Is solar an alternative to going nuclear?

Inner Western Suburbs Courier
Tuesday 28/11/2006, Page: 32

Incentives key to solving the power predicament, Dave Berick writes.


The sun is shining on Balmain resident Cornelius Van Der Weyden. Three months ago, Mr Van Der Weyden installed 18 photovoltaic panels on his roof. "We decided we could afford it and we wanted to do something for our children and grandchildren," he said.

Mr Van Der Weyden expects the panels, which convert sunlight into electricity, to halve his dependence on power coming from the main grid. Not only that, Mr Van Der Weyden's roof has become a mini power station. Each day, any surplus power is sold back to the electricity providers. Last quarter, he received $73 return on his electricity bill.

But the real winner is the environment. The panels, if you factor in their 30-year lifespan, stop the equivalent of 130 tonnes of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Climate change has become a big issue in Australia, fuelled by images of the current drought and apocalyptic warnings from economists, scientists and film-makers.

The question is then, why aren't more Australians taking up solar? The answer is in the bottom line: solar remains incredibly expensive to set up. It cost Mr Van Der Weyden, even with the $4000 rebate from the Federal Government, $24,000 to install his system.

Markus Lambert from Conergy, a renewable energy company, said the problem was the poor price energy companies paid solar owners for the electricity they funnel back into the grid. Currently, solar homeowners are paid 12 cents per kilowatt hour, the same price that comes from conventional power plants. Most households use this money to pay for their systems, but because of its undervaluation, it can take upwards of 30 years to get a return on their investment, Mr Lambert said.

"There's no incentive for people to put solar on their roof," he said. "It's just too expensive." To make solar more attractive, Australia needed a "feed-in tariff", the concept powering Germany's remarkable growth in renewable energy, he said.

Called the EEG law, the tariff was imposed by the German Government on all electricity consumers (industry is exempted), guaranteeing and rewarding homes with a high price (45 cents per kilowatt hour) for their solar energy. Power companies, forced to buy renewable energy at elevated costs, shift the costs back onto ordinary consumers, who, in turn, are encouraged to put in their own renewable systems, creating more jobs and power.

Since it was brought in, the EEG law has revolutionised how Germany meets its energy needs. Currently, wind, solar and biomass account for 10 per cent of Germany's power, and this is expected to grow to 20-25 per cent as nuclear power is phased out over the next decade.

In Australia, the Federal Government is currently deciding how it will secure the country's future energy production, while reducing carbon emissions. Recently, solar has come back on the Government's radar. In May, the rebate for solar panels was extended to 2007, and in October, the Government committed $75 million to build a huge solar factory in rural Victoria.

And the rollout hasn't stopped there. This month the Government, in conjunction with BP Solar and Integral Energy, unveiled a $15 million investment to convert Blacktown into a solar city.

But the Government has made it clear Australia's future base power will be met by exploiting cleaner fossil fuels, not renewable energy. Speaking at the Solar City launch in Blacktown, the Prime Minister, John Howard, said: "If you want to produce base-load power, the cheapest and most immediate way of doing it is of course to use existing coal, and in some cases gas.

"Now solar and wind power have a significant role, but on all the advice I have, solar power can't replace power stations, it can't provide base load power generation. It can provide peak power, it can provide an augmentation, and a very significant one to the contribution made by coal fired power stations, so it will have a role. But I believe very strongly that if we are serious about this issue, we have to look at the nuclear option".

Last week a taskforce appointed by the Federal Government recommended nuclear as a "green" energy option - even though the 25 plants won't come online until at least 2020. Ultimately, the Government is pinning its hopes on developing clean-coal technology, such as carbon capture and storage, and efficient brown coal drying plants, like the pilot project under way at Hazlewood in Victoria.

And as this technology is more expensive, the cheapness of coal will be eroded, making nuclear much more financially competitive.

But former chair of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Mahalath Halperin said the Government was paying lip service to solar power. "As they say, you can't spell Coalition without coal;" she said. "It's obvious that a feed-in tariff would create a viable, workable solar industry; all it takes a bit of political will power.

Unfortunately our Government listens to a very strong fossil fuel lobby group."