Labour pledges solar subsidies

Public Policy / news

Labour Party pledging up to $4000 to help people install solar power systems with battery back up on their rooftops

[updated]

18th Sep 23, 2:15pm by Eric Frykberg

The Labour Party is promising up to $4000 per household to encourage the use of solar energy.

Half of that would be to help pay for solar panels on rooftops and half would be available to pay for battery storage.

The party says the aim would be to boost the amount of sustainable electricity in use across New Zealand.

“We need to increase renewable electricity generation by 68% by 2050," says Labour leader Chris Hipkins.

"Solar on roofs lowers electricity bills, as well as generating electricity locally, reducing reliance on the grid,” Hipkins says.

“I am absolutely focused on lowering household costs at the same time as driving New Zealand to become a global powerhouse of renewable energy. This plan does both of those things.”

Labour's plan is worth less than an equivalent offer from the Green Party, which has a figure of $6000 and can be topped up with interest free loans of up $30,000.

Both parties are pledging similar initiatives for Kaianga Ora, and small-scale community projects also get a mention.

The cost faced by customers in installing solar panels is far greater than either party is offering. One company quotes $10,000 to $15,000 depending on the amount of electricity that is used.

The Sustainable Energy Association of New Zealand (SEANZ) says solar panels alone can cost upwards of $5000 to install but having a battery storage system attached to it can double the price.

SEANZ adds the Labour offer is a good one but it could go further.

It says there are just over 53,000 homes in New Zealand with solar panels on their roofs and the number is growing. But it's still a small percentage of the total number of homes, which was 1.8 million in the 2018 census.

But SEANZ says people are gradually realising that the return on the upfront cost of installing solar panels is worth it in the long run.

Meanwhile Labour and the Greens' support for grants for households is not matched by the National Party, although it too wants more renewable electricity projects including solar and will change planning laws to make this more likely.

The ACT Party does not mention solar in its energy policy document, but like National, it wants simplified approvals for renewable energy schemes such as offshore wind.

Most of New Zealand First's energy policy is devoted to fuel security.

Te Pati Maori wants to establish a $1 billion fund for Māori-owned community energy projects and solar panel and insulation instillations on marae, kura, homes and papakāinga housing developments.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

98 Comments

by kiwikidsnz | 18th Sep 23, 2:21pm 1695003661

Labour never learn anything. No different from any other subsidies, the market price simply increases in proportion.

by Jonny.Foe | 18th Sep 23, 2:35pm 1695004527

The EV subsidy actually reduced the price of many EVs as companies reduced their retail prices to squeeze under the $80k max.

We might see increases in solar supply and install prices until the market catches up and then any effect will subside. That's what happened in Aus.

by nigelh | 18th Sep 23, 5:24pm 1695014663

There was also some slight of hand. I monitored Nissan EVs before and after subsidy. Before subsidy there were two EV models. One more expensive than the other and after a month of the subsidy there was only one model and it was the higher of the two previous prices from before the subsidy. The model appeared to be the lower from before the subsidy. If I recall there was a model name change as well which confused the matter. I had the distinct impression that only some of the subsidy was passed on.

by powerupkiwi | 18th Sep 23, 2:52pm 1695005529

And it’s double stupid for a country with a capped ETS. Zero difference to emissions. Just more middle class welfare

by mfd | 18th Sep 23, 3:43pm 1695008582

This is really the key point - this kind of policy just shuffles around our emissions spending within the budget. I could possibly forgive some subsidies on things with positive externalities, like e-bikes, but in general the only policy response needed to reduce our emissions is to reduce the cap and let the country figure it out.

by Jonny.Foe | 18th Sep 23, 3:51pm 1695009100

That would be true if the ETS was actually constraining decision-making. The number of units available, given out freely, and stockpiled means that the whole scheme is useless.

by vman | 18th Sep 23, 3:15pm 1695006904

Law of unintended consequences as kiwi says on the market price .

