# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  New Paradigm Re Water Heating

## UseByDate

Turn the hot water tank “up side down”? Why do we heat water tanks from the bottom.?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Z4JCoPAGc
 Is this a good idea or not? Can anybody think of why this is not a good idea?

----------


## Marc

Nothing new about that. My Hot water system is now 10 years old and has two heating elements, one at the top 1/4 from the top really, and one at the bottom. The bottom is not in use at the moment but could be connected to a solar generator. The top one is connected to off peak power and kicks in at night. The bulk of the water is heated by a solar hot water collector on the roof and circulated by a small pump. With sunny days, the electric booster does not kick in. If we had weeks of rainy weather it would heat the top quarter of the tank and supply hot water for a day, and kick in again at night if required. 
No need to jump up and down with an exorbitated expression.   :Yikes2: 
The above, courtesy of the best prime minister we ever had, saves me some $20 a quarter.

----------


## phild01

Useby, too long, can you post 3 minute ytubes instead.    AFAIK it is normal to have the heating element at the bottom and connected to off peak.  Marc, the top element is a booster and runs off normal daytime supply.  Heating the top of the tank might be an inefficient use of energy.
Hot water rises so don't see the point of having an element at the top

----------


## Marc

OK ... I try again. 
Big tank to begin with 400L
Heats during the sunny days via the sun and little pump to circulate. So far so good.
If enough sun, no boost required. Plenty of hot water.
Winter comes, no sun, overcast etc ... top 1/4 of the tank (100 L ) is heated during the night with off peak. Yes it could be connected to day electricity if the night heating is insufficient. Depends of personal requirements. We seem to work ok with off peak boost. The boost kicks in with the help of a thermostat, if the temperature of the water drops below XX it switches on. Having the boost on off peak is a compromise or you can call it a risk. So far we have never run out of hot water, but someone else might. 
The reason to have an element towards the top or like someone called it "upside down" is twofold. 
One, it limits the volume of water heated to whatever is above the element. Two, even when you could achieve the same with a bottom element placing a thermostat somewhere further up, say 3/4 of the way up the tank and stop the heating when the top is hot, the amount of water heated in this way will necessarily be bigger due to convection heating of the cold water below during the heating process. This could be compensated by placing the thermostat higher, but I trust the hot water tank manufacturers to know what they are doing wiht such a simple and essential matter. 
Yes, upside down electric hot water tank works because the heating element is a booster and not the main source of heating.
The exhorbitated presenter shows a slightly different approach. Heat the top according to requirement with an intelligent program that records the normal use and programs the heating in advance. Big woop and in the same line as the stupid fridge that does the shopping for you ... meaning ... goes on line and orders expensive stuff with expensive delivery including melted ice cream and mushy lettuce. 
I like it when people re-invent the wheel, and paint it green so that you don't notice  :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> OK ... I try again.
> Yes, upside down electric hot water tank works because the heating element is a booster and not the main source of heating.
> I like it when people re-invent the wheel, and paint it green so that you don't notice

  No. The electrical element is not a booster. It is the only source of heating. Conventional water tanks have either one element or two. Both of them rely on hot water convention currents to distribute the heat in the water. The new tank does away with convention currents and uses a small pump to move the cold water from the bottom of the tank to the hot water section at the top. This pushes the hot water down in the tank.  The system stops heating and pumping when there is enough hot water.

----------


## woodbe

The best of a heater element on the hot water system is 100% efficient. A better hot water system runs above 300% efficient. 
Everyone uses a hot water system. If they are swapped to a way better efficient heater, they are cheaper over time and cause less emissions. Heatpump or solar heater system. 
We swapped to Siddons in 2008 and it still runs really well, and uses about 20-25% of the original electricity used to heat the hot water.

----------


## Marc

> No. The electrical element is not a booster. It is the only source of heating. Conventional water tanks have either one element or two. Both of them rely on hot water convention currents to distribute the heat in the water. The new tank does away with convention currents and uses a small pump to move the cold water from the bottom of the tank to the hot water section at the top. This pushes the hot water down in the tank.  The system stops heating and pumping when there is enough hot water.

