I think people are generally more supportive of subsidies for individuals rather than businesses. You could subsidise building a massive array of solar panels on a big rooftop but what happens next? Does the company that owns the building own the panels? Does the government pay for the panels and give the building free power as payment for using the roof?
If the govt just gave them money and the company owned the panels, it might be seen as handouts to companies.
The company would own it, a subsidy is there to promote the business to spend the money.
The subsidy shouldn’t be paying for the whole cost. It is there to reduce the payback period to something that makes sense for the company ~5 years or less.
If the government subsidized 30% of the cost, there would be some that would take it up. You would also limit it to a max installed capacity ~1GW - 2GW or so.
But if you have these huge industrial buildings, surely the company is not going to be able to justify covering the whole thing in panels then feeding back to the grid. They would only build what they needed to cover their usage, which is probably only a fraction of their roof.
Depends on the industry…they can use a huge amount of power.
But feeding into the grid is not always the goal, reducing the amount they consume is the same from an energy balance point of view.
e.g. where I work, we have about 4 acres (16,000m^2) of suitable roof, we could generate approx 16MW, we draw ~3 - 4 times that from the grid constantly. During the generating time we would be taking 16MW less from the grid.
I’ve always wondered why solar is popular in home use applications and not so popular in businesses. Since solar generates during the day, surely it makes sense to install for businesses whose peak usage is during the day, not residential whose peak usage is early morning or in the evening.
Lots of reasons. Non-core business, long/uncertain payback (if power prices take a dive the payback extends), high upfront cost, a lot of regulation around feeding power into the grid.
I guess it comes down to businesses needing to justify expenses and consider opportunity costs (not just the cost of solar panels vs nothing, but what the return would be if they took that money and invested in some other area vs cost of solar panels).
Residential customers are more likely to do it even if the payback isn’t clear, because it sounds pretty good, they want to do it, and they have the money.
Yep, solar on residential doesn’t make much sense unless you can load match your generation.
If you have people home during the day and run your aircon anyway. Maybe heat your hot water during the sunniest period. Maybe charge your electric car (if you have one at home).
If the regulations change to incentivize feed in to the grid, this can make it make sense, but it needs to be at least 80% of what you pay per unit; there are grid matching solar inverters that will do the matching for you.
Just to jump in here, residential solar makes a lot of sense for natural disaster resiliency. Your system would need to be sized to cover your bases in winter, but NZers should expect to experience days without power in a future where more Cyclone Gabrielle’s will occur. That’s why adding battery storage is a key part of it too.
I think people are generally more supportive of subsidies for individuals rather than businesses. You could subsidise building a massive array of solar panels on a big rooftop but what happens next? Does the company that owns the building own the panels? Does the government pay for the panels and give the building free power as payment for using the roof?
If the govt just gave them money and the company owned the panels, it might be seen as handouts to companies.
The company would own it, a subsidy is there to promote the business to spend the money.
The subsidy shouldn’t be paying for the whole cost. It is there to reduce the payback period to something that makes sense for the company ~5 years or less.
If the government subsidized 30% of the cost, there would be some that would take it up. You would also limit it to a max installed capacity ~1GW - 2GW or so.
But if you have these huge industrial buildings, surely the company is not going to be able to justify covering the whole thing in panels then feeding back to the grid. They would only build what they needed to cover their usage, which is probably only a fraction of their roof.
Depends on the industry…they can use a huge amount of power.
But feeding into the grid is not always the goal, reducing the amount they consume is the same from an energy balance point of view.
e.g. where I work, we have about 4 acres (16,000m^2) of suitable roof, we could generate approx 16MW, we draw ~3 - 4 times that from the grid constantly. During the generating time we would be taking 16MW less from the grid.
Ah wow, yeah I can see that being a good idea.
I’ve always wondered why solar is popular in home use applications and not so popular in businesses. Since solar generates during the day, surely it makes sense to install for businesses whose peak usage is during the day, not residential whose peak usage is early morning or in the evening.
Lots of reasons. Non-core business, long/uncertain payback (if power prices take a dive the payback extends), high upfront cost, a lot of regulation around feeding power into the grid.
Shouldn’t those apply to residential too?
I guess it comes down to businesses needing to justify expenses and consider opportunity costs (not just the cost of solar panels vs nothing, but what the return would be if they took that money and invested in some other area vs cost of solar panels).
Residential customers are more likely to do it even if the payback isn’t clear, because it sounds pretty good, they want to do it, and they have the money.
Yep, solar on residential doesn’t make much sense unless you can load match your generation.
If you have people home during the day and run your aircon anyway. Maybe heat your hot water during the sunniest period. Maybe charge your electric car (if you have one at home).
If the regulations change to incentivize feed in to the grid, this can make it make sense, but it needs to be at least 80% of what you pay per unit; there are grid matching solar inverters that will do the matching for you.
Just to jump in here, residential solar makes a lot of sense for natural disaster resiliency. Your system would need to be sized to cover your bases in winter, but NZers should expect to experience days without power in a future where more Cyclone Gabrielle’s will occur. That’s why adding battery storage is a key part of it too.
Battery storage for residential solar is getting popular, though this of course comes with additional cost that you then need to offset.
I’d like solar, and I don’t really care if it has good payback so long as it’s roughly break even. I’m part of the problem 😆