THIS should NOT be happening........

[ramblingboy42]

another one goes....
a couple of weeks ago it was the hot rock operation at Innamincka....
our countries current leadership is going to put us so far behind....Silex shelves major solar power plant on RET uncertainty - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/silex-shelves-major-solar-power-station-on-ret-uncertainty/5679086)

[olbod]

I cant wait for the next federal and state elections.
For the first time in my life ever, I am gunna vote the other way.

So there.

[Chucaro]

I will wait for my caffeine levels to come down before express my opinion :mad:

Then again it is not longer allowed to talk about politics :censored:

[incisor]

but you can talk about current affairs as long as it doesn't descend into political debate.

and you really need to preface threads like this with

"in your opinion"

[TerryO]

So as per normal the ABC have blown it all up out of proportion as they do, as the Feds have said they aren't getting rid of the renewal energy target.

Governments never make decisions overnight and no matter what policy be it seen as popular or not needs to be reviewed on a regular basis just to see if its delivering on what it was meant for.

The problem (in my opinion) is the media depending on their political lean want everyone to be 100% decided every step of the way in the direction they want it to go and they make lots of noise to try and swing public opinion to force hasty decisions and that's simply not how any effective and open minded government should work if we are going to have real government.

[Chucaro]

So as per normal the ABC have blown it all up out of proportion as they do, as the Feds have said they aren't getting rid of the renewal energy target.

.................................................. .................................

The ABC only report what the CEO for Silex system have to say in reference why they are pulling the plug.
The Guardian also reported the same story.

"The attack from the chief executive of Infigen Energy, Miles George, came amid accusations from industry and Labor that the government was creating “sovereign risk” for would-be investors in Australia because the Coalition supported the RET at two elections but is now preparing to close it to new investors or significantly wind it back."

“How does this fit with the PM’s often-stated position that ‘Australia is open for business’?” George asked.

I accept what you have said, quote: Governments never make decisions overnight and no matter what policy be it seen as popular or not needs to be reviewed on a regular basis just to see if its delivering on what it was meant for. End of quote.
But this government nominated David Warburton who is self professed climate sceptic and also the PM have as an adviser Maurice Newman who said that the there is not a global warming, it is a global cooling.

It is very hard for the industry to keep investing money in these political environment regardless of what the ABS, The Guardian or others publish..

[PAT303]

I cant wait for the next federal and state elections.
For the first time in my life ever, I am gunna vote the other way.

So there.

Olbod,if the previous lot didn't give money away willy nilly trying to buy votes we most probably would not be in this situation,the ''other way'' leader is a lacky to the union movement so how is sending us back there going to help.In my opinion :p Pat

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Irrespective of the politics, I fail to see why governments would want to limit expansion of the renewables energy market.

If the fuel for one type of energy supply system is free, then the major cost is the infrastructure building and considering both coal/gas power production the building of the infrastructure would be similar costs. In the long term power without ongoing fuel input costs has to benefit the consumer.

My objection is that most if not all coal fired power plants and the distribution infrastructure costs in this country were all born by state taxpayers and then sold off to industry at bargain prices, yet Government seems reluctant to even offset building costs for the renewable sector in taxes.

[PhilipA]

“How does this fit with the PM’s often-stated position that ‘Australia is
open for business’?” George asked.


Oh come on people.
You do realise that RETs are a massive SUBSIDY don't you.
Nothing to do with business, which generally has this thing called profit without subsidies.
The height of absurdity was broadcast as some sort of fact yesterday, when the greens claimed that cutting the RET would somehow increase electricity prices by using heroic assumption like the subsidy for wind would magically reduce from 70% to 10% in a few years..
Come on pull the other one.
Regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

Never mind the politics, let's just think about what's good for the country and the planet.
In my opinion, its certainly good to reduce emissions. Its also certainly good to invest in renewable energy. Everyone else is doing it because its the smart thing to do and we're going to be left behind like a bunch of moth-eaten shags on a rock.
Its also bad business to turn your backs on the future business opportunities, and to undermine some 20,000 renewable energy jobs which already exist in Australia, and concentrate on a shrinking business.
We need to think more than five years ahead for a change.

[PhilipA]

Again ther eseems to be some sort of blackout of infromation regarding RETs with the posters on this forum.

My understanding is that the RET target was 20% of electricity generation.

The price of electricty was dragged up and surprise demand went down, primarily because lots of manufacturing closed down or moved overseas .
Because of the carbon tax and the great profit opportunities from RECs the target has been exceeded, greatly increasing the cost of electricity.

What on earth is wrong with reducing the subsidies to reflect the original target or do you think renewables should be subsidesed with no limit?

Even the Greens and Labor agreed with the original target of 20% as they set it.

