If National wins ...

[Harvey Specter]

But the point is journalists should be impartial. I doubt very much that Paul Henry votes Labour or Greens, he makes that obvious, but he still interviews people, and he's been brought back in election year by TV3. That would be just one example.

Paul Henry is not on a state funded broadcaster. His show is also Entertainment, dressed up as news. He is also opennly bias. On his first show, while interviewing David Cunliffe, DC said

"I thought you were impartial"

to which PH replied:

"Whatever gave you that idea"

[westerly]

Correction, there is a set-up fee from $2000 to $3000 depending on how many panels you run with.

Cuzzie, Cuzzie, apart from the predictable diatribe against Labour/Green and your also predictable omission of relevant facts you forgot to add the the $70 -115 monthly rentel charge to Vector just as you forgot to mention the Greens proposal also uses storage batteries.

westerly

[Harvey Specter]

Cuzzie, Cuzzie, apart from the predictable diatribe against Labour/Green and your also predictable omission of relevant facts you forgot to add the the $70 -115 monthly rentel charge to Vector just as you forgot to mention the Greens proposal also uses storage batteries.

From what I have seen

Greens 3kw system $10k no battery
- $900 per year for $1000 saving

Vector 3kw system with battery - $2k upfront, $70pm
- Cost is slightly less pa plus an upfront cost.
- Savings should be more as you get to utilise the generation during peak demand.

NBR has an article comparing which I cant access so would be interesting to see what they say (they dont form a conclusion but quote a customer who says Vectors is better deal) but the Vector one looks better IMHO. For one, you dont have to rely on FIT to get the benefit as the battery ensures you the power, not sell it back to the grid. Plus it reduces strain on the transmission network during peak demand which the Greens proposal doesn't address.

The Greens proposal can include a battery system but definitely not for under $15k and definitely not with the same advanced technology Vector is using.

Edit: just got access to the NBR article so updated bits above

[artemis]

Not hearing much about 'kiwipower' these days. I wonder if the idea is quietly going onto the backburner, or alternatively whether Labour / Greens are beavering away tightening up the legislation, processes and costings pending a big push closer to the election. .

[Harvey Specter]

Not hearing much about 'kiwipower' these days. I wonder if the idea is quietly going onto the backburner, or alternatively whether Labour / Greens are beavering away tightening up the legislation, processes and costings pending a big push closer to the election. .

Greens keep referring (it is refered in their NZSolar plan to it and Labour reaffirmed their support of it in the past couple of months as well so they are still all go despite the fact their US professor they are relying on has stated he doesn't support the proposal, recommending small tweaks to the current market driven policy.

[elZorro]

Greens keep referring (it is refered in their NZSolar plan to it and Labour reaffirmed their support of it in the past couple of months as well so they are still all go despite the fact their US professor they are relying on has stated he doesn't support the proposal, recommending small tweaks to the current market driven policy.

Harvey, the truth is that the govt is the main benefactor in any solar panel policy, or anything that cranks up the economy in NZ and gets us moving in the right direction.

NBR had a typically right-wing view of it. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greens-...rson-ck-151954

Put aside the possible cost of the policy, which is about $1mill a year to EECA. A net 1000 people go off the dole and are working, helping to install 10,000 setups each year. They all pay tax, the money cycles around. The loans are at govt cost, and after 15 years at the most they are paid off, and the panels will work fully paid off, for another ten years. A grid tie system doesn't need batteries, I don't think, so no worries there.

While we might not need too much extra power at the moment, that was not the case for the decades before this, and the price of power is always going up. The capital cost of these installs, won't. Solar panels have never been so cheap, there is a glut of them worldwide, and most manufacturers are losing money making them. I say buy a heap of them now.

[Minerbarejet]

Harvey, the truth is that the govt is the main benefactor in any solar panel policy, or anything that cranks up the economy in NZ and gets us moving in the right direction.

NBR had a typically right-wing view of it. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greens-...rson-ck-151954

Put aside the possible cost of the policy, which is about $1mill a year to EECA. A net 1000 people go off the dole and are working, helping to install 10,000 setups each year. They all pay tax, the money cycles around. The loans are at govt cost, and after 15 years at the most they are paid off, and the panels will work fully paid off, for another ten years. A grid tie system doesn't need batteries, I don't think, so no worries there.

