Australia’s renewable energy renaissance may be over in 5 years

The lack of long-term policy settings means that the Australia large-scale renewable energy target could collapse by 2020, once the new target is met. But the uncertainty is also creating problems for current projects, because bankers and customers are nervous.

rsz_wind_and_solar_xl_310_220

Just weeks after emerging from a two-year investment drought, the large-scale renewable energy sector in Australia is facing the prospect that their industry will “fall off a cliff” within five years, unless longer-term policies are developed.

The revision to the renewable energy target – its cut from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh – means that around 5,500MW of large-scale wind and solar capacity will be built over the next five years.

cer ret
Source: Clean Energy Regulator

But because this target is only made out to 2020, and then flatlines for the next decade, the risk is that the market will completely shut down in 2020 unless any longer term policy signals are provide.

The uncertainty is also creating problems in the current market, with long-term power purchase agreements and banking finance difficult to obtain. There is even talk of a capital strike, because of the perception that a re-elected Abbott government would further cut the renewable energy target, or remove it.

Oliver Yates, the head of the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corp, which the government wants to close, and prevent it from investing in large-scale wind and small-scale solar in the meantime, says the structure of the scheme meant that revenues post 2020 were at risk. And this was causing problems for the industry.

More certificates may be produced by, say, larger rooftop solar arrays. Solar installations of more than 100kW also produce LGCs, even if they run on different economics (they compete with retail and business prices rather than wholesale prices).

Even now, a whole bunch of such projects up to 1MW in scale are being built on shopping centres, warehouses and elsewhere. That is likely to continue into the 2020s, potentially causing a flood of certificates on the market.

That has the potential to reduce the value of the LGC, and the revenue returns of large-scale wind and solar farms, and that prospect is making it harder to get people to lock into long-term offtake agreements, and to provide finance.

“If you want to avoid a precipitous fall in the price (of renewable energy certificates), you have to pack up the renewable energy industry in 2019 and go home,” Yates told the Clean Energy Summit in Sydney on Wednesday.

“Economics 101 tells you that REC revenue constitutes 50 per cent of revenue for projects, and after 2020 50% of revenue is at risk.”

Kobad Bhavnagri, the head of Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Australia, agreed that the outlook for large-scale developments was uncertain, making finance difficult to obtain.

“Anyone thinking about long-term, solid contracts has to consider, is the Coalition committed to long-term policy. The track record of this government means that they’re not your friend.”

He noted that the major retailers could effect another “buyers’ strike” that could force a policy change, as they effectively had done in the last two years. “They have the capacity to game the market because of their market share. It is a vicious cycle.”

He also said new renewable energy, particularly from large rooftop arrays that generated excess certificates, could push the price of those certificates down towards zero.

Right now, the renewable energy industry needs the renewable energy certificates to compete with existing coal. But coal is not moving easily out of the equation, particularly with the removal of the carbon price.

While renewables, particularly large-scale solar, but also wind energy, will fall in price between now and 2020, it will be unlikely to compete with four-year fully depreciated coal-fired power stations, meaning it will still need some ongoing policy signal.

Unless there is a mechanism to force out coal-fired generation, then the uptake of large-scale renewables without subsidies on the main grid may not occur until after that coal-fired capacity is retired, after 2030.

Hence the importance of the longer-term policy. Labor is making renewable energy a key part of its document, although the details are hazy.

Yates said it was possible that some projects might not get built, or it could mean that the RET is cut again.

“Or the government could acknowledge this problem, and provide a long-term trajectory,” he said. It was clear that Australia needed to add more renewables, year-on-year post 2020, to effect its energy transition and meet carbon targets.

“These are the financial barriers that the industry faces,” Yates said, noting that this was exactly why the CEFC was created, to help navigate those barriers.

Jack Curtis, the head of Australian operations for First Solar, which has built most of the big solar projects in Australia, says there remains a “high perception of value risk” in Australia. That pushed up the cost of equity and the cost of finance in Australia compared to other countries, particularly the US.

Still, others said that they were confident the RET would be met. John Titchen, the head of Goldwind Australia, said it was a competitive market with a big surplus of projects.

“The RET has always been met,” he said. “There is a diverse range of options for financing renewables,” he noted, adding that this included the CEFC, as well as the balance sheets of international energy groups such as Goldwind, GE and others.

