# Forum Home Renovation Solar Electrical Systems  F i t tarrif sa

## applied

hi im a sparkie i install these systems but i have no idea how the FIT system works. 
Would i potentialy sell the power at the 44cents during the day and buy it back at night at 22cents 
or more likely do i have to generate in excess of what i use to actualy recieve the higher sale price for my watts?

----------


## Bloss

> hi im a sparkie i install these systems but i have no idea how the FIT system works. 
> Would i potentialy sell the power at the 44cents during the day and buy it back at night at 22cents 
> or more likely do i have to generate in excess of what i use to actualy recieve the higher sale price for my watts?

  SA has what is called a 'net' feed-in tariff - so you only get paid for excess electricity put back into the grid. The rate is now 54c a kWh, but you will find that you might put only a little or none at all after what you use. That means your payment is actually the rate you normally buy ie: you are simply using the PV to offset what you would otherwise use and pay for. 
But it's not as bad as it could be - you get it whenever your system generates more electricity than you are using - NOT just the balance at the end of the month or quarter, but whenever generation exceeds consumption during each day. So while you are out at work and using little in the house on a sunny day then you will be generating an excess and that will get paid at the FiT rate (54c). So yes - you buy at the retail 22c rate and sell at the FiT rate. Remember though there is s surprising amount used on standby and by fridges etc, so to maximise you should have as much as you can turned off at the switch when out of the house and/or not using the items. 
See here: Tackling Climate Change in South Australia - SA Solar Feed-In Scheme

----------


## applied

I think i will accidently loose my form A in the mail and keep the $400 its going to cost to replace the meter then well atleast till i move and get the pannels on the new house and take these ones with me. :Rolleyes:

----------


## GraemeCook

> SA has what is called a 'net' feed-in tariff - so you only get paid for excess electricity put back into the grid. The rate is now 54c a kWh, but you will find that you might put only a little or none at all after what you use. That means your payment is actually the rate you normally buy ie: you are simply using the PV to offset what you would otherwise use and pay for. 
> But it's not as bad as it could be - you get it whenever your system generates more electricity than you are using - NOT just the balance at the end of the month or quarter, but whenever generation exceeds consumption during each day. So while you are out at work and using little in the house on a sunny day then you will be generating an excess and that will get paid at the FiT rate (54c). So yes - you buy at the retail 22c rate and sell at the FiT rate. Remember though there is s surprising amount used on standby and by fridges etc, so to maximise you should have as much as you can turned off at the switch when out of the house and/or not using the items. 
> See here: Tackling Climate Change in South Australia - SA Solar Feed-In Scheme

  
I am not quite as optimistic as Bloss on this. 
Most domestic solar voltaic systems are rated at 1.5kva - the optimal subsidy level - and a system of this size is likely to produce around 2,000 kWhrs of electricity in a good year. 
Most homes use around 8,000 to 10,000 kWhrs for hotwater and light and power and much more if they have electrical heating or aircon. 
There will not be many days in the year when your production will be greater than your usage.   You certainly will not get rich on FIT cheques!   But you will reduce your electricity bill by around 2,000 units per annum. 
Cheers 
Graeme

----------


## Smurf

> I am not quite as optimistic as Bloss on this. 
> Most domestic solar voltaic systems are rated at 1.5kva - the optimal subsidy level - and a system of this size is likely to produce around 2,000 kWhrs of electricity in a good year. 
> Most homes use around 8,000 to 10,000 kWhrs for hotwater and light and power and much more if they have electrical heating or aircon. 
> There will not be many days in the year when your production will be greater than your usage. You certainly will not get rich on FIT cheques! But you will reduce your electricity bill by around 2,000 units per annum. 
> Cheers 
> Graeme

  I have a 1kW system in Tasmania installed last year. Thus far, about 60% of its output has been exported to the grid. 
My total consumption is about 2800 kWh per annum (excluding heating and hot water which are separately metered). Production from the solar system is on track to be about 1350 kWh over 12 months. 
So that's 1350 kWh generated from solar. 
810 kWh exported to the grid.  
2260 imported from the grid. 
If there were a net FIT in Tasmania (technically there is, but only at the standard electricity rate) then the 810 kWh would receive that FIT rate.  
If I were in SA receiving 54 cents per kWh, that would be $437.40 from exports to the grid.  
Imports from the grid at 22 cents / kWh would cost me $497.20. 
So the overall bill would thus be (497.20 - 437.40) = $59.80 per annum, plus whatever supply charges etc apply. 
Without solar, the bill would be $616 plus supply charges. 
So taking my usage and solar output data from Tasmania, and applying the SA FIT and retail power rates, the overall saving by having the 1kW system amounts to $556.20 per annum. 
How this example compares with any other household will depend very much on how much power is being used when the sun is shining. I'm out most of the day, hence a large portion of generated power being exported to the grid. Only things I have running weekdays 8am - 6pm are the fridge, clocks, fish tank and heater in the mouse cage - all up not a lot. If there was someone at home all day then it would be a very different scenario.  
Hope all that math makes sense...  :Smilie:

