Abolish Renewable Energy Targets

Australia’s Renewable Energy Target Scheme is an incredibly bad idea. Coercing and bribing people to waste community savings on unpredictable and unreliable solar and wind electricity should end immediately.

There is nothing smart about trying to run a 21^st century industrial society using “green energy” to generate electricity. It is costly, diffuse, intermittent and needs 100% backup capacity.

Solar power excels in growing trees, grass and crops and can be useful for heating water or providing electricity in remote locations providing there is also a back-up diesel generator or a bank of batteries in the shed.

Wind power can also be useful in applications where its capricious performance does not matter, such as pumping water to a tank or storage dam.

The green energy financial disaster developing in Europe shows that Australia should stop promoting green energy to limit further damage to consumers and businesses with soaring electricity costs and declining reliability of supply.

The dismal European green record includes bankrupt companies, spiralling electricity prices, industry closures and relocations, financial crises, unstable power supply, environmental uglification, bird slaughter, property devaluation and . . . increasing coal usage.

We must abolish all renewable energy targets, subsidies, mandates and price support.

People who feel green energy suits their needs or beliefs should remain free to invest in it. But our whole society should not be forced to gamble with something as important as our future energy supply.Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

Comments

[Anton]

1.

The dismal European green record includes ... and failed national economies.

This global green bullshit will end soon and suddenly, leaving countries without cheap energy at a huge disadvantage.

[Nathan Zamprogno]

2.

I disagree vehemently with Mr Forbes.
Our Western, pluralist, technological civilisation has been based on an exponential increase in energy usage (an idea suggested in a cosmological context by Nikolai Kardashev in the 60s). Yes, we may have coal to last centuries, but I'll support the push for renewables because it pushes technology forward, because it removes our political dependence on oil from middle-eastern nations whose social systems are stuck in a pre-enlightenment rut, and because I want to safeguard our civilisation against the catastrophe that would ensue if our access to petrochemicals ran out or were severed by war.

Mr Forbes' thinking represents the past, and is narrow and lacks any vision for the future of society. If he had his way, we'd be burning coal to make electricity and burning petrol to move stuff around a century from now. Now imagine the developing nations of the world consuming those resources at the same rate as the West does now. A better alternative must be found.

[Anton]

3.

I'll support the push for renewables because it pushes technology forward

No it doesn't. Using a less economical energy supply results in a lower national income, with less money available to do real research. Government has shown a permanent ability to back losers, we waste money on dead end technologies preventing commercial forces from researching viable options.

[Allan]

4.

Did you actually read the part that clearly and correctly says that Green alarmist lunacy is already responsible for, "bankrupt companies, spiralling electricity prices, industry closures and relocations, financial crises, unstable power supply, environmental uglification, bird slaughter, property devaluation"?

There is available evidence that says that coal used for electricity production is not the big bogeyman that people such as yourself would have us believe. In any case, there is already alternative methods of producing electricity that don't include grotesque and damaging windmill farms and unreliable and expensive solar. The trouble with the real alternatives is that they don't suit the lunatic Green agenda.

There are also alternatives to petrol, but are they economical and are they free from any undesireable side effects?

"A better alternative must be found." Maybe, but that is not going to happen by following the lunacy of the Green alarmists and the manipulator of their minds the UN and its IPCC. They cook the books, lie and foster economy damaging carbon pricing schemes that are nothing but a redistribution of wealth to achieve their own agenda.

[Nathan Zamprogno]

5.

Civil discourse is dead if you can only portray views that differ from your own on a matter like energy policy as "alarmist lunacy".

I made no mention of climate change in my response. This was deliberate, since I believe there are good reasons to promote a mandated and increasing renewable energy quota that are unrelated to the environment.
If there was significant political instability in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz was closed, and petrol rose to ten times the current price, estimate the economic impact. Australia, like other Western nations, must seek and invest in energy alternatives, even if presently it comes a relative higher cost.

I find this argument compelling as a justification, even thought it has nothing to do with the IPCC or the Carbon Tax.

[Allan]

6.

I do not believe in calling a spade anything but a spade. If civil discourse means that you can't put all the cards on the table because it may upset someone's sensibilities then I consider it a useless concept. Political correctness comes to mind.

At this time in history the renewable energy argument is very much linked to climate change, global warming, carbon pollution, or whatever they want to call it this month. The UN/IPCC manipulation of Green agenda is reality whether you like it or not.

Your argument that we must develop alternative forms of energy regardless of the economic cost because of foreign oil ownership dismisses, as I said, that there are already alternatives available to us, but at probably the same cost and risk.

Also, you now appear only to consider oil as a form of energy and fail to include coal and gas of which we have substantial deposits that will see us into the foreseeable future. Again, we have cost effective alternatives to coal and gas that the Green alarmists won't have a bar of. Two minutes of thought would produce at least three viable alternatives.

For the very reasons expressed by Anton at comment 3, government dabbling in the matter provides little more than an economic stone around our necks simply because they bend to the dangerous demands of minority groups and the craftiness of the UN and its agencies.

We don't need to mandate anything. Let us leave it to commercial interests who will, as they always have in the past, develop any alternatives needed without the endemic waste of government that always becomes an economic burden foisted upon the populace.

