Got my first cheque from my electricity provider for my FITs
750.00.
So Im happy with solar power.
Going down to Dan Murphy's to stock up for christmas.
Are solar panels worth it?
(123 posts) (31 voices)-
Russell Moore
MemberBuzzman as far as I know the NSW GFIT finishes at the end of 2016, and not mid 2017.
Posted Sunday 2 Dec 2012 @ 6:20:09 am from IP # -
Russell Moore
MemberWish it did go to mid 2017, I've got a 5kW system in NSW on the 60c GFIT.
Posted Sunday 2 Dec 2012 @ 7:23:51 am from IP # -
In Response to the comments made by the user Rtoll or Nikolas B***** as is his real name I attached correspondence which has been forward to the same in light of this post.
Sunburst Solar has a very good reputation within the solar power industry and specifically within country and rural Victoria where we primarily install, Mr B has on numerous occasions sought independent advice online with regards to the operation of his system and had the same assurances that his system is working correctly in all cases funnily enough the production figures stated on this site by the same are considerably lower than those that he offered when airing his "grievance" on whirlpool.Hi Nik,
We have been interested to learn of your online activities which have failed to cease even after the VCAT finding dated 16th August 2012 your ongoing reel of pseudonyms and aspersions cast about and naming our company not only without foundation but indeed pursuant to a decision finding against your claim through the above mentioned legal forum leaves me no option but to make you personally aware that Sunburst Solar will not allow for your actions to continue without accountability.
Please consider this e-mail notice of our intention to bring you to task in the correct jurisdiction to the full extent of the law should your actions continue whilst also reserving the right to do so based solely on your actions, comments and online publications to date.
As was found by VCAT Member Mr. D Calabro at the above mentioned hearing as claimed by yourself and responded by Sunburst Solar there is no issue with your solar power system, you have not attempted to help yourself with any concern relating to the system and its performance, you have not cooperated with Sunburst Solar and there is no issue with the safety and operation with regards to our requirements of installation, the system has been inspected and deemed compliant by an independent licensed electrical inspector on behalf of Energy Safe Victoria.
Your failure to reply to this e-mail detailing your apology for miss founded and rash actions in creating the online posts that bring rise to this e-mail and expressing your intent to ensure you never again place yourself in contempt of the VCAT hearing which you instigated by committing to never again make such publications or utterances will be viewed as wilful acknowledgement of your actions in contradiction to the verdict for which you applied, a gross lack of respect for your elected legal forum and defamation of company reputation with intent to harm commercial progress.
Kind regards
James Graham
National Sales ManagerPosted Tuesday 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:45:43 am from IP # -
With Regards to "meself" or as his website details (as he has published in his user profile) Mark Bailey of Bailey Design Engineering, Ballarat has had "interesting" dealings with Sunburst Solar or at least the director of the company when he took payment via ebay for an item he had NO intention of supplying and only after pursuant legal action did he refund the $1,500 paid.
Mark at the time sold his product (as Australian made which having seen some of his sites and "installations" I can assure you they're not, certainly not the unit he had for sale) through ebay and curiosity regarding the potential integration of wind power drove us to order a unit to inspect and potentially trial, Mark's Ebay store has since been taken offline by Ebay, I assume but could not clarify for poor conduct can be found at the following link:stores.ebay.com.au/Bailey-Designed-Engineering
Kind regards
James
Posted Tuesday 16 Apr 2013 @ 8:52:18 am from IP # -
drillersmum
MemberMonday 27th May 2013.
My Story:
Mid Dec 2012 I had solar panels installed. Twelve panels and a 3Kw inverter, cost $5,000. Had to wait for my next (3 monthly) electricity bill to arrive before I could find out if I had made the right decision. Didn't have a clue what to expect. When the bill finally arrived it showed I had jumped from an average daily usage of $10.oo down to $6.oo per day.The statement also showed
Units (kWh) cents per unit (kWh) $ amount
7203 : Export - Net_Metered 231.00 0.000 0.00#I didn't have a clue as to what that all meant, so many weeks later I rang Country Energy to ask them if they could let me know exactly how much, in dollars and cents, my solar panels had actually generated for me.
