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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it is almost impossible to justify solar if you do not use the energy you produce.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
......A 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speach
here here
You mean like i.e. "CONTRA Power inc"
or "The Rebel Alliance"