----------


## applied

So form all this i have come to the conclusion that i will feed very little if any back into the grid and paying for the upgrade would cost me an entire years worth of savings from the system pushing my breakeven point out to about five years.
since im selling in the next two years and taking the system doesnt seem viable. 
thanks for the clarity clear as mud now. 
for the record i am getting the system because
solar pannels equal power from the sun to run the tumble drier so now i dont feel guilty for never using the chlothes line. :Laughing1:

----------


## Smurf

> So form all this i have come to the conclusion that i will feed very little if any back into the grid

  If you're using a significant amount of power whenever the sun is shining then you are correct in that analysis. 
On the other hand, for a house that is empty most of the day (eg working couple) it would be a very different scenario.

----------


## Bloss

> I am not quite as optimistic as Bloss on this. 
> Most domestic solar voltaic systems are rated at 1.5kva - the optimal subsidy level - and a system of this size is likely to produce around 2,000 kWhrs of electricity in a good year. 
> Most homes use around 8,000 to 10,000 kWhrs for hotwater and light and power and much more if they have electrical heating or aircon. 
> There will not be many days in the year when your production will be greater than your usage.   You certainly will not get rich on FIT cheques!   But you will reduce your electricity bill by around 2,000 units per annum. 
> Cheers 
> Graeme

  Graeme 
You are right that net is the poor cousin of gross FiTs, but the way the SA system works is still likely to give a positive return. The two power sources are on separate meters (or a digital meter that measures independently output from the PV and input from the grid). This is not a single meter running in two directions - the flows are not a simple offset against each other - ie: they are not aggregated for each day or any part thereof and netted off. One meter is measuring PV out put into the grid and that is all being paid at the FiT rate (54c kWh in SA currently) while the usage meter is charging you for what you take off the grid at anywhere from 12c-19c kWh.  
Smurf's scenario describes the impact of this quite well. 
But . . . Even with a gross FiT that is generous such as ACT & NSW the payback time for a small 1.5kW system will be around 3 years, but the break even time (ie: the time that allows your investment in that asset to equate to an equivalent investment in a bank account (at say 6%) will be around 7 years. After that with those gross FiTs you start moving ahead of a bank investment. 
So unless you are planning on being in that same house for at least 7-8 years (9-10 if a larger system - say 3kW) then you will lose money on your investment not make it. Taking the system with you adds more to cost and is uneconomic anyway - after 2, 3 or more years the cost of systems will have dropped and the output increased! 
So anyone selling in 2 years ought not invest in PV - it won't be long before the long term earning capacity is well known, but right now the expected future earnings or even part of them are unlikely to be able to be added onto the sale price of a house. That applies with a gross FiT - even more with a net FiT. 
And solar hot water gives the better bang for the buck in the short term.

----------


## peter321

> Graeme   
> But . . . Even with a gross FiT that is generous such as ACT & NSW the payback time for a small 1.5kW system will be around 3 years, but the break even time (ie: the time that allows your investment in that asset to equate to an equivalent investment in a bank account (at say 6%) will be around 7 years. After that with those gross FiTs you start moving ahead of a bank investment.   
> And solar hot water gives the better bang for the buck in the short term.

  
Hi Bloss, I think the NSW gross FiT is a better investment than a bank at 6%!
With my maths on a 1.5kw system (hope I'm right because I have one!) is total cost of the system is $2300 - generates the assumed 2000kwhrs per year = $1200 per year so it pays for itself in 2 years - after that I am making $1200 per year... until they change the FiT amount.
If I put that $2300 in a bank I would get  $138 per year - and then pay tax on that.... 
To go to solar hot water.... I use $240 of off peak hot water per year (thats with 4 in the house including 2 teenagers), to change to solar would cost around $1500 after Gov rebates etc so assuming the booster element never comes on, that is more than 6 years to break even.  
I will get a solar hot water system one day but it doesn't come close to PV savings.

