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 > The RET and greedy grid owners > Comments

The RET and greedy grid owners : Comments

By Luke Beattie, published 24/12/2013

Regardless of the Prime Minister's personal views on the science of climate change, it makes economic sense to encourage high energy consumers in the manufacturing industry to look at integrating renewable energy into their supply.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
"It should not be the taxpayers' responsibility to fund incompetent management or noncompetitive industries."

That's all that needs to be said. There is simply no justification for government trying to get involved in trying energy cheaper, except by stopping anything they're doing now to make it dearer.

One of the ironies of the whole global waming hoo-haa is here we have governments telling us themselves that their own involvement in energy policy in the last hundred years - promoting coal-fired power stations - is the greatest mistake and catastrophe in the history of the world. And they want to use that as a pretext for even more thorough-going government control of energy and everything else? Out, bumblers!

If the complaint of the renewable energy industry is that government is making it hard for them by subsidising or otherwise protecting or molly-coddling coal-fired power, that is a valid argument for removing those subsidies; but it's not an argument for any intervention intended to favour renewables
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 8:15:10 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 you want to send fossil fuel based industries broke, a good way of doing so is to force them to use more expensive and less reliable renewable energy.

There is, however, more merit in the author's suggestion that the rising impact of grid upgrades on electricity bills merits examination for possible over-charging.
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 8:43:51 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
The RET cannot be justified on rational arguments. The costs are huge and the benefits - climate damages avoided - are nil. It makes no difference to global emissions. Any emissions avoided in Australia are replaced elsewhere as we force high energy intensive manufacturing industries to move out of Australia.

The RET is adding up to 14% to residential electricity costs and up to 30% to the cost of energy for largest industrial consumers.

Regarding catastrophic climate change:

1. The estimates of climate sensitivity seem to be coming down (most likely ETS down from 3.2 C in 2007 (AR4) to about ? in 2013 (AR5); 1.8 C for recent analyses based mostly on observational data to 3 C based on models (not sure if these are both mean or median).

2. The impacts of GHG emissions may be much less than most analyses to date suggest. The impacts of global warming to 2 C above the current global average temperature to be net positive, and perhaps even to 4 C (excluding the cost of energy). If the real cost of energy is greatly reduced in the future (which is plausible) global warming may be net beneficial to beyond 3 C.

3. The risk of a sudden, rapid, large climate change seems to be much a more significant issue to be analysing than the curves being produced in the GCMs and used in the IACs.

4. Most of the advanced economies are back-pedalling from their carbon restraint programs: e.g. carbon pricing and policies to favour renewable energy.

5. The IPCC’s credibility is reduced. Climate scientists credibility is reduced. Scientists’ credibility is reduced.

6. The most highly respected scientific journals (e.g. ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’) and the peak scientific bodies like RS, NAS and the Australian Academy of Sciences (AAS) have suffered damage to their credibility.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 9:34:01 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
Oh god!

For as long as I can remember economists have been preaching "economies of scale", "get big or get out" & a hundred other such slogans.

The death of car manufacturing in Oz has proved them right for once.

Now we have this bloke wanting to make power generation a cottage industry, with every tin pot factory generating it's own power. It wouldn't be a ploy of an alternate energy industry that has failed anywhere it is not tax payer subsidised, would it? They'd love a new stupid law, forcing industry to buy their useless trinkets.

What we need is government out of the second guessing game, forcing us all to pay for fool windmills & solar panels, trickling minute dribbles of power into the system at ridiculously exorbitant prices.

We would again have the cheapest power in the western world, if we could get these con men out of it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 10:11:10 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
and no mention of nuclear. As John McEnroe use to say 'you can't be serious'. The sooner Abbott and co junk all this 'renewable ' energy con the better our country will be. We have already been fleeced billions.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 10:36:09 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 RET is as appropriate as saying 20% of electricity must come through purple coloured wires. Surely the objective is the least cost generating mix that meets reliability and CO2 criteria. If electricity retailers want to buy wind power, now a mature industry, then let them do it without any quota system. That way we'll know it has earned a place in the mix on its own merits.

