This is a fantastic initiative. Hopefully all parties subscribe to this.
It’s win win for all involved. Only power companies would be against this.
You must log in or register to comment.
Don’t really know the specific ins and outs of different policys and all that, but really want solar to become more main stream, and with that, hopefully bring the prices down a bit.
Very keen to get some solar in the near future, and would love for some friendlier prices :)
The one to watch is the buyback rate, or what the power company will buy power off you for. Unless you’re using a lot of power during the day, this is typically what makes solar not worthwhile.
The real problem is the daily charge. If the buyback is close enough to the purchase price you can make your night time (off peak) costs balance your generated income. When you have a high daily rate you have make up that difference before you can break even. I just switched to a provider with a bigger buyback/purchase difference but lower daily and will come out ahead because of that. Got tired of sending 2x more kWh to the grid than receiving and still ending up in debit.
Does the math, math if you get enough Batteries so that you can use a lot of it at night, without much buyback? Or does the high cost of storage not make the math quite math.
I’m currently paying 10c/kwh off peak, and most of our power is used off peak, I doubt a battery would pay for itself any time soon. Besides, they’re not the most environmentally friendly option.
Just totally random, but I suddenly thought of when they first introduced hybrid power into F1, and kept it quite open for the manufacturers to come up with their own solution, and at least one team (from memory) tested flywheels.
Wondered if someones done a residential scale flywheel, and it seems like there’s been at least some research into it.
Those systems more or less completely charged and discharged in each corner from memory, there wasn’t all that much energy in the system.
The only realistic use case I can think of would be keeping power on long enough for a generator to spin up. Otherwise you’d have a moving part with a scary amount of inertia that needs routine maintenance, and otherwise just sits there.
True. Does sound like a lot of maintenance and dangerr
Hopefully if they mandate for it. They will invest in solar and that should bring the price down for all. Only time will tell though
Hopefully with the massive amount of effort going into battery tech, the price continues to come down rapidly, and we also get new technologies coming out that are a bit more eco-friendly
Nah, grid scale pumped storage is where it’s at. Much cleaner.
Genuinely curious - but what about for “self reliance” / redundancy options on a residential scale?
That’s definitely an advantage to having your own storage, how much that’s worth very much depends on the individual customer though.
deleted by creator
As I’ve said in other comments, the best way to get around the power companies is to offset your own power usage, and put little to no power into the grid itself.
That way you’re essentially paying yourself full purchase price for the power you make, and the power co doesn’t get their cut at all.
Absolutely
Just saw this on the Aussie community and I’d thought I’d add it for some food for thought as it doesn’t directly relate to NZ:
Rooftop solar eats up all demand in South Australia, world’s most renewable grid
The Aussies clearly love solar and I wish more people here would get behind it.
*Solar for some. Not everyone qualifies
Who doesn’t qualify?
It’ll have an income threshold, and renters aren’t mentioned at all.
Ah that’s shit
I don’t think it’s too unreasonable:
Eligibility criteria for the solar rebate will be households where the:
- Combined household income of less than $250,000
- Property valued at less than 1.5 times the national median house price (currently $1.15m) or 1.5 times Auckland and Queenstown median house price (approximately $1.49m and $1.9m, respectively).
- Solar system is a minimum of 2Kw
The rebate will be available for rental properties.
Putting solar panels on the roof of a building that is empty during the day, and in use at night is exactly the type of thinking I’d expect from Labour.
We should be putting it on the roofs of businesses, because they’re there during the day
The policy says the rebate is for a battery as well. However I prefer the Greens policy that goes even further than Labour’s.
And let’s be honest, we already know the power companies and businesses do not pass on savings to the consumer and will just keep it all to boost profits. I would much rather solar directly benefits households, no matter how little it may be.
The policy says the rebate is for a battery as well.
How very environmentally friendly, the process to make any battery is absolutely filthy.
It’s far better to use that power as it’s made, or use something like grid scale pumped hydro.
