Australian Government pulls the plug on household solar investments(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Australian Government pulls the plug on household solar investments
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-pulls-the-plug-on-household-solar-20150712-gian0u.html?stb=twt
57 comments
I don't find this kind of comment very helpful. You can't be slightly more charitable to the positions of a government a majority of your fellow citizens voted for? You don't have to agree with them, but you can attempt to understand why they might hold those views without needing to be racist or stupid.
I'm not keen on many of the positions of President Obama, Harry Reid or Rand Paul, but I wouldn't describe them as "mouth breathers" on HN.
I'm not keen on many of the positions of President Obama, Harry Reid or Rand Paul, but I wouldn't describe them as "mouth breathers" on HN.
His description of Tony Abbott is a complement compared to his actual incompetence as a human being.
I'd much rather vote for a monkey than him. His stupidity and incompetence, among other thing, makes me ashamed to be an Australian.
I'd much rather vote for a monkey than him. His stupidity and incompetence, among other thing, makes me ashamed to be an Australian.
I'm not a citizen of Australia, they didn't win a majority they won a plurality, and regardless I don't feel any compunction when describing Abbott as a mouth breather.
As I explained clearly in my comment, I have never experienced anything like the paucity of talent in Australian politics. I'm capable of disagreeing with the government of the day while respecting the intelligence or talent at play.
I'm perfectly comfortable with my description of Abbott and I stand by it.
As I explained clearly in my comment, I have never experienced anything like the paucity of talent in Australian politics. I'm capable of disagreeing with the government of the day while respecting the intelligence or talent at play.
I'm perfectly comfortable with my description of Abbott and I stand by it.
I have to ask - are you using "mouth-breather" as an insult?
Yes, to imply low intelligence. I think it's an American term? Though I'm not entirely sure where I picked it up from.
Seems a bit odd to use it as an insult though, as quite a few people (myself included) are more or less 'mouth breathers' because of medical conditions.
We all breath through our mouths. I could have described him as having 'slopey shoulders', I doubt the progenitor of that insult intended people with back problems to take insult, though I guess some may take it too literally.
The majority of the population did not vote for the complete undermining of the clean energy sector in Australia. We were promised a moderate, consultative government with "no surprises" as Tony Abbott once put it. A country with such a rich history of scientific innovation deserves so much better.
I am Australian. I think our current government is utterly lamentable, but that we get the government we deserve, and it reflects poorly upon us.
If we want a better government we need to do something about it.
If we want a better government we need to do something about it.
As an Australian, I agree with every word of the post you are replying to.
[deleted]
While I agree with your assessment of the LNP, I think the ALP currently lead in the two party preferred. There is some rather nasty economic data coming our way over the next 12 months and I can't see the LNP building support on the back of this.
The best source for polling information is the Financial Review Poll Explorer http://www.afr.com/data/polling.aspx?type=pops&dimensions=wi...
Another one is Poll Bludger which also has running analysis:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/
[deleted]
Yes it seems you are correct about the polls, and I agree the position of the Liberals is only going to weaken along with the economy.
I'm actually not surprised. I've always had the impression that Australia is rather conservative and backward looking. Not that their treatment of refugees, or, on the other hand, the pathetic incident like the recent one with Johnny Depp, are the norme these days, but the fact that australia is becoming the favorite destination for right wing Americans disappointed with recent gay marriage ruling,that speaks volumes.
Subsidising the research of solar panels sounds like it might be a good idea, but subsidising the installation of solar panels... I don't see the use in that. Could you explain why you think subsidising the installation of solar panels is a good thing?
You decouple power supply from concentrated sources, this reduces the need for centralised base load power generation.
There are also gains in the community by establishing buy in from home owners, The concepts of sustainability are easier to grasp if its on your roof and you get a return on your investment.
And why not spend the tax money on this!
There are also gains in the community by establishing buy in from home owners, The concepts of sustainability are easier to grasp if its on your roof and you get a return on your investment.
And why not spend the tax money on this!
I'm not overly concerned with subsidising residential solar, however I think subsidising research and innovation in solar, wind, and other alternate energy systems is worthwhile and funds like this are one way of stimulating a market.
Also, you changed your question as I answered it.
Also, you changed your question as I answered it.
If you read the article, this is a profitable investment, not a subsidy.
