Big boost for solar rebates in South Australia

This is a guest post from Kiashu.

From Auntie we learn that in South Australia, soon householders with photovoltaic setups will be able to sell their power to the grid at double the retail rate. I had a look at some figures and saw that as they said, it's not going to be a money-making scheme for the average household, who would have to be energy-conservers to break even, though in principle it could be an investment with a small return for community organisations, since they have buildings with a large roof area which aren't used much - we'd have to look at figures for larger (20+kW) systems to be sure.

South Australia will become the first state to pay a premium to people who install solar panels which can return power to the electricity grid. From July, electricity generated by solar panels will be worth twice that bought from power retailers. Legislation passed by State Parliament last night extends the scheme to small businesses, churches and community groups.

South Australian Greens MP Mark Parnell says his amendment was accepted by the Government to make it a 20-year scheme instead of five. "This new bill isn't going to make solar panels a money-making scheme for people; what it does is it softens some of the expense," he said. "We already have the commonwealth rebates which are a good incentive, now we've got this extra state rebate and thanks to the Greens amendment we've now got a scheme that is guaranteed to last 20 years."

The legislation has been passed just ahead of Adelaide hosting an international solar cities congress next week.


Looking at some grid-feed PV systems available in Australia here, for example from AussieSolar (no endorsement implied, they were just the first to pop up in a google) - we can do some calculations.

For electricity supply, here in Victoria there's an account charge which you have whatever power you use, don't use, or produce, and a per-kWh charge. It doesn't vary much across Australia, and for my company it's A$40.04 quarterly, A$160.16 annually, and the power is charged at A$0.16962/kWh.

They say they'll buy the home-generated power at twice the rate, so that's A$0.33924/kWh. So you need your home system to export 472kWh annually, or 1.3kWh daily, just to cover the service charge. Anything after that can go to making up for the cost of the PV system.

The average Aussie household uses 14kWh of electricity daily, so AussieSolar's 3kW package should do it for them, that's A$32,000 before public rebates and A$21,760 after, and will produce 14-16kWh/day - call it 15, and then we see that the export will basically cover the service charge - you use 14, and turn off a few appliances when not in use to save another 0.3kWh/day, letting you sell 1.3kWh/day. The system will last you about 20 years before needing replacement, so your ongoing power bill is nothing, just that A$21,760 over 20 years, which is A$272 a quarter. Had you just bought 13.7kWh/day from the power company directly, it'd cost you A$251 a quarter. So the net cost to you over the 20 years is about the same as just buying the power directly.

Of course if you conserve energy, then the net cost of your power and PV system could be nothing. You can without drama get your power consumption down to 6kWh/day in the average Aussie household, that leaves you 9kWh/day to sell out. So you have the A$272/q cost of the PV, but earn a net A$237.80/q from power sales. You're thus only paying A$34/q for your power, which if you'd bought it straight from the grid would have cost you A$133.

A community hall or organisation could install the largest 5kW system at $38,290 with rebates, getting 24kWh/day; most don't use more than 5kWh/day (since it's not occupied all the time like a house is), leaving 19 to sell. So they'd earn A$547/q, rather than paying A$117/q. This is an effective 1% return on their investment.

Another point is that currently solar energy, if you buy it from a retailer through the grid, will cost you another A$0.061/kWh. So that in each of the three cases above, having your own photovoltaic system is cheaper over the 20 years than buying photovoltaic power from the grid. Now there's a DIY project for you, I wonder if they'll cover it on Barry's Better Backyards.

The other considerations are what else you could have done with that A$21,760, like stuck it in the bank for a few percent interest, and that in buying PV today and selling the power to the grid you're insuring against future power price increases, which are likely as fossil fuel depletes and greenhouse mitigation schemes come in.

On the whole it seems a more worthwhile spending of tens of thousands of dollars than an SUV or new decking for the back veranda, but as they said, it's not going to make you money. I think that like the current state and federal rebates, it won't be taken up much, simply because it's a long-term investment tied to a particular building, and the proportion of people owning their own homes is declining here Down Under; those who do own them often have heavy mortgages, so fear losing the home in the next few years.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting scheme.

I think the question is not whether this is a good deal just for the participants but for everybody, including those without the readies. In Germany normal electricity tariffs are apparently double Australian rates (even without asking for green grid power) so it is a case of non-user pays.

