Regarding your letter to me regarding price increases, and also a reduction of the ‘feed in tarriff’ to 6.2 cents per kilowatt hour from 8 cents per kilowatt hour:
It is logical that if the value of electricity increases, as is plainly verified by the large increases in prices for electricity purchased from providers by customers, then the feed in payment should also increase not reduce?
Since our solar panels have been in operation, (about eight months), the total output has been over 3,500 kilowatt hours and yet over 2,300 of this has been fed back into the system for others to use.
It appears that there is more than a fair bit of profiteering going on when electricity can be purchased by companies for 6.2 cents per kilowatt hour and sold for over 30 cents per kilowatt hour in peak times.
Accordingly, I have decided to turn off one of the banks of solar panels which will reduce production by half and yet this will still supply enough power for household purposes most of the time, while the other bank can be turned on when necessary like in dull weather or when heaters or air conditioners are operating.
To turn off one bank of panels seems quite logical as the amount lost by us as a producer is petty and overcomes to an extent, the feeling that private solar power producers are gullible fools for big business to use and walk over.
I accordingly intend advocating the turning off of banks of solar panels to others when they are not necessary to their needs.
Of course, all this obviously makes a mockery out of so-called renewable energy – and does much to discredit it, and reveals the profit making behind it which is obviously what it is all about; a mockery made by the setters of the obviously corrupt pricing setups with money and profits for prospectors and speculators, taking precedence over the so called environment.
Graeme Reid, Cape Woolamai