Similar to the effect on house prices that will happen when we tax 'wealthy foreigners'...the rest of the market will adjust to the fact that some one is willing to pay 15% premium for their property...and when said 'wealthy foreigner' sells his house ,he will add the 15% to his asking price to recoup his 'tax'...in the end, it's just another hard working kiwi squeezed middle family that will actually pay...and many more houses will enter the "$2 million luxury house bracket' ...or as we like to say in Auckland,an average 3 bedroom home...

by blobbles | 18th Sep 23, 3:56pm 1695009408

Um no. We really, really need to decrease our emissions and solar all over our rooves will help us do that because they serve to keep water in the lakes. That's good, for dry year risk or during dry years (which are probably sunny as well and often occurs over summer).

by Hamish | 18th Sep 23, 4:08pm 1695010122

The Clean Car Discount, introduced in 2021, offers a rebate on the sticker price of fully electric and plug-in hybrid cars. With fees applied to higher-emitting vehicles, the scheme was intended to be cost-neutral. However, the higher uptake of cleaner vehicles since the launch meant the discounts exceeded the fees by roughly $200m.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300954785/climate-poli…

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 2:34pm 1695004492

Typical, I just had solar installed at home last week, not that Labour have any realistic chance of getting back in.

20 panels installed for about $20k, generation is exceeding expectations, next power bill should be a credit.

by kaczor47 | 18th Sep 23, 2:36pm 1695004615

Do you have a sense how long until it pays itself of?

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 3:22pm 1695007366

7 - 8 years at current electricity prices, but which are sure to rise bringing that down.

Also going to get an EV which will charge probably 80% for free, excess generated you can sell back to your supplier at $0.22 / kWh.

by M0ralHazard | 18th Sep 23, 3:43pm 1695008637

Do you have a battery as well? Or are you home during the day to charge the EV?

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 3:54pm 1695009261

Don't have a battery, additional cost was another $10k, majority of home use is during the day, pool pump and heating a swimming pool from Oct - March. Don't have an EV yet, first was solar then get a Tesla, can charge weekends and when WFH.

by Zwifter | 18th Sep 23, 4:39pm 1695011992

Yeah its good eventually but that's at least 7 to 8 years not selling the house and moving on. Realistically you need to then be in the same house for 10 to 15 years, which in New Zealand seldom happens. $20K plus up front investment that could be invested elsewhere getting a return. Payback is still pretty marginal if a grid connection is easy, stuck on an island with no power, sure solar is the way to go. Maybe a big family the payback is faster, one or two person household its not worth it.

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 6:43pm 1695019426

Moved into our dream home last year, plan to be here 10 years minimum, regardless a good solar system only adds value to the sale price.

Return is saving $300 every month on power bill, no risk

by Nzdan | 18th Sep 23, 7:52pm 1695023540

Likewise late 2021 into our dream home. Just replaced the roof clad. Solar is the next job after the kitchen.

WFH 4 days per week, use roughly 10 kwh per day during work hours.

Also thinking long term about expenses. Retiring with solar and batteries would knock out a huge expense, particularly with time value of money.

by Beanie | 18th Sep 23, 8:26pm 1695025566

If you are connected to the grid, don't waste your money on batteries. It's cheaper to pull power out of the grid at night. Also I am not a fan of roof mount solar unless you don't have a suitable ground mount location. Your roof needs rain to wash it, especially if you are coastal, which is why your iron roof warranty disappears the moment your cover it in panels. Plus panel cleaning and maintenance is much easier at ground level.

by Zwifter | 18th Sep 23, 10:49pm 1695034198

All true however things are still evolving. I notice that some panels down here are going onto roofs that don't even face North, I guess with the price of panels getting lower and lower you just put up more panels. Ground mounting is the best, you can optimise the direction and the angle but that just not an option on your average size section. The best idea is to use your EV battery, who knows one day you may have a hot swap system with one battery in your car and the other on charge. The problem is its all about cost.

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:12pm 1695035564

That’s true if you’ve got spare land. Otherwise it has to be roof, in which case it’s worth planning safe options for cleaning

by Whatwillhappen | 18th Sep 23, 5:09pm 1695013778

Who is offering a 22c buyback? Electric Kiwi is good at 15c, but 22c is phenomenal. Is it a special EV package?

by Officebound | 18th Sep 23, 8:01pm 1695024110

Whatever it is, it's temporary.

