This is yet another phoney beat up by the left to resist changes to their stupid legislation.

In 2000 when the RET target was introduced, renewables were about 5% of the generation mix. Today 14 years later renewables are just less than 10%. If the coalition reinstates the target to 20% (the bipartisan target), the requirement is to add about 2% renewables every year at about 5x the rate of the last 6 years. The suggestion that renewable workers will suffer large scale retrenchment is laughable.

Keeping Labor's partisan target of 28%, however, will push the annual requirement for new generation to 3.4% p.a. which is nearly as much as has been installed in the last decade, and most likely exceeds the ability of the industry to achieve.

Lisa Singh, I understand your desire to push the party line, but please don't lie to us in the future.

Lisa, may I suggest that had your beloved labor government not wasted so much on project failure after failure, perhaps we would find our selves, pretty much where we were back in 06, where we could have our cake, and eat it.

Then there is the border protection fiasco, once again the product of sheer arrogance and incompetence, arrogance in that Rudd, almost single handedly created the mess, and incompitance, in that Gillard and crew were out of their depth and couldn't fix it.

So now, as a token of their incompitance, the Abbott government (or labor for that matter had they not been chucked out on their ear) have inherited this mess, which includes about $14 million each month, just in welfare payments to those uninvited guests who are awaiting processing. It's just a pity our own pensioners can't get treated like that, hey!

So, we live in a world where you can have everything you want, provided you can afford it and, the problem is, we just can't afford it.

Now just on solar, how many jobs do you suggest will be retained once the construction phase is complete. Very few I would suggest. While it's all well and good to want to save the planet, we must also save the people on it and, the best way to save them is to make sure they have jobs and can support themselves. As our coal industry is a major support of jobs, both directly and indirectly, loosing that industry would have catorstofic consequences for our economy, and of cause, if the likes of the greens get their way, that industry won't be the last they try to shut down.

Yes Lisa;
Very strange, made more so, by the fact, some of these endlessly sustainable options are very much cheaper than what we are using now!
Moreover, they either don't add to the carbon load, can actually sequester carbon; and, produce a handsome return while doing just that!
As opposed to asking the tax payer to front up with finite funds for trillion dollar pipelines and such!
And the reason some economists are turned off the so called alternatives.
Let's forget about solar and wind for a moment, and just concentrate on cheaper than coal, thorium, of even cheaper biogas to power, at a local level.
Every family produces enough waste to completely power their homes or domiciles; and indeed, if you add in food scraps/waste, and gas consuming ceramic fuel cells; a very sizable salable surplus!
Why not keep these funds, but use them as a gradually growing pool that finances money earning adaptation.
i.e., some homes could use these funds, as very low cost, total alternative, endlessly sustainable biogas to energy conversion loans!
Of course the fossil fuel industry are going to scream like stuck pigs, given the sales reductions are already hurting them.
And their own stupid fault, for pricing their own customers out of the market!
And given that's their only solution, bankruptcy awaits!
I just don't have any sympathy for price gouging debt laden foreigners, who bought some of our energy producing essential service, and then expected us to completely fund their purchases, via premium prices!
The current Government is already in really deep do do, and can only harm their electoral prospects even further, by proceeding with any more of this patent economic madness or vandalism!
They really are confronted by just two very stark and electoral changing choices!
Side with us the energy consuming voters, who are already picking up their allegorical baseball bats, or the conventional power industry/their current retirement options!
Rhrosty.

As an afterthought, these loans just don't need to be paid for, with larger sums, than current 1-2-3,000 dollar a year power bills!
Meaning, almost anyone, could currently afford them!? Or might just have to make the current family jalopy, do another five or six year turn by which time, the money saved and or earned, from the energy conversion, could buy a brand newie!?
Rhrosty.

When you read this article, you've got to remember that dunderheads and socialists count people digging holes and filling them in again as "creating jobs".

All renewable energy policies are just different versions of shining lights generated from coal-fired power stations onto solar panels, collecting the subsidies, and claiming that what you're doing is more "sustainable", as well as morally superior. It's nothing but confused thought, with a (large) dollop of fake piety to boot

Rhosty,

Stop kidding yourself, renewables are far more expensive than normal generation. Why do you think our electricity bills are soaring?

Come on lady, do you ever think about what you are saying?

Do you think all of us are as dumb as some labor shadow ministers who fall for this spin?

Is there any reason I should not include you in that group?

First you praise the Hydro. You are trying to forget I suppose, that it was your lot that stopped a lot more hydro development a while back, & were advocating removing some existing dams.