[Brian Richard Allen]

7.

.... If there was significant political instability in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz was closed, and petrol rose to ten times the current price, estimate the economic impact. Australia, like other Western nations, must seek and invest in energy alternatives ....

You mean like the from 1941 tried-and-true 'fracking' that has seen America's proven petroleum reserves expanded to already exceed those of the Gulf states and Russia combined and coal-seam gas development that will likely keep the Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilized World energy independent for several thousand years?

Those kinds of already Laissez-Faire/FRee-Enterprise-developed and not-to-be-confused-with-fascistic-power-grabs disguised-as-"energy-policy," energy alternatives?

"Australia," by the way (nor "other Western nations") does not "invest."

I believe it likely that, as do fascissocialists (AKA "statists" AKA "corporatists") you are confusing the feral and other gummints' mindless squandering of the confiscated wealth of its earners and owners: Australia's most innovative, creative, productive and industrious Men, that is; with such FRee Men's free employment of their earned and owned wealth. Quite a different matter.

Brian Richard Allen

[John Mc]

8.

There's a big difference between researching alternative energy sources with public funding and forcing the public to pay higher prices for alternative energy sources as part of their consumption.

Maybe it is worthwhile to allocate research funds to alternative energy and to get these technologies developed, to be utilised when they become economically viable. That way we don't lower anyone's standard of living (much) in pursuit of energy utopia. Whether we do this, and to what extent, should probably be decided democratically.

If we force people to pay higher prices for energy as part of their daily consumption when we don't need to, we lower their standard of living and put the brakes on human development (as Anton has pointed out correctly above). It's the ALP/Greens fallacy that using alternative energy when there are cheaper options available is good for humanity.

[Anton]

9.

Which government regulations invented fire, harnessing animals, waterwheels, windmills, oil, refined oil, steam engines, jet engines, reciprocating internal combustion engines, electrochemical power, electric generators or steam turbines?

Google provides nothing.

The only energy source government can claim some input to in nuclear, which they do not want to use.

Picking winners?

[Nathan Zamprogno]

10.

Governments can and ought to play a role. I find rhetoric that dismisses any government influence or intervention into a market as either "statism" (or worse) as sounding like the Tea Party, which is a direction, friends, we do not want to go.
For example, one direction Australia should go is toward Nuclear power. This won't happen without both substantial government support for basic research and regulation. We could lead the world in pioneering new nuclear technology such as Thorium reactors, but The Market simply isn't going to give us that without state support on a sustained basis.

Lastly, I'd ask you to reflect that if you live in a capital city and have ever taken a train into the CBD, then you've just benefitted from a piece of infrastructure that required a huge capital investment from the State, because purely commercial mechanisms were again incapable of providing it by itself. And lo, today the NSW Liberal / National government is cleaving true to this valid truth by investing public money in the North West rail link.

I'm vexed by the modern conception of Conservatism as supposedly representing minimal regulation and minimal taxation. The issue isn't government reach, it's government competence.

[Allan]

11.

"The issue isn't government reach, it's government competence." Really?

Australia and indeed the world is where it is today as a result of "government competence".

[Anton]

12.

The issue isn't government reach, it's government competence

It is highly unlikely, probably impossible to have competence in government while politics is a lucrative career. That is because competence is not relevant in being elected, while prostituting your ideals for a "safe seat" are essential.

Passenger rail only looks viable because of legacy (it is already there) and governments trying to stack everything into the CBD while giving no consideration for suburban residents. In a properly planned city buses would be preferred over rail and distribution of offices and factories to suburbs and surrounding towns would be encouraged. But the CBD dwellers vote left, right?

[John Mc]

13.

Government is made up of people just like everyone else. Where does this bizarre belief come from that politicians are 'special' people who are more competent than those in private industry?

It's ridiculous to suggest that people in government are somehow capable of achieving something, where as those same people would not be able to achieve the same outcome in private industry. Unless you think that being able to force people to pay for your products, or being able to confiscate people's property, or shut down the competition rather than openly compete is a good thing. In terms of 'competence' that is the only advantage government has over private industry - it's certainly not more innovative or capable - it can shut down the competition by force. That's not the way to get better outcomes; it's just another path to mediocrity.

Big-government conservatism is just like socialism: the centralisation of decision making away from the people, and the imposition of these decisions through force. And it delivers the same quality of outcome.

Incidentally, there is a substantial base of the Liberal Party who hold to the notion that government isn't more competent or able than private society. That's not why we have government. This base still holds that free markets, individual liberty and small, efficient is the way to go. The old-school conservatives better learn how to work with them because that is the future of the Liberal Party.

[Allan]

14.

G'Day John Mc, normally I would give some level of support to what you have to say. However, reading your comments at 13 I am confused by your comment, "In terms of 'competence' that is the only advantage government has over private industry".

Your opening gambit was, "Government is made up of people just like everyone else. Where does this bizarre belief come from that politicians are 'special' people who are more competent than those in private industry?"

The two statements are at odds with each other. Care to clear this up?

[John Mc]

15.