By agitating for ever increasing RETs you are also supporting the associated increased costs on the most disadvantaged in the community and the further destruction of Australian manufacturing.

So maybe the supporters of ever increasing RETs will volutarily help the poor old lady pensioner who cannot afford to use a heater in winter.

Regards Philip A

[Chucaro]

Oh come on people.
You do realise that RETs are a massive SUBSIDY don't you.
Nothing to do with business, which generally has this thing called profit without subsidies.
The height of absurdity was broadcast as some sort of fact yesterday, when the greens claimed that cutting the RET would somehow increase electricity prices by using heroic assumption like the subsidy for wind would magically reduce from 70% to 10% in a few years..
Come on pull the other one.
Regards Philip A

So the subsides to the polluters are OK?

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714)

The madness of WA’s multi-billion fossil fuel energy disaster (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/madness-multi-billion-dollar-electricity-disaster-70983)

[nismine01]

Hope I got that right.
"Never mind the politics, let's just think about what's good for the country and the planet.
In my opinion, its certainly good to reduce emissions. Its also certainly good to invest in renewable energy. Everyone else is doing it because its the smart thing to do and we're going to be left behind like a bunch of moth-eaten shags on a rock.
Its also bad business to turn your backs on the future business opportunities, and to undermine some 20,000 renewable energy jobs which already exist in Australia, and concentrate on a shrinking business.
We need to think more than five years ahead for a change."

Now ALL THIS IS MY OPINION! :eek:

They, (not us) are locking up the country so we can't drive on it.
They, are allowing 'fracking' to destroy farm land and water systems.
They, are of either and/or both political persuasions, I'm sure if they were even 'green' and there was seen to be a political need 'THEY' would be the same. IMHO.

Mike :censored:

[olbod]

Olbod,if the previous lot didn't give money away willy nilly trying to buy votes we most probably would not be in this situation,the ''other way'' leader is a lacky to the union movement so how is sending us back there going to help.In my opinion :p Pat

Mate, in me dotage I dont give a hoot about any of their policies except only the ones that effect ME and my life personally.
Deleting some of the others unpopular policies wont make up for what the new ideas will cost me, I think.
To quote Ron : As long as it doesn't affect my pension, I dont care.

Selfish but honest ?
Perhaps.

[olbod]

PS: to the above.
I have been here done that.
I no longer want to be involved.
Just go my own way and at least put one good feed a day on my table.
As well as afford to get around in Me Disco and pay for the internet to be part of this Forum.

[PhilipA]

So the subsides to the polluters are OK?

Chucaro I sometimes think you just do this to troll.

Have you looked up the Australia Institute?

The Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/)

It is loaded with Greens and the Board has absolutely no business experience.
It is a Labor/Greens front.
How you can actually believe anything they "report" I do not know.

I think I believe the Productivity Commission more .
Regards Philip A

[ramblingboy42]

who are the "productivity commission" and what colour guernsey do they wear?

[PhilipA]

Home - Australian Productivity Commission (http://www.pc.gov.au/)

They are really the architects of Australia's success ove rthe last 20-30 years.
Their recommendations to cut subsidies to all sectors of the Australian economy set the basis of our great growth , from a subsidised economy rife with marketing boards and restrictive practices to a free market economy.
Regards Philip A

[PAT303]

Mate, in me dotage I dont give a hoot about any of their policies except only the ones that effect ME and my life personally.
Deleting some of the others unpopular policies wont make up for what the new ideas will cost me, I think.
To quote Ron : As long as it doesn't affect my pension, I dont care.

Selfish but honest ?
Perhaps.

Be honest olbod,I like people who say what they think,too many yes men in this world I think. Pat

[PAT303]

Never mind the politics, let's just think about what's good for the country and the planet.
In my opinion, its certainly good to reduce emissions. Its also certainly good to invest in renewable energy. Everyone else is doing it because its the smart thing to do and we're going to be left behind like a bunch of moth-eaten shags on a rock.
Its also bad business to turn your backs on the future business opportunities, and to undermine some 20,000 renewable energy jobs which already exist in Australia, and concentrate on a shrinking business.
We need to think more than five years ahead for a change.

And what difference would it make,China,India etc pump out more pollutants in a day than we pump out all year so what would we achieve?. Pat

[Kevin B]

But we pump out more per capita. .

[AndyG]

Everyone wants a subsidy, or a pension, etc etc and bugger who pays for it, oh that will probably be our grand children.

If hot rocks are such a great idea, or wind power let them investment their own money, or sell shares to like minded folk. What's the takeup on the green power option, i bet two parts of a gnats nuts.

If past errors have been made in power generation or distribution systems, fine, but lets not use that as an excuse to perpetuate more errors.

