I am frequently critical of "biofuels" technology because of issues like poor (or negative) payback in energy terms and the competition for food production and so on. Once or twice I have mentioned algae as a possible alternative "crop" which may be able to capture solar energy in a chemical form that's suitable for production of liquid fuels. Well, the prospects for a bright slimy green future just got better.
A mob in the US has announced that they have developed a process for producing gasoline from algae, using wastewater to support the algal growth. The key breakthrough is that the fuel they're making is chemically identical to the stuff that we put in our cars today rather than "biodiesel": this makes it a potential direct substitute fuel requiring no change to existing fuel processing and handling systems and no change to our engines.
Of course I'm still going to advocate radical efficiency improvements a la Amory Lovins, but if this technology turns out to be viable and scalable without significant drawbacks then it's going to make a huge difference.
Read more via this link.
About time I could tag a post with "hopes".
Saturday, 31 May 2008
Thursday, 29 May 2008
More water, but it's all cold
Good news: it's raining again and the tanks are now over 50% full with more falls forecast for this weekend.
Bad news: combined with the lower temperatures and reduced sun intensity of winter, the persistent cloud has forced us to switch on the electric backup for our solar hot water system. It's been seven months since the electricity company saw that meter move.
Ah well.
Bad news: combined with the lower temperatures and reduced sun intensity of winter, the persistent cloud has forced us to switch on the electric backup for our solar hot water system. It's been seven months since the electricity company saw that meter move.
Ah well.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Gardening update
It's about a year now since I first decided to try and grow some food in the backyard. Last autumn I was posting about the my first attempt, the tomatoes in a pot. Time for a review and a look at what's ahead.
So what have I got to show for my past year's efforts? Dead tomatoes. Dead capsicums. Dead cucumbers. Dead strawberries. Dead carrots. We did get to eat a few handfuls of tiny cherry tomatoes, several strawberries and a couple of capsicums, but on the whole... I'm really glad the shops still have plenty of food in them.
There is good news with the bad though, because I've learned things through these failures. Most of what we planted was grown in pots with soil from the garden bed I excavated to make way for one of the tanks. My conclusion is that that soil sucks. It really didn't hold water well and appeared to be lacking a great deal in nutrients.
The plants which grew the best were the capsicums, and they were transferred into the ground as seedlings with a layer of home-made compost and mulch on the top. They grew vigourously and fruited like mad - only to have the fruit flies destroy almost every last one. That garden bed is now seemingly lifeless, with the nutrients depleted, the sun keeping it hot and dry and the mulch (woodchips, really) still keeping even the weed seeds at bay. I have an experiment forming in the back of my mind to do a soil improvement project over winter using comfrey or something and then have another go at the capsicums since they seemed to like that spot.
Taking heart from the way the capsicums responded to the compost and mulch treatment, over the past few months we've converted a weedy, wet corner of the yard (just in between the fence and the patio) into a herb garden. It was full of clover and some other leafy weeds and a bit clay-bound so I took a garden fork to it and churned it up. Not much "soil structure" there to be destroying, don't worry. I then mixed in a generous amount of well-aged compost, and promptly ignored it for weeks. The weeds grew back with renewed vigour of course. And then we got serious.
Lots of weeds got ripped out and fed into the new compost bin. A thick layer of newspaper covered the ground with holes left where the chives, sage and marjoram (gifts from a friend) were planted. On top of that went a layer of recycled pine bark mulch that a neighbour was throwing away. Since then we've expanded the crop with basil, parsley, rosemary, challots and a little chilli bush. And they're thriving!
The chillis quickly became infested with what I think are aphids... complete with the "farmer" ants tending them. The plant is still flowering, fruiting and looking generally healthy but I'm sure it would be better off without them, so this arvo I took action. I found a recipe on the net for "white oil" - a mixture of vegetable oil (I used olive), water and dishwashing detergent. This has been sprayed liberally on the plant and as far as I can see the aphids are in fact now dead. Fingers crossed that the plant will survive.