----------


## tony2096

Bloss' figures for return on investment are overly pessimistic for gross FIT.
For NSW, assuming: 
1.5kW system costs $3,000 and generates $1,376pa
3.0kW system costs $9,000 and generates $2,725pa
then the return on you initial investment for the first n years is shown below. 
1.5kW system... 

```
year	income	IRR
0	($3,000)	
1	$1,376 	
2	$1,376 	-6%
3	$1,376 	18%
4	$1,376 	30%
5	$1,376 	36%
6	$1,376 	40%
```

 3kW system... 

```
year	income	IRR
0	($9,000)	
1	$2,752 	
2	$2,752 	-27%
3	$2,752 	-4%
4	$2,752 	9%
5	$2,752 	16%
6	$2,752 	21%
```

 So if you compared a solar investment to an investment returning, say, 8%pa then solar is ahead at the end of year 3 (1.5kW) or year 4 (3kW). 
There will also be some capital appreciation in the value of your house after installing solar panels (ie the initial investment would not be totally lost even if you sold immediately after installation), but that is less easy to quantify! 
Tony

----------


## woodbe

So what does this all mean for an all-electric home in SA that is occupied during the day and apart from a few weeks of the year when there is little heating/cooling required, would be consuming more power than it could possible generate? 
If the FIT is paid on all power production, it would mean that 1 KWH produced would effectively reduce the eventual bill by approximately 2.8 KWH.  
If FIT just matches KWH for KWH and only pays on excess production over use (which is how I thought it worked under these circumstances) then its an economic disaster area for that scenario and we'd be better better off leaving the cash in the bank. 
What I'm thinking is that installing a PV might give a permanent and significant reduction in the size of the power bill. Using the 2000KWH example and the $3k installation cost (I have no idea about these assumptions in SA), that would mean that:   

> SA FIT paid on all output =  Bill less $0.54x2000= Bill  - $1080 = 3 year payback 
> SA FIT paid only on excess production = Bill less $0.19 x 2000 = Bill  - $380 = 8 year payback

  If the FIT is paid on all output, it would still be worthwhile. If not, the money would be better invested elsewhere. 
So which is it? 
woodbe.

----------


## applied

"Quote:
SA FIT paid on all output = Bill less $0.54x2000= Bill - $1080 = 3 year payback 
SA FIT paid only on excess production = Bill less $0.19 x 2000 = Bill - $380 = 8 year payback (note would reduce the total so the highest price per unit is closer to 22cents)"  
for me it means i will use all the watts i generate and reduce my bill in a perfect world by the 22cents x 2000 for the next 20 years assuming 100 percent efficency for the life of the pannels and ideal conditions. 
$(2000x22c) x 20 = $8800 over twenty years for a $3000 investment.
(assuming the price of KWH doesn't increase in twenty years) 
The way i see it i would be lucky to break even in the next ten years but i dont care.

----------


## woodbe

> $(2000x22c) x 20 = $8800 over twenty years for a $3000 investment.
> (assuming the price of KWH doesn't increase in twenty years) 
> The way i see it i would be lucky to break even in the next ten years but i dont care.

  Fair enough. The power charges are going to hike over 20 years as well, so I guess it comes down to how much of your consumption is covered by your generation. 
My FI calc says that $3000 invested at current RBA cash rate of 4.5% for 20 years would result in $7235. I'm sure you could do better than that but you would still be up for tax on the interest. If you put it into paying off your mortgage and your rate was 6.67% then I make it nearly $11k saved, and no tax to pay. 
Not included in any of the calculations I can find is the maintenance and repair costs. Do these things require a regular service or service contract? 
Lots of things to consider before jumping into one of these... 
woodbe.

----------


## applied

maintence is minimal we advise people only to clean the pannels with a hose from the ground if they become covered with dirt or birds droppings as this can create dead spots because the pannels are broken up into may smaller pannels connected and when one is not working several others will not work as well. 
other than that there is not any scheduled maintainence required. 
also most pannels come with a 18 to 20year warranty but it is conditional most offers state that after 16 years they only garantee 80 percent of the cells will still be good and it drops from there.
also these come out of china so your warantee is probably only worth the cost of the paper as they will be out of buisness in five years. 
also it is more than likely you will feed a reasonable proportion back into the grid and be paid the higher rate for it i work my calculations on not feeding back because i will not change the meter untill i move house and relocate the system.

----------


## stan250

I came to the conclusion that unless the cost of the panels comes down significantly, I would be waiting a very long time for a decent sized system to pay for itself and that would probably be longer than the panels would last. 
Does anyone know if there are any developments on the horizon for a more efficient/cheaper type of panel or is the technology today, as advanced as it is ever likely to get?

