PV Solar community bulk buy schemes - do they really help?

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » Energy

PV Solar community bulk buy schemes - do they really help?

(21 posts) (13 voices)

Started 3 years ago by joefish
Latest reply from Claudio

Tags:

joefish
Member

My partner and I are interested in buying a discounted 1KW PV system through one of these community bulk buy schemes. I notice however that part of the discount involves the cashing in of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). I have read in Renew and elsewhere about how the selling of RECs does very little to reduce overall CO2 emissions because they are sold to major polluters so that they can meet their renewable energy targets and they don't encourage investment in large scale renewable energy schemes.

Obviously these schemes are attractive (a grid connected system installed for around $2k - $3K) and they will only last while there is the $8,000 government rebate, but I would love some guidance as to whether they are really achieving a net improvement in overall energy consumption? Or are they really just an expensive badge, giving armchair environmentalists in the suburbs (I include myself here!) a misguided sense of being a part of the solution.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, I really hope that I am wrong! I find the debate over grid connected solar to be so full of conflicting facts and views that it is difficult to get the information one needs to make a decision so any guidance from this forum would be welcome.

Joe

Posted Monday 9 Mar 2009 @ 11:38:16 am from IP #
lbpoulton
Member

I've recently registered my interest with the Nillumbik and Manningham Council's (Vic) Solar Hot Water bulk buy proposal but I didn't read about any REC's in the materials provided, perhaps this is directed more at the panels that feed back into the grid rather than hot water? I'll have to double check this.

Posted Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 @ 1:52:31 am from IP #
moz
Member

The latest Renew has a wee note on this in their community buying article. It looks as though you're right - selling the RECs is a major part of the cheap panel deal, and it completely negates green benefits of the first five years of electricity output. Not selling the RECs adds considerably to the cost, but of course selling them makes the panels much less valuable.

Our house does the opposite - we buy green power (and offset gas), plus extra RECs to more than offset our household carbon emissions on the basis that the more RECs we buy the more demand for them there is, and the less emissions there are. It's relatively cheap in the scheme of things, I'm doing the Singer Tithe of 5% to world poverty plus a green tithe (which we're calling the Flannery Tithe) of another 5%, some of which pays for the RECs. I'm trying to get my flatmates to do something similar, but they're poorer so qualify for the 1% rate.

Posted Wednesday 18 Mar 2009 @ 11:22:20 am from IP #
EAL
Member

Read the fine print or ask lots of questions also. I went into a group buy scheme with the idea that I wouldn't sell my RECs and would pay the $650-ish extra that was itemized as the price they were giving me (deducting from the total cost of my system) for my RECs. After my system was installed and I tried to do this, I was told that I didn't have to sell them my RECs, but if I didn't I had to pay an extra $850, not the $650 they were paying me. This is definitely deceptive at best, if not illegal.

Posted Monday 27 Apr 2009 @ 1:14:52 am from IP #
GJOESQ
Member

Joe, I understand your frustration and empathise with your concerns. As I just posted in another topic, I am disgusted that the Federal Government has decided to fund dirty power generation in this way, by bribing people of goodwill with a rebate that in fact gives dirty power generators the green light (pun intended)!

Your question is one which my wife and I pondered over the last week when I first became clearer as to the nature of RECs and was altered to the 'phantom' RECS after I joined the ATA. This all happened as a result of becoming aware of Nu Energy's offer of a "free" 1 kW Pv system.

Nu Energy is acting as a 'community' bulk buy sponsor. The 'community' provides $2,500 each up front for them to place the orders. The problem is, as you have mentioned, that Nu Energy is funding their 'freeness' by requiring their customers to hand over to them the RECs generated by the system so that they can recoup the GST on the $8,000 price they quote.

Like you, I will be buying the RECs back from Nu Energy which Frank, in their Melbourne office, said I could do. However, that will be after I signed the agreement to hand them over, which I have done. Hopefully, Nu Energy will come to the party when it counts on this matter.

In general, I believe that it is good to get solar energy systems on rooftops, even if folks sell their RECs. It means that after five years those systems will be producing 'real' green electricity. I like your idea of buying RECs in excess of your unclean energy use. However methinks that's a luxury available only to the middle class. I see the government's 'phantom' RECs scheme as 'buying time' during which the polluting energy suppliers will be readjusting themselves for a greener future. Well at least I hope they will!!

Posted Monday 27 Apr 2009 @ 4:26:47 am from IP #
petanque
Member

So providing discounts to people who install greener technology is bad???

I am confused.

