U.S. Solar electric capacity has expanded explosively – 418% – from 2326 megawatts in 2010 to 12,057 MW in February 2014, an increase of 9,731 MW reports the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Solar has moved rapidly from a niche market to 1.13% of total U.S. capacity. To stop the rapid growth of solar, which is threatening to break Americans from the death grip of fossil fuels, the Koch Brothers are demanding to tax the sun.

read more

The Kochs have been pushing, through AFP ads, the dishonest meme that rooftop solar owners aren’t carrying their fare share of utility system costs. The dishonesty lies in the failure to mention how rooftop solar and distributed power helps reduce the demand for peak power in mid-summer allowing power producers to avoid costs for building new power plants to meet peak demand. Moreover, power distributors not in the generation business are able to avoid paying for the most expensive peak power. But that’s not what the utilities are telling the politicians and public. They are lobbying that solar power generators are freeloaders.

Postpocelipse said:

The Kochs have been pushing, through AFP ads, the dishonest meme that rooftop solar owners aren’t carrying their fare share of utility system costs. The dishonesty lies in the failure to mention how rooftop solar and distributed power helps reduce the demand for peak power in mid-summer allowing power producers to avoid costs for building new power plants to meet peak demand. Moreover, power distributors not in the generation business are able to avoid paying for the most expensive peak power. But that’s not what the utilities are telling the politicians and public. They are lobbying that solar power generators are freeloaders.

“Non-profit organizations

Main article: Koch family foundations

The Koch family foundations are a related group of non-profit organizations that began with the establishment of the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation in 1953, and now includes the Charles Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Cultural Trust. The organizations collectively have a stated goal of “advancing liberty and freedom” through the support of various causes which “further social progress and sustainable prosperity.”“

In most places an organisation that supported “further social progress and sustainable prosperity” would be worthy of support, but in this case, I somehow doubt it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Kochs have been pushing, through AFP ads, the dishonest meme that rooftop solar owners aren’t carrying their fare share of utility system costs. The dishonesty lies in the failure to mention how rooftop solar and distributed power helps reduce the demand for peak power in mid-summer allowing power producers to avoid costs for building new power plants to meet peak demand. Moreover, power distributors not in the generation business are able to avoid paying for the most expensive peak power. But that’s not what the utilities are telling the politicians and public. They are lobbying that solar power generators are freeloaders.

“Non-profit organizations

Main article: Koch family foundations

The Koch family foundations are a related group of non-profit organizations that began with the establishment of the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation in 1953, and now includes the Charles Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Cultural Trust. The organizations collectively have a stated goal of “advancing liberty and freedom” through the support of various causes which “further social progress and sustainable prosperity.”“

In most places an organisation that supported “further social progress and sustainable prosperity” would be worthy of support, but in this case, I somehow doubt it.

They fund a lot of PBS TV documentaries.

“The brothers have mainly contributed to libertarian and conservative thinktanks and campaigns. They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against universal health care and climate change legislation. They have donated more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. In 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct”

The Rev Dodgson said:

“The brothers have mainly contributed to libertarian and conservative thinktanks and campaigns. They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against universal health care and climate change legislation. They have donated more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. In 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct”

Yes, they are behind the Tea Party nonsense stuff too.

a) Australia seems to be behind the US in the proliferation of private solar. hmmm???

b) shouldn’t private solar represent an economic boon in that the less the man on the street has to pay for power the more money they have to spend on produce?

c) if the majority of households are supplying power back to the grid, shouldn’t industry operators see this as private contribution to power?

d) does industry place more demand on power and infrastructure than the public to begin with?

Solar Capacity up 418%

Wish it was like that here

Kicks Tony Abbott up the ARSE

have some wisdom tony

CrazyNeutrino said:

Solar Capacity up 418%

Wish it was like that here

Kicks Tony Abbott up the ARSE

have some wisdom tony

According to this report solar capacity in Australia at the start of 2010 was 144,000 kW. At the start of 2014 it was 3,200,000 kW.

That’s a tad more than a 418% jump.

http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses

Now you go and apologise to poor Tony :)

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Solar Capacity up 418%

Wish it was like that here

Kicks Tony Abbott up the ARSE

have some wisdom tony

Don’t think that had much to do with Tony, actually……

According to this report solar capacity in Australia at the start of 2010 was 144,000 kW. At the start of 2014 it was 3,200,000 kW.

That’s a tad more than a 418% jump.

http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses

Now you go and apologise to poor Tony :)

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Solar Capacity up 418%

Wish it was like that here

Kicks Tony Abbott up the ARSE

have some wisdom tony

According to this report solar capacity in Australia at the start of 2010 was 144,000 kW. At the start of 2014 it was 3,200,000 kW.

That’s a tad more than a 418% jump.

http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses

Now you go and apologise to poor Tony :)

Are you a Tony supporter?

Tony Was Not in power in 2010

Revise the figures from the election

CrazyNeutrino said:

Solar Capacity up 418%

Wish it was like that here

Kicks Tony Abbott up the ARSE

have some wisdom tony

“Solar power in Australia is a relatively recent phenomenon. Currently, it has over 3.2 GW of installed photovoltaic (PV) power (February 2014), and 700 MW of PV was installed in the preceding 12 months. At a capacity factor of 14 percent, this would contribute 1.1 percent of Australia’s electrical energy . The amount of installed PV capacity in Australia has increased 10-fold between 2009 and 2011. “

Is a capacity factor of 14% realistic?