Comments

22 responses to “Australia’s renewable energy renaissance may be over in 5 years”

  1. Andrew Thaler Avatar
    Andrew Thaler

    This article is a bit ‘chicken little’… If the project is commercially viable then it will attract investors, the continuing value of the LGC should not be the deciding factor of a project. Reverse auctions are gaining traction, states have declared they will embark upon their own RE programs. The present govt will be changed and the strategies/systems encouraging RE altered. Tony Abbott is not likely to prevail as PM and if he does then no sane person will invest in large RE and other countries will benefit from that capital instead of OZ.
    While it might seem like a good headline for an article, its quite silly in my opinion. We aren’t even on the other side of COP21 and that will surely provide pressure on the Abbott govt to pull in their polluted heads and comply with global public views.
    If not, then get behind a political party seeking to represent your views in the next parliament.. I like the look of the Renewable Energy Party.. have a go, join it, participate, run as a candidate. Lets stop blithely lobbying and hoping the libs will change their mind.. lets make them change it and ensure our RE industry does not collapse.

    1. Andrew Woodroffe Avatar
      Andrew Woodroffe

      I agree it is a bit ‘chicken little’ but not because you suggest that project should be commercially viable without LGCs at a sufficient level. Given that wind and solar push down wholesale prices which benefits retailers but not, of course, the wind and solar projects themselves, LGCs or similar will always be required. Not required so much if the retailer owns the generator.

      No, I suggest it is chicken little because we have 2 Federal and 2 state elections before 2020. And because wind and solar are getting cheaper, and coal is getting more expensive.

      In WA, now, we could close 1000MW of old coal today. We know this because the IMO states that we have over 1000MW of excessive capacity costing us $120 million/year in capacity credits. It is also why there will be no more wind in WA until this coal is closed down.

      A carbon tax would do nicely, maybe replace GST with it.

      1. Andrew Thaler Avatar
        Andrew Thaler

        OK, good points. I would counter that wind and solar push down wholesale prices at certain times, mainly when it is very windy AND sunny.. on the whole, our wholesale prices presently (eastern states) does not reflect the rude cost of coal-fired electricity.. we burn 600kg of coal for 1MWhr of power..
        Coal costs (normally) $70/tonne, so 600kG would be $42 and 1 MWhr has been selling now for 18 months or longer at $35/MWhr ish
        So how does a coal power station burn MORE coal (in costs) than it sells the power for.. Unless there are market distortions (subsidies) from secretly-cheaper coal coming out of corrupted mining approvals.
        (I have heard that some NSW mines supply amounts of coal at say $10/tonne as a quid-pro-quo back to the ex-state govt thermal stations as a small ‘cost’ of being given the right to dig up the claim) and I’d bet its probably the shitty coal that the chinese won’t take 🙁

        1. Steve Young Avatar
          Steve Young

          Or the figures you have are incorrect, which they are.

          1. Andrew Thaler Avatar
            Andrew Thaler

            looks like you missed the opportunity to provide the ‘correct’ figures due to the brevity of your reply..

          2. Steve Young Avatar
            Steve Young

            The verbosity of your original comment apparently did not afford you the opportunity to include your sources or the second time you posted. Maybe third time’s a charm.

            http://aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/Related-Information/Planning-Assumptions. Download to the spreadsheets using the link Fuel and Technology Cost Review – Report (ACIL Allen). This sets out, amongst other things, the fuel costs for all existing plant in the NEM.

          3. Andrew Thaler Avatar
            Andrew Thaler

            I see your comment and info link (which is AEMO ‘Planning Assumptions’) and counter/raise with this image attached..from this link..particularly because your link does SFA in undermining the issue that I put, and it confusingly uses $/GJ of coal instead of $/Tonne.
            http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60
            showing thermal coal only recently trending under $70/T also bucking the assumptions used by ACIL Allen in your link. If the power stations are getting coal for cheaper than sea-borne market $ then there is an opportunity cost (lost) of not having sold that coal for the prevailing market price.. thereby reinforcing my argument.
            too many #subsidies in the coal-electricty game 🙁

          4. Steve Young Avatar
            Steve Young

            Clearly the market operator has no idea what it is doing and should talk to you immediately to get the facts.

