Comments on: Solar panels and inequity http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318 Revolutionary reflections on this world of ours Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:07:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21018 John Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:48:52 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21018 Ben, thanks for your comments. I was thinking some more about the ACT scheme. It evidently gives the benefits to the occupants, not the owner. So students in a rental property with solar panels will get the money. (I have to check this). But if as I argue this is income, what does it do to their Youth Allowance entitlement? Similarly with pensioners, and if the Public Housing people put panels on their roofs, Centrelink money trouble. On top of that the landlord will increase the rent to cover the expenditure and lost revenue stream. Double trouble. Ben, thanks for your comments. I was thinking some more about the ACT scheme. It evidently gives the benefits to the occupants, not the owner.

So students in a rental property with solar panels will get the money. (I have to check this).

But if as I argue this is income, what does it do to their Youth Allowance entitlement?

Similarly with pensioners, and if the Public Housing people put panels on their roofs, Centrelink money trouble. On top of that the landlord will increase the rent to cover the expenditure and lost revenue stream. Double trouble.

]]> By: Noise and Vibration Control | Solar Panel Bulletin http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21010 Noise and Vibration Control | Solar Panel Bulletin Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:52:48 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21010 [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...] [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...]

]]> By: John http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21008 John Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:51:43 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21008 Ben, my understanding is that the electricity is actually fed back into the system, through an inverter. So there are transmission issues (but not great distances), and also possible system problems if the inverter is not adequate or deteriorates. Ben, my understanding is that the electricity is actually fed back into the system, through an inverter. So there are transmission issues (but not great distances), and also possible system problems if the inverter is not adequate or deteriorates.

]]> By: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity | Future of Solar Panels http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21007 En Passant » Solar panels and inequity | Future of Solar Panels Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:49:13 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21007 [...] more: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity Share and [...] [...] more: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity Share and [...]

]]> By: Ben Courtice http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21006 Ben Courtice Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:45:34 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21006 Your comments are very sharp. However, your first sentence is probably a bit off the mark: some individual solar panel capacity is a good idea. It's at the point of use, there's no loss of power in distance transmission, etc. But the issues surrounding equity are worth bearing in mind. More importantly, as you touch on, this scheme lets rich Green-thinking voters placate their climate fears by installing a panel on their roof, which may make them feel better but is pretty pointless without large scale renewable energy generation e.g. wind and solar thermal. And as I have pointed out at http://bccwords.blogspot.com/2009/11/rudds-policy-not-delivering-renewables.html the current government policy is undermining plans for large-scale solar and wind plants. However, not all feed-in tarriffs need hit the poor or subsidise individualism: an industrial scale tarriff, while still a capitalist measure, would at least allow some larger scale renewables to go ahead. I don't want to pretend that this fixes everything (they have it in Germany, yet still burn coal); but it seems a reform worth supporting if the policy is designed in such a way that low income households are protected or subsidised for the higher cost that will fall on energy bills. Interested to know what you think. Your comments are very sharp. However, your first sentence is probably a bit off the mark: some individual solar panel capacity is a good idea. It’s at the point of use, there’s no loss of power in distance transmission, etc. But the issues surrounding equity are worth bearing in mind. More importantly, as you touch on, this scheme lets rich Green-thinking voters placate their climate fears by installing a panel on their roof, which may make them feel better but is pretty pointless without large scale renewable energy generation e.g. wind and solar thermal. And as I have pointed out at http://bccwords.blogspot.com/2009/11/rudds-policy-not-delivering-renewables.html the current government policy is undermining plans for large-scale solar and wind plants. However, not all feed-in tarriffs need hit the poor or subsidise individualism: an industrial scale tarriff, while still a capitalist measure, would at least allow some larger scale renewables to go ahead. I don’t want to pretend that this fixes everything (they have it in Germany, yet still burn coal); but it seems a reform worth supporting if the policy is designed in such a way that low income households are protected or subsidised for the higher cost that will fall on energy bills. Interested to know what you think.

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21004 uberVU - social comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:01:04 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21004 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Reddit by Passy: Subsidies for individual solar panel electricity generation are a dumb idea. They actually impose a burden on poor and working class electricity users and benefit those well enough off to pay $23,000 or there... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Reddit by Passy: Subsidies for individual solar panel electricity generation are a dumb idea. They actually impose a burden on poor and working class electricity users and benefit those well enough off to pay $23,000 or there…

]]> By: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity | A2Z Of Web http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-21002 En Passant » Solar panels and inequity | A2Z Of Web Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:19:22 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-21002 [...] See more here: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...] [...] See more here: En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...]

]]> By: Have You Got Earthday Business on Your Mind? | Solar Power in Maryland http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-20999 Have You Got Earthday Business on Your Mind? | Solar Power in Maryland Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:07:03 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-20999 [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...] [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...]

]]> By: USA – China – A G2 For Climate and Economy? | Solar in Indiana http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-20998 USA – China – A G2 For Climate and Economy? | Solar in Indiana Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:59:25 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-20998 [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...] [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...]

]]> By: Your Second Hand Clothes: Recycle | Energy Goes Green http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318&cpage=1#comment-20997 Your Second Hand Clothes: Recycle | Energy Goes Green Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:50:45 +0000 http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6318#comment-20997 [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...] [...] En Passant » Solar panels and inequity [...]

]]>