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 > Article Comments > Carbon - the more you emit the greater the subsidy! > Comments

Carbon - the more you emit the greater the subsidy! : Comments

By Ged McCarthy, published 25/11/2010

Can Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott save solar from being a policy basket case?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It’s a sign of the times that a self-confessed solar installer and head of the Solar Energy Industry Association can unblushingly spruik for higher solar subsidies and feed-in tariffs without feeling any need to explain why I and most of my fellow citizens should pay the electricity bills of a few. Solar PV power costs five to ten times current power prices. Solar is clearly not the answer to the huge problem we face in cutting emissions to battle climate change. But Australians are obsessed with solar energy. That single fact is the greatest barrier to progress in Australia’s energy and climate change politics. This article does not help.
Posted by Tombee, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:17:21 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
The basic question to ask regarding solar energy (including photovoltaics-PVs), is what is the purpose of subsidies? Clearly, the present subsidies in Australia have stimulated domestic demand, but will it amount to anything significant or useful?

Present PV installations globally amount to about 25GW- about 0.5% of global electricity generating capacity of 5000GW, of which Australia's total is about 50GW (1%). Total PV installations in Australia amount to about 150MW- about 0.3% of total generating capacity and about 1% of 2009 global PV production of about 12GW and about one-third of the annual production of the tenth largest PV manufacturer (Gintech of China). Australia's local PV production is insignificant.

At projected rates of production, PVs will reach grid parity prices at a cumulative production of about 100GW. This will happen some time in the next 10 years.

Despite much woolly thinking to left and right, subsidies in themselves don't reduce costs or save energy- they merely displace them from a small number of visible end-users to a large number of taxpayers and tariff-payers.

Australia is indeed a small-time player now. The main benefit of these subsidies in Australia is to contribute infinitesimally to global demand and thereby help drive down prices.

While Australians will ultimately benefit from these price reductions, we are deluded if we think that we are stimulating a local industry. China, Germany, Japan and the USA already have that sewn up.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:47:12 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
Yes Jeddi master, & if you stretch the ears of your pet pig, every morning, for enough years, he might fly.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 25 November 2010 8:57:28 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
If I understand the original MRET scheme properly, it was primarily designed to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation. Why did we limit it to Renewable Energy technologies like solar, wind, wave, hydro, geothermal etc? Was this the action of a Government who thought this was the only way to reduce electricity GHG emissions?

Most of the rest of the world seems to see it differently. They all recognise that RE has a place but not the whole shebang! Sure the Greens in Germany like solar rather than nuclear but that doesn't make it the best option. The Chinese and Koreans build solar and wind as well but they know where the real GHG mitigation (plus energy security) is going to come from - and it's not from RE, unless you want to send the country broke.

I see in the Oz yesterday a call for a game-change to the MRET to include nuclear and let it compete on an even playing field with RE. How could the solar industry object to that? If nuclear really does prove too expensive or too difficult then they have nothing to worry about do they?
Posted by Martin N, Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:06:59 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
im sick of those selling us a crow..calling it a cow
lets watch what occured in spain..who went green big-time
now they have fully bankrupted their economy..their green jobs are revealed to be fluff and spin..

now they are at the mercy of tha bankers...wanting to trade in carbon credits...[look at ireland...who did EVERYTHING by the book...and are still in the same boat

im sick..of paying double for power..
only to subsidise those HEAVEY users..with their green subsidised solar-cells...[costing near a grand a panel]..

subglad the fedin tarif has fallen
now lets end subssubsidised by the like as me..[using under one dollar a day of power]...subsidising..SOON TO BE..OB_sol_ETE..solar teqnology..

sitting there..on the roofs of those..who realised their one off payment..of a thousand[or less]...could bring THEIR* COSTS..to near nuthing...while we subsidise ALL THEIR ABUSES

we still give them overnight power..from the coal stations[we ...not them are paying for...[here is a clue...lets call a spade a spade]

you apply for the subsidy
you loose off peak..SERVICE..we are paying for

its about time polititions woke up
having a daytime solution...while making the rest of us pay all the cost..of the time in the darkness*..[off-peak...lol]

subsidising the rich..is highlighted by the fact..investers have cottoned onto the grand scam...we now have solar farms,..[NEEDING EXTRA COSTS..TO HOOK THESE FOOLS ONTO THE GRID]..

