I thank Phil Parsons for his reference to me in his contribution.

He may be surprised that I am in total agreement with him on much of what he says. It would be a huge dent in Tasmania’s future energy needs if there was greater uptake of solar energy.

What is required is a significant government investment and subsidy for installation - say budget for $3-5,000 per household. While the upfront cost may be significant - perhaps as much as $50-100 million - the downstream pay-off in terms of reduction of our power needs would be tremendous.

Compare that to the tens to hundreds of millions needed for any future power developments with greater environmental impact. As a Tasmanian tax payer, I would be happy for the Tas Government to take this gamble. I would be interested to see how this stacks up against money paid into Basslink and/or the gas initiative. The latter is associated with subsidies for connection, but I am not sure whether there has been a lot of domestic interest given that gas will cost you as much as the electricity at the end of the day.

There are also Fed Gov subsidies for solar use - I can’t recall details of the rebate system but it is administered by Aurora, and it is not helpful for the significant installation costs.

But wouldn’t it be terrific if we had thousands of Tasmanian homes contributing to the available power on the grid during the day- power which could ultimately be traded into Victoria through Basslink. It would be useful if we could get an energy economist to determine the potential future savings. The other critical question is when to buy into solar (photovoltaic) technology on a major population scale. I guess there is always an apprehension with an evolving technology

In a similar fashion, we should have government regulations to remove fuel inefficient (eg old) cars as well as subsidies/tax rebates for cars with hybrid technology. I wish we could get a better public transport system, or provide better incentives for use thereof.

Phil and others often misunderstand his Annoyance, what I am firmly against is hypocrisy and badly developed arguments that mask, usually pathetcially, other agendas. SA is for the facts, not just versions of perceived truth.

Hmmm… I think Super’s argument against hypocrisy may be badly developed… perhaps masking another agenda?

This is more than just a jab, as I addressed the issue in Super’s previous featured contribution.

There are various financial paths to convert to this simple alternative technology and they will need analysis and ultimately be a decision for government.

Unit cost could be affected by mass manufacture for the homes that are worth converting [location, household size/hot water use] of the 181,000 the 2001 Census said Tasmania had

The financial model I did was based on 70% of households buying the units over 10 years and cost $363M before repayment reduced that to 0 at year 20.

This is an estimate of investment cost that considers the interest value being in the resale of the electricity generated in Tasmania from the capacity [water] saved.

Hopefully by a smart retailer entering the mainland premim market for green power, a challenge foe Aurora.

I estimate that over 25 years, the life of the cable agreement, it would produce a hot water retail value of electricity of $1325M if 70% of households are paying more than $125 per quarter to heat water

If not extend the time of the repayment. It can go out to the life of the unit [25 years]and so be the equivalent of $50 per quarter in water heating costs.
If water use for power generation is reduced, thus taking storage in the dams higher, then the income from sales of that stored water to other customers will come back to the Hydro, a GBE.

If the rainfall continues to be below expectations and storage capacity fluxes between 30 and 60% then at least we wont have to buy the power to heat water through the cable, adding to its $92Mpa rental impost.

Also, Tasmania households get $770M they dont have to pay to heat water, allowing for some boosting during the coldest month.

If correct the retail resale value fo the electricity [$1325M] plus the above $770M go close to the cost of the cable rental [$2300M]

Yes it costs to bail out of mistakes but I believe this will make better use of the exisitng infrastructure.

I hope that the MPs will awaken if this comes before them and the movement of the officials will be swiftly guided by a can do attitude.

Bugger, too hopeful.

Unfortunately for solarpower it is the cost.

An 11Mw Solar Power station in Portugal is US$75 making the servicing of one of the 8,000 homes an investment cost of US$9375.

It is above the cost of constructing a CANDU reactor and so the investment above developmental stages to full scale does not appear warranted except for those using $3200 of power in their home each quater and have sun hours like Portugal.