And while im at it, if you want to grant asylum to economic refugees, unlike those poor buggers in Iraq at the moment, fine they can stay at your place and you can feed them, not me.

[Chucaro]

Chucaro I sometimes think you just do this to troll.

Have you looked up the Australia Institute?

The Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/)

It is loaded with Greens and the Board has absolutely no business experience.
It is a Labor/Greens front.
How you can actually believe anything they "report" I do not know.

I think I believe the Productivity Commission more .
Regards Philip A

Philip, why when I express my with links as reference have to be a troll?

Yes I have look at the Australian Institute and regard them as more honest that the present government.
Now , regarding the financial implications of eliminate RET have you read the other reports by Roam Consulting, Deloitte and Jacobs among others?

I would put it in another way if we talk about trolls and it is any posts that is backing Newman or Warburton views who are so bias to be a troll for provoking a proper response.

[Chucaro]

Everyone wants a subsidy, or a pension, etc etc and bugger who pays for it, oh that will probably be our grand children.

If hot rocks are such a great idea, or wind power let them investment their own money, or sell shares to like minded folk. What's the takeup on the green power option, i bet two parts of a gnats nuts.

If past errors have been made in power generation or distribution systems, fine, but lets not use that as an excuse to perpetuate more errors.

And while im at it, if you want to grant asylum to economic refugees, unlike those poor buggers in Iraq at the moment, fine they can stay at your place and you can feed them, not me.

That it is Ok Andrew if you apply the same to the mining industry, the power generators, etc,etc
If not then the idea is not in line with values but with ideologist view.
The entitlements have to be apply equally.

[Greatsouthernland]

My objection is that most if not all coal fired power plants and the distribution infrastructure costs in this country were all born by state taxpayers and then sold off to industry at bargain prices, yet Government seems reluctant to even offset building costs for the renewable sector in taxes.

Yep, this IS our biggest problem, as NOTHING will improve until this STUPID decision is fixed.

Time to buy the assets back, bugger the debt, the constitution should also be changed to reflect this stuff up and ensure it never happens again. And note the perpetrators.

Absolute :censored: IDIOTS that sold us up the river in the 'essential energy services' sector, amongst other sectors.

In my opinion :angel: of course, one party in particular managed budgets with these sales, just my irrelevant opinion.

[frantic]

But we pump out more per capita. .

So your ok with living like the majority of Chinese or Indians to reduce your greenhouse output per person?:D
China and India have around 100million middle class each, but when they both have well over 1 billion people go figure how the vast majority live.
We've been through this many times, but even with Chinas so called plan their emissions still increase by multiples or their starting point, compared to our plan where we reduce.
When you compare the jobs made in renewables, to the jobs lost through carbon shedding you see who truly loses. Add in that a lot of those renewables jobs are just installing/bolting together imported equipment and it is an act of dumbing down our country, not boosting our knowledge.
From my "office" I can see shiploads of wind towers/turbines being brought in from china, where's the knowledge gain?


No party would ever sell off major assets to use in tax cuts to buy votes would they? No party would refuse to challenge a billion dollar+ tax avoidance/return because that company owns 70%of one specific area?

[ramblingboy42]

Frantic, whats that got to do with the thread?

It's a local matter , not international.

[PhilipA]

Yes I have look at the Australian Institute and regard them as more honest
that the present government.

Well that says it all.
The productivity Commission is an unbiassed Public think tank.

Thay make recommendations to the government who accept or reject them.

If the Coal miners say, and the ABC publishes that the the Productivity Commission has found no subsidy to the coal industry, then you can be pretty sure that there is no subsidy.

The productivity commission oversaw the dimantling of marketing arrangement for all rural industries and the restructure of the dairy industry and the dismantling of the subsidies.
The only subsidised or restricted marketing sectors in the Australian economy are Taxis, Chemists and now renewable energy , which AFAIK they were never asked to examine.
To give an idea of their mindset to cancel marketing arrangements and improve efficiency have a look at the last time they looked at the energy sector in 1991.
Energy Generation and Distribution - Australian Productivity Commission (http://www.pc.gov.au/industry-commission/inquiry/11energy)
They have never seen a subsidy or marketing arrangement that they like.
Regards philip A

[Chucaro]

Well that says it all.
The productivity Commission is an unbiassed Public think tank.
.................................................. .....................................
Yes I guess that it says all, money now and looses in the future for some are more important that the environment.
Sad really :(
IMO in a case like this there is more that the economic factors that have to be taken into consideration, the damage to the environment including the climate change is well above the financial aspects.
I live the issue of bias for others to think about it.
IMO if subsides are not a good idea then they should no be available to the mining and power generator industries among others.
I think that we have to agree to disagree on this one :)

[frantic]

Frantic, whats that got to do with the thread?

