Rooftop Pv installers in Sydney area

:terryc wrote: :> Any recommendations? : :Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money. : :Sylvia.

Why do you say that?

Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for a

1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the current prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid tie inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the gov't $8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.

Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of electricity is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.

Reply to
Ross Herbert
Loading thread data ...

:MisterE wrote: :>> Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money. :> :> There are a few niches where it works. :> For example a 1kilowatt system can be had fully installed for less than :> $4,000 after goverment rebates. With the 25 year warranty it should just :> about break even at this point. : :Well, even there it remains a huge waste of money - just that the money :being wasted is the taxpayer's. : :> :> Also QLD you can sell back excess power for 44c/kwhour, about 3 times what :> it costs to buy, so you will also save some on your power bill. I was about :> to get one installed because it worked out marginally cheaper for me, but :> they moved the $8,000 to families that earn under $100k. : :I can't imagine why QLD power utilities are required to pay so much for :it, other than political stupidity. : :Sylvia.

It will become Australia wide (not just Qld) after July 09 I am told.

Reply to
Ross Herbert

Maybe there is more to it. I just had a 1kW system installed. I talked to the Western Power guy who installed the new meter. He said it should be compulsory to install PV solar on every new building, (!) maybe a little unrealistic:-). Our northern suburbs (Perth) apparently are desperately short of substation capacity and solar is helping a lot there.

If you check the power tariffs you will find that peak prices ( 25c for smart power users) applies just in the hours where the sun is the strongest.

I consume about 4kWh/day solar energy directly. This energy doesn't have to be produced at the power station, meaning there are no transmission or transformer losses. Since, from memory, only about 50% of the energy produced at the station actually reaches the consumer, this saves actually 8kwh of power station produced energy, right?

My energy surplus that's being produced (2 -4 kwh/day)arrives at my neighbours also nearly lossless.

And it's kind of clean energy.

Tony

Reply to
TonyS

Actually it doesn't reduce it a lot. Infrared is not what PV panels want. I saw 400W (of 1.1kw max) produced on a rainy day.

Tony

Reply to
TonyS

Yes - the cost of the required subsidies would bankrupt the government.

I'd have thought the sun would be strongest symmetrically about the solar midday, whereas the powersmart tarif is highest (in summer) between 11am and 5pm, which is probably when it tends to be warmest, but is somewhat skewed away from the maximum insolation.

Having houses with solar power delays the point at which substations need to be expanded, but power demands seem to grow inexorably (partly due to increasing population densities), so sooner or later those subtations need to be upgraded.

I think it's entirely possible that the money spent on PV cells would be better spent on earlier expansion of the substations. I also note that in Perth, winter peak periods are from 7am to 11am in the morning and from 5pm to 9pm in the evening, presumably reflecting power being used for heating. Solar PV cells would do little to address that.

This 50% figure is certainly a myth. See

There was a TV advertisement the other day that tried to push the idea that the grid is less than 50% efficient, but avoided actually saying so, instead providing the next to useless, and deliberately misleading, piece of information, to the effect that less than 50% of the power going into the grid eventually reaches a light-bulb.

There seems to be a deliberate misinformation campaign in progress.

Except that the energy used to make the cells was unlikely to have been "green" energy. Cell manufacture is an energy intensive process, and manufacturers will certainly get the best power deals they can. These cells are being produced by companies who are doing it to make a profit, not because they are idealistic.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

No, a very good technical reason. PV systems can be quickly installed and running and their peak production kicks in to help match that peak air con load on really hot days. These days are giving pollies the bejesus because widespread brownouts are political suicide.

If you can afford the loan interest, do it now. When the aussie dollars rises against against the US, add on a battery pack and you will not need that generator.

Reply to
terryc

I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output from series strings of panels

So prices will not fall.

Screw that. Money kept in my pocket is my interest. There is some big subsidies going atm and if it means I can save more long term, then it is a wise investment.

Reply to
terryc

Thank you for that tip.

