Luddite.

Well said David Leyonhjelm.

Set us free.

Pete

What about those pensioners who invested large sums in solar panels on the basis of the bi-partisan agreements pioneered by Howard,continued by Labor. Another broken promise by the Abbot government.
The coal industry has the Abbot government in its pocket.

To call him a Luddite is insulting to Luddites.

The man needs to get a grip on the numbers before he talks such arrant nonsense.

Cutting power bills can also be achieved by installing PV. Works beautifully.

Hi Cambo

If pensioners invested large sums in solar panels they sound too rich to be equitably eligable for pensions.

How about saying "what about rich people who receive unnecessary government solar panel subsidies so those people can feel good and green?"

Pete

At last Australia's Federal Government is doing the analyses that should have been done before we legislated to favour renewable energy over other types of generation. At last the government is seriously considering unwinding some of the massive subsidies to renewable energy.

Taxpayers and consumers are subsidising carbon reduction schemes (including renewable energy) by about $20 billion a year. That's roughly equivalent to Australia's total Defence budget.

However, these carbon reduction policies will make no difference to the climate or to sea levels. That is, these policies will not deliver the benefits their proponents claim as justification for the enormous (wasted) expenditure.

David Leyonhjelm

Yeah and Amen. The very poor who cannot afford solar panels are subsidising those who can afford them. Where is the justice in that.

David

David you have to stop doing this. No politician is supposed to talk so much sense so often. It really isn't right, you'll be giving our con men heart palpitations.

You are sounding just like the Abbott we thought we were electing.

Keep it up, if you can. The media will of course target you, they are all too close to the activists that supply them much copy. However I am getting a message that you can handle any attacks from the powder puffs of the media, & god don't we need some who can.

I look forward to your next topic.

Well said David, you are like a breath of fresh air.

Notice how its the socialists who are foremost in grinding the faces of the poor?

I a real pensioner, scrimped and saved for years to put solar panels on my roof, only to find, the very modest 8 cents feed in tariff is just not being honored, nor the credits earned while it still was. I am being thanked however, like all those other mugs out there in mugsville, for paying my bill on time! [A begging bowl would at least be more honest!]
Even so, it has saved me from being presented with a patently price gouged electricity bill, which was still massively cheaper, when we had a carbon tax and feed in tariffs of 44 cents! No ifs, buts or maybes!
I will scrimp and save some more to buy batteries, and just go completely independent, and then challenge the power authorities to try and make me pay a penny toward their price gouged profits!
And we who own still connected solar arrays, could reap a revenge just by turning off all our isolaters for an few minutes every midday, just as the high peak hits the generators capacity, which would likely overload and drop out.
And just keep doing it until the responsible government is given its marching orders, or goes back to honoring the contractual feed in tariff arrangements, set by several previous governments!
And I urge all who can invest in solar panels, or form small co-ops, who as direct importers, can!
That said, we should abandon these hugely expensive part time wind solar options; and use that pool of money to invest in vastly cheaper 24/7 options!
And given we roll these out as our first preference. We finally put the price gougers out of business, as well as very effectively saving/rescuing the economy.
And those quite massively cheaper options, include cheaper than coal thorium, micro grids, and biogas.
Most families create enough waste to not only power their homes, but if a ceramic fuel cell is included, create a sizable salable surplus!
And given that is so, David is simply not trying to save the economy; but his powerful electricity generating friends?
Or have I missed something?
Rhrosty.

Ah David L, your philosophy is just terrible!

Of COURSE we need to be working towards a renewable energy regime.

Just exactly how we do that, with the most even distribution of costs... or perhaps more to the point; a skewed distribution of costs away from the poor and towards the rich, is open to debate. THIS has surely got be the challenge for government, NOT the absurd pulling right back from renewables and hunkering right down in our addiction to fossil fuels, as the Abbott government is doing.

We need an RET. Absolutely we do. What we actually need is one far stronger than what have had, as to date it has been little more than a token effort, which has effectively just allowed fossil-fuel-powered business as usual to continue virtually unimpeded.

Ludwig, can you understand that the attempt to promote renewables actually uses more natural resources rather than less, and redistributes income from the poor to the rich? Can you understand that this invalidates what you are saying, and it's actually your philosophy that's terrible?

Jardine, what are you saying?

It sounds a tad crazy to me.

Of course a realistic RET needs to be set up so that it does not transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

Yes, setting up alternative energy systems would use more resources initially, compared to no construction of new wind farms, hydro schemes, ethanol plants, etc etc, all else being equal.