   Use ... it pays to read first before answering.
I was talking about my "upside down" tank. About the one posted above I said:   

> The exhorbitated presenter shows a slightly different approach. Heat the top according to requirement with an intelligent program that records the normal use and programs the heating in advance. Big woop and in the same line as the stupid fridge that does the shopping for you ... meaning ... goes on line and orders expensive stuff with expensive delivery including melted ice cream and mushy lettuce.

  There is very little innovation and a lot of hoo haa like with everything pretending to save the planet.
Who will save the planet for the hate of the greens and their lust for power?
Furthermore, Woodbe's comment is valid. if the element is the main source of heating, fancy computer or not, it is still using expensive electricity as source of heating. A heat collector on the roof and a booster on off peak can not be beaten for simplicity and cheap to run. The day the bloody greens convince some imbecile to abolish off peak, may be I start heating with wood or kero.

----------


## UseByDate

> Use ... it pays to read first before answering.
> I was talking about my "upside down" tank. About the one posted above I said:  
> There is very little innovation and a lot of hoo haa like with everything pretending to save the planet.
> Who will save the planet for the hate of the greens and their lust for power?
> Furthermore, Woodbe's comment is valid. if the element is the main source of heating, fancy computer or not, it is still using expensive electricity as source of heating. A heat collector on the roof and a booster on off peak can not be beaten for simplicity and cheap to run. The day the bloody greens convince some imbecile to abolish off peak, may be I start heating with wood or kero.

  My mistake. I understand now. You call your tank an upside down tank when it clearly is not. And the first reference to an upside down tank was mine. Easy mistake to make. 
 A conventional tank is one with with the heating element below the hot water.
 An upside down tank is one with the heating element above the hot water. 
 What do you think of the idea of buying energy wholesale when supply is greater than demand at really cheap prices?
 What about the capability of stabilising the grid? Ie instead of trying to control generation to match demand but rather controlling demand in order to match generation.   
 PS you failed to attribute the second quote to yourself.

----------


## UseByDate

> OK ... I try again. 
> Big tank to begin with 400L
> Heats during the sunny days via the sun and little pump to circulate. So far so good.
> If enough sun, no boost required. Plenty of hot water.
> Winter comes, no sun, overcast etc ... top 1/4 of the tank (100 L ) is heated during the night with off peak. Yes it could be connected to day electricity if the night heating is insufficient. Depends of personal requirements. We seem to work ok with off peak boost. The boost kicks in with the help of a thermostat, if the temperature of the water drops below XX it switches on. Having the boost on off peak is a compromise or you can call it a risk. So far we have never run out of hot water, but someone else might. 
> The reason to have an element towards the top or like someone called it "upside down" is twofold. 
> One, it limits the volume of water heated to whatever is above the element. Two, even when you could achieve the same with a bottom element placing a thermostat somewhere further up, say 3/4 of the way up the tank and stop the heating when the top is hot, the amount of water heated in this way will necessarily be bigger due to convection heating of the cold water below during the heating process. This could be compensated by placing the thermostat higher, but I trust the hot water tank manufacturers to know what they are doing wiht such a simple and essential matter. 
> Yes, upside down electric hot water tank works because the heating element is a booster and not the main source of heating.
> The exhorbitated presenter shows a slightly different approach. Heat the top according to requirement with an intelligent program that records the normal use and programs the heating in advance. Big woop and in the same line as the stupid fridge that does the shopping for you ... meaning ... goes on line and orders expensive stuff with expensive delivery including melted ice cream and mushy lettuce. 
> I like it when people re-invent the wheel, and paint it green so that you don't notice

  What does “exhorbitated” mean?

----------


## phild01

> What about the capability of stabilising the grid? Ie instead of trying to control generation to match demand but rather controlling demand in order to match generation.

  ...how?

----------


## UseByDate

> Furthermore, Woodbe's comment is valid. if the element is the main source of heating, fancy computer or not, it is still using expensive electricity as source of heating. A heat collector on the roof and a booster on off peak can not be beaten for simplicity and cheap to run. The day the bloody greens convince some imbecile to abolish off peak, may be I start heating with wood or kero.

  What? Why do you assume the electrical energy is expensive? The electrical energy can be generated by PV on the roof to power the house. Any excess is sold back to the grid for next to nothing. This system diverts the excess energy (the cheap stuff) to heat the tank. This is not new and controllers are available for conventional tanks. This system is also capable (or will be capable) of buying energy at spot prices. Ie only heat the tank when electrical energy prices are very low. Did you actually watch the video?

