Energy Matters Forums

[EnergyMatters]

Hi All,

Even though the forum was launched just a short while ago, we're seeing a lot of interest on the subject of feed in tariffs.

As some of you would know, we've been lobbying for a gross, national feed in tariff for quite a while via FeedInTariff.com.au. The petition was presented to Parliament by Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne back in June.

Alas, still no luck... yet

There's some very interesting comments on the petition and we thought we'd implement a poll here too, plus provide the opportunity to discuss the topic in more depth.

For example - how has the current system affected your decision to install or not install solar power or perhaps upgrade your system? Are you holding back, or steaming ahead regardless?

What message would you like to convey to those in power and the change-makers? We'll be pointing a few of them to this thread and perhaps they'll even contribute their thoughts too!

We look forward to your participation and a lively (but of course, very friendly and focused) discussion!

Click the "post reply" button below to add your thoughts.

[Spinner912]

Unfortunately, no government in this country, federal, state, or local, is serious about energy from renewable sources. That there is not a national scheme for feed in tariff says it all. The federal government doesn't want to do it, so it is leaving to the sates, who don't want to do it either, and local government is completely irrelevant in the matter.

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to calculate, even on the back of a napkin, that a mere 1,000 homes generating say 3.6MWh per year adds up to a not totally insignificant 3.6GWh per year. How many more SGU (Small Generating Units) need to be commissioned to eliminate the need for one environmentally disastrous coal fired power station? What would be the expenditure for feed in tariff versus the expenditure for a brand new polluting coal fired power station?

But this seems to be simply too much for our procrastinating political leaders and their spokespersons on environment and climate change to grasp. It is far easier to wax on lyrical about clean coal technology. They might as well be building runways for flying pigs. The latter is closer to reality than a carbon neutral coal burning power station!

Feed in tariff and other incentives have however, been proven. The precedents are in place having been successfully put in place in some States in Europe, and the United States of America. But of course, it is politically expedient to simply stand around looking concerned, shuffling ignored studies, reciting words to the effect that it is different here in Australia - it might not work here.

But we cannot blame our political ditherers alone. Perhaps we should have a look in the mirror. Perhaps it is we, the electorate, who are to blame for nothing progressive happening. Take a look at the polls being conducted on this web site. After months of promoting a poll of feed in tariff, a mere 18,700 signatures have been obtained. That is less than 50% of the voters in any one federal electorate. How on earth can we imagine that this might have the slightest effect on our vote counters? On another poll on this forum, the question is put to the vote as to whether feed in tariff should be a state or federal matter. On one side of the coin, a total of eight - yes eight - votes had been lodged.

For feed in tariff to ever become an issue in this country, at any worthwhile level, there has to be some community interest generated. At the moment there is virtually none.

[youngraham]

Hi all
I have recently had a solar power system installed comprising an 8 panel 175w solar array and a 2.2kW inverter. My decision to only proceed with 8 panels at this time was because we currently only have a net feed-in tariff in NSW, well commencing in Jan 2010.
If a gross feed-in tariffs had been in place I would have made the financial outlay and installed at least 12 panels. I believe 12 panels would generally provided most if not all my power requirements. I would be interested to know if others have used the same rationale?

[kt69]

I'd like to propose a slightly more radical suggestion. Let's push for a generous Net FIT instead of Gross FIT. (Net FIT means we only get paid a premium for the energy we pump into the grid rather than for all the energy our PV systems generate.)

If we were successful in our campaign and obtained a national Gross FIT, then there is not much of an incentive for people with solar PV installed to reduce their own power consumption. With a Net FIT there is a strong incentive to reduce energy consumption during daylight hours. For example, if we were to obtain a 60-80 c Net FIT, to achieve maximum financial return PV owners will cut their energy consumption during sunshine hours dramatically. It will provide financial incentive to build or retrofit highly energy efficient houses, so that heaters and air conditioners are not required. It will encourage the use of high efficiency appliances, and favour power consumption between sunset and sunrise, when grid power is more readily available.

How does this work financially? With a Gross FIT PV owners pay the standard rate for all the power they consume (about 20 c per KWhr), and get paid a steady income for the power their system generates.

With a Net FIT, every KWhr PV owners consume during the power generation period (sunlight hours) they miss out on 60-80 c (or whatever). Thus it effectively costs 40-60 c per KWhr for any power consumed during daylight hours. At this cost (2-3 times greater than current prices) energy efficiency actions become increasingly more economically viable.

Any thoughts?

[Spinner912]

The concept of net FIT does not provide the necessary incentives for the large outlay necessary for a useful SGU PV system.

Unfortunately, many who install PV systems are of the understanding that if it a 1kW system, they will actually generate 1kW output. Or if it is a 2kW system, then 2kW is what they will get.

