Turnbull dumps clean energy target for “national energy guarantee”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Coalition dumps clean energy target in favour of a change to energy market rules that appears to confer enormous power into the hands of coal and gas utilities, and satisfies push by right wing to abandon Paris target and to close the door on renewables.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(note: This story updates a previous article, based on the release of further policy details).

Well, looks like he has actually done it. The Turnbull government has formally abandoned the idea of a Clean Energy Target, proposed by chief scientist Alan Finkel and endorsed by nearly everyone, in favour of a new policy that will protect fossil fuel generation and slow down the uptake of renewable energy.

The new National Energy Guarantee marks a major switch in government policy – at least on the face of it. But the major problem is, we just don’t know because there are so few details.

But it appears to hand extraordinary market power to the country’s big utilities and fossil fuel generators, and gives no obvious incentive to introduce new generation, which one would expect would be the key to lowering prices.

Dumped is any form of visible subsidy scheme – be it a renewable energy target, or carbon price, or clean energy mechanism – in favour of changes to energy market rules that put an additional burden on retailers for a “reliability guarantee” and an “emissions guarantee.”


But these guarantees can also be traded – in the form of contracts between utilities. Potentially, it will generate credits in dirty energy, as this table  above illustrates.

Quite how this works is not clear, and energy participants were struggling to get their heads around it. They may struggle for a while, because the levels of these reliability and emissions guarantees have not been set, and the reliability settings will vary from state to state, depending on their level of wind and solar.

Western Australia, for instance, has been ignored and is not part of the plan, because it only applies to the National Electricity Market, which excludes WA.

It appears to allow enormous discretion on the part of the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Market Commission. Some described it as an emissions intensity scheme in disguise, but couldn’t be sure because of the lack of detail.

It also appears that retailers may be able to satisfy their emissions guarantee through international carbon markets. One thing is certain, the Turnbull government has undertaken not to go any further than its current Paris target of a 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030, and that is a blow to renewables.

This appears to be the minimum demand of the Coalition’s right wing, and is in effect an abrogation of the Paris climate treaty, which is to make all efforts to keep global warming well below 2°C.

The impact on the renewable sector is hard to predict, but it is clearly not good. Modelling for the government suggests that the share of renewables in total generation will be 28-36 per cent by 2030 – and the level of wind and solar 18-24 per cent.

This compares to a level of 42 per cent suggested by Finkel, Labor’s 50 per cent target, and the 70 per cent deemed necessary if Australia was to get serious about meeting the international 2°C target.

This new modelling represents only a modest increase in renewables, and possibly a virtual stop, particularly if it includes behind the meter rooftop solar, which it appears to do. If it does represent some sort of target, then it could likely bring new large-scale development of wind and solar to a halt.

Energy minister Josh Frydenberg said that the current renewable energy target will remain unchanged, but noted that it already appears to be “95 per cent” accounted for from projects being built, about to start construction or having reached financial close.

The initial reaction from green groups and renewable energy proponents – that this was a devastating blow to the sector – appear to have been based on an incorrect report in The Australian which suggested that modelling applied to renewables in 2050, which would have been a disaster.

But it still may not be good.

The fact that this proposal comes from the Energy Security Board also raises some questions. Finkel took nearly a year to put together his review and his painstaking modelling of a clean energy target.

The ESB, chaired by Kerry Schott, and including the heads of the AEMC, AEMO and the AER, was formed less than two months ago and only had its first meeting four weeks ago.

Little wonder that the details are so vague. Apparently it was delivered to the government last week. Investors may be mindful of Schott’s comments a few weeks ago: harnessing demand management in Australia, means “we can all stop worrying about building new plants of any description.”

The other issue about the ESB is that it is required only to look at the issue of energy security, not emissions. It appears to have been given the arbitrary number of electricity accounting for one-third of anticipated emission reductions by 2030. Who is going to do the rest?

But the involvement of the ESB has provided Turnbull with an element of political cover, saying that he was “relying on the experts”. Indeed, at the press conference, he refused to answer any question in detail, deferring instead to the members of the ESB.

Minutes later, in question time, it was obvious that the political rhetoric hadn’t changed. Quoting complete nonsense from The Australian and other conservative commentators, Turnbull claimed that the renewable energy target would cost $66 billion in renewable energy certificates, a cost imposed on consumers.

It’s rubbish, of course. Most new projects ascribe no value at all to those renewable energy certificates.

And it is this that raises concerns. The conditions of the right wing rump of the Coalition, which have been holding the government, and the nation, hostage to their demands, were laid clear by Craig Kelly, the climate change science denier who acts as chair of the Coalition’s environmental committee.

Kelly says the target must not allow renewables to get near 50 per cent, and must not go further than the 26-28 per cent committed by the Abbott government, and certainly not the 45 per cent emission cuts recommended by the Climate Change Authority, and other climate scientists, and endorsed by Labor.

In other words, it wants Australia to tear up its Paris climate commitment to keep global warming well below 2°C, and possibly as low as 1.5°C.

The document says that a rule change for the reliability option will be brought in by 2019, and for the emissions obligation by 2020. It says that the scheme could still be compatible with state-based targets.

“The ESB is proposing the development of an obligation on retailers to meet a percentage of their load requirements with flexible and dispatchable resources, that is, resources that can be scheduled by the market operator depending on the real-time operating needs of the system,” the document says.

“This would allow both new and existing generation to meet the dispatchability requirement, and provide a greater incentive to maintain existing plant which is necessary for the secure and reliable operation of the power system.

“The resources which comply with the system needs would be carefully defined and include any form of technology, generation, batteries and demand that can respond to a request by the operator to increase or decrease their output over a defined time interval.”

It says this reliability guarantee would require retailers to hold forward contracts with dispatchable resources that cover a predetermined percentage of their forecast peak load.

The amount and type contracted would be based on the system-wide reliability standard as determined by the Reliability Panel at the AEMC. AEMO, in consultation with the Panel, would then determine how the NEM standard is translated into an operating requirement for each region.”

Interestingly, the operators of renewable energy plants – coupled with some form of storage – will be relegated to only the short-term hedge market, “since their availability is generally not known until near to the delivery day.”

In other words, market power remains with the big generators – the very ones that have been dudding consumers on retail and wholesale costs for the last few years. The ESB modelling effectively locks in the recent high prices, offering only an 8-10 per cent fall over the next decade.

The ESB says this may translate into consumer savings of some $100 a year – over a 10-year period – over and above the Finkel Review. But it is not clear how if the wholesale savings are so small.

To get some idea about how this will be received, One Nation declared its support, and claimed some responsibility, for the new policy, which was readily endorsed by the Coalition party room on Tuesday.

Others were not so sanguine. It was slammed by Labor and The Greens, who said it was a clear sign that the Tony Abbott faction had won the energy debate. The Clean Energy Council said it was an opportunity lost, and would be bad for the renewables industry.