My other proud success is the quality of the compost that I've made. OK, it's not that hard, but it's still deeply encouraging to see the cycle of life playing itself out with such calm assurance, relentlessly renewing. It makes me realise that my main responsibility is to learn how life works and just facilitate it. The new bin accelerates the process and takes some of the manual effort out of it. And in the spirit of facilitating, earlier I scooped out a few handfuls from the bottom (mostly material which I had transferred from my previous heap to get this bin started) and introduced some of my worms.
Yes - my worm farm is still alive! They don't eat anywhere near as much as I'd hoped but they're still going. Maybe the compost bin will be a more appetising home for these worms and certainly they can't do anything but contribute to the process... even if it's just by becoming raw material.
The compost that I removed, I sieved to get rid of the woody bits and then took a close look. It's dark brown, but distinctly not black. It's light, spongy, and if you squish it it retains its shape. But it's also "crumbly", in that you can break it apart into light, spongy pieces again by rolling it between your fingers. And it has almost no odour at all. From the descriptions I've read... this is exactly as it ought to be.
I'm going to grow food in my backyard. It's just a matter of time.
So what have I got to show for my past year's efforts? Dead tomatoes. Dead capsicums. Dead cucumbers. Dead strawberries. Dead carrots. We did get to eat a few handfuls of tiny cherry tomatoes, several strawberries and a couple of capsicums, but on the whole... I'm really glad the shops still have plenty of food in them.
There is good news with the bad though, because I've learned things through these failures. Most of what we planted was grown in pots with soil from the garden bed I excavated to make way for one of the tanks. My conclusion is that that soil sucks. It really didn't hold water well and appeared to be lacking a great deal in nutrients.
The plants which grew the best were the capsicums, and they were transferred into the ground as seedlings with a layer of home-made compost and mulch on the top. They grew vigourously and fruited like mad - only to have the fruit flies destroy almost every last one. That garden bed is now seemingly lifeless, with the nutrients depleted, the sun keeping it hot and dry and the mulch (woodchips, really) still keeping even the weed seeds at bay. I have an experiment forming in the back of my mind to do a soil improvement project over winter using comfrey or something and then have another go at the capsicums since they seemed to like that spot.
Taking heart from the way the capsicums responded to the compost and mulch treatment, over the past few months we've converted a weedy, wet corner of the yard (just in between the fence and the patio) into a herb garden. It was full of clover and some other leafy weeds and a bit clay-bound so I took a garden fork to it and churned it up. Not much "soil structure" there to be destroying, don't worry. I then mixed in a generous amount of well-aged compost, and promptly ignored it for weeks. The weeds grew back with renewed vigour of course. And then we got serious.
Lots of weeds got ripped out and fed into the new compost bin. A thick layer of newspaper covered the ground with holes left where the chives, sage and marjoram (gifts from a friend) were planted. On top of that went a layer of recycled pine bark mulch that a neighbour was throwing away. Since then we've expanded the crop with basil, parsley, rosemary, challots and a little chilli bush. And they're thriving!
The chillis quickly became infested with what I think are aphids... complete with the "farmer" ants tending them. The plant is still flowering, fruiting and looking generally healthy but I'm sure it would be better off without them, so this arvo I took action. I found a recipe on the net for "white oil" - a mixture of vegetable oil (I used olive), water and dishwashing detergent. This has been sprayed liberally on the plant and as far as I can see the aphids are in fact now dead. Fingers crossed that the plant will survive.
My other proud success is the quality of the compost that I've made. OK, it's not that hard, but it's still deeply encouraging to see the cycle of life playing itself out with such calm assurance, relentlessly renewing. It makes me realise that my main responsibility is to learn how life works and just facilitate it. The new bin accelerates the process and takes some of the manual effort out of it. And in the spirit of facilitating, earlier I scooped out a few handfuls from the bottom (mostly material which I had transferred from my previous heap to get this bin started) and introduced some of my worms.