the infastructure is ALLREADY AT*.. MY door...
i could out produce most of the farms..DIRECT into THE EGSISTING GRID..and save the extra infastructure costs for these investers getting in on the scam...

its time the green scam was fully revealed
if only investers didnt influence the media

bah treason with a capital t
who serves the adgenda of those getting rich
and soon the BIG NEW TAX..for yet more moneyed elete to trade with

bah humbug...user pays...if you dont pay by day
then pay for what you use..at night

THE REAL COST..of the infastructure..YOUR STILL HOOKED INTO..!
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:12:19 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
"While Australians will ultimately benefit from these price reductions, we are deluded if we think that we are stimulating a local industry. China, Germany, Japan and the USA already have that sewn up."

Are those the "green Jobs" we hear will replace the jobs of people who are retrenched from mines and power stations?

Why is no one questioning the idiot politicians who babble about jobs in the "new green, renewable, sustainable" industries.

So as we steadily shut down industry, the reality is those who lose their jobs, will not go to new industries, they go to the scrap heap, unless they can get employment elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Greens insist this is an example to the rest of the world. (of the size of egos down here, I presume.)

As Janet says, the Greens are a Banana Party, (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything)
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:14:40 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
If low carbon is really what it's all about then nuclear should get the feed-in tariff as well. In cloudy Tasmania my net meeting tariff is 18.6c per kwh, but I need to 'donate' about 5 kwh a day to cover the 90c daily connection fee. Even 20c would be a bonanza. As often pointed out the middle class with spare cash get the bling bling panels but battlers end up paying for it via the FiT.

We need a way of pumping cheap enough power into the grid 24/7 to benefit everybody. Near 50C summer temperatures can't be far away and the frail and elderly will need air conditioning to stay alive. A few solar panels in the upmarket suburbs won't help. The solar FiT costs too much for too little benefit. We need a large scale value-for-money solution.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 25 November 2010 9:22:42 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
Ged - fellow posters have said most things but a couple of points.

You mention spending on the infrastructure. Electricity prices have been on the up of late because the networks have to be upgraded and expanded, due to extra population and changing requirements. Also, the power providers have to take into account continuing increases in peak demand - more people with air conditioners, basically.

This has nothing to do with green versus renewables as such, but the advent of serious amounts of wind power means considerably more money will have to be spent on the network. It is not nearly as simple, as green proponents hope, as hooking up a few wind farms and counting the carbon savings.

Thanks to overseas experience we can now discount PVs as a substantial source of green power. Germany has a vast number of PV panels because of very favourable government subsidies, but the actual amount of power supplied has proved trivial.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:26:33 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
My last post was not meant to denigrate solar, but to try to put some perspective and proportion on the issue by providing some relevant facts and numbers- in the (perhaps forlorn) hope that other OLO-ers might also justify their opinions with facts and numbers.

Despite Hasbeen's cynicism, there is ample evidence that PVs are tracking towards grid parity (try the respected Solarbuzz.com). This does not mean that PVs will be the total solution, but will be a viable part of the solution. Subsidising the first few percent of a new market is common- nuclear has received at least $100billion of subsidies globally over 40 years and France's 70% nuclear contribution would never have happened without significant subsidies.

The point that I am making is that we need to be clear as to what we are trying to achieve with any particular subsidy and that we don't confuse the short-term economics of subsidy with long-term sustainability economics.

Even if an economic case for nuclear could be made for Australia, most of the technology would be imported- quite possibly from China. The fact that Australia has 40% of the world's uranium is no more relevant to eventual construction costs than us having boundless areas of bright sunshine.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:28:07 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
Anyone want to comment on the desirability of a $1 billion subsidy for coal in NSW alone? All those complaining about subsidising renewables ought to be complaining more about subsidising coal, raising the price to the economy and locking us into a dinosaur technology.