South Australia premier Jay Weatherill said: “This is a complete victory for the coal industry. Malcolm Turnbull has demonstrated his complete inability to stand up to vested interests and for the public good.”

Environment Victoria’s Mark Wakeham said Australia joins Donald Trump’s United States as one of only two major national governments to remove support for investment in renewable energy and redirect it to ageing and polluting power stations.

“If the Prime Minister’s plan were implemented, the highly successful national renewable energy target would end in 2020 and Australia would have no real plan in place to achieve its Paris climate change commitments.

“While the devil is often in the detail of major new policies, in this case the devil is in the central idea that electricity retailers will be forced to buy power from old and polluting coal-burning power stations.

“We urge state governments and other political parties to reject the Coalition’s ill-conceived plan for polluters.

“Instead of acting in the interest of 24 million Australians, the Turnbull government is designing energy policy for about 10 people sitting on the Coalition backbench.”

John Grimes, from the Australian Solar Council, said: This is “dumb, in terms of economics and dumb in terms of science.

“One the one hand you have Abbott wanting to throw goats into volcanoes. On the other, you have Malcolm Turnbull trying to put lipstick on a pig.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. George Darroch 2 years ago

    This is idiotic. Expensive, unnecessary, and will destroy our future.

  2. Robert Comerford 2 years ago

    Tony and the RWNJ climate science denialists have won.
    The reality that the vast majority of Australian voters will not pay one cent to prevent destruction of our environment has hit home.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Yes, I was shocked when I saw that report about Aussies not wanting to pay to protect the environment. I have to wonder what planet they those people live on.

      • solarguy 2 years ago

        Where did that report come from Joe? I heard that on the radio, but so many other surveys say Ozzies want RE, bigtime.

        • Rod 2 years ago

          The Australian, push polling. 68% ish wanted more renewables but 60% ish didn’t want to pay. Makes no sense at all. I’d like to see the actual questions.

          • solarguy 2 years ago

            I’m sure we would very bloody annoyed at those questions Rod.

          • Rod 2 years ago

            I never answer my home phone, which explains why they never poll me.

        • Joe 2 years ago

          I read it in the newspaper.. I haven’t got the article anymore but the whole thing stuck in my mind. Crazy Aussies.

  3. Roger Franklin 2 years ago

    We have arrived at #PeakStupidity.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      ”’Imma go Harder”…reckons the Turnbull

    • neroden 2 years ago

      Oh no — Turnbull, Abbott, and the COALition can be MUCH stupider. And they will be!

      • Roger Franklin 2 years ago

        neroden – I fear that you may be correct

  4. Tony Pfitzner 2 years ago

    Turnbull also plans to nobble Audrey Zibelman. Put his own former chief of staff in as head of AEMO.

    • George Darroch 2 years ago

      Really?? This is so screwed up.

      Give Tony Turnbull the boot.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        That won’t be far away. 21 Newspoll loses in a row, coming up to the Turnbull’s own magical number of 30 loses in a row. In politics Christmas is the ‘killing season’ and I don’t mean the Christmas Roast Turkey…another turkey of a PM in Turnbull is ripe for the carving.

    • Jonathan Prendergast 2 years ago

      He would be chair. She would remain CEO.

      • Tony Pfitzner 2 years ago

        So we have operatives with no experience, and a political agenda, chairing boards managing critical infrastructure.

        • Chris O'Neill 2 years ago

          What could possibly go wrong?

          • Steve159 2 years ago

            well, whatever goes wrong will be the fault of SA.

            For example, Turnbull: ” the “intermittent” nature of SA wind and solar caused the whole NEM to become unstable, resulting in “… blah blah blah.

            The irony being that when SA starts running their 1MW battery their grid will be more reliable.

            Hopefully with enough battery / and their concentrated solar they can cut the interconnector and enjoy reliable power, while NSW faced brown-outs because of the unreliability of Liddell.

          • mick 2 years ago

            thats exactly what im hoping for

          • Steve159 2 years ago

            in due course, it will be the reality, assuming SA election next year doesn’t let the LNP in, where after they’ll sabotage or hobble existing renewables as much as possibe

            In the meantime, the LNP will continue to lie, saying SA problems were due to renewables.

          • Joe 2 years ago

            …but the Marshall is now a Battery Fanboy…with his recent announcement. There may be a faint RE pulse beating in the Marshall afterall?

    • Andy 2 years ago

      He would fit in just nicely with all the other “experts” in that cabal of disrepute.

  5. Miles Harding 2 years ago

    Has the COALition reached a new high in the race for peak stupidity??
    I think the answer depends on how we look at it.

    Consider coal in Tasmania; The plan can’t simply mandate coal, although this is clearly the desire of the LNP’s RWNJ back bench, so other options such as hydo, pumped hydo, diesels, gas turbines and batteries will have to be in the mix.

    I feel that it is actually positive to require the retailers to provide reliability and continuity of supply for their customers. I believe this will be through supply contracts. This has to occur in any case and may actually release solar farms from installing batteries at the farm, although storage likely makes sense to avoid zero-price mid-day gluts.

    Old coal should still become irrelevant, as it can’t guarantee supply with ageing plant that is susceptible to crippling single point failures, suggesting that gas (turbine) is the only viable fossil alternative, but the cost and fuel supply issues dictate that it’s only economic use is as a backup.

    At this level, it doesn’t sound significantly different to the transition plans we have modelled in an 85% renewable secnario.

    Is it possible that Trubull has tricked the RWNJ corps?

    • Peter Campbell 2 years ago

      “Is it possible that Trubull has tricked the RWNJ corps?”
      I am wondering that but mindful that some of my friends call me Pollyanna.

      • trackdaze 2 years ago

        I suspect the dispatch thresholds will be set above batteries current ability to cover it.

        • Peter Campbell 2 years ago

          I agree it might have hidden gotchas to exclude the LNP’s less favoured technologies.

          • trackdaze 2 years ago

            Anything from the 1800’s is fine.

    • neroden 2 years ago

      I hope so. If it turns out that batteries can be contracted for reliability, this will be incredibly successful and the fossil plants will shut down very quickly.

      • Cooma Doug 2 years ago

        Pumped hydro can be contracted by consumer. Many ideas out there for what they call virtual storage. You effectively can have a share of pumped hydro. Market rules need to change to enable full value of load assets in the home. With the right rules your home will be full of load shifting and grid value products. The home battery value also improves with rule change. Your home products can work in contractural synergy with a large scale solar gen and the load shifting you and others provide would easily meet the demands of this NEG
        But unfortunately they will not change the rules as required because it will weaken the position of coal and gas.

  6. Dark green 2 years ago

    Abbott is a pavlovian-catholic moron, which i can forgive; but Turnbull is a shameless greedy coward, which i cannot.

    • Brunel 2 years ago

      Being angry at the LNP for being anti-poor is like being angry at eagles for eating other animals – it is just what they do.