Also $300 per month suggests you are making 5kw/h, 9 hours a day @ 22c each. This feels too high for what is likely an 8kwh system....

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 8:17pm 1695025043

$300 month is savings on previous power bill

by Casual Observer | 18th Sep 23, 10:37pm 1695033468

We looked at Octopus however this solar clause was our undoing: (b) the generation capacity of your facility is less than 10kW;

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:17pm 1695035869

10 kW is still a decent system. I have a 13 kWp system which equates to 10 kW actual maximum and get between 35 and 70 kWh a day depending on season

by Te Kooti | 18th Sep 23, 2:49pm 1695005342

If you directed all 20 panels to charging an EV, what sort of % charge would you get over a full sunny day? My understanding is not much, but even a 1/4 is an interesting as daily use would rarely exceed this.

by solardb | 18th Sep 23, 2:57pm 1695005835

20 panel s is about 8 k.w Four 4 hours midday , say to e.v charging , would be 32 KWH. Average E.v use is about 200 wh per k.m . 32000 Wh divided by 200Wh equals about 160 k.m of driving per day .

by Palmtree08 | 18th Sep 23, 3:05pm 1695006329

I like the idea of using the car battery as a storage device for the house. Is there any news on that trial that was running?

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 4:01pm 1695009663

Plenty of people using V2H

https://energytheory.com/what-are-v2h-compatible-cars/

by fat pat | 18th Sep 23, 6:02pm 1695016926

Let's say the 100KWh car battery costs 20K USD = 34K NZD and let's be really generous and say that the battery will last 15 thousand charge cycles, then even if your electricity was "free" it would still cost 34k/15k = 2.26 NZD per cycle which for a 100 kWh battery equates to 2.2c/kWh. Of course, if you're deep cycling your lithium-ion then it might only last 2000 cycles (or less) before dying, in which case your "free" power costs at least 17c/kWh.

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 8:15pm 1695024957

To whom is this nonsense calculation for?

by Beanie | 18th Sep 23, 8:32pm 1695025945

Anyone that thinks batteries don't wear out. I did the calculation a couple of years ago and it was around 40c per kwh in wear. As I said upthread, if you are connected to the grid don't waste your money on batteries.

by fat pat | 19th Sep 23, 11:02am 1695078155

it was directed at Palmtree's comment. What's nonsense about it? I should also mention that you can't, or shouldn't slow charge lithium ions for example with solar. The reason being that battery wearing is more related to charge time rather than charge current. Damage to the SEI (solid electrolyte interface) and electrolyte decomposition is a function of the total charge time, with charge current being less important. Counterintuitively, you should get more cycles out of your lithium-ions if you fast charge them within temperature parameters. At least that's my understanding which may be outdated now. It's just a reason why charging your large lithium-ion car battery with solar might not be a great idea.

by huttman | 18th Sep 23, 3:06pm 1695006414

do solar panels and accessories require maintenance?

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 3:16pm 1695007008

Not really, you might want to wash the panels down annually to remove dust, pollen etc. to get the most of sunlight generation.

10 year warranty on installation, 25 year warranty on panels

by powerdownkiwi | 18th Sep 23, 4:11pm 1695010270

Huttman - do dams? Sub-stations?

I have never had to replace a PV panel, ever - and I bought my first one in 1980. They lose a few % over a lot of years, but still work. Controllers have never died on me either (I run 4; one on the boat, one in the workshop, 2 to the house). I've used 2nd-hand L/A batteries - usually gel deep-cycle - all the way; a couple have lost a cell and had to be chucked, but they go on and on well past the time they fail a load-test. They just have less capacity.

I used to run a generator -about $1 in petrol per day back in 2005 - but only use it to start my sawbench now, it goes for months unused.

My micro-hydro (Gentle Annie and pelton-wheel) has had two motors in 15 years, rusty bottom bearing in both instances, and I've solved that now...

