Currently the government in Australia is providing rebates to those that purchase solar pannels for off the grid home power usage.How ever what the public and Government bodies do not realise is:

1) Solar panels have no federal regulation which further ensures that they are to be moderately sufficiently (reasonably) priced to allow a practical public dissemination. There is already a carbon Tax in place to regulate certain technologies. The same justification and legislation can include 'fair pricing' on environmental beneficial energy systems.

2) A simple 120 watt solar panel per house hold could produce a 'net metering effect' which supply's power back into the grid and charges during the day to supply each of the individual houses needs. What they dont use from the power accumulated during the day can be sold back to the 'grid'.

3) All the money currently being offered for a rebate could be applied towards a cheaper solution by endorsing a not for profit organisation to manufacture solar panels at cost for its environmental relevance and allow EVERY consumer to afford a solar panel for the net metering scheme to become a reality.

4) Panacea is such an environmental not for profit organisation which could assimilate these energy savings upon being given grants and the revenue reseved for such rebates and make this revenue go 'further'.

5) There is enough energy in one Australian summers day to supply the whole earths energy needs for half a year! All the worlds energy needs are already provided by the solar grid, yet the infrastructure is not there to utilize this free energy.

Panacea will now present facts which justify a not for profit organisation to implement the solar 'net metering system' at cost.

Backround on net metering

The electrical power grid is a study in organizational behavior. Take how electricity is generated and distributed to the point of consumption. Huge power plants or arrays—fueled by “green energy” sources such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric, or “brown energy” sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear—concentrate electrical power generation to take advantage of “economies of scale.” 

The resulting current is transmitted through an extensive redundancy of power lines, cables, substations, circuit breakers, switches and transformers—oftentimes referred to as the “power grid" —to individual consumers across wide areas.

Organizationally, this is a centralized model. Power is concentrated in a select number of locations and authority is distributed to other points as needed and according to priorities driven by limited supply during periods of peak demand. The overall system, no matter how inefficient or costly, strives to be convenient, available when needed, standardized in delivery, and transparent during use. 

The goal is to please the most and dissatisfy the least so that fundamental assumptions about the design of the system are unquestioned, significant investments in infrastructure modernization or extensive system redesign are delayed, and increases in operational costs, along with services, are passed fluidly to the consumer. 

In other words, the existing power structure prevails and remains unchallenged and the consumer is dependent on that structure to get what is needed and wanted.For every movement, there is a counter-movement. There are those who regard being “on the grid" as a lifestyle that epitomizes wanton consumerism, promoting waste, excess, banality, and destruction of the environment. 

Their alternative is to live “off the grid” disconnected from public services including electrical power. Initiated during the 1960’s and ‘70’s, the “back to the land” movement is often synonymous with off the grid solutions such as energy from solar, wind, and biomass sources.

The off the grid approach represents an alternative organization structure—a decentralized model. In this instance, power is held by a wide range of relatively small, independent individuals / families who are in total control of an electrical power system that meets their consumption requirements. As with many decentralized structures, one’s destiny is in one’s hands. However, the limits of these structures become apparent when consumption patterns change and more power is required or disaster strikes and there is no opportunity for a quick recovery.

Over the weekend, the article, “Solar homes can make so much energy that meters run backward,” was posted on the My San Antonio website. As the title suggests, some homes with photovoltaic (PV) panels generate sufficient electricity during the day to meet and exceed the immediate consumption needs of the home. In a different twist to back to the land homes sporting off the grid solar powered systems, the homes in this article were definitely on the grid and used that connection to load surplus electrical power onto the grid and receive financial credit for doing so through a process called, net metering. 

While a national mandate for electric power companies to offer fair net metering practices is not in place—albeit, some writers, Jay Draiman of Northridge, CA, tout this as a necessary step in overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels, momentum is gaining in several states as commitment to renewable energy is strengthened. One of these is New York where, as the article mentions, the New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), launched the New York Energy $martSM initiative which offers a range of incentive programs directed toward offsetting the installation costs for small-scale solar systems and encouraging connection to the public power grid in order to facilitate net metering.

From an organizational standpoint, this represents a very different structure—the integrated model. Although neither centralized nor decentralized, integrated structures blend a centralized surplus distribution and backup system with a decentralized network of small-scale operations. 

Such interdependence distributes responsibility and authority to individual members in the social system so they can engage in self-sustaining behavior patterns while linked to a broader network of resources and markets. 

Individuals are in control of investments, operating expenses, and utilization of resources. They can take care of themselves first, sell the surplus, or if circumstances warrant, buy what they need or want when they are unable to provide enough by themselves.

The combination of electrical power grid, PV panels, and net metering represents one way developments in technology influence organization structure and design. As systems technologies become more powerful, pervasive, and transparent, sub-systems will become more embedded, integrated, and interdependent. The same concept applies to computers, the Internet, and payment for posting articles on a website or blog. 

As information and communication technologies continue to evolve, they will empower individuals to THINK independently, work openly and in parallel, and collaborate when opportunities arise for bargains and balances to be struck among the various comparative advantages, surpluses, and deficits in the larger system.

Thereby comes one of the unintended but inevitable consequences of pursuing “green energy” sources for power generation in lieu of “brown energy” sources: the fundamental organization structure and assumptions for organization design shift. Control is no longer held by a central body, be it a corporation, government, or special interest group; nor is it fractured and splintered to such a degree that collective effort is no longer possible.

Instead, it is held in balance at the point where production, distribution, and consumption work in unison with one another for the advantage of the system rather than favoring the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Conventional wisdom may differ, but the world will be a better place for it! Posted by Steve Bosserman on Wednesday February 7 2007. Link

Currently this Compnay has offered to take the rebate offered by the Australian government and install a similar net metering plan. How ever this offer merly supplys a 200$ savings per year.

 This is obviously the least efficient way of utilizing the 8, 000 rebate.Obviously the government and the public are not aware of these benefits which would make their life cheaper, sustainable and secure. 

Once the Panacea research and development centre is granted Panacea will pledge to under go a solar plan at cost to implement a solar net metering scheme as referenced in the above article.

Panacea Currently has a registered technology which can make Solar systems more self sustaining and higher efficient!. The first example can be found on this engineres web site.

Additionally a notable example is the recent solar test of the Joseph Newman Device.

Link

The video shows something which has never been done before. A 7,500-lb Newman energy machine with a 1,200-lb rotary and a 450-lb flywheel which is spinning at hundreds of rpms. 

This is powering a 375-lb positive displacement pump with a 4-inch diameter intake/out-take & 10-foot head.

This is pumping 5,000 GALLONS PER DAY is running off only: 4 SOLAR PANELS that can produce a MAXIMUM OF JUST UNDER 120 WATTS (up to 400 volts x .287 amps)!!!

These device can amplify the power of solar systems more efficiently then any other deivce in the world. Thes solar systems can privide more effective power form cells, and need implimentation and faculty awareness.

Solar is expensive. To solar power a home in Australia averages out at $25,000 to $30,000 and return on capital is 15 to 20 years. The major political parties in this election are all pushing for clean green energy and we can go solar. It is way out of the reach of the average householder and it shouldn't be. At the last election Mr.howard offered a green package and was going to pump $500 million into developing alternative energy R & D. Whatever happened to that and what was the result?

We have the ideal climate for solar but few can afford to take advantage of it and our slack government won't assist. The rebate they offer is a pittance and if you want to sell back to the grid, the paper work is a nightmare.14 pages of it. Surely we can do better than this and the target should be to at least to halve this cost and try to reduce from there.

To support solar panels at cost this please contact Panacea and / or donate, sign the petitions or contact your local member.