The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Green Energy Fallacy

Green Energy Fallacy

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
As the Greens anticipate holding the balance of power in the Senate after the next election, the specter of an ETS will no doubt be up for discussion. As I understand it, the penalty rates on carbon will artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable.

A colleague of mine in the UK copied me on his letter to Osborne/Hendry at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The following are extracts from his plea for killing their MRET.

I am a professional engineer with over 40 years experience in the automotive and power generation industries and I have recently been doing some research supporting opposition to a planning application for an on-shore wind energy installation.

It is not this specific scheme I wish to bring to your attention, rather it is what my research has uncovered in the questionable tactics adopted by the last administration in the imposition of the Renewables Obligation. This levies a tax on all domestic and business consumers of electricity which, at the latest estimate, exceeds 1 billion per annum, with 40% going to wind energy developments.

This scheme rewards wind installation developers via direct charges on all consumers for the costs of construction and operation and, most surprising of all, remunerates them for non-operation of the installations when the national grid does not require the energy (for example in the early hours of the morning).

They are lamentably inefficient; most on-shore installations have efficiency ratings of around 25%. In the recent cold winter, with high atmospheric pressure in place and wind speeds low, their contribution to the UK energy mix was virtually nothing.

Since every installed megawatt requires back-up from a carbon-based source, there is no positive energy security or cost reduction benefit and the environmental impact is negative.

Thankfully, the UK can still rely on other energy sources, though sadly not for much longer as we move to a 2020 position dominated by foreign energy sources. (Primarily Russian oil and gas and French Nuclear energy)

Is Australia heading for the same disaster?
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 8:58:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's why a "simple" carbon tax at this point seems a much better option. At least its something right? Smoking is bad for you - so there's a tax. Alcohol is bad for you - so there's a tax. Carbon is bad for the environment - so lets throw a tax on it. At least its a place to start.

Now even Tony Abbott is saying the PM should sit down with the Greens and talk climate change action. As amazing as that sounds its really a "put up or shut up" gesture. But the PM could pass something right now if she wanted to. And she should.
Posted by mellou, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 10:57:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No - as your penultimate paragraph alludes.

However, your post is a good one for stirring up a hornet's nest.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 10:58:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HI Spindoc.. r u Viv Forbes ?

I note with interest your quote

"artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable."

I don't think they raise the cost of carbon..they just "put" a price on it.

I don't really object to assisting renewable energy enteprises as long as.....

a) they are in Australia
b) They help householders rather than corporations.

The problem seems to be as you point out that a lot of funding goes into enterprises .. corporations.. which are of dubious value.

SOLAR is a better proposition, and definitely worthwhile in my view.

I do have experience and connections in this industry and know that with close attention to high efficiency lighting, and gas cooking and heating our main base load electricity provision won't need to be as great.

MY PROBLEM with pretty much all of the schemes being bandied around is contained in one word "TRADING"

You don't have to look far to see how the greedy hands of corporate capitalism (dressed in Watermelon suits) ..green/socialist are intent on doing the following:

1/ Get rich...VERY very rich.
2/ Global Governance. (which is to keep them immune from their get rich quick accountability)
3/ Income redistribution... 3rd world social agenda.

SEE "AGENDA 21" for more information.

Kyoto, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Richard Sandor, Kathy Zoi, Bob Carr, SPIAusnet, Smart meter manufacturer Landice and Gyr, Chicago Climate Exchange.. Climate Exchange (Eu) etc.. are allllll woven into a huge network of money making/ left wing (for power and election purposes only) capitalism in socialist garb....

I'm beginning to think the Greens see financial benefit for their party (or it's connections) though this also.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 11:06:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc

Yes the whole process is not based on market forces or economic reality

It is based on notional and unprovable values which exist solely in the imagination of luddites and fellow levellers.

Wind-farms are seen as environmentally friendly so coal generation (seen as environmentally unfriendly) must be levied to pay for the inherent inefficiencies of wind-farms.

Now I have no problem with wind farms and I do have some issues with coal consuming electicity generation but

What I have most concern over is the artificial manipulation of production costs to subsidies the uncompetitive.

It is like chopping the feet off the runners to make them equal to the wheelchair bound.

It is no different to performing lobotomies on the competent to force them into equal capability with the incompetent.

It is a typical levelling policy which perverts the limited reasoning skills of the small minded and envious into thinking that are doing something good, when they are really only doing -

no good what-so-ever.

Yet they vote for power-obsessed politicians who offer such empty promises as solutions, to ensure election.

The sooner the madness ends and people come to understand that the market is the market and is best left unadulterated by political whimsy the better.

Government can solve no problems, only people can.

Governments who Tax people to force them to use uncompetitive processes are an affront to their electorates intelligence and deserve to be exiled to permanent (minority) opposition.
Posted by Stern, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 2:15:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The questions I'd be asking....are these :)

-WindTurbine Manufacturing companies... who.. WHO has major share holdings?
-Do such shareholders/managers/ execs have positions on UN green committees?

-Are the connected via various (nefarious) economic networks which mutually scratch each others backs ?

If something LOOKS like a bad idea... and yet people with brains insist on going ahead with is... FOLLOW THE MONEY! and see where the shares.. former employment.. etc all lead.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 3:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy