While the solar industry continues its campaign against the new NSW state government, which in its first budget cut back further on subsidies to solar installations, another landmark event has passed with much less notice: various experts and analysts now put PV power cost at parity with the cost of buying electricity from the …
...tend to use most of their energy in the daytime, so should be able to get it done with a lot less energy storage need.
"But the big assumption in Ms Watts’ speech is that systems are at parity over a 25-year system life.
This is reasonable and defensible in terms of how long a PV system can be expected to function, but it may not reflect how long a customer might actually own a system, because of the frequency with which Australians move house."
Does it take into account that the inverter lasts for 10 years or less and is bloody expensive?
I'd like to see the spreadsheet with all the assumptions laid bare to see whether it really pans out realistically. To cover average usage you'd need a 3kW system (around AU$9000 subsidised), which results in a big pile of opportunity cost as that here-and-now cash disappears.
Wow, what did Daedalus in New Scientist call it .. Nominative Determinism?
"new NSW state government, which in its fist budget cut back further on subsidies to solar installations"
All those subsidies payed off then. In Oz at least. It's going to be a while before we reach parity in Blighty.