# Gas V Electric Costs



## Diggles (24/6/12)

Hi,
Does anyone know which is the cheapest to run a system on gas or electric? assuming all variables are constant.

Diggles


----------



## Rowy (24/6/12)

The common sentiment on this site appears to be electric. Carbon tax will keep putting electricity and gas up. Renewable target will only keep putting electricity up..............all the same I'm a gas man but think electricity would be cheaper both short and long term.


----------



## QldKev (24/6/12)

For a single batch approx

Elec $1
LPG $3


QldKev


----------



## cam89brewer (24/6/12)

LPG always seem to be good if you are impatient... Which I am and saves time waiting for the boil.


----------



## NickB (24/6/12)

Electricity will be cheaper, and if you have decent sized elements (I run 2 x 2200W in my kettle) your heating will be on par with, if not better than Gas.

Cheers


----------



## QldKev (24/6/12)

want more grunt, root a pig :lol:




elec can be as powerful as LPG if you have the power available to run multiple elements. I'm running 6kw into my kettle, but I'm thinking another 1kw would not go astray.


----------



## Brewer_010 (24/6/12)

Rowy said:


> The common sentiment on this site appears to be electric. Carbon tax will keep putting electricity and gas up. Renewable target will only keep putting electricity up..............all the same I'm a gas man but think electricity would be cheaper both short and long term.




don't forget the power companies are re-doing the poles and wires which is 80% of the future cost increases. 

Gas and electricity will just keep going up, but with electricity costing what it is I am in favour of it. Also its quiet, no fumes, the cost gets buried in household consumption, great stuff!


----------



## Rowy (24/6/12)

Brewer_010 said:


> don't forget the power companies are re-doing the poles and wires which is 80% of the future cost increases.
> 
> Gas and electricity will just keep going up, but with electricity costing what it is I am in favour of it. Also its quiet, no fumes, the cost gets buried in household consumption, great stuff!



Your 80% figure varies greatly from state to state. So lets do what 68% of Australians want (Galaxy or Essential Poll) and **** off the Carbon tax and the renewable target and we will be 20% better off!


----------



## QldKev (24/6/12)

Elec or LPG for 1 batch is cheaper than going down the corner pub and buying 1 schooner.


----------



## jayahhdee (24/6/12)

I'm planning on splitting the difference with the 3V Herms I'm builinding at the moment, electric HLT and HE with a gas boiler. Going with gas for the boiler because I hate waiting for my 40L crown urn to get up to the boil after the biab mash.


----------



## brettprevans (24/6/12)

There is a full breakdown of costs on an existing thread. Suggest u look through that. Should answer ur questions


----------



## cam89brewer (24/6/12)

Or you just might like fire for some weird reason which may be an indicator for Antisocial personality disorder.....???? :lol:


----------



## bum (24/6/12)

Rowy said:


> So lets do what 68% of Australians want


Who actually wants to live in the country that would exist if this advice were followed? :unsure: 

For the OP, gas costs more but is a little more flexible, IMO. If cost is the only consideration then electric would be the way to go.


----------



## Rowy (24/6/12)

bum said:


> Who actually wants to live in the country that would exist if this advice were followed? :unsure:
> 
> For the OP, gas costs more but is a little more flexible, IMO. If cost is the only consideration then electric would be the way to go.



Me and 68% of Australians. You'll get to experience it soon enough. Don't like it then **** off.


----------



## Gavo (24/6/12)

If you do the maths even if you run a 2400 watt element for five hours that = 12 kilowatt hours, so that = 12 x 22c = $2.64 per brew. Now if you are like me and have to pay $37 for a 9kg bottle then electricity is way cheaper. However I like gas, I have brewed with electricity and also toyed with the idea of BIAB electricity, but just ike the idea of the wide spread heat of gas.

Myybe I am just have an antisocial disorder... now just to figure that out - 2 x braziers, 1 slow combustion heater, 2 x Texan offset smokers, 1 weber compact kettle. Yep must be antisocial disorder and proud of it. B) 

Cheers
Gavo.


----------



## NickB (24/6/12)

Not sure if this is relevant, but this is 80L boiling in my 95L pot with the 2 x 2200W Keg King elements. Certainly gets a good rolling boil going....






Cheers


----------



## Diggles (24/6/12)

Gavo said:


> If you do the maths even if you run a 2400 watt element for five hours that = 12 kilowatt hours, so that = 12 x 22c = $2.64 per brew. Now if you are like me and have to pay $37 for a 9kg bottle then electricity is way cheaper. However I like gas, I have brewed with electricity and also toyed with the idea of BIAB electricity, but just ike the idea of the wide spread heat of gas.
> 
> Myybe I am just have an antisocial disorder... now just to figure that out - 2 x braziers, 1 slow combustion heater, 2 x Texan offset smokers, 1 weber compact kettle. Yep must be antisocial disorder and proud of it. B)
> 
> ...



I was thinking of a dual system, gas to get the HLT, and mash pot to temp, then electric to control the mash cycle. The only thing is your comment in regards to the heat distribution of gas. Is this really an issue? What effects do you notice? A moveable burner would be good??

Diggles


----------



## WarmBeer (24/6/12)

Rowy said:


> Me and 68% of Australians. You'll get to experience it soon enough. Don't like it then **** off.


Therein lies the bittersweet nature of living in a democracy.

You are well within your rights to _ask_ somebody to "**** off", but nobody is under any obligation to take you up on your generous offer.


----------



## Cocko (24/6/12)

I think it is all going a little of topic here...

It is simple to me:

Gas is for homs, Electric is for the coolest of rad people.

If you need to much more, I will be in your town soon, check the website for tour dates!


----------



## browndog (24/6/12)

Diggles said:


> I was thinking of a dual system, gas to get the HLT, and mash pot to temp, then electric to control the mash cycle. The only thing is your comment in regards to the heat distribution of gas. Is this really an issue? What effects do you notice? A moveable burner would be good??
> 
> Diggles



And what pray tell would you fire the kettle with? not misplaced commas I hope.


----------



## bum (24/6/12)

Rowy said:


> Me and 68% of Australians. You'll get to experience it soon enough. Don't like it then **** off.


Personally, I think the country would probably be better off without the ignorant fuckwits instead.

But I guess I'd be in the minority there...


----------



## Diggles (24/6/12)

browndog said:


> And what pray tell would you fire the kettle with? not misplaced commas I hope.



Another mixture of gas and electric I guess, would keep brew day time down a bit. Anyone got a feel as to how much time would be saved?

Diggles


----------



## Diggles (24/6/12)

Cocko said:


> I think it is all going a little of topic here...
> 
> It is simple to me:
> 
> ...



Which web site? Have you a link?


----------



## bum (24/6/12)

Do not ask him to post a link.

There's rules about that sort of thing.


----------



## Cocko (24/6/12)

Yep, as Bum said...

I am no longer a 'Linker'... Rules and all!

h34r:


----------



## bum (24/6/12)

Cocko said:


> I am no longer a 'Linker'.