Yes - my worm farm is still alive! They don't eat anywhere near as much as I'd hoped but they're still going. Maybe the compost bin will be a more appetising home for these worms and certainly they can't do anything but contribute to the process... even if it's just by becoming raw material.
The compost that I removed, I sieved to get rid of the woody bits and then took a close look. It's dark brown, but distinctly not black. It's light, spongy, and if you squish it it retains its shape. But it's also "crumbly", in that you can break it apart into light, spongy pieces again by rolling it between your fingers. And it has almost no odour at all. From the descriptions I've read... this is exactly as it ought to be.
I'm going to grow food in my backyard. It's just a matter of time.
Renewing my energy
Just a quick one. I haven't mentioned yet that I attended a forum this past week at City Hall, where I heard talks by Andrew McNamara, Judy Wicks (www.whitedog.com), Gilbert Rochecouste (www.villagewell.org) and Robert Pekin (www.foodconnect.com.au), and saw a new peak oil documentary produced locally (aquilaproductions.com.au).
It was wonderfully inspiring, if a little sobering... not so much a pep rally as a recruitment drive in a war effort. Hmm.
So I have a renewed sense of urgency which has already prompted me to consider a carectomy, cut way back on my meat and dairy consumption (even on Ice Break) and have another stab at the backyard gardening. I also wrote letters (emails) to various people at the state, city and local community levels expressing my concern regarding the issues and my desire to be part of the solutions.
Would have been at Northey St Community Garden this morning if it weren't for the badly interrupted sleep #2 and #3 gave us last night. Instead I'm going to look at designs for chicken tractors.
Some time soon I'm going to review and update my action plan.
It was wonderfully inspiring, if a little sobering... not so much a pep rally as a recruitment drive in a war effort. Hmm.
So I have a renewed sense of urgency which has already prompted me to consider a carectomy, cut way back on my meat and dairy consumption (even on Ice Break) and have another stab at the backyard gardening. I also wrote letters (emails) to various people at the state, city and local community levels expressing my concern regarding the issues and my desire to be part of the solutions.
Would have been at Northey St Community Garden this morning if it weren't for the badly interrupted sleep #2 and #3 gave us last night. Instead I'm going to look at designs for chicken tractors.
Some time soon I'm going to review and update my action plan.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
Stats Update
It's 19 days since my last stats update, when the tank levels had fallen so low I switched the washing machine and toilet back to using mains water. I had calculated at the time that we had been using about 250L/day of tank water plus almost 200L from the mains. It's no surprise then that our recent mains consumption has been...
409L/day.
More than we were using over summer, but back then we had #3 in disposable nappies and now we're washing cloth ones almost daily. Less than I estimated we were using in the previous period... we are probably a bit more diligent with our conservation knowing we're back on mains supply.
After a month of zero rainfall, last weekend delivered a lovely little squall and dumped 14mm on us in under an hour. Approx 2.2kL added to the tanks, around 30cm above empty now. With the prospect for winter rains looking grim I switched the toilet back to tank water but left the washing machine on mains.
Power consumption for the past few weeks fell to the second-lowest reading this year: 7.3kWh per day (304W continuous).
409L/day.
More than we were using over summer, but back then we had #3 in disposable nappies and now we're washing cloth ones almost daily. Less than I estimated we were using in the previous period... we are probably a bit more diligent with our conservation knowing we're back on mains supply.
After a month of zero rainfall, last weekend delivered a lovely little squall and dumped 14mm on us in under an hour. Approx 2.2kL added to the tanks, around 30cm above empty now. With the prospect for winter rains looking grim I switched the toilet back to tank water but left the washing machine on mains.
Power consumption for the past few weeks fell to the second-lowest reading this year: 7.3kWh per day (304W continuous).
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
A proposal for a means-tested PVRP
Following up on the previous post, this one explores some options for the design of a solar photovoltaic rebate program. Hopefully a better one than what we have in the real world today.