      I do have some expectations from the Greens and they absolutely disappoint me. Why did they not put in a national drink container recycling scheme between 2010 and 2013?

      • Dark green 2 years ago

        They’re not just anti-poor, they’re anti science and anti self-reliance. Welcome to the geronto-plutocracy.

        • Brunel 2 years ago

          Unfortunately the ALP and Greens were anti-sense also. But I still preference them ahead of LNP.

          • Chris Fraser 2 years ago

            I’m open to renewable-specific parties in the Senate … like I was in 2016 … maybe the current situation would better suit them now.Mention of The Greens makes me think of the tragedy of the CPRS. Or how some newly found popularity turned into political overreach …

          • Jexpat 2 years ago

            The CPRS was eminiently rortable- and in Australia would have been royally rorted, just as we saw in the EU.

            Carbon pricing -based on the wildly successful and widely popular British Columbia model was superior and effective policy.

            Of course, we wouldn’t have known that from any of the major Australian media sources.

        • Greg Hudson 2 years ago

          Well… not exactly. Turnbull has a nice PV and battery system on his home in Sydney, so all this bullshit he’s sprouting goes against what he is doing himself. Mind you, he ‘blames’ his son for doing it all… Yea sure mate…

          • Joe 2 years ago

            ‘Turncoat Turnbull’, ‘Two Tongues Turnbull’, ‘Tillerless Turnbull’…please feel free to add some of your own descriptions.

          • The Duke 2 years ago

            TurningBULL, Turdbull, PM Trumble, Mayhem Malcolm, or Malcom 30 shades of POLLS.

          • Chris Peters 2 years ago

            PM Tony Turdbull, PM Malcolm Abbott.

          • Joe 2 years ago

            Only in the Liberal Party could affairs of state be run from…..The Backbench !

          • Joe 2 years ago

            21 Newspolls lost now …only 9 to go!

  7. mick 2 years ago

    this would be why the pt augusta stacks were dropped i hope sa govt turn the site into untenable ground, as far as leigh creek goes maybe rush through legislation to turn it into native title area dont know, on a federal level time for labor to stand up heres hoping the high court rule joyce,canavan and that idiot roberts illegal sometime today as for abbot pity the head butt wasnt harder

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Mick, Native Title is no longer a protection. In respect of the Adani Mega Coalmine, The Senate amended Native Title Rights to annull objections from First Australians which now gives legal protections so that Adani can proceed.

      • mick 2 years ago

        mate would that be a state decision or federal in the first instance i must confess that i wasnt being analytical more pissed off

        • Joe 2 years ago

          The Australian Senate ( Federal ) passed the amendment. The COALition via Senator George Brandis proposed the amendment and it was passed with the Labor Party’s full support, a shameful act by Labor that has up until now been supportive of the rights of Our First Australians.

          • mick 2 years ago

            politics of the right shaft all australians

  8. Brunel 2 years ago

    MacroBusiness is calling it a coal energy target!

  9. RobSa 2 years ago

    This coal fetish is risky.

  10. Jo 2 years ago

    I coal addictive? They must have licked it all in parliament.

    • neroden 2 years ago

      It’s full of tasty, tasty mercury and lead, so maybe it is addictive?

  11. lin 2 years ago

    Just when you think they can’t screw up worse, they come up with this.
    Can we have a postal survey on this issue? Or perhaps we should move straight to an election. Fingers crossed for a very literal interpretation of the constitution by the high court, leading to an unworkable minority for Turncoat.

    • Robert Comerford 2 years ago

      The only one of concern for them is the Balmy Choice and recent polling has show his popularity in the electorate to have increased. He already had an unbeatable majority. So all that will happen is he gets to go to a by-election (instead of being ruled out) and returns.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        Why should there be a by election. The dude is a Kiwi and so was ineligible to stand in the first instance….’eligibility fraud’, my description, like the other 6 MP’s in the High Court case. Why should taxpayers stump up hundreds of thousands of dollars again for a by election. Whomever came second at the last election should be the new MP.

        • Robert Comerford 2 years ago

          That rule only applies to senators unfortunately

          • Joe 2 years ago

            Yes, but it should also apply to the House of Reps.

  12. Peter Campbell 2 years ago

    On the face of it, isn’t the emissions bit an Emissions Intensity Scheme? IE What Labor proposed. Also, on the face of it, isn’t the dispatchability bit, pretty close to a storage target, like what the Greens proposed? Or at least, if the emissions intensity arm is tightened, the dispatchability arm will need to move more and more to storage of various forms.
    If so, might this be something that can be tightened up over time and do the job well enough. After all, we are signed up not only to meet our present interim Paris targets but also to proposing tighter targets.
    Obviously, the devil is in the detail, and I don’t trust the LNP, but could this be something that can be supported and used by a future government that does tighten up our emission targets?
    I wonder if the rhetoric about ‘tearing up the RET’ is to satisfy the RWNJs not paying attention, while the actual proposal would keep the existing 2020 target and grandfather the existing generators and those put in between now and 2020? A tightening emissions intensity requirement (reviewed each year?) could require retailers to enter into sufficiently favourable contracts with renewable generators (not unlike the ACT’s contracts for difference?)?
    Meanwhile, the coal generators get old and retire anyway?

    • Andrea 2 years ago

      I think you are correct Peter. But the political polarisation will probably continue.
      I doubt there will be any new coal power stations built. Probably the big winners will be gas (assuming price comes down) and large-scale storage (probably pumped hydro). Regulating for reliability plus strong emissions reduction seems better than some type of carbon pricing or certificate scheme. Not sure how new transmission lines to renewable reources (as per Finkel) will fit into this. Or new interconnectors.
      I’m looking forward to seeing the modelling.

      • David Hurburgh 2 years ago

        HELEs are on the way. And plenty more Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. The Open Cycle Peaker Plants are expensive to run and inefficient, hence one of the drivers ( at the margin) of power and gas prices.
        Coal thermal plants can’t be run as peakers – hence they are being squeezed by gas and renewables.
        But Turnbull’s emphasis on dispatchable power will solve that , plus give us back up to intermittent wind and solar

    • Miles Harding 2 years ago

      One of those devilish details may be the level of guarantee needed to meet the quality of service demanded by the big mouths of Canberra. Ancient rust-bucket generators like Liddell could suffer a catastrophic failure at any time. Just one of the boiler tubes could see it out of action for months, so some failure insurance will be needed.

      The question could then be how do we back up the backup? The answer probably is “with another supply contract”.

      I prophesise that it won’t take long for these reserve supply contracts to become a tangled mess such that nobody is sure what will happen next time something blows up.
      There’s a perfect model for how to do this in collateralised debt obligations, used to such great effect in 2008.

      • RobertO 2 years ago

        Hi Mike Harding, I think you have hit the nail on the head. CDO were very valuable to the sellers (COALition) but worthless to the buyers (us consumers) Another question is how much can these “Electrical CDO” be sold for?