----------


## UseByDate

> The best of a heater element on the hot water system is 100% efficient. A better hot water system runs above 300% efficient. 
> Everyone uses a hot water system. If they are swapped to a way better efficient heater, they are cheaper over time and cause less emissions. Heatpump or solar heater system. 
> We swapped to Siddons in 2008 and it still runs really well, and uses about 20-25% of the original electricity used to heat the hot water.

  What really matters to most people is the cost of heating their water, not the efficiency of their water heater. If feed in tariff is say for example 6c per kWh and off peak is 30c per kWh then crudely you have achieved and energy efficiency of 30/6 ie 500% (in money terms) by diverting your excess domestic PV energy into the water tank. No need for fancy new equipment to maintain and replace at end of life. I believe at some stage in the future there will be so much domestic PV that the the feed in tariff will drop to zero. When that happens you will be able heat your water for nothing. :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> ...how?

  How much do you already know about the process of stabilising the grid?

----------


## phild01

> How much do you already know about the process of stabilising the grid?

  ...answer with a question!!!???

----------


## woodbe

> What really matters to most people is the cost of heating their water, not the efficiency of their water heater. If feed in tariff is say for example 6c per kWh and off peak is 30c per kWh then crudely you have achieved and energy efficiency of 30/6 ie 500% (in money terms) by diverting your excess domestic PV energy into the water tank. No need for fancy new equipment to maintain and replace at end of life. I believe at some stage in the future there will be so much domestic PV that the the feed in tariff will drop to zero. When that happens you will be able heat your water for nothing.

  The cost of heating of water includes the cost of the energy. Efficiency makes a difference of the cost of the energy. 
Even if you have PV, using more PV power to heat the water will limit the capacity of PV for the rest of the house. Swapping to more efficient water heating allows use more power for other uses before drawing more power from the grid. 
It is simple. Use less power for efficient water heating and the cost is then significantly low.

----------


## UseByDate

> ...answer with a question!!!???

  Yes. I asked the question so I would have an idea of your knowledge in this area. I could start at the basics but I might insult your intelligence. Also if I have to go back to basics it could end up being a long post and I am aware you have limited time to devote to reading posts. I don't know why you don't want to tell me your level of knowledge of this subject. If you do I will gladly take the time to explain.

----------


## UseByDate

> The cost of heating of water includes the cost of the energy. Of course it does. 
>  Efficiency makes a difference of the cost of the energy. It does, but if you use energy to heat your water tank that you would either not generate or supply to the grid for nothing you have infinite efficiency. No other system can match that.  
>   Even if you have PV, using more PV power to heat the water will limit the capacity of PV for the rest of the house. Swapping to more efficient water heating allows use more power for other uses before drawing more power from the grid. You just have to “size” the PV to cover your household needs including water heating. PV is now cheap compared with heat pumps and thermal roof panels.  
>     It is simple. Use less power for efficient water heating and the cost is then significantly low. Or use cheaper energy. Preferably that which costs you nothing.

  .

----------


## phild01

> Yes. I asked the question so I would have an idea of your knowledge in this area. I could start at the basics but I might insult your intelligence. Also if I have to go back to basics it could end up being a long post and I am aware you have limited time to devote to reading posts. I don't know why you don't want to tell me your level of knowledge of this subject. If you do I will gladly take the time to explain.

   Really quite simple, you made a statement about controlling demand.  I think what I am asking has little to do with my knowledge.  Simple statement you made about controlling demand. Maybe you might expand on your meaning of 'demand'.

----------


## UseByDate

> Really quite simple, you made a statement about controlling demand.  I think what I am asking has little to do with my knowledge.  Simple statement you made about controlling demand. Maybe you might expand on your meaning of 'demand'.

  Demand is just another term for load.ie how much power all the customers on the grid are using at any instant in time.

----------


## Bedford

> Demand is just another term for load.ie how much power all the customers on the grid are using at any instant in time.

  But how are you going to control that?

----------


## chrisp

> But how are you going to control that?

