Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Lord of Planar]

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the estimate subsidies for fossil fuel is 5.3 trillion dollars a year.

That is absolutely not true.

Look at the definition of "subsidy" and try to replicate their number. You wont be able to. Don't use any dictionary, use a reputable one like Merriam Webster.

There most of the sum is that polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. Both harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by natural disasters driven by climate change.

There is a clean burning technology available. Sure, it still pollutes a little, but not like in the past. Many sites in the USA have been given several years to modify, or close. There is insight to the actual problems, and the understanding that it takes years rather than overnight to change. The extra authoritarian push is not needed, and very harmful to our economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...es-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
[/QUOTE]
Oh please...

The Guardian?

Don't get me started with they lack of ethics, and their push for agenda over truth.

On top of that you have the cost of being dependent on and protecting the flow of oil cheap from the Middle East. There the cost of Iraq have been over 2 trillion dollars and risk grow to 6 trillion dollars.

The flow of oil from the middle east is not a factor. Only real ignorant people to the facts and believers of political forces think the middle east matters when it comes to first world oil needs.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters

Western countries dependency on cheap oil also leads to that they support and sell arms to brutal and authoritarian regimes. That USA even have military bases in Saudi Arabia one of the worlds most brutale and authoritarian dicatorships.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

Not a valid argument to this thread. Why re you comparing apples to oranges?

While renewable energy can also have other benefits than reducing pollution and cheaper energy.

Cheaper energy?

What are you smoking. I would like some!

That it can also can lead to that people, communities and country can gain more energy indepedence. That people and local communities can be less dependent on big energy companies for their energy needs.

Big energy will always do what is best to stay profitable. If wind and solar were more profitable, they would be building it like crazy. The fact that they don't, should be a very loud and clear message that fossil fuels are more profitable.

We actually have huge fossil fuel resources in the states. The reason we buy from other countries is that every time we do something to use more of our own oil, OPEC et. al. reduces their prices to keep selling theirs.

What we need is to modify all these free trade agreements we have.

While European countries can be less dependent on fossil gas from Russia and oil from the Middle East, while USA can also become less dependent on oil from the Middle East.

Europe does it by imposing dramatic sin taxes on theor gasoline and other oil products.

Do you want to pay $8 per gallon for gasoline?

We love community power | Friends of the Earth Europe

Again...

Comparing Europe to the USA...

Very silly notion, unless you wish to implement a similar tax structure.

 

[Media_Truth]

If they are costing less, they don't need anyone forcing them to use them, right?

Why do you have the idiotic notion I am against renewables, or are yo building straw men?

Seriously....

I have been against subsidies and authoritarian rule.

I have to ask myself what your IQ might be...

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
You've made your position very clear. You're ALL-IN with subsidies and favors for the fossil fuel industry, including wars and any other warped political strategy. You have no problem with an entire Federal Government department, the NRC, and ignore that reality, in your support for nuclear. Perfectly accepting of rrillions and trillions of dollars for these industries, while balking against every cent of subsidy against renewbles.

 

[Lord of Planar]

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
You've made your position very clear. You're ALL-IN with subsidies and favors for the fossil fuel industry, including wars and any other warped political strategy. You have no problem with an entire Federal Government department, the NRC, and ignore that reality, in your support for nuclear. Perfectly accepting of rrillions and trillions of dollars for these industries, while balking against every cent of subsidy against renewbles.

Wow.

I don't know what to say about your lack of understanding.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That is absolutely not true.

Look at the definition of "subsidy" and try to replicate their number. You wont be able to. Don't use any dictionary, use a reputable one like Merriam Webster.


There is a clean burning technology available. Sure, it still pollutes a little, but not like in the past. Many sites in the USA have been given several years to modify, or close. There is insight to the actual problems, and the understanding that it takes years rather than overnight to change. The extra authoritarian push is not needed, and very harmful to our economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...es-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Oh please...

The Guardian?

Don't get me started with they lack of ethics, and their push for agenda over truth.


The flow of oil from the middle east is not a factor. Only real ignorant people to the facts and believers of political forces think the middle east matters when it comes to first world oil needs.


Not a valid argument to this thread. Why re you comparing apples to oranges?


Cheaper energy?

What are you smoking. I would like some!


Big energy will always do what is best to stay profitable. If wind and solar were more profitable, they would be building it like crazy. The fact that they don't, should be a very loud and clear message that fossil fuels are more profitable.

We actually have huge fossil fuel resources in the states. The reason we buy from other countries is that every time we do something to use more of our own oil, OPEC et. al. reduces their prices to keep selling theirs.

