Australia

Jul 4, 2014

In the battle of renewables v traditional generators, winner will take all

Will we ever move on the Renewable Energy Target? Both sides of the debate will fight to the death -- and there will only be one winner.

Paddy Manning

Crikey business editor

"Arm wrestle" doesn't do justice to the struggle over the Renewable Energy Target, unless you picture an eye-popping, vein-bulging, gut-wrenching arm-wrestle with everyone shouting and both sides near to collapse.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

5 comments

Leave a comment

5 thoughts on “In the battle of renewables v traditional generators, winner will take all

  1. Graeski

    Has not our Prime Embarrassment already stated quite clearly that he is on the side of Big Coal?

  2. Geoff Russell

    It’s interesting to read these glowing articles about the RET and it’s potential impact and then to also recall the decade of solar subsidies and the 1m rooftop installations and then to go and look at the ACTUAL DATA on our greenhouse gas emissions. Our latest submissions are here and there’s a nice summary of trends on the last of the spreadsheets … (latest data is 2012).

    http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/8108.php

    It shows a relentless rise … except for a small decline in the years after the GFC. Here’s what the years 2002 to 2012 look like (excluding land use emissions):

    503/506/519/523/529/537/544/541/540/541/543 (all are mega tonnes of CO2).

    The market cannot and will not solve this problem. If we want deep reductions in CO2 emissions, we need to make a plan and stop mucking round with incentives and hoping that market mechanism can work. They don’t.

  3. AR

    Coal is filthy stuff, the miners are doing us a favour by removing it from our pristine environment, albeit for a price.
    Their souls. And OURS, being complicit.

  4. Liamj

    “the interests of renewable energy providers and consumers are directly opposed to the interests of the incumbent thermal (coal- and gas-fired) generators. ”
    This should be on front page of every newspaper in the country, if only we had a free press.

    Given the very poor outlook for the polluters even with small RET, maybe NSW should privatise before Vics private generators start going broke! I look forward to the bleating of investors in megapolluters, claiming they were caught unawares. I will camp out to laugh in their faces.

    ps. “As the graph below shows..”, ” ..pictured in the graph below” Is it just me that doesn’t see any graphs? Also, this isn’t parliament Paddy, you can call Abbott a LIAR (rather than ‘deliberately misleading’) if its true, which it is.

  5. @chrispydog

    Pacific Hydro, in its submission on the RET Review claims that the RET has delivered $18 billion in investments and abated 22.5Mt of CO2.

    That looks to me like $800/tonne abated.

    I rest my case.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...