Mabe HE should be Tony Abbott’s Adviser

The Rev Dodgson said:

Is a capacity factor of 14% realistic?

What, from the election?

Wouldn’t it be easier to harness the American army and simply invade the sun – it would easier than the Middle East ?

Wouldn’t it be easier to harness the American army and simply invade the sun – it would easier than the Middle East ?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Mabe HE should be Tony Abbott’s Adviser

and if Earl was Tony’s Adviser I think Tony would go along with anything Earl said

You know the kind of guy who does nothing but bad things and then wonders why his life sucks? Well, that was me. Every time something good happened to me, something bad was always waiting round the corner: karma. That’s when I realized that I had to change, so I made a list of everything bad I’ve ever done and one by one I’m gonna make up for all my mistakes. I’m just trying to be a better person. My name is Earl.

wookiemeister said:

Wouldn’t it be easier to harness the American army and simply invade the sun – it would easier than the Middle East ?

The Middle East needs a meteor from space

that should even things out a bit

/tic

I used to like earl when he was evil, now he’s all low fat macaroni cheese and so holier than thou.

Life’s too short for low fat cheese.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Does a little jig and slaps spoons on my knees

Right on sister , ain’t nobody got time fo that

Part of the distortion IMO is that the ‘incentives’ have been in-great-part to keep people tied to the grid rather than many more of them building or going off grid entirely.

i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

>i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

doubtful it’s entirely that

of course, but you did say in great part and my response was in answer to that. so you could read mine with that included.

>of course, but you did say in great part and my response was in answer to that. so you could read mine with that included.

alright

(scratches head)

Wonder how those huge kocks work without batteries.

transition said:

Part of the distortion IMO is that the ‘incentives’ have been in-great-part to keep people tied to the grid rather than many more of them building or going off grid entirely.

I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Part of the distortion IMO is that the ‘incentives’ have been in-great-part to keep people tied to the grid rather than many more of them building or going off grid entirely.

I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

That would be cool though

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Part of the distortion IMO is that the ‘incentives’ have been in-great-part to keep people tied to the grid rather than many more of them building or going off grid entirely.

I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

That would be cool though

Especially in winter.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

That would be cool though

Especially in winter.

yeah, you have a point there

JudgeMental said:

i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

Apart from the hassles that having batteries adds, which I’m sure Morrie would be pleased to explain in depth, they add considerable cost to the system, so it takes a lot longer to pay itself off. Note that the effective life of batteries is generally less than that of the solar panels themselves.

PM 2Ring said:

JudgeMental said:

i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

Apart from the hassles that having batteries adds, which I’m sure Morrie would be pleased to explain in depth, they add considerable cost to the system, so it takes a lot longer to pay itself off. Note that the effective life of batteries is generally less than that of the solar panels themselves.

What about the energy required to make the solar panels and batteries?

Should Solar panels and Batteries be required to list to the amount of energy to make them?

Would that drive manufactures to seek lower amounts of energy to make them?

PM 2Ring said:

JudgeMental said:

i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

Apart from the hassles that having batteries adds, which I’m sure Morrie would be pleased to explain in depth, they add considerable cost to the system, so it takes a lot longer to pay itself off. Note that the effective life of batteries is generally less than that of the solar panels themselves.

Yeah you have to figure in battery replacements. My gardener tries to regularly put money away. She is totally off the grid but the house was designed that way from the start and she is on land, so in winter cuts down her own trees.

PM 2Ring said:

JudgeMental said:

i would imagine that is due to people not wanting the hassle of batteries.

Apart from the hassles that having batteries adds, which I’m sure Morrie would be pleased to explain in depth, they add considerable cost to the system, so it takes a lot longer to pay itself off. Note that the effective life of batteries is generally less than that of the solar panels themselves.

CrazyNeutrino said:

What about the energy required to make the solar panels and batteries?

Yeah, that too. The manufacture of both those items isn’t particularly green.

Should Solar panels and Batteries be required to list to the amount of energy to make them?

I think so. But it’s complicated, since you can’t really just list the energy the factory uses, you need to add up all the energy costs in the entire manufacturing chain, from mining the raw materials to shipping the finished product. And I guess you really ought to include the environmental costs of disposal as well.

Would that drive manufactures to seek lower amounts of energy to make them?

I suspect that sheer economics already encourages them to do that.

PM 2Ring said:

Should Solar panels and Batteries be required to list to the amount of energy to make them?

I think so. But it’s complicated, since you can’t really just list the energy the factory uses, you need to add up all the energy costs in the entire manufacturing chain, from mining the raw materials to shipping the finished product. And I guess you really ought to include the environmental costs of disposal as well.

It’s a shame that we can’t get some sort of price related to CO2 emissions embodied into the price of energy.

It’s a shame that we can’t get some sort of price related to CO2 emissions embodied into the price of energy.

it is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PM 2Ring said:

Crazy Neutrino said:

Should Solar panels and Batteries be required to list to the amount of energy to make them?

I think so. But it’s complicated, since you can’t really just list the energy the factory uses, you need to add up all the energy costs in the entire manufacturing chain, from mining the raw materials to shipping the finished product. And I guess you really ought to include the environmental costs of disposal as well.