            Leaving aside the fact that it would always be cheaper in Australia than export, as you would use a net back price to adjust for transportation costs, most Australian coal generators use coal from mines that have not invested in the necessary infrastructure to export. As such, they receive a lower price.

            The total variable costs for most black coal plant (which is more than just fuel) is around $25/MWh.

          5. Andrew Thaler Avatar
            Andrew Thaler

            Absolute Tosh… “most Australian coal generators use coal from mines that have not invested in the necessary infrastructure to export”.. Bayswater, Liddell, Eraring (representing maybe 50% of NSW coal generation?) are connected by an extensive conveyor system to take coal from mines THAT EXPORT most of their coal.
            As for $25/MWhr for ‘most black coal plants’.. please show me the data.

          6. Steve Young Avatar
            Steve Young

            You know that spreadsheet. It includes all the components, you add them together to get the figure. Or if you can’t be bother doing it yourself BREE has done it for you.

            http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf

        2. mick Avatar
          mick

          im sure you’ve thought of it but on the rare occasion that mine don’t keep up the genny works

  2. Mike Shurtleff Avatar
    Mike Shurtleff

    Go off-grid.
    Residential Solar PV + Storage is going to be cheaper anyway.
    Same for Commercial PV + Storage.
    Abbott or others want to levy charges, or taxes, for nothing but to stop it? Then vote them out, or just shoot’em. Taxation without representation? No thanks. Not ok.

    1. Andrew Thaler Avatar
      Andrew Thaler

      While I agree to an extent, there are days when my 400kW solar farm struggle to push out even 20kWhrs- remember the Maitland floods earlier this year, output was 16kWhrs for the whole day- (edit: and the grid did not fail that day in Singleton, that was the sum total of generation under an incredibly dark sky)
      So, the grid is very important to maintain. Imagine if people transition to a 2-car household and BOTH of those cars are electric.. the grid will be important to be able to provide for those vehicles. Imagine a fleet of cars at a business all charging throughout the day and a storm comes over…
      I think the utopia of ‘leaving the grid’ is overstated and there just isn’t sufficient success stories of it to justify its promotion.
      We have a grid, we paid more than an NBN equivalent of spending to refurbish it (in NSW at least), it is a massive social instrument.. privatising it is not the smartest thing, but it is apparently what NSW people voted to do, so we will have to live with that.
      Also, not covered enough in the media and RE commentary is the likelihood that high levels of grid-defection by customers will spurt the government to add an Electricty-Capital-Charge to property rates.. just as we have with water and sewer, and now fire levies, soon land-tak too 🙁
      I forsee a charge that if there is a power-line anywhere near your property you will be saddled with a capital charge whether you connect to it or not.

      1. neroden Avatar
        neroden

        People will get really mad at that. Everyone benefits from fire levies, but where I live in the US, if you aren’t on the sewer (septic system) you don’t pay the sewer levy, and if you aren’t on the water (private well), you don’t pay the water levy.

  3. mick Avatar
    mick

    send abbot and co to the coal exploration on pluto

    1. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      Make sure to give ’em a 1-way ticket 😀

  4. JustThink4Once Avatar
    JustThink4Once

    Tesla battery division must be laughing it’s ass off at the killing it’s going to make in the Australian market. With commercial renewable energy scared off that leaves a big market for self generation and storage.

    1. Andrew Thaler Avatar
      Andrew Thaler

      Origin / Essential Energy network area, Southern NSW charging 32c/kWhr for domestic and 36c/kWhr for business.. you are very correct!

  5. Alan S Avatar
    Alan S

    The LNP attitude to renewable energy in Australia is scandalous but they pose a greater threat to world pollution by encouraging the export of coal to whoever will buy and burn it.

    1. Reality Bites Avatar
      Reality Bites

      Wrong. The greatest threat to world pollution is China and India. Australia is not even in the same ballpark. Convince them to stop burning coal, plus Bangladesh, Pakistan, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam etc etc.

  6. Reality Bites Avatar
    Reality Bites

    What a load of rubbish, as if Tony Abbott can thumb the Australian nose at the rest of then world, then get re-elected! You can rely on Abbott to do whatever is required to get re-elected, including doing a back-flip on renewables.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.