What Carbon

[medhead]

Rose coloured glasses in use perhaps?

If you look at where the carbon tax, carbon abatement, carbon credits businesses etc have been rorted, misrepresented and fraudulently claimed then the Y-2-K example is directly relevant.

Post Y-2-K there were a number of inquiries etc that found a large proportion of 'preventative spending' or forced upgrades had no actual need.

For example, a large number of software program upgrades were not required but software companies advertised widely along the lines of avoid the potential business calamity - upgrade to latest version now. With two large commercial software packages (global not just Aust sourced software) there was absolutely no Y-2-K reason to upgrade. Yet the scare campaign saw most businesses suckered in globally.

Just like with the climate-gate scandal (google it if you've forgotten) where the data was deliberately falsified by the 'top scientists at one UK University centre of Excellence , threats made against any scientists who questioned its validity etc - the same happened with the Y-2-K.

There were a number of inquiries launched into the rorts, lies etc however with the emperor's new clothes many of the dupes were not game to admit they wasted millions without proper due diligence. Remember the claims that the GPS system was going to fail? Planes would fall out of the sky - so don't fly on Dec 31, 1999? The alarmists got the headlines. Many small businesses adopted the wait and see approach and found no problems the next day despite the doomsday claims.

Sure in some systems there was a Y-2-K issue but it was not every system. Similarly a large proportion of the alarmist claims are blatantly without any substance. Remember the Climate Change Commissioner (was that his taxpayer funded title?) Tim Flannery going out on a multi-media campaign saying that Sydney's dams would never again be full? Within 12 months they were over flowing.

The claims about no glaciers left in the IPCC report was traced to an undergraduate student who made the unsubstantiated claim in a paper they wrote. Its retraction did not get the front page headlines though did it? Why not?

There is a clear problem with pollution (real pollution such as that caused by shifting huge CAPITAL intensive (not labour intensive) industries into developing countries with issues of corruption +/or low to no environmental emission controls. Have a go and do some searching on China's new coal fired power plants in the last few years. They have been adding more in one year than we have in total!

Then there is the source of a large proportion of their coal - low calorific value brown coal. That is real pollution and has a proven adverse impact on both people and the broader environment.

Apples & Oranges

Product faults leading to safety recalls are not in the same class as alarmist claims although apparently GM alllegedly tried to portray it that way for years until the recent revelations that they knew of the issues for years.

The carbon tax issue at one extreme is portrayed as a King Canute exercise and at the other Joan of Arc.

As always the truth lies somewhere in between - extremism is rarely right.

Talk about a load of false associations and conclusions. Fixing y-2-k was not about small business software or software marketing. It was about fixing the big systems that form the basis of societal functioning. It certainly was not about any of the theatre that you've raised. The only alarmist I remember was the news media making up absolute cough. Talk about seeing trees and not forest.

How about you go and google about all the nuclear power plants china is building as well. They're doing real things to address pollution. Australia is going to pay big business taxpayers money (my money) and hope those business do something. You want to see SIT look no further than direct action.

 

[medhead]

We are doing solar on each of our warehouses seeing the payback is a little over 3 years now that the components have fallen dramatically. Our warehouses run mainly in sunlight hours so that is helpful.
We have not given up on South Australia where our energy supplier wanted $18,000 a year for us to cut our bill by $20,000 so we have had to engage a consultant.
eastwest101 is correct stating that the energy suppliers have a big problem as they have to supply extra power when it get cloudy and also when it is night time. Going forward costs will increase for those who do nothing so it is quite tricky seeing most of the households who have no solar cannot afford the cost.

The network cost for those without solar is why I finally gave in and got panels installed. It's not at your scale but the same factors apply. I did read something about needing to make significant changes to the grid arrangement from being central distribution to distributed distribution. But who knows if that would be useful. But all of this highlights the point that everyone seems to ignore, the mix of power sources is the primary consideration. It's not a choice between one or the other; it should be "we'll have all of it".

