Renewable energy review

BUSINESS leader Dick Warburton has been named as the head of a panel to review the renewable energy target, which mandates that 20 per cent of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020.

Mr Warburton is the former head of Manufacturing Australia, a vocal anti-carbon tax lobby group, and was today labelled a “climate sceptic” by Greenpeace Australia.

Source.

Earlier this evening Burchell Wilson, chief economist at ACCI, spoke to the 730 Report about renewable energy policy. Watch the whole thing.

Update: The transcript is up.

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, the Renewable Energy Target is – it’s corporate welfare on a massive scale directed towards the renewable sector. I don’t know why anyone would have any level of sympathy for businesses that – they don’t employ many people, that they don’t export anything and they’ve surreptitiously imposed these massive costs on energy consumers for the sake of lining their own profits.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Renewable energy review

  1. Infidel Tiger

    Abetz has confirmed on QANDA that they won’t abolish it.

    Softcock scum.

  2. Peter H

    WOW, fantastic ! That was incredible. The bottom line, this is stupid, it does not work, its expensive, we pay 300 times more than europe, we will not continue with it, we should not continue with it, whats your argument?

  3. Eyrie

    So where were these arseholes during the R-G-R years?

  4. HK_Brother

    Instead of stupid renewable energy targets, why not just have a competition of innovation? The prize is AUD$10 million for developing the best variant of solar, wind, etc power implementation that can address the weaknesses of existing technologies while being economically feasible. Anyone around the world is free to enter the competition; Universities, individuals, business, etc.

    Renewable energy is not an eco problem. Its an engineering and economics problem.

    You can have all the bloody “renewable energy targets” you want, but it still doesn’t change the fact that current renewable energy solutions cannot replace base load requirements of a Nation.

    Why not address the problem directly?
    (Instead of this incredibly stupid circular logic (political) approach.)

  5. Fred Furkenburger

    “lining their own profits” Pockets, pockets!!! There is a difference. I think the LDP are looking better and better every day!

  6. Fred Furkenburger

    HK_Brother I don’t have a problem with private enterprise investing in renewable energy but why on earth should I pay for it (up front before it works). Especially when there is actually no proven need for it (outside failed climate models). Actually there should be no need for any competition for development in this area because if it was at all viable private enterprise would have been all over it. Without subsidies!!

  7. Rabz

    Just get of rid of it, FFS.

    How difficult is it to arrive at this conclusion?

  8. Watching It Unfold

    I think you will see exactly what that ACCI man said – they will suck the air out of it, and then dispose of it when no one is looking – Lets face it, getting rid of the RET is one of the great moral challenges of our time……….or something………or whatever………

  9. cohenite

    Renewables don’t work, except hydro and wet hot rocks.

  10. .

    More hydro. It helps our water management as well and can be good for tourism, or possibly aquaculture.

    It can be co-sited with nuke, adequate water supply in remote-ish areas and on stable ground. Of course Gen IV reactors are totally safe – what you can do with them which is malicious you can do with enough smoke detectors (Americium 241) .

  11. Leigh Lowe

    Abetz has confirmed on QANDA that they won’t abolish it.

    Softcock scum.

    Is he saying he is keeping the target or keeping the subsidies and other leg-ups.
    The target per-se costs nothing.
    This industry constantly talks about how it is making great inroads into lowering costs of generation.
    Call them on it in 2015 and tell them that the Government expects them to attract private investment and do the heavy lifting themselves.

  12. Infidel Tiger

    Australia already has a renewable energy. About 3000 years worth of coal.

  13. ProEng

    HK Brother it is clear that you have no knowledge of technology and even less knowledge about cost assessment. There is no future of base load electricity generation with so called renewables. The future is with nuclear energy -in the immediate future it will be with Thorium fuel fission which will be in operation in China, India and Russia by 2020. USA and Britain will be follow rapidly to compete ( both have public confidence issues but once the leaders are in operation laws can be passed to ease the way) then Canada, France, and maybe Brazil, Switzerland and Sweden will be not far behind. Then will come a mix of fission and fusion -maybe by 2040 and finally by 2060 stand alone fusion.
    Where will Australia be ? Well after a couple more coal fired power stations to replace out-dated ones and give a little extra ones hopes to be in the third wave of generation with Switzerland/Sweden (or ASEA -Brown Boveri as contractor) in 2030-2035

  14. entropy

    Fusion is always just around the corner.
    Anyway, while I like the idea of the pollution reduction and on tap power of a nuke, coal is a lot, lot cheaper.
    Why not use our comparative advantage?

  15. ProEng

    I should have added in many countries nuclear energy is already the cheapest. When research and testing on Thorium reactors is finalised they will be cheaper because a) they are safer so less containment infrastructure b) the fuel is cheaper (Australia has waste dumps) c) they will need less people for operation and surveilance and d) there is little waste handling.
    All subsidies for renewables should be scrapped and no special funds provided for research on renewables.

  16. ProEng

    blast , I forgot the link to an IEA report show energy generation costs http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/docs/exec-summary-ENG.pdf Please note entropy

  17. JohnA

    Mr Warburton is the former head of Manufacturing Australia, a vocal anti-carbon tax lobby group, and was today labelled a “climate sceptic” by Greenpeace Australia.

    As Grumpy-Cat would say: GOOD!

    He is therefore less likely to be house-trained by the global-warming establishment.

  18. Andrew

    Abetz has confirmed on QANDA that they won’t abolish it.

    Softcock scum.

    Complete rubbish. If he says they are going to scrap it, the media will look to kill the government. The review gives them political capital.