  13. David Hurburgh 2 years ago

    When it comes to the pricing of electricity would you put your faith in a scientist (Finkel) or an economist ( Simms of ACCC) ?

    • DevMac 2 years ago

      The problem with economics (and therefore economists) is that it’s based on historic data. Future predictions, to decrease risk, are all based on past trends. This is where economics always falls down in its evaluation of something new and artificially raises the importance of whatever the status quo is.

      Hence economics is the safety blanket of any and all conservatives.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        DevilMacca….’based on past trends’? Have you not heard of the term ‘modelling’. This is what is used by economists.

        • DevMac 2 years ago

          You’re not saying anything different to what I’m saying. ‘modelling’ is ‘based on past trends’, and that’s why it tends to favour the status quo. ‘New’ is less known, and less known is risky, and economics is about managing risk.

          I’m not saying it’s bad, but it’s a tendency that’s better to be aware of than not.

      • David Hurburgh 2 years ago

        Are you seriously suggesting Scientists and Engineers should determine the impact on pricing of energy policies ?

        • DevMac 2 years ago

          I don’t think I said that. I was pointing out that economics is generally biased in one direction.

          Also, given Finkel was tasked with creating such a policy-guiding document I think it’s unlikely he would have come up with the figures on his own. He’d have consulted all sorts of people on the intricacies of economics and electricity generation and numerous other things that he, himself, may not have personal qualifications in.

          Having said all that, Finkel’s report probably had more research put into it than Simms’ statement, so in conclusion, my answer may be ‘yes’ – to Finkel’s report, but not ‘yes’ to “Scientists and Engineers” in general.

          Didn’t the government go ahead with all but one of Finkel’s recommendations? He can’t be doing that bad a job then.

        • nakedChimp 2 years ago

          Don’t forget that economy is an ART, where as the others are STEM.
          Ever heard of Control Engineering?
          Economists have not a clue about it.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      I’ll go with the Sun…its free.

      • David Hurburgh 2 years ago

        You mean that big Nuclear Reactor in the Sky ?
        We need a few of those in Oz and all our energy problems would be solved … and then those tinker toy wind turbines can be retired

        • My_Oath 2 years ago

          Yeah, a fusion reactor would be great. Got one handy?

    • Andy 2 years ago

      You mean the dolts that run the AEMC and AEMO…..who have done nothing beyond acting as political weathervanes for the last 13 years,

  14. David Hurburgh 2 years ago

    Perhaps RenewEconomy could explain to the ABC, Fairfax and Grauniad journos what dispatchable power is.
    Australia is paying the price of having journalists that are Media Study grads rather than STEM students

    • RobSa 2 years ago

      Ian Ward‘s Politics and the Media lectures were always packed out with journalism students.

    • Rod 2 years ago

      Never mind the media. Someone needs to explain to the RWRNJs that coal ain’t dispatchable.

    • Ken Fabian 2 years ago

      I just heard ABC news blaming renewable energy for SA power problems – no word on “reliable” gas that failed to be available when most needed – with a comment out of context by AEMO chief to support it. And when our ABC sings from the same songsheet perhaps Turnbull will get the absence of critical attention in the mainstream media the NEG needs to get through.

      • Jexpat 2 years ago

        The ABC was even worse than that this week when it stooped to repeating sections of a Tony Abbot interview from Sydney commercial radio spruiking coal and gas -and bashing regulations on fracking coal seam gas.

    • Chris Peters 2 years ago

      You have pointed to a key issue here, David. All readers and commenters to Renew Economy tend to be savvy re renewables. But journalists in mainstream journalism are struggling to understand dispatchable power, demand management, storage backed renewables. Refer Chris Uhlmann ABC after the South Australian storm blackouts, Mark Kenny in today’s SMH 18.10 who thinks Turdbull’s new plan will work.

  15. Rob Passey 2 years ago

    Given that the generators that have failed without warning this year are coal and gas-fired, it’s going to be pretty funny to see retailers having to contract battery backup for these plant.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Don’t worry, the old girl ‘Liddell’ will be saving us from any blackouts…just like last February, NOT.

  16. Chris Schneider 2 years ago

    That’s bullshit. AND posted before they even released the information.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Its NO bullshit, it is out there.Just do some information gathering.

      • Chris Schneider 2 years ago

        Did you watch it? I did. The announcement doesn’t remove the RET which ends 2020 it does though let it lapse. The reason which is quite sound (according the this site even) is Renewables are now competitive. Instead the Target will focus on meeting the Paris agreement via market forces. Although complex in nature this is the sum total of what they are looking at.

        Are there some points that I think put into question the push for renewables? yep. But is this article at all correct NO. I have asked questions of a few minister to get more details but I’m sure so have thousands of other people. It will take time for the penny to drop. More information about the scheme is required.

  17. trackdaze 2 years ago

    The Coalition reckon they can save the average consumer $100 per annum?

    Get solar and storage and save yourself $1000’s

    • Greg Hudson 2 years ago

      Add a battery and save even more.

    • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

      Yep – that bit really got me laughing: I’m saving the equivalent of their great big plan per month from my existing solar! So when all the voters realise that, it’s going to be taking out the trash time for this government, and security of supply will be in worse state.

    • Goldie444 2 years ago

      Will this $100 go the same way as Tony Abbott’s $550 saving when getting rid of the ‘Carbon Tax’?
      I am still waiting for my $550.

      • trackdaze 2 years ago

        After you take into account Abbott got it passed by canning an increase in your superannuation it’s more like your down $550.

      • Marg1 2 years ago

        Me too.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        Lost in the post…like mine?

  18. solarguy 2 years ago

    Jesus Christ the brown paper bags from the MCA must be on a conveyor delivery system for under the table donations to the LNP now. These moronic greedy arseholes just signed their political death warrants.

    Bring on the next election.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      The turnaround of Turncoat Turnbull is now complete. Fossil Fuel usage is being locked in, CO2 emissions are being locked in. As Craig Kelly likes to describe it…the Paris Agreement is only an aspiration, it isn’t legally binding, Australia isn’t a big polluter on the world stage…..where would we all like to start in the takedown of the Kelly. But here are some of Two Tongues Turnbull’s ‘fighting words’ from February 2010 as Opposition leader before the Abbott knifed him…”It is our job, as members of Parliament, to legislate with an eye to the long term future, to look over the horizon beyond the next election and ensure that as far as we can what we do today will make Australia a better place, a safer place, for future generations to live in.” “Climate Change is the ultimate long term problem. We have to make decisions today, bear costs today so that adverse consequences are avoided, dangerous consequences many decades into the future.” We are in reverse, Australia’s CO2 emission are rising,NOT falling, so how The COALition can keep saying, with a straight face, that “we will easily meet our emissions targets” . The COALition’s ‘Direct Action’ policy is a total FAIL….. $2.5 Billion dollars worth of FAIL.