I can't do a link from the phone. But I was following a Melbourne company called Ceramic Fuel Cells that had a very promising product. It produced electricity from natural gas, but also used the excess heat for hot water or heating or cooling at a domestic level. The gas hot water system could be replaced or ducted heating/cooling can be had, all while producing electricity as well.

 

[drron]

As luck would have it I also follow CFC.So here is the link-
Ceramic Fuel Cells :: Welcome to Ceramic Fuel Cells

 

[medhead]

As luck would have it I also follow CFC.So here is the link-
Ceramic Fuel Cells :: Welcome to Ceramic Fuel Cells

Have they released a commercial product yet, do you know?

 

[drron]

They have been selling units for nearly 3 years.Did look like it was going to take off but sales are slipping.
Last month though they announced an improved design.main sales to Germany.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20140430 - Quarterly Cashflow Report.pdf
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20140630 - Technology Update[1].pdf

 

[amaroo]

We are doing solar on each of our warehouses seeing the payback is a little over 3 years now that the components have fallen dramatically. Our warehouses run mainly in sunlight hours so that is helpful.
We have not given up on South Australia where our energy supplier wanted $18,000 a year for us to cut our bill by $20,000 so we have had to engage a consultant.
eastwest101 is correct stating that the energy suppliers have a big problem as they have to supply extra power when it get cloudy and also when it is night time. Going forward costs will increase for those who do nothing so it is quite tricky seeing most of the households who have no solar cannot afford the cost.

I've put a 7KW system on our roof - cost was around $13,500. The only reason I went for it was the utterly ridiculous FIT the Government of the day was offering - $0.44C + $0.08C retailer FIT = $0.52C/kw. A deal so silly that you would be plain stupid if you didn't take advantage of it.

18 months in I've recouped around $7,000 of the $13,500 investment. The panels have a guarantee of 25 years and inverter has a guarantee of 10 years - the $0.44C FIT is locked in until 2028.

Still shake my head how the Government of the day could think this was a good idea

 

[juddles]

....The point is what is the electrical requirement for 150 horsepower. That's not even a proper electrical quantity, it is mechanical power. If I convert that to watts (mechanical) 150 hp = 111 kW. the toyota Prius is rated at 67 kW. I'm not an electrical engineer or anything. But if the prius can drive around with enough batteries to provide 89 horsepower, is a fixed pump installation for 150 horsepower that hard?.....

The 67kW for the prius would be máximum. I suspect running constantly at that max (as a wáter pump would do) would give it a battery life of about an hour, tops. So for the farmer he would need 2 (to meet the 150hp) x 12 (nrs of darkness) = 24 Toyota Prius just for the battery capacity to keep a single pump running overnight. And that is JUST the battery capacity. He would also require a sh_tload of solar panels to charge those 24 Prius, plus another equal sh_tload to run the pumps during the day shift.

 

[juddles]

.....Not to be smart but here is an easy link to google the story. Let me google that for you (need to do it this way as the direct link does the premium content thing)......
He could have been the provider for himself. Just like I'm providing power for myself and avoided the ETS on that power.

I still couldnt get the link to work, but that way of leading me through the search was snazzy

As for the farmer, I wish i knew the stats. His bill is very high.

I pump a lot of wáter myself - I use 200hp deisel pumps. They consume about 4 litres diesel per hour, but i run them probably at lower rev tan the farmer who is pumping from deep boreholes. His pumps are a tad smaller, but at the higher load would still ¨only¨use about the same - 4 litres per hour. Even if he ran them 24 hrs a day (which is probably the case), this still means 24hrs x 4 litres x 365 days x $1.50/lt = $50,000 per year. So if he is spending $250K on electricicty for them this suggest he runs at least 5 or so of them. So his electrictity generation needs and battery storage needs are truly daunting. Maybe 100+ Prius or so??

