Jump to content
Goth

Subsidies for home solar PV installations

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry, but in my line of work "PV" stands for Per Vagina.

You actually have enough cases of chicks getting things stuck in there that they actually have a term for it?

 

Eww, now I just got reminded about green slushy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be reposted and stickied. For, like, eva!

a mate of mine is applying to join the ambo's

i still cant bring myself to tell him that story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, solar IS expensive... but why?

Manufacturing costs ARE high.... but why?

No one is buying. No one buying = high cost = no one buying.

One thing the gov't rebates are doing is stimulating the solar industry within aus(even if they're made overseas), which can only help to bring solar cost down further.

I have already seen the price of solar drop significantly. a 10W panel 2 years ago would have cost $275, where these days they retail for $175. That is a significant drop in a short time. In 10 years time they will be even cheaper, maybe even close to half the current price.

Remember what happend when the government changed the rebate? It was reported that around a third of the orders of solar panels were canceled. Soon after, BP closed their panel plant in Oz.

 

Startup technology needs substantial government subsidies, which is not what we have now, as Goth has shown.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Kev had reduced the handouts by half and put that $10 billion to subsidising the solar industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait until he's in, then show him :)

 

 

no escape, that way.

 

 

edit: mac daddy - agreed, i don't think it is the most effective/efficient way of going about it, but that's how we ARE going about it, like it or not.

Edited by Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but in my line of work "PV" stands for Per Vagina.

You actually have enough cases of chicks getting things stuck in there that they actually have a term for it?

 

Eww, now I just got reminded about green slushy.

 

 

lol no :P

 

PV usually relates to bleeding. PV bleed can be from a variety of reasons, maybe shes having a miscarriage, maybe there is an injury of some sort. Sometimes when elderly women fall down, like a big fall down the stairs they might get a PV bleed, which isnt normal considering they are menopausal that definately can show something wrong.

 

PR bleeding is per rectum. Sometimes people can randomly have a PR bleed, could be a number things, cancer, injury, etc. Sometimes PV bleeds just happen randomly too.

 

 

Its just a medical abbreviation we use, not allways related to epic gross outness like the green slushie and foreign objects :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would have happened if Kev had reduced the handouts by half and put that $10 billion to subsidising the solar industry?

Yes, I agree that would have been great. Also, perhaps get a nuclear plant up and running so as to get Australia started on that path also.

 

I think the only problem with that would be that they were trying to ensure the money was spent broadly and quickly. Investments in infrastructure tend to take a long time, and investment in things like solar would inevitably be quite narrow, unfortunately.

 

Still, you'd think there would have been some scope to make that investment before the entire budget surplus was pissed away on plasma TVs and Harvey Norman salesmean bonuses :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not like this, where it's just so, so expensive.

 

Treat all these clean technologies equally, without any government biases for or against any of them, on a level playing field, and let the free market decide what is most appropriate.

 

We need very large amounts of generation to replace the coal fired stations, and it's clear that solar simply cannot deliver it, especially not at a price that is even remotely sensible, but we know nuclear can.

Edited by Goth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the subsidisation for nuclear, solar, geothermal etc stack up against each other. It would be interesting to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not like this, where it's just so, so expensive.

 

Treat all these clean technologies equally, without any government biases for or against any of them, on a level playing field, and let the free market decide what is most appropriate.

 

We need very large amounts of generation to replace the coal fired stations, and it's clear that solar simply cannot deliver it, especially not at a price that is even remotely sensible, but we know nuclear can.

I assume you definition of nuclear as "clean" is relative to coal not absolute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat all these clean technologies equally, without any government biases for or against any of them, on a level playing field, and let the free market decide what is most appropriate.

 

The issue with that is - you're assuming people know what's best for them.

 

 

We know that isn't the case, otherwise doctors would ask 'what drugs would you like today?' and hand out blank prescription pads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given I'm in this industry, a few replies from my side.

 

So, a "1000 W" array, in the real world with an average of 174 W/m2 worth of incident radiation flux, will generate 174 W of power, on average. (Averaged over the full 24 hours in a day.)

I question you need to average this over 24hrs in the day. It's solar - it's clear that it only works in daylight, so doing calculations based on a 24hr average really doesn't make much sense. For interest, one of the real world installations that I've been involved in of a 1kW grid exporting system has the following profile for a 6 day period.

 

Posted Image

 

Each of the ticks on the x-axis is a midnight boundary for the day, and the intervals are at 30-minute resolution, so you'll notice that the maxium output is around 0.5kWh in a 30-minute period, or a 1kW system. You'll also notice that the first couple of days have poor output, which is probably due to cloudy or rainy days, and the latter part of the graph shows good consistent output building up to the peak at the middle of the day.