While we might not need too much extra power at the moment, that was not the case for the decades before this, and the price of power is always going up. The capital cost of these installs, won't. Solar panels have never been so cheap, there is a glut of them worldwide, and most manufacturers are losing money making them. I say buy a heap of them now.

My understanding of solar generation is that batteries are an essential part. If you dont have one then electricity generation stops and starts with the appearance of the sun. As the early evening is usually the highest power usage time surely batteries are needed to reduce the usage through solar power installations. Having a battery would also allow more excess generation to be sold back through the grid tie during the day after the battery has been fully charged. Dont think we have seen the end of all this, new technologies are emerging, Dyesol DYE: ASX being one worth a look. I do have a small solar unit that charges a battery for a small pump. On occasions it gets left on overnight - it will still be going in the morning.

[elZorro]

My understanding of solar generation is that batteries are an essential part. If you dont have one then electricity generation stops and starts with the appearance of the sun. As the early evening is usually the highest power usage time surely batteries are needed to reduce the usage through solar power installations. Having a battery would also allow more excess generation to be sold back through the grid tie during the day after the battery has been fully charged. Dont think we have seen the end of all this, new technologies are emerging, Dyesol DYE: ASX being one worth a look. I do have a small solar unit that charges a battery for a small pump. On occasions it gets left on overnight - it will still be going in the morning.

I think grid tie, or that type of system, has a smallish battery pack to run the monitoring gear. At each instant in time that solar power is generated, it can be used in the house or business (preferable) , or it is placed into the grid at what should be better than a wholesale price credit. A meter monitors this. That's because it is going to be used in premises nearby, there's not a lot of heat energy lost from it in cabling inefficiencies. Meridian did this for quite a while. Someone using this system at home could set up timers to run the washing machine during sunshine hours, ditto other gear if possible. If the power was all taken by the grid at (close to) normal retail, it wouldn't matter quite so much. Businesses do use a lot of power during sunshine hours, even if homes don't as much.

Lots of solar panels feeding the grid in many different locations would be helpful in dry months, still weather, and could remove the need for thermal stations if the respite for our hydro lakes was enough to keep plenty of them in reserve. Many PV panels have a guarantee of 20 years, I suspect they'd keep working for a lot longer, but I don't know for sure. 35-40 years is expected with say 20% lower output by then, but there are hardly any systems worldwide that have been running for longer than 30 years, to check.

Some figures from Wikipedia:

Crystalline silicon solar cell prices have fallen from $76.67/Watt in 1977 to an estimated $0.74/Watt in 2013.^[42] This is seen as evidence supporting Swanson's law, an observation similar to the famous Moore's Law that states that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.^[42]As of 2011, the price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60% since the summer of 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in a number of sunny countries; an alternative and consistent price decline figure of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published,^[43] though it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or generally global. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from PV is competitive with conventional electricity sources in an expanding list of geographic regions,^[44] particularly when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night.^[45] There has been fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years.^[46] As time progresses, renewable energy technologies generally get cheaper,^[47][48] while fossil fuels generally get more expensive:

The less solar power costs, the more favorably it compares to conventional power, and the more attractive it becomes to utilities and energy users around the globe. Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where the cost of solar compares very favorably to retail electric rates.^[49]

I think the various posters have covered the obvious concerns in a first look at this policy. Here is the Greens' actual paper on it, showing their research and references. They have done their homework (they always do), it has to stack up, and the policy covers battery PV and grid-tie PV, both are eligible. As they are going to push for good buy-back prices, I would go for grid-tie. No batteries to worry about.

https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/defa...per_160214.pdf

[Cuzzie]

I think grid tie, or that type of system, has a smallish battery pack to run the monitoring gear. At each instant in time that solar power is generated, it can be used in the house or business (preferable) , or it is placed into the grid at what should be better than a wholesale price credit. A meter monitors this. That's because it is going to be used in premises nearby, there's not a lot of heat energy lost from it in cabling inefficiencies. Meridian did this for quite a while. Someone using this system at home could set up timers to run the washing machine during sunshine hours, ditto other gear if possible. If the power was all taken by the grid at (close to) normal retail, it wouldn't matter quite so much. Businesses do use a lot of power during sunshine hours, even if homes don't as much.

Lots of solar panels feeding the grid in many different locations would be helpful in dry months, still weather, and could remove the need for thermal stations if the respite for our hydro lakes was enough to keep plenty of them in reserve. Many PV panels have a guarantee of 20 years, I suspect they'd keep working for a lot longer, but I don't know for sure. 35-40 years is expected with say 20% lower output by then, but there are hardly any systems worldwide that have been running for longer than 30 years, to check.