That was when I discovered that my solar panels had generated 231 kWh of EXCESS electricity (that I never used) and it had all GONE BACK TO THE GRID and I never received one cent for it, yet I was paying them 31.290 cents for every kWh I used from their grid.THEN I found out that one of my friends had also "sent back to the grid" almost 6 times the amount that I had done, and again, they received not one cent.
Where is the justice and where is the incentive for people to pay thousands of dollars for installing solar panels when this sort of thing is going on?
THEN I was told that when Country Energy becomes Origin in Oct I will then get a whopping 6 cents per KwH for any excess electricity my solar panels might generate. WOW! At least that's better than zero. I was also told that I didn't have to wait until October, and that I could change over to Origin there and then, and start getting the 6cents. I wanted to wait a few more days and check out other providers first. I believe I'll be contacting Origin very soon to go over to them, because I have not been impressed with any of the other "providers".
THEN I was told that AGL would let me have 8 cents per KwH but I would have to sign a 24 month contract. I don't like contracts. Guess I'll have to accept the 6 cents from Origin and be grateful.
Posted Monday 27 May 2013 @ 7:56:26 am from IP # -
Jeffrey Jones
MemberI sympathise with your situation, drillersmum, but unfortunately you've missed out on
a better deal because you didn't take up solar earlier.I live in Victoria - don't know where you are but it's different rules for different states - and we were lucky enough to sign up while the State Gov't was paying 25cents per KW fed back into the grid. It expires at the end of 2016.
You say your panels were installed in December 2012,but I assume you weren't connected until 2013.
Those who installed from the start of 2013 get only that which their retailer offers, ie
6 cents from Origin.That retailers can sell on energy fed back into the grid by us should be challenged.
I've expressed that opinion on this forum before, but haven't seen any support for it.
A class action in court should be taken, and I don't understand why it hasn't been instigated, yet. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell us why.
Posted Friday 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:48:59 am from IP # -
murry
MemberJeffrey Jones said .."A class action in court should be taken, and I don't understand why it hasn't been instigated, yet. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell us why".
The WHY is because when you go solar (grid connect) you agree to the terms an conditions of supply by your chosen RETAILER. You have agreed to the terms of that contract.
What the retailer does with the excess power you provide is up to them. If you don't like it don't sign your feed in agreement. (Sorry JJ not meant to be critical- just an observation).To get back to the OP's question of "is solar worth it?". My answer is a resounding YES.
I went solar in 2012 (5kW system). My power bill has dropped from $1000 per quarter to about $150 per quarter. Why?---. Change your usage patterns. Use as much of your own solar power as possible during the day when the sun shines. Don't put it into the grid at $0.08c when you can offset your purchase price of power at $0.30c (that your retailer will charge you). This does require critical analysis of your own usage patterns and maybe some lifesyle changes.Solar was never about making money from FIT. It is about reducing your own power bill
(in $ terms) and about reducing your footprint on LIFE. The fact that it pays BIG TIME
is a bonus.Regards (and peace) Murry.
Posted Friday 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:38:47 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberSympathise....
I also was fortunate enough to be able to sign on to the NSW govt tariff of 60c/kWh exported, and on gross export, not nett - so EVERY kWh I generate, I get paid for....averaging about $1750 p.a. nett profit, and zero electricity cost. Gross profit is about $2000 - I only average usage of around 3kWh/day.
But if I was like "most people" who average 14kWh usage per day, my PV would only be offsetting about half my usage, so roughly what dm is generating and achieving in offset, but obviously I'm on a seriously good tariff, so until December 31st 2016 I am making hay while the sun shines....
The court case will come...in 2017, once we all come off the tariffs and the retailers are still only offering 6-8c/kWh for fed-in PV.....new contracts will need to be signed and that will be the time for a class action....start planning now. I'll sign...
Given that, according to their own figures, the wholesale cost of power from the grid to the retailers can be as high as $12.50/kWh during *peak demand events* [ie: at the times on hot summer days when PV panels are producing the most for export] we generators should be getting a bit more back at those times.
The latest bumpf from the regulator provides for '3rd Party Aggregators' to set up and, potentially, 'aggregate' PV-gen and sell it on to the highest wholesale bidder - so if this idea ever gets beyond the discussion and White Paper stage, it may provide an avenue for us to get a bit more back - but I suspect the aggregator will absorb most of the profits...
Call me a cynic....
