Warburton recommendations on the RET’s future

To recap, the present arrangements on renewables are ramping up to require 41,000 GWh of electricity from large scale facilities (wind mills) and 4,000 GWh from small scale Rooftop PVs) to be supplied by 2020.  Electricity from windmills costs 2-3 times the price of conventionally supplied fossil fuel plant while solar PV cost 2-3 times the price of electricity generated by windmills.

The Warburton report on renewable energy, released yesterday, calls for a canning of the roof top solar PV systems and grandfathering existing facilities and not creating others (it has two options for this which amount to the same thing).

The rent-seekers” support group are spitting chips at seeing future opportunities for consumer plundering being cut off.  Giles Parkinson notes, “If the government accepts either of the recommendations, Australia would become the first country to either ditch a renewable energy target, or wind it back – in much the same way as it was the first to scrap a carbon price.”  The AFR reports, the Warburton proposals, ”would kill billions in investment, put thousands out of work and bankrupt the industry”.  In The Australian Graham Lloyd puts the prospective investment at $15 billion. Of course, as the report notes, this is investment and work with negative value that cannibalises funds and employment that would otherwise be directed to productive ventures.

The Warburton recommendations did canvass but in the end excluded the best option: abandoning the scheme entirely in view of the waste it brings.  However the report did scotch the myth that to do so would impose “sovereign risk” which the rentseekers had been claiming would shut out future investment in Australia across the board.  Warburton argued that immediate abandonment would simply represent “regulatory risk”.  This is faced by any investor who suddenly finds environmental standards more onerous or, for that matter, motor vehicle manufacturers who, facing a reduced level of privilege are pulling out with a write-off of investment of at least $6 billion. Unlike the highly organised renewable industry, these firms did not receive on going rorts as compensation for government creating conditions whereby their investments failed, in spite of assurances from successive ministers that the requisite support would always be forthcoming.

If existing wind farm investments continue to receive three times the price of commercially supplied electricity, the cost to the consumer will be $6 to $13 billion.  Not a bad return on the  treasure poured into lobbying but a cost that household consumers will pay and from which businesses will suffer in loss of competitiveness.

The Warburton review’s recommendations need not be accepted and there is still room to wind back totally the excesses of this spectacularly profligate scheme which has done so much to corrupt the political system as well as imposing crippling costs on electricity users.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Warburton recommendations on the RET’s future

  1. Giorgio

    Because you Australian s abolished the huge subsidies to the renewable energy industry,costing rich overseas con men ,and leftist union members a fortune ,we overseas investors are not going to invesyt in your mining and agricultural industries,So There! Serves you right!

  2. Winston

    “Kill billions in investment”. Really? I didn’t think that Ponzi schemes, rooftop PV for example, legitimately qualify as an ‘investment’. Killing billions in make-work Gaia indulgences would be more like it.

  3. incoherent rambler

    … imposing crippling costs on electricity users

    Not to mention industry.

    What part of high electricity and gas costs mean ‘goodbye competitive industry’, do people not understand?

  4. Seza

    Yet Richardson and Hewson on Sky this morning were saying how popular the RET is with the public. I think we need to tell them how much it costs the average punter, and then see how popular it is.

  5. Driftforge

    Best thing you can do for your electricity price when you see rooftop solar is throw rocks through it.

    Not an actual recommendation.

  6. Giorgio

    Richo and hewson. What a pair of Wankers both corruptand coplicit in the Ponzi Scheme .
    ” i polled my electorate today ,and over 132:7 per cent were in favour of exhorbitant elactricity prices ,to save the carpetbaggers mand shifty union superfunds.

  7. Watching It Unfold

    Ummm…lets see ……..God Damn Commies !

  8. Percy

    Time to go Nucular. Oops, I mean….oh, you know what I mean

  9. H B Bear

    Has Tony Credlin got the balls to do anything with this?