Still a double adapter though, right?

I'd hate to see you out of work.


----------



## Cocko (24/6/12)

bum said:


> Still a double adapter though, right?
> 
> I'd hate to see you out of work.



Oh yeah, just obeying the 'rules'....​


----------



## punkin (25/6/12)

browndog said:


> And what pray tell would you fire the kettle with? not misplaced commas I hope.



Surely if you are going to nit pick people on punctuation, you'd get your capitalisation right?


----------



## QldKev (25/6/12)

Gavo said:


> If you do the maths even if you run a 2400 watt element for five hours that = 12 kilowatt hours, so that = 12 x 22c = $2.64 per brew. Now if you are like me and have to pay $37 for a 9kg bottle then electricity is way cheaper. However I like gas, I have brewed with electricity and also toyed with the idea of BIAB electricity, but just ike the idea of the wide spread heat of gas.
> 
> Myybe I am just have an antisocial disorder... now just to figure that out - 2 x braziers, 1 slow combustion heater, 2 x Texan offset smokers, 1 weber compact kettle. Yep must be antisocial disorder and proud of it. B)
> 
> ...



Why would you need to run the 2400w element for 5hrs? I allow 1hr for strike water heating and heating to the boil, then another hour for the boil. So 2 hours, or 4.8 kilowatt hours. 4.8 x 22c = $1.05 per brew.


----------



## Gavo (25/6/12)

QldKev said:


> Why would you need to run the 2400w element for 5hrs? .



Crikey it was just an point for example, not the literal hours required. 

Diggles, I have brewed using a full electric system and gas, I don't believe there are any ill effects using electric elements (there are haps of successful brewers using full electric rigs), I just like using gas.

You probably could go and list the pros and cons of each, and cost is just one of them.

Cheers
Gavo.


----------



## Rowy (25/6/12)

bum said:


> Personally, I think the country would probably be better off without the ignorant fuckwits instead.
> 
> But I guess I'd be in the minority there...




No I'd suggest you could sit around in a circle with your other compatriots, contemplate your navel, weave baskets and sing kum by ya (apologise for not knowing correct spelling song) whilst collecting some form of government funding. Never fear your time to do so is just around the corner. People like me just won't have to pick up the bills anymore to let you do it.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/6/12)

Rowy said:


> The common sentiment on this site appears to be electric. Carbon tax will keep putting electricity and gas up. Renewable target will only keep putting electricity up.............





Rowy said:


> Your 80% figure varies greatly from state to state. So lets do what 68% of Australians want (Galaxy or Essential Poll) and **** off the Carbon tax and the renewable target and we will be 20% better off!


if anyone is interested:
http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/Informat...9f3149d3e-1.PDF
australian energy market commission retail price estimates.
5.7% of the increase due to carbon tax
3% due to renewable energy target.


----------



## Rowy (25/6/12)

Liam_snorkel said:


> if anyone is interested:
> http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/Informat...9f3149d3e-1.PDF
> australian energy market commission retail price estimates.
> 5.7% of the increase due to carbon tax
> 3% due to renewable energy target.



Not sure how old this is Liam but as of last week most states have the increase at more than this. Bottom line is though why we are paying the biggest in the world to make no discernable difference what so ever. None, Nil, Zip, Zero! Just politics to appease what is now a significant minority. 

Figures fromn AEMC are estimates base on computer modelling which seems to be the norm in this argument. Models predict one thing then when the time comes the reality is different. GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) I'm afraid.


----------



## NickB (25/6/12)

I take it you're not in the bracket that's getting compensation Rowy...?


----------



## Rowy (25/6/12)

Look at the dates..............rest my case.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/6/12)

6 months ago. Big whoop.
People were busting out figures from their arses so I linked to something with some credibility, I thought you might find it useful. As you said, garbage in garbage out..





Rowy said:


> Bottom line is though why we are paying the biggest in the world to make no discernable difference what so ever. None, Nil, Zip, Zero! Just politics to appease what is now a significant minority.


also, bottom line is this: 
both major parties have agreed to the same cut in emissions by 2020.
the current government is going to do it with a market mechanism, the LNP want "direct action" whatever that means. Either way it is going to cost something. Framing it as if the greens have us by the balls is completely incorrect.


----------



## Rowy (25/6/12)

To be honest no but it makes nowt difference to me it's an issue of principal. My two elderley parents, who unfortunately own their own home have worked out their budget and it's not good. Electricity, Rates etc. :angry:

If it was going to make a difference I'd run with it. Look at Spain and see how their clean energy future helped them! The whole green job thing is a crock and Europe has proven it to be so.


----------



## kelbygreen (25/6/12)

isnt electricity like 70c a KW??? Cant be effed geting the last bill out but sure it was close to 70c. How do you get it for 22c?


----------



## black_labb (25/6/12)

Rowy said:


> To be honest no but it makes nowt difference to me it's an issue of principal. My two elderley parents, who unfortunately own their own home have worked out their budget and it's not good. Electricity, Rates etc. :angry:
> 
> If it was going to make a difference I'd run with it. Look at Spain and see how their clean energy future helped them! The whole green job thing is a crock and Europe has proven it to be so.




I'd suggest that europe's financial problems are not related to green energy but due to bad financial management. Maybe I'm wrong though, you are the expert after all.


----------



## rotten (25/6/12)

kelbygreen said:


> isnt electricity like 70c a KW??? Cant be effed geting the last bill out but sure it was close to 70c. How do you get it for 22c?




It'll be seventy by next year  



In all seriousness if possible, you should be around 21c to 28c, depending on how much you have used etc etc.


----------



## Diggles (25/6/12)

rotten said:


> It'll be seventy by next year
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness if possible, you should be around 21c to 28c, depending on how much you have used etc etc.




Wow, didn't think this thread would light the political bomb fire it has, thanks for the info and political lesson. Quite funny reading from the side lines :icon_cheers: 

Diggles


----------



## Bribie G (25/6/12)

If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind. 

That apart, I calculated my costs per boil at around 80c. Also talking electricity, for most quaffing brews if you have a fairly good electric HWS like a fairly late model Rheem the hot water is perfectly good for strike water, mine comes out around 55 degrees and because it's cooked on offpeak that's a wee bit of a saving as well.


----------



## punkin (25/6/12)

Bribie G said:


> If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind.
> 
> That apart, I calculated my costs per boil at around 80c. Also talking electricity, for most quaffing brews if you have a fairly good electric HWS like a fairly late model Rheem the hot water is perfectly good for strike water, mine comes out around 55 degrees and because it's cooked on offpeak that's a wee bit of a saving as well.



If you tap in before the temper valve you can have 80-90c water :icon_cheers: 

solar hot water makes this a very good start to a brew day.


----------



## Dave70 (27/6/12)

Another consideration is efficiency. I some how doubt my old three ring burner is making the best use of my propane's available BTU's.


I wonder how a bag of those heat beads from Bunnings would go? 