----------


## woodbe

Stan, I think the point is that given average electricity consumption, a PV system will pay for itself in a few years and given that power prices are escalating it will be a hedge against these rising prices well into the future.  
If the system is sized to the household power consumption, you can eliminate your bill entirely and make a small profit from the FIT. 
woodbe.

----------


## Wombat2

I'm waiting for my first bill to see if I'm on track. So far we have produced more than we have used. ( but not much) we are basically even (consumption matches production each day)  
However - we are not home 3 days/2 nights a week and when my wife stayed home during the school holidays and it was cold enough to have the fan heater on we got 25kWh behind - we have been away for 7 days and now have caught that up and are ahead. 
So overall I'm happy and I expect to be even happier when the new inverter goes in ( see thread on "Am I being short changed")  
I've moved our 2HP pool pump onto night rate saving $900 a year so all up I'm looking for a bill of no more than $120 a quarter as opposed to the $500 it was. ( The $120 = supply charge, equipment charge , ambulance levy and the off peak use)

----------


## stan250

> Stan, I think the point is that given average electricity consumption, a PV system will pay for itself in a few years and given that power prices are escalating it will be a hedge against these rising prices well into the future.  
> If the system is sized to the household power consumption, you can eliminate your bill entirely and make a small profit from the FIT. 
> woodbe.

  My current electricity spend is $1680 pa.
Average usage around 15kwh per day
Cost of 16kwh per day PV system after discounts is $15,000
It would take 9 years plus say 6% pa compounded interest not received if the 15k was banked, less increase of electricity prices over that period, to break even.
In addition it would take 22 panels to generate 16kwh and Im not sure my roof is big enough for that.
This also assumes that the 16kwh system would produce at least 15kwh per day, every day of the year. If it didnt then the break even time would be even longer, possibly lasting longer than the panels. 
The problem is the high cost of the panels v their expected life.
If the price of panels comes down considerably and their efficiency is increased (less panels needed),  
in the next say 5 years due to new technology then it would be well worth putting off until then.
As it stands, the argument for getting solar now isn't all that persuasive.

----------


## woodbe

> As it stands, the argument for getting solar now isn't all that persuasive.

  Not trying to persuade you Stan, but have you factored in annual price hikes on power into your calculations, and have you deducted tax on bank interest for your bank deposit? 
With what's happening in Canberra, its almost a given that price hikes will be substantial, and more than they have been in the past once carbon gets a price. 
Looking at my bills, the average rate increase since 2006 is around 10% per year. Even ignoring carbon pricing, if you compound $1680 p.a. over 9 years at 10% you get over $25,000. That's not including any feed-in tariff benefit which may wind your bill backwards. That's better than the bank and no tax. If the increases run 20% it stretches out to $41k Compound Interest calculator 
Don't forget that the regular rate increases compound. Your $1680 bill will be nearly $4k in 9 years if the annual increases stay at 10%, and $8660 at 20%  
Food for thought. I think I've convinced _myself_ to get a quote  :Smilie:  
woodbe

----------


## Smurf

I think that some are falling for the common trap of assuming they have to generate all their power from solar, rather than viewing the installation of solar panels as an investment and sizing to optimise profit. 
At the moment, you can get a 1.5kW system supplied and installed for $2500 or less.  
Worst case, if you export absolutely none of that power, it will save you about $440 a year in SA. If you exported 60% of it like me here in Tas, then you'd be gaining around $800 a year overall. 
So, a $2500 investment with fairly low risk that returns at least 17.6% per annum and may return double that amount, with the return indexed to the price of electricity and free of tax.  
Unless you are running a highly successful business, you will be very hard pressed to get that sort of financial return on a reasonably low risk investment anywhere else. You certainly won't do it in a bank or an index-hugging managed fund. 
Bottom line is that there's a highly profitable and fairly low risk investment opportunity available. It is limited to a small investment amount, around $2500 depending on location, but the return on that sum is impressive. If someone's handing out money, I'll take whatever they're willing to give me...

----------


## jago

> Unless you are running a highly successful business, you will be very hard pressed to get that sort of financial return on a reasonably low risk investment anywhere else. You certainly won't do it in a bank or an index-hugging managed fund..

