« profile & posts archive

This author has written 591 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

6 responses to “Climate clippings 90”

  1. Ronson Dalby

    I read a few weeks ago (but can’t find the link now) that electricity retailers were considering an annual charge on people with solar panels due to a fall in revenue (just like Sydney Water when we followed all the advice which resulted in a big drop in water usage).

    Did anyone else come across that story in the papers?

  2. paul burns

    No, Ronson. But I’ve heard that story somewhere too.

  3. Doug

    Check Renew Economy site – Giles Parkinson keeps up to date with these issues – I think I saw something there within the past couple of months

  4. John D

    Scrapping the RET has been estimated to increase the cost of meeting the current 2020 emissions target

    The first column, assuming the government’s optimistic Direct Action abatement cost of $8/tonne, shows scrapping the RET – which has been the most effective abatement measure to date – would cost the government an extra $607 million, just to meet its 5 per cent target (which past RET reviewer the Climate Change Authority said was no longer a credible target).

    Based on estimates by SKM, which puts the Direct Action abatement cost at $25 a tonnes, scrapping the RET would cost an extra $1.9 billion, while under the Climate Change Authority’s $33 a tonne Direct Action estimate, dumping the RET would cost $2.5 billion and even diluting it would still incur extra costs of $1 billion.

    Only if the Direct Action scheme were opened up to international credits (i.e. the non-delivery of an invisible substance to someone that Tony Abbott can’t see), would the cost impact of blowing up the RET fall to a more modest $417 million.

    The idea of scrapping the RET without replacing it with something at least equally effective in order to protect the coal industry is crazy from both a climate and economic risk point of view. As more and more countries (including the US and China) are actually doing more climate action there is a growing risk of sanctions against countries like Aus with very high per capita emissions.

  5. John D

    Note that the analysis of the QCA report ignores the benefit arising from the cancellation of grid investments that are no longer needed because of the effect of solar. For example, this link claims that, in South Aus alone:

    Indeed, in its latest regulatory filings, the SA grid operator has already cancelled virtually all its planned extensions, for savings of around $167 million, according to data provided by the Australian Energy Regulator.

  6. Val

    Ronson Dalby @ 1
    I was reminded of your question when I saw this tweet about PV in Hawaii

    Not sure how much of the concern by electricity company is genuine and how much is about protecting profits? Certainly increases interest in batteries.

    I have been fascinated by the little solar lamps that are available (there’s lots of info on the web about them) – have purchased some for my holiday ‘shack’ ( which is a stone hut, totally off the grid). It makes me think surely more of our appliances could have their own batteries – which could be charged in the day? Rather than having to get battery storage for your whole house, you could have a select number of battery powered appliances that you could use at night. I already use my iPhone and iPad that way eg watching tv on my iPad at night. Is this a possible way to go ‘off the grid’ without having to pay huge amount for batteries?

    I think that fridges would be a problem (as a battery run appliance) as they use a lot of power but perhaps there could be a converted ‘ice box’ type appliance, where it makes lots of ice during the day and uses that to keep itself cold at night?