Thread: Solar power and heat pumps

I have a 400litre Saxon Copperflow ee hot water system. Waiting on a reply from them about the feasibility of attaching a heat pump tot hat system. If not possible will have to think carefully bout which way to jump.

Also want to install PV panels on the roof but there is so much confusing information regarding actual final cost after $8,00 rebate it's hard to know which way to turn. I would prefer a system that has the potential for later additions.

Has anyone got any info or opinions on these subjects?

Thanx, artme.

Not sure about the Saxon but assuming you're wanting to get the $1600 rebate I'm pretty sure the whole system needs to be new. So it might be better to buy the new one and sell the existing tank (or give it away if you'd prefer).

Now for the PV stuff. Assuming your income is under $100,000 and you are claiming the $8000 grant then you need to do this very quickly. You've only got until the end of this month to have all the paperwork in and it takes a while to get that sorted since it requires the name of the designer (qualified person) etc.

I'd be contacting companies and getting quotes straight away so you can get everything sorted. I'm not sure if I should really be naming a specific supplier here (???), but I've signed up for an offer that is effectively free subject to it being a standard install (metro area, tin roof with easy access etc).

There's plenty of offers around however and they fall into two categories. Those using Chinese panels with a major brand name (not Chinese) inverter who will do the whole lot except the new electricity meter for about the value of the grant. So in that sense it's "free" but you will have to pay whatever the electricity distributor charges for a new meter (free in Tas but in some states up to about $450 I'm told) to make it work. This is what I'm doing.

The other category is those using top brand panels (BP, Sharp etc) which obviously cost more. Expect to pay up to $4000 after the rebate for a 1kW system although if you're lucky it might be cheaper. These offers generally include everything so there's no extra to pay.

Regarding the PV installation
I beleive it is already to late to get the $8,000 rebate, it is to be replaced by a system where a premium price is paid for the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).

This is apparently also tied to the Government's Carbon Trading Scheme (hasn't got through Parliment yet) so is all very up in the air.
I would suggest you wait a couple of months till the dust settles, then see what's available.

Regard Bradford

Hi Artme

As Bradford says, you are too late for the $8,000 photovoltaic rebate system - it was supposed to close on 30 June but the Minister killed the scheme last weekend.

A new scheme based on SGU's - small generating units - PVs are SGUs - is supposed to start on 1 July but it has not yet been through parliament.
www.orer.gov.au/sgu/index.html#gov
http://www.energymatters.com.au/gove...-australia.php

Also you need to look at the electricity feed-in tariffs for your area - what the elcom pays you for electricity you feed into the grid. Rates vary from 0 to 40c to 60 cents per kilowat hour.
www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/feedintariff.php
Some pay on gross production, others on the net after deducting what you use from what you produce. This can cause big $ variations.

Finally, PVs do not produce very much electricity for each $1,000 spent. Over the entire year a 1 kva unit will rarely average more than five kvas per day of production - enough to run a two bar radiator for two hours! You have to do your maths, if its not an act of faith.

Cheers

Graeme

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Finally, PVs do not produce very much electricity for each $1,000 spent. Over the entire year a 1 kva unit will rarely average more than five kvas per day of production - enough to run a two bar radiator for two hours! You have to do your maths, if its not an act of faith.

I've been doing quite a lot with solar at work lately. A few calculations for the annual output of a 1 kW system assuming 25 degree roof pitch, facing directly north and no shadows from trees etc.

If you optimised the angle of the panels then you could get better than this. For example, 1500 kWh in Hobart is easily doable with the angle at its optimum.

You can also shift output between seasons to some extent by doing this though generally an increase in Winter output will come at the expense of a greater loss in Summer therefore lower total generation - it's best to optimise for Summer in most situations. But if it's a stand alone system (not grid connected) then you might want to change the angle to boost production in Winter.

