Toodyay bushfires

[John Barker]

The recent Toodyay bushfires highlight some of the hidden costs of centralised electricity generation and distribution systems and the possible benefits of subsidising local PV-electric systems. FESA's preliminary estimate is $100 million. That could buy a lot of PV systems.

I used to own a small farm near Toodyay that did not have a mains electricity connection, although the power lines to adjoining properties went across my land. I was amazed at the span between the power poles- about 500 metres. The two wires would swing in the hot breezes with enormous tension put on the ageing poles. It was not difficult to imagine either the two wires touching or the wind loading bringing down a pole.

The distance between the poles is, of course, an attempt to keep down the cost of these grid extensions- which are about $10,000 per km. The trade-off between line costs and stand-alone systems has given rise to State subsidies for rural PV systems for many years.

Costs of PV systems has been declining dramatically in recent years- a rural residence could now be fitted with adequate PVs and battery storage for less than $20,000. The $100 million that has been lost in the Toodyay fires could buy 5,000 PV systems outright or 10,000 at a 50% subsidy that would make the systems directly cost-competive with mains power.

I have long advocated that single-residence PV systems should not be subsidised in the city- there are better ways of investing public money that will boost the PV market and help drive down prices. One of these ways is heavier subsidies for rural PV. This would be a better use of the "Royalties for Regions" funding than gold-bricking the streets of defunct country towns. Toodyay is one of the many rural areas in WA that are thriving through "tree changer" investment. Even the Premier, Colin Barnett, has a farm near Toodyay.

Dr John Barker
Adjunct Professor, School of Sustainability, Murdoch University
jedb...@iinet.net.au

[Peter McMahon]

Great stuff, John. It is clear that it is time to rethink the whole
rural electricty supply system as the infrastructure problem grows in
a context of increasing fire threat.This should be a hot topic for the
Nationals, especially as they have lots of money to spend due to
Royalties for Regions.
As for city pv, your point about scale is well taken but there are
other issues. One is the relative independence of having your own PV
array, the other is the psychology of doing something practical.
With all your experince of pv, do you think these things really
matter? And what about pv owners out there - even if it is not ideally
efficient to have pv on the roof, is it important to act as
individuals anyway?

> jedbar...@iinet.net.au

[Lee Hemsley]

Hi Peter and John

A mark of responsible government is to do the best possible within the budgetary limitations that one is given. So the people managing the government's investment in PV installation have to make a choice about where to install the PV's that they can buy with the budget they are given. If they install more PVs in suburban areas, they can't install as many in rural areas. 

Currently they seem to favour suburban areas, where there are more voters who can see from the PV's sprouting from roofs that the government really cares about the environment. 

However, John's argument for swinging the bulk of PV installation to rural areas could be seen by the government to have political advantages too, especially when linked to the emotive subject of bush fires. If the rural PV installations are going to be stand alone, with battery storage, then they could be made even sexier by incorporating ultra low energy use appliances as part of the package. A neat way of introducing these to the public. 

A well researched analysis of all the benefits, a catchy name, get the Nats onside, and the "Firesafe Autonomous Farms" PV program could be a winner by the next State election. 

It also gets rid of the emerging problem of "unsightly" PV's in high density suburban areas such as Subiaco. If you find that surprising, check out the latest Subi Post newspaper.

Lee Hemsley

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WA2020" group.
To post to this group, send an email to wa2...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wa2020+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wa2020?hl=en-GB.

[John Davis]

Although the rural renewable energy scheme is now closed, the WA government is still funding Remote Renewable Energy projects from what I can see. http://www.sedo.wa.gov.au/pages/rrpgp.asp

 

Lee points out a key aspect of these government programs, that there needs to be perceived value in influencing voters.

The WA Household Renewable Energy Scheme would have to be the biggest political eyewash in this field to date

http://www.sedo.wa.gov.au/pages/re_hres.asp

This Scheme offered rebates to West Australians who had already installed systems prior to its announcement (prior to July2009?). It even offered rebates on the amount for which applicants were out of pocket AFTER receiving the Commonwealth Rebate (up to $8000 at the time).

So this was a government throwing money away without having any leverage effect on household decisions whether to invest in PVs or not!

 

John Davis
Lecturer
School of Sustainability

---