As the Greens anticipate holding the balance of power in the Senate after the next election, the specter of an ETS will no doubt be up for discussion. As I understand it, the penalty rates on carbon will artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable.

A colleague of mine in the UK copied me on his letter to Osborne/Hendry at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The following are extracts from his plea for killing their MRET.

“I am a professional engineer with over 40 years experience in the automotive and power generation industries and I have recently been doing some research supporting opposition to a planning application for an on-shore wind energy installation.

It is not this specific scheme I wish to bring to your attention, rather it is what my research has uncovered in the questionable tactics adopted by the last administration in the imposition of the Renewables Obligation. This levies a tax on all domestic and business consumers of electricity which, at the latest estimate, exceeds £1 billion per annum, with 40% going to wind energy developments.

This scheme rewards wind installation developers via direct charges on all consumers for the costs of construction and operation and, most surprising of all, remunerates them for non-operation of the installations when the national grid does not require the energy (for example in the early hours of the morning).

They are lamentably inefficient; most on-shore installations have efficiency ratings of around 25%. In the recent cold winter, with high atmospheric pressure in place and wind speeds low, their contribution to the UK energy mix was virtually nothing.

Since every installed megawatt requires back-up from a carbon-based source, there is no positive energy security or cost reduction benefit and the environmental impact is negative.

Thankfully, the UK can still rely on other energy sources, though sadly not for much longer as we move to a 2020 position dominated by foreign energy sources. (Primarily Russian oil and gas and French Nuclear energy)”

Is Australia heading for the same disaster?

That's why a "simple" carbon tax at this point seems a much better option. At least its something right? Smoking is bad for you - so there's a tax. Alcohol is bad for you - so there's a tax. Carbon is bad for the environment - so lets throw a tax on it. At least its a place to start.

Now even Tony Abbott is saying the PM should sit down with the Greens and talk climate change action. As amazing as that sounds its really a "put up or shut up" gesture. But the PM could pass something right now if she wanted to. And she should.

No - as your penultimate paragraph alludes.

However, your post is a good one for stirring up a hornet's nest.

HI Spindoc.. r u Viv Forbes ?

I note with interest your quote

"artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable."

I don't think they raise the cost of carbon..they just "put" a price on it.

I don't really object to assisting renewable energy enteprises as long as.....

a) they are in Australia
b) They help householders rather than corporations.

The problem seems to be as you point out that a lot of funding goes into enterprises .. corporations.. which are of dubious value.

SOLAR is a better proposition, and definitely worthwhile in my view.

I do have experience and connections in this industry and know that with close attention to high efficiency lighting, and gas cooking and heating our main base load electricity provision won't need to be as great.

MY PROBLEM with pretty much all of the schemes being bandied around is contained in one word "TRADING"

You don't have to look far to see how the greedy hands of corporate capitalism (dressed in Watermelon suits) ..green/socialist are intent on doing the following:

1/ Get rich...VERY very rich.
2/ Global Governance. (which is to keep them immune from their get rich quick accountability)
3/ Income redistribution... 3rd world social agenda.

SEE "AGENDA 21" for more information.

Kyoto, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Richard Sandor, Kathy Zoi, Bob Carr, SPIAusnet, Smart meter manufacturer Landice and Gyr, Chicago Climate Exchange.. Climate Exchange (Eu) etc.. are allllll woven into a huge network of money making/ left wing (for power and election purposes only) capitalism in socialist garb....

I'm beginning to think the Greens see financial benefit for their party (or it's connections) though this also.

Spindoc

Yes the whole process is not based on market forces or economic reality

It is based on notional and unprovable values which exist solely in the imagination of luddites and fellow levellers.

Wind-farms are seen as environmentally friendly so coal generation (seen as environmentally unfriendly) must be levied to pay for the inherent inefficiencies of wind-farms.

Now I have no problem with wind farms and I do have some issues with coal consuming electicity generation but

What I have most concern over is the artificial manipulation of production costs to subsidies the uncompetitive.

It is like chopping the feet off the runners to make them equal to the wheelchair bound.

It is no different to performing lobotomies on the competent to force them into equal capability with the incompetent.

It is a typical levelling policy which perverts the limited reasoning skills of the small minded and envious into thinking that are doing something good, when they are really only doing -

no good what-so-ever.

Yet they vote for power-obsessed politicians who offer such empty promises as solutions, to ensure election.

The sooner the madness ends and people come to understand that the market is the market and is best left unadulterated by political whimsy the better.

Government can solve no problems, only people can.