If theses companies didn

Posted Tuesday 28 Apr 2009 @ 7:28:46 am from IP #
Sunshine
Member

Joefish,

A 1kW solar PV system will generate somewhere between 1460kWh and 1825kWh annually worked out on (4-5kWh/day) depending on which part of the country you live in, panel tilt and direction and panel type etc, etc.
The bottom line is that for each 1kW solar PV system installed, the power stations (burning mostly coal), will need to generate an extra 1460kWh and 1825kWh annually to make up the shortfall, thus creating more pollution.
So yes, it certainly helps reduce emissions and will reduce your power bill. Most of the solar companies claim a power saving of around 20% off the average bill for a 1kW system.
Your saving could be less, or could be more than that. It really depends how much power you use overall, how much power you use during the day, and if your state supports a FIT (feed-in tariff) and how much it pays.

My solar installer worked out that a 1 KW system for a low power consumption house like mine (around 8.5kWh/day), would give a saving of close to 50% off your power bill.

I have a 3kW system installed, and now never have to pay a power bill ever again, and will get a cheque of around $1000 (tax free) paid annually, depending on how much surplus credit is accrued over the year.

So I am very happy with the system, and don't have to worry about future power price increases which seem to go up annually every year.

Posted Tuesday 28 Apr 2009 @ 12:56:15 pm from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Sunshine,

Did you mean

"The bottom line is that for each 1kW solar PV system 'NOT' installed, the power stations (burning mostly coal), will need to generate an extra 1460kWh and 1825kWh annually to make up the shortfall, thus creating more pollution."

Posted Wednesday 29 Apr 2009 @ 12:20:30 am from IP #
Sunshine
Member

Sorry, meant to say that

Posted Wednesday 29 Apr 2009 @ 9:44:34 am from IP #
burtons40
Member

It's a shame we can't all afford to keep the RECS and make the polluters find another way to satisfy the MRET.

However, if you sell your RECS and then use the money to reduce other energy consumption in your home then in 5 years time we'll be even better off. Make sure to purchase green power for any extra power needs and tell everyone how great the system is. Show it off, make it 'normal', invite people to have a look and see how simple it is to have.

Posted Friday 1 May 2009 @ 5:33:43 am from IP #
sonofdad
Member

I was lucky enough to be working on a large community group here in SA recently which is currently being installed, when everything in up and running there'll be approximately 200kWp of solar capacity put in, which I am pretty stoked with. Regardless of the REC's side of things I think bigger-scale installations such as these can only help in the long run, in my job I do talk to sceptics all the time who think renewable energy on a domestic scale is all a waste of time etc etc, and although the carbon credits/licensing side of things seems potentially flawed, we're still better off going solar than doing nothing - or worse still spending the money on something that will only add to the problem. If people genuinely think it's all hopeless because of the REC's and who will end up with them, then I think they are missing the point really.

Unfortunately in my job I have only ever had 1 customer retain their REC's - the bottom line generally is that people like the idea of going green however as soon as you add extra cost to the system to keep the REC's, they don't want to know about it - or they would simply rather spend that money on more panels (which personally is what i would do if it came to the crunch). For the most part the only times people show any interest in REC's at all in my experience is when they want to know if they can keep them and then sell them at a profit. The chap I mentioned who is keeping his REC's is doing so purely to hold on to them - and good on him ($1700 worth too!).

Even working in Solar I don't claim to be an expert on the REC's system (I find it way too confusing for the mostpart, it hurts my brain) however, as is my understanding, when large pulluters buy up REC's as we go along, it will essentially allow them to pollute as they do now - but surely if more houses have PV or solar hot water and less energy is required to be drawn from the grid - then the demand to produce dirty electricity will still be reduced in any case. Even 200kWp of solar is very small potatoes in the scheme of things but I still love the idea of the group producing 1mWh+ of energy per day come next summer's heat wave - that's still a decent chunk of energy that isn't coming from a gas or coal power station.

Looking forward to getting my 3.0kWp system later in the year!

Posted Saturday 2 May 2009 @ 11:58:52 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Sunshine

Unfortunately it is not that simple.

Posted Monday 4 May 2009 @ 12:59:45 am from IP #
Sunshine
Member

Rsigmund,

I disagree with your logic.

I fail to see how installing solar panels on a roof, "reduces the renewable capacity over and increases our reliance on coal through complex policy such as SolarCredits in this case."
So what you are saying installing solar panels and creating clean power increases our reliance on coal powered power stations?

So our world will be cleaner by not having wind and solar power?????????????????????

So why isn't 1 MWh of solar not equal to 1MWh of coal powered electricity.

Defies all logic !!

