Tell me again how solar power is cheaper than fossil fuels
People in the UK have been misled into taking out loans to put solar panels on their roof — they were told the panels would “pay for themselves” but discovered they were losing money. The UK Ombudsman has received around 2,000 complaints.
Barclays bank hit by solar scandal
Solar manufacturers paired up with banks to install and finance solar installations telling customers they’d make money, except many didn’t:
… a common method was to encourage households to buy the panels on credit from a partner lender. Households were often told that the subsidy income, combined with the savings from buying less electricity, would more than cover the loan repayments. In some cases this proved to be false.
Many of those to whom panels were allegedly mis-sold were either “retired or approaching retirement” and some were “left in financial difficulty”, the financial ombudsman said. One customer was left £1,000 a year worse off.
We can all say fair’s fair, do your homework before you buy. But under UK law, the partner-banks are responsible for the financial scam not the solar manufacturers (and not the customers). Presumably the banks were the ones selling solar panels as if they were a get rich quick scheme.
Our whole nation has been fooled by a solar scheme. Just call us patsies-downunder.
[The Times, UK] Although the sales were made by solar companies, consumer credit laws put the banks that provided the loans on the hook for any alleged mis-selling.
Many of the complaints are still being processed but the ombudsman confirmed that its adjudicators, who give the initial verdict on cases, have upheld some complaints against all three. The exact number has not been disclosed.
The ombudsman said it was “telling the credit providers involved to put things right” and was “beginning to see many consumers receiving offers from the lenders to settle these complaints”.
Banks can be told to remove the panels, cancel credit agreements and refund payments made.
“Banks can be told to remove the panels, cancel credit agreements and refund payments made.” This could get very costly as the age deterioration makes it all worse. Battery systems my not yet be arriving at the cycle life expired moment. Are the present events just the tip of the iceberg with more and worse to come. What happens to house prices if the panels are seen as an added cost rather than an asset.
261
Be very happy you’re not in California where solar panels will soon be mandated on new homes: http://fortune.com/2018/05/07/california-solar-mandate/
Just because everyone will be in the same boat doesn’t make it cheaper.
311
Moonbeam Brown takes his legacy very seriously doesn’t he.
130
Australia seems to being setup by politicians to have the energy rug pulled out from under it….
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-09/australias-liquid-fuel-stockpile-perilously-low-energy-security/9742340
“Australia is an island nation that depends heavily on imported fuel — and our stockpile is critically low. According to recent reports, we have just 22 days’ worth of crude oil, 59 days of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), 20 days of petrol, 19 days of aviation fuel, and 21 days of diesel in reserve.
This is clearly in contravention of Australia’s obligation as a member of the International Energy Agency (IEA) to hold at least 90 days of supply.”
60
Is there No punishment for failing, deliberately, to comply with common sense.
Politicians who put our country at risk by effectively making us immobile inside a few weeks from the date supply is cut off are Tra$torous.
All of the refineries which were shut down were probably adjacent to prime real estate owned by you know who.
Would the land value increase if a dirdy refinery next to it was closed.
Just thinkin.
KK
10
It isn’t just Moonbeam. It takes the legislature or the initiative process to get anything into law. So in the end it’s the voters who are destroying their own nest by their choices of who to vote for in the Assembly and the Senate. The governor is only the last link in the chain. And almost all of California’s nonsense law making came from the legislature to the governor’s desk for signature.
40
Will he be renamed Sunbeam?
10
Take the long view.
When those useless panels deteriorate into a state of uselessness, they’ll provide the basis of an entire new industry for roof-top junk removal. And, when you plan to buy a house with degraded solar junk on the roof, surely the astute buyer will insist that the vendor remove the junk and restore the roof as original, or provide a brand-new pile of junk before the sale is completed?
In the meantime, whatever happened to caveat emptor ?
Oh the irony of nanny-state to the rescue!
270
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in Israel every new buildinghad to put up some solar panels. What is their experience?
11
Robdel, Israel’s objective is to produce 10% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2020. There are over 1.3 million solar water heaters installed as a result of mandatory solar water heating regulations in Israel.
20
Unlike solar panels for grid power, solar hot water for the home is a good idea. Solar water heaters can use the far higher heating power of UV light and be backed by gas or electric for the less effective days so are efficient with a back up plan.
190
Oh and they would not be putting hot water that is easy enough to store hot for a while onto the grid to annoy everyone else.
130
Solar hot water is not so good for frosty areas. If the owner is not alert, a good winter frost can split the tanks … 🙁
30
” Solar water heaters can use the far higher heating power of UV light and be backed by gas or electric for the less effective days so are efficient with a back up plan.”
In fact solar HW systems can utilise pretty much the full spectrum.
50
We’ve been down to -5C with our system (evacuated tube) and ok (so far).
50
S
The solars we had for frosty areas have a dual heating circuit. The actual panel fluid has antifreeze – IIRC glycerine – in the fluid and there is a second heat exchanger in the tank
50
TedM May09,18:19:30
What “far higher heating power of UV”? For surface insolation flux, 95% is between 0.45 and 0.94 microns, with another 4.3% at longer wavelengths. Wonderful stratospheric O3 absorbs most all Solar UV. 🙂
30
Will,
In regard to your comment above at 1.6 I have a question.
When I was much younger, in fact about 64 years ago when I could not afford thongs, I used to run up to Bar beach in Newcastle for a surf.
No big deal, but I learned to run barefooted on the grey concrete edge of the road rather than the black tar which was bloody hot.
I know why the tar was hotter than the concrete.
Can you tell the listeners what was heating the pavement if it wasn’t UV.
Yours in Science
🙂 KK
p.s. I am currently half way through a bottle of Napoleon 1875 French Brandy. Very cheap.
I hasten to add that the bottle is a week old.
30
Kinky Keith May09,18:20:34
Hummn..
Perhaps the concrete felt less ‘hot'(power transfer), from tar,asphalt,bitumen as it did not stick to your feet when in the air.
However UV is but a band of frequencies\wavelengths. the scam is that each nonsense higher frequency “photons” have more ‘energy'(hv).
But that is only because each ‘photon’ (cycle) delivers the same “action” joule-seconds (h); so at twice the frequency twice the joules/second,(two cycles)! The confusion is deliberate by the climate clowns. Please examine the plot of the measured Earth surface Solar irradiance. There isn’t any UV W/(m²·sr·cm)! 🙂 I much enjoy my Glenfiddich.
30
KK,
Napoleon is looking for that bottle.
If he finds it is with you, he’ll beat the living sheets out of you.
20
O.K. Will
So you are saying that all wavelengths can deliver the same amount of energy,
Can you comment on the concept of “virtue” when comparing energy parcels of different wavelengths.
Do frequencies at UV and IR levels induce the same temperature rise in a material or can UV induce higher temperatures?
Confusing.
KK
20
Kinky Keith May10,18:02:59
W·sec; ±(time integral of power) YES! But try ‘WORK’ (W·length), or ‘ACTION’ (W·length²). What is being transfered each second? 🙂
“Parcels”? Try a mathematical quantum, (imaginary ‘photon’ thing) gauge boson! Deleberate dumming down of anything ‘measureable’! 🙂
” As flux YES
Intentionally so via arrogant Marxist academics! Spontaneous (thermal) EMR flux; can induce no temperature higher than itself. 🙂
All the best!-will-
30
The concept of ‘photon’ is the ‘distal end gauge boson’, (traffic cop), that decides what to do with each EMR quantum according to the triplicate (absorption, transmission, reflection); always summing to unity; at each frequency, each direction, for each ‘mass surface area’! If this were simple; ‘ROACHES’ could do it better, faster; and would be the current Earth’s top predator! 🙂
All the best!-will-
10
The current Earth’s top predator cannot convert sunlight plus atmospheric CO2/H2 into mass; (photosynthesis)! Such must consume (eat) other! Bad enough to eat cute bunny rabbits.
Humans have discovered horticulture and livestock breeding for survival! The latest is cultivating human serfs to supply food\effort for sustenance\reproduction of the self appointed Elite Zentral Committee! Trillions of dollars are at stake! My kitten Shadow loves me, as long as I have her food! 🙂
00
TedM
May 9, 2018 at 7:30 pm
“In fact solar HW systems can utilise pretty much the full spectrum.”
Yes that is more correct than my wording. The chart linked to below shows how bad the solar PV response is at the UV end.
Will Janoschka
May 9, 2018 at 8:13 pm
“Wonderful stratospheric O3 absorbs most all Solar UV.”
The left over from “not most” all is enough. A lot is absorbed to heat the atmosphere from the sub band “C” less from the sub band “b” and less again from the sub band “a”.
Due to frequently logarithmic frequency displays or displays of wavelength instead of frequency it often seems like the UV band does not cover a very wide frequency range.
If power from the sun was flat across the spectrum and we all know it isn’t,it would be directly proportional to bandwidth.
IR bandwidth = 429700GHz
Visible bandwidth = 360000GHz
UV bandwidth = 29210000GHz
These numbers vary from source to source on the net but it is not hard to see the full UV band has two more zeros so could be 98-99% absorbed and still be comparable.
The absorption is less than that making up for the not flat part, varies with frequency with more loss to atmospheric heating at the high frequency end and plenty makes it to the ground.
When the temperature of the hot water matters is on cloudy days. On these days visible and infrared are knocked out leaving UV or not much.
https://pvpmc.sandia.gov/modeling-steps/2-dc-module-iv/effective-irradiance/spectral-response/
00
Solar hot water heaters were originally introduced to Israel due to energy insecurity in the 1950’s and became compulsory with certain exceptions in 1976.
Even so developers of high rise apartments can legally avoid them.
https://m.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israeli-apartment-buildings-failing-to-maximize-solar-water-heating-potential-362134/amp
Now that Israel has made huge gas discoveries she has energy security, maybe they won’t be compulsory in future.
Having said that solar hot water heating is probably cost effective in a sunny country like Israel although sometimes it is an eyesore looking at all those rooftop heaters.
40
If only the UK was at the same latitude as Israel …… At least those who fell for this scam get the panels washed for free – truly in this case, by our continual rainfall. (Tho’ we’ve had a 3-day break with temps. around 23C, being called a “heatwave”.)
70
Latus Dextro said:
… and disposal. They can’t be tipped and go into landfill with all the `heavy metals’ in them. They’re Toxic Rubbish. The owners of them will find themselves having to pay `Recycling Fees’—injury added to insult.
Japan reached this state about three years ago and they have real disposal problems.
140
My business partner has just bought a house (South East UK) with rooftop solar panels already installed.
When I asked him how he intended to dispose of the toxic waste, his answer was “I’ll move before then…..”
He may well be too optimistic – this will surely follow the same course as the asbestos removal/disposal issue.
40
From that link posted by Spetzer86,
And so the bull still marches right through the brain of everyone involved in this idiotic idea of renewable energy replacing conventional generation? That statement is provably false using current experience.
California has stated a goal of solar panels on every roof by some future date. But law or no law, they’ll have trouble getting them on my roof because I’ll deny them access to the property. I don’t know how successful that will be but no matter what anyone thinks, my home is still my castle and I still rule here. And I intend to fight.