Governments who Tax people to force them to use uncompetitive processes are an affront to their electorates intelligence and deserve to be exiled to permanent (minority) opposition.

The questions I'd be asking....are these :)

-WindTurbine Manufacturing companies... who.. WHO has major share holdings?
-Do such shareholders/managers/ execs have positions on UN green committees?

-Are the connected via various (nefarious) economic networks which mutually scratch each others backs ?

If something LOOKS like a bad idea... and yet people with brains insist on going ahead with is... FOLLOW THE MONEY! and see where the shares.. former employment.. etc all lead.

Stern, spindoc and others

Your arguments ( and particularly Stern's, colourful if flawed analogy) miss the point/objective of the exercise.

The abundance, availability and therefore cost of coal is not the issue at stake. what is at stake is the unfunded (hidden/ignored) costs/liabilities of coal generated electricity.

No is it to make Coal on the same (retrogressive) competitive with green technologies! The point is to encourage technology research/development and change from one technology that is environmentally destructive to one that is potential less so.

I doubt that it is the intention to *simply* move us from coal to existing green technologies as they stand today. Rather the intention is to encourage ALTERNATIVES TO COAL.

It would be an unrealistic enthusiast that claimed that coal is operating in or on a level playing field. There are clearly several several artificial inhibitors to stop/limit competitors both in and to alternatives.

Again, as always many see this debate between either extremes and or two energy sources that are of equal potential. This is simply a capitalist solution to human corporeal issues. Clearly the current system is stuck in cash cow milking mode.("if it's bringing profits why change" [short term]amoral mentality).

The problem is that if left to it's self commerce would do nothing untill it's too late.

It seems that the world wide billions spent on 'clean coal, hydrocarbon' etc have yielded comparatively little result. Compare this to the significant advances on the alternative energy source/storage technology (with far less investment).

Then again from the USA perspective imagine how much extra cash they would have if they weren't reliant on O/S hydrocarbon? less need to support oil dictatorships, changes in foreign policy etc...then again US is the US

Of course wind-generated energy is relatively inefficient at the moment. So is solar power, but much less so than 10 years ago. What's the difference?

R&D.

One thing that is quite certain is that renewable energy sources can be made cheaper and more effficient via more research and development. I favour any form of Carbon Tax or ETS that will assist that project.

There is no sustainable future in oil, coal, natural gas or uranium based energy. We have no choice in the long term other than to invest in renewables, even though the short term gains may be minimal.

CJ, the current crop of renewables are not going to get usable by inputs developed by tax payer funded R&D. It just doesn’t happen that way, & never has, except in medical areas.

Industry develops technology to commercial standard, & makes it profitable, not academia. Yes academia can develop mandated safety gear, like flight black boxes, but they don’t do commercialisation, of self supporting products. It is not something they are good at.

All our current technology was developed by individuals or small groups within a company, after an idea was first found. That is how our next form of energy supply will be found, & developed.

Giving funding to university based researchers in the energy field, is just a waste of resources. We have spent billions that way in battery research for no result, although I will admit that industry has not done much better. The same goes for solar panels.

To me this indicates that both are almost mature technologies, with little to offer further. A new avenue will open up, of course, but throwing money at it, will not even find the door, let alone the way forward.

Meanwhile coal, or nuclear is it, & the only problem with coal is the ugly holes it leaves in the ground. There is no reason to rip off the average punter to feather bed some PHDs who should go find a real job.

BADDD CJ... very badddddd... you mentioned "ETS" as something which would enhance R&D...

very sneaky and clever.... but *evil*.. man you must come out from the darkside.. into the light.. being satans emissary for the capitalist/socialists co dwellers in the darkness is not a good look.

ETS= emissions TRADING scheme..and you already know who 'that' benefits.

Do I need to sik Proxy onto you as well? or him AND Stern?

Hasbeen, what a load of rot.

Who funded the Space Program?

taxpayers

Who funded jet propulsion engineering research?

taxpayers

Who funds military engineering and technology research?

And the list goes on...

Taxpayers can make a big difference to any research program, in fact industrial research requires it in Australia, as most of our manufacturers and industry underspend in their own R&D. Leave it to them and you can guarantee no more progress.

What Bugsy said.

Boaz, take your meds.

CJ, & Bugsy, I can see it all now. If you pair had been around 120 years ago you would have taxed the horses, to pump money into academia to reasearch, & develop steam power.

Of course that would have led to the development of the internal combustion engine, I don't think.

Now I know you may prefer that technology had not been developed, but without it we still be delivering goods by horse & cart.

