Why solar power in no longer a viable proposition for low income earners in WA

[TrevorW]

Less than a week after the shock closure of the feed-in tariff scheme in New South Wales, the Government of Western Australia has cut the subsidy rate for new residential applications submitted after June 30.

The state will also be subject to a cap on installations, putting a halt to progress just one year after the scheme was introduced. The feed-in tariff rate for new installations will now be cut in half, with applicants receiving AUD$0.20/kWh instead of the AUD$0.40/kWh rate that was introduced in July last year. All existing customers will continue to receive the higher tariff rate for the originally-proposed 10 years.

And furthermore Synergy the local power producer has cut their rebate to 7c per kW although they on charge power at 21.8c per kW (as 25% increase over last years rate)

As I've stated before to even make having a viable system you need at least 3kW production capacity which costs around $8,000 to install.

Go figure with the introduction of the Carbon tax it makes you wonder why the Govt is making it more difficult less attractive for people to invest in alternative energy.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

Tell me how this surprises you ?
Did you really think they would actually give you what they promised - they only give you what they promised NOT to.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Don't think the shadow would get it right either. Government now is all about revenue.
Although as the number of solar installation goes up the less it will get. The main thing that is considered to be viable for the tariff is the interface cost. Which I believe is around $500.00 the rest of the installation primary benefit is mostly for the home. So it will get to the stage when installation will forget the feed in device.
[Edit] - There will be more low voltage home installation done DIY though.

Although I believe cutting subsidies is design to introduce green power providers into WA, Currently WA is the only state in Australia that is in power monopoly at the moment and consumers are ask to pay extra 7c KW/hr for the federal government greenpower initiative.

Most really low income people live in rental properties anyway and solar power has in most no benefit as agents/owners are not required to pay the electricity.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nothing surprising...considering what industries actually back the governments with ready cash, or at least cash for their re-elections.

They don't want these schemes to succeed.

[BPO]

The good news is that the price of photovoltaic components and systems continues to fall. The drop has already been substantial, with no sign of it slowing.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Actually I am thinking of building my own panels, You can now get individual cells to solder together.

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

......
As I've stated before to even make having a viable system you need at least 3kW production capacity which costs around $8,000 to install.
.......

IMO Still pretty cheap for relatively FREE power for the rest of your life.
Totally paid for by year 6


i.e. $8,000 / 20 years = $ 400 per year at current rates.

consider currently average power = $ 800 per year increasing at 20% per year
= $ 4,950 per year in only the 10th year
blowing out to a whopping $ 25,500 per year in year 20
crazy not to go 4 it

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

$400.00 per year and increasing is a great achievement but the initial outlay is completely out of reach for low income.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

It's just a matter of time, the price will fall more and more. My wife and I got our system nearly 10 years ago. I think we paid nearly $8K for our inverter lol, panels were over $1500 each!
Once we come up with good cheap storage methods they ay become a standard feature of new houses. Just think no power lines more sky for us.

[coldspace]

Problem is that inverters will fail before the panels. People will be tipping in lots of $ down the track to get new ones.
And panels also will lose efficiency over the years.

The price of the current systems even after rebates needs to halve again before I'll put it in.
Good news is that a friend who owns a large solar buisiness recons in a year or 2 the big manufactures will have systems half the cost of now. The market is getting too big for them not to mass produce.

[midnight (Darrin)]

I am all for distributed power generation and solar is definitely a real contender as it is fairly straight forward, highly reliable and bugger all maintenance.

However, the tariffs initially implemented ($0.6/kWhr gross! in NSW) is ridiculous and doomed to fail or hit its budget limit quickly. Even $0.4/kWhr is imo too high. It should represent a geniune market price and the subsidies need to target the initial capital cost. Then the generated price of carbon based power (eg coal fired) should then be appropriately "taxed" or charged or whatever to improve the cost position of solar/wind/other generation. This is what the government should be directing its carbon tax torwards. This is what I can't understand about our current "leaders" as they have not adequately defined what the carbon tax is actually going to do other then redistribute a tax collected and deploy it in other non incentive based ways.

