s.
    “By reducing the need for payments to wind and solar generators when there is insufficient grid capacity, and by allowing for lower investment in new generation connections and grid reinforcement, battery storage will slow the increase in customers’ energy bills that could otherwise trigger political or regulatory intervention,” he added…

    “Batteries will ease pressure on balancing costs from rising renewable penetration. As wind and solar generating capacity continues to increase in Great Britain, National Grid will face escalating cost and challenge in maintaining a stable transmission network. Battery storage and other sources of flexibility will allow far larger amounts of renewable capacity to be integrated at costs around current levels,” said the ratings agency.
    “Batteries reduce the need for investment in the transmission network, by allowing demand to be served with lower total capacity, and providing less expensive options for reinforcing the network.”…

    “While electricity volumes carried by transmission networks could fall on the back of rising renewables and battery storage, Moody’s sees little credit risk from these developments because renewables are unlikely to significantly reduce base load electricity demand…READ ON
    http://www.iii.co.uk/alliance-news/1504803682900769500-3/uptake-of-batteries-seen-as-credit-positive-for-national-grid-and-sse

    20

  • #
    TedM

    OT but Judith Curry interviewed on Fox News. Short interview but the last 20 seconds hilarious.

    https://youtu.be/mLA5yQtuBp0

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      Trump should make her an integral part of the Red Team, even though she is a lukewarmer.

      20

    • #
      RickWill

      Question asked and answered:

      “Are you surprised that Al Gore studied theology, and not climatology, in college?”

      (chuckle) “No.”

      30

  • #
    TedM

    “The ACT has pledged to be 100% renewable by 2025. I say “bring it on” but they’ll only be 100% renewable when they cut the interconnectors.” Totally agree. Other states with coal or gas fired power should refuse to prop them up. Prove the real worth or otherwise, of stand alone solar and wind.

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Bring on the ACT going to renewables – “ACT fairy land” ( …as in detached from reality… ) will find out the rules of physics apply in a very real way, as public servants get stuck in lifts and even worse – the coffee shops shut down due to lack of reliable power….I can see a sea of stress leave and grump non-cafeinated public servants who will just have to take more leave….last summer apparently the indoor temps in buildings was allowed to rise to 27C to save power….imagine once renewables kick in?

      31

      • #
        yarpos

        They really do beleive its real. I read a comment on reneweconomy where the writer said it would take a “special kind of stupid” to be pounding out sceptical comments on a computer powered by 100% renewable power. They really beleive it will happen 24×7 and that they are just not an extension of the NSW grid.

        01

  • #
    Mark D.

    Reposit power?

    Let me get this right: Buy low “off peak” power use it to charge a battery. Then when it isn’t off-peak time of day, sell the stored power back at a tidy profit.

    This is genius?

    Oh wait, when everyone acts on this genius there won’t be any such thing as “off-peak”! Charging all those batteries will be the new PEAK!

    Everything has become a Con. Game the markets and move faster than everyone else. As Jo says: A perfectly good civilization has gone to waste.

    101

  • #
    Peter C

    Mr Pulford agreed.

    “We can’t continue to use fossil fuels for our energy because the future generation will pay the price,” he said.

    He is half correct. Future Generations will pay the price, but not because of CO2 or Climate. They will pay for the humongous National Debt, which only gets bigger because of insane spending on useless schemes like solar subsidies.

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t forget the financial manipulations of desperate politicians spending money they do not have, borrowing money to spend more, and even hiding their borrowing of money using government owned private companies that do not by law have to publicly account.

      NSW Labor sold electricity assets (and gave away power stations as part of the sale) for a loss of $6.1 billion. Sold assets valued at $12 billion minimum value for $5.9 billion.

      The Greiner LNP Coalition Government had abandoned the NSW Electricity Commission (wholly taxpayer owned) and established government owned private companies to manage the assets, a move to get rid of the Commission union poor work practise regime and based on good business management return higher dividends to taxpayers and more efficient electricity generation.

      Carr Labor took office early 1990s and replaced company management with their union maates. And arranged for hidden off government in private company accounts borrowing. Debt created to provide extra “dividends” to make government budget bottom lines look better.

      When the $5.9 billion realised from the sale was used to settle debts and related interest all that was left was $800 million.

      I understand that Queensland has a similar hidden electricity company debt problem.

      Future generations are being saddled with accumulated debt federal and state/territory, and local government. Taxpayers/ratepayers are already paying as increases in government charges increase way in front of the rate of inflation and growth in wages/salaries/welfare are imposed in a desperate grab for money to plug the black holes of revenue shortfall.

      We old people (smiling) know a lot but the young people remain blissfully living in their IT Age world.

      52

  • #

    From the above and the comments so far, the issues with this solar power scheme are:-

    1. Investment subsidies are financed from electricity bills.

    2. The financial returns consist of (a) using home-generated electricity direct (so not having to purchase from the grid) (b) being able to store electricity in batteries so as to save purchasing electricity from the grid at peak hours when it is expensive. c) selling electricity to the grid for a much higher value than purchased.

    For solar panels, you need to invest upfront. The example of payback of 14 years does not include the interest that could be made of leaving the money in the bank. In terms of opportunity cost, many people would prefer to spend it on other priorities such as consumer products, or on the house, or on the family. But solar becomes more worthwhile if the expectation is for electricity prices to keep on rising steeply. This is a valid expectation given the push for renewables with the increasing need to import electricity when dark and the wind does not blow at high cost and export it on windy sunny days when demand is low.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    I keep reading about Off Peak?

    Does Adelaide/South Australia really have ‘off peak’ rates still? Without coal? Why?

    This only made sense in a constant baseload coal driven system.