And of course, anybody who cant see the carbon tax as the wealth redistribution sleight of hand that it is needs to stop looking at the world through their green tinted, red framed glasses.
(just my 2c)

(sorry, $23)


----------



## Bribie G (27/6/12)

Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)


----------



## QldKev (27/6/12)

That's it, from now on, I'm farting in a bottle.



and I may go turn that heater up another degree....


----------



## DJR (27/6/12)

Bribie G said:


> Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)



I saw some dude had put together a rocket stove for brewing- it looks pretty unmanageable for a kettle (boilovers etc) but as a HLT it may be useful. Doesn't use a lot of wood to boil water at all, it is just a lot more efficient than an open fire or wood fired BBQ.

http://www.greenhomebrewing.com/?p=54

I wonder whether that idea with an air bypass to control the heat might allow better control for brewing purposes.

Back OT i use an electric HLT for mashin and sparge water, doesn't cost much per batch, then about $1 or $2 worth of gas for the boil.


----------



## Dave70 (27/6/12)

Bribie G said:


> Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)




I make a similar rationalisation when I crank up my fuel stove. Since the tree I'm burning already neutralised its CO2 emissions when living.
Kind of a retroactive carbon sink if you will.

Only works if you start the fire with twigs though.


I do however use plastic containers and kero in a pinch. 
I spose I should plant a shrub or something.


----------



## Malted (27/6/12)

Bribie G said:


> If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind.


They might not be able to use it... 
If every Chinese person had access to electricity ... I guess they're working on it as they're building TWO power plants per week http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm

What if every Indonesian had access to electricity? I guess we might not need Live Cattle Export? Let's not worry about how they treat our cattle for now and waste money on getting them trained and their facilities up to date. Lets build them power plants and infrastructure, and then give them fridges to store meat instead of buying it from the wet market each day and then they'll want boxed beef instead of on the hoof! This will open the door for MacDondals, KFC, diabetes and obesity. Let's civilise globalise them and they'll thank us for it. They will thank us won't they?


----------



## MAH (27/6/12)

Rowy said:


> Bottom line is though why we are paying the biggest in the world



Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!

This idea that we are paying the highest in the world is based upon a study prepared for the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA). Gee they EUAA wouldn't be biased would they? :lol: 

Lifehacker give a good analysis of the EUAA report, highlighting the methodological flaws. 

Two much more credible reports on electricity prices show that Australia clearly doesn't pay the highest prices in the world. One is by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. The other is by NUS Consulting Group (a US energy cost management consulting company), which showed Australia was ranked 12th in the world for electricity prices, a smidge above the USA ranked 14th. The NUS Consulting Group based their analysis on actual prices, no modeling.

However, you can believe the good folk at EUAA if that fits your agenda.

Cheers
MAH


----------



## Rowy (27/6/12)

MAH said:


> Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!
> 
> This idea that we are paying the highest in the world is based upon a study prepared for the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA). Gee they EUAA wouldn't be biased would they? :lol:
> 
> ...




No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.


----------



## Malted (27/6/12)

Rowy said:


> No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.



Feck it all! Are you saying they're going to shove carbon into our electricity now? I want 100% pure and natural electricity, none of this stuff watered down with carbon. Carbon is a by product of cheese making you know and they are just getting richer by putting it into our electricity to make it go further. Scandalous!


----------



## Gavo (27/6/12)

Bribie G said:


> Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)



Hey thats what I did today... except I got my timber of a mates farm and the trees were already dead. I have already started burning them though keeping the house warm. None of that burning electricity to keep the house warm here.


----------



## MAH (28/6/12)

Rowy said:


> No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.



Finland. 60 Euro!

The problem is your figure of $23 and my figure of 60 are meaningless in isolation, as they're simply the rate of the tax. Unless we also know the base of the tax, we don't know how "big" the tax is, we don't know the impact on the economy or the impact on individuals. 

This means your assertion that Australia is


Rowy said:


> paying the biggest in the world


 is completely unsubstantiated.

What we do know, in Australia the rate is $23 t/Co2, imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year (the base). From knowing the rate and the base, we can extrapolate the likely impact. At the macro level some have estimated this to be an increase in CPI of 0.75% (as a comparison the introduction of the GST increased CPI by 2.5%). At a household level, the same study estimated it would add $7.87 p/w to the poorest 10% of households, $22.13 p/w to the richest 10% of households and an average of $13.18 p/w for all households. This is starting to tell us how "big" the tax is. Another indicator is that it will raise approximately $8 billion per year (although again this doesn't really tell us how big the tax is without knowing the size of the economy it was raised from).

Now lets look at Finland. 60t/CO2 is bigger than $23 t/CO2, but what does this mean. It means F-all!

60t/CO2 is the rate for traffic fuels. So we know that in Finland the base includes petrol, which is excluded in Australia. 30t/CO2 is the rate for coal and natural gas, except there is a 50% discount when used in combined electricity and heat production and no CO2 tax when used for electricity production. Again, the rate is higher and the base wider than in Australia, except in regards to electricity production. Overall the Finish carbon tax is quite complex, and can't be described as a single flat rate. 

So what do we know?

We know in Australia that at $23t/CO2 imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year, it will raise approximately $8 billion, from an economy of $1.57 trillion, from a population of 23 million people.

We know in Finland, their various environmental energy taxes will raise approximately $5.5 billion, from an economy of $187.6 billion dollars, from a population of 5.4 million people.

So yeah, I think saying Australia has the biggest carbon tax in the world is pure bollocks and to name just one country with a bigger tax, I give you Finland.


----------



## Markbeer (28/6/12)

Hi

back to the original question.

Cheapest is town gas. Put a point in the garage and u have no bottle changing, cheap gas that won't run out. Burners are available for natural.

Then electricity, then LPG.

Otherwise if you get your LPG for free as many do than that would be the cheapest.

Mark


----------



## brad81 (28/6/12)

Bodily harm cost?

Gas maybe a burn
Electric stop your heart

Of course due care and caution would be exercised, but the risk is there.


----------



## Dave70 (28/6/12)

MAH said:


> Finland. 60 Euro!
> 
> The problem is your figure of $23 and my figure of 60 are meaningless in isolation, as they're simply the rate of the tax. Unless we also know the base of the tax, we don't know how "big" the tax is, we don't know the impact on the economy or the impact on individuals.
> 
> ...



Name two..


----------



## DJR (28/6/12)

Dave70 said:


> Name two..



From http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/

Sweden - Sweden enacted a tax on carbon emissions in 1991. Currently, the tax is $150 per ton of carbon, but no tax is applied to fuels used for electricity generation, and industries are required to pay only 50% of the tax. 

British Columbia/Canada - British Columbia inaugurated a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008 that qualifies as far and away the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere. The tax started on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton of carbon dioxide, and rises by $5/tonne annually to reach $30 per tonne of CO2 in 2012. 

Are we done yet?


----------



## kjparker (28/6/12)

DJR said:


> From http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/
> 
> Sweden - Sweden enacted a tax on carbon emissions in 1991. Currently, the tax is $150 per ton of carbon, but no tax is applied to fuels used for electricity generation, and industries are required to pay only 50% of the tax.
> 
> ...