  There are many ways. The one that domestic users might be familiar with is off-peak-electricity where there is an financial incentive to put their hot water on to an overnight electricity. 
There are commercial tariffs that the user agrees to load shred in times of high demand in return for a discount. 
There are also voltage-control and frequency-control strategies. If the voltage is dropped (or increased) heating elements will draw less (more) power. Similarly, frequently control and be used to increase the power of motors by increasing the frequency, or reducing the power by decreasing the frequency. 
Most electricity retailers now offer ‘time of day’ tariffs where the cost of electricity varies during the day. This is essentially an more general version of the old ‘off peak tariff’.

----------


## phild01

> Demand is just another term for load.ie how much power all the customers on the grid are using at any instant in time.

   That is what I believed you meant. 
Off-peak is a realistic and an acceptable way to control demand.
 What concerns me is how much, it is believed or perceived, that people can tolerate variables to their expectations. 
Therefore, what are the methods you believe for controlling demand?

----------


## chrisp

> What concerns me is how much, it is believed or perceived, that people can tolerate variables to their expectations.

  Prices of some products vary and we don’t think much of it  - petrol, airline flights, holiday accommodation, fresh food,... 
I don’t think it is anything to do with ‘tolerating variables to their expectations’ as such. It’s probably more to do with ‘supply and demand’ and (for some bait for Marc) a bit of capitalist  opportunism thrown in for good measure!

----------


## Marc

> What does “exhorbitated” mean?

  Ex orbita, from the latin outside of the orbit. It refers usually to something that is out of the norm, that has gone off the rails or outside it's normal orbit (of a celestial body) or the beaten or normal course. Since this dude seems to have pop eyes to highlight his enthusiasm, I have defined him as exorbitated because his eyes are out of his orbit.  :Smilie:  
PS
I don't think that you are adding too much credibility to you post by saying that electricity is not expensive. Even when expensive is a relative term or should I say a subjetive concept. Sure if I find a charged 1.5V battery on the ground and pop it in my flashlight ... electricity can be said to be very cheap ... for a while. 
The sad reality is that the governments of the last 20 years have tried to purchase the so called green vote, better defined as a dogma, by pretending to believe the CO2 is baaad fraud. Now we are at a point where industry is being killed on the altar of a religious dogma, and farmers are left in the lurch in the hope their stock dies out so we are closer to the Paris agreement. 
We need a rope, a dozen or two actually.

----------


## Bedford

> There are many ways. The one that domestic users might be familiar with is off-peak-electricity where there is an financial incentive to put their hot water on to an overnight electricity. 
> There are commercial tariffs that the user agrees to load shred in times of high demand in return for a discount. 
> There are also voltage-control and frequency-control strategies. If the voltage is dropped (or increased) heating elements will draw less (more) power. Similarly, frequently control and be used to increase the power of motors by increasing the frequency, or reducing the power by decreasing the frequency. 
> Most electricity retailers now offer time of day tariffs where the cost of electricity varies during the day. This is essentially an more general version of the old off peak tariff.

  Yes I understand that Chris, but that is mostly customer choice, (changing frequency and voltage isn't) not a supplier.  
My interpretation of this,   

> What about the capability of stabilising the grid? Ie instead of trying  to control generation to match demand but rather controlling demand in  order to match generation.

  Was that the supplier could control consumer consumption by remotely turning off say, airconditioners (for example) to reduce demand. 
I can only see two ways of controlling demand, as above, or simply pricing people out of it.

----------


## Marc

> _Most electricity retailers now offer ‘time of day’ tariffs where the cost of electricity varies during the day. This is essentially an more general version of the old ‘off peak tariff’._

  And it turned out to be the biggest fraud in the history of electricity retailing.

----------


## phild01

Seems to me that some people think, that the way of life, is to penalise people into submission.

----------


## chrisp

> Was that the supplier could control consumer consumption by remotely turning off say, airconditioners (for example) to reduce demand. 
> I can only see two ways of controlling demand, as above, or simply pricing people out of it.

  
There are more advanced strategies being developed and trialled to implement demand-side management - for example, see https://arena.gov.au/blog/demand-response-agl/ . Most of these strategies will probably rely on some sort of financial incentives - either cheap or more expensive electricity depending upon the supply and the demand.

----------


## Marc

> Was that the supplier could control consumer consumption by remotely turning off say, airconditioners (for example) to reduce demand.  I can only see two ways of controlling demand, as above, or simply pricing people out of it.