40
I recognize that the scam of selling your power to the power company at full retail, if you will, always looks good. There are times. of course, that you have to buy it back. But when the system is set up so that when the power is off on the grid side, you can’t even use your own power, then you know that it really makes little sense.
I have entertained the possibility of putting panels, an inverter and batteries in my house for the purpose of having backup power for my own needs, but the cost of recycling the battery bank has been the main reason for not doing so since it costs more than what I am likely to lose in food, etc., for the occasional outage.
But banks are prone to running scams on people that are not educationally prepared for them, such as buying houses on ARMs that they can not pay for when the interest rates jump, on the “don’t worry, you’ll have already sold it before that will happen, and walked away with a nest egg” bull droppings.
There is no more vulnerable a group of people than poor people trying to find a way to a better life, listening to “professionals” telling them how it truly is within their reach and abilities. “doing due diligence” is a middle class thing, a wing and a prayer is how the poor have to do it.
310
I bought a 10 KVA gen set for under $1000. Running my home at normal capacity, [no air or heating], it burns just over a liter of diesel an hour. I even made sure it had crank start that I could work before I bought it, so no need for batteries, ever.
The similar diesel pump on the dam has been working now for 26 years, so I don’t expect much cost in maintenance, if treated properly.
Levees solar for dead.
100
Have a back up 8KvA generator for 800$ with electric( battery) start. Compatible with our rural house. Way of the future. Ummm….just in case maybe. Be prepared!
30
Rule 1: If it is too good to be true, it usually is.
Rule 2: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Rule 3: If you get it free, it usually is the most costly purchase you have ever made.
So: say no to anything that is too good to be true, don’t expect a free lunch, and be very wary of accepting free stuff. Your health and wealth will thank you for it.
300
Any bank or solar company is free to rent my roof space for a reasonable fee. They can maintain the panels to any standard they like and my only stipulation is that they attend in reasonable hours and don’t make too much noise.
The bank or company can keep all the profits and all ownership of hardware. I’ll just take my fee.
So…any takers? Don’t all rush. Please get on the queue to make a reasonable offer for my roof space.
Hello, banker man or solar man…got some roof space for you. 32 degree latitude, lots of sunshine. Don’t miss this opportunity…
Hello?
Silence.
260
momoso @ #3.1
Renting out the roof area for solar panels was all the go a couple of years ago in the UK.
And then the proverbial hit the fan for quite a lot of those who had rented out their roof area to the solar scamming industry.
As is usual with most things people don’t read the very fine print in a contract numbering a number of pages.
.
[ doing so probably saved me from being put in a position which some farmers around here were, of being bankrupted by what was at the time one of the largest british controlled stock and station agencies in Australia which itself went broke a few years later and has since disappeared.
I was called in by the local branch manager andTThe contract was shoved under my nose and I was told to sign here.
I refused to sign until I had read the entire multi page “routine contract that everybody signed” and then refused to sign it at all as the control of our property was effectively handed over to the be managed by that same international Stock and Station company who could do what they liked and did, with live livestock and grains on the farmers that signed under threats of severe financial pressure.
We changed to a new Stock and station agency within a few days after this despite being a couple of decades long customers of the original Stock and Station agengency. ]
.
The landlords / owners of roof area on which the solar scammers had installed their solar panels discovered to their abject horror that they had signed a contract where they had to get the approval of the solar company to sell or rent or even to just make any alterations and improvements to the house for the period that the contract renting of the roof area ran for which was mostly around twenty years.
And if the solar company no longer neccessarily owned and run by the original installers and contract holders of a few years later did not lke the sale or the alterations or the proposed new renters of the property they could and did block all such actions by the real owner /s of the property who had foolishly signed that contract without realising or reading the contents of that contract.
190
I’m in South Carolina, USA.
The state government, power companies and commercial solar suppliers combined are pushing that “payback” meme; never mentioning that the calculation depends on state subsidies. They then tell us the “deal” is only available in certain parts of the state.
Unfortunately, few people recognise that since the state doesn’t manufacture money, what that boils down to is that I’m paying someone else’s electric bill through taxes!
That pitch is ALSO dependent on the devices living up to advertized output; just try to find out who will stand behind those “promises”. Don’t look to the state for renumeration :).
100
Yes, and besides making no money as investments, AND not paying for their FULL ACTUAL COSTS, even more glaringly they will not generate the money necessary to fund replacing themselves, at end of their service life as reliabilty plumets.
Which is ok, as we don’t expect coal or uranium power stations to fund their own replacement costs … oh hang on … yes we do! … else they become a non-economic and non viable supply, longer term, and generation capacity will collapse.
Someone has ro pay. Either taxpayers, via govt, or the buyers after it is privatised.
After all, these are only ESASENTIAL SERVICES—why wouldn’t you monkey about with them with a complete lack of concern for the outcome?
Responsibility is optional, after all.
Thus the private owners will not obtain a new long term loan, to recapitalise a new replacement electron generation plant, as the can’t get loans from a bank, as its too high risk.The private sector must therefore have profit in its pockets sufficent to fund new replacement generating capacity, themselves.
Good luck with that. No one bought Solar either, until there was a bucket of ‘free money’ involved.
So much for ‘privatisation’—it’s a fantasy, a critter that doesn’t exist, the plebs just pay multiples more, for the very same product, and the taxpayer remains on the hook, they can’t allow private failure, no matter how justified, ss these are …. ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
Privatisation us just govtbusduing licenced to rort the taxpayers at higher and higher levels.
Milk that cow!
So privatisation and on-gping private ‘investments’ in a comprehensively manipulated essential electron market service is inevitably corrupt and dyfunctional—the generating capacity will NOT be replaced.
Privatisation = Stealing Public money.
Not a typo, you read that correctly. Privatisation never should have occurred, and everyone paying the billbcan see that.
And the now unavoudable re-nationalising will be an even greater CRIME, but they will STEAL our superannuation funds first, before they resort to that—milk the s**t out of that cow!
No money to recapitalise, and now govt and bank built-in non-profitability of BASELOAD generatoin capacity.
Meanwhile, the much alegedly ‘private’ solar and ‘private’ wind, will ALSO not generate the net profit to recapitalise their hopelessly limited non-baseload, non-economic generating capacity, either.
So there will be diminishing ACTUAL private investments, in all forms of electron generation from here, as NO ONE can afford to refund plant replacement costs, from the electron sales.
That is the only actual market here.
TSo the only “greater-fool” with the bucks to do it, is the outraged and totally disgusted now militant taxpayers, who want political and banking blood ‘n guts on a platter.
While the disgusting filthy greenies will cherr and grin privately, while publically continuously lobbying to mandate use of superannuation funds to finance deliberately ejgineered loss-making electron generation gimmiks, to be sure that they have fully impoverished Australians, and deliberately betrayed all of its people’s interests, while the treacherous vermin in both the Labor and Liberal parties avidly assist the greens to remediate the “crisis”, via puting the taxpayers firmly on the hook for every ‘private market’ loss, once again, thus letting the private sector comletely off the hook, and raiding superannuation funds, by mandate.
After all, electrons are an essential service—too important to fail!
So no amount of soneoe eles’s money will ever be to big to pay off the scammers. We’ll just have to hold our nose and pay these delightful companies whatever ransom they demand.
Meanwhile the greenies will keep tossing spsnners into the machinery, while acting all surprised, concerned, outraged and mystified as to why stuff imploded.
In short, renewables are not renewable at all, and in the process of pseudo-‘privatisating’ the former 1980s state-owned baseload generators, they have made them non economic to renew themselves either (via the GDP growth revenue base expansion they had already enabled).
And the greens will be smiling from ear to ear, for they have managed to make Australians and their uncompetitive businesses pay 5 times more than necessary for electrons, AND destroyed a major market economy’s underpinnings, plus destroyed trust its political process, and in its form of government, put millions out of work, created poverty and dedtitution, and destroyed the peace, security and social fabric of an entire continent.
And we’ve all just let them do it to us.
And Labor, Liberal and National Parties enabled the on-going smashing of the national industrial spine, upon which everything else hangs and depends upon.
Who needs destructive international enemies, when you have national, state and local fifth-column political entities like these ‘governing’ you?
50
Nonsense, the privatisation of Victoria’s electricity gas and transport assets netted the Kennett government $33 billion (~$55 billion in 2017) to pay off a debt which had soared to over $30b under the Cain and Kirner Labor governments and the State Bank was near collapse.
Since the Rudd government mandated a 20% renewable energy target in 2007 the electricity prices have taken off in all states whether government or privately owned and operated.
Fact check:
“Experts say the biggest influences on what people pay for electricity are costs of transmission and distribution. They say these costs have risen in recent years irrespective of whether the owners of the transmission and distribution networks are privatised”.
11
Increased network costs are presented as if they are unrelated to the increased ‘renewable’ energy generation but that is untrue.
40
Yes.
11
Privatisation has been an unmitigated financial desaster for consumers and business, for the past two decades. A complete travesty of corruption and continuous scamming snd exploitation of captured consumers.
The Vic state debt was a separate systemic-failure, which you try to conflate the two, to claim one desaster solved the other desaster?
Rubbish!
They still fleeced the public, regardless of balancing books, that never should have been unbalanced! What sort of opportunistic ‘logic’ is that?
The outrageous mess that is the aftermath of privatisation of state electricty grids is discussed everyday. It the privatisation had not occurred the scams and demented politics of electon suppy would never have gotten into such a mess.
Kerner + Kennett, and state premiers just like them, screwed everyone, longer term, with the very same incompetant lazy election-buying debt, and asset sales.
Privatization has been a total rort, money constanly being skimmed and scammed off the public.
Meanwhile, more scummy corrupt premiers wnd parties continued to buy elections with debt-powered deficits and public debt growth.
So what state asset base would you like to pseudo-‘privatise’ now, to ‘fix’ the Andrew’s govt debt desaster? How would you make it even worse, this time?
00
Lionell,
About your rules: You aren’t supposed to understand things that well. Jerry Brown didn’t give you permission to think.
Oops, I forgot, you don’t live in California anymore.
30
My 81st birthday is May 12. I am still thinking and understand with all the clarity I can muster. It will take something a lot stronger than a moonbeam and corrupt politicians to cause me to stop doing it.
30
Clarity of thinking\consideration! Let one that demonstrates car fixing skill; fix your car, for whatever price. Salesman claim of cheaper fixing; leads to wheels-falling-off! 🙂
00
Thinking\consideration! is but learning; sometimes involving getting eyebrows burned off when ‘IT’ goes ‘BANG’! UNDERSTANDING is getting your younger sibling\friend to try ‘IT’ next time!! 🙂
00
Whether the panels stay, go, or are paid for by a bank — “the weather” won’t care, nor will “the climate.”
I did walk across the black parking lot of a large mall yesterday. I’d recommend painting those white. Very costly, but noticeable to your feet. They care about such things.
130
Solar has uses.
I have a little solar exhaust unit on my roof. Combined with ceiling insulation, it works okay. My neighbour across the valley can’t go grid so he’s been solar for many years. The main thing is to keep those stupid panels in a clearing on the ground so they can be maintained without risk to legs, heads, necks. Forget the roof.
And he needs lots of gas for cooking and fridges, diesel for back-up and transporting gas, batteries etc. And he is limited with certain appliances and functions. I was showing his son how to roast coffee in a little popcorn popper…till we realised he may not be able to run a little popcorn popper.