It's a local matter , not international.

3 strikes and your out! :D


Both pat303 and kevin spoke in international terms, before me,but you target the 3rd response that covered BOTH areas. Why???
Last time I checked warming was not just gold coast, Qld or Oz but global so if you don't look at what EVERYONE is doing, gauge it's effectiveness and LEARN from their mistakes, rather than imitate , we are doomed to not just failure, but lower living standards and increasing unemployment ,along with less money to help alleviate issues caused by it ,on the way to the global BBQ :twisted::twisted:


P.s you used the term other countries in the first post,,, oops!

[Kevin B]

Lets mix it up a bit,

Global warming is a myth, "the biggest scam of modern times” global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media.

The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit

:eek:

[incisor]

Lets mix it up a bit,

Global warming is a myth, "the biggest scam of modern times” global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media.

The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit

:eek:

Yes maurice....

Sent from my GT-I9300T using AULRO mobile app

[AndyG]

What ****es me off, is the duplicity. I don't doubt human kind have ****ed the planet, be it CFC co2 lead DDT etc, plus nature has put her finger in it, Krakatoa, sun spots, methane hot spots etc etc.

But apart from those mongrel Chinese, no one addresses the root cause, too many people. Rather we subsidize people to have more kids plus programs like IVF etc etc. but very little into family planning, contraception etc.

I suppose that's the beauty of a democracy, we have the right to be stupid.

[rovercare]

What ****es me off, is the duplicity. I don't doubt human kind have ****ed the planet, be it CFC co2 lead DDT etc, plus nature has put her finger in it, Krakatoa, sun spots, methane hot spots etc etc.

But apart from those mongrel Chinese, no one addresses the root cause, too many people. Rather we subsidize people to have more kids plus programs like IVF etc etc. but very little into family planning, contraception etc.

I suppose that's the beauty of a democracy, we have the right to be stupid.

That's what things like Malaria, Ebola, japenese encyphilitis, polio etc is for

Its a horrible thing to those whom have been or close to sufferers, but when a cure for cancer is found, its going to get worse

Overpopulation IS the cause

[Kevin B]

Malaria, Ebola, japenese encyphilitis, polio

The planets Natural Selection process..

[CraigE]

There is one main reason our politicians will not support solar power atm and that is there is less money to be made in it for the govts and their investor business owner mates, while there is coal, gas and oil in the ground. Once this expires they will embrace solar power but will impose tariff charges to make obscene amounts of money.
This is happening right now with home solar. Rebates have dropped, power companies have been increasing charges to compensate and now want to increase more and charge a connection fee regardless of whether you are hooked up to the network or not a lot like they have done with sewerage and water infrastructure. You may not use it but still have to pay a fee just for it to be available.
We could easily make coal fired power stations redundant quickly if we really wanted to, though there would be initial infrastructure costs.

[PhilipA]

In summary you seem to be agreeing wiith the proposition that the governments are reducing the SUBSIDIES.

It was openly said in the beginning of the obscene subsidies for solar that the government wanted home solar and that everyone else had to pay for it.

So the poorest people eg renters, pensioners, unemployed have paid billions to the rich middle class with their own homes for them to install solar.
Great social policy.
Regards Philip A

[incisor]

So the poorest people eg renters, pensioners, unemployed have paid billions to the rich middle class with their own homes for them to install solar.

yep....

just one of many furphys sold to the masses... like the privatisation of electricity and other essential services

[mns488]

If hot rocks are such a great idea, or wind power let them investment their own money, or sell shares to like minded folk. What's the takeup on the green power option, i bet two parts of a gnats nuts.

.

FYI. Silex is a listed company (SLX). So anyone including people on this forum who believe the this type of power is the way of the future are free to invest in it.

But many do not because without Government Subs it is a dog investment as has been shown in the SP drop.

And as per the ASX announcement: "Solar Systems is currently exploring alternatives to further develop the Mildura site on a smaller scale"

My suggestion: open a zoo for their white elephant and charge people for viewings! HA kidding.

I'm not against alternatives, viable alternatives. Subsidies NO, tax concession/offsets YES. Handing government money out is inefficient. Making the companies strive for a profit but give them tax concessions is my preferred option.

[Chucaro]

Some people keep ignoring the charity money for the "other side of the coin"

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/08/660.jpg

[Chucaro]

Positive cracks in the team :)

Tasmania’s Liberal Senators support the retention of the Renewable Energy Target (http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/tasmanias-liberal-senators-support-the-retention-of-the-renewable-energy-target/story-fnj4f7k1-1227029793554)

Lyons MP Eric Hutchinson said his position had not changed since June 30.
“The RET is important to subsidise and encourage and investment in renewable energy,” he said.
“We all know that is a good thing.”