So Hasbeen, which private companies were involved in setting electricity generation and distribution in Australia then?

Certainly many technological developments have been made by private companies, and we should not discourage private enterprise. This does not exclude the use of taxpayer funds for research and development. You appear to be under the impression that if it's government funded it must be academic or some sort of 'in house' thing? Much industrial research is funded by government, but through private industry. The only catch being that it tends to be research that is for the good of the industry involved as a whole. Telecommunications being one such example. The government funds a lot of research there.

Your overgeneralisations are really very tiresome Hasbeen.

Governments cannot do anything? That is utter nonsense.

The wind turbine industry in Denmark was given its start by subsidy. Now with the subsidy long gone the Danes have a healthy wind industry.

We might have had a thriving PV industry in Australia were it not for the opposite and destructive effect of government during Howard's reign. Suntech was born in China, not Australia, but its founder was educated and trained in Sydney. I am not so sure that this "homegrown" model still obtains. Nokia did it in Finland but I doubt that the phones themselves are made there.

Examinator - unfunded (hidden/ignored) costs/liabilities of coal generated electricity.
Ah the notional, unprovable and thus perfect strawman contender for the spurious intellectualisation of commerce

The point is you are promoting a hypothesis.

And the market for hypotheses is very much over supplied relative to demand,
I
n fact it is a bit like trying to sell people an extra backside.... when a consumer has one or their own they do not need another.

When you can produce a tangible measure of real cost it sill be part of the negotiated cost of coal and cost or wind energy.

Until then you are trying to promote what remains just a figment of a greenies imagination , which, in market terms is not worth a thing.

On a commercial basis every real benefit introduced has succeeded on the basis that it has been accompanied reduced consumer cost or enhanced consumer benefit and where the consumer makes an independent choice.

That wind farms cannot pay their way and need subsidy from commercially competitive coal burning power stations is to declare them sub-economic and unable to justify their existence.

Mind you a sub-economic notions are the usual stuff and can be expected as a natural component of moronic collectivist political whimsy

renew, re Danish wind industry... if the process was so advantageous and able to justify itself by producing an economic return, they would not have needed no government subsidy but been able to sell their idea into any venture capital market who are always hungry for suitable investments. That they needed subsidy just shows they are founded on a fraud

Renew, with the Denmark wind power industry, you could not have picked a better example of the catastrophes that follow, when governments get involved in things they have no understanding of.
Wind power in Denmark is a total failure, for the Danes, all though Sweden does OK out of that failure.

Yes Bugsy, governments can get into an industry, after it has been proven by private industry. They can also overman those industries by a factor of 3. They can also do a brilliant job of it, just like the Queensland, NSW & Victorian power industries, & Telecom, before privatisation.

To use Hasbeens transport example, cars are useless without enabling technologies and infrastructure, eg. roads. Private enterprise does not self-fund research into road building either, it gets paid for by the taxpayers.

Theorectically, how does road maintenance get funded? By a tax on petrol of course. I say theoretically, because I suspect the tax on petrol is often use to blanalnce the books elsewhere.

Industry needs to see a recurring revenue stream and does not invest massive amounts of capital without it. The problem that we always face is that established revenue streams tend to be protected by the industries that have them.

The gas industry initially resisted electricity saying it was expensive and unsafe and cost too much to install. And it goes on....

The use of tax advantages and public and private investment has a long history of successful implementation with energy type projects and policies. I don;t see why it couldn't do so in the future.

Oh, I came across this joke the other day:

Q: How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself

In posting extracts from my colleagues’ letter, I was actually trying to point to the differences between talking about renewable energy initiatives for Australia and the factual experiences of those who have already done it. That way we actually have some real life experiences against which we might debate these issues here.

It seems that those promoting renewable energy adopt only two strategies, the first is to totally ignore the real issues presented, technology readiness, efficiency, carbon reduction outcomes, consumer costs and economic impacts, all of which are negative as demonstrated by the experience of those having actually done it. The second strategy is a diversionary approach to address any other issues except those presented for debate.

Do any supporters of renewable energy actually wish to debate these issues?

When is someone, anyone, going to comment on the overall “package” of how this policy has worked in the UK? This is a real life example that might help us evaluate this technology for use by Australia.

Based upon the responses so far, it is not unreasonable to conclude that those supporting renewable energy do not, under any circumstances, wish to examine the real issues. In addition it is becoming clear that most supporters don’t actually have a clue about the issues surrounding these technologies. Closed minds blinded by ideology, just an excuse to sound informed but really just “gobbing off”.

