Tesla signs deal with Australia to turn 50,000 homes into power generators at no cost to residents

[saravanak85]

Tesla has struck a deal with the state government of South Australia to install 50,000 solar-power systems on homes, at no cost to residents.

This will the world’s largest virtual power plant, slashing household power bills in the process.

South Australia is already home to world’s biggest battery in an Elon Musk-driven project to provide electricity for more than 30,000 homes.

 

Source : http://cnednews.com/tesla-signs-deal-australia-turn-50000-homes-power-generators-no-cost-residents/

[ARikozuM]

Elon, please come down to Florida! We have solar tax preventing us from installing panels and getting an ROI in a timely manner. 

[saravanak85]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Elon, please come down to Florida! We have solar tax preventing us from installing panels and getting an ROI in a timely manner. 

It has more to do with Government policies. He installed a solar power station in Australia it was successful and here they are inviting him for more.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Elon, please come down to Florida! We have solar tax preventing us from installing panels and getting an ROI in a timely manner. 

I think Australia needs it more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

[DanielMDA]

11 minutes ago, saravanak85 said:

Tesla has struck a deal with the state government of South Australia to install 50,000 solar-power systems on homes, at no cost to residents.

This will the world’s largest virtual power plant, slashing household power bills in the process.

South Australia is already home to world’s biggest battery in an Elon Musk-driven project to provide electricity for more than 30,000 homes.

 

Source : http://cnednews.com/tesla-signs-deal-australia-turn-50000-homes-power-generators-no-cost-residents/

ALL praise Master Musk, our one true God and Savior of Humanity. (Creator of PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City, OpenAI, Neuralink, and of course badass Flamethrowers)

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

9 minutes ago, saravanak85 said:

at no cost to residents.

Yeah that's not how that works. They won't pay directly, but they will pay.

[saravanak85]

3 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I think Australia needs it more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

Yes...and if all goes well this project will complete in 4 years and even if it proceeds as per plan they will pitch for more. 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I think Australia needs it more

Nah, just need some kangaroos and goobleboxes.

 

Or the master power crystal, and a bandicoot to gather the remaining 25 slave crystals.

[Jito463]

26 minutes ago, saravanak85 said:

Tesla has struck a deal with the state government of South Australia to install 50,000 solar-power systems on homes, at no cost to residents.

Do the homeowners get any say in the matter?

[Orangeator]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Do the homeowners get any say in the matter?

Obviously.

[Jito463]

Just now, Orangeator said:

Obviously.

It obviously wasn't so obvious or I wouldn't have asked such an obvious question....obviously.

[TheSLSAMG]

26 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I think Australia needs it more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

Kangaroo Island is the most Australian sounding thing I've ever heard of (without profanity, that is).

[Orangeator]

5 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It obviously wasn't so obvious or I wouldn't have asked such an obvious question....obviously.

Home owners, as in people who own their home have certain privileges/rights. There is no way in hell the government of Australia would say, "this house you built, we are going to construct and place solar panels on your roof and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it."

[Dabombinable]

32 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I think Australia needs it more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

What we need is nuclear power. France is a good example of how safe and clean modern power plants are.

[ARikozuM]

14 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Do the homeowners get any say in the matter?

You don't want the free money (or upgrade)? No problem, we'll give your neighbor Bob two of them. 

[dizmo]

42 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Elon, please come down to Florida! We have solar tax preventing us from installing panels and getting an ROI in a timely manner. 

Haha what?! They tax you for having solar power? How does that make any sense? 

32 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Yeah that's not how that works. They won't pay directly, but they will pay.

How do you figure? 

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Haha what?! They tax you for having solar power? How does that make any sense? 

PRECO [successfully passed a motion] that removed most of the solar incentives [for their customers in] our area. It used to be $10K for a nice 30-panel system that would replace about 50% of your daily usage, but now it's 24K for a similar, though more powerful, system. 

The incentive went from 70% to 30% and it takes more time to get all of the necessary paperwork for the construction. Also, they've stopped giving a credit (which would apply directly to your bill) for electricity sold to the company and are now giving checks to customers meaning you end up paying taxes on the income. 

[Jito463]

8 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Home owners, as in people who own their home have certain privileges/rights. There is no way in hell the government of Australia would say, "this house you built, we are going to construct and place solar panels on your roof and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it."

As someone who doesn't live in Australia, I didn't want to make any assumptions (hence, my asking the question).  For all I know, the government could say that they own the power utilities, and thus they have the right to install this as part of their equipment.  The only stupid question is the one you're afraid to ask.

[LienusLateTips]

8 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

-snip-

I'm not really an expert on energy or anything, but I believe this post needs to be full of asterisks, for places with hydroelectric potential like BC. I can't recall a black out in my whole life, except for scheduled local maintenance. It's relatively cheap too, at C$0.10/kwH for residential users.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

Two things will happen in the future that will make alternative forms of energy sources more popular including:

May happen.  May, not will.