[PhilipA]

Never get between a Tasmanian and a subsidy.

Ask the WA liberals what they think.

It is telling that the hydro makes good profits. It is efficient.

All Jokes aside the article really says nothing, having "2bob each way" in then saying if the RET is maintained Tasmania will lose the only big employers that they now have. Tasmainia which has the highest % of youth unemployment and also a high level of generational unemployment. Now that is good policy.
The discussion also seems to concentrate on "all or nothing" which I don't think is all the options the government is examining. Maybe a compromise at 20% which the RET was intended to be would please many, but probably not those who want to build more wind farms.

Regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

The Renewable Energy Target is not a subsidy, its a target which electricity generators are required to meet however they like. For example, Queensland has from memory 14% of its electricity generated from gas, which reduces emissions compared with burning coal.
The RET has resulted in about $20 billion in investment in renewable energy generation and created about 20,000 jobs, this is mostly private investment and private jobs.
Another $14 billion of investment, which would have created many more jobs, is now frozen because of this government's dumb decision to undermine the RET.
Internationally, the major growth in the electricity field is in renewable energy. China is leading the way and its power plants are much cleaner than ours, plus its a huge investor in renewable energy.
The current government's opposition to renewable energy, and its obsession with coal, is going totally against the rest of the world. Its just dumb, in my opinion.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/solar-council-attacks-broken-promises-on-renewables/5686068

[rovercare]

The Renewable Energy Target is not a subsidy, its a target which electricity generators are required to meet however they like. For example, Queensland has from memory 14% of its electricity generated from gas, which reduces emissions compared with burning coal.
The RET has resulted in about $20 billion in investment in renewable energy generation and created about 20,000 jobs, this is mostly private investment and private jobs.
Another $14 billion of investment, which would have created many more jobs, is now frozen because of this government's dumb decision to undermine the RET.
Internationally, the major growth in the electricity field is in renewable energy. China is leading the way and its power plants are much cleaner than ours, plus its a huge investor in renewable energy.
The current government's opposition to renewable energy, and its obsession with coal, is going totally against the rest of the world. Its just dumb, in my opinion.

Where do idealists think the investment comes from? The consumer.... That's well and good, just on my way home to aus and read an article about the ret scheme, 64ish% want sustainable so long as they don't have to pay any more, similar amount think we don't invest enough in renewable energy

Now I'm not very clever, but that means alot of hypocrites by my poor math? Right?

[PhilipA]

The Renewable Energy Target is not a subsidy, its a target which electricity
generators are required to meet however they like. For example, Queensland has
from memory 14% of its electricity generated from gas, which reduces emissions
compared with burning coal

OH COME NOW.!
Have a look at the Energy regulators site below and see what an REC is.
REC = Renewable Energy Certificate.
The Wind power and solar generators get a certificate for each magawatt they produce which must be bought by the distributors to reach the RET.
This cost is then passsed on to the consumer.
It amazes me how people can look at one part of the story and totally ignore the real issue.
In addition of course the small scale renewable energy certificates are also a subsidy to mainly the middle class who own their home and paid for by pensioner, tenants, the unemployed, and the disabled.

Large-scale Generation Certificates - Clean Energy Regulator (http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Certificates/Large-scale-Generation-Certificates/about-lgcs)

regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

That's not a subsidy. How could that be a subsidy? Where is the government paying for it? Its regulation, but it's not a subsidy. This is how it works - no subsidy involved:
http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About-the-scheme/How-the-RET-works


This is a subsidy:
A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution), business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#cite_note-cheapMyers_and_Kent_2001-1) Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization) or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_break), insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#cite_note-Collins_Dictionary-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy#cite_note-NakedCapitalism-2014-06-03-3)


Regulation is not a subsidy.

The investment in renewables is mostly private companies who think it will make a good long-term business. The three big power companies including Origin are among the largest investors, for example.

[PhilipA]

A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended
to an economic sector (or institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution), business, or
individual)

ER an REC is paid for by all INDIVIDUALS who purchase electricity so it is a subsidy.
I am amazed by the semantic lengths that you are going to to try to justify this.
Look I know that the Labor government diligently pursued the dream of a carbon free economy, but this has been rejected by the democratic will of the majority who inter alia have decided thet they don't want a carbon tax or more expensive electricity.. I note that 64% of respondents agree that renewable energy is a GOOD THING if the cost is no higher than coal power. I think renewable energy is a great thing .

I was considering the irony earlier of the fact that the only competitive clean power is hydro power, and who stopped the development of hydro power in Tasmania.......let me guess was it the Greens? They wanted a nice area to paddle their kayaks in instead.