Solar is okay, but there’s a reason why people who actually make stuff – like batteries and solar panels! – use lots of coal. This is why Japan is not only expanding coal with new plants but even keeping 50 year old plants chugging (which is a pity, but Japan also has to pay for window-dressing nonsense like carbon capture r&d in Wyoming to keep the luvvies and carpetbaggers quiet). Japan has opened at least 8 new coal-power plants in the last two years with plans for at least 36 more in the next ten years. They make lots of stuff, get it? Make + lots of stuff = coal. Get it? As in India, China, Japan, S Korea, Germany. Get it?
As for rooftop solar at fifty degrees latitude…only a banker could love it. But the printed/invented money comes in at the top end to get repaid by actual labour or savings from the bottom. Get it? So the banker could be putting marshmallows or old boots on your roof and it won’t matter. Until it does matter…but that’s for later.
240
Speaking of keeping them off the roof, I’ve often wondered, are solar panels and collecting rain water off your roof for drinking incompatible?
You hear stories of panels de-laminating especially under salty conditions, exposing all their toxic contents, but if you live next to the beach you’re not likely to want to collect salty rainwater in any case. I read one report of panels failing at 10 years of age in outback QLD under high UV conditions where they were used to drive small water pumps for stock watering, but that was mostly internal failure — failure to produce power.
Anyone know of water contamination issues associated with solar roof panels under “average” conditions, either when the panels are new or as they age?
50
“ Anyone know …”
Don’t know the answer to that.
Do know that some places do not allow collecting rainwater.
How seriously such laws are enforced I do not know.
10
My son-in-law in San Diego uses solar to directly heat the water in his swimming pool.
(Why you would need a heated pool in San Diego is another question; but I’ve found it best not to question or advise the younger generation.)
On the other hand, I also participated in a group that researched and advised my rural small town (when I lived in upstate NY on one of the Finger Lakes) on zoning restrictions for wind energy devices. We found that “private” wind generators (e.g to power irrigation on a farm) or “commercial” generators connected to the grid (to offset power costs in a small business) would have no negative impact on our town and could be beneficial to our local businesses.
However, the “industrial” wind plants (in no way were they “farms”) would do huge environmental damage to our Finger Lakes area and would also cost the town substantial cost in road and bridge maintenance from the massively oversized vehicles, including cranes, required for construction.
120
Well said Mosomo.
How could we not “get it”.
🙂
30
O/T another fact check
“Google’s massive carbon footprint fingered with new online tool”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/08/googles-massive-carbon-footprint-fingered-with-new-online-tool/
30
Has anyone run the sums on roof top solar economics, both theoretically and practically, over a full life cycle?
I know of a couple of examples of people receiving feed in tariff of 60 cents/kWhr since 2010, they are making a killing at our expense.
Anyone with experience with current feed in tariff of 11.3 cents and the impact of moving to time of day pricing?
50
Some people I know who built recently receive about 8c back. Their units are up around 10-11kw and thus most of the sunlight is returned to the grid. They pay between 20-120 a month running a mcmansion during summer.
I have a 1.5kw unit where very little is returned to the grid but I get 50c/kwh back. My bills generally average between 80-130 per month running a large house on acreage thus I have to treat my own grey water etc.
30
Robber:
I put in solar 7 years ago and have been receiving a very good feed-in tariff which has fluctuated between 44¢ and 60¢ per kWh. I have only had the 60¢ rate for the last 2 years and it puzzles me why the retailer would pay that (equivalent to $600 a MWh when the wholesale rate is usually, in SA, a quarter of that) but assume that on hot sunny days when demand peaks that they have to pay more for grid supply. I haven’t paid an electricity bill in the 7 years and overall my return on investment (counting the bills paid) has been between 15 and 19% tax free.
Apart from having to buy a new inverter early this year I have nearly paid off my “investment”.
The trick with new installations is that the ever rising supply rates wipes out the benefit of the feed-in tariff. You have to ‘export’ lots more solar to pat for what you use, hence the large number of installations above 10kWh. Intending investors should draw up a spreadsheet and do their calculations bearing in mind that all our politicians are claiming more renewables will lower the wholesale cost, so a rise is certain.
50
I thought that the feed in tarriff had been slashed to about 6c/kWh.
Lucky you and poor us.
40
The feed in tariff could well continue to fall as the wholesale price of electricity to the retailer falls.
https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Industries/Energy/Reviews/Electricity/Solar-feed-in-tariffs-201819
In NSW, retailers can choose whether or not to offer solar feed-in tariffs to their customers, and decide the level of the solar feed-in tariff that they offer. However, to help guide retailers and customers, each year IPART recommends a benchmark for solar-feed in tariffs.
‘Our draft all-day solar feed-in tariff benchmark for 2018-19 is 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kWh).
This is lower than our current benchmark for 2017/18 of 11.9 to 15.0 c/kWh.
This year we have also been asked to set time-dependent feed-in tariffs to take into account the different values of solar exports at different times of the day.’
If you have battery you may be able to feed in at times when the wholesale price is much higher.
But then more capital outlay and potentially flammable lithium batteries are involved.
Paradoxically it may be cheaper to make electricity with fossil fuels at times of peak demand when the electricity commands a higher price.
But then that would destroy the planet, would it not?
40
Not yet, they will put the 6 kW of panels on my roof tomorrow!
Yes, I have been on this site for years and believe that CO2 is fertilizer not temperature poison!
So, why you ask? Because good, bad or indifferent they will minimize my power bill. ROC on $5,500 is ~ 4 yrs. I hope!
Because I have been paying for every other bugger to put them on their roof so I thank you for donating to my panels!
41
6kw panels will theoretically generate 8395 kWh per annum (that’s at 17% efficiency which many solar sellers claim). At Tony’s figure (which I think is more accurate) of 11% you are looking at 5782 kWh.
$5500 per annum would be a very high usage and works out at 9016kWh per annum even at the SA rate of 61¢ per kWh (everything included). I am assuming that your usage in kWh is less than your intended generation.
At the generation figures above you would get a return of between $3527 and $5121 (because most of your usage will be at times of higher rates). If your charges are now less than 61¢ per kWh then you will have to reduce your return pro rata. Even at 30.5¢ per kWh you should get $1763 or 32% return or a payback time of just over 3 years. Beware however that there are problems;
Your panels have to be clean.
The panels have to continue working for 6 years or more (to pay for replacements). And they will deteriorate.
Your inverter has to continue working (and having been hit for $1880 earlier this year I think this is worth mentioning).
Your supplier doesn’t increase the Service Charge, the GST etc.
Your supplier doesn’t increase the rate per kWh. That means you bill shoots up for any usage over and above generation.
The Government (State or Federal) doesn’t introduce a Grid disruption tax (as in Spain) where you get charged for having solar panels.
20
Thanks G3,
5 kW Fronis inverter with 10 yr. guarantee. 18 x 345W Longi panels 10 yr. warranty, I am on the Gold Coast, 6 kW of panels is because they will face east & west. Solar people estimate about 14 kWh / winter days up to about 31 kWh / summer days.
I use about 10 kWh/day and Origin tell me the feed in tariff is 15c/kWh they charge 28.5c/kWh
The bigger system is there as I intend to hook up batteries when the price comes down (or my cousin gets a couple of deep cells that I can use!) and in the mean time save some $ on the power bills by selling back to the grid.
00
Robber
That invites the saying “Theoretically sound but practically imperfect”
Which means that a good look at the theory mightn’t go astray either
20
According to Morgan Stanley the computer power needed to create a single digital token consumes at least as much electricity as the average American household burns through in two years. Hydroelectric Iceland with cheap power and natural cooling can barely meet the needs of recently established data centres let alone take on all newcomers.
Solar power and refrigeration free from the sky is why there are now so many crypto miners locating new operations in sunny desert regions at low latitudes…
NOT.
100
I remember the salesman and his spleel clearly , our panels are rated at 250 watt and that’s exactly what they produce all the time and solar insolation for this area he worked out at 6 hours it’s more like 4.5 hours .
Can’t remember the pay back time details though , so yes the scam is give you figures only attainable in a laboratory, I knew nothing about solar back then unfortunately.
Didn’t even know the poor were subsidising them .
50
“Didn’t even know the poor were subsidising them .”
Define “poor.”
Our local utility (a co-op in central Washington State) has, with our approval, been tacking on a small monthly charge. Funds collected are provided to 3 or 4 local “help the poor” agencies.
The “poor” can approach an agency for funds to help with the electric bill.
Neither the utility nor we need to get involved with those in need.
Likewise, the truly poor are not providing much to the subsidy funds.
20
John here in oz if I get solar panels the govt subsidies end up making power dearer so those that already can’t afford their power bills you know unemployed old aged and disabled pensioners they help pay those subsidies.
It’s dishonest ,unfair and had I have known would have done it differently.
50
On solar panels, what guarantee,
That they give good returns, trouble free?
So,to buy them or sell,
Heed Shakespeare’s words well,
‘Neither a borrower nor a lender be’.
110
Don’t blame the solar panel manufacturers and sellers. Don’t even blame the bankers. Again the real culprit is the public for repeatedly voting governments that promote the CAGW agenda and massive incentives for renewables. The buck stops with he voters. That’s how modern democracy works. Clearly the pain is not bad enough yet for voters to support parties that are against the CAGW agenda even to the point where they hold the balance of power let alone form a government in their own right. Be patient, that will change in due course. Too bad though we will all have to suffer much pain in the process. That’s the price we pay for most voters being asleep or fools, or both in a democratic environment.
130
Having said all that if it can be shown the bankers have falsely promoted their schemes under the law of the land then of course they should be punished. However that’s just treating the symptom not the root cause of the problem. The root cause is clear – the voters.
60
Morrison’s Budget
‘He again rejected the opposition’s more ambitious 50 per cent renewable energy target, warning: “That will also only put electricity prices up. All energy sources and technologies should support themselves without taxpayer subsidies. The current subsidy scheme will be phased out from 2020.’’
Oz
100
I cannot wait to see solar and wind crumble when the subsidies are phased out. I am looking forward to the Fairfax collective hitting reality with a resounding thud when the renewable rent seeking snake oil salesmen go to the wall.
00
There’s nothing like Money to make people understand reality.
The true science and engineering of providing electricity may now have a chance of being understood correctly with money as the incentive.
There is something extraordinarily unethical, if not cr$minal, in the way that we have been taxed on electricity without our consent.
The telling of unsubstantiated claims about CO2 is highly unethical and is linked to the movement of our tax dollars to places where it has no right to be.
This needs investigating.
KK
80
Look!!!
The Emperor has no clothes.
The naked truth is that our political elites have taken us for fools.
I don’t like that, and I assume that if other Australians knew the depths of their betrayal, they would not like it either.
Let’s take the robes from this scam so that everyone can see the truth.
KK
80
A good idea this wasn’t part of
“Study: Pace of new climate legislation has ‘slowed significantly’ – Warmists fret: ‘Could be a sign for concern’ ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/08/study-pace-of-new-climate-legislation-has-slowed-significantly-warmists-fret-could-be-a-sign-for-concern/
30
You know how we are told that the cost of rooftop solar has come down so dramatically, and that solar power is now so cheap, it will do away with coal fired power plants.
Why, you can get a 4KW system now for $5500. How cheap is that? (/sarc)
Hmm, I wonder if anybody has done the sums on this.
Let’s see now, they proudly proclaim that rooftop solar power now has 7.8GW on roofs spread across the whole of Australia, and Queensland proudly says that rooftop solar is the largest generator in the State. Well, that’s patently BS flat out.
But 7.8GW. That’s huge. Why that’s 7,800MW, or 7,800,000KW.
So, just going on the incredibly cheaper prices of today, if a 4KW system costs $5500, then 7.8GW has cost, umm, $10.725 BILLION.
At an average CF of 17.5%, that 7.8GW now becomes 1365MW, averaged across the year.
So, $10.725 Billion for (effectively) a power plant half the size of Bayswater. (two of its four Units at 660MW per Unit)
Now, it’s not like it’s one plant in one place feeding the grid. Most of the power is consumed by the home with those panels itself, and the remainder is fed back to the grid, by, wait for this, 1.8 Million individual teensy weensy little minute power generators, spread across the whole of Australia. (absolutely effing useless!)
That cost is at today’s current really really cheap price mind you, so over the years of rooftop installations then the cost is (considerably) higher.
Keep in mind also that this is only the cost to the purchaser, as the installing Company then claims the (extra) rebate back from the Governments, State or Federal.
$10.75 BILLION.
Ever been sold a pup?
Tony.
170
Tony
In diesel sets you can get a 10 kva Lister set for about $8000, 5 kva Lister $4000, 6.25 kva “other brand” $2000 if you’re game.
40
Tony and some earlier commenters, apologies in advance for the longish post but it addresses your and a few early commenters as well as Jo’s own comments in one post. Tony, I am not sure why you always make the comparison of the roof top solar with our main grid sources. I know the media often refers to them in comparison to particular power stations simply based on their power rating and not energy output, but it really is apples and oranges.
As you rightly point out, the scale of most residential solar power means that most of it is used by the home it is installed on. As such they are not intended to ‘power the grid’ and the fact that they are teeny weeny and well distributed is evidence of that – not a design error. Of course they are connected to the grid and might supply some tiny amounts compared to the power stations, but that function is largely to facilite the home being able to still draw energy from the grid when needed rather than having to manually switch sources.
I think that it is more prudent to consider them as simple modifiers of the customer’s load which help to run their appliances during the day effectively more efficiently. So say if you had a home with a pool and air conditioning which would be the type of daytime loads that would benefit, surely it is a simple exercise to work out the benefit to that customer and it has nothing to do with wholesale electricity costs or capital costs of a power station of any type. It is no different to when you make the decision whether to spend extra money on an efficient inverter (dc) aircon or fan or washing machine. So that 4kW solar system for $5,500 produces 6,132 kWh of energy each year to run the pool and aircon. That saves the customer some $1,800 per year in electricity purchases – nothing to do with power station capital costs or wholesale electricity prices. It’s all about reducing your own costs just like deciding on what efficiency of appliance to buy. Cost versus benefit.
Of course it is entirely different to the large scale solar which seems to get seamlessly conflated in this discussion. That IS designed (or passed off as at least) as an alternative power source and deserves the criticism and comparisons.
As for how the roof top solar might be costing other customers without it – that is largely now just via the RET. I think that direct Gov ‘rebates’ you mention, went away a long time back. The Gov RET is a fixed percentage (under 20% but growing to 23% I think) of the energy sold and the retailers have to buy certificates to match that to prove that 20% of their energy sold is ‘scam energy’ (to avoid any misleading terms). The retailer can do three things to meet their obligation. 1. They can buy the Small-scale Technology Certificates STC’s which are magically generated only once when you install certified roof-top solar. The number of certificates generated is based on the ‘projected’ energy generated by the panels until 2028 when the scheme is set to end and are valued at about $30 (so each new installation is getting less certificates as we get closer to 2028). 2. They can buy Large-scale Generation technology Certificates LGCs. These are generated yearly by wind turbines and large solar arrays and based on actual energy output (not power ratings). These cost about $85. Or 3. They don’t purchase any certificates and simply pay a fine equivalent to a $65 certificate. The Gov specifies that the STCs all need to be purchased but at the lower price the market will automatically buy those first anyway. Obviously it would be prudent for the retailers to buy the cheapest certificates that they can get and it puzzles me when Jo points out the increased total cost spent on STCs this year without pointing out the corresponding reduction in purchase cost for the balance of the RET in LGCs. The cheaper the certificate the better off we are, that is why it is fruitless to point out that a roof top solar panel is not producing as much as the certificate says it will do over its lifetime, in fact the more bogus the claim the better off we are (unless you have some genuine concerns about CO2 or something else as weird). If I could make and sell a fridge magnet for $1 that claimed to reduce CO2 production and had that certified and you could thus get STCs for a $1, would you be pointing out the bogus nature of these and how they are really not saving the CO2 they claim?
The RET itself is the real cost and the Gov only gets their hands on that when a retailer defaults and chooses the $65 penalty option and it has happened in the past. At least the STCs and Penalties are monies that have not gone to an overseas concern and are more likely to stay in our economy. Until the RET goes away it is still better value for retailers to get the cheapest RETs they can.
40
Joe,
thanks for this comment, and I’ll take it on board.
However, (and I actually mentioned it in my original comment) when State Governments stop using the analogy, then I will too. At every level, these politicians use that false analogy, and not just occasionally, but all the time. My task whenever I see that is to ‘shred it’, even if I only do that at selected places. I have tried in other places and been unmercilessly personally ‘flamed’ for doing it, so I don’t go to those places any more. Life’s too short for that.
I will keep pointing out the failings of what those politicians spruik about it, and they only do so because of advice they get from their sycophants, because they (those politicians) wouldn’t know anything about it anyway.
Rooftop solar power has ZERO effect on coal fired power, so I fail to see how they can claim that, as they so often do.
Due solely to Insolation, rooftop solar adds a slight hump to the power generation (hence consumption) load curve between 10AM and 3PM, (at best) in both Summer and Winter, or in reality (because it is ‘behind the meter’) take a slight hump out of the Load Curve. True that slight hump was once supplied from other sources, but that hump is only minor in nature, and spread out so widely across all Australia, so little bits off Load Curves for each State.
Coal fired power provides the Base Load upon which everything else is added. Prior to 8AM, it’s all there is. (80%+) It (coal fired power) then ramps up a little from that 4AM minimum to around 8AM, winds back a little, (very little) and then, in the afternoon, it ramps up further to the Evening Peak. Rooftop solar is absent (as it starts from zero) in the early AM, and absent (as it goes back to zero) again at the major Evening Peak at 6PM.
The only effect rooftop solar does have is it means less of those Natural Gas fired plants need to start to top up the grid in the afternoon, keeping in mind that rooftop solar is only supplying the Residential sector, which is only 25% of all consumption, so a small fraction of 25% and only for a few hours.
I have actually heard anecdotal stories of installers recommending that consumer move the bulk of their power consumption to after hours, so they can maximise the amount fed back to the grid to take bigger advantage of the feed in tariffs, so they are not in fact modifying their consumption at all, except for those with a higher moral imperative.
So then, I’ll perhaps ease back on ‘telling it like it is’, but why should the false information purveyors get it all their own way.
Tony.
40
Joe you say “I think that it is more prudent to consider them as simple modifiers of the customer’s load which help to run their appliances during the day effectively more efficiently. ” there is an oxymoron if ever there was using the term efficiency and solar panels in the same sentence.
While I get your point ,someone is paying my FIT and presumably that someone also subsided the initial purchase and installation which at the time was just over $12k for a 5 kilowatt system .
No-one should have to pay one red cent towards my solar panels , least of all the battlers .
20
Robert, I am not sure what you are getting at with your comments about ‘efficiency’ of solar panels. Do you mean the ratio of solar energy in vs. electrical energy out? I am not sure how that might even be relevant or important. It is what it is. I know we don’t ever to work out how much solar energy was involved in the process of forming coal.
As for your burden on other electricity users, the FIT these days pretty much everywhere (correct me if I am wrong in your case) is sensibly small and given the absolutely tiny contribution of your rooftop solar to the grid and then amortizing that over all of the other electricity consumed, any unreasonable FIT costs would be absolutely dilute. The current FIT paid are largely up to the retailer to decide and the ‘recommended values’ are based on the wholesale price of electricity plus some small amount for less network impost and you having to do your own maintenance etc, it really is not a lucrative thing for most.
The ‘subsidies’ you refer to these days (if you ignore the lefty un-free market Chinese labourers slogging away to build them cheaply for you) are via the STCs generated when you install the system. The installer pays you some amount for those but then on-sells them to the electricity retailers at a profit. Your installation does not change how many certificates the retailers need to purchase; that is a fixed amount each year but in creating these STCs for the retailer to purchase at around $30 which is one of the cheapest options (and probably quite overly generous in what they claim the system will produce over its life as it is not audited) you reduce the burden of the retailer from having to purchase as many of the more expensive large scale LGCs. So as long as the RET is there, the retailers are better off with more STCs being generated. If none were generated in protest, ie no rooftop solar, then the retailers would have to buy $65 default certificates at best.
00
Thanks Tony for the reply and I agree with your summary there and your comments about the BS lingua franca of the media and the pollies. At the end of the day tho, it is all about the $s and not the kWs or the kWhs and I think the $ mechanism does not get the same rigorous mathematical analysis here even by Jo who is probably more familiar with the un-free market/free market mechanism side of things than us. Clearly a few commenters on this blog do have small solar installations and the suggestion is that they have made that decision based on perceived savings it will bring them rather than any notion of out-doing coal or saving the planet. FWIW if I was cobbling together a stand alone solar system I would do it with secondhand panels which fetch about 25c per watt now and there are a lot around as people upgraded their very small systems as panels got cheaper. You can get a big old inverter for $100 on eBay and whatever you want to spend on batteries new or used. Telstra used to be a good source of still-good used batteries. I have even used your old runway lamp batteries from out at Amberley which went for many a year for next to nothing. The solar technology on its own is an obvious choice for a residential off grid particularly for someone with no access to the grid.
30
6 May: TheDailyOklahoman: Phone records link wind industry group to political consultant who had Oklahoma legislator tracked
by Nolan Clay
The OSBI has found new evidence linking a wind energy group to the political consultant who had a state legislator tracked, The Oklahoman has learned.
“It’s pretty obvious,” Rep. Mark McBride said of the evidence from the subpoenaed phone records of Texas political consultant George C. Shipley.
McBride, R-Moore, has blamed the wind industry ever since finding a GPS tracker on his pickup the evening of Dec. 4. He was told about the new evidence Thursday when a special agent from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation reinterviewed him.
After going through the phone records, they have matched phone calls between George Shipley and Jeffrey Clark, the president of The Wind Coalition, to specific dates I had given them on my suspicions of being followed or tracked,” McBride said.
McBride has been an outspoken critic of the wind industry and has called for wind farms in Oklahoma to pay more in taxes.
