Remember when we were told that privatisation of power generation would lower prices?

  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I personally think, off shore wind especially off the Taranaki coast and massive solar install.

    China is selling solar panels for really low numbers; the panels are only part of the cost, installation is a big number.

    The biggest off shore turbines are 16MW, which is huge.

    Batteries are a really good idea, massive solar requires an equally large investment in storage, be it batteries or pumped hydro.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, pumped hydro is effectively a big battery and shouldn’t have been cancelled.

      I wonder if subsidies for solar would help (like they used to do for insulation). Though solar is a lot more expensive than insulation.

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well they worked in Australia.

        I think it would be more effective to have big subsidies for industrial roofs; a domestic dwelling may have a ~80m^2 of usable area. Industrial buildings have 1000’s of square meters available, with a single feed in point.

        A few of hundred industrial buildings could, supply 300MW for 6hrs a day. This would reduce the demand on the hydro lakes. A good subsidy for this would help a great deal.

        • Dave@lemmy.nzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think people are generally more supportive of subsidies for individuals rather than businesses. You could subsidise building a massive array of solar panels on a big rooftop but what happens next? Does the company that owns the building own the panels? Does the government pay for the panels and give the building free power as payment for using the roof?

          If the govt just gave them money and the company owned the panels, it might be seen as handouts to companies.

          • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The company would own it, a subsidy is there to promote the business to spend the money.

            The subsidy shouldn’t be paying for the whole cost. It is there to reduce the payback period to something that makes sense for the company ~5 years or less.

            If the government subsidized 30% of the cost, there would be some that would take it up. You would also limit it to a max installed capacity ~1GW - 2GW or so.

            • Dave@lemmy.nzM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              But if you have these huge industrial buildings, surely the company is not going to be able to justify covering the whole thing in panels then feeding back to the grid. They would only build what they needed to cover their usage, which is probably only a fraction of their roof.

              • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Depends on the industry…they can use a huge amount of power.

                But feeding into the grid is not always the goal, reducing the amount they consume is the same from an energy balance point of view.

                e.g. where I work, we have about 4 acres (16,000m^2) of suitable roof, we could generate approx 16MW, we draw ~3 - 4 times that from the grid constantly. During the generating time we would be taking 16MW less from the grid.

                • Dave@lemmy.nzM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Ah wow, yeah I can see that being a good idea.

                  I’ve always wondered why solar is popular in home use applications and not so popular in businesses. Since solar generates during the day, surely it makes sense to install for businesses whose peak usage is during the day, not residential whose peak usage is early morning or in the evening.

                  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Lots of reasons. Non-core business, long/uncertain payback (if power prices take a dive the payback extends), high upfront cost, a lot of regulation around feeding power into the grid.