Hope this is the right Forum.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/08/2268434.htm

The Federal Opposition has stepped up its call for the Government to reverse the new means test on its solar panel rebate.

Members of the solar industry discussed their concerns with the Opposition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, at an exhibition in Melbourne today.

Mr Hunt says the Government can afford to support the industry.

"So they've saved about $50 million a year," he said.

"That's money which was budgeted for climate change, was in there for climate change, and was in there for a small visionary Australian industry.

"That industry is facing a bleak future."

Mr Hunt says Environment Minister Peter Garrett should recognise the damage caused by the change.

"This can be turned around overnight - Mr Garrett bought them to a cliff, he can bring them back from the cliff," he said.

"Reversing the rebate decision right now will lead to an immediate change in the fortunes of the solar industry."

So, is Peter Garrett/Kevvie interested in the Environment or not?  :P

Either here or the tech board is fine.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167872910

Solar is one of the most expensive options around and it should not be subsidised.

It's a question of economies of scale. It's not quite as clearcut as you make out.

The higher the production of concentrated thermal and concentrated PV Solar technology, the lower the cost will be. I have a copy of a paper by Green and Gold Energy in Adelaide that suggested that PV solar using concentrators could be used for the same cost per unit as grid electricity.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 6:15pm:

Either here or the tech board is fine. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167872910 Solar is one of the most expensive options around and it should not be subsidised.

Right!  So we should go nuclear?  [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

I doubt it muso.

BTW, the federal government's plan is about as far to the opposite extreme of economies of scale as you can get - a few panels each retrofitted to existing houses. They've taken an already expensive technology and implemented it in the most expensive way.

But ... you have to earn under $100,000? a year to get the rebate?

"Working families" aren't the lot who can afford to install solar ... ;D

Neferti wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

But ... you have to earn under $100,000? a year to get the rebate? "Working families" aren't the lot who can afford to install solar ... ;D

I can't seem to find it on the net but I thought Peter Costello said something about the doubling of the rebate to $8,000 was basically an inefficient use of resources towards the goal of carbon abatement.

Very strange indeed, I know, but I thought that is what was actually said at the time.

Can anyone else find a reference for this?!?

 :-?

Neferti wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 5:41pm:

Hope this is the right Forum. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/08/2268434.htm The Federal Opposition has stepped up its call for the Government to reverse the new means test on its solar panel rebate. Members of the solar industry discussed their concerns with the Opposition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, at an exhibition in Melbourne today. Mr Hunt says the Government can afford to support the industry. "So they've saved about $50 million a year," he said. "That's money which was budgeted for climate change, was in there for climate change, and was in there for a small visionary Australian industry. "That industry is facing a bleak future." Mr Hunt says Environment Minister Peter Garrett should recognise the damage caused by the change. "This can be turned around overnight - Mr Garrett bought them to a cliff, he can bring them back from the cliff," he said. "Reversing the rebate decision right now will lead to an immediate change in the fortunes of the solar industry." So, is Peter Garrett/Kevvie interested in the Environment or not?  :P

In question time the basic answer from Garret was, "...Solar Thermal!"

 ;) :D ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 8:00pm:

I doubt it muso. BTW, the federal government's plan is about as far to the opposite extreme of economies of scale as you can get - a few panels each retrofitted to existing houses. They've taken an already expensive technology and implemented it in the most expensive way.

I was really talking about potential lowering of cost. With a large solar thermal or even large scale triple junction PV with concentrators, it is possible to bring the cost right down.

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

"Delivering clean, green SunCube™ 1,122 sun CPV solar energy at less than fossil fuel prices"

Green and Gold Energy laid down a pathway document which shows how to deliver a 60% below 1990 emission cut well before 2050 and do it without increasing electricity prices, costing jobs or reducing mining exports / jobs.

(Although it might be cheaper to assemble it in modular form offshore. Industrial projects are prohibitive in Australia right now. )

Neferti wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2008 at 6:15pm: Either here or the tech board is fine. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167872910 Solar is one of the most expensive options around and it should not be subsidised. Right!  So we should go nuclear?  [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

I think we should go nuclear - and solar and geothermal, and wind and wave.  The market will determine what is ultimately the cheapest.

Muso, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Why would they make grand political statements rather than sticking to direct statements about the cost of the technology?

They make grand political stements because they are trying to get the attention of politicians.  The cost of the units is quoted on the website (or it was at one stage).  It was around $1300 per unit. The pathway document was also downloadable on the website at one stage.  

It's quite a small company. I think they are having trouble keeping up with current orders. Maybe that's why they are building a new factory to manufacture them in India.

There are three main points of distinction in their technology:

1. They use high efficiency triple junction cells, normally reserved for space probes. These have an efficiency of around 40% (They quote >35%) That's much higher than standard solar panels.

2. The use optical concentrators to increase the solar input

and

3. They track the sun and thus maximise the energy captured.

There are a number of installations that I'm personally aware of. This is not a fly-by-night operation by any means.

What is the cost per unit of electricity? Or at elast, what would it be if they set up a large scale plant?

If they had an economical system, they would be trying to get the attention of investors, not politicians. You chase politicians if you are after a handout.

Something muso posted elsewhere. It is from a site plugging renewable energy. Even it puts PV as too expensive for a long time to come, and always more expensive than cheaper options.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170222422/171#171

http://www.trec.net.au/images/000-2050/FutureEnergyPrices.gif

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 3:09pm:

If they had an economical system, they would be trying to get the attention of investors, not politicians. You chase politicians if you are after a handout.

- or a change in policy. Obviously the SA government is taking him seriously (see the Media release below)

The actual cost per unit of electricity will be determined by the initial cost and the lifetime of the units, because the running costs are negligible. I haven't spoken to Greg Watson for months, but I seem to remember he was talking about $1300 per solar cube. They generate about 350 Watts per unit. The bottom line is that I don't remember what the cost per unit is, but it was of the order of half that of a conventional flat panel.

"Media Release
(26 March 2008)
Green and Gold Energy receives a AU$450,000 order from the South Australia government to supply, build, commission and operate 3 grid connected SunCube™ Energy Farms.

The CEO of Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd (GGE), Mr Greg Watson today announced GGE has received an AU$450,000 order to supply, build, commission and operate 3 grid connected SunCube™ Energy Farms (SEFs) in various locations across South Australia. GGE has started manufacturing the SunCubes™ at our Glynde manufacturing facility and expects to start site works in April with the 3 SEFs to be completed and “On Line” before the end of June 2008. Mr Watson says this order represents the second project funding GGE has received from the South Australian government in support of GGE’s SunCube™ development and commercialization program..."

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/Documents/GGEPressRelease20080326a.pdf

I install economical grid connect PV systems for the Sydney Energy Cooperative (http://www.energycoop.com.au. The great shame about the rebate debate is that the majority of houses I install at haven't really spent any money increasing efficiency.

The most common examples of neglect include replacement of halogen downlights (not often done), replacement of T8 fluorescent lights with T5 (rarely done), installing solar hot water, and converting cook tops to gas. These changes usually payback really quickly but are not as 'sexy'

I firmly believe grid connect solar is part of the picture, but it is best done in conjunction with the easy options listed above.