    Are they really running the gas turbines flat out at 1am just to heat water for showers and at a discount?
    or is the power discounted from Victoria’s coal driven system at 1.30am, which would be pure hyprocrisy.
    Charging your hybrid overnight from cheap coal power achieves what environmentally?

    91

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    OT but notice the southern states are redlining the interconnectors to supply power to NSW and QLD , this has been going on for quite a while .
    Unless there are units down I can’t see how we can get through a hot summer without blackouts .

    40

    • #

      There are currently four Units down in NSW and five Units down in Queensland, totalling out at almost 4000MW, and that’s around one quarter of Australia’s average daily power consumption.

      Tony.

      80

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        I’m thinking for this to happen in summer would mean trouble .

        60

        • #
          TdeF

          Trouble?

          We have been officially informed by AEMO that the system is now critical with the loss of Hazelwood and that blackouts are expected this summer. The political repercussions of repeated and long blackouts will be the end of Weatherill and Andrews. The simultaneous gas shortage will make it far worse. Seriously, if you do not have a generator, work out how to survive without power for days at a time.

          The implications for Malcolm’s Liberals are mixed. No matter how bad this fake conservative Federal and NSW governments, Labor is promising to make things far worse.

          Both major parties consider voters have no choice anyway, so why both being sensible on debt, power, manufacturing, farming, defence? Just keep borrowing against the future and handing out money and keep up the attack on Christian British Democratic traditions. What have the British done for us?

          That’s the new Liberal way. It’s also the Labor and Green way.

          40

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    27 Sept: Daily Telegraph: KYLAR LOUSSIKIAN: Energy giant AGL gets cheap taxpayer-funded solar before selling at triple the price
    TAXPAYER-funded solar projects are proving a gold mine for AGL, with the energy giant benefiting from discount power that it sells to consumers for a massive profit.
    The Queensland government’s QIC, along with the Commonwealth’s Future Fund, have struck a deal to supply AGL with electricity and ­renewable energy certificates for $65 per MWh.
    However, the power giant is then onselling this to consumers for almost three times the price…

    The deal would sell electricity and renewable energy certificates — a type of currency generated by solar and wind projects which electricity retailers are required to buy and use to meet the government’s Renewable Energy Target — together to AGL for between $55 and $65 per MWh from the Silverton and Coopers Gap wind farms for at least five years, and possibly for more than a decade…

    The same power is available to smaller retailers — who can’t compete — for $92, according to the energy market, while each renewable energy certificate is separately worth up to around $80.

    That means AGL is paying just $65 per MWh where other smaller competitors fork out around $170, leaving it little incentive to lower prices for consumers and businesses…READ ALL
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/energy-giant-agl-gets-cheap-taxpayerfunded-solar-before-selling-at-triple-the-price/news-story/47221868732a05696ba4d7dcf1c80560

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      Which is why they can offer settlement discounts for customers who pay their electricity bill on time of up to 22 per cent.

      Standard business account settlement is 2.5 per cent.

      41

    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      AGL would have coal fired generators idling that generate at fractions of that cost anyway. The system is a mess. It’s the certificates they’re after.
      Doug

      30

  • #
    Gerry, England

    The trouble with chucking taxpayers’ cash around is what if everyone took advantage of the subsidies? It is similar to the UK where if you have a water meter you can halve your bill. Everyone does it and the water company now has a 50% shortfall in income. What happens next? I suspect a doubling in the price of water to get you back to square one. The more the lunacy spreads the more the taxpayer cash has to reduce. Tesla has an interesting challenge as they increase the total number of cars made, the subsidy will reduce to zero. That will help sales.

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      The bulk of the subsidies are not from general revenue; not taxpayer funds. They are mostly in the form of transfer payments through LGCs and STCs from electricity consumers to solar and wind generators. Retailers are required to purchase an increasing number of LGCs and STCs each year to achieve the RET; 14% of all electricity in 2017. Those costs are just passed onto consumers. There is no taxation involved just a government mandated transfer payment from those who cannot produce their own power to those who can.

      10

  • #
    pat

    is this missing something…like how much it cost?

    27 Sept: ABC: Tesla Powerpack battery to power Logan reservoir
    by Isobel Roe
    VIDEO: 36secs: Check out the size of Logan City Council’s new water disinfection plant – the first in Australia to be powered entirely by a commercial-size, off-grid Tesla battery.
    Here’s a look at the 323 solar panels installed on the roof to collect sunlight to be stored in the battery
    A south-east Queensland water disinfection plant has become the first in Australia to be powered entirely by an off-grid, commercial-sized Tesla battery.

    The Logan City Council’s new water reservoir at Round Mountain, which has been built to cater for the growing community in the region’s south, was constructed so far from the nearest power grid that it needed its own power source to be economically viable.
    Logan Mayor Luke Smith said the Tesla battery, invented by technology billionaire Elon Musk, has saved ratepayers $1.9 million in power connection costs and would allow the reservoir to chlorinate water “off-grid”…
    Cr Smith said it also meant the council did not need to build a sealed road to the facility because it could operate largely by itself…

    The massive 95kWh Tesla PowerPack battery is the first to be installed in Australia, and comes amid a wave of support for solar-powered batteries among Australian households…READ ALL
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-27/massive-tesla-battery-to-power-logan-reservoir/8993474

    more details:

    27 Sept: TheUrbanDeveloper: Logan’s New Tesla Tech a First in Off-Grid Commercial Energy
    Up to 200,000 people will benefit from the solution by the time the region is fully developed…
    “This is set to be one of the fastest growing areas in South-East Queensland over the next two decades but with that growth comes the issue of building assets larger than are needed right now,” Mayor Smith said…READ ON
    https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/logans-new-tesla-tech-first-off-grid-commercial-energy/

    20

    • #

      pat mentions this : (my bolding here)

      The massive 95kWh Tesla PowerPack battery is the first to be installed in Australia, and comes amid a wave of support for solar-powered batteries among Australian households…READ ALL

      Massive is not the word. This is just huuuuuuge! Who would have thought something this monumentally humungous would actually be needed to power this water plant.