Assuming it's a profitable investment, wouldn't this be an opportunity for corporations to take the place of the government? For example, banks could make loans to homeowners for solar installations that could be paid back with their energy savings.
[deleted]
> filled with progressive, intelligent people.
How did that government get elected then?
How did that government get elected then?
Simple. The implosion of the previous government (it changed leader multiple times) with rampant infighting combined with the sheer force of the Murdoch papers which are still influential in Australia.
If, as the top commenter says, Australians are so "smart and progressive", why are Murdoch papers so influential?
"Filled with" was intended as "there are plenty of" rather than "a majority of".
I live in an urban area, I would be more correct to say I am surrounded by progressive, intelligent people.
Australia is more conservative that either New Zealand or Britain, and the previous Labour government (and current opposition) are categorically hopeless.
Australia is more conservative that either New Zealand or Britain, and the previous Labour government (and current opposition) are categorically hopeless.
Can we remove the subsidies on all forms of energy generation and let the market work it out?
I suppose, at least, now the 'solar is cheaper than coal even without subsidies' crowd can have an opportunity to see if the theory plays out in practice.
Edit to add: also, CEFC could be considered a wealth-transfer mechanism to the already wealthy property owning class (I get that many 'home owners' have large debts, but humour me here). As someone who chooses to rent I am excluded from roof-top solar subsidies. I generally disagree with this discrimination, but don't have a comprehensive alternative off the top of my head.
Solar shouldn't need subsidies and the energy retailers shouldn't be forced to buy roof-top solar at non-market rates. Governments probably shouldn't try to pick winners, at least not Australian governments, they're notoriously bad at it.
I suppose, at least, now the 'solar is cheaper than coal even without subsidies' crowd can have an opportunity to see if the theory plays out in practice.
Edit to add: also, CEFC could be considered a wealth-transfer mechanism to the already wealthy property owning class (I get that many 'home owners' have large debts, but humour me here). As someone who chooses to rent I am excluded from roof-top solar subsidies. I generally disagree with this discrimination, but don't have a comprehensive alternative off the top of my head.
Solar shouldn't need subsidies and the energy retailers shouldn't be forced to buy roof-top solar at non-market rates. Governments probably shouldn't try to pick winners, at least not Australian governments, they're notoriously bad at it.
Only if you also calculate and charge a price on carbon emissions, and the current Australian government stopped that scheme last year.
I don't know why you down-voted my comment. I've up voted everything you've contributed here. I was asking a question, it wasn't intended to be rhetorical, and your response is valid and I agree with it.
I didn't down vote your comment, the timing was coincidental.
I responded to it because I think a removal of all subsidies alongside correctly pricing the consequences of consumption is a valid end-goal. Personally I'd continue to subsidise renewables because I approve of them but I agree politicians are generally bad at picking winners.
I responded to it because I think a removal of all subsidies alongside correctly pricing the consequences of consumption is a valid end-goal. Personally I'd continue to subsidise renewables because I approve of them but I agree politicians are generally bad at picking winners.
My apologies for the assumption.
Externalities can be negative or positive. I often see commenters bring up the negative externalities of coal but what about the positives: abundant, cheap, reliable electrical supply would have to be one. Employment in mining, processing, and transport of coal is another. A market for trains, trucks, mining equipment and supplies, etc. is another.
A market operates in the context of some rules / regulation. If the rules of the market don't penalise you from doing things that have negative side-effects for everyone, such as polluting the atmosphere, then you can still make a lot of money by doing stupid things, to the point that more expensive less-stupid things cannot compete.
> A comprehensive history of great business fortunes would show a disconcertingly large number that were made [where...] the enterpriser devised a silent way to commonize costs while continuing to privatize the profits. -- Garrett Hardin
> A comprehensive history of great business fortunes would show a disconcertingly large number that were made [where...] the enterpriser devised a silent way to commonize costs while continuing to privatize the profits. -- Garrett Hardin
I don't think I've ever read a positive piece of news from Australia regarding technology, Internet, law or (green) energy. Is the government there really as backwards thinking as it's portrayed? Most aussies I've talked to have seemed pretty liberal (but then again, they were also traveling abroad)
Australian's hey. I'm one, and Australian politics reminds me of all those things P.J. O'Rourke wrote.
"In the 2,500-year history of democracy since ancient Athens, a few politicians have arisen who more or less could be trusted with great powers, up to a point, briefly, in times of dire crisis, sort of."