First let's look at the goals of the program. Overall, the intention is to invest a fixed amount of money over a fixed time period into the PV industry. There are a number of anticipated benefits for society as a whole:
- Develop the skills and infrastructure required for a sustainable PV industry
- Encourage R&D for technology improvement
- Put downward pressure on costs
- Improve competitiveness and effectiveness of PV in the long term
I would also like to throw my own goal in there (to nobody's surprise), encouraging overall reduced energy consumption in participating homes.
Now, the only reason I'm writing this is because I'm critical of the previous attempts on both sides of politics to implement this scheme. Specifically:
- A fixed rebate value skews investment heavily towards the smallest eligible system
- A fixed rebate value without a means test is socially inequitable
- An all-or-nothing means test is more equitable on average but introduces ridiculous boundary cases
- With or without the means test, the scheme ignores the number of residents in the household
The number of residents in the household is important for several reasons. In a scheme where a means test is imposed, surely the case of a single person living alone earning a hundred grand should be considered differently to a working couple with children making do on the same amount. Also, one of the factors involved in choosing whether to purchase a PV system is the amount of time it'll take to recoup the costs, and that gets us back to the topic of feed-in-tariffs. Under the import/export models being adopted by the states it's clearly easier for the single person to generate excess energy than it is for the family.
So I propose that a good rebate scheme would be variable. Different amounts should be paid in different circumstances, according to some reasonable criteria. The scheme should offer greater assistance to those with the greater need, but in all cases part of the cost must be borne by the recipients. Good in principle... but tricky to deliver. Here we go.
First I would suggest that the number of household residents be taken into account when evaluating "means". The simplest way is to divide the household income by the number of residents to work out an income-per-person figure. The single guy mentioned earlier scores $100K, the family of four comes in at $25K each. We'll come back to that in a bit.
My next proposal is that the maximum value of the rebate per household should also be relative to the number of persons. That is, a household with more people should be eligible for more rebate. However there's a risk here that providing funds too freely will encourage profit-taking in the installation industry, and this needs to be addressed.
One way to do this is to also tie the maximum applicable rebate to the generating capacity of the system being installed. We start by nominating a minimum "per-person generating capacity" figure - I'll choose 500W for convenience. Then in order to receive the full rebate for each of the four members of the family household, a system with at least 2000W rated output must be installed. If the family decided to install only a 1000W system, they would be eligible for only half as much rebate. (I hope that makes sense - I'll do some examples at the end.)
Now we need to work out the maximum rebate each person would be eligible to receive. The simplest way to do this is on a linear scale: we need to define the maximum value of the rebate and the upper limit of per-person income at which point the rebate reduces to zero. In keeping with the existing scheme, let's set the maximum rebate to $8,000 and the cut-off at $100K. That means somebody with a "means" of $50K would be eligible for $4,000; somebody worth $75K could get $2,000; and somebody enjoying a hundred grand to themself would get nothing.
Just one more thing. We really don't want to get into the situation where the value of the rebates produces upward pressure on the costs of the PV systems. So let's set an overall threshold which ensures that the household has an incentive to shop around: the total rebate payable shall not exceed 80% of the installed cost of the system.
Simple, huh? No really, it's not that complicated. Here are a couple of examples.
1. Bruce and Sharon live in a house they've bought together. Bruce is a public servant earning $50K while Shazza's cornered the market for organic lima beans and is raking in $100K. Two people in the household, with an average "means" of $75K. The household is therefore eligible for a maximum rebate of $2,000 per person, depending on the size of the array they install. With two people there's really only one option in array size: an entry-level system with a rated output of 1kW makes them eligible for the full $4,000. The best price they can find on such a system is $10,461. Since their maximum rebate is well under 80% of the total price it is paid in full and their net cost is $6,461.