Brisbane = 1810 kWh
Sydney = 1750 kWh
Melbourne = 1501 kWh
Hobart = 1436 kWh
Adelaide = 1883 kWh
Perth = 1913 kWh
Darwin = 2125 kWh
Canberra = 1830 kWh

Those figures were produced using software which takes account of local weather etc.

his is a project to design and build a system that uses a combination of direct and indirect solar collection to generate electricity and store thermal energy in an economical, environmentally friendly, scalable, reliable, efficient and location independent manner using common construction materials.

The project is being managed with a similar methodology to Open Source Software Development and the ideas and contributions are being published openly on the Internet without an attempt to secure patents. The hope is that with an open philosophy that the project shows similar Rapid Application Development and success as Linux and other Open Source Software projects and provides a system that can meet future energy requirements in a sustainable manner.

Originally Posted by Smurf

I've been doing quite a lot with solar at work lately. A few calculations for the annual output of a 1 kW system assuming 25 degree roof pitch, facing directly north and no shadows from trees etc.

If you optimised the angle of the panels then you could get better than this. For example, 1500 kWh in Hobart is easily doable with the angle at its optimum.

You can also shift output between seasons to some extent by doing this though generally an increase in Winter output will come at the expense of a greater loss in Summer therefore lower total generation - it's best to optimise for Summer in most situations. But if it's a stand alone system (not grid connected) then you might want to change the angle to boost production in Winter.

Brisbane = 1810 kWh
Sydney = 1750 kWh
Melbourne = 1501 kWh
Hobart = 1436 kWh
Adelaide = 1883 kWh
Perth = 1913 kWh
Darwin = 2125 kWh
Canberra = 1830 kWh

Those figures were produced using software which takes account of local weather etc.

Is that kWh/year? If so, a 1 kW unit is making about 5 kWh/day in Brisbane.

Originally Posted by dambat

Is that kWh/year? If so, a 1 kW unit is making about 5 kWh/day in Brisbane.

Yes, those figures are annual but note that they are based on the specific assumptions about panel angle and facing north that I stated. Different roof pitch or not facing north would alter the results.

Assuming it's a grid connect system, you'd normally either just use whatever roof pitch is already there or angle the panels for peak output in Summer since this will generally maximise total annual generation.

But for a stand alone system you'd normally want to compromise and angle the panels for greater output during Winter at the expense of some loss of total annual output.

Originally Posted by dambat

Is that kWh/year? If so, a 1 kW unit is making about 5 kWh/day in Brisbane.

Thats enough power to run a two-bar radiator for a bit over two hours.

Or, at Brisbane's AGL power tariff of 17.13 cents per kilowatthour that's about 86 cents a day or $312 per year. The return on investment is very low, probably negative when you consider depreciation of the capital goods and possible maintenance.

Cheers

Graeme

Graeme,
The QLD government solar tariff is now 44c per KWh.

Meanwhile, the government announced the Solar Bonus Scheme, boosting the "feed-in tariff'' for solar powered homes from between 14 and 20 cents per kilowatt hour, to 44 cents.

Premier Anna Bligh today told state parliament the scheme would begin on July 1, and was guaranteed for 20 years.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...125871035.html

That makes it theoretically $796.40 per calender year which isnt too bad. The way the cost of electricity is going up here in QLD, any saving you can get is a bonus.

Cheers
Steve

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The return on investment is very low, probably negative when you consider depreciation of the capital goods and possible maintenance.

Totally agreed that solar panels on roofs don't really stack up. Not useful as a major energy source due to the horrendous financial cost and not really that good environmentally either - cleaner than coal but ridiculously polluting compared to hydro, wind, geothermal or large scale (ie power station size) thermally based solar systems.

But in my case it's costing be a big fat ZERO for the system so every kWh it generates is outright profit for me. I don't have it installed yet, but the supplier assures me that I got my application in before it was too late and I should hear back in the next few weeks. Let's hope so...

Smurf
When you say that solar is ridiculously polluting, I assume you are referring to emmissions from the production of the solar cells and associated equipment. Do you have any data or information on this? There seems to be a lot of misinformation around as to what is "clean" and what is "dirty".
I'm not sure that it takes into account the true enviromental cost of these measures.

