Solar Panels Feed in Tariff 0

rogerallen on 17/06/2022 - 13:12
Last edited 17/06/2022 - 14:11 by 1 other user

Hi everyone, this is my second post and am after some feedback or opinions. Am located in suburban Melbourne.

I obtained several quotes to put some solar panels and an inverter up on my roof. From the quotes I received I was told my feed in capacity to the grid was 0 and hence all the installers asked me to hold off on putting solar as there was no capacity to feed in excess production for my suburb. This was confirmed with AusNet my wholesaler I guess as there is a way to check on the website.

I was also told I could pay $180 (now $350) to check for a manual assessment and some say it will come back with a positive result but AusNet site says differently. My question as a whole is that I do want to go solar and while the feed in tariff is minimal it does help, but is it worth with no feed in capacity.

My install is small 6.6kw system and 5kw inverter. My usage is around 9kw a day and gas is used separately for heating, cooking hot water etc.

Home & Garden Solar Energy System

Comments

  • Drakesy on 17/06/2022 - 13:19
    +4

    Geez, the grid is a shambles if you have both an energy crisis and yet you can't install more capacity into it.

    Who would've thought, you privatise something and the businesses game the system…

    Glad i'm in WA with our government run system.

    I'd install it and accept the 0 feed in tariff, at least you'll be paying it off a little bit by using it on the weekend.
    Bit rough though tbh.

    • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:10
      -1

      More surplus solar when we are already oversupplying at peak is worth $0. This isn't the grid in shambles, this is solar being paid what its worth. Solar has been paid far above what its worth for years now, which is why we have the mid-day oversupply issue.

      We have an energy crisis supplying peak evening demand, not mid-day.

      If this was about someone getting a battery & getting $0 for feeding in at 5-8pm, then there would be a point to be made.

      • Drakesy on 17/06/2022 - 14:46

        You do realise there'll always be an energy peak

        The previous issue was not enough energy generation during the day.
        Solar now solved that solution and now we have a peak during the evening. If solar didn't exist we'd be bringing on far more coal and gas power stations which would cost the average user FARRRRR more than daytime energy is now.

        Just the private companies didn't want to have skin in the game, yet were happy to charge customers to on sell energy. Hence why privatisation of basic services should never of happened. Looking at your coalition ;)

        • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:59

          There will always be peaks of supply & demand yes. The issue is with wind & solar we dont get to choose when their peaks are & they are not matching up with the demand peaks.

          There was never a shortage of energy supply during the day. Peak load has reliably been early morning & especially the evening, for decades. The change is now we have a big surge of solar during mid-day, making the difference between peak supply & peak demand even larger. This phenomenon is so predicable & repeatable it has its own name, the duck curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

          As it stands existing coal & gas plants (the big efficient ones, not peaking generators) still run throughout the day, because it costs more to turn them off for a few hours than just to let them run at a reduced output/idle though the solar peak. The difference is instead of building another big efficient generator, we are building piece-meal peaking plants which are far less efficient. The capacity is still being built, its just mostly peaking gas now.

          I agree with privatising the energy grid being a bad move, but not every problem is exclusively due to hostile intent of some malevolent enemy. Sometimes an engineering problem is actually just an engineering problem. We are going to have to sit down & make some tough decisions over what we really want in this situation.

  • rektrading on 17/06/2022 - 13:23
    +1

    The FiT is a scam by the network owners to get as many users to install infrastructure on their own land and then rug pull.

    FiT will eventually go to zero and then they'll switch to charging users a connection fee.

    • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:13
      +2

      FiT was always an ideological incentive to drive the installation of rooftop solar, no matter what the actual utility to the grid was. Now that the daily solar surge is driving wholesale prices to $0 during peak output, ideology is having to run hard up against economic reality & money always wins.

      Network owners incur more costs dealing with people dumping surplus solar onto the grid then falling off just as evening demand peaks than they get benefits from that extra supply.

      • rektrading on 17/06/2022 - 14:31
        +2

        The network owners should invest in machines that can make better use of the excess energy.

        Machines that can protect the network at the same time as converting the excess electrical energy to potential energy.

        • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:43
          +1

          The problem is, if they build enough storage to optimise energy usage, the storage stops turning a profit. Storage making money on arbitrage (buy/store during peak supply, sell/produce during peak demand) requires there to be a MASSIVE difference between the maximum & minimum market prices each day.

          Essentially, storage investors are incentivised to build only enough storage to keep the grid on the edge of failure. An eternal crisis. A stable grid = storage loses money & none will be built.

          This is also why wind/solar investors wont pair their generation with storage. The margins on arbitrage just isn't worth it.

          Today's grid batteries make money on frequency stabilisation (FCAS). They get paid extra to be super responsive to grid imbalances (seconds to minutes), they aren't making money taking solar mid-day peak & shifting it in bulk to evening demand.