Allan, you'll notice that the world 'competence' is in inverted commas, suggesting that it's a not the literal meaning of the word being used.

The point being the only extra thing the government has over private society is that it can legally use force to compel people to do things.

People who work for government, including our elected representatives, aren't any smarter than others in society. They make mistakes and poor choices just like other people. The are tempted to do the wrong thing just like other people, and often they actually do the wrong thing, just like everyone else. They have the same moral failings as everyone else, and the same weaknesses as everyone else.

Hence, it is very silly when people like Nathan Zamprogno above, think that it doesn't matter how big government is, because it's naturally going to have some special advantage over the private sector, making it more competent and less likely to fail than market solutions. This is simply not true.

Also, I find it quite amazing that Liberal Party people like Nathan Zamprogno (who a google search will suggest has deep connections with the Liberal Party) would dismiss classical liberal ideas like small, efficient government and free markets as unimportant, and claim that we should just judge government on it's competence. That's just as silly as the popular saying "the best form of government is a benevolent dictator". The strength of the Liberal Party is that it holds to classical liberal ideology as it's moral footing, and this ideology works, delivering prosperity, happiness and peace for the community that chooses it.

[Allan]

16.

Whoo up John, I was not discounting what you had written, what I was doing was trying to clear up an obvious contradiction. It was a contradiction regardless of what you say about inverted commas.

I am not attacking what you said or the theme of your contribution, so don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

[Nathan Zamprogno]

17.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/clean-energy-switch-possible-by-2030-at-fossil-fuel-prices-20130823-2sgyc.html

"Switching Australia to 100 per cent renewable power within decades could end up costing the same as continuing to use fossil fuels, a study based on the AEMO and other modelling by Treasury, the CSIRO and the University of NSW research."

You don't have to be a leftie or ignorant of economics to argue against the short sighted thesis of the original essay we're commenting on here. A gradual shift to 100% renewables over a period of 20 years represents sound economics and backed by science.

Suggesting that I'm dismissing "classical Liberal ideas" by advocating renewable energy is a nonsense. "Conservativism" means making necessary changes to preserve the durability of our entire technological civilisation, and taking steps to mitigate the risks entailed by using up a rapidly diminishing resource (or one to which access in the future may be imperilled by global political changes).

[John Mc]

18.

If it represents 'sound economics' and is really viable, as suggested by 'backed by science', then why do these technologies need government propping-up to exist? When the basic premise doesn't hold, a wise person would view any subsequent claims with a sceptical eye.

Like your public infrastructure examples above, they are funded by government because they are not economically viable in their own right. This raises the obvious questions about whether the benefits of these services to the community really outweigh the cost, and we should be extremely vigorous with our analysis when someone is trying to make this case through rhetoric rather than a balance sheet.

In actual fact, what we've probably got with things such as your train example is a wealth transfer system rather than the claimed overall net benefit to society from central planning and enforced participation. In other words, the government spending your money probably isn't really creating extra value compared to people spending their own money (in fact, it's probably a net cost to society when you include the cost of bureaucrats to run it etc). But rather we have a welfare program where rich people subsidise the transport needs of poor people, and this is seen as positive by the social justice crowd, and there is a voting bloc of public transport users to make it worthwhile for the politicians to keep sustaining the public transport infrastructure. We're not creating extra value, we just have a little bit of popular socialism!

Similarly with your renewable case, I think a detailed look would prove that we're not creating extra value through the subsidising and enforced use of these energy sources (although, the time may come in the future when this is the case and their use will occur spontaneously). The dangerous thing is that it's not a bit of popular socialism that you're getting with this. The entrenched interests are companies that are not creating value but making money through the government-mandated use of their products, people with dangerous ideologies like Greens who believe that human beings should be subjugated to nature, or anti-capitalists who hate the idea of the cheap energy society and the wealth creation that it provides.

This is why renewables are viewed on this site with such extreme scepticism. It really is perfectly natural for Liberal Party people to be sceptical of anything that can only exist via an expensive and far reaching big government program.

BTW, we leave every decade with more known economically viable and obtainable natural reserves of this 'rapidly diminishing resource' than we had in the previous decade. The resource is certainly finite, but it is not rapidly diminishing to the point that we should be less efficient from an economic sense in our use of energy in trying to move away from it. That will set back human standards of living and technological progress; something the Greens might like us to do, but certainly something a Liberal would not entertain.

[Nathan Zamprogno]

19.

Really? So no government should ever spend a cent of their own money on public transport, infrastructure, research or even subsidise the public-private partnerships that get good schemes off the ground when capitalism alone can't provide them?

Considering that this is an extreme view, and has never represented the policy of any government, Labor or Liberal, in in any jurisdiction, ever, means that it is not I who am arguing the outsider or "non-Liberal" position here, it is yourself.

[John Mc]

20.

You've just proposed nationalised renewable energy programs that would be radical for the Greens, and you're calling my position extreme!?

Good luck getting the Libs to adopt your renewable energy regime; I'm sure it will be a hit with the party members. You might as well as add gay marriage and making Islam the official state religion of Australia. They'll have a similar chance of success.

BTW, governments don't spend 'their own money'. They spend the citizen's money.