  19. Peter F 2 years ago

    As a strong renewables advocate this could be coal’s worst nightmare. Who is going to contract with Liddell when it has a forced outage rate of 46% or can only supply half its rated power at system peak.
    Who will contract with any NSW or Queensland coal plant that can’t guarantee it won’t be competing with exports for coal.
    A sensible retailer will contract with a diverse mix of wind, solar PV, solar thermal and backup contracts with existing hydro. Hydro generators will increasingly be reconfigured as higher power peak generation units and work with wind and solar to provide despatchable power.
    This is going to be a bonanza for VPP’s, demand response and behind the meter resources which mean that the retailers are less beholden to the market gouging from FF generators.
    Fix the 5/30 rule and go for it. A new wind plant at $60/MWhr is going to eat coal and gas alive

    • nakedChimp 2 years ago

      That’s the spirit! 😉

  20. Chris O'Neill 2 years ago

    “coal energy target”

    A.k.a. Dirty Energy Target.

  21. SA_Jack 2 years ago

    What a sorry state of affairs when a Federal Government is unable to execute the recommendations of an energy report they themselves commissioned, manipulated, and restricted in order to placate the more extreme views within their own party. This energy policy may spare the Federal Coalition from internal combustion, as for the rest of us energy consumers, I wouldn’t hold your breath….

    • Joe 2 years ago

      ….”this is a report to government, not by government…” the usual weasel words from The COALition when a report that they commission is delivered but they don’t like the findings and so tear it up and do what they always intended to do in the first place. In this case… Long Live King Coal.

      • SA_Jack 2 years ago

        Considering the restrictions placed upon Alan Finkel in producing his report – which was in many ways recommended only a very soft touch in respect to the pressure put on fossil fuel generation – it is astounding how poorly received it was within the Government. Should have just got Tony to write the report himself, would have saved them all some time…

        • Joe 2 years ago

          Well the Abbott is the ‘author’ of everything related to energy that The COALition pumps out.

  22. SA_Jack 2 years ago

    Coalition’s ‘National Energy Guarantee’ or NEG
    As in…
    Neg-ligible affect on emissions
    Neg-ligible affect on prices
    Neg-ligible affect on reliability
    And importantly
    Neg-ligent response to a major energy policy failure.

    • My_Oath 2 years ago

      This is, after all, the party that promised us lower power prices by removing the carbon tax. Cos doing that worked so well….

  23. maxlyrical 2 years ago

    Malcolm is hogtied and flailed by his own party. When you have a corporate democracy this kind of thing is inevitable.
    The big polluters see the end is nigh and are clearly putting the pressure on big-time to keep miking this stranded asset for all it’s worth.
    Nevertheless, renewables will get cheaper, everybody will jump off the grid and smart investors will be building solar and wind farms regardless.
    This policy is designed to make life more difficult for them, but it won’t prevail in the long term.
    Gotta love Pauline’s outrage that it doesn’t go far enough….

  24. johannes 2 years ago

    So now it’s the National Energy Guarantee (another NEGative move from the COALition). Turnbull obviously had the spin doctors working on that phrase – the word “guarantee” is bound to satisfy the great unwashed.

    • Miles Harding 2 years ago

      Yes, but a guarantee of what???

  25. Vince Wardill 2 years ago

    I can’t believe that Malcolm Turnbull could change so much since coming to power.
    The Malcolm Turnbull of the 2008 – 2013 days couldn’t talk enough about how we had to follow the Renewable Energy path. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tJXvn7cjk
    Since the Liberal Party came to power, it has been a slippery slide in to oblivion for Renewables and the rise of the Coal Industry.
    I can’t believe that we could have been deceived so much by consecutive governments and I can’t wait for the next Federal Election to have my voice heard.

    • My_Oath 2 years ago

      Sadly, its a sign of the times. The narrow majority the party has means he has had to pander to the troglodites. I’m not apologising for him – history will be his and their judge. A lot of people are wondering why it happened, and here is why.

  26. RobertO 2 years ago

    Hi all, where do batteries fit in this picture. It shows a battery with a solar and a coal power station but is it stand alone.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      …bring on The Elon Big Batteries.

  27. bedlambay 2 years ago

    Four months ago Mr Turnbull was promoting the Clean Energy Target but today has completely turned away from this and he has not provided any modelling. AGL has responded to Turnbull’s pressure to extend the life of the clapped out Liddell power station by proposing several alternatives which do appear to suit the LNP agenda. Turnbull’s N.E.G. statement is just as inane as his election mantra of jobs and growth. It is even worse than Abbott’s “Direct Action” figleaf.

  28. RobertO 2 years ago

    Hi all, So if I have my own coal power station am I going to sign contracts with RE generators without payments from them, and when I build my own RE cause it is cheaper than coal I will change the contract from RE private supplyer to my own supply. This is really a very bright idea to push power up so that I can also build my own new HELE coal station. The COALition have a really humdinger of an idea here, anything goes wrong we can blame energy retailers. WHAT A SHAM!

  29. Matt S 2 years ago

    Clearest indication yet that winning is more important than governing to Turnbull. Coward

  30. wayne 2 years ago

    What expected hysteria. As the author and everyone knows there is not yet sufficient detail to make any proper assesments. It appears to be some regulation of the industry that has lost its way and regulation in the face of two things, Privatisation and Technology innovation driven largely by climate change. They have started with Price /Cost and now Stability and guarantee of supply. Something that should have been there all the time but particularly exposed by South Australian failures. Something that is always required where change is taking place. Lets all hope it does not in effect stop the technology innovation and uptake of renewables as people are suggesting based on their political views or vested interestes either way. Low cost reliable energy is strategically important to any Nation and any moves to achieve those while meeting Climate Change driven change is positive. Lets see the detail. Please no Nasty spiteful responses for having an opinion. We all want emisions reduction, reasonable cost, relaible energy supply that underpins a healthy society.

    • My_Oath 2 years ago

      “Lets see the detail”

      The detail was in the Finkel Review.

      • wayne 2 years ago

        How can you tell if it was or not in the Finkle report when all we have seen is only media release. Making judgements without the facts might be why we are where we are? Lets see the detail if and when it comes and slam them if it does not or is of insuficient or inadequate content.

        • RobertO 2 years ago

          Hi Wayne, Type in “finkle review” and look for some ending like
          .gov.au/(and then a descriper of some sort). Most reports are online these days and even the unpublished one’s (but not the secure documents) can be found if you have the correct descriper. This report is 200 pages long. It make good reading.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Got it and read it. Thanks RobertO. What I want is more detail of the actual Governmet proposal. Also what additional input opportunities there might be given it’s not Finkle but takes some from there. The Gov is light on detail of the specifics of what their scheme really is in detail.