Then you start praising the fact that there are more people employed in solar than coal fired power. Do you ever think what you are saying, & what it means.

Just think for a minute. If you are right, how much waste is involved when it takes more workers to produce a minute 2% of our power than it takes to produce 90%. How expensive is it to produce so little by so many.

We could ask, when in the field of human endeavor, has it cost so many, so much, for so little? I'm sure Churchill won't mind, in fact I expect he would be glad to help.

Are you really advocating we spend even more to produce even less. I guess with our experience of Labor projects & policies we should not be surprised to find such illogical thinking. When we then remember you were a minister in that Green/Labor shemozzle that has got Tasmania in such a mess we should actually expect to find you, & your Labor mates can get things so ass up, & then boast about it, as if it were an achievement to be emulated.

I wonder how your party can let you out, without a minder to stop you putting your foot in anything else.

"Are you really advocating we spend even more to produce even less."

LOL Haseen, yes, that's exactly what these morons are advocating. Not only that, but they think that they're being more clever than everyone else and showing the way to a more economical system.

Note to Lisa: using more resources to get the same or lesser result, is LESS sustainable, not more, dumbo.

It is all very well quoting megawatts of generating capacity. It is the megawatt hours of energy produced that matters and when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, that figure is a big fat zero. You still need your coal fired or nuclear power stations to fill in the inevitable gaps.

David

Shadow minister.
Given thorium connected to local micro grids, costs less than half what we currently shell out for coal fired reticulated power!
And or, endless biogas made for virtually nothing from wasted waste.
And given that gas is then scrubbed and fed into a super silent ceramic fuel cell, with no moving parts to wear out, and an energy coefficient of 80%, or four times better than coal fired power!
Or put another way, four times cheaper than current power supplies; and whats more, provides endless costless free domestic hot water!
Then the only one suffering any form of self delusion are the shadow ministers of this world, who can't fault the actual bare facts, and are therefore, reduced to completely asinine obfuscation!
Which is so much easier, than producing any hard facts or factual evidence, to support a contrary case.
The only way I could actually kid myself S.M., would be to give any credence whatsoever, to your completely illogical turn of phrase/totally empty argument!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, a few screaming errors in your rant:

A thorium nuclear reactor is not renewable

Biogas is not free, but has costs transportation and handling and can be seasonal based on production of waste. The result is that most biogas is produced from landfills and while cheap are limited in generation capacity. Biogas is essentially methane which is similar to natural gas, which can generate power with an efficiency of up to 65% which compared to black coal at 35% is nearly twice as efficient. Fuel cells can get a higher efficiency, but are very expensive and have a limited life.

So I do have the facts, you clearly do not. Please feel free to check them. As I am a power systems engineer working with generation and distribution most of my life I am happy to debate the nuances of power generation with you, but not the "facts" you pick up over a few beers.

S.M:
Thorium is not a renewable, and I never ever claimed it was, as you try to infer, via the now predictable verbal.
My only assertion, if you can call it that, it is a viable and less costly alternative. Understand? Alternative!
Biogas can be made in a backyard, with sufficient size for two septic tanks.
Or under the building or in the basement failing that!
Meaning, it just doesn't need to be transported anywhere, and can be stored in bladders on site; and used via ceramic fuel cells, to produce a energy on demand, day or night, along with equally sustainable, free, endless, domestic hot water!
Given a super silent ceramic fuel cell has an energy coefficient of 80%, or twice that of the next best option, or four times better than coal fired power, it follows that it is four times cheaper than current coal fired power! And the gas can be transported by pipelines or national pipeline grid, if only to prevent the current transmission losses, without which, even coal fired power, would be twice as cheap or allow them to pay for themselves, particularly if you understand that gas is a redundant! Look mum, no rust!
And closed cycle solutions simply don't emit a smell, the only real objection!?
The ultimate renewable just has to be hydrogen, made by using seawater, and the older catalyst assisted water molecule cracking method, and for just a couple of cents a cubic metre, if we use solar thermal and free sunshine!
Solar thermal compares very favorably with coal fired, if we include robotics/mass produced arrays and economies of scale! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Moreover, I don't expect we'll run out of seawater or sunshine anytime soon.
And if you want to argue that hydrogen is dearer! But only if we garner it from NG, or via standard, par for the course electrolysis.
Fine. That's just not how I would make it! Understand?
You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

If there are more workers employed producing 10% of electrical power than those producing 90% of the power, then plain common sense dictates that renewable energy is very inefficient and costly.