What are you doing!?!?! your letting facts get in the way of a good story!


----------



## QldKev (28/6/12)

How did this thread become a pissing contest?


----------



## matho (28/6/12)

Malted said:


> Feck it all! Are you saying they're going to shove carbon into our electricity now? I want 100% pure and natural electricity, none of this stuff watered down with carbon. Carbon is a by product of cheese making you know and they are just getting richer by putting it into our electricity to make it go further. Scandalous!



mate they have been putting carbon in electricity for years, thats why the ends of your fluro tubes go black.
:blink:


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

brad81 said:


> Bodily harm cost?
> 
> Gas maybe a burn
> Electric stop your heart
> ...



I fill out a JSEA before even thinking about turning on my burner or element.

Im not going to get injured, and also get sued...


Sponge


----------



## brad81 (28/6/12)

sponge said:


> I fill out a JSEA before even thinking about turning on my burner or element.
> 
> Im not going to get injured, and also get sued...
> 
> ...



Think of all the freeloaders that will drink all your brew at your wake....


----------



## MAH (28/6/12)

QldKev said:


> How did this thread become a pissing contest?



The OP asked a question, the very first reply someone started banging on about the carbon tax and followed up later with more ill-informed rhetoric. It all went downhill from there.

For me, electricity is cheapest, simply because I have a solar system and produce more energy than we use.


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

brad81 said:


> Think of all the freeloaders that will drink all your brew at your wake....



If there are dangers that cannot be eliminated, isolated or reduced in my brewery, i will not brew. 

Therefore, no beer for the freeloaders.

Sponge





PS. maybe on the raaaare occasion will i dare brew without a JSEA, but god help me that one time I get burnt/zapped and not have one complete.


----------



## JaseH (28/6/12)

brad81 said:


> Bodily harm cost?
> 
> Gas maybe a burn
> Electric stop your heart
> ...



Shit! Most of my house runs on electricity - I'm too scared to go home now!

Actually, there's more electricity where I work.. I'm definitely going to die!


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

Frothie said:


> Shit! Most of my house runs on electricity - I'm too scared to go home now!
> 
> Actually, there's more electricity where I work.. I'm definitely going to die!



id be packing and leaving quick smart and catching the first bus to central aus.


----------



## brad81 (28/6/12)

Frothie said:


> Shit! Most of my house runs on electricity - I'm too scared to go home now!
> 
> Actually, there's more electricity where I work.. I'm definitely going to die!





sponge said:


> id be packing and leaving quick smart and catching the first bus to central aus.




Jeez the smartarse awards are going to be tight this year :icon_cheers:


----------



## bignath (28/6/12)

Frothie said:


> Shit! Most of my house runs on electricity - I'm too scared to go home now!
> 
> Actually, there's more electricity where I work.. I'm definitely going to die!




 
Hands off of your computer too! No more typing......

Don't you know it's plugged into the wall???? 


I'm gonna go make a coffee and see where this thread goes, with my laptop unplugged of course.
Oh shit, hang on, i need to use the kettle to make my coffee...


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

Big Nath said:


> Hands off of your computer too! No more typing......
> 
> Don't you know it's plugged into the wall????
> 
> ...



Id be leaving the kettle out in the sun and hoping it gets luke warm at very best.

That, or walk to the nearest cafe.


----------



## tavas (28/6/12)

sponge said:


> That, or walk to the nearest cafe.



Under street lights and power lines!! Are you crazy??????

Watch out for predatory Prius's too.


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

Wear a minimum of 5" rubber platform boots at all times.


EDIT: yea, im well bored at work.


----------



## Edak (28/6/12)

tavas said:


> Under street lights and power lines!! Are you crazy??????
> 
> Watch out for predatory Prius's too.



Those Prius' really sneak up on you before running you down. I have an idea, how about we add noise to our electric cars so you can hear them.

Oh, and isn't using excess solar to brew the most expensive way to brew? Last time I looked, the buyback rate for electricity (the electricity you send back to the grid) is 3x the cost of them supplying it to you.
~23c/kw to buy
~60c/kw to supply

If you choose to use that excess electricity instead of supplying it back to the grid it is effectively costing you 60c/Kw isn't it?


----------



## sponge (28/6/12)

Edak said:


> If you choose to use that excess electricity instead of supplying it back to the grid it is effectively costing you 60c/Kw isn't it?



Just need to brew more to prevent excess electricity from ever occuring.

Energy used >= energy produced.

Glory days.


But on a more serious note, i thought the original buyers of the solar panels got rebated that much for providing energy back to the grid?

I could definitely be wrong here though since I didn't whole-heartedly look into it due to strata issues with an apartment block...


----------



## bignath (28/6/12)

Edak said:


> Those Prius' really sneak up on you before running you down. I have an idea, how about we add noise to our electric cars so you can hear them.
> 
> Oh, and isn't using excess solar to brew the most expensive way to brew? Last time I looked, the buyback rate for electricity (the electricity you send back to the grid) is 3x the cost of them supplying it to you.
> ~23c/kw to buy
> ...





but if the buy back rate from what you send back is 3x what it costs for them to supply it to you, then surely you can't afford not to brew? The more you brew the more profit you make!

must look into this solar thing, i think i've stumbled upon some genius! Will give heaps more leverage and green lights from the mrs...


----------



## Edak (28/6/12)

Big Nath said:


> but if the buy back rate is 3x what it costs, then surely you can't afford not to brew? The more you brew the more profit you make!
> 
> must look into this solar thing, i think i've stumbled upon some genius! Will give heaps more leverage and green lights from the mrs...



I looked it up, the Solar Feed-in tarrif used to be near 60c/Kwh but this changed and is now a minimum of 25c/kWh.

In NSW:


```
Customers who joined the Scheme on or before 27 October 2010 receive Solar Bonus scheme payments of 60 cents per kilowatt hour for renewable energy generated and exported to the grid.

Customers who joined the scheme between 28 October 2010 and 28 April 2011 receive Solar Bonus scheme payments of 20 cents per kilowatt hour for renewable energy generated and exported to the grid.

Applications to the scheme closed on 28 April 2011.
```

In VIC:


```
The Premium Feed-in Tariff started in late 2009 and has now closed to new applicants.

This scheme offered eligible households, businesses and community organisations with small-scale solar systems of five kilowatts or less a credit of at least 60 cents per kilowatt hour for excess electricity fed back into the grid.

More than 80,000 Victorian households, small businesses and community groups are now benefiting from the Premium Feed-in Tariff.

Existing solar customers that are on the premium feed-in tariff will continue to receive credits until 2024. Please be aware that it has been advised that any current Premium Feed-in Tariff customers that install additional solar panels, now the PFit scheme has been closed, will no longer be eligible for the Premium Feed-in Tariff. However, you may be able to apply for the new Transitional Feed-in Tariff.
```

So basically going solar is NOT WORTH IT any more...


