Off Grid Solar Battery Array

[Tandum]

Has anyone setup a solar battery array for home supply?

There seems to be a bit of movement in this area and we are thinking it's the right move in the next year or two prior to retirement to get rid of the $1K/quarter electricity bills.

I see new 7Kw and 10Kw lithium iron battery cells coming soon but I'm wondering if anyone has done it already. I'm guessing some of the country folk may be the first. I don't want to disconnect from the grid as we can still get off peak super economy power at under 13c Kw to charge batteries. But running the house off local batteries and solar to charge them is very appealing.

[GrampianStars]

Hi
You should already have a grid tie solar system already
say 7-10Kw of panels :thumbsup:
will reduce your power bill to $0 with maybe even a payback from your supplier

[Tandum]

Sorry Rob, they killed the feed in tariffs here in 2011. You have to negotiate with your supplier now and 8c/Kw is about it at best.

[Merlin66]

We lived off grid on solar panels/ diesel generator for a few years...
The life of the storage batteries and the efficiency of the invertor was always problematic.

If you remain connected to the grid your "service provider" will still hit you for the supply charges whether or not you use any energy.

[bugeater]

I assume you've aware of the Tesla powerwall gear? I did some quick sums and it looked okay for deferring your solar generation into peak usage period, but not particularly good if you were trying to defer off peak grid power into peak usage times (due to the losses going from AC>DC>battery>DC>AC). But they were very back of the envelope calcs.

[Tandum]

It's currently running at around $1.30/day, the thieves. But $110/quarter is a long way from $1000.


I saw them in a google search but only in passing.

[The_bluester]

I have been thinking of the same thing, we are a four person household, two of which are home every day and $1000 a quarter would be a nice change!

The way I see it, batter storage is about to become a very good thing to have. I see time of use pricing structures in all of our futures so where we are, being stuck with electric cooking it will suddenly make cooking dinner a very costly exercise (Which with a 7 year old in the house you can hardly defer to after the peak rate will end)

Solar with enough capacity to cover the daytime consumption plus enough freeboard to charge a battery system that would then get us over the peak time without dipping into the mains would potentially be a big cost saver. Just have to do the sums to ensure that it is not a matter of pinching money off the power retailer to give it to Tesla.

[PCH]

I understand that savings can be made which obviously we all want, but when there's no customers left to pay for the infrastructure, they are going to seriously shaft everyone just for having the supply available whether you use it or not.

Just like they do with water supply; the water pipe running past your empty block is enough for them to levy the charge in some states - not sure about all.

It stands to reason, if they're obliged to provide a service, then someone has to pay.

[rrussell1962]

Hi Robin, we had our 5kW solar put in in 2011 just before the 50c feed-in finished so our thought process was different to what yours would need to be. The process we went through was basically:

1. Calculate energy usage of appliances including standby, in our case the big ticket items were aircon and pool pump.

2. Maximise benefit of solar by minimising daytime usage (thereby getting feed-in maximised) and running most things at night. To do this we changed the timings on the pool pump etc. Also worth looking at things like doing fewer, but larger washing loads.

3. Estimate savings on bills to work out payback period to see if it was worth the effort. I came up with a conservative payback period of 8 years. In practice it worked out a lot less.

If you are not getting a feed-in rate greater than the peak rate I think it would be more beneficial to run things off solar during the day and minimise usage at night which would be from the grid. You may need to estimate solar generation taking account of panel efficiency and inverter losses to work out which appliances you can run together so as not to draw on grid power. This may vary during the year because of increased sunlight but also because solar panels often become less efficient at higher temperatures.

Our experience has been that the inverters supplied by our well known Qld electricity supplier have not been reliable and we have had 2 fail, both within warranty fortunately.

It has been an interesting exercise and our power bills have reduced by around 60%, this reduction takes account of tariff changes, in effect I have eliminated the price variance in the calculation.

When our 50 cent feed-in rate finishes I will have another look at when and how we run the appliances. It's an interesting exercise and I think worth doing to satisfy yourself one way or another.

[Tandum]

Last time I was looking, Panasonic were developing a complete system. It looks like it's still coming.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/panasonic-to-roll-out-pv-battery-storage-systems-in-australia-87365

[rogerg]

Maybe look up "Josh's house". Josh is a presenter on ABC Gardening Australia and local Perth resident who has set about building avery low energy footprint house. He recetnly installed a battery system and there was much fanfair about it, so there is probably good information available about what he used/did.

Me personally, we have our 5.2kw of panels being installed next week - grid connected so will receive 8c/kw for anything surplus. We don't have a fixed service charge in WA, so it's relatively common people have $0 power bills and get paid back money when they have grid connected panels.

[The_bluester]

In Vic at least the situation is reversed from what it was a few years ago. Rather than trying to size the system and shift your consumption around to maximize the power fed back to the grid (At what would be a long way from the peak use time, exactly when the DB and generators DONT want extra) it would not be better to move your consumption as much as possible into the peak generation time (Within the capacity of your system) to take advantage of the solar production yourself given that you now receive about one third as much for feed in than the typical cost per KWH. If you can not use it yourself, it will just never pay for itself.

Battery storage will hopefully soon be able to float you over the peak and while the losses involved would skew the sums, maybe even be useful to charge in the lowest tariff time and consume through the peak.

[glend]

The vast disparity in feed-in rates really needs to be addressed, as currently it is a dis-incentive for residential solar investment to have one house getting 50 cents and the guy next door getting 5 cents which is a reality in some areas of the country. This evening up of the playing field needs to extend to the 'gravy' charges for just having access to the grid (grid connect daily charges for example).

Secondly, in positioning for future storage battery systems, just be aware you can do it now pretty easily and it doesn't have to cost the earth provided you are willing to use cost effective storage and curtail your usage to stay within the economic model it can support. If people want to have storage capacity for all the possible power they can use then there is no incentive for efficiency.

As an example, I have a 2KW return to grid roof top system, which as a single retiree pretty much covers any daytime usage (provided I limit my usage to one major appliance at a time - and that's important). I also have a private 'off grid' ground mount system of 500W of panels feeding a 500AH battery bank (made up of readily available 100AH deep cycle batteries). Check the photos attached. Ground mount is cheap it build if you use treated pine posts. This small off grid system is very useful for augmenting the grid connect system during the day - it runs my big shed and workshop, and it also provides all the power to my observatory, and most power to the house at night. It is dual purposed, in that some of the batteries can be used in my camper trailer power system when I go away to the dark site. In building the off grid system my goal was to minimise night time grid draw and it achieve this very well. For example, at night the off grid battery bank (through it's inverter) runs my household power needs (lights, and TV, stereo, ADSL router, PC etc). I run a single 10amp feed from my inverter down to the house and from that all my night time power is covered. You must use a separate cable system to the grid supply and cannot connect off grid power to the house AC wiring at any time.
Note that my entire system is approved by my electrical engineer son, no red neck engineering here.:

Dual purpose batteries where you can. Many people have caravan's, camper trailers, boats, etc with multiple 12V batteries - there is no reason that these can not be blended into the battery bank provided; you keep an eye of the output of each one and use similiar contructed batteries for all the 'toys'. A simple Anderson plug can bridge in a caravan power bank to a household bank (yes isolate them with a fusible link, etc) but it's not hard. Why have power storage sitting there to only be used a one a year when it could be used everyday. Connectivity does not have to be scary but you do need to be careful and provide adequate safe guards on any connection.

Lifestyle modification + solar can give you a great deal of indendence and position you to be ready for total withdrawal from the grid if you desire.

Sorry for the long rambling rant.

[The_bluester]

Unfortunately, while the did kick start solar PV in the market, the feed in tariff structure really is a pretty huge market distortion.

It doe not take much thought to see that when people were paying around 25 cents per KWH, but the feed in tariff was anything up to about 60 cents per KWH that it was going to be a problem sooner or later.