I've managed to erase my bill even with a 1:1 credit and a 90c daily connection fee in cloudy Tasmania. It means sacrifices eg no incandescent toaster, shirts have to drip dry rather than be ironed, short lukewarm showers, less vacuuming more use of a manual carpet sweeper. I don't know that many people want to go down that path.

However I believe this scheme is aimed at avoiding the need for more peakload generation ie roofs (rooves?) with no-one at home week days will power offices in the city. It will not replace fossil baseload in SA which is on borrowed time. I doubt any household could run an airconditioner or charge an electric car and still export power. Those two items will get bigger with GW and PO. Later on I also expect the German problem whereby nonparticipants subsidise green power whether they want to or not.

If I'm wrong I'll retract these allegations but let's see. A better solution is mass produced cheap solar devices with energy or heat storage, not feed-in tariffs. What happens when the special deal finishes?

You erased your bill, but do your sales cover the cost of the PV system?

As I see this scheme, the thing is that the time of peak demand - summer afternoons when everyone has the AC on - is also the time of peak production of power from domestic PV.

So just as water conservation in several of our states has allowed the states to delay building more water infrastructure for some decades, so too could widespread domestic PV delay building more power stations (of whatever kind).

You're right that heavy AC users wouldn't have anything left to export. The average house is 220m2, and we see that the biggest system is 45m2 - that is, they'd take up about a quarter the roof area. However, only half the roof area is at all suitable on your typical peaked roof (since half will be mostly in the shade), and you probably want space for a kitchen chimney, venting for your loo, the pwoer and phone connection, that sort of thing, so that 5kW and 45m2 system is about the biggest you could fit on. And that'll give you 23-25kWh/day.

Most AC units are about 2.4kW, and operate for 4 hours a day on hot summer days. So you're looking at 10kWh just for the AC. Add in the average 14kWh/day of the household, and basically that's your whole production used up.

So what we're left with is that you'll want one or both of PV systems becoming much more efficient, and energy conservation by households. Otherwise this is basically just a scheme for the environmentally-conscious with a couple of dozen grand sitting around doing nothing.

What I reckon would be a better scheme is simply to have the power companies install the systems on your home, they still own them and charge you for power as normal. The water guys could do it, too. Distributed generation and storage, why not, eh?

The payback time for my system could be 20 years at current rates. I should live so long, esp. as the 'smart' inverter will cut off my farm water pump in a bushfire.

Also omitted to mention SA's desal requirement which could be hundreds of MW. A couple of years ago ETSA talked about radio controlled rationing of home ACs. Participants get a discount on their bill or a free lolly or something. Since they are already snooping around I agree they should install everything and rent it back. Their bulk purchasing power and internal cost of capital should be lower. As with satellite dishes there will be some bad customers.

Here's my free advice to SA
1) free up funds by getting BHP to build their own power plant and desal for Olympic Dam. If they choose nuke it's their liability.
2) forget the feed-in tariff and progressively fit every house with a smart meter, rfc AC and solar PV/water. Households pay maybe a $500 bond.

Kiashu, you might be interested in Constructal Theory.

http://www.constructal.org/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/constructal_the_2.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory

The main principle of the constructal theory is that every system is destined to remain imperfect.

According to this, the best that can be done is to optimally distribute the imperfections of the system, and this optimal distribution of imperfection will generate the geometry or shape of the studied system.

A bridging solution might be to mandate (subsidise) that new houses supply all lighting via PV as this seems to be the best match of source and load. I envisage a smaller cheaper(?) DC system in parallel to the AC system. This should create a demand for solar cells thus boosting competition, and also introduce a DC system that could be utilised by many other low power devices. If the battery runs down the DC lighting system can be powered from rectified AC.
Older dwellings could be retrofitted, as I believe that the AC lighting circuit is separate and can therefore be isolated. IE there shouldn't be any need to substantially rewire the house... but I defer to the opinion of any qualified electricians out there.

My reasoning being that its better to have ~100% adoption of a ~10% power saving than an ~0% adoption for a ~80-100% power saving.

It would be easier and cheaper to put circuit specific regulators directly on the AC power board. For example restricting water heating to 1kwh a day (say 20L heated by 30C). If that's not enough the customer has to fork for extra gas, solar or woodfired water heating.

This may also require that power co's no longer maximise revenue but 'help' the customer.

Are you unhappy with your solar installation?

It's just that rather than recommend this for other people, your other posts instead recommend the heart lung transplant solution of nuclear.

I suggested my intermediate solar solution as the system would be smaller and more manageable for the novice and would not require an inverter, being purely for lighting. If it was either subsidised or mandated, the extra demand for solar panels should up manufacturing and thru competition reduce the unit costs (if free market theory works).