With solar export from the customer's premise the electricity reseller should be able to offer the same price they pay to the big generators. That price would be low on a cool sunny day but high around sunset or in overcast weather. The price would factor in the need to maintain steam pressure and standby readiness by the big thermal generators. The early supporters of the RET said it would be temporary but they've since fallen silent on that point. Time for it to go.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 10:45:07 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
This article is an insult to the intelligence. Wind and solar do not work. South Australia is touted as a leader in wind power for instance for instance. Yesterday there was NO electricity produced by wind at all:

http://windfarmperformance.info/

Even when wind and solar do produce electricity it is unusable. It is unusable because it comes in surges which no grid can accommodate.

The only relevant fact in this article is:

"Luke Beattie is involved in the renewable energy industry."

Taswegian also contributes to the general hilarity in stating:

"The price would factor in the need to maintain steam pressure and standby readiness by the big thermal generators. The early supporters of the RET said it would be temporary but they've since fallen silent on that point. Time for it to go."

Continual back-up for renewables can never go, assuming you want power. If you want to live in the dark, sure then you can turn the fossils off
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 2:00:27 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
preaching "economies of scale", "get big or get out".

Funny how millions of Australian households have installed solar and are quite happy with the results.
Every "tinpot factory" would have to include all of the "tinpot" houses that are generating their own power and are not beholden to big corporations squeezing the last dollar out of them.
Now that the lobby groups for big power have made the governments reduce the feed in tariff to a pittance, hoping to stop the haemorrhaging of profits, the next step that is in the pipeline is to install storage batteries as they become more efficient and cheaper and cut the grid out of the loop all together.
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 3:01:59 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
Another day and another troll-fest by the regular anti-science mod on OLO led by runner, ha ha led by runner. Nothing fires them up like a gobal warming post.

Just how much governement funding do you guys think got the coal base electricty network going in the first place?

I must hand it to you guys though. Your determination to never let reality affect your opinion is testement to your obsession if nothing else.

happy hanukkah.
Posted by cornonacob, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 4:10:46 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
Hi Luke,

The ducking and weaving round the real issues makes for very poor reading. The “greedy grid” owners to which you refer used to be state owned industries. Since the introduction of RET’s, subsidies, rebates, CO2 taxes, investment guarantee’s, CO2 trading markets and green energy onto the grids, suddenly these industrial opportunists are now the “greedy ones”.

What you fail to recognize is that government interference in any market results in it’s virtual destruction. It is green energy “tosh” that has brought the energy market to its knees globally.

Much as you might plead for this baby to be not thrown out with the bathwater, this “enfant fatal” needs to go immediately, along with all those vulnerable idiots that got behind this rubbish in the first place.

So many articles being posted on this subject are pure “laying of blame”, not me, I didn’t do it, not my idea, I just wanted to be a little bit green.

Well you got green, you screwed our nation along with many other nations, you consigned third world peoples to eternal dependence and you have brought about the plague of austerity upon us. You and your conservationists bled developed nations of almost one trillion dollars and nothing came out the other end.

You have the audacity to blame the victims of your stupidity as greedy. Pure reflective angst Luke, we know damn well who the greedy ones are and this article was written by one of them.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 4:51:14 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
"Just how much governement funding do you guys think got the coal base electricty network going in the first place?"

Nothing. And nothing new about this assertion. It is de rigueur for alarmists to lie; as in that person believes in AGW; they're a liar; that person is a Green; another liar etc.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 5:26:33 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
Bren stated, “There is… more merit in the author's suggestion that the rising impact of grid upgrades on electricity bills merits examination for possible over-charging.”

The Industry Minister stated that electricity bills for business had more than doubled in the last 5 years. Inflation accounts for approximately 15% of that (calculated at an annual rate of 2.8%) and I can guarantee that the RET does not make up the difference. The cost of producing coal-fired power has decreased in this period and yet the price has grown exponentially. Did I mention greedy?

Unfortunately the power companies generate such revenue for state governments that they’re reluctant to rock the boat, not unlike the poker machine cancer in the Eastern states.

