Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

For the past few years State and Federal governments have been strongly supporting the installation of solar panels for both domestic and commercial generation of panels. Not only have there been subsidies to offset the cost of purchase and installation, but there are rebates for the excess electricity that is put into the Grid. As a result of these incentives, the amount of electricity generated in this way has increased exponentially. At present it is not enough to completely eliminate the need for other means of generation, but every bit helps in the Greening of electricity generation.

 

Originally, the rebate for each kW added to the Grid was pretty good, but for whatever reason it is not as high now, but still exists. But coming soon, the electricity companies will start charging those who supply this excess, solar generated electricity for supplying it. Apparently the reason being that so much solar generated electricity is going into the Grid that the companies cannot manage its distribution. The infrastructure is not good enough. Therefore, the companies are going to start charging suppliers in order to get the money to upgrade the infrastructure.

 

While the rebate for supplying electricity will remain, the companies will deduct a certain amount from that rebate as might be described as a "waste removal" fee. It is estimated that this fee would depend on how much electricity is returned to the Grid, but in the following video, an amount of $75.00 is mentioned. 

 

Perhaps someone here who is receiving the rebate could enlarge on that point.

 

Here's the video. It is from Channel 9. You can determine if it is heavily biased against the companies.

 

 

  • Informative 2
Posted

I wouldn't get overly concerned about this. As with many things, the detail is important.

 

"According to the publicly available fact sheet, and a statement issued by Ausgrid on Thursday, “under the new pricing arrangements a typical solar customer could see an increase of $6.60 per year – or 13 cents a week. Some solar customers can expect a rebate.”

 

Or, as the fact-sheet puts it: “If the retailer fully passed through our two-way tariff, a typical 5 kW solar customer will see an annual bill increase of $6.60 per year. This includes $13.30 a year of charges offset by $6.70 of export rebate.”

 

 

It could be argued that if the grid took power it did not need at a cost and actually paid for it, it could  be argued that those without solar would be footing the bill.    I don't particularly have a problem with lower prices or even a small fee to offload power that the grid does not need.  Of course, this is due to our antiquated grid and this will and is changing as we modernize the grid. 

 

My electricity bills are pretty small.  Most of my savings come from utilizing the power I produce at the time I produce it.   As lower-cost batteries become more common (sodium etc.) the preferable option will be to store our excess power for our own use.

 

The media loves to present sensationalist headlines such as "sun tax coming"  however when examined closely it is usually not what it may seem.  For an in-depth analysis  Export charges are coming! What does it mean and should you still get solar?

  • Informative 1
Posted

Further to my last post.  From Solar Analytics (a pro-solar group) 

 

 
  • Draft rule change allows network companies to charge for solar energy exported to the grid
  • This may result in a reduction of your solar feed-in tariff (estimated around 2c/kWh), but could also increase feed-in tariffs at peak times (evening), making home battery storage more attractive
  • These charges won’t apply until 2024 at the earliest
  • The charges are intended to incentivise network companies to enable more rooftop solar to be connected and to export more solar to the grid
  • We support these changes but only if they include the right for all customers to put solar on their roof, and to export a reasonable amount of solar back to the grid (networks currently can reject solar applications or solar export)
  • Rooftop solar is still the cheapest form of electricity is a fantastic investment for most households
 

 

  • Informative 1
Posted (edited)

We on the left coast are fortunate enough to have a Govt that stills controls all the power generation in W.A. - and they're flush with funds, and are happy to dispense a $400 energy subsidy to us this FY, to help with power bills. 

Coupled with the $300 Federal subsidy, our power bill will be greatly reduced this FY. We installed a new 6.6kW solar system in 2021, and we use as much power as possible while the solar system is cranking.

 

The solar power export rebates for power generated to the grid are certainly going down like the Titanic. Our solar power rebate is the same as the rest of Australia - although we did enjoy a State Govt subsidised solar power credit of 40c per kW/H for 10 years, from 2011 to 2021. I can see the export rebate declining to virtually nothing within a short space of time.

Perhaps it will be then economic to install a home battery. At present, I cannot justify the cost of a battery, especially when their lifespan appears to be only around 10 years.

 

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/household-electricity-credit

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
Posted

10 year battery life ! .

I'm 82 this year , what good will my paying $ thousands for solar , without the rebates .

I'll still be paying out for the power bill , without the interest on the money removed from my bank account. 

spacesailor

Posted
52 minutes ago, octave said:

The media loves to present sensationalist headlines

It's a sad state of affairs that induced me to add the caveat for those who read my post, to consider if the Channel 9 story had any bias. 

 

Are we becoming so terribly cynical of what the various media present to us, the we even begin to doubt the accuracy of the date printed on the daily newspaper?

  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

I've said it before, but it reminds me of the cartoon showing newsreaders at the desk "We'll be back with more news as soon as we make some up." 

 

Maybe that should be "...as soon as we check with Rupert."

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)

Don't expect the Murdoch press to get any better under the heir apparent either.

 

Apparently Rupie is in court somewhere out the back of nowhere (to avoid journalists) trying to get the family trust removed so he can rewrite it with all power to make decisions about the news empire going to Lachie.

This is because the other kids are a bit more progressive (ie "normal") than Lachie who's a chip off the ol' block, so if Rupie wants his "news" empire to continue with a decided lean to the right, he has to remove their voting rights, otherwise the news could become (gasp!) balanced.

Edited by Marty_d
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
  • Sad 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...