  10. Driftforge

    Time to go Nucular. Oops, I mean….oh, you know what I mean

    This.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    Warburton recommendations on the RET’s future

    They will be shelved in the suppository of all wisdom no doubt.

  12. Charles

    One of the biggest problems with the description of the RET so far is the term prospective investment. It is not investment in the RET, it is just prospective debt plus profits for the rent seeking entities involved in this scheme.

    There is no point in us buying a product which has no utility value (i.e. we cannot produce any goods or services from an intermittent supply of electricity) which will generate no income for us and all it will achieve is a re-distribution of wealth from the poor (pensioners, low income workers, etc.) to the wealthy (rent-seeking businesses who prey on stupid government policies to relieve the general population of their money).

  13. ProEng

    The costs of RET has been underestimated because there is a need for backup of 100% of every kW of nominal capacity of wind and solar as has been shown in actual performance in UK. In UK there was a whole week around Christmas time a couple of years ago when there was no wind across the whole of UK. Yes UK is smaller than Australia but there have been days across large areas of Victoria & NSW when winds have been below the the threshold 5km/hr. Solar of course only operates during daylight hours and then not very much on very cloudy or rainy days. At the very best in Qld in summer the average hrs of sunlight for solar operation is 6hrs/day.
    Then there is the problem of demand management. One can turn wind mills and solar off for a reduction in demand but there is no guarantee of supply to meet increased demand or peak loads.
    (disclaimer I have 3KW nominal capacity of solar which supplies some of the day time load but it was a poor investment which would have been better in the stock market)

  14. Alfonso

    Every word every conference every position paper on RET is a waste of time make work scheme for office dwellers. When unsubsidised renewables are competitive they will become viable, just like magic. Your input is not required. Until then go somewhere else to seek your rent.

  15. stackja

    ALP/unions love RET. Free money!

  16. Walter Plinge

    There’s a multi-question reader survey in The Australian about this. There are about 3,500 responses and these are skewed so far in favour of renewables and continuing and expanding the rort that it seems the survey has been hijacked by the greens. Either that or The Australian are readers are (a) a lot thicker than one might have thought and (b) heavily into RET rorting.

    I’m not sure of the survey is behind the paywall but Cat readers can respond to the poll here…

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/powering-australia/poll

  17. Bruce of Newcastle

    RET is catastrophic. All you need to know this is to look at the German experience:

    Germany’s Energiewende: A Cautionary Tale

    [M]any companies, economists and even Germany’s neighbors worry that the enormous cost to replace a currently working system will undermine the country’s industrial base and weigh on the entire European economy. Germany’s second-quarter GDP decline of 0.6%, reported earlier this month, put a damper on overall euro-zone growth, leaving it flat for the quarter.

    Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S. [...]

    One government estimate projects the Energiewende by 2040 to cost up to €1 trillion, or about $1.4 trillion, or almost half Germany’s GDP and nearly as much as the country spent on the reunification of East and West Germany.

    The article is from today. That US$1.4 trillion is our entire GDP. If ever there was a better way of burning money for no good reason that RET, I don’t know what it is.

    And the other word the link uses is “brutal”. I agree.

  18. Percy

    I’m not sure of the survey is behind the paywall

    Nope, free-for-all. Hence the GetOPM! hijacking of it

  19. entropy

    That survey, which doesn’t work all that well on an iPad btw, would seem to be sponsored by GE, which has heavily invested in wind. Hence you don’t get an option on the first question on whether Australia has done enough for renwarables there isn’t an option of ‘too much’.

  20. Patt

    Entropy,thanks for the explanation of why there was no option to either say no RET or less RET.So GE was behind this ?

  21. gabrianga

    Yet Richardson and Hewson on Sky this morning were saying how popular the RET is

    Hewson is Chairman of ASSET OWNERS Association

    The Asset Owners Disclosure Project is an independent global not-for-profit organisation whose objective is to protect members’ retirement savings from the risks posed by climate change.