It’s a shame that we can’t get some sort of price related to CO2 emissions embodied into the price of energy.

:)

JudgeMental said:

It’s a shame that we can’t get some sort of price related to CO2 emissions embodied into the price of energy.

it is.

and then printed on a label on the item that’s made

Capacity factors for rooftop photovoltaics in Australian mainland state caps are in the range from 12% to 16%

>I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

Don’t get this statement.

transition said:

>I doubt it. Not many people are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar.

Don’t get this statement.

He means that the number people that are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar is low.

>He means that the number people that are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar is low.

Well obviously it is if you load “set up’ to mean some unexplained constraining factors.

transition said:

>He means that the number people that are set up to go entirely off-grid with solar is low.

Well obviously it is if you load “set up’ to mean some unexplained constraining factors.

I don’t get your point.

If you are on grid you can get premium prices for your electricity because peak demand occurs when the sun is shining (usually), and you get electricity when the sun isn’t shining off the grid.

If you want to go off grid you need to spend big additional bucks on batteries and additional panel area, or a generator + fuel.

Why would anyone do that unless they didn’t have convenient grid access?

I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

Seems to me it was the most important innovation of the 20th century.

Just as grid water and sewage treatment were the greatest innovations of the 19th century.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

Seems to me it was the most important innovation of the 20th century.

Just as grid water and sewage treatment were the greatest innovations of the 19th century.

>>>I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

because they have to pay for it, or they cannot set their own price

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

Seems to me it was the most important innovation of the 20th century.

Just as grid water and sewage treatment were the greatest innovations of the 19th century.

>>>I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

because they have to pay for it, or they cannot set their own price

We have to buy lots of things though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

Seems to me it was the most important innovation of the 20th century.

Just as grid water and sewage treatment were the greatest innovations of the 19th century.

>>>I don’t know why some people are so negative about grid electricity.

because they have to pay for it, or they cannot set their own price

We have to buy lots of things though.

yes, but people can shop around for cheaper prices for the same goods

much more difficult with electricity when there is one manufacturer

and these third party resellers are a joke really, waste of time

Nobody can dispute that grid power has facilitate modern development. Doesn’t follow that it can’t be redesigned to be more efficient……….

Postpocelipse said:

Nobody can dispute that grid power has facilitate modern development. Doesn’t follow that it can’t be redesigned to be more efficient……….

How long has our power grid been in place

what developments could upgrade it or replace it?

Postpocelipse said:

Nobody can dispute that grid power has facilitate modern development. Doesn’t follow that it can’t be redesigned to be more efficient……….

Indeed, I don’t think anyone suggested that it couldn’t.

But a mass move off-grid would do just the opposite.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

Nobody can dispute that grid power has facilitate modern development. Doesn’t follow that it can’t be redesigned to be more efficient……….

How long has our power grid been in place

Electricity in Australia 1880 to present

CrazyNeutrino said:

what developments could upgrade it or replace it?

High temperature superconductors would be nice.

If the grid were designed to serve houses that were solar equipped would it lower maintenance costs? Given a scenario of all houses/buildings being solar equipped, would solar and/or wind plants become a better primary option?

Postpocelipse said:

If the grid were designed to serve houses that were solar equipped would it lower maintenance costs? Given a scenario of all houses/buildings being solar equipped, would solar and/or wind plants become a better primary option?

Actually the reverse. As more and more independent supplies are added to the grid the stresses that the grid must be designed for actually increase. The fault currents increase. I’ve heard of instances where even reasonably small solar systems have been denied connection to the grid as they would push the fault currents above the design limits.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

If the grid were designed to serve houses that were solar equipped would it lower maintenance costs? Given a scenario of all houses/buildings being solar equipped, would solar and/or wind plants become a better primary option?

Actually the reverse. As more and more independent supplies are added to the grid the stresses that the grid must be designed for actually increase. The fault currents increase. I’ve heard of instances where even reasonably small solar systems have been denied connection to the grid as they would push the fault currents above the design limits.

—-

Geez, you guys are so inept at configuring new systems.

19 shillings said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

If the grid were designed to serve houses that were solar equipped would it lower maintenance costs? Given a scenario of all houses/buildings being solar equipped, would solar and/or wind plants become a better primary option?

Actually the reverse. As more and more independent supplies are added to the grid the stresses that the grid must be designed for actually increase. The fault currents increase. I’ve heard of instances where even reasonably small solar systems have been denied connection to the grid as they would push the fault currents above the design limits.

—-

Geez, you guys are so inept at configuring new systems.

you’d think you could just build in a capacitation feature huh….

19 shillings said:

Geez, you guys are so inept at configuring new systems.

PM 2Ring said:

19 shillings said:

Geez, you guys are so inept at configuring new systems.

He is gunna come back as a tribble, a rather clever tribble

Postpocelipse said:

you’d think you could just build in a capacitation feature huh….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor#Linear_circuits

In a purely resistive AC circuit, voltage and current waveforms are in step (or in phase), changing polarity at the same instant in each cycle. All the power entering the load is consumed (or dissipated).