All my work on that, will never equate to the work-hours grid-dependent folk need to devote to paying power-bills.

by profile | 18th Sep 23, 4:20pm 1695010812

"It has long been known some “AAA” backsheet films – made of triple-layer polyamide and widely deployed from 2010 to 2013 – can become brittle and tear. “By now, you would have to see the signs in all modules affected by this, whether they are installed in ground-mounted systems or on roofs,” says Bernhard Weinreich, managing director of HaWe Engineering. Now, younger modules and other foil types are exhibiting similar behavior.

Some 15% of Germany’s solar capacity – 10 GW – could be affected. That equates to up to €2 billion ($2.18 billion) in replacement costs, with only a fraction of the affected panels likely detected thus far."

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/09/09/weekend-read-a-10-gw-time-bomb/

by Hemi Waipiro | 18th Sep 23, 3:25pm 1695007504

160km of driving per day, although your car needs to be parked at your solar array (home) for 4 hours around midday right to get this 32,000 Wh? So not applicable to people requiring their car to commute during daylight hours?

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 3:33pm 1695007995

Plug it in over the weekend and when you're at home during the week during daylight savings evenings and you could reasonably expect about 600km of free* charging in a Tesla

by blobbles | 18th Sep 23, 4:01pm 1695009671

Of if you work from home 1-2 days a week and its sunny.

The thing is, if you are thinking about it from an emissions perspective, the solar panel is still charging your car if you charge it outside your house while its sunny. Cos during the day the solar power coming from your roof is essentially piped into the same grid you are using.

by Te Kooti | 18th Sep 23, 6:54pm 1695020099

Thanks, there is something satisfying about driving a car powered by the sun, I might look into it. I definitely wouldnt use the car as a surrogate house battery, that doesn't appeal.

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:19pm 1695035962

Spot on!

by Kaper2 | 18th Sep 23, 3:19pm 1695007166

Generated 35kWh yesterday even though the morning was cloudy in Auckland, that's over half a Tesla battery

by solardb | 18th Sep 23, 9:17pm 1695028630

system is working well then.

depending on the type of clouds , you can still get quite good production on seemingly cloudy days. There is what is known as the edge of cloud effect , as the sun comes out from behind a cloud , some is reflected back on the panels, and you can get quite a spike in power. Depending on the size of the inverter vs the size of the panels you may not see it , as the inverter will throttle it back to its limit.

by burgleman | 18th Sep 23, 4:49pm 1695012597

Where are you based and what type of roof do you have? And who did you use?

We’re looking at getting 13 REC 420w panels and a fonis inverter for $18k. Pricing by Harrison’s in Auckland.

by Kaper2 | 19th Sep 23, 8:39am 1695069592

Live in Auckland, have a metal Eurotray roof.

Used Lightforce after quotes and site visits from Harrisons & Zed Energy, Lightforce were the best to deal with, listened to what I wanted and had a more compelling overall package and install.

by Warwick D | 18th Sep 23, 2:35pm 1695004501

And exactly where is the money for this going to come from? Together with all the other election offerings, I guess this will mean that Government debt will skyrocket even further.

by Jonny.Foe | 18th Sep 23, 2:36pm 1695004616

Govt has more financial assets (our debt to them) than they have financial liabilities (their debt to us). It's about time they started investing in things that will actually make a positive difference.

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:23pm 1695036184

Reduced need to build new power stations. Cost effective way of meeting decarbonisation obligations. Good investment.

by jeremyr | 18th Sep 23, 2:35pm 1695004512

TPM are all over it though. Their policy is to take 1 billion dollars effectively for themselves. They have support that numbers about the size of a small suburb, and yet they want 1 billion dollars to make some Maori-owned companies paid for by the tax-payer. Extraordinary. Luckily they will never get to make any actual decisions.

Te Pati Maori wants to establish a $1 billion fund for Māori-owned community energy projects and solar panel and insulation instillations on marae, kura, homes and papakāinga housing developments.

What a joke.