  
I agree with all but this bit I expect 80% return on every dollar I spend, and for business it should be at least treble that. 
I'm running the coffee index we spend $8.12 a day on electricity and $9 a day on a couple of coffees ..erm a coffee machine at about $3000 intial purchase price is an investment but the wife won't have it she thinks it will increase the electricity bill! :2thumbsup:

----------


## Smurf

For the record, average annual fuel price increases over the longer term: 
Electricity 1991 - 2010 = 4.3% per annum 
Heating oil 1992 - 2010 = 4.2% per annum 
Firewood 1992 - 2010 = 4.4% per annum 
Figures are for Hobart and based on my own records.  
For LPG it works out at 5.35% per annum for household use, and 4.3% per annum for automotive use. Considering that and the other energy prices, this raises a few questions about household LPG prices and why they are so high, but that's getting off topic.  
Overall, I think we can say that energy prices have risen around 4.3% per annum compounding since the early 1990's.  :Smilie:

----------


## jago

Thats a for another thread but otherwise I expect a gain of 80% on  ROI with exception to coffee which is actually 150% pissed away and about one of the best ROI's for business. 
The problem is the averages and statistics..they dont work; 92% of stats are useless including this one ! 
Its down to the individuals electricity usage and thier avaliable funds...PV panels are soooo over priced for there actual cost because of the rebates and now FIT's.

----------


## woodbe

> For the record, average annual fuel price increases over the longer term: 
> Electricity 1991 - 2010 = 4.3% per annum

  Yours must be a lot cheaper than ours then.  :Smilie:  I worked mine out by dividing the total cost including GST and supply charge etc. by the kWh on the bills I have handy. (the bills themselves are a dogs breakfast of variable rates) The July09 rate increase runs about 7%, haven't seen the new rate for 2010 yet. I know they claim the rates are CPI, but that's not the same as what they are charging with everything in. 
Maybe they learned it from the mobile phone companies... 
woodbe.

----------


## stan250

If I went into solar I would want to be self sufficient in electricity. 
Bearing in mind that the little guy always gets screwed, my concern would be that over time the price of power will rise whilst the price they pay for what we would produce would decrease or stay the same. I think I am correct in saying that it isn't the electricity supply companies which pay for solar fed back to them, but Gov, and they can change the game at a moments notice as they did  by ending the last grants round before the cut off date for applications. 
I suspect that eventually after more and more people have solar, the cost to Gov would mean that eventually they would hand the problem to the power suppliers who in turn would
not pay a retail price for power sold to them. Why would they? they are there to make a profit on buying wholesale and selling retail and that is what they will be offering: a wholesale price for power which they would quite reasonably say that is what they pay the generating co's so why should they they pay us more than them, especially as the costs of administering all of those hundreds of thousands of suppliers would be expensive.

----------


## endgrain

This current grid system they literally dumped on the stallion stable roof in one and a half hours a whiles back now, cost SFA courtesy of our good mate gullers garrett. 
Anyone know what these boys i.e. the ticketed sparky and offsider, are picking up per standard install? Someone mentioned $1400?
So we're in front already in the penny and pound department & it isn't even on the grid yet, although this really isn't the main point of our using green energy sources. 
Been waiting some three months for energex to do their thing. Last time they showed up, final connection was knocked back yet again, all over the mounting brackets of the meter box on the pole not conforming to such and such regulation # ..... article # .... to much weight for the meters etc 
Our regular sparky is not a happy chappy given he authorized the connection. 
One good thing, the energy created supplies most of our day time juice free gratis. 
So without being connected the savings according to our latest billing is approx. $200 a quarter  :Biggrin:  Will be a tad interesting to see the comparison with the FIT (guaranteed rebate is 44cents per Kwh around these parts) when and if they finally hook it up. 
One thing that need clarification & confirmation is:
Panels are connected in "series". Which means if one CELL in the system goes into shade the lot go the same way in terms of reduced output.
If they are connected "parallel", i.e. some sort of gizmo placed in the circuit between each panel, they all work to maximum output individually. 
Any bright sparks out there that can confirm such? Appreciated. 
If this is kosher, it's no wonder these PV systems are so inefficient, especially for hot water !

----------


## Wombat2

Just to add to your figuring - we financed ours with a 'green loan' from the local building society( no application fee and no ongoing fees 6.7% interest - 10 years no penalty for early payout) - $100 per month which is basically what we are saving each month - I figure I will double that payment and pay out earlier.

----------


## stan250

> Just to add to your figuring - we financed ours with a 'green loan' from the local building society( no application fee and no ongoing fees 6.7% interest - 10 years no penalty for early payout) - $100 per month which is basically what we are saving each month - I figure I will double that payment and pay out earlier.

  What size of system do you have?

----------


## Wombat2

> What size of system do you have?

