Category Archives: Australian Response

PLEA Network

30 July 2015, The Conversation, Fact Check: Would Labor’s renewable energy plan cost consumers $60 billion? (It) will mean a massive bill, perhaps A$60 billion or more, that will have to be carried by the consumers of Australia. – Prime Minister Tony Abbott, speaking to reporters about Labor’s plan to source half the nation’s power from renewable energy sources by 2030, July 27, 2015. Abbott’s quote, a response to the new Labor policy to set a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, appears to be drawing on reported comments by Paul Hyslop, chief executive of ACIL Allen – the company used by the government’s Warburton review into the existing Renewable Energy Target (RET). The prime minister’s office sourced the A$60 billion figure to an article in The Australian last week that quoted Hyslop saying of Labor’s 50% renewables pledge that: If this were met by wind power it would require 10,000 to 11,000 additional turbines… with capital costs for the turbines alone of $65 billion. Hyslop’s ACIL Allen colleague, Owen Kelp, told Sky News this week that the A$60 billion was a “fairly simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculation”. When asked by The Conversation for a copy of any calculations to see how the A$65 billion capital costs figure was reached, Hyslop said the internal analysis was not publicly available, but explained that: To get to the 50%, you need about another 80,000 gigawatt-hours… To build that with renewables, the current cheapest technology would be wind. We estimate between 10,000 and 11,000 additional wind turbines with a bottom end estimate of around $65 billion in capital costs… Would it have an impact on consumers? It really depends on the trade-off on the cost of funding the subsidy versus the downward pressure on electricity prices. We don’t know exactly what that would look like. That would be a significant piece of modelling. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

29 July 2015, The Guardian, Tony Abbott wrong on coal being ‘good for humanity’, Oxfam report finds: Report says Australia must embrace renewables and coal exacts an ‘enormous toll’ on health, drives climate change and is ineffective in delivering electricity to world’s poor. Tony Abbott is mistaken in claiming coal is “good for humanity”, with the fossil fuel causing numerous health problems and ineffective in delivering electricity to the world’s poor compared with renewables, a new Oxfam report has found. The Powering Up Against Poverty study argues the Australian government’s continued embrace of coal exports is out of step with an international shift towards clean energy and would do little to help the one in seven of the world’s population who do not have electricity to light their homes or cook food. Abbott has said coal, a major export commodity for Australia, is the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future. The prime minister, along with the mining industry, has said the fossil fuel will raise living standards in developing countries while bolstering Australia’s economy. Read More here

PLEA Network

27 July 2015, The Guardian, Malcolm Turnbull undermines Abbott’s ‘electricity tax scam’ claim over ETS,. As the PM ramps up attack on Labor’s promised emissions trading scheme, the communications minister admits all emission reduction policies come at a cost: Malcolm Turnbull has cut through the slogans and semantics dominating the climate policy debate – pointing out that all policies to push low-emission electricity generation come at a cost to households, including the ones the government supports, and that the cost of renewables is falling. Tony Abbott on Monday unveiled a new three-word slogan to attack Labor’s promised emissions trading scheme – saying it was an “electricity tax scam”. The prime minister also labelled Labor’s promise to source 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030 “bizarre” and “unnecessary”, said it would cause “a massive overbuild in windfarms” and claimed it could cost “$60bn or more”. At his party’s national conference over the weekend, Labor leader Bill Shorten said Labor’s promised ETS was not a tax because it would have a floating price and would not begin with the fixed price like the former government’s scheme. “Let me say this to our opponents, in words of one syllable: an ETS is not a tax,” he said. Read More here

PLEA Network

21 July 2015, The Conversation, One year on from the carbon price experiment, the rebound in emissions is clear: Just over a year ago, Australia concluded a unique public policy experiment. For the preceding two years and two weeks, it had put a price on a range of greenhouse gas emitting activities, most significantly power generation. Now, 12 months since the price was removed, is a good time to assess the results of the experiment. The immediate effect of the carbon price was to increase the costs faced by most electricity generators, by an amount that varied between individual power stations depending on that station’s emissions intensity (the emissions per unit of electricity). These costs were then passed on in higher prices to consumers.

Simple economics suggests that two effects should have followed. First, less emissions-intensive generators should have been able to increase their market share, resulting in an overall reduction in the average emissions intensity of electricity. Second, higher prices should have led consumers to reduce their consumption, cutting the total demand for electricity. When the price was removed, both of these effects should have been reversed. Let’s look at what happened in the National Electricity Market (NEM), which is the wholesale electricity market in every state and territory except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

My analysis, using detailed NEM operational data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) finds that emissions intensity, which was increasing until shortly before June 2012, fell continuously (see graph below) for most of the two years to June 2014. Since then, it has increased consistently. All these changes were caused by changes in the market shares the different types of generation, just as expected. Read More here