CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Batteries storage vs CSP

Published on August 11th, 2014 | by Zachary Shahan

68

Solar PV + Storage Likely = Retail Electricity In Germany This Year

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

August 11th, 2014 by Zachary Shahan 

One of my Facebook friends, a CleanTechnica reader, recently shared the following graph with me. The key point it shows is that solar PV + storage is cost-competitive with electricity from the grid starting in quarter 4 of this year in Germany. Things are getting serious! If German utilities thought they had a problem before, the situation is about to get tougher.

The projection is apparently based on 2013, so I’m not sure if it is 100% accurate, but it shouldn’t be too off (if it is off at all).

Interestingly, the graph comes from CSP Today, which aptly notes that solar PV + storage = a serious threat to CSP‘s viability on the market.

storage vs CSP

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Objectif Terre
  • globi

    Households don’t usually react very sensitively to electric bills.
    Otherwise most households would have bought efficient appliances a long time ago.

    Besides, since Germany has still lots of flexible generators, it is a more effective CO2-reduction method to invest in more PV than more batteries.
    Hopefully Germany will eventually get to its senses and stop dropping PV-FIT rates (at the current PV-FIT rates, FITs have no influence on electricity costs anymore).

    • Matt

      As a whole country spending X euros maybe adding PV would be better that adding PV and battery. Where better is defined as closing more coal plants. But as a household, better might be a pay less overall for my electric. In that case at some point batteries and self consumption beats out me installing more PV. At least my understand of Germany market is that once my FIT runs out I don’t get much or anything for my over production from my PV.

  • GCO

    Wouldn’t concentrated solar benefit from many of the same advances and cost reductions as “plain” PV? Wouldn’t affordable storage apply to both equally?

    Furthermore, slowly rising electricity retail price as shown in the above graph only helps make CSP more competitive, not less… Doesn’t it?

    • Kevin McKinney

      I think the point is that one of CSP’s advantages is that it combines well with thermal storage. Make battery storage more attractive, and the business case for thermal is undercut. Corrections to this impression welcome, if warranted…

      • Bob_Wallace

        I agree. Thermal storage is limited to one cycle per day. Generic storage can store solar during the day and wind at night, thus earning double revenue.

      • GCO

        Oops, all right, I thought of “concentrated solar” as “concentrated PV”, but indeed CSP seems to usually be understood as thermal, as opposed to CPV.
        Thanks. Makes sense in this revised context.

  • Vensonata

    Those interested in battery storage, check out Balqon electric lithium solar packs. Beautifully packaged battery storage suitable for pv with battery management and meters built in. A 36kwh bank is about $12,500. They have 2000 cycles to 70% discharge before declining in capacity. A further 5-6000 cycles are possible as they slowly decline in capacity. This is probably edging out the best deep cycle wet lead batteries in price per kwh. I’m guessing lifetime kwh price at about 10cents/kwh, though I’d be happy if someone else would run the numbers to double check. This, by the way, is far lower than European and Japanese prices for lithium storage and they are considered viable. These packs are also particularly long lived…might not need replacing for 20 years. Balqon is a California company. By the way, I have no affiliation with them, but am strongly inclined to try out the product.

    • eveee

      Vensonata – here is the reference. I have been spreading the word. This can give storage in the $300/kwhr range with all electronics including DC-DC converter to charge the batteries, BMS to control charging, and inverter to convert to AC. At these costs, the cost for storage over the lifetime is well under $0.20/kwhr, if the batter is cycled at less than full capacity. The number of cycles goes up rapidly when the battery is cycled between 25% and 75% SOC.

      • Vensonata

        Very good stuff isn’t it? This is really breaking news, I don’t think on- grid types appreciate the significance of the first viable lithium household storage batteries in the u.s. Others have done it before but never at a reasonable price. Sailers also take note, the future has arrived.

  • Vensonata

    In order for ordinary amateur readers to understand these articles on renewables, storage etc. there needs to be some simple basic numbers for reference. Who understands country production numbers? Here are some numbers for your average 15 year old: it is possible in a well designed house to use 3 kwh per person per day on average over a year to provide all needs, including domestic hot water and space heating …in other words a completely electric house (except for car energy). That is about 1000 kwh year per person. An average three person family requires 3000 kwh per year. A 3 kwh pv array provides this in most places. This costs about $15,000 including battery storage. Another $8000 will be required for air source heat pumps, which make electricity 3 times as efficient. Total $23,000 per household. The system has about a 25 year lifespan. Therefore all energy except transport will cost $1000 year or, to be generous $100 month…..
    One may quibble with my numbers but any thoughtful insiders who are aware of passivhaus, an net zero houses know that these numbers are not difficult to attain. Of course if one chooses to live in chaos the bills will be certainly higher.

