A recent survey indicates the majority of Australian solar owners are keen on getting a home battery – but there’s a common issue continuing to stand in the way of many doing so.
The survey by community group Solar Citizens revealed 84% of solar owners without a home battery were interested in buying one in the next 3 years. 20% of solar owners surveyed already had one.
That’s a huge amount of interest, but the cost of home batteries is still seen as a major barrier to acquisition. Subsidies could get many of these folks over the line – but how much would the subsidy need to be? When asked this:
- 26% said $3-4,000 or more
- 20% said $5-6,000 or more
- 10% said the entire cost
- 24% were unsure
- ~ 7% said $1,000 – $2,000
- ~ 7% said above $7,000
Solar Battery Subsidies In Australia
Currently, government subsidies for solar batteries in Australia are confined to state government (and in some cases, local government) schemes. Unlike the “solar rebate“, there is no national scheme financially supporting home batteries. State/territory programs at this point are:
- ACT’s Next Gen Battery rebate ($3,500)
- Up to $2,950 in Victoria
- Up to $6,000 in NT
South Australia did have a subsidy until recently, but the SA Home Battery Scheme closed to new applications late last month.
“We’d like to see the Federal Government implement a Renewable Energy Storage Target to help more households utilise their cheap solar energy around the clock,” said Solar Citizens’ Deputy Director, Stephanie Gray. “This would be good news for the grid and help bring down prices for everyone.”
If you’re eyeing solar batteries, check out SQ Founder Finn’s comprehensive guides to understanding, buying and owning home battery storage. It’s also worth reading Ronald’s article from yesterday summarising the results of extensive home battery testing.
Australian Solar Owners Seeing Big Savings
The Solar Citizens survey also revealed the impact of having panels installed on electricity bills. 42 per cent of solar owners said they save more than 70 per cent, or are usually in credit. A further 20 per cent say they’re saving more than 50 per cent on their bills.
What wasn’t noted was solar power system sizes in relation to savings. Hundreds of thousands of solar systems out there (perhaps more) would be tiny by today’s standards.
These days an entry-level system is 6.6kW capacity – and 10kW solar systems are becoming far more common. A 6.6kW system can put a huge dent in electricity bills, or averaged out over a year blow them away altogether depending on energy consumption profile. You can use SQ’s solar calculator to get a good idea of the benefit of such a system (or larger, or smaller) in your circumstances.
Solar isn’t just bringing savings, but some peace of mind – and we could all do with a bit more of that in these crazy times. The survey found 49% of solar owners were moderately to extremely concerned about electricity costs; compared to 72% of those without solar.
Many Australians Keen To Get Off Gas
Full household electrification is one of The Next Big Things for energy in Australia. Survey says:
“A staggering 41 per cent of those surveyed who had gas in their households said they would definitely switch to electric alternatives with a government subsidy.”
On a related note, we recently reported on an initiative seeking to create Australia’s first fully electric community (and that includes electric vehicles).
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
I own several small businesses. As I can see electricity prices doubling or more over the next decade I am installing solar panels to keep this under control. Now I have to think about dealing with the rolling blackouts that are coming our way. Can you run batteries in a smart manner. eg. Will only discharge 25% of their storage unless main power is out? Automatically shut down some services (eg Air-conditioning) when mains power is out?
Luckily I’m in an industry which can continue to operate without electricity, but there will be costs to me from the blackouts, so I need to build appropriately.
Yes – all that is possible to do with a battery – it’s fairly standard functionality for a good, well-designed battery system. For example – my battery reserves 25% (user selectable) for backup, and disconnects the big loads (e.g. oven) when the grid goes down.
Part 1
42% of solar owners save more than 70% on power bills with batteries? That looks absurdly high, but the maths suggests it actually might be possible – at least for high consumers.
Based on the last 4 quarters, assuming I ceased buying electricity and could rely exclusively on batteries for low\no solar times, I’d only save ~55% of the electricity bill. That being said I am (was?) an ultra low user – from memory akin to a 0.8 person household. Even adding self consumption only bumps me to low-average. This year however, with solar exports being so worthless, and with winter being somewhat chilly, there’s been no reason not to simply use solar for AC etc which means somewhat lower exports.
For reference sake this May-August is over 20% up on last May-Aug 21’s usage charges, and roughly 10% up on supply charges – solar meter charges aren’t given but those rose 28%. To be fair usage rose about 18% – likely due to the poor weather, so the rise isn’t quite as extreme as it appears. The real killer is the FiT which is down almost 60%! Again to be fair poor weather plus greater self consumption has meant a roughly 20% drop in exports. Regardless, instead of making a sizeable profit like normal, solar is set to make a loss. X-X
Part 2
As regards subsidies for batteries and gas to electricity conversions, who pays for those, and who benefits? Logic dictates that net taxpayers (or whatever the correct term for those who pay more to government than they receive back) will be the ones funding the subsidies, whilst it will be a subset of solar system owners getting taxpayer subsidised batteries, with those who can’t afford solar, or are locked out of the solar market, unable to get a fair go. As for gas, is there a clear group who rely on gas over electricity?
I guess I’m part of the 49% who are moderately to extremely concerned about electricity prices, but it’s more FiTs that I worry about than daily supply or usage charges. Historically I exported the entirety of the estimated monthly average, with actual consumption being the solar generated over and above that average. With power being so worthless a move away from the grid in favour of battery + home generator becomes more economically viable, though still a way away.
So do you think that we may be getting a battery rebate sometime soon in NSW
It’s difficult to plan ahead when faced with a surrounding local political scene that can only be summed up by the word ‘shambles’. But feel free to use other adjectives such as chaos, wreckage, destruction etc to describe what’s currently filtering down to our national energy policies as a consequence.
Given recent Australian federal political revelations, along with the ongoing impacts of a global energy supply crisis (which in turn has it’s own set of different causes and unexpected consequences); it seems very likely to me that this chaotic state of affairs will continue for some years.
What all that implies for those considering a major outlay on a residential battery storage system is still rather unclear to me. It’s very difficult to assess the benefits because there’s more than just ‘economics’ involved in
some instances.
I think the mess you are describing is correct, but some basic results can be derived from watching nations/states ahead of us on the renewable energy curve. Firstly we can expect a doubling of electricity prices over the next 10 years, and we can expect rolling blackouts. Perhaps we won’t get rolling blackouts, in which case you can expect a tripling of prices. While we will probably go through periods of regular blackouts, the immediate public backlash to them will cause politicians to abandon their climate policies and slow the rollout of renewables, at least for a while. Then they will significantly overspend on large scale batteries, not caring about what that does to the price of electricity because they can’t see past the next election. Just ensure you have reasonable solar, and decide if you can handle rolling blackouts.
As the quintupling of gas prices and coal at record high prices this year didn’t cause rolling blackouts and we aren’t yet on track for a doubling of electricity prices, I’m not expecting anything to cause that in the future.
Predicting the future is a mugs game. You see it one way, I see it another. As they say, hope for the best (which you are doing), but prepare for the worst (which is what I’m trying to do). Best of luck.
Derek McKinnon,
“…the immediate public backlash to them will cause politicians to abandon their climate policies and slow the rollout of renewables, at least for a while.”
The Laws of Physics dictate that the climate crisis will get worse, & how much worse depends on the decisions that we make this decade especially, this year & today.
See my slides 2 through 17 in a pdf file (10.4 MB) at: https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/project-submissions/2022/05/mt-pleasant-optimisation-project-ssd-10418/20220708t144208/theclimateenergycrisis20220708.pdf
I’d suggest Australia’s worsening energy crisis is as a consequence of a plethora of poor energy policy decisions by a succession of both Coalition & Labor governments, both state & federal, over decades (plural). Unfortunately, these chaotic state of affairs that we are currently enduring cannot be rectified overnight.
IMO, Matt identifies some root causes:
https://crudeoilpeak.info/australias-gas-fired-recovery-but-not-in-the-prime-ministers-election-back-yard
IMO, rising petroleum fuel prices (& increasingly precarious supply) is likely to be a much bigger problem for Australia’s energy (& food) security. See myslides 33 through 47.
Australian fuel prices will likely rise again soon:
1. Australia’s fuel excise tax cut will end on Sep 28, with a subsequent increase of 22.1 cents per litre on petrol and diesel;
2. The US SPR release of 1 Mb/d (1% of global liquid fuel supply) will end Sep 27.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCSSTUS1&f=M
I’m not talking about the science. I’m talking about the politics and economics.
We are now legislated to go to 43% by 2030. I saw figures today that we will need to get renewables to produce 83% of our electricity to achieve that. Even the most optimistic climate changes supporter has to realize that is not achievable with current technologies. Thus something has to break.
In California the politicians are holding the line, and so the population and industry is fleeing the state. In Germany the politicians have folded and are extending the user of nuclear and coal. In England they trying to do the same. In South Australia when the blackout occurred a few years ago the politicians held the line and threw money at a battery.
Every time there is a significant political problem that could be or perceived to be due to climate change, politicians either throw money at the problem (thus increasing the inefficiency of the system and increasing the cost of electricity), or simply revert to old approaches (such as Germany is currently doing by extending the lives of nuclear and coal plants).
Given that politicians (on both sides) currently appear to be more scared of Green voters than conservative voters in Australia, I suspect they will hold the line and we will see significant increases in costs and/or rolling blackouts.
I could be wrong, but as I said earlier, I have responsibilities to others and so while I hope for the best, I have to plan for the worst.
If you read the gencost report by the AEMO you’ll see your worries are unfounded and it’s decrepit fossil fuel power stations that are the real threat to maintaining electricity supply:
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost-2021-22
If you don’t read the gencost report I may get around to writing a blog post summarizing its main points at some point.
Ronald, where do they address power plant reliability? I skimmed through 60 something pages and couldn’t see it. It also looked like the CSIRO-AEMO report puts new coal at about half the cost of solar with 12 hours of storage.
Why would you build solar with 12 hours of storage? (If you know the answer, it’ll save me writing a paragraph.)
Derek McKinnon,
“I’m not talking about the science. I’m talking about the politics and economics.”
I think you are ignoring the science & the economics.
“Even the most optimistic climate changes supporter has to realize that is not achievable with current technologies.”
With that attitude I’d suggest we/humanity are doomed to fail. I think, based on your comments, it seems to me your apparent ill-informed ideology is blinding you from seeing the available & timely solutions.
“Thus something has to break.”
Indeed, on our current GHG emissions trajectory, the Earth System will very likely become too hostile to support humans in most areas of the planet before the end of this century, leading to increasing social chaos and ultimately civilisation collapse, and the consequent suffering and deaths of billions (plural) of people ensuing from those circumstances. Either we/humanity collectively find a way to take unprecedented & timely action to rapidly reduce human-induced GHG emissions, or accept that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.
Humanity needs to change its GHG emissions trajectory rapidly, or billions suffer & die in the coming decades – it’s a simple binary choice.
What do you think humanity should choose, Derek?
It appears the reply button has dissappeared from my email.
Ronald. The CSIRO report. I have only read the first few pages, but even there I can see the authors know the report will be mis-represented. Technically, yes the report does say that the electricity coal plants produce will be more expensive than the electricity produced by solar, but even in the introduction the authors admit two thiings that show this does not equate to coal electricity being more expensive than solar.
1) Capital inputs are priced at what the market requires. Let me explain this to you. I am a business person. If someone came to me and said they were building a new coal fired power station and did I want to invest in it, I would say that given the political climate I would expect at least a 20% and more probably a 40% return per annum on my investment because the risks are so huge from a political perspective. The report has built these huge returns into the price of coal plants, and this will significantly increase the price of the electricity produced from these plants. So it isn’t the coal plant itself that is high price. It is the political risk that makes the electricity it produce unable to compete.
2) Even if you can’t understand the first point, the second point is that it is only comparing new plants. Old plants are still competitive and easily beat solar. The politicians are taking care of them by regulating them out of existence.
Note that the report is very careful in what it says. It says the truth, but it know it will be interpreted, just like you did, into “Solar is cheaper than coal”, which it is not.
Derek McKinnon,
“The report has built these huge returns into the price of coal plants, and this will significantly increase the price of the electricity produced from these plants. So it isn’t the coal plant itself that is high price. It is the political risk that makes the electricity it produce unable to compete.”
You’ve already admitted: “I have only read the first few pages, but even there I can see the authors know the report will be mis-represented.” And it seems to me you are already doing exactly that with the GenCost 2021-22 Final Report. I’d suggest you read & understand Section 5: Levelised cost of electricity analysis, starting from page 53, before making further comments on this issue.
“Old plants are still competitive and easily beat solar.”
Nope. The AEMO’s latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics (QED) report paints a bleak picture of the risks of relying on legacy gas- & coal-fired electricity generators, prone to outages, plant failures, soaring fuel costs, and bidding patterns that combined to push the price of electricity to unsustainable levels.
The QED report shows that average wholesale price in the National Electricity Market, the main grid, leaped to $264/MWh in the June quarter, double the previous record, three times the price of the same period last year, and more than five times the average of 2020.
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2022/07/29july-aemo-qed-q2-2022/
It seems to me you are making false statements/judgements based on apparently ill-informed ideology.
Derek, you wrote, “I can see electricity prices doubling or more over the next decade…” That’s a whole lot of electricity price increase. You also said you are thinking about, “…dealing with the rolling blackouts that are coming our way.” That’s a whole lot of disruption. Are you still concerned about these things? If so, I may have to do something about it.
I suspect one or the other. Either they will build enough peaking capacity, in which case the price will go up, or they won’t and we will get rolling blackouts.
I will try to get time to read some of those materials. But I also feel that your thought are being led by your ideology.
eg. Old plants prone to outages and plant failures. But why are these old plants failing more often? From what I have read it is because the owners are reducing their maintenance. Why are they reducing their maintenance? Because they know the political movement is going to shut down the plants soon and you don’t waste money maintaining equipment which is soon going to be shut down. So you say something that you think supports your position, but just shows me you don’t actually understand what is going on.
I have worked in data and statistics and so I understand that all reports can easily have the data manipulated to say what the authors want it to say.
So I sit back and think. Until renewables became a thing in the Australian electricity market we had good stable cheap electricity. The only times it failed was when politicians got involved (eg Peter Bettie undermining the QLD electricity grid at the start of the century to cover up additional spending by his government). Now, all I hear from all around the world is stories about blackouts, electricity prices going nuts and capacity problems. And the places which have the biggest problems are the places with the biggest investments in solar and wind and the least investment in good baseload like coal and nuclear (and gas and hydro).
So a report can say one thing, but when it doesn’t match the reality you see in the world around you, it simply means it has been manufactured to support a particular position. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, but you need to keep the reality in mind while reading it.
Derek McKinnon,
“But why are these old plants failing more often?”
The design life for coal-fired generator units is typically 40-50 years. As with any aging asset, operating reliability declines & maintenance costs increase. Most of the NEM’s ageing coal-fired generators are expected to close in the 2020s & 30s. See my slides 24-26.
“So you say something that you think supports your position…”
…because it’s based-on compelling evidence/data that I can refer to. It seems to me your OPINIONS are not based on ANY credible evidence/data.
“Until renewables became a thing in the Australian electricity market we had good stable cheap electricity.”
NSW’s electricity supply certainly wasn’t stable post-WW2 through to early 1970s due to inadequate generating capacity, poor quality coal, inadequate maintenance – look familiar?
https://aph.org.au/2018/07/decisive-new-south-wales-government-action-solved-the-electricity-crisis-but-that-was-in-1950/
I experienced the consequences of load-shedding occasionally where I lived in Sydney in the late 1960s & early 1970s, mostly for a few hours at a time during usually weekday evening peaks, before the big Hunter Valley coal-fired generators became operational. Candles/torches & portable gas cooktop needed to be at the ready because you never new when the power would go.
“And the places which have the biggest problems are the places with the biggest investments in solar and wind and the least investment in good baseload like coal and nuclear (and gas and hydro).”
Nope. Coal is NO LONGER CHEAP.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
Gas is NO LONGER CHEAP.
https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/energy/gas-inquiry-2017-2025/lng-netback-price-series
Nuclear has NEVER BEEN CHEAP/PROFITABLE.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/
Data I see indicates your opinions are ill-informed.
Geoff, I really wish I had the time to go through all your points in detail. But I don’t. So here is one. You say that Coal is no longer cheap and link to the trading economics website.
But go there and change the timeframe to 10 years rather than 1. Yes coal is not cheap, but it is a short term fluctuation. You can’t base the 50 years of future development on a short 1-3 year peak price peak.
The only ongoing thing increasing the price of coal over the longer term is the lawfare engaged in western countries that significantly increase the cost of new coal projects. Resulting of course in more coal projects in parts of the world where no one cares about the environment and therefore increasing carbon releases.
Derek McKinnon,
“Yes coal is not cheap, but it is a short term fluctuation.”
What do you base “a short term fluctuation” on, Derek? What evidence/data/analysis can you refer to?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/prices-and-outlook.php
From 2018 (BEFORE the COVID pandemic began & BEFORE the Russian invasion) to mid 2021, global gasoil & diesel production had declined from around 26 Mb/d to below 23 Mb/d, representing a decline of 12%. See my slide 42.
See also my slide 47. If the Hallock model (red curve in the graph) is correct, we’re on the precipice of an oil production collapse. By 2040 the model predicts that we’ll be back to 1960 levels of oil production.
Meanwhile, coal-fired generator units (whether new or existing) can no longer compete economically with renewables + storage.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2022/gencost-2022
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
“The only ongoing thing increasing the price of coal over the longer term is the lawfare engaged in western countries that significantly increase the cost of new coal projects.”
