Consumers sold down the river on solar savings

IN May 2009, I decided that with government support at that time I would get Ergon to install solar panels on my roof with the aim to reduce power costs.

After in- depth calculations, I decided on 18 panels and I was willing to pay $ 30,000 for the installation. With savings I would be able to pay them off over my lifetime and also improve the capital value of the property.

However, I should have allowed for government increases but I would never expect the State Government to transfer state expenditure to the electricity industry to allow for their poor management.

As a comparison in costs, during 2010 I generated 3251 units for $ 1430.44 and gave me a credit of $ 228.62 but by 2016 solar generated 3111 units for a credit of $ 1368.84 but the actual cost of electricity had risen to $ 2416.05, a debit of $ 1047.21. This shows the massive increase in tariff over seven years. It is no wonder people are suffering and much of it is due to government debt being paid for by the electricity users. In 2012, I was ceiving a small credit of $ 29.69.

It is interesting to follow the very energetic push by some political parties which want all coal- fired power stations shut down. They claim solar is cheaper than coal but forget to tell the nation that solar has a life of between 10 and 15 years and may reach 25 years but coal will last 50 years and hydro even longer. Therefore, it is possible solar units may need to be replaced two or three times in the life of a solar power station. Batteries still re- usually have short lives and I doubt they will last 50 years.

As for wind, the maintenance on windmills is reasonably high. Down south, the wind farm owners are complaining the wind has moved south of the continent and they are losing revenue. Once again efficiencies are as follows: Solar is 15 per cent; wind is 38 per cent; gas is 38 per cent; coal is 42 per cent; hydro is 90 per cent. GARTH HARRIGAN

Aitkenvale