Electricity bills

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Top_oz

A lot of the network costs are recovered through c/kWh charges (often you don't see this on the bill but a cut of the charge is passed through the retailers). So as distributed renewables start to penetrate further into the market, we may end up in a situation where there isn't enough revenue flowing back to the networks to cover opex.

I thought this was covered by the "Supply charge" that's around $1.15 per day and unavoidable whether you have solar or not? As in, it's the cost of being part of the grid. To me, that's the fair way to handle it - a base charge that's your "rent" for the day. Usage after that is paid for, etc.

I expect the Supply charge to continue to rise over time to maintain and improve the grid itself. There is a point though where this figure will accelerate more people to going off-grid and avoiding the cost altogether.

I think the per kWh figure will become more dynamic as we move towards more VPP with market/supply demand everywhere.

[Crater101 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Top_oz

Re kettles and irons. Yes their power rating is high but because utilisation is low, energy consumption is also low. In the average home, hot water and heating/cooling are the big users.

I concede the point. The hot water issue had escaped me as I also have solar hot water and during 75% of the year it's off the mains anyway.

Originally Posted by lazjen

Warren: you may need to get your inverter checked, but at 10% loss in the system, I probably wouldn't stress over it for a while.

You made some good points, and thank you. I'm not stressing over it yet, just monitoring it, but getting it checked isn't a bad thought.



I was interested to note your comments re batteries too. When our system was installed, they weren't economical to install. And yes, our system shuts off automatically in the case of a power failure to prevent anyone working on the lines nearby getting zapped by what we're feeding back into the grid.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Top_oz

...

So either they jack up the c/kWh rates, so you have non-solar customers subsidising those with solar, or they reach a point where you pay $x,000 p.a. to have the security of the grid connection. I suspect consumers won't like either scenario.

Not entirely right I din't think. They set differential rates depending whether you have solar or not. So already, there is a solar penalty built in to the pricing models.

Another factor that I believe will kick in sometime this year is a new demand-based tarrif structure - i.e. you pay substantiaslly more in peak demand periods (when you are cooking dinner or running an aircon during the day or running a HWS). If this happens, strategies currently used to mitigate power bills by solar won't work as well. For example, I have my HWS on a timer that kicks in at 11 a.m. and out at noon - i.e. peak solar times so the solar covers the whole cosumption of power for hot water. Pool pumps can similarly be configured to run only between say 8 am and 4 pm so they too can use the solar power you are generating (or some of it).

When demand-based tariffs come into play, I think I will have another look at Tesla-type storage batteries. At current price-points, these can't ever hope to cover their cost until the warranty has expired - 10 years or so. But the game changes with demand tariffs.

[xelasnave]

Are there any subsidies to instal solar power if like me you are not on the grid?

With cloudy weather the reality is one needs to have the genny running every day so I don't know why it is presented as something that can save the planet as I expect when the sun is not shinning in the city the panels there don't produce power either...I don't know why more attention is not given to generating power by hydro...the Snowey idea except instead of diverting the water inland just let it go where it always went.
Alex


Alex

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Crater101

I was interested to note your comments re batteries too. When our system was installed, they weren't economical to install.

Batteries are still very far from being economically worthwhile right now. If you're wanting to get them, you need to have other reasons than any attempt to save money. And even then, you have to compare them to having a generator, for example.

As Peter and I have mentioned, the dynamic pricing of electricity could change things significantly for batteries and renewables in general.

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Are there any subsidies to instal solar power if like me you are not on the grid?

Doubt it, but also the solar subsidies in general are starting to become rarer across Australia.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

With cloudy weather the reality is one needs to have the genny running every day so I don't know why it is presented as something that can save the planet as I expect when the sun is not shinning in the city the panels there don't produce power either...I don't know why more attention is not given to generating power by hydro...the Snowey idea except instead of diverting the water inland just let it go where it always went.

If you want true off grid, you can still do it without needing to run a generator a lot, but it's a matter of how much you use and how much you want to pay for storage, etc to avoid the need for the generator.

As for hydro, the common approach of making dams is pretty stupid for all the impacts they can cause. There are other approaches though for more "inline" style turbines that can generate electricity without impacting the waterflow or the wildlife.

[Peter Ward]

We've been running a 9kW PV array with Tesla Powerwall II for about 3 years now.