 

Therefore, you get about 1500 kWh of total energy generation per year.

The data above averages (over days with poor direct sunlight to good full-light days) to around 3.2kWh per day, or around 1200kWh per day - so you're calculations are pretty good here.

 

However, after about 10 years, the grid-connect inverter will die (These guys [http://jlelectrics.com.au/main/page_solar_power.html] have a 5 year warranty on theirs), and there won't be a subsidy paying for that, so that's probably another $2000 or so you'll need to shell out. So, that adds another 10 years to the payback time. You probably won't even be able to pay it off before that second inverter reaches the end of its life.

 

...

 

So you're looking at a payback time of 26 years, for a system where the solar cells are unlikely to last more than 20-25 years.

That is definitely based on build quality - and you're probably far better off buying a high quality one, but it's definitely worth considering that in 10yrs time, a 1kW inverter is likely to cost far less (maybe 30-50% less) and be far more capable of standing up for a longer period.

 

This scheme is just a huge money sink for the government; it's completely unsustainable, and it doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.

I completely disagree. You're instantly starting to take load off the grid, away from our current generators and are genuinely giving something back to the Environment and grid as a whole. There are cost savings to be had for what may be a reasonable investment, whilst possibly leading to a situation where the grid isn't in crisis in 10yrs time. This is a long term approach with good benefits in countries like ours. There's a huge importance on curbing customer load demand as well.

 

In 2006, the electricity output sent to the grid from Loy Yang A, just as a typical example, was 15,995 gigawatt-hours.

Therefore, if you wanted to generate the same amount of energy from 1 kW solar PV installations as just one coal-fired power station, you'd need 10.7 million of these installations.

I'm not sure exactly how many households there are, but Australia has a population of 21 million people, and I'm quite sure the average number of persons per household is greater than two.

You would need just under 11 million typical household 1 kW rooftop solar PV installations - well in excess of the number of households in the country - to give you the same amount of electricity as one coal-fired power station.

It's not about replacing power stations, but more about a sustainable approach to support growth in the energy industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. You're instantly starting to take load off the grid, away from our current generators and are genuinely giving something back to the Environment and grid as a whole.

Coal fired power stations don't have a power dial, they are either off or they are on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. You're instantly starting to take load off the grid, away from our current generators and are genuinely giving something back to the Environment and grid as a whole.

Coal fired power stations don't have a power dial, they are either off or they are on.

 

The generators spin at speeds proportional to the load required. Turbine speeds is regulated by (usually) steam, steam is generated by burning coal, so technically, removal in loads from the grid requires less effort at the generator, and hence less coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boondoggle

LOL wut?

 

oh okay boondoggle, yeah...

 

 

anyway, what happened to those 5X more efficient (or thereabouts) cells developed recently?

 

means little if they are 5.1X the cost to make!, but i am sure i didnt dream them up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question you need to average this over 24hrs in the day. It's solar - it's clear that it only works in daylight, so doing calculations based on a 24hr average really doesn't make much sense.

You have to average it over 24 hrs.

Any other way is just sqibbing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off if we want nuclear power....

DONT FUCKING GET AN ARGENTINIAN COMPANY TO BUILD IT...

 

like they did with the OPAL reactor at lucas heights /facepalm

 

 

 

Ima not sure how the solar cells work nowadays...

but i seem to remember an array of mirrors in a dish that focused sunlight on a small solar cell ..

less money spent on cells while keeping the same theoretical surface area by using the cheaper mirrors...

was wondering if this was viable or the solar cell had to be of higher grade to withstand the increased operating temperatures...

also having a tracking device which follows the sun thought out the day/year cycle gives a substantial increase in power..

any thoughts/further info would be much appreciated :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do the sun tracking thing already in some arrays, but mirrors aren't generally used, they just go with bulk amount of cells in the array.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off if we want nuclear power....

DONT FUCKING GET AN ARGENTINIAN COMPANY TO BUILD IT...

 

like they did with the OPAL reactor at lucas heights /facepalm

Yeah............I remember saying at the time, they may as well have got the Russians to build it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ima not sure how the solar cells work nowadays...

but i seem to remember an array of mirrors in a dish that focused sunlight on a small solar cell ..

less money spent on cells while keeping the same theoretical surface area by using the cheaper mirrors...

was wondering if this was viable or the solar cell had to be of higher grade to withstand the increased operating temperatures...

also having a tracking device which follows the sun thought out the day/year cycle gives a substantial increase in power..

any thoughts/further info would be much appreciated :)

these are much more efficient than small PV cells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×