By: deemondo
16/05/2008
4:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deemondo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
THE solar power industry is predicting a dramatic decline in people installing solar panels, causing millions of dollars in lost business and job losses, after the Federal Government made it harder for households to receive an $8000 rebate.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett announced in the budget that only households earning less than $100,000 would qualify for the rebate, effective immediately.
It follows a surge in applications â up to seven times more a week, businesses say â since the Howard government doubled the rebate from $4000 to $8000 a year ago.
Solar retailers have reported mass cancellations of orders since the means test was announced on Tuesday night. Erik Zimmerman, chief executive of Rezeko, which installs panels to 50 homes in a suburb at a time at a cut price rate, said it would cost his business $1 million.
"In a suburb like Beaumaris, 71% of our customer base of 50 can no longer apply for the rebate," he said.
Mr Zimmerman accused the Government of short-sightedness, saying Rezeko might be forced to pull out of the household solar panel market after it filled outstanding orders.
He said the market was likely to stall, slowing the training of people in renewable energy industries and making it harder for Australia to reach its target of having one-fifth of energy from clean sources by 2020. "Prices over the past 12 months have dropped 30%. The risk is they will go up again," he said.
Adrian Ferraretto, managing director of national retailer Solar Shop Australia, estimated he would lose about 60% of his business, costing about $2 million a month and up to 50 jobs â half his workforce.
He said Mr Garrett's argument that the means test would make the solar rebate more equitable, directing funding to struggling households, missed the point. "It's about the environment, it's not about reducing the cost of electricity on poor people's homes. Their approach to this is totally misguided," he said.
He called for the reba ... |
|
By: deemondo
16/05/2008
4:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deemondo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
rebate to be reduced to $5000 but applied to everyone. Home solar systems cost between $13,000 and $22,000 before the rebate.
Mr Garrett said the Government was committed to the solar industry.
The Howard government allocated funding for 3000 solar rebates last financial year, but demand has risen from about 30 a week to about 300, which would push the annual uptake to 15,000. Funding has been allocated for 6000 rebates next financial year.
Mr Garrett said the Government was also introducing a "green loans" scheme from next year offering up to $10,000 each to 200,000 households to improve energy and water efficiency, including solar panels.
"We want to ensure that the solar rebates go to those that need them most," he said. "We believe there will be continued demand for the rebates with the new means test."
But Monash University senior lecturer Jeff McLean, who co-ordinates a management climate change course, said the means test was a retrograde public policy step.
"It would appear they are thinking of the rebate as middle-class welfare," he said. "What we need is to massively move to renewable energy. You can debate whether panels on roofs are the best way to go, but they are certainly a very public symbol of the move."
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt accused Labor of breaking an election promise, saying the change flew in the face of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's claim that climate change was the great moral challenge of our age.
Mr Hunt said it was clear the budget would "turn off the lights" on small businesses committed to helping Australians cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Electrical Trades Union state secretary Dean Mighell said his members were concerned their jobs would disappear and an industry critical to tackling climate change would fail.
Mr Garrett said the Government was also introducing a "green loans" scheme from next year offering up to $10,000 each to 200,000 households to improve energy and water efficiency, ... |
|
By: seereality
16/05/2008
5:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seereality Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mr Garrett said the Government was committed to the solar industry and I am sure they are.
But from what I have seen the Rudd government is also very responsible and not stupid.
deemondo the solar technology you are referring to happens to be outdated. The companies that have invested in this technology are trying to recoup fast as much money as possible.
I don't see the point that the Australian taxpayer should pay for they're misjudged investment.
New nanotechnology solar collectors will soon be on the market. They will be a fraction of the cost of a PV solar collector and have an efficiency of about 80%, guess that was a no brainier for Mr Garrett.
There are too many people out there that use the environment to make a fast buck usually they try to get our tax as well.
// |
|
By: longweekend58
16/05/2008
8:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<New nanotechnology solar collectors will soon be on the market. They will be a fraction of the cost of a PV solar collector and have an efficiency of about 80%, guess that was a no brainier for Mr Garrett.
>
whoop-de-do. changes nothing. these new collectors wont be installed much without the rebate. You are technology-driven not needs-driven. The point of the complaint is that the govt has taken an axe to a renewable energy system yet tries to trumpet its environmental claims. the very people who WERE prepared to pay for solar collectors are now not doing so.