Annual bill currently about $700.00 ....but wait there's more...we have an EV which needs about 100kw a week for us to get about. (if my arithmetic is correct that's about 24 cents per 100km if we only feed it overnight with off-peak power...even less if we let the PV's charge it up) but...if you burn say 8 litres per 100km in a ICE powered car, the cost is about $11.00 per 100km)

So we are saving $3300 per year with the PV system and assuming you do an average of 8000km per year, $860 a year in fuel bills. All up over $4100 a year by going to renewable power.

Seems like a no brainer to me....

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by lazjen

Doubt it, but also the solar subsidies in general are starting to become rarer across Australia.



If you want true off grid, you can still do it without needing to run a generator a lot, but it's a matter of how much you use and how much you want to pay for storage, etc to avoid the need for the generator.

As for hydro, the common approach of making dams is pretty stupid for all the impacts they can cause. There are other approaches though for more "inline" style turbines that can generate electricity without impacting the waterflow or the wildlife.

I think you are correct that those who actually need solar dont get any help..not enough voters to worry about so addressing that inequity is unlikely...once you got a decent rebate but some smart Polly realised there are not enough votes on the table and dropped it..hardley fair.

.You are right about storage... the main house, and they are very energy wise, has sufficient to last one day of wet and that is a $6000 battery bank..to have one week storage I worked it out to require up to $35,000 for batteries..to cover the past wet month and that to come I expect you would need $100,000 battery bank probably more the way it is going...So many folk have ideas about solar that really are not in touch with the reality ...which is... you really need a generator in the mix..no ifs or buts...it is entirely unrealistic in my view to think you can get by on Sunlight alone...having lived off grid since 1996 I feel my experience gives me a reasonable view of how it works...I need a genny for a small air conditioner as well ..only 2000 watts ..but 2000 watts is going to require a huge solar system..maybe $30,000...so a genny at $800 and $25 a week in petrol seems smarter.

I think your dismissal of hydro on the basis of yet to be determined impacts of un nominated dams is rather odd as the various problems ( which you failed to cover) say with fish migration are relatively easy to overcome....I think the reason we have environmental impact studies is so we get a factual assessment as opposed to an uninformed casual dismissal...I think the negativity re dams is due to propaganda from those who seek dominance in the energy business ( one body is lobbying hard to get their solution accepted) and clearly the Snowey has been painted in a bad light when the problem there never was anything to do with the generation of power but due to the diversion of the river for agriculture to the West...unfortunately folk just dismiss hydro without thinking and responding as programmed to do so by the negative propaganda..in my view...why would you not go hydro as it is simply the best...

My solution to my situation is from now until I get Sunlight is I won't run a fridge ..just use powdered milk, canned foods, candles and minimise the petrol consumption to charge the phone and tablet....

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

We've been running a 9kW PV array with Tesla Powerwall II for about 3 years now.

Annual bill currently about $700.00 ....but wait there's more...we have an EV which needs about 100kw a week for us to get about. (if my arithmetic is correct that's about 24 cents per 100km if we only feed it overnight with off-peak power...even less if we let the PV's charge it up) but...if you burn say 8 litres per 100km in a ICE powered car, the cost is about $11.00 per 100km)

So we are saving $3300 per year with the PV system and assuming you do an average of 8000km per year, $860 a year in fuel bills. All up over $4100 a year by going to renewable power.

Seems like a no brainer to me....

Hi Peter you must get something on a wet day..May I ask how much your panels produce on a Sun less day..I was surprised that up at the main house they get 12 to 15 amps sometimes ( 12 volts) when over cast which surprised me.
Alex

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I think your dismissal of hydro on the basis of yet to be determined impacts of un nominated dams is rather odd as the various problems ( which you failed to cover) say with fish migration are relatively easy to overcome....I think the reason we have environmental impact studies is so we get a factual assessment as opposed to an uninformed casual dismissal...I think the negativity re dams is due to propaganda from those who seek dominance in the energy business ( one body is lobbying hard to get their solution accepted) and clearly the Snowey has been painted in a bad light when the problem there never was anything to do with the generation of power but due to the diversion of the river for agriculture to the West...unfortunately folk just dismiss hydro without thinking and responding as programmed to do so by the negative propaganda..in my view...why would you not go hydro as it is simply the best...

Actually I did not dismiss hydro - I just want it done in an environmentally safe manner, instead of huge dams drowning lots of land or river diversions, etc. As I previously mentioned, the tech is out there now for doing it with these low impact turbines. They're being rolled out in various places around the world to assist getting power to remote places or developing nations, etc.