The only advantage is that it kick started the solar PV market (With all the bad things like cheap shoddy gear and fly by night installers) to the point where the cost of the equipment crashed and now it can hopefully sustain itself. Cost effective storage was the next bit of the puzzle now that feed in tariffs have returned to a bit more normal level. I am not sure what the actual margins are in the electricity market, but I would bet the price at Loy Yang is not much different to the feed in being paid now.

[speach]

Had solar panels fitting and solar hot water 3 years ago, has reduced our yearly spend on electricity from $1500 to $225.

[Paul Haese]

We had a 3 kw system installed home on the old system. We get the higher feed in tariff and another few years we will have finally paid it off. One thing that many who are only entering the market now seem to have forgotten is that pricing for systems as early adopters was huge. We paid nearly $9000 for our system. I know of several others who put in much bigger systems and they paid a big price. Suggesting there is a disparity for someone who buys a 3kw system now for $1800 -$3000 or so dollars really undermines those of us who helped the system develop by being early adopters. The incentive was listed as being only 17 years from the time of the introduction. I think we got in with about 15 years remaining. It made the switch affordable and removing that would punish us for doing the right thing early. So some might want to be a little grateful for those of us who paid the price early to help get the industry up and running.

As to the battery system. This will be our plan in the next 5-6 years once the system costs reduce down a lot. There is little incentive right now to jump in early while costs are quite high. We will try to increase our current system to around 11-15kw with a new inverter/s to suit and a battery system that will store around 85kw of power. The thinking here is that it will prevent the need to be on the grid entirely, provide several days back up power in the event of cloudy weather and I will be asking the power connection to be removed altogether. This will negate supply charges and power cuts when the annual black outs occur. The current cost of such a system is not even worth considering and since we have the larger feed in tariff I am content to stay where we are at present. I like the idea of going totally solar and more so I like the idea of preventing being gouged wholesale by suppliers. SA still has the highest power charges in the country and it appears set to increase further in the next year. Not to mention the actual benefits to the earth I will be providing by not burning coal (the poisons created from making the solar system are another matter though but we have to start somewhere). So my suggestion Robin is to wait off if you can. Get a larger storage system when it is affordable. Right now the system I mention above would cost around $85k.

[Hagar]

I understand your thoughts Paul but unfortunately your argument is wrong. To buy into solar today at the current transfer rates a pay back period of 50 years is almost unachievable. The only saving to be made is to actually change your lifestyle and use the energy you generate and not to allow any to return to the market. To pass energy into the market only extends the period required to gain any return on investment.

I just love this comment:" Suggesting there is a disparity for someone who buys a 3kw system now for $1800 -$3000 or so dollars really undermines those of us who helped the system develop by being early adopters." What a load of codswollop. You bought when you did because you could see a dollar in it and could afford it. To say you helped the system develop to where it is now is a fact now it is financially stupid to buy into the system at 6 or 8cents a kilowatt hour. at 68 cents for 20 years it was a good deal OK.

[rrussell1962]

Agreed Doug, to put it simply (assuming you have no storage capacity) If your feed in rate is above the tariff supply rate then you are better off doing nothing during the day, feeding into the grid and running appliances at night. Vice versa if your feed in rate is less than the tariff supply rate.

[Hagar]

The only cost effective solar available today is solar hot water. At least this is a zero use saving at market prices.

[glend]

All those old contracts should be torn up. The federal government needs to step in as there needs to be a national program, with a single buy back rate that can justify the business case for homeowner investment. They can call it 'Direct Action for Homeowners' or whatever. Recent adopters are just subsidising the old contracts. I agree there is no incentive to feed back to the grid in the current environment, and suspect that's exactly how the (State owned or now commerical) power companies want it.:shrug:

[Paul Haese]