Once the tariff scheme finishes, and I have to again pay for power, I intend to install a battery bank and store all the power I generate for my own use. If the retailers won't give me a 'free' connection to the grid so I can export any surplus I don't need or use myself, I'll simply disconnect from the grid.
The battery bank will cost around $10K, which is pretty much the profits of the PV over the 5 years of the scheme, so I hope to at least break even, and then have no bills for ever more....
And once a few of us start doing that, and publicising it via the media, more of the public will get on board, and the retailers will be forced to back down or lose both revenue *and* their cheap source off carbon-offset-PV-gen.
Unnless, of course, The Mad Monk gets elected and goes ahead with his stated aim of canning the carbon-pricing scheme.
My bet is that industry won't let him....$20 says he can't get it through. Any takers?
Posted Saturday 15 Jun 2013 @ 1:47:17 am from IP # -
murry
MemberBuzzman writes.. "I intend to install a battery bank and store all the power I generate for my own use"
I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is where the industry will be by 2017.
LiFePo battery storage will make it cheaper to store than to put back into the grid.
I am going down this path and will to be offgrid by 2016- when my FIT contract expires.
I am predicting that many of the 1 million households are also looking to do the same.
Soooo-- there will be no reason for court cases over what is paid by the retailers.
Rather I suspect the court cases will arise from government action to protect the retailers. This will happen when electricity is "declared" an essential service.
This will then mean that the household will pay a fixed (and indexed) fee regardless of whether you are connected to the grid or not. Much like water rates- if the pipe runs past your property you pay a minimum service charge whether you use it or not.Interesting times ahead.
Posted Saturday 15 Jun 2013 @ 2:43:02 am from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberLOL....call me a cynic, I suspect you're right about the attempt to regulate a fixed tariff to support the retailers....however, the notion that you have to pay a fee to the local water authority just because "the pipe goes past your house" is not necessarily true.
The fee charged (if you consume zero water) is an "access" or "service" fee.
So if you install tanks and request disconnection from the water 'service', they cannot charge you for a service they are not actually providing....this has been proven by others who have taken authorities to court over this, so a precedent has been set. I think it was Michael Mobbs did it first, years ago, for his house in Chippendale.
One of the flip side benefits is that, if you are not purchasing water they cannot 'meter' your consumption - and as the sewage 'usage' component of the bill is based on calculated averages of water usage figures, they can't charge you for sewerage 'usage' either!
But, the fly in the ointment is that, even if they can't charge you for 'sewage usage' rates, they can still charge the 'access' fee for the access they *are* providing you to the sewerage system.
So you would need a DA-approved composting toilet, which most Councils will NOT approve in sewered areas.
The cynic in me wonders whether this is simply to protect the revenue stream that goes toward the maintenance and provision of the sewage system???
I think they rely on the fact that it would cost more to take them to court to get your 'access' cut off than it would produce in savings....but it depends on your usage, I guess.
At present, I'm only 'using' about $120 p.a. in both water and sewage, but paying $800 p.a. in 'service charges'. Go figure.
Like electricity, it's my carefully considered opinion that low users are subsidising high users, and that this is inherently unfair and unjust.
The 'service' fees should form part of the authority's running costs, and these should be supported ONLY by a usage charge, so those who use less pay less, those who use more pay more...and no subsidising of larger households by the smallest.
If the petroleum industry can manage to roll all of its access, infrastructure and delivery charges into a single unit charge (cents per litre) then why the heck can't the power and water "industries" do the same???
Oh??? It's political, is it??? Then that's the end of that. Haven't seen a politician with a spine yet, but still hoping....
JCQTM (just chuckling quietly to myself) - did the notion of "sewerage" and "revenue stream" strike you as amusing, or is it just *my* warped sense of humour....
:)
Posted Saturday 15 Jun 2013 @ 3:07:16 am from IP # -
http://diamondenergy.com.au/current-offers/
Diamond Energy offfering 20 cents minimum feed in on new solar..link above..so perhaps look at them first for solar..we get 23 cents feed in with some of our turbines...
Just give the solar cowboys a miss...
On industrial solar connections our BDE group will do 100% finance..but we only do this on commercial..sometimes we even do charity stuff for free !!!