 

[medhead]

The 67kW for the prius would be máximum. I suspect running constantly at that max (as a wáter pump would do) would give it a battery life of about an hour, tops. So for the farmer he would need 2 (to meet the 150hp) x 12 (nrs of darkness) = 24 Toyota Prius just for the battery capacity to keep a single pump running overnight. And that is JUST the battery capacity. He would also require a sh_tload of solar panels to charge those 24 Prius, plus another equal sh_tload to run the pumps during the day shift.

I still couldnt get the link to work, but that way of leading me through the search was snazzy

As for the farmer, I wish i knew the stats. His bill is very high.

I pump a lot of wáter myself - I use 200hp deisel pumps. They consume about 4 litres diesel per hour, but i run them probably at lower rev tan the farmer who is pumping from deep boreholes. His pumps are a tad smaller, but at the higher load would still ¨only¨use about the same - 4 litres per hour. Even if he ran them 24 hrs a day (which is probably the case), this still means 24hrs x 4 litres x 365 days x $1.50/lt = $50,000 per year. So if he is spending $250K on electricicty for them this suggest he runs at least 5 or so of them. So his electrictity generation needs and battery storage needs are truly daunting. Maybe 100+ Prius or so??

The prius was just an example, proof of concept or something like that. There must be more energy dense battery technology - I guess. The batteries would also be charged simultaneously with running the pump during daylight hours. I'm not sure 24 hour pumping would be required.

As for the cost, I'd guess he has to also distribute the water around the property. Maybe more pumps but lower power requirements. Anyway, just some random speculation on my part.

 

[cove]

Our stage one solar on our work buildings will be in the 250kW range and if successful we could do a second stage. Small start then review and if ok go forward.

 

[medhead]

I've put a 7KW system on our roof - cost was around $13,500. The only reason I went for it was the utterly ridiculous FIT the Government of the day was offering - $0.44C + $0.08C retailer FIT = $0.52C/kw. A deal so silly that you would be plain stupid if you didn't take advantage of it.

18 months in I've recouped around $7,000 of the $13,500 investment. The panels have a guarantee of 25 years and inverter has a guarantee of 10 years - the $0.44C FIT is locked in until 2028.

Still shake my head how the Government of the day could think this was a good idea

You have the answer to why it was a good idea in Cove's post. He did the install because the price of the panels reduced. The price reduced because FIT reduced the capital return period and more people purchased panels creating economies of scale. As for the FIT, I don't know about you, but I pay at least $1 per kWh, there is still profit for my power company to sell the power I produce to someone else.

 

[amaroo]

You have the answer to why it was a good idea in Cove's post. He did the install because the price of the panels reduced. The price reduced because FIT reduced the capital return period and more people purchased panels creating economies of scale. As for the FIT, I don't know about you, but I pay at least $1 per kWh, there is still profit for my power company to sell the power I produce to someone else.

You must be joking! The price of the panels reduced after the gov incentives were removed. Like all Gov incentives - price goes up rather than down.

Installing panels on warehouses is different to households. Industries use all the power they generate. Households sell the majority of their generation.

We sell >82% of our generation (sell around 9,000KW a year @ $0.52/KW) the system has done bugger all in reducing our grid generated power consumption as we use all our hungry electric machines after the sun has gone down. In fact our grid generation usage has increased as our credit more than covers any increase I can stack on.

How anyone decided that an Gov incentive can fully refund an investment of $13,500 in under three years and then continue to pay dividends for another 15 years is a joke. There is a reason newly elected Gov all over Australia pulled the plug on these crazy and expensive schemes :idea:

 

[medhead]

You must be joking! The price of the panels reduced after the gov incentives were removed. Like all Gov incentives - price goes up rather than down.

Installing panels on warehouses is different to households. Industries use all the power they generate. Households sell the majority of their generation.

We sell >82% of our generation (sell around 9,000KW a year @ $0.52/KW) the system has done bugger all in reducing our grid generated power consumption as we use all our hungry electric machines after the sun has gone down. In fact our grid generation usage has increased as our credit more than covers any increase I can stack on.

