Are you ready to quote? Enter your zip code now
Gina Rinehart, the mining tycoon and cattle queen, has once again focused on solar energy and seems to be collaborating with curious figures again.
In a speech on Sunday for National Agriculture and Related Industries Day 1, Ms. Reinhardt said the following:
"Well, I know that miles of solar panels need to be wiped down to be effective. The millions of carcasses of bats and birds, killed by wind power infrastructure, need to be collected and buried, and disposed of in some way. The old solar panel industry cannot find an economical way to dispose of millions of solar panels without government alms. These panels need to be replaced every 8 to 10 years to maintain their effectiveness, and they may be buried."
Wow, there is something to untie there. I will leave "millions of dead bats and birds" to the wind energy industry to deal with, but the solar-related part of that suffocating statement:
If solar panels need to be replaced every 8 to 10 years to remain effective, then they are waste panels.
There are two types of guarantees for solar panels-one for the product (process) and the other for performance. The performance guarantee guarantees that the performance of the panel will not drop beyond a certain point. Even on the cheap end of high-quality solar panels, the performance guarantee promises to exceed 80% of the original rated output of the panels *25 years later*.
Here are a few examples taken from the SolarQuotes solar panel comparison table:
In the 8th year, these panels will still retain approximately 96% of their original rated output. This is hardly a reason to send them to landfills.
If Ms. Reinhardt believes that solar panels need to be replaced in 8 to 10 years, it will undoubtedly exacerbate her "worries" about waste. But the fact is that some panels did enter the landfill during that time period or even earlier-inferior modules, accidental damage or modules left over from system upgrades.
Not that waste of solar panels is not a problem. But on the whole, this is not a big problem, but a challenge that is already being solved. With the progress of various recycling/reuse tasks and the increase of related activities.
In June of this year, the Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley told the Australian solar industry that it needs an industry-led national plan design to complete the proper disposal of solar panel waste by June next year. There is no mention of the handout-the cost may ultimately be borne by the end consumer.
Regardless of future recycling, as for how much space a pile of solar panels stripped from its precious aluminum frame will take up in the landfill-it may not be as much as you think.
Dust and dirt accumulated on the module will affect its performance, but in most cases, nature will clean the solar panels through rain.
In Australia’s dry and dusty areas, this cleaning process may not happen often-but this has not stopped companies from building large solar farms in these areas. If cleanliness is a problem that seriously affects profitability, they won't be there.
Ms. Reinhart also previously claimed that her hybrid solar power station at Fossil Downs in Kimberley, Western Australia proved uneconomical without subsidies (paywall). The $500,000 system consists of 136 solar panels, 45 lithium-ion batteries (145kWh) and a diesel generator.
Finn Peacock, the founder of SolarQuotes, estimates that its solar capacity is about 60 kilowatts, which saves about 100 liters of diesel per day on average. The cost of unsubsidized diesel (excluding delivery to inland areas) is approximately US$1.50 per liter, which can save approximately US$55,000 per year.
Finn hypothesized that if Ms. Rinehart installed a similar system on every property, then through economies of scale, the capital cost of the system could be reduced by at least 10%. And finance is currently very cheap.
Ms. Reinhardt said that she is not saying that industry should ask the government to provide more subsidies for the switch to renewable energy, but she is worried that "the rush to reduce emissions will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies." But this is already happening with diesel and gasoline-there are billions of subsidies every year.
The Fossil Downs device is a complex system with energy storage-the cost of using only solar energy is much lower, and battery storage will become cheaper in the next few years. For example, the current average cost of a 70kW solar system in Australia is about US$70,000, but the cost is expected to be higher in rural areas.
As for other businesses, farmers’ commercial solar energy is a very wise and easily available investment that can reduce emissions and farm electricity costs.
Michael discovered solar problems after purchasing modules in 2008 to piece together a small off-grid photovoltaic system. Since then, he has been covering Australian and international solar energy news.
From August 2, 2021, eligible Australian companies can apply for a fuel tax credit of up to A$0.433 per liter of diesel or gasoline for a series of prohibited activities. https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Fuel-schemes/Fuel-tax-credits—business/Rates—business/From-1-July-2021/
If Ms. Reinhardt is so worried about the taxpayer's subsidy cost, will she give up the fuel tax credit that she can claim for her business? 😉
Not sure if this will pass the mod, but...
Jeff, you confuse subsidies with rebates. If the purchased fuel is not used for driving on public roads, the company can apply for a tax refund.
Please also note that electric vehicles do not pay fuel tax for road maintenance.
George Kaplan, "...you confuse subsidies and rebates."
Subsidy [noun]: Funds provided by a government or organization to reduce the cost of producing food, products, etc., and to help keep prices low.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subsidy
Subsidies or government incentives are financial assistance or support extended to economic sectors (enterprises or individuals), and their purpose is usually to promote economic and social policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
The fuel tax credit is like the definition of a subsidy to me, even if the Productivity Commission says otherwise.
"...The fuel tax used to maintain roads."
Measured in the most generous way, motorists only contribute two-thirds of the cost of the road system. More specifically, about two-thirds of the fuel tax levied by the federal government is either refunded or returned to motorists in order to enjoy the tax benefits of car use.
https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/
Geoff, not semantics, this is a key difference.
Rebate: The amount returned to you because you paid too much.
Subsidies: Funds paid by the government or organizations to reduce the cost of services or production of goods, thereby keeping their prices at a low level.
Solar energy is subsidized, and fuel tax rebates are given to those who should not pay taxes on road use. They are completely different things. I'm not sure how this is unclear.
As for the tax benefits for car use, you will confuse FBT claims, which are limited to a few privileges, with actual work vehicles.
George Kaplan, you said in a previous post: "Australia’s energy self-sufficiency is a growing problem..." https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/tesla-ev-range-test -mb2228/#comment-1292346
Regardless of whether the Australian fuel tax credit is characterized by "subsidies" or "rebates" or whatever, I think fuel tax credits continue to encourage dependence on petroleum fuels.
George, what do you do when petroleum fuel inevitably prevents you from operating ICEV? Do you think this is impossible? https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/next-car-electric-mb2225/#comment-1294072
I suggest that Australia should do everything it can to quickly reduce its dependence on petroleum fuels in order to improve Australia’s energy security and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and pollution contributions.
"Also note that electric vehicles do not pay fuel taxes for road maintenance."
ICE vehicles will not pay for the damage they cause to the environment and health. If you want, you can think of the fuel tax as a pollution tax, in which case neither will have to pay for road maintenance.
Except for me-whenever I drive an electric car, I pay in Victoria-mainly by solar panels. Please also note that when I buy electricity from the grid, I also pay GST for it.
Fuel taxes should be used to pay for road expenses, but they are actually directly remitted to general income...so we have some of the worst roads in the world.
Speaking of naivety, or just lack of practical significance, who really believes in the most optimistic solar manufacturers, or thinks that solar panels can be effective without cleaning the panels or repairing damaged panels. Or I believe that at least some people are not trying to get rid of the millions of old solar panels that Australians are increasingly using through government charity. One thing is certain, the government rarely chooses suitable inventors as support! They are not spending their money, so they don't have to be careful, just say that they have already spent it. Look at the taxpayer! Sorry, I will listen to the advice of the head of Australia's most successful private company and the advice I heard from our colleagues in rural areas. They are authentic, know hard grafts, and are respected by me just like Reinhardt.
What I mean is that the peer-reviewed test standards and actual performance data do not need to make us "really believe", it's just facts. But yes, trust your "partner" and one of the most corrupt private companies in existence, if it can make you feel better.
Gina does not live in the real world, but only cheers on her agenda. If she really thinks her solar solution is not economical, she needs a new accountant (then why does she plan to build a 30 MW solar installation in Roy Hill to reduce emissions?). Obviously, she was seeking government alms, not spending her own private funds. As one of Australia's major polluters, her problem has become our problem because she said that climate change is all about propaganda. Smoke and mirrors...
Not that Gina will, but if she really reads this article, my 3kW 7-year-old rooftop solar system still outputs the same power as the new one. Unfortunately I can't post pictures, but the peak output after installation (more than 7 years ago) was 3305 watts. It reached a peak of 3303 watts last week.
So after 25 years, my rough calculations show that it will "loss" 8 watts (peak output). 8 watts off 3305 is 2997 watts. After so long, it's not bad for a 3kW system.
Please keep the SolarQuotes blog constructive and useful through the following 4 rules:
1. Preferred real name-you should be happy to add your name to your comment. 2. Put down the weapon. 3. Assume positive intentions. 4. If you are in the solar industry-try to understand the truth, not to sell. 5. Please keep the subject.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Read the "Solar Energy Guide" online for free!
Are you ready to get a solar quote?
Get up to 3 free quotes through our service
We carefully review all
Our installers and your quotations are zero obligations
Download the first chapter of the "Guide to Solar Energy" written by Finn Peacock, founder of SolarQuotes, for free! You will also begin to receive the SolarQuotes weekly newsletter to keep you informed about all the latest developments in the solar field in Australia.
We respect your privacy and you can opt out of the newsletter at any time.