My thoughts are that polycrystalline panels are and always will be too expensive, that they need UPS type storage, and maybe like satellite dishes the householder doesn't need to own them. My 2kw system cost me about $20k in 2005 and I got $4k back with no means test. I can make a small annual net surplus by other energy savings such as restricted water heating and burning free firewood. Many people don't have these options so frankly I wonder if it is worth the bother on large scale.

What might work is if every house had 2.5 kw of thin film panels with a say 20 kwh battery UPS with inverter. Or maybe a plugin hybrid car in the garage. A segment of roof space should be the solar hot water service. Climate control inside the house would be ground source heat pump. Minus the car the cost could maybe be beaten down to $50k per household. People don't have that spare cash in these troubled times.

Here's my suggestion; if indeed the carbon auction will raise $10bn then give a large chunk of it to electricity retailers and they can install solar devices on private rooftoops. The homeowner pays normal electricity rates. When the house is sold the powerco still owns the solar devices.

Plenty of reasons this won't happen. As always we'll just burn more coal.

You pesky kids with your solar power! Quit meddling with the suns rays, and get out of the way of big business! Australia has limitless tonnes of coal to sell and burn. No one shall stand in the way of profit, not even the sun itself!!! Mwahahaha!

Strokes his kitty like an evil madman

I was a bit 'up-in-arms' when I heard about the means testing simply due to the message it was sending.

But frankly when you actually look into the effect of the subsidy it probably won't turn anyone off or on to getting solar power anyway, simply becasue people use solar power for two reasons.

The first is necessity ie they don't have grid connected electricity. These people aren't effected by the means testing anyway.

The second reason is that people install solar power is because they are 'true believers'. True believers don't stop and start their belief based upon the dollars. They may curb their implementation but they will do whatever they can afford.

The reality is that only 13000 systems supplying 18 MW in total have been installed under the rebate system over the last 8 years. (On grid 8000 homes, off grid 5000 homes). From those statistics it looks like the majority of the installations have been the minimum 1 kW systems.

FYI, a 1 KW system installed in Brisbane at the moment costs about $13,000. With your 8K rebate it comes down to $5,000.

In terms of the means testing the line in the sand is a taxable income of less than $100,000. I think that equates to the top 5% of incomes.

Frankly if you have a taxable income of $100k the chances are that you are already running a few good tax minimisation schemes anyway. People who are in that league are generally getting more than the 8k back from the government in deductions. They are not going to be too concerned if they don't get the solar rebate.

test post

Ok, seems to be working now.

Gday all. I have been veiwing this site for a couple of weeks now and have found it extremely informative and interesting. I am in agreement with the general tome of the forum regarding peak oil and the problems we will start (are starting) to face.

However, I must disagree with the solar petition.

IMO, the non-means tested rebate was an unjustifiable waste of money, unlikely to ever achieve the spread of cheap solar tech for the masses.

Our household is marginally below the means-test threshold. We are near the top of the rebate allowable bracket but still do not have a snowballs chance in hell of affording any worthwhile amount of rooftop panels even with the rebate. It is just too expensive.

The only thing the rebate was achieving was to use taxpayers money (some of it taken from the lowest taxable income earners) to pay for cheap solar panels for a very small handfull of high income earners. Propping up this little niche market would be most unlikely to ever create the economy of scale needed to bring the price down and make it affordable to all.

Dipping into the nations coffers to pay for the wealthy (who could have afforded it anyway) to have cheaper electricity is a rather obscene form of middle/upper class welfare.

If the solar schools thing gets properly underway, that may well end up creating the economy of scale necessary to eventually bring prices down. Cheaper electricity for the schools that educate our children might be a good start for the industry.

I agree that it seems unfair that the fossil fuel sector enjoys generous subsidies but let's not forget that this is a sector that:

(a) employs large numbers of people
(b) provides most of the countries electricity (currently)
(c) earns some fairly juicy export revenue

It is so worthwhile that subsising it makes sense to governments on both sides of politics.

RE solar schools: I actually work at a school, so I think I might pester administration to take up the solar grant and try and get the ball rolling. Probably over 90% of a schools energy use is during the day so rooftop panels could really make a difference, long term.