----------



## Rowy (28/6/12)

MAH said:


> Finland. 60 Euro!
> 
> The problem is your figure of $23 and my figure of 60 are meaningless in isolation, as they're simply the rate of the tax. Unless we also know the base of the tax, we don't know how "big" the tax is, we don't know the impact on the economy or the impact on individuals.
> 
> ...




Finlands appears to be a tax on fuel relative to emissions. Whereas ours taxes so much more such as council dumps etc due to their supposed emissions as opposed to the fuel they use. Ours is much broader therefore, I submit, larger.


----------



## Maheel (28/6/12)

Edak said:


> So basically going solar is NOT WORTH IT any more...



Not in QLD either unless you buy your system tomorrow (last few days) 

*QLD Solar Bonus Scheme to be cut by 82%

now (very soon) = 8 cents per kwh...
*
http://www.cleanenergy.qld.gov.au/demand-s...onus-scheme.htm

The GOV sure have us over a barrel with our pants down..

carbon tax added but no reductions in carbon generated 
and
no more solar credits or rebates 

seems to be a way to dis-incentive going solar and reducing carbon ?

you would be a fool to believe that a carbon tax will actually result in lower carbon produced.
the GOV bailouts have already began for high carbon producers.... what a joke (or mugs we are) ?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/848869...or-alcoa-crisis


----------



## bum (28/6/12)

Edak said:


> So basically going solar is NOT WORTH IT any more...


Only if your reasoning for getting the panels was to quit your job and become a Power Baron.

Pretty sure they still generate power you can use in your home but...


----------



## Maheel (28/6/12)

bum said:


> Only if your reasoning for getting the panels was to quit your job and become a Power Baron.
> 
> Pretty sure they still generate power you can use in your home but...



imo most of the production is during times we are not home or at work and using less power...


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/6/12)

Maheel said:


> imo most of the production is during times we are not home or at work and using less power...


for many people, yes, but you still have devices on stand-by during the day, and you're forgetting weekends. 
origin energy for instance pays you an additional 6c/kwh so it still wouldn't be a complete loss.
with PV systems getting constantly cheaper and power prices expected to rise something like 40% in the next two years going solar is definitely something to consider.


----------



## MAH (28/6/12)

Rowy said:


> Finlands appears to be a tax on fuel relative to emissions. Whereas ours taxes so much more such as council dumps etc due to their supposed emissions as opposed to the fuel they use. Ours is much broader therefore, I submit, larger.



In Australia only 500 emitters are taxed directly. There are 3,368,188 vehicles in Finland. Each time they refuel, they are taxed directly. 3,368,188 emitters vs 500 emitters, is much broader and, therefore, I submit, larger.

See how stupid such statements are?

As I've said, you can't say how big the tax is without looking at the rate and the base, and even then you need an equivalent comparator, such as GDP. 

Finland, 2.9% of GDP vs Australia 0.5% of GDP. Simple question, which is bigger?


----------



## Florian (28/6/12)

Liam_snorkel said:


> with PV systems getting constantly cheaper and power prices expected to rise something like 40% in the next two years going solar is definitely something to consider.


And if you consider possibly going solar, then get your application in with Energex until July 9. 
Doesn't mean you have to do the install straight away or even do it at all, but at least you have the feed in tariff of 44c (plus whatever your retailer puts on top) guaranteed _if_ you decide to go ahead. Nothing to loose.

Edit: that's for Qld, obviously.


----------



## Rowy (28/6/12)

MAH said:


> In Australia only 500 emitters are taxed directly. There are 3,368,188 vehicles in Finland. Each time they refuel, they are taxed directly. 3,368,188 emitters vs 500 emitters, is much broader and, therefore, I submit, larger.
> 
> See how stupid such statements are?
> 
> ...



Now I get it! The 500 won't pass the tax on.................silly me. Of course the difference this tax will make on global emissions is zilch......the basket weavers have had their little win but not long to go now.


----------



## Maheel (28/6/12)

Florian said:


> And if you consider possibly going solar, then get your application in with Energex until July 9.
> Doesn't mean you have to do the install straight away or even do it at all, but at least you have the feed in tariff of 44c (plus whatever your retailer puts on top) guaranteed _if_ you decide to go ahead. Nothing to loose.
> 
> Edit: that's for Qld, obviously.



i am going to do that tonight  

good idea !!  i missed the 2013 bit 

thanks


----------



## Greg.L (28/6/12)

If you live on a farm and have access to free firewood, then wood is cheaper than gas or elec. I just set up a couple of concrete blocks, a couple of bars of reo and put my 21L pots to heat (2 pots with about 30L of creek water) over the fire. I get to sit on the creekbank waiting for my billy to boil, or to get to 75C.

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if someone has already suggested this.


----------



## Florian (28/6/12)

Maheel said:


> i am going to do that tonight
> 
> good idea !!  i missed the 2013 bit
> 
> thanks



It's Energex form 1003 you need to submit.

You also need to nominate your installer on that form (usually the installer submits the form for you, but seeing time is of the essence it wouldn't hurt to do it yourself). 

If you haven't spoken to anyone yet send me a pm, there is a local guy here who gets raving reviews over on whirlpool and certainly does a no bullshit job for a fair price. Absolutely no affiliation.


----------



## black_labb (28/6/12)

Rowy said:


> Now I get it! The 500 won't pass the tax on.................silly me. Of course the difference this tax will make on global emissions is zilch......the basket weavers have had their little win but not long to go now.




You do realise that accountants basically run businesses. You may also know that they often have a big say in wether a project is cosidered and approved. Projects are investments for the future, and project managers and accountants take the ongoing costs of a project into account when planning. Taxes are costs.

Some very educated scholars were able to put together the above statements and figure out that businesses would try and minimise CO2 emissions. Too bad only the most educated scholars are able to understand the complex system and no one else can. 


A bit from the worlds second largest energy company on investment and carbon tax
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2012/06/20/t...ays-shell-boss/


----------



## Malted (28/6/12)

Total cost my friends. Feed in tarrifs, $/per kw hrs in and out... Has anyone who has posted here actually got a PV system? Has anyone that has such a system looked at the total costs? Payback period anyone?

Installing a PV system is expensive. This has to be offset against potential savings or 'earnings' from the potential energy it is 'saving'. Had you not installed it there would be a bunch of money you would still have. 

We are looking at an 8 year period before the amount we paid (actually my employers at out office) is negated by the installation costs. Warranty on different PV system varies but can be 10 -15 years if you're lucky. So after 8 years we might be ahead for 2 - 7 years. Is the average Joe Blow going to make such an investment for a payback not payable until 8 years in the future? What if he invested the same amount in some sort of non-PV investment? Would that be a better net return in 8 years time? I honestly do not know.

I am not going to install a PV on my house because I don't know if I will still be here in 8 yrs time. What if I want to sell in 10 yrs time for a bit of an upgrade? Is the big outlay now worth it for a potential 2yr saving in 8yrs time? Fark it, i'll keep the extra coin now and maybe spend it on something with immediate benefit, such as shiny stuff for brewing.