What we need is to modify all these free trade agreements we have.


Europe does it by imposing dramatic sin taxes on theor gasoline and other oil products.

Do you want to pay $8 per gallon for gasoline?


Again...

Comparing Europe to the USA...

Very silly notion, unless you wish to implement a similar tax structure.

It’s the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that have estimated subsidies for fossil fuel is 5.3 trillion dollars a year, if you include the negative effect of pollution. There IMF either is a left wing or environmental organization. Also, that evidence do you have that their estimate is wrong?

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

Sweden have been able to almost halve its pollution of C02 since 1980 and still be the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Renewables are already the biggest areas of investment then it comes to electricity. While if you look at total investment in the energy sector, 43 percent of the investment is in low-carbon supply-side energy investments, including electricity networks, during 2016.

https://www.iea.org/publications/wei2017/

While at the same you have big energy companies that want to not only breakeven but also make a profit of their huge investment in the energy sector. That huge coal plants and refineries aren’t exactly cheap.

Also, renewable energy means more competition for them. Because families and local communities can create their own power through renewables. While only big energy companies can afford to own for example refineries, huge coal plants and the infrastructure that goes with it. So of course, you will have huge energy companies that will spend enormous amount of PR, marketing and lobbying to try to slow down the transition to renewable energy.

Also, if USA and the west isn’t depending on oil from the Middle East why do USA and western countries wage so many wars in the Middle East? Also, why do USA protect brutal and authoritarian regime like Saudi Arabia with military bases? Also why didn’t Trump criticize Saudi Arabian regime for their gross violation of human right during his visit to that country? Especially since he had no problem criticize USA’s close and democratic European allies during his visit to Europe.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The first link says "Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015."

Energy subsidies...

Not fossil fuel subsidies...

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. It is likely equally a failure.

Globally, high subsidies are shelled out to wind and solar energy. Subsidies are given to energy companies to give the poor free or cheaper energy.

Fail... fail... fail...

Goodbye.

 

[chuckiechan]

By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

Then we will all be broke! In California SMUD - (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) is jacking rates again to $.30 cents a kilowatt (from ~ .12) for the hours between 4 and 7 in the summer due to the mandate that they use 30% renewables. Each time a new calendar checkpoint is reached, rates have go up to make buying the mandated renewables not break the company.

It is a wealth redistribution program from rate payers to the environmental lobby, for no gain in anything other than to make the envrio-wienies making bank in subsidies feel like they are doing something.

More money out of the pockets of consumers to the environmental industry. BTW, we've been having a string of 100+ degree days. That ought to thin out the poor and aged. Maybe that is the genius behind the program?

 

[chuckiechan]

renewables are the future anything else is just heads in the sand.

I'll pay you $ 3.00 to push my car 30 miles. You up for that?

 

[katzgar]

I'll pay you $ 3.00 to push my car 30 miles. You up for that?

your post is incoherent

 

[chuckiechan]

your post is incoherent

The car in question gets about 30 miles per gallon. A gallon of gasoline costs about $3.00. So it cost me three dollars to power my car 30 miles. For the committed environmentalist, they should see the benefit of gasoline, since they would never agree to push a car 30 miles since pushing is 100% efficient in terms of environmentally damaging output, but not practical.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The first link says "Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015."

Energy subsidies...

Not fossil fuel subsidies...

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. It is likely equally a failure.

Globally, high subsidies are shelled out to wind and solar energy. Subsidies are given to energy companies to give the poor free or cheaper energy.

Fail... fail... fail...

Goodbye.

Only a small part of those subsidies is not fossil fuel. Still I should have written estimated subsidies for energy is 5.3 trillion dollars a year, most of its fossil fuel. Because then you may have read more of the text, that for example says this.

Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption....

The net gain from reform, after subtracting the cost of higher energy prices to consumers from the fiscal and environmental gains, is projected at US$1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP) and could be much larger if the fiscal gain is used for growth-enhancing tax cuts on labor and capital or badly needed investments in education, health, and infrastructure.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

 

[Lord of Planar]

Opinion. Not fact.

You were caught Admit it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Then we will all be broke! In California SMUD - (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) is jacking rates again to $.30 cents a kilowatt (from ~ .12) for the hours between 4 and 7 in the summer due to the mandate that they use 30% renewables. Each time a new calendar checkpoint is reached, rates have go up to make buying the mandated renewables not break the company.

It is a wealth redistribution program from rate payers to the environmental lobby, for no gain in anything other than to make the envrio-wienies making bank in subsidies feel like they are doing something.

