Peter Garrett kills solar but supports coal

Peter Garrett's decision to prematurely end the solar rebate demonstrates that the Rudd government is really not serious about clean energy.

Garrett's rationale for ending it without warning is that it was too effective. This has created great uncertainty and disruption for the solar industry,

On the other hand, the Rudd government's flawed CPRS is gifting billions and providing certainty to the coal and other fossil fuel energy industries with no strings attached, which will only entrench their emissions-intensive polluting practices.

In addition, the Rudd government has torpedoed a national gross feed-in tariff which would generate tens of thousands of jobs in genuine clean energy and would really reduce our carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

It is time that Peter Garrett started listening to the Australian people and truly representing their best interests, rather than just looking after the dirty big end of town.

Links

• Peter Garrett ends solar subsidy program for households, The Age

Garrett guts solar rebate because it was too successful

It is World environment day on the 6 June.

I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.

Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.

Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.

If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.

Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.

How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?

It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.

Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:

============

Dear Mr Garrett

I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.

The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.

I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.

I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.

The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.

Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.

Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.

Regards, Peter Campbell

============

Feed in tariff needed to boost solar power

Our solar photovoltaic array at the rear. The solar hot water system is in front.

Here is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Peter Batchelor, the Victorian Minister for energy and resources, about the importance of introducing a feed in tariff for solar power in Victoria.

Feed in tariff legislation is in the process of being enacted in South Australia and Queensland. We need this in Victoria too..

If you have time, it would be worth sending in a letter of your own to your state politicians too.

TO: The Honourable Peter Batchelor

Minister for Energy and Resources
Level 20, 1 Spring St
MELBOURNE 3000
Via email peter.batchelor@parliament.vic.gov.au

CC: Hon. John Brumby
Premier of Victoria
C/o Department of Premier and Cabinet
1 Treasury Place
MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Via email john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

CC: Robert Clark, Shadow Minister for Energy & Resources
Via email robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

March 19, 2008

Feed-in Tariffs for renewable energy generation

Dear Mr Batchelor,

We have been operating a grid interactive solar photo voltaic array on our house in Surrey Hills since 2002, over which time we have saved approximately 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions. You can view details of the house and the solar system here.

We welcome the commitment of the Victorian state government to introduce a fair price for solar electricity generated on rooftops and fed into the electricity grid. We believe that a move toward renewable energy is an essential means of addressing climate change, and solar photovoltaic (PV) micro-generation has an important role to play in boosting Victoria’s renewable energy share.

By offering a premium price for electricity generated on rooftops and fed directly into the grid, feed-in tariffs recognise the wealth of benefits which arise from the adoption of this technology. These include:

• environmental benefits from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
• network benefits from reduced transmission losses and generation closer to the source of consumption;
• supply benefits from producing clean power for the grid during peak load times on very hot days
  
• economic benefits through lowering of peak wholesale electricity prices
• social benefits via diversified electricity generation and job creation.

However, for a feed-in tariff to create the level of take-up required to achieve these benefits, it is essential that it is paid at an adequate rate, for a long enough time, and on the total production of the solar system. I call on the government to mandate a feed-in tariff at:

• 60 cents per kWh;
• for at least 15 years; and
• paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering

A feed-in tariff set at this level will provide the necessary incentive for individuals to invest their personal finances into solar PV systems, safe in the knowledge that the price paid for electricity generated will adequately pay back this investment over the next 15 years.

Feed-in tariffs have been remarkably successful in over 40 countries internationally, and an adequate feed-in tariff in Victoria has the potential to build an industry in sustainable solutions to climate change, provide an alternative to polluting brown coal, and position the state as a leader in renewable energy in Australia.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing Victoria. I trust that you as the responsible minister (and the Premier and my local elected representative) take this issue seriously and ensure that this policy measure delivers a major expansion of renewable energy leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.

Can you please advise us whether you support introduction of a feed in tariff, and if so, when it will be introduced?

Yours sincerely

Peter Campbell and Dr Lena Sanci


Additional information

• Feed-in tariff for solar systems Alternative Technology Association, with Take action details for each Australian State
  
• Feed in tariff, Greenlivingpedia

Australia should embrace the clean energy industry

Here is an excellent letter to the editor of The Age that points out that the Howard Government is guilty of extreme economic negligence by deliberately ignoring the fantastic opportunity for Australia to develop jobs and exports in the clean energy industry.

The European example points out on what Australia is missing out on:

• In 2006 in Europe $38b was invested in the renewable energy industry
• In 2007 it is projected that renewable energy industry investments will increase to $45b
• Nuclear provides about 6% of Europe’s energy and is being phased out
• On current trends renewable energy is predicted to be cost competitive with coal by 2015
• The renewable energy industry employs approximately 500,000 people while the coal industry employs about 30,000
• In 2006 wind energy output exceeded nuclear energy output on one day in Germany
• In 2006 in France, energy production from nuclear was halved due to a shortage of water to cool the power stations.
• Germany has now mandated that new houses must produce 20% of their power needs
• The EU is currently considering increasing their Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to 20%

It is interesting that emission trading in Europe has not assisted renewable energy, it has only improved efficiencies of fossil fuel use. So John Howard's future dated "response to climate change" is far to little, far too late.


What a waste
Vivienne Gray, Williamstown
Published in The Age on Saturday 10 June 2007. (Source)

Why does our Prime Minister always stress the economic costs of adjustments needed to address global warming, and not the economic opportunities?

Andrew Stephens' article (3/6) highlights how Australia has lost out over the past few years. The Federal Government has failed to foster technologies and industries that could have ensured our ongoing prosperity and at the same time helped reduce our greenhouse emissions. As a result, many thousands of "green-collar" jobs have been created offshore.

The last decade gave us a chance to make progressive adjustments to our fossil-fuelled energy industries. But in the face of government inaction, we now have to take more drastic steps and, if Howard is to be believed, we'll need a network of nuclear power plants.

So, we can forget about being the "clever country". The Federal Government's vision will ensure we remain the world's quarry - mining coal (until no one will buy it) and uranium. Our existing power plants will be replaced with equally ugly nuclear power plants.

Oh, and we'll take the world's nuclear waste, too. At least we'll lead in something.