----------



## bum (28/6/12)

A valid position but projecting it on to everyone else presumes everyone else is only fiscally motivated in regard to this issue.


----------



## kelbygreen (28/6/12)

malted the scheme is only in place till 2015 (from memory, was about 3 years ago when I done my house hold sustainability coarse and then it was about 6 years left on the scheme) so after that you may not get any money back for the electricity you produce (doubt this will happen) but it may be GREATLY! reduced! or they might increase it (government dependent) So its very hard to say what will happen when the current bill expires, this is a risk both ways but I cant see them cutting off the payment you produce. 

You may get more per KW or less per KW but that will be for the government in power to decide. If you ever put PV system in always put a inverter bigger then your system so if you want to expand you wont have to put a whole new invert in.


----------



## Malted (28/6/12)

bum said:


> A valid position but projecting it on to everyone else presumes everyone else is only fiscally motivated in regard to this issue.


You too have a valid position; no objections. I failed to consider that some may be more hugging motivated than fiscally motivated. After all most brewers (since we are considering our peers on this forum) are not tight arses and are more likely to hug trees and small furry mammals. Jokes aside, IMO most folks want to save the planet reduce carbon emissions etc, as long as it doesn't cost them. NIMBY make some one else pay for it. Thoughts?


----------



## Malted (28/6/12)

kelbygreen said:


> malted the scheme is only in place till 2015 (from memory, was about 3 years ago when I done my house hold sustainability coarse and then it was about 6 years left on the scheme) so after that you may not get any money back for the electricity you produce (doubt this will happen) but it may be GREATLY! reduced! or they might increase it (government dependent) So its very hard to say what will happen when the current bill expires, this is a risk both ways but I cant see them cutting off the payment you produce.
> 
> You may get more per KW or less per KW but that will be for the government in power to decide. If you ever put PV system in always put a inverter bigger then your system so if you want to expand you wont have to put a whole new invert in.



It is my understanding that folks were are able to lock in a tarrif for a period of time. There are cut offs for when these locked in tarrifs will become unavailable. 
I doubt feed in tarrifs will increase. The governmenbt shit themselves at how popular and rapid the uptake of the scheme was, that is why they shut it down. There is another element to it also.
Current infrastructure is suited to a certain load flowing to houses, if too many houses are feeding back into the grid, the infrastructure is not suited to this. It is my understanding that they don't want too much power flowing back into the system because it would be too costly to upgrade the infrastructure to cope with this. I don't fully understand the details of it and this is my simplistic understanding, it may well be flawed. I encourage someone to enlighten me. As it was, there were limits to the systems and rebates available because the government didn't want folks to be net energy producers. IMO it was barely better than the home insulation scheme.


----------



## bum (28/6/12)

Malted said:


> IMO most folks want to save the planet reduce carbon emissions etc, as long as it doesn't cost them. NIMBY make some one else pay for it. Thoughts?


As an observation of the current general climate (if you'll forgive the near pun) - I'd say this was accurate.

As an assessment of people's _actual_, unspoken opinions - that's not even close. The truth is closer to "I don't care. I'll be dead anyway. The money is better in my pocket." 

If people actually cared and actually believed that the issues/science being presented to us were real then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Some policy would have been enacted YEARS ago and we'd already be seeing if it had any effect. Well, realistically, if we actually believed it we wouldn't even need a policy shift - we'd just stop consuming so much.

I'm not going to come out in defence the current approach but I will say this - regardless of your position, what is the harm in reducing consumption? In keeping resources in reserve? In polluting our environment to a lesser extent? Yeah, some of you will ask me, in turn, "Bum, what of the economy if consumption were to fall?" I'd tell my interrogators that they may have missed the point of the carbon tax entirely.


----------



## Malted (28/6/12)

bum said:


> As an assessment of people's _actual_, unspoken opinions - that's not even close. The truth is closer to "I don't care. I'll be dead anyway. The money is better in my pocket." Very true.
> 
> If people actually cared and actually believed that the issues/science being presented to us were real then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Some policy would have been enacted YEARS ago and we'd already be seeing if it had any effect. Well, realistically, if we actually believed it we wouldn't even need a policy shift - we'd just stop consuming so much. If only the science had a consensus. Who are we to know who to believe? Modelling is modelling after all.
> 
> ...


----------



## kymba (28/6/12)

1) buys solar panels & errata

2) tell the power companies to gag on my cock

3) wait 8 years to pay off panels

4) profit!!! (sort of, maybe, if i haven't sold my recs already)

5) resort to stealing from 7-11's and dimmeys when my feed-in tariff is reduced, again


----------



## bum (28/6/12)

malted said:


> If only the science had a consensus. Who are we to know who to believe? Modelling is modelling after all.


There is certainly more than a little truth to that, however, any credible sources are only arguing about scale right now (as is my understanding, anyway - I'm no science-talking-guy). Any inactivity only makes the problem worse, no matter whose models you choose. I mean, even Big Oil (etc) has stopped trying to bury their heads in the sand. They don't have to answer to a constituency - this suggests to me that climate change is real and the dangers are real even if uncertain.



malted said:


> Surely you jest? Would I really want to change the lifestyle I am accustomed to?


This is essentially what I've said is closer to the truth above though, right? Regardless, it doesn't come down to a matter of "want". It is a matter of "need". Obviously, we all determine our own needs based on priority. Feathers are getting ruffled here because certain needs are artificially being set against each other.


----------



## black_labb (28/6/12)

I can't remember the details but there is a company that has or is going to launch a product for powering your house. It uses a fuel cell running on natural gas and uses the heat created/cooling needed to heat your hot water. The system is something like 80% efficient as the inherrent losses are turned into hot water heating. A Coal fired power plant gets 30% efficiency. Also being in the home you don't have the losses involved with powerlines and transformers crossing the country. They can be used a a base power load. They still create carbon dioxide but the amount is very much decreased as well as the amount of fuel being fed in is much less.

http://www.harveynormansolar.com.au/BlueGEN.html


----------



## MAH (29/6/12)

Malted said:


> Has anyone who has posted here actually got a PV system? Has anyone that has such a system looked at the total costs? Payback period anyone?



Yep, I have a 4kw system. Top grade panels, best quality German inverter, mounted on custom stainless frame to optimise the angle of the panels. It's the Rolls Royce of PV systems, so as you might guess, not cheap.

Even with a top of the line system, it will take only 4 years 3 months to pay back. This is based on the real life output of my system. Considering SA Government just announced an 18% increase in electricity costs, it will be even sooner.



Malted said:


> Installing a PV system is expensive. This has to be offset against potential savings or 'earnings' from the potential energy it is 'saving'. Had you not installed it there would be a bunch of money you would still have.



OK, what about the money I could have earned if I had just invested the initial capital outlay. It pushes the pay back period out to about 5 years 6 months (again this doesn't take account of the 18% increase).

So after 5.5 years, I'm ahead each year by $2,200. No doubt this will be higher as the cost of electricity continues to increase.

