Australia has high rates of adoption for rooftop solar. The interconnection is easy and permitting happens over night. And best of all, none of the fears associated with wide spread solar have materialized into real world problems.
Australia has high rates of adoption for rooftop solar. The interconnection is easy and permitting happens over night. And best of all, none of the fears associated with wide spread solar have materialized into real world problems.
In Sweden, people – wealthy home owners – have gotten a lot of public financial assistance for mounting solar panels that would either way have paid for themselves in a matter of years, lowering electrical bills and raising house prices for the owners.
Overall that is a good thing, the pros of increased solar adoption outweigh the glaring inequity, but all the same it’s hard to feel that it’s a part of the general fuckery of governments competing on who can pamper the upper middle class the most. Sweden also subsidizes mortgage interest and has essentially abolished (hard-capped at a low.level) the property tax on private homes. And Sweden has in recent years given financial relief to households based on their electrical consumption, I.e. very little (or nothing if electric is added to the rent) to renters and most of the money going to people with big houses and year-round heated pools.
The discussion on equity needs to enter the debate on things like incentives for solar panels on private homes or grants for energy saving insulation. These are good things, but the money can’t just stack up on top of other political favors to the wealthy. Less useful subsidies need to go. They need to replace other benefits.
I guess a big difference is in Australia we have a lot of land and a lot of sun. That money could be used to fund public solar farms and providing electricity for all, yet it and so many other social benefits go directly to the house owners.
I don’t know how it works in Australia, but a plus to subsidizing solar installation on roofs is that the home owner still has to co-invest for a considerable part, so you kinda get a leveraged build out, as opposed to the government directly building installations. But the balance between private and public good should be weighed carefully all the same.
Im very pro rooftop for this reason. The most efficient place to generate electricity is where it will be used. The more transmission you need, the higher the cost. If the majority of energy is generated at the point of use, or close to it, transmission lines are only needed to balance out the margins