Menu lock

Federal

Jan 15, 2014

Tony Abbott’s half-baked war on renewable energy

The Abbott government seems to hate renewable energy, but the march of progress is unstoppable at this point. The only question is, when will the government get out of the way?

solar panels

Last week it was quietly announced that the Australian Cleantech Competition would henceforth be known as the Australian Technologies Competition. It was another subtle reminder of how the new Australian conservative government is going about the rephrasing of Australia’s energy future. Anything that involves the words climate, clean energy, or cleantech are considered projects or institutions non grata.

In the public arena, it’s not just a renaming that’s taking place, but a concerted attack on renewables. For the second time in as many weeks, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has criticised renewable energy, its intermittency and its supposed costs — repeating the force-fed lines from his main business adviser, Maurice Newman, extremist blogs and some mainstream media, and encouraged by the fossil fuel incumbents, whose greatest fear is that their coal- and gas-fired generation is being sidelined and rendered unprofitable by the growing capacity of wind and solar.

Abbott’s complaints fail on numerous counts. For a start, the Renewable Energy Target is having little impact on retail prices. The Queensland Competition Authority notes in its latest finding that the large-scale renewable target (the apparent subject of the new government’s attacks) will cost Queensland households $26 a year, or about 1.3% of their bills — about half the rise in retail bills caused by soaring gas prices.

Wind and solar do not need new back-up power. South Australia has got to 31% wind and solar without the need for any new equipment. That’s because most of the peaking plants that respond to changes in demand — and supply — already exist to cope when a whole bunch of people switch on air-conditioners at the same time, or when coal- or gas-fired generation has unexpected shutdowns, such as when the Millmerran coal-fired generator shut down last March, or the two major gas generators lost large amounts of capacity in South Australia. The difference with wind and solar is that at least their output is predictable.

Abbott’s outburst are cheered, and sometimes inspired from the sidelines, by elements of the mainstream media. The Australian took another bash at Germany last weekend, which it likes to cite as what happens to a country when it moves away from baseload — coal and nuclear — and towards renewables. The newspaper’s principal complaints were there were more coal plants, more emissions, and more costs.

Germany is the nightmare scenario for the fossil fuel industry because if the biggest manufacturing economy in Europe can wean itself off nuclear, coal and gas, then so can everyone else — which is why its policies are attacked with such gusto.

What The Australian omits to tell its readers is that coal-fired generators coming on line now were planned and construction was begun well before Fukushima, and before the extent of the rapid growth in renewables was acknowledged. The net impact is a lot more coal projects are being abandoned. The country’s big three utilities — RWE, E.ON and Vattenfall — have made it clear they intend to build no new fossil fuel plants, because some of them are having to close new plants almost as quickly as they are opened.

Investment bank UBS, for instance, predicts that one-third of Germany’s fossil fuel capacity will need to be closed by 2017 because it is no longer economic, and they are no longer needed. Germany industry has not been affected by the renewable energy roll-out because it is only charged the wholesale price of electricity, plus a margin. Its costs have fallen substantially in recent years, not risen.

To try and illustrate its lament, The Australian sought to create drama by pointing to a period in early December when renewables contributed just 5% of generation needs on some days.  I presume these charts reflect the issue.

renewables

Actually, it’s not the dips that are worrying the incumbent utilities or the grid operators — it’s the big lumps of clean energy that are forcing their generators offline when they produce. Currently, Germany gets just under 25% of its electricity from renewables over a year, and this will rise to around 60% by 2035 (the new government’s new target). As that happens, those gaps will disappear, the lumps will get bigger, and new storage solutions will mean there will be even less need for fossil fuel or “baseload” generation. A similar scenario would take place in Australia, which is why the incumbents are so keen to neuter the Renewable Energy Target so they can extend their revenues as far as possible.

The problem with the current debate in Australia is that much of this information will simply be ignored. The new government — like its noisy boosters and spokespeople — has shown itself to be uninterested in clean technology, even when it makes environmental, economic and financial sense.

Take the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as an example. It has now established that it will be able to do its job of investing up to $10 billion in low-carbon technologies, while achieving up to half the government’s emissions reduction target, and return a surplus to the budget.

Too good to be true? Must be. Because even though Treasurer Joe Hockey accepted the CEFC’s numbers in his budget update just before Christmas, the government has given no indication it will abandon its attempts to scrap the CEFC.

As some industry insiders suggest, it’s about time the PM accepts that Australia has a “super-abundance” of wind and solar, just as it has of coal and gas. The only difference being is that wind and solar generation will be cheaper — as the government’s own economic adviser suggests — and cause a lot less pollution.

