The government has painted a big bullseye on solar power.
They’ve got it in their sights. They want the renewable energy target (RET) repealed and they’ll do just about anything to make that happen.
Well, anything but come right out and say, “We’re against renewable energy because because we want to protect the fat wallets of our buddies in Big Energy”.
No, they can’t bring themselves to be that honest.
Instead, they’ve engaged in an almost comical game. A game where they attempt to justify their solar enmity with numbers.
The problem, of course, is that numbers don’t lie.
The government commissioned ACIL Allen to provide economic modelling on the future of the RET.
ACIL Allen ran their modelling based on assumptions that favored non-renewable energy (for example, that gas prices will FALL between now and 2016 and then stay at those prices until 2040!).
But even with the assumptions biased against solar, the numbers refused to lie for the administration. The modellers had to admit that…
- the more renewable energy you deploy the cheaper electricity becomes for all consumers
- the less renewable energy you deploy the more expensive energy becomes for all consumers
So, since the numbers wouldn’t lie for them, they had to explain why their own models could not be trusted.
It was as if they were saying, “The numbers won’t lie, so we’ll have to do it for them”
What does all this mean to you, the homeowner?
Just one thing: When an administration is so dead-set on a particular action that they’ll deny the validity of their OWN NUMBERS to justify it, you know you’re in trouble.
So, chances are, the RET is dead in the water. And when that happens, the INITIAL investment in solar power will get a lot more expensive.
Bottom line: If you’re considering solar, take action now before the RET is repealed or scaled back and the government makes you pay more for your solar system.
About Finn Peacock
RSS - Posts
Who do you think is subsidising your solar power systems. The answer is of course the ordinary electricity user without a solar panel who has been forced to cross subsidise your self-indulgence. Take away the subsidies and see how long your solar systems advocacy will last. I have the greatest respect for people who believe so much in saving the planet that they go off grid and run their own solar systems independent of dependence on the grid when the sun goes down.
What does Efficiency Nut mean? Self-indulgence of someone else’s expense I suspect. You give the game away when you recommend that people jump in quick before the subsidies disappear and you have to “pay more for your solar system”. If your precious solar systems are so cost-effective why do they need subsidies? Have you disconnected from the grid or are you free loading on the grid capacity to satisfy maximum peak demand, funded by those who do not have solar panels? Answer these questions and I might be more sympathetic.
Hi Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
That old chestnut eh 😉
The cost of the RET adds 3% to your bill. But… the RET actually makes electricity cheaper for everyone by reducing the wholesale price:
http://theconversation.com/electricity-prices-fall-renewable-energy-deserves-merit-13300
So the net effect is that the STCs I claimed for my system are pretty much offset by the reduction in wholesale price caused by the system on my roof (which really helps peak reduction in heatwaves and cold snaps because my house requires no heating or cooling thanks to its solar passive design). I do draw about 2.2kWh per day from the grid, which my bill of about $1 per day pays for. I don’t really want to get batteries as they are a toxic cocktail of chemicals, and I’m happy to pay $1 a day for electricity that is 40% wind power (I live in SA) and the rest will soon be green power (as soon as AGL sort the paperwork out and allow me to switch to Diamond Energy)
And BTW who do you think is subsidising your fossil fueled electricity?
https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm
Cheers,
Finn
Got him in one, Finn:- “And BTW who do you think is subsidising your fossil fueled electricity?”
The day I have an option about rip-off taxes, fees, charges, levies, etc ad.infinitum ~ for ‘services’ I neither need nor want is the day I’ll stop taking whatever’s on offer from ‘The System’. ie. in effect taking back what’s mine.
…….and why I should pay for the roads/publicly-subsidised trains-and-buses Greg uses to get to work, and/or Centrelink ~ another ‘service’ bureaucracy I neither want nor need ~ or the schools his kids attend, or the hospitals/medicare his elderly parents use freely…..etc….is beyond me.
Moreover, sans research, I’d hazard a guess that it costs more to ‘service’ one ‘Mr. Rabbit’ (good one Julia!) per year than has been made available to the RET since inception.
The same applies to whatever bevy of politicians Greg had a hand in electing. (Not a SINGLE ONE of which requires ~ or has ~ ANY qualifications for taking over the running of other people’s lives!) There’s less skill or talent required to become a politician than to drive a Moped around a Coles carpark.)
And if people really objected to the idea of contributing to such subsidies they ought to stop bloody-well paying for them!
Meanwhile, always remember that dogma beloved of all politicians and other ‘service-providers’:- god created sheep to be shorn.
Sheeple too.
Big energy can see the writing on the wall and that is why they are massively increasing their so called ‘service’ charge. A 66% increase by Origin in Queensland pretty well much sums it up. A 13% increase in tariff 11 usage costs wasn’t enough for Origin. They will make money on service charges instead to maintain their profits at the expense of ALL CONSUMERS whether they be solar powered or not.
All comes down to money as usual. No one likes to leave there tree house so they make up all sorts of excuses to stay in it. Pretty much happens at all levels except the poorest of the poor who like to make axes cause then they can have fun chopping the tree-houses down. What I think is dirty is that they subsidies it at all. Its really the rich picking on the rich. I thought the rich were more likely to try and work together but I’m glad they don’t because then they might get too snobby and ignore me.
Our government is lying, Finn? Remember that the Liberal Party has always insisted they’re better economic managers than Labor. In fact, they’re confused and in utter disarray. One day Joe tells us there’s a budget emergency, the next he tells the Kiwis there isn’t. “Send in Mathias Cormann!” sez Coach Tony, benching Joe. Then Matt tells us there’s no budget emergency. “Oh, ship!” cries the coach. “Oops,” sez Mathias, “Wait-a-bit… there IS a budget emergency, after all!~” Unbelievable? Here’s the link:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24791527/budget-back-in-emergency-cormann-says/
So our on-again/off-again/on-again ‘crisis’ continues, with alternative clean, green power clearly a target for massive cuts. Meanwhile, dirty fuels continue to enjoy ma$$ive $ub$idie$.
Jeez, it would be _funny_ if it wasn’t so bloody crazy. Latest idiocy? Tony tells us Aussies don’t want another election. Then a media poll indicates 96% _do_ want an election. You’ve really got to wonder in which parallel universe these disconnected space cadets are orbiting… .
aaah yes! But there are options. From where I sit the difference between the liblabs is that one lot is crooked and the other merely incompetent.
The real question is:- WHY do you lot choose the option of electing the bastards??
No Wait! I remember! ….Because they TOLD you to.
I never thought I’d see the day when Joh Bjelke Pedersen aroused fond memories!
Unless we do actually _vote_ we’ve no right to actually criticise governments for their policies. Blogs like this, of course, give us an opportunity to do so, but no depth of moral or ethical foundation to support our view(s).
You can, of course, argue that the present system of preferential voting isn’t truly representative of the people’s wishes. Most of us would agree. 🙂
Greg, as you are no doubt aware, governments around the world are basically owned by large corporations – and fossil fuel companies are some of the largest. In return for their support, these companies get protection from environmental laws, and other subsidies in the form of tax breaks and outright give-aways.
What we certainly DON’T have are free markets and level playing fields.
What you’re really after is free market competition for all sources of energy, and we’ll see who wins out. That’s an ideal that I understand, but probably isn’t in everyone’s best interest. I’d suggest we might want to encourage those sources of energy that are safer and healthier for people and the planet… this is fair since many of the true costs of dirty energy are externalised – either onto taxpayers or future generations.