WRONG! By the time inverter inefficiencies are taken into account, about 10% is gone. Then there is the inevitable layer of birds poop and dust. Say another 5% (conservatively). Then we have to consider exactly what is the radiation power of the sun at any given time in the year. PV panels are rated at 1000W/m². But how often do we actually achieve that figure. It can be as low as 500W/m² in the winter months. There goes another say, 10% average. Then comes the greatest bugbear of all - temperature. Unfortunately PV panels are rated at a quite impossibly low (for Australia anyway) 25°C. But they are a dark colour and when a dark colour is pointed toward the sun, they heat up. Significantly. And output drops at a rate of 0.44% per degree C! Heh presto! Another 10-20%. And so, that 2kW system is actually generating a mere 1.4 or 1.5kW at the peak sunshine times, and less each side of solar noon.

Of course, this does not take into account those annoying little fluffy things in the sky as they float across the sun!

So all of a sudden, the idealism which generally accompanies the installation of a new system finds reality. And all that net FIT all of sudden is very hard to obtain. Payback time seems to have gone west.

So; in fairness to those who have bitten the bullet and actually done something for the environment, it is surely fair and reasonable that they should get as much subsidy as possible to offset the hefty personal outlay they have made in investing in the future of the environment.

Net FIT nice though it is, is simply inadequate. The big polluters, the dirty coal burning power industry, should be made to provide that subsidy - in the form of generous gross FIT.

[bradley.jarvis]

I'm with kt69, we should be pushing for a system that promotes sustainability and conservations, not one that promotes exuberance.

For example I recently had a look at some houses on the sustainable house open day and I was in general disappointed. They seemed to be pushing the fact that all is ok because they had installed 2.3kW or 2.8kW worth of panels. They did not seem too concerned about reducing what they need to live, but were more concerned about buying more panels to cover what was wasted.

I personally think your better off getting a smaller system and reducing what you use. Since moving we have not bothered to connect up the TV. We don't have a fridge (we have a 50L Sundazer on order though). No dryer (the air and a clothes line works fine, even for nappies that our two kids use, and even over a Victorian winter). No dishwasher (it's a good opportunity to talk to your partner). No electric jug (the combustion stove or even a wood heater boils water with no problem). No heat lamps in the bathroom (just dry yourself quicker). And definitely no air conditioner. And all the above suggestions can even be done without a solar power system and you will save money. It is a lot more environmentally sustainable to do the dishes by hand then to spend a whole lot of energy to build a dishwasher and the solar panels to run it cleanly.

To conclude it is better to run your life with less, that is more sustainable. I vote for a system that promotes efficiency where people consider first if they need the an item and then look at the power consumption of it before buying.

Thanks, Brad

PS. Spinner912, we had a grid connect system that was only 1kw and we calculated that we would be making money if there was a 60c net tariff. Our system in sunny Warragul, Victoria made an average of 4.5kW a day which was what we were told it would do. I work from home writing computer software plus we have 2 young kids.

Update:
Sorry I made a mistake above. We would not have been making money with a net feed in tariff since we did use slightly more electricity than we used, but we would have made money with a gross feed in tariff.

[Spinner912]

Thanks for your thoughts Bradley. What you say is absolutely true. BUT! It is precisely the reason why so many people are not the slightest interested in solar power, or for that matter, reducing energy consumption in any way that might be inconvenient.

Until of course electricity starts to cost a bit more. Let's say about $0.50/kWh. This will definitely create some interest in reducing consumption and using energy from renewable sources.

And it is that very same incentive which will make more people go for "green" energy. Because it will cost them less on a daily basis, and they might even get something in return. The more they think they will get, the more interest they will have. Translate this into the ideal FIT and it is spelled "Gross".

And to fill in the gaps in my comments - I have installed 10X200W Suntech panels, each on dual axis trackers. (They track from 090°through north to 270° and tilt from 27.5° to vertical). Today, in SE Qld, it was a little hazy but mostly cloud free. The system generated a total of 14.41kWh in the 24 hours since 1800 yesterday and we consumed 7kWh and fed in 10kWh. The consumption was a little higher than normal due to an extra washing load and, God forbid, a dishwasher load. There was no electric cooking.

The highest output from the PV system was at about 0800 this morning because there was a very cool SW wind blowing obviously cooling the panels in their elevated tilt position. Output gradually fell to about 1.450kW as the ambient temperature rose and the wind dropped off before turning to a warm NEasterly.

And to kind of negate my comments about FIT, when I planned and decided on this particular installation ($27K less $8K), there was no talk of FIT, so it had little to do with the decision in my case. Although I would have been keener had gross FIT been available, as you can imagine.

And although I am still consuming significant grid electrical energy, I am very pleased and in fact proud that I am contributing to an even greater extent to reducing consumption of dirty coal fired energy, and believe that my contribution is far greater again than I would achieve by simply not participating in some of the niceties of life, e.g. having a dishwasher, and viewing the odd television programme.

