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

[LienusLateTips]

2 minutes ago, MetEishYa said:

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.

In BC, they just replaced the last coal plant with more capacity at a mountainous dam... see how that will go...

 

94% hydro 5% gas 1% other

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

45 minutes ago, dizmo said:

How do you figure? 

Do you know how any government works?

[Guest]

1 hour 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/

Can you please update your thread in line with the pinned requirements thanks

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

*cough cough amazon, twitter*

 

Aside from that, there is still another tax loophole to exploit here. If he chooses to operate as a sole proprietorship, taxes are pass-through. As such, the cost of the solar panels could serve as a deduction from his own personal income taxes as well. It would mean that he wouldn't be able to operate as long in this "business" that operates at a loss, but would still have the privilege of doing so for a few years. 

Yeah, I'm not versed on the US's tax laws, but you can't just run something as a business here. It becomes considered a hobby after a while. A quick Google search shows similar laws in the US, after 3 years the IRS considers it a hobby.

 

The "Amazon doesn't profit" phrase is a little misleading. Granted, they don't see profits every year, but they have seem profits. There's also key wording. "Expected profit." Amazon doesn't plan to run at a loss forever, they do want to make money. The situation with the solar panels, it's much easier to look at it and say that you have no expected profit.

6 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Do you know how any government works?

Is their power government owned? Not all are.

[MetEishYa]

4 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

You literally just proved my point that coal power still needs to play a part in any public energy system. 

Yip renewable only is not a good solution for most of the world at this point in time.

Only other things that come close to coal in capacity is:

Hydo - Not an option here as water is already scarse and with droughts not a reliable option.

Nuclear - Higher capacity and a much higher price.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 

Is their power government owned? Not all are.

 

Yes it actually is.

Let me give you an example, years ago in my country some company from either Germany or Netherlands I can't recall exactly from where, installed the latest and greatest windmills for free.

But guess what, nothing in this world is really free. Someone has to pay for it, someone always has to pay for it.

And in this case it's the people. I pay for that installation each month. In my electric bill there's a tax that the government implemented, and they say for what that tax is. And interestingly enough that tax is actually about 20 times more expensive then the actual price of a kWh.

 

[System Error Message]

sponsor homes with solar, and the grid can afford to have your electric cars. Why havent anyone spotted this yet?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Windspeed36 said:

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

And Victoria is not far behind!

 

I'm all for saving the environment, but when they shut down 25% of our power production and the very next summer sees blackouts and big industry being asked to "use less power on hot days", then that is a problem.   Mind you it's not as big of a problem as our government lying about the cause.

 

 

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

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

Aren't there report of how we're going to run out of uranium in like 26 years or something (If all countries used it as much as USA/capita)

[Brooksie359]

2 hours 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."

that isn't really true even for the us. In the us the government can literally make you move and build a road over where your house is and there is little you can do about it. will they pay for your house? yes but you don't get a say in the sale of the house.the government has way more control than you think.

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, bob51zhang said:

Aren't there report of how we're going to run out of uranium in like 26 years or something (If all countries used it as much as USA/capita)

i doubt it. it takes little mass of it to run power plants and you can literally find the rock in the northern states in quite abundance. I know it is one of the reasons radon gas is an issue for basements in houses in my state. the uranium produces radon gas through its natural breakdown.

[Dabombinable]

27 minutes ago, bob51zhang said:

Aren't there report of how we're going to run out of uranium in like 26 years or something (If all countries used it as much as USA/capita)

That might be some types of fossil fuels....there is still ample Uranium to last centuries, since how little of it is needed and how it can be recycled and re-used.

[Dabombinable]

20 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

i doubt it. it takes little mass of it to run power plants and you can literally find the rock in the northern states in quite abundance. I know it is one of the reasons radon gas is an issue for basements in houses in my state. the uranium produces radon gas through its natural breakdown.

Some beaches have higher than normal background radiation as a result of it as well. Though flying in an aeroplane still exposes you to far more..

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Some beaches have higher than normal background radiation as a result of it as well. Though flying in an aeroplane still exposes you to far more..

yeah radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer behind smoking. its why its a big deal in my state. fun fact. coal plants produce more harmful radiation to residence who live near one than nuclear power plants.

[Jito463]

30 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

In the us the government can literally make you move and build a road over where your house is and there is little you can do about it.

It's known as Eminent Domain.  I'm pretty sure almost all (if not all) governments have similar laws.  Though I wouldn't say it's quite so cut-and-dry as to claim they can just take your property (even with compensation).  There are methods by which the property owners can contest the matter.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

It's known as Eminent Domain.  I'm pretty sure almost all (if not all) governments have similar laws.  Though I wouldn't say it's quite so cut-and-dry as to claim they can just take your property (even with compensation).  There are methods by which the property owners can contest the matter.

there are ways to fight it but my dad had friends who had to move because their parents tried and failed to contest the matter. it is pretty shitty thing to do to someone but it happens none the less.

[Serin]

2 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

how's australia's perception of tesla? if it were me I'd gladly let that invasion happen (even the occasional serviceman if need be)

 

(sorry for the double comment. mobile is a bitch to format and move quotes)

We've been pretty shit at EV's so far. The government has been sitting on its hands when it comes to innovation in that sector - and even allowed the closure of practically all car manufacturing here.
Sadly there's really only been policy action at a state level, rather than federal. SA's obviously on the ball, and I wouldn't be surprised if Victoria's Labor govt announced a deal before the end of the year with the election coming.
But yeah... Federally we're fak'd. There's also not an insignificant number of drongo's who don't like the mere idea of an EV. Problematic.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, CUDA_Cores said:

clearly everyone has forgotten about what happened when Germany transitioned to renewable energy. In times of sunlight and wind, electricity was so cheap people could actually make money by using it. In times of darkness and little wind, there were widespread blackouts and nobody had any power. 