    • GCO

      a completely electric house (except for car energy).

      I’d argue that the vehicle is the lowest-hanging fruit. Don’t leave it out, start by putting an EV or PHV there. :-)

      Next, your assumptions as to cost and lifespan are IMHO overly optimistic. Super-efficient homes are usually well worth the expense, but aren’t cheap initially. A somewhat extreme example: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/nist-net-zero-energy-test-house-blows-past-goals-one-year-trial/

      Also, in cold climates (incl Germany), not only will heat pump efficiency not be as high (or will need to tap into a source warmer than air, e.g. deep underground, at extra $$), but the most load (heating) will occur at the time the least sunlight is available (fall/winter), so the PV system will need to be massively oversized to cope.
      This in turns would result in over-production in spring/summer, most of it wasted as it is uneconomical to store MW*h in batteries for one cycle/year. Remaining on-grid, to dump any excess but also leverage e.g. colder-season wind power, would be a better use of resources.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Germany imports coal and gasoline. What’s wrong with importing southern Europe/North Africa solar in the winter?

        • Matt

          big winky face here:
          Because before you start any renewable, you have to prove that a single house can stand on it own. It is only fair to import FF never renewable electric.

        • GCO

          I was only replying to @Vensonata above, who reckonned that just 23k$ spent on PV+storage+heat pump(s) could alone power and heat up a house for 25 years.

          Obviously, the European grid is already very well interconnected. http://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm
          Solar in some African desert seems to make a lot of sense, even Greece should be pretty good, but Germans must have concluded out that it remains cheaper/safer/simpler for them to cover more of their own not-so-sunny land with PV instead of convincing other nations to embrace their vision.

      • Vensonata

        Passivhaus is the new code standard in Germany. All houses must produce as much as they use, these are the new German standards. Air source heat pumps are ideal in Germany’s climate which is much milder than northeast u.s. . The c.o.p. is about 3. Yes, the car should be electric, but it will take as much electricity as the whole house per year. Battery storage is merely 3 days worth, not seasonal. To actually heat the house it will need extra from the grid. There are already net positive houses in the thousands ….they produce more than they use over the year.

      • Vensonata

        Some exact figures: a 2000sq ft passivhaus can use no more than 2900 kwh of heat per year or it does not qualify…using a cold climate air source heat pump reduces that by 66% (cop3) electricity required is 980 kwh year. Each kilowatt of panel will produce that per year. Installed price in Germany $2300 kw whole system. Yes, you will need to supplement from grid in winter…or store in tank about 4000 gallons of hot water to get through without supplement. Or 1/3 cord of firewood in high efficiency wood stove.

        • Roger Pham

          Passivhaus is not necessary in Germany. Solar with storage is best sized for late spring, summer and early fall. Wind is very strong in winter when sun is weakest, so should use wind in winter instead of relying on solar. For winter heating, count on synthetic methane from waste biomass pyrolysis. To increase the yield of waste biomass, H2 from excess RE can be added to the biomass during pyrolysis to increase the methane yield up to 3 folds.

          To further increase the efficiency of methane utilization in winters, distributed power generators can be used to provide both electricity and waste heat. This can be gradually added on to replace retiring fossil fuel power plants. Another added advantage is power security during snow storms when power lines may be down. Future low-cost stationary fuel cells can also be used once the local NG piping will be upgraded to be H2-compatible.

          • Vensonata

            Yep, you are right, methane is already used frequently in some eco communities in Germany…see Freiburg. I neglected to mention the possibility that excess pv electricity in summer can be stored as hydrogen for winter even though there will be at least a 50% loss in conversion. Still a good deal since overproduction is common 6 months per year and it is hard to get pv electricity in Germany in winter. I suspect we will be seeing this use of hydrogen as seasonal storage widely used

          • Roger Pham

            Furthermore, for combined heat and power, each kg of H2 can provide the Higher Heating Value of 40 kWh/kg, not the Lower Heating Value of 33 kWh/kg when used only for power, plus the waste heat, raising round-trip efficiency to nearly 80%. This would make it just as efficient as any other energy storage means.