Nope. It’s worsening economics. And particularly for net-importer countries, it’s worsening energy security.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/04/ukraine-war-and-threats-food-and-energy-security
OK Geoff, now I’m starting to think you are just a troll to be ignored.
“What do you base “a short term fluctuation” on, Derek? What evidence/data/analysis can you refer to?”
I stated in my original post. Expand the timeframe out to 10 years and you will see it.
At least I admit I’m not reading all of your posts due to a lack of time.
To be frank, you are also striking me as a Malthusian apocalypse fanatic. No one except the most extreme fanatics believe billions will die because of global warming (see your post from August 19, 2022 at 12:28 pm). Even the IPCC doesn’t believe that, and they are extreme enough.
Peak Oil/Gas/Coal has been presented as an impending doom scenario for over 10 years. It has been disproven over and over again by reality.
I used to believe in Climate Change. In the early 80’s I was told water levels would rise by a metre by 2000. And on and on ever since. Luckily I was able to turn a logical mind to the question of Climate Change and I lost my faith in it. Sure it could still be true, but you can only hear so many prophesies, just to see them fail, before you either turn your brain off or become a sceptic.
Derek, I recommend actually checking if sea levels are rising. If someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about says smoking one cigarette per day will cause your lungs to explode in five years, it doesn’t mean smoking is not a health hazard. It’s not difficult to check sea level rise. NASA has a page on it:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
There are satellites that measure it very accurately now:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sea-level-rise-solar/
And it’s not as if temperature records around the world are not just all wrong, but wrong in one direction.
Home owner battery subsidies are a big fat wasteful use of public monies which can do so much more good used in other ways.
Just another handout so the already wealthy can have lower bills.
Sounds like you think the purpose of taxpayer subsidies is to achieve social outcomes? Sorry, they are purely to achieve political ends. Once you understand that so many decisions made by government make much more sense.
Ronald.
I believe the evidence is we have seen some very small sea level rises, but no where near the original predications.
I believe we have seen some temperature rises. Again no where near the original predictions.
So I have a question for you. For how long do all the predictions have to be wrong before you start wondering if perhaps you have been lied to?
What about if it is 2100 and water levels have only gone up 10cm and temperature 0.2 degrees. Would you become sceptical then or still hold on to your faith?
I don’t know what you are talking about, Derek. I suspect — as a matter of personal opinion and not an implied factual statement — that you don’t know what you are talking about either. The first IPCC report in 1990 — a summary of studies on climate change — predicted a 3-10 cm sea level rise per decade under a “business-as-usual” scenario without expansion of renewable energy. Fortunately we have had an expansion of renewable energy and efficiency improvements, so atmospheric CO2 levels are 10% below the business-as-usual scenario. Despite this, average sea levels have risen 12 cm from 1990 and are on track for around a 15cm rise by 2030. That’s still within the range they predicted. The 1990 predictions were not precise, but they were not wrong. They also were not lies. The world is about 0.7 degrees warmer than it was in 1990. This is still within the 0.2-0.5 degree increase per decade they predicted under business-as-usual.
For sea level increase in 2100 to be 10 cm higher and temperatures to be 0.2 degrees higher than 1990 would require sea levels to fall 2 cm from what they are today and the temperature to fall by around half a degree.
I suspect what you have done is — for whatever reason — decided that sea level and temperature rises are not a problem and then selectively paid attention to things that support this view and so developed odd ideas that past predictions about sea level and temperature levels were wrong or lies rather than merely fuzzy. This is not uncommon behaviour. You are not alone in this. But it does mean the results of your thinking are not useful to other people. Fortunately, you can improve.
Derek McKinnon,
“I believe the evidence is we have seen some very small sea level rises, but no where near the original predications.”
What evidence? – Please specify it, Derek. What original predictions? Specify it for comparison, Derek, otherwise people will think you just make stuff up! ?
Per NOAA (dated 19 Apr 2022):
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
IPCC AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool (IMO, is probably too conservative) is at: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/data_tools/17
Glaciologist Prof Jason Box suggests SLR of at least a metre by 2100. SLR will be non-linear.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/2022-election-clean-energy/#comment-1437698
See also Coastal Risk Australia:
1. Select a location: e.g. Barangaroo, NSW, Australia;
2. Select ‘MANUAL’ mode;
3. Adjust slider to required SLR scenario to see map locations at risk of inundation.
https://coastalrisk.com.au/viewer