# Climate change: The Critical Decade

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by James R, May 23, 2011.

1. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
24,460
They have - they have risen with teh CPI, over time, just not as fast. "In comparison" is, as I pointed out, not the critical matter. If electrical prices rise as the CPI rises, the payback on the initial investment is faster - whether they match the CPI or not.
I didn't miss that, I pointed out its assumptions were not realistic - and also, that even so we were talking about the most expensive possible real life setup of solar power, and comparing it with heavily subsidized and scale-economized delivery of other source power. And even in that comparison, it almost makes straight economic sense.
There is quite a bit of benefit in sellling power you are not using - and as you point out, a residential home demand is unlikely to match the overall demand curve, and in particular a private home is likely to have power to sell at peak solar times.

And if peak demand is offset from peak production, the averaging of price for residential still favors the payback - the homeowner is selling at peak production, which would not match peak demand times or highest prices, so they are getting a break there.
One reason it's not standard. Huge subsidies are reserved for power companies, coal mining companies, nuclear reactors in need of waste storage, etc.

3. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Actually I've built a fairly sophisticataed model to figure this out and the model calculations include the increase in electrical rates over time, equal to the rate of increase over the last decade.

The assumptions are realistic. In fact they are quite optimistic.
In fact I assumed a favorable sun location and that every kWh the system produced was either used, or sold back at retail rates. For many users, unused kWhrs are simply unused. Nor did I factor in any drop off in output, which over a 25 year period is ~20%, nor did I factor in any expensive installation costs besides just pricing the standard mounting racks, nor removal/replacement costs (for roof mounted systems when the roof itself needs to be replaced), nor any losses due to suboptimal placement/orientation (typical for most roof mounted systems) nor any losses due to partial shading (a factor for almost all residential users), nor any costs from needing to upgrade/replace any of the electrical components (Inverters, disconnects) which experience shows have about half the life expectancy of the panels.

Actually I presumed every kWh produced was used, thus "spinning the meter backwards" when more power was used than needed, or in effect, selling it back to the power company at the full retail rate, a situation which is not likely to persist if PV home generation catches on.

Actually it is, in that the old style meters (still in general use) spins backward when current is flowing out of the house as a matter of design. Newer smart meters can allow it, but don't have to.

Arthur

Last edited: Jun 2, 2011

5. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
24,460
Cool. Try employing that here, instead of the posting so far.

17. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,812
Let's say you owned a clothing store. The government told you that when anyone came in to the store with used clothes you had to pay them twice what you charged for new ones. Would you think that was a penalty? Would you welcome such customers into the store, or would you do everything legal you could to discourage them?

I don't. Both are pretty bad.

But if you want to take tax money to subsidize solar, go ahead. Increase taxes and give the excess to solar-installing homeowners.

18. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
concidering in NSW the electricity company IS the goverment its hardly an issue and in the other states your ignoring the fact that the goverment also sets the price of those clothes based on your costs INCLUDING the fact that your pay double price FOR SOME of those clothes and that everyone else is charging the same. Electricity is an essential service and is goverment regulated where its not goverment owned

Messages:
10,296
To the best of my knowledge, electric rates are government-regulated everywhere in the world.

But you just can't understand the simple math involved here: The electric company - or the government itself, if that's the case - normally buys it's power at wholesale rates. If it has to pay MORE than the wholesale rate, then to stay in business it has to raise the retail rate to cover the NEW costs of buying power. And if the government itself is the "company" it would have to raise taxes on everyone to maintain that same retail rate.

So, either way, it's still a foolish approach. :shrug: It's just a smoke-and-mirrors trick to get the population to support the installation of solar power. The difference between this and a direct approach is that it makes the politicians look like the good guys by "punishing" the big, bad companies. Just the sort of things the idiots of the world love to hear - "Make the Big Companies Pay."

20. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
or the other way to look at it is that this is the civic responcibility goverment imposes to pay society back for all the funding they recive from goverment. God Read, your acting like every single consumer is a retail house and you know dam well thats crap, the biggest consumers of power are companies and the goverment. The health sector alone uses a HUGE amount of power. Even if they do break even on the retail sector (no everyone does NOT have a solor system) they they would STILL make huge profits off companies and goverment

21. ### Spud Emperorsolanaceous common taterRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,899
Just to clarify a couple of points about the Australian situation with solar rebates and feed in tariffs.