      The closest power plant to this would be, say, the Milmerran plant, which is a SupeCritical coal fired plant, one of four in Queensland. It has two units, and each Unit has a Nameplate of 425MW.

      The same 95KWH needed to run this plant is generated by ONE Unit at Milmerran in, umm, ….. Eight Tenths of ONE SECOND. (0.8 seconds) Don’t blink.

      Built off grid because it’s too far away. Yeah, right. Then they say it’s one of the fastest growing regions in SEQ, and they’re not going to connect the grid up any time soon. Yeah, right.

      Let’s hope the battery lasts as long as the solar panels used to charge it, but I somehow doubt it.

      Tony.

      100

      • #
        pat

        TonyfromOz -

        why isn’t the cost mentioned?

        according to the urban developer link:

        - Up to 200,000 people will benefit from the solution by the time the region is fully developed.
        City of Logan Mayor Luke Smith said the 20 megalitre round mountain reservoir was brought into service in 2014 to provide drinking water for residents in Flagstone, Yarrabilba, North Maclean, Spring Mountain and Woodhill.
        “This is set to be one of the fastest growing areas in South-East Queensland over the next two decades but with that growth comes the issue of building assets larger than are needed right now,” Mayor Smith said. -

        there are only a few thousand in Yarrabilba at present:

        4 Sept: Courier Mail: Tom Snowdon: South Brisbane population set to treble and squeeze inner city
        In Yarrabilba, one of the priority development areas, the population is predicted to grow by 13,521 people to reach 16,717 residents by 2031…

        Flagstone was only announced/created in May last year. don’t think anyone is there as yet.

        North Maclean had a population of 1,541 at the time of the 2011 census, while Woodhill had 423 (Wikipedia). can’t find a figure for Spring Mountain, but it would be tiny. don’t think there’s been massive growth in any of these suburbs.

        the Mayor’s solar/battery scheme seems like overkill, needing replacement long before 200,000 population figure is reached.

        but the bigger question remains. what is the cost to Logan ratepayers?

        20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Today’s Australian (28/9) has an article on the tourist benefits for Jamestown SA of the coming installation of the new Tesla battery. Business is up 20% recently said the man running the Commecial Hotel, but he had spent $30,000 on a generator ‘just in cae’.

        50

    • #
      Chad

      Costs.?
      80 kW of solar.. $200k
      95kW Tesla powerpack…approx $100k
      System output …probably 3-5kWh max continuous.

      00

  • #
    AndyG55

    I don’t think Puerto Rico’s wind and solar farms are going to be much chop for the next .. LONG time !

    A problem called Marie. !!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AAHJs-j3uw&feature=youtu.be

    63

  • #
    Another Ian

    That bloke will probably get a job as financial advisor to the federal government

    41

  • #
    manalive

    The ACT has pledged to be 100% renewable by 2025 …

    Last I read it was 2020 so they had better get a move on.
    However “100% renewable” probably doesn’t actually mean that, but 100% renewable if insolation is constantly at the maximum for 24 hours of the day in a constantly cloudless sky and wind constantly blowing at the optimum 30 km/h at the same time (with coal-fire power on constant standby just in case).
    The OZ reports that Bourke had a record (late) September maximum, however the Bourke Airport AWS record goes back to only 1998.

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yet there will be essentially ZERO renewable energy within the ACT. !!

      42

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Andy:

        The good burghers (I think that is the right spelling) don’t want noisy, ugly wind turbines in their territory. Same with sloar farms. What they do is buy up “renewable” electricity from SA wind farms and NSW solar farms at lower rates than the rest of us pay for bulk electricity.
        You might be doubtful that much wind electricity will make its way pure and uncontaminated from SA, but you can be sure that the RET certiicates that the generators sell will be put onto your bills not those in Canberra.
        And in the unlikely event that the wind doesn’t blow they will still get a constant supply from those green brown coal plants still left in Victoria.

        50

    • #
      PeterS

      Any small region can be 100% renewable even today provided that can tap into the part-national grid as and when required. The challenge for ACT is to be 100% renewable by 2025 and disconnect from the eastern states 100%. If they can do that it would be a good thing as we will see Canberra in darkness every night and some days to boot. It’s a region full of BSing nut jobs anyway.

      10

    • #
      Another Ian

      Supposedly Birdsville also set a record September temp.

      Re http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-weather-birdsville-braces-for-hottest-australian-spring-day-on-record/news-story/d4e79fbe4215237e914784ba86a9ab4e

      In September 1965 we were on a trip around western Qld in the tail end of the 1965 drought.

      The day we got to Birdsville we’d driven about 250 miles and iirc it was about 115 F or 46ish C. Might be worth having a look at the records.

      Memorable because 2 coldish Southwark stubbies was as much as any of us could drink. I got the explanation years later – “Cold, Southwark was the worst beer in Australia. Hot, it was the best”

      40

    • #
      toorightmate

      I reckon the ACT is 100% renewables right now, and the sooner they renew the ba*stards, the better.

      20

  • #
    Peter

    Since when do household solar owners get wholesale price for selling excess solar electricity back to the grid.

    Don’t electricity retailers buy it and pay a feed in tariff to the householder?