          • Vensonata

            Good info. I was all into this use of hydrogen about 12 years ago but pv was so expensive you could hardly afford to overproduce in summer and the equipment for electrolysis was only in laboratories….then I forgot about the whole thing. Now I am about to triple my pv and will be over producing by 50 kwh per day in summer…it is definitely worth a new look at seasonal hydrogen production and storage. But where do you get the hydrolysis machine and the compressor? Storage tank, old propane tanks?

          • Guest

            For heating seasonal heat storage is easier and cheaper than hydrogen.

            Just dump excess summer PV into heat storage and use it in winter. It can be done.

            In Canada there is Drake Landing Community that gets 97% of their heating requirements from solar (they use solar collectors because they were cheaper at that time, but now PV is cheaper).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage

          • Vensonata

            Ha! I thought I was the only one who knew about Drakes landing! I’ve mentioned it several times on Clean technica. The problem, my friend, is the expense of the bore holes and the top insulation. It was subsidized by the government. Still, they say it can be done now more reasonably. I have 3000 gallons of super insulated seasonal storage in the ground already but tha I at best 3mbtu…about 1/3 cord of firewood. Heat storage is the holy grail, it is possible for a small passivhaus with about 5000 gallons, but I’d need 25,0000 minimum. Pricey!

          • Roger Pham

            Get battery to store excess day time solar power for evening and night use for your home.
            H2 must wait quite a while longer for a local H2 piping system and underground cavern storage in order to have seasonal capacity. This is a community project and not a personal one. Expect a few decades into the future.

  • JamesWimberley

    The return on a pv installation in Germany without storage will often be higher than with it for a residential user with appreciable daytime load. The calculation depends on the share of high-value self-consumption against low-value daytime FIT, assuming there is enough high-rate evening consumption to use all the stored output.
    The case for PV storage is sensitive to details of the rate and incentive structures, and takeup will probably vary greatly between countries, or states in the USA.

  • No way

    So how will this help them to stop burning a shit load of coal during the winter?

    • Job001

      Yes way
      Wind, efficient use(cars, buildings, LED’s), bio fuels, distributed solar, storage, NG and syn gas(cheap/low CO2).

      • No way

        All of those are great and will help during the winter when it’s needed the most. Except the solar, which is useless in winter and the natural gas which is just another problem and not a solution.

        • Job001

          For average latitude of 45 degrees winter solar yields about half of summer. In 10 years solar will cost half as much, install twice as much.

          Solar 7%/yr and wind 4%/yr LCOE learning curve improvements will rapidly win.

          Solar cost reduction(installed) is 50% per decade(1.07^10)^-1 = 0.508 which cannot be denied.

          I disagree that natural gas is a problem because it is a great existing pipeline storage and distribution for NG and future syn gas which can be generated from excess renewables. NG has half the CO2 of oil and syn Gas potentially net none carbon footprint. Additionally, gas turbines and fuel cells are improving by 1%/yr and are now the most excellent cheap grid stabilizing generation backups available. Excellent and unbeatable combined with wind and solar.

          • No way

            So November-January gives half as many kWhs in total numbers as June-August? I would love to see some statistics of that for Germany.
            If that is actually the case for all their installed capacity then it’s less bad than I thought.

            Half the CO2 of oil is still a shitload of CO2 (and most reports seem to agree on that natural gas has a much higher procentage than that when including leaks etc.).
            There is no reason for any developed country to build a single power plant using any kind of fossil fuel. Then we will never reach the goal.
            Excellent is not the word I would use, rather a poor solution that could have been a lot worse.

          • Vensonata

            Germany is about 25% winter/ summer. December, Berlin gets about 25 hours bright sunshine per month. About as bad as it gets…Seattle is better, much better. That’s why it will be difficult getting past 85% alternatives…only winter wind, which seems pretty good can make up the difference.

          • No way

            http://oi60.tinypic.com/20jhap.jpg

            It’s rather 10%, about 15% if you take three summer months vs. three winter months.

            I don’t see how anyone could consider that a good idea in a country where the demand is the other way around, with the winter months being higher than the summer months.