Another of my favourites: " Individual politicians can’t save us either. Democracy means electing people. Politicians are the people who get elected. I’ve spent some time with politicians. I like politicians. I’m friends with politicians from both sides of the aisle. Politicians are fine until they stick their noses into things they don’t understand, such as most things. Then politicians turn into rachet-jawed purveyors of monkey doodle and baked wind. They are piddlers upon merit, beggars at the doors of accomplishment, thieves of livelihood, envy-coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people’s money. They are lapdogs of demagoguery returning to the vomit of collectivism. They are pig herders tending that sow who eats her young, the welfare state. They are muck-dwelling bottom feeders growing fat on the worries and disappointments of the electorate. They are the ditch carp in the great river of democracy. And that’s what one of their friends says."
"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata - a papier-mâché donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some send into the silly bastard."
I think Australia has managed to get by as well as it has in spite of it's more recent politicians not because of them, along with some favourable economic circumstances, which the current set of silly bastards appears to be doing their utmost undo. I'm not so concerned though because not only are politicians generally incompetent they're also mostly impotent and economics tends to exhibit some cyclical behaviour regardless of what this weeks politicians are up to.
"In the 2,500-year history of democracy since ancient Athens, a few politicians have arisen who more or less could be trusted with great powers, up to a point, briefly, in times of dire crisis, sort of."
Another of my favourites: " Individual politicians can’t save us either. Democracy means electing people. Politicians are the people who get elected. I’ve spent some time with politicians. I like politicians. I’m friends with politicians from both sides of the aisle. Politicians are fine until they stick their noses into things they don’t understand, such as most things. Then politicians turn into rachet-jawed purveyors of monkey doodle and baked wind. They are piddlers upon merit, beggars at the doors of accomplishment, thieves of livelihood, envy-coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people’s money. They are lapdogs of demagoguery returning to the vomit of collectivism. They are pig herders tending that sow who eats her young, the welfare state. They are muck-dwelling bottom feeders growing fat on the worries and disappointments of the electorate. They are the ditch carp in the great river of democracy. And that’s what one of their friends says."
"The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata - a papier-mâché donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some send into the silly bastard."
I think Australia has managed to get by as well as it has in spite of it's more recent politicians not because of them, along with some favourable economic circumstances, which the current set of silly bastards appears to be doing their utmost undo. I'm not so concerned though because not only are politicians generally incompetent they're also mostly impotent and economics tends to exhibit some cyclical behaviour regardless of what this weeks politicians are up to.
It's a pretty sad situation here in Australia.
The government is completely backwards but brilliant at demonising and wedging the main opposition party on a range of issues: national security, energy policy, human rights, immigration, law (ably assisted by the dominant Murdoch papers). So what is happening is the opposition party is capitulating on pretty much everything hoping that they will survive until the next election (which polls indicate they will win).
The government is completely backwards but brilliant at demonising and wedging the main opposition party on a range of issues: national security, energy policy, human rights, immigration, law (ably assisted by the dominant Murdoch papers). So what is happening is the opposition party is capitulating on pretty much everything hoping that they will survive until the next election (which polls indicate they will win).
Yes.
There's traveling abroad and then there's travelling to SE Asia (Bali). Which is just another place to get drunk. If you're in America or Europe the cost of travel prohibits most drunk idiots getting there.
On another note, the current government has taken every opportunity to move away from innovation. Just a few things they have done is deny climate change, abandoning the national broadband network and allow a giant coal mine to be dug in the middle of prime farming land. Meta Data retention, Citizen stripping legislation (its a privilege not a right!); and more.
The next election can not come fast enough for us. But the real cost is the damage this general trend does for research. Scientists don't look at Australia for opportunity anymore, they just leave.
On another note, the current government has taken every opportunity to move away from innovation. Just a few things they have done is deny climate change, abandoning the national broadband network and allow a giant coal mine to be dug in the middle of prime farming land. Meta Data retention, Citizen stripping legislation (its a privilege not a right!); and more.
The next election can not come fast enough for us. But the real cost is the damage this general trend does for research. Scientists don't look at Australia for opportunity anymore, they just leave.
I'm thinking that they've done this because although the government has been trying to abolish the CEFC and failed every time, they've now realised (thanks to the worryingly anti-renewable duo of Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm) that they can just start telling the CEFC to stop investing in things they don't want it investing in.