Clark has denied that The Wind Coalition, a trade association, had anything to do with the tracking incident…
Shipley, 70, is a longtime consultant for Democrats in Texas and became known as “Dr. Dirt” for his sill in finding information. ***He has not spoken to the media about the tracking incident. His Oklahoma attorney, Garvin Isaacs, declined to comment Friday.
http://newsok.com/phone-records-link-wind-industry-group-to-political-consultant-who-had-oklahoma-legislator-tracked/article/5593577
***surely the media should be speaking to him, not waiting for him to speak to them.
10 Apr: NewsOn6 Oklahoma: Senators Call For Wind Industry Tax Credit Reforms For Education Funding
by Amy Slanchik
Two Oklahoma senators are proposing changes to tax credits for wind energy companies as another way to raise millions of dollars for education…
Senators Josh Brecheen (Republican) and Nathan Dahm (Republican) said it will pump millions more into education without raising taxes, but teachers said it’s still not enough.
The second week of the walkout started out strong Monday, with thousands of teachers, parents and students making up the crowd…
While the Oklahoma Education Association is calling for a repeal of capital gains tax deductions, two senators called on the Legislature to end “corporate welfare” to the wind industry, which they said pays out $500 to $750 million over the next 10 years to the wind industry.
If approved, the bill would give $70 million to education instead of corporate wind companies.
“If we don’t do something truly meaningful this session, not next session, another $70 million is literally going to be gone with the wind,” Brecheen said.
The senator said the bill would end corporate welfare payments, not by eliminating the tax credit, but by eliminating the refundability aspect of it.
He said, right now, most of that money goes to out of state and foreign interest.
“Checks in the mail to Italy, checks in the mail to Spain. Foreign interest. They don’t care about the conditions of Oklahoma classrooms, conditions of our infrastructure, roads and bridges,” Brecheen said…
http://www.newson6.com/story/37913824/senators-call-for-wind-industry-tax-credit-reforms-for-education-funding
more to come.
20
Meanwhile on the home front, check this garbage.
https://amp.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/new-rooftop-solar-adding-equivalent-of-coal-fired-power-station-every-year-20180508-p4ze0b.html
New rooftop solar adding equivalent of coal-fired power station every year
By Cole Latimer
Updated 8 May 2018 — 6:10pm first published at 5:01pm
Australian rooftop solar hit a new record in April, achieving sevens month in a row of more than 100 megawatts of new solar installed.
Installations in April reached 109 megawatts, although this was down compared to those in March, which hit an all-time record level of 127 megawatts and is enough energy to power more than 36,700 homes, new data from Green Energy Markets states.
40
“The MSM have an agenda and they have no intention of allowing news to get in their way.”
And others IMO
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2018/05/08/why-dont-people-trust-the-msm/#comment-1112946
40
12 Apr: OklahomaFarmReport: Citizens Called to Action Against Legislation that Jeopardizes Wind’s Investment in Rural Oklahoma
“We are at the breaking point now with the wind industry,” stated Oklahoma Wind Coalition Director Mark Yates in a recent interview with Radio Oklahoma Ag Network Associate Farm Director Carson Horn as he voiced fears about the impact of SB 888 if it becomes law…
“The proposed committee substitute for SB888 relates to a tax credit for electricity generated by a zero-emission facility. The measure ends the ability for credits earned to be refundable at 85
percent of the value on or after January 1, 2019,” stated the measure…
“If these projects go under, there are no more lease payments,” warned Yates. “We got over $20 billion of investments in the state of Oklahoma. Now we have the legislature looking to retroactively pull back on what’s already been granted to the companies.”
“What we’re talking about is the state of Oklahoma that went out and recruited the capital investment to come to the state—now we’re talking about going back on our word to companies that we recruited here,” he complained. “We need Oklahomans to reach out to their legislators and tell them we cannot afford to lose our business reputation and put these projects at risk.”
Yates said he’s talked to legislators but the talk has “fallen on deaf ears.”…
Yates accused some of those anti-wind legislators of hiding behind their own private agendas and “attacking wind to say they’re for education funding. We see a lot of political games being played.”…
http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2018/04/04433_MarkYatesCalltoAction04122018_160450.php#.WvI6C-Qh3IU
10 Apr: News9: Budget Committee Approves Wind Tax Credit Reform Bill For Education Funds
Opponents of the bill fear wind energy companies would fight the bill in court for violating contracts…
fail:
30 Apr: NonDoc: SB 888 to end wind tax credit refundability stalls
By William W. Savage III, Editor in Chief
Many petroleum industry leaders have expressed frustration in recent sessions as their tax liabilities increased while tens of millions of dollars in credits have been paid out to wind companies.
“I’m not here to demonize any industry,” Sen. Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville) said. “However, I think we have been overly generous to this industry… Over the years, this credit has been amended to the benefit of this industry many times over.”
But with lobbyists on both sides of the issue saying all Monday that they expected a close vote, the Senate never actually reached a vote on advancing the measure. Instead, a vote to accept the controversial House amendment on SB 888 failed 18-23…
…the Wind Coalition has routinely said there will be lawsuits filed against the state if SB 888 — or any measure like it — were to pass and be signed by the governor…
Mark Yates, Oklahoma director of the Wind Coalition, said prior to Monday’s vote that he found it ironic that the state has continued its efforts to recruit wind projects while moving to go back on its word with existing investors…
Yates said he expected Oklahoma to have a presence recruiting wind projects at next week’s American Wind Energy Association conference in Chicago, something he considered ironic.
But Leslie Blair, public information officer for the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, countered Yates’ remarks with clarification about the agency’s purpose in attending wind-power conferences.
“We don’t attend AWEA to tour wind incentives. For at least the last five years, we have gone to recruit the supply chain for the industry,” Blair said. “There are three CareerTechs attending the show who are actively involved in training workers in the maintenance, repair and overhaul of the wind turbines. As long as those blades are turning, we have to have the trained workforce to service the turbines.”
https://nondoc.com/2018/04/30/sb-888-ending-wind-credit-refunds-stalls/
30 Apr: Tulsa World: Oklahoma Senate kills bill that would have ended wind industry incentive early
by Barbara Hoberock
Senate Bill 888, by Sen. Josh Brecheen, R-Coalgate, failed by a vote of 18-23 after securing House approval last week…
Under current law, electricity-generating companies earn the credits at a rate of a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated with no emissions, such as through wind, water, sun and geothermal sources, and can redeem them to reduce their state tax liability for 10 years. Companies can cash in credits to the tune of 85 percent of the face value of the tax credits.
The credit was phased out July 1, 2017, meaning no new projects can receive the credit…
Supporters said the deal the state made was too generous and that it could no longer afford it.
“We are subsidizing the industry with a subsidy we can’t afford,” Quinn said…
Murdock also said he was concerned that the state could be sued should it revoke the incentive…
The tax credit has been available to electricity producers since 2003. Quinn said the incentive was given to what was then considered a fledgling industry.
“This industry long, long, long ago surpassed the fledgling industry mark,” Quinn said. “We went from incentivizing an industry to us subsidizing an industry, and it continues to this day.”
If the state did not have to pay the refund this year, it could save $74 million to $75 million, Quinn said.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/oklahoma-senate-kills-bill-that-would-have-ended-wind-industry/article_b55bf5cf-4d3a-50cb-a5c9-0ef41a2e9f5b.html
10
If the penetration of roof top or privately owned solar systems increases beyond a certain percentage level within the community it will become, like all such widely distributed items, a target for federal and state and local government authorities to levy a significant charge and / or taxes on.
The classic charge / tax for privately owned solar sytems providing the owner thereof is still connected to the grid would be a separate charge for the use of the power lines or even just the potential use of the power lines and grid system to transmit the power they have generated into the system.
The case likely to be made is that as the grid is available and can be used by everybody, such a charge with quite an extra loading for the reverse transmission of the private owner’s excess power is income earning and therefore extra charges should be applied to justify providing acess to such a large public facility so as the private generator can make a profit for themselves or avoid using power from the grid except when it suits them and at their convience but everybody else’s cost.
Thus using the grid as a very convient means of ensuring their own requirements but making little or no contribution to the grid upkeep and maintenance.
So a levy or a heavy power line / grid use and access charge and / or taxes will probably be [ ? ] applied sooner or later on all such private owner generators be they solar or wind or mini hydro as in Spain or whatever.
.
An easy example of this type of governmmental thinking is “Transport.”
If one uses public transport to get from one spot to another then you pay a fare to use that transport.
But thats all you pay as the use of roads and other transport facilities are all built into the fare you pay and which is then funnelled through the fare earning outfit as license fees and etc for the [ theoretical ! ] maintenance of the roads and transport facilities.
If on the other hand you use your own vehicle to travel, you pay heavy license fees plus heavy fuel taxes for the right to drive that vehicle on the roads and to use the transport facilities like traffic lights and etc.
The same line of thinking can and I strongly suspect will be applied to privately generated power for those still connected to the grid once solar or its equivalent reaches a significant penetration percentage of private power generation.
The age old conumdrum here is that nobody can ever forsee the longer term consequences and / or the longer term feedbacks and backlashes of what might at first appear to be a logical and quite innocous development in the community as a whole.
Just don’t under any circumstances expect some action that is becoming a community wide development to just continue on in its current form and under its current controls or lack of any controls.
Governements don’t like seeing tax vacuums of that nature appearing on their patch and take quick action to put controls and taxes on such formerly free of restraint income earning activities.
50
At a minimum shouldn’t people selling electricity into the grid have to declare that income and pay tax on it? Especially those still receiving 60 cents/kWhr that the rest of us pay for. Today feed in tariff for new connections is still 11.3 cents/kWhr as mandated by State governments, well above the current wholesale price of about 9.3 cents. Like all of us they do pay a daily service fee of about a dollar per day for their network connection.
50
No, subsidised pseudo-‘privatisation’ of electron supply, means you’re a special little bunny-rabbit, and other people actually pay you taxes instead, so you can continue to make the weather better and save polar bears from acid rain.
“Would you like to know more?”
20
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.
50
My understanding is that if you receive a cash payment (cheque or direct credit) it will affect you if you are in receipt of Centrelink payments, including being on the Old Age Pension.
I’m not sure of the position in other cases. If it isn’t currently taxed then the ATO needs to pull its finger out. The additional revenue might just help to pay down the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd national debt which currently exceeds some $600 billion and growing.
30
8 May: ClimateChangeNews: Extra climate talks scheduled amid Bonn stalemate
UN climate officials add a week-long session in Bangkok in September to the diary, as Bonn talks make insufficient progress on the Paris Agreement rulebook
By Karl Mathiesen
The UN will hold an extra round of climate talks in Bangkok in September after lacklustre progress this fortnight.
Long-rumoured talks in the Thai capital were confirmed by UN officials on Tuesday night, according to several sources, including Poland’s climate envoy Tomasz Chruszczow…
Stalemate around the differentiation of commitments between rich and poor countries remains a problem, said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists…
On Monday, UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa told journalists there would be no ‘negotiating text’ at the end of the Bonn talks on Thursday. Without that document, negotiators will arrive in Poland without a basis for talks.