    The Climate Institute is one of the major partners with Hewson and the old Goldman Sachs supplied another partner.

    Hewson has been in the top 5 of Australian “rent seekers” for years now which perhaps explains his love affair with SKY TV as a “Liberal” spokesman.

    Something strange about the seat of Wentworth which keeps producing “Liberal” Members in green clothing.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    An irony today is that Premier Weatherill in South Australia has just announced an enormous bird sanctuary along the SA coastline.

    Along much of the rest of the SA coastline are endless wind turbines who are pleasantly mashing birds to mincemeat. Fostered by Weatherill, Rann and their ALP governments.

    And on top of it they are saving bugger all CO2.

    Hypocrites.

  23. Youallwanttobeme

    When I move out of home I will get only renewable electricity.
    Heaps of my mates will do the same.
    It will mean that the market will cause coal to die.
    It might take a couple of years but it will happen.

  24. Percy

    When I move out of home I will get only renewable electricity

    Candles are classed as renewable?

  25. Youallwanttobeme

    Didn’t you see Sydney Uni sell there stock in coal.
    Everyone will be too embarrassed to own coal.
    So if everyone keeps selling the stocks, it means there will be no more money to mine coal.
    The government should just make coal miners work for solar panel companies to get us ready.

  26. .

    But not too embarrassed to buy eh?

    LOL

  27. Bruce of Newcastle

    YAWTBM – You do know that on a life cycle basis both solar photovoltaic and wind turbine energy produce more CO2 than coal fired power stations do, don’t you?

    So by choosing “renewables” you are choosing to emit more CO2 than people buying coal fired power?

    If you want to really save on CO2 emissions get yourself a small nuclear power station. You can probably buy one from these guys if you ask nicely.

  28. gabrianga

    Financial guru “extrordinaire” or Top Ten rent seeker?

    Hewson, once Chairman of Elderslie and major shareholder in an aptly named “Energy Mad”

    link

  29. Percy

    Didn’t you see Sydney Uni sell there stock in coal.

    They sold stock in coal there? I hope plenty were there to buy.

    The correct use of there/their is quite important when making a point

  30. Youallwanttobeme

    But once I use solar, its all clean.
    That’s where your wrong.
    Its what I use that produces no carbon.
    If everyone concentrated on not making carbon, we wouldn’t have climate change.
    So solar is the answer.

  31. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Youallwanttobeme

    Reading your posts, did you go through the education system, or under it?

  32. Bruce of Newcastle

    YAWTBM – Look up the manufacturing of solar cells. They need extremely pure silicon. You can only make it using vast amounts of energy and carbon to do the reduction. No alternative. I should know since I do this sort of thing for a living.

    Indeed solar PV never even makes as much energy as it took to produce the cells:

    The Catch-22 of Energy Storage

    Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization.

    The point is you have to have a storage system to run on solar power 24/7, otherwise you are running on coal fired power in the times when the Sun is not high enough in the sky. Which is most of the time.

    I don’t make this stuff up, its brutal science and engineering. When you can repeal the 1st and 2nd Laws then maybe you can break even using renewables.

  33. Percy

    FMD. Youallwanttobeme, watch this

  34. Youallwanttobeme

    I think nothing will happen until people are forced to change.
    Police stack up the pot & burn it.
    Maybe we should do the same with all the coal.
    If its burnt it wont be used & wont harm anyone.
    Once its gone, people will have to use solar.

  35. Joe

    Youallwanttobeme;

    Please go ahead with your plans to be energy clean.
    Good luck getting anti-biotics when you fall of your roof or wind turbine.
    Please leave civilisation to the adults, as in depart and entrust.

  36. notafan

    Youallwanttobeme

    Do you plan to stop using electricity at night or when it is cloudy?

  37. Driftforge

    Once its gone, people will have to use solar.

    We’ll probably get another half a millennium out of carbon, and another 10 millennia out of nuclear fission.

