Thanks for validating my figures Curm; they were from http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/five-things-we-learned-this-week-and-tony-abbott-didnt-18907/cappo.

My impression is that you are a good enough journo when it comes to researching facts. Its in the analysis / opinion side of a piece where bias comes in and that's where yours and mine differ.

"Both the carbon tax and the existing RET have very little effect on the system".....? RET alone has given us 3% renewable electricity - from wind, biomass and solar PV - over 10 years. That's without the carbon price, which will nearly double the incentive.

"..if demand remains subdued as it has, and the government does not change its target (set as an absolute amount of about 45 Twhrs from memory)then RET costs could be eight times what they are now by 2020......" You are saying REC's could cost over $200 by 2010!! I don't think so.

My own study - ch 20 of 'The_Biochar_Revolution' (http://biochar-books.com)- shows clearly that the current price about $38 for Large Scale Generations Certificates (http://lgc.mercari.com.au/)plus a $30/tCO2 carbon price would enable at least 5% of our power to be generated by dedicated biomass alone and that is a hell of a lot more expensive than wind. There is much more potential for wind; it has been viable even without a carbon price. South Australia already generates 20% of its electricity from wind.

PS Yabbie - yes I agree they had a lot of catching up to do replacing poles; electricity prices were kept way below cost for more than 10 years under vote seeking state governments both Lib and Lab. But I don't think it justifies them charging nearly 50% of our bills for networks, do you?

cohenite - feed in tariffs would be included in the 6.7% RET figure. FIT cost is very small because so little electricity is generated by PV (0.2%). PV will increase. But FITs in most states have already decreased to near the wholesale cost of electricity and are now net not gross.

PS Curm if you request through my website http://ghgenergycalc.com.au I'll email you a copy of my biomass study.

Roses1

I'll look at your biomass study when I get to it, but I don't think you'll like what I'll find.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying about green energy.. its not the price of the RECs that will go up, but the number of RECs that companies will have to buy which will multiply and these will be an additional cost.

At the moment wind accounts for 3 per cent of wholesale - not much -and is the only form of energy that can be expanded to meet the RET targets. Those targets are, incidentally, on top of EXISTING renewable generation which includes the existing biomass stuff and hydro. Despite your enthusiasm for biomass no-one serious expects it to expand, and all the other forms of renewable energy remain in pilot plant stage.. that leaves wind.. which has to be expanded a lot.

And those additional wind farms must be built in addition to the existing conventional power network .. the Aus Energy Market Operator has already set out the capacity factors it will allow for wind farms (3-7 per cent, depending on the season). In other words its a straight additional cost.

This does not take any skills as an analyst. Just common sense

*But I don't think it justifies them charging nearly 50% of our bills for networks, do you?*

Well I don't have the exact figures of their costs, Roses and neither would you. But I know that they are spending a fortune right now, trying to catch up, as Govts had let the infrastructure run down, to try and keep electricity prices low, for political reasons. Now their chickens are coming home to roost, for years of neglect. Somebody has to pay for these costs, namely users.

What Barnett is saying is that electricity has to pay its way, which is not unreasonable.

Curmudgeon, yes I am in WA, but it kind of makes my point. We have similar power charges to you and there are no companies ripping big profits out of the system.

If Gillard thinks that we have a gold plated system, she should explain to me why I lose power around once a month, because of system failure. Quite frankly, at one stage it was becoming more like third world power. Perhaps they don't lose power in Canberra, that is hardly what is happening in other parts of Australia, like Western Australia

"feed in tariffs would be included in the 6.7% RET figure"

FIT will be included in RET under the "Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES)." However, the costs for the FIT are NOT included in government estimates; the reason for that is the cost of every installation is assumed to be a private debt! In addition PV will not increase unless the O'Farrell government is voted out in 2016. If they stay in it will be gone, or rather it will not be subsidised, which will amount to the same thing.

As for wind and the myth of SA. People who advocate wind and solar for that matter do not understand the difference between installed power, which is what the installation produces IF it produced power 24/7, and capacity factor, which is what the installation actually produces, expressed as a % of the IP.

Wind, anywhere, SA included, operates at a CF of about 20% but even that 20% is misleading because wind is unreliable from minute to minute and requires a reliable, constant back-up power source, ie fossils or nuclear, to be running continually.

So renewables do not replace the fossils, they are in ADDITION to them. Renewables are a scourge and a scam.

Wouldn't I love a gold plated network, that didn't fail every time we get a strongish thunder storm.

I'd be happy to even pay a little extra for it. Of course we have a string & tin network because that Labor Ba###**d Beattie was ripping $250 million out of the system every year to pay the excess bureaucrats.

Yep I'd be happy to pay for a good network, but not this pretend renewable stuff.

My daughter said it all, when she was about 4, & we were moving off the yacht permanently. One of her questions was, "Dad will we have real 'lectricity in this house, or just the Micky Mouse stuff, like on the boat". Out of the mouths of babes, & now these fools want to make cartoon characters of all of us with windy power.

Curm:

OK now I get your meaning "its not the price of the RECs that will go up, but the number of RECs that companies will have to buy which will multiply and these will be an additional cost."

Yes of course generating companies will have to spend more on renewable energy; that is the aim of the RET / carbon tax strategy. The progressive companies (those that will still be in that business in 20 years time) will however not buy RE certificates, they will invest in their own renewable generation capacity and keep ahead of the game.

Curm, your statement 'the AEMO has set capacity factors for wind at 3-7%' is nonsense. Please explain. If you mean they will allow no more than that figure on the grid,(that's not the capacity factor) then SA figures of 20% and those of Denmark (over 20%) give lie to it.

Cohenite:
Your are wrong in talking about the 'wind myth' of SA being due to capacity figures being quoted. The 20% I mentioned is actual generation in GWh. Yes the capacity factor for windmills ranges from 15 - >40% but the actual GWh is what counts and that's what the 20% figure relates to. bree.gov.au/documents/data/energy/.../TableO200910.xls will show the wing generation for SA at about 16% for 2009-10; it has since increased to 20%

PS If you want to keep abreast of energy developments read either Giles Parkinson's Renew Economy or Climate Spectator (which was part of Alan Kohler's Business Spectator (I'm waiting for the latter to 'go off' since its been bought by News Ltd)