Posted Monday 4 May 2009 @ 4:53:10 am from IP #
ghostgum
Member

Prior to 1 July 2009 (Solar Rebate system), one REC is equivalent to 1MWh of renewable energy.
After 1 July 2009, the new SolarCredits system will mean that solar systems are given 5 times the number of RECs that they deserve, so one REC will only be equivalent to 0.2MWh of renewable energy. It will then be sold to power companies as if it is worth 1MWh, and on that basis sold to purchases of Green Energy. So those who choose to buy 100% Green Energy will start off buying 100% renewable energy, but in time the Solar Credits will result in this trending towards only getting 20% renewable energy. It's quite a cunning system. By making it complex, it becomes difficult for people to understand and then get angry about it.

While I agree with the SolarCredits objective of putting the cost of the system onto energy industry (rather than paying for it out of consolidated revenue), the phantom RECs (i.e. SolarCredits) isn't the way to do it.

There are mandatory renewable energy targets (MRET). It appears that these SolarCredits / phantom RECs will have the effect of requiring less renewable energy to meet the MRET.

If I've got any of the above wrong, then please correct my understanding.

Posted Monday 4 May 2009 @ 6:25:14 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Thanks ghostgum for clearing that up,

Sunshine

SolarCredits in its current form, does indeed "Defy all logic".

Posted Monday 4 May 2009 @ 10:31:24 pm from IP #
petanque
Member

However changing the REC exchange rate may make it more attractive to install solar systems (more REC for the same system).

I will suggest that the demand for electricity affects the amount of coal burnt to produce electricity.

More solar installed should mean less coal burnt.

Is this bad?

Or do people think that the government will force industry to close because if the governments REC legislation?

Any volunteers for people to lose their businesses or jobs for the sake of the environment?

Is it fair that some people make a substantial sacrifice while others make no sacrifice to benefit the environment that everybody gets benefit from?

Is the environment a public good? (to sound like an economist)

Posted Tuesday 5 May 2009 @ 5:59:25 am from IP #
burtons40
Member

Thanks Ghostgum,
a light bulb just went off in my head! I knew the 5 for 1 RECs was a bad thing but couldn't quite put my finger on something I could easily explain to someone. I think I'll use that example if you don't mind.

petanque,
changing the system doesn't make it more attractive to install solar. I live on the south coast NSW and under the old system I got $8,000 government grant + 1 REC per MWh. Now I wouldn't receive as much because my system won't generate as much electricity as say a system in Cairns or Brisbane, so I would receive less RECs. Now, this may make sense in that if the system is creating more energy it is worth more to society and PV should be encouraged in areas where the most emissions will be saved. However, electricity produced locally loses less energy than if it is transmitted across the country.

The cost of the system should be put onto the energy industry, but phantom RECs only water down the MRET. There only needs to be one fifth of the renewable energy in the system as there would have been under the old system.

The government won't force industry to close. Industry will get up and do what they should have been doing all along and work towards improving energy efficiency, creating opportunities for renewable energy and cleaning up their act. A soft policy on this will mean that industry will be worse off in the long run because like school children they will think they can get out of it if they keep pushing the boundaries. Statistics and articles that I have seen seem to show that by being proactive and making the necessary changes industry can save money, improve their image and make better profits.

For anyone buying GreenPower it will mean that they only get 1/5 of what they pay for. Does anyone know consumer law? That doesn't sound right to me.

Posted Wednesday 6 May 2009 @ 12:51:58 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Good post burtons40

To make things clear - I fully support a subsidy (used loosely) for increasing PV take-up.

petanque - your assertion that

Posted Wednesday 6 May 2009 @ 2:04:53 am from IP #
petanque
Member

The argument about producing energy locally is irrelevant because the number of solar systems presently is so low that solar produced electricity would be consumed locally.

Once there are solar systems on over 30% of dwellings this may be an issue but I imagine that this would not be the case presently.

Solar systems should be installed were they will produce the most energy assuming you are interested in saving the environment and not giving people a warm fuzzy feeling.

Should taxes that are paid by society be used efficiently to give the greatest benefit to society?

Do people wish to have their taxation increased to pay for inefficient use of government money?

I struggle the concept that 1Mw of electricity generated in area A in a poor production area somehow gives a bigger benefit to society than 1.2 Mw of electricity produced 200Km away in an area that is better for production.

Wouldn

Posted Wednesday 6 May 2009 @ 2:07:58 am from IP #
Claudio
Member

Hi guys

I do not believe they work as you cannot customise a system

A reputable group is Andrew@powerupsolar.com.au

top bloke to deal with

Posted Tuesday 12 May 2009 @ 12:17:18 pm from IP #
solar brisbane
Member

Has anyone had any recent involvement with bulk community buyback schemes. If so, was it what you expected?

Posted Wednesday 27 Oct 2010 @ 2:44:29 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.