  3Kw

----------


## applied

> . 
> One thing that need clarification & confirmation is:
> Panels are connected in "series". Which means if one CELL in the system goes into shade the lot go the same way in terms of reduced output.
> If they are connected "parallel", i.e. some sort of gizmo placed in the circuit between each panel, they all work to maximum output individually.

  they cannot be connected in parallel because the inverters have a working range between about 150 to 300 volts each pannel generates about up to 33 volts so you need to put them in series to get into that range. 
its better to hook slightly over the odds to increase productive hours because below or above the working range the system shuts down.  
and STAN how are you going to be self sufficent at night using only pv the cost of cell storage is not going to drop even if the pannels do.

----------


## stan250

> and STAN how are you going to be self sufficent at night using only pv

  I suppose that would be the end of my plasma tv then. 
Anyway, who knows, the price you get for feeding back may mean the cost of storing it yourself might become more attractive.

----------


## woodbe

I can't see how, Stan. If they pay over double for your excess, just use them as the battery, they'll sell your own power back to you for less than they paid you for it... 
woodbe.

----------


## stan250

> If they pay over double for your excess, just use them as the battery, they'll sell your own power back to you for less than they paid you for it... 
> woodbe.

  ...and as I have already said, if that deal starts to change, which is a distinct possibility, and for reasons I have already posted, storing it yourself may become viable. 
Woodbe, please try and read my posts properly before commenting on them. That's the second time you have done that: 
Me:   "less increase of electricity prices over that period, to break even."
Woodbe: "Stan, but have you factored in annual price hikes on power into your calculations?"

----------


## woodbe

Stan, 
I did read your posts. Please don't take my posts as critism, they are not intended that way - I'm working through this same decision and trying to help by clarifying information where I can, and pointing out where things have been missed.    

> if that deal starts to change, which is a distinct possibility

  I tender that we already know that it will change, and we also know when:   

> The scheme commenced on 1 July 2008. The legislation that establishes  the scheme has a "sunset" clause that means the scheme is due to finish  on 30 June 2028. Once the scheme commences, all eligible PV systems will  be able to receive the tariff until the scheme concludes.  As a result of the review, the Government has announced their intention  to close the scheme to new connections when the total capacity reaches  60MW. Eligible systems installed before this limit is reached will  continue to receive the feed-in tariff until closure in 2028.

  From SA Govt Solar FIT Scheme faq 
So sure, you are correct - batteries are a possibility after 2028. Hopefully by then they will be more efficient, last longer and cost less. 
woodbe.

----------


## stan250

> Stan, 
> I did read your posts.  
> Please don't take my posts as critism, 
> woodbe.

  Clearly you didnt read them properly , or you wouldnt have asked me if I had factored in the rising cost of electricity when I had clearly said that I had, in the immediate post before yours, I note that you have conveniently ignored this. (also, I didnt say you hadnt read them, I said you hadn't read them properly), . 
So I haven't taken your posts as criticism ( I didnt say or imply that I had) but you do seem to edit out or change what I have said to fit your argument, and that's not playing fair.
You also seem to have been 'on my back' for a while now, when my original question was whether or not anyone knew if the technology was likely to improve in the next few years.
You seem to want to prove some sort of point. If you are convinced that solar is for you, then great. I'm not convinced, due to the high cost at the moment, that its for me.
If the technology improves and the price comes down then I may well go for it. Now please get off my back. 
Who knows if future governments will find a way to get out of any tariff guarantees: 2028 is a long way from now.

----------


## woodbe

Ok, I will definitely take that as criticism.  :Wink:  Thanks for saying what you feel. 
You're having trouble with me personally then. I try to help and offer information and a different viewpoint, but you see that as me being 'on your back'   
Sorry Stan, I'll leave you to it. Good luck with it   :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## stan250

> Ok, I will definitely take that as criticism.  Thanks for saying what you feel. 
> You're having trouble with me personally then. I try to help and offer information and a different viewpoint, but you see that as me being 'on your back'   
> Sorry Stan, I'll leave you to it. Good luck with it   
> woodbe.

  Woodbe, whatever.
You are clearly passive aggressive, have a nice day.

----------


## woodbe

Getting back on topic, does anyone know if a new approval would be required to add more capacity to a PV System that was installed today? 
For instance, If I were to decide to go with a 5kW system today, and in a couple of years time add another 5kW to it, would it be a simple process, and would it be possible to maintain the FIT approval if the 60MW target had been reached, or would the whole system be then excluded from FIT?  
I know that there is a maximum 45kWh daily FIT limit imposed since 31 August, can't get out of that... (not likely to break it either) 
woodbe.