            They should be spending every single euro avaliable for renewables on wind, which has the same behaviour as the demand. (well, there are more sources for renewables but the point is every euro on sun should be on wind at least)

            http://oi60.tinypic.com/25quo2f.jpg

          • Job001

            Comparing solar to wind and recommending only wind investments misses the boat. Solar investors include a higher preponderance of homeowners who sell first to themselves at retail price without grid efficiency loss. Wind investors may invest 1000 times as much and sell at wholesale prices with long distance grid losses from the North at the Baltic sea down to markets throughout Germany. Available investment opportunity and capital costs also will be different for each group.
            The point is every investor makes economic decisions. We may realistically expect solar investors are getting a good return in Germany with high electricity costs, and wind investors are also. I’m confident both wind and solar German investors are not dumb.

          • No way

            I didn’t mean that the investers did bad choices economically. Surely the boom had not been if not for economical benefits. What I really meant was the investments or rather subsidies from the government which should have been focused on wind/biomass/biogas or any renewables which has the to produce a lot of renewable energy when germany needs it the most, during the winter months.
            Anyway, what really gets to me is that they have one of the dirtiest electricity generation in the EU with their 45% coal from some of the dirtiest kinds of coal.

          • Job001

            Agreed, yet because they tax energy people use it effectively and half as much as we do, they are rated as the most efficient energy using developed Country. Half as much of declining dirty coal emissions per capita isn’t mentioned, perhaps that is a good way to gradually sideline this capital investment while replacing the jobs.
            Their wind and solar balance fairly well annually requiring less annual backup, and both are increasing rapidly backing out FF.
            Germany is proactively doing fairly smart things to reduce monopoly and cartel economic loss and risk, IMO.

          • No way

            They are hardly rated as the most efficient energy using developed country. There are plenty in the EU that are more efficient.
            But that they are way more efficient than most, they are surely in the top 20 of developed countries at least.

          • Job001

            Germany is number 1 and the US is number 13. http://aceee.org/portal/national-policy/international-scorecard

          • No way

            *lol*… yes. number 1 of a few selected countries. Germany is slightly above the EU average so as stated before, they are probably in the top 20 of developed countries.

            The US would definitely not get into the top 50 though. A more wasteful country when it comes to energy is hard to find.

          • Job001

            Sure, you probably can find a different rank list. Germany seems to be doing a more proactive intelligent energy efficient transition to renewables than most countries while avoiding being enslaved to cartels and monopolies. It takes time to transition from one technology to another. Maybe Germany is a bit too slow at improving, seem odd criticism given other priorities like jobs and economic growth.

          • Bob_Wallace

            And how much of that 45% coal-electricity is being used by other European countries?

          • No way

            You don’t get any extra points or a gold star for being a fossil fuel exporter. Close the excess capacity down and let the other countries take the blame if they need to burn more fossil fuels because of it.
            There are no drug dealers without clients, but that doesn’t make the drug dealer a good person until it leaves the dealing business.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I didn’t say that Germany should be given a pass for the dirty electricity they sell to other countries. I was suggesting that you start recognizing it.

          • No way

            I have recognized it. It doesn’t really change anything though. Still 45% of the electricity produced in Germany is from coal.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Why do you find a need to minimize Germany’s success with renewables?

          • No way

            It’s not me minimizing it. It’s the strange grossly over exageration of the German energy situation that is the strange thing here.
            It’s one of the dirtiest countries in the EU when comes to energy and electricity and in the lower end when it comes to renewables.
            5% of solar (or 1,5-2% during the winter) are little comfort when Germany and Poland are killing the environment with their massive use of dirty coal which neither country seem willing to give up without a hard fight.
            The struggle we face is not about adding renewables it’s about reducing emissions from coal, oil and gas, which of course renewables is and will be a big part of.
            Maybe it’s just that I’m holding them to a higher standard, not comparing them to the US/China/Australia etc. but to the rest of the EU which I belive the would be able to keep up with if they really wanted to.
            There are so many towns and villages in Germany where all the houses are more greyish than anything and I hope that they one day, hopefully soon, can be able to wash and repaint those houses and having it stay that color.

          • Bob_Wallace

            ” in the lower end when it comes to renewables.”

            Do you have a list of EU countries in terms of percentage of electricity coming from renewables?

    • GCO

      Pretty simple: more wind + more solar + more biomass => less fossils (and more exports): http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/11/germanys-renewables-new-record/

      • No way

        Let’s hope it will be that way. I’m happy whenevery they close a fossil power plant and/or a coal mine. So far the addition of renewables have not had that much result on that in Germany but someday it hopefully will.