          • rektrading on 17/06/2022 - 14:52
            +1

            @mitt: Places like Norway, Canada, Iceland and Texas use excess electrical energy and converts it to potential energy without using batteries.

            • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 15:06

              @rektrading: If you are speaking about pumped hydro, sure. It works for meeting peaks & ensuring grid stability. Having once-though hydro you can ramp up & down quickly is also an excellent option (a better option IMO, see Tasmania).

              But we are not talking about a facility to trim the edges of an evening peak, we are talking about taking a significant portion of our supply & time-shifting it hours ahead & trying to fund that storage exclusively off the price difference between those two times. This isn't even mentioning seasonal variation.

              The scale & the cost structure we are trying to implement are significantly different to what has previously been the default.

              I am not saying its impossible, I am saying its difficult & expensive & few people are willing to honestly grapple with that.

    • deme on 17/06/2022 - 14:13
      +4

      Coinbro telling people Solar is a rug pull

  • Quantumcat on 17/06/2022 - 13:26
    +3

    Might be worth considering a battery also. They are not normally worthwhile but if you truly will get zero FiT that changes the numbers a bit. Then as your gas appliances age and reach EOL you can replace them with electric / heat pumps.

  • KaTst3R on 17/06/2022 - 13:42

    You have a 5kw inverter and assuming during summer (which is the best case scenario), your usage is covered by the spare 1.6kw and 5kw could be fed into the grid for a solid 8 hours. You are missing out on at least 40kw of revenue per day. Which could range from $2-$6 depending on the FIT. That way you can break even your system much quicker. Probably in 3-4 years.

    If your usage is 9kw, some of it would be for night use. It doesnt make economical sense to pay $5k to $7k just to get some usage from solar during the day. It will take you more than a decade to break even and by then, it could be time to replace the entire system as these would only have a 10 year warranty.

    You could put a battery (add another $5k at least), but the cost of it so uneconomical currently that given your small power consumption, it just doesnt make sense.

    • Drakesy on 17/06/2022 - 14:48
      +1

      One might suggest getting an electric car that has the reverse power ability to act as a battery and charge the house during the night. I think the economics work out that you buy an electric car and you effectively pay for a battery and get the car free.

      • KaTst3R on 17/06/2022 - 15:26
        +1

        Just in time for the proposed FBT Exemption.

    • lgacb08 on 18/06/2022 - 09:35

      He's in Melbourne, the most he can generate is 10000kwh a year, with usage of 9kwh a day he'll probably use 2000kwh at most (very optimistic) , so the forgone benefits is probably 8000x6.3c= $500 a year, not even close to $2 a day. It's a sizeable amount but not much in a grand scheme of things.
      Also having $5-7k for a 6.6kw system in Mel is too much, i have friends and myself with same size system over the last 4 years and my observation is price only increase slightly, but no one ended paying more than $4k out of pocket after government rebates, unless it's a complex install with micro inverter or optimiser.

  • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:17
    +2

    Without a FiT the economies of installing solar are harder to justify.

    Personally, I am waiting for Labor to start a government incentive for people to install battery backup. Be like the industry, wait for incentives then go hard before people realise the incentive scheme was exploited & it gets wound up. Solar FiT is in the winding up stage, storage is the next cashcow.

    • rektrading on 17/06/2022 - 14:24

      The feds paying the rich to install batteries using taxpayers' funds is another scam.

      Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, again.

      • mitt on 17/06/2022 - 14:27
        +3

        Oh its absolutely a scam, but if they are going to hand out money, I am damn well gonna put some of it in my pocket.

  • JimmyF on 17/06/2022 - 15:13

    From the quotes I received I was told my feed in capacity to the grid was 0 and hence all the installers asked me to hold off on putting solar as there was no capacity to feed in excess production for my suburb.

    It isn't really the end of the world….. FIT is basically nothing these days so you're not missing out on anything too exciting.

    My install is small 6.6kw system and 5kw inverter. My usage is around 9kw a day and gas is used separately for heating, cooking hot water etc.

    Do remember that solar will only really offset usage at the time of use, so if you use all those 9kw in the evening then you won't see a huge reduction in your bill.

    aka your solar is making 1000w and you are using 1000w, then you are net zero aka not paying.

  • rogerallen on 17/06/2022 - 15:23

    Exactly my thoughts too on whether solar is actually viable and to clarify I will get some FiT from my retailer but my export limit is 0 as per ausnet reply but also if I do produce solar during the day it will all be for nought as I can't export anything to the grid

  • daveozsydney on 21/06/2022 - 00:23

    Just signed up for solar with origin. $5.8k for 6.6kw system and FIT of 20c for two years.

    Could add battery without a FIT but has a payback of around 8-9 years Depending on when you use the energy.
    Tesla doing a trial at 30c FIT I’m hearing - worth checking out maybe .

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join