There are extensive potential hydro power resources in the North of Australia eg the Ord River dam has a tiny hydro power plant which could be developed much further as they spill billions of litres each year. But Hydro power needs national will and enormous capital which is generally outside the private sector ability to finance.

That's why we seem to be stuck with unrelaible, expensive wind power, mainly because the wind power companies have enormous subsidies and do not have to stump up the reliable capacity to cover their shortfalls.

Regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

Quote:

A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended
to an economic sector (or institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution), business, or
individual)

ER an REC is paid for by all INDIVIDUALS who purchase electricity so it is a subsidy.

How is an individual is being charged here?


What is an LGC?




A LGC is an electronic form of currency created in the REC Registry by eligible entities.
One LGC is equivalent to 1 MWh (megawatt hour) of eligible renewable electricity generated above the power station’s baseline.
LGCs are created in the REC Registry by the registered person for the accredited renewable energy power station. The LGC record, including ownership and status is available in the REC Registry. To be eligible to create LGCs, power stations must generate their electricity from approved renewable energy sources such as solar energy, wind, ocean waves and tides, geothermal-aquifers, wood waste, agricultural waste, bagasse (sugar cane waste), black liquor (a by-product of the paper-making process), or landfill gas.
A full list of eligible renewable energy sources is included in Section 17 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (the Act). There are currently more than 17 different types of eligible renewable energy sources being used in accredited power stations.
Electricity that is generated from fossil fuels, or waste products derived from fossil fuels, is not eligible for LGCs.
During the accreditation process of a power station, the Regulator determines the baseline – generally the average amount of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy sources over the 1994, 1995 and 1996 years. Eligible parties can only create LGCs for electricity generated above the baseline.
Power stations which generated electricity for the first time after 1 January 1997 have a nil baseline.
LGCs must be correctly created and validated in the REC Registry before they can be made available for purchase and/or surrender.
LGCs are sold through the open LGC market, where the price will vary according to supply and demand. Payment for LGCs is completed outside of the REC Registry.
LGCs are usually sold to liable entities. The liable entities are required by law to surrender a set number of LGCs to the Clean Energy Regulator in each calendar year.

[PhilipA]

I give up mate.
If you cannot see that a population of consumers is not a collection of individuals then what is the point?
The distributors Have to buy RECs at a market price which are issued by the government to the renewable producers free of charge.

The price of the RECs is set by the supply and demand and the demand is set compelling the distributors to buy RECs to cover the RET target.

The distributors add the cost of the RECs to the electricity price.

Each INDIVIDUAL consumer pays a portion of the cost of RECS.

BTW I was reading recently that in Spain the solar and wind generators worked out they could get more RECs by running diesel generators all night to up their megawatt hour output. Great scam.

Regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

Of course everyone pays for electricity, that's not the point.

RECs shift the balance from 'dirty' to 'clean' power sources. Where's the evidence that RECs are INCREASING the cost of power to consumers?

The main factor in rising power prices seems to be distribution infrastructure upgrades, not building more power stations.

Actually, with demand falling because more people are going solar, we have an oversupply of power. RETs encourage the switch to clean power and make dirty old power station uneconomic, hopefully leading to more shutdowns of antiquated equipment. Over time we will get a more efficient and cost-effective generation system.

The setting of power prices is a very complex process involving long-term contracts, spot prices, the costs of operating the business, profit targets, predictions about demand etc. Its not possible to single out any one factor in such a complex and ever-shifting equation.

So, I ask again, where's the evidence that RECs have significantly increased the cost of power to consumers?

[JDNSW]

Of course everyone pays for electricity, that's not the point.

RECs shift the balance from 'dirty' to 'clean' power sources. Where's the evidence that RECs are INCREASING the cost of power to consumers?

They are supplied without cost to renewable suppliers who then sell them to non-renewable suppliers, who are compelled to buy them. This is intended to (and does) raise the cost of non-renewable energy to closer that of renewable energy. This simply means that non-renewable suppliers are subsidising renewables, but via a bizarre mechanism that is intended to disguise the fact of this subsidy.

If it costs the non-renewable supplier more to produce power, this additional cost must be handled in one of the following ways - either simply pass the cost on, absorb it (i.e. the shareholders pay), or replace the non-renewable energy with renewables (which is the whole idea, of course), which they can charge more for in many cases anyway; and if not, it comes back to the other two alternatives. Take a guess which alternative is adopted!

The main factor in rising power prices seems to be distribution infrastructure upgrades, not building more power stations.

Agreed. But this does not mean the RET is not a factor.