Some figures from Wikipedia:



I think the various posters have covered the obvious concerns in a first look at this policy. Here is the Greens' actual paper on it, showing their research and references. They have done their homework (they always do), it has to stack up, and the policy covers battery PV and grid-tie PV, both are eligible. As they are going to push for good buy-back prices, I would go for grid-tie. No batteries to worry about.

https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/defa...per_160214.pdf

EZ, the Batteries are expensive, so where in their paper did they tell you this. Of course the Greens can say the Batteries are covered but the limit is $15000. That is a small system when you include the inverter, insulation costs and an independent inspection. I'd go a bigger system, rent it and let Vector look after that. You will need to blow the budget to get a solar setup capable of saving you real money and that means your Batteries wont be included in the $15k or less election bribe. Go over the 15k and your $100 a year savings will be going towards repaying your Batteries off, why bother.

Like I said wait five or so years, solar panels will be so much more efficient and will cost a whole lot less. The Vector scheme is cheaper than the Greens and will save you more in the long run by a country mile. If your renting what happens when there is a failure? It gets replaced for nada, not so when your paying off a system that doesn't even include batteries. Also by renting you are future proofing for what lies ahead.
In five years solar panels will be competing and loosing out to new technologies anyway, but they still will be cheaper and more efficient than now.
What new technologies I hear you say? Solar Paint technology and Solar Power Windows technology to name a few. Google these two to get up to speed, they are really exciting. Here's a video on Solar Power Windows - amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BohznWrTrO8 This is what the Greens should be looking at, the future. Not a Solar system without batteries that is in the past. You just have got to have the Batteries man and that just does not compute with the Green scheme.
BTW, keep an eye on New Energy Technologies Ltd sp, it can only head one way IMHO.

[elZorro]

EZ, the Batteries are expensive, so where in their paper did they tell you this. Of course the Greens can say the Batteries are covered but the limit is $15000. That is a small system when you include the inverter, insulation costs and an independent inspection. I'd go a bigger system, rent it and let Vector look after that. You will need to blow the budget to get a solar setup capable of saving you real money and that means your Batteries wont be included in the $15k or less election bribe. Go over the 15k and your $100 a year savings will be going towards repaying your Batteries off, why bother.

Like I said wait five or so years, solar panels will be so much more efficient and will cost a whole lot less. The Vector scheme is cheaper than the Greens and will save you more in the long run by a country mile. If your renting what happens when there is a failure? It gets replaced for nada, not so when your paying off a system that doesn't even include batteries. Also by renting you are future proofing for what lies ahead.
In five years solar panels will be competing and loosing out to new technologies anyway, but they still will be cheaper and more efficient than now.
What new technologies I hear you say? Solar Paint technology and Solar Power Windows technology to name a few. Google these two to get up to speed, they are really exciting. Here's a video on Solar Power Windows - amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BohznWrTrO8 This is what the Greens should be looking at, the future. Not a Solar system without batteries that is in the past. You just have got to have the Batteries man and that just does not compute with the Green scheme.
BTW, keep an eye on New Energy Technologies Ltd sp, it can only head one way IMHO.

Cuzzie, I had a look at the video. That would be expensive technology, how long does it last? I find it hard to believe there would be any useful power generated at night or by fluorescent lights, on all four sides of the building.

Grid Tie uses the established mains system as the battery or load, and the one I linked to was a NZ made 3kw, at just over $3000 retail. You should try making a solar panel for less than $1 a watt, it's not going to be easy over here, and they won't get much cheaper. Sure, 3kw means a best sales figure of 20c x 3 or 60c for 3kwHrs per hour max, and that might be for 4 hours average a day, $876 worth of power generated a year if you were well paid for any surplus. In todays dollars, $30,000 of power over a 35 year lifetime at least. The govt system would be able to buy gear in bulk of course, which might help out the local suppliers of inverters and fittings. 1,000 people to do 10,000 systems manufacturing and installs, means each one could take 200 hours of work in NZ. That also seems excessive or a safe top end, once the kits are put in place.

But the other benefits are reduced thermal power plant use, more employed, more industry, more distributed power, some backup for houses if the grid fails, etc. Would battery life be about 10 years or less? This system is not attractive considering the numbers, unless you are off-grid. You'd need a big ugly, vented battery shed for one.