  38. Youallwanttobeme

    But well have solar forever.

  39. Percy

    Police stack up the pot & burn it.
    Maybe we should do the same with all the coal.

    That’s it, I’m out.

  40. incoherent rambler

    The point is you have to have a storage system to run on solar power 24/7, otherwise you are running on coal fired power in the times when the Sun is not high enough in the sky. Which is most of the time.

    Not entirely correct. The engineers that I have spoken to, assert that the coal fired generators must run 24 x 7 as backup. Solar (and wind) are intermittent to the point that the grid survival requires the power to be available in reserve. When the sun shines the coal fired electricity is simply dumped.

    It is hard to imagine a more inefficient system.

  41. Bruce of Newcastle

    We have thorium and uranium for 20,000 years that we know about. That should give use time for development of fusion power using the deuterium in seawater. We have some unknown number of millions of years of that available. Shouldn’t take too long to crack since we can nearly do it now.

    By comparison solar PV produces more CO2 in its life cycle than a coal plant does, per MWh. Solar thermal emits a lot of CO2 and turns birds into flaming crispies. Wind turbines do save a humungous 4% of CO2 per MWh they produce compared to coal, but they mash millions of birds and bats into bloody gobbets to do so.

    Do you want to destroy the environment to save it YAWTBM?

  42. Driftforge

    It is hard to imagine a more inefficient system.

    Oh.. don’t underestimate the Greens. No working system exists that can’t be made more inefficent with enough ingenuity.

    The dumped power is to be used to desalinate water.

  43. Driftforge

    Do you want to destroy the environment to save it YAWTBM?

    Doesn’t matter what actually happens to the environment, only that one be seen to be saving it.

  44. Youallwanttobeme

    If all parents had to go to their kids school & say at assembly whether they wanted coal or solar power infront of all there kids, it would stop coal mining tomorrow.
    that isn’t my idea, my teacher said it last week and I think its a good one.

  45. Walter Plinge

    Judging by Youallwanttobeme’s consistent and basic grammatical errors I’d say he or she is a teenage product of state education. He’s absorbed a load of codswallop.

    Good luck living off the grid, by the way. I’ve been around long enough to recall staying on farm that was off the grid. It used the 32v system. If you came from civilisation it was hard to adapt to the gloom (no lights until almost dark) and the troublesome kero fridge. Doubtless off-grid power has improved since then but I wonder by how much.

  46. Walter Plinge

    that (sic) isn’t my idea, my teacher said it last week and I think its (sic) a good one.

    Ask your teacher to explain the concept of ‘spinning reserve’ and its role in stabilisation of the grid. Perhaps your teacher can explain what life would like without spinning reserve. Of course she won’t be able to do it because she will never have heard of it.

  47. .

    Youallwanttobeme
    #1432977, posted on August 29, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    If all parents had to go to their kids school & say at assembly whether they wanted coal or solar power infront of all there kids, it would stop coal mining tomorrow.
    that isn’t my idea, my teacher said it last week and I think its a good one.

    What?

    There is no way I could say this to any children and have a clear conscience.

    Solar panels are far more environmentally damaging that coal fired power.

    If we really had a an earth centered energy policy, we’d be building nukes and hydro near schools.

  48. MartinG

    Percy
    #1432861, posted on August 29, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    I’m not sure of the survey is behind the paywall

    Nope, free-for-all. Hence the GetOPM! hijacking of it

    Hmmm, yes there are too many votes for me to game by myself. I can’t find the cookie that needs clearing, so you need to clear all cookies before you can vote again.

  49. Watching It Unfold

    Youallwanttobeme – I’m sorry, I just can’t pick on kids, probably a school project.

  50. Tom

    We are not amused, Doomlord. I thought you could afford daytime crèche.

  51. DrBeauGan

    Why are you arguing with a pig ignorant retarded child? He she or it isn’t going to be influenced by facts or logic.