PS: Labour.... solar costs a lot more than what you are stating for a solar system AND battery with decent storage. A decent battery is going to cost between 6 to 10K, just for the battery, then and the necessary solar equipment on top. Retrospective also costs a lot more than fitting in a new build, so your 10-15k actually provides a low end solar system, without a battery in a new build. Very misleading. I would say stick to GST off fruit and veges, it is the same concept and will save no money, but at least you almost understand it.

by Jonny.Foe | 18th Sep 23, 2:38pm 1695004727

A few of the banks are offering zero interest loans for solar installs - the Govt grant will make solar a complete no-brainer.

by jeremyr | 18th Sep 23, 3:16pm 1695006991

If you can do it for zero interest, what is the point of the subsidy, it's only 4000 bucks, half of which needs to go to the battery, which will cost you up to 20K (it's about 7K per 6KW battery) extra.

Solar takes a long time to pay off. I have it, payback is an easy 5 to 15 years depending on your power usage, access to sunlight hours etc. Mine has generated about 40,000KwH since 2017, so, that sounds like a lot. But the reality is that unless you have a battery (that increases the cost massively) then the payoff is never what they say, as unless you have all appliances etc timed to operate during sunlight hours and you use all of your generation then your payback needs to be calculated using a large percentage of your generation at 10c per Kwh, not 35c like they do in the calculations. So, if you calculate a 15K investment being paid back at 15KwH (average through the year), at 35c per KwH then your payback is $1916 per annum, making payback about 7.5 years. However. you will only get the benefit of about half of it, so your actual payback will be $1231 per annum, making payback 12 years at least. Then you have to consider the opportunity cost of the money, which is currently 6% so putting the money of the bank would earn you 900 dollars per year (less tax of course), however, the difference between 1231 and 900 is only 300 buck a year saved on a 15k investment. The returns are not great.

by rastus1 | 18th Sep 23, 3:28pm 1695007732

You forgot to put a $ amount in for climate and fossil depletion. The video I linked is worth wathching...an eye opener for many i'd say.

by jeremyr | 18th Sep 23, 3:33pm 1695007999

Yeah and that. The point really is though that this policy of making you borrow money and get a subsidy saves you actually less money than GST of Fruit and Vegetables. It's just another hopeless Labour policy that sounds good, but delivers almost nothing (but will leave you in debt for 5-10 years in this case).

by rastus1 | 18th Sep 23, 3:29pm 1695007742

You forgot to put a $ amount in for climate and fossil depletion. The video I linked is worth wathching...an eye opener for many i'd say.

by Albert2020 | 18th Sep 23, 3:50pm 1695009024

And where do you reckon electricity prices are heading based on the past few years and the massive demand required for future electrification?

by Jonny.Foe | 18th Sep 23, 3:55pm 1695009329

The grant just makes the investment more viable for some (shortening the payback), but I agree it is not the be all and end all. The key thing that needs unlocking imho is the buy back rate you get from the grid.

by Von Metternich | 18th Sep 23, 3:17pm 1695007048

The Maori party is largely about stealing from the taxpayer as an ethnic racket to funnel exclusively back into their own communities. At least they are honest about it. Labour does the same thing then lie to your face about it.

by jeremyr | 18th Sep 23, 3:30pm 1695007825

That's very true. Lucky then that in a few weeks hopefully, neither of these two thieves will be in a position to steal things anymore.

by blobbles | 18th Sep 23, 3:54pm 1695009288

I mean is it a bit of payback for all the stealing of the land anyway? I don't know, solar on Marae's, which are often in some of the more deprived places, sounds like good policy to me. Like solar on the rooves of schools makes sense too, the school is in use during the day so electricity is being produced and used locally.

by Von Metternich | 18th Sep 23, 4:02pm 1695009721

Conquered, not stolen.

by blobbles | 18th Sep 23, 4:32pm 1695011568

I mean, we wrote a treaty, then didn't honour it. And just for good measure, mis-wrote the translated version. If Pakeha had just come and wiped out all the Maori, I might agree with you, but we did not.

by Von Metternich | 18th Sep 23, 8:04pm 1695024298

Read the actual history of New Zealand. All the different iwi and tribes were constantly double dealing, selling each others land and goods. Legal promises made to the New Zealand Company and others were totally unenforceable because the land was sold by parties who had no real right to it. Same thing with the Land Wars, constant double dealing and treachery, being insurgents one day and 'allies' the next.

