‘Better bang for buck': NSW to cut battery subsidies as federal scheme kicks in
The NSW government will end its incentive to install a home solar battery from July in favour of an enhanced Commonwealth scheme, and use the savings to encourage households to allow their stored energy to be remotely accessed by the grid.
Since last November, NSW consumers have been able to access a rebate of up to $2600 (depending on the size of the battery) to attach storage to their rooftop solar systems. The scheme resulted in 11,400 battery installations across the state in six months.
The program will conclude at the end of this month, while the Australian government's $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program is set to start on July 1. The federal rebate, announced before the election, will reduce the cost of a battery by about 30 per cent, making it about double the size of the state scheme.
The NSW government will redirect the money to its Peak Demand Reduction Scheme, a program designed to reduce electricity demand during peak periods. In particular, the government is doubling the payments to encourage solar households to sign up to a virtual power plant (VPP) – a group of solar-powered batteries linked by software, which are owned by households and small businesses that have consented for excess stored power to be sold to the grid.
Smart Energy Council acting chief executive Wayne Smith said VPPs were important because it increased the stability of the grid and this lowered power bills for everyone, not just those households with solar panels and batteries.
'There's a private benefit and a public good,' Smith said. 'It's actually important to find ways to try to integrate the individual home batteries into a much bigger collective battery system.'
The Smart Energy Council says a 6 kWh battery at $6000-$8000 would meet the needs of nine out of 10 homes. The federal subsidy would be about $2232 and the NSW incentive to connect to a VPP would be about $444.
On an 11.5kWh battery, the federal subsidy would be about $4278 and the NSW support for a VPP connection would be $850.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
39 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Virgin to unveil direct Australia to Qatar flights
Virgin Australia will unveil its first long-haul flight to Qatar since COVID-19 on Friday. Services between Sydney to Doha will start first, with Brisbane and Perth routes to follow later this month. 'It's also great for the Australian economy, these new flights are going to generate more than $3 billion of economic impact for Australia, and create hundreds of new jobs,' Virgin Australia CEO Dave Emerson said.
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
INSIDE MEDIA: AI ads set to make Netflix unwatchable
It seems the big streaming services want more revenue and they're finding new ways to fleece us, the consumer. Netflix has revealed plans to start showing AI-generated content to its ad-tier subscribers. These AI ads are slated to begin rolling out in 2026. While full details are yet to be released, it means viewers might see an ad that blends in with the show you're watching. The Verge reports Netflix says advertisers can insert this new ad format in the middle of a show or put them on the screen when you hit pause. They could contain an overlay or call to action when they roll out by the end of this year. Ads when you hit pause is not a new thing, it happens on other streaming services and doesn't detract from the program, but the big issue will be how Netflix integrates the AI generated commercials into the content. The streamers have discovered they can get two bites of the cherry by making the ad-free tier of their services expensive and forcing consumers into watching ads. The advertising model is reaping big profits and it's just a matter of time before we're all forced to watch ads. It'll be just like watching free to air tv all over again (except we never had to pay for that). REPORTERS UNDER FIRE It can be a tough gig being a news reporter. While most people are leaving the scene of riots, natural disasters or any number of events, news reporters are heading towards them. But, it would be difficult for any reporter to imagine they'd be fired upon in Los Angeles by authorities. Yes, that is exactly what happened to Lauren Tomasi this past week when an LA police officer shot her in the leg with a rubber bullet. While some critics have claimed she should have been wearing a helmet and a press jacket, that makes no sense to me. First, she was not in some third world war-torn country and second, she was obviously a reporter posing no threat. No, this was the result of a trigger-happy police officer who, for some reason, decided to fire upon a reporter doing their job in a democratic country. 'It is a target-specific munition. That's not to say that it always hits the intended target, particularly in a dynamic situation,' LAPD Chief McDonnell responded to a question about the incident during a press conference. 'We saw that, we're very concerned about it, and we're looking into that.' It's not the first time Australian journalists have been treated badly by law enforcement in the USA, including here at 7NEWS when a journalist and camera operator were attacked in Washington DC. There have been more examples over the past few days of journalists being treated like the enemy during the. A reporter from The New York Post was hit in the forehead after being fired upon and a journalist from CNN was handcuffed and detained. You can see vision of these instances in the video player above. Reporters risk their lives every day to tell stories of events happening around the world. They often work on very little sleep and trying conditions so that we can be informed of what is happening in our world. It's worth remembering that when you're sitting at home watching the nightly news. WHAT WENT WRONG FOR THE PROJECT AND Q&A I've been asked over the past few days where it all went wrong for The Project and Q&A, two shows that have been cancelled this week. So, here's my take; QandA was never the same when Tony Jones left at the same time as creator and founding executive producer Peter McEvoy. The two had developed a