This has left organisers scrambling for more negotiating time, hence the announcement of the week-long meeting in Bangkok…
Extraordinary sessions are not unprecedented during important years for the climate process. In the lead up to the Paris deal, two interim meetings were held instead of the usual one.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/08/extra-climate-talks-scheduled-amid-bonn-stalemate/
earlier:
8 May: ClimateChangeNews: Bonn morning brief: No negotiating text this week
By Karl Mathiesen and Megan Darby
Before delegates arrived in Bonn for interim climate talks, expectations were raised they could produce a ‘negotiating text’ for the rulebook of the Paris Agreement.
With three days of talks to go, such an outcome is now impossible, UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said on Monday afternoon.
“A single negotiating text. No,” she told a meeting of journalists in Bonn. “That would really not be possible. It will all come together when it comes to the level of the Cop, of the conference in December.”…
Pass the kava
Next job is to figure out how to convert these good vibes into action. Vulnerable countries want to see governments commit to more ambitious national plans by 2020, but plenty of big emitters are resistant…
Shut out
The Democratic Republic of Congo complained to the conference on Monday two of its delegates had been refused visas to attend this fortnight’s meeting by the German government…
Outside the plenary, head of delegation Tosi Mpanu Mpanu told CHN two government experts – one of whom covers Redd+, which the DRC is leading talks on – were told they could not apply for visas by the German embassy in Kinshasa. Their names were apparently left off an initial list of 20 names handed to the German government.
“Other delegations have many more than 20 delegates,” said Mpanu Mpanu. “It’s a complete lack of respect. Is it a colonial approach? This is not right. My capacities are reduced; it should be a level playing field.”…
In the plenary, Mpanu Mpanu sought assurances from Poland all DRC delegates would be admitted to the next summit…
Who’s in for a Winnebago?
The Polish government laid out its plans for the Katowice climate talks in December. Many parties raised the issue of accomodation in the small town. China, in particular, complained their delegation had been placed in a hotel 45km from the conference centre. In Beijing, the delegate said, it would take more than 2 hours to travel such a distance.
Poland’s organising committee reassured the conference that it was their goal to keep travel times below one hour. They will be “encouraging” Katowice residents to billet conference attendees…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/08/bonn-morning-brief-no-negotiating-text-week/
20
O/T
Flim Flammery is at it again. He gives an entire interview which is essentially devoid of scientific or engineering fact but contains lots of propaganda.
It’s sickening. And note the mindless drones that clap at all his statements.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/a-decade-ago-climate-experts-were-deeply-worried.-now-they-are/9727414
70
Ah, yeah, that’s the ABC, you don’t watch that one, they always do that.
70
The fact that the ABC regards Flannery as a scientist is laughable (but very costly).
60
The fact that the ABC regards Flannery as a scientist is laughable (but very costly).
30
‘Prior to 1976 there had been no coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.’
Its a well known fact that prior to 1976 El Nino didn’t exist.
80
Stereovision??
50
4 May: Wired: How to Fight Climate Change: Figure Out Who’s to Blame, and Sue Them
by Adam Rogers
How it used to go was, after some extreme weather event, reporters would ask Climate McScientist, PhD whether the flood/drought/hurricane/disease outbreak/wildfire/superstorm happened because of climate change. Dr. McScientist would pat the reporter on the head and say: Well, of course, one can never ascribe any single weather event to a changing global climate…
But Dr. McScientist and colleagues were working on being able to say more…
“We tend to be conservative in how we communicate. Just as we’re finally getting onto the same page and the media starts saying what we’re saying, we say, ‘Oh, scrap that, we have something else we know,’” says Stephanie Herring, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and an editor on that BAMS issue. “This fall we kind of had to say, ‘Remember how we told you we could never say that? Well, we’re saying that.’”
Could Herring be more terrifying? Sure. All those far-off, maybe-someday signs of a climate apocalypse she and her colleagues used to hint at are all happening. “The future is here,” Herring says.
It’s a future of terrifying disasters—and a future where scientists know more about the underpinnings and mechanics of those disasters. But maybe most importantly, it’s a future where you can attribute a cause. It’s a future where you can ascribe fault.
And that means you can sue the people responsible…
The science has gotten even more robust. What used to require time on a supercomputer can now happen pretty much anywhere. And the methods have gotten better, too. “We can propose hypotheses of the probability of exceeding a given threshold with and without global warming, and we can propose hypotheses about the fraction of an anomaly contributed by the historical change,” says Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University…
Not every researcher agrees that attribution science can pull off both magnitude and probability calculations. “The kind of statement that says y percent of x event was caused by climate change, or event x was made y percent worse—that’s controversial,” says Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at MIT and author of one of the three Harvey attribution papers. “I have been told by folks who specialize in communication that we need to be less equivocal. I don’t like that, because first of all it borders on being dishonest, and second it makes us sitting ducks for a sufficiently intelligent person who wants to show these changes aren’t happening.”…
Meanwhile, improvements in attribution are leading to a whole new response to climate change: lawsuits. The future that (Myles) Allen predicted is coming to pass. “It’s most likely that attribution science, given its state of development, will inform disputes relative to adaptation issues,” says Lindene Patton, an attorney at Earth and Water Law Group…
In a climate “tutorial” that was part of the California cities’ lawsuit in March, Chevron’s attorney Ted Boutrous didn’t attempt to deny a single thing about the physics and chemistry of climate change, or even that human activity caused it. He just said it didn’t make sense to blame oil companies…
It can’t be an accident that the main expert the California cities brought to the climate tutorial was none other than Myles Allen, the scientist who started this whole idea 15 years ago when the flooding Thames was at his door. At the tutorial I wondered why, with climate scientists thick on the ground of Bay Area universities, those lawyers flew someone from Oxford. Seems like it was to bolster the case for attribution.
The International Energy Agency says that Earth can solve its climate problems with a ***$53 trillion. That money has to come from somewhere. Environmentally-minded investment practices might be one approach. So is using the courts to extract some money from the people responsible…
And now science is walking in with relevant evidence…
Not a moment too soon. On Monday it was 122.4 degrees in Pakistan. And on Tuesday, atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 410 parts per million—the highest it has been since before humans existed.
https://www.wired.com/story/climate-attribution-sue/
same writer, ex-Newsweek, Adam Rogers:
8 Mar: Wired: Adam Rogers: Apparently We Can Let the Stock Market Fight Climate Change
When you get down to it, all we humans need to save the world is ingenuity, grit, cooperation, and ***$53 trillion.
Where is humanity supposed to come up with that kind of cash at this time of night? The International Energy Agency says Earth needs those trillions invested in energy supply and efficiency by 2035 to keep global warming below 2 degrees C…
So, you could tax greenhouse gas emitters until they cry—oh, sorry, I probably meant to say “price carbon according to its real market cost.” But also, go to where the big money is—statewide or national funds, piles of assets emblazoned with names like BlackRock and Fidelity, and other institutional investors. Convince them to stop investing in carbon emitters and start investing in… anything but them…
For example, the $209 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund audited its portfolio’s carbon footprint, says Davis, and then had the investment bank Goldman Sachs build a bespoke low-carbon index …and put $4 billion into a fund based on it. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System put $2.5 billion into its own low-carbon index fund…
BOTTOM: Related Video:
Science: Science: Al Gore Answers the Web’s Most Searched Questions on Climate Change
https://www.wired.com/story/market-climate-change/
11
9 May: Science Alert: In The Vast Majority of The World, Climate Denial Is Not Linked to Conservatism
Sorry, America.
by CARLY CASSELLA, SCIENCE AS FACT
In the US, studies have repeatedly shown a link between political conservatism and climate denial, but a new study has revealed that this relationship may not exist in most other countries…
The lack of international research on the topic was what ultimately piqued the interest of some Australian scientists.
Researchers from the University of Queensland set out to fill in the gaps in our knowledge – in large part because of the 2016 US elections.
“I was intrigued why, of the 17 candidates who campaigned to be the Republican nominee for the 2016 United States presidential campaign, many were openly skeptical of climate science,” said co-author Professor Matthew Hornsey from UQ’s School of Psychology and School of Communication and Arts.
“This mainstream rejection of climate science among a major political party was not evident in other countries, which raised the question: is the tendency for conservatives to be more climate sceptical a global phenomenon, or something that’s distinctively American?”
Examining the link between political conservatism and climate denial on an international scale, the UQ researchers surveyed over 5,000 people across 25 countries.
The study found that in around three quarters of the countries surveyed, conservatives didn’t show any more denial of climate change than their political counterparts.
Interestingly enough, in countries with low levels of carbon emissions no link was found between conservatism and climate denial. On the other hand, in countries with high levels of carbon emissions, including Australia and America, there was a stronger link.
“One possible reason is that conservatives in countries with high carbon emissions have more of a vested interest in rejecting climate science, due to the fossil fuel industry’s investment in that country,” explained Hornsey.
While the results suggest that this link is not “uniquely” American, it has revealed that America is one of the few countries in the world where this is the case.
If Hornsey’s theory is correct, it would be more accurate to say that the link between conservatism and climate denial appears unique to countries with powerful fossil fuel industries…
In the study, participants were asked about their opinions on four of the most notorious conspiracies: that Princess Diana was murdered, that JFK was killed in an organized plot, that the US government knew about 9/11 before it was going to happen, that there is a group of elites conspiring to create a New World Order.
Unsurprisingly, President Trump was the influence for this part of the study.
“The inspiration for this question was Donald Trump’s tweet saying that climate science was a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing uncompetitive,” Professor Hornsey said…
The findings suggest that the more Americans think climate change is a hoax, the more likely they are to believe in other conspiracies.
“This suggests that ideological barriers to accepting science don’t emerge from people spontaneously critiquing scientific consensus through the lens of their world views,” said Hornsey.
“Rather, ideological barriers to accepting science can also be encouraged by influential individuals and organisations who have a vested interest in communicating that the science is wrong.”
The new study will have important implications for international strategies that are seeking to combat climate denial. It also reveals the powerful influence that the fossil fuel industry can have on local politics, opinions and beliefs.
The study has been published in Nature Climate Change (LINK).
https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-denial-conservative-conspiracy-ideology-us
Hornsey’s co-authors:
Emily A. Harris, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Kelly S. Fielding, School of Communication & Arts, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
reminder:
Nature: Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers
Authors include Professor Matthew Hornsey (among 4 from UQ)
Received: 03 October 2011
Accepted: 16 April 2012
Published: 17 June 2012
Addendum: 27 July 2012
Corrected online: 04 July 2012
A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change…
(6 DENY/DENIERS IN ABSTRACT)
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1532#/affil-auth
10
OT
Today is the 30th Birthday of Parliament House, Canberra.
Make of that what you will.
(My personal will? Nice building, pity about the tenants.)
80
Squatters.
60
And just think, it only cost us $1.1 Billion in 1988 dollars.
Hmm, for that money today, you could get 11 Months of the ABC funded.
Tony.
100
The good news is that aunty is being slowly starved to death.
‘Australian Broadcasting Corporation boss Michelle Guthrie has suggested the government could face a political backlash over funding cuts to the national broadcaster, and warned another $43 million in funding could be at risk.
‘A day after the government revealed its 2018 budget, including an $84 million hit to the ABC’s funding for three years, Ms Guthrie fronted staff over video link from Bunbury, Western Australia to say she was “disappointed” and “concerned”.
SMH
30
bring back the heatwaves!
