The Climate Commission’s report released today, demonstrating that an Australia powered by 100 per cent renewable energy is not only entirely possible but will be cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, is yet more reason to lift the Renewable Energy Target.
“With evidence flowing in that moving to 100 per cent renewable energy is not only vital for tackling global warming and reducing pollution but will also bring down power prices, we’ll be talking to the Government again about increasing the Renewable Energy Target to at least 50 per cent by 2030,” Australian Greens Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said.
“The Government should listen to experts like the Climate Commission, rather than coal boosters in its own ranks like Joel Fitzgibbon, and work with the Greens to strengthen and lift the Renewable Energy Target.”
“Recently, research by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics showed that wind energy will be cheaper than coal and gas by 2020, and solar energy will be cheaper than coal and gas by 2030, and this latest report from the Climate Commission also finds that solar and wind could be cheaper than coal by 2030.
“Australians love renewable energy and have been embracing it, and the uptake of solar installation has been phenomenal.
“Investing in renewable energy helps household power bills, brings wholesale power prices down, creates local jobs in manufacturing and installation, and transitions us away from the polluting coal and gas power that drives global warming.
“Our successful negotiations to establish not only a price on pollution but also the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, reviews of the energy market rules and modelling towards 100 per cent renewable energy by the Australian Energy Market Operator are already helping build the clean energy future. But lifting the Renewable Energy Target and making projects funded by the CEFC additional to it would accelerate the shift.
The Climate Commission’s report, Generating a Renewable Australia - http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade-generating-renewable-australia/
Show Comments
Comments (4)
Propaganda that is totally contrary to what is happening in Europe.
“Investing in renewable energy helps household power bills, brings wholesale power prices down, creates local jobs in manufacturing and installation, and transitions us away from the polluting coal and gas power that drives global warming.”
Provide examples. In Australia or outside Australia. Where has the wholesale power price gone down? I noticed you havent mentioned retail power prices. Presumably they havent gone down.
Provide examples of local jobs created. Pick any country. Then be truthful and provide the subsidy amount per job. Hint the latest research in the US had each ‘green’ job costing well over $1 million.
Then provide your definition of what a ‘green’ job is. Apparently it includes selling second hand furniture, used car salesman, antique shops etc.
And lastly, once again you mention renewable energy will replace coal. Coal currently produces 85% of Australia’s energy output, $200B in exports every year, and is responsible for 160,000 jobs.
How will it be replaced without a total disruption to the economy? Any ideas?
Gawd don’t make the mistake of reading the pulp otherwise titled ‘Generating a Renewable Australia’.
Flannery (will he ever get a qualification in climater science?) reports that renewable energy currently provides 10% of our electricity. But 65% to 80% of that comes from hydro power. And we are not building any more dams. So around 2.5% of current electricity is provided by wind and solar. Flannery’s previous infatuation with geothermal has cooled. He mentions geothermal but only to describe it as having ‘technical constraints’.
He trumpets that wind and solar can be cheaper than coal for retail users by 2030…but only by making the real power sources like coal ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive. Solar and wind are “cheap” because coal and gas have been hit by massive taxes and costs.
Unbelievably stupid report.
Well unbelievably stupid are quite appropriate words.
Correct we aren’t building more dams. When there is alot of potential in small scale hydro, why not?
What point is there comparing what percentage of renewables we currently have. You’re right, its miniscule, pathetic. Which is why we need more. Using this as a reason why it can’t replace coal is a circular arguement. Also in your previous post you say coal currently provides 160,000 jobs. Would you yourself like to offer some figures on what sectors those jobs are in. Is it not possible to transfer or reskill alot of those into a renewable energy industry. It seems more than a little spurious to suggest they will all be lost? We will after all have to mine silicon and some precious metals for a while to make PVs, until we get on top of closed loop recycling, but at least thats not coal or gas intended to be burnt.
The majority of coal power comes from centralised, large output coal fired turbines, which if substituted with centralised large scale PV arrays or decentralised roof top PV installation, combined with greater power efficiency measures (domestic and industrial) these could be decommissioned. Are you aware that the massive coal shovels use over a third of the power generated by the coal they dig up? The only reason coal power stations are not being decommissioned is because the cheap coal is still flowing.
Its not coal thats rising in price, its costs of power as Carbon Emission taxes as well as upgrades to infrastructure are factored in. Of course the big mining companies can’t take a hit to profits or fat cat executive salaries so they pass the taxes on to us. Is that the governments fault? The government could actually keep all the revenue and really get renewables going, but because we are a pack of wealthy, overweight, whingers and noone wants to actually pay what something actually costs, the government is re-compensating us for the power price rises. Quite reasonable I think.
If the actual coal resource does rise in price its probably because its not infnite and as things become more scarce they get more expensive.
In the long term (where we should be focusing), renewables are always cheaper because once the infrastructure is set up, the fuel resource is free.
The reason we have a carbon tax is so polluters can pay for a change instead of the free ride they’ve had all this time. If you believe there is plenty of coal and gas and we should burn it then
you are clearly a anthropogenic climate change denier. I will continue to fight tooth and nail these bloody minded, economy obsessed nay sayer sceptics until one of you can explain to me how
the extra carbon equivalents we release doesn’t increase atmospheric GHG’s, especially when we continue to clear forests faster than we can regrow them. If you can’t explain this, then please explain how the
extra carbon equivalents won’t create extra warming, when hundreds of scientists say it most probably will and does.
Until then it is sceptics who are spreading lies and stuck with their head in the sand bewailing the precious false god ‘economy’ and the end of the good times.
The 1st world needs to cut back on its trinkets, (which includes paying for the resources the earth provides and the destruction we cause doing it) and we have to help the third world from making the same mistakes as us. Its as simple as that, the party is over. Get used to it.