The general public perception of renewable energy is often in terms of saving the environment and reducing global carbon dioxide emissions. While it is true that renewable energy provides great environmental benefits and may yet prove to be our main hope for decarbonization, it is just as true and often overlooked that renewable energy provides considerable economic and social benefits.

Solar PV is the largest renewable energy employer with 2.5 million jobs worldwide, up from 2.3 million at last count. According to IRENA’s 2014 renewable energy costs study, solar PV module prices have dropped more than 75 per cent since 2009 and residential solar PV systems are 65 per cent cheaper than in 2008.

Wind is another example where falling costs are creating new jobs. Employment in wind energy passed the 1 million jobs mark, up from 834,000 at last count. Onshore wind is now one of the most cost-competitive sources of electricity available with some projects now delivering electricity for as little as US four cents per kWh, again without financial support.

The new reality is that the cost of generating power from renewable energy sources has reached parity or dropped below the cost of fossil fuels for many technologies in many parts of the world. Biomass, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind are all competitive with or cheaper than coal, oil and gas-fired power stations, even without financial support and despite falling oil prices. These low prices are making the business case for renewable energy stronger than ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adnan-z-amin/the-economics-of-renewabl_b_7452996.html

'Most importantly, the total for the 12 months from December 2014 to November 2015 is only 1.418 GW. Because new installations remain below 1.5 GW, the monthly feed-in tariff reduction remains at 0.0 percent – meaning that the rates that apply for 20 years for new systems continue to be offered at the level of September 2015. The highest rate for the smallest arrays (below 10 kilowatts) is 12.31 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The lowest rate is now 10.7 cents because everything above 100 kilowatts must now be auctioned; the smaller feed-in tariffs below nine cents are no longer offered outside of the auction system.'
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-pv-in-2016/150/452/92493/

Wind UK
Energy Source      Scale      Type / Rate      Tariff (p/kWh)
                  Non-PV              < 15/01/16       > 8/2/16
'Wind      >100 - 500kW             10.85      8.53
Wind      >500kW - 1.5MW        5.89      5.46
Wind      >1.5MW - 5MW               2.49      0.86'

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

So if they are competitive why the need for feed in tariffs?

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 12:23pm:

So if they are competitive why the need for feed in tariffs?

A feed-in tariff is a rate paid for electricity fed back into the electricity grid from a designated renewable electricity generation source such as a rooftop solar panel system or wind turbine.

At present, feed-in tariff regulations for renewable energy exist in over 40 countries around the world and they are widely considered one of the most effective ways to increase solar energy uptake.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/rebates-incentives/feedintariff/

So in summary it is a way of encouraging more people to take up renewables.

The cost of PV battery storage is falling quickly and pretty soon it will be economical enough to be off the grid entirely.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/tesla-already-forcing-down-battery-storage-prices-in-australia-57681

The_Barnacle wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 12:53pm:

A feed-in tariff is a rate paid for electricity fed back into the electricity grid from a designated renewable electricity generation source such as a rooftop solar panel system or wind turbine.

Yes, it goes to some of those homeowners who can  generate Megawatts of power. ;)

Ivanpah Solar facts

'
    is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion.
    received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.
    is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural gas-powered plants.
    is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers.
    has burned thousands of birds to death.
    has delayed loan repayments.
    is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans.
    burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going.

Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those who don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.

In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output is the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine-percent drop in sunshine causes a 32-percent drop in production.

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy.'

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/

Brightsource is a vocal supporter of Beyond Zero Emissions Australia.

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 3:07pm:

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy.'

Yes that is correct. The power plant produces 4 x the amount of energy that it consumes.

Note: Solar thermal plants do not use solar panels to directly convert sunshine to electricity; they use sunshine to boil water that then drives conventional turbines.

The Solar thermal plant described is innovative technology and at present isn't economically feasible. That may change over time however. After all, there was a time when solar panels and wind turbines weren't economically feasible.