How much more do you want to pay for your electricity? For God's sake, build some damned nuclear reactors and a nuclear reprocessing plant which would give much cheaper power than "renewables" and a manufactured good in the form of processed fuel rods that the world wants and needs.

Australia has the most geologically stable rock formations in the world where any nuclear waste can be stored indefinitely. If the abos complain, take their dole off them until they realise that there is a connection between money and earning it.

Rhosty,

You were discussing "Sustainable" energy and then brought in Thorium after I had pointed out that renewable energy was always more expensive than conventional generation. I personally am a big supporter of nuclear energy, but until the greens grow a brain, there is no chance in Aus.

As for home biogas, I think you will find that the cost of buying, installing, running and maintaining your system will take many years to pay back if ever.

LEGO, well said.

One thing we have in our country that most don't, is wasted space, and plenty of it.

We, unlike just about any other nation, can put nuclear plants in the middle of bum F%^# nowhere plus, we have the fuel which we currently export, which could be retained for our own use for who knows how long.

Just imagin what shape we would be in if ONE, our energy supplies were guaranteed for many many decades, and TWO, at very cheap prices.

We need pro active governments who don't give a toss about the polls, but are focussed on fixing our long term energy problems, problems that if not fixed will cripple our nation, if the past ten years of price hikes are any indiction.

Lisa, exactly where are these 30,000 jobs? Are these the cowboys installing Chinese made solar panels and inverters which explode when the sun shines, or burn out when we get a spot of rain? We do not make solar panels in Australia, good thing too given the toxic waste manufactured during production!

Quote Shadow
“Stop kidding yourself, renewables are far more expensive than normal generation. Why do you think our electricity bills are soaring?”

I know why electricity bills are soaring and it has nothing to do with renewable energy. The distributors spent 45 Billion dollars upgrading the poles and wires which for the most part, was unnecessary as power consumption is actually falling in Australia.

Of the 75% increase in power prices over the last 7 years or so at least 65% was caused by gold plating the distribution network 8% was caused by the carbon tax which is now gone and less than 2% was caused by costs associated with renewable energy.

http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/804-shock-to-the-system.pdf

See page 12 fig 2.3

I wouldn't expect you to understand warmair, most of the costs of alternative generation subsidies are hidden in our power bills.

Yes some of the extra cost has been due to work on the distribution network. Firstly here in Queensland that conman Beattie was ripping a quarter of a billion dollars a year out of the electricity system for years to cover some of his disastrous financial management. This left them with nothing to use for maintenance of the network.

Then of course there has been considerable upgrading to meet the excess load of handling the surging nature of wind power.

Quote
“Then of course there has been considerable upgrading to meet the excess load of handling the surging nature of wind power.”

In terms of surges wind power is not a big problem, because gusts are taken care of automatically and average wind strength varies relatively slowly over time. However if you study the link I gave above you would see that peak power demands have fallen, which is what actually dictates how robust the power networks have to be. One reason for this is that solar and wind particularly in the southern states, often peak at the same time as most people are running their air conditioners at full blast.

As regards the hidden costs associated with environmental charges you can clearly see from the chart below that it is not a significant factor. (Note the carbon tax is no longer relevant)

http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/solar-ret-aemc-590x403.jpg

Warmair,

https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/312-impacts-electricity-prices

The contribution of the RET is presently about 4% of energy costs which corresponds neatly to its influence on renewable generation of 4% (5% to 9%) over the last 6 years or so. However, given the target today of 28% by 2020, the next 5 years would see the additional 19% renewable generation requirement boost electricity prices more than double what the carbon tax would.

The damage to industry and employment would be massive.

Shadow
I can see no reason to think that the RET scheme will add anymore to electricity bills than the 4% quoted in your link for the simple reason that the subsidies are being wound back and the take up of solar is still continuing. All the data I have seen says that the total cost of the RET on our bills will decrease even if we go for the top figure of 28% renewables.

Quote from your link above
“The RET has affected the wholesale electricity market by encouraging additional generation capacity into the market at a time of falling demand, putting downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices.”

In terms of employment renewables are employing 1000s of people installing the infrastructure, which will all be put at risk if the government removes the RET.

If the government is really serious about reducing electricity prices they need to do something about the network distributors who are the real problem. They have a monopoly and are responsible for more than half of the total cost of the electricity bill.

warmair,

Considering the subsidized renewable energy is several times more expensive than the energy it is replacing, there is every expectation that the 4% cost of renewables will increase dramatically.