strong identity of the show which made it compelling viewing. Jones was replaced as host by Hamish MacDonald and McEvoy by Insiders and News Breakfast EP, Erin Vincent. It was a disaster despite this claim from ABC Head of Investigative and In-Depth Journalism John Lyons: 'Hamish's energy and ability to draw from people their real concerns will further strengthen Q&A as a forum for reflecting the views of Australians and seeking ideas for the future.' The new team thought they knew better and ratings quickly started to drop. Things got so bad MacDonald made a quick exit after just 18 months. It also didn't help that Q&A stopped using audience feedback from Twitter/X, an element that had made live viewing a necessity. The final straw for me though was when Stan Grant ejected a pro-Putin audience member for changing the question on their card. I always thought the idea of Q&A was to have a discussion about differing views. Apparently not. As for The Project, things started to go downhill when the makers started to believe they needed to teach Australians the 'right' was to think. The show went from comedy take on the day's events to woke and preachy. Despite claims the show had balance because they included Steve Price once a week, the show favoured left-leaning issues and admonished any guest who disagreed with the wok values of the show. In fact, the show became so obsessed with its need to 'educate' the audience we weren't allowed to have an opinion until we heard the latest editorial from Waleed in his 'Something we should talk about' segments. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for opinion pieces and panel shows (I host my own opinion show on Saturday night's), but there was something about how seriously the show took Aly's opinions that was very off-putting. It was like he was the judge and jury of how we should all be thinking. And I don't necessarily mean this was coming from the man himself, but more from the way the show treated his opinions like they were more important than anyone else's. Both shows will now join the long list of Australian TV shows that have come and gone over the past 69 years but there's no doubt both had a cultural impact. WILL 10'S NEW 6PM NEWS WORK? No. I guess you want more than that. We now have official details on what 10 is planning to replace The Project with and I have to say the signs are not looking good. While there have been some genuinely good signings in Denham Hitchcock and Amelia Brace, among others, the show looks set to be a retelling of the news of the day, albeit in a longer form show. 10NEWS+ (terrible name) will air from Sunday – Friday at 6pm, followed by Deal Or No Deal at 7pm. '10 NEWS+ aims to redefine evening news by providing comprehensive analysis, trusted reporting, and long-form investigative journalism. The program will offer a fresh perspective on critical local and global stories, tailored for an engaged audience seeking in-depth news coverage', according to the press release. All that is fine, but the network hasn't asked itself the most fundamental questions: why are we making this show? I get they want a cheaper option to The Project, I've covered that previously HERE and HERE, but what is the driving force of this additional news service? 10 must believe they can hold onto the 5pm news audience by delivering more news-based programming. It's an idea with merit except for the fact every bit of research I have seen over my 30+ years in media says viewers who watch 10 NEWS at 5pm will flick over to 7 or 9 at 6pm to see what else is happening. There are viewers of 10 NEWS who want more news, they just don't want it from 10. Putting this new show on at 6pm is a massive mistake. They would have been better putting it on at 6.30pm and offering viewers who only watch the first 20 mins of the nightly news on 7 and 9 somewhere to go. So, here's my prediction: This show will do nothing to erode the audiences watching 7NEWS and 9NEWS at 6pm. In sx months time 10 might find themselves making the smarter decision and moving it to 6.30, or they might just end up dropping the show altogether.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
AUKUS is a disaster for Australia. Trump has given us an out – let's take it
The Australian national security establishment's worst nightmare has arrived. The Trump administration is putting AUKUS to a review. A review many fear will put the $368 billion submarine deal to the sword. Led by Elbridge Colby, defence undersecretary and noted AUKUS sceptic, the Pentagon's review will assess whether the deal meets the president's 'America First' agenda. It was always very unlikely that any presidential administration would be willing to hand over some of the crown jewels of the US Navy's fleet to Australia, which is what the first part of the deal involved – the United States giving Australia control of some Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines. We don't know much about the details of the deal, but we do know that the US always had a get out clause there. It's up to the president to decide whether to hand them over, and really, why would they? Now, it's possible the Trump administration will tank the whole thing. And we can safely assume that won't mean handing back the $800 million Australia has already invested, no strings attached, in the US shipbuilding industry in the vain hope that would accelerate production rates. AUKUS was always a disastrous deal for Australia. We were never likely to get any submarines, and all the deal does is tie us ever closer to an increasingly volatile and aggressive America. AUKUS would not have made Australia safer. It would have made us more vulnerable and compromised our ability to make independent decisions about our own security. Trump has given us an opportunity to get out. We should take it. Australians already knew that Trump is not to be trusted. Polling by The Australia Institute done back in March found that more Australians considered the US president a bigger threat to global peace than the leaders of the world's two most powerful authoritarian states in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Almost half (49 per cent) said they felt less secure since the election of Trump.
