Australia Breaks Major Record For New Solar Panel Roof Installations (sciencealert.com) 56
Solar panel installations in 2020 were up nearly 30 percent from the year before, breaking its own record for the number of solar panels installed in a year. ScienceAlert reports: The data, compiled by energy efficiency experts and reported in a CSIRO statement, come from Australia's Clean Energy Regulator, a national body tasked with reducing the country's carbon emissions and accelerating its use of clean energy. "Sustained low technology costs, increased work from home arrangements and a shift in household spending to home improvements during COVID-19 played a key role in the increase of rooftop solar PV systems under the SRES," said Clean Energy Regulator senior executive Mark Williamson, referring to a national scheme in Australia that allows homeowners and small businesses to recoup some of the costs of putting the panels on their roofs.
Data used in the CSIRO analysis from Australia's federal Clean Energy Regulator showed that in 2020, a record-high 362,000 solar panels were installed and certified under the scheme for small-scale renewables. At the year's end, Australia had a total of over 2.68 million rooftop solar systems on homes - which means one in four households are now soaking up sunlight and converting it to electricity.
Data used in the CSIRO analysis from Australia's federal Clean Energy Regulator showed that in 2020, a record-high 362,000 solar panels were installed and certified under the scheme for small-scale renewables. At the year's end, Australia had a total of over 2.68 million rooftop solar systems on homes - which means one in four households are now soaking up sunlight and converting it to electricity.
Which is why the Aus government wants to tax solar (Score:2)
Re:Which is why the Aus government wants to tax so (Score:5, Insightful)
Too much solar is not good for the system
Too much solar is not good for our current flat-rate system.
The solution is flexible pricing. When more power is available, cut the price. When supply can't meet demand, raise the price.
Consumers of power, such as EV chargers, AC compressors, etc., can be programmed to adapt to power availability.
I have a programmable EV charger and a smart-meter on my house. I receive incentives from PG&E to shift my power to low-demand time slots. This is currently done very coarsely using time windows of several hours, but switching to minute-by-minute flexible pricing would only require a software upgrade.
The free market can't fix every problem, but it can fix this one.
Re: (Score:1)
The solution is flexible pricing. When more power is available, cut the price. When supply can't meet demand, raise the price.
Greed will not discount when more is available, and will double the price when supply can't meet demand.
The free market can't fix every problem, but it can fix this one.
Yes, because History waxes poetic, and Greed won't ever infect this.
Given the environment we're talking about here, I doubt you'd have much luck re-programming Australians to shut down their A/Cs in the middle of peak heat during the day to shift power to those 2AM low demand slots. You'd have better luck convincing them to live underground, which apparently is a thing down under too:
https://www.youtub [youtube.com]
Experience with retail demand pricing (Score:3)
My experience in the US with home-owner time-of-day pricing is that there is a kind if "what's mine is mine and what's your's is mine" in the plans I have seen.
If the late-night rate started at 9 PM, maybe, but if it starts at 11 PM, it is of no value unless you work a factory shift that has you home and doing laundry at midnight.
That said, if the power company could give you a price break, say, from 10 AM to 2 PM when solar is going full out and maybe raise the price at 6 PM, there may be some advanta
Re: (Score:3)
If the late-night rate started at 9 PM, maybe, but if it starts at 11 PM, it is of no value unless you work a factory shift that has you home and doing laundry at midnight.
It's of value to people plugging EVs into a home charger.
It's also of value to people with well-insulated homes using heat pumps and passive solar features; the home heats up during the day, then cools off at night.
It's also of value to people with solar installations IF they get paid a variable rate based on demand.
I'm glad we got that straight (Score:3)
I am happy that the 3% or so of people with EVs and with passive solar combined with heat pumps can take advantage of demand pricing, both for themselves and also for the large amount of demand imbalance they can address.
It won't help the people with solar panels because even if the power company increased their demand payments for power generated, the power peak for solar is at noon, not 6 pm.
Re: (Score:3)
the power peak for solar is at noon, not 6 pm.
Depends.
You can orientate your panels basically any way you want. E.g. that the summer peak generation is either at 9:00 in the morning or 16:00 in the afternoon. However that decreases of course the winter performance. Close to the equator however it makes great sense to have one panel directed to roughly 9:00 sun position and one to roughly 15:00.
Re: (Score:2)
The late night rate in my area ends at 6am, so I load the washing machine at night and set the timer for 5am. Then when I wake up in the morning, the laundry is ready to be put outside on the drying rack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The free market can't fix every problem, but it can fix this one.
The wholesale electricity market already is solved by the free market, it is what allowed Elon to sell batteries to South Australia (See the real time market in action here [aemo.com.au])
The problem with solar is than unlike a handful of big traditional plants which can be managed more easily, managing a fleet of millions of houses would be an administrative nightmare (standard centralised vs distributed pros/cons). That is not easy to solve, because even with smart meters you are increasingly adding supply into a sy
Re: (Score:2)
Too much solar is not good for the system, they already found that out the hard way.
Who found that out the hard way? Certainly not Australia. They have yet to have a power outage attributed to solar uptake. They've had plenty due to storms, but I do think you may be talking out of your arse.
Pretty much universal (Score:2)
The government taxes things to get money. If money is involved somewhere, that's an opportunity to get part of that money.
Re: (Score:3)
And businesses don't try to increase profits if money is involved?
Real example, to the west of me, there is a 19.5 cent a litre transit tax on gasoline, to the east of me, about the same 6 miles, there isn't. There's a 2-5 cent spread in the price of gas with the gas stations to the east blaming taxes on the price of gas. As the only reason for the high price to the east is to increase profits, and 15 cents extra a litre adds up, it seems that competition has failed.
Re: (Score:1)
And tenants who destroy something won't try to get away without paying for it?
I am not sure why you think these questions are relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people seem to think government bad/business good when in reality it seems any large organization is bad. Sorry if I lumped you into that camp.
Australia: Highest Electricity prices globally (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Australia: Highest Electricity prices globally (Score:4, Interesting)
PLEASE tell people not to use car batteries. The price might be attractive, but not the consequences.
Tell 'em to look for ex-Telstra telephone exchange batteries instead. Those things have been kept at float for most of their lives, with occasional "deep dives". They're pretty good for home battery systems if you don't have the money for new.
Re: (Score:3)
Or regular deep cycle batteries.
Car batteries are known as LSI batteries - Lighting Starting Ignition. They are optimized for those loads - and must be kept at float (f
Re:Australia: Highest Electricity prices globally (Score:5, Informative)
It's also worth mentioning that the only difference between deep cycle batteries and starting batteries is that deep cycle batteries have more metal in them overall (including between cells) and use solid plates so they can sustain higher charge and discharge rates for long periods, while starting batteries have "sponge" plates (perforated, slotted, etc) which are designed for maximum surface area in order to deliver peak amperage. Starting batteries are only expected to have to deliver a lot of current for a short period, and if subjected to high C rates for long periods they will overheat and warp, explode, etc.
But with that said, if you use enough starting batteries you can get the same kind of C rates as with deep cycle batteries, and conversely if you have enough deep cycle batteries you can use them to start. A pair of typical GC2 batteries might have 600 CCA, where a single BCI Group 27 will likely have 650... But the GC2s have ~225 Ah while the Group 27 has 66-110 Ah capacity. So you'd need ~4 27s to store as much energy as two GC2s...
(I service RVs for a living. Virtually all RV batteries are BCI GC2, 24, or 27, although a few people have some of the bigger deep cycles in their rigs like Trojan L16s. And of course people are starting to move to Lithium, mostly Battle Born.)
Re: Australia: Highest Electricity prices globally (Score:2)
Maybe he meant used EV batteries?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are generalising from whatever failed negotiation you had with your energy supplier. I pay 26 cents/kWh, and am paid 20 c /kWh. The net result is that for 9 months of the year i get money back from the power company. over the last year I got $648 in total. You might think that is ridiculous, but when the AEMO price hits $14 /kWh, as it does in January, then my supplier is raking in hundreds of dollars some days.
It pays for itself. (Score:4, Informative)
There are also low-interest payment plans where your weekly outlay is almost down to your weekly savings off your electricity bill so it's not even a noticeable outlay. After a few years it's paid off and you still have a significantly lowered power bill for at least the 10 years the system is warrantied.
If you have the roof space, it's one of those no-brainer financial decisions.
Re:It pays for itself. (Score:5, Informative)
>A 6.6kW panel array with a 5kW inverter costs about US$3000 installed. Electricity prices are around 20-25c per kWh so for an average house it pays for itself in just a few years."
That ENTIRELY depends on where you are in the USA. I live on the middle of the east coast and electricity is only about 13c. And when I investigated costs for a system, it was much, much higher than what you quoted. The payback period was about 30 YEARS based on cost of electricity, amount of sunlight available, and cost of system. And at that point, the system, or at least parts of it, would probably have already had to be replaced because of wear/damage.
Replacing my HVAC system with a more efficient one (which I did) saved more money than solar would have. Plus it increased the comfort level. (HVAC uses much more power than anything else in the home, here).
Re: (Score:3)
Will second that, here in the southern US my rates are 9.9c/kwh and when looking into a DIY solar system I was looking at close to $9k after rebates for about 8KW of panels, inverters, grid tie and parts. That's me doing the majority of labor with no storage and still needing an electrician for parts of the work. Still profitable long term but if you're not planning to stay in the same house for the next 10 years you may never see the return.
I think we're close to that tipping point in many parts of the U
Re: (Score:3)
I live on the middle of the east coast and electricity is only about 13c
Depending on your energy supply, it may just be cheap because externalities are not properly factored in - in which case it is likely to get more expensive as soon as there is more standardised efforts on things like carbon taxes. Alternatively you might be lucky and be on nuclear (in which case enjoy it while it can because given the current trends it seems likely once plants hit their lifespan limit they're more likely to be decommissioned for cost reasons), or already on renewable sources like hydro.
I k
Re: (Score:2)
dig up the minerals and send it to china... (Score:5, Interesting)
Australia mines a lot of the components that go into PV panels
https://www.resourcesandgeoscience.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/geoscience-information/products-and-data/high-tech-metal-resources-of-nsw [nsw.gov.au]
yet send these to china who process them and send them back... ignoring geopolitics for a while this is wildly inefficient
Australia should invest in Solar reactors such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_salt_storage [wikipedia.org]
replace the existing coal-fired plants with molten salt reactors and hydrogen generation from salt reactors...
Re: dig up the minerals and send it to china... (Score:2)
I think that suggestion probably applies to all countries, to one degree or another, including China.
Re: (Score:2)
yet send these to china who process them and send them back... ignoring geopolitics for a while this is wildly inefficient
That is how it works when one country is a developing country and the other one is developed. The developed country uses trade barriers to ensure that the developing country has to export its raw materials cheaply and buy back the finished product.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of the definition of 'undeveloped' being largely synonymous with 'lots of open land', I don't think Australia is really considered a developing country:
"Australia is one of the most developed countries in the world. The country's per capita GDP, at $49,144 as of 2016, ranks well above any reasonable threshold for developed country status. The country's infant mortality rate is three per 1,000 live births, one of the lowest rates in the world."
https://www.investopedia.com/u... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You are of course right. Australia is not a developing nation.
I was mocking the way that Australia has steadfastly stuck to resource extraction as the main source of income over the last 30 years, as other first world nations transitioned their economies. And compared it to the way that China has very carefully avoided being stuck in the suck-the-resources-dry trap of other developing nations.
The strange thing is that Australia is just as deliberately picking the suck-the-resources-dry strategy, doing their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"Molten salt hasn't taken off like wind and PV have. Thermal solar seems to make so much sense, it's surprising that PV+batteries could ever be more economically efficient, but that seems to be how it's playing out."
