Posted by: Grant | August 29, 2014

Review Of Aussie RET Fails Us.

~meI am bitterly disappointed in the Warburton Review into the Renewable Energy Target –

It completely misses the point.

It states“The direct costs of the RET currently increase retail electricity bills for households by around four per cent, but modelling suggests that the net impact of the RET over time is relatively small. The impact on emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses and other industries is significantly greater. The RET does not generate an increase in wealth in the economy, but leads to a transfer of wealth among participants in the electricity market.”

The direct costs of the RET are NOT the problem.

The problem is – renewables are not an alternative – They cannot provide base load power. They cannot match the demand for electricity.

The INDIRECT costs of the RET are the killers

ONE – they destroy the efficacy and efficiency of base load power stations, by forcing them  onto standby for long periods of time.

TWO – They do not permit any beneficial, corresponding, reduction in fossil fuel power generation capacity. Full base load capacity must be maintained in readiness at all times.

THREE – A few large base load power stations can supply a large city down a few simple corridors. Renewable energy is widely dispersed and needs a large, expensive, infrastructure to be integrated into that monolithic system.

 PowerBill whyIt is the RET, not the carbon tax that doubled our power bills.

A modern coal-fired power station is an engineering masterpiece.
It converts a huge percentage of the energy from its fuel into electricity, collects all the pollution, and feeds power down a single corridor to easily and effectively match the demand – the demand when the city leaves work, goes home and cooks dinner, goes to bed, gets up in the morning, showers eats and leaves for work and school. Sometimes the weather plays a role but not to any great extent.

The renewable energy fed into this cheap, well run system does nothing but disrupt it.

The 20% mandatory RET does NOT replace 20% of our electricity supply with Green energy. On a good day renewables force-feed extremely expensive, intermittent, widely dispersed, power into a highly efficient, cheap, generating system which staggers to an idle until it is required to suddenly crank up again to meet the demand when the wind dies or clouds drift over.

The 20% mandatory RET would only very rarely meet 20% of the demand while constantly disrupting the highly efficient operation of the base load power supply at huge cost to the consumer.

More on the disappointing Warburton Review here
RET Review delivers blow to clean energy industry
John Conroy |
August 28, 2014 5:00PM

I have not studied all this report, the summary discredits it, but the appointment of a climate sceptic to head it was a clear signal to the wind power rorters and they will not be surprised that the gravy train is over.
A clever way is to make the RET a non-mandatory, aspirational target which will achieve the government’s aim of reducing our power bills significantly since the removal of the Carbon Tax will not. The issue, however, has been largely dropped. The public don’t care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: