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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess it comes down to businesses needing to justify expenses and consider opportunity costs (not just the cost of solar panels vs nothing, but what the return would be if they took that money and invested in some other area vs cost of solar panels).
Residential customers are more likely to do it even if the payback isn’t clear, because it sounds pretty good, they want to do it, and they have the money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shouldn’t those apply to residential too?
I guess it comes down to businesses needing to justify expenses and consider opportunity costs (not just the cost of solar panels vs nothing, but what the return would be if they took that money and invested in some other area vs cost of solar panels).
Residential customers are more likely to do it even if the payback isn’t clear, because it sounds pretty good, they want to do it, and they have the money.