If you wander over to youtube and do some searching you'll see examples of low environmental impact hydro turbines.

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

We've been running a 9kW PV array with Tesla Powerwall II for about 3 years now.

Annual bill currently about $700.00 ....but wait there's more...we have an EV which needs about 100kw a week for us to get about. (if my arithmetic is correct that's about 24 cents per 100km if we only feed it overnight with off-peak power...even less if we let the PV's charge it up) but...if you burn say 8 litres per 100km in a ICE powered car, the cost is about $11.00 per 100km)

So we are saving $3300 per year with the PV system and assuming you do an average of 8000km per year, $860 a year in fuel bills. All up over $4100 a year by going to renewable power.

Seems like a no brainer to me....

I forgot about the EV side of things - don't have that yet, but as you show, if you've got an EV, using the solar + batteries makes even more sense.

[TrevorW]

Our Govt wants to say one thing and do another, solar is not profitable for them when we have a load on non renewable energy sources readily available for sale.



They receive political donations from both mining and energy producers who rely on these non renewables but are not profiting from renewables.



I believe in some states of the US that the tariff for solar is one to one and I love to get a power wall but I'd be dead by the time I recoup the cost

[Top_oz (Tim)]

Originally Posted by lazjen

I thought this was covered by the "Supply charge" that's around $1.15 per day and unavoidable whether you have solar or not? As in, it's the cost of being part of the grid. To me, that's the fair way to handle it - a base charge that's your "rent" for the day. Usage after that is paid for, etc.

There is always a usage based charge as well.

If you take a look at the link below you can get an idea of what goes back to the network operator (note this is for Ausgrid's area where I am but I see you're in Qld so you would need to look up your specific network).

https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/D...-FY2020-21.pdf

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Peter you must get something on a wet day..May I ask how much your panels produce on a Sun less day..I was surprised that up at the main house they get 12 to 15 amps sometimes ( 12 volts) when over cast which surprised me.
Alex

It varies...at this time of year a very wet an overcast day might see only 7kw produced for the whole day. Where as a cloudless day would see the PV system produce about 40Kw for the day.

The panels you get however can make a vast difference in low light conditions...we have some excellent LG panels on our north facing array, but our east facing panels are "Tier 1" panels which frankly are rubbish...My older but wiser advice is run a mile from anyone flogging "Tier 1" panels.

As far as the Power wall II goes, payback took only 3 years...it is configured to kick in during peak billing times (around 60 cents per Kw) hence our peak tariff is almost nil for most quarterly bills.

[xelasnave]

Thanks Peter.
I have been approaching the problem the wrong way...We don't need more batteries we need more panels so that even on a cloudy day they will produce all they need at the house.

I will look at the data ...like $6000 on more panels may solve a problem that $30,000 in batteries would not...

I am putting together a new system for the caravan in which I now live mostly ( although I spend more time in the new roll off now that there is a bed in there) using 8 x 190 watt panels, to charge 8 acid batteries ( 500 amps at 24 volt) ..the hold up is making the slab for the garden shed to house the batteries, inverter etc ( plus can get the genny out of the weather) ..I had my earth mover level the spot but I need to cover it with rocks before I do any concreting...and for me such manual work will take ages...However I will retain the current 12 volt system that is in the van, 300 amp hours at 12 volts and use the new system basically to charge it when it needs it..but all up I should be able to run the van and the observatory without too much suffering.
And thinking about it with 8 extra panels I will probably get all I need even on a cloudy day.
Plus I have two smaller units ( 120 watt regulated panels, 120 amp hour at 12 volt batteries, and each with a small inverter ...one unit basically to serve the scope, camera and lap top and the other to run a small 240 volt fan and my guitar amp.

I am getting a system for the house where the panels use no battery and just heat your hot water...at the moment their hot water is via a fuel stove.

And to connect to the grid I have no quote but I estimate between $250,000 and $500,000 and I will not waste money on that to then have an electricity bill.

Alex

[pmrid (Peter)]

Alex, I am sure you appreciate the difference between grid and off-grid installations, but others may not. So I thought I might add a couple of comments. In an entirely off-grid system, you are limited by the weather, the capacity of your battery bank and the capacity of your inverter. Since few appliances run straight from the panels, you are hostage to the maximum capacity of your inverter. And you can have heaps of panels, but there is no point in having more than your batteries can absorb. You can’t over-fill a battery. You can add more batteries for longer stand-by power of course but that won’t allow to draw power at any greater rate than your inverter can handle. There is a cost-benefit issue there and yo7 can waste a lot of money if you don’t get it right.