[bradley.jarvis]

Hi Spinner,
A gross FIT would be good and a national system would be fair. I think that it would be good(for the environment at least) if power and water were both more expensive, or at least had a staggered cost (I can't think of a fair way to do this though).The power companies will just charge its customers more to cover the tariff anyway, so I guess this is a good reason to introduce a gross tariff.

We live in a free country and I certainly don't want to tell people what to do and what not do, I have produced my fair share of greenhouse gasses. And I have plenty of respect for anyone who has made the decision to be responsible for there own power production, or changed the way that they live to use less.

It will certainly be interesting to see how grid connect power systems and the FIT's panout over the next few years. I did sign the gross feeding tariff petition even though it will not effect us since we are not going to be feeding into the grid, it is important to use as a tool to get more people thinking about making the switch even though it shouldn't have to be.

PS. Our one 1K system fixed to the roof didn't do much today since it was cloudy and very rainy. The batteries have gone down but the water tanks have gone up.

[Spinner912]

Fantastic.! You certainly have the right idea and sound as though you are enjoying the challenge. For that is what it is. It really is a challenge to beat this energy consumerism.

FIT and any other incentives will be completely pointless however, if weak and dithering governments simply exclude the worst polluters from paying for their excesses. And this means coal burning power stations, or anyone else responsible for generating environmental pollution.

But alas; I fear that we are governed by a mob of jellyfish who are in the pockets of the big capitalists and who don't have the backbone to stand up to the threats of the big polluters. They must be coaxed to find the courage to take the unpopular decisions (and not just talk about them) or everything we ordinary people do will be absolutely for naught, like the idle chatter coming from our politicians.

There is no alternative to taking serious steps. The climate change sceptics must be irrelevant to the discussions. If they are not ignored, we run the risk that their delaying will be responsible for irreversible damage to our environment, and the consequences for life as we know it today.

There is an old aviation adage which says .... "where there is doubt, there is no doubt". This should be recited to climate change sceptics at every possible opportunity.

[dynamictiger]

I personally think your better off getting a smaller system and reducing what you use. Since moving we have not bothered to connect up the TV. We don't have a fridge (we have a 50L Sundazer on order though). No dryer (the air and a clothes line works fine, even for nappies that our two kids use, and even over a Victorian winter). No dishwasher (it's a good opportunity to talk to your partner). No electric jug (the combustion stove or even a wood heater boils water with no problem). No heat lamps in the bathroom (just dry yourself quicker). And definitely no air conditioner. And all the above suggestions can even be done without a solar power system and you will save money. It is a lot more environmentally sustainable to do the dishes by hand then to spend a whole lot of energy to build a dishwasher and the solar panels to run it cleanly.

While I can see the wisdom and indeed energy savings in this approach, I must concur with others here in that this approach is exactly what puts people off solar power.

However with some alternative thinking a normal household can reduce their energy consumption hugely, without any noticeable disruption to their normal life. Not totally the same as previous, but so near as to offer no inconvinence.

Here is what has worked for us:

Tv - I record a lot of TV shows and have Media Centre computer to do this. I also own a normal use computer. I got the normal use computer fitted with a twin tuner, network installed between the media centre and this computer, and use this to record TV. Then only turn on the media centre computer to watch recorded TV and transfer the files recorded over the network. - Outcome reduced power consumption no disruption to my life.
Computer - I used to leave it running 24 hours a day as it is supposedly better for it. I turn it off when I go to work and turn it on when I come home now. Outcome reduced power consumption no disruption to lifestyle.
Oven - My wife bought a benchtop cooker thingy it uses only a killowatt of power. If there is only the two of us and she does not want to Nuke the meal, she uses this. Outcome reduced power consumption no disruption to lifestyle.
Lighting - I got the lights reconfigured in the house. Low energy globes everywhere with the options of one two or three globes on at a flick of a switch depending on use. In addition halogen downlights in work areas on seperate circuits. We usually only run one globe. Outcome reduced power no disruption to lifestyle.
Air Conditioning - All arguments aside about sustainability of air con units. In WA it is a requirement if you want to work the following day. Interesting challenge. Two storey house that the prefered company told me had to have reverse cycle every where. I dislike reverse cycle air con and didn't want it. Eventual outcome one evaporative cooler downstairs and one upstairs. Now if we are downstairs the evap down runs, if up the evap upstairs runs. Although this disobeys the second law of thermodynamics we do turn it all off during the day if we aren't home e.g. at work, and turn it on when we come home. After a few minutes the air is cool enough to be comfortable. Outcome reduced power consumption no disruption to lifestyle.

There are a lot more cuts and alternative approaches we have made and sure we always look at appliance ratings when we need replacements, however these simple changes have reduced our power from 12 units to 8 units a day/week/or month. I can't remember as it is now two years since I made all these changes.

We still use our dishwasher, however we do not have a dryer.

Power consumption can be significantly reduced by a lot of small changes and thinking differently. However we have been bought up in a lifestyle where power is cheap and no reason to worry about it.