Rooftop Pv installers in Sydney area

[Sylvia Else]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:02 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:


:
:If one has decided that CO2 reduction is necessary, then it make sense
:to achieve that by the cheapest possible means. Even wind power is
:cheaper than solar PV, so solar PV just doesn't make the cut.
:
:Sylvia.

If you have you ever approached your local council about erecting a tower with
minimum height of at least 10M to accommodate even a small wind turbine you will
find out they just won't allow these things, no matter how environmentally
greenhouse friendly they are. On the other hand they don't object to PV panels
on your roof. I also dispute your claim that wind power is cheaper. Assuming
that the govt rebate stiill applies, for a given output capacity, I think it
would be far cheaper to install PV than wind - assuming your local council will
approve the tower construction. The sun generally will shine for more hours than
a suitable wind will blow in the suburbs - unless you are high up and on the
coastline.

An even simpler way of reducing CO2 from electricity generation would be to
legislate that ALL houses must have a solar water heater.

Small domestic wind turbines make no sense anyway. If you're going to
spend money on a turbine, you want it big, you want it high, and you
want it in a place that tends to get a lot of wind.

I recently went through the numbers on a solar water heater when my
electric heater was clearly on its last legs. Even with the government
rebates, the result was marginal, meaning that the true financial cost
was significantly higher than for an purely electric storage heater.

The best that can be said for solar hot water heaters is they're more
economic than other forms of solar power (and perhaps than wind power).
They *might* be the cheapest way to heat water when all the external
costs (CO2, etc) are included, if nuclear power is not acceptable.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00106814$0$22319$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Small domestic wind turbines make no sense anyway.

In the same way as small domestic PV panels don't.

MrT.

 

[Mauried]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:03:17 +0000 (UTC), terryc
<newseightspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:07 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the
numbers on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not
just uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.

Care to share them?

I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need
to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest
you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the
diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the
times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.

Power industry isn't doing it because their size in batteries can not be
purchased at the local garage.

Okay, taking my fileserver, which requires 96 watts max and my LG995E CRT
monitor which requires 72 watts max, that means 168 watts I need out of
the battery bank, or 14 amps @ 12Volt.

So, to cover 7am to 10pm, I need to store 15x14 = 210 amp hours. In lead
acid, this means 420amps hours.

Practically, that equates to 5x100AmpHr batteriess hour at $200 (old
price), or $1,000. 10 year life span means costs 28c per day in
depreciation. Loan costs is 6% atm or 20c per day.

Electricity savings are 15(0.1575-0.0554) =$1.53c. Net savings are $1.07c
per day. <BLINK> or $3,905.50c over ten years.

You need to do some serious research into lead acid batteries.
The type of application you are looking at needs deep cycle
batteries,not car batteries.
A 12 V 200AH deep cycle battery will cost you anywhere from $800 to
$1000.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:08:16 +0000, Mauried wrote:

You need to do some serious research into lead acid batteries. The type
of application you are looking at needs deep cycle batteries,not car
batteries.

Yep

A 12 V 200AH deep cycle battery will cost you anywhere from $800 to
$1000.

where are you buying those from?
Surely not Battery World?
BTw,I probably would not buy ones that big, but 2 x 6V200AmpHr

 

[atec 7 7]

Mauried wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:03:17 +0000 (UTC), terryc
newseightspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:07 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the
numbers on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not
just uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.
Care to share them?
I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need
to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest
you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the
diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the
times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.
Power industry isn't doing it because their size in batteries can not be
purchased at the local garage.

Okay, taking my fileserver, which requires 96 watts max and my LG995E CRT
monitor which requires 72 watts max, that means 168 watts I need out of
the battery bank, or 14 amps @ 12Volt.

So, to cover 7am to 10pm, I need to store 15x14 = 210 amp hours. In lead
acid, this means 420amps hours.

Practically, that equates to 5x100AmpHr batteriess hour at $200 (old
price), or $1,000. 10 year life span means costs 28c per day in
depreciation. Loan costs is 6% atm or 20c per day.

Electricity savings are 15(0.1575-0.0554) =$1.53c. Net savings are $1.07c
per day. <BLINK> or $3,905.50c over ten years.


You need to do some serious research into lead acid batteries.
The type of application you are looking at needs deep cycle
batteries,not car batteries.
A 12 V 200AH deep cycle battery will cost you anywhere from $800 to
$1000.



Wow you really know how to pad the price on those battery's

halve it for a realistic price .

 

[Mauried]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:16:18 +1000, atec 7 7 <"atec 77 "@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mauried wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:03:17 +0000 (UTC), terryc
newseightspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:07 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the
numbers on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not
just uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.
Care to share them?
I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need
to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest
you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the
diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the
times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.
Power industry isn't doing it because their size in batteries can not be
purchased at the local garage.

Okay, taking my fileserver, which requires 96 watts max and my LG995E CRT
monitor which requires 72 watts max, that means 168 watts I need out of
the battery bank, or 14 amps @ 12Volt.

So, to cover 7am to 10pm, I need to store 15x14 = 210 amp hours. In lead
acid, this means 420amps hours.