Where reactive loads are present, such as with capacitors or inductors, energy storage in the loads results in a time difference between the current and voltage waveforms. During each cycle of the AC voltage, extra energy, in addition to any energy consumed in the load, is temporarily stored in the load in electric or magnetic fields, and then returned to the power grid a fraction of a second later in the cycle. The “ebb and flow” of this nonproductive power increases the current in the line.

Thus, a circuit with a low power factor will use higher currents to transfer a given quantity of real power than a circuit with a high power factor. A linear load does not change the shape of the waveform of the current, but may change the relative timing (phase) between voltage and current.

Circuits containing purely resistive heating elements (filament lamps, cooking stoves, etc.) have a power factor of 1.0. Circuits containing inductive or capacitive elements (electric motors, solenoid valves, lamp ballasts, and others ) often have a power factor below 1.0.

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

you’d think you could just build in a capacitation feature huh….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor#Linear_circuits

In a purely resistive AC circuit, voltage and current waveforms are in step (or in phase), changing polarity at the same instant in each cycle. All the power entering the load is consumed (or dissipated).

Where reactive loads are present, such as with capacitors or inductors, energy storage in the loads results in a time difference between the current and voltage waveforms. During each cycle of the AC voltage, extra energy, in addition to any energy consumed in the load, is temporarily stored in the load in electric or magnetic fields, and then returned to the power grid a fraction of a second later in the cycle. The “ebb and flow” of this nonproductive power increases the current in the line.

Thus, a circuit with a low power factor will use higher currents to transfer a given quantity of real power than a circuit with a high power factor. A linear load does not change the shape of the waveform of the current, but may change the relative timing (phase) between voltage and current.

Circuits containing purely resistive heating elements (filament lamps, cooking stoves, etc.) have a power factor of 1.0. Circuits containing inductive or capacitive elements (electric motors, solenoid valves, lamp ballasts, and others ) often have a power factor below 1.0.

:)

And of course power factor correction is used quite extensively on the grid.

One issue is that power factor is not just a phase angle difference. For a linear circuit the P.F is cos (theta) where theta is the phase angle difference between the voltage and the current. In ‘real life’ there are a lot of non-linear effects that come into play and the harmonic distortion of the voltage and current waveforms play a large part. This is why power factor is actually defined as watts/ volt-amps. Unfortunately it is reasonably difficult to mitigate the harmonic effects.

>Why would anyone do that unless they didn’t have convenient grid access?

To begin to see what I’m getting at you would have to consider a few things.

Firstly you would have to have an idea of what the minimum power X number of people can live on, with lifestyle adjustments/changes (and be aware of the implications of these and be willing to suffer/adjust to them), and who really takes much interest in them while tied to the grid.

Secondly, you would have to have an idea of the cost of a mimimum system (and who’s going to know that without having tried it).

Thirdly, you have to consider and try the above in the context of the distorted proposition of subsidized grid-tied systems.

I would argue that the subsidies or present emphasis on grid-tied systems is in-great-part so for ideological reasons (suits present culture, modern lifestyle ambitions etc).

My only point really is few know or care what the minimum off-grid possibility might be.

i know people who live totally off grid. the ones that also have homes in town are on grid cos they know the pros and cons.

>i know people who live totally off grid. the ones that also have homes in town are on grid cos they know the pros and cons.

Give us your estimation of the minimum power supply requirements for two people, solar panel and battery requirements, with say wood fires for heating and gas for most of cooking.

>>i know people who live totally off grid. the ones that also have homes in town are on grid cos they know the pros and cons.

with a solar HWS

why ask me i don’t live off grid. but they’re around $40-50000 systems, for family 4, back-up genny extra.

one has solar hws with gas boost. dunno what the others have, i would imagine it would be the same.

transition said:

Give us your estimation of the minimum power supply requirements for two people, solar panel and battery requirements, with say wood fires for heating and gas for most of cooking.

It would be about the same domestic requirements (as in stuff that needs to be done and for entertainment) in a normal home. Estimations can be found on some power bills. It does take a few adjustments. My friend uses some camping equipment like fridges (albeit full size and otherwise does the same job) she has a camping TV in case she cannot run the big one and she does washing on sunny days. Otherwise her house is the same as any other house except for no toaster or microwave. Toaster is due to power, microwave might be power or hippie kryptonite.

ones a sparky that teaches at tafe, not that that may impress some. been living off grid for 30 years.

Been living for quite few years now on 5 × 130W panels and 850AH(12V) battery capacity here (no power tracker), max output around 500W. 4.7KVA gen backup.

Probably could have done it with four panels if had power tracker and went all LED lighting.

We shift the peak power demand to times of the day when most efficient, which tends to be after lunch and after some days of sunshine in winter. This requires keeping the battery discharging shallow so losses to recombination (recharging) are minimized(extends battery life also). Peak power demand is shifted to when batteries are most charged and panel output is greatest(summer doesn’t matter so much as tends to be surplus using multiple vap coolers).

I think it possible for three or even four people to live on panels supplying a peak output around 400Watts, so long as insulation of building is adequate and heating of rooms and and water is gotten some other way.

HW for showering and bathing is very wasteful of energy if not solar. What takes maybe a hundred litres of heated water + the water itself can be done with a litre of water heated on the stove.

transition said:

I would argue that the subsidies or present emphasis on grid-tied systems is in-great-part so for ideological reasons (suits present culture, modern lifestyle ambitions etc).

My only point really is few know or care what the minimum off-grid possibility might be.