But of course in the long term it would use progressively less non-renewable energy resources, and it would use no more of all manner of other resources than what would be used if we just continue worshipping continuous growth and basing it on fossil fuels…. until of course the supply or price of said fossil fuels changes sufficiently to cause major economic changes.

So NO, your assertions do certainly not invalidate my what I am saying. Nor do they indicate that I have a terrible philosophy. Far from it!

Hi Rhrosty

Yep you've sadly "missed something". The solar policies were always a mirage that needed to be backed by Power Station electricity.

Citizens couldn't expect governments to continue to subsidize personal solar fixtures that lead to higher electicity prices for people without the money to even scrimp and save to buy solar.

The Greens can no longer force feelgood upper middle class "maybe carbon cuts will work in 200 years" policies on Australian Governments.

Pete

It is sad that any newspaper could print such a piece of fiction as this article. It bears no relation whatever to realty and is utter nonsense.
In the last seven years the wholesale price of electricity in Australia (about 11 Cents per kW/hr) has a most changed by 1 Cent per kW/hr. It is the distributing charge which accounts for 65% of the increase in electricity bills. The grid has been upgraded to the tune of 45 Billion dollars during a period when electricity consumption actually fell. A small portion of the upgrade was necessary due aging, but the vast majority was not and the only effect has been to push up electricity bills.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australias-gold-medal-in-soaring-electricity-prices-62967


In Germany the last seven years has seen a big increase in the take up of renewable power, but wholesale prices over that time have not increased significantly. It is probable the main reason power prices in Germany are high is due to the construction and mothballing of a number of nuclear power stations, which wasted a lot of money. In fact renewables in Germany are putting downward pressure on power prices, with wholesale prices sometimes falling below 3 cents per kw/hr. Germany is in fact now a net exporter of power.

The RET is a risk to the big fossil fuel power supplies because it puts downward pressure on wholesale prices, and in the case of solar tends to ramp up in time for the afternoon peak. Fossil fuel power companies stand to pocket some 10 billion dollars if the RET is removed.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/weaker-ret-would-transfer-10b-to-big-power-firms-study-finds-20140817-1051mo.htm

Luddy old mate, where you think you're jumping on a sustainability band wagon, what you are really doing is jumping from the old frying pan into the fire.

Recent evaluation of wind generators is finding that the promoted commercial life of 20 years is about as honest as the claim that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

From about year 6 they are failing at over 10% per annum. This means the power they generate is about twice as expensive as claimed, when amortised over their actual productive life. At last count there are over 7000 abandoned generators in California alone. Once the high range subsidies diminish, it is not worth the owners maintaining the things, let alone repairing them. n average a wind farm may actually be lucky to produce as much energy as it took to build & install.

If site rehabilitation, transmission lines & expenditure on the grid to handle their erratic power is considered, they are a net loss.

You must know that ethanol production is about energy neutral, at a best case. As much hydrocarbon energy is consumed producing the stuff as is contained in the stuff produced. For those wanting to reduce CO2 it is a dead loss. More is produced making the stuff than is saved.

Hydro, now there's a real winner. Only problem is that the greenies hate dams. Even worse, they have conned the politicians with this "environmental" water. We are now wasting Snowy water down the Snowy to the sea, & down the Murray to evaporate in a man made waterski lake in South Australia.

I see you didn't mention solar. I guess that means you accept that most won't generate in their useful life, the amount of power consumed in their manufacture.

Again useful life of the things has been greatly exaggerated. My experience has been that after 3 years solar cells could not maintain a battery they were connected to at full charge, even when the batteries were not being used.

Mate, I'm afraid that renewable power you so long for, is yet to be invented.

Ludwig I know they keep saying that, but what they keep doing is the opposite. Why should we be forced to pay for another set of promises until the failure of the old ones has been paid back by all the people who supported making them?

Ludwick,

"But of course in the long term it would use progressively less non-renewable energy resources, and it would use no more of all manner of other resources than what would be used if we just continue worshipping continuous growth and basing it on fossil fuels…. until of course the supply or price of said fossil fuels changes sufficiently to cause major economic changes."

Your understandings are completely wrong. They are nothing more than baseless assertion based on baseless beliefs.

Can I urge you to read:
1. "Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity" http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

2. The posts on the BraveNewClimate (BNC) website on the "Renewable Limits" tab: http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

3. The posts on the BNC web site on the "Sustainable Nuclear" tab: http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

What utter twaddle that the RET drove u the price of electricity ...
or caused massive loss of Australian industry ..

prices rose dramatically because of incompetent demand forecasts .. leading to massive expenditure of billion on the DISTRIBUTION SYSYTEM (read poles, wires, substations etc) at a time when electricity demand was actually falling

this was actively encouraged by higher payments to electricity companies as they increased their asset value

one could expect a Senator on a cushy salary and with the advantage of research assistants to at least be aware of the verifiable facts before he writes utterly factually incorrect drivel ..