    If they can buy and sell at wholesale price, who do they deal with?

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Your excess doesn’t go into the whole grid, only into your neighbourhood. If there are a lot of solar panels around you, then on a sunny day your output voltage goes up to 255V and then your panels shut down for about an hour. The retailers lose sales due to solar, but don’t weep for them. (They hate water on their Lamborghinis).

      20

  • #

    I love the idea of installing a battery set and using Reposit software that allows you charge to up at off-peak times and then sell the electricity back to the grid at maximum demand times. It is the financial scam equivalent of the ‘perpetual motion machine’ of ‘renewable’ energy. You don’t even need any solar panels to go with it. The whole ‘renewable’ energy push has developed into a Monster Ponzie Scheme.

    40

    • #
      RickWill

      It is not an economic proposition to undertake daily arbitrage on power pricing using a battery. Current installed cost for a battery is around $1000/kWh. Operating battery to 50% DoD you can achieve maybe 5000 cycles. Even if you make 40c/kWh on the arbitrage the battery will only return $1000/kWh over its life so it only covers its purchase price not the opportunity cost or any risk margin.

      LiFePO4 batteries are capable of 5000 cycles at 50% DoD but that is in accelerated life cycle testing. It is yet to be proven that they can get through 25 years of calendar life.

      You see figures quoted like USD200/kWh but that is hopeful at best. The prices actually paid are much higher. The Tesla powerful 2 is about $10,000 installed for 13.5kWh.

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    The High Church of Climate Change, the congregation and priests are believers because they have faith.

    32

  • #
    soldier

    14 years payback is ridiculous!
    As an engineer and business manager for over 50 years I know only too well that any investment project that is submitted to the board of directors with a payback of more than 2 to 3 years is thrown out.
    Moreover Mr Pulford has probably calculated his “payback period of 14 years” on a very simplistic basis.
    The only genuine assessment of investments of this type need to take into account the opportunity cost, i.e. what would the $20,000 earn if invested in shares, bonds or a bank?
    Also, Financial Controllers insist on investment projects being evaluated by NPV and MIRR techniques.
    His real payback is likely to be more like 20 years rather than 14.

    50

  • #
    Whalehunt Fun

    Mr Pulford is a parasite. He is leeching on the rest of society. Worse he gleefully admits it. Bludgers like this have no place in Australia. Every dollar he thieves from government is a dollar not available for children’s hospitals or research into childhood diseases. He is personally and directly contributing to childhood disease and death with his vile use of government subsidies, stealing the money away from more valuable purposes.

    51

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Perhaps it might be more appropriate to vent about our government representatives who put this system in place and keep it running?

      40

    • #
      RickWill

      He is not taking a subsidy from government. The money comes from electricity consumers via purchase of the STCs that were earned with the installation of the system. The number of STCs is based on the estimated output of the system over some “deemed” period, 15 years till 2016 but reducing to zero by 2030. There are set formulas for each post code.

      If you do not consume electricity you do not contribute to the capital cost of someone else’s solar system. If you install a solar system then the electricity consumers will help fund your purchase.

      My understanding is that South Australians will be paying for their CSP and BB battery from general revenue as they are already smarting from existing electricity bill shock.

      10

  • #
    James Murphy

    This chap has gone from having a power cable coming into his property, plus associated wiring, GPOs, and whatever items which use electricity (as we all do), to having all that, plus solar panels, and batteries, both of which are not simple, ‘clean’, or ‘carbon neutral’ to make, or dispose of.

    Judging by the quote “…It ranges between $2 to about $1.90 a day for energy and that can be with the clothes dryers and bar heaters on…”, he doesn’t seem to make much of an effort to cut back on electricity consumption, so how on earth could any sane person think they are ‘helping the environment’ by doing this?

    Next I expect to see someone argue that they can homogenise the depth of their swimming pool by taking buckets from the deep end and pouring them into the shallow end…

    70

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      Global warming killed the Taswegian tiger, seems unlikely because the species survived previous hot and cold epochs.

      40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    As Jo says, they can demonstrate their total confidence in “renewables” by cutting the interconnectors.

    When will they show us this final proof?

    KK

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      And question why the South Australian Government is asking for Federal funding to build another interconnector into New South Wales.

      72

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        It’s obvious.

        They have lots and lots of cheap renewable power to sell us!

        60

        • #
          Watcher

          I feel like these SA-style solar/wind + interconnection deals is like making a deal with a neighbour to share the costs of a new vehicle with both parties allowed to use it 50% of the time. Once purchased, you then find the neighbour driving this shared car to work in the morning and driving it home in the evening on weekdays and graciously allowing you to use it at any time at night he isn’t using it or on Saturday afternoons or on Sundays. You had originally thought you would get an equal share of the time, but afterwards find you have to let him use the car whenever he wants it and you get to use the car whenever he doesn’t. You might get an equal share of time you are allowed to use it, but it probably isn’t at the times you really want.