Its time ppl shopped around and give these solar bullshit companies and their crappy finance deals and crap everything amiss..all they do is slow down the uptake of qwuality solar to people...Posted Saturday 19 Oct 2013 @ 3:59:09 am from IP # -
nikky
MemberSolar is full of used car salesmen and sharks. It all sounded good as we go away for 3-4 months a year as we are retired. Golden opportunity to bank power while away so we can use air conditioner in summer. Bought a dearer unit (by far, good pitch?)from Edwards Solar and within 4 months I leave on holidays only to come back to a unit that switched itself off not long after we left. Going by my neighbours exact unit facing exactly same way Im down approx. $500.00. Edwards cannot tell me what went wrong, will not replace unit, cannot guarantee it wont happen again and will not compensate for the lost power. Should have gone for the cheap one from another retailer or none at all. Once you pay the money 'see you later alligator'
Posted Thursday 24 Oct 2013 @ 10:30:09 pm from IP # -
Nikky, sorry to hear that the salesman misled you.
This thread started with a question from Annemieke:
'I am considering getting solar but at 8c payment from the energy company I can say it is not worth it.'
Those who got started early with a high FIT would have benefited from installing solar.
As it is now it seems to me that the financial assessment depends more on your usage profile than it does on the system purchased and installed.
If you have high usage while the sun is shining you benefit by drawing from solar instead of from the grid. This is happening when rates are usually substantial, especially at peak times. So possibly a good investment.
If however, you are absent from home while the sun is shining, perhaps at work the excess to your usage will be at the ridiculously low FIT, possibly 6 or 8 cents. So likely a poor investment.
The alternative is to store your excess, but batteries are expensive and they have limited life which adds another layer of cost.
Nikky, given your situation "away for 3 or 4 months a year" it would seem immediately a poor investment decision. But sadly the salesperson would not go out of their way to tell you that.
sun2steam, I concur with you that poor language does not fit with professional representation.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 1:39:00 am from IP # -
Buzzman
Membermajik
Not necessarily. The issue for nikky appears to be that the inverter shut down, thus they missed out on the income that would have been derived from the export of the power that would have been generated and exported had this not occurred.The issue for new installations is whether or not it is gross export or nett export. For those not home during the day, and therefore only the fridge is using power while solar is being generated, gross export might be a better option, as they then get paid for most of what they produce, even though it's at a low rate.
For those at home during the day (and remember two days out of seven most people are home anyway) it might be better to use your own power and only export any excess generated, so a nett export system might be better. Stay-at-home mums and retirees for example.
The reason for this is that utilities pay a miniscule amount for what you export, but you pay max retail price for what you consume from them - ergo, using your own consumption is more cost-effective for you.
In other words, its better to use your own power, thus saving the approx 30c per kWh the utility would otherwise charge you, than it is to get paid 8c per kWh for what you produce and then have to pay 30c for what you consume.
For example, if you have only a fridge running during the day, on a nett export system, the fridge might consume 1kW. If you have the average-sized array of 2kW of PV, generating approximately 8kW/day (annualised daily basis, NSW), then you are exporting 7kW for which you would receive the princely return of $0.56c - or $50.40 per 90 day quarter.
But you are paying (approx) 30c/kWh for the other 13kWh (14kWh the *average* household consumes minus the 1kW used by the fridge), or $3.90/day or $351 per quarter. Add to this the approx $120 per quarter service/connection fee gives a quarterly bill of around $471.
So your approx $50 is not much of a discount off this, and thus the ROI doesn't look so good. A saving of barely $200 per annum means the $5000 (approx) 2kW PV system would take 25 years to pay for itself. By which time it *might* need replacing.
In theory, going completely off grid with a battery bank large enough to last for at least 3 days without sun, coupled with drastic changes to your *lifestyle* and thus power consumption, could dramatically improve these figures.
However, according to reputable practitioners installing such systems at the moment it costs around 34c per kWh (annualised average cost) to install such a system with sufficient reserves and redundencies built in to guarantee longevity of the battery bank.
So it's not *quite* beating the on-grid cost just yet. Which, oddly enough, is guaranteed by legislation, sort of..... One of the requirements that the regulator uses to determine *fair* pricing by grid retailers is that it cannot be provided cheaper by any other method. Interesting that their price is almost exactly what you could otherwise DIY for......[conspiracy theory alert!!]
If power cost increases by another 10%, or you can reduce your consumption *significantly* in order to reduce the overall payback time, or lithium battery costs fall substantially, this equation could be quite different....