  Black outs are the way to control the bad consumer that has the audacity to turn on his aircon when it is hot and heaters when it is cold. Use a doona and candles you bastards!  :Smilie:  
PS
Just to illustrate the above, clearly the concept of offer and demand do not apply to electricity that so happens to be a concession from the King and his cronies in Canberra to the pleb. If a comoner dares to consume more than his allowed ration, he is penalsied with a higher tarif. usually if you are a good customer and use a lot of stuff, you get a discount. THe more you buy the cheaper it is. 
Oh no no no, not with _electricity_ no such thing. Punishment is the way to go. (You bastards cop this)  :Rofl5:

----------


## phild01

> There are more advanced strategies being developed and trialled to implement demand-side management - for example, see https://arena.gov.au/blog/demand-response-agl/ . Most of these strategies will probably rely on some sort of financial incentives - either cheap or more expensive electricity depending upon the supply and the demand.

  I repeat  

> Seems to me that some people think, that the way of life, is to penalise people into submission.

----------


## chrisp

> Seems that some think that the way of life is to penalise people into submission.

   :Confused:  Are you referring to off-peak? 
Off-peak electricity is an incentive rather than a penalty.

----------


## chrisp

> Black outs are the way to control the bad consumer that has the audacity to turn on his aircon when it is hot and heaters when it is cold. Use a doona and candles you bastards!

  Actually, black outs are a last resort strategy that can be used to control the electricity grid. When there is too much demand, one strategy is to simply load-shred and black out some areas rather than let the whole grid desynchronise.

----------


## Marc

> _Seems to me that some people think, that the way of life, is to penalise people into submission._

  We are living a new world wide movement. The new lefty fascism. The left is turning into what they used to hate the most, totalitarian, intolerant, dogmatic, intransigent, arbitrary and absurd, lying cheating and defrauding with the motto, the end justifies the means.

----------


## phild01

> Are you referring to off-peak? 
> Off-peak electricity is an incentive rather than a penalty.

  No, that was an honest cost saver when introduced.  People weren't suddenly charged more for peak supply.  But people are so opportunistic now, had they been around then, the cost of peak would have been substantially increased.

----------


## Bedford

> There are more advanced strategies being developed and trialled to implement demand-side management - for example, see https://arena.gov.au/blog/demand-response-agl/ . Most of these strategies will probably rely on some sort of financial incentives - either cheap or more expensive electricity depending upon the supply and the demand.

  Did you watch the Youtube in this link you posted?

----------


## chrisp

> No, that was an honest cost saver when introduced.  People weren't suddenly charged more for peak supply.  But people are so opportunistic now, had they been around then, the cost of peak would have been substantially increased.

  You can personify off-peak as ‘honest’ if you wish, but I suspect the real driver for ‘off peak’ was load-levelling and minimising the electricity infrastructure (as the generation capacity and distribution capacity need to meet maximum-demand).

----------


## chrisp

> Did you watch the Youtube in this link you posted?

  Not at the time, but I have watched it since. It seemed to be a cut down version of the text in the article. Why do you ask?

----------


## Bedford

> Not at the time, but I have watched it since. It seemed to be a cut down version of the text in the article. Why do you ask?

  No wonder electricity has become so expensive, he's reading the Gas meter!!  
What a DH.

----------


## phild01

> You can personify off-peak as ‘honest’ if you wish, but I suspect the real driver for ‘off peak’ was load-levelling and minimising the electricity infrastructure (as the generation capacity and distribution capacity need to meet maximum-demand).

  I say honest because it was sensible and benefited the user with a cheaper supply rate to what they were used to.  But do something like that now and the mindset is to justify increased price structures as is the case with time of day. Time of day was not introduced with obvious benefits, but instead with increased price structuring.  Not much different to handing out fines.

----------


## chrisp

> No wonder electricity has become so expensive, he's reading the Gas meter!!  
> What a DH.

   :Roflmao:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> I say honest because it was sensible and benefited the user with a cheaper supply rate to what they were used to.  But do something like that now and the mindset is to justify increased price structures as is the case with time of day. Time of day was not introduced with obvious benefits, but instead with increased price structuring.  Not much different to handing out fines.

  I can can understand your view. I wonder if the profit motivation is more to do with the privatisation of the electricity supply? When the original off-peak was introduced, the electricity supply (in Victoria at least) was under government control.

