The federal government's solar photovoltaic (electricity) rebate came to a sudden end with an announcement on June 9th - there was no notice, and this was the first that the companies working to sell Solar PV knew.

Of course, the writing was on the wall, the government had announced the system would be brought to an end, but had promised to keep it going until the expanded Solar Credits (RECS multiplier) scheme came into effect, which was expected around August or September

I haven't seen the official figures, however, I understand that in May there were 30,000 applications for the rebate, that is $240 million in one month for a scheme budgeted at $150m per year, over 5 years!

Eighteen months ago, (November 2007) we launched Beyond Building Energy, with a product priced at $499 (after rebates and RECS), when most competitors were priced at about $5,000. We did this by engineering the business model to a model based on volume.

When putting the model together I believed that there was a market for green products IF the price was right, i.e. the pent-up demand to live a sustainable life is there, but people believe they can't afford to. The demand proved that, in my street 50% of the houses installed solar, in the nearest town (Mullumbimby) it was 10%.

I guessed BBE had up to a year's lead. The rest of the industry said BBE couldn't possibly be able to supply at that rate - but gradually they came around to believe it was possible, and then to copy it. Which is how so many systems were sold last month. In that last month the systems were being sold by several companies (including BBE) for as low as zero, so of course there was no limit to demand.

What now?

The rebate has been replaced by a solar credit scheme, which gives 5x the number of RECS, this works out at about $5,000 for a 1Kw system in this area, but bigger systems are also supported. There are problems with the model, firstly the total support is $4,000 per kw less than currently, and secondly that the RECS price fluctuates, so with the multiplier it could mean a substantial difference in out-of-pocket cost between application and installation. The good thing is that the wait - often a couple of months for DEWHA to first approve the application, and then another delay after installation should be one, since companies can create the RECS themselves.

Each of the competitors is likely to announce new pricing soon. I heard BBE announce on the local radio that they would now supply a 1.5kw system for about $2,500. At current electricity rates this should repay in about 7 years, so its still a good deal, though not as good as before. I don't know if that will be the final price, and there isn't one on BBE's website. The only competitor I've seen pricing for is Rezeko who are pricing at from $2,999 for 1kw. I haven't seen prices on any of the competitors sites yet (e.g. Nickel or AusEnergy)

As storms batter the North coast of NSW, you have to ask whether its got anything to do with climate change - after all we seem to get 1 in 10 year storms every year now. Winds reached 133km/h on Thursday morning, and significant parts of the region are still without power.

Insurance companies are starting to re-assess their risk based on climate change, with specific reference to these storms.

As the big polluters complain about costs, and job losses, they neglect of course the cost of doing nothing, and the jobs that will be created in a new green economy.

This year's budget and the submission to parliament of the CPRS didn't really have any surprises.

The Green Party rightly criticised it as not being green enough, and even the Chinese got into the criticism.

ABC says that it funnels $4.5b to clean energy, but closer inspection reveals that the bulk ($2.4b) will be wasted on so-called "Clean Coal".

At least the solar power rebates haven't been axed just yet, as recommended by the Wilkins report, but that creates the strange anomaly with the industry rushing to get as many rebates pre-approved as possible because no-one knows just how long the scheme will last.

Unfortunately petrol is being kept out of the scheme till 2014, which means that we won't see the necessary reductions in consumption, nor the pricing pressure towards public transport, and of course any change in 2014 will be at the whim of the next government.

The bills for the CPRS have been introduced to the house which at least will give some certainty - uncertainty being the biggest barrier to investment (except for a shortage of money ! ), the worst part is that the fixed price of $10/tonne for the first year means that almost nothing will happen as industry will find it cheaper to pay the penalty than to reduce costs - something closer to $60/tonne is going to be needed according to at least one Australian power retailer.

Of course, as expected the big polluters will get most (up to 95%) of their permits for free (an extra $1bn bringing it to $12.5bn), creating little incentive for structural change to the economy.

Better Place has been promoting the idea of Battery Swapping as a way to get around the range problem with electric cars.

Last week a roll-out starting 2012 was announced.

Earth2Tech has some good photos of the technology.

While I was away, the long awaited Emissions trading Scheme - the so-called "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" was delayed for another year, and a number of changes made to it.

I've blogged before on the significant flaws in CPRS, and why it won't reduce emissions by even 5% which won't keep CO2 levels to 450ppm which wouldn't keep temperature rise to 2 degrees, which wouldn't stop dangerous change ...

The trouble with the changes is that they look good, while failing to commit the government to actually make significant changes. Rather than analyse it myself, I'd suggest looking at David Spratt's (Code Red) article, and Ian Lowe's (ACF) response.

I respect both of these environmental leaders, and their are Pro's and Con's of passing a scheme - i.e. its a terrible scheme, but its arguably better than nothing. I suggest the focus of attention should be on the deficiencies in the scheme, rather than the position of any organisation on it.