Very dumb! |
|
By: seereality
16/05/2008
9:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seereality Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| you want need a rebate. They will cost less then 20% of a normal PV setup. |
|
By: longweekend58
16/05/2008
9:20 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<you want need a rebate. They will cost less then 20% of a normal PV setup.>
they are not available yet so that is fanciful at best. But please, dont lower yourself to defending the govt's decision on environmental grounds. They ditched the rebate to 'wealthy people' despite the fact that only the 'wealthy' were doing it. It was a triumph of ideology over common sense. |
|
By: deemondo
16/05/2008
9:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deemondo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| means testing is wat im saying if its outdated why continue with rebates to a select few |
|
By: longweekend58
16/05/2008
10:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| it was ideology - nothing more. Labor hates those who are well off since they represent mostly the illinformed, the uneducated and the unmotivated. |
|
By: nedwin05
16/05/2008
11:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
âdeemondo the solar technology you are referring to happens to be outdated. The companies that have invested in this technology are trying to recoup fast as much money as possible.
I don't see the point that the Australian taxpayer should pay for they're misjudged investment.â
You clearly donât know what you are talking about. These installation companies do not warehouse this technology. They buy it as they need it.
âNew nanotechnology solar collectors will soon be on the market. They will be a fraction of the cost of a PV solar collector and have an efficiency of about 80%, guess that was a no brainier for Mr Garrett.â
They will be available, but not for the public. They will be sold first to corporate utilities for base load use.
âThere are too many people out there that use the environment to make a fast buck usually they try to get our tax as well.â
Like the $9billion a year thatâs fed into the fossil fuel industry you mean? |
|
By: nedwin05
16/05/2008
11:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"whoop-de-do. changes nothing. these new collectors wont be installed much without the rebate. You are technology-driven not needs-driven. The point of the complaint is that the govt has taken an axe to a renewable energy system yet tries to trumpet its environmental claims. the very people who WERE prepared to pay for solar collectors are now not doing so.
Very dumb!"
I can't believe I am agreeing with LW. But I am prepared to call a spade a spade. This is a really bad policy decision.
How can you look like you're doing something for climate change? Don't take away the rebate. How can you save money doing so? Make it harder to get for the people who are actually using it.
6000 systems? They'll be lucky to install 1000 this year. |
|
By: emucorp
16/05/2008
11:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
emucorp Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Labor hates those who are well off since they represent mostly the illinformed, the uneducated and the unmotivated.
I think that's unfair. I know a couple of people who - whilst they are well off - aren't illinformed, uneducated or unmotivated. |
|
By: nedwin05
16/05/2008
11:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"you want need a rebate. They will cost less then 20% of a normal PV setup."
They won't be available to the general public because the technology is in high demand and the supply is weak. They can only supply the utility market in places like Germany at the moment.
At any rate, if you think the reason they did this is to hold out for nanosolar technology you really are gullible. They probably don't even know about it. |
|
By: emucorp
16/05/2008
11:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
emucorp Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I read/heard somewhere that the carbon 'footprint' required to produce solar panel is greater than the potential benefit it provides. Does anyone know if this is true/urban myth? |
|
By: nedwin05
16/05/2008
11:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"they are not available yet so that is fanciful at best. But please, dont lower yourself to defending the govt's decision on environmental grounds. They ditched the rebate to 'wealthy people' despite the fact that only the 'wealthy' were doing it. It was a triumph of ideology over common sense."
I have to agree LW. I work closely with this industry and with one of the leading companys.
The means test is far too low. At $150k it may have been more acceptable.
Some systems can now be purchased for $9500 before rebates and people earning more than $150k may have been able to afford this.
However, that $9500 ($1500 after rebates) price is only possible by the volume purchase of thousands of systems at a time.
Without people earning over $100k purchasing these systems anymore, the price will go up and people earning less than $100k won't get to pay $1500 after rebates anymore, more like $5000k. So the whole policy is just dumb.
They clearly didn't consult the industry to see how the market worked. What a failure. |
|
By: nedwin05
16/05/2008
11:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"The Howard government allocated funding for 3000 solar rebates last financial year, but demand has risen from about 30 a week to about 300, which would push the annual uptake to 15,000. Funding has been allocated for 6000 rebates next financial year."
But that's the trick isn't it Mr Garrett? You won't need to fund 6000 systems because only about 1000 will get sold.
Because of this policy the price of Solar will now rise. If your aim was to make more solar available for people on lower incomes you've just made the price go up for them because the price was coming down because of the increasing sales being made and allowing companies like the one I work with buy in bulk and offer low prices into the market.