----------


## woodbe

> The cost of heating of water includes the cost of the energy. Of course it does. 
>  Efficiency makes a difference of the cost of the energy. It  does, but if you use energy to heat your water tank that you would  either not generate or supply to the grid for nothing you have infinite  efficiency. No other system can match that.  
>   Even if you have PV, using more PV power to heat the water will limit  the capacity of PV for the rest of the house. Swapping to more efficient  water heating allows use more power for other uses before drawing more  power from the grid. You just have to “size” the PV to cover your household needs including water heating. PV is now cheap compared with heat pumps and thermal roof panels.  
>     It is simple. Use less power for efficient water heating and the cost is then significantly low. Or use cheaper energy. Preferably that which costs you nothing.

  Some people can have good solar on their house, others have minimum solar because of shades from trees or other buildings or small areas available on the roof. Many people cannot put it up because they are in apartments etc. 
The best people can do is to minimise the energy consumption and the best to do is to add solar if you can. That is why it is better to install higher efficient hot water system for most people. 
Cheaper energy that costs nothing or almost nothing was available when solar first came onto the market about 10 years ago. Pretty hard to get it that cheap now for most people.

----------


## phild01

> I can can understand your view. I wonder if the profit motivation is more to do with the privatisation of the electricity supply? When the original off-peak was introduced, the electricity supply (in Victoria at least) was under government control.

  I say government inefficiencies outweigh corporate greed (for essential services and monopoly business).
Electricity supply should never have been privatised.

----------


## chrisp

> Electricity supply should never have been privatised.

  I agree. 
But I suppose Marc will be along soon with a differing opinion!

----------


## commodorenut

> Electricity supply should never have been privatised.

   Best post in the entire thread.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## UseByDate

> Some people can have good solar on their house, others have minimum solar because of shades from trees or other buildings or small areas available on the roof. Many people cannot put it up because they are in apartments etc. Each household has to determine what is the best fuel source for their own circumstances. Of course some will not be able to take advantage of PV. For some people the cheapest fuel source for heating will be wood grown on their own property. I don't own a large enough property to grow my own wood so in my case PV is best. 
>  The best people can do is to minimise the energy consumption and the best to do is to add solar if you can. That is why it is better to install higher efficient hot water system for most people. I don't have any data showing what percentage of households can take advantage of PV. Have you data that states that most people in Australia cannot install PV due to not having solar exposure? 
>  Cheaper energy that costs nothing or almost nothing was available when solar first came onto the market about 10 years ago. Pretty hard to get it that cheap now for most people. No. I am saying that once you have the equipment, the energy is free. I am pretty sure the government has not started taxing sunlight yet. There is a cost to acquiring the equipment upfront but so is there with heat pumps.

  .

----------


## woodbe

Some people can have good solar on their house, others have minimum  solar because of shades from trees or other buildings or small areas  available on the roof. Many people cannot put it up because they are in  apartments etc.  

> Each household has to  determine what is the best fuel source for their own circumstances. Of  course some will not be able to take advantage of PV. For some people  the cheapest fuel source for heating will be wood grown on their own  property. I don't own a large enough property to grow my own wood so in  my case PV is best.

  The issue is that the cost of electricity is burning their income. Very few people of the population have large land for burning wood. 
 The best people can do is to minimise the energy consumption and the  best to do is to add solar if you can. That is why it is better to  install higher efficient hot water system for most people.  

> I  don't have any data showing what percentage of households can take  advantage of PV. Have you data that states that most people in Australia  cannot install PV due to not having solar exposure?

  The proportion of Australians who own their home jointly with the bank  has remained relatively steady over the past few census, between 34-35  per cent.
About 10% of the population lives in flats with minimum capacity of solar panels. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/home-ownership-rates-continue-to-plunge-census/8654534 
 Cheaper energy that costs nothing or almost nothing was available when  solar first came onto the market about 10 years ago. Pretty hard to get  it that cheap now for most people.  

> No. I am  saying that once you have the equipment, the energy is free. I am pretty  sure the government has not started taxing sunlight yet. There is a cost to acquiring the equipment upfront but so is there with heat pumps.

  Sorry, you are being ignorant about the cost of the equipment. Over time, it is more efficient than buying electricity from the grid, but there is a capital costs and replacement and maintenance of the system. Well done solar over time is excellent, but in the current system it takes many years for the cost of the system and installation to eliminate the comparison of paying from the grid. Ask your accountant and they will explain the finance to you.

----------


## UseByDate

> Some people can have good solar on their house, others have minimum  solar because of shades from trees or other buildings or small areas  available on the roof. Many people cannot put it up because they are in  apartments etc.  The issue is that the cost of electricity is burning their income. Very few people of the population have large land for burning wood.  I thought that the issue was how can you use energy at the lowest cost. I know that very few people have enough land to grow enough wood to supply their heating needs. That is why I stated that it depends on circumstances.  
>  The best people can do is to minimise the energy consumption and the  best to do is to add solar if you can. That is why it is better to  install higher efficient hot water system for most people.  The proportion of Australians who own their home jointly with the bank  has remained relatively steady over the past few census, between 34-35  per cent.
> About 10% of the population lives in flats with minimum capacity of solar panels. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/home-ownership-rates-continue-to-plunge-census/8654534  I didn't really ask what proportion of the Australian population owned their own home. I asked what proportion of Australian households could not take advantage of PV due to not having solar exposure. If only 10% of households are apartment dwellers then (excluding the homeless) 90% may well be able to have PV. It would depend on other factors. I accept that renters may be reluctant about installing PV or indeed heat pumps due to insecure rental contracts. Tenured leases would fix that problem. (I grew up in rental housing and it had a tenured lease. As long as the rent was paid the tenant could not be evicted. Also the tenured lease could be inherited by the offspring of the original tenant).  
>  Cheaper energy that costs nothing or almost nothing was available when  solar first came onto the market about 10 years ago. Pretty hard to get  it that cheap now for most people.  Sorry, you are being ignorant about the cost of the equipment.  I wonder how you can claim that I am ignorant about the cost of equipment when you have not even asked me to provide equipment costs.   Over time, it is more efficient than buying electricity from the grid, but there is a capital costs and replacement and maintenance of the system.  Yes I know how to cost a system. I was a professional design engineer for many decades prior to my retirement. I have managed multi-million dollar projects so I think I do have some knowledge about establishing and maintaining systems.   Well done solar over time is excellent, but in the current system it takes many years for the cost of the system and installation to eliminate the comparison of paying from the grid. Ask your accountant and they will explain the finance to you.  I never use accountants. They are just another cost I can eliminate from any activity I am undertaking. I manage my own investments outside of superannuation and I have run my own Self Managed Superannuation Fund for about 18 years. You do need an auditor if you have a SMSF but that is a requirement of the Tax Office.

  .

----------


## woodbe

Some people can have good solar on their house, others have minimum   solar because of shades from trees or other buildings or small areas   available on the roof. Many people cannot put it up because they are in   apartments etc.  The issue is that the  cost of electricity is burning their income. Very few people of the  population have large land for burning wood.  I  thought that the issue was how can you use energy at the lowest cost. I  know that very few people have enough land to grow enough wood to  supply their heating needs. That is why I stated that it depends on  circumstances.  Sure, but way less than 1% of the population able to economical grow and burn wood for heating. 
 The best people can do is to minimise the energy consumption and the   best to do is to add solar if you can. That is why it is better to   install higher efficient hot water system for most people.  The  proportion of Australians who own their home jointly with the bank  has  remained relatively steady over the past few census, between 34-35  per  cent.
About 10% of the population lives in flats with minimum capacity of solar panels. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/home-ownership-rates-continue-to-plunge-census/8654534  I  didn't really ask what proportion of the Australian population owned  their own home. I asked what proportion of Australian households could  not take advantage of PV due to not having solar exposure. If only 10%  of households are apartment dwellers then (excluding the homeless) 90%  may well be able to have PV. It would depend on other factors. I accept  that renters may be reluctant about installing PV or indeed heat pumps  due to insecure rental contracts. Tenured leases would fix that problem.  (I grew up in rental housing and it had a tenured lease. As long as the  rent was paid the tenant could not be evicted. Also the tenured lease  could be inherited by the offspring of the original tenant).  If 90% of the population are living in houses, there are significant issues adding solar for people who do not own the house. Many move around, and share houses etc. The owners have their own issues and many wouldn't want renter people to put picture hooks on the wall, so solar is not something they would easily concede. A Tenant cannot make significant changes to the house unless the owner agrees. 
 Cheaper energy that costs nothing or almost nothing was available when   solar first came onto the market about 10 years ago. Pretty hard to get   it that cheap now for most people.  Sorry, you are being ignorant about the cost of the equipment.  I  wonder how you can claim that I am ignorant about the cost of equipment  when you have not even asked me to provide equipment costs.  I haven't asked you about the cost of _your_ equipment. One person is not the population. I understand the cost of the system is not free and you are not accepting the fact for the whole population interested in solar.    Over time, it is more efficient than buying electricity from the grid,  but there is a capital costs and replacement and maintenance of the  system.  Yes I know how to cost a  system. I was a professional design engineer for many decades prior to  my retirement. I have managed multi-million dollar projects so I think I  do have some knowledge about establishing and maintaining systems.  But you are not agreeing about a cost. You are welcome to have a wrong opinion. Buying and using over time does have cost.    Well done solar over time is excellent, but in the current system it  takes many years for the cost of the system and installation to  eliminate the comparison of paying from the grid. Ask your accountant and they will explain the finance to you.  I  never use accountants. They are just another cost I can eliminate from  any activity I am undertaking. I manage my own investments outside of  superannuation and I have run my own Self Managed Superannuation Fund  for about 18 years. You do need an auditor if you have a SMSF but that  is a requirement of the Tax Office.    I understand why you don't use accountants. I suggested you are not understanding the finance system for electricity/solar/etc, and an accountant (or other people understanding correct information of asset and expenses) could help you understand. 
No more from me. We have had solar for many years and understand the benefits of efficiency and the costs for us and the general population electricity over time.