More money out of the pockets of consumers to the environmental industry. BTW, we've been having a string of 100+ degree days. That ought to thin out the poor and aged. Maybe that is the genius behind the program?

What sources do you have for the increase in cost of electricity is due to renewables? Also, if you are concern about extreme heat waves you should be in favor of renewables and other means to reduce the negative effect of manmade global warming.

That at the same renewable energy is already gotten cheaper than both nuclear and fossil fuel.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

 

[chuckiechan]

What sources do you have for the increase in cost of electricity is due to renewables? Also, if you are concern about extreme heat waves you should be in favor of renewables and other means to reduce the negative effect of manmade global warming.

That at the same renewable energy is already gotten cheaper than both nuclear and fossil fuel.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/...-library/gm-reports-on-rates-and-services.htm

April 2, 2015 Chief Executive Officer & General Manager's Report and Recommendation on Rates and Services

Beginning in 2016, we are proposing changes to our electricity rates that will focus on:

An increase in electricity rates needed to meet state mandates for renewable energy, which is more expensive, to offset higher commodity costs to provide electricity, as well as increases in operating and maintenance costs.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/...-library/gm-reports-on-rates-and-services.htm

You own link and quote says that it’s a lot of different reason for the increase in price. Also that SMUD more and more base their rates on time of day. For example that they have a new time-based rate called residential Time-of-Day (5 - 8 p.m. Peak) Rate.

That they can be a lot of reason that electricity price is going up so it’s wrong to only blame renewables. That at the same new installation of renewables can now be cheaper than fossil fuel a nuclear power. While the cost continues to drop.

That at the same time there can be solution for cooling buildig more efficiently like for example in Sweden most of our houses is heated from district heating. While you also have downhole heat exchangers for heating individual smaller houses. There both system can also work for cooling. That atleast it could be good to expand the use of district heating and downhole heat exchanger in areas of USA that have both cold winters and hot sumers. There those technics could probably also work as only cooling in areas there you only need cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

 

[chuckiechan]

You own link and quote says that it’s a lot of different reason for the increase in price. Also that SMUD more and more base their rates on time of day. For example that they have a new time-based rate called residential Time-of-Day (5 - 8 p.m. Peak) Rate.

That they can be a lot of reason that electricity price is going up so it’s wrong to only blame renewables. That at the same new installation of renewables can now be cheaper than fossil fuel a nuclear power. While the cost continues to drop.

That at the same time there can be solution for cooling buildig more efficiently like for example in Sweden most of our houses is heated from district heating. While you also have downhole heat exchangers for heating individual smaller houses. There both system can also work for cooling. That atleast it could be good to expand the use of district heating and downhole heat exchanger in areas of USA that have both cold winters and hot sumers. There those technics could probably also work as only cooling in areas there you only need cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

An increase in electricity rates needed to meet state mandates for renewable energy, which is more expensive, to offset higher commodity costs to provide electricity, as well as increases in operating and maintenance costs.

In addition, subsidized solar has cut into SMUD's operation revenue, yet they still have to maintain electrical infrastructure independently of solar.

The bottom line, is we have natural gas coming out of our ears and it's cheap - cheaper than renewables, so we are paying the price for an inefficient use of resources.

Admit it: requiring the use of renewables is because they are more expensive and companies don't intentionally spend more money on fuel.

 

[Phys251]

Reading through this thread, I wonder...how many times throughout human history, even modern history, did some people question the viability of new technology? Hell, this gives me an idea for a new thread...

 

[Bergslagstroll]

In addition, subsidized solar has cut into SMUD's operation revenue, yet they still have to maintain electrical infrastructure independently of solar.

The bottom line, is we have natural gas coming out of our ears and it's cheap - cheaper than renewables, so we are paying the price for an inefficient use of resources.

Admit it: requiring the use of renewables is because they are more expensive and companies don't intentionally spend more money on fuel.

English is not my first language still wouldn’t they have written “Increase in electricity rates needed to meet state mandates for renewable energy, which is more expensive and lead to higher commodity costs to provide electricity”, if higher commodity cost was related to renewable energy. Also, it good thing people can start creating their own electricity instead of being dependent on electricity companies.

Also, even if renewables can in some cases still can be costlier, they are now getting more and more cheap and already are the biggest areas of investment then it comes to electricity globally.

Also, why natural gas is “cheap” is because the polluters doesn’t have to pay the cost it causes society. Both from manmade global warming as well as local pollution. There fracking has its own problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Reading through this thread, I wonder...how many times throughout human history, even modern history, did some people question the viability of new technology? Hell, this gives me an idea for a new thread...