The Treaty has been warped into this legal framework for wealth extraction from the Crown to these iwi groups. The legal system is the least democratic part of our government and is always used to force unpopular stuff through.

The most guilty parties of the White side of the conquest/settlement of New Zealand is the land banking parties who purchased land on the cheap, stirred shit with the local maori and forced the militias/army to force the maori out then settled the land at higher prices.

Reading the primary sources makes you realise how dishonest the boomer historians writing during the 70s and 80s were on this subject.

by blobbles | 19th Sep 23, 8:20am 1695068424

So we wrote a treaty, nobody honoured it, but now Maori control a tiny percentage of resources considering their relative population or original purpose. That tiny percentage was going to be considerably more if the treaty was honoured

Maybe we should just go back and honour the treaty then? Back to the first principle? Instead of just claiming rights through conquering which is kind of just extending colonialism?

Why bring democracy into it? We forced that on Maori too.

by napierboy | 18th Sep 23, 4:06pm 1695009997

Sounds exactly what National is all about this election. Take as much from the everyday Kiwi to subsidise landlords. Have you noticed how much property investors have donated to National over the last 3 years?

by Von Metternich | 18th Sep 23, 4:11pm 1695010297

I didn't say the Nats weren't awful. I would prefer Maori Party looters to National Party landlords, but it doesn't change what TMP is.

by blobbles | 19th Sep 23, 8:22am 1695068551

They are caught by special interest groups and have a leader that is a property investor himself. Why anyone would believe they would do anything else is beyond me.

So don't vote for them. Vote for a party not captured by special interests, or mired in ideology like Labour. Vote different.

by HouseMouse | 18th Sep 23, 3:06pm 1695006378

What a joke.

Kainga Ora, whom Woods presides over, have been building hundreds if not thousands of townhouses in Auckland over the past 5 years, many of which are overheating - and have had to have heat pumps installed retrospectively to allow for cooling over the hottest 6 months of the year. Some of the internal temperatures have been crazy, very uncomfortable and dangerous (healthwise)

All because that agency can’t do the basics of passive solar design. Which I told them and as usual was cast aside.

And now she has the cheek to talk about installing solar panels.

by nigelh | 18th Sep 23, 6:58pm 1695020326

Even without passive solar design a good architect or architectural designer would be able to design to minimise heat gain in summer. This points to whether Housing NZ have in house architects or architectural designers who couldn't care less or contract staff who are there to milk the govt with people in Housing NZ who know nothing about design or construction. Another possibility is they went straight to builders who then sub contract designers and get the cheapest possible design so the build can be the bare minimum in order to win the contract. Either way it points to unsuitable people in Housing NZ.

by HouseMouse | 18th Sep 23, 7:34pm 1695022473

It’s three main factors from what I see:

- A profoundly surprising lack of understanding of solar and ventilation design principles amongst many (including architects)

- Urban design dogma. Homes should run along a north-south street axis. This means internal living areas face east and west, for terraces. With the latter, homes are exposed to afternoon/evening western sun, plus…..

- architectural trend of no eaves and/or no window shades /shutters

our own home has all of these issues too. In the first summer the worst homes were reaching internal temperatures of well over 40 degrees. Pretty much everyone put in air con / multiple heat pumps, which are used regularly from November to May. Ours wasn’t quite as bad as its an end of terrace

by powerdownkiwi | 19th Sep 23, 8:15am 1695068120

Did anyone think to open a window?

Just askn...

My passive-solar house will go to - and past - 40 degrees every day through the summer months, and that's Dunedin! We open a downstairs window up-wind, and an upstairs window down-wind. Hot air still rises, seemingly irrespective of money. Quite interesting....