It seems to me you have an ideological objection to grid power for some reason.

The fact is that a grid allows resources to be used much more efficiently, and likely developments in the future will make this much more important than it is now:

1. Increasing use of intermittent sources such as solar and wind.
2. Increased installation of mobile electricity storage devices, which sit unused for most of the day (otherwise known as electric cars)
3. Increased use of pumped storage, and other high capacity storage systems

>It seems to me you have an ideological objection to grid power for some reason.
The fact is that a grid allows resources to be used much more efficiently, and likely developments in the future will make this much more important than it is now:

No objection at all, I’ve lived on grid power for around 44 years of my life (roughly half that on country SWER the rest on city supplies), the mains power is about 100metres from here.

My point is that subsidies distort the reality, and many people are viewing the (alternate also) proposition from the distortion provided.

I were attempting to provide some idea of what the mimimum requirements for off-grid electricity might be, which i’d guess is about 500Watts (max for mid lattitudes) solar panel power and around 850AH battery capacity, and I think you can do that along with a good size backup generator for under $10000, allowing for inverter/s. Guessing battery replacement every eight or nine years maybe (say $2000).

If you take the subsidization out of the grid-tied arrangements and used the sort of money involved for off-grid home power then the reality is better appreciated, and how many grid-tied systems are optimized for even the most basic tracking of the sun (seasonal angle optimization).

Should add that SWER power in the country gets knocked out regularly here, from lightning in particular, but other faults too, and further it hasn’t passed me by that some people have grid-tie systems (with no batteries etc) installed and believe (until they learn otherwise) they will still have power when the mains goes out.

There was a very good discuussion on some of these issues this morning on Background Briefing -

• Why we’ve overinvested in the poles and wires and are now paying 50% of our electicity bill for them

• Why PV is so good for those that have it

• Why it’s potentially sending ‘old energy’ into a death spiral

• etc

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-04-27/5406022#transcript

The price of power

With Australian electricity prices amongst the highest in the world, more and more households are going solar. The big power companies say the Renewable Energy Target is undermining their businesses and they want it wound back. The federal government agrees, so who is to blame for the high price of power? Jess Hill investigates.

Never has it been more expensive to turn on our appliances. In the last few years, our power bills have doubled, making Australia’s electricity prices some of the highest in the developed world.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott blames two things: the carbon tax and the renewable energy target. He says the government’s review of the target will look at its impact on bills, because ‘renewable energy targets are significantly driving up power prices right now’.

But Mr Abbott’s claim that the renewable energy target is expensive is not supported by the data. The Australian Energy Markets Commission says the renewable energy target adds four per cent to the average electricity bill. For an average household, that’s about a dollar a week.

‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.

Federal Treasury estimates that 51 per cent of an average household bill is spent on network costs. Most of that is going towards paying off the $45 billion network companies have spent on updating our poles and wires over the last five years.

This investment was justified by the network companies’ own data, which showed that Australia’s energy demand was going to increase dramatically. But in 2009, just as they were beginning to spend, something unprecedented happened. Energy demand in Australia didn’t go up—it went down. And it’s continued to go down every year since.

Despite the clear reality of falling demand, the network companies insisted that demand was rising, and they carried on investing billions of dollars into the grid. Every dollar of that investment is now being recovered from consumers, via our power bills. Every dollar, plus ten per cent—a guaranteed return granted to them by the regulator.

In 2012, three years after the spending began, the Senate held an inquiry into electricity prices. It was chaired by Labor MP, Matt Thistlethwaite.

‘What we found was those network businesses—that earned the most profits were the ones that invested the most,’ he says. ‘So there was a perverse incentive in the system for an overinvestment in the poles and wires, and that led to dramatic profits for those businesses, but of course it was the consumer that paid for that cost of that additional capital.’

Mr Thistlethwaite says that the inquiry was presented with many examples of infrastructure being built where it wasn’t needed. ‘We discovered a network business that had invested $30 million in a substation in Newcastle, and I actually visited the substation. It wasn’t connected to the grid. The reason why it wasn’t connected to the grid; when the decision was made a couple of years ago to invest in this particular piece of infrastructure, it was projected that the demand would be there. But the demand didn’t eventuate.’

Energy analyst Bruce Mountain from Carbon Market Economics says that although some old infrastructure needed updating, the amount of money wasted on the poles and wires was substantial. ‘I would estimate as an aggregate across the national electricity market, perhaps at least a half of that total spend was not actually necessary, but it does vary by state.’

The staggering rise in electricity prices brought on by this investment has had a rather unintended consequence. ‘Because the price got so high, it made solar even more competitive from the customer’s point of view,’ says David Leitch, a utilities analyst with UBS. ‘Because when you use the solar in your house, you don’t use the wires and poles in the system, so you’re eliminating half the final price.’

The fact that households with solar can save more than half on their power bills has made solar panels an economic choice, not just an ethical one. There are now 1.2 million households getting their daytime power from solar panels.

‘It’s essentially turning households into competitors of the electricity companies, because all of a sudden households are producing electricity, and they’re deciding what to do with it,’ says Mr Leitch. ‘As opposed to just having a choice of take it or leave it from your friendly electricity retailer.’

This article represents part of a larger Background Briefing investigation. Listen to Jess Hill’s full report on Sunday at 8.05 am or use the podcast links above after broadcast.