Yes, it has happened throughout history, also sometimes by those who benefit from the old technologies. That at the same time those the benefit from the old technologies can have a lot of influence and power to slow down the transitions, like for example todays big energy companies.

While at the same time new technologies and new competitors can force corporation to accept change.

That car companies are now investing a lot in both electric cars and self-driving cars. Even if it can lead to less profit for them because less need for maintenance and owning your own car, that self driving electric cars can become a form of "cheap taxis".

That according to a Swedish study the need for cars could drop by 92 percent in Stockholm. That the same number of trip can be made with only 8 percent of today’s number of cars, if people used self driving cars as “cheap taxis” instead owning their own cars.

A bit badly translated Swedish article.

https://translate.google.se/transla...andrar-staderna-inom-bara-nagra-ar&edit-text=

Why the car companies still invest in self driving cars and electric vehicles is because they are afraid to lose market shares or even become obsolete if they don’t invest in the new technologies.

 

[Renae]

It is very hard to predict what will be possible in 33 years much less what will be used 100%. I know that I rely on battery powered tools much more now than I did 30 years ago but I still use corded tools (circular saw, table saw, compound miter saw and air compressor) on many jobs.

A fair point. I'm thinking back to 1984 and if you showed up with modern things who would believe it?

A tablet/cell phone would floor people. Who saw such as the future then? A touch screen mini computers with wireless access to the whole of human knowledge, cameras that could take super high quality pictures and video and storage that would that would take miles of reel to reel tape?

How about a modern car with cameras, lane assist, the navigation systems...

Flat screen 4k tv's?

The advances we have in medicine?

Modern gaming consoles and how they operate!


Who knows what 2050 will bring.

 

[flogger]

By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.

Renewables are an expensive technological cul de sac and consumer costs per KwH are directly proportional to their respective governments committment to them.



Gas fracking along the lines the US is already using is the way forward. The gas produced by this method is far cheaper and cleaner than current fossil fuel sources and will last for centuries

There is also the added benefit of not requiring the enormous expense of infratructure duplication for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow

 

[Lord of Planar]

A fair point. I'm thinking back to 1984 and if you showed up with modern things who would believe it?

A tablet/cell phone would floor people. Who saw such as the future then? A touch screen mini computers with wireless access to the whole of human knowledge, cameras that could take super high quality pictures and video and storage that would that would take miles of reel to reel tape?

How about a modern car with cameras, lane assist, the navigation systems...

Flat screen 4k tv's?

The advances we have in medicine?

Modern gaming consoles and how they operate!


Who knows what 2050 will bring.

Paradigm shifts seem to be occurring moire often. I loved the engineering position I had when we were doing Rapid Research and development for automation equipment. CMP (Chemical Mechanical Planarization) was a paradigm shift in the semiconductor industry. I believe I was the first person in the world to perform a CMP process on a 300 mm wafer. When we were develponing the 300 mm CMP process, the company I worked for bought two bare 300 mm silicon wafers from the first ever successful ingot for 300 mm wafers. I was told those two wafers cost $10k each! And I was playing around with them in our lab.

LOL... That was over 20 years ago.

Just look at the structures today on computer chips. CMP allowed for sub micron features on chips. Without CMP, we wouldn't have gigabye memory modules, or gigahertz CPU's.

God, I loved that job.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Renewables are an expensive technological cul de sac and consumer costs per KwH are directly proportional to their respective governments committment to them.

View attachment 67222411

Gas fracking along the lines the US is already using is the way forward. The gas produced by this method is far cheaper and cleaner than current fossil fuel sources and will last for centuries

There is also the added benefit of not requiring the enormous expense of infratructure duplication for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow

You picture is from 2011 and doesn’t either show all the factors that affect electricity prices or even how much renewable each country has. That at the same time investing early in new technologies can have business advantage. For example, that even if Denmark is a very small country they now have the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer with over 20 000 employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas

Also today even poor countries that can’t afford to subsidising renewables are investing a lot in renewables.

A draft 10-year energy blueprint published this week predicts that 57% of India’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. The Paris climate accord target was 40% by 2030….

Buckley said India’s “absolutely transformational” forecast was also driven by technological advancements that have led to the price of solar energy falling by 80% in the past five years…

In the 2027 forecasts, India aims to generate 275 gigawatts of total renewable energy, in addition to 72GW of hydroenergy and 15GW of nuclear energy. Nearly 100GW would come from “other zero emission” sources, with advancements in energy efficiency expected to reduce the need for capacity increases by 40GW over 10 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

Already today you see combination of renewables and batteries, for home use.

