this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1630 readers
34 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I personally think, off shore wind especially off the Taranaki coast and massive solar install.
China is selling solar panels for really low numbers; the panels are only part of the cost, installation is a big number.
The biggest off shore turbines are 16MW, which is huge.
Batteries are a really good idea, massive solar requires an equally large investment in storage, be it batteries or pumped hydro.
Yeah, pumped hydro is effectively a big battery and shouldn't have been cancelled.
I wonder if subsidies for solar would help (like they used to do for insulation). Though solar is a lot more expensive than insulation.
Well they worked in Australia.
I think it would be more effective to have big subsidies for industrial roofs; a domestic dwelling may have a ~80m^2 of usable area. Industrial buildings have 1000's of square meters available, with a single feed in point.
A few of hundred industrial buildings could, supply 300MW for 6hrs a day. This would reduce the demand on the hydro lakes. A good subsidy for this would help a great deal.
I think people are generally more supportive of subsidies for individuals rather than businesses. You could subsidise building a massive array of solar panels on a big rooftop but what happens next? Does the company that owns the building own the panels? Does the government pay for the panels and give the building free power as payment for using the roof?
If the govt just gave them money and the company owned the panels, it might be seen as handouts to companies.
The company would own it, a subsidy is there to promote the business to spend the money.
The subsidy shouldn't be paying for the whole cost. It is there to reduce the payback period to something that makes sense for the company ~5 years or less.
If the government subsidized 30% of the cost, there would be some that would take it up. You would also limit it to a max installed capacity ~1GW - 2GW or so.
But if you have these huge industrial buildings, surely the company is not going to be able to justify covering the whole thing in panels then feeding back to the grid. They would only build what they needed to cover their usage, which is probably only a fraction of their roof.
Depends on the industry....they can use a huge amount of power.
But feeding into the grid is not always the goal, reducing the amount they consume is the same from an energy balance point of view.
e.g. where I work, we have about 4 acres (16,000m^2) of suitable roof, we could generate approx 16MW, we draw ~3 - 4 times that from the grid constantly. During the generating time we would be taking 16MW less from the grid.
Ah wow, yeah I can see that being a good idea.
I've always wondered why solar is popular in home use applications and not so popular in businesses. Since solar generates during the day, surely it makes sense to install for businesses whose peak usage is during the day, not residential whose peak usage is early morning or in the evening.
Lots of reasons. Non-core business, long/uncertain payback (if power prices take a dive the payback extends), high upfront cost, a lot of regulation around feeding power into the grid.
Shouldn't those apply to residential too?
I guess it comes down to businesses needing to justify expenses and consider opportunity costs (not just the cost of solar panels vs nothing, but what the return would be if they took that money and invested in some other area vs cost of solar panels).
Residential customers are more likely to do it even if the payback isn't clear, because it sounds pretty good, they want to do it, and they have the money.
Yep, solar on residential doesn't make much sense unless you can load match your generation.
If you have people home during the day and run your aircon anyway. Maybe heat your hot water during the sunniest period. Maybe charge your electric car (if you have one at home).
If the regulations change to incentivize feed in to the grid, this can make it make sense, but it needs to be at least 80% of what you pay per unit; there are grid matching solar inverters that will do the matching for you.
Just to jump in here, residential solar makes a lot of sense for natural disaster resiliency. Your system would need to be sized to cover your bases in winter, but NZers should expect to experience days without power in a future where more Cyclone Gabrielle’s will occur. That’s why adding battery storage is a key part of it too.
This is a good point, but for disaster resistance, you need to be able to run your fridge/freezer and charge your phone and radio.
A fire place for heating is a good bet. If you can afford it, a system sized to run your air con also would be great.
Battery storage for residential solar is getting popular, though this of course comes with additional cost that you then need to offset.
I'd like solar, and I don't really care if it has good payback so long as it's roughly break even. I'm part of the problem 😆
I understand.
If the feed in rate was ok, then it would be a good idea. But then again, if the power price keeps increasing, the solar + storage option starts looking good.
Residential solar may also have another benefit over commercial. If the money wasn't spent on solar, it would probably be reallocated to the mortgage. But by allowing you to borrow money for solar at 1% and put the rest of the cash into the main mortgage at 7%, you get 6/7ths of the altetnate plan.
The 1% is only three years then it rolls onto a normal mortgage rate, but that's a big difference compared to companies whose borrowing cost is likely higher than the residential mortgage rate.
So residential solar is currently incentivised and commercial by comparison makes a lot less sense. So I guess this is where the govt could step in with subsidies or guarantees to reduce the cost to companies.