Solar rooftops are wreaking havoc on the traditional power industry, says Mr Denniss, because they produce the most amount of energy at the time of day when the power industry makes the most money.

‘Solar panels have got this great trick, they make lots of electricity when the sun is shining; that’s when we like to turn our air conditioners on,’ he says. ‘When everybody turns their electricity on at four o’clock on a hot Thursday afternoon, we have enormous demand for electricity for these short periods of peak demand. And that’s when solar panels are at their best.’

‘Solar panels are actually pumping quite a large amount of energy in during these periods of peak demand, and that’s pushing down the peak price. Now that’s great for everybody, except the so-called baseload power stations. Because the baseload power stations used to be able to sell their electricity for a much higher price at four o’clock on that hot Thursday afternoon. From the coal-fired power station point of view, you couldn’t have a worse competitor, because solar is at its best when the market is at its most profitable.’

What that means is that the big coal-fired power plants are earning less for the energy they produce. That’s because Australia has more electricity than it can use.

That’s a big problem, says the federal industry minister, Ian Macfarlane. ‘We’re facing an enormous challenge in terms of an excess generating capacity in electricity in Australia. To be adding large quantities of generation into that situation has to be questioned. The review process will go through those things.’

With energy demand going down, and renewable energy supply going up, Australia simply doesn’t need as much power from fossil fuels anymore. In the last few years, several large coal-fired power stations have been shut down or mothballed.

‘Australia doesn’t need more generation; if we have more wind at the moment, it will displace some other form of generation,’ says Mr Leitch. ‘So no-one wants to be displaced in this world, and we can all understand that.’

That’s one of the reasons why the conventional power industry is lobbying the government to wind back the renewable energy target—known as the RET. The Energy Supply Association of Australia, which speaks on behalf of the conventional power industry, says that now demand has gone odwn, 41,000 gigawatt hours will represent around 30 per cent of Australia’s energy supply, rather than 20 per cent.

‘The conditions under which the RET was designed no longer exist, and we think the RET is broken and can’t work in an oversupplied market,’ says Matthew Warren, the ESAA’s CEO.

But there has already been a review. At the end of 2012, the Climate Change Authority reviewed the target and recommended that it be maintained. Their review was supposed to provide certainty to the renewable energy industry.

The chair of the Climate Change Authority is Bernie Fraser, a former Reserve Bank governor. He says that just by holding another review, the government has ensured that the 41,000 gigawatt-target won’t be met. ‘Investment is actually being cut back and delayed, and I think because of that, I think it’s apparent now that the 41,000 gigawatts for large renewable energy power plants, is not going to happen. It’s going to be a lesser figure and I think that’s what the opponents, the critics of renewable energy want to see.’

‘Policymakers need to look beyond short-term economic considerations in the interests of some of the big companies to longer-term community interests. And that’s what governments are supposed to do, but unfortunately it’s not happening at the present time,’ he says.

So it’s a bit… well, it’s more than a bit, it’s very disappointing that we’re falling behind, and we are falling behind what many other countries are doing.’

>>In the last few years, our power bills have doubled<<

I’d need to get out some old bills. I’m not sure how long “the past few years” means.

Power prices in Perth really have doubled over the last eight years.

For the other mainland state caps, the “time to double” has been much longer.

The reason that power prices is that

You have 200,000 new users coming into the country every year, unless you are building new generation and transmission how do they do it?

Put power prices up

Introduce “ time of use”

Take loans: the power generators and distributors are up to their eyes in debt

Energex is 6 billion dollars in debt

The whole purpose of the sell off of public assets is so the gov can absolve itself of the pain that is yet to come. After all a gov only three purposes – not involving the welfare of the state only individuals that control the state. Don’t believe me? Look around the world there are very few countries that do have reasonable personalities in control.

Australia is under going structural change, as I see Australia will become more of a feudal society with the top dogs of the elite and anyone that could crawl into them from the middle class that survived the purge.

Oh yes, why would you spend money on universities when you can get all the graduated from abroad???

Ian said:

‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.

This is a popular idea. It gives the meeja someone to blame, other than the main political parties, so why wouldn’t it be popular?

But it seems to me it is incorrect. I think there has been a long period of under investment in “poles and wires”, followed by a short period of catch up. We had a long period when power was too cheap, and now it is too expensive, allowing the capital investment to catch up to where it should have been.

Is this a bad thing? Probably not, or not significantly bad anyway.

I’m hopeful that I can get the house paid off before the end comes

The next years will be about those can ward off the suffering that the gov will mete out

The Rev Dodgson said:

But it seems to me it is incorrect. I think there has been a long period of under investment in “poles and wires”, followed by a short period of catch up. We had a long period when power was too cheap, and now it is too expensive, allowing the capital investment to catch up to where it should have been.

Is this a bad thing? Probably not, or not significantly bad anyway.

I tend to agree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.

This is a popular idea. It gives the meeja someone to blame, other than the main political parties, so why wouldn’t it be popular?

But it seems to me it is incorrect. I think there has been a long period of under investment in “poles and wires”, followed by a short period of catch up. We had a long period when power was too cheap, and now it is too expensive, allowing the capital investment to catch up to where it should have been.

Is this a bad thing? Probably not, or not significantly bad anyway.

