Crissa wrote:Yeah, 'cause the studies are generally by governments with reason not to invest in it, or not enough sunlight to matter.
Apparently the point that paying for an installation pays for it self over 20 years flew right past you somewhere several pages back...
-Crissa
Apparently the consumer advocacy group study that I linked you that indicated that it doesn't pay for itself in 20 years without massive government subsidies flew right past you on this page.
I'll link it again if you'd like
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.as ... g+the+cost
Infact, without said subsidies, break even on a case study was 58 years, and please note that they projected from the 6 months over summer, so its likely to be longer.
Operating lifespan of the panels is not 58 years.
The guys who do get break even benefit from a fairly substantial subsidy.
And these guys arn't even doing a discounted cash flow analysis, so its hugely un economical despite the payments of:
A) A rebate
B) Carbon Credits
C) above market rate feed in tariff
A family on sydney's northern beaches (quite sunny), had a 25 year break even point.
The best bit is this is the most crude form of analysis - its just summing the annual returns until it equals the inital outlay.
But I could have stuck my money in a bank account instead and got 5% interest risk free - though presumably the solar panel would be a hedge against inflation, so assuming a deposit rate of 6% and a inflation rate of 3.5, thats a break even period of 37 years even in the subsidized case study.
Yay, government subsidies give you 37 years break even.
home solar panels are not a purely rational decision, you are making a decision that you support the principles behind it, and are choosing to spend money on that 'feel good' factor.
You are welcome to that choice, but it is not the most cost effective use of your money - depending on the value you assign that feeling.
Interestingly, as my household earns to much money, I do not personally qualify for the rebate on solar panel installations in Australia.
So if I redo the analysis with just that component of the subsidy removed, even with the feed in tariff, and assuming I lived 300kms north and it is permantly spring, summer and autumn with no winter, my break even period is 35 years in raw form, and over 70 years if I use a DCF analysis.
So, please, drop the 'microgeneration is cost effective' line. It isn't unless the government gives you big piles of money to do it and even then it might still not be cost effective. Most studies indicate a 25 year lifespan for the panels minimum and say they may last substantially longer, but indicate that other system components will have to be overhauled (with a fresh capital injection) at or before that point.
So not going to slice it with a 35+ year repayment time haha.
@Angel
Yeah, that is true, but the lower price caused by the cost cutting is what gets the unit price down on solar panels which is part of the reason for the recent boom in solar investment. If your take away the artificially cheap product as a result, the ROI calculation blows right out. Its like the lack of a carbon tax for coal, its making the price artifically cheap due to a negative externality . Correct the externality and the cost of solar will increase.
As for the remaining point, well, hey, doesn't that support nuclear as that is very low emissions technology that current accounts for the majority of some countries generation, with only one tricky issue left to solve - admittedly it is a real doozy.
Unlike solar where we still need a better cell, and we need a better battery.
But yeah, its a tough situation - I'm still pretty convinced though after running though the data that nuclear power is the cheapest of the very low carbon power generation mechanisms - all available evidence supports that nuclear is (considerably) the lowest of the low carbon generation schemes and is a proven technology.
The downsides are
A) No political will to commission a permenant nuclear waste site. This is a serious and considerable risk.
The reality is we need one eventually somewhere because just the Australian Lucas Heights Reactor which makes medical isotypes produces nuclear waste that needs management
B) Uncertain commerical enviroment - without government support to ensure that things happen without endless changes, private sector will not fund nuclear power plants because they've been burnt by the US experince.
Conversely Solar has no risks from the buy in front, everyone supports that. The downsides are
A) Higher cost of generation per kilowatt hour - It's going to cost twice as much as nuclear power. I'm not sure people will accept this, particularly given the situation with pensioners and low income earners. I suppose we could just tell them to turn of their fridges, but yeah.
B) Unresolved situation for power generation outside of daytime. Assume we go for the central generation system out in the desert - which would get very good coverage - what do you do for power after dark? Peak time for power consumption in Australia is 2-8pm, a big chunk of which is after dark.
The best mechanism I've seen - which I rather like - is using the visible light spectrum to warm up water than use surplus electricity generated during the day to make hydrogen to be burnt after dark.
But no one has demonstrated that the second part of that can actually work, and that the there is cost effectiveness.