How anyone decided that an Gov incentive can fully refund an investment of $13,500 in under three years and then continue to pay dividends for another 15 years is a joke. There is a reason newly elected Gov all over Australia pulled the plug on these crazy and expensive schemes :idea:

Did you read what I wrote. The price of panels went down when people started buying them. People started buying them when the FIT was introduced. As Cove wrote, he purchased when the price went down. I followed the price of systems from before there was a feed in tariff and the price of systems reduced when the tariff was introduced and that price (per install kWh) has reduced over the period of FIT. I have a number of data points for cost of installations over the last 3 to 5 years. Demand produces economy of scale in manufacturing, making things cheaper.

Of course, you do realise the government doesn't pay the tariff, don't you? If you actually look into this properly you'll find the tariff was reduced because the target of installed capacity was achieved.

Otherwise, your one example is hardly indicative of everyone else. We've installed a system that generates our long term daily consumption. As such it is false to claim households sell the majority of their generation.

 

[burmans]

Did you read what I wrote. The price of panels went down when people started buying them. People started buying them when the FIT was introduced. As Cove wrote, he purchased when the price went down. I followed the price of systems from before there was a feed in tariff and the price of systems reduced when the tariff was introduced and that price (per install kWh) has reduced over the period of FIT. I have a number of data points for cost of installations over the last 3 to 5 years. Demand produces economy of scale in manufacturing, making things cheaper.

Of course, you do realise the government doesn't pay the tariff, don't you? If you actually look into this properly you'll find the tariff was reduced because the target of installed capacity was achieved.

Otherwise, your one example is hardly indicative of everyone else. We've installed a system that generates out long term day consumption. As such it is false to claim households sell the majority of their generation.

Of course it's not all about Australia and what our government did or did not do. Solar Panels is not an Australian market, it's a global market and as demand increases and the technology improves prices go DOWN, pretty much like has happened for computers. While out government incentives may have had a short term affect anyone who suggests they drove the long term market needs their head read IMO, we just aren't that important in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[amaroo]

Did you read what I wrote. The price of panels went down when people started buying them. People started buying them when the FIT was introduced. As Cove wrote, he purchased when the price went down. I followed the price of systems from before there was a feed in tariff and the price of systems reduced when the tariff was introduced and that price (per install kWh) has reduced over the period of FIT. I have a number of data points for cost of installations over the last 3 to 5 years. Demand produces economy of scale in manufacturing, making things cheaper.

Of course, you do realise the government doesn't pay the tariff, don't you? If you actually look into this properly you'll find the tariff was reduced because the target of installed capacity was achieved.

Otherwise, your one example is hardly indicative of everyone else. We've installed a system that generates out long term day consumption. As such it is false to claim households sell the majority of their generation.

Prices came down after Gov all over Oz and the rest of the world pulled the plug. There was an almighty world glut of panels and inverters as the economics of these incentives didn't stack up. I brought ours when price came down....prices dropped around >40% in 2 years and I was still able to sign up for the full FIT (signed up on the last day)

Why do you think FIT have been removed When the glut is exhausted and demand sinks......what do you think will happen to the price of panels and inverters?

The world is full of people taking advantage of stupid policy PV Ladder

Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

Solar panel glut to continue, prices to drop by approx 40% by 2015 - Solar Choice

 

[medhead]

Prices came down after Gov all over Oz and the rest of the world pulled the plug. There was an almighty world glut of panels and inverters as the economics of these incentives didn't stack up. I brought ours when price came down....prices dropped around >40% in 2 years and I was still able to sign up for the full FIT (signed up on the last day)

Why do you think FIT have been removed When the glut is exhausted and demand sinks......what do you think will happen to the price of panels and inverters?

The world is full of people taking advantage of stupid policy PV Ladder

Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

Prices lowered over the period of the FIT. That is fact based on the cost of my sized system reducing by 50% from just after the introducing of a feed in tariff in South Australia until when I installed a system a number of years later. A number backed up by you above with your 40% reduction. That's a price reduction that you've clearly stated happened while the tariff was in place. Your own numbers prove what I've said. The price reduced while the tariff was in place.