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

dv said:

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Well I suppose you could abolish the state governments and elect to the federal government parties committed to a rational and sustainable approach to Australia’s electrical industry.

dv said:

Well I suppose you could abolish the state governments and elect to the federal government parties committed to a rational and sustainable approach to Australia’s electrical industry.

That’s just crazy-talk.

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Err, in some states the infrastructure is owned by private companies, and not the State Governmnets.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.

This is a popular idea. It gives the meeja someone to blame, other than the main political parties, so why wouldn’t it be popular?

But it seems to me it is incorrect. I think there has been a long period of under investment in “poles and wires”, followed by a short period of catch up. We had a long period when power was too cheap, and now it is too expensive, allowing the capital investment to catch up to where it should have been.

Is this a bad thing? Probably not, or not significantly bad anyway.

The audio makes the point that demand for electricity has been going down over the last 5 years rather than up as expected..

Companies like Transgrid are making more profit the more infrastructure that they build regardless of the need for it, and that there is, for instance, a $30m sub-station sitting in Newcastle unconnected.

In 2009, the Rudd government gave Geodynamics a $90 million grant for a project to pump water on to hot rocks
deep underground to generate steam for a turbine,
Geodynamics shareholder Tim Flannery, later Chief Climate Commissioner, claimed it was “relatively straightforward
technology” but wells instead clogged and the site flooded.
More than four years later, Geodynamics’ share price has dived from 88c to just 7c with no commercial plant to show for it.

In 2004, Oceanlinx got a $1.21 million grant for a prototype generator using wave energy. It now rusts off Port Kembla beach.
Oceanlinx then built a bigger generator. It sank three months later.
Yet in 2012, the Gillard government gave Oceanlinx another $4 million for a wave generator off South Australia.
That sank last month and Oceanlinx is now bust.

In 2008 the Rudd government spent $1 million on South Australia’s Umuwa solar power station for our “clean energy future”.
It is now mothballed.

In 2011 the Gillard government announced a $464 million grant for Queensland’s Solar Dawn solar farm.
The project was later abandoned.

In 2011 the Gillard government announced a $300 million grant for a solar farm in Moree.
The grant was withdrawn when private investors refused to join in.

In 2009 the Rudd government gave $1.7 billion for its Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program,
to bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electricity plants. But the technology is too expensive
and not one large-scale carbon capture plant in the world is in commercial operation.
Labor later slashed its grant by $500 million and the Abbott Government scrapped the rest.

The Rudd government’s $2 billion free insulation program — also sold as a way to cut emissions —
was a bigger political disaster. Much rorted, it was scrapped after four installers were killed.

LABOR’S Green Loans program was also hurriedly cancelled in 2011 after costs blew out, much of it on dodgy home energy assessments.

Labor’s solar hot water rebate scheme was scrapped, too, after yet more bungling, rorts and blowouts.

———————————————————————————

perhaps they could have just supplied & fitted solar panels with battery storage systems to every home in australia
and saved money

dv said:

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Well I suppose you could abolish the state governments and elect to the federal government parties committed to a rational and sustainable approach to Australia’s electrical industry.

IKYWGTST

:)

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

I think there would be advantages to having an electricity price that rose steadily over long periods, and an ongoing commitment to continual renewal in infrastructure, rather than this fits and starts approach.

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Err, in some states the infrastructure is owned by private companies, and not the State Governmnets.

True enough, but I know that here in NSW Transgrid inherited an antiquated network from the old Electricity Commission.

PM 2Ring said:

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Err, in some states the infrastructure is owned by private companies, and not the State Governmnets.

True enough, but I know that here in NSW Transgrid inherited an antiquated network from the old Electricity Commission.

Yes, well, that’s because the old Electricity Commission was staffed by public servants. Lazy, good for nothing, ne’er do wells. Since privitisation there has been nothing but sunlit uplands.

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

PM 2Ring said:

I agree with that, & I suspect that TRD does, too. But hey, what can you do when State governments fail to main infrastructure over long periods?

Well I suppose you could abolish the state governments and elect to the federal government parties committed to a rational and sustainable approach to Australia’s electrical industry.

IKYWGTST

:)

I actually can’t work that one out. OCDC?

In Kazakhstan you would get the sheep teat??

Oh, now I get it.

Kweensland

Sun tax

dv said:

PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

Well I suppose you could abolish the state governments and elect to the federal government parties committed to a rational and sustainable approach to Australia’s electrical industry.

IKYWGTST

:)

I actually can’t work that one out. OCDC?

I Knew You Were Going To Say That.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Non-profit organizations

Main article: Koch family foundations

The Koch family foundations are a related group of non-profit organizations that began with the establishment of the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation in 1953, and now includes the Charles Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Cultural Trust. The organizations collectively have a stated goal of “advancing liberty and freedom” through the support of various causes which “further social progress and sustainable prosperity.”“

In most places an organisation that supported “further social progress and sustainable prosperity” would be worthy of support, but in this case, I somehow doubt it.

They fund a lot of PBS TV documentaries.

Trust me
Their so-called “Contributions to PBS”
is more about CONTROLLING CONTENT Than Contribution

The So-Called American “Conservative Party” was so apoplectic
over deleting all messages concerning Environmental Issues
from Early Education Programming during their Formative Years
even in the most seemingly benign programs such as “Fraggle Rock”
My Personal Favorite, “It’s A Big Big World” and even “Sesame Street”
that it turned into a national joke during the last election:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/78744104/PubPhotos/heads.jpg

it was a grim joke indeed, since although the election is over they still
maintain their strangle-hold over what gets aired(FUNDED) and what doesn’t.