Regards Bradford

Originally Posted by BRADFORD

Smurf
When you say that solar is ridiculously polluting, I assume you are referring to emmissions from the production of the solar cells and associated equipment. Do you have any data or information on this? There seems to be a lot of misinformation around as to what is "clean" and what is "dirty".
I'm not sure that it takes into account the true enviromental cost of these measures.

Regards Bradford

Whole of life cost (estimates)
Wind = 10-30 gCO2/kWh
Solar = 100-200 gCO2/kWh.
Natural gas = 400 gCO2/kWh.
Coal = 1050 gCO2/kWh

Edit: That's solar consumer level PV. I think large scale is around 50-100. These are rough numbers. I updated the Natural Gas numbers from 300 to 400 based on recent nos. The range of wind is due to onshore/offshore tech.

Final Edit: Coal = Qld Black Coal, not SA/Vic Brown, which is much worse.

Final final edit: Natural gas - that's natural gas used to generate electricity. It's much more efficient when used for heating or cooking of course.

Cheers,

Damien

Brown coal = 1200 to 1400

Black coal = 830 to 1150

Oil = 590 to 1340

Gas = 370 to 830

Those figures depend on the plant technology as well as its age. They represent the approximate range of actual plant in operation in Australia (supplying major grids) at present.

Hydro = <20 to very high depending on what, other than water, is in the reservoir. Most actual Australian schemes are very low however, though there are exceptions.

Wind = 10 to 50 depending on circumstances. Scale, productivity and the nature of the grid it is connected to are all relevant.

Geothermal = theoretically very low for a hot dry rock system

Small scale solar PV = most figures I've seen put it somewhere between 100 to 350 due to all the materials used and travel generated to install individually very small sysyems. Scaling it up a lot (ie 100 MW scale) would help although solar thermal, as opposed to PV, is likely to be a more efficient technology there.

The problem with solar panels is best explained by saying that you put in a few hundred kilowatts in order to grow a few silicon crystals. Then you use lots of glass, aluminium, copper and so on manufacturing a consumer product from that silicon. Then you have lots of vehicles driving around installing and servicing all of this. All up that's quite a lot of embedded energy there.

I'm NOT saying there's something "wrong" with installing a solar PV system. Just that it's wrong to think it's a completely pollution free, economic alternative to conventional power sources. It's useful yes, but if we're going to have a large scale switch away from coal etc then geothermal, wind and hydro in combination is technically very workable and a lot cheaper than solar panels on house roofs.

It's partly about scale. It's not economic to build cars or make photocopy paper in your backyard in competition with mass produced products. Nor is it viable to generate electricity this way - large scale mass production (of anything) tends to be cheaper as Henry Ford famously noted a century or so ago.

I find this subject very interesting
It seems to me that you are right about hydro being the producer of the lowest co2 emissions
However there are few locations in Australia near major population centres that are suitable for such plants.
Wind has the same problem but less so.
Geo thermal has the same problem (maybe more so).
The sun shines pretty well in most places in Australia.
Given the above, and the fact that long distance transmission and distribution of electricity incurs losses of typically 7-8% and in some cases as high as 15%. Usually from voltage drop in transmission lines, energy losses from transformers etc, breakdown of insulators on transmission lines due to dust and moisture, breakdown of the system (accidents) causing short circuits, and a number of other reasons (this is energy that is produced but never arrives at the consumer)
I think that small scale solar generation at the point of consumption is not as bad an idea as it first looks.
Have you included the embedded energy in the transmission and distribution systems required for large scale energy production, from any source, when you arrived at the co2 emmissions from these various methods of power generation?
When it comes to stand alone power generation in most remote areas in Australia solar stacks up as the most economical of all the methods available today. You might think wind, but wind in most of central Australia is very inconsistant and therefore is too unreliable as a power source. (Some coastal areas excepted).


Regards Bradford

Originally Posted by Ausyuppy

Graeme,
The QLD government solar tariff is now 44c per KWh.

That makes it theoretically $796.40 per calender year which isnt too bad. The way the cost of electricity is going up here in QLD, any saving you can get is a bonus.

Cheers
Steve

Unfortunately, Steve, this is not quite true - a bit of politicians double speak involved.

Queensland pays a feed in tariff of 44 cents per kilowatt hour on net power. This means that they deduct the power you use from the power that you produce and pay you for the net difference, if any. See:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/gove...edintariff.php

Most households use between 4,000 and 7,000 kilowatts of electricity per year - much more if they have electric heating, air conditioning, pool or other very large power user. On Smurfs figures, which seem quite accurate, a one kilowatt photovoltaic system in Brisbane should produce around 1,810 kilowatts per annum - probably less than a third of the household's usage - so in most months the power usage will exceed the power production, the net export to grid will be negative. A payment situation will rarely occur.

Sorry to be a bearer of sad tidings. Until governments go to gross feed in tariffs, like ACT and Germany, they are not serious about encouraging alternative electricity.

Cheers

Graeme

I think the 44c/kWh grant (net or gross), and means testing for solar is a bit silly - largely a PR stunt. I think we should be
(a) Charging non-renewables the cost of carbon - brown coal = $0.05/kWh, gas = $0.02/kWh. We would not even notice it on the bill, but it would make alternatives cost-competitive on a economic basis, and provide proper funding for alternative mitigation schemes.
(b) Charge the consumer peak/off-peak pricing. Half the infrastructure, and energy production is driven by peak use, and I'm annoyed that my modest electricity bill is paying for the idiot down the road with a 2 story brick bungalow, a heated pool, and 4 wall mounted air conditioners.

Everyone (mainly power companies and large consumers) talk about a 5c/kWh increase in energy pricing being catastrophic for the economy an Australian competitiveness. Then the Qld power companies increase by more than this amount (I think it was 6c-10c) citing increased costs. It seems totally idiotic that a price rise due to costing carbon in will cause economic meltdown, while a larger price rise due to infrastructure costs is fair and equitable. At least the first would result in real renewables development while the second seems to be largely paying for corporate slush.

And don't get me started about "environmentalists" that oppose wind farms.

Actually, one of the biggest problems is power storage. If we could generate in one period, and use it in another period, much of the issues would be solved. The only way this has been addressed so far is hydro power storage (e.g., by the Swiss). This is a real area of future development.

Cheers,

Damien

I did a bit of research yesterday and came up with some amazing figures
If you added 0.3 of a cent to each Kwh consumed nationally you would raise in excess of $600,000,000.00 per year. This would increase the average household electricity bill by about $20.00 per year.
How much are they making by raising the price by 5-10 cents per Kwh that would be almost 20,000 million dollars per year and increase the average household bill by about $400-$800 per year
The sad part is when they do these things the extra funds just seem to vanish down a black hole.
No improvement in infrastructure or service, it seems we all just pay more.

If that sort of money was put into alternative energy sources, mabybe to provide an attractive gross feed in tariff and provide funding for research into other alternatives i.e. wave power, tidal power, geothermal etc, and more effective methods to reduce energy consumption, this would create a employment boom in these new industries and we would go a long way towards attaining the emmission targets that governments, and others, keep talking about but never do anything about.
Australia could easily be a world leader in these areas but we seem to just sit and wait to see what other countrys are doing.

I'll get off my soapbox now (for a short while anyway)

Regards Bradford

The cost of baseload electricity from coal is around 3.7 to 4.2 cents per kWh depending on source and location.

Add an extra 5 to 10 cents to that and it WILL destroy the competitiveness of energy-intensive industry where even present electricity prices account for up to 40% of total business costs and where there is stiff competition from overseas.

I'm certainly in favour of alternative energy, but there's no point in sending even more industry offshore (where they'll keep using coal...) in the process of trying to develop alternatives.

