Comments on: Solar Hot Water – Not Expensive

By: chary

chary — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:49:49 +0000

…the solar hot-water rebate could cost the government $4 billion over the course of the scheme (the next 10 years). This sounds like a lot of money until you think about the 9 billion dollars a year that the government spends on subsidies for the coal, oil, and gas industries! On the current course the government would spend 90 billion dollars of our tax money subsidising polluting industries that cause climate change, but Matthew opposes spending 4 billion subsidising technology that prevents pollution and reduces climate change…
Most of us do splurge on luxuries where we never do any cost/benefit analysis. If one puts a value to to the social benefits the picture would change a great deal.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:55:49 +0000

Perhaps it is necessary to include depreciation in the calculation, the HWS will not last forever – perhaps a 10 year lie is typical, maybe longer. But this will reduce the IRR (or discount rate). I like your thinking – all these decision basically boil down to economics – how can I get the hot water I need for the least cost ($, CO2, noise, …). Solar Hot Water may have a role to play here, although modern heat pump systems are also very competitive. Unfortunately far too many associated with ‘alternative’ energy are badly clouded by wishful thinking. For example argueing for subsidied or domestic soler electricity is presently only justifiable as an ‘encouragement’ for the PV industry, while some other systems are viable.
The main point is ‘how much does this cost us overall’. Government programs that reward (or force) solutions just because they have the word ‘solar’ in them are however a farce.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:30:38 +0000

Matthew Warren obviously thinks his readers are dumbed down consumers.

“lift your game Matthew….and join the real world”