          00

  • #
    pat

    theirABC has another ad for solar – no questions asked:

    28 Sept: ABC: The solar boom started in our suburbs, but now it’s moved out of home
    By Kathryn Diss
    But new research by consultancy firm SunWiz has found business solar installations have jumped 60 per cent during the past 18 months to 40,736 systems.
    “It’s accelerated significantly in recent years and continues to be a popular investment for businesses wanting to take care of their electricity prices,” the company’s managing director Warwick Johnston said…
    “When those [power] contracts come up and their renegotiated, all of a sudden they’re finding their prices are almost doubling and sometimes trebling, so when that happens it really jolts them into action.”…

    The Federal Government has touted coal as the savour pushing energy giant AGL against its wishes to keep its ageing Liddell power station in New South Wales open beyond its scheduled closure in 2022.
    But as the research suggests, businesses clearly see the future panning out differently — steelworks giant Arrium and BHP Billiton have also publicly backed renewable energy as underpinning the future viability of their operations…

    “Solar now provides in excess of 30 per cent of our peak power and nearly 40 per cent of off-peak use,” Broadway Fair Shopping Centre general manager Mr Avon-Smith said.
    “We installed the system last year and will fully pay for itself in just over four years.
    “The declining cost of solar and increasing cost of electricity makes a strong business case for investment in a commercially sized PV system with very short timeframes for payback,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/solar-power-perth-businesses-energy-boom/8994314

    20

  • #
    pat

    27 Sept: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Solar farms wrestle with storage costs in Queensland as tender closes
    The Queensland government is hoping to commission at least 100MW/MWh of storage as part of the tender, but is requiring all solar farms – but not potential wind projects – to add storage to their projects.

    The first round of registrations attracted enquiries from more than 200 different proponents, and will announce in the next couple of days how many responded to the EOI (expressions of interest) process that closed on Tuesday. A formal tender will follow in November.
    Solar project developers were required to provide equivalent storage for around 20 per cent of their average daily output…

    So, if a 100MS wind farm with a capacity factor of 25 per cent produced an average 400MWh a day, it would have to come up with 120MWh of storage – about the same size as the Tesla big battery. A 30MW solar farm – the minimum allowed under the EOI – would need around 39MWh of battery storage.

    Any separate battery storage installations must have a dispatchable rating of at least 5MW/5MWh.
    Solar developers have been scratching their heads about this requirement for a bunch of reasons.
    One is that Queensland is probably the state with the least amount of storage needs – given its surplus of coal and gas fired capacity.
    But maybe the government in planning for the future, although they could wait two years and see storage costs fall dramatically…

    Secondly, they question why wind farms are not required to do add storage to their plants. The theory is that the tender has been structured to encourage more wind, as there are already more than 20 large-scale solar projects being developed or about to reach financial close.
    Thirdly, this could be a heaven-sent opportunity for the Kidston solar and pumped hydro storage plant…READ ON
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-farms-wrestle-storage-costs-queensland-tender-closes-66658/

    10

  • #
    pat

    27 Sept: Reuters: Bate Felix: French President Macron says Europe needs significantly higher carbon price
    French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday that Europe needed a significant minimum carbon price to boost investment in its energy transition, and a European carbon tax at the bloc’s borders to guarantee fair competition for its companies.
    Presenting a series of proposals to reform the 28-nation European Union, Macron said Europe had to give “the right price signal” for carbon emissions, and make them sufficiently high enough to attract investments.

    He said that a carbon price below 25 to 30 euros ($35.31) per ton was not efficient to spur investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
    “If in the years ahead, we don’t have a significant price of carbon per ton to allow for a profound change in our economies, then it would be worthless,” Macron said in his speech. “We must work toward that horizon. From today, we must organize ourselves and do it. It is indispensable.”

    Macron added that the ecological transition he was proposing also required Europe to have a common energy market and to develop more electricity interconnections.

    France has been calling for a European carbon floor price which would help curb carbon dioxide emissions, particularly from coal-powered generators, and increase investments in renewable and other cleaner sources of energy…
    France has also been pushing for a reform of the carbon European Emissions Trading System (ETS). Carbon prices under the system, which charges companies for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, have fallen to about 7 euros a ton from about 30 euros in 2008 because of a glut of permits.

    December 2017 expiry EU carbon permits were down 4.12 percent to 6.98 euros a ton on Tuesday…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-eu-carbon/french-president-macron-says-europe-needs-significantly-higher-carbon-price-idUSKCN1C12H7

    10

  • #
    pat

    grand idea…***but on second thought?

    26 Sept: UtilityWeekUK: David Blackman: Labour calls for councils to take over energy system
    Shadow energy secretary Alan Whitehead sets out vision of decentralised energy
    Shadow energy secretary Alan Whitehead has called for local council companies to be able to take control of the whole of the energy system from generation to supply via transmission.
    In a fringe meeting at the Labour party annual conference, the shadow energy minister fleshed out the party’s manifesto commitment to set up council-owned utilities.

    At the meeting, which was organised in association with Eon, he said: “We want to see cities in control of a whole range of activities: generation, transmission and supply. The vision is cities and communities running their own energy generation as far as possible in local areas.”
    “The idea of a city taking control of its own grid and transmission system is doable,” Whitehead said, thanks partly to the increasingly value for money offered by renewable energy…

    ***But at a separate meeting on the following day, he added that National Grid, in some form, would continue to have a role in the decentralised energy system Labour envisages.
    He said: “National Grid will be absolutely essential in terms of large energy distribution, such as bringing offshore wind energy onshore, continuing nuclear and supplying large industrial users. National Grid will the insurance policy for the integrity of those local networks rather than the prime mover. This will be the challenge for the National Grid and will certainly be a challenge for the DNOs.”…
    http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/labour-calls-for-councils-to-take-over-energy-system/1312992#.WcxOluRrzIU

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    The old adage is ‘divide and conquer’ and this is precisely the policy of the greens party in our government. The Greens pretend to be a socialist party, but they (the Greens) give unfair subsidies to the ‘better off’ in our society. And so they gain leftist support from people who would otherwise be conservatives. At the same time they win ‘friends’ in the renewables industry of solar panels-all produced and imported from overseas doing nothing for Australian manufacturing. Just look how quickly these things are installed, not exactly long term employment. The whole business is a ‘sham’ and the unfair subsidies needs to stop now! Regards GeoffW

    60

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      I should have added that the ‘jobs’ in all of this are in the beurocracies like the ‘Clean Energy Commission or whatever’ all located in Canberra of course. GeoffW

      40

  • #
    pat

    folks, they have nothing left but litigation with a little help from fellow travellers…beyond time to call a halt to the CAGW scam:

    27 Sept: BBC: Climate change: Ministers should be ‘sued’ over targets
    By Roger Harrabin
    Ministers should tighten the UK’s official climate change target – or face the courts, the government’s former chief scientist has said.
    Prof Sir David King is supporting a legal case forcing ministers to shrink carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
    He says the current government goal – an 80% emissions cut by the same date – is too weak to protect the climate…

    “This is crazy,” Prof King told the BBC. “The government knows very well what needs to be done – but it isn’t doing it.
    “If it takes legal action to force ministers to behave properly, then so be it – I’ll support it.”