Practically, that equates to 5x100AmpHr batteriess hour at $200 (old
price), or $1,000. 10 year life span means costs 28c per day in
depreciation. Loan costs is 6% atm or 20c per day.

Electricity savings are 15(0.1575-0.0554) =$1.53c. Net savings are $1.07c
per day. <BLINK> or $3,905.50c over ten years.


You need to do some serious research into lead acid batteries.
The type of application you are looking at needs deep cycle
batteries,not car batteries.
A 12 V 200AH deep cycle battery will cost you anywhere from $800 to
$1000.



Wow you really know how to pad the price on those battery's

halve it for a realistic price .

Where from.
Cheapest 12V 200 AH deep cycle battery I could find in Australia is
$780.
As the OP based his calculations on battery life of 10 years, then
solar type storage batteries are about the only option.

 

[Mauried]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:20 GMT, Ross Herbert
<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:35:48 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:

:terryc wrote:
:> Any recommendations?
:
:Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
:
:Sylvia.

Why do you say that?

Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for a
1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the current
prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid tie
inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the gov't
$8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.

Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that
electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic
selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not
just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of electricity
is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take
about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't
be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.

You sure will.
Ask yourself this question.
If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
you think the power company gets this money from.
Dont come from the tooth fairy.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Ross Herbert wrote:

They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

They could achieve the same result, at substantially lower cost, by
installing local fossil fuel powered generators.

Sylvia.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:01:00 GMT, mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:

:On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:20 GMT, Ross Herbert
:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:
:>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:35:48 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
:>wrote:
:>
:>:terryc wrote:
:>:> Any recommendations?
:>:
:>:Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
:>:
:>:Sylvia.
:>
:>Why do you say that?
:>
:>Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for
a
:>1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the
current
:>prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid
tie
:>inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the
gov't
:>$8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.
:>
:>Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that
:>electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic
:>selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not
:>just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of
electricity
:>is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take
:>about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't
:>be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.
:
:
:You sure will.
:Ask yourself this question.
:If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
n their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
:you think the power company gets this money from.
ont come from the tooth fairy.

They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

 

[atec 7 7]

Mauried wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:16:18 +1000, atec 7 7 <"atec 77 "@hotmail.com
wrote:

Mauried wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:03:17 +0000 (UTC), terryc
newseightspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:09:07 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the
numbers on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not
just uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.
Care to share them?
I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need
to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest
you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the
diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the
times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.
Power industry isn't doing it because their size in batteries can not be
purchased at the local garage.

Okay, taking my fileserver, which requires 96 watts max and my LG995E CRT
monitor which requires 72 watts max, that means 168 watts I need out of
the battery bank, or 14 amps @ 12Volt.

So, to cover 7am to 10pm, I need to store 15x14 = 210 amp hours. In lead
acid, this means 420amps hours.

Practically, that equates to 5x100AmpHr batteriess hour at $200 (old
price), or $1,000. 10 year life span means costs 28c per day in
depreciation. Loan costs is 6% atm or 20c per day.

Electricity savings are 15(0.1575-0.0554) =$1.53c. Net savings are $1.07c
per day. <BLINK> or $3,905.50c over ten years.

You need to do some serious research into lead acid batteries.
The type of application you are looking at needs deep cycle
batteries,not car batteries.
A 12 V 200AH deep cycle battery will cost you anywhere from $800 to
$1000.



Wow you really know how to pad the price on those battery's

halve it for a realistic price .


Where from.
Cheapest 12V 200 AH deep cycle battery I could find in Australia is
$780.
As the OP based his calculations on battery life of 10 years, then
solar type storage batteries are about the only option.

Speak to an Asian importer , the prius battery through toyo is 3k ,

direct importer 1/2 that , stop thinking corner retail

 

[Mr.T]

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:49ceab71.78208028@news.tpg.com.au...

Ask yourself this question.
If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
you think the power company gets this money from.
Dont come from the tooth fairy.

You're so right (and the government is so wrong) But *IF* that will be the
case, surely you'd want to be one of the people selling power than one of
those buying it?

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00072af6$0$5123$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Ross Herbert wrote:
They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local
power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the
grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.
They could achieve the same result, at substantially lower cost, by
installing local fossil fuel powered generators.

Actually they can save even more by simply upgrading the power lines and
transformers as necessary, the increased revenue from extra power sales and
extra billing charges more than pays for it.

Except that upgrading transformers and power lines does not in itself
result in increased power usage, it just reduces the probability that
the system will be overloaded during relatively rare load peaks. Because
those peaks are rare, the extra revenue obtained by avoiding power
outages doesn't amount to much.

However, it can be noted that the spot market price for power during
those peaks can get very high. Avoiding having to buy that power (which
is then sold at a loss) would be an attractive proposition at the right
price.

There probably is a point at which local generation capacity makes sense
if the distributor is required to avoid outages. Presumably the
electricity distributors' accountants have run the numbers, and
concluded that that point hasn't been reached.

The only savings to the power
company come when the government uses taxpayers money to subsidise PV
installations, which is not included in the power companies expenses.
IF the government used the money for large scale PV arrays instead, the REAL
benefits to the nation would be greater.