Going completely off-grid saves you the service/connection fee, around $480 per annum, although you lose the $201.60 you'd otherwise be paid for exports, but you don't have to pay the $351 per quarter you were paying for grid power, so actual savings of $480 - $201.60 + ($351 x 4) = $1682.40 nett savings.
But a battery bank large enough to last such a moderate power user for three days of no sun is still around $20K - so around 11 year payback time, by which time the batteries will probably need replacing anyway.
So, to sum up, at 8c/kWh, and the requirement to be grid connected (with all the additional costs) it is not particularly viable to go solar *UNLESS* you are able to drastically reduce your consumption patterns.
For example, my household of 2 pax uses approx 3kWh per day. We generate 8kW/day from the existing 2kW solar PV array, so at 8c we'd be making $0.64c/day or $57.60 per quarter, off a bill of $86.40 for usage + $120 service fee = $206.40.
So our bill would be $206.40 - $57.60 = $148.80.
But if I quadrupled the size of the array to 8kW, generating 32kWh per day @ 8c = $2.56 or $230.40 per quarter, then I'd be in front by around $24 per quarter, compared to being $148 behind with the 2kW array.
But even generating $230.40 x 4 = $921.60 per annum, it would be almost 11 years ROI on a $10K 8kW system.
But if the PV system lasted 25 years (as they should), the total (offset) cost of $206.40 x 4 x 25 = $20,640 would put me ahead by almost $11K. And that's if the price of power doesn't increase over time (which it invariably will) in which case I'd be even better off.
So basically no bills, and $465.60 profit per annumn, amortised over 25 years.
Or at least that's what the back of my envelope looks like.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 4:43:52 am from IP # -
Thank you for the explanation:
Buzzman said:
Technical problems during absence must be a potential reality.
majik
the inverter shut down, thus they missed out on the income that would have been derived from the export of the power that would have been generated and exported had this not occurred.
Buzzman, your detailed explanation suggests a marginal benefit at best from installing solar PV. It doesn't look too attractive to me whether it be nett or gross FIT or off-grid batteries.
When you add the other variables including orientation of panels, type of cells, rebates, installation costs and so on it seems to be too complicated a project and too marginal financially for the average homeowner to venture forth.
I am unsure who the MP is with the energy portfolio. The parliamentarian would require some technical background and then some motivation to introduce changes to make solar P.V more attractive.
Meanwhile the retailers and installers proclaim the wonderful benefits to householders that in my opinion must be dubious at best.
More transparency is required. If it is economically attractive I will install full solar P.V, but I will not undertake all the pain for such little gain. If the FIT was as high as the tariff I would proceed without question. I have read some of the government reports that explain why the FIT has to be so low. Meanwhile, we keep burning coal. If that is what we will do, then that is what will happen.
If everyone stopped installing solar it might cause a pause in thinking.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 5:39:09 am from IP # -
dbindoff
MemberBuzzman, I have recently seen Matthew Wright advocating for oversized PV arrays in lieu of an oversized battery bank, the rationale is that it is cheaper to say 300% or 400% oversize the PV array compared to inverter size in order to 'guarantee' a certain production level even in winter, then the battery bank only needs to service one day (or less perhaps) demand.
I have not done any sums but the cheap price and longevity of unsubsidized PV panels these days looks like it might be a cheaper way to do it, providing space for the PV array is available.Majik, I think there will be a way to economically install PV regardless of the FIT and pricing regime but it might take some nutting out to work it to your advantage in your particular circumstances. Please don't stop installing, it looks like PV is displacing coal burning quite effectively despite what the naysayers say and we need that to happen more intensely without any pauses.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 6:01:27 am from IP # -
Buzzman
Membermajik
I'm not sure whether my maths is confusing you or not....What part of the equation of an overall saving of $1291.20 per annum and NO electricity bills did you not understand?
That's a direct saving of $206.40 per quarter (electricity bills not required to be paid) plus the $465.60 per annum (savings over the 25 year lifecycle of the panels amortised).
So essentially, for an outlay of $10K you get NO electricity bills for 25 years and a net profit over 25 years of almost $11K.
And that's assuming electricity prices don't rise, because the savings would be greater and the ROI even better.