  52. .

    Solar panels are far more environmentally damaging that coal fired power.

    If we really had a an earth centered energy policy, we’d be building nukes and hydro near schools.

    Tell this to your teacher, kid.

    She needs to get schooled. Her beloved Greens politicians consist of Australia’s only traitor and they would willingly sign Lenin’s Hanging Order.

    Don’t know what it is? Google.

  53. Youallwanttobeme

    Then why don’t we get rid of solar & wind power altogether. would that make you happy.

  54. Boambee John

    “and all it will achieve is a re-distribution of wealth from the poor (pensioners, low income workers, etc.) to the wealthy (rent-seeking businesses who prey on stupid government policies to relieve the general population of their money).”

    Charles:

    One of the amusing things about the whole business of Big Renewables is the sight of the left (particularly the Greens) demanding that businesses be allowed to rip the taxpayer off and impoverish “society’s most vunnable”

    Irony isn’t their scene!

  55. .

    Youallwanttobeme
    #1433067, posted on August 29, 2014 at 4:33 pm
    Then why don’t we get rid of solar & wind power altogether. would that make you happy.

    There are rare cases where it is a solution that is cheaper than coal, nuclear or hydroelectricity.

    Small scale production of solar or wind would be easier to control for and internalise pollution and other externalities.

    There is simply no need to subsidise wind and solar. There is no need to ban anything in this case.

  56. Driftforge

    There is simply no need to subsidise wind and solar. There is no need to ban anything in this case.

    It’s the basic answer. Cut the subsidies, cut the regulatory advantages, and let it sort itself out. Solar and wind both have their place, but it that place is nowhere near as common as we see them today.

  57. Tom

    If there was a real climate crisis caused by emissions, a massive science and technology effort to commercialise wind and solar would now be underway. There has been nothing of the sort. In fact, it hasn’t even been seriously lobbied for. Instead, the useful idiots of the fruitcake left have simply been creating hysteria to siphon off public money for designated Green left “scientists” and subsidy scammers in the renewables industry like Tim Flannery.

    It’s all about the theft of public money. And the game’s up.

    Whether or not he’s a pisstake, our troll perfectly illustrates the power of junk science and self-hatred over poorly educated children subjected to years of lying and anti-civilisationist propaganda in the classroom by secondary teachers.

  58. Tintarella di Luna

    Climate change will evaporate as soon as the public money disappears. You watch.

  59. Bruce of Newcastle

    Then why don’t we get rid of solar & wind power altogether. would that make you happy.

    Those little solar lights people put in their gardens are OK.

    But wind turbines are terribly damaging. Btw my new icon is a photo from this morning. A wild scaly. Only started to do the hand thing Tuesday. The second of the pair has started too, yesterday, but she didn’t like the camera so I couldn’t get them both together.

  60. Andrew

    Why are you arguing with a pig ignorant retarded child?

    thread-hijacking Green troll? I thought everyone had been spoken to about that.

  61. Walter Plinge

    Climate change will evaporate as soon as the public money disappears. You watch.

    Spot on. I’ve always contended if the government gave the CSIRO, BOM, &c., loads of taxpayers’ money to find if global cooling was a problem scientists would have discovered it is a problem.

    Margaret Thatcher has a lot to answer for in her war against the coal unions. The battle was won but the war is ongoing (albeit petering out).

  62. thefrollickingmole

    Youallwanttobeme

    You might wonder why a low cost solution to high carbon content in the atmosphere hasnt been thought of?

    Oh, wait….

    Dumping iron at sea does sink carbon
    Geoengineering hopes revived as study of iron-fertilized algal blooms shows they deposit carbon in the deep ocean when they die.

    Bit of a pity they have allredy tried to ban it before experimentation could prove it was effective… Almost like they arent really looking for a solution so much as a never ending income stream..