  19. JC

    Not only should it be scrapped but force the bastards to remove every single plastic panel and propellers dotting the landscape. The evil subsidy whoring pricks should be jailed for fraud.

  20. Motelier

    My BIL “Professor Green” stated that the “push towards Nuclear Power Plants” was just a ploy to get Uranium mined and exported. The problem was the “waste” material.

    With Professor Green being a scientist, I asked whether science would have made any progress in making Nuclear powerplants more efficient, to which he replied that waste will always be a problem.

    This is the same man, that had absolutely no idea of the efficiencies of bulk rail transport (but now comes back as an “expert” in rail carbon efficiencies).

    Leftism is an illness that makes you follow the trending trend.

    Not one leftist has had an original thought with out listening to someone else saying it.

  21. johanna

    If you listen carefully to what Abetz said, he left open the option of having a .0001% renewable energy target. I wouldn’t worry too much.

    And yeah, the rewards to anyone who came up with a viable “renewable” energy option would be well is excess of $10 million. Indeed, the rewards for people who come up with totally unviable options are many multiples of that already.

  22. Ant

    How refreshing to hear somebody on the ABC tell it like it is.

  23. Robert O.

    The powers that be are still talking about carbon pollution etc. when there are little, if any ,valid scientific data to support the global warming hypothesis. The observations for the past 17 years or so show that hasn’t been any warming and the models on which the predictions were made have failed. We all can agree on climate change; it has happened over the millennia and will continue no doubt, but apart from prepare and adapt to it there is nothing much we can do.. The scientific illiteracy of those still espousing it, Shorten, Milne, Obama, Kerry et al., all or mainly lawyers, is showing. Seems to be a modern version of the rain dance.

  24. MemoryVault

    Complete rubbish. If he says they are going to scrap it, the media will look to kill the government.

    Conversely, if he (Abetz) and the other softcocks (Turnbull, Pyne, Payne, Andrews, Hunt et al) all play nice, the Fauxfacts / ALPBC media will suddenly become the LNPs newest, bestest friends.

    It’s becoming difficult to discern just who is more delusional; rusted-on Labor supporters, or rusted-on Liberal supporters.

  25. johanna

    Memory Vault, how about if you and your priapic friends (if you have any) stand for Parliament? Let’s just see how many punters want you and your mates to be in charge.

    It’s just gorgeous to fantasise in the blogosphere about what you would do if only you were in charge of everything.

    One of the purposes of parliamentary democracy is to head off people like you.

  26. Mantaray

    Andrew (11.11pm) It’s disappointing that so many Catallaxy bloggers seem to have no political skills whatsoever…and also seem to have never heard the following…..Less haste; more speed….

    Two bulls are looking across the paddock at a herd of cute-looking heifers, when the young inexperienced bull says to the older one “Hey. Let’s race over there and grab us a few of those young sweeties” to which the old fella replies “Hmmmm. Why not sidle on over and get ALL of them?”

    The rashness of so many posts on this blog have me wondering if either A) There are ALP Trolls around here. or B) Cheap red is TOO cheap.

    Example; See Memory Vault further down from your post. Should’ve stopped at the second bottle.

  27. JohnA

    Robert O. #1193247, posted on February 18, 2014 at 12:12 am

    The powers that be are still talking about carbon pollution etc. when there are little, if any, valid scientific data to support the global warming hypothesis.

    Nor for the idea that carbon (C12, with stable isotopes at C14, a colourless, odourless gas at ambient temperatures) is a pollutant of any kind.

  28. Infidel Tiger

    Two bulls are looking across the paddock at a herd of cute-looking heifers, when the young inexperienced bull says to the older one “Hey. Let’s race over there and grab us a few of those young sweeties” to which the old fella replies “Hmmmm. Why not sidle on over and get ALL of them?”

    Sorry pal. The history of centre right governments is that they before they have their way with any of the cows they are lassoed and sent to the abattoir.

  29. Ripper

    They just need to set the target at less renewable capacity than we already have. Then the prices will drop.

    There are studies now that show that 10% is the limit over which more CO2 is produced.

  30. .

    In this instance, the Liberals would be better off being Sean Penn than Robert Duvall ( see Dennis Hopper’s Colors).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUxePfsoWE

  31. Fibro

    Perhaps a bigger issues (which by its very words means any government won’t even look at it) is that the time frame to go anything other than coal is here now, and surpassing us quickly. By the time China, Russia, India etc have advanced nuclear solutions, we wil be sitting around with coal up our kybhers wondering who to sell it too. There will be no mining left and then no competitve power available.

    Imagine if the collective brain power of ‘climte scientists’ were channelled into finding an alternate, competitive and long term solution. Sorry- just a dream really.

  32. Pyrmonter

    Dumping the RET and keeping a low carbon tax would at least succeed in some of the stated policy goals; the RET, cannot even serve its supposed purpose of overall CO2 reduction.

  33. Combine_Dave

    Perhaps a bigger issues (which by its very words means any government won’t even look at it) is that the time frame to go anything other than coal is here now, and surpassing us quickly. By the time China, Russia, India etc have advanced nuclear solutions,

    While the Chinese are branching into nuclear there’s little sign that their coal consumption is declining (quite the opposite) even nuclear powers Japan and SKorea seem to increasing their coal usage (or from their perspective diversify their baseload power supplies)…. So all that cheap coal is going to earn us a us a pretty penny. Although it would be much better if our gov has the balls to cut all this renewables sh*t and go back to providing Australian businesses cheap power once again.

Comments are closed.