Of course, Australia's current energy policy is so misinformed it's not funny. There is a general perception amongst the more conservative side of politics that renewables will indefinitely require heavy subsidies, that India and China will be an inexhaustible coal market and that the use of wind and solar energy will have unintended consequences (be it health or economic). I'd think that all three of those perceptions are mostly false.
Of course, Australia's current energy policy is so misinformed it's not funny. There is a general perception amongst the more conservative side of politics that renewables will indefinitely require heavy subsidies, that India and China will be an inexhaustible coal market and that the use of wind and solar energy will have unintended consequences (be it health or economic). I'd think that all three of those perceptions are mostly false.
Looks like the current Australian and Canadian governments (Harper) want to fall into the extraction-economy trap and giving incentive to clever people to move elsewhere. Sad.
It makes some twisted sense though: What's a good position to be in, if you're a ruler?
Answer: You don't have an educated populace that might displace you or call you on your BS, and you don't need one because your economy exists upon extracting natural resources and only doing basic processing on them before export.
See Saudi Arabia.
It makes some twisted sense though: What's a good position to be in, if you're a ruler?
Answer: You don't have an educated populace that might displace you or call you on your BS, and you don't need one because your economy exists upon extracting natural resources and only doing basic processing on them before export.
See Saudi Arabia.
The "extraction-economy trap" comment reminded me of Jared Diamond's book Collapse. It has a chapter titled "Mining Australia", which starts like this:
> Mining in the literal sense -- i.e. the mining of coal, iron, and so on -- is a key to Australia's economy today, providing the largest share of its export earnings. In a metaphorical sense, however, mining is also key to Australia's environmental history and to its current predicament. That's because the essence of mining is to exploit resources that do not renew with time, and hence to deplete those resources. Since gold in the ground doesn't breed more gold and one thus has no need to take account of gold renewal rates, miners extract gold from a gold lode as rapidly as is economically feasible, until the lode is exhausted. Mining minerals may thus be contrasted with exploiting renewable resources -- such as forests, fish, and topsoil -- that do regenerate themselves by biological reproduction or by soil formation. Renewable resources can be exploited indefinitely, provided that one removes them at a rate less than the rate at which they regenerate. If however one exploits forests, fish, or topsoil at rates exceeding their renewal rates, they too will eventually be depleted to extinction, like the gold in a gold mine.
> Australia has been and still is "mining" its renewable resources as if they were mined minerals. That is, they are being overexploited at rates faster than their renewal rates, with the result that they are declining. At present rates, Australia's forests and fisheries will disappear long before its coal and iron reserves, which is ironic in view of the fact that the former are renewable but the latter aren't.
> While many other countries today besides Australia are mining their environments, Australia is an especially suitable choice for this final case study of past and present societies, for several reasons. It is a First World country, unlike Rwanda, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and China, but like the countries in which most of the likely readers of this book live. Among First World countries, its population and economy are much smaller and less complex than those of the U.S., Europe, or Japan, so that the Australian situation is more easily grasped.
(i've typed this out manually from my copy of the book, any stupid typos are my fault, etc)
> Mining in the literal sense -- i.e. the mining of coal, iron, and so on -- is a key to Australia's economy today, providing the largest share of its export earnings. In a metaphorical sense, however, mining is also key to Australia's environmental history and to its current predicament. That's because the essence of mining is to exploit resources that do not renew with time, and hence to deplete those resources. Since gold in the ground doesn't breed more gold and one thus has no need to take account of gold renewal rates, miners extract gold from a gold lode as rapidly as is economically feasible, until the lode is exhausted. Mining minerals may thus be contrasted with exploiting renewable resources -- such as forests, fish, and topsoil -- that do regenerate themselves by biological reproduction or by soil formation. Renewable resources can be exploited indefinitely, provided that one removes them at a rate less than the rate at which they regenerate. If however one exploits forests, fish, or topsoil at rates exceeding their renewal rates, they too will eventually be depleted to extinction, like the gold in a gold mine.
> Australia has been and still is "mining" its renewable resources as if they were mined minerals. That is, they are being overexploited at rates faster than their renewal rates, with the result that they are declining. At present rates, Australia's forests and fisheries will disappear long before its coal and iron reserves, which is ironic in view of the fact that the former are renewable but the latter aren't.