It’s slowly improving and will only get better with the popularity of EV’s. Even LiFePO4 batteries are considered much more environmentally friendly than previous tech. I got a quote a few months ago for solar + battery and that already included LiFePO4 battery storage.
The tech won’t improve unless there’s uptake and demand, which is starting to increase now. Australia has had subsidies for solar installation for a while now and costs for rooftop PV there are some of the lowest.
It’s up to you if you want to trust the power companies, but in the 5 or so years of living in this house our power prices have only ever increased.
Still far from ideal from an environmental perspective, when the alternative is the power being used in the same building that is generating it.
I just don’t think this is a cost effective policy myself
Ideally we should incentivize both residential and commercial installations.
Ideally, yes. We certainly shouldn’t be incentivising house batteries though.
Grid tied solar doesn’t care if your home is empty while collecting sunlight. The grid will carry the power to areas of demand.
Yes, but the power company typically buys it from you at roughly half the price they sell it for, so a system that is offsetting power used on the premises is far more cost effective than one on an empty house.
There’s also transmission losses to consider.
Put in a larger battery if you are interested in using site produced solar at unlit hours.
Those are expensive, and not particularly environmentally friendly either.
Less usually. Half the time it costs you to supply them with power. It’s a rip off
deleted by creator
Why do you think we step up the voltage as far as 220 thousand volts? You can lose a maximum of 5% of the nominal supply voltage between the switchboard and the load inside a building, and 7% from the point of supply to the load.
Transmission loss on low voltage is definitely not insignificant.
Both. Both is better. Also I use my power during the day. Lots of people do. Maybe you don’t. Kool
I’m typically at work, yes.
Kool. Some work from home. So daytime solar would still be an advantage
I put solar in. It dropped my power bill about 40%.
Why you always argue we shouldn’t do good things because it’s not perfect is beyond me.
Solar on houses is good. Solar on houses and businesses is better. But just because the latter isn’t happening right now is no reason to not do the former.
deleted by creator
Nice!
Yes batteries are currently not really worth it at the prices we pay. I had 2 small batteries installed (IIRC they are 4kwh total), but they really add nothing. Slightly offset costs,but weren’t worth it. I got a good price on them, however, so I’m not too upset, but in hindsight I wouldn’t have added them.
I’m a big fan of centralised storage. Using excess generated power during the day on a pumped water storage system, or similar, and then returning it to the grid at night. I think the economies of scale make the most sense this way, and then buyback rates should be equal. That would require some radial overhauling of the current power landscape, however. If only the power companies hadn’t been privatised back in the day, we would be in better shape then we are now.
My argument is there is a far better way of doing solar than what is being proposed, not that we shouldn’t do it.
If you actually read and understood my comment, you’d know I’m advocating for solar on buildings that are using power during the day.
Sure, but there are other considerations. Many businesses do not have appropriate roofs, or are in shared buildings, or are surrounded by tall buildings so get little sunlight.
Also, just because you won’t benefit doesn’t mean others won’t. Like I said, combining running washing etc during the day, keeping the house cool/warm for free during the day, and the buyback (small but significant) has dropped my power bill almost 40%.
I personally think residential solar is a great idea. I think commerical solar is a great idea. I’m happy with anyone adding solar to anything.
ETA: oh, and if you are in favour of solar, then I suggest you vote Labour or Greens. They are the only parties with concrete plans to increase solar uptake.
Have you done the numbers on how long it will take to pay this system off?
Yes, I have it somewhere. I think it was in the order of 10 years but I’d have to find the details to confirm that.
I didn’t do it with the thinking of return on investment however. To me, it is an increase in property value, and a reduction in day-to-day costs which were big factors, and of course reducing my environmental impact.
I actually installed my panels in two stages. The second stage added 60% production, but cost slightly less than the initial 40% did. The costs are even less now. Couple that with input from the government, and the pay-off time would be much less if I installed it today with this policy in effect. Much more appealing to people whose main concern is strictly reducing costs.
I’m also a big fan of residential solar for redundancy and disaster resilience.