On the other hand, a grid-connected system allows you to draw as much power and at as great a rate as you want - at a price. You can drawn power from your panels during the day with no battery bank at all. And more panels produces more you can use while the sun is out. And when it is not, you can run your lights etc off the grid.

I realise you are totally off-grid so the key to our success is in a battery bank capable of giving you about 3 days power without running the batteries down below about 66% and an Inverter capable of running your most demanding appliance at the same time as whatever else you want. I would not think much less than 3kW and perhaps a bit more.

Peter

[ngcles]

Hi Peter,

Originally Posted by pmrid

Just got my 4th quarter bill. Strewth! I’m paying a Chinese-owned company $0.28/kWh for ordinary usage plus $1.15 a day supply charge. Against that I am credited with $0.11/kWh for solar feed-in. The supply charge effectively means I am not being paid for about 11kWh of solar I feed into the grid. I do get credited for what is left over. The supply charge is effectively wiping out over half my daily feed into the grid. I suppose I could live with that if they actually paid me but so far, after nearly a year of being in credit, they pay me nothing. Wow, what a scam.

Peter

Yes, the "daily supply charge" is the killer.

I suggest you shop around. I am on a substantially better deal than that with Origin. My usage is charged at 30.59c per KWh (flat rate). My daily supply charge is 151.25c per day. My feed-in tariff is 21c per KWh. I have 9.3KW of panels spilt over two arrays with 8KW worth of inverter power, though I am limited to exporting 6KW on single-phase power. My record daily export to the grid is 50.76KWh. My average exports per day is about 29KWh and average usage from the grid about 6.3KWh per day.

Before installing the second (6.3KW) array about a year ago my average annual bill was $790. Per annum, I now export just over 10,500KWh of power to the grid while consuming about 2,300KWh from the grid. My average credit per quarter is about $270 and annual credit to me is almost $1,100. If my current deal holds it will repay the investment in the second array in less than ten quarters.

Best,

L.

[ngcles]

Hi John,

Originally Posted by The Mekon

No. The scam is that you are receiving credit for your feed in. I would like to see this whole scheme scrapped and anyone with solar panels just use them to augment their own consumption. At present you are profiting at the expense of poor people who cannot afford solar panels.

I respectfully disagree. If we only had them to augment our own consumption, few people would invest in them because most people (unlike retirees) are out in the daytime and power usage then is pretty minimal. There would be very little real advantage to anyone and almost no incentive to invest in a system.

"Profiting at the expense of poor people ..."??

No, in fact we are supplying clean energy to the grid at the lowest generating cost in Australia. If that saving were passed on by the utility companies, electricity is bound to be cheaper -- for everyone. I feel no shame whatsoever receiving an annual credit of about $1,100 from my provider -- I invested a total about $9,500 to have my two arrays installed (total panels 9.3KWh, inverter 8KW).

I supply enough energy to the grid annually to easily power two other houses with clean energy. Are you suggesting I should simply do that out of the generosity of my own heart?

Best,

L.

P.S -- Also a self-funded retiree who similarly receives nil direct financial support from the government.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

Retired, currently self-funded and with limited mobility and strength due to a major DVT that almost killed me a few months ago.

I spent months considering a solar system as we have an ideal north facing roof. I'm usually prepared to spend $$ for quality but the costs quoted for a supposedly quality inverter and LG panels, etc., just did not sit comfortably.

We decided to look into the companies currently advertising on TV and figured after more "research" we would "take a punt" on a 10ish KW system from SolarBoost. We're fortunate to be able to pay "up front" and if anything fails outside of warranty to deal with it........NO, we're not wealthy but we will make sure there's enough in the bank to cover contingencies.

We're prepared to make any changes necessary to the times we run appliances and should we receive a rebate of some sort then well and good and while I've found this one of the more beneficial threads on IIC, unfortunately, I can only wish one person had kept their opinion to themselves.

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

Originally Posted by Ausrock

Retired, currently self-funded and with limited mobility and strength due to a major DVT that almost killed me a few months ago.

unfortunately, I can only wish one person had kept their opinion to themselves.

Surely you cannot mean me? Look, If I have to argue with you, then I must take a contrary position. (thanks John Cleese!)