I have a 15 year warranty on the panels and 17 years more of the high feed-in rate. It was a no-brainer for me.



Malted said:


> I am not going to install a PV on my house because I don't know if I will still be here in 8 yrs time



Additionally, it adds re-sale value to my house. In SA, if I sell the house, the new owner is also entitled to the high feed-in rate.


----------



## glenwal (29/6/12)

You're all wrong, the cheapest way to brew is underpants.

1. Collect underpants
2.
3. Profit


----------



## Gavo (29/6/12)

Got a 1.5Kw system here, considered small. My last power bill was almost $300 less than the same time last year without the system, about the same saving each bill. Even considering mine was an expensive sytem due to the fact of being an upgradable system, quality panels and distance for installers to travel, my system will pay for itself in four to five years.

I will most likely sell up and build again in that time and will then install a larger system again; lower feed in tarrif or not. I will just run the pool pump etc during the day instead of night like I do now.


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

Malted said:


> Total cost my friends. Feed in tarrifs, $/per kw hrs in and out... Has anyone who has posted here actually got a PV system? Has anyone that has such a system looked at the total costs? Payback period anyone?
> 
> Installing a PV system is expensive. This has to be offset against potential savings or 'earnings' from the potential energy it is 'saving'. Had you not installed it there would be a bunch of money you would still have.
> 
> ...



8 years is a very long time, Malted, I can only assume that's because your employer uses most of the electricity produced during sunshine hours rather than selling it for a premium.

I agree that as an average Joe I wouldn't bother with such a long payback period, taking possible future savings and hardware failure into account. 

However, if you got into solar in time and are able to shift most of your usage to the dark hours (like most working people do anyway) this time will be significantly reduced. 

We are running near 8KW of panels on a 5KW inverter, meaning the inverter runs at capacity for most of the day. Instead of going with expensive German hardware I decided to go with tried and tested good quality but cheap Chinese stuff with a installer I know I can trust. With conservative calculations the system will be paid off in under 4 years, and after that it basically means free electricity until rates absolutely sky rocket and exceed the feed in tariff, and maybe by then good battery systems are more affordable so the electricity produced during the day can be saved for night time consumption. If not at least I know the system has paid itself off and a big chunk of energy used will be shifted to daytime. 

You raise a good point though with selling the property, under new Qld legislation the FIT expires as soon as the account holder changes, so while the system might add value when selling, the new owner (or tenant) will not be able to benefit from a high FIT. I know we'll be here until the kids leave home which is still a very long time away.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/6/12)

I'm going to further derail the thread. Not sorry.

I have a little predicament - I'm currently renting a place off SWMBO's parents and we plan to buy it before the end of the year. I wonder if I can get an application in and approved for the higher FIT now, and then install the system next year when we own the place.


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

Liam,

Yes you can if:

1. You already have the electricity account in your name and will keep it in your name once you buy.
2. You finish the install before 30 June 2013.

If I was you I'd put the application in and then see what your situation is (financially or else) when you bought the place.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (29/6/12)

Good to know, cheers.


----------



## Maheel (29/6/12)

black_labb said:


> I can't remember the details but there is a company that has or is going to launch a product for powering your house. It uses a fuel cell running on natural gas and uses the heat created/cooling needed to heat your hot water. The system is something like 80% efficient as the inherrent losses are turned into hot water heating. A Coal fired power plant gets 30% efficiency. Also being in the home you don't have the losses involved with powerlines and transformers crossing the country. They can be used a a base power load. They still create carbon dioxide but the amount is very much decreased as well as the amount of fuel being fed in is much less.
> 
> http://www.harveynormansolar.com.au/BlueGEN.html



had a look and thought "pretty cool" till i saw the 40K price tag..... 

when they can bring down the price it woudl be an interesting option


----------



## Edak (29/6/12)

Glen W said:


> You're all wrong, the cheapest way to brew is underpants.
> 
> 1. Collect underpants
> 2.
> 3. Profit



Brewing-gnomes 

There is a lot of discussion as to the environmental impact of actually producing the solar panels to begin with. There is obviously a carbon footprint involved with the production of the panels, mining the raw material, transportation of materials, manufacturing of components, transportation of components, transportation to assembly, assembly, transportation to distributor, transportation to retailer, transportation to end user. 

In two days the price is obviously going to go up, so if you want your solar system then get it today!

If someone is claiming savings of $2000 per year then they must have a minimum use of 8700kWh+ of solar electricity per year, based on a price of 23c/kWh. 8760kWh/year is a nominal usage of 1kW all day/night. That's 24kWh useful electricity generation per day. A typical 1kW system will output nominally 4.5kWh/day in Victoria so this means you would need to have a 5.3kW system which is quite large.


----------



## MAH (29/6/12)

Edak said:


> If someone is claiming savings of $2000 per year then they must have a minimum use of 8700kWh+ of solar electricity per year, based on a price of 23c/kWh. 8760kWh/year is a nominal usage of 1kW all day/night. That's 24kWh useful electricity generation per day. A typical 1kW system will output nominally 4.5kWh/day in Victoria so this means you would need to have a 5.3kW system which is quite large.




I basically generate 5000kWh per year, which is an average of 13.6kWh per day. This is from a 4kW system in South Australia.

This is more than we use. We average 10-11kWh usage per day.

With a FIT of 52c/kWh and buy back price of 24c/kWh, we are ahead by about $2,200 per year. This is a combination of a high FIT, little usage during the day optimising the return from feed-in and overall low consumption of energy. 

When you add the value of the electricity we used and the cash amount we receive back each quarter, it is about $2,200 of value per year.

The solar panels are not the panacea, it's the combination of factors, not least of which is a high FIT.


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

Edak said:


> If someone is claiming savings of $2000 per year then they must have a minimum use of 8700kWh+ of solar electricity per year, based on a price of 23c/kWh. 8760kWh/year is a nominal usage of 1kW all day/night. That's 24kWh useful electricity generation per day. A typical 1kW system will output nominally 4.5kWh/day in Victoria so this means you would need to have a 5.3kW system which is quite large.



Edak, you have to look at this from a different angle.

If you were to generate 24kWh during sunshine hours you'd sell that in QLD for $12 to energy retailer Origin. From these $12 you can buy yourself 52kWh back for consumption during non sunshine hours for your air con, oven etc which you use when you come home from work. If you don't use the full 52kWh you end up with a credit.

Obviously you wouldn't sell your full 24kWh as you still have appliances like fridges etc running even if you're not at home, but I think you get the idea. With a moderately large system and by keeping an eye on your consumption you can not only set your electricity bill to zero, but in fact also get money back into your account.

EDIT: beaten by MAH


----------



## Edak (29/6/12)

Florian said:


> Edak, you have to look at this from a different angle.
> 
> If you were to generate 24kWh during sunshine hours you'd sell that in QLD for $12 to energy retailer Origin. From these $12 you can buy yourself 52kWh back for consumption during non sunshine hours for your air con, oven etc which you use when you come home from work. If you don't use the full 52kWh you end up with a credit.
> 
> ...