While I'm inclined to agree that large scale PV arrays would be more
economic than piece mail domestic installations, they are still an
expensive way of generating power.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00072af6$0$5123$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Ross Herbert wrote:
They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local
power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the
grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

They could achieve the same result, at substantially lower cost, by
installing local fossil fuel powered generators.

Actually they can save even more by simply upgrading the power lines and
transformers as necessary, the increased revenue from extra power sales and
extra billing charges more than pays for it. The only savings to the power
company come when the government uses taxpayers money to subsidise PV
installations, which is not included in the power companies expenses.
IF the government used the money for large scale PV arrays instead, the REAL
benefits to the nation would be greater.

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mr.T wrote:

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:49ceab71.78208028@news.tpg.com.au...
Ask yourself this question.
If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
you think the power company gets this money from.
Dont come from the tooth fairy.

You're so right (and the government is so wrong) But *IF* that will be the
case, surely you'd want to be one of the people selling power than one of
those buying it?

MrT.

You certainly would if the numbers say that it saves you money, even if
it costs the taxpayer and other customers a bundle. The main concern
would be that the rules could be changed later, turning what was meant
to be a nice little earner into a financial liability.

Which might happen. If the rules are so generous that installing PV
cells on the roof is a no brainer, then everyone would be doing it, and
the grid generators would become suppliers of last resort during the
day. They cannot afford to operate like that, so something would have to
give.

Sylvia.

 

[Davo]

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:01:00 GMT, mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:

:On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:20 GMT, Ross Herbert
:<rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

:You sure will.
:Ask yourself this question.
:If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
n their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
:you think the power company gets this money from.
ont come from the tooth fairy.

They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

There are three lots of savings.

The first is that is the cost of borrowing to build power stations.
Since the electricity industry was established in Western Australia it
has been dogged by massive debt. A large portion of a WA power consumers
bill goes towards paying interest on massive loans.

The second is the saving on not having to install peaking plant, which
is rarely used and usually consumes expensive fuels. Western Power
looses money big time when it has to burn oil. (Diesel)

Thirdly, it's becoming very difficult to meet environmental standards.
Getting rid of millions of tons of acidic ash and carbon dioxide is not
easy, not to mention the massive water consumption. There is presently a
bunfight going on in WA over who will get access to water in the southwest.

Historicaly power stations have been welcomed as a sign of progress, but
now they're seen as polluting monsters and have a "not in our back
yard" problem. A small biomass plant that was to be built in the
southwest has met stiff opposition from wine and fruit producers who
worry it will damage their produce.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0017d76b$0$933$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Actually they can save even more by simply upgrading the power lines and
transformers as necessary, the increased revenue from extra power sales
and
extra billing charges more than pays for it.

Except that upgrading transformers and power lines does not in itself
result in increased power usage,

Of course not, that's why it now follows demand rather than anticipates it
as was usually the case when all power supply was under government control.

it just reduces the probability that
the system will be overloaded during relatively rare load peaks. Because
those peaks are rare, the extra revenue obtained by avoiding power
outages doesn't amount to much.

The required supply margins don't change that much, and supply
infrastructure does need to be maintained in any case (even though the
private companies try to avoid that until absolutely necesary)

However, it can be noted that the spot market price for power during
those peaks can get very high. Avoiding having to buy that power (which
is then sold at a loss) would be an attractive proposition at the right
price.

Especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill for PV subsidies, right!

While I'm inclined to agree that large scale PV arrays would be more
economic than piece mail domestic installations, they are still an
expensive way of generating power.

At the moment yes, but mostly because the full cost to the nation and
environment of brown coal generation is not applied. This will change in
time. The relative benefits of roof top Vs large scale solar, wind and other
renewable source generation will not however IMO.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00d41bc6$0$1384$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

You're so right (and the government is so wrong) But *IF* that will be
the
case, surely you'd want to be one of the people selling power than one
of
those buying it?

You certainly would if the numbers say that it saves you money, even if
it costs the taxpayer and other customers a bundle. The main concern
would be that the rules could be changed later, turning what was meant
to be a nice little earner into a financial liability.

Always the case, but when the government/taxpayer subsidies are large
enough, as with PV, solar water, LPG fuel conversion, and even insulation,
shower heads, rain water tanks, and CFL replacement in many areas, the
majority of the risk is borne by taxpayers rather than the individual.
That is NOT a good thing IMO when the benefits have not been fully costed
and are mainly just a political stunt.

Which might happen. If the rules are so generous that installing PV
cells on the roof is a no brainer, then everyone would be doing it, and
the grid generators would become suppliers of last resort during the
day. They cannot afford to operate like that, so something would have to
give.

Yep, the subsidies will go fairly soon or the government will go broke!
But that was announced ages ago in any case.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:46:38 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

Of course not, that's why it now follows demand rather than anticipates
it as was usually the case when all power supply was under government
control.

Yep, you are spot on. The engineera who ran the various systems
understood this and had money put aside for this purpose. Until, in NSw
at least, the accountants decided that it should be handed over to
consolidated revenue and was promptly spent.