----------


## Bedford

> No more from me.

  Or at least start again, it's getting hard to follow!  :Smilie:  
Usebydate, see if you can work out how to quote posts, it makes it much easier to follow. 
There was a tutorial somewhere, but I can't find it, maybe the Mods can.

----------


## UseByDate

> Or at least start again, it's getting hard to follow!

  Agreed. It is like herding cats. :Doh:

----------


## UseByDate

> But how are you going to control that?

  I think that the idea is to remotely control when the tanks use energy.
 The tanks will be controlled remotely by, presumably, the company that sells the tanks. As the number of tanks increase (could easily get to one million quite quickly in the UK) the tank company approaches the electricity supply market an negotiates are really good deal. They will have under their control 3.6 GW of demand/load. The tank company then monitors the spot price of electricity and when it drops due to an excess supply (usually when the wind farms are generating) it turns on some of the tanks to increase the load. They have to be careful not to switch on too much load or the price will increase too much. If the spot price of electricity rises they do the opposite and disconnect the load to bring the price down.
 Via the internet the customers inform the tank company of their hot water requirements. Example could be that they want at all times 25% of tank capacity and say 75% tank capacity at say 7am for showering. Now it does not matter to the customer when the hot water tank is turned on and off. All that matters to them is that the hot water is available when they need it for the cheapest cost.

----------


## Bedford

> I think that the idea is to remotely control when the tanks use energy.
>  The tanks will be controlled remotely by, presumably, the company that sells the tanks. As the number of tanks increase (could easily get to one million quite quickly in the UK) the tank company approaches the electricity supply market an negotiates are really good deal. They will have under their control 3.6 GW of demand/load. The tank company then monitors the spot price of electricity and when it drops due to an excess supply (usually when the wind farms are generating) it turns on some of the tanks to increase the load. They have to be careful not to switch on too much load or the price will increase too much. If the spot price of electricity rises they do the opposite and disconnect the load to bring the price down.
>  Via the internet the customers inform the tank company of their hot water requirements. Example could be that they want at all times 25% of tank capacity and say 75% tank capacity at say 7am for showering. Now it does not matter to the customer when the hot water tank is turned on and off. All that matters to them is that the hot water is available when they need it for the cheapest cost.

  So what's in it for the tank seller?

----------


## phild01

Subscription probably.

----------


## UseByDate

> So what's in it for the tank seller?

  They could make a profit on the tanks that they sell. Ie sell for more than the manufacturing cost. 
 In effect they also become an electricity retailer. They buy electricity and sell at a profit. 
Could be they get a warm fuzzy feeling reducing the cost of hot water for the poor downtrodden masses. :Smilie:  
Maybe a knighthood? :No:

----------