2. Helen, Gary and their four kids somehow manage to get by on the $60K which Gary earns through his small business. With an average "means" of $10K per person, they are each eligible for up to $7,200 in solar rebates - provided sufficient capacity is installed. The maximum rebate would be applicable for a system rated at least 3kW (6 x 500W). Such a system is available for $26,361 - clearly far lower than the hypothetical value of the rebate at $43,200. In this case the 80% rule applies, limiting the rebate to $21,088. Helen and Gary decide they can't afford to spend over $5K even for such a large system, and instead opt for a 1.5kW system that with an 80% rebate leaves them with an outlay of just under $3K.
Some key points to remember. First, I'm just some guy with a few ideas and an internet connection. Don't crucify me if there's something really flawed with my suggestions. Second, there are a number of parameters here which could be adjusted to alter the amount of rebate payable in different circumstances, including the maximum per-person rebate amount, the threshold at which the rebate cuts out completely, the amount of generating capacity required per-person to qualify for that portion of the aggregate rebate and the fractional ceiling limiting the overall rebate as a proportion of the system's cost.
One big weakness I see here is that it's hard to predict how quickly the scheme would burn through its budget allocation. A possible remedy would be to vary the rebate parameters on a periodic basis - probably as part of each year's federal budget.
So there you go. That's enough of that I think.
First let's look at the goals of the program. Overall, the intention is to invest a fixed amount of money over a fixed time period into the PV industry. There are a number of anticipated benefits for society as a whole:
- Develop the skills and infrastructure required for a sustainable PV industry
- Encourage R&D for technology improvement
- Put downward pressure on costs
- Improve competitiveness and effectiveness of PV in the long term
I would also like to throw my own goal in there (to nobody's surprise), encouraging overall reduced energy consumption in participating homes.
Now, the only reason I'm writing this is because I'm critical of the previous attempts on both sides of politics to implement this scheme. Specifically:
- A fixed rebate value skews investment heavily towards the smallest eligible system
- A fixed rebate value without a means test is socially inequitable
- An all-or-nothing means test is more equitable on average but introduces ridiculous boundary cases
- With or without the means test, the scheme ignores the number of residents in the household
The number of residents in the household is important for several reasons. In a scheme where a means test is imposed, surely the case of a single person living alone earning a hundred grand should be considered differently to a working couple with children making do on the same amount. Also, one of the factors involved in choosing whether to purchase a PV system is the amount of time it'll take to recoup the costs, and that gets us back to the topic of feed-in-tariffs. Under the import/export models being adopted by the states it's clearly easier for the single person to generate excess energy than it is for the family.
So I propose that a good rebate scheme would be variable. Different amounts should be paid in different circumstances, according to some reasonable criteria. The scheme should offer greater assistance to those with the greater need, but in all cases part of the cost must be borne by the recipients. Good in principle... but tricky to deliver. Here we go.
First I would suggest that the number of household residents be taken into account when evaluating "means". The simplest way is to divide the household income by the number of residents to work out an income-per-person figure. The single guy mentioned earlier scores $100K, the family of four comes in at $25K each. We'll come back to that in a bit.
My next proposal is that the maximum value of the rebate per household should also be relative to the number of persons. That is, a household with more people should be eligible for more rebate. However there's a risk here that providing funds too freely will encourage profit-taking in the installation industry, and this needs to be addressed.
One way to do this is to also tie the maximum applicable rebate to the generating capacity of the system being installed. We start by nominating a minimum "per-person generating capacity" figure - I'll choose 500W for convenience. Then in order to receive the full rebate for each of the four members of the family household, a system with at least 2000W rated output must be installed. If the family decided to install only a 1000W system, they would be eligible for only half as much rebate. (I hope that makes sense - I'll do some examples at the end.)
Now we need to work out the maximum rebate each person would be eligible to receive. The simplest way to do this is on a linear scale: we need to define the maximum value of the rebate and the upper limit of per-person income at which point the rebate reduces to zero. In keeping with the existing scheme, let's set the maximum rebate to $8,000 and the cut-off at $100K. That means somebody with a "means" of $50K would be eligible for $4,000; somebody worth $75K could get $2,000; and somebody enjoying a hundred grand to themself would get nothing.