Actually that is a bit unfair. Not everyone got into solar to make money. We got into it to a reduce our bills and because we liked the idea of doing the right thing. Remember that every bill you don't pay is also coming off the cost of your system. The feed in tariff has less to do with it. If you are paying $1000 a quarter then if you only pay $200 you are in fact saving $800 dollars off your bill and that is helping to pay off the investment into the system. Lower cost systems mean whilst you don't get much money back from feed in, you do actually save paying a bill and that economically means it justifies the lower cost system you bought. That is basic economics. Besides lots of people work from home now or do things during the day at home. Even with a low feed in tariff, you can have lots of things on and it not cost you a cent. And; even if the tariff is low, surely getting money off your bill is better than pay those schmucks in power full tote odds. I doubt anyone who has got into solar post or pre the tariff change regrets the decision. Clearly a difference of opinion.

[Paul Haese]

BTW, every state has its own buy in tariff. SA with the 8 cents included is only 52 cents. Not 68 cents.

I say this while I am enjoying some guilt free aircon powered by the sun.

[Allan_L]

Have you seen the adds from Origin for a new way of funding solar power?

https://www.originenergy.com.au/for-home/solar/plans-offers/solar-as-a-service.html

Basically, I think, you give permission for them to install solar panels on your roof.
They pay for it.
They own and maintain it (for a contract period?)
You can buy it off them at the end of the contract period.
In the mean time, they sell you the power it produces at a "Low" rate.
Any excess it produces is sold to the grid.

Just a bit different way to help fund a solar installation.
Sounds OK initially, but viability would depend on the actual numbers in the contract.

Just thought it was an interesting addition to this discussion.

[Kal]

I have absolutely no idea of how you come even remotely close to a figure of 50 years?!

I assisted my sister with a solar install about a year ago, and even with "only" an 8c feed in tarriff she is projected to pay off the system in about 7 years.

Also, 8c feed in is almost irrelevant, as the main saving is not having to spend 28c /kwh on buying it from the grid when you use the power through the day.

[PCH]

They've been doing this in Europe for 15 years or so Allan, so there's nothing terribly imaginative going on at Origin ;)

[Exfso]

Well I was just sitting back looking at this post. As usual, it seems to have gone off at a tangent somewhat. I for one did not buy the solar system to fill my pockets, it was purely to stop paying ridiculous prices to the greedy energy providers. I like Paul paid top dollar for a 4.6kw system that today costs damn near a 1/4 of what I paid. Yes I am getting the good feedin tariff, but I am well and truly out of pocket compared to the price of installation in todays market.
As a matter of fact when I did my calculations originally all I wanted was to stay cost neutral in the poor solar winter months, this necessitated getting a larger system than I wanted at the corresponding crazy price. Yes I make some dollars in the months where the sun is higher and up for longer, but it is all debits and credits.
I might add that since I connected to solar the cost of used power has risen quite considerably as well, so eventually I will be paying the suppliers as well. All I have done is delayed the inevitable really.
One thing is for sure, unless one installs a huge system, it is most definitely not a money making concern especially in todays terms. It would have been nice 3 yrs ago to do it, but I would have been up for $30k+ I have seen 10kw systems advertised here for around $8k currently. Not sure about the other states, but I believe in SA, the maximum size domestic system is 10kw.
I look at it this way, If I am no longer paying $500 per quarter for electricity, and am getting on average $200/quarter back, that is $2800 a year I am better off. Based on my basic calculations it would only take me around 5 years to pay the system off, this does not take into account the useage costs increasing. So it is definitely NOT a money making concern.
I just think, and it is only my opinion that it was a smart move. I still think it is a smart move as the outlay is way less now, and used correctly most definitely off-sets power consumption and the associated costs to the householder. Granted the feedin is lousy, but the initial cost is way way less, slippery dips and merry go rounds I reckon.:P

Just my 20c worth !!

[Bassnut]

For the 1st time in years, I got sucked into a slick cold call sales pitch. Offering a "free" solar panel system, I signed up and blow me down it seems to be just that. The up front cost was covered by gov rebate and the rest by a 7 year lease, which payments were (just) less than the savings on the power bill. I effectively paid nothing. After 7 yrs its all upside. I dont like being locked into a 7 yr agreement (gets ugly if I move). It works for me because I work from home, it wouldnt if the house was empty during the day.