The renewable energy industry is currently fearing the worst. If, as The Australian suggests, the only two cabinet ministers supporting the renewable energy target are Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Environment Minister Greg Hunt is true, there is big trouble ahead.

Macfarlane, it should be remembered, was responsible for neutering John Howard’s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target nearly a decade ago, but the new government is so extreme he is now considered a moderate. Hunt is said to have little within cabinet. The reality is, however, that there is more support than The Australian lets on. It may be less an observation of the cabinet dynamics than a threat.

Of course, if the PM is serious about limiting electricity price rises, he’d focus on reining in network charges, which, according to every analysis, has been by far the leading cause of electricity price increases. Of course, this might not be so easy in NSW and Queensland; this would mean less revenue for those state governments, as they own the networks. And more renewables mean less revenues for the generators — be they government-owned or private.

*This article was originally published at Renew Economy

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

41 comments

Leave a comment

41 thoughts on “Tony Abbott’s half-baked war on renewable energy

  1. @chrispydog

    Reechard, I’ve read the BZE’s proposals, and like Dick Smith said in his doco as he walked out the door: “I find that hard to believe”.

    It’s full of assumptions that border on fantasy, and none of the technical experts on power systems I read (many) give it much credence either.

    Back in the real world, Germany has the second highest electricity costs in Europe (after Denmark) and yet produces some of the dirtiest electricity, because wind/solar cannot replace fossil fuels.

    It’s maths.

  2. Hamis Hill

    Look, just because it is Tony Abbott’s War on Renewables doesn’t mean it is “half-baked”, does it?
    The poor batard is going to start getting paranoid with all this non-approval about the place.

  3. Hamis Hill

    “Where there’s muck there’s brass”, expect Tony and Joe to appear in Parliament coated in coal dust to show their solidarity with dirty fuel.

  4. klewso

    Just what is his attention span when it comes to anything he’s personally not interested in?

  5. @chrispydog

    Reechard, I’ve read the BZE’s proposals, and like D!c-k Smith said in his doco as he walked out the door: “I find that hard to believe”.

    It’s full of assumptions that border on fantasy, and none of the technical experts on power systems I read (many) give it much credence either.

    Back in the real world, Germany has the second highest electricity costs in Europe (after Denmark) and yet produces some of the dirtiest electricity, because wind/solar cannot replace fossil fuels.

    It’s maths.

  6. @chrispydog

    Yes Reechard, I do know BZE’s proposal because I have actually read it, and read lots of well informed commentary on it.

    Judging from your questions, I can safely assume you haven’t.

  7. JohnB

    Reechard, hot salt is not new and it is not the answer to storage woes.

    For starters, the sheer tonnage of salts required to even back up 10% of a single night’s demand in a mild climate (Australia) are immense. Germany and other places further from the equator have it even worse during winter, when insolation is negligible for weeks on end and there is absolutely no hope of salvation via molten salt.

    Even the Spanish experience has been less than stunning – one plant achieved (from memory) 5 hours backup at 30% operating load. That gets us through the evening, but no more. Everybody is left sitting in the dark at midnight

    BZE is a hopeless mess of optimistic assumptions. It has been critiqued many times but its authors, like Giles Parkinson, remain ignorant because they are wedded to their dreams.

    They all need to get out of their echo chamber more and into the real world.

  8. Jonathan Maddox

    “the minuscule nature of those yellow blips in the chart” is because it’s a European winter. That’s the month of December. Even the southernmost (sunniest) part of Germany is all above 47 degrees of latitude away from the Equator. All of Australia is below 40 degrees south. All of our major cities experience less cloud cover year-round than any German one. Conditions for solar generation in Australia are better all round than in Germany. We also have better and more widespread sites for onshore (low-cost) wind.

  9. Aidan Stanger

    JohnB #17
    Why do you think an immense amount of salt being required would prevent it from being the answer to our storage woes?

    The thing thas striuck me most about BZE’s plans wasn’t the optimistic assumptions it made, but the optomistic assumptions it failed to make. I think thhey’ve greatly underestimated the potential for solar PV. Once that’s factored in, it should be possible to include solar thermal in a much more cost effective way than what they’re currently proposing.

  10. AR

    Aidan – the salt needn’t even be sodium chloride (NaCl) – it just happened to be freely & cheaply available for the first experiments.
    Magnesium sulphate or potassium chloride would be even more efficacious for the molten process (being well nigh useless for other purposes) but ummm… where could OZ obtain the vast amount required, to be cheap enough it would have to be on the surface over, for example, several thousand sqkms somewhere hot and not otherwise being grazed or built upon. Hmmmm…

Leave a comment