Just one more thing. We really don't want to get into the situation where the value of the rebates produces upward pressure on the costs of the PV systems. So let's set an overall threshold which ensures that the household has an incentive to shop around: the total rebate payable shall not exceed 80% of the installed cost of the system.
Simple, huh? No really, it's not that complicated. Here are a couple of examples.
1. Bruce and Sharon live in a house they've bought together. Bruce is a public servant earning $50K while Shazza's cornered the market for organic lima beans and is raking in $100K. Two people in the household, with an average "means" of $75K. The household is therefore eligible for a maximum rebate of $2,000 per person, depending on the size of the array they install. With two people there's really only one option in array size: an entry-level system with a rated output of 1kW makes them eligible for the full $4,000. The best price they can find on such a system is $10,461. Since their maximum rebate is well under 80% of the total price it is paid in full and their net cost is $6,461.
2. Helen, Gary and their four kids somehow manage to get by on the $60K which Gary earns through his small business. With an average "means" of $10K per person, they are each eligible for up to $7,200 in solar rebates - provided sufficient capacity is installed. The maximum rebate would be applicable for a system rated at least 3kW (6 x 500W). Such a system is available for $26,361 - clearly far lower than the hypothetical value of the rebate at $43,200. In this case the 80% rule applies, limiting the rebate to $21,088. Helen and Gary decide they can't afford to spend over $5K even for such a large system, and instead opt for a 1.5kW system that with an 80% rebate leaves them with an outlay of just under $3K.
Some key points to remember. First, I'm just some guy with a few ideas and an internet connection. Don't crucify me if there's something really flawed with my suggestions. Second, there are a number of parameters here which could be adjusted to alter the amount of rebate payable in different circumstances, including the maximum per-person rebate amount, the threshold at which the rebate cuts out completely, the amount of generating capacity required per-person to qualify for that portion of the aggregate rebate and the fractional ceiling limiting the overall rebate as a proportion of the system's cost.
One big weakness I see here is that it's hard to predict how quickly the scheme would burn through its budget allocation. A possible remedy would be to vary the rebate parameters on a periodic basis - probably as part of each year's federal budget.
So there you go. That's enough of that I think.
Monday, 19 May 2008
About that PV rebate means test
Hi again.
By now I expect you've all heard that in last week's federal budget, the first under this new management, it was announced that the Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP) would immediately be subjected to means testing. Specifically, the $8,000 rebate would not be available to households whose combined income exceeds $100,000 per annum.
Predictably, there's been an enraged outcry from the renewable energy industry and green groups, and of course the opposition parties have seized the opportunity to attack the government's credibility on climate change policy. ("Hi Kettle, I'm Pot! My, you're a lovely black colour aren't you?")
Like many commentators I have great sympathy for the small business owners and employees who've been enjoying a surge in PV installation activity as a direct consequence of the PVRP and who are now dealing with a sudden drop in orders. Yet I do not necessarily agree that the PVRP should have been left as it was. Let me explain.
In the back of your mind you must always remember this: photovoltaic technology is really neat, but it's a long way from ideal. For starters, today's PV is generally more expensive than other renewables. And it only generates power while the Sun is shining brightly. No matter how many solar panels we install in this country we'll always have need for other energy systems which generate significant power for the other 16 hours per day.
As a rule, I was no fan of the former government. So hopefully it should get your attention when I say that the basic premise behind the PVRP was pretty sound. $150M was allocated over five years to encourage industry development and hence further R&D in PV technology - not to generate as much electricity as possible! Maybe they were forced into it, I don't know, but it was a sensible notion to invest public funds in a promising sector of the renewable energy industry. Unfortunately... they didn't follow through with a sensible rebate scheme for the distribution of those funds.
The PVRP previously offered a flat $4,000. Better than a kick in the teeth, but with PV systems starting at around $12K for an average output of 4kWh per day even that wasn't enough to spur a lot of interest. The "battlers" still couldn't afford it and the more well-off could get better rates of financial return from other forms of "investment". So last year, possibly reading the pre-election mood re climate change, they doubled the rebate to $8,000.