My suggestion was never for large energy consumers to disconnect from the grid altogether (this presents its own problems such as battery lifecycle/replacement, space for panels, initial investment etc.). I’m advocating that businesses can reduce and lock in a portion of their energy costs by integrating renewables. A good example of this is the NEXTDC M1 Datacom centre in Melbourne. Their daily energy consumption exceeds that of Crown Casino. They installed 400kW of PV panels that don’t meet the energy load of the centre, but they produce 550 megawatt-hours of electricity annually (start crunching those figures!). All of which they don’t have to pay the energy company for. They are one large energy consuming customer to take this path, amongst many.

http://www.nextdc.com/data-centres/data-centre-locations/m1-melbourne-data-centre

It surprises me that people still treat solar energy as some kind of mysterious science that is questionable – just speak to your neighbour or relative with panels on their roof.

Taswegian, I agree that energy exporters should receive the same price that they pay for electricity.
Posted by Luke Beattie, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 10:47:06 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
Come off it fellers.

I remember that screw-up Beattie taking a couple of quarter billion dollar "Special" dividends out of Energex/SEQEB, or what ever the power generating government owned corporation was called at the time. Now that really is a subsidy, but for not from the government. Of course we paid for it, & are still paying for the huge expense of delayed maintenance & development work that resulted.

Now here's a great idea Robert LePage. Lets pay those owners of rooftop solar cells the same rate for the miserable trickle of power they produce as is paid to the main generating powerhouses.

We paid most of the cost of putting the fool things on roves, & now pay through the nose for the minor irritation of trying to use the trickle they produce. What a surprise from another fool greenie vote buying stuff up.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 December 2013 10:59:21 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
As is usual the subsides paid for coal is glossed over.
https://theconversation.com/coal-curse-the-black-side-of-the-subsidised-resources-boom-7801
The rise of coal would not have been possible without state and federal government backing. Coal royalties are definitely important for some state finances (for example, $1.17 billion in NSW in 2010-2011, although predicted not to grow because of declining world prices). But the extent of government financial support for the industry is noteworthy.
Direct subsidies include coal terminal leases and the provision of infrastructure to transport coal to electricity generators or to port loading facilities. Federal government funding for the Hunter Valley Corridor Capacity rail upgrade totals $855 million.
The whole mining industry receives a subsidy in the form of a tax rebate on the diesel that fuels the trucks and machinery. This $2 billion a year subsidy amounts to $87 annual contribution from every Australian.
The previous Labor government undertook to supply coal from the NSW government-owned Cobbora mine to electricity generators at a third of the price that coal could sell for in export markets, in order to secure the viability of state generators prior to privatisation. As a result, the government (and the people of NSW) will forego $2.7 billion in revenue, based on current export prices, through to 2020.
Posted by Robert LePage, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 9:45:15 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
Robert LePage that would be one of the most dishonest posts I have seen on OLO. It is what one expects from green ratbags, so no surprise.

claiming that not applying the old road tax to diesel fuel used in mining is about as dishonest as it can get. The same goes for when it is applied to farming.

Thinking people recognized that the renaming of road tax was to attempt to spread the tax to off road fuel usage, & stop motorists complaining when it was applied to typically wasteful Labour spending on god knows what.

It was bad enough that our use of diesel in marine applications attracted the tax, as we were not strong enough to prevent it. Thank god some of the more important sections of the economy managed to stop the lefty rot.

I hope someone gives you a bag of honesty for Christmas, we are sick of lies.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 12:09:42 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
The target of the RET was to reach 20% of power generation by renewables by 2020. This was expressed as a fixed value. Thanks to Labor many large consumers have closed, the demand has dropped, and the RET value is now about 25%.

The RET is responsible for more electricity cost rises than the ineffective carbon tax, and should be scrapped or dropped to 10%. As much emissions reductions can be achieved by changing to gas and this should be recognised in the RET.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 30 December 2013 12:03:54 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 RET is increasing the cost of electricity for residential consumers by up to 14% and for large industrial users by up to 30% already? And that is while it's contribution to electricity generation is tiny (0.2% solar and 3% wind). Imagine what the cost would be if renewables were contributing 20% or 25% of our electricity.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 30 December 2013 12:29:18 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. All

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