-
What's the life of those Monier tiles?
All Tier 1 Solar Manufacturers come with a 10 year warranty plus a 25 year performance guarantee, so you know you’re making a real investment with a company who will be there every step of the way.
-
@nta said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
oles (like the one above NZ) make solar power in th
I sell residential solar in USA, so found this an interesting read. We are doing an increasing amount of installs here in Colorado, helped by 30% federal tax credit and utility rebates making it much more affordable.
-
@darren-nicholson the US market is interesting because electricity is so damn cheap, it makes even solar systems hard to justify on a financial basis. On average, electricity is less than two-thirds what it is here (depending on exchange rate).
Do you find any increase in off-grid installs in that part of the world? I imagine in Colorado there are some really nice spots where hooking up to the grid would cost more than a decent standalone system.
-
@nta
So far every install I have sold is on grid, with 'net metering'. Depending on what utility it costs around $14/month to be tied to the grid. Batteries are still a bit too much to be affordable for most people. A 20yr solar loan about matches an electricity bill.
The average system I sell is about 6 or 7 kW. -
@darren-nicholson finding that here, too - the price now is ridiculously cheap for 5kW systems, and the average house sizes in Australia for a new build now mean a big roof to stack panels on.
I've got 6.5kW at the moment but the inverter is 5kW. its enough for most things, and my battery is just on the right side of affordable if I'm careful about what I use, and when.
-
Have had the chance to drive 2 EVs in the last couple of weeks:
- BMW i3 full EV - a level of finish you'd expect for a beamer. Output seemed to match the listed range and it had a fair bit of nip. The regen braking was hardcore! Would I pay $70k for it? Nup. Can get a second hand Model S for under $100K these days...
- Renault Zoe - still not cheap at $52K onroad (according to their website), but again that kind of torque you only get from an EV and some nice features in it e.g. reversing camera. The rest of the finish is extremely basic - open panel work without skins on it or plugs for all the holes etc. Felt like a Chinese car in a lot of ways.
-
@nta When I drove the Tesla roadster, the regen braking was horrid. You'd take your foot off the accelerator to cruise, then the regen would kick in and slam you against your seatbelt. The sales guy made an adjustment then though which made it a lot better.
They had it largely sorted by the time the Model S came around though. Much better on that.
-
@gt12 globally it's an even bigger number.
Here in Oz the complaints about renewables subsidies completely miss the fact that the government blows many times that on fossil fuels BUT it does include diesel subsidies, that also help farmers.
Why Gina Rinehart - richest woman in the world - needs diesel subsidies to run her massive mining operations is anyone's guess.
Welfare for the rich
-
@gt12 said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Seemed like the best place for this? That’s a big number.
I'm not a fan of studies that attribute costs that are simply made up:
The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.
They did the same with tobacco in Australia (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-3-the-costs-of-smoking-to-australian-society). But once you cut it down to genuinely attributable data it tells a very different story - smokers are a net benefit: They pay more tax and die early.
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Why Gina Rinehart - richest woman in the world - needs diesel subsidies to run her massive mining operations is anyone's guess.
Welfare for the richThere's a common misconception that subsidies are redistribution - they're not. At best they're foregone revenue and when the stated intent of diesel tax is to be spent on public roads, why should someone whose diesel engine never sees a public road pay for it - particularly when it could be a generator..
-
Many of these studies are bullshit. They often include "subsidies" which are legitimate tax write-offs.
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
They did the same with tobacco in Australia (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-3-the-costs-of-smoking-to-australian-society). But once you cut it down to genuinely attributable data it tells a very different story - smokers are a net benefit: They pay more tax and die early.
Tobacco is a different beast tho - the pollution from burning fossil fuels affects everyone in the "drop zone", and not a targeted group who knowingly participate in the act of consumption, and therefore taxation.
Throw in direct emissions and fugitive emissions - that Australian companies presently aren't paying for, and the reparation cost that the miners aren't paying, and you've got a fairly favourable environment.
-
@NTA All you need to do if you're going to invent those sorts of negative externalities is add the positive externalities as well. I'd imagine the ledger would be firmly in the positive. One only has to look at the balance of payments to start with.
-
@antipodean I'm not against anyone making a profit. But the full costing of their activities needs to be accurate.
If the cost of rehabilitation for a mine site makes it unprofitable, then it was never profitable. The taxpayer ends up footing the bill.
A carbon price makes a lot of sense, if implemented correctly. Might even mean nuclear.
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean I'm not against anyone making a profit. But the full costing of their activities needs to be accurate.
** If the cost of rehabilitation for a mine site makes it unprofitable, then it was never profitable. The taxpayer ends up footing the bill.**
A carbon price makes a lot of sense, if implemented correctly. Might even mean nuclear.
Is that true? Given the hoops that mining companies need to hop through to get approval (not to mention the very high cost associated with this process) I find it hard to believe that the taxpayer exclusively picks up the bill.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel sample article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-05/coal-mine-rehabilitation-cost-could-hit-taxpayers/10463302
It isn't everyone, but unfortunately not all the environmental costs are taken into account, or the companies can go bust before the full cost of rehab is covered. Under NSW law at the time of that article (Nov last year), refilling the mines isn't a requirement.
It becomes a sticky point as the purpose of the mine is done, profit is no longer being generated, and a quick change of details and the company doesn't exist any more.
As for the hoops: they exist but so do building approvals, and we've got apartment blocks in both Olympic Park and now Mascot cracking and showing signs of structural integrity.
Anecdote: as a kid we used to drive up and down the New England highway a bit, and through the Hunter Valley you could see evidence of the coal mining (trucks, conveyors, power stations at Vales Point etc) but never really the mines. Recently I drove back that way and they've started coming over the hill toward Singleton in a way that was a bit shocking.
However, it isn't as shocking as if you take the Putty Road and end up around Denman and get a good look at the pits themselves. Lot of coal dug up around there, with whole hillsides etc. missing that you aren't going to backfill no matter what you do - there simply isn't enough dirt to cover it.
It isn't easy to govern this sort of thing, particularly for long-running mines like those in the Hunter Valley.
Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view