<< Luddy old mate, where you think you're jumping on a sustainability band wagon, what you are really doing is jumping from the old frying pan into the fire. >>

Hazza, you are playing down all the different types of renewable energy. Oh, except hydro.

Well, they ain’t easy! There’s no easy solutions here, to match the energy produced by fossil fuels, at anywhere near the same costs.

But that’s no excuse for not doing it.

It is just crackers to continue blundering forth with an economy and society that it utterly addicted to and dependent on fossil fuels.

We have surely got to make every attempt to develop alternatives. Many other countries are doing it. Australia is losing out terribly in not keeping up with this trend.

And its not just about finding alternative energy sources, its about stabilising our population and overall energy demand, and becoming a whole lot more efficient with our energy usage.

Peter Lang, your first link tells us how fossil fuels have facilitated the development of human societies, technological advances and improvements in standard of living.

That’s all good. But it tells us nothing about what will happen if we just continue on the same path.

The consumption rate of oil and other fossil fuels continues to rapidly increase, but of course the resources are finite.

Obviously there is a critical problem there.

Your second link gives us this piece of wisdom: ‘Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer society’… which is of course completely wrong!

We will continue to consume for as long as we exist, but we will not always have non-renewable energy sources.

Your third link takes us to ‘sustainable nuclear’ energy.

Well, nuclear energy may or may not be a wise part of the energy mix that takes us away from our fossil fuel addiction, but it certainly isn’t the be-all and end-all.

So Peter, what would you have us do?

Would you have us just continue to base our society on fossil fuels as it is now until we are absolutely forced to find alternatives?

Would you promote nuclear energy with great fervour, but not any other alternative energy sources?

I am just trying to understand exactly what your argument is here.

Quote; "At last the government is seriously considering unwinding some of the massive subsidies to renewable energy."

we will know they are serious when the mining industry loses the massive subsidies it received .. like the diesel fuel rebate

and when there is a sensible relationship between mining profits and taxes paid ...

too little .. too late .. the 'boom' and super-profits are over

Luddy I have no objection to trying to find some useful alternate energy, but to my mind "It is just crackers" to deploy generation technologies that are simply wasteful of fossil energy & or materials.

Using existing energy & materials to deploy systems that use more than they save is simply a sop to some peoples conscience, & a totally inefficient one at that.

The only thing to do is, as you say, to conserve as much as reasonably possible. This means not deploy systems that are not work ready, as the employment advisors say.

The mature action is not to do something, anything, just to be seen doing. It is to do nothing, nothing at all, until a system worthy of deployment is developed.

We have now wasted tens of billions on windmills. For at least 7 years now, we have known they are totally useless, & are actually detrimental to our & the planets well being.

Let us hope that Abbott has the guts to tell the truth & stop this dreadful waste, rather than attempt to buy a few votes of the "believers", with billions more dollars of tax payer money.

Hazza I don’t understand why you say windmills are useless.

Hey, no alternative energy source is going to be easy, or as cheap as fossil fuels. If it was, we’d have completely embraced it by now.

Every alternative energy source out there is more expensive, has a higher EIEO ratio and has its own set of downsides for the environment.

Wind power has its place. I can’t imagine that the various windfarms around the country are doing that badly, or that if they were useless, that they would continue to operate and new ones be built.

What we absolutely need is a system of strong incentives to get our society stuck right into R&D on renewable energy.

What we absolutely do NOT need is what David Leyonhjelm is proposing – ditching the RET and setting the economy free. We need to move in the opposite direction to what Abbott is taking us. We need to keep ARENA: http://arena.gov.au/

We need to make our government far less beholden to the wants of the vested-interest big-business lobby and to start governing properly for the good of the whole country.

We absolutely need to encourage a culture of sustainable energy, and indeed of a sustainable society.

totally agree Ludwig .. under the Abbott government, every move affecting the environment has taken Australia in the OPPOSITE direction to that being taken by the rest of the world

that alone might indicate the need for a rethink ... Greg Hunt is a BIG disappointment ...

Peter Lang

I see you are off posting elsewhere on a similar subject: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16654

I find it very strange that you have apparently abandoned this thread and not answered my simple question: what would you have us do?

Although I glean the answer from your comments on the other thread:

<< Forget renewables… …It's nuclear… >>

How extraordinary! As I said previously: nuclear may have its place but it is not the be-all and end-all. At least not for a long time into the future. We ABSOLUTELY should be embracing various renewable energy sources.

