Australia 'losing out' on renewable energy investment

[webfact]

Australia 'losing out' on renewable energy investment

(BBC) Investment into renewable energy projects in Australia has dropped by 70% in the last year, according to a new report by a climate change body.

The Climate Council says foreign investors are going to other countries because Australia's government has no clear renewable energy policy.

Australia has gone from "leader to laggard" in energy projects, it added.

Another new report says Australia will need to raise its carbon emission reduction target to 40% by 2025.

The damning report on the state of renewable energy, entitled Lagging Behind: Australia and the Global Response to Climate Change, said the country was losing out on valuable business.

Investment that could be coming to Australia was going overseas "to countries that are moving to a renewables energy future", said Tim Flannery, one of the report's authors.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29982908


-- BBC 2014-11-10

[Johnsy]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

[CNXTim]

The pom's are welcome to all the "Renewable Energy" we don't want. Let me know when the aged UK population start freezing in their hovels this winter...

Then the rampant left Beeb can run THAT story

[Jay Sata]

I prefer to call it common sense.

Why waste time on renewables when the Chinese who manufacture most of the worlds solar panels continue to be the number one polluters on the planet.

The green brigade still drive cars,fly in aircraft and use all the by products which come from oil such as plastics.

If Australia was in charge of the UK we would not have the illegal immigrants in Calais waiting for their turn to join the gravy train and our power stations would not be be closing down because of some loony idea from Brussels.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Mudcrab]

Tim Flannery is an economist by profession.

He recently bought waterfront land near Sydney, all the while running around proclaiming that the coastline would be inundated soon due to climate change.

An idiot of the first order.

Don't listen to him....not many rational people do.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Mudcrab

[Jay Sata]

It is all a big con trick.

Look at this story from the UK. Wind farms paid millions to not produce electricity.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/502889/Wind-farm-owners-get-70m-to-do-nothing

The same fiasco in Canada.

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/queenspark/2013/09/11/ontario_paying_for_wind_turbines_to_not_produce_electricity.html

Canada has the fifth largest coal reserves in the world while the UK has enough coal underground to last 200 years.

Part of Drax power station in Yorkshire has been de commissioned from coal and will now burn wood chips shipped across the Atlantic by a vessel burning heavy oil!

There is a massive power station being built at Port Talbot in Wales to burn US and Canadian woodchips. This on a site that has massive reserves of coal just a mile or two up the road.

That is the sort of baffling logic used by the greenies in their agenda against coal and oil.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Jay Sata

[louse1953]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

A man that said"i love coal".

[Jay Sata]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

A man that said"i love coal".

I guess you thought Gillard had all her marbles?

Tony Abbott is correct and I admire his stance.

For those who don't know he said this a few days ago.

'For the foreseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity. Coal is the foundation of the way we live because you cant have a modern lifestyle without energy,

You cant have a modern economy without energy and for now and for the foreseeable future, the foundation of Australias energy needs will be coal. The foundation of the worlds energy needs will be coal.

If we are serious about raising peoples living standards in less-developed countries, if we are serious about maintaining and improving living standards in countries like Australia we have to be serious about making the best use of coal.'

Edited November 10, 2014 by Jay Sata

[tw25rw]

Its a temporary blip. Unless there is some major disaster that Abbot is able to ride the back of like Howard did, the country will come back to it's senses and kick this nasty piece or work out.

[lvr181]

Mmmmmm.....................me thinks the "greenies" are a part of the problem, not the solution! Let them set the example.

And to have them say, that per head of population, Australians are among the worst polluters in the world! If one person on an island started a fire then he/she would be the worst polluter in the world on a per head of population basis! Lies, lies and damned statistics, as someone once said.

I would think that neither Australia or the person on the island would contribute much to the total pollution of the world?

But, hey I recognise "greenies" rights to the soap box, they just have to get their story correct though. Sounds like they are all budding politicians or maybe lawyers?

[samran]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

A man that said"i love coal".

I guess you thought Gillard had all her marbles?

Tony Abbott is correct and I admire his stance.

For those who don't know he said this a few days ago.

'For the foreseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity. Coal is the foundation of the way we live because you cant have a modern lifestyle without energy,

You cant have a modern economy without energy and for now and for the foreseeable future, the foundation of Australias energy needs will be coal. The foundation of the worlds energy needs will be coal.