Then depending on how the future pans out, we have more flexibility in our options. As I said other low power devices could also eventually link into this. At least homes would still have lights in the event of brownouts...

Combined with vacuum tube solar hot water collectors these two ideas could substantially reduce household energy in the two areas that solar is well suited... heat and low power electricity.

At this stage of the game, I don't see that a complete house PV conversion is the way to go for the general population. Its expensive and has a steep learning curve.

Shouldn't your fire pump be liquid fuel powered anyway?

I do indeed have a petrol fire pump but on the theme of electrical woes it has a crook ignition coil I must replace.

In truth my rooftop PV has been amazingly trouble free it's just the constant self discipline required to stay within a daily target of say 6-8kwh.

Visitors: Let's have grilled sandwiches!
Me: You're getting microwaved pasta.

I'm not sure household batteries are there yet. I do have a deep cycle lead acid battery in a garden shed with a regulated PV panel on its roof. That drives a 12v pump in a dam near the vegie patch. Also problem free til the dam dries up. Dunno if I'd want the house lights powered that way though. Prefer AC inverted from a powerful battery bank when the technology improves.

Thanks for those constructal theory links - very interesting...

Interesting stuff, SP, thanks.

Certainly I believe that every system will inevitably be imperfect. This comes from looking at history where the guiding principle of everyone involved seems to have been, "well, it seemed like a good idea at the time." Yet we muddle along :)

I'm not really keen on the idea of limiting where and how people use their power. It reminds me of the water rationing thing - I can have twenty baths a day, but can only water my vegies twice a week. Do we just want to abolish hosing down driveways, or limit total consumption? It'd be more sensible to charge according to use, progressively. Likewise, with energy.

Just as we have a progressive income tax, we ought to have progressive energy charges, whether by their retail rate, carbon taxing or whatever. If we decide that we want to have household energy use drop from its average of 14kWh/day to (say) 7kWh/day, then we just price it accordingly - the rate goes way up after 7kWh/day.

We could do other things like offer interest-free loans, payable on your power bill, to pay off installation of solar panels on your home, etc.

There are a zillion ways to do it... I don't think we need worry whether the consumer used 10kWh on their AC, on a home theatre system, on a life support system, or hydroponics for their homegrown... vegetables. Who cares, really? What matters is the total usage.

I couldn't agree more with this.

Calls for rationing drive me mad - no one is ever going to voluntarily agree to this (Well - no one outside a very small minority) - the only time rationing ever seems to work is during wartime, when people aren't given any other option and there is a strong social incentive not to complain about it.

Well, according to the ABS, in 2004 there were produced 564.7 Mt CO2e (table 24.20), 27,400kg per Aussie.

So a carbon tax of $0.01/kg could raise $5.6 billion. That's $274 per Aussie, not a big deal given that a lot of the carbon-intensive spending is discretionary. It'd add $0.028/lt to the price of petrol, about $6
to the price of a Sydney-Melbourne round trip flight, $0.013/kWh to the price of coal-derived electricity, and so on.

What I'd probably do is to have the carbon tax be something like $0.05/kg, but with rebates for people on less than full-time minimum wage equivalent.

If you wanted to do it through retail stuff progressively, you could just do it as I said earlier, set some goal household power consumption, and charge like a wounded bull for amounts above that. I'd have no "account charge" or "service charge" at all - you use nothing, you pay nothing. Account charges are the "corkage fees" of the utilities world, complete bollocks.

Something like,

- no service charge
- the first kWh is $0.22
- each kWh after that is charged at another $0.02

So you'd get,

kWh/day Kiashu scheme/$ Conventional/$
0 0 0.44
1 0.22 0.61
2 0.46 0.78
3 0.72 0.95
4 1 1.12
5 1.3 1.29
6 1.62 1.46
7 1.96 1.63
8 2.32 1.79
9 2.7 1.96
10 3.1 2.13
11 3.52 2.30
12 3.96 2.47
13 4.42 2.64
14 4.9 2.81
15 5.4 2.98
16 5.92 3.15
17 6.46 3.32
18 7.02 3.49
19 7.6 3.66
20 8.2 3.83
21 8.82 4.00
22 9.46 4.16
23 10.12 4.33
24 10.8 4.50
25 11.5 4.67

so that if you use 5kWh or less, you pay less than you currently do. If you use the average 14kWh/day, it works out to $2.10 more a day, or $189 a bill. It starts getting crazy in the 20s of kWh daily.