----------


## Wombat2

> Getting back on topic, does anyone know if a new approval would be required to add more capacity to a PV System that was installed today? 
> For instance, If I were to decide to go with a 5kW system today, and in a couple of years time add another 5kW to it, would it be a simple process, and would it be possible to maintain the FIT approval if the 60MW target had been reached, or would the whole system be then excluded from FIT?  
> I know that there is a maximum 45kWh daily FIT limit imposed since 31 August, can't get out of that... (not likely to break it either) 
> woodbe.

   I asked that question when looking into it and was told "sure you can add to the system but you won't get any rebates as the rebates only apply once on the initial installation " but as to if the FIT will apply till 2028 on the addition - check with the supplier - in writing

----------


## endgrain

[QUOTE=applied;811459]they cannot be connected in parallel because the inverters have a working range between about 150 to 300 volts each pannel generates about up to 33 volts so you need to put them in series to get into that range. 
its better to hook slightly over the odds to increase productive hours because below or above the working range the system shuts down.  
Ta for that, 
So whatch-a-reckon about this little hewsie doosit a bright spark mate happened across on ebay? 300W GRID TIE INVERTER,12V DC/220V AC SOLAR PANEL 300W - eBay Inverters, Electrical, Lighting, Boat Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 22-Sep-10 17:45:44 AEST)
check out point three:
 3. difference of power jack grid tie inverter
traditional grid tie inverter is the solar panel are connect in series, so if one solar panel did not work or bad efficiency, then the whole system will be effects, but power jack grid tie inverter, you can use every inverter in parallel, in this moment, each inverter has it's own MPPT, can make every solar panel got the max power.
Cheers

----------


## applied

well endgran, 
non compliant and not legal to connect to our power system. 
increased cost of install because you need six times the ammount of cable and connectors whitch means inrceased losses in the system. 
there ugly and not IP rated so would need to be installed indoors. 
they use .7amps to do nothing so if you had six to be the same as as a standard 1500watt inverter you would need to overcome 840watt in losses. 
each pannel has usually six or more parallel strings so if one fails the efficenncy of the system is not hugely effected anyway. 
innital cost is high and not covered by the rebate scheme and the pannels cost over a grand each. 
i seriously doubt it would generate a pure sine wave at that price point and i would think the power regulator would be investigating the massine harmonic and powerfactor distortion being emmited from your property.  
thats what i think  :Blush7:

----------


## Bloss

> Getting back on topic, does anyone know if a new approval would be required to add more capacity to a PV System that was installed today? 
> For instance, If I were to decide to go with a 5kW system today, and in a couple of years time add another 5kW to it, would it be a simple process, and would it be possible to maintain the FIT approval if the 60MW target had been reached, or would the whole system be then excluded from FIT?  
> I know that there is a maximum 45kWh daily FIT limit imposed since 31 August, can't get out of that... (not likely to break it either) 
> woodbe.

  You'd need to check the SA Act - in many jurisdictions the definition is simply of a 'generator' and does not contemplate upgrades or enhancements of the initial system - and neither do most of the contracts with utilities. That is, the contract is simply to pay for whatever power is produced from that generator. Of course you need to get approvals to increase the size (you would need another inverter and more panels), but that would not change the metering - the checks would be simply for electrical safety and grid connection suitability. The new panels would simply go through the same meter at the main board. 
So look at the SA Act, but my quick glance tells me this is OK to do. I reckon it might well be closed off though. But so long as your system is within any size constraints (eg <10kW) why should it matter - you have to pay more capital cost and you get a FiT on the additional output only for the remaining contract period. Why should it make a difference if you enlarge the original system rather than having it larger to start with? 
And the checking needs to be with whoever is paying it - the utility which is not usually the supplier/installer - ie: whomever you have the contract for purchase with. If the contract specifies the size of the generator the you would be constrained from enlarging without them agreeing to amend the contract. The utilities really do not care - they are simply collecting extra money from all users, and paying it to those few with PV systems or wind generators etc who are sending power back into the grid, getting a fee for doing so.

----------


## peter321

> I asked that question when looking into it and was told "sure you can add to the system but you won't get any rebates as the rebates only apply once on the initial installation " but as to if the FIT will apply till 2028 on the addition - check with the supplier - in writing

  I was also wondering about adding to my system in the future - I assumed the Government rebate was once only but how about the Recs - I don't know much about Recs but I have apparently been assigned Recs for my installation and sold/ assigned them to my installer, as they have a $ value.
I know there is no problem with the Fit and generating more power, but if I add to my system do I get more Recs that I can trade with?
This could help with the cost of upgrading.