If we are serious about raising peoples living standards in less-developed countries, if we are serious about maintaining and improving living standards in countries like Australia we have to be serious about making the best use of coal.'

I don't disagree, but.....

Solar is reaching the tippiing point in terms of economics of giving coal a run for its money. It should have policy certainty.

Battery technology and simply the effective 'tax' of having to pay for a gold plated electricity infrastructure that won't fall to bits on the three of four days per year when everyone turns on their aircon is making alternatives competitive. I'd prefer more independent and varied and particularly self sufficient sources like rooftop solar as it negates the need for as many expensive polls and wires and is more tailoered to individual demand. No need to keep generators running to meet short term spikes in demand etc.

Part of the reason why there is a backlash to renewable energy investment is cause of the havoc renewables are causing the traditional electricity business model which has forever forecase rising energy consumption and used that as the basis to justify their expansions in the polls and wires.

Quite simply, they want their return on investment and renewables are making that harder.

If the electricity companies screwed up their investment models with bad electricity forecasts, they should wear it, and not have the government given them a quasi bail out.

And just before you decide to label me, I work in energy...and have dealt with coal since 2007.

Edited November 10, 2014 by samran

[Si Thea01]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

Where are you from you clown? What do you know about renewable energy Investment. It is all subsidised by the Australian government after being brought in by those idiots in the Labor party. Billions of dollars forked out by the Australian tax payer for the greatest load of crap brought about by people who should be in gaol for their act of fraud against the gullible of which you are obviously one.

Climate change is mother nature's way of controlling the world's weather. This climate change scaremongers are trying to convince us that by have a carbon tax or an emission control scheme that they will be able to control the global temperature. Who do they think they are, GOD? I don't think so just a few deceitful lairing SOB's who are making a living off this new religion and conning millions around the globe.

[toooa]

So if investment into renewable energy has dropped by 70% in one year, the next question is why?

Was the lost investment that which had previously been heavily subsidised? Was the lost investment mostly coming from the public sector? Was investment lost because it was inefficient? What is that investment money now being spent on instead?

I haven't been following it too closely. I don't know but that's why I'm asking. Or is it just because China have been spending hard over the past year on renewable, so compared to them we suck.

China have been world leaders in renewable energy investment since last year.

Unfortunately because the Environment Movement is so clearly left, and Tony Rabbit is so clearly right...we end up with arguments like

"Energy investment droppum Rabbit do-um black majik evil."

We need some meat on the bones before we can make a stew that's all.

The Climate Council’s Tim Flannery who is professor pin up boy eco-activist and general lefty no. 1. is incapable of anything less than a damning report on anything related to Mr. Rabbit and the effects of his policies…

Does anyone ever get the feeling that there’s more to the climate change argument than saving the Earth? What it has done is create an massive niche for special interests and the flow of government cash …a rather large teat.

[samran]

So if investment into renewable energy has dropped by 70% in one year, the next question is why?

Was the lost investment that which had previously been heavily subsidised? Was the lost investment mostly coming from the public sector? Was investment lost because it was inefficient? What is that investment money now being spent on instead?

I haven't been following it too closely. I don't know but that's why I'm asking. Or is it just because China have been spending hard over the past year on renewable, so compared to them we suck.

China have been world leaders in renewable energy investment since last year.

Unfortunately because the Environment Movement is so clearly left, and Tony Rabbit is so clearly right...we end up with arguments like

"Energy investment droppum Rabbit do-um black majik evil."

We need some meat on the bones before we can make a stew that's all.

The Climate Council’s Tim Flannery who is professor pin up boy eco-activist and general lefty no. 1. is incapable of anything less than a damning report on anything related to Mr. Rabbit and the effects of his policies…

Does anyone ever get the feeling that there’s more to the climate change argument than saving the Earth? What it has done is create an massive niche for special interests and the flow of government cash …a rather large teat.

When the solar industry starts asking for exemptions to the deisel fuel rebate which the miners ask for (costing the budget bottom line billions), then I'll start agreeing with you that they are hooking up to the special industry gravy train. Until then, the miners are par excellence with few contemporaries.

[RickBradford]

The Climate Council, which is the body cited in this report, is nothing more than a publicity vehicle for that prize idiot Tim Flannery.

