Costsof renewable power link may not work

[malleefarmer]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bill-to-prop-up-green-power-hits-3-billion-a-year/news-story/779f40bbea67693e72b707468188edde

close subscribe box and it should open

[oneoff]

This might be it . Google "Australia 3 billion green power" to go to article or most is copied below

The Australian12:00AM February 6, 2017
Save
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more...
Taxpayer subsidies to meet state and federal renewable energy *targets have reached $3 billion a year and include spiralling hidden subsidies paid for by business and household electricity customers which go unreported in government balance sheets.

The true cost of subsidising *renewable energy generation is estimated to have almost doubled since 2011 and is forecast to continue rising as Labor states set even more ambitious targets.

The first study to investigate the complex range of renewable energy subsidies across the country has found that at least $2.95bn was spent by the state, territory and federal governments last *financial year, primarily on wind farms and the cost hangover of excessive and now largely obsolete solar roof top schemes.


At least 75 per cent of all subsidies was being collected from electricity consumers in the form of higher prices passed on by *energy retailers due to the requirement on generators to source a mandated percentage of wholesale power from renewables. This, the report said, meant much of the subsidies remained hidden as they did not appear in government budgets or accounts, with the remainder being borne directly by the taxpayer.

With parliament due to return tomorrow for the first sitting week of the year, the findings of the report are likely to sharpen the Turnbull government’s *attacks on Labor leader Bill Shorten’s policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target, with the report warning that such targets would require ever increasing subsidies.

MORE: PM backed on cleaner electricity
The report from BAEconomics was commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia and conducted by Brian Fisher, a former executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments and adviser to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report warns that state government feed-in tariff schemes to subsidise roof top solar are still costing other electricity consumers up to $1bn a year and would continue for years to come despite most being closed to new entrants due to their spiralling costs.

While the report confirms that the Coalition’s own policy of a 23.5 per cent target by 2020 will also push up the price of subsidies, and therefore power prices, it will strengthen the government’s case to fund the construction of clean coal-fired generation — estimated to be about the same cost as the $3bn paid annually to prop up renewable generation — through mechanisms such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or public-private partnerships.

The report said that with the spot price for large-scale generation certificates likely to remain high, it was inevitable that electricity prices would have to rise significantly to meet the higher targets being pursued by mainly Labor state governments.

“The renewable energy target, with its large-scale and small-scale components, is by far the costliest subsidy scheme,” the report says. “In aggregate, Australian electricity customers paid more than $2.1bn to subsidise large-scale power station developers and small customers with rooftop solar installations. Looking forward, and given that the RET will progressively increase until 2020 and given high prices of renewable generation credits, these subsidies are likely to *increase.”

Commonwealth subsidies for large-scale renewable generators, predominantly wind farms, amounted to $1.42bn during the 2015-16 financial year.

Federal grants and subsidies for rooftop solar panels totalled $726 million while the state government feed-in tariff schemes for rooftop solar cost $707m for the same period. These subsidies had direct benefits for consumers who took up the schemes before they were closed but the burden would continue, the report claimed, for the majority of electricity consumers though the higher prices for the indirect subsidies.

Direct funding for renewable energy projects through programs such as ARENA also totalled *almost $100m. The total figure did not include that spent by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg yesterday said the Coalition had been upfront about the cost to its 23.5 per cent target, which would add $60 a year to the average household bill, but the opposition had so far refused to reveal the cost of its aspirational target.

“The battlelines have been drawn. Labor with its 50 per cent RET, forced closure of coal plants, 45 per cent emissions reduction target and an emissions intensity scheme will smash household budgets, send investment offshore, destroy jobs and undermine *energy security. All in the name of ideology,” Mr Frydenberg told The Australian.

“In contrast, the Coalition has a technology-neutral approach where lower emissions coal and gas together new developments in storage will play a big role for years to come.”

Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler denied Mr Frydenberg’s claims that Labor was now seeking to backtrack on its 50 per cent target, claiming it would remain opposition policy.

“If we were elected last year we would have put in place a process with business and with the electricity industry about the best possible design of a mechanism to get to 50 per cent,” he said. “I’ve got an open mind about that, the Energy Market Commission and the Climate Change Authority tell us the best way to do that is through an emissions intensity scheme which is also part of Labor’s policy. Other groups have different views about the best policy mechanism.”

The report blames the legacy feed-in tariff schemes introduced by state governments to subsidise household rooftop solar for a large part of the burden.

“(Feed-in tariff) schemes introduced by state and territory governments some years ago also represent a major cost to jurisdictional electricity customers who paid more than $700m in subsidies to the (then) participants of these schemes,” it says. “A number of these schemes will continue to subsidise participating customers for many years to come. The amount of these subsidies is not transparent. Almost three quarters of aggregate subsidies originate from government mandates that are paid for by electricity customers and collected by third parties. The key implication of how the LRET and the SRES are designed is that while the subsidies paid through these schemes originate from a government mandate, they are generally collected from electricity consumers by third parties (electricity retailers).