I get your point but for those people not already in the game it is misleading because the FIT is barely any higher than the buy price. With the latest figures saying that the FIT is currently at 25c a newcomer cannot get the same benefit. sure my figure will vary from my own calculated values, butnot by much.


----------



## Edak (29/6/12)

To add to the previous post, origins current FIT /TFIT rate is 31c.


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

Different from state to state as I said, my example was for Qld. People here still have a Chance to get into the game, so no misleading Statements on my Part.


----------



## Snow (29/6/12)

B) >> inserts smug look<< With Qld's FIT about to drop 44c, I am mightily pleased I locked in Origin at 50c when i put in my PV system. Got $280 credit from them last quarter.... and that's running 3 brewing fridges and paying 100% green power when not generating. 

Not trying to rub it in - just pleased is all h34r: 

Cheers - Snow



Edak said:


> To add to the previous post, origins current FIT /TFIT rate is 31c.


----------



## MAH (29/6/12)

Crap thing about the FIT is that it will keep dropping, but the tariff you're charged will keep going up.

So Florian is right, that it will become increasingly uneconomical to install solar. 

In South Australia, if you hadn't signed up by September 2011, it basically becomes an offset system, because it will be hard to cover your costs 100%.

This is because even though you make excess energy during the day, the excess you sell is paid at a rate lower than you will need to buy back when the sun goes down.

After September 2013 it becomes even worse, you will receive a minimum retailer payment (read all we will pay) of 11.2c/kWh. The minimum payment from July 2014 onwards is yet to be determined. 

Assuming you use 18kWh per day and about 1/3 of this is consumed during sunlight hours. Also assuming that you are being paid about 1/3 of the buy back tariff for your excess (not a hard assumption considering the 11.2c/kWh minimum payment). To be cost neutral, you will need to generate about 42kWh (6kWh used during the day + 36kWh exported to be equivalent in value to the 12kWh you will use after dark).

It's a crazy thought that you could generate as much energy or more than you use, but still end up paying for electricity.

The bastards don't like you getting energy for free.

Best hope is for battery technology to progress and costs to drop.


----------



## bum (29/6/12)

MAH said:


> it will be hard to cover your costs 100%.


I'm trying really hard to work out how many things I have ever bought that do this.


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

bum said:


> I'm trying really hard to work out how many things I have ever bought that do this.



A solar system is an investment, at least that's the way I looked at it. You have a large-ish outlay now and hope to get some profit/savings out of it in the future.
Just like an investment property that you buy to rent out, paying off the mortgage through the rent you're getting and eventually ending up with a property which is paid off and can be sold or whatever. 

Most 'normal' things you buy are just goods to be consumed, you don't expect your car to earn you money unless you're a taxi driver.


----------



## WarmBeer (29/6/12)

Florian said:


> A *solar system is an investment*, at least that's the way I looked at it. You have a large-ish outlay now and hope to get some profit/savings out of it in the future.
> Just like an investment property that you buy to rent out, paying off the mortgage through the rent you're getting and eventually ending up with a property which is paid off and can be sold or whatever.


OT: How I read your first sentence.


----------



## MAH (29/6/12)

bum said:


> I'm trying really hard to work out how many things I have ever bought that do this.




Solar was pitched in two ways;
the idea that you would never have to pay an electricity bill again with a whole of house system, or 
you can offset the cost of your electricity with a small system.
The whole of house systems that cost $10,000 plus will be very hard to sell if in the future it only offsets your electricity bill.

The $2,500 offset system becomes relatively more attractive, as the cost benefit of producing excess energy drops, but still harder to sell. 

It will also change behaviour. We run electricity intensive appliances, like the dishwasher, after dark. But with a FIT lower than the buy back tariff, it makes more sense to run it during the day.

You could always buy a larger system, *crank* the heating or cooling during the day, then switch it off at night :lol:


----------



## Florian (29/6/12)

WarmBeer said:


> OT: How I read your first sentence.




Didn't i say I bought them all? Didn't bother with the Dwarf Planets though, not enough return on investment with those little buggers :lol: 

Well, photovoltaic system it is then I guess.

Edit: added quote


----------



## Snow (29/6/12)

MAH said:


> But with a FIT lower than the buy back tariff, it makes more sense to run it during the day.



But.... hang on. How can FITs be maintained at a lower rate than buy back in a capitalist economy? Surely market competition will see an equilibrium of price if there is no Govt intervention?


----------



## Malted (29/6/12)

Snow said:


> But.... hang on. How can FITs be maintained at a lower rate than buy back in a capitalist economy? Surely market competition will see an equilibrium of price if there is no Govt intervention?



If you are paid less for your power than what I can buy it for, can we split the difference and I'll buy it from you? You'll get more for yours and I'll pay less for mine! Beauty.


----------



## The_Duck (29/6/12)

Looking at Solar only as a source of energy is pretty short sighted.

Anyone for a wind turbine ??

It's a bit blowy in Melbourne today and has been cloudy/pissing down on and off. With a reasonable wind turbine, I could have been putting anywhere from .5-4kW/hr into the grid while my 1.5kW Solar array might have struggled to put in .2-.4kW.

And best of all... I can still be generating at night.

One day I hope to only have to pay the charge for supply infrastructure and effectively use the grid as a backup incase my renewable systems are offline for some reason. 

I see this going the same way the water companies went... "Hey everyone.. get a water tank/grey water thingy etc and it will help save our water" Which was soon followed by massive hikes in pricing because the consumption of their product went down (less revenue) but their fixed costs remained the same.

With electricity I can see a similar thing happening as people consume less but their fixed costs stay or even rise due to things like carbon tax etc then their costs go up and their ability to pay you high feed in tarrifs further erodes their profitability.

A bit of a vicious circle I guess.

If you can become more (or even completely) self reliant for the basic utilities then questions of what fuel source is most economical to use for brewing becomes a question of.. do I have enough resources (besides water, grain, hops, yeast) to run my brewery ?

I'm no tree hugging, basket weaving, tie dye wearing greenie but I have water tanks and solar panels and grey water for the garden and someday will have a wind turbine just so I can have more money to buy important stuff..... like brewhouse bling 


Duck


----------



## MAH (29/6/12)

The_Duck said:


> I'm no tree hugging, basket weaving, tie dye wearing greenie but I have water tanks and solar panels and grey water for the garden and someday will have a wind turbine just so I can have more money to buy important stuff..... like brewhouse bling



More power to you Duck (pun intended). 

My aim is to be as self reliant for energy and water as possible. Main reason is I hate the utility companies and their price gouging practices. A close second is wanting to have a smaller environmental footprint.

I have a mate in Tasmania who is building a new property that incorporates his vineyards and winery. He has solar + wind and enormous rainwater tanks. His rainwater tanks are bigger than the house he's building.


----------



## alfadog (29/6/12)

If you can brew out of peak hours between 5pm and 9pm you can hook up the brew system to a tariff 33 or similar and save around 60% on power costs.


----------

