News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Solar power coming of age in the bush 

Solar power coming of age in the bush

19 Feb, 2010 11:02 AM
SOLAR power generation is coming of age, and it is a moment that should have anyone with acreage sitting up and taking notice.

For most of the past 30 years, household solar power was associated with dim 12-volt lightbulbs. All that has changed in the past few years, and a lot more besides.

The basic technology has grown up. Solar power can now run a 240-volt house, and all the gadgetry of modern living, with no changes needed on wiring or lightbulbs, and only minimal changes in habits.

Some other important technology has emerged. Today’s household solar power systems can plug straight into the mains electricity grid. That has a couple of important implications:

  • the grid becomes a giant battery. Solar power trickled onto the grid during the day can be pulled off during peak usage periods at night, along with any top-up mains power that might be needed.
  • solar power trickled onto the grid can be bought by a power company, subsidising a household’s power use.

The latter scenario opens up new income possibilities for farms with some spare sunny ground or north-facing shed roofs.

How big? Angus Gemmell, managing director of solar energy broker Solar Choice, says in NSW and ACT, which have recently introduced generous policies on renewable energy, the sums can add up very well indeed.

A landholder choosing to install a 10 kilowatt solar array will currently spend $43,000-$55,000, depending on the installation.

Under current NSW/ACT rules, an array this size will generate nearly $10,000 in electricity a year on current prices, Mr Gemmel said, ensuring a constant return on investment and a pay-back period of four to five years.

The standard household system of 1.5 kW has a payback period of about two years.

After payback, the array is delivering free electricity to the owner, and additional income if there is a surplus.

Most solar panels come with a 20-25 year guarantee. Dr Muriel Watt of the Australian Photo Voltaic Association reports that some 40-year-old panels are still going strong.

A roof mounted solar array capable of generating a kilowatt covers about eight square metres. A ground-mounted array needs a little more room for mounts and to prevent shadowing.

For large installations, space is a prerequisite — although States limit the power generation capacity of private renewable installations. In NSW, the limit is 10 kilowatts per registered power line. A farm with separate power lines to bore pumps or sheds can add 10kW per line.

But whether solar power generation represents an opportunity to landholders depends a lot on the State and its policy on “feed-in tariffs”, or how credits on renewable energy fed onto the grid are calculated.

All tariff schemes value renewable energy higher than fossil fuel energy (sold at around 15-19 cents per kilowatt hour), but the multiplier varies between States and power companies.

In NSW, Victoria and ACT, companies are offering feed-in tariff rates of 60-68 c/kwh, but in SA and Qld prices fall to 44-52 c/kwh.

Credits earned through tariffs can either go towards the purchase of mains electricity, or with many power companies can be exchanged for cash.

NSW and the ACT offer gross feed-in tariffs: every kilowatt of energy exported onto the grid is credited, regardless of how much power is drawn back by the household or farm. Returns are guaranteed for seven years in NSW, 20 years in the ACT.

These, according to Mr Gemmell, “are the best systems in the world, on par with Germany and Spain”.

Victoria, South Australia and Queensland have a net feed-in tariff, which provides a credit only on surplus energy fed onto the grid. If a solar installation exports four kilowatts, but the business draws back five, the site only gets a credit for one kilowatt.

The largely identical SA and Qld tariff schemes are now under review—a process that Mr Gemmell suggests should be of keen interest to rural landholders because of the income possibilities from a gross scheme.

Tasmania doesn’t offer a feed-in tariff because it considers its hydroelectricity delivers enough green energy, Mr Gemmell said.

The West Australian Liberals promised a gross feed-in tariff before election, but are now saying that they will only introduce a net scheme.

The inequity between the States is causing renewables money to flow towards NSW and ACT.

Mr Gemmell reported that interstate investors are offering to lease land from NSW farmers to put in solar installations, with the farmer getting free electricity and the investor taking profits from the surplus.

NSW customers represented about 15 per cent of Solar Choice’s base in early 2009. This year they represent 70 per cent.

But the boom may be short-lived, Mr Gemmell said. The NSW Government has said it will review its gross feed-in tariff scheme when uptake represents 50 megawatts.

In Mr Gemmell’s estimation, at current adoption rates that point will be reached by late May or June.

