Home » Commentary » Can renewables provide Australia’s next ‘sheep’s back’?

Can renewables provide Australia’s next ‘sheep’s back’?

The very substantial leg-up renewables has received over the last couple of years has given the industry a very solid foundation. Unfortunately it was achieved on the back of some very loose government policy intent on trying to match Greece on national debt levels.

With the whole plethora of government activities and decisions, Australia went on a drunken binge primarily at the hands of Labor governments, firstly at a state level and then at a federal level. The Liberals aren’t blameless either, while Howard and Costello were squirreling away $40 Billion into the federal coffers they were starving the states who went on a borrowing frenzy.

All of this now leaves Australia in a very precarious position, a giant hangover if you will. We all expect our elected officials bring the books back to balance but it is not going to be without pain. The problem is, if we are in pain and someone offers us some booze to ease it, we all cop out and get on the piss again. Such is the system of popularly elected governments.

Our current federal government is set to become a lame duck without control of the senate, therefore our financial situation is not likely to improve anytime soon. If Australians were responsible enough to fix the situation we would all be forcing a double dissolution election and give whoever is responsible enough the power to do the job properly, alas, we this is very unlikely.

Perhaps a military coup? Impossible. As an industry, the clean energy sector’s battle over subsidies needs to be fought and fought hard. It will definitely be lost in the short term, but the most significant thing we need to stop, is the taxing of sun and wind. This is the scariest threat to renewables.

If the government continues to leave morals out of its rescue strategy and deal only with numbers, renewables will be taxed and taxed with gusto. The leg-up we have got means that renewables can survive on their own and can continue to grow, or be it at a slower rate, on purely commercial models, only taxes or other restrictive legislation can stop this from happening.

Solar power, in particular, will continue to decrease in costs. This will be driven by exponential demand from China which has an “in your face” pollution disaster threatening the very fabric of it’s newly transformed society.

Only when Australia gets back to a stable financial situation will it be able to entertain morally-based indulgences such as climate change, after all water is not yet lapping at the steps of parliament is it?

The one thing that can bring renewables back into favour is demonstrating a financial case. This is nigh on impossible in a country which makes a bucket-load of income by exporting fossil fuels. Despite the hypocrisy, there is one thing that every person in the world needs, and needs lots of: electricity.

Australia’s solar resource, as indicated by Andrew Blakers and friends, offers up a new ‘sheeps back’ for Australia, one that won’t make us hypocrites and can really make a positive difference to the lives of millions.

So steady as she goes will no longer be an option for renewables in Australia, we need some unified leadership in this country and consistent policy that lasts more than three years. It is up to each Australian to make this happen, after all, they work for us.

Comments

54 responses to “Can renewables provide Australia’s next ‘sheep’s back’?”

  1. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    Wow Rob,

    “Only when Australia gets back to a stable financial situation will it be able to entertain morally-based indulgences such as climate change, after all water is not yet lapping at the steps of parliament is it?”

    Do you just put “white out” on all of the evidence that the longer the delay the more expensive it will be to fix, if indeed it will be able to be fixed?

    The laws of Physics don’t care whether we do anything about the “indulgence” of climate change or not, but tell the residents of the Philippines, or the Blue Mountains, or Victoria etc etc that the disasters they have experienced are “indulgences”

    Wake up Rob!!

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      You are missing my candour, I for one are scared shitless of a tipping point of climate change and I reckon it’s coming soon. I am no climate skeptic, I am merely trying to demonstrate that the current government will not focus on what it perceives as indulgences when placed against real fiscal issues. This doesn’t make sense on many levels, it is unfortunately what I believe to be the reality and I am very upset about it.But if you have ever dealt with government and tried to get them to do the right thing, you will understand my pessimism. Certainly we need to push the sound business case of solar, to the point of putting solar panels all over the north west of OZ.
      I genuinely think that most governments, particularly popularly elected ones will wait and deal with the disaster ie. water lapping at the steps of parliament.

      1. Keith Avatar
        Keith

        Rob,

        I agree about making the case for renewables, which is clearly there. The problem is that the coalition refuses any sensible evidence-based argument.

