solar plant to supply electricity to railways?

[PeFe]

I have a question (for someone more technically minded than me, or someone who is prepared to do a lot more internet research than me) but has the South Australian government ever considered building an industrial size solar plant (say 50kw) to supply electricity to the tram or the newly electrified Seaford train line?
I don't mean a solar power plant that supplies all electricity to these lines, but rather a solar facility that can act as a feeder during daylight hours bringing down the electricity costs associated with the tram(for example). Similar to what the average person does with their solar roof panels, invest in local electricity generation where you regain the capital cost over 7/8 years and then you enjoy the benefits of free electricity during the day for the next 16 years.
I believe 5kw (for home solar) costs around $10,000 so I am guessing a 50 kw industrial plant would cost around 100k...

[Goodsy]

I have a question (for someone more technically minded than me, or someone who is prepared to do a lot more internet research than me) but has the South Australian government ever considered building an industrial size solar plant (say 50kw) to supply electricity to the tram or the newly electrified Seaford train line?
I don't mean a solar power plant that supplies all electricity to these lines, but rather a solar facility that can act as a feeder during daylight hours bringing down the electricity costs associated with the tram(for example). Similar to what the average person does with their solar roof panels, invest in local electricity generation where you regain the capital cost over 7/8 years and then you enjoy the benefits of free electricity during the day for the next 16 years.
I believe 5kw (for home solar) costs around $10,000 so I am guessing a 50 kw industrial plant would cost around 100k...

But South Australia is already producing a surplus of electricity

[muzzamo]

I have a question (for someone more technically minded than me, or someone who is prepared to do a lot more internet research than me) but has the South Australian government ever considered building an industrial size solar plant (say 50kw) to supply electricity to the tram or the newly electrified Seaford train line?
I don't mean a solar power plant that supplies all electricity to these lines, but rather a solar facility that can act as a feeder during daylight hours bringing down the electricity costs associated with the tram(for example). Similar to what the average person does with their solar roof panels, invest in local electricity generation where you regain the capital cost over 7/8 years and then you enjoy the benefits of free electricity during the day for the next 16 years.
I believe 5kw (for home solar) costs around $10,000 so I am guessing a 50 kw industrial plant would cost around 100k...

Most of your assumptions here are incorrect.

In its current form Solar does not bring down electricity costs, and is a far more expensive option than Coal. This gap is even larger when you take into account the distribution networks that need to be in place and paid for in order for people to continue to be able to receive electricity when it is not sunny.

The "average person" receives subsidies that make it appear that Solar is cheaper, but someone else is actually paying these subsidies (other electricity consumers). Its effectively a transfer of wealth from those who don't have solar to those who do - not that different to a centerlink handout between those who pay tax and those who don't.

I'm not against Solar at all - but it needs to be able to pay its own way and stand up to coal on a cost/KWh basis, including network distribution costs or onsite energy storage for when it is not sunny, before any commercial entity will seriously consider using it, as they don't get the handout/subsidy that your "average person" will get. There are a lot of very smart people working on making solar more efficient (using nanotechnology for example) and for solving the problem of on-site or off-site energy storage for non-sunny periods, using a multitude of methods.

[PeFe]

[Most of your assumptions here are incorrect.

In its current form Solar does not bring down electricity costs, and is a far more expensive option than Coal. This gap is even larger when you take into account the distribution networks that need to be in place and paid for in order for people to continue to be able to receive electricity when it is not sunny.

The "average person" receives subsidies that make it appear that Solar is cheaper, but someone else is actually paying these subsidies (other electricity consumers). Its effectively a transfer of wealth from those who don't have solar to those who do - not that different to a centerlink handout between those who pay tax and those who don't.

I'm not against Solar at all - but it needs to be able to pay its own way and stand up to coal on a cost/KWh basis, including network distribution costs or onsite energy storage for when it is not sunny, before any commercial entity will seriously consider using it, as they don't get the handout/subsidy that your "average person" will get. There are a lot of very smart people working on making solar more efficient (using nanotechnology for example) and for solving the problem of on-site or off-site energy storage for non-sunny periods, using a multitude of methods.

Wow, I thought I thought I was asking a question about (limited) solar power generation in relation to transport use.....but instead its a coal v solar argument so here goes.......
So people who have solar roof panels don't have lower electricity bills? Yes there is a subsidy in the initial installation cost of the roof panels but after that the consumer is on their own, you pay for the maintenance of the panels etc. Yes the electricity companies pay the cost of transporting home solar power back into the grid, a 10 metre cable back to the street lines.
My last electricity bill cost me 47c per kw/hr. A friend of mine has solar panels on her roof but she only gets 6c per kw/hr (this is Sydney by the way) from the power she exports back into the grid......that is a pretty substantial markup in anyone's world.

This gap is even larger when you take into account the distribution networks that need to be in place and paid for in order for people to continue to be able to receive electricity when it is not sunny.

I don't understand what you are saying here....solar is not overloading the network, it is merely a source for the network. I have never heard of any energy company in Australia building major infrastructure because of home solar......maybe with the advent of larger solar generating facilities in the ACT and Moree there will be more infrastructure needed.
Energy companies all over Australia though have been accused of "gold plating" their networks.ie increasing the size of the poles and wires to cover future needs where we all turn our air-conditioners on at 4pm on a hot summers afternoon at the same time as industry is guzzling down its peak energy needs from energy generated at a few big power stations.
....this is how things worked last century....but not now, home solar panels have changed all that......peak hour for electricity in summer in Adelaide is now after 8pm..why?..because of all those solar rooftop panels generating electricity for their owners and sending excess back into the grid and peak industry demands stops at 6pm so there is no longer a crossover. I remember Adelaide in the 80's having power blackouts at 3pm when the temperature was only 38 because the system couldn't cope with energy demands.

In its current form Solar does not bring down electricity costs, and is a far more expensive option than Coal.

That was not the question...if Adelaide Metro spends $100,000 on building a solar power station and cuts its annual electricity cost by say 15%, eventually the solar power station will pay for itself and in the long run will save the company money.
Will there be coal fired power stations in 20 years?.......I seriously doubt it .....My analogy would be telephones.....the mobile phone is gradually wiping out landlines and I see renewable energy gradually displacing fossil fuel mega power stations.

[Torrens_5022]

Wind Power is one of the major sources of electricity in SA http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/me ... ecord.html
Coal may seem "cheaper" to some people but it has future implications. Renewable energy is good, maybe feed in the energy from the solar panels from properties lining the rail corridor.

[muzzamo]

rant

What you asked for was for someone more technically minded than you to provide an answer. I'm an engineer currently working in the energy markets analysis space for a major utility, so I think I can answer.

Rooftop photovoltaic is only economically feasible in very, very niche areas. Outside of those areas, it needs subsidies. Eventually this may change as the efficiency of cells increases and the cost of cells drop but keep in mind that the owners of any installations that are connected to the grid will need to contribute to the maintenance of that grid - otherwise it is just a further subsidy.

In short - if it were feasible for industry - and this includes the state government - to power everything with rooftop photovoltaic solar, they would be doing so already. There are a few niches but those places outside of these niches in government and industry that do use rooftop solar - e.g. the Adelaide Central Markets - do so for political/environmental, rather than economical reasons. By the way the idea of a carbon tax is to increase the cost of carbon intensive energy so that it has a closer price to renewable energy.

To summarize:

That was not the question...if Adelaide Metro spends $100,000 on building a solar power station and cuts its annual electricity cost by say 15%, eventually the solar power station will pay for itself and in the long run will save the company money.

Why do you think that every company is not doing this to cut their power? If you think they are wrong not to be doing this, maybe there is a business opportunity for you to do it for them?

[monotonehell]

The "average person" receives subsidies that make it appear that Solar is cheaper, but someone else is actually paying these subsidies (other electricity consumers)...

Can you provide some references to back up this claim? Especially considering the amount that solar is subsidised compared to the amount that coal and gas are subsidised? Not just limited to the feedback loop on people's power bills, but the big picture with respect to government subsidies to those industries (which we all pay in the form of tax).

Why do you think that every company is not doing this to cut their power?

Capex.

[Aidan]

I have a question (for someone more technically minded than me, or someone who is prepared to do a lot more internet research than me) but has the South Australian government ever considered building an industrial size solar plant (say 50kw) to supply electricity to the tram or the newly electrified Seaford train line?

No they haven't.

I don't mean a solar power plant that supplies all electricity to these lines, but rather a solar facility that can act as a feeder during daylight hours bringing down the electricity costs associated with the tram(for example).

So it's really got very little to do with the trains and trams and you want to know if they've considered generating electricity. But they got out of the electricity generating business when the Libs were in power, and they've been reluctant to get back in, partly because of an irrational fear of debt.

Similar to what the average person does with their solar roof panels, invest in local electricity generation where you regain the capital cost over 7/8 years and then you enjoy the benefits of free electricity during the day for the next 16 years.
I believe 5kw (for home solar) costs around $10,000 so I am guessing a 50 kw industrial plant would cost around 100k...

It would be better for the government to go with solar thermal, as that has a greater potential to reduce peak electricity prices.

[Aidan]

Muzzamo, if you're really an engineer then you'll know that your own argument hinges on assumptions, the most important of which is the discount rate. Solar power has a high setup cost and a low running cost. Coal has a lower setup cost and a higher running cost. Therefore which is cheaper depends on what discount rate you use to compare them. So what rate are you using and why?

Also you're assuming coal, but SA uses more gas than coal. And gas prices are rising which could lead to higher electricity prices. So what assumptions are you making about fuel prices?

[muzzamo]

I'll try my best:

Residential solar subsidies come in two forms:
* Subsidised feed in tarrifs (relatively self explanatory)
* Non payment of network charges, this is where the real free kick for residents lies: residential panels are "behind the meter". This means that they not only feed excess capacity back into the grid, but they also save the resident from consuming power from the grid because the resident is using their own solar power. The issue here is that, while retail charging is complex, network charges can represent half or more of the end user cost of electricity. Unless they have gone off the grid (requiring investment in batteries etc), the connection still needs to exist, and there is an expectation of it to be able to provide a peak level of electricity, and someone needs to pay for it. Gold plating aside (the regulator will handle this if they are doing their job correctly), the cost of providing the network is a relatively fixed cost, but the total cost is shared by a smaller number of users - those who don't have panels will need to pay a higher percentage of the total cost of maintaining the network compared to those who do. This cross subsidy is, by the way, by and large not available to most commercial electricity users. If the government or some other commercial entity placed solar stations along the train line, as you propose, they would be "in front of the meter" and wouldn't save on network charges.

I still challenge you to run this through the sanity test that I proposed above: If it were feasible for businesses to generate their own electricity using photovoltaic instead of buying from the grid, and the panels "paid for themselves", don't you think they would all be doing it?

[monotonehell]

I'll try my best:

Residential solar subsidies come in two forms:
* Subsidised feed in tarrifs (relatively self explanatory)
* Non payment of network charges, this is where the real free kick for residents lies: residential panels are "behind the meter". This means that they not only feed excess capacity back into the grid, but they also save the resident from consuming power from the grid because the resident is using their own solar power. The issue here is that, while retail charging is complex, network charges can represent half or more of the end user cost of electricity. Unless they have gone off the grid (requiring investment in batteries etc), the connection still needs to exist, and there is an expectation of it to be able to provide a peak level of electricity, and someone needs to pay for it. Gold plating aside (the regulator will handle this if they are doing their job correctly), the cost of providing the network is a relatively fixed cost, but the total cost is shared by a smaller number of users - those who don't have panels will need to pay a higher percentage of the total cost of maintaining the network compared to those who do. This cross subsidy is, by the way, by and large not available to most commercial electricity users. If the government or some other commercial entity placed solar stations along the train line, as you propose, they would be "in front of the meter" and wouldn't save on network charges.

You're still looking at the small picture, not the big picture. Subsidies happening within the closed loop of the artificial electricity "market" taken ceterus paribus puts a major slant on any conversation. Take a step back and look also at government subsidies to each sector, then you start to see the real costs involved. Since last night I've taken a cursory look and it seems the renewables sector sees 4% of government subsidies and produces 6-8% of the power in Australia; the other 96% goes to coal/gas production.

I still challenge you to run this through the sanity test that I proposed above: If it were feasible for businesses to generate their own electricity using photovoltaic instead of buying from the grid, and the panels "paid for themselves", don't you think they would all be doing it?

Like I said above, Capital Expenditure. Putting money into a solar setup is not treated the same way (assets) for tax purposes as paying an electricity supplier (expenses).

[Aidan]

I'll try my best:

Residential solar subsidies come in two forms:
* Subsidised feed in tarrifs (relatively self explanatory)
* Non payment of network charges, this is where the real free kick for residents lies: residential panels are "behind the meter". This means that they not only feed excess capacity back into the grid, but they also save the resident from consuming power from the grid because the resident is using their own solar power. The issue here is that, while retail charging is complex, network charges can represent half or more of the end user cost of electricity. Unless they have gone off the grid (requiring investment in batteries etc), the connection still needs to exist, and there is an expectation of it to be able to provide a peak level of electricity, and someone needs to pay for it. Gold plating aside (the regulator will handle this if they are doing their job correctly), the cost of providing the network is a relatively fixed cost, but the total cost is shared by a smaller number of users - those who don't have panels will need to pay a higher percentage of the total cost of maintaining the network compared to those who do.

So if someone gets a gas hot water system installed to replace their electric one, would you then regard their electricity as subsidized?

[muzzamo]

So if someone gets a gas hot water system installed to replace their electric one, would you then regard their electricity as subsidized?

That's an interesting thought experiment - you could possibly say the same about someone who simply buys more efficient appliances that uses less electricity. The answer is that network costs need to be more fairly charged, somehow based on capacity rather than usage.

This is deviating from the O.P though. The question essentially was: why don't businesses buy solar panels, since they "pay themselves off". The answer lies in the fact that they don't get the free kick from other other residents in the form of cross subsidised network connection.

[Aidan]

So if someone gets a gas hot water system installed to replace their electric one, would you then regard their electricity as subsidized?

That's an interesting thought experiment - you could possibly say the same about someone who simply buys more efficient appliances that uses less electricity. The answer is that network costs need to be more fairly charged, somehow based on capacity rather than usage.

That's not the answer, that's just the rhetoric! The real answer is that utilities shouldn't expect a quick payoff on their investments. Where infrastructure has a hundred year lifespan, they shouldn't try to pay it off in ten.

This is deviating from the O.P though. The question essentially was: why don't businesses buy solar panels, since they "pay themselves off". The answer lies in the fact that they don't get the free kick from other other residents in the form of cross subsidised network connection.

At most that's only half the answer. The other half is that they're debt averse and/or they don't have access to the cheap capital that would make it profitable unsubsidized.