10 home batteries that rival Tesla's Powerwall 2 - Business Insider Nordic

You also getting more and more on site storage for big renewable energy parks, like wind farms.

https://arstechnica.com/information...re-dipping-toes-into-energy-storage-projects/

That at the same time you will see a drastic reduction of costs, just in the next couple of years.

Lithium ion batteries are now selling for under $140/kWh ? New York hears on Benchmark World Tour 2017 | Benchmark Minerals

Also, that you will see a drastic increase in production just in the next couple of years.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...s-are-now-in-progress-and-musk-may-add-4-more

 

[PeteEU]

You picture is from 2011 and doesn’t either show all the factors that affect electricity prices or even how much renewable each country has.

You are beating a dead duck or similar analogy. Most anti-renewable people who use the excuse of "it is more expensive", are in the pockets of the big carbon fuel industry.. in some way.

Everyone outside the oil and coal industry know that renewable are the future. Hell even some oil companies are investing heavily into renewable energy, because they understand that their traditional model is on borrowed time.

Yes in the start, all new technology is expensive, but overtime it becomes cheaper and cheaper and if you dont do the investment, then that wont happen. Take the DVD burner, a now outdated tech. Back when it was new, one burner cost 50k dollars. When the DVD burner was finally phased out, you could get them for 20 dollars. Solar panels were expensive and inefficient 5 years ago, compared to now. Tech changes overtime and changes faster if people invest in the tech.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Also, that the corporations and others that benefits from the status quo have also exploited political trends.

For example, the last couple of decades of neo liberal ideology. That if for example have led to ideas like that the free market is always right or that freedom can only be accomplish through the free market and that government intervention in the free market is always bad and/or oppressive.

Also, the effect of neo liberal policies in western countries during the last couple of decades, that have make people more afraid of change. Because there is less economical safety net, so people can for example be forced to leave their houses if lose their jobs and in USA maybe even not being able to get health care for their family. That at the same time there are less help getting a new job.

So, it’s have become much easier to scare people with propaganda that renewables will hurt the economy so people will lose their jobs and end up on the streets. While at the same time coal workers and other workers in industries affected by the transition to renewables will not get the help they need to get new jobs.

Also, that politics have becoming more partisan, that I understand especially true in the USA. So, you can for example have conservatives in the USA that believes that renewables must be bad because liberals support renewables.

 

[longview]

You picture is from 2011 and doesn’t either show all the factors that affect electricity prices or even how much renewable each country has. That at the same time investing early in new technologies can have business advantage. For example, that even if Denmark is a very small country they now have the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer with over 20 000 employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas

Also today even poor countries that can’t afford to subsidising renewables are investing a lot in renewables.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

Already today you see combination of renewables and batteries, for home use.

10 home batteries that rival Tesla's Powerwall 2 - Business Insider Nordic

You also getting more and more on site storage for big renewable energy parks, like wind farms.

https://arstechnica.com/information...re-dipping-toes-into-energy-storage-projects/

That at the same time you will see a drastic reduction of costs, just in the next couple of years.

Lithium ion batteries are now selling for under $140/kWh ? New York hears on Benchmark World Tour 2017 | Benchmark Minerals

Also, that you will see a drastic increase in production just in the next couple of years.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...s-are-now-in-progress-and-musk-may-add-4-more

I do not think alternatives are in and of themselves more expensive, but the grid attachment ideas may have poisoned the well.
Here is South Australia feed in tariff plans for solar providers.
https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/energy...lls/solar-rebates-and-payments#customergroup1

Customer group 1
Feed-in tariff offered
44 cents per kWh exported to the grid until 30 June 2028.

Customer group 2
Feed-in tariff offered
44 cents per kWh exported to the grid until 30 June 2028.

Customer group 3
Feed-in tariff offered
44 cents per kWh exported to the grid until 30 June 2028.

Connections approved after 30 September 2011

Customers who received permission to connect between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2013 received 16 cents per kWh exported to the grid, but this ended on 30 September 2016.
Customers who receive permission to connect to the grid after 30 September 2013 do not receive a feed-in tariff under the solar feed-in scheme.

From an accounting perspective, paying a customer paying a customer 44 cents per kWh for a commodity
that normally has a cost of goods sold of less than 10 cents per kWh, is going to increase the cost of all of the
regular Kwhs sold.
Even net metering where the customer is basically paid the selling price for each unit bought, is an accounting dead end.
A retailer cannot buy units for their sales price, and expect to stay in business.