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Wayne, read up on John Pierce both history of and his place in the NEG comments. I suspect that he a “Climate Change Denier” and “Two Toungs” wants him in charge. He a lawyer and does not like change to his world. The 5 minute rule is due in 2021 and I am sure it could have been done in 12 months. He wants “Solax Tax” on prosumers, and I suspect that if given half a chance you will also have a “Daily Door Charge” if you have left the grid. There is very little detail on the NEG as of yet. This is pollicy on the run.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Scary. Not likely can leave the grid as not wealthy enough to afford it. Feel like the mouse in the wheel in regard to bill shock lately. Rates, Water, Gas, Electricity, Rego, etc.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Thanks Mike.

    • Ian Franklin 2 years ago

      South Australian Failures? Clearly you have accepted the lies of the vested interests. Yes, we had in SA a blackout, due to a storm. We were without power for 3 hours. Big Deal! 25 years ago, while I was living in Sydney’s upper north shore, a storm blew down power lines. We were without power for a week!

      • Michael Murray 2 years ago

        Yep and blackouts have been a feature of life in Adelaide ever since I moved there in 1992. If there is a heat wave in Adelaide coinciding with a heat wave in Melbourne there was always a good chance of a blackout or at least “load shedding”.

        • Joe 2 years ago

          Had that here in NSW in February…’Liddel’ had ‘heatstroke’…only 2 boilers could handle the heat. Only by forcing load shedding combined with rooftop solar did we avert a state wide blackout.

      • wayne 2 years ago

        IT HAPPENED. and in a way I am grateful. South Australia Failures were predictable and inevitable given any natural cause or grid conect failure. The fkd up big time and we saw large scale never seen before outages and knee jerk responses for political expediency. Why the Wetheral Government is being investigated for breaches of Governance responsibility and spending big on remediation. That was a big lesson the rest of Australia. Unregulated change leads to disaster and why we now have National dialogue on Energy Policy and not simply ideology based discussion. Shame people had to suffer to bring that into perspective. The suffering extends to Price effects as well where the more well off can be ideological and afford it and those less wealthy get hurt every time as we have seen happen.

        • Ian Franklin 2 years ago

          Why do you blame the Weatherill Government?. Since the liberals sold off ETSA, the control of power supply in SA has been in private hands, with the oversight of AEMO and the AER. At least the labor government is now doing something to reverse this situation. And, of course, it is well established that the blackout was not due to the penetration of renewable energy. SA in fact is leading the way. But, I suspect I am wasting my time even replying to your comments.

          • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

            Furthermore, I was in Adelaide in the days before, with warnings non-stop on the radio about the coming storm. As a result, I left early and returned to Brisbane. Meanwhile, AEMO a) didn’t curtail load on Heywood interconnect b) didn’t start local generation in preparation for a contingency c) didn’t force black start generations to run thru a test to make sure they were ready d) didn’t seek curtailment from major users, in advance of the storm. Weatherill had no control over AEMO which operates under rules established by COAG. Since then Weatherill has introduced powers to enable him to act if they don’t altho’ the new CEO of AEMO is very proactive in getting AEMO sorted.

            BTW, in 2010-11 in Brisbane we had no power for almost 3days – when you live in Australia, these type of events happen. I have decided it is not worth my while for such infrequent events to install an offline inverter and batteries, so I can scarcely whinge that the government should do it for me.

      • wayne 2 years ago

        Are you suggesting that the South Australian Energy supply has not been unreliable, greatly increased in price and that ultimate responsibility for that rests at the Foot of the Government as a regulator planner.? Pay enough and get whatever report you need. Why all of a sudden rushing, to Elon for batteries and building new gas power stations in such a hurry? Got caught out not foreeing or planning for natural events that might cause catastropic interruption to the network. The facts remain. SA had the worst in history failure and others in the last few years. Other states have power interruptions but not whole state. This is not simply a discussion about coal, wind, solar but irresponsible Government policy and a lack of regulation and planning by Govrnment. At least now it has been exposed by South Australia’s major failure and now being addressed by South Australia with Batteries and new power stations and also at a Federal level so deserves a good look at the detail (WHEN AVAILABLE) and reasonable discussion not politicl or ideological biases as a starting point. Personally I want RELIABLE supply at AFFORDABLE prices that responsibly CARES for the future of the planet. That means a responsile transition with appropriate regulation and encouragements, not to allow free for all or NO planning, give forever subsidisation by Taxpayers, give aways $M to major corporates. There should be a balance here not simply extremes based on ideology, politics and or religion. Yes privatisation has nt helped and yes the wind does blow and not but we should be aiming for common outcomes. Security, price and environmental responsibility. A balance.

        • RobertO 2 years ago

          Hi Wayne, When you looked at the report did you see the BOM report. It make interesting reading (I have faith that the BOM ). The rest of that report is not so reievant. For one that is try the AEMO report on what happened. Give timeframes in seconds.


          Also SA did not run the electrical network in SA until a few days after this storm when J Weatherill past regulation allowing the state to over rule AEMO (Fed Gov created AEMO to run the NEM)

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Two thigs 1. the report is fine but it is largely forensic and skirts the planning and contingency issues. 2. the SA Gov Knee jerked into action it should have already had in hand. They were asleep at the wheel and grabbed it Gas and batteries and much outward Blame in desperationl to cynically preserve themselves. As I say the SA energy crisis was a great example of wreckless disregard and got everyone on the same page about government responsibility…..may be too little too late but at least a start. This is not how governments should operate in regard to CRITICAL Infrastructure and safety issues. Especially one that is facing great pressure to stop the bleading out of industry. Lets hope the lessons are well learned and actions taken set us up for a better future.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      SA Failures? I have never before seen or heard a State Premier, Premier Jay, cop such dishonest commentary after a mega storm knocks out transmission infrastructure. Turnbull and Frydenberg should be apologising to Premeir Jay and the citizens of SA for their the dishonest comments. Wayno, me thinks that you have been reading too many issues of Rupert’s Liberal Party Newsletters….masquerading as newspapers. Wayne, I live in Sydney and NSW is a COAL Kingdom. In January my area had 3 blackouts in 2 weeks. In the February heatwave where the old girl ‘Liddell’ couldn’t handle the heat, NSW only averted statewide blackout due to forced load shedding coupled with the wonderful work of home rooftop solar….yes the sun was shining and those rooftop PV systems were going brilliantly….a case of RE to the RESCUE!!!!! In August tens of thousands of homes in NSW were a blackout for the same reason that SA had the September state wide blackout…mega wind storm knocking out transmission lines. It is a myth that RE causes blackouts and only Dolts suck up this nonsense. Wayne, please do yourself a big favour and carefully research the reasons for blackouts.

      • wayne 2 years ago

        Clearly you have some biases and that is your right but I hope they do ot overshaddow the truth and facts. SA failed and Jay was responsible and should be man enough to admit and move on. Instead he sprays blame and rushes to build new power stations and Big Batteries. While they are good that should have been his role and planned before people suffered not a simple political Knee jerk. Name calling I think has no place here but being honest should.