Assume for arguments sake that electricity prices rise by 50% after 10 years. [My math isn't good enough to do the percent-per-annum calcs...]
So rather than the $206.40 you might be paying $309.60 for (say) 15 of those 25 years.
So $206.40 4 x 10 + $309.60 x4 x 15 = $4644 x4 + 2064 x 4 = $18576 + 8256 = $26,832.So, you could shell out $27K for electricity over 25 years, or simply spend $10K on an 8kW PV array today.
Of course, you *would* need to reduce your consumption to 3kW per day.
THAT is the tricky part.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 6:01:56 am from IP # -
Buzzman
Memberdb
Im not sure I agree with the "300-400%" inverter" idea. Inverters are designed for the size of the array, so if you 300% the array you need to 300% the inverter as well.Having said that, even at 8c per kw, if you have 'enough' PV capacity to offset both consumption and the service fee/connection charge, you don't really need a battery bank other than a small one for 'grid out emergencies'. And frankly, a petrol-powered generator is LOADS cheaper for that purpose!
The real problem is that most people use most of their power in the late afternoon and evening when there is no solar input - so you have to buy it from the grid ..... or store it to consume your own.
So if imported power is 32c/kWh, and you are only getting 8c/kWh for exported power, then yeah, generating "400%" might equalise the cost to income...just don't forget that, at around $120 per quarter, the service fee requires an additional 1500kWh of generation to cover that, too, or in real terms, an additional 4kW of PV array.
So if your *actual* consumption is 14kW/day (average Aus household) you'd need actual generation of 4 times that, or 56kW, plus the 16kW for the access fee, or 60kW exported per day.
Which would require a PV array of 15kW. Which is around $30K.
But that is at the *average* consumption levels..!!
All the equations look a LOT better if you can drastically reduce your consumption to begin with.
Like I have.
The critical issue is whether or not power prices will rise (highly likely) and/or the cost of solar and battery banks fall (possibly).
Frankly I don't think PV can get much cheaper, as most of it is coming out of China today, that's pretty much rock bottom unless someone can figure out a way to either dramatically improve efficiency for the same production cost, OR figure out a way to drastically reduce cost of production for the same efficiency.
Assuming neither of those is likely, and given that power prices will almost certainly rise, but lithium prices will likely fall as new deposits are brought on stream and minegate prices fall as a result of competition, power prices will certainly rise while the batteries will likely get somewhat cheaper.
So for now, grid connected solar PV to offset consumption is still the best way to go, but as battery prices fall (or power prices rise) it will make a lot more sense to go off grid completely.
And the more you can reduce your consumption, the quicker those two lines on the chart will cross.
For me, with my minimal consumption, my 2kW system has already paid for itself on the NSW 60c tariff. It took 2.5 years. So from next year I'm in cashflow positive territory and saving for the battery bank.
<<grin>>
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 6:43:24 am from IP # -
Buzzman, the 3kw per day limit is less likely for us than winning the lottery. Our usage is too high for me to state publicly. We must be the electricity retailers best friends. So off grid is out of the question....there would be too many batteries. Pardon, but they are the facts. Total off-grid is not a consideration for us.
For connected to the grid, a project with economic payback, I think a reasonable expectation would be maximum 5 year payback. Otherwise the time value of money, changes in technology etc all start to become relevant. You may consider this to be unrealistic, nonetheless we all have a viewpoint. Mine shaped from many commercial projects over the years.
There is one factor that does cause me to consider the possible benefits from solar P.V. to us and that is the fact that three quarters of our high user family is home pretty much 24x7, and because our usage is so very high we could offset usage from the grid at peak rates. This could yield a very short payback....so in that respect I continue to consider.
dbindoff, thank you for your encouragement, and Buzzman I do appreciate the detailed explanation. Despite possible "small" savings from solar P.V. You point to real $ savings, but these are offset by considerable capital outlay. I cannot easily understand how the sellers and installers of P.V. systems justify their sales. This is the nub of the problem isn't it?
dbindoff's suggestion to outsize the P.V. array versus battery capacity is an interesting one, and makes some sense, especially given the relative high cost of batteries versus solar cell panels.
Please give me some time to consider your inputs. If I reach the eureka moment I will let you know. But I am not yet a convert.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 7:00:56 am from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberOK, come on, fess up - what's your *actual* consumption; how many people in the household; how many air-conditioners; do you have swimming pool; heated spa and so on....
