Solar Grid Connect 1kW questions

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:17:46 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

The ATO don't really have any say. They have to implement the tax law as
it stands. If income and expenditure for solar panels is to be given a
special treatement, that's a decision for government, not the ATO.

I see no point in discussing hypotheticals and was not doing so.

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful
technology.

so, it is $8,000 in my pocket and insignificant compared to the millions
given to other wasteful industries.

So you approve of stealing other peoples' money to prop up a fraud ?

You want SOLAR ? Get Solar THERMAL !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain

PV is a waste of time and the alleged cheap new 'thin film' panels have half
the efficiency of crystalline.


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

If you have an accountant,that is their worry

But it's YOUR money.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does. In
any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private bodies"
to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty shortages
would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal fired power
station.

Just buy an EPR.

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

Graham

 

[TonyS]

Eeyore wrote:

TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful technology.

Graham

Get a life mate

 

[Sylvia Else]

TonyS wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful
technology.

Graham

Get a life mate

Why does making a valid observation imply that he doesn't have a life?

Sylvia.

 

[Mauried]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:41 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Mauried wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:22:52 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

AB wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any experience on how long it takes to re-coup your money
on one of these systems ?
The sales pitch looks fabulous but after getting the calculator out it
doesn't seem so good.
Apart from the philsophical / green reasons for going solar , does the $$$
add up ??

Where I live they are being advertised for ~ $4000 + $440 for a new meter &
connection to the Grid ( after the govt $8000 rebates etc ) so about $4400
total installed cost

It seems pretty hard to calculate how much I would save per quarter on my
bills , so many variables of sunny days , overcast days , altitude , power
usage etc etc

At a guess of $50 per quarter savings on electricity , its going to take 22
years to break even.......and if it was $100 per quarter , then 11 years.
Is this correct or am I missing something ????

With *only* a 1kW system it seems unlikely to be putting anything much back
into the grid , even if the power company will pay me 44c for it ????

Any real world experience anyone

Regards
Andrew
Another important variable, which is also difficult to predict, is the
interest rate, and, if you don't have a mortgage, your marginal tax rate.

This is because if you didn't buy the solar installation, you could pay
down your mortgage, or if you don't have a mortgage, put the money on
deposit.

In the latter case, the interest will be considered income, and be
taxed, thus making it it less valuable to you than if you could use the
money to pay down your mortgage.

I found this page

http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs67.html

which would allow an estimate of the actual energy generated.

If you sell your house, I imagine your investment would be lost - I'd be
surprised if the presence of solar panels affected the sale price.

Come to think of it, I imagine that money paid to you by utilities,
under a feed-in tarrif, is also considered to be income, and is taxed at
your marginal rate, reducing the value of those payments.

Sylvia.


The other unknown is the feed in tariffs are set by Govts and can be
varied on a year by year basis,so you cant guarantee that the payments
for your power will stay constant.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In the ACT, the tariff is fixed by the year
you install the equipment. Of course, it won't be adjusted for inflation.

The other unknown is the effect of feed in tariffs on electricity
prices.
If lots of people install solar systems then the costs to the power
company go up as they have to pay all the feed in tariffs.
The power companies are completely within their rights to recover all
the money paid in feed in tariffs by higher power prices, and the
component of the power price they increase is the fixed charge, so
unless you have a totally off grid system with battery backup, in the
long term the whole deal is marginal.


The latter is less clear cut as an input into the decision. I agree
about the effect on prices, but an individual would have to pay the
increase regardless of whether they have a solar panel. While their own
installation would have some effect on the prices, it would be
miniscule, since the cost it represents to the electricity suppliers
would be spread across all their customers.

Classic "tragedy of the commons" stuff.

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

This whole feed-in tariff concept is illconceived. Hopefully,
governments will come to their senses before too much economic damage is
done.

Sylvia.

Section 10 of this
ELECTRICITY FEED-IN (RENEWABLE ENERGY PREMIUM) ACT 2008

allows the Minister to make a determination of what the premium tariff
will be for the following financial year, so they can adjust the
tariff once a year as they think fit.
The premium of 3.88 is only set for the 1st year.
As this Act is supposedly modelled on the German scheme in which the
tariff is progressivley reduced over the lifetime of the scheme Id
expect the same would happen here.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Mauried wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:39:41 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Mauried wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:22:52 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

AB wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any experience on how long it takes to re-coup your money
on one of these systems ?
The sales pitch looks fabulous but after getting the calculator out it
doesn't seem so good.
Apart from the philsophical / green reasons for going solar , does the $$$
add up ??