        I guess I’ve reached the position where I think we need to actively and aggressively work to get Australia treated like the pariah it is in the international community. We should have been kicked out of the Warsaw talks.

        With substantial international action starting to happen (eg pricing carbon), “outing” Australia may be an important device to force action. I’m quite hopeful that come July 2014 stopping pricing carbon may simply be unacceptable with the international community.

        The hysterical response by Tony Abbott to suggestion that the Blue Mountains fires were climate related indicates the vulnerability that the coalition is feeling. I note that there was no international controversy when typhoon Haiyan was stated to be exacerbated by climate change. Recent expert reports on bushfires reach the same conclusion. Only the Murdoch press is keeping the pressure off the Govt on climate action … the people are ready to get involved. The person in the street understands that urgent action is needed.

    2. Concerned Avatar
      Concerned

      Blue Mtns and Philippines? .How were those events remotely different from past events?

      1. Keith Avatar
        Keith

        Concerned,

        You can stay with ignorance of what is happening with the climate or you can pay attention to evidence-based research.

        The experts are clear that extreme weather events such as bushfires and typhoons, storm surges etc are all exacerbated by climate change (warmer air and sea temperatures, extreme low & high humidity etc).

        Seems like you are with Tony Abbott, shouting that it has always been thus and ignoring the evidence…. hoping we don’t notice.

        1. Concerned Avatar
          Concerned

          Humour only give me opinions,where are your facts.Evidence shows both events not abnormal.I do not know or have met Tony Abbott.

          1. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Concerned,

            Evidence doesn’t show both events are normal, unless you are sourcing Andrew Bolt or the Murdoch press. I see no point in providing you with a large pile of expert data as you have no intention of taking notice of it.

          2. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            I do not know Andrew Bolt,nor have I ever of met him.Expert data?You never quote any such thing.There is a lot of difference between opinion,hearsay and facts.

          3. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Ok here’s some meat if you wish to get informed.

            Nature (Nov 2013) Ritaban Dutta, Jagannath Aryal, Aruneema Das & Jamie B. Kirkpatrick (CSIRO & Uni Tasmania)
            Deep cognitive imaging systems enable estimation of continental-scale fire incidence from climate data
            http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131112/srep03188/full/srep03188.html

            Nature Climate Change 2: 491-496 (2012) Dim Coumou & Stefan Rahmstorf (Potsdam Inst Clim Res, Germany)
            A decade of weather extremes
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

            There are literally 100’s of detailed scientific papers on this topic.

            I fully expect that you’ll dispute this because it is technical from professionals who spend their lives carefully examining data and drawing conclusions (not cherry picking opinions) …..

          4. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Oh Dear, honestly where do you get this stuff from. The
            first article is a fluffy opinion piece of something that totally relies on
            someone’s opinion.And Elman neural networks?You are kidding me.

            The second, again does not include empirical evidence,
            but again is more opinion.

            At the moment I am at university for the third time, and are
            able to access thousands of documents, articles etc without cost. I can give
            you hundreds of articles that show exactly the opposite to what you perpetuate.

            Total waste of time.

            In the meantime, one thing I have learnt in my career is
            that facts and empirical evidence are things that really count ,
            hearsay.

            All records regarding empirical evidence and facts show that
            bushfires have not increased nor have extreme weather events, even your
            precious IPCC advise so.

          5. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Concerned,

            You are clearly a troll, so this isn’t for you, but it is for people who are confused about what scientists do.

            For the Nature paper, which you say is all based on someone’s opinion, here is an excerpt from the Methods section:

            “For the months of November, December, January and February we used the monthly average maps of total evaporation, sensible heat flux, precipitation, incoming solar irradiance, maximum temperature and soil moisture from the Australian Water Availability Project (AWAP28) data base and the monthly average maps of wind speed, vapour pressure and relative humidity from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM29)”

            You’ll note that the work described in this paper is based on massive amounts of very diverse datasets (rainfall, evaporation, heat flux, wind speed etc etc etc) …. all facts no opinions.