        • Joe 2 years ago

          Of course I have biases, biases to maintaining a safe and liveable environment now and for the generations that follow. Maintaining FF usage is incompatible with that. What part of Tornados knocking out South Australia’s transmission lines and knocking down 23 electricity pylons do you not want to see? Even if SA had 100% Coal / Gas there would have been a state wide blackout, RE had nothing to do with it. On the basis of your logic whenever a weather event or natural disaster crunches a state power system then that is the failure of the at State’s Premier….so in NSW Premier Gladys was a failure in August. QLD Premiers are a failure every time a cyclone crunches the states power system. I think you too have biases but please identify the true cause of the power failure before jumping to lay into Premier Jay.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Very simple. Jay (the SA Gov) took his hands off the wheel and when it all failed he has pannicked. Yes he was responsible for very poor policy and (If ANY) planning and had Port Augusta been online, some isolation could have been achieved and the strain on the Vic interconnect would not have caused a trip out. My biase in this regard is to get reasonably priced energy, reliably delivered while caring for our environment responsibly. That is not any one single Technology solution but a collection of things called a policy and a plan with rules and guidance not subsidies. Lets all hope this one achieves that without the negative. Please contribute and be positive. Islanding would have allowed, as in the past and in other states would have allowed the various parts of the grid to be isolated temporarily (which they were unable to do) and survive. Why in NSW etc these failures are not state wide but can be isolated until fixed. In fact that is what teh Musk Battery and new gas power stations will now allow. The whole state went ut because of tripped interconnect and teh inability for providers to isolate failed transmission areas. Victoria was prepared and protected it’s network.

          • Joe 2 years ago

            The thing that needs isolating, no better still make that elimination, is Fossil Fuel. It is getting in the way of what needs to be done…going to 100% RE without any more delay. FF and its boosters are like a deep seated malignant tumour, sitting there causing massive problem and urgently needs to be removed.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            I agree with you with a big Addition…That proper planning and transition happens in order not to critically harm our Nation or our people…..and to advance both. THAT IS A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY and why we pay Taxes….not to subsidise greedy industry pockets. If we put aside political crap and had sensible bipartisan appraches Government and Opostion could show real leadesrhip. Look at the positive from the SA debacle…..it was a very big wake up call for Governments to act and properly and appropriatley plan and regulate to that goal.

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Wayne, One of the major failures of SA is that 99% of the people do not know the system in SA. For instance Average Peak load in SA is 2900 MW. So how many people can tell you “What is the Name Plate Capacity of Gas Generators in SA?
            What is the Name Plate Capacity of Wind in SA?”

            Hint 3000MW !
            Hint 1700 MW !
            Hint Gas was not started by AEMO
            Hint Pollies always blame this one but it is smaller that that one.

            Hint Fed Gov has no plan (8 pages when Finkle took 9 months and wrote 200 pages)

          • wayne 2 years ago

            Lets see. The ink is not dry if it has even been put on paper…It is a start …..and no other party has any viable plan so a good start all be it late and seemingly basic..Gas is a whole other stuff up. WA is now selling domestically as international prices are all time low yet the rest of Australia are seeing escalating prices. It seems we sold East coast reserves while prices were high and WA was madly Fracking away, building north shelf to Bunbury pipelines and now does not know what to do with it. Lack of long term National planning and consistent bi partisan policy. Hint…Political Incompetence by all parties that is basically shifting wealth to the few from the many.

          • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

            Wayne – I don’t see this as incompetence so much as deliberate cognitive dissonance: these guys as so ideologically wed to market economics they don’t want to see the problems, let alone solve them. And why not: market economics with flawed rules have led to an enormous flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, so on one level, you could say the system works. Look at Rio: now it’s execs are being prosecuted in the US, yet they destroyed a chance at Australians getting a fair deal on their resources.

            A first year engineer would explain that a market that is load balanced in milliseconds, price cleared in minutes simply cannot reliably deliver signals on investments scaled in decades. The signal to noise ratio obliterates reliable signals. Investment decisions over those time scales have to be deliberative and political. They are about the shape of our society and distribution of risk and reward. To suggest the NEM can solve them is blatantly dishonest.

          • wayne 2 years ago

            I do not think all is so negative. Yes the investment decisions need to be deliberate, scaled and over decades and that is where politicians , parties and planning should come in. Infrastructure decisions based on good engineering, science and National imperatives not simply ideology, policical whim of tehv day or profit by energy companies. I do not like or support privatisation of National essential services but it is there. Regulation plays an important part then and that is a role of Government. I am not suggesting anything as the single solution but education, discussion, cooperation and long term strategic thinking and planning is the best chance we have….while ensuring basic supply reliability, reasonable price and meeting environmentally responsible obligations. NEM could be part of that when we truly see the detail and what is in it. I personally do not see labelling, caning it out of hand reasonable or responsible and now that focus is on energy policy, where it should have been, there is a chance to improve over the last decade of poor management across the board.

          • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

            I don’t think I’m suggesting all is negative, or that the NEM is useless. What is wrong tho’ is to ascribe it with abilities it simply and objectively doesn’t have. The NEM could be made to function fairly and stably as a clearing house for energy if everyone was on the same footing ie you are either a retailer, buying like all other retailers, or a wholesaler selling like all other wholesalers. As we have seen in the supermarket sector, once you are allowed to be a producer and seller from a strong market position, it’s not so hard to squeeze out other producers and sellers and gain oligopoly power. This is well established knowledge on markets, and led to the original “anti-trust” competition laws in the US. There is no strong justification for allowing gentailers to exist, and strong reasons for not allowing them. There also strong reasons for disallowing rebidding except for technical constraints and limiting the % of capacity any one generator can own. But what we have at present fails in terms of competitive short term supply and in long term planning for security. And it exists to satisfy ideological causes, not the benefit of Australians.

          • RobertO 2 years ago

            Hi Wane, It in the AEMO report somewhere, one of the Gas generator sold all of it’s gas to Gladstone to be shipped over seas, (Free Market exersise that the COALition believes is GOSPEL to them) and another one could not start because the Gas supply line pressure was too low. They over sold gas volumns and when East Coast State Gov stopped fracking we had a shortage spike.
            Bi Partisan Politics was destroyed by Tony Abbott when he was opposition leader (His Chief of Staff was Pete Credlin, and she explained in an interview a few years ago, how it took several goes to get him to think about how to destroy any policy offered by your opponent and he is still using on the PM)
            Yes we have no long term plan (or planning) by any Fed Gov since. The states are better but not much

  31. My_Oath 2 years ago

    Come on Blackrock. The thumbscrews you put on the Board of BHP weren’t enough. You whipped EXXON into shape, time to get cracking on the Rouge State of Australia.