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 3:07pm:

Ivanpah Solar facts '     is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion.     received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy.     is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural gas-powered plants.     is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers.     has burned thousands of birds to death.     has delayed loan repayments.     is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans.     burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going. Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those who don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers. In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output is the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine-percent drop in sunshine causes a 32-percent drop in production. More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy.' http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/ Brightsource is a vocal supporter of Beyond Zero Emissions Australia.

Stupid tax sink Ivanpah just set fire to itself. Soon to be bankrupted it was probably an insurance job.

The_Barnacle wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:09pm:

After all, there was a time when solar panels and wind turbines weren't economically feasible.

If they are economically feasible why do they still rely on feed in tariffs?

The_Barnacle wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:09pm:

The Solar thermal plant described is innovative technology and at present isn't economically feasible.

It may be innovative technology  but it is not new technology. It is various older technologies used in new ways. The bugs of the individual system components should have been already worked out. Focussing mirrors, steam drive etc.

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:38pm:

Stupid tax sink Ivanpah just set fire to itself. Soon to be bankrupted it was probably an insurance job.

' The plant works by using mirrors to focus sunlight on boilers at the top of three 459-foot towers, creating steam that drive turbines to produce electricity.

But some misaligned mirrors instead focused sunbeams on a different level of Unit 3, causing electrical cables to catch fire, San Bernardino County, California fire Capt. Mike McClintock said.'

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mirrors-blamed-fire-worlds-largest-solar-plant-39243036

The_Barnacle wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 12:53pm:

lee wrote on May 21st, 2016 at 12:23pm: So if they are competitive why the need for feed in tariffs? At present, feed-in tariff regulations for renewable energy exist in over 40 countries around the world and they are widely considered one of the most effective ways to increase solar energy uptake.

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:49pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:09pm: After all, there was a time when solar panels and wind turbines weren't economically feasible. If they are economically feasible why do they still rely on feed in tariffs?

see above

The_Barnacle wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 21st, 2016 at 12:53pm: lee wrote on May 21st, 2016 at 12:23pm: So if they are competitive why the need for feed in tariffs? At present, feed-in tariff regulations for renewable energy exist in over 40 countries around the world and they are widely considered one of the most effective ways to increase solar energy uptake. lee wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:49pm: The_Barnacle wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:09pm: After all, there was a time when solar panels and wind turbines weren't economically feasible. If they are economically feasible why do they still rely on feed in tariffs? see above

So it is not a economics problem it is a political problem. A subsidy to corporations creating green energy who don't need it.Cute. Sounds like a green protection racket.

It raises the price of electricity above where it should be. Who do you think will be most affected by that? Those on limited incomes or the more well off?

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

So it is not a economics problem it is a political problem. A subsidy to corporations creating green energy who don't need it.Cute. Sounds like a green protection racket. It raises the price of electricity above where it should be. Who do you think will be most affected by that? Those on limited incomes or the more well off?

The feed in tariff for new systems in Victoria (where I live) is just 5c/kWh. Hardly a protection racket.

And why shouldn't people be encouraged to use renewable energy? There are countless benefits to society, and it supports an innovative new industry. It always bemuses me that the neo cons are so against clean renewable energy. It is a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The_Barnacle wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 10:59pm:

lee wrote on May 25th, 2016 at 9:54pm: So it is not a economics problem it is a political problem. A subsidy to corporations creating green energy who don't need it.Cute. Sounds like a green protection racket. It raises the price of electricity above where it should be. Who do you think will be most affected by that? Those on limited incomes or the more well off? The feed in tariff for new systems in Victoria (where I live) is just 5c/kWh. Hardly a protection racket. And why shouldn't people be encouraged to use renewable energy? There are countless benefits to society, and it supports an innovative new industry. It always bemuses me that the neo cons are so against clean renewable energy. It is a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

So what is the name of this commercial renewable corporation? You are not talking household solar are you?

It can't be Pacific Hydro, the windfarm people-

'Cooper’s evidence provides a valuable context for when the senate inquiry gets to its core business of exploring the adequacy of wind farm monitoring and compliance.

This includes the management and oversight of billions of dollars worth of subsidies created through the Renewable Energy Target scheme.'

https://stopthesethings.com/2015/04/04/pacific-hydros-cape-bridgewater-wind-farm-nightmare-unfolds-as-senate-inquiry-hits-portland/
I'm not against renewable energy. I am against subsidies.