            For non-scientists, please understand that the amount of real data (in even a single paper) is massive. Scientists do not arrive at conclusions based on opinions (that’s what Alan Jones & Andrew Bolt do … or more to the point they start with a view and then cherry pick a very small amount of information to “support” their opinion). Scientists take data and build hypotheses which they then test. It is a destructive process where only the most robust ideas gain credibility.

            To dismiss a major article in Nature (arguably the world’s most important science journal) as a “fluffy opinion piece” shows how out of your depth you are in commenting on science.

            Dare I say that whichever University you are attending for the 3rd time has a real challenge in front of it to educate you. Why are you bothering?

            And send me a single article (Andrew Bolt doesn’t count; you’ll have trouble finding one) that supports your assertion that bushfires & other climate emergencies are not exacerbated by climate change. I did not say anything about frequency of events, the key is seriousness of the individual events. You don’t need many Sandy’s, Haiyan’s or Blue Mountains bushfires to make the world pretty challenging.

          6. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Sir you have outed yourself. Insults show you that you have problems articulating yourself.

            And then it all comes apart,”And Elman neural networks”

            By the way,I do not read Andrew Bolt,never met him,never spoken to him.

            And ,suggest you start with the BOM,or will you be embarrassed ?

          7. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Concerned

            Only a troll could accuse me of insult, when all scientists have been trashed in your comments. I think the time is long past when scientists tolerated such outrageous slander without a response. My comments are factual, yours are just slander …. why is your outrageous behaviour OK????

            Note the Nature paper extensively used BOM data, so not sure what that comment is about.

            Waiting for that single paper supporting your assertion that extreme weather events have nothing to do with climate change. You claim there are hundreds of papers, so please just send me the citation to one of them.

          8. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            My goodness.

          9. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            My goodness indeed.

            After claiming that you have hundreds of papers supporting your opinions, you can’t even give me a single reference….

          10. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            My goodness,try BOM.

          11. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Ok so that means you have no evidence to support your rantings.

            People who have relied on this person for information be warned, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

          12. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Try BOM dear.

          13. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            OK Concerned,

            I’m beginning to realise that you don’t actually know the difference between research and groups like BOM that collect data that is used by researchers (including climate change researchers).

            The papers I sent involve research, where hypotheses are tested and conclusions are reached. The researchers use data from groups like BOM. Of course BOM does some research but the findings are published.

            So when you send me to BOM as you think they state that climate change isn’t affecting bushfires, you are sending me to source data. Others interpret this data. I looked on the BOM site and they do make some comments about climate change and extreme events and their comments are exactly along the lines that researchers have discovered ie climate change is making extreme events (eg bushfires, floods, typhoons) more extreme and hence there are more extreme events (although there may not be more events).

            Here is some text I took from the BOM website (actually it is CSIRO text) : http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Questions-and-Answers-climate-change.aspx

            “We are vulnerable to extreme events, as shown by the economic, social and environmental costs of recent fires, floods, heatwaves, droughts and cyclones.
            Human-induced climate change, represents a raft of new challenges for this generation and those to come, through increases in extreme weather events and other changes, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.
            Climate change will be superimposed on natural climate variability, leading to a change in the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events.
            Climate risk profiles will be altered and adaptation will be necessary to manage these new risks. Adaptation includes new management practices, engineering solutions, improved technologies and behavioural change.

            So please either be more careful about your statements (which are false assertions) or do not accept the ravings of the ill-informed.

            To circle back to the beginning, yes the Blue Mountains fires and typhoon Haiyan result from weather patterns that are altered by climate change, making the events more severe. It is simply not true that climate change has no effect on bushfire and typhoon severity. Please don’t claim there are 100’s of papers that say this as there aren’t.

          14. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Sorry,never read such nonsense.As we all know CSIRO has become highly politicised.BOM facts show no trends to extreme events.
            The fires were neither extreme nor unusual,as records show.
            The typhoon,was not unusual,nor the worst experienced in that area.
            Facts.

            IPCC report gives the same opinion.