As usual there'd be discounts for people living on low incomes, etc.

This rate would apply only to power got from fossil fuels. If you got your power from wind or solar, you'd pay whatever rate they charge.

Carrot and stick, mate :D

Account charges are the "corkage fees" of the utilities world, complete bollocks.

Not quite. There is a cost for providing and maintaining that infrastructure.

Yeah, like the cost of the waiter's corkscrew.

The costs should be rolled into the per kWh cost; if you use less power, you put less strain on infrastructure, if you use none at all you put no strain.

There's no account or service charge for water. Does water require no provision or maintenance of infrastructure?

For all discretionary consumption: Use nothing, pay nothing; use lots, pay lots.

A certain amount of utilities consumption is non-discretionary - but only maybe one-tenth to one-fifth of the average use. The rest we just piss away.

So I guess I shouldn't have to pay for those roads I don't drive on? Should I pay for those parks I don't visit? Or maybe I shouldn't have to pay for that hospital until I arrive at emergency. And I think we know how well THAT system operates.

I live on rainwater, so I don't know about water service fees. But I do know (pers comm) that the main activity of Melbourne Water is infrastructure provision and maintenance. The charges for water are to cover this cost... so maybe you are right and they roll it all up into that.

Perhaps consumption of water is less variable than consumption of electricity... so electricity companies charge a higher service connection fee to "level" that variability out...?? maybe?

I think your approach is a tad extreme.
A service has been provided to you even if you don't flick the switch. That service is the ability to flick the switch at any time of your choosing. You can quibble over the price... but it is a real service.
And I think it is more significant than your analogy of the waiter and the cork screw.

Can you build a sub station?

I said, "all discretionary consumption."

Roads are partly funded by the general revenue, since some amount of roads are necessary regardless of an individual's chosen mode of transport; but they're mostly funded by vehicle registration and fuel excise, so that the amount you pay is more or less proportional to how much you use the roads.

Parks give people pleasure whether they visit them or not, since you pass by them on your way to other places. But in any case, parks are in general funded by local council rates, and the spending of rates is generally determined by a council of about nine elected representatives sitting in a room with 10-100 members of the public - and those 10-100 people are usually regular attendees at council meetings, and their voice is decisive in allocation of spending; so that if your payment isn't proportional to use, at least you have some say in it if you can be bothered to go to the meetings.

Hospital treatment is not discretionary consumption.

Water consumption is very variable across the country. Just state to state we see hre that Victoria has a 81kl per capita domestic water consumption, while WA had 180kl. So we see a factor of two variation from state to state. From place to place we see a variation of a factor of ten, from about 50lt/day per person in some towns in far north Qld, to 500lt/day per person in western Sydney, much of Perth and so on.

Historically the power service fee comes from the State Electricity Commission days, when the account fees were set aside for infrastructure and paying off the loans the government had to take out to build the power stations, while the per unit used fees were used for maintenance, fuel and so on.

Nowadays we have a three-tiered privatised system. All the infrastucture remains owned by the government, but is leased out to private companies. We have the producers (run the power plants), the distributors (buy the power off the plant operators, sell it to retailers), and the retailers (buy the power from the distributors, sell it to the public).

There's some overlap as some of the retailers invest in generation, like Origin building its own wind turbines. But basically we have this three-tiered system.

The government sets wholesale and retail prices, so if you're at all competent where you really want to be is as a distributor, all they do is buy and sell units of power, produce nothing... If you're incompetent you don't want to do it, you might stuff it up and the retailers won't have enough to sell, someone gets a blackout and then the state government steps in and takes over.

Basically we need the account fee to keep all those useless middlemen employed.

Although in theory I think limiting consumption has merits, and we agree that in practise its not as politically acceptable... I did not suggest this.

All the price mechanisms suggested rely on the idea of optimal allocation of resources thru the free market. I'm not totally convinced this happens automatically... just as I'm not convinced that Big Govt has the solutions.

I do think we need to pay some attention to the uses of the power.

An AC Airconditioner affects the system in a different way than the home theatre system... the former being a combination of reactive and resistive loads ( 1, 2, 3), whereas the latter is mainly a resistive load.

Allowing everyone to have all these electric motors (Air Cons) results in a different allocation of resources by the power generator.

Monetary measures do not (necessarily) take this into account, as once reduced to a monetary unit, these important differences in system detail are minimised.

Mr Odum would have something to say about this.

Well, I think we can learn from the experience with trying to reduce water consumption.