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:36pm 1695037001

Designing for limited summer heat gain, along with maximising winter heat gain is exactly what passive solar design is all about…

by rastus1 | 18th Sep 23, 3:06pm 1695006395

Here you go. Erik Townsend form Macro Voices energy transition trailer.

That will hook you into the full series.

Watch and learn.

You to Profile!

Energy Transition Crisis - 3 minute Trailer - YouTube

by nigelh | 18th Sep 23, 7:06pm 1695020818

Seems to be partially a mixture of CC alarmism and running out of FF. It pre-supposes we must change now because we are going to run out soon (soon is 25,50,75,100 years, take your pick) FF will diminish over time an unreliables have a small part to play. In my book nothing to do with climate alarmism but merely another source of energy in the mix. Modern nuclear is the way to go but have been blocked in many parts of the world for one reason or another.

by wortho | 19th Sep 23, 6:35am 1695062105

Hmm, I wonder if this is Bill Gates’ clean nuclear power plants re-imagined? He couldn’t get them over the line with Trump not allowing the IP to be exported, so here’s a new approach? Either way I do like that more people are attempting to expose the huge waste that wind farms are and just how much electric cars are not really changing the world or that there is not currently enough natural resource mines to achieve replacing whole countries like Britain’s fleet by 2035 or 2050.

by blobbles | 18th Sep 23, 4:00pm 1695009608

Finally! But forget the battery side of it, see those big lakes in the SI? They are the batteries and we all can use them. Even if this mainly goes to middle/high income households, they will be subsidising dry year risk and mitigating emissions for all households in NZ, including low income. Because those households will be selling back electricity to a grid that has a gravity storage backbone that gets used less when the sun is shining and get paid only a half/third or the cost of buying back that electricity.

We needed this about 10 years ago Labour, or during your first term, with the EV rebate. But better late than never.

by powerdownkiwi | 18th Sep 23, 4:00pm 1695009617

SEANZ have a vested interest in upping the ante, and making profit.

I have a system now nearing 20 years old, still representing south of 10k, all up. And it'd good for longer than I'll be around.

But that isn't the point here - we are running out - make that are out - of time. Fossil-reliant infrastructure (including much 'renewable' - really rebuildable) has run out of replacement time. In that light, ANY move is a good one.

by solardb | 18th Sep 23, 9:45pm 1695030356

Yes , i expect it will be restricted to systems installed by SEANZ members , as currently all govt jobs are, and the banks require it for the low interest loans too.

Ensures Accountability , and a certain standard of competence , to some degree I guess, but excludes some of the more independant types , like myself. It has become pretty much necessary to join to stay in the game in the coming years though.

In the early days on the Coromandel , we got people going with what they could afford , and what was avaliable. Solar panels were over $10 per watt, some would start with a single 80 watt panel , and get by . Add a panel etc as they could afford. Often , you might spend a day cleaning up the existing owners wiring , to make it safe before adding to. End up helping build the shed to put the solar on , because it inevitably wasn't done , a few times helping clear the road in. Or spend a few hours pulling your van out of the site access track.

Then you go to a SEANZ or similar conference , and get a whole lot of newbies on laptops, scoffing at such systems , telling you which reg or standard is broken etc , and obviously never been on a roof , probably never out of a office.

But probably changed nowadays.

by Firstclass | 18th Sep 23, 4:35pm 1695011724

The Labour Party is promising everything, broken and empty promises.

They have been asleep at the wheel for years.

Not long now before they get the boot from the voters of NZ.

by nzforall | 18th Sep 23, 4:43pm 1695012198

People got their hand out again for another handout

by K.W. | 18th Sep 23, 4:51pm 1695012717

Spending $20k on solar panels will be money down the drain when someone comes along and builds three 3 storey townhouses next door to you, 1m off your boundary. You'll be lucky if you even see the sun let alone get power from it.

by solardb | 18th Sep 23, 9:03pm 1695027793

there's rules against that. 45 degrees to 2 m height at the boundary etc.

by HouseMouse | 18th Sep 23, 9:29pm 1695029375

I think KW is talking about the MDRS which specifies 4m + 60 degrees

will allow sunlight on to panels on the roof of a two storey house

by solardb | 18th Sep 23, 9:49pm 1695030590

Thanks , I'm abit out of date.