This just landed in my in box a few minutes ago:

New rule for connecting embedded energy systems

On 17 April 2014, The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) published a new rule to apply to embedded generation connections, commencing 1 October 2014.

This was in response to a rule change proposal by the proponents ClimateWorks Australia, the Property Council of Australia and Seed Advisory. It recommended changes to the National Electricity Rules (NER) for a simpler, faster and cheaper embedded energy connection process.
Below is a summary of connection issues, the proponents’ work and the outcomes of the new rule.

Connection issues
• Connection barriers exist for all embedded energy technologies (co/tri gen, solar, wind etc.).
• The NER deter embedded generation grid connection: the playing field is tilted towards the distribution network service providers (DNSPs) relative to energy customers.
• Each state has multiple connection processes that are time consuming, uncertain and complex.
• Connections are costly: delays compound projects’ holding costs (in the region of $100,000 a week for a new CBD commercial building); and network capacity constraints may result in businesses upgrading energy infrastructure (which could be around $1 million per connection).
• Inconsistencies between national and jurisdictional regulations add further complexity.
As a result of these problems, businesses have faced connections times of three years or more. Uncertainty, long connection times and high costs cripple projects. Projects may be cancelled or reduced in size and scope. For example, developers reduce the size of energy systems to enable connections. This decreases projects’ financial returns and limits the reduction in emissions available from embedded generation.

What we did
1. In 2011, working with a wide group of stakeholders, we produced the research report, Unlocking Barriers to Cogeneration.
2. In April 2012, we submitted a rule change proposal to the AEMC to achieve one improved connection process across the National Electricity Market (NEM).
3. Promoted work to, and received endorsement from, former Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson.
4. Built a coalition of diverse supporters: businesses, green groups, social and community sectors, local government, peak bodies and state government agencies.
5. Campaigned to the Victorian Government to undertake an inquiry. The inquiry’s key recommendation supported our rule change.
6. Submission to, and appearance at, the NSW Public Accounts Committee Inquiry, resulting in support of our rule change.
7. Represented businesses and Property Council members to the AEMC, and facilitated meetings between members and the AEMC.
8. Advised the AEMC and governments.
9. Presented at, and took part in, public workshops and conferences.

Outcomes of the new rule
Businesses and other energy customers will receive critical information, greater certainty, lower costs and more timely connections. As a result, more connections should be successful within 6-12 months. This depends on the size of energy systems, but it is a vast improvement compared to past delays.
The new rule will apply to:
• all sized embedded energy systems (larger household, business, power station) in Victoria and Queensland; and,
• medium to large systems (over 5 megawatts: business, power station) in New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania.
As Western Australia and the Northern Territory are not part of the NEM, the reforms will not affect them.

The new rule offers a revamped connection process that empowers customers with:
Certainty and faster connection stages
1. A clear map of and guidance on the new connection process.
2. Time bounded connection stages: preliminary enquiry, detailed enquiry, connection application and connection agreement. Previously, they were open-ended and ill-defined.
3. No ‘stop the clock’ option for DNSPs to consult third parties. Beforehand, they could stop the clock without time restrictions during the connection application stage.
These features take the past ‘guess work’ out and will speed up connections as DNSPs will not be able to continually shift the ‘goal posts’.
Critical information and lower costs
4. Standardised enquiry forms to be created by DNSPs will cut down customers’ ‘green tape’.
5. Information packs by DNSPs, including: technical standards, costs, application details, timing and a model connection agreement. This will allow applicants to produce early feasibility assessments with little expense; previously difficult to achieve due to the lack of relevant information.
6. Location specific network information will be provided by DNSPs. This will help applicants find out very early where the ‘no go’ zones are (network capacity constraints that require expensive infrastructure upgrading if applicants proceed). Currently, constraints are known well into the process, with considerable time and money already spent by applicants.
7. Registers of completed projects with details of previously connected equipment by DNSPs for systems larger than 5MW. This will make it easier for applicants to identify opportunities and examples of what has been approved.
Greater customer rights
8. A more balanced set of mutual obligations, including a description of both parties’ obligations.
9. A clearer dispute resolution process to be used if parties cannot agree on any matter, especially technical issues. For example, applicants may instigate the dispute resolution process if they do not agree with a DNSP’s assessment of their request to export electricity into the grid.
10. More time and flexibility for applicants to accept DNSP’s offers. In the past, applicants had only 2-3 days to comb through extensive contracts, and commonly discovered detrimental ‘surprise clauses’. They will now have 20 business days and the option to extend this if required.

Click here to access the joint media release.

>>Click here to access the joint media release.

Doesn’t work.

Solar roads that could power the entire U.S. are on the horizon

Postpocelipse said:

Sell them in China and India and the rest of world as well.

nothing screams bullshit more than a cheaply made internet picture with motivational words all over it .

>>> Perhaps the main downside is that the project is expensive. <<<

.
Ya reckon?

The_observer said:

>>> Perhaps the main downside is that the project is expensive. <<<

.
Ya reckon?

well observed