----------


## Wombat2

Applies to RECs as well - all a once off deal - I was actually looking at the fact that 2 1500watt units were cheaper that 1 3000watt unit - but was told the rebates/RECs would only apply to one and the second one would be at full price and it would work out at a total price dearer than the 3000 watt unit. It didn't matter if second unit was added at the beginning of some time later.

----------


## applied

unless you move houses and keep the old one hypatheticly speaking :Biggrin:

----------


## GraemeCook

Good Morning Bloss, Smurf, Tony & All 
Have been pondering for ten days before responding.   Big differences between the states. 
NSW & ACT certainly have the best *gross* scheme basically paying you 60cents per kWthr and then selling your electricity back to you for around 20 cents.   Not quite as generous as you calculate, Tony, as the taxman takes his share. 
South Australia seems to have the best *net* scheme calculating the net usage on a daily basis so that, even in billing periods when one is a net user, there should be bright sunny days when one is a net generator. 
Tasmania has the worst scheme allowing credits only at the rate it sells electricity (about 20 cents), the credits lapse after twelve months and there is no provision for cash payments.   However, its not quite so bleak as electricity offsets are tax protected.   You pay income tax on electricity sold to a power co, you do not pay tax on electricity that you generate and use yourself.   For example, if your marginal tax/medicare rate is 33% (middle income) and have a power bill of $100, then you must earn $150 before tax to pay that bill.   If you do not receive the bill, then you do not need to earn the income to pay the bill and the tax!  
Cheers 
Graeme

----------


## woodbe

> South Australia seems to have the best *net* scheme calculating the net usage on a daily basis so that, even in billing periods when one is a net user, there should be bright sunny days when one is a net generator.

  Actually, I think it is even better than that, Graeme:   

> The scheme rewards customers whenever they generate more electricity  than they are using - NOT just the balance at the end of the month or  quarter, but whenever generation exceeds consumption during the day.
>  You will need a meter that separately records the electricity you  return to the grid so that, even if it is only for a second, the meter  will keep track of any electricity you return. When the meter reader  comes around at the end of the month or end of the quarter, the total  amount of electricity you have returned and the total amount you have  consumed will be read and passed onto the state's electricity  distributor, ETSA Utilities.

  So it sounds like, even if you only feed-in for a short time, you will get the benefit in SA. 
woodbe.

----------


## applied

Origin pays 60cents pkwh in SA

----------


## tony2096

> Good Morning Bloss, Smurf, Tony & All 
> NSW & ACT certainly have the best *gross* scheme basically paying you 60cents per kWthr and then selling your electricity back to you for around 20 cents.   Not quite as generous as you calculate, Tony, as the taxman takes his share.

  The income is not taxable.
See Private Ruling Number 92788
Also the electricity companies add a bit more on top of the 60c/kWh the NSW government pays (eg 6c from EA, 8c from AGL)

----------


## Smurf

> South Australia seems to have the best *net* scheme calculating the net usage on a daily basis so that, even in billing periods when one is a net user, there should be bright sunny days when one is a net generator. 
> Tasmania has the worst scheme allowing credits only at the rate it sells electricity (about 20 cents), the credits lapse after twelve months and there is no provision for cash payments.

  A lot of rumors about changes to the system coming in Tas. Nothing official yet, but general expectation seems to be for at rate that's at least 2 x the retail power rate (which will soon be 23c anyway with all these increases). So that would make for around 46c for exports to the grid. 
Time will tell. But even at 20.8 cents at the moment, it's still a $380 return on the $2499 it costs to put a 1.5 kW system in which doesn't look too bad when all things are considered.

----------


## jago

Country Energy (NSW) offer both options of net or gross metering at 60c per Kwh, with this price fixed until 2016 for systems under 10 kilowatts.

----------


## GraemeCook

> A lot of rumors about changes to the system coming in Tas. Nothing official yet, but general expectation seems to be for at rate that's at least 2 x the retail power rate (which will soon be 23c anyway with all these increases). So that would make for around 46c for exports to the grid.

   With Backflip Bartlett's mob, I will not hold my breath on this.   On past record, they are just as likely to impose a tax as to increase a subsidy!    

> Time will tell. But even at 20.8 cents at the moment, it's still a $380 return on the $2499 it costs to put a 1.5 kW system in which doesn't look too bad when all things are considered.

  Fully concur,  15.2% is way better than bank interest and most other investments, but it is "Smurf-specific" in that you are an abnormally frugal user of electricity. 
Cheers 
Graeme

----------