  • http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson

    Sadly, we will hear from various “serious people” about Germany’s “energy folly.” [commenter’s note: before I get questioned with weird replies by the more deliberate/literal commenters, I’m simply parroting what other’s say. Other’s with far more influence than I. Others that are also very wrong. This mindset and money is what’s driving confusion about renewables and moving fracking and nuclear forward.]

    By various serious people I mean The Economist:

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and?fsrc=rss%7Cfec

    Here’s a write up on this BS and a rebuttle from Amory Lovins of RMI from Cleantech Media:

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/flaw-and-order-how-brookings-got-its-analysis-of-wind-and-solar-costs-so-wr

    Copied from the Greentech Media post:

    “Pick your metric: levelized cost of energy, saved carbon, cash flow profile, financial return, annual and cumulative installed capacity or global investment. By any meaningful set of accurate data and recent trends, renewables such as PV and wind are making rapid and accelerating inroads against incumbent fossil fuels — precisely because they’re proving themselves increasingly economical, not because they’re supposedly swimming against the economic tide.

    How did Dr. Frank reach a conclusion so counter to market reality? Simple: his analysis relied on outdated or otherwise incorrect data.”

    All this was stemmed from a Brookings Institute research paper:

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/low-carbon-electricity-technologies-frank

    Bottom line of the above thought experiment is…natural gas for coal. Maybe nuclear. Stab wind and solar with a wooden stake in the heart. Brookings Institute like many neo liberal, heavily endowed by billionaires and such, are the big promoters of the natural gas bridge. A bridge to nowhere.

    • Job001

      Temporary misinformation won’t matter. Solar 7%/yr and wind 4%/yr LCOE learning curve improvements will rapidly overwhelm even monopoly market economics(cartel, natural monopoly excess profits).
      Solar cost reduction(installed) is 50% per decade(1.07^10)^-1 = 0.508 which cannot be denied.
      Learning curves prove human innovation shall win out!

      • http://www.michaeljberndtson.com/ Michael Berndtson

        I’m going to hope and believe you are correct. Data is proving you are on the right track. However, renewables are still lagging percentage wise of the total energy economy: electricity generation, transportation, etc. The big foot of those invested in fossil fuel exploitation stomps hard and fast. Here’s an interesting white paper on capital investment in world energy needed for 2014 to 2035:
        http://www.iea.org/media/140603_WEOinvestment_Factsheets.pdf

        Total energy supply investment in 2012 dollars: $40 trillion (US)
        Fossil (oil, coal, gas) other than power: $23.5 trillion

        Power generation: total $16.4 trillion
        Fossil (coal & gas) $2.6 trillion
        Nuke: $1.1 Trillion
        Renewables: $5.9 trillion
        Transmission: $1.8
        Distribution: $5.0 trillion

        IEA also did an exercise for energy investment necessary to maintain an assumed total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 450 ppm. I’m not going to summarize that column since it seemed, well, not well done. Fossil fuel investment was simply trimmed. Not drastically cut. The consulting firm working for IEA may not have performed mass and energy balances before.

  • Jouni Valkonen

    This will mean only one thing that there is 100 GW solar power installed in Germany by 2019.

    Now as solar power + storage is cheaper, Germany can subsidize at least 30 % of investment costs for households so that the financial risk associated to loan can be softened.

    As 2013 and 2014 were slow years in German Energiewende, because further solar expansion waited cheaper storage solutions, things are now getting serious in 2015–2018. My crystal ball tells me that Germany will go 100 % solar during summer months by 2024 or in ten years.

    • Calamity_Jean

      Germany will never be 100% solar, they aren’t going to tear out all the wind power they already have. I hope they will be 100% renewable by 2024 if not sooner.

      • Jouni Valkonen

        Actually Germany will be 300 % solar powered on summer months as there must be enough solar power production also on winter months.

        • Calamity_Jean

          Well, there’s ways to reduce that summer excess. More wind, for one. Also incentivise installing solar panels in a more upright position, so that they are perpendicular to the winter sun, and sloped relative to the summer sun.

          • Jouni Valkonen

            There is no such thing as excess power, because there is always use for power that has basically zero cost. E.g. synthetic fuels and vertical farms are what first comes in mind that can make sense if there is often surplus electricity available that has zero cost.