            Even your hero Flannery gets it wrong.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni2noop1ckw9yvh/FlanneryFires.docx

          15. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Concerned

            The nonsense came from the BOM website, so is BOM on your side or not? If not where is your data source to support your opinion?

            You go on about facts being the critical issue and you rely entirely on opinion and assertion. You claim hundreds of papers to support your argument that bushfires etc are not influenced by climate change, so show me the data …. just a single paper would be a start.

            Otherwise you are guilty of what you accuse me of ie you are in the world of opinions.

            Denying reputable groups like CSIRO by smearing them is a reprehensible and not worthy of this bulletin board.

          16. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            So you reckon you could get a paper published in Nature …

          17. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            And a comment as to the quality of your references.Like the CSIRO, politicised.
            I like facts.

          18. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            OK
            So you are the arbiter of what constitutes a fact. You are on your own because the overwhelming weight of careful research says that climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events.
            There is no evidence to suggest that climate change isn’t having an impact of extreme weather events.

            The fact that you are unable to supply even one reference in support of your opinion is revealing.

            To disregard one of the world’s preeminent scientific bodies (CSIRO) and the world’s most prestigious science journal (Nature) puts you firmly with a small group of zealots who start with an opinion and hold to it regardless of the facts.

            The people acknowledge there is a climate emergency and also the need to take action. You are part of a dangerous reactionary group seeking to deny reality.

          19. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            And all their predictions to date have been wrong,like your mate Flannery.

          20. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Slander again. No facts, nothing, just slandering people who work honestly and present their findings.

          21. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            And here is what real scientists think of your source of references.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwwtpo7dwhc0c35/Nobel%20Winner%20boycotts%20journals%20Nature.docx

          22. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            You are a sad deluded person.

          23. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            The CSIRO is only politicised in your deluded mind.

            The shame is people like yourself think slandering honest hard working scientists is acceptable. Well it isn’t and I am tired of seeing this happen. Scientists are long suffering types and they put up with it, but I don’t think they should be treated in this way.

            Shame on you.

  2. Rob Grant Avatar
    Rob Grant

    Rob Grant

    1. Rob Grant Avatar
      Rob Grant

      Seriously? Intent on achieving Greek debt levels (160% + of GDP)? Australia has the lowest debt to GDP of any comparable OECD country (about 29%). This is not a question of getting the budget balanced in order to free up public funds for more subsidies. It is not a matter for fiscal policy to address. The renewables industry needs to provide a compelling economic argument (it does) and sell it in a persausive way (it doesn’t). We don’t need massive subsidies; we won’t achieve anything as an industry until we learn how to sell the benefits and values of our products rather than enable teams of low skilled order takers to troll the suburbs giving away PV at heavily subsidised prices and installing cheap and inferior products which will untimately fail. This is not an issue of political leadership, it is all about industry leadership and presenting a solid business case to consumers and business. Time to stand on our own two feet.

      1. Keith Avatar
        Keith

        Rob,
        I suspect that you seriously assume that addressing climate is a luxury that we only get to when we can afford it.

        Look at all of the evidence of the expert studies and you’ll see that this guarantees that it is the least cost effective approach.

        Anyway, given the way our economic system operates you can be confident that we shall only get to climate change when it’s too late.

        A different mindset that sees beyond the next 12 months is necessary here. Unfortunately short termism is wired into our economic system and if you are a pessimist this is why some say we are doomed.

        The thing is that expert studies on energy needs show that going renewables is cheaper than business as usual (ie fossil fuel based economy). So addressing climate change is actually a cheaper option for powering the future & addressing climate excesses comes as a bonus.

      2. Rob Campbell Avatar
        Rob Campbell

        I for one like to pay my debts when they due and not over spend, Labor took us on world cruise when we could have stayed home and pulled our heads in a bit during the GFC a bit of agony then, would have saved us from years of chronic paiin, I’m not picking on solar at all, it’s mainly all the other crap they got up to.