    Prof King is backing a preliminary legal action by a tiny group, Plan B, run by former government lawyer ***Tim Crosland.
    It argues that Business Secretary Greg Clark is obliged under the act to tighten targets if the science shows it is needed. This is the basis of the case.
    Mr Crosland has written to Mr Clark and says if there is no satisfactory reply after 14 days, he will take the case to the High Court for judicial review.

    “The science has clearly hardened since the Climate Change Act was agreed,” he said.
    “If scientists are telling us our current course of emissions potentially takes us to catastrophe, then to stick to the current course is irrational.
    “The best available science tells us the risks of crossing tipping points rise very sharply between 1.5 and 2C. And that means the UK cutting emissions to zero.”….

    Counter-productive?
    His case would be argued in court by ***Jonathan Crow, Attorney General to Prince Charles, and a former senior Treasury lawyer.

    Mr Crosland says his co-claimants are a rabbi “who learned not to ignore a humanitarian crisis”; young people fearing for the future; and a supporter from Mauritius representing island states at risk from rising sea water.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41401656

    LinkedIn: Tim Crosland, Director, Plan B
    Previous: COP21 Support Network, National Crime Agency, UK, Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative (CCI
    Tim graduated from Pembroke College, Oxford University in 1992, with a degree in classical literature and philosophy; and from Utrecht University in 2001 with an LLM in international human rights and environmental law.
    Tim is currently leading the development of COP21 SN, a network of legal, academic and policy experts, from both developed and developing countries, aiming to support negotiations in advance of the next UN conference on climate change…
    Tim is currently contributing to a World Economic Forum book project on ‘Co-ordinated Governance’.

    ***Jonathan Crow defending the Prince in a case brought by an “environmental campaigner”. lol:

    2011: Guardian: Robert Booth: Prince Charles to challenge ruling set to lift secrecy about his estate
    Prince’s lawyers seek to appeal against earlier judgement over release of environmental information by duchy of Cornwall
    Prince Charles is to challenge a judicial ruling that threatens to expose the environmental impact of the private estate that provides his £17m-a-year income.
    The prince’s lawyers have sought leave to appeal against a judgement made earlier this month that concluded the Duchy of Cornwall should release environmental information about its operations because it is effectively a public authority.

    The ruling promised to lift the veil of secrecy around the prince’s £700m hereditary estate that has been in place for hundreds of years, and allow the public to use environmental freedom of information laws to inquire about its activities.
    It was handed down by John Angel, principal judge at the information tribunal after a test case brought by an environmental campaigner in Cornwall…

    Michael Bruton was concerned about the duchy leasing waters for farming non-native oysters in the Lower Fal and Helford intertidal area. He asked the duchy what assessments it had made of the environmental impact of the lease. The duchy refused to answer, saying it was a private estate…

    On Monday, Clarence House confirmed that ***Jonathan Crow QC, Charles’ attorney general, and the duchy “have sought permission to appeal the decision which found that the Duchy is a ‘public authority’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations [Act] 2004″…

    Bruton: “The duchy should be open about its environmental impact because the Prince of Wales has made his career out of saying environmental protection is key to man’s survival on the planet,” he said. “It is a great pity that we don’t know whether the duchy practices what he preaches.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/28/prince-charles-duchy-of-cornwall-court

    20

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Heh! Prince Charles and his duchy of Cornwall bringing in 17 million quid a year and its just pocket money for him!
      I used long ago to like the Prince but these days he has become another talking head for every luny green leftist cause on the planet. Openess and environmental integrity for everyone else, but not for the ‘duchy’ it would seem.
      GeoffW

      31

      • #
        Dennis

        Did you know that Her Majesty’s fleet of Rolls Royce vehicles run on LPG?

        That was a greenhouse gas emission reduction initiative display of climate change solidarity.

        I don’t know about her current Bentley that was built for her and destined to become a museum display one day when she no longer needs it.

        21

  • #
    pat

    CAGW cronies, Frontier Economics, have a great idea, which BBC/Harrabin are happy to spread:

    27 Sept: BBC: Fine homeowners who sell draughty homes, suggests report
    By Roger Harrabin
    Homeowners who sell draughty homes could be fined, a report has suggested.
    Economic consultancy Frontier Economics says the money raised could underpin government funding for insulating the homes of the least wealthy homeowners.
    It is the most radical idea in the report, which also urges interest-free loans and tax and stamp duty rebates for people to insulate their homes.
    Frontier warns the government will miss its targets on cutting carbon emissions unless it stops energy waste in homes…

    The report also suggests that people should be tempted to invest in home improvements through a “salary sacrifice” scheme – where part of a person’s salary goes towards energy efficient renovation, and they then save on the associated income tax.
    Frontier Economics’ report was funded by a coalition of groups concerned about housing stock – including the architects’ body Riba; the green thinktank e3g; the Institution of Civil Engineers and the electricity group Energy UK.
    They all want housing treated as an infrastructure priority…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41405355

    good old CAGW gate-keeper, Fiona, like BBC, doesn’t even provide a link to the report:

