Comments on: Got Solar? Want More? Tough! Rules Designed To Promote Solar Stop Australians From Buying More

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:09:00 +0000

i know there are people in Germany doing this. they go around and offer to “rent” people’s rooftops.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:07:00 +0000

Thanks for chiming in, Peter. Always love getting thoughtful comments from those in academia (and, of course, those not in academia… thoughtfulness being the key).

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:00 +0000

I think Ronald has a fan who tracks him and posts garbage under a variety of names and from a variety of web addresses.

—

I wonder if it’s time for a new model.

Suppose someone set up a company and leased rooftops from people who had a well sited back roof. (Keep the panels out of site from the street side and avoid those criticisms.)

Fill that roof with panels, up to the extent that the existing grid connection would allow. Assume a 200 amp service. At 120 vac you should be able to install over 20 kW.

Pay the owner with free electricity or a percentage of the profit.

The lease would stay with the house in the case of a sale. Free electricity should be a good selling feature.

We could pack the “best” rooftops with panels. That would cut down on installation costs as opposed to doing several ~3kW installations. It would minimize maintenance costs.

The leasing company would operate like a company that owned a large solar ‘farm’. They could enter into PPAs or whatever system is locally used.

By: Peter Gray

Peter Gray — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:06:00 +0000

Hello Ronald,
I’m a fan of yours in the U.S., and a long-time researcher and sometimes writer in energy and environmental economics. If possible, it would be nice to share ideas and info with you by email. I hesitate to broadcast mine, but it’s peterunderscoregray at wsu dot edu.
Sorry about the literacy level of so many of your other commenters. Is this an Aussie thing? I thought we had it bad over here.
I like your idea for solving the expansion bottleneck problem. Assuming I understand your scheme correctly, I see a few little enhancements you might want to make. First, I would calculate the projected output of the owner’s current (old) panels over the FIT span, including the (small) decline in output over time. Multiply that by the difference between the old and the new FIT. Second, time-discount that cash-in value by a reasonable interest rate, to get the lump-sum payment. This takes care of financing the old panels.
Third, allow the homeowner to install as many more panels as she wishes, and connect all the old and new capacity to the same meter. Fourth, pay the new FIT for the entire array, over the timespan of the new installation. Treat the whole thing as one big new installation. This would seem to take care of the moral hazard problem, by which I assume you mean homeowners who might otherwise remove the old panels and sell them. If the next owner will get the new FIT for the old panels, there would be no resale market. There’s no loss to the utility, either, since they can just as easily pay a discounted present value, if they’re just as confident of not losing the expected output. The homeowner does just as well as before on the old panels, and still has the incentive to keep them on the grid.
I look forward to your next article. I’m a former underground coal miner as well as a carbon tax advocate, so I find your pieces on coal vs. solar quite interesting.

Peter Gray
Washington State University

By: bob

bob — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:36:00 +0000

stop yammering on mate, all the other people here are given you good advise, even good sound legal advise.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:41:00 +0000

Be careful, Mandy. I hope you don’t own the computer you are typing this on. If someone uses it to spread malicious software you can be liable for millions in damages.

By: Pam

Pam — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:58:00 +0000

Ronald i didn’t decreased my electricity because of efficiency but the high cost of electricity passed on power bill like rooftop solar power, i was forced to use less energy in the day time hours, and use power at off peek rates at 1 am to 3 am rates.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:37:00 +0000

May be you could get him to right an article on what Mandy raised in relation the government 15 years deeming on the REC for the RET on rooftop.

By: tony

tony — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:30:00 +0000

too right, how ever reading what Mandy had to say mad it worth it.

By: bill

bill — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:22:00 +0000

No I under stand what is been said, but one point is wrong that in NSW if a new system is installed on a third smart meter you lose your 60 cent rate and fall down to the 20 cent rate. on the forth smart meter you lose and the get 6 cents .

By: Mandy

Mandy — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:12:00 +0000

Generating solar energy sound good but I recently had to sign a contract that stated that generating solar power to the grid come solely the owner risk and not the power company meaning I can be sued if something goes wrong and caused damage to the network. The legal advice I received is that the risk was too high under the contract, and I must maintain the solar system for 15 year under the REC under the federal government RET benefits, so I went off the grid with battery not to be court up in a court of law paying damages to others, or paying back the federal government REC for not generating the full output power of the grid tide solar system under the agreement under the REC RET contract. I’m very glad that I got legal advice and went off the grid with out the risk.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:30:00 +0000

we could stick reader polls on the bottom of the posts asking if it was too much yammering, not enough, or just right — sharpen things up perfectly. (ignore the fact that those who get to the bottom are more likely to enjoy it. :D)

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 04:17:00 +0000

I’m glad you enjoyed my yammering on. I’ll have to try to do some more of it for you in the future.

By: Rosana Francescato

Rosana Francescato — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:11:00 +0000

I loved the post, and appreciate a little humor in these matters! I thought that made it easy to read the whole thing. Entertaining, but it also makes a lot of sense.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:11:00 +0000

I do tend to yammer on a bit, don’t I? I’ll have to try to be more concise.

By: wattleberry

wattleberry — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:03:00 +0000

Never mind the complexity of the promulgated formulae[and just think I used to agree with Obama’s assertion that just because a problem is complicated it should still be tackled] now I know how cottage pie is made.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:12:00 +0000

I caught it all. The humor was okay. I was able to skim the humor and put on my brain during the information part.

By: Dill Weed

Dill Weed — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:37:00 +0000

After reading half the article, I began to realize I still hadn’t been informed about the rule that is causing the problem. Then, I stopped. Three paragraphs at most and all could have been explained.