        1. Rob Grant Avatar
          Rob Grant

          Rob, we are paying our debts as and when due. What you are suggesting is that we shouldn’t have a mortgage at all, to put it in the household terms you seem to prefer. I am not suggesting they spent it well, clearly they did not. But this is not a matter of the government having funds to throw at renewables now or in the future. The argument that the government can’t do anything now is probably right, but my argument is that they shouldn’t be expected to tip in any more money – now or in the future. The industry needs to present a clear economic case to its customers, instead of “buy this because the government are throwing money at you – it’s cheap! “. If we wait for the government to build a viable renewable industry the water will be lapping at the doors of Parliament House. Business can go a long way toward solving climate change and we can’t rely on government to help. It would be nice if they just didn’t hinder our efforts.

          1. Rob Campbell Avatar
            Rob Campbell

            We are on the same age – different delivery. I just don’t want us to get hobbled. ie taxed.

  3. Gongite Avatar
    Gongite

    This article is quite poorly argued and I am disappointed to see it published in RenewEconomy. In a country that spends billions of dollars every year subsidising the fossil fuel industry, pays up to 30% of the cost of private health insurance, and gives tens of billions of dollars of tax advantage to well off superannuants and property investors, the idea that we can’t get to a more sustainable financial situation is ludicrous. It is largely about priorities (and of course political will). If the author believes that spending money to address climate change is, in his words, a ‘morally-based indulgence’, then that says a lot about his priorities.

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      Your completely right, we give subsidies to everyone, My fear is that they won’t only take away the subsidies, but tax renewables, you fail to see the point in that we are up for a rough trot for all the wrong reasons. Technically and socially we are no doubt winners. The fight from now is going to be political. I’m sure that Renew Economy is not purely there for technical and climate conversation, it’s political clout too.

    2. Concerned Avatar
      Concerned

      What billions of subsidies are involved in the generation of power from coal and gas?

      1. Colin Avatar
        Colin

        Google subsidies for fossil fuels and you will have your answer.

    3. Colin Avatar
      Colin

      Well said.

      Worldwide half a trillion dollars in subsidies are given to fossil fuels yearly and they have the nerve to complain about subsidies to other industries. The audacity is remarkable.

      And yes I too have lost a lot of respect for RenewEconomy for publishing such a poorly written and argued article. They have and can do better than this.

      1. Concerned Avatar
        Concerned

        There are no subsidies for coal powered generation in Australia.

        1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
          Bob_Wallace

          Right.

          Renewables just can’t pump all that crap into the environment that coal gives us.

          1. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            What has that got to do with the fact that there are no subsidies on coal powered generation in Australia?

          2. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Australian coal mines and plants pay for the health problems they cause?

          3. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Funny thing is that as the plants are away from population centres it is not a problem as it is else ware.The real problem is from particulates from cars and trucks.Many times the deaths caused by asbestos for instance.

          4. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Has anyone actually done the research in Australia to determine the health costs of coal like has been done in the US?

            Coal in the US piles the medical costs high and wide.

          5. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            No,all the articles quote European and USA research. I did research for WorkCover on asbestos and other health problems pertaining to such matters.
            Due to the fact that the power stations are remote from large population centres,no real problems.
            In addition,the output from the stacks is well scrubbed .
            We even found through research at QUT,that even LNG engines produce particulates.

          6. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            So there’s something about Australians that makes them unlike people in America and Europe?

            Australians are genetically different and not hurt by coal emissions?

            That’s some impressively fast evolving you’ve got going down there.

          7. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            What are you talking about?

          8. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            I am talking about the fact that coal pollution damages human health.

            There is a cost to treating the damage caused.

            Coal companies are not billed for those health costs. Those costs are paid by individuals and by the government.

            Those costs are subsidies provided for the coal industry.

            Any unpaid external costs are subsidies.

          9. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            Suggest you read what I have written previously.

          10. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            You wrote –

            “There are no subsidies for coal powered generation in Australia.”

            I read that.

            I pointed out that coal hurts people and coal does not pay for their treatment. And that is a subsidy. Even in Australia.

          11. Concerned Avatar
            Concerned

            I was never a fan of Gonski,however I am changing my mind.

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