    27 Set: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: UK could rescue energy efficient homes policy with few key steps
    ‘Clean growth’ report steps into scrapping of green deal void and reinstates all new homes be zero carbon by 2020
    Now a new report, Affordable warmth, clean growth written by Frontier Economics, has won the backing of more than 20 organisations, including green campaigners, thinktanks, companies selling insulation and services, and the energy companies E.ON and Npower.
    The 88-page report recommends…READ ALL
    Lord Deben, chairman of the statutory Committee on Climate Change, also backed the proposals, saying they should be adopted as part of the government’s “clean growth” strategy, soon to be announced by ministers…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/27/uk-could-rescue-energy-efficient-homes-policy-with-few-key-steps

    more to come.

    20

    • #
      pat

      the 88 pages of CAGW advocacy for cronies who commissioned the report:

      Frontier Economics: Affordable warmth, clean growth
      Download the publication
      http://www.frontier-economics.com/publication/affordable-warmth-clean-growth/

      Frontier Economics are big in Oz, too:

      14 Sept: AdelaideAdvertiser: Frontier Economics, led by power expert Danny Price, paid over $1m to advise on Premier’s energy plan
      by Daniel Wills
      TAXPAYERS forked out $1 million to a consultancy company led by power expert Danny Price to advise the State Government on Premier Jay Weatherill’s controversial energy plan.

      Mr Price is considered one of the top energy experts in the country and advised Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Nick Xenophon on an alternative plan to the carbon tax in 2009.

      However, he has recently emerged as one of Mr Turnbull’s most strident critics and he blamed the Federal Government for creating the energy crisis by failing to deliver policy certainty.

      The State Government has also used Mr Price’s analysis as evidence that its power plan will work.
      Figures provided to a State Parliament committee show Mr Price’s company, Frontier Economics, received $1.08 million for “expert advice on energy market transition” this year.

      The Government says Mr Price’s advice was key in “securing the state-owned power plant”, of nine diesel generators that Mr Weatherill says may later be combined and switched to gas.
      Mr Price determined the scope of the contracts and generation requirements, as well as assisting in the development of contractual arrangements for SA’s battery farm, the Government says.
      He also advised on how new ministerial powers over the market would be used in future…

      Opposition treasury spokesman Rob Lucas said the $1 million in taxpayer funds given to Frontier Economics was “an extraordinary large payment” that seemed “excessive and wasteful”.
      “(Premier Jay) Weatherill must also indicate whether Mr Price’s analysis of the Government’s power plan was independent, or was he involved with formulating the plan?” Mr Lucas said. “The Government can’t have it both ways.
      “Clearly, if Mr Price was involved in formulating the plan he can’t also provide an independent assessment of the plan he helped formulate.”…

      A Government spokesman said the $550 million energy plan released in March was needed because the national electricity market was failing to drive new investment…ETC
      http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/frontier-economics-led-by-power-expert-danny-price-paid-over-1m-to-advise-on-premiers-energy-plan/news-story/ff3cb71281fe9c238384a929f3d71d67

      SA power: Government’s energy plan includes installation of aero derivative generators, but why?
      ABC Online-15 Mar. 2017
      Energy market specialist Danny Price from Frontier Economics answered these questions about SA’s new power plan…
      Q: How big are aero derivative generators?
      DANNY PRICE: They’re about the size of a bus — they’re not very big at all…

      What is a low emissions target and how will it curb carbon emissions?
      ABC Online-7 Jun. 2017
      The managing director of Frontier Economics, Danny Price, said…

      Renewable energy: Expert Danny Price says nation is heading for a ‘third-world power system’
      ABC Online-15 Feb. 2017
      But Mr Price said the states and territories were doing the heavy lifting.
      “If nothing changes in terms of current policy settings, that is that those state targets go ahead, we actually achieve the 28 per cent reduction with no national policy and I figure that the national Government must know this,” Mr Price told ABC’s AM…
      Mr Price is currently advising the South Australian State Government.
      He has assisted the development of the Australian electricity market rules and in 2009 helped create an emissions trading scheme policy for then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and independent senator Nick Xenophon…

      30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Amazing stuff. It used to be called micro managing but is now known as Environmental Science.

      30

  • #
    pat

    Mary is with the CAGW program, so FakeNewsNYT loves her, but Hiroko eventually gets to the climate evangelism & overreach problem:

    27 Sept: NYT: U.S. Climate Change Policy: Made in California
    By HIROKO TABUCHI
    Mary D. Nichols, California’s electric-car-driving, hoodie-wearing, 72-year-old air quality regulator, is pressing ahead with a far-reaching agenda of environmental and climate actions. She says she will not let the Trump administration stand in her way.
    “We’re standing firm. We’re prepared to sue. We’re prepared to do what we need to do,” Ms. Nichols said in a recent interview. “We aren’t going anywhere.”…

    To understand why California has long blazed the trail for the rest of the country in air quality, gaze down from the hills above Turnbull Canyon at the Los Angeles haze.
    Ringed by mountains that act as a pollution trap for the fumes from the valley’s cars and factories, ***the Los Angeles-Long Beach area consistently ranks among the nation’s worst areas for ozone and particle pollution…

    A clean-car evangelist, she is often seen driving around Los Angeles, where she lives, in her zero-emissions Honda Fit in “electric violet blue.” (She recently leased a second vehicle, a Toyota Mirai, a zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell car, also in blue.)…

    Accusations of Overreach
    Even in California, some critics challenge the expansive powers of a board of unelected officials with the authority to set environmental policy. All but two of the board’s 14 voting members are appointed by the governor, and today include a doctor, an almond farmer and a paint company executive…

    Over the years, CARB has expanded its reach, regulating products as diverse as lawn mowers and bulldozers, air fresheners, paint thinners and even hair and bug spray. It has sent inspectors to Tokyo and Stuttgart, Germany, to monitor the testing of cars manufactured overseas. And it oversees a system of air-quality management districts across California that issue and enforce their own local regulations.