Im keen to see what is possible when battery storage becomes financially viable, I bet a smart co will offer that "free" too on a lease arrangement.

[Hagar]

I knew my comments would stir a s##### fight but the figures just can't be disputed. With the market cost of electricity at between 25 and 35 cents a KW/h and the buy back tarrif at 8 cents it is almost impossible to justify solar if you do not use the energy you produce. Even then, if you have insufficient solar to power your fridge, washing machine and whatever else you will need to run to use it the cost will just rise by another step.

At no point did I say anyone was stealing off another but the fact is that the higher tarriffs must be paid for by someone. You guessed it. The rest of us.
Even the 8 cent tariff is no longer guaranteed for any reasonable period.

As for the high costs originally charged for installations that was just price gouging by greedy installers and not a true representation of the actual costs. The cost a few years back for installation was not 7 or 8 times what it costs today while the buy back tariff was 7 0r 8 times what it is today.

When storage systems become a viable alternative to selling excess power to the grid I will again look at the alternatives.

[Bassnut]

Thats VERY much the key. The co that supplied me wasnt interested in me at all unless I could prove daytime consumption to at least equal solar output (with bill samples, to protect the advertised claim of "free"), they admitted the feed in rate was irrelivant.

[Hagar]

Ok Kal, your right I just threw in some figures but even your figures assume the cost of electricity doesn't change over the period, I wonder if they take into account the cost of borrowing the money or the reduction of income from the money or the fact that very little if any guarantee of buy back tariff for the life of your or her panels.

I am really just saying that the days when a return on investment have all but vanished in fact you are better off investing in any of the energy companies as a share holder.

Solar hot water is a different matter entirely. It is very hard for the CEO's of the energy companies to infiltrate the hot water market. I am sure they would if they could.

[Kal]

For anyone considering this I'd seriously recommend reading all the fine print. I looked into one recently and at no stage do you ever own the equipment. At the end of the 7 year lease (10 and 15 year leases were also options on the one I investigated), you have the option to enter into another lease, buy the equipment off them, or pay to have the system removed. The savings as you mention are marginal, and it ties you down to the one energy provider on a long term contract removing your ability to shop around for a better electricity deal down the track.

[Bassnut]

Good call on all points. I pay $100 at the end of the lease to own it. The savings are indeed marginal (for 7 yrs, although if electricity prices go up, im ahead). I dont know if I am tied down to one provider, it was a non-energy provider that installed the system and another 3rd party provided the lease, ill look into that.

[Kal]

looks like you got a far better deal than the one I investigated (which was offered by a large energy provider) there Fred

[Exfso]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but in my case in SA, I get 52c/kwh that is fed in. Of that 52c the Govt subsidises in the order of 44c which means that for each kwh I feed back in it costs the supplier 8c. They then on sell that to subscribers for the rates they charge in the order of 25-35c/kwh used depending on time of year etc etc. So they are making money out of my feed-in based on my logic. Is this correct? The only organisation out of pocket is the State Govt as they subsidise the feed-in. So how can Fred Nurk who does not have solar be affected. Sure there are taxes etc, but they are applied to all. So if the Govt puts up tax as a result it is not just Fred Nurk who is on the receiving end, it is everyone including the people who are getting subsidised for having solar connected. Based on that logic Solar should not have ever started as the powers that are in control would not have had the excuse to up the taxes on Solar.
I think at least here in SA, big business is a huge user of solar panels, I believe something in the order of over 1000 panels are going to be fitted to the Adelaide Airport just to name one. Surely if no private people adopted to uptake solar, the Govt would still up taxes to cover business Feed in tariff. So we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Maybe I cannot see the wood for the trees, but I do not believe that the general public can be blamed for the increased cost of power because they decided to install solar.
After all it is the Power companies that keep putting up the prices, makes me wonder how they can justify it, with the excuse that they have to pay feed in to customers that have solar. As Doug said they are paying 25c upwards for each KW they buy, but who are they paying, certainly not the punters. They are making upward of 70% profit on what they buy from those feeding in to the grid.
Maybe my math is flawed, if so I will just shut up an butt out...:P

[Tandum]

Cheers Roger, got a lot from that one although those commercial battery banks they use in the house are way out of every ones price range.