  63. Squirrel

    So all that smug commentary about “stranded assets” might need to be revised, a little, to talk about prospectively stranded assets – oh dear.

  64. Bruce of Newcastle

    Bit of a pity they have already tried to ban it

    Banned a long time ago. Google jarosite disposal. Ammonium jarosite is about the perfect fertilizer for such things. A whole UN bureaucracy would have to be overturned to allow it again.

    I’d be amused but CO2 has too small an effect on climate to bother with iron fertilization anyway.

  65. manalive

    Wearing one of these causes posts like Youallwanttobeme’s.

  66. Percy

    Why are you arguing with a pig ignorant retarded child?

    thread-hijacking Green troll? I thought everyone had been spoken to about that

    My apologies Andrew.

    I haven’t reponded to the numerical one for some time though. Partial credit?

  67. JC

    Didn’t you see Sydney Uni sell there stock in coal.
    Everyone will be too embarrassed to own coal.
    So if everyone keeps selling the stocks, it means there will be no more money to mine coal.
    The government should just make coal miners work for solar panel companies to get us ready.

    Kid, if idiots sell their coal stocks evil bastards like me, who will view the capitalization as undervalued for stupid reasons, will go in and scoop them up for a bargain.

  68. jupes

    But once I use solar, its all clean.
    That’s where your wrong.
    Its what I use that produces no carbon.
    If everyone concentrated on not making carbon, we wouldn’t have climate change.
    So solar is the answer.

    Surely you’re pulling the piss.

    I think nothing will happen until people are forced to change.
    Police stack up the pot & burn it.
    Maybe we should do the same with all the coal.
    If its burnt it wont be used & wont harm anyone.
    Once its gone, people will have to use solar.

    LOL of course you are. Good one.

  69. goatjam

    “The Warburton review’s recommendations need not be accepted and there is still room to wind back totally the excesses of this spectacularly profligate scheme which has done so much to corrupt the political system as well as imposing crippling costs on electricity users.”

    Sackless Tony won’t touch the RET. If he does, it will probably be to extend it, just so that he can show his GreenScum “friends” that he is really not the Abbott666 that they think he is”

  70. goatjam

    Reading your posts [youwanttobeme}, did you go through the education system, or under it?

    I’m pretty sure that if the level of english literacy demonstrated by ywtbm is a sure sign that he did indeed pass through the edumacation system, such that it is. In fact, he/she is probably on the fast-track to becoming a teacher.

  71. Rich

    ”would kill billions in investment, put thousands out of work and bankrupt the industry”.

    Investment…industry?

    Should we start calling centrelink an ‘industry’ as well’?

  72. Alfonso

    youwanttobeme…..0h dear, it’s a Composta.

    “Police stack up the pot & burn it.
    Maybe we should do the same with all the coal.
    If its burnt it wont be used & wont harm anyone.”

    Dumbos inc.

  73. Walter Plinge

    Police stack up the pot & burn it.
    Maybe we should do the same with all the coal.
    If its burnt it wont be used & wont (sic) harm anyone.

    Excellent idea. You is learnin’. Carting it to the police involves fuel-burning vehicles. Better to burn it efficiently where it won’t harm anyone:

    Here.

  74. Andrew

    “If the government accepts either of the recommendations, Australia would become the first country to either ditch a renewable energy target, or wind it back – in much the same way as it was the first to scrap a carbon price.”

    Gracious of them to pay A666 that compliment I have to admit.

  75. Danzig_misfit

    I don’t know whether to feel sorry for Youallwanttobeme being a product of our education, or slap them around the head. I still don’t know if I feel it is even a serious account. The name says a lot, ironically though.

  76. JohnA

    Giles Parkinson notes, “If the government accepts either of the recommendations, Australia would become the first country to either ditch a renewable energy target, or wind it back – in much the same way as it was the first to scrap a carbon price.”

    Oh, good. That makes a(nother) policy of the previous government that the newer government has retained – being a world leader on climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>