pɐǝɹɥʇ lɐᴉɔᴉɟɟoun ǝɥʇ - ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀

Well it is not shining least 50% of the time, so I would say that pretty much disqualifies "almost always".

Perhaps so, but with some cities getting an average of 10 hours sunshine a day over a whole year the reserve is fairly easy to build.
 
Perhaps so, but with some cities getting an average of 10 hours sunshine a day over a whole year the reserve is fairly easy to build.
Unfortunately you can't power your homes and businesses with average sunshine. Civilizations are built on reliable and cheap energy that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you guys down under have found a way to do that with solar energy you should probably let the rest of the world know.
 
Regardless something actually has to be done here, because it's at crisis levels, spending several thousand extra on electricity every Semester isn't something everyone has the ability to do.
 
Last edited:
If you look at it like that then he's paying himself... his tax dollar's as good as yours, surely?
As far as I know, tax money is pooled, so you aren't just taking your own tax dollars out are you? If the panels made economic sense they wouldn't need a subsidy.
 
Solar isn't sustainable tech considering the amount we would need not only would have to bridge the gap but also replace Coal that most of our electricity is already coming from.

If we Go Nuclear now atleast to plug the gap we will be sorted until Fusion technology is developed enough to use and by then all countries will want to be on that given the obvious benefits.

We don't have enough water for Hydro electric as we basically exhausted that method in the snowy mountains hydro scheme, and with wind being unreliable and Solar the same if it isn't based in the desert then the options are really 1.

And all this is ignoring the fact Electric cars are coming to mainstream very soon, our grid has no chance if we do nothing.
 
Last edited:
Me having to pay you to put in solar panels pretty much disqualifies it as cheap.
Economies of scale means that it will pay for itself in the long term - it's an expensive outlay, but every subsequent power bill will be less expensive than the power bills that you would have paid without the solar panels. My parents did it and the panels paid for themselves in about six years, and that was a decade ago.

Plus, the technology is getting more efficient and more effective every year.
 
Economies of scale means that it will pay for itself in the long term - it's an expensive outlay, but every subsequent power bill will be less expensive than the power bills that you would have paid without the solar panels. My parents did it and the panels paid for themselves in about six years, and that was a decade ago.

Plus, the technology is getting more efficient and more effective every year.
If it's a six year payoff why do my tax dollars have to support it? Pay for it yourself if you get the benefit of it. My hydro bills aren't reduced by your solar bills so why should I subsidize them? I'd like to see a source for that 6 year breakeven too.
 
You aren't getting power from the same supplier as us. We're charged independently of one another.


I'm not about to post my parents' finances.
"I" meaning a generic taxpayer, as I'm sure you knew already.

I didn't ask for your parents finances I asked for a source on a six year breakeven on solar panels. Or are you saying they are the only people in the whole country that broke even in 6 years? Surely this is a major selling feature so the info should be readily available.
 
I didn't ask for your parents finances I asked for a source on a six year breakeven on solar panels. Or are you saying they are the only people in the whole country that broke even in 6 years? Surely this is a major selling feature so the info should be readily available.

It's 10 years in the UK and we have bugger-all sun, 6 years seems credible for Oz. The subsidy is absorbed in the system when enough people are generating... unless they don't return unused power to the grid.
 
Mine paid for themselves in about 4 years, but I had locked in a massive feed-in tariff. Now my PV panels make a profit, because I use less than they generate. I'd expect that situation to be quite common though, no?
 
The feed in tariff is a fraction of what is use to be though. You almost can't make money off it anymore. The problem is the ads on tv sell you a system for $1800, but a system that big can't cover the average homes usage. Not much point only cutting your power bill in half, the other half will rise in cost and you'll end up with the same bill amount.
 
Ain't free speech grand?

Now you, too can accuse a religion of inventing a cultural practice as a means of fooling the public into accepting a covert tax to fund terrorism; produce a political cartoon depicting the violent rape of a woman in a niqab by her Muslum son-in-law; and you get to claim that you're the victim when people protest that you have taken things too far because they're impugning upon your right to free speech.

"Free speech, infinity plus one!" is a six year old's argument.
 
It's 10 years in the UK and we have bugger-all sun, 6 years seems credible for Oz. The subsidy is absorbed in the system when enough people are generating... unless they don't return unused power to the grid.
Got a source for that?
 
Ain't free speech grand?

Now you, too can accuse a religion of inventing a cultural practice as a means of fooling the public into accepting a covert tax to fund terrorism; produce a political cartoon depicting the violent rape of a woman in a niqab by her Muslum son-in-law; and you get to claim that you're the victim when people protest that you have taken things too far because they're impugning upon your right to free speech.

"Free speech, infinity plus one!" is a six year old's argument.
Well they do have a right to say it BUT they can't necessarily hide behind Free Speech. Free Speech protects you from legal consequence and being forcefully censored. It doesn't protect you from social consequence, they can be anti-muslim all they want but the opposition is allowed to respond back using their Freedom of Speech.
 
I know i'm late to the alternative power topic but...

At what point do we consider Nuclear energy?

SA for all the benefit of trying to use as much wind power as possible has failed miserably with unrealiblilty of energy stabilty from it and is now effecting our entire national electrical grid, our prices are going through the roof as it is and our country is far too hot in summer to allow this to happen.

We are in an ideal country to have nuclear due to our stable weather and lack of earth quake activity it really should be considered at this point.

"Coal is good for humanity" - Tony Abbott c.2014

Jokes aside, as long as coal is around don't expect you power company to switch to renewable energy anytime soon with a sense of enthusiasm or urgency (especially considering last weekend's temperatures of up to 47 Centigrade :/ ). Of course, you could go 'off the grid,' but not enough people are doing so to make a difference.

Btw, only 14.6 of our energy comes from renewable sources (that comes from a 2015 report)
 
Of course, you could go 'off the grid,' but not enough people are doing so to make a difference.

That makes things worse, the point of homes using renewables is that they stay on the grid. If you're not giving the spare back into the grid then what's the point in energy companies subsidising the projects? They might as well build a power station instead.
 
That makes things worse, the point of homes using renewables is that they stay on the grid. If you're not giving the spare back into the grid then what's the point in energy companies subsidising the projects? They might as well build a power station instead.
The government subsidises it here.
 
Back