>> Closed minds blinded by ideology, just an excuse to sound informed but really just “gobbing off”. <<

Agree, and it works both ways spindoctor. Do you not agree?

It's good to see you have moved on to what really is important, rather than conflating yourself with something your own ideological perspective can't seem to come to grips with. So yeah, well done.

Anyway, it is a 'no-brainer' that King Coal will be around a while yet. It is also a 'no-brainer' that people have to realise that a lot of our problems stem from our incessant need for more and more energy - we just have to find better ways of producing it. Do you not agree?

In my humble opinion, it is also a 'no-brainer' that a MIX of energy producing technologies will be required. Do you not agree?

Of course, it is also a 'no-brainer' that not all technologies are suited for all situations and all scenarios. Do you not agree?

If you really want a "debate" on the issue, I am perplexed that you would want to do it here (there really are far better forums to engage in logical and rational discourse.) Why am I perplexed? Because of the stick-in-the-mud-ideologues that you yourself have identified - from BOTH sides. Do you not agree?

Bugsy nice one liner to conservative economists.

However regarding leftwing economists

they fall under the following description,

"When we hear that Russia's economic output is about half the level of a decade ago or that real incomes have fallen sharply, it is worth recalling that economic statistics under the Soviet Union were hardly more reliable than any other official statements. Moreover, a country that produces what no one wants to buy, and whose workers receive wages that they cannot use to buy goods they want, is hardly in the best of economic health."

In short

How many collectivist economists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, their economics system cannot produce electricity nor light bulbs.

Not that it matters, their economic system cannot build the houses to wire to an electrical system but the proletariat remain joyous from the knowledge that no one else is better off than them.

Oh I never realised that Russians had such trouble building houses and using electricity.

Poor sods.

Yuri Gagarin must have been an American.

As long as we continue to use "finite" resources on planet Earth for energy supply, there will be NO energy supply solution for humanity.

The answer lies in technology, not in digging holes in the ground for uranium, oil and coal. The miners will fight to their very last drop of blood to maintain the status quo.

Eventually workable and efficient alternatives **WILL** be developed. Alternatives based on NOT using finite resources. This will take several hundred years to fully implement. There's no quick fix. But there **IS** a fix. But one thing's for sure, we can't continue indefinitely to deplete Earth's resources........ that's a recipe for a return to the stone age (eventually).

The future lies in intelligent, infinite and non damaging energy supply. It'll take hundreds of years. It's got NOTHING to do with politics, but EVERYTHING to do with survival.

BennyQ most of what you said in that last post was at least reasonable....unlike some of your other excursions into the twilight zone.

Just one point though....

Here's where you drifted back to that weird zone....

"It's got NOTHING to do with politics, but EVERYTHING to do with survival."

Ummm not quite...by "IT"... presumably you mean developing viable renewable energy sources. Well..that has EVerything to do with politics.....Show me a government which could get elected by saying:

"We're going to impose a 20% GST for the next 12 months..and all revenue raised above the 10% level will go to an intensive renewable energy development program"

The Politics is seething with self interest.. does my nick not mean anything to you ? The network "I" have established, and the one 'I' work with.. is global and powerful and 'we' are all just holding our breath for that day when 'cap and trade LAWS are brought in so 'we' can reap the incalculable financial harvest of all 'our' extensive groundwork over the past few decades.

That seems to be the only bit where you are foggy.

qanda, your direction that “there really are far better forums to engage in logical and rational discourse” is appreciated, thanks for pointing that out. Silly me!

Your confirmation that you fit into both categories is also appreciated, the one that will not discuss and the one that can’t.

We can also conclude that since this forum is not the place for “logical and rational discourse”, you are definitely in the right place.

Thanks for your response spindoctor. All questions that were put to you unsurprisingly, go unanswered. So yeah, I will therefore go to the sustainable energy forum currently being held at anther site.

“As I understand it, the penalty rates on carbon will artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable.”
“Artificially”, spindoctor?
I think all mining companies these days accept (grudgingly or otherwise) the imposition of having to restore mine sites to their 'natural' condition, after operations have been completed.
In other words, they are expected to clean up their mess.
In comparing coal fired power stations to wind or solar power, the situation is directly analogous to comparing the economic competitiveness of 2 open cut mining operations, one of which accepts the -quite costly- charge of restoring the site (or not causing any damage in the first place), and one which does not even admit there is a problem, or if there is a problem it is not their fault, or if it is their fault, some one else (like taxpayers) should pay to fix it.
What's 'artificial' is that the cost of carbon pollution has never been factored into the real cost of coal and oil fired energy.
As for being prepared to 'examine real issues', I would have to agree that -onshore- wind generation isn't a great winner. It appears, realistically, that at least in the short term we have no choice but to go nuclear, -at least while we make the transition to a carbon neutral, sustainable society.