Actually, with demand falling because more people are going solar, we have an oversupply of power. RETs encourage the switch to clean power and make dirty old power station uneconomic, hopefully leading to more shutdowns of antiquated equipment. Over time we will get a more efficient and cost-effective generation system.

The setting of power prices is a very complex process involving long-term contracts, spot prices, the costs of operating the business, profit targets, predictions about demand etc. Its not possible to single out any one factor in such a complex and ever-shifting equation.

So, I ask again, where's the evidence that RECs have significantly increased the cost of power to consumers?

Since, in this state at least, all the coal generators are owned by the state government, they, as the shareholders, are certainly not going to suffer. The money has to come from somewhere, and the increasing cost of distribution per unit as usage falls allows the increased cost of energy to be disguised. For domestic and small business consumers, most of their bill is distribution, so any increase in cost of generation is hardly noticeable compared to the increase in cost of distribution. But for high energy consumption manufacturing, which uses power in such large quantities in one location that distribution costs become a much smaller part of the bill. Noticed any of these shutting up shop and moving overseas lately?

John

[PhilipA]

This will appeal to the greenies who love the ABC.

Fact file: How does the Renewable Energy Target affect your power bill? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/how-does-the-renewable-energy-target-affect-your-power-bill/5253136)
Regards Philip A

[Mick_Marsh]

This will appeal to the greenies who love the ABC.

Fact file: How does the Renewable Energy Target affect your power bill? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/how-does-the-renewable-energy-target-affect-your-power-bill/5253136)
Regards Philip A
Interesting. From the article you linked to:

Energy retailers (http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/State%20of%20the%20energy%20market%202012%20-%20Chapter%205%20Energy%20retail%20markets%20%28A4 %29.pdf) pass the cost of the RET on to consumers through retail pricing. Some of Australia's energy regulators - some states have their own, others are solely monitored by the national body - estimate the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills.

[Chucaro]

It is interesting that not one of these studies take into consideration the costs of global change.
Then again science have not any credibility and their predictions if they are correct will affect next generations so bugger them we are OK :p

[Chucaro]

ROAM Consulting RET report 2014 summary:

Each Australian household will pay over $50 more for electricity in 2020 if the Renewable Energy Target is dispensed with. The total cost would be half a billion dollars extra for electricity in 2020 and up to $1.4 billion extra each year beyond then if the policy is removed.
The policy will generate approximately 18,400 new jobs by 2020 if retained in its current form. This is made up of 9700 jobs in large-scale technologies such as wind power and bioenergy and 8700 in household systems such as solar power and solar hot water.
In addition to the $20 billion of investment already generated, the Renewable Energy Target will drive a further $14.5 billion of investment in large-scale renewable energy out to 2020, as well as many billions more in household renewable energy such as solar power. If the policy is removed, most of this simply won't happen.
Removing the Renewable Energy Target means more of Australia’s electricity will come from coal and increasingly expensive gas-fired power, forcing up both power prices and emissions. For the Federal Government to meet its target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent it would need to find an extra 34.7 million tonnes of emissions abatement from other sectors without the Renewable Energy Target.
Due to reduced demand for electricity, the report estimates that renewable energy will deliver 22.6 per cent of the electricity consumed in Australia in 2020 as a result of the Renewable Energy Target's current policy settings.

[DiscoMick]

This is the big picture from that article: renewable production costs are lower so over time wholesale prices should be lower, but what consumers pay depends on what power companies charge - its not a simple thing.


Miles George echoes that sentiment.
"Because we have no fuel cost, we always underbid the thermal generators and that tends to bring the price down. You can't see that in most states, except South Australia where it's blindingly obvious because in South Australia renewables have about 30 per cent... when it's windy the price goes down and it reduces the need for thermal generation. So it has a significant effect of depressing the wholesale price," Mr George told Fact Check.
"That effect more than offsets the prima facie cost of the certificates," he said. But there is a crucial flaw: "Consumers may not see the price reduction because retailers might not pass it on".
Modelling for The Climate Change Authority's review concluded that power prices from 2012-13 to 2020-21 with the current RET in place, and including the impact of the wholesale price drop, would be roughly $15 higher each year than what prices would be with no RET.
"All other things being equal, the modelling estimates that the higher the large-scale renewable energy target the greater the increase in renewable energy development and the lower the wholesale price. At the same time, however, there will be a greater number of renewable energy certificates created," the authority said (http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/ret/final-report/modelling-summary).
"The net effect on energy consumer bills will therefore reflect the balance of the change in wholesale costs and change in certificate costs."

So, to say that again, whole costs should fall, but power companies may not pass that on to consumers. One reason for that is that State Governments continue to demand large dividends from their power companies to prop up state budgets, so the real problem in this is greedy state governments who use power prices as a hidden tax on consumers.

