Thread: THIS should NOT be happening........

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

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/2014-08-2...wables/5686068

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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

regards Philip A

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....-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, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).[2][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.

A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended
to an economic sector (or 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

Quote:

A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended
to an economic sector (or 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.

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