Do I really have to vote liberal? What a choice! |
|
By: juliewoo40
16/05/2008
11:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
juliewoo40 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think you'll find emu it's a great big fat furry myth, probably started by the oil companies if the truth be told. |
|
By: emucorp
16/05/2008
11:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
emucorp Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| LOL OK ... it did sound strange. |
|
By: lefowlerau
17/05/2008
12:25 am Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I agree that this is a retrograde step. The whole point of the rebate was to make solar power more attractive to the consumer, no matter what their earning power.
It matters little to the environment whether carbon emissions are coming from a wealthy household or a not-so-wealthy household. It doesn't take a climatologist to figure that one out.
If the new technology is available only for retailers to purchase from the grid, it will reduce the oppurtunity for individual households to generate their own power and even to offset bills by selling excess electricity back to the grid trough an invertor meter, meaning more profits for the distributor and retailer. I can only assume that they would be rather happy about this. Can't see the consumer being overly chuffed about it.
Maybe Nelson should ignore the alcopop and fuel arguements and attempt to use the Lib numbers in the senate to block this rather sloppy policy. |
|
By: nedwin05
17/05/2008
12:45 am Yahoo! Profile:
nedwin05 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Maybe Nelson should ignore the alcopop and fuel arguements and attempt to use the Lib numbers in the senate to block this rather sloppy policy."
If anything is going to catch labor out as being pretenders this will. |
|
By: thelastnail
17/05/2008
1:33 am Yahoo! Profile:
thelastnail Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
By: seereality
There are too many people out there that use the environment to make a fast buck usually they try to get our tax as well.
************************* *********************
What another pathetic excuse from a coal sapping loser :(
Can we use this same reasoning not to waste 500 million in tax payers dollars on the never-ever clean coal technology when there are already pilot solar thermal power plants that can supply base load power and within 5 years, 1 gigawatt plants that will be a commerical reality ;)
The Government should withdraw this funding from the dirty coal industry which is awash with money and can afford to fund its own cleanup operations rather than being a burden on the taxpayer and the environment :(
Of course you can see the Labor and Liberal sellouts in the back pocket of the coal industry :( |
|
By: taipan_western
17/05/2008
7:37 am Yahoo! Profile:
taipan_western Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Original message
By: emucorp
Yesterday (11:29 pm)
Re:so much for solar,garret blows it (PREVIEW)
Labor hates those who are well off since they represent mostly the illinformed, the uneducated and the unmotivated.
I think that's unfair. I know a couple of people who - whilst they are well off - aren't illinformed, uneducated or unmotivated.
========================= ========================= =========
If they voted for Dud they voted for "words" not substance so they are ill informed, uneducated and unmotivated. |
|
By: mrsron1
17/05/2008
7:51 am Yahoo! Profile:
mrsron1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Garrett creeps me out...he should stick to singing...then I can turn him off! |
|
By: ialwayspoor
17/05/2008
7:58 am Yahoo! Profile:
ialwayspoor Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Original message
By: juliewoo40
Yesterday (11:45 pm)
Re:so much for solar,garret blows it (PREVIEW)
I think you'll find emu it's a great big fat furry myth, probably started by the oil companies if the truth be told.
========================= ========================= =========
I think you will find BP [the oil company] is the largest manufactures of solar panels in the world. |
|
By: ifb1957au
17/05/2008
8:36 am Yahoo! Profile:
ifb1957au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
So anyone on a combined income of just over $100,000 is so well of they can afford to keep paying rudds inflated interest rates and pay back another loan to the government. Just shows how little Rudd understands how hard the battlers are doing in Aus, and how little are labors concerns for the environment! Pensioners and those on very little income should recieve 100% rebate and be proportionately decreased to nil at around $200,000.
As for Garrett all talk and no action and only interested in matters that are popularist, I wonder how many Oil fans consider him true to his word or have become aware it was all BS to sell records and make money!!
(My Oild CDs now live in some landfill where they belong) |
|
By: deemondo
17/05/2008
8:54 am Yahoo! Profile:
deemondo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| i would like to say that crude hit a record high overnight,also that condosate oil from wa wich was not taxed by libs has now attracted a 200 million per annum tax from labour this is a by product and is used and sold as such the tax hike will reflect in the cost of cooking gas as the company will not carry it.this will effectt all ppls not just the middle incomes,the company became aware of it in budget night no consoltation from goverment |
|