Enraged that his absurdly lucrative gig with the Government-funded Climate Commission was axed by Abbott, he gathered some like-minded people around him in the hope that their tediously predictable pronouncements would find an audience.

In this regard, the BBC never disappoints.

The Australian taxpayer has lost several billion dollars because of Flannery. His dogmatic stance that eastern Australia would never again see abundant rain let to fawning politicians building a slew of desalination plants, all of which are mothballed.

The man is a proven menace.

[JacChang]

Sorry investors, we're still working on finding that MH plane......

[Seastallion]

That's what you get when you vote a caveman like Mr. Rabbit into office!

A man that said"i love coal".

I guess you thought Gillard had all her marbles?

Tony Abbott is correct and I admire his stance.

For those who don't know he said this a few days ago.

'For the foreseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity. Coal is the foundation of the way we live because you cant have a modern lifestyle without energy,

You cant have a modern economy without energy and for now and for the foreseeable future, the foundation of Australias energy needs will be coal. The foundation of the worlds energy needs will be coal.

If we are serious about raising peoples living standards in less-developed countries, if we are serious about maintaining and improving living standards in countries like Australia we have to be serious about making the best use of coal.'

I don't disagree, but.....

Solar is reaching the tippiing point in terms of economics of giving coal a run for its money. It should have policy certainty.

Battery technology and simply the effective 'tax' of having to pay for a gold plated electricity infrastructure that won't fall to bits on the three of four days per year when everyone turns on their aircon is making alternatives competitive. I'd prefer more independent and varied and particularly self sufficient sources like rooftop solar as it negates the need for as many expensive polls and wires and is more tailoered to individual demand. No need to keep generators running to meet short term spikes in demand etc.

Part of the reason why there is a backlash to renewable energy investment is cause of the havoc renewables are causing the traditional electricity business model which has forever forecase rising energy consumption and used that as the basis to justify their expansions in the polls and wires.

Quite simply, they want their return on investment and renewables are making that harder.

If the electricity companies screwed up their investment models with bad electricity forecasts, they should wear it, and not have the government given them a quasi bail out.

And just before you decide to label me, I work in energy...and have dealt with coal since 2007.

What isn't mentioned are the initiatives the Oz government has to subsidise rooftop solar systems...grid connect not battery.

My parents took up the offer a few years ago. Mum has a negative power bill each year, ie she makes money from it.

[Ulic]

This renewable "Green" energy is mostly smoke and mirrors as far as I am concerned. On closer inspection the

amount of energy it takes to make the base of the wind turbines, and the rest of the manufacturing and installation

process combined with the limited amount of electricity they produce makes them neither green nor cost effective.

Solar may be much better in the long run and may work well in many places. Much more reliable for planning

and close to solving the nighttime storage of energy problems. In Ontario Canada the government has (recently ended)

a solar energy scheme where people can install solar panels on there home that feed the electricity back into the grid.

They are paid 20 times the rate that nuclear power plants are paid. .80 cents a KWH vs. .04 cents a KWH. (20 year contracts

guaranteed by the government) However, big solar farms are still being built, that are paid .40 cents KWH again with 20 year

guaranteed government contracts. I cant see how this will make business in Ontario competitive with the rising cost of electricity.

Never mind the increased cost to consumers. For me to responsibly decrease greenhouse gas emissions, convert all

coal fired generating stations to natural gas, increase taxes on gasoline and vehicles getting less than 40 mpg and

end taxes on vehicles getting more. (adjust upward over time) Bring in new insulation standards in homes and buildings

to lower both heating and cooling costs. I know many will disagree but "green energy", really should be green and not

green washed. Using less energy should be a bigger focus than uncompetitive "green" energy production. Of course I would pay

a premium rate for truly green energy but not 20-40 times the rate.

[bkkcanuck8]

There are many problems with renewables.

With the current grid, the generation of electricity is a constant supply which individuals and businesses rely on.

With renewables you could have sun and power generated, or no power generated. With wind, same thing. This means that even if you build a bunch of renewable energy power plants like this, you will still either have to build the same fossil fuel generators as backup -- or you will have to build a way to store energy (which generally in itself is not efficient). If the storage of energy is in batteries, they in themselves and expensive and definitely not clean technology. So yes, you can encourage people to install solar panels and hook them up to the grid and pay them for the power -- and since all the backup will still have to be built -- you are really subsidizing the power put on the grid since you are going to have to have backup supply anyways.

