solar PV subsidies

So Colin Barnett is cutting the feed-in tariff. I hate that lying cheat,
but it was stupid to offer 40c/kWh in the first place. Last year
I saw a house for sale in Applecross (a tycoon's suburb). The realtor's
sign boasted $2000 solar credit last bill. So that means even if the house
was vacant, then the vendor must still have over 10 kW array. I couldn't
see it as the house faces south.
Welfare for the rich?

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 10/08/13 11:09, 116e32s@gmail.com wrote:

So Colin Barnett is cutting the feed-in tariff. I hate that lying cheat,
but it was stupid to offer 40c/kWh in the first place. Last year
I saw a house for sale in Applecross (a tycoon's suburb). The realtor's
sign boasted $2000 solar credit last bill. So that means even if the house
was vacant, then the vendor must still have over 10 kW array. I couldn't
see it as the house faces south.
Welfare for the rich?

I want them to make up their minds, are we to save power ? ( as the
millions spent on advertising suggest ) but when we start to generate
our own power that's no good either. What a crock !!

 

[keithr]

On 10/08/2013 3:26 PM, Rheilly Phoull wrote:

On 10/08/13 11:09, 116e32s@gmail.com wrote:
So Colin Barnett is cutting the feed-in tariff. I hate that lying cheat,
but it was stupid to offer 40c/kWh in the first place. Last year
I saw a house for sale in Applecross (a tycoon's suburb). The realtor's
sign boasted $2000 solar credit last bill. So that means even if the
house
was vacant, then the vendor must still have over 10 kW array. I couldn't
see it as the house faces south.
Welfare for the rich?


I want them to make up their minds, are we to save power ? ( as the
millions spent on advertising suggest ) but when we start to generate
our own power that's no good either. What a crock !!

We moved house some months ago. I didn't put solar power on the old one,
the roof faced the wrong way and we were part way down an east facing
ridge which made the sun set about 4 in the afternoon. I was paying
about $400 a quarter for power.

The new house came with a 1.9Kw solar power installation and solar hot
water, we recently got our first quarterly power bill $-28.

I'm getting $0.44 from the government plus another $0.08 from the power
company which is quite ridiculous, but then so is the $0.08 that the
government is offering for new installations. The fair price to my mind
to go get exactly what you pay ie. if they charge $0.30 for a KwH then
they should pay $0.30 per KwH for the power that you send back.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/08/2013 10:57 PM, keithr wrote:

On 10/08/2013 3:26 PM, Rheilly Phoull wrote:
On 10/08/13 11:09, 116e32s@gmail.com wrote:
So Colin Barnett is cutting the feed-in tariff. I hate that lying
cheat,
but it was stupid to offer 40c/kWh in the first place. Last year
I saw a house for sale in Applecross (a tycoon's suburb). The realtor's
sign boasted $2000 solar credit last bill. So that means even if the
house
was vacant, then the vendor must still have over 10 kW array. I couldn't
see it as the house faces south.
Welfare for the rich?


I want them to make up their minds, are we to save power ? ( as the
millions spent on advertising suggest ) but when we start to generate
our own power that's no good either. What a crock !!

We moved house some months ago. I didn't put solar power on the old one,
the roof faced the wrong way and we were part way down an east facing
ridge which made the sun set about 4 in the afternoon. I was paying
about $400 a quarter for power.

The new house came with a 1.9Kw solar power installation and solar hot
water, we recently got our first quarterly power bill $-28.

I'm getting $0.44 from the government plus another $0.08 from the power
company which is quite ridiculous, but then so is the $0.08 that the
government is offering for new installations. The fair price to my mind
to go get exactly what you pay ie. if they charge $0.30 for a KwH then
they should pay $0.30 per KwH for the power that you send back.

That would more than it's worth to the supplier. You're talking about
energy that's only available during the day, and only then if the sun is
shining. There are all kinds of costs associated with the need to supply
power 24/7, and regardless of whether the weather cooperates.

The actual value of the solar power is the marginal cost of running a
generator somewhere to generate that power if you hadn't supplied it.
That's little more than the cost of the extra fuel used to run the plant.

Sylvia.

 

[Jeßus]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:26:01 +0800, Rheilly Phoull
<rheilly@bigslong.com> wrote:

On 10/08/13 11:09, 116e32s@gmail.com wrote:
So Colin Barnett is cutting the feed-in tariff. I hate that lying cheat,
but it was stupid to offer 40c/kWh in the first place. Last year
I saw a house for sale in Applecross (a tycoon's suburb). The realtor's
sign boasted $2000 solar credit last bill. So that means even if the house
was vacant, then the vendor must still have over 10 kW array. I couldn't
see it as the house faces south.
Welfare for the rich?


I want them to make up their minds, are we to save power ? ( as the
millions spent on advertising suggest ) but when we start to generate
our own power that's no good either. What a crock !!

Indeed. Much like tobacco being legal and TAXABLE... yet at the same
time, all the anti-smoking pressure that smokers and sellers have to
endure.

Anyone being influenced in their decision to go solar due to subsidies
is going to be very disappointed in the long term.