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:49pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:09pm: After all, there was a time when solar panels and wind turbines weren't economically feasible. If they are economically feasible why do they still rely on feed in tariffs?

Fo the same reason economically feasable coal mines demand diesel rebates.

Pho Huc wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 12:11pm:

Fo the same reason economically feasable coal mines demand diesel rebates.

You do know diesel fuel rebates are assessable income, don't you? That is they pay tax on that income.

'fuel tax credits, product stewardship (oil) benefit and cleaner fuels grant'

https://www.ato.gov.au/business/income-and-deductions-for-business/working-out-your-assessable-income/what-to-include-in-your-assessable-income/

it is merely a timing issue. BTW diesel rebates are now known as fuel tax credits.

The_Barnacle wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 10:59pm:

lee wrote on May 25th, 2016 at 9:54pm: So it is not a economics problem it is a political problem. A subsidy to corporations creating green energy who don't need it.Cute. Sounds like a green protection racket. It raises the price of electricity above where it should be. Who do you think will be most affected by that? Those on limited incomes or the more well off? The feed in tariff for new systems in Victoria (where I live) is just 5c/kWh. Hardly a protection racket. And why shouldn't people be encouraged to use renewable energy? There are countless benefits to society, and it supports an innovative new industry. It always bemuses me that the neo cons are so against clean renewable energy. It is a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Hi Barnacle,  I am 100% for renewable energies.
Have solar power at home.

There is none. Ask Greenie damaged Sth Aust with the highest power costs in Australia.

Just about all normal straight Australians are sick to death of the sick diseased Greenie circus of performing queers.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 2:56pm:

Hi Barnacle,  I am 100% for renewable energies. Have solar power at home.

Thats great to hear Sprint, if people could just put aside their political agendas they would see the advantages of renewables against our finite fossil fuel reserves.



juliar wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

Just about all normal straight Australians are sick to death of the sick diseased Greenie circus of performing queers.

See what happens when you stop taking your medication Juliar.....

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 25^th, 2016 at 11:22am:

Thats great to hear Sprint, if people could just put aside their political agendas they would see the advantages of renewables against our finite fossil fuel reserves.

Now all you have too do is calculate the cost of upscaling.

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 25th, 2016 at 11:22am: Thats great to hear Sprint, if people could just put aside their political agendas they would see the advantages of renewables against our finite fossil fuel reserves. Now all you have too do is calculate the cost of upscaling.

changing over to renewables can be done as it becomes viable.

every year solar becomes more viable.
with storage getting better it has taken another leap forward

Surely a house with solar and no power bills will sell for more than one that has a power bill every quarter?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

every year solar becomes more viable. with storage getting better it has taken another leap forward

Solar and batteries are mature technologies - there will be no leap forward, rather incremental gains.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

Surely a house with solar and no power bills will sell for more than one that has a power bill every quarter?

That is going to depend on the age of the solar installed. Solar needs to be replaced, as will batteries and in all probability inverters.

Have they figured out how they will manufacture solar panels from renewables yet? They are energy intensive.

lee wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 2:13pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Jun 24th, 2016 at 12:11pm: Fo the same reason economically feasable coal mines demand diesel rebates. You do know diesel fuel rebates are assessable income, don't you? That is they pay tax on that income. 'fuel tax credits, product stewardship (oil) benefit and cleaner fuels grant' https://www.ato.gov.au/business/income-and-deductions-for-business/working-out-your-assessable-income/what-to-include-in-your-assessable-income/ it is merely a timing issue. BTW diesel rebates are now known as fuel tax credits.

Yes, i do. Are you implying that the miners pay retail cost for their fuel?
If your going to bring tax stuctures into this its going be a long and boring thread.

Pho Huc wrote on Jun 29^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

Yes, i do. Are you implying that the miners pay retail cost for their fuel?

Nope. They will pay less because they are big users. However the diesel fuel rebate is based upon the amount charged, not the retail price.

The fuel companies are meticulous with their record keeping. They wouldn't want the fines for any breaches.