Asguard, the \$8,000 grants were government funded and dried up almost two years ago. When that happened (and they pulled that rebate in a crude malicious way and left consumers and the industry out to dry) the government legislated incentives which were funded by the industry (think big coal), there was an onus on the industry to buy up REC's - Renewable Energy Certificates to 'encourage' the uptake of domestic solar. Legislation was also put in place to enforce premium Feed in Tariffs.

Now this Feed in Tariff is paid for by the energy retailer and yes, as Arthur said this puts upward pressure on energy prices.

The massive misconception we have here is that it is the sole driver of price increases. Energy prices are skyrocketing and the component of the price hike from the need to cover the feed in tariff is a meagre 4%

The cost to deliver energy to far flung parts of a huge continent from a couple of coal seams is very high (hence Australia has comparitively high prices by world standards).

Now consider that the infrastructure is old, tired, worn out, insufficient and is in constant need of replacement and upgrading and it doesn't take long to see where the price hikes are coming from.

The cost savings to the energy retailers by having a influx of electrons directly at the place where it needs to be used is saving them plenty (no transmission losses and far less new infrastructure to build).

The incentives to encourage domestic solar uptake in Australia were designed to do three important things at a time of global economic downturn - Provide economic stimulus (and with some other measures this actually worked a treat, Australia was almost unscathed in global terms)
- to make solar more visible and attractive and help reduce greenhouse emissions. Tick, that worked too.
- to create employment. Tick again, this also worked.

The current state of play is extremely alarming ( and all the Australian participants in this thread with the exception of moi will be blissfully unaware because good ole Vicco is maintaining its FiT).

The other states have started slashing and burning, they have gone from attractive FiT's to none at all. Any systems producing excess energy are pumping it back into the grid for free to the energy retailers.
It's a complete and utter shamozzle.
Barrel 'O Fun ( Barry O'Farrell) in his first week as the new premier is advocating retrospective legislation which will dishonour established FiT contracts. He is risking a huge class action and showing that his word is mud, he has chopped the burgeoning solar industry off at the knees and kicked 'em in the nuts for good measure.

The sad thing is the scheme was going too well and instead of making some adjustments, he's had a fucking meltdown and stopped the industry dead in its tracks.... Brilliant stuff!!!!!!
Politicians can be so fucking brain dead.

22. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
***Moderator Note***

Five posts deleted as offtopic, flaming, trolling, or feeding trolls.

23. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
What I can't understand is why alternate energy can't compete. The price of fossil fuel continues to rise, yet alternate energy is can never close the gap.

The only explanation I can think of is connected to government involvement. Government is very inefficient, therefore its connection to alternate energy would be expected to dumb down the system so it can't compete, unless it applies control over the competitors. It is like a stupid farmer that can only compete, if he poisons the other farmers well. That is the government in a nutshell.

Regular energy gets regulated into higher and higher ineffciency. But since the free market will continue to differntiated itself, rather than merge with the government inefficiency, it contiunues to use free market efficency to compensate for all attempts to make it inefficient. This keep the cost lower than alternate energy. That is why the CO2 scare was invented. This ineffiency is expected to allow alternate energy to compete. But I am not too sure, unless there is a shakeup at the top.

One of the big differences between the free market and government is government spends other people's money. Now it even borrows so it can spend the money of our grandchildren, today. This accounts for the waste. If you go out to eat on your own credit card or on the company open tab, spending is different. This culture of waste and incompetence is worse ally for alternate energy. Alternate energy needs to leave the culture of waste and control to compensate for its incompetence.

Politics is decided by entertainment value, more than ability. Abe Lincoln could not compete today, since he is not pretty enough to entertain. What would get instead are actors playing the role of statemen. Actors will need a large entourage of writers, producers, handling, make-up people, directors, so the play comes out looking sort of real. This all adds to the inefficiency. One ugly Abe Lincoln does the same thing as the this herd, but he is not enterntaining or inefficent enough.

When you also have actors playing the role of scientists, who are in charge of alternate energy, don't expect this to be competitive any time soon. I would fire all of them, since a few decade of this foolishness is enough time to prove the system wide incompetence. Next, you recruit ugly Abe Lincolns, who are not pretty or entertaining but can get the job done.