Rooftop Pv installers in Sydney area

Where from. Cheapest 12V 200 AH deep cycle battery I could find in Australia is $780. As the OP based his calculations on battery life of 10 years, then solar type storage batteries are about the only option.

You sure will. Ask yourself this question. If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do you think the power company gets this money from. Dont come from the tooth fairy.

:On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:20 GMT, Ross Herbert : wrote: : :>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:35:48 +1100, Sylvia Else :>wrote: :>

:>: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. : : :You sure will. :Ask yourself this question. :If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar :on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do :you think the power company gets this money from. :Dont come from the tooth fairy.

They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local power demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the grid it saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

it

They could achieve the same result, at substantially lower cost, by installing local fossil fuel powered generators.

Sylvia.

Speak to an Asian importer , the prius battery through toyo is 3k , direct importer 1/2 that , stop thinking corner retail

You're so right (and the government is so wrong) But *IF* that will be the case, surely you'd want to be one of the people selling power than one of those buying it?

MrT.

Except that upgrading transformers and power lines does not in itself result in increased power usage, it just reduces the probability that the system will be overloaded during relatively rare load peaks. Because those peaks are rare, the extra revenue obtained by avoiding power outages doesn't amount to much.

However, it can be noted that the spot market price for power during those peaks can get very high. Avoiding having to buy that power (which is then sold at a loss) would be an attractive proposition at the right price.

There probably is a point at which local generation capacity makes sense if the distributor is required to avoid outages. Presumably the electricity distributors' accountants have run the numbers, and concluded that that point hasn't been reached.

While I'm inclined to agree that large scale PV arrays would be more economic than piece mail domestic installations, they are still an expensive way of generating power.

Sylvia.

power

grid it

Actually they can save even more by simply upgrading the power lines and transformers as necessary, the increased revenue from extra power sales and extra billing charges more than pays for it. The only savings to the power company come when the government uses taxpayers money to subsidise PV installations, which is not included in the power companies expenses. IF the government used the money for large scale PV arrays instead, the REAL benefits to the nation would be greater.

MrT.

You certainly would if the numbers say that it saves you money, even if it costs the taxpayer and other customers a bundle. The main concern would be that the rules could be changed later, turning what was meant to be a nice little earner into a financial liability.

Which might happen. If the rules are so generous that installing PV cells on the roof is a no brainer, then everyone would be doing it, and the grid generators would become suppliers of last resort during the day. They cannot afford to operate like that, so something would have to give.

Sylvia.

it

There are three lots of savings.

The first is that is the cost of borrowing to build power stations. Since the electricity industry was established in Western Australia it has been dogged by massive debt. A large portion of a WA power consumers bill goes towards paying interest on massive loans.

The second is the saving on not having to install peaking plant, which is rarely used and usually consumes expensive fuels. Western Power looses money big time when it has to burn oil. (Diesel)

Thirdly, it's becoming very difficult to meet environmental standards. Getting rid of millions of tons of acidic ash and carbon dioxide is not easy, not to mention the massive water consumption. There is presently a bunfight going on in WA over who will get access to water in the southwest.

Historicaly power stations have been welcomed as a sign of progress, but now they're seen as polluting monsters and have a "not in our back yard" problem. A small biomass plant that was to be built in the southwest has met stiff opposition from wine and fruit producers who worry it will damage their produce.

and

Of course not, that's why it now follows demand rather than anticipates it as was usually the case when all power supply was under government control.

The required supply margins don't change that much, and supply infrastructure does need to be maintained in any case (even though the private companies try to avoid that until absolutely necesary)

Especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill for PV subsidies, right!

At the moment yes, but mostly because the full cost to the nation and environment of brown coal generation is not applied. This will change in time. The relative benefits of roof top Vs large scale solar, wind and other renewable source generation will not however IMO.

MrT.

the

of

Always the case, but when the government/taxpayer subsidies are large enough, as with PV, solar water, LPG fuel conversion, and even insulation, shower heads, rain water tanks, and CFL replacement in many areas, the majority of the risk is borne by taxpayers rather than the individual. That is NOT a good thing IMO when the benefits have not been fully costed and are mainly just a political stunt.

Yep, the subsidies will go fairly soon or the government will go broke! But that was announced ages ago in any case.

MrT.

Yep, you are spot on. The engineera who ran the various systems understood this and had money put aside for this purpose. Until, in NSw at least, the accountants decided that it should be handed over to consolidated revenue and was promptly spent.