Papyrus Australia (ASX:PPY) had some coverage recently of a banana harvester it developed and has recently filed patents on. A key input to Papyrus's process of turning banana waste into paper is a supply of banana trunks, which are cut each year after fruiting, and a harvester improves the chances of getting long-enough high quality raw materials.

See coverage; ASX release

Disclaimer: I was acting CEO of Papyrus in 2005 before it listed.

I'm just back from a vacation in Bali, while I was there I spent some time talking to people running interesting projects, and as usual its interesting to see the perspective of people working in a totally different environment.

One interesting thread was the use of bamboo - several projects are working to show that Bamboo can be a high-end material, not just something used by those who can't afford wood.

I visited the "Heart of School" building at the Green School - 2000 sq meters, and 20 meters high, designed by "PT Bambu", watch the time-lapse of its construction.

I visited Indo Bamboo who are also working on making bamboo into a high-end material.

Conversations with local (balinese and ex-pat) permaculture and development professionals varied significantly from their western counterparts. In particular the emphasis on local materials was key, given that local wages are about US$2-5 per day, Imported materials incur a duty of 50-100% which in many ways it reminds me of working with Brazil 20 years ago, where a duty supposedly imposed to foster local development created real hold-ups for anyone wanting to use computers. It makes components of a project which would already be expensive into unaffordable.

I was particularly impressed by some work to use low-head hydro, which would be particularly appropriate in Bali.

Some key requirements that need to be met include: low-cost water storage and filtration; fuel-efficient stoves and micro-credit.

In the budget Rudd announced that the Green Loan program would now be smaller, but interest free see G Magazine; and Sydney Morning Herald;

Queensland has set an impressive target on solar hot water, putting together a scheme that provides systems, fully installed to homeowners for $500 ($100 for pensioners)

Its to be hoped its done better than previous efforts, there are some really good people in Queensland government, committed to sustainability, but as their is a pretty bad track-record in Queensland of great ideas ending up looking less than great by the time they get through the layers of drafting.

Their was a Solar PV bulk-buy a few years ago, for a 1000 systems, but the amount of bureaucracy built into the project meant that the company I was working with would have had to add $500 to $1000 to its price to handle it, i.e. the bulk purchase would have costed MORE than our standard price. Also by bulking it up in one go, rather than allowing competing tenderers to carve it up, it prevented smaller companies from participating as you had to take all 1000 (from Fraser Island to Gold Coast - about 400km)

Then there was a solar feed-in-tarif, that as announced promised a Gross Feed-In-Tariff, that would have boosted solar installations in Queensland, but got converted by the Department of Mines and Energy into a Net Feed-In which does almost nothing. See what I wrote at the time., and what the government's own report says. This is even more significant now that the Federal government has halved the support for solar PV from $8000 for a 1kw system to about $4000

The current scheme promises 200,000 systems (about twice the current install rate of 90,000 a year, largely driven by replacing old broken systems).

Its received flack from existing manufacturers, though that is often misplaced as we've seen with Solar PV, and there are a lot of inefficiencies in the current sales-pipeline.

A more valid criticism is that pre-announcing the scheme in effect puts all current installations on hold, as consumers wait for the scheme to start. This story has been picked up by the Courier Mail, and isn't helped by there being rumors in the press, and election promises, but nothing that I can find on Queensland government websites to clarify things.

To confuse things, from the customer point of view, there is a separate rebate of $400 in Brisbane, a current $750 state rebate, and a $1600 federal rebate, and almost none of the web sites covering this line them all up or are up to date.

I would suggest the best way to tackle this would be to post a target price, pool the customers, and allow tenders from companies that can meet that price. Then - and most importantly - keep the bureaucracy down to a minimum, unlike last time.

This could still be done as a tender, just allow losing tenderers to match the winner's price, which would allow companies with for example a narrower geographic reach to participate.

As the financial crisis deepens, it becomes a big question as to whether sustainability programs should be cut. At Natural Innovation we've long believed that sustainability is an opportunity, i.e. that aligning a companies financial bottom line with their ecological and social bottom lines will benefit all three, and its interesting to see the debate shift in that direction now.

Some recent coverage included the Australian: Companies must not put green projects on hold: investors.

IT would be easy for troubled companies to put their green schemes on hold while they deal with effects of the financial crisis, but investors have warned directors that such a move would be short-sighted and could cost them more in the long run.

And also by the Age: Shining a light on sustainability of sustainability

THE view that sustainability and corporate responsibility are only important during "the good times" would suggest we are entering a "sustainability downturn". But there are many reasons to think the opposite may be true. Alongside the possibility that the triple bottom line will be separated, via an economic focus that takes precedence over environmental and social concerns, is the potential for it to be further integrated by today's economic issues.