9 May: 9News: Coldest May days in Melbourne since 1978 as Antarctic blast sweeps south-east
Melbourne is bracing for its coldest pair of May days in 40 years as a blast of Antarctic air sweeps across much of the country’s south-east.
The Bureau of Meteorology said a stray low pressure system moving north from the Southern Ocean could hit between 8pm and 10pm tonight as a pool of cold air forms, bringing rain, thunderstorms, small hail and possible snow across the Alps in the coming days.
“Winter is just around the corner,” senior meteorologist Richard Carlyon said.
Wintery maximums between two and six degrees below average for May are forecast across south-east South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales…
With tops of 19 degrees today, maximum temperatures in the state’s capital are set to drop to 13 degrees tomorrow and on Friday.
This would be the city’s coldest pair of days this early in the season since 1978, according to Weatherzone…
As the initial band of cold air hits Victoria, snow is expected reach around 900m over the Alps.
According to Weatherzone meteorologist Ben Domensino, the low pressure system is likely to bring around 20 to 40 cm of natural snow to the alpine region between Thursday and Sunday.
Outside the alps, snow is forecast to reach down to 800-900 metres above sea level in central and western Victoria and over the Central Tablelands of NSW by Friday.
Flakes may even fall over the Northern Tablelands of NSW if the cold air reaches far enough north during Friday night or Saturday morning.
While May snow is not uncommon in Australia, this is an unusually cold system for this early in the year…
Sydneysiders will also be feeling the winter chill, with temperatures set to drop seven degrees, from a top of 24 degrees on Thursday to 17 degrees on Friday.
It’s likely to feel colder than that too, with the wind chill factor forecast to be at least one or two degrees across the city.
Canberrans should rug up on Friday, with tops of nine degrees forecast. This would be the city’s coldest day this early in the year since 1970s.
“The city will be affected quite significantly, reaching only 9 degrees… it is going to feel very cold indeed,” Weatherzone meteorologist Jacob Cronje told 9NEWS.
If the forecast is accurate, Friday will be Canberra’s coldest day this early in the year since 1970…
The low-pressure system set to hit the east coast is from a polar vortex – a swirling mass of air that sits over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.
At times a smaller pool of chilly air at the vortex edges breaks away and heads north – towards Australia.
When it mixes with warmer air over the continent it triggers an outbreak of intense conditions…
According to Weatherzone, the cold snap is likely to the end of warm Autumn temperatures enjoyed by Sydney and Melbourne.
“The heat we’ve seen seems to be gone and it won’t recover as much after this significant cooling,” meteorologist Jacob Cronje told 9NEWS.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/05/09/07/12/winter-weather-cold-snap-to-hit-south-east-states
40
David Evans’ estimates for 2018 being a transition year to a different climate pattern are looking quite realistic.
30
They are saying this ‘cut-off low’ is unusual, but nobody is going to put their hand up and say its AGW. They aren’t even game to explain why it is happening, the loss of intensity in the subtropical ridge.
It appears similar to the mid 1970s, around the time of the Great Climate Shift.
Anyway, as we transition to a cool phase the midlatitudes should enjoy more robust weather
40
The unusual “cut-off low” ties in with the jet-stream maps at squall.sfsu which neatly depict a tongue of cold dry polar air licking northwards over Tasmania. The sudden kinks in the jet-stream appear to correlate with a 600km/sec wind stream from a coronal hole in the Sun which is mentioned at Spaceweather.com and Ben Davidson’s great little (Suspicious Observers) daily Youtubes.
Here around Sydney we’ve had a warm and peaceful autumn but that looks set to end on Friday if that polar air reaches this far north.
20
Around banking – well CAGW finance
“Global Warming About The Money? – AGW Investment Club…”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/global-warming-about-the-money-agw-investment-club/
And
“A Remarkably Clear Video On Global Warming “Issues” ”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/a-remarkably-clear-video-on-global-warming-issues/
20
Barclay’s Bank staff are probably not up to working out the real world details of solar. It involves far too much common sense.
They even have trouble carrying out elementary banking instructions with their incompetence costing me AU$1000s to the point where I’m flying to the UK to terminate my dealings with them in blunt fashion.
50
I’ve had constant reminders of how hopeless international banking transfers are.
You would think that the banks would have a fool proof system, but NO.
Banks are full of people with the completely, up to date, systems in their heads of banking 2018 style.
If it don’t work, it was the computer.
The upper management overseeing this mess isn’t to blame???????
KK
20
Back when I was in the solar industry in Melbourne 2009/10 some real estate agents treated solar panels like swimming pools. In Melbourne pools are often seen as a negatives when selling a house because the climate offers a poor cost to value ratio. Solar was sometimes looked at in the same light with higher insurance premiums and maintenance costs perceived as a negative and lowering the sale value.
I don’t know if it is still perceived that way but many people then were shocked when the agent recommended they remove their solar.
50
🙂
20
Today I’ve had a micro example of the pitfalls of distributed generation.
We’ve had years of water restrictions here so I put down a bore and had some turf laid to replace the brown with green. I like to water my qtr acre yard when the sun is out so I use my own generation via cells. Today I checked my inverter to see if the generation was adequate at 8 am and it was dead. How long has it been so? No way of knowing of course because it’s no one’s job to check it daily. I signed up to a new [cheaper?] billing scheme where I pay fortnightly but only have the meter read six monthly. This could have gone on for a long time.
I bring this up because the more distributed generation becomes, the less diligent/qualified the engineering oversight and distributed generation is touted as the best thing since sliced bread. I am amazed at the malcontents who are chomping at the bit to go offline, to stick it up the collective noses of the rapacious retailers. They prolly don’t know Ohm’s law but they want to be their own system engineer.
As an aside, to make things worse, my new NBN was so bad I can’t make phone calls out, I couldn’t even ring Optus to complain.
20
quite amusing:
8 May: The Manhattan Mercury: County searching for wind turbine solution
by Stephanie Casanova
Officials are trying to figure out what to do with three wind turbines that generate some savings but could require hefty repairs in the future.
Riley County commissioners on Monday asked Leon Hobson, public works director, to look for companies in the region that can provide maintenance bids for the largest of three turbines at the public works grounds north of Manhattan. Commissioners want to get rid of the other two, but are hoping to find people or companies who will be willing to pay for their removal in order to keep them…
The turbines were installed in 2011 through a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. They were designed to encourage communities throughout Kansas to make a shift toward a more energy-efficient economy…
Hobson said the county no longer has grant funding and preventative maintenance contracts for the systems have expired. He said the systems have a lifespan of about 20 years.
“We’re in a situation now where anything we do out there is strictly at the cost to Riley County,” Hobson said.
Because the preventative maintenance contracts expired, Hobson said his staff reached out to Ethos Distributed Solutions, the company that did the initial maintenance work, for a cost estimate on a five-year maintenance plan. That would cost $71,674 for maintenance, and an additional $84,174 for budgeted repairs.
Hobson said the largest of the three turbines needs some parts replaced, but he has been waiting until he talked to commissioners so he knows how to move forward with maintenance…
“Really the only one that we’ve ever felt was generating electricity that we at least break even or maybe save a little money, was the Northwind,” Hobson said…
He said the turbines were installed as an educational project. Rich Vargo, Riley County clerk, questioned whether continuing maintenance on the turbines is an efficient use of taxpayer money.
“That’s not what we’re in the business to do, to spend tax dollars on,” Vargo said…
Hobson said Ethos representatives quoted $20,000 to remove one of the turbines.
“To me, if they’re not running we need to take them down,” Vargo said…
Commissioner Ron Wells suggested the county to advertise in area newspapers to give away the turbines.
http://themercury.com/news/local/county-searching-for-wind-turbine-solution/article_f7af8167-eebe-54d1-b722-99bcbe2ecd5c.html
8 May: DeKalb Daily Chronicle Editorial: Our view: Wind turbine ordinance should protect, respect property rights
Where a person lives probably has a lot of influence on how they feel about a wind farm proposed for northwestern DeKalb County.
Those who stand to profit from leasing ground for wind turbines to San Diego-based EDF Renewables probably love the idea. Those who are far enough away that the towers will be mostly out of sight – the majority of people – might consider it an environmentally friendly way of generating power that will make a contribution to the local economy and tax base.
However, there are some people who will gain little from the project, yet still face potential light and noise pollution, along with clutter on the rural landscape…
There is room for wind-power generation in DeKalb County. There have been more than 120 turbines in southwestern DeKalb County for almost a decade. A new project is proposed for northwest DeKalb County.
In the new ordinance, we would like to see stringent requirements on light pollution. The disruption of blinking red lights must be minimized by aircraft-activated systems or other means to reduce nuisance light.
“Shadow flicker” caused by the rotating blades blocking the sun must be minimal or eliminated for residents.
The county has been through the wind energy approval process before and should have a good idea of the issues that will arise. Rural roads may have to be improved to handle heavy, oversize loads that would be trucked in to build the towers. Dust and construction noise will have to be controlled. Funds must be set aside for decommissioning the towers.
EDF Renewables should be expected to improve roads and guarantee property values of nearby residents.
The last wind energy project approved by the County Board brought more than 120 turbines to four townships in southwestern DeKalb County. In that project, the turbines were about 400 feet tall from the tip of the blade at its apex to the ground. The turbines were required to have a 1,400-foot setback from any residence – about 3½ times the “tip height.”
EDF Renewables is asking for the same setback requirement for its turbines, which could be about 100 feet taller than those to the south.
This setback requirement seems to be a reasonable standard that can protect quality of life for residents while allowing landowners to maximize the use of their property.
That should be the top priority for the County Board as it works to create an ordinance for this wind project and any that will come after.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/05/08/our-view-wind-turbine-ordinance-should-protect-respect-property-rights/augqut7/
10
2 May: AllAfrica: Uganda: Investigator Cites Fraud in Education Solar Project
By Misairi Thembo Kahungu
A private investigator has run to the Internal Security Organisation (ISO) to avert what he describes as “fraud and corruption” in the ongoing procurement process for a solar energy project in the Ministry of Education and Sports.
Mr Freddie Egesa, a prominent and lead investigator in a Kampala based private security firm, Absolute Guard Services and Investigations Limited, in a letter dated April 27, claims that officials handling the procurement process for the $700,000 (about Shs2.6 billion) project funded under a World Bank loan are likely to cause a financial loss to government if the process is not halted by the spy agency…
Currently, the Ministry of Education and Sports is in the procurement process for contractors to supply and install solar energy equipment at 85 selected post primary education institutions across the country…
“Unfortunately, there is information that the M&E Consultants are interested parties and have a stake in the two companies namely, Adritex (U) limited and Balton (U) limited which are among those that bid for the job. The two companies named seem to have been among those that bid the highest, even beyond the engineer’s estimates,” the letter reads in part…
His argument is that with the two companies bidding a total of about Shs4.8b, if awarded, the government will be required to pay an extra more than Shs2b that is not part of the World Bank LOAN…
http://allafrica.com/stories/201805020201.html
8 May: Zimbabwe Mail: Chivhayo’s Chinese investor blacklisted by African Development Bank for fraud
INTRATREK Zimbabwe’s plans to establish a 100-megawatt (MW) solar plant in Gwanda is in jeopardy after its technical partner, Shanghai-listed CHINT Electric (CHINT), was barred from accessing funds in Africa due to fraudulent practices.