“These subsidies therefore do not appear in government *accounts and their magnitude is not transparent.”

[Hamloc]

Really not surprised. I have a request for a quote from a local supplier in Red Deer haven't heard back yet. In doing more shopping on the net I found a price on an installed 6000 watt roof mount grid tie system in Calgary area of 25000 dollars all in. Over 4 dollars per installed watt. The most interesting part was that this supplier feels the price of solar panels have bottomed due to price competition breaking more than one manufacturer. So this bullshit of prices for solar continuing downward is just that bullshit. If it made sense wouldn't need subsidies.

[binthere]

if we cant learn from others mistakes were in deep shit.

[oneoff]

if we cant learn from others mistakes were in deep shit.

Not many decades ago Canada and provinces "learned" about the hazards of living on borrowed money.

Now our Federal government (and the provinces) are travelling down those same misguided paths.

We will never learn lessons until they get repeated extra times.

[oneoff]

Perhaps its about time that a certain person(s) shared the experiences of the neighbors they have been closely watching. Perhaps there is little to share...perhaps it is none of their business and perhaps they shouldn't necessarily even being reporting without courtesy of inquiring if such behavior is appreciated. But in any event this activity has been reported to have been taking place.

[tweety]

China is investing 360 billion into renewable energy in next couple years and spent 32 billion last year alone buying existing renewable infrastructure internationally.

Now go back and read those pathetic ozzy numbers again and realize how meaningless it is.

[chuckChuck]

You must be getting bored since you want to rehash this over and over again.

Sorry, but I have lost interest in making a case to people who are not interested and who have already made up their mind.

If subsidies in are a big issue for you, then I would suggest taking a look at all the subsidies and incentives to agriculture and the fossil energy system. Shouldn't everything stand on its own merits?

If you want year round performance information, you already found a good source in Ontario. But remember that the southern prairies are an even better place for solar pv.

By the way I just found out about 2 other recent farm solar pv systems in Saskatchewan.

[Hamloc]

Tweety, the population of China is 1.357 billion or about 55 times that of Australia's at 24.351 million. Therefore Australia's 3 billion dollar investment dwarfs China's on a per capita basis!

Chuck2, the reason I don't let it die is my provincial government is going to piss away millions on free LED light bulbs and solar panel subsidies. Nothing wrong with LED bulbs in the process of replacing mine at my own expense. But subsidizing solar panels still doesn't make financial sense. Even if the province gave me the solar panels, they only constitute 22-24% of the total cost of the system and the system would still take over 30 years to pay for in Alberta the way our power billing is structured. That is why I don't give up on this topic. As for agriculture subsidies if the EU and US eliminated their agriculture subsidies I would agree 100% with eliminating ours. As for coal power generation it is not subsidized as far as I know, in fact I would say it is penalized.

[SASKFARMER3]

Just drove along the Missouri from Fargo all way south coal is rocking very well along with hydro!

Canada is insane to stop what is a good power supply

[oneoff]

Its the preferred access given to minor; undependable energy sources that are as much a nuisance and hindrance as they are actual contributors
Its the 1% of production that comes to think they are the 99% suppliers and should control the agenda

Its the smugness of thinking you have it all figured out when the reality is nearly the opposite.

Its the spillover of a single issue agenda that keeps morphing into a bigger picture that might be more appropriate to some stone age species that didn't quite make it and

maybe the big one is that the contribution of growing numbers of bodies who call themselves humans; want their utopia but haven't got a grasp of how things fit together.

Rehashing current crazes should never grow old. It will be refreshing to see certain pushes diminish; but unfortunately the efforts will just be more concentrated in more "fruitful" areas.

[malleefarmer]

Don't quite get the china renewable argument there also building a lot of coal fired plants to power there country and people and export the plants as well.

[tweety]

Tweety, the population of China is 1.357 billion or about 55 times that of Australia's at 24.351 million. Therefore Australia's 3 billion dollar investment dwarfs China's on a per capita basis!

As for coal power generation it is not subsidized as far as I know, in fact I would say it is penalized.

Australia 50k average wage (82k A$), china $4700. Not dwarfed at all.

Why would you need to subsidize burning something?

[Hamloc]

Tweety Chuck2 was talking about how much the fossil fuel industry is subsidized, hence my comment on whether or not coal was subsidized.

[tweety]

What about coal? Canada consumes over 30 million tonnes per year. While we currently export over half our domestic production, the IMF study only considered externalized costs within our own country. They found that the coal industry receives $4.5 billion in annual subsides -- almost all of this is un-priced carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions. This generous largesse towards the dirtiest of fuels is about four times what the CBC receives in public support every year.

[URL="https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/15/Canadas-34-Billion-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies/"]https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/15/Canadas-34-Billion-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies/[/URL]

The IMF claims all totaled the fossil fuel industry realizes 34 Billion $ in subsidies. That buys a lot of solar cells now doesn't it? Nope, lets squeeze renewables out because we can't "afford" it.