The Forum > Article Comments > What must we pay for our renewables protection policy? > Comments
What must we pay for our renewables protection policy? : Comments
By Geoff Carmody, published 13/6/2018Australian politicians are 'doubling down' again on their energy costs gamble. When their gambling goes awry, punters, and, inevitably, the economy, will pay.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
The uselessness of the RET can be approached from a different angle. Back in 2001 supporters said it would decarbonise the electricity system. Turnbull's 2015 emissions pledge required most of the cuts to come from the electricity sector. That sector lost about 12 Mt of emissions 2005-2017 much of which can be explained by the closure of Hazelwood early in 2017. Overall non-land use emissions increased in this period. Therefore the RET did not do what it said and is an expensive dud.
Apparently the RET of 33 Twh will remain in place after 2020 and subsidies will continue for a decade contrary to a recent statement by Frydenberg. There is supposed to be an electric car revolution happening by then which will see millions of EVs plugged in overnight. My guess is they'll want that power to be reliable which won't come from RE. We are daydreaming our way into a crisis.