Melbourne went for restricting types of use, and public education, and reduced domestic water use by 25%.

Brisbane introduced a tiered pricing scheme, and reduced domestic water use by 50%.

I don't see why electricity should be any different. Price is a strong market signal, so the economists tell us.

Two points to consider.

The use to which water is put at the consumers end has little bearing on the processes used to clean the water... as all water in public systems is treated to drinking water standard (even though a lot of the water is then flushed down the loo or sprayed on the garden). This is not directly comparable to my point about reactive power and AC motor use... where the process of consumption has an immediate feedback effect at the power plant.

Secondly, along side your percentage figures, we need to see absolute consumption values. Comparing percentages is meaningless otherwise.
Melbourne may already have been at a lower absolute consumption level (I don't know), the "easy saving" may already have been made.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument/proposals. A tiered system is good... but it's not everything, and you need to be careful of details that have systemic effects. That's all.

You can adjust price and thus consumption without any new infrastructure; all this DC lighting stuff requires new infrastructure.

In absolute figures per capita daily, from 1995 to 2005, Brisbane went from 500 to 250lt, Melbourne from 290 to 230lt. I dunno about "low-hanging fruit" - Brisbane is a lot hotter and more humid than Melbourne, and you commonly find domestic water use is about double in summer what it is in winter, whatever city you're in.

The national average in Aussie cities is 253lt. And that's heaps. Our household uses 65lt per person daily, since we reckon that every drop counts (warning: contains useful advice which you're a lazy drongo if you don't follow).

I thought it was clear that I was suggesting the minimal change that utilised the existing wiring, without the expense of a complete PV system.

What is the point of your pricing structure if not to facilitate a change to a more sustainable system? A change that will require new infrastructure.

In my system, you raise the funds first and then you build the infrastructure. And the method of raising funds encourages people to consume less, so that buys you extra time to build the infrastrcture.

In your system, we build the infrastructure first and charge for it later, and we have to build it all ASAP.

I prefer scenarios where we get to start with more money and time than we need. We're dealing with big government and corporate projects, after all - and they always take more money and time than you expect, it's nice to have some leeway.

Again, you are misunderstanding what I proposed.

I am trying to think of how we evolve our existing infrastructure at the most appropriate scale; in this case only considering domestic lighting. Where did you get the "all at once" idea from? I suggested new houses at first, and older houses (where practical) as the lighting circuit in a house is separate from the power outlets, stove and hot water. You would not need to rewire the house. A small solar PV system could easily charge a battery bank to power the new generation of LEDs (etc) for a nights lighting.

I like to think that a scheme like this achieves more in the long run than just reducing consumption...

What monetary system you put in place to encourage the adoption of such a scheme I left vague.

But, I would argue you must have some idea of the infrastructure you want before you start out raising the money... aren't we too far down the track to just "muddle through" on this one... is there enough time for "the market" to pick a winner through successive iterations of business successes and failures?

And would it really matter if some of these changes were paid for by the Federal Govt?
We could take a billion away from buying crap second hand weapons from our great saviour and put it into something really useful!
Consider it a national investment in reducing a part of our CO2 economic externality.

By "muddling through" I didn't mean "leave it to the market." I meant the usual and actual combination of market, government, luck and so on.

"Leave it to the market" means "do nothing and watch CEOs crash everything and go back to their home countries with record bonuses."

Fair enough... :-)
We could do with some luck.

But then, the only trouble with luck is that those in power at the time attribute it to their own skill...

Yes but that's only a problem if your country is trying to conquer a good chunk of a continent or something.

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." - Paul Wolfowitz, March 2003

Aside from that it's a matter for the history books to sort out. And in the end I don't give a damn what history says or who takes the credit so long as it comes out alright.

I fear if we don't adopt tiered pricing for electricity, gas, petrol and water then Big Brother will bring in TEQs. Soft rationing is better than hard rationing.

Yikes - a "Carbon Dictatorship" manifesto.

I loathe that stuff - the day the government starts allocating emissions rations is the day I give up riding my bike and start driving to work...

TEQs are an excessively-complex scheme which will keep many bureaucrats busy while siphoning public money to the corporate purse. They are therefore inevitable.

We're talking about what should happen, though, not what's likely to happen. I already looked into my crystal ball for 2008 and was not thrilled with what I saw, please don't present me with any more unpleasant visions.

To wit the Garnaut Review comes across as an academic junket that won't ruffle any feathers, consistent with your climate predictions.