Also, everyone is talking solar and feed in tariffs. Solar only works about 25% of the day. See attached pic from street view. A lot of these are popping up around town. I'll need to look into it.

Paul, I'm forward planning. I wanna sell up and get outta dodge so this is planned for our next/last house.
Besides, the police here are just tax collectors and they just sent me another bill.
Surely they have something better to do.

[tlgerdes]

Coming back to the original question, target than ask this talk on feed in tariffs. If it worth it to build an offgrid solar system. To go fully offgrid for a normal house is going to require significant investment, you are going to need at least 2 times your daily power consumption in usuable battery storage and the ability to recharge that battery storage inside a day.

So take 15kw/hr a day house.

Thats at least 30kw/hrs of usable battery power (which could means upto 45kw/hrs of s storage to cater for depth of discharge) and at least 6kw of solar (recharge on a winters day)

That's not a cheap system in today's tech. The over spec is needed to cater for those cloudy/rainy days (sorry you can't use the fridge today as we have no power).

Hydrid solutions are probably a better idea, (like the Tesla power wall) where they store a few hrs of power to get you through the peak evening period and you buy from the grid and excess you can't supply locally.

[GrampianStars]

This is the Key solar needs to be used

I have charts on the wall for times of usage for high power drain appliances
daytime use ONLY and they CAN'T be running at the same time
i.e. toaster,kettle,washing machine,iron, etc......
you get the picture

I have a 3K array on the roof + a 600watt wind generator :thumbsup:
usage is an average 11Kwh per day
the system has now fully payed for itself
and NO power bills

when LITHIUM batteries become mainstream within the next 5 years
I will be buying a NEW inverter/charger
& a battery bank of 5 days redundancy

[speach]

here here

[Hagar]

As usual where commercial enterprises are concerned it is never this simple.

To put it simply the energy companies get a bucket full of cash from Government. They consider this money to be their money out of this they have to pay out for the so called government subsidies but as well charge equally as much to manage the system and as usual make a profit on the whole scheme.

The easiest way to prove such is to look at the day the Carbon Tax was repealed. AGL (one of the big companies) announced a predicted reduction in income due to the loss of the Carbon Tax. I thought it was suppose to be cost neutral with energy companies.

Every thing any energy company touches is now just a grab for cash that we as the end users must pay for. So to think Government is paying anything is nothing more than shifting the blame, It's just tax payers paying the bills.

The only way to beat the bast ards is to go off the grid but technology is not quite there and none of the dedicated energy companies want a bar of it.

[GrampianStars]

Originally Posted by glend View Post
all those old contracts should be torn up. The federal government needs to step in as there needs to be a national program, with a single buy back rate that can justify the business case for homeowner investment. They can call it 'direct action for homeowners' or whatever. Recent adopters are just subsidising the old contracts. I agree there is no incentive to feed back to the grid in the current environment, and suspect that's exactly how the (state owned or now commerical) power companies want it. :shrug:



You mean like i.e. "CONTRA Power inc" ;)
or "The Rebel Alliance" :lol:

[clive milne]

Yes... so by definition it is possible




fwiw) I worked for a while analysing energy and resource usage of various organisations (and private individuals) and then presenting strategies (to them) for the purpose of reducing costs and environmental impacts.
Which means if nothing else, my opinion is based on a fairly critical review of broad spectrum of examples in the real world.