          • Calamity_Jean

            Maybe I should have said, “There’s ways to reduce the disproportion in electrical supply between winter and summer.”

        • FFossils

          No need. Something like 150% summer solar (~50% in the winter) + 15% summer wind (~20% in the winter) would allow them to export in the summer and import (e.g. hydro and wind) in the winter.

          More realistically in the short term, a year-round average of ~50% solar + 20% wind + 15% nuclear + 10% biomass/gas + 5% hydro would get them off fossil fuels.

  • drevney

    Far from being a threat. Most people do not have access to enough roof space for their electric need.

    • ThomasGerke

      The “threat”-level depends on the resilience of the system / business model that is under attack.

      In Germany most centralized power plants are owned by large multinational corporations that are already loosing market share to “prosumers” and other power producers.

      Besides home owners with enough roof space do tend to build more solar than they need… either out of princible, or because one more kWp makes little difference or because they might buy a EV or heat pump one day.

    • Ronald Brakels

      Erm, one quarter of private houses having rooftop solar is enough to meet a third of demand around noonish on many days here in South Australia. And that’s with the median system size being 1.5 kilowatts. The average install nowadays is 4+ kilowatts. That means we’ll be often be supplying all electricity demand from solar around the middle of the day before half of all houses have systems. You think we got big roofs? Well we do. But if you want to look at Japan, at about 20 square meters of roof per person which is teeny compared to the antipodes it’s still enough for 20% efficient solar on half that roofspace to provide around 37% of Japan’s total electricity demand. In other words enough to exceed electricity demand whenever Japan’s weather averages reasonably fine. Sure there are places like Hong Kong where roof space is particularly limited, but as a total portion of humanity goes, not a huge number of people live in those places.

      • juxx0r

        Hi Ronald,

        The 30 Euro cents is roughly $0.43 AUD. When you include the connection fees, that’s roughly the same as an aussie with moderate usage pays. Take into account our better weather and you’d have to think that we have arrived at price parity for solar and storage in Australia for some users.

        • Ronald Brakels

          Oh yeah. At the moment the on grid market for home energy storage is small because many people with solar are still on the old higher feed-in tariffs, but as new pathetic tariff installs increase and the old higher tariffs start ending (apparently they’ll be quite a few coming to an end in New South Wales in 2016) the market for home and business energy storage will become huge.

          • Calamity_Jean

            Who decided to cut the feed-in tariff? The term “shooting oneself in the foot” springs to mind. Ha.

          • Ronald Brakels

            As fair as I can tell the feed-in tariffs were cut in the interest of fairness. Fairness towards the boards of directors of fossil fuel mining companies, incumbant generators, and electricity distributers. Out of curiosity I looked up how much Richard Van Breda, CEO of the loss making government corporation in Queensland that runs most of the coal power capacity makes a year. Oddly enough this was very hard to find. But apparently the boards of directors and “key management personal” get over $2 million dollars a year and $3 million as a lump sum if they get kicked out and hundreds of thousands worth of additional benefits on top of that whether they lose their jobs or not. And it is very likely that as CEO Richard Van Breda gets more than that. So you can see that something had to be done. Being on a board of directors can take literally dozens of hours a year and they were only being paid over four times as much as our Prime Minister for that arduous task. And if you’re not worth more than four times as much as our current Prime Minister, that’s pretty damnn shameful. So, as you can see, action had to be taken. The bonuses of important people who make millions of dollars a year were at risk. And the comfort of rich CEOs and board of director members far outweighs the lives of common scum, expecially those idiots who were foolish enough to be born in a poor country, and so it was fine to throw a spanner into the works of our most effective means of decarbonization. Sure, future generations may judge them harshly, but on the bright side there is now a smaller chance there will be future generations.

          • Calamity_Jean

            I hate to say this about your country, but it’s hard to be worth less than your current Prime Minister.

            Of course, it is hard to be worth less than our immediate past President. :(

          • Ronald Brakels

            Well, on the positive side of things, Tony Abbott does fight fires like a mad man. He’s a volunteer firefighter and when the chips are down and the bush is blazing he’s right there in the middle of it. Right there in the middle of it… Right up close to the flames… The burning, purifying flames…

            Oh my god! Some men just want to watch the world burn!

          • Calamity_Jean

            Well, studies have shown that larger than chance number of arsonists are also firefighters. Hot stuff!

Back to Top ↑