Ludwig, we have already established that you have no rational way of demonstrating that what you advocate is more or less sustainable, and that you only advocate open-ended government power to do anything, so stop pretending to be interested in a discussion of it.

There's no point discussing it with you, because even when you are face to face with the fact that your belief system doesn't make any logical sense, and you admit every one of the steps necessary to reach that conclusion, you still won't accept it and just endlessly circle back to insisting that total arbitrary government power over the means of production will make a fairer and more economical society.

<< There's no point discussing it with you… >>

Erm…. so why are you discussing it with me then, then, Jardine? ( :>|

Luddy, even the Germans are running away from wind. It is just too unreliable to be practical, too damn expensive, with only huge subsidies getting it built, & is now found to be much shorter term in lifespan than claimed.

The Danes have to give it for free, to the Swedes, to pump water up hill, just to get rid of it, & then buy back the power generated by that water when they need the power.

I'm afraid mate, that the moment I hear someone talking about "MIX" I know they are promoting an unreliable or extremely expensive system, that could not be even considered except as a minor bit player. In that case, why bother, who needs bit players, when others are better.

This is one of those cases where we must say, if you want it, you damn well pay for it, & leave me out of it.

I will never go along with others demanding I pay for their dream. When it works & saves me money, let me know, otherwise, back to the drawing board old mate. What we have now is not sustainability, just a huge waste of money & resources.

Hasbeen
I have looked at wind power in some detail and I can not see why you insist it is a total waste of time. Cost wise it is now cheaper than new coal plants and the only things cheaper are hydro and traditional geothermal. As for being unreliable the average wind strength in any particular location over a decent period of time such as a year is pretty reliable and in the short term it is also predictable some days ahead. The reason that there is so much anti wind propaganda is simply because it can produce power more cheaply than coal.
Quote Wikipedia
“Wind turbines reached grid parity (the point at which the cost of wind power matches traditional sources) in some areas of Europe in the mid-2000s, and in the US around the same time. Falling prices continue to drive the levelized cost down and it has been suggested that it has reached general grid parity in Europe in 2010, and will reach the same point in the US around 2016 due to an expected reduction in capital costs of about 12%.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics

Whatever you think about various power sources there is no doubt that coal is the dirtiest, causes the highest number of causalities in the mining stage and also creates severe health problems for the local poputions. I have often driven through both the Hunter and the Latrobe valleys and you can smell the population some 60Ks from the power stations.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-03-23/5331252

Warmair,

Wind power is more expensive than coal power. That's why we have to mandate it and pay a subsidy of about $40/MWh. Plus you have to add the cost of back up generation and extra transmission and grid stabilisation. These costs are passed on to the consumer as higher electricity prices

You should also understand that 1 unit of wind energy does not abate the emissions of 1 unit of fossil fuel generation. In fact, wind is around 50% effective at abating emissions from the generators it displaces. So the abatement cost with wind power is about double what the proponents claim. Furthermore, the effectiveness declines as the wind energy proportion of total electricity generation increases: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513007829.

The BREE AETA report gives the latest projections of the cost of electricity by technology for Australia. http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf
LCOE in $/MWh:
New black coal, super critical = $89
Nuclear = $97
Wind = $117 + back up +, extra transmission + grid stabilisation
Gas backup (OCGT) = $211
Geothermal = ~$200

You can see a rough comparison I did of the additional electricity generation and transmission costs to produce electricity with 90% reduction in CO2 emissions with two options: 1) mostly renewables or 2) mostly nuclear - see Figure 6 here: http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf

Warmair, if you're right that wind power is cheaper than coal, and no less reliable, then surely there's no need for any policy to promote it?

Jardine
In a fair world there would be no need to promote wind power, but the world is not fair.

The coal fired units in Australia are subsidized in various ways, such as paying next to nothing for their coal, and often not the commercial rate for the clean water that they need to run their turbines, nor do they pay anything to pollute the air with a variety of noxious chemicals which have been shown to cause large numbers of people health problems. Thats all without even considering the probable damage that they are doing to the climate.

It has become abundantly clear to me that the coal interests are lobbying hard to eliminate all forms of alternative energy precisely because it has the potential to reduce their profits.

Liberal states have passed anti wind farm legislation, for example some areas of Victoria have had blanket bans placed on wind farms and if you live within 2 Ks of a proposed wind farm you can pretty much veto the project, but on the other hand Queensland has just passed legislation that makes it much harder to object to any mining project in your area.