This comes as CHINT’s executives were due to visit the country this week to renegotiate time extensions for raising money and other terms…
The Wicknell Chivayo-led company has come under intense pressure to deliver on the $200 million solar project, which has stalled since October 2015.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) yesterday said it has blacklisted CHINT for 36 months after an investigation conducted by the institution’s office of Integrity and Anti-Corruption established that the Chinese engineering company had engaged “in a multitude of fraudulent practices”…
During the debarment period, the company is ineligible to be awarded contracts under any AfDB-financed project or to be a subcontractor, consultant, supplier, or service provider of an otherwise eligible firm in the context of a bank-financed project.
The debarment qualifies for cross-debarment by other multilateral development banks under the Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions, including the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank Group…
In addition, CHINT commits to cooperate with the Office of Integrity and Anti-Corruption in its investigations of unrelated cases of misconduct in African Development Bank-financed projects.
The period of debarment may be reduced to 24 months if CHINT complies with all conditions of the agreement early…READ ON FOR CONTRACT DETAILS
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/business/chivhayos-chinese-investor-blacklisted-by-african-development-bank-for-fraud/
10
here’s an idea. make every day a public holiday:
8 May: UK Telegraph: Bank holiday sunshine powers new solar record
By Jillian Ambrose
Britain’s hottest early May bank holiday ever resulted in solar panels powering their largest-ever share of the UK’s energy mix.
As Britons basked in Sunday’s sunshine, photovoltaic panels across the country produced more power than any other energy source. Solar installations powered as much as 28.5pc of the nation’s electricity, blazing past gas-fired power plants, which generated 24.8pc during the same period.
The solar power peak occurred between 13.30 and 14.00 on Sunday afternoon, according to the National Grid, touching highs of 9.28GW. Solar power’s biggest ever contribution to the grid tops last summer’s 26.1pc record set on the first sunny Sunday in July…
In absolute terms the scorching output falls short of the solar power output record set on May 26 last year, a Friday, when output hit a 9.37GW record.
Despite these highs solar power made up a smaller share of the energy mix because more conventional power plants were needed to meet the weekday demand from offices and industry.
Solar was able to make its record breaking contribution over the bank holiday in part because workplaces shut and people eschewed kettles and the TV to flock to parks and beaches…
The UK currently has around 13GW of solar power capacity but this is expected to rise to 18GW by 2023…
Across Sunday’s full 24-hour period solar power made up just 11.1pc of the electricity generated, compared to steadier output from gas-fired power, which comprised 34.6pc of power. Nuclear power made up 27.5pc of electricity.
Nonetheless it is still the highest ever proportion of solar power in the energy mix over a single day. The previous record was set on July 2 at 9.5pc of Britain’s electricity.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/08/bank-holiday-sunshine-powers-new-solar-record/
10
There are no unicorns to pay solar/wind SUBSIDIES & extra infrastructure/inefficiency costs, instead they are rolled over into all electricity costs and therefore not just into our leccy bill, but EVERYTHING we all pay for.
Putting up a million solar panels, makes electricity costs rise overall,
** and means the NHS has to take nurses off the wards to pay for its electricity bills. **
People here who made money from solar/wind, that money has come from little granny and the rest of us.
IMHO it is proceeds of greenblob crime, that is the legacy you leave your children.
There are a million people who profit from pushing such gimmicks, but only a few of us unpaid people that speak up against them
10
Is it less than 1% of UK sales ? 2,000 complaints from 900,000 installations
BBC Radio 4 is just covering the issue now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b1p5g6#playt=28m7s
(7 minute report)
For 2 years they have been covering a well known problem with a sales scam company called HELMS
The question is is this problem limited HELMs or does it include bona fide solar corps ?
https://twitter.com/haughey_clare/status/964513555671330816
Neither the Ombudsman nor the Times mention HELMS by name but the MO seems like theirs
\\ The ombudsman said that it had received about 2,000 complaints in the past year and that its investigations had found “evidence of pressure sales techniques, and misleading sales literature or representations by the salesperson”.//
the Ombudsman says 2,000 complaints but there have been 900K UK home installations
The BBC says Shirebrook had 25,000 of such loans , so I think we can expect the claimants to rise
Interesting the Times released its story on a Bank Holiday Monday
20
8 May: NYT: E.P.A. Emails Shed Light on Pruitt’s Plan to Debate Climate Change
By Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport
The emails were released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental organization .
While the broad outlines of Mr. Pruitt’s military-style debate plan, known as “red team, blue team,” are already known, the documents show the extent to which the E.P.A., which is the main federal agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, worked with groups like the Heartland Institute, which holds positions on climate change that are far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion, as opposed to the agency’s own chief scientists.
The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank that disputes the established science of human-caused climate change. Other groups included the CO2 Coalition, which promotes the idea that planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution is beneficial to humans. Neither group immediately responded to questions late Tuesday.
Academic scientists said the involvement of these and other organizations went well beyond established norms for scientific debate.
***“The idea that the Heartland Institute should be dictating what E.P.A. does on climate science is crazy,” said Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “They do not have scientific expertise.”
In a statement, Ed Chen, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “Scientists at the EPA who know something about climate science want nothing to do with the Red Team, Blue Team exercise.”…ETC
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/climate/pruitt-epa-red-blue-team-debate-emails.html
10
UK mad, rude and sneaky say a Greenie and a Labourite. EU is good, tho its CO2 emissions APPEAR to be rising:
9 May: Guardian: Secret UK push to weaken EU climate laws ‘completely mad’
Plan to change timeline for energy use reduction puts Paris targets at risk, say MEPS
by Arthur Neslen
The EU has committed to a 20% cut in its energy use by 2020 to be achieved by two directives, covering energy efficiency and buildings.
But leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Britain is pushing for its 2014-2020 timeline to be stretched backwards four years to count “early actions” taken that comply with the efficiency directive.
Any “excess energy savings” during the law’s writ would then be forwarded to the post-2020 period. MEPs have branded the plan “incomprehensible”.
Benedek Jávor (member of Dialogue for Hungary, part of European Green Party), the vice chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, told the Guardian: “The UK’s proposal to widen ‘flexibilities’ is completely mad and undermines the principle of additionality, as well as the overall ambition of the energy efficiency directive.”…
Jávor added that it was “rude” for the UK to weaken climate measures that it would only be bound by during a transition period, before it left the bloc…
Barry Gardiner (Labour), the shadow international trade and climate spokesman, said: “2018 is the year when countries have been asked by the UN to ratchet up their commitments on climate change. Instead our government is actually proposing to count emissions savings made from as far back as 2010 towards fulfilling their obligations in the next decade from 2021-2030.”
“This sneaky, behind-the-scenes amendment indicates a government that likes to pretend it is a global leader but will not take the strong policy action needed to deliver the necessary change.”…
The EU’s climate goals for 2020 are a staging post to its more ambitious promise to the Paris conference of a 40% emissions cut by 2030.
Europe is expected to easily achieve this, ***although its CO2 emissions appear to be rising as economic activity picks up, while energy efficiency gains have gone into reverse…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/09/secret-uk-push-to-weaken-eu-climate-laws-completely-mad
10
a distressing disgrace:
9 May: SMH: Peter Hannam: Budget 2018: Funding cuts put Paris climate goal further out of reach
By Peter Hannam
Spending on climate issues is projected to drop from $3 billion in the current year – or 0.6 per cent of total spending – to $1.6 billion for 2018-19.
By 2021-22, the outlay will shrink further to $1.25 billion, or just 0.2 per cent of the budget for that year, the government said.
The $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund [ERF], which was set up by the Abbott government to substitute for the carbon tax, was not topped up in this year’s budget. It was $265 million unspent…
The lack of climate funding “is really, really distressing”, Tim Baxter, a research associate at Melbourne University’s Climate and Energy College, said…
Climate change was also absent from Treasurer Scott Morrison’s budget speech, save for a mention that Australia would “maintain our responsible and achievable emissions reduction target at 26-28 per cent [versus 2005 levels by 2030], and not the 45 per cent ***demanded by the opposition”…
Labor’s climate spokesman Mark Butler, said the government’s climate and energy policies were “nothing short of a disgrace”…
“They are not even continuing their wasteful direct action program” he said, referring to the ERF…
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/budget-2018-funding-cuts-put-paris-climate-goal-further-out-of-reach-20180509-p4ze66.html
10
8 May: Bloomberg: Investors want green solutions even if Trump doesn’t
by Mathew Carr; With assistance by Lynn Doan, Anna Hirtenstein, and Kelly Gilblom
Donald Trump may think climate change is a hoax, but investors managing some $30 trillion of assets are increasingly prodding the world’s biggest polluters to come up with stronger green strategies.
HSBC Global Asset Management and Legal & General Group Plc are among the 250 wealth managers in a group known as the Climate Action 100+ that are asking the companies they own to bring their investment programs in step with the Paris Agreement on limiting global warming.
“Companies with business models that are robust within the Paris framework are going to find it easier to access capital than those who aren’t,” said Stephanie Maier, a director of responsible investment at HSBC Global Asset Management, which helped develop Climate Action 100+. The STOXX Global Climate Change Leaders Index outperformed during the past two years…
Investors will favor companies that recognize the world needs to shift toward cleaner forms of energy, according to Nick Stansbury, a fund manager and energy specialist at Legal & General’s investment unit, which manages about 983 billion pounds ($1.3 trillion).
Stansbury said he’d like to see wider adoption of carbon markets and a price of about $60 a ton by 2030 — four times the current cost of emissions certificates in Europe. Higher carbon prices would help renewables at the expense of coal, oil and natural gas.
The envoys in Bonn will work on specific rules to apply the Paris deal, which would help give investors certainty which industries will prosper as governments tighten environmental protections…
Maier said the priority for companies and governments is to back the UN’s overreaching goal of limiting temperature increases “to ensure that we stay within the 2 degrees, because that’s what ultimately what we want to see,” she said. Investors are pushing because they can’t diversify portfolios to deal with climate risks because those risks are attached to the whole economy.
While early-transitioning countries and companies may suffer some higher costs, the economic benefits from selling clean technology and related services will probably more than offset them, said Bruce Duguid, who leads engagements with environmentally exposed companies at Hermes Fund Managers Ltd. in London.
“If you move earlier on climate policy, you’ll be in the vanguard of technological development and capital deployment and you’ll see greater inward investment,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/investors-prod-polluters-on-climate-as-trump-unpicks-paris-deal
10
South Africa has a single electricity generator and distributor (ESKOM) that is hovering near bankruptcy due to an incredible amount of plain thievery. On top of that, due to more chicanery, some of the tied mines just aren’t producing enough coal to keep their associated generators running if we get a long cold spell. In Johannesburg, we have a distribution system that hasn’t been properly maintained for over 20 years, and is running on the edge of stability. In summer, with a light power load, our area will get a blackout for every 3-4 thunderstorms. I have a propane gas ‘camping’ stove and rechargeable LED lights ready for the coming winter!
And the ANC government are starting up a ‘carbon tax’ to ‘fix’ climate change on top of this?
20
And, I meant to add, that same government is raising a plan to register (and probably tax) all private generators and solar PV systems that users have installed at their own cost to handle those dark, cold nights!
20