Australia proposes a solution to chuck's solar problem

[farmaholic]

Like any government run agency, costs are way inflated to begin with .... crop insurance is a clear example
But so is dental by anyone, covered by insurance by most government worker so cost is way over inflated to the public

Try getting a Natural Gas service capable of running a house, a big shop and a decent grain dryer. The old infrastructure is undersized for today's needs. Not enough capacity on old lines if you are asking for lots of capacity and basically the last one sucking on the line. Higher capacity new infrastructure further away is cost prohibitive, I'm not heating hog or chicken barns or operating some other enterprise that would pay for the investment. I doubt my property values would rise enough to offset the cost if I decided to sell out.

It's hard to believe it costs that much to install that service(either one...low or high capacity)

Last fiscal year SaskEnergy had revenue of 541 million dollars with a profit of 166 million, that's 30%. With profits like those you would think they would want to invest in new "expandable" infrastructure. Weren't the stable geniuses entertaining the thought of privatizing some crown utilities a while ago?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I will try explaining this again. The capacity factor for Chuck's solar panels is likely something less than 18% throughout the year. So for chuck to generate as much electricity throughout the year as he consumes, he will need at least 5.5 times as many solar panels compared to his average use would require.

So on a sunny day in June, he will be selling five and a half times more power back to the grid than he consumes ( assuming he has constant consumption 24/7 365, likely it is much worse than that in the real world).

And when the sun isn't shining he will be buying it back from the grid at the SAME PRICE AS HE SOLD IT TO THEM. As mandated by government. Except all power is not worth the same amount. As we saw many times last winter, when peak demand coincides with supply disruptions, it is worth a lot more than when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, and demand is really slow.

Works OK when only a few Chuck's do this, the rest of the consumers can absorb the costs.

Now extrapolate this to having everyone put solar panels on their roofs and farms and factories and mines etc. With the goal of being net energy sufficient throughout the year. ( and in the real world there is no need to get close to 100% before the system breaks down and costs skyrocket, more like 10% at this latitude, but for taking it to 100% just shows the lunacy of the scam so easily).

So now, in June the entire grid is receiving 5 and a half times more power than there is demand for power. When the marginal cost of production is essentially $0 while the sun is shining, there is no free market means of rationing demand. Supply exceeds demand , the value of that power goes down. When there is no where to absorb that supply, the grid operator either has to spend a lot of money load shedding, or pay someone else enough money that they will take it. Except now there are no other consumers to absorb the cost, So the price doesn't stop going down at $0, it keeps going negative( this is where the smart meters come in, be careful what you wish for Chuck). So being good capitalists, everyone takes the subtle hint and quits trying to send power back to the grid during those hours. But still need to buy it back during the rest of the hours, so much for being net neutral. Now, at best you are providing 18% of your power from the panels, not selling anything significant back to the grid, and still paying for your power for the other 82% of the time, which also happens to be the most expensive during the new reality. Now figure out the payback on those panels when you can no longer use the grid as free storage.

Places where there is already too much grid tied solar, are trying to figure out how to deal with this. The solution in the article is a joke. $20 to $30 per household is a drop in the bucket compared to the astronomical costs born by responsible electricity consumers in Australia. One way or another, expect that number to grow by orders of magnitude. It will involve changing the rules in the middle of the game, there will be lots of squealing from Chuck. Grid tied without storage will be a very expensive lawn ornament.

[malleefarmer]

Cv19 budget cuts govt expenditure what ever.

Seems solar potentially will be full tote odds to purchase and the gloss has gone so to speak, no one knows but systems could double in price.

Company’s going broke left right and centre bit of a cv19 caused shemozzle perhaps Or perhaps it was always destined to happen

I’ve still done zilch

We supposedly one of the greenest state in the world for RNS but electricity most expensive in the world for non compilers

Dogs breakfast catch 22 whatever.

Full blown battery self sufficient so called system 25 to 30k for rolls Royce German or danish system stuff the Chinese ones.

10 k every 8 or so years to replace battery

[furrowtickler]

Cv19 budget cuts govt expenditure what ever.

Seems solar potentially will be full tote odds to purchase and the gloss has gone so to speak, no one knows but systems could double in price.

Company’s going broke left right and centre bit of a cv19 caused shemozzle perhaps Or perhaps it was always destined to happen

I’ve still done zilch

We supposedly one of the greenest state in the world for RNS but electricity most expensive in the world for non compilers

Dogs breakfast catch 22 whatever.

Full blown battery self sufficient so called system 25 to 30k for rolls Royce German or danish system stuff the Chinese ones.

10 k every 8 or so years to replace battery

Always good to get ground truthing from real people with a vested interest, or not 👍

[chuckChuck]

A5 you are so negative. How do you farm with such a negative attitude?