The US government has subsidized a bunch of solar panel companies, who were not able to make money since their production costs were greater than they could buy the same panels from Chinese producers - and went bust. Money down the drain. Just because you invest in manufacturing does not mean it will pay back the investment.

Just a few small problems with the current scheme.

[Doc46]

Renewable Power,,,,What a load of Crap,, RENEW the NUCLEAR power technology to a level that the nuclear power can be safely used as a power to power Power stations and all transport,like cars trucks trains ships and factories ,than we can say goodbye to fossil fuels.

Now that I would call renewable power

[Jay Sata]

The world would not be where it is today without fossil fuels.

Call me selfish but I don't care how the people in 100 years will cope just as those a century ago never worried about me.

Let all the greenies have their technology and try and live off it alone.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

And just before you decide to label me, I work in energy...and have dealt with coal since 2007.

Really? I didn't know you were a coal miner, LOL.

If "renewables" were such a good deal the oil and coal companies would be on it like stink on sh*t.

But it takes "greenies" to want to invest in something that doesn't work when the sun doesn't shine. Oh wait. Where else is it that I heard the sun

doesn't shine?

Where is this "renewable" resource? Do they mean we burn the sun out making electricity and then build a new sun?

I really can't get behind these greenies who use slogans instead of science to tell us what we need. We have at least 100 years of coal, natural gas and oil and by then surely someone will have perfected a truly sustainable energy such as hydrogen or whatever it will be.

Whatever it is will have to work 24/7/365, be cost effective and clean. We DON'T have that yet.

[NeverSure]

In the US the Columbia River is basically between the states of Oregon and Washington. It is the wind outlet for the prevailing winds which come from the Pacific Ocean. The winds dam up against the Cascade Mountains, and then rush through this gorge which was formed by the huge river.

As the air enters the gorge it speeds up and I know of no windier place to put wind turbines. Wind farms have been built there but they still lose money. It simply costs too much to build and site one for the amount of electricity it can generate even with good wind. This isn't to mention the land cost or the blight on the landscape.

There are several hydroelectric dams on that river that produce the real renewable energy. There is also a nuclear power plant that gets its cooling from that river. The wind turbines are a feel-good do-little blight on the landscape.

Whole flocks of migrating wild geese fly into those blades because they can't see them or don't recognize them when they are spinning, and the geese are killed. We call the geese Canadian Geese and they are gorgeous.

Edited November 10, 2014 by NeverSure

[godden]

Don't get me started on this one.

[samran]

-snip-

And just before you decide to label me, I work in energy...and have dealt with coal since 2007.

Really? I didn't know you were a coal miner, LOL.

If "renewables" were such a good deal the oil and coal companies would be on it like stink on sh*t.

But it takes "greenies" to want to invest in something that doesn't work when the sun doesn't shine. Oh wait. Where else is it that I heard the sun

doesn't shine?

Where is this "renewable" resource? Do they mean we burn the sun out making electricity and then build a new sun?

I really can't get behind these greenies who use slogans instead of science to tell us what we need. We have at least 100 years of coal, natural gas and oil and by then surely someone will have perfected a truly sustainable energy such as hydrogen or whatever it will be.

Whatever it is will have to work 24/7/365, be cost effective and clean. We DON'T have that yet.

Nothing is perfect just yet but there is a fundamental change happening to the extent where electricity demand in Australia from traditional sources is decreasing, for the first time ever.

Hydrocarbons are going to be around for a while yet, and until there is an easily transportable form of energy as versatile as gas and oil then it is going to enjoy a comparative advantage regardless of what the greenies say.

But you overlay that with security of supply and then fuel diversity becomes important and this is where things like solar, maybe or maybe not wind, become important.

I do believe in climate chance (but let's not debate that here) but even I'll admit that until there is money and profitability in alternative energy then a reliance on 'renewables' is just pie in the sky stuff. But people I work with are increasingly becoming interested in solar and I can only see that continue.

But they face stiff competition from the corporate handouts the mining and oil industry gets, as shown in this report

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814?WT.mc_id=Corp_News-Nov2014%7CNews-Nov2014_FBP%7Cabcnews

And just to confirm, yes, I get paid by a big mining company at present and for the past 7 years they just happen to be coal orientated ones. What can I say, I like the big trucks and diggers! But even they understand the challenges and the chances in technology, and they also invest in renewables.

