| Solar rebate grumble |
I was all keen about installing either solar assisted hot water or perhaps even solar power which feeds back to the grid at our rental house (the house we intend to move back into when we return to Australia). However, it turns out that there is now a means test for the rebate, which means I wont install anything.
It seems pretty odd to me that the government expects me to front up the $14,000 for solar power, and wont provide me any support for doing so. At our usage levels it would take a very long time to pay off a large infrastructure cost like that. Oh well.
posted at: 09:33 | path: /solar | permanent link to this entry
-
#1
Bruce
Surely you don't expect the government to pay for your capital outlay. Are you suggesting that the only reason you would install alternative energy generation is to receive a government benefit. Perhaps you should be installing solar, not to save money but to save the environment. I think, in the end, its what we'll all end up doing.
-
#2
Chris Samuel
Yeah, it's really thrown a big spanner in our plans too.. :-(
-
#3
Michael Still
I will install solar if its cost effective. I'm already penalized for earning more money than some others (its called higher tax), so I don't see why I should be penalized in the form of reduced rebates as well.
To me the decision to install solar is affected by the same financial due diligence as any other purchasing decision. Even with reduced operating costs and the rebate my maths says it would take me six years for the capital outlay to break even. Think of that bit as my "doing something for the environment".
-
#4
Chris
Solar hot water systems will pay off within 5-6 years or less compared to using an electric hot water system and much cheaper than solar PV. There's no reason to be installing solar PV before solar hot water.
-
#5
TimC
Solar PV is stupid except for when it costs a significant outlay to get connected to the grid at all. Currently, you will not recoup your investment unless subsidised (I want to install solar hot water, but even that is dodgy enough - it's better just to subscribe to 100% green energy). Which means that you will not recoup the investment in energy, since monetary cost is correlated quite strongly with embodied energy content.
The government made it means tested because they realised that subsidising it will lead to people installing it in situations where they don't have a hope in heck of actually reclaiming the energy used in installing it.
It's similar to how people have only just realised that putting 10% ethanol in petrol for a 15% reduction in fuel efficiency *and* the loss of crops and the production of more carbon during cultivation, refinement and transport is absolutely breathtakingly brain dead.
People simply need to learn to reduce their wastage, and stop buying stupid 1 metre plasma screens to appease their consumeristic lifestyles.