The reason, of course, is that mainstream politicians will do nothing that actually reduces coal emissions, because that would reduce coal profits, and they're too gutless to take the industry on.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:28:40 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
Get with the motion and install solar, for the good of the country and this will shut down coal fired boilers. My savings / yr are 60% with solar. You can't say the system don't work. Whinge about the initial cost , everything costs.
Start with a kw then build on it one panell at a time.
A couple of batteries in the garage, to cover the nite time power, you are on easy street.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:44:21 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
geoff davies "The reason, of course, is that mainstream politicians will do nothing that actually reduces coal emissions, because that would reduce coal profits, and they're too gutless to take the industry on."

no that's not why, it's because their constituents still believe it is the state's duty to supply them with the benefits of a modern society and economy.

To decide to reduce emissions, and shut down coal fired power, is not just taking on the coal or power industry - it is taking on THEIR CUSTOMERS!

Us!

We want and need that power, stop making dumb excuses about the coal industry being a political obstacle, it's entirely simplistic but I guess suits the purpose of providing a scapegoat and a "bad guy" to blame. Mind you, usually the focus is skeptics, or "deniers", isn't it - that are the focus of your angst.

You just have to have target don't you?
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 25 November 2010 11:20:51 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
Coal fired power does not have to be for home use, leave that for big business to solve.
With several options of supplying your own power there's no excuse to do nothing.
LED interior lighting for the home is becoming available.
Soft start refrigeration is only a matter of adding a component.
There are things you can do for yourself.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 25 November 2010 11:47:27 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
579, big businesses are not voters, demonising them is of no value at all. You'll find that people run and own big businesses, as well as small businesses. People vote, whether they run or work for a large business - last time I checked, governments didn't govern for this or that size business, they govern for Australians (or then there's the ALP who are in it for themselves, but I digress)

So what's the cutoff for you, when is a business big enough to solve their problems themselves? Keeping in mind they pay tax. So do they deserve consideration because they pay tax and employ people, or are you like geoff davies and just happy to demonize parts of our society?

Changing lights - not long ago we all had to switch to low power flouro lights, not it's LED, what next? Special frills on the edges? I'm ridiculing it because so many people bury their heads in the tiny details, while the big problems remain ignored. You can't just turn off the coal power plants, without a viable peak load replacement, which we do not have.

They are all mouse nuts in the scheme of things, the little solutions are nice to feel good, and then you can finger wag of course, that's a nice touch.

The big things are important and you cannot just dismiss business, that's what the country runs on, businesses - the public service, while huge, produces nothing.

But do carry on demonizing the very people and industries we cannot do without as a 1st world nation.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 25 November 2010 12:33:30 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
What has voting got to do with carbon.
If you take households out of the equasion, business will have to follow or pay the cost of buying carbon power.
Tis easy to supply your self, it's not complicated.
You are reading to much into a simple problem.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:07:23 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
Geoff Davies - you have caught my attention. Where does the $1 billion subsidy for coal figure for NSW come from? Is that before or after the resources rent tax? Coal companies are big tax payers.. I'm intrigued
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:19:16 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
"What has voting got to do with carbon."

Only tax and government decision about resources, not to worry though, I'm sure if we all wish hard enough, the problem will just go away.

Let's not complicate it by including tax, voting, government representatives, government, laws, science or anything .. way too hard, just do your little bit and all will be well.

no wonder the greens have such a following, it's all so easy really, no idea why anyone even thinks there's a problem at all.

Gosh when you really look at it, it's all trivial!

/sarc
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:28:55 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
Further on that, I just refreshed my memory with some of the debate follow labor abandoning its proposed resources super profits tax.. NSW charges a royalty on coal extracted.. Macarthur Coal estimated at the time that the state resource royalty plus Federal company tax put its overall tax rate at 45 per cent of profits..

I suspect that $1 billion figure is one of those interesting statistics that activists take out of thin air to "prove" their case..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:30:39 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
You've lost the plot. First it was a vote now it's a tax.
Glad you agree it is a simple solution to supply your own power.
How many kw's / day if the entire state of nsw vic qld sa wa were on solar. Shut down 2 power stations at least.
Don't worry about the govt missing out on tax, change won't happen over nite.
If nothing ever changed we would be still riding bikes.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 25 November 2010 2:26:48 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
Why is Australia’s solar industry being so poorly treated? Because people no longer believe the rhetoric and they are not willing to be the fall guys for green policy.

Can Tony Windsor and Ron Oakeshott save solar, or for that matter any green non-renewable energy policy? No..simply they are only in there for what has been promised to them if they vote with the government.

They are not in it for the national interest and one is only in it for himself and you can work out which one that is.
Posted by RaeBee, Thursday, 25 November 2010 6:33:10 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
Sorry renewable green policy, got carried away with the nons. Lets hope the greens are not renewable.

The Victorian state election might be interesting.

Julia Gillard can wave her hands about, have a noddy in the background and say 'the science is in' all she wishes, it isn't convincing anyone.

Electricity prices will win in the end, too high and people are not buying the BS.
Posted by RaeBee, Thursday, 25 November 2010 6:43:42 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
Curmudgeon-
I was just quoting the article, in this case. I've seen a figure of $9 billion/year nationally for fossil fuels in general, including fuel subsidies for primary producers, subsidies for fleet cars and such indirect subsidies. Such numbers have also been qualified with the acknowledgement that it's difficult to establish the total. Perhaps it was the Australia Institute a year or three ago, but I'm not sure now.

If you could come up with a careful and comprehensive estimate that would be useful, including the net of taxation. I think there's little doubt however that far more taxpayer money is poured into fossil research than into renewables research.

Amicus-
Instead of just abusing, you could learn how phasing out coal burning is quite feasible economically, and is potentially neutral or better for households, if it's done right. The present policies only make us pay extra to pollute the world. See, for a start,
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/
Posted by Geoff Davies, Friday, 26 November 2010 10:16:32 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 26 November 2010 11:31:20 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
The easy way out is to abuse different groups.
Some greens are too far backward they would have us living a stone age.
Tax, Global warming, votes, all made to delay any proposals at all.
Solar is one of the better inventions in the last 100 yrs.
Solar has got to do with eliminating massive power bills. It's up to you, wether you want it or not.
But somehow the diverters end up talking tax , votes , global change.
Solar power,and Solar hot water. saves real money.
Posted by 579, Friday, 26 November 2010 11:53:25 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
The article raises the question:

//In New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally reduced the gross feed-in tariff from 60 to 20 cents per kilowatt. Anyone installing solar in the future in NSW will receive less for their clean contribution to the grid than they pay for coal-fired electricity.

In the age of climate change, emissions trading and carbon prices, why is Australia’s solar industry being so poorly treated?//

Simple...because Labor or Liberal...it's all about political survival and NEVER about good policy! The high feed in tarrif was about 'political survival' ...making Labor look more 'Green'.

Now..(especially that the Weath Redistribution scam is out of the bag) the REDUCTION in that feed in tarrif is also about political survival "Oh..we are fiscally responsible"

Learnnnnn young Jedi's....and come over to my side :) I am with 'The Force'...and you can be too. Just stop eating watermelons, and start on the good food of the Lord Jesus. ("I am the bread of life" "He who does not eat my body and drink my blood has no part in me".)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 27 November 2010 2:37:19 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
Wealth redistribution; You had better read that again, that is not what is being said. Thats what the headline said.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 27 November 2010 2:57:48 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
I have found a lot of this debate alarming. The NSW Government owns the 3 power companies Energy Australia, Integral Energy and Country Energy. Research commissioned by Lee Rhiannon found that in 9 years 9 billion was spent on subsidies and incentives for coal and coal fired power. In the same time only 640 million was spent on the renewable industry. So 1 billion every year for DIRTY COAL and 67 million for clean energy. See at
http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/coal/speeches
As taxpayers we are subsidising this and have been for years. The spin of the electricity industry has been considerable. Why would we be funding the advancement of coal fired power? Sure we need it as we move to renewables but we will need less and less and hence the incentives must reflect this. The current climate change committee seems to be fixated on a price for carbon. Where's the forward thinking re renewables especially solar? The NGO reference group suggest there has been none http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/greg-combet/2010/media-releases/November/mr20101125-a.aspx
Posted by Sage Femme, Sunday, 28 November 2010 1:56:50 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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