[RickBradford]

I do believe in climate chance

Me too.

It's interesting to see how the US is already revolutionizing the economics of energy with its fracking operations, and if anyone gets serious about developing the vast methane hydrate resources around the world, that will fossil-fuel earth for hundreds of years on its own, by which time humanity will surely have figured out how to manage fusion energy in a cost-effective way.

[samran]

I do believe in climate chance

Me too.

It's interesting to see how the US is already revolutionizing the economics of energy with its fracking operations, and if anyone gets serious about developing the vast methane hydrate resources around the world, that will fossil-fuel earth for hundreds of years on its own, by which time humanity will surely have figured out how to manage fusion energy in a cost-effective way.

It comes down to energy security. Fracking has transformed the U.S. equation and the us will follow it's own path depending on its energy needs and sources available to it.

For a place like Thailand, which is running out of its own gas sources in the gulf, it has to make a choice.

1 be overly reliant on piped gas from Myanmar?

2 import LNG which is 4 times more expensive than piped gas. And then be reliant on qatar for example?

3 start using more coal. But the only coal which is exonomical to transport is high CV coal which you pay a premium for.

So into this mix renewables start to become attractive given the effective high costs of the imported alternative.

[Old Croc]

To Neversure.

I really thing that using the term "Blight on the Landscape" against wind farms in support of coal energy is somewhat disingenuous.

And it was very "Greenie" of you to be concerned about the Canadian Geese.

Are they very tasty?

[Seastallion]

In the US the Columbia River is basically between the states of Oregon and Washington. It is the wind outlet for the prevailing winds which come from the Pacific Ocean. The winds dam up against the Cascade Mountains, and then rush through this gorge which was formed by the huge river.

As the air enters the gorge it speeds up and I know of no windier place to put wind turbines. Wind farms have been built there but they still lose money. It simply costs too much to build and site one for the amount of electricity it can generate even with good wind. This isn't to mention the land cost or the blight on the landscape.

There are several hydroelectric dams on that river that produce the real renewable energy. There is also a nuclear power plant that gets its cooling from that river. The wind turbines are a feel-good do-little blight on the landscape.

Whole flocks of migrating wild geese fly into those blades because they can't see them or don't recognize them when they are spinning, and the geese are killed. We call the geese Canadian Geese and they are gorgeous.

1024web.jpg

2193898638_d5be7dc5ae_b.jpg

gr.jpg

Do wind farms have any more land cost, or are they any more a blight on the landscape, than fossil fuel power stations?

[Si Thea01]

Its a temporary blip. Unless there is some major disaster that Abbot is able to ride the back of like Howard did, the country will come back to it's senses and kick this nasty piece or work out.

Why have you written this? The topic is about Australia losing out on renewable energy, not an open forum to denigrate the Australian Prime Minister. A real nasty piece of work! On what do you base this? He is a Rhodes scholar, volunteer fire fighter and life saver, as well as a decent man. Happily married with three children and has no skeletons that the muckrakers, despite all their attempts to find some, cannot.

You are just like the left wing press gallery in Australia, and if you're and Aussie, then you would know to whom I am referring. They always twist words, a prime example is when he said he was going to "Shirt Front" Mr Putin. This means CONFRONT for your benefit, not wanting to fight Mr Putin as the Labor Party lefties and press said and wrote respectively.

He has ridden many 1000's of kilometres to raise funds for charities and is very passionate about the aboriginals of our country, even to the extent of living with them once a year. This is to enable him to see and hear first hand their problems and then implement policies to assist them.

Now lets hear you reasons for your nastiness, come on, don't be frightened, let's see how fair dinkum you are and tell us what you base your nasty piece of writing on. I am sick and tired of you lefties, your biases and lairs. It is so easy to denigrate someone in words without reason and the reason you do this is because all you want to do is express your obvious hatred toward this man. You do not have the ability to debate your side of the argument with facts, as you have none, so you just write as you have above. Doesn't my point about the topic say it all? You can not even stick to the subject.

Are you Australian? What is your claim to fame? Do you know the man? Have you done anything for anyone else other than yourself? I would say No, None, No and No. Go find yourself a life, do something that will benefit others and learn how to articulate your argument, not just write you left wing opinionated nasty piece of work here.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Si Thea01