Energy is something I've done an awful lot of research on, indeed it's been a dominant theme my entire adult life and it's the one that almost saw me enter politics with one of the major parties.

Best I can say whilst keeping it brief is if you're looking at things that would actually work then retaining the present notion of a large scale grid and moving most end uses to electricity is what needs to happen. But power it with geothermal as the dominant source for baseload with pumped storage and natural flow hydro for the peaks plus some solar thermal and a modest amount of wind for the intermediate loads. We've got the resources for sure, we've got the technology and it's an actual replacement (not merely a supplement like most alternatives) for fossil fuel or nuclear power that ought to be only modestly more expensive than continuing with coal.

As for PV panels on house roofs, consider what it would cost to generate all the power in just one Australian state, Tasmania, this way. Assuming a 1kW system costs $10,000, it would need roughly a $70 billion investment even ignoring the need for some means of energy storage. That investment needs replacing every 25 years and would generate power worth about $450 million a year.

A nice idea but the cost is prohibitive once you do the maths - $70 billion in a state with 0.5 million people and all the major energy users subject to overseas competition just doesn't stack up.

Another point to note is that practically all talk about alternative energy ingnores the looming liquid fuels problem, one that's at least if not more urgent than electricity supply.

Smurf - I take your point on high energy users e.g., aluminium smelting, who, by the way are the only ones paying 4c/kWh. Problem is that this issue has blocked any action on dealing with the core problem so far. We have other industries that are the most sustainable and competitive in the world, e.g., agriculture, forestry, tourism that will get really badly hit by climate change.

We can make any fuel from any source of chemical energy and carbon. Sasol has been making fuel using the Fisher Trophs process from coal derived syngas for over 40 years, and supplies 1/3 of the African market.

If you want a real scare, we're due to run out of phosphate rock in 20-30 years. What's worse? 9 Billion people withou transport, or 9 Billion people without food?

Originally Posted by dambat

Smurf - I take your point on high energy users e.g., aluminium smelting, who, by the way are the only ones paying 4c/kWh. Problem is that this issue has blocked any action on dealing with the core problem so far. We have other industries that are the most sustainable and competitive in the world, e.g., agriculture, forestry, tourism that will get really badly hit by climate change.

We can make any fuel from any source of chemical energy and carbon. Sasol has been making fuel using the Fisher Trophs process from coal derived syngas for over 40 years, and supplies 1/3 of the African market.

If you want a real scare, we're due to run out of phosphate rock in 20-30 years. What's worse? 9 Billion people withou transport, or 9 Billion people without food?

Pulp / paper, zinc smelting, ferro alloys etc are also paying much the same as aluminium and have the same issues with foreign competition.

I'm not arguing against action and alternative energy, just that I can't see the point in shifting production from Australia to somewhere else and still using coal to run it. That won't achieve anything apart from economic harm to this country.

As for alternative oil sources, yes it certainly can be done (at the expense of quite a lot of pollution compared to conventional oil) but, and this is the problem, the world isn't actually building this sort of thing quickly enough. Cantarell (Mexico), Prudhoe Bay (Alaska), North Sea (UK, Norway), Bass Strait (Australia), even the Gulf of Mexico (USA) are all in the same situation now with production past its peak if not outright crashing (as is the case with North Sea, Bass Strait and Cantarell). Even Russia looks to have peaked recently.

We're just not actually building alternatives quickly enough to offset the declines in major conventional oilfields and the effects thus far are that the rich get their oil whilst the poor miss out as prices have risen (even after the recent falls they are still very high compared to 10 years ago). So there's already a problem, it's just that we can afford to buy our way out of it - for now...

As for phosphates, well that's one I didn't know about. We're in an awful mess if you're right there!!!

Well it's all approved it seems. The installing company came around for a look this morning and said I'd hear back with an actual installation date in 3-4 weeks.

All up, after the grants, the cost is $0 for a fully installed 1kW solar panel system on my house.