An opportunity Australia is rapidly losing.

Darrin...

[Jeffkop (Jeff)]

This is what the government should be directing its carbon tax torwards. This is what I can't understand about our current "leaders" as they have not adequately defined what the carbon tax is actually going to do other then redistribute a tax collected and deploy it in other non incentive based ways.

An opportunity Australia is rapidly losing.

Darrin...

Exactly right my friend !!!!
Whats the point in taxing for the sake of the "environment", as I keep hearing from one woman, IF your NOT going to invest ALL of the tax back into sustainable energy development ... I mean THIS IS ALL for the environment .. right !!!!
I can say with absolute certainty that I will morph into a woman before that will happen.

[Barrykgerdes]

I have a NSW 60c/KWh system that cost $4400.
The money was sitting in the bank earning between 4% and 6% so I invested it in solar electricity.

After 4 months returns I have a projected earnings of betwwen $1150 and $1480 per annum.

If I write my investment of over 5 years the nett return will be between 6.1% and 13% P.A. (Tax free for me). The contract is for 7 years so the final returns will be much higher. I live on the government purse already. I have never had so much surplus cash before.

I am quite happy with the system and I have no interest in the carbon tax scam because that is what it is.

Barry

[TrevorW]

[QUOTE=Barrykgerdes;739730]I have a NSW 60c/KWh system that cost $4400.

Not in WA our rate of return is 27c per kw

this refers to low income earners not many families could afford the $8k to invest in a system

[Barrykgerdes]

[QUOTE=TrevorW;739852]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I have a NSW 60c/KWh system that cost $4400.

Not in WA our rate of return is 27c per kw

this refers to low income earners not many families could afford the $8k to invest in a system

Just rubbing it in
The government classes me as low income!

Barry

[midnight (Darrin)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I have a NSW 60c/KWh system that cost $4400.
The money was sitting in the bank earning between 4% and 6% so I invested it in solar electricity.

After 4 months returns I have a projected earnings of betwwen $1150 and $1480 per annum.

If I write my investment of over 5 years the nett return will be between 6.1% and 13% P.A. (Tax free for me). The contract is for 7 years so the final returns will be much higher. I live on the government purse already. I have never had so much surplus cash before.

I am quite happy with the system and I have no interest in the carbon tax scam because that is what it is.

Barry

Barry,

If I were in your position, I would do the same thing. Very business like and you have taken advantage of that.

Looking at the solar scheme from an "environmental" point of view, the scheme has failed to kick on imo because the opportunity for low income earners (and everyone for that matter) should be there to buy into the technology with the assistance of a so called "carbon" tax. The current pricing is unsustainable and the capital costs beyond a lot of people's capability to get into it.

From a business point of view, you appear to have done your investment calcs well and I would probably do the same thing. But from an environment point of view, the schemes have missed the mark and will continue to degrade until the pricing matches a true market consideration for its value (and can only happen if a tax is put on coal etc because carbon based power generation is relatively much cheaper)

Darrin...

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

The carbon will work just fine, After trying to get our power companies to invest in renewable power for many years even the Liberals know the they will not unless forced. That’s why we early had a deal a few times. Tony's politics before policy has been unhelpful.
The carbon tax will have a two fold pressure on power companies. Not only will they be tax for the carbon they release. their customers will be able to collect the compo from the gov and move to power suppliers that do generate green power. That’s a win win for the people who can be bothered and a win for the companies that have invested in new tech.
BTW Coal is only cheaper if you don't count the full cost.

I didn't want to seem party political both Liberal and Labor have far to many exe lawyers in it. As we all know lawyers are trained to argue a position they don't believe in for money. Becoming a Polly allows them to get money and power.