    The agency is insulated even from state budgetary and legislative pressures. Its $956 million budget comes from user fees, like permits paid by polluters or the fees paid by car owners for smog certification, instead of from the state’s general fund…

    Accusations of overreach exploded in 2015, when Mr. Brown made a push to require a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 2030, with CARB managing the reduction. Republicans and even some Democrats balked at the plan, and an oil industry campaign warned that the law would vastly expand CARB’s authority and could even lead to gas rationing.

    The governor eventually abandoned his push. He also signed legislation allowing the state Senate and Assembly to appoint one member each to the CARB board, enhancing lawmakers’ control over the agency.

    “What worries me is that they have unrestrained power,” said Mike Morrell, a Republican state senator who is one of CARB’s toughest critics. “They think they’re the masters of the universe.”…

    (A version of this article appears in print on September 27, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Climate Change Policy: Made in California)
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/climate/california-climate-change.html

    00

  • #
    David Maddison

    QUESTION:
    Which of the unreliables is the worst, wind or solar? My feeling is that solar might be a bit better as it is slightly more predictable than wind. Is that correct. Not sure of the cost per unit of actual capacity (not nameplate).

    61

    • #

      If you had a super-power what would you choose?

      13

    • #
      RickWill

      I would take no moving parts over massive moving parts for the same job any day.

      The power flux at a wind turbine is a cube relationship with wind speed. Managing the wide range in flux and still getting useful output power for a reasonable portion of the time is challenging.

      Solar has a predictable peak and there is some output in most parts of Australia every day.

      Germany has hit a wall with onshore wind as there are few places now available to install them. Australia has not yet got to that stage but as the number of units increase it is expected there will be more ill will and fewer good locations.

      In the long run I expect solar will dominate in Australia despite the price being a bit higher on paper. There are solar panels that have been operating for 40 years with little loss of output. All the early wind generators are long dead – some after only a few years of operation. Fatigue cycling on wind turbines is a key design issue and it takes a lot of engineering plus operating experience to get a handle on this aspect. I think 20 year life will be regarded as exceptional for the current fleet of wind generators. Europe is already developing protocols for replacing its ageing fleet built since 2000.

      The only meaningful measure is buffered or dispatchable output. In most parts of Australia you can count on 2 hours of full sunshine equivalent in 48 hours. That sets the size of the collection array and battery to meet a given daily demand. I believe that wind is less reliable in most of Australia so it needs more storage. I expect places like Scotland would do much better with wind than solar. Albany in Australia probably does better with wind than solar but I have not actually checked that with measured data.

      40

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      I’m with you probably solar but why do we even have to consider this question when Co2 is nothing more than plant food .
      GA , my answer to your question is a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs .

      70

    • #

      If you consider cost and price variability in time of war or outright manipulation, diesel is the worst electricity source. After that is wind, because you can at least run a caravan with solar.

      But there I go making a distinction between wind/solar and diesel. They’re all a package.

      Big Oil/Gas and Big Green are in a loveless marriage…but it’s a marriage, nonetheless. The fact that they don’t wear a ring and never announced the engagement and claim the passionless relationship is temporary or transitional…this is beside the point.

      Who says wind and solar means Big Oil. Thanks for the expensive sludge, warmies.

      50

  • #
    ScotsmanInUtah

    Hope and your electricity supply

    It seems strange that in this modern era that the word “hope” should be used to describe one’s electricity supply.

    Therefore to invest in the infrastructure of such an unreliable system seems imprudent at best , foolish at worst :o

    40

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    The moral choice for going solar is to go 100% off grid. That way, the greedy power oligarchs don’t get your highly invested solar electron surplus at bargain prices to resell at huge markups to already hurting consumers. The other reason for 100% off grid choice is you have total control of the means of production which requires excellent stewardship skills to manage the electricity you produce. Another benefit is immunity from solar political chicanery.

    60

    • #
      RickWill

      Every grid defector burdens those remaining with the costs of keeping the grid afloat. Those costs do not come down as there is a very high cost of capital to recover from a diminishing consumer base.

      That scenario is inevitable while the RET remains. The grid benefits from the large scale coal generators. The grid makes no sense with distributed energy collection and power generation.

      50

  • #
    yarpos

    Quiet frankly I just dont care about the cross subsidy argument, just about any service you want to pick is subsidised, used and not paid for, paid for but not used. We installed a small solar array just to take the top off our usage in summer, and offset the house to some extent at other times. We dont bother reporting the presence of the panels to the retailers, just to keep our lives simple. Hand wringing and moralising, I will not be doing, to paraphrase Yoda.

    00

  • #
    Analitik

    I wonder how the ROI is working out for Clayton Lyndon who bought a system with SIX Powerwalls and NINETY-THREE (24kW) panels and THREE inverters???

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/a-gold-coast-man-bought-six-powerwall-batteries-to-create-a-tesla-power-station-at-home-2016-9
    https://naturalsolar.com.au/tesla-powerwall-home-battery/case-study-the-most-powerwall-batteries-installed-at-one-location/

    Somehow, I don’t see the 5-6 year payback period being realistic…

    00