Let's just review your statement. Prices dropped >40% over two years. You've admitted I'm right, that price drop happened before the tariff was removed. How the hell can you continue to claim otherwise?

As I've already mentioned a few times the tariff was reduced/removed because the targets of the tariff had been achieved.

I see you've dragged out the same old anti carbon tax furphys with your links. Fact is your wrong and your own numbers say as much. Germany is irrelevant to what I've stated.

Oh and I see you've accepted that the government did not pay the tariff.

 

[amaroo]

Prices lowered over the period of the FIT. That is fact based on the cost of my sized system reducing by 50% from just after the introducing of a feed in tariff in South Australia until when I installed a system a number of years later. A number backed up by you above with your 40% reduction. That's a price reduction that you've clearly stated happened while the tariff was in place. Your own numbers prove what I've said. The price reduced while the tariff was in place.

Let's just review your statement. Prices dropped >40% over two years. You've admitted I'm right, that price drop happened before the tariff was removed. How the hell can you continue to claim otherwise?

As I've already mentioned a few times the tariff was reduced/removed because the targets of the tariff had been achieved.

I see you've dragged out the same old anti carbon tax furphys with your links. Fact is your wrong and your own numbers say as much. Germany is irrelevant to what I've stated.

Take another read. FIT were being removed all over the world well before the boffins here woke up.

Do you understand what a world wide glut of a commodity/product means? Primary school economics would be a benefit at this juncture.....

Oh and I see you've accepted that the government did not pay the tariff.

I assume this is just a silly comment meant to distract rather than you being obtuse ?

Let's just review your statement. Prices dropped >40% over two years. You've admitted I'm right, that price drop happened before the tariff was removed. How the hell can you continue to claim otherwise?

Wrong. QLD gave 12 month notice of ending FIT.......you just had to sign up before a certain date and then enjoyed 12 months to haggle and purchase your system. It was the best of both worlds.....secure the FIT and then had time to benefit from the last great sale of solar systems.

As I've already mentioned a few times the tariff was reduced/removed because the targets of the tariff had been achieved.
.

Sorry, that is complete BS

 

[cove]

At home we did 15kW about $18k and it is about the same percentage rate for the bigger ones at our warehouses.We did not go for a feed in deal and instead waited for the price crunch which hit when the feed in deals were modified. Our inverters are SMA which have a good reputation.

 

[amaroo]

At home we did 15kW about $18k and it is about the same percentage rate for the bigger ones at our warehouses.We did not go for a feed in deal and instead waited for the price crunch which hit when the feed in deals were modified. Our inverters are SMA which have a good reputation.

We went with REC panels and SMA inverter.

 

[medhead]

Take another read. FIT were being removed all over the world well before the boffins here woke up.

Do you understand what a world wide glut of a commodity/product means? Primary school economics would be a benefit at this juncture.....

Wrong. QLD gave 12 month notice of ending FIT.......you just had to sign up before a certain date and then enjoyed 12 months to haggle and purchase your system. It was the best of both worlds.....secure the FIT and then had time to benefit from the last great sale of solar systems.



Sorry, that is complete BS

You wrote about a price reduction of greater than 40% over 2 years. I've tracked a 50% decrease over at least 4 years. Last I check 2 years and > 4 years is longer than 12 months. Not sure how primary school economies helps when you can't even get you numbers correct.

But perhaps you need to review the chapter about mass production decreasing unit costs. Increased demand lowers production cost per unit. Feed in tariffs contributed to increased demand. Hypothetically if we accept your claim there was a glut, then the tariff would have contributed to that alleged glut, and the lower cost as a result.

As for your claim of BS. Clearly you don't really understand the purpose of feed in tariffs. They were never introduced as open ended programs but with a target. The south Australian government has clearly stated the target was achieved. If you think that's BS, feel free to prove it.