Reply to
terryc

Then how come they will sell it a 5.54c/KWH then?

And?

Do you mean it is legal to connect a bank of batteries to my off peak supply and use that during the day?

- if you

Care to share them?

Reply to
terryc

Don't feed the troll Terry!! ; )

Reply to
K Ludger

That's the price at which there's none going spare.

Suitably, installed, yes.

I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

In Western Australia in summer on weekdays the load peaks at exactly

6pm, plus or minus a few minutes. Check with Western power if you don't believe me.

Coal fired boilers in WA are about 25 to 32 percent efficient in converting the coal energy to steam energy, then you have the turbine and grid losses on top of that.

Reply to
Davo

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs rise (as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price, demand for PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher than they otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every 2 years. Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

formatting link

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given size). Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to shadowing.
**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing demand. It's just economics.
**Electricity is too cheap in Australia to make it worthwhile. In places like Hawaii, where electricity must be generated by Diesel, PV cells are a viable competitor.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

I see a commercially available solar cell made with a thin layer of silicon on top of stainless steel. It's not as efficient as single crystal silicon cells but the lower energy cost to make it and the fact it can be made tens of metres in length make it's energy payoff period shorter. It's only weakness is the extreme thinness of it.

So far in the lab they have compound semi cells past 43% efficiency and climbing. I'll be very interested in seeing these come to market as they should cost a lot less than silicon cells.

Reply to
Mark Harriss

**Indeed. Since silicon is the largest single expense in mono and poly crystalline cells, thin film types should fall dramatically in price. I'd reckon that 10% of their present price is not an unreasonable expectation. The only impediment (if you can call it that), is increasing demand, which is tempering price falls ATM.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

There are factories being built using new processes to make solar grade silicon as opposed to semiconductor grade silicon that should produce it for under a third of the cost of the semi grade.

One new process that was a bit of an eye opener was a Japanese guy who would heat window glass in a solution of salts. Glass become conductive when hot so he could convert the silicon dioxide of the glass into silicon by passing a current through it. I'm not sure whether the energy cost was worth it though, unless the glass is free it may be more trouble that it's worth.

Reply to
Mark Harriss

In any case, it's a mistake to assume that the price of PV cells can keep coming down. There's a lead-acid battery in pretty much every land-vehicle that's built. Yet they're still expensive. Some things just cost a lot to make.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

**No, it's not (a mistake). Silicon costs keep mono and poly crystalline cell prices high. Thin film cells use vastly less silicon (around 1% of the silicon used in mono types). Amorphous cells are only marginally less expensive than mono and poly crystalline types. It is simply economics (supply and demand) that keeps amorphous cell prices high.

There's a lead-acid battery in pretty much every

**Bad example. *Lead/acid batteries have been around for many, many decades. *They have been mass produced for at least 90 years. *The basic technology was mature by 1920. *Minor improvements have occurred, which reduce costs of manufacture slightly, but nothing major. Serious batteries still require a lot of lead. *Lead is the major component in auto batteries. It always has been. Lead is relatively costly. *Supply outstrips demand and has done for many decades.

*PV cells have been around since the 1960s, but have only been mass produced in the last couple of decades.

*The technology required to produce PV cells is prodigious (unlike lead/acid batteries). *Silicon is the major component of mono and poly crystalline cells. It is expensive (after refining). *It is a minor component of thin film cells. *Manufacturing of PV cells is far from a mature technology. *You can be absolutely certain that thin film cells will fall in price over the next decade. *Demand outstrips supply and has done for several decades.

AFTER the manufacture (and, to some extent, the installation) of PV cells becomes a mature technology, it's cost basis will be closely related to the materials cost, with some labour and profit added in. Like lead/acid batteries.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Spot on. Sylvia must be off with the fairies.

Dave.

Reply to
David L. Jones

Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing technology, but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or other of a variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen, but it's far from being a sure thing.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers of existing technology cells is certainly a waste of money.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.