> While many other countries today besides Australia are mining their environments, Australia is an especially suitable choice for this final case study of past and present societies, for several reasons. It is a First World country, unlike Rwanda, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and China, but like the countries in which most of the likely readers of this book live. Among First World countries, its population and economy are much smaller and less complex than those of the U.S., Europe, or Japan, so that the Australian situation is more easily grasped.
(i've typed this out manually from my copy of the book, any stupid typos are my fault, etc)
"Looks like the current Australian and Canadian governments (Harper) want to fall into the extraction-economy trap and giving incentive to clever people to move elsewhere."
People will move away from Australia because there they would have to pay for their solar systems out of their own pockets?
People will move away from Australia because there they would have to pay for their solar systems out of their own pockets?
No. But clever people who work in the clean energy sector will.
We have already seen investment drop in the sector as a result of the constant undermining and ensuing uncertainty. When companies leave, clever people do too.
We have already seen investment drop in the sector as a result of the constant undermining and ensuing uncertainty. When companies leave, clever people do too.
Actually Saudi Arabia is planning to install huge amount of solar. Mainly because they want to sell more of the black stuff abroad rather than use it internally.
"Pearls before swine". Australia could turn its curse (extremely high, equatorial-like solar irradiance [1]) into a bless, if only politics were not so short-sighted.
[1] http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/08/3tier_solar...
[1] http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/08/3tier_solar...
thank you for making me aware that http://cleantechnica.com/ exists.
How long will renewables need subsidies? Does anyone have a study that projects this?
Well, coal is still subsidized, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Subsidising renewable energy is one thing, but this idea of decentralised energy production is just plain stupid. We should spend more money on research, i.a. on fusion power, and a lot less on subsidies.
How is decentralised energy production stupid ? The combination of solar panels with excess power being routed to battery storage or electric car seems like a perfectly legitimate option for consumers.
And Australia will never really be able to contribute a huge amount to the fusion power effort. We lack the funds and sheer combined brainpower of the EU or US. But lots of small scale innovation e.g. Wifi has always been something we've excelled at.
And Australia will never really be able to contribute a huge amount to the fusion power effort. We lack the funds and sheer combined brainpower of the EU or US. But lots of small scale innovation e.g. Wifi has always been something we've excelled at.
decentralised energy sources seem like a great idea, if you want civilisation to be more robust against disasters, which we're already seeing more and more of and will continue to do so as we warm the planet.
decentralised decarbonised energy sources seems superficially like win-win: as we wreck the planet, they're more robust, and it also slows the rate we're wrecking the planet.
i agree it would probably be helpful to spend a lot more money on research.
it would also be a good idea to spend less money and effort on useless consumer junk, and have a good hard think about the long-term implications of the philosophy of economic growth as the solution to all problems.
decentralised decarbonised energy sources seems superficially like win-win: as we wreck the planet, they're more robust, and it also slows the rate we're wrecking the planet.
i agree it would probably be helpful to spend a lot more money on research.
it would also be a good idea to spend less money and effort on useless consumer junk, and have a good hard think about the long-term implications of the philosophy of economic growth as the solution to all problems.
It's not about subsidies, it's about investments.
[deleted]
This is a day after they directed the CEFC to no longer invest in wind generation. The Liberal government are quite open about their desire to shut down the CEFC in its entirety, this is just one step in that direction.
I've lived decades in New Zealand and Britain and moved to Australia a few years ago. It is a wonderful country filled with progressive, intelligent people. I have never experience anything even remotely comparable to the paucity of talent in Australian politics, we are ruled by neanderthals.
The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is a xenophobic mouth-breathing anachronism direct from the 1950s who struggles to form full sentences. He's recently announced a commission into wind turbines and is on the record as saying coal is 'good for humanity'. He's not being ironic or making a clever economic argument, both would be beyond him.
His cabinet are a mixture of the deranged and the spineless, the Treasurer recently agreed that the actions of new mothers claiming paid parental leave was 'basically fraud', called them 'rorters', all the while he claims $270/night in travel allowance to pay rent on a property owned by his wife while he stays in the capital. The arrogance and stupidity of these idiots is unparalleled.
Depressingly, if there were an election tomorrow they would likely win another term. Australia calls itself 'the lucky country', well, it's good to be lucky if you're stupid I guess, but you won't stay rich with this sort of leadership.