 

Solar and wind has significant flaws that need to be overcome in order to beat coal and oil at their own game. Coal is still, and by far, the cheapest form of electricity by a long shot. 

 

Many people talk about how they would love to see renewable energy go mainstream, and i'm sure we all would. But nobody wants to pay more for electricity in the process. 

 

Second, installing solar panels on your roof is actually a terrible way to save money. A solar installation costs about 10 thousand dollars and will require anywhere from 5-10 years to just pay off the panels. Yes, costs are coming down, but not that much. 

 

If you take this same 10 thousand dollars and put it in the S&P500 which will earn you an average of 10% a year (7% adjusted for inflation), you will have turned that 10K into $19, 671 adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile those solar panels you installed still haven't even paid themselves off yet. 

 

From a pure money and economics perspective, solar panels do not make sense, yet. Notice I say yet. Two things will happen in the future that will make alternative forms of energy sources more popular including:

 

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. 

 

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

 

Until these two things happen, solar and wind will remain in the background of worldwide energy production. It makes sense in some situations, but not in many. 

 

I am much more pf a proponent for natural gas and possibly nuclear energy. These seem like the next logical steps to follow in producing more energy for our world without significantly increasing costs. 

 

For those of you who are big solar and wind proponents, feel free to promote it to your local senators. But when it comes down to money (which is what all decisions are based upon) solar and wind make no sense. 

There's a lot of factors to the Germany example, it can all be summed up as choice though. They wanted to push home based solar (key here) and knew it would increase power cost, the point was to reduce emissions. That didn't work out though.

 

Molten salt solar is much cheaper than photo-voltaic but you don't get that on the roof of a house, that graph needs to list both individually.

 

A few economists did a study on solar and wind and found that total country production of each should not be higher than 15% otherwise the return on investment started to massively decrease on the order of 60%-70%, this is solar generation not home solar.

 

The issue Germany has is that they started to reduce the output of their nuclear reactors and mostly burn coal, so their conscious choice to push solar for environmental reasons is massively negated by that.

 

A few years ago the person who, I forget his name, started the whole hippy nuclear free movement came out in support of nuclear power and said it is the only viable power source to supply the world with power and not destroy the planet in doing so.

 

The real issue is the world got so anti-nuclear zero development of the technology has happened for 40-60 years, hardly anyone studies it too but it's back on the up tick again. From memory most nuclear reactors in use to generate power were all constructed  around the 70's and the newer reactors are much smaller.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/

 

There are also other reactor designs that were being researched in the 40's-60's that were much safer for power generation and did not require enriched uranium and extremely hard to manufacture fuel rods, molten salt reactors (MSR). These reactors can also use the 'spent' fuel rods from current reactors as they actually have massive amounts of fuel in them but they are inert due to nuetron saturation which is not an issue for MSR. The best thing about those is they can't go critical and meltdown, it's impossible. The real shame is the lack of nuclear fission reactor research over the years and the fear of radioactive waste, spoiler alert it's actually not that bad, and meltdown fear.

 

Have your wind and solar, it's not a bad idea but it's idiotic to reduce production output of nuclear reactors for coal and gas.

 

There's a few really good documentaries on the history of nuclear reactors and molten salt reactors. Only reason water cooled enriched uranium reactors became the standard design is the US Navy originally commissioned the research and didn't want tanks of molten sodium in submarines (sodium + water = bad) and the president at the time wanted his home state to get all the research grant money and they were researching liquid metal reactors (Fast Breeder Reactors) which never really went anywhere. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, CUDA_Cores said:

You literally just proved my point that coal power still needs to play a part in any public energy system. 

Only until you build something better, coal shouldn't be used at all if it can be helped. Gas fired is at least a bit better but not nearly as easy as coal, about as basic as you can get power production wise.

 

If anyone is building a coal power plant it's only because it's the cheapest option possible and is the only factor they care about, not every country is flush with money to build anything better though.

 

Coal power really has no place and should be abandoned, in the most sensible and viable way not just turn them all off and go "Job done, pitty no one has power". 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

And Victoria is not far behind!

 

I'm all for saving the environment, but when they shut down 25% of our power production and the very next summer sees blackouts and big industry being asked to "use less power on hot days", then that is a problem.   Mind you it's not as big of a problem as our government lying about the cause.

 

 

And Tassie too.

 

I've debated buying a Honda gennie but the cost is up there.

[Arika]

9 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

And Tassie too.

 

I've debated buying a Honda gennie but the cost is up there.

if solar wasn't so expensive i would just buy a whole bunch of panels and go off grid, last month i had no power for about 22 hours, no explanation from powercor (victoria). no amount of generators is going to power my house for 22 hours

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

And Tassie too.

 

I've debated buying a Honda gennie but the cost is up there.

 

Not a bad investment.   But I'd rather they just put the feed in for solar back up to 60c for everyone and get more people of the daily load that way.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

if solar wasn't so expensive i would just buy a whole bunch of panels and go off grid, last month i had no power for about 22 hours, no explanation from powercor (victoria). no amount of generators is going to power my house for 22 hours

My father in law is off grid, decent setup cost him about $20K all up.  very good system.  Zero mains connection and never has power issues. (he hasn't even had to run his generator and he's been in 3 years now).

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My father in law is off grid, decent setup cost him about $20K all up.  very good system.  Zero mains connection and never has power issues. (he hasn't even had to run his generator and he's been in 3 years now).

I'm still renting is the issue so can't be anything permanent really.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I'm still renting is the issue so can't be anything permanent really.

bugger.