Where I live they are being advertised for ~ $4000 + $440 for a new meter &
connection to the Grid ( after the govt $8000 rebates etc ) so about $4400
total installed cost

It seems pretty hard to calculate how much I would save per quarter on my
bills , so many variables of sunny days , overcast days , altitude , power
usage etc etc

At a guess of $50 per quarter savings on electricity , its going to take 22
years to break even.......and if it was $100 per quarter , then 11 years.
Is this correct or am I missing something ????

With *only* a 1kW system it seems unlikely to be putting anything much back
into the grid , even if the power company will pay me 44c for it ????

Any real world experience anyone

Regards
Andrew
Another important variable, which is also difficult to predict, is the
interest rate, and, if you don't have a mortgage, your marginal tax rate.

This is because if you didn't buy the solar installation, you could pay
down your mortgage, or if you don't have a mortgage, put the money on
deposit.

In the latter case, the interest will be considered income, and be
taxed, thus making it it less valuable to you than if you could use the
money to pay down your mortgage.

I found this page

http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs67.html

which would allow an estimate of the actual energy generated.

If you sell your house, I imagine your investment would be lost - I'd be
surprised if the presence of solar panels affected the sale price.

Come to think of it, I imagine that money paid to you by utilities,
under a feed-in tarrif, is also considered to be income, and is taxed at
your marginal rate, reducing the value of those payments.

Sylvia.

The other unknown is the feed in tariffs are set by Govts and can be
varied on a year by year basis,so you cant guarantee that the payments
for your power will stay constant.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In the ACT, the tariff is fixed by the year
you install the equipment. Of course, it won't be adjusted for inflation.

The other unknown is the effect of feed in tariffs on electricity
prices.
If lots of people install solar systems then the costs to the power
company go up as they have to pay all the feed in tariffs.
The power companies are completely within their rights to recover all
the money paid in feed in tariffs by higher power prices, and the
component of the power price they increase is the fixed charge, so
unless you have a totally off grid system with battery backup, in the
long term the whole deal is marginal.

The latter is less clear cut as an input into the decision. I agree
about the effect on prices, but an individual would have to pay the
increase regardless of whether they have a solar panel. While their own
installation would have some effect on the prices, it would be
miniscule, since the cost it represents to the electricity suppliers
would be spread across all their customers.

Classic "tragedy of the commons" stuff.

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

This whole feed-in tariff concept is illconceived. Hopefully,
governments will come to their senses before too much economic damage is
done.

Sylvia.

Section 10 of this
ELECTRICITY FEED-IN (RENEWABLE ENERGY PREMIUM) ACT 2008

allows the Minister to make a determination of what the premium tariff
will be for the following financial year, so they can adjust the
tariff once a year as they think fit.
The premium of 3.88 is only set for the 1st year.
As this Act is supposedly modelled on the German scheme in which the
tariff is progressivley reduced over the lifetime of the scheme Id
expect the same would happen here.

Yes, that sets the premium rate for the year, but you then have to look
at the significance of the premium rate.

The immediately following section specifies that:

Section 11 Premium Rate -- 20 years

(1) The premium rate for the financial year in which a renewable
energy generator is connected to a distributor's network applies, if the
generator remains connected to the network, in relation to electricity
generated by the generator during the 20 years after the date of the
connection.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:27:03 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful
technology.

so, it is $8,000 in my pocket and insignificant compared to the
millions given to other wasteful industries.

So you approve of stealing other peoples' money to prop up a fraud ?

Isn't that how our system works?
My point was that the government hands out money to various businesses
for dubious reasons and I've noticed a distinct lack of protest about
that.

Plus, I'm still coming to grips with the fraud part as you claim.

You want SOLAR ? Get Solar THERMAL !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain

I would if I could stick in in my backyard. Have any DIY plans?

PV is a waste of time

In certain applications, yes.

and the alleged cheap new 'thin film' panels have
half the efficiency of crystalline.

The word is proposed and as such they are just something to watch for the
future. Perhaps if I ever re-roof or build another house, they might be
around by then.

Graham

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:38:53 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

Why does making a valid observation imply that he doesn't have a life?