I do recall there was quite a hoo haa about this in Melbourne , maybe 10 -15 years ago ?

by Spike2 | 18th Sep 23, 5:05pm 1695013500

So let me get this right. The labour party is going to tax me, then give me my money back but tell me how to spend it.

Can't think of a more efficient way of doing this!

by Middleaged | 19th Sep 23, 12:01pm 1695081677

Not quite. They're going to tax you and then hand the money to home owners who are wealthy enough to be able to afford solar power anyway.

More upper-middle class welfare.

by Poission51 | 18th Sep 23, 8:15pm 1695024900

January 2018 to December 2023 will see an increase in renewable generation of 1126mw

Hydro 245,wind 393mw,geothermal 240mw,248mw solar.

As demand is stationery,the subsidised electricity policies are more policy bribes,then a shortfall in capacity.roof top solar already grows by 60mw with either interest free loans from banks or PPA installations at no cost such as solar zero.

by Pragmatist | 19th Sep 23, 1:15pm 1695086152

Please learn SI units, and English. MW not mw, and I assume that "then" is supposed to be a "than".

by KH | 18th Sep 23, 9:22pm 1695028944

Stupid Labour Party thinking. And I am a big fan of solar and have a good sized setup.

The stupidity is in what they are not offering to do. Which is build a distributed generation system, so all us solar owners can co-operate to great benefit at negible cost and great savings. And remediate the dry lakes problem and overall benefit the nation.

We need to have law which enable the local co-operatives, IT systems to make it all work etc etc.

But you know that requires some comprehensive thinking and an interest in benefiting to the Nation. Labour don't have that.

by HouseMouse | 18th Sep 23, 9:32pm 1695029526

Yeah. And neither do the Nats.

They are all about quick and superficial things, which often generate unintended consequences.

Don’t think about systems and broader strategy.

by blobbles | 19th Sep 23, 8:10am 1695067852

That's what 3 year political terms bring though. People hilariously rage against an increase to 4-5 years, then rage that governments only think short term. You simply can't have it both ways.

by blobbles | 19th Sep 23, 8:15am 1695068141

Likely if you are a solar owner, you were rich enough to be able to put panels on your roof. That means you are likely in the to 30% income earners. Grid connected solar with hydro backbone means everyone connected to the grid gets to benefit from your solar, that's living in a society/civilised way. Moaning that you should be able to internalise all the benefits to the rich only is, well a bit pathetic IMO. Especially when buyback still happens after about 10 years, so you still get around 15-25 years of profits.

by Larry76 | 18th Sep 23, 11:10pm 1695035420

Fantastic policy idea that has worked great in that country we are always so jealous of - Australia. Literally power to the people.

Naturally here the naysayers think NZ is special and solar can’t possibly work. I suggest these are the same naysayers that have jammed this country into do-nothing neutral for the last 30 years, and rejoice at the idea of 3 more years of a do-nothing National government.

by Speedmax | 18th Sep 23, 11:46pm 1695037566

Top comment Larry

by Feedup | 19th Sep 23, 8:47am 1695070070

Why do I think ‘ more national debt’ every time Hipkins opens his mouth and makes another promise ?

by kwbrn | 19th Sep 23, 8:46am 1695069989

Same could be said for Laxon.

by Romi | 19th Sep 23, 12:21pm 1695082871

This being the same labour party that mandated an end to lower user electricity plans which where being used by us freeloaders that decided to install rooftop solar... Our daily fixed charge has tripled, our per kwh charge has dropped by a staggering 0.1 percent.

by kiwi_overseas | 19th Sep 23, 4:21pm 1695097309

Assuming I’ve got the policy right it’s a subsidy to the rich. (The full policy detail is not given)

No one that is poor can afford solar panels except where the government provides them on social housing.

The subsidy should be inversely proportional to income+wealth.