Boaz/polycarp/agir, you have not understood what is meant by, "it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival". The development of the technology itself will be an ongoing development for several hundred years at least ......... the science and engineering involved will happen REGARDLESS of whether we are governed by the left, middle or right factions of politics. This development will happen because there are NO finite alternatives; it will happen because our survival as a species will depend on it. It is NOT dependent on political ideology.

It's hard for politicised "puppets", especially from the far left and far right (like yourself), to understand life beyond ideological/ political "dogma", so I doubt very much you'd understand my first paragraph (which I tried to word as s-i-m-p-l-y as I could.

qanda, you said “All questions that were put to you unsurprisingly, go unanswered.”

You didn’t actually ask any questions, you made a number of statements and finished each with “do you not agree?” These are “closed statements” that can only be answered with a yes or no response. Open questions allow dialogue rather than closing it.

That said, I actually do agree with your statements that coal will be around for a long time, that better ways of producing it will be needed, that a mix of energy solutions will be required and that not all technologies are suited for all situations.

Now that we have established some common ground, we can now get back to the focus of the thread which was, as one of the renewable energies being considered by Australia, on shore wind farms have failed across all the applied criteria in the UK. So is this technology appropriate for Australia and if so, how and why?

If as you suggest, you go to a sustainable energy forum that offers “logical and rational discourse” on this topic, why not share some of this wisdom with us and answer the question posed?

Is this technology appropriate for Australia and if so, how and why?

BENNY....your previous

"IT"...'s got nothing to do with Politics.... left many open questions.

If the 'it' means.....

"The future lies in intelligent, infinite and non damaging energy supply."

Then I take your point. But the issue itself has been very politicizied and I find it difficult to separate the 2. What it does have to 'do' with politics is this.

It will be the politics which determines where grants and funding go.

Pretty s-i-m-p-l-e no ?

Watch your footing on that perch 6foot above contradiction there :)

Grim, you make some interesting points. I said artificial increases in the cost of carbon based power generation. You raise the issue of “justifiable” increases, based upon two premises. The first is based upon the costs of restoration of the environment following extraction. That is a fair point and I doubt anyone would argue against it and that cost should be, if it isn’t already, factored in.

Your second premise was that “carbon” as a pollutant has not been factored in. Correct, it hasn’t. Until and unless there is broad based scientific agreement that carbon is a pollutant or a problem, it should not be factored in. When I say broad based I mean that both sides of the scientific community must give us a verdict and agree on something.

When I said “artificial”, what I meant was the pricing, trading and/or taxing of carbon based energy without confirmation it is a problem, then it is artificial.

The issue of what we do with the carbon revenue is another matter entirely. Should it be used for adaption, mitigation or to fund the development of renewables? I don’t know the answer because nobody has answered the question, is carbon a problem?

One comment I endorse solidly is the nuclear option. It is renewable, clean, efficient and low cost compared with any other renewable. The only reason I believe this is because the French have demonstrated it.

Sadly we are told we can’t have coal, we can’t have nuclear, some don’t want wind farms at any cost, solar is great if we don’t have to send its electricity on wires and the rest just doesn’t work at all. So what is going to power our societies?

spindoc - has someone learnt how to synthesize uranium? I hadn't heard.

<< So what is going to power our societies? >>

Maybe we'll have to learn to use less energy. I don't suppose that alternative has occurred to you?

What an absolutely lovely sentiment CJ Morgan.

We, the current generation, can’t agree on future sources of energy. There are many options however, various sections of our society at some stage object to all of these. As a consequence of our persistent failure to make decisions, you, our future generations are destined to have reduced opportunities and a lesser quality of life because the only option we can come up with is to “use less energy”.

We call this protecting your legacy.

"broad based agreement"?
Considering the agreement between climate scientists is hovering at around 100%, I can't imagine how broad based it needs to be. Sounds like Spindoc's mum saying "You wouldn't believe it, Our little spindoc was in a parade on the weekend, and he was the only one in step!"
But just for argument's sake, let's forget I used the word 'carbon'.
Will you argue that pollution is a good thing?
Using non renewable resources to depletion is a good thing?
Turning forests into deserts is a good thing?
Creating the greatest mass extinction since the age of dinosaurs, a good thing?
Leaving our children immeasurably poorer than we were, a good thing?