Lol, it is a point of view. The validity is still open to debate. Many
insects would laugh at the validity.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:28:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

If you have an accountant,that is their worry

But it's YOUR money.

That is the point. Most peeps I know who employ an accountant do so for
the sole purpose of legally minimising their taxable income. If their
accountant doesn't do their job, then the accountant ends up not being
their accountant.

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:29:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does.
In any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private
bodies" to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty
shortages would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal
fired power station.

Just buy an EPR.

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

Can you get a government subsidy for it?
AFAIK, every nuclear reactor is heavily subsidised and guaranteed by the
gummint.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:29:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does.
In any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private
bodies" to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty
shortages would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal
fired power station.
Just buy an EPR.

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

Can you get a government subsidy for it?
AFAIK, every nuclear reactor is heavily subsidised and guaranteed by the
gummint.

Historically that's been true, in part because they kept designing new ones.

Settle on a design, and just repeat it over and over, and the cost comes
down to a point where electricity would be only moderately more
expensive than that produced by coal in Australia.

Sylvia.

 

[Davo]

Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:29:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does.
In any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private
bodies" to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty
shortages would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal
fired power station.
Just buy an EPR.

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

Can you get a government subsidy for it?
AFAIK, every nuclear reactor is heavily subsidised and guaranteed by
the gummint.


Historically that's been true, in part because they kept designing new
ones.

Settle on a design, and just repeat it over and over, and the cost comes
down to a point where electricity would be only moderately more
expensive than that produced by coal in Australia.

Sylvia.

The cost of coal does not reflect what it costs to produce, it's what
the market will bear. Usually it's tied very closely to the price of
gas, as it's really joules that you're selling, not the material itself.

 

[Eeyore]

TonyS wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful technology.

Get a life mate

Stop robbing other people to support phoney politics and gravy trains based on
lies and forged data.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:38:53 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

Why does making a valid observation imply that he doesn't have a life?

Lol, it is a point of view. The validity is still open to debate. Many
insects would laugh at the validity.

The validity that 'subsidies' are other peoples' tax money is indisputable.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
terryc wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
TonyS wrote:

The $8000 rebate

Is money other people have paid in taxes to subsidise a wasteful
technology.

so, it is $8,000 in my pocket and insignificant compared to the
millions given to other wasteful industries.

And how many more $8,000's ?

So you approve of stealing other peoples' money to prop up a fraud ?

Isn't that how our system works?

Oh you like to rob people do you ? PV solar is insane compared to solar
thermal.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Mauried wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

This whole feed-in tariff concept is illconceived. Hopefully,
governments will come to their senses before too much economic damage is
done.

Section 10 of this
ELECTRICITY FEED-IN (RENEWABLE ENERGY PREMIUM) ACT 2008

allows the Minister to make a determination of what the premium tariff
will be for the following financial year, so they can adjust the
tariff once a year as they think fit.
The premium of 3.88 is only set for the 1st year.
As this Act is supposedly modelled on the German scheme in which the
tariff is progressivley reduced over the lifetime of the scheme Id
expect the same would happen here.

The whole concept of paying people more for micro-generated electricity than the
utility can generate it for itself is so barking mad it's untrue.

It reminds me of the EU common fishing policy that determines stocks will be helped
by thowing already dead fish back into the sea if they're the wrong breed for a
boat's fishing allowance. So you can kill them but not use them for food !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:29:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does.
In any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private
bodies" to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty
shortages would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal
fired power station.

Just buy an EPR.

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

Can you get a government subsidy for it?
AFAIK, every nuclear reactor is heavily subsidised and guaranteed by the
gummint.

AREVA is a commercial company.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
terryc wrote:

The bean counters in the government don't have any say. The ATO does.
In any case, the government, all levels, wants to encourage "private
bodies" to get into power generation because the inevitable electricty
shortages would not be blamed on their failure to build another coal
fired power station.
Just buy an EPR.

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

Can you get a government subsidy for it?
AFAIK, every nuclear reactor is heavily subsidised and guaranteed by the
gummint.

Historically that's been true, in part because they kept designing new ones.

Particularly in the UK. I doubt 2 stations are the same and the early ones were
designed to produce fissile material for bombs, not optimised for power.

Settle on a design, and just repeat it over and over, and the cost comes
down to a point where electricity would be only moderately more
expensive than that produced by coal in Australia.

Exactly what France did. And they have about the cheapest electricity in Europe.

Graham