Yes there are issues with solar. Batteries are one of the solutions to store excess power. There are other options. Australia's peak production occurs during peak demand during the heat of the day during much of the year when air con kicks in. It's a great fit.

Their plan is to put in smart batteries and smart inverters so that they can manage the whole system. They currently have a very large percentage of their electricity from solar, and are still managing the system without smart equipment. They are learning as they develop.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions. solar and wind provide some reduction in emissions. I know you don't believe there is a problem with carbon emissions but you are a human caused climate change denier and see no need to invest in cleaner technology.

But even in little old Saskatchewan Sask power is ramping up wind and some solar along with gas and hydro imports to reduce Saskatchewan's carbon emissions from coal. So you can give up on your crusade against solar and wind because you have lost and the world is embracing cleaner forms of energy, especially electricity production.

Alberta is investing in looking at sourcing hydrogen from natural gas and capturing the carbon. Are you opposed to that as well?

There are so many opportunities and new advancements. Its time to invest in the future and not be dragged down by the past. You seem to be stuck in a rut.

[dmlfarmer]

I will try explaining this again. The capacity factor for Chuck's solar panels is likely something less than 18% throughout the year. So for chuck to generate as much electricity throughout the year as he consumes, he will need at least 5.5 times as many solar panels compared to his average use would require.

So on a sunny day in June, he will be selling five and a half times more power back to the grid than he consumes ( assuming he has constant consumption 24/7 365, likely it is much worse than that in the real world).

And when the sun isn't shining he will be buying it back from the grid at the SAME PRICE AS HE SOLD IT TO THEM. As mandated by government. Except all power is not worth the same amount. As we saw many times last winter, when peak demand coincides with supply disruptions, it is worth a lot more than when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, and demand is really slow.

Works OK when only a few Chuck's do this, the rest of the consumers can absorb the costs.

Now extrapolate this to having everyone put solar panels on their roofs and farms and factories and mines etc. With the goal of being net energy sufficient throughout the year. ( and in the real world there is no need to get close to 100% before the system breaks down and costs skyrocket, more like 10% at this latitude, but for taking it to 100% just shows the lunacy of the scam so easily).

So now, in June the entire grid is receiving 5 and a half times more power than there is demand for power. When the marginal cost of production is essentially $0 while the sun is shining, there is no free market means of rationing demand. Supply exceeds demand , the value of that power goes down. When there is no where to absorb that supply, the grid operator either has to spend a lot of money load shedding, or pay someone else enough money that they will take it. Except now there are no other consumers to absorb the cost, So the price doesn't stop going down at $0, it keeps going negative( this is where the smart meters come in, be careful what you wish for Chuck). So being good capitalists, everyone takes the subtle hint and quits trying to send power back to the grid during those hours. But still need to buy it back during the rest of the hours, so much for being net neutral. Now, at best you are providing 18% of your power from the panels, not selling anything significant back to the grid, and still paying for your power for the other 82% of the time, which also happens to be the most expensive during the new reality. Now figure out the payback on those panels when you can no longer use the grid as free storage.

Places where there is already too much grid tied solar, are trying to figure out how to deal with this. The solution in the article is a joke. $20 to $30 per household is a drop in the bucket compared to the astronomical costs born by responsible electricity consumers in Australia. One way or another, expect that number to grow by orders of magnitude. It will involve changing the rules in the middle of the game, there will be lots of squealing from Chuck. Grid tied without storage will be a very expensive lawn ornament.

What you are saying is true. But none of your argument makes solar generation bad. It simply highlights we have and energy storage problem and a rea capitalist would be searching for energy storage solution rather than the fake capitalists trying to limit the competition to fossil fuels,
And because we have the highest energy use in winter does not mean this is true everywhere. Southern US energy use is much higher in the summer due to air conditioning and we already have an interconnected grid. Rolling brownouts are already common throughout summers in hot climates due to electrical shortages.we don’t just grow grain to feed our own needs or even out country but export to where it is needed
Farmers continue to produce more grain, and to increase storage for grain even though markets tell us it is not needed. I don’t hear you saying farmers should only produce for the storage capacity of what they have now and not to build more bins. Yet that is what your argument is saying about solar generation.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What you are saying is true. But none of your argument makes solar generation bad. It simply highlights we have and energy storage problem and a rea capitalist would be searching for energy storage solution rather than the fake capitalists trying to limit the competition to fossil fuels,
And because we have the highest energy use in winter does not mean this is true everywhere. Southern US energy use is much higher in the summer due to air conditioning and we already have an interconnected grid. Rolling brownouts are already common throughout summers in hot climates due to electrical shortages.we don’t just grow grain to feed our own needs or even out country but export to where it is needed
Farmers continue to produce more grain, and to increase storage for grain even though markets tell us it is not needed. I don’t hear you saying farmers should only produce for the storage capacity of what they have now and not to build more bins. Yet that is what your argument is saying about solar generation.