So, take the following comment as you will....
Don't even think about an off grid battery array until you have analysed where you are using energy and made every attempt to reduce that figure and eliminated all waste.
The good news is that considering the amount of energy you are currently using, it would be a fairly safe statement to make that you have massive opportunities to reduce that figure. You are using double the energy required to run a normal home, and probably close to five times what it would take to run an efficient home.

[clive milne]

I agree with much of what you said in your last post Doug (I trimmed the quote for brevity)

And at the risk of taking this thread OT.... here's a little fun poked at Australia's wealthiest (energy) welfare dependants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MO9YrJVnR8

[pmrid]

I see here a tendency to demonise the people who spent the money up front to install solar systems and accept the grid-feed rats on offer. I too think that is grossly unfair.

At the time, the various governments and energy suppliers were touting grid-connected systems aggressively. They were offering time-payment plans and other incentives to persuade people to go solar. And they were competing with one-another to attract customers.

We initially signed up at the feed-in rate of 50 cents per KwH and subsequently charged to another supplier who offered us 54 cents. They pursued us. We were happy to accept their offer.

We had spent over $10 grand to establish a small 2.7 KW system. And that included signing over the (forgot what they called them then but then) to the installer. So the actual cost was a few grand higher.

Are we not entitled to insist that the energy companies honor they contracts they went to such lengths to secure? Are we not entitled to see our investment return the promised rate?

Those rates are not indexed. They devalue year-by-year. And they don't affect the daily access charge which, please note this - has quadrupled in the past few years. At about $1.30 per day, it is eroding any nominal advantage we one had.

I refuse to be made guilty for doing what the governments of the day and the energy companies pushed and touted so aggressively.

Peter

[glend]

Look Peter we all pay increasing grid connect charges so you need to take that out of the comparative advantage equation. Yes you paid more for your system than the equivalent system today however todays panels in addition to being cheaper are much more efficient at generating electricity. So unless someone can come up with a comparative advantage model it is pointless to compare the business cases for each.
However, the politics of a 'cast system' of preferential rates will always be an annoyance to people regardless of how much less they paid for their system.
If you were a farmer growing wheat, wouldn't you be annoyed that your neighbor who started growing the same wheat earlier than you gets paid more for his wheat than you do?. Sure his startup costs might have been greater but the end product is identical. Photons are photons regardless of whose panels they strike.

[pmrid]

Glen, I don't give a rats how unfair others may feel it is. I was pursed and persuaded by government and industry into entering into a contract on the basis of which I forked out $10 grand. It's called equitable estoppel. You offered, I accepted. I spent the money on the basis of the promises made. I expect that contract to be honored. End of story.

Peter

[Hagar]

Great Peter don't feel guilty I doubt any one here is expecting you to but each and every one here has the right to an opinion be it with you or against you.
:shrug:

[tlgerdes]

As a latecomer to solar I don't feel any animosity towards Peter for getting in early. I congratulate him. I'm on a lousy 5c FIT, but I crunched the numbers and could still make it work.

When the rebates first came in in 2008 you were paying $35k for a 3.5kw system. In 2014 a 4kw system was $6k.

My $6k outlay still netts me a 15% ROI. Try and get that from a riskless investment.

[glend]

Perhaps this thread should return to the original question.

[Hagar]

Earlier in the year there was some huge improvements in Lithium technology Batteries developed by an Australian University research group but they have gone very quiet. From memory it was an increase in capacity of something like 5 times for no significant increase in size. It will still depend on discharge capacity and capability.
Research like this may make off the grid a reality. I will see if I can find the article.

[tlgerdes]

I think we are only about 5 years from the start of the revolution. Once 20kwh of batteries plus inverter/charger combos are around $10k, we will start seeing the move.

This sort of tech though is really bring investigated by the power companies as well. They want to bring the batteries to your suburb to soak up the your current solar and give it back to you at 6pm

[Allan_L]

Returning to the original topic...
This is a recent offer from AGL for "under $10,000"
Edit: price does not include the panels

(sorry the pdf exceeds IIS filesize restrictions, so hope link works)

http://aglsolar.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AGL_Battery_Storage.pdf