At least until the cost comes down or a tax on the carbon cost of dangerous climate change is imposed on coal fired power.

Then Tasmania’s unique system comes to the fore.

Electric cars would reduce the cost to the Tasmanian economy of fuel but we would need more alternative generation on top of solar water heating.

It would have been an alternative use for the power saved if the cable was not in place. I wonder if an impediment to electric [rechargeable batteries] cars is the excise, does it apply.

Certainly power companies in the US have leased them to their employees.

A substantial fleet would also make Tasmania different to the rest of Australia for those who holiday here.

Hybrids can be brought of the shelf and each new car buyer should do their sums. 50,000k at 20kperlt is $3500 in fuel at $1.40 perlt.

Consider the saving when comparing prices. When will fuel become cheaper.

If the cost of fuel is not a better incentive to use the bus for regular repetative trips, where it is available, then methinks government is unlikely to subsidize fares any more than they do now.

However it is not to say they could not consider controlling fuel costs by making biodiesel in Tasmania. It appears that a global price over b per barrrel make such a fuel competitive.

Is the price coming down?. Therfore they could express interest and perhaps a small manufacturer will press the Thebane poppy seed or the grape seed, both currently waste products available in Tasmania.

Have a nice facts and figures day SA.

However, these facts and figures come from a dreaming about same when I was younger The agenda remains.

The power of an arguement does not always lie in the evidence that may support it as the jobs. jobs, jobs rant of certain parties demonstrates.

Just wanted to point out that I found the energy units in the document confusing…

eg
199Tw should be 199TWh
49Gwe should be 49GWe
32.8Twhrs should be 32.8TWh

Anyway aside from that, I would certainly like to see Tasmania make solar hot water heaters compulsory on new homes.

Phil keeps SA alive with his constant reference. My thanks again.

I agree with Phil in general and would not quibble on details. What these changes will require is a massive increase in current fuel costs (likely) and bravery on the part of our Federal (unlikely) and State (perhaps a bit less unlikely) politicians. Their bravery may turn to pragmitism as the fuel charges outstrip our capacity to fund daily requirements.

Yours in worship of the Sun,

SA

For additional interesting comment on energy research, please also see Julian Cribb’s excellent article at On Line Opinion, originally printed in The Australian.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4586

Dateline - Germany’s Green Power
Dateline is the international current affairs program from SBS ... we travel to Germany to look at a radical new approach to energy production. ...
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline

On Wednesday 21st June at 8.30pm Dateline travels to Germany to look at a radical new approach to energy production. 
Germany’s Green Power

At a time when Australia is debating whether to establish a nuclear power industry, Germany is moving in the opposite direction. It plans to decommission all 17 of its power reactors by 2020.

The focus instead of nuclear energy is renewable energy, or “clean energy”, including solar, wind, small-scale hydro and bio-mass.

In fact, Germany is a superpower when it comes to harnessing clean energy…and Australia is falling further and further behind. The irony is: Australia has no shortage of sun, or wind, or water. So why is Germany beating Australia in the race for “renewables”?

Dateline’s Chris Hammer searched Germany for the secret to its success, and found small-scale energy barons, the father of the renewable energy revolution, Hermann Scheer, and a ground-breaking solar power company which recently abandoned Australia and its lacklustre attitude towards renewable energy for a gung-ho Germany.

In the first installment of his two-part investigation, which screens Wednesday June 21 at 8.30pm on Dateline, Chris explains how the German government couldn’t be more supportive of this relatively new form of energy technology. Grass, trash and manure are on the same list as wind and sun and water as viable and even profitable energy sources.

Just fifteen years ago Germany relied heavily on nuclear energy and fossil fuels, but a government-led push towards cleaner energy has made Germany the undisputed world leader in green power.

They’ve worked hard to get there.

The Germans now have more windmills than the Dutch.

And they’re building solar panel… after solar panel… after solar panel… to try and trap more sun than shines on us Down Under.