[JDNSW]

........ One reason for that is that State Governments continue to demand large dividends from their power companies to prop up state budgets, so the real problem in this is greedy state governments who use power prices as a hidden tax on consumers.

Or greedy voters who elect state governments that promise no tax increases and more government services?

In a democratically elected government, it is an error to apportion any but a small proportion of the blame for policies to those elected - blame them for incompetence, corruption, or not doing what they said they would do, but don't blame them for doing what they said they were going to do.

John

[DiscoMick]

State Government revenues are under pressure for various reasons, so they're becoming even more dependent on the GST passed on from the Commonwealth. Therefore, they're reluctant to reduce the dividends they demand the power companies pay them, which are a hidden tax on consumers. This is true no matter what party forms government.

When a power company says, for example, that abolition of the carbon tax has 'saved' a certain amount, what they're really saying is how much they've decided to pass on to consumers by varying their charges. It's not automatic - its a choice.

As for voters not blaming governments, I think a very large number of people would disagree and would blame both the Abbott Government and some state governments for NOT doing what they promised and FOR doing many things they didn't promise. Judging by the polls, those governments are going to be hammered by unhappy voters at the next elections.

http://theconversation.com/from-the-reef-to-the-ret-the-politicisation-of-environmental-science-in-australia-30669

[Chucaro]

Tasmanians short-changed by Aurora on power price cuts (http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/tasmanians-shortchanged-by-aurora-on-power-price-cuts/story-fnj4f7k1-1227032404464)


“This price reduction included the estimated carbon tax removal saving of 9.4 per cent, which was then partially offset by increases in other supply costs,” a letter to customers said.

Among the charges was a 2.08 per cent increase in the costs of providing billing and customer support with the introduction of competition.

The increase came despite there being no retail competition because of the State Government’s failure to sell the Aurora customer book.
:eek: :censored:
There was also a 0.63 per cent increase in the cost of physically delivering electricity offset by a 1.11 per cent reduction in other costs, including a renewable energy scheme administered by the Australian Government.

[PhilipA]

"
Because we have no fuel cost, we always underbid the thermal generators and that
tends to bring the price down.

They only can do this only because they get money/subsidies for RECs.
No RECs no price down. That is why they are desperate to keep the the RET.

I love half stories.
Regards Philip A

[incisor]

The Australian Financial Review, confirmed the worst fears of the renewable energy industry in a front-page story (http://www.afr.com/p/national/abbott_plan_to_axe_ret_H2znp8ix2CuwbJe6jyb5ZP) this morning, reporting that the panel charged with reviewing the Renewable Energy Target had been “instructed” by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to look at ways to shut down the scheme.


Renewable Energy Target under threat from Abbott government | Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/08/18/with-friends-like-these-the-ret-never-stood-a-chance/?wpmp_tp=1)

[DiscoMick]

Unfortunately, it's not about the facts, it's all about ideology and looking after your financial supporters.

[PhilipA]

have you guys read the full ROAM report?
Have you seen the subsidies the wind farm operators get in their supply agreement. I don't think these will go now as existing agreements are locked in but they range up from AFAIR $89c a MWh to $110 per MWh .

For those who say there are no subsidies the report actually says towards the back that the ACT subsidises renewable energy in a different way to general subsidies.

The report also discounts large scale solar, and doesn't mention hot rocks at all.
The conclusions of the report that prices will go down relies on the subsidies required to reduce to $10 a MWh after 2020 but I couldn't work out why.

I think it is an assumption that coal fired will be driven from the market and gas will be very expensive due to export competition, but right now that doesn't seem to be happening as several gas user projects have been cancelled in the USA.

The report is very dense and hard for me to understand even though I was a consultant at one stage.

It is an enormous job depending on hundreds of assumptions.

It is a pity that if the RET is discarded completely, we will have the same stop/start windfarm development as in the USA where heaps of old tech ones were built in the 70s then few for many years, because the subsidies were stopped.

I was listening to Alan Jones this morning and he listed out the working conditions of the coal fired power unions which were pretty staggering.

His point was who would buy the generators ? I recall reading an old report by the bloke who now runs the NSW generators that one of the aims of privatisation would be to break the union dominance. Good luck with that.
Regards Philip A

[DiscoMick]

Subsidies to coal-fired electricity stations, which one report estimated at $5.3 billion a year, have to be included in any comparison.
Energy Market Design & Australia's Low-Carbon Transition (http://www.percapita.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=315)


Lower operating costs for renewables also have to be considered in any comparison.


As you say, its incredibly complex and I don't pretend to understand it all, but I do know that, for reasons of politics and self-interest, the comparisons have been skewed to hide the true costs of coal and the benefits of going renewable. A declining industry is struggling to hang on as long as possible.