  32. Jolly Roger 2 years ago

    So it will take a change of government with the Greens having some balance of power influence over the ALP to improve this situation. Meanwhile behind the meter will be the main engine room of change.

  33. lin 2 years ago

    Turnbull’s very concerned about possible occasional blackouts. Not so concerned about 100% of our liquid fuel coming from OS, with only 2 weeks supply. Also his concern about prices seems to be more concern we continue to pay huge prices to his “donors”. We thought Abbott had worst prime minister covered for generations, but Turnbull is giving it a pretty decent crack.

  34. Michael Murray 2 years ago

    So is domestic rooftop PV counted in this somehow ? And can South Australia just go it alone ? Even if we ended up using a lot of gas it’s better than using coal.

    • BushAxe 2 years ago

      Being such as small market the Cultana PHES and a few batteries will have a big impact on the SA market. Along with the Aurora CST, SA will be hitting 75% by 2025.

    • neroden 2 years ago

      I think SA needs a few more batteries and wind farms to cut the link to the NEM — considered ordering a second Tesla/Neoen site? 🙂 My calculations say that doubling that site would be sufficient.

  35. john 2 years ago

    The Paris Agreement.
    Australia would have no real plan in place to achieve its Paris climate change commitments.
    Just remember Australia has been treated with extremely generous emission targets.

    As to this smoke screen and mirror exercise it delivers little and will be said to be forward looking.
    Poor fellow my country is all I can say.

    It seems embracing moving as fast as possible to Utilizing Zero Energy input generation is just too hard a hurdle to jump.

    It is going to happen regardless of what the people in power want to see, because it is a NO brainer zero energy cost you can not beat that.

  36. Ken Dyer 2 years ago

    All of this COALition blather does not take effect until 2020. Should be enough time for everybody to watch their increasing electricity bills before the next election in 2019.
    Should also be enough time to allow pretty good penetration of batteries and solar PV at ever decreasing prices.

  37. Cooma Doug 2 years ago

    He is putting lipstick on Tony Abbot……oh well….pig I guess.

  38. mick 2 years ago

    friedenberg said no taxes no subsidies does include ff?

    • RobertO 2 years ago

      Hi Mick, NO way in the world would the Fed Gov touch the subsidies for coal. Not even on the agend dispite the fact that we import most of our liquid FF, and that we also have been running down our storage supply (it was under 84 days last time I looked in the whole supply chain. By international agreement we are supposed to keep it above 90 days worth, called “Diesel Fuel Oils” which is all types of liquid petrolum fuel oils) See Andrew Broad press release dated Monday 4 September 2017. A bunch of turkeys run this country at the moment

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Didn’t mention anything about FF and the mega leg up that it has always received. Again it is a classic play from The COALition handbook, demonise RE at every opportunity and give FF another lifeline.

      • mick 2 years ago

        thought not

  39. Jeremy C 2 years ago

    And what happens when China and other countries put a carbon tax on exports from Australia……..will Abbott, Joyce, Kelly, et al bravely declare war on the rest of the world?

    My insular fellow Australians make Donald Trump look like a man of the world and Boris Johnson look like a well adjusted, statesman.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      China is bringing in a nationwide ETS from January 2018. It is only logical that they would apply a ‘carbon tariff’ on imports from countries that don’t price CO2 emissions. Let’s then hear the squealing from The COALition, The MCA, Rupert’s Newsrags, and those Radio Station shocker jock idiots.

  40. Ken Fabian 2 years ago

    Given that this gets the support of the LNP I can’t be anything except cynical; it’s about detaching energy from climate and emissions. Right up front is ending support for renewable energy, but the amnesty on externalised climate costs stays. Those are going to be the important details that none of the other details will change.

    No actual emissions targets. No direct support for a continuing, ramping transition to low emissions. No support for the essential technological ingredient – storage – that the near term stage of that transition requires, despite it being close enough to achievable that a deliberate boost should carry it into viability.

  41. Carl Raymond S 2 years ago

    I’m struggling to understand why our ‘leaders’ are so utterly determined to make this country irrelevant. I so want Australia to be part of the solution. Abbott and Turnbull are tearing strips off themselves to ensure we are part of the problem. The rest of the world (the sane ones, powering ahead with renewables) will deal with us, like a troublesome mosquito.

  42. seao2 2 years ago

    I think that this decision simply highlights the fact that the Australian Government is an agent of corporate Australia and the economic elite in the first instance, and for the Australian public a distant second. The Government is simply not performing its function.

  43. neroden 2 years ago

    Completely deranged. I suppose they don’t understand that this will just drive people off the grid? The off-grid market in Australia is BOOMING.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if South Australia decides to cut the cord and leave the National Electricity Market, too.

  44. Michael Murray 2 years ago

    Anyone else get an email from their LNP member this morning telling them how wonderful this is? I’m in Pyne’s electorate.

    • Chris Fraser 2 years ago

      If they are going to rely on Pyne to sell it … they are desperate.

  45. Electric Boogaloo 2 years ago

    What I’m trying to understand is how this is bad news when renewables are now cheaper than coal and that base load is a myth?

  46. The Duke 2 years ago

    Guarantee my arse.! No modelling or documented studies to prove the COALition’s pie in the sky energy policy. Prices have risen and doubled over the past few years because the cartels rule the price structure. Privatisation leads to lack of honest competition and price rises. This is the LIEberal Party plan to held their business mates and slow down the States siphoning funds off them. Prices will continue to escalate over the next few years by hundreds of dollars, and the COALition tell us will get a $2 a week price deduction by 2020 or 2030 !!! . This figure is plucked out of the air, no promises just wishful thought bubbles.
    These politicians will say and do anything in desperation to try and cling to power.
    Even Freydenberg admits renewables are a cheaper option than coal. Yet , they push the Coal lobbyists propaganda at the cost to all Australians.
    The imbeciles have the hide to tell us to turn off our air conditioning to save their own bacon and propose to give away FREE movie tickets for helping out. YES we actually pay for those FREE movie tickets as well.
    CHEAPER, RELIABLE and EFFICIENT are Just more slogans from this pathetic Government desperate to look like their working.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      The Duke…loved his movies. I think he would describe The COALition energy policy as…”it’s a massa…cre”

  47. Craig Allen 2 years ago

    Given that the government wants to limit renewables to no more than 28% and S.A. and Canberra are already well beyond that, what happens in those, and other regions with renewables based micro grids?
    Can the feds really impose rules on individual retailers to make and pay for redundant contracts for backup that are not actually needed? If that cost is imposed and never actually used it’s going to be a bad look. Those bar graphs we see that break down electricity cost to components such as generation, retail, network, green etc. are going to need a new color for ‘useless NEG’.

  48. RobertO 2 years ago

    Hi All, another silly point for all to note. Wind Farms remove energy from the wind. In a storm wind farms will moderate the effects of the energy of the storm, hence Wind Farms may reduce damage done. They survived Sandi and other.

Comments are closed.

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