I never said anything about limiting the competition to fossil fuels. I am pro nuclear. I am pro hydro. I use solar power for electric fencers. I support anyone who wants to install storage and go off grid with renewables. I am 100% against freeloaders like Chuck using the grid as storage, and being subsidized by selling power to the grid whether it is needed or not, at the same price they buy it back for. Everyone else is paying for it. Chuck is welcome to keep his head in the sand and pretend that the gravy train will never come to an end, and maybe if no one else ever installs grid tied solar in Sask, it will work out fine for him.

With many things in life, it is instructive to take the extreme case and see what happens mathematically. In this case, that is 100% grid tied solar, at which point the grid tie becomes a huge liability.

The comparison to grain storage is irrelevant. Grain can be stored indefinitely, cheaply, anytime anywhere. I've been building used hopper aeration storage with temp cables for $1 per bushel, payback in a year sometimes. The technology exists. Even new at $3 to $5 per bushel has payback in only a few years if used right. When electricity storage gets to that point, solar and wind will make perfect economic sense. At present, there is no technology in the pipeline that is even remotely close to being economic to be able to compete with fossil fuels or nuclear. The entire Ponzi scheme is based on some future development of miraculous economic storage, OK, then lets quit wasting our investment dollars on solar and wind, and spend in on developing the storage, then solar and wind will pay for themselves, and won't need government investment, or subsidies from other consumers.

This isn't fossil fuels against clean energy, it is a economics against fairy tails.

[chuckChuck]

What you are saying is true. But none of your argument makes solar generation bad. It simply highlights we have and energy storage problem and a rea capitalist would be searching for energy storage solution rather than the fake capitalists trying to limit the competition to fossil fuels,
And because we have the highest energy use in winter does not mean this is true everywhere. Southern US energy use is much higher in the summer due to air conditioning and we already have an interconnected grid. Rolling brownouts are already common throughout summers in hot climates due to electrical shortages.we don’t just grow grain to feed our own needs or even out country but export to where it is needed
Farmers continue to produce more grain, and to increase storage for grain even though markets tell us it is not needed. I don’t hear you saying farmers should only produce for the storage capacity of what they have now and not to build more bins. Yet that is what your argument is saying about solar generation.

Well said DML.

[chuckChuck]

I never said anything about limiting the competition to fossil fuels. I am pro nuclear. I am pro hydro. I use solar power for electric fencers. I support anyone who wants to install storage and go off grid with renewables. I am 100% against freeloaders like Chuck using the grid as storage, and being subsidized by selling power to the grid whether it is needed or not, at the same price they buy it back for. Everyone else is paying for it. Chuck is welcome to keep his head in the sand and pretend that the gravy train will never come to an end, and maybe if no one else ever installs grid tied solar in Sask, it will work out fine for him.

With many things in life, it is instructive to take the extreme case and see what happens mathematically. In this case, that is 100% grid tied solar, at which point the grid tie becomes a huge liability.

You are completely ignoring what is happening in Australia at very high levels of solar electricity. They are looking for solutions and have some great ideas. Get your head out of the sand.

Give us a break with the faux outrage!

If you are worried about subsidies you should look in the mirror. Agriculture gets subsidies. The oil industry gets subsidies. But you seem to be content with those subsidies! LOL

[Hamloc]

I never said anything about limiting the competition to fossil fuels. I am pro nuclear. I am pro hydro. I use solar power for electric fencers. I support anyone who wants to install storage and go off grid with renewables. I am 100% against freeloaders like Chuck using the grid as storage, and being subsidized by selling power to the grid whether it is needed or not, at the same price they buy it back for. Everyone else is paying for it. Chuck is welcome to keep his head in the sand and pretend that the gravy train will never come to an end, and maybe if no one else ever installs grid tied solar in Sask, it will work out fine for him.

With many things in life, it is instructive to take the extreme case and see what happens mathematically. In this case, that is 100% grid tied solar, at which point the grid tie becomes a huge liability.

Chuck2’s original quoted articles come from the guardian, a couple points he missed. Solar power feed in tariffs payed to solar panel owners, payed by electricity consumers are one contributor to South Australia having the highest electricity costs in Australia. Now this is certainly not the only reason. Shutting down the states coal plants and then relying on natural gas for generation as the price of natural gas went up didn’t help. What I found really interesting was that the state government installed a diesel generation system which can produce up to 276 megawatts of electricity when needed, now that is good for the environment. Sorry Chuck2 still not a proponent of renewables!