5 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

1. Solar and wind initial set up costs begin to mirror the costs of building a new coal power plants and produce roughly the same electricity as a coal power plant. In other worlds, solar and wind becomes a LOT cheaper. 

I only see that scenario happening if either they find a way to cheaply mass produce the panels, or if the governments continue subsidizing their production.  The former may be possible, but I haven't heard of any breakthroughs in technology that would account for such an outcome.  As for the latter, we can easily see what happened with Obama's "Green initiative", where the money went to a company that then went bankrupt.  I don't trust or like government subsidies.  That's not the answer.

8 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

2. We start burning up all the coal, oil and fossil fuels and are forced to seek alternative means of producing energy. 

Not going to happen any time soon.  Heck, a few years ago they found a shale oil deposit that rivaled that of OPEC.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

9 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

I am much more pf a proponent for natural gas and possibly nuclear energy.

Now that I could get behind.  Unfortunately, the environmental whackos keep finding ways to block production of new nuclear (newclear?) facilities.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

You sure about that? Because if we were to evaluate this from a business perspective, you could argue that the 24K invested in solar panels could be written off as a tax deduction if declared as an intent for profit (which it can be argued it is because you are getting checks in the mail).

I'll have to talk to my accountant about that when I do my taxes, but that's good news if I could since it's $80 or so that I've "worked for" as they see it. 

[dizmo]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

PRECO [successfully passed a motion] that removed most of the solar incentives [for their customers in] our area. It used to be $10K for a nice 30-panel system that would replace about 50% of your daily usage, but now it's 24K for a similar, though more powerful, system. 

The incentive went from 70% to 30% and it takes more time to get all of the necessary paperwork for the construction. Also, they've stopped giving a credit (which would apply directly to your bill) for electricity sold to the company and are now giving checks to customers meaning you end up paying taxes on the income. 

That's ridiculous. Stuff like that is why humanity won't advance nearly as quickly as it could. Gotta protect those profits!

I get knocking down the incentives, that wasn't a sustainable model. However that's a really odd that they'd restructure the credit system that way.

20 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

As someone who doesn't live in Australia, I didn't want to make any assumptions (hence, my asking the question).  For all I know, the government could say that they own the power utilities, and thus they have the right to install this as part of their equipment.  The only stupid question is the one you're afraid to ask.

I don't think even government owned power has the right to do that; I know they don't in BC.

13 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

"you're not needing the traditional plants as much, pleas pay up for them to keep them spinning" <-??

I can only see that if it were a government owned entity and they used tax dollars to offset some of the cost, so said people would be indirectly paying for it yes. But I can't imagine it costing more than they'd already be paying, and really, would be a lot less.

8 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

You sure about that? Because if we were to evaluate this from a business perspective, you could argue that the 24K invested in solar panels could be written off as a tax deduction if declared as an intent for profit (which it can be argued it is because you are getting checks in the mail). As such you could potentially write off the costs of the solar setup and continue to declare a loss on your solar "business" for decades until the panels were paid off. 

I can't imagine that'd be allowed. A business can't continuously operate at a loss, there has to be some expected potential for profit. Otherwise everyone would operate business running at a loss.

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

How many places have areas to build hydroelectric dams? We can't install dams in the middle of Arizona, or any other southern state for that matter. 

 

The same could be said about geothermal energy. In Greenland, their energy is produced through underground volcanic activity, making it nearly free. These landmasses are the exception to the rule, and few places will be able to take advantage of their local environment for energy production to the extent it can by done with dams. 

Not many, but if you are saying "renewable energy" in general, I believe you should at least put in a foot note. Most of Western Canada and the US could at least be partially, but still significantly powered with hydro.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

Check out some of the other stuff people have written off on their taxes over the years including breast implants and car repairs from drunk driving:

Or Bill Clinton's old underwear.

[MetEishYa]

15 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

-snip-

Here in South Africa we have 2 huge dams in a mountian area. When electricity production is high and there is lots of excess power they pump the water into the higher dam. When demand becomes critical they use the higher dam to produce hydro power. This is definally not an optimal solution as the costs become much higher. Wind and Solar need cost effiecient means of storage which is the biggest issue.

Since our blackouts they are in the process of building 2 new coal power stations "Medupi" and "Kusile"  each with Six 800 MW units for a total of 4800 MW each an equvalent solar or wind solution will take up alot more space and cost a huge amount more. The down side to coal is that efficiency is only around 43-47%.

I dont get peoples reaction to Nuclear are they worried that is releases radiation to the suroundings? Or safety, because it took an earthquake and a tidal wave for the Fukushima meltdown. There is also the simple fact that a coal power station releases more radioactive radiation than a nuclear is due to the small amounts of nuclear particals in the coal that get burnt and released into the atmosphere.