* Solar Choice provides households and businesses with quote comparisons from 65 solar power installers around the country.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Whoever did this report needs to get their facts correct. The "grid" is not a giant battery, that could not be further from the truth. When you use power at night it is being generated somewhere, it is not stored anywhere. This is why the use of coal has continued at the same rate, as solar like wind needs to be backed up. Until we replace coal with base load technology that is cost effective we are wasting out time.
Posted by Andy, 19/02/2010 11:42:25 AM
The stupidity of these schemes never ceases to amaze me. Why generate power and sell it into the grid when you can use it yourself? Why not put batteries in, and use your own power, only using grid power when your system needs topping up.
Posted by bill, 19/02/2010 5:56:00 PM
Andy is right, the grid is not a big battery.
Posted by jerangle, 19/02/2010 6:14:26 PM
Andy you have beaten me to the punch. But I would like to comment on your last sentence 'until we replace coal with base load technology...' That base load technology should be HOT FRACTURED ROCK GEOTHERMAL GENERATION of which Australia is blessed with mammoth quantities. People who read these comments regularly will probably be sick of reading my spiel but I see it as 'Manna from Heaven'. It is pollution free, it does not need separate non renewable inputs like coal or uranium. Once the capital cost is paid off it is almost free (maintenance, repairs and a capital replacement fund and normal operational costs are all that is needed). Being able to be run as a closed cycle system it doesn't need large quantities of water that coal or nuclear do. So what are the downsides? I don't think there are any. It is already underway on a small scale with a 1 MW unit having been in operation for close to 12 months now. Why it is not being hailed and welcome with open arms is beyond me except for the suspicion that it is political. It will kill all the crap about global warming and the need for us to have an ETS.
Posted by daw, 19/02/2010 7:57:17 PM
Tasmania may have hydro electricity but we have been buying fossil fuel generated electricity from Victoria for years. The demand for electricity continues to grow as people move to control their working environment to 24 degrees C year round. This is crazy and wasteful. Put on a jumper in winter or take off your jacket in summer. Tasmanians are duped into using "HydroHeat" thinking it is the green alternative. We should demand to know how much of our electricity comes across Bass Strait.
Posted by tassie devil, 20/02/2010 10:03:46 PM
I have always thought that it would make far more sense to put solar panels on our rooves to generate electricity that is renewable instead of these dodgy insulation schemes. I lived with generators for 20 years until i married 10 years ago. I would love to be able to set my old home up with solar power at a reasonable cost so someone could live there. The cost of running generators is excessive. As a Tasmanian i think our gvernment is very backward in not promoting solar power here. Does the Hydro have some monopoly in mind for tasmanian Electricity. By there own arguments droughts are to be more frequent so is hydro such a good long term investment?
Posted by Helen Clark, 22/02/2010 6:32:25 AM
Baseload power is also available using concentrated solar thermal technology. Spain already has 3GW worth. A properly designed mix of sources will help to overcome baseload issues. While there may be technical and economic hitches, the real hurdles are psychological.
Posted by Michael, 22/02/2010 9:48:53 AM
The power being fed back into the grid is not only over priced (subsidised) it also retards the efficiency of the base load generators which must operate at less than full capacity. These efficiency losses are not costed by the alternate energy spivs. Indeed, the more the base load generators are impaired, the higher the average cost of their output becomes, and the less uncompetitive the gonzo alternatives appear. It is false economy at its very worst, driven by a stealthy form of sabotage.
Posted by Ian Mott, 22/02/2010 10:16:20 AM
Matt Cawood is somewhat behind the times. Many of us have had off-grid systems for decades, using inverters to provide "normal" 240V household power. The most important innovation has been the capability for some domestic systems, depending on distance, to link to the grid, which does indeed operate like a battery (though of course it is not a battery). An ambitious scheme being planned links solar in north Africa and Spain, wind in north-west Europe, geothermal in northern Europe, so that the super-grid is kept "fully charged". As Michael says, a properly designed mix of energy sources can overcome problems. Why Mott should abuse progressive people as 'spivs' is beyond me, though characteristic of his style.
Posted by nico, 22/02/2010 12:26:14 PM
The problem with some alternative energy (not including geothermal) is that they basically are subsidised cons. They cost a fortune, for very little or no return. The con men who try to sell them do not tell the truth, instead spin doctoring is a way of life.
Posted by ally, 22/02/2010 2:36:48 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Have your voting intentions changed since Tony Abbott became leader of the federal Opposition?

Yes - more likely to vote Coalition
(32.2%)

Yes - more likely to vote Labor
(9%)

Yes - more likely to vote for a minor party
(5.7%)

No change - still a Coalition voter
(42.5%)

No change - still a Labor voter
(5.5%)

No change - still a minor party voter
(5.1%)

Total Votes: 870
Poll Date: 14 February, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...