Well didn't that just open the floodgates. They halved the effective cost of an entry-level PV system, bringing it within the reach of middle Australia and making the financial payback time far more acceptable. The take-up rate exploded, "with 35% of all solar installed in eight years of the program occurring in the last six months." (Quote from ATA e-bulletin 19 May 2008).
Poor Mr Swan. Elected to government on the promise of leadership on climate change, faced with the economic necessity of slashing government spending, he had to deal with a PVRP that had gotten out of control and was burning through its multi-year budgetary allocation at an alarming rate. There were only two options: put the brakes on the rate at which money was being paid out (by lowering the amount per payment or limiting its availability) or let it continue to accelerate before slamming into a brick wall a little way down the track when the money runs out. Clearly the brick wall option would be catastrophic for the very PV industry which the program was intended to foster.
So the new management decided to slow the rate of payments by introducing a means test, in line with the general policy of targeting financial assistance to those who need it most. In my personal opinion, that was a reasonable thing to do. The biggest thing to criticise is that it's an all-or-nothing measure tacked on to what was a poorly-designed rebate scheme in the first place.
Just for the fun of it I'm going to do a separate post discussing the actual impact of the means test, how it might relate to the also-announced green loans scheme, and explore an alternate design for a PVRP means test.
To wrap up this one, though, I would ask you to keep looking at the bigger picture and reserve your final judgement on this government's climate change credibility until we see their response to the Garnaut review. The PVRP is something that was inherited and that, politically, had to be carefully managed. Failure to slow the rate of payout would have harmed the PV industry and been attacked by the opposition as financially irresponsible. Axing the scheme (presumably in favour of something better down the track) or reducing the rebate would have sparked a political feeding frenzy. It had to be maintained, but carefully.
The Minister for the Environment put it this way on ABC TV: "We've got programs out there... which will ensure there is enough demand in the Australian community in the long term to get solar panels on roofs... and to make sure that we continue to build a sustainable solar industry into the long term."
Mind you, the other climate change measures announced in the budget weren't terribly inspiring... my guess is it'll be another year, the post-Garnaut budget, before we know whether the promised leadership will be delivered. Let's keep up the pressure.
By now I expect you've all heard that in last week's federal budget, the first under this new management, it was announced that the Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP) would immediately be subjected to means testing. Specifically, the $8,000 rebate would not be available to households whose combined income exceeds $100,000 per annum.
Predictably, there's been an enraged outcry from the renewable energy industry and green groups, and of course the opposition parties have seized the opportunity to attack the government's credibility on climate change policy. ("Hi Kettle, I'm Pot! My, you're a lovely black colour aren't you?")
Like many commentators I have great sympathy for the small business owners and employees who've been enjoying a surge in PV installation activity as a direct consequence of the PVRP and who are now dealing with a sudden drop in orders. Yet I do not necessarily agree that the PVRP should have been left as it was. Let me explain.
In the back of your mind you must always remember this: photovoltaic technology is really neat, but it's a long way from ideal. For starters, today's PV is generally more expensive than other renewables. And it only generates power while the Sun is shining brightly. No matter how many solar panels we install in this country we'll always have need for other energy systems which generate significant power for the other 16 hours per day.
As a rule, I was no fan of the former government. So hopefully it should get your attention when I say that the basic premise behind the PVRP was pretty sound. $150M was allocated over five years to encourage industry development and hence further R&D in PV technology - not to generate as much electricity as possible! Maybe they were forced into it, I don't know, but it was a sensible notion to invest public funds in a promising sector of the renewable energy industry. Unfortunately... they didn't follow through with a sensible rebate scheme for the distribution of those funds.
The PVRP previously offered a flat $4,000. Better than a kick in the teeth, but with PV systems starting at around $12K for an average output of 4kWh per day even that wasn't enough to spur a lot of interest. The "battlers" still couldn't afford it and the more well-off could get better rates of financial return from other forms of "investment". So last year, possibly reading the pre-election mood re climate change, they doubled the rebate to $8,000.
Well didn't that just open the floodgates. They halved the effective cost of an entry-level PV system, bringing it within the reach of middle Australia and making the financial payback time far more acceptable. The take-up rate exploded, "with 35% of all solar installed in eight years of the program occurring in the last six months." (Quote from ATA e-bulletin 19 May 2008).
Poor Mr Swan. Elected to government on the promise of leadership on climate change, faced with the economic necessity of slashing government spending, he had to deal with a PVRP that had gotten out of control and was burning through its multi-year budgetary allocation at an alarming rate. There were only two options: put the brakes on the rate at which money was being paid out (by lowering the amount per payment or limiting its availability) or let it continue to accelerate before slamming into a brick wall a little way down the track when the money runs out. Clearly the brick wall option would be catastrophic for the very PV industry which the program was intended to foster.
So the new management decided to slow the rate of payments by introducing a means test, in line with the general policy of targeting financial assistance to those who need it most. In my personal opinion, that was a reasonable thing to do. The biggest thing to criticise is that it's an all-or-nothing measure tacked on to what was a poorly-designed rebate scheme in the first place.
Just for the fun of it I'm going to do a separate post discussing the actual impact of the means test, how it might relate to the also-announced green loans scheme, and explore an alternate design for a PVRP means test.
To wrap up this one, though, I would ask you to keep looking at the bigger picture and reserve your final judgement on this government's climate change credibility until we see their response to the Garnaut review. The PVRP is something that was inherited and that, politically, had to be carefully managed. Failure to slow the rate of payout would have harmed the PV industry and been attacked by the opposition as financially irresponsible. Axing the scheme (presumably in favour of something better down the track) or reducing the rebate would have sparked a political feeding frenzy. It had to be maintained, but carefully.
The Minister for the Environment put it this way on ABC TV: "We've got programs out there... which will ensure there is enough demand in the Australian community in the long term to get solar panels on roofs... and to make sure that we continue to build a sustainable solar industry into the long term."
Mind you, the other climate change measures announced in the budget weren't terribly inspiring... my guess is it'll be another year, the post-Garnaut budget, before we know whether the promised leadership will be delivered. Let's keep up the pressure.
Monday, 5 May 2008
Empty (stats update)
On the morning of the 29th March my rain gauge reported 13mm of rain had fallen in the previous 24 hours, and my tanks were full. In the intervening 37 days we have had just 11.5mm of additional rainfall and now the tanks are just about empty.
I've learned a few things. Like, my water level gauge is inaccurate: properly calibrated to indicate the "full" height, it reaches empty before the tanks do. That's OK, I can compensate for that in my calculations. I know that we've been using around 250L per day on average, and that full tanks would last 32 days at that rate. And now I need another 50mm or more of rain to fill them up again.
So the washing machine and toilet are getting switched back to mains water today. We'll use up whatever's left in the tank to fill the nappy soaking bucket.
In the meantime, here are our latest stats for mains water and electricity use over the past 16 days. We've had a guest for half of that which has pushed the water figure up a little.
Electricity: 7.81kWh per day (326W continuous)
Water: 207L per day
I've learned a few things. Like, my water level gauge is inaccurate: properly calibrated to indicate the "full" height, it reaches empty before the tanks do. That's OK, I can compensate for that in my calculations. I know that we've been using around 250L per day on average, and that full tanks would last 32 days at that rate. And now I need another 50mm or more of rain to fill them up again.
So the washing machine and toilet are getting switched back to mains water today. We'll use up whatever's left in the tank to fill the nappy soaking bucket.
In the meantime, here are our latest stats for mains water and electricity use over the past 16 days. We've had a guest for half of that which has pushed the water figure up a little.
Electricity: 7.81kWh per day (326W continuous)
Water: 207L per day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)