I am an energy efficiency consultant, and have advised many people on how to reduce their consumption.
If you are stuck in that "we aren't interested" position of the rest of the family, then I suggest you start charging them per head.... lol
My brother has 3 kids, a swimming pool, swimming pool heater, two flats and a shed, and is struggling to get under 35kW per day. Simply by changing the hours per day of the pool pump and minimising the circulation of the pool heater he saved 3kW a day. Cost him 5 minutes of programming their timers differently.
I gave him a thermometer and told him to hang it on the wall and advise the family that until the temperature on that went over 30 deg no A/C was to be used. Cut his summer bill by $200. His A/C of 7.5kW was costing him around $2/hr.
What's the capacity of your A/C and how long is it on for each day? An average 5kW split system will use around $1.30/hr, so an average of 4hrs per day that's %5 a day or $460 per quarter.
I'm guessing you have older rellos home all day???
In which case having a nett export system make sense, and even switching the HWS from off-peak to non-off-peak can help, as you are probably paying 11-12c/kWh for that even on off-peak, as opposed to 8c for what you export, so using your own power for the HWS (which is one of the biggest consumers in *volume* of power) can be a saving with a nett export system. BUt only if you take i off the dedicated off-peak meter, as that meter only has power between 11pm and 7am.
OK, so you'd only be saving 4c per kWh consumed, but over 25 years even that adds up...around $2K. So there's 10% of the cost of a $20K system already.I'm guessing you also have loads of 55W halogen downlights? Turn them off. Use plug in lamps with compact fluros that use 1/5th of the power.
People at home during the day often have lights on. Why???? Unless you are reading, you don't need *bright* light, even on a cloudy day you only need enough light to enable you to see the furniture and not bump into it.
If you have 5 x 55W downlights on for 18 hours a day this is almost 5kW, or $1.50/day or $140/quarter, or $570 per annum. For just 5 light bulbs.....
See what I mean?
Got kids at home all day? Is the TV on all day as a 'child minder'? Turn it off. Make the kids play with toys or go outside. Build them a sandpit.
An average LED TV of around 32" size uses approx 300Wh. So if it's on for 10hrs per day, that's 3kW, or around a dollar, or $90 per quarter. Double that if you have a 50" plasma TV!
Reducing consumption is do-able. Do that *first*...!!!
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 7:29:13 am from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberDoh - an extra zero....oops. My bad. LCD LED TV more like 30W. So around $5 per quarter.
s2s - I agree, what sort of ROI do people want? Your average term deposit is getting 3%.
I don't have the math to calc what a capex of $10K would earn over 25yras, but I suspect it would be a lot less than the savings in power costs.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 8:05:13 am from IP # -
Consumption wise, out of 100 households we are rated 100 according to the reports we receive.
I can certainly challenge a 3% return. Originally I worked in technical areas, but retired to financial planning. Our investments are market focused yet very safe. Ignoring capital gains I expect and get returns around 7% p.a. mainly from fully franked shares.
Any alternative investment would reduce that investment.
Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 8:42:57 am from IP # -
Majik, isn't it interesting that you have financial planning experience but calculate investment in solar PV by using payback time?
Answering my question from above, the payback time of the 5 years you requested corresponds to a comparison rate of about 20% ! Do you know any other low risk investment (lower risk than shares) that is offering such a return? And why do you require 20% from solar if you are happy with 7% from much more riskier shares?
Do you know that you can have a payback time of zero for solar PV? Even with a payback time of 10 years, the comparison rate is so high, that you can easily take money from increasing your home loan to pay for solar PV and you can make money form day one.
Buzzman, ROI (return of investment) is not a good measure for an investment over time, because ROI does not take the time factor into account.
Much better is what is called comparison rate when used for comparing home loans. Only in case of solar you are the investor, not the bank. The comparison rate can be expressed as internal rate of return (IRR). IRR is very easy to calculate using a spreadsheet function. And best of all the IRR of an investment with x% annual interest rate and repayment at the end of the term (= for instance term deposits or debentures) is x%. This makes it easy to 'convert' other investments like e.g. solar PV using IRR in order to facilitate a proper comparison.Posted Friday 25 Oct 2013 @ 9:27:23 am from IP #