I think that is probably because thermal solar plants are huge and expensive. Sometimes it is hard to find a location for them, and a company willing to spend the money/risk. It is still cheaper to build and operate a natural gas plant, and it supplies needed base load. This will likely s
Re: (Score:2)
It is still cheaper to build and operate a natural gas plant, and it supplies needed base load. /.ers, sou simply do not know what base load means)
Base loas is not . Base load is base load. It us there all the time.
Also, base load plants get antiquated, no one is building them anymore - well, perhaps China or India does. In fluctuating power markets you need load following and balancing plants, not base load. (I guess like 90% of
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, that got garbled:
It is still cheaper to build and operate a natural gas plant, and it supplies needed base load. /.ers, you simply do not know what base load means)
Base loas is not needed. Base load is base load. It is there all the time.
Also, base load plants get antiquated, no one is building them anymore - well, perhaps China or India does. In fluctuating power markets you need load following and balancing plants, not base load. (I guess like 90% of
Re:dig up the minerals and send it to china... (Score:5, Informative)
Molten salt is stupid. If you have to stop it for maintenance then it's days to get it back up to temp. The working fluid is fundamentally corrosive. This is not an indictment of solar thermal, only of molten salt.
The big advantage of PV solar is that once built it's seriously reliable, and if some part turns out not to be then it's seriously modular and can be replaced piecemeal. This is particularly true with modern microinverter system designs, because you don't need to make any effort to match up panels later so you can expand, replace, whatever with impunity. So while the manufacturing cost of the parts is higher with PV, the construction cost of the facility is much lower, the maintenance costs are also much lower, while the reliability is much higher. It's kind of a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
The working fluid is fundamentally corrosive. This is not an indictment of solar thermal, only of molten salt.
Seems to be no problem when ppl suggest molten salt nuclear reactors.
Your critics are unwarranted anyway. There are plenty of molten salt solar plants running on the planet.
Molten salt is stupid.
It is not, as it delivers power at night, and depending on size: up to 3 days long if no real sun is there.
Re: (Score:2)
>
yet send these to china who process them and send them back... ignoring geopolitics for a while this is wildly inefficient
If it were wildly inefficient they wouldn't do it ... there must be some factors you aren't considering.
Re: (Score:2)
Planet Money did a fascinating segment examining the costs of a short run T-shirt printing job (~25k units), trying to track costs from start to finish. The cost of cargo shipping is lower than what a lot of people think, which is why it's economically worthwhile in so many cases (if less so in other ways).
Long story short, non-lastmile shipping costs (container shipping of cotton, fabric, etc.) involved were under 1% of the cost of the delivered product, or approximately 3% of the cost to physically finish
Re: (Score:2)
Australia also has lithium reserves; we have been banging out new lithium mines in the last couple years. They actually were not doing great a couple years ago because there was so much supply the price was terrible, but I believe it has been rebounding and they'll be scaling up.
yet send these to china who process them and send them back... ignoring geopolitics for a while this is wildly inefficient
Off topic, but... how can this be inefficient if it is what "the market" has deemed is the best way for all parties to operate?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First the market isn't always efficient.
thats-the-joke.gif!
Shipping costs are a minuscule percentage of the overall cost of just about anything -- global shipping is very efficient.
I work in logistics so I'm aware of the costs of shipping. The argument against that is that shipping is currently efficient because the externalities (e.g., the cost of carbon release by shipping vessels, the cost of having China do all our manufacturing, etc) are not properly factored into the true market cost of doing anything. This will almost certainly change soon as carbon pricing becomes increasingly mandated by governments, or at the very least, insurers and/or market pressures
Re: (Score:2)
Where were they made? (Score:2)
... I wonder...
Really? (Score:2)
Not because Scott 'Big Banana' Morrison, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it ethical using